You have to laugh when anonymous cowards on the internet slime people and then run and hide, don’t you? People are so very brave when they can cower behind their monitor screens. Here’s the newest case here on Dean’s World:
A testicle-less cultist who will only reveal himself as “BSE” created this thinly-disguised death threat against Dean’s World contributor Celia Farber. I recently linked it, not particularly prominently but in the comments to another thread, to illustrate just how gross and venal some people can be. Practically within minutes, the perp showed up in the thread. Anonymously of course, but tracing him makes it look likely that he is who he says he is. The dispatch operation over at “AIDS Truth” is obviously very efficient. 
What a laugh. Of course “he” is too cowardly to sign his fingerpaints or answer any questions. Said kindergarten-level work has, though, helped expose just how unprofessional, and, really, deep down afraid certain so-called “researchers” are when journalists dare write about scientists and other people they don’t like. Case in point, John P. Moore and Jeanne Bergman, AIDS “scientists,” who used this creepy art to illustrate a hateful screed directed at Celia (see the bottom of this page with the death-cultist’s fingerpaints).
This entire unprofessional temper tantrum was approvingly linked by this group, of which the authors are prominent members. (“This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly,” says John P. Moore, distinguished scientist.) If the scientific community in general wants to know how the most embarrassing members of their profession behave, they need look no further than these pompous, well-funded clowns.
Let me be clear: this cowardly, juvenile, threatening behavior is of course free expression. I’d die to defend these cretins’ right to publish whatever they want. This disgusting little wanker and the people who associate themselves with him can masturbate onto paper and call it art all they want. I still call it dishonorable cowardice because this venal little thug won’t sign his gross fingerpaints, won’t answer questions, and because these people pretty clearly endorse someone anonymously terrorizing women and then running away and hiding. What’s next from them, a bullet to the neck of any journalist they don’t like? A blackjack to the base of the skull to a reporter who looks at them funny? (Again, according to them, “[t]his IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly…”)
In response to this juvenile, crayon-fisted garbage, I now issue a Dean’s World challenge:
Let’s Kill Dean!
The challenge: Who can do better than this talent-less misogynist hack? Here’s a photo you can work with:
(Click the image to get the full-size version. I know, I know, I’m hideous, just work with me here.)
To kick things off, I’ve done a few of my own that are hackish, amateurish, and much better than the cowardly “BSE” did of Celia if you ask me:
This is the real Dean for the world to see! Mothers, hide your children! Men, hide your sheep!
Dean's well-deserved punishment!
I know some of you guys can do even better. I’d like to see Dean shot, stabbed, hung, or otherwise mutilated. Special prize for the most creative effort: a front-page post on whatever you want, written by yours truly, and an autographed copy with personalized inscription of Methuselah’s Daughter (on sale now at a summer discount!). If you have a submission just leave me a comment here and I’ll email you how to get it to me, and I’ll put your submission on the front page. Regular commenters are free to argue which ones they like best, with the final judge being Celia. Contest ends in two weeks.
Maybe even BSE will make one. I’d consider it a high honor to be in the company of his victims.
I can’t wait. Come on people, let’s Kill Dean!
{ 76 comments }
Sorry to disappoint, Dean. I’m just going to offer you kudos for calling out the douchebags. Nicely done.
“Not just blood, but ketchup, he’s messy too!” was a brilliant touch.
Dean — Great post. I love these, maybe you should make some sort of p-shopping a regular DW feature.
You have to wonder how much longer the people at places like the Climate Research Unit would last if they acted like these clowns. Say what you will about the Global Warming crowd and their own recent embarrassments, at least they’ve put on a brave face and come out to face the music, and accepted criticism, not descended to these depths.
It’s a thought. We’ll see how this goes.
Dean,
As admirable as your effort is to defend Celia is, you’re defending her against a straw man.
The “blood-splattered” picture wasn’t a death threat; it was supposed to show that Celia has blood on her hands. Crude, yes. Insulting, absolutely. But it was not a death threat.
Why not address `BSE’s actual point–that in encouraging people not to take their medication, Celia’s advice could be fatal?
You did the same thing with “Judy”; you attacked him/her for being a “coward” instead of addressing the point he/she made, which was that Duesberg hasn’t tried to test his hypothesis a single time. The only thing someone managed was a feeble “but it’s a conspiracy!” retort that made no sense.
Anyway, I won’t be participating in the photoshop challenge, but you guys have fun
I’d also like to address this whole question of anonymity, since you seem to equate it with cowardice.
Many of us have full time jobs which, in this economy, cannot be very secure. A lot of people have been burned when their names are googled. And it doesn’t necessarily have to be for anything racist or really inflammatory. Simply participating in a discussion on some sort of controversial topic could be enough for a dismissal.
The safest way to avoid this is by using a handle of some kind. I don’t see how that is cowardly, unless you’re implying that you would normally take some sort of legal action (or even carry out a physical attack?) on people whose names you knew, and that their anonymity prevents you from doing so.
Dean, you pretty good for a misogynist hack (whateve the hell that’s supposed to be). My late dad, Max Harris, had blue eyes like yours. But I had the red mustache and beard before they both turned ice-gray.
Don’t get into a farting match with a skunk. But if the bastard shows up at your house, and based on some of his threats, you probably have some legal right to protect yourself from bodily harm. Which means breaking some of his bones if he gets within grabbing distance. We’ll all testify for you in court.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
MattH,
I used to think as you do. Then I decided I needed to take a stand under my own name, Tom DeGisi, rather than….
Yours,
Wince
I’ll address it.
Encouraging people to take medicine they don’t need can also be fatal. This is broadly true, and a bunch of physicians are telling a bunch of old folks to stop taking aspirin for their heart unless they really need it. I also had a doctor change a prescription when something I was taking proved unneeded. He wanted to protect my liver.
Yours,
Wince
I don’t disagree. Yes, some people were needlessly given AIDS drugs when they didn’t need them, sometimes with fatal consequences. But it’s ludicrous to say that because of these cases, HIV positive people should fear their doctors more than their disease.
There seems to be a mentality that develops among people who see some sort of monolithic “establishment” persecuting them. Anything this malevolent body does must be wrong and should therefore be opposed at any cost.
There’s a definite attraction to being a “dissident” of some kind, but in this case it’s completely unwarranted, IMO. Once you start demonizing doctors and “big pharma” your paranoia will eventually overwhelm you.
> But it’s ludicrous to say that because of these cases, HIV positive people should fear their doctors more than their disease.
Not ludicrous. The practice of medicine has always been dangerous.
> There seems to be a mentality that develops among people who see some sort of monolithic “establishment” persecuting them. Anything this malevolent body does must be wrong and should therefore be opposed at any cost.
Just as common and pathological are people who feel that way about various sorts of “denialists”.
> There’s a definite attraction to being a “dissident” of some kind, but in this case it’s completely unwarranted, IMO.
True belief is emotionally attractive. Even true belief in moderation.
> Once you start demonizing doctors and “big pharma” your paranoia will eventually overwhelm you.
I agree.
Yours,
Wince
I agree that there are advantages and disadvantages to both. I’m just trying to understand exactly what Dean means by “cowardly.”
People play fast and loose with the word these days, but usually what comes to mind is cowardice in the physical sense. If so, I really don’t get what he’s suggesting. If I insult Dean on his blog under my real name, would he actually call me up and arrange a fistfight to defend his honor? Doesn’t sound very practical or economical.
MattH: The cult-like death mentality behind a picture like that is obvious to more than just me. And it is in any case grotesquery beyond the pale.
As for “Judy,” there was no “the” point that “she” made, there were a whole slew of points, almost every one of them standard boilerplate that looks like it could have been pasted from the “AIDSTruth” site and didn’t look a thing like what an actual honest civilian who had a personal story to tell would sound like. I suspected her immediately, tried to get the better of my cynicism and cut her some slack, but then I checked and caught her out as the fraud she was.
And even now, you can’t just say, “yeesh, that was really stupid,” or acknowledge that it hurts the crediblity of people to run around like that while spouting the orthodox line. Well, get over it. A sock puppet got exposed, deal with it.
I can respect people who want anonymity on the internet by the way; that’s why I haven’t run around trying to find Judy/Adam/whoever’s real name (yeah, like his real name is “Adam Eyes,” give me a break, he’s probably just a fan of Die Happy). If someone says they’re using a nom-de-plume for professional reasons I totally respect that, as long as they’re transparent about their motives and they act like adults. Just to pick a name at random, we have a commenter “Zach” who comes around here, he’s basically forthcoming about what he does for a living and is pretty clear he doesn’t want his full name on here for professional reasons, and I’m fine with that. He also doesn’t run around making slimy personal attacks and smeary inuendo about people.
Tom DeGisi, love that guy to death even when we disagree, used to use a handle here, but when I made it clear I don’t feel really comfortable with that most of the time, he just switched. I told him he didn’t have to, because I trust him, whether we agree or disagree (and we disagree quite a lot of the time), he’s nothing but a gentleman. In fact, whatever your religious view are, I’ve never come across anyone who acts more like a Christian is supposed to act than him, and if he wanted to go back to his handle I wouldn’t say peep.
But what I’ve always said about handles is this: it automatically subtracts from your credibility on contentious issues. It just does. Hey, I’ve used handles other places, I understand their use–dude, I’ve been online since about 1982, so unless I miss my guess I’ve been doing it almost as long as you’ve been alive. I get it. And what I’ve noticed for years now is this:
They have their place, but they also encourage juvenile and irresponsible behavior. If someone like Judy/Adam is going to personally attack a front page contributor to this forum by calling him an anti-Semite (and insinuate that I am one while he’s at it), I expect him to have the courage to step up and say who the hell he is, because that’s the kind of thing most people don’t have the guts to say to someone’s face. If you’re going to get that nasty, that brutal, you can expect to be called out as a coward if you won’t put your name on it and stand by it.
We had that here once before, with an anonymous handle-user claiming to be a molecular biologist and spouting all kinds of crap at other scientists in that field, and I drew a line in the sand for him: he either put his name and credentials on his attacks on his supposed peers, or he went bye-bye. He had no legitimate excuse, so he went bye-bye.
It’s very easy to be brave when you’re not just hiding behind your computer monitor, but you don’t even have to put your name on it. I find that most people using handles don’t even have to have that explained to them, they understand it. Some, apparently, do not.
As to the point about Celia supposedly having blood on her hands: Mother of God, what kind of logic is that? Let’s leave aside whether or not the “artist” BSE is at all who he says he is (at this point, I won’t believe it until I see proof; he’s presumptively a paid stooge, given who he associates with and how fast he showed up when his work got invoked). No, let’s look at this “blood on hands” (or face, in this case) business:
A) Do the publishers of Harper’s, Spin, Rolling Stone, and everyone else who ever published Farber’s work get the blood-spattered photo treatment? Why? They commissioned those articles (as in, requested, said, “please write this”), they edited them, they fact-checked them, and they published them. Where’s the blood-spattered photos of the editors at Harper’s? Where’s Bob Guccione’s blood-spattered photo? Where’s Nick Gillespie’s? Where’s Lewis Lapham’s? Why does the goon who made this sick piece of work not go after them? Could it be that he and those who pay him only go after the most vulnerable targets? Sure looks like it to me.
B) When and where exactly did Farber ever publish anything telling anyone not to take ANY medication? I’ve read her work and I can tell you she is typically meticulous in making no recommendations to anyone, and furthermore, in EXTENSIVELY quoting medical authorities who said these drugs were miraculous and lifesaving. She REPORTED. Her sin is in REPORTING on both the establishment wisdom AND the critical position. Just REPORTING.
“BSE” apparently gets his jollies playing victim while picking solely on vulnerable targets. If “he” actually had a loved one die, that wouldn’t prove a thing except that his lover read some reporting and came to his own personal conclusions–and given the MANY MANY HIV+ people out there right now who have now been alive DECADES without taking the meds, why isn’t he going after them? There are plenty of them on the internet now, willing to tell their story and easy as all get-out to find without asking Celia Farber anything.
Furthermore, given that the establishment itself now SAYS it’s entirely possible to go DECADES with HIV without any symptoms–this is their wisdom, their claim, not the dissidents–how dare anyone presume that because one of them who opted against medication died of something, this makes his death a MURDER?
If someone reports that cancer chemotherapy is dangerous and that there’s some evidence that it isn’t very effective, that some medical authorities think alternate protocols are a better choice, do we call them murderers? Do we say they have blood on their hands if a cancer patient says, “no, I will opt against chemotherapy?” No, we do not. This is the only disease I know of where we treat people that way, and that as much as anything is why this whole thing has smelled bad to me for something like 20 years now.
It’s everywhere: the dissidents can’t just be wrong, can’t just be using questionable logic, can’t just be flawed: even just reporting on them makes you a psychotic evil murderer.
You’re going to have to deal with the fact that people like “BSE” and John P. Moore are sick twisted fucks, just like you’re going to have to deal with the fact that “Judy” was a fraud. And all of that hurts, does not help, the established authorities.
It is reprehensible behavior; for God’s sake, can’t you just acknowledge that?
Now. I look forward to entries in the “Smear Dean” photo campaign. Maybe even anonymous little BSE will grace me with one of his pieces. I’d love it. And I’ll wait, but without holding my breath, for his death-cult art on everyone who commissioned and published Farber’s work as a journalist. I’m pretty sure they won’t do it–they know if they piss off the actual publishers (the people who said “Celia, write this and let us publish it”), they’ll really be in trouble. So they go after the weakest and most vulnerable. Because that’s how people like John P. Moore and “BSE” roll–preying on the weak and the vulnerable, anonymously whenever they can get away with it.
Dean forgets I switched right back to anonymity when I realized I could. Then I was quiet for a while for reasons involving the breakup of Dean’s marriage. I think through a great deal of staying uninvolved (speaking of rather un-Christian cowardice) I managed to remain friends with both Dean and Rosemary. Eventually I made a conscious Tea Party inspired decision to abandon anonymity for good.
Not to derail the thread, but I believe one way Christians fail in the matter of divorce is similar to the way we often fail in the matter of death. We don’t know what to do – or in the case of divorce we use the excuse that divorce is wrong – and we do nothing. I have failed both flesh and blood and virtual friends now.
Yours,
Wince
I have no opinion on the technical merits of any of this.
I am disturbed that people would engage in conduct like this.
The “Judy/Adam” person is disturbing.
The given reason does not strike me as plausible, so I’m left wondering and questioning.
Maybe someone who feels strongly that way could explain to me why they think it is appropriate conduct.
(For the record, I do not WANT to be taken as credible. Either my words and links stand, or they do not.)
Meh. He’s in the UK, and obviously pretty sick. I’m not too worried.
And I forgot my utterly inexplicable months-long inability to figure out how to create an account under Dean’s new software. I even reported it as a bug, mystifying everyone who tried to help me. (Thanks, guys!)
Yours,
Wince
I’m so glad you didn’t go away for good.
> Maybe someone who feels strongly that way could explain to me why they think it is appropriate conduct.
Maybe it’s the thrill of being an anonymous spy, sneakily using your precious words to destroy the evil lies of the enemy. Bwahaha!
People will do anything anyone can imagine, if possible, for any reason anyone can imagine.
Yours,
Wince
hey, aren’t you on “The Deadliest Catch”?
Okay,
The screed and the slime photoshop from January 28, 2008 of Ms Farber is without merit and deserves condemnation. Agreed.
No person, not even Celia Farber, deserves such treatment. There is more on BSE (bse303) that can be found at:
flickr.com/search/?q=bse303&w=all
flickr.com/photos/bse303/3662828330/in/photostream
It will require having a flickr account. If you read the comments to photos you might get the notion that this dude is a brit. What if any association he has with “the enemy“ is not known.
One the other hand, those of us that have witnessed the HIV/Aids wars, do not find it surprising. It should be a given that the anti-barnesworld forces were compelled to reply to some very egregious insults by one otis from that other site, now seemingly defunct.
If you go here:
scienceguardian.com/blog/john-moore-explodes.htm
and see this photo from May 2007 you may get the impression, that HB started it all.
http://www.paradigmoverthrow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/moore.jpg
Needless to say, those guys have their own echo chamber.
One just may get a behind the scenery of these inane, ever acrimonious internet discussions that seemingly are now being repeated yet once again here on this very blog and probably elsewhere.
Good luck with that and have a pleasant day.
Dean,
Thank you. I wonder the same–why is only the reporter stuck with all the supposed blood, and never the magazine that actually commissions, edits, and publishes the work? This is nonsense from top to bottom, but the cliche “blood on his/her hands” still has the power to freak out the weak of mind who don’t know how lame it is. “AIDS activists” have been saying that about EVERYBODY since 1985. They believe journalism should stop moving when they say “boo.”
I don’t work for them and I don’t answer to them. I work for editors, who commission stories and we shape them, together. And we FACT CHECK them.
I recognize that it’s a thorny fine line between investigating corruption and fraud around pharmaceutical drug culture and trashing or ‘demonizing’ a specific drug.
You raise important points of distinction, and I am relieved.
(And your artwork made me laugh so loud the cats both glared at me.)
We (first generation reports on AIDS dissidents not on the merry bandwagon) definitely fought against AZT, and did not play much footsie with it. We perceived it as a deadly chemical that was fraudulently approved by FDA–and it was. The New York Native and John Lauritsen were the journalistic vanguard. Also Meditel, in the UK.
And interestingly, Brian Deer… Nick Regush, at ABC, Colman Jones in Canada, and a few more, but mostly, everybody “responsible” in mass media was firmly PRO AZT. Because they took their cues from AIDS activists.
Interestingly, though revisionism is working its magic as we speak, toolboxes, toxic indexes, etc, AZT was ardently defended in its day and critics were called murderers, for “scaring people away from the only drug that might save their lives.” Doug Ireland at the Village Voice coined the term “AZT refusniks,” which was a predecessor term of derision to “AIDS denialists.”
AZT was a SIMPLE drug– simply deadly at higher doses, simply useless and worse, simply fraudulently approved- It was blunt lunacy.
Protease Inhibitors/Cocktails/HAART—now things got way more sophisticated and complex. David Ho ushered it in on a wrong and absurdist ‘math model’ and with a massive PR machine behind him. The claims made for the drugs and the eradication mania needed reporting and sobering corrections.
But the regimens were not useless. I have reported this, you’re right–I’ve quoted doctors saying these drugs can and have pulled people back from death’s door. (Even dissident MDs.) It seems logical that their anti-fungal and anti-microbial powers are the reason in an acute illness situation. (As opposed to the concept that the drugs are doing anything important to “HIV” levels.)
AIDS is clearly (to my mind) a fungal catastrophe brought about by the devastation of the intestinal tract primarily, leaving the immune system (85% of which is located in the gut) unable to protect against fungal/microbial overload. (See Tony Lance, Paul Yeager, and others.)
At the same time as it is true that they have helped people, it is ALSO true that HAART regimens themselves have harmed people. Some studies have shown that HAART deaths from NON HIV/AIDS causes (renal failure, stroke, heart attack) were higher in number than from (what the study called) ‘HIV/AIDS causes,’ which number over 30, but don’t include renal failure, stroke, or heart attack.
It’s complicated. And none of it addresses CAUSATION in a meaningful way. This is a crystal of issues, not a binary question, the way it is always cast.
(Is the diagnosis itself deadly, is the test testing for virus, is the test cross reacting, is the mode of transmission sexual or environmental, which approaches prevent and which bring a person BACK from the cliff, etc etc)
$400 billion spent so far. According to Amfar, not one person cured.
I have never told anybody not to take HAART drugs. I’m not a doctor. I have said that I believe it is wrong to condemn people to death based on either an antibody test or ANYTHING else.
If a journalist reports “critically” (meaning not fawningly) on an exploding medical/pharmaceutical story like the story of, say Vioxx, is that journalist “telling” all people not to take Vioxx?
This is so old and tired. People are not goldfish. They can think and read and reason and make decisions. Let them have ALL the information.
Please get straight, (Matt and Judy/Adam, et al) that journalists are not life-guards, owe nothing to AIDS industries, and have every right as well as obligation to report on all that may be rotten in the kingdom of Denmark. AS PER their assignments.
Here is what I see your post as being “about,” Dean:
AIDS activists generated a system of SIN, in the early to mid 80s.
Sin in AIDS journalism.
Floggings took place around the ‘sin,’ not around the facts.
I don’t believe that sin should exist in journalism.
There is correct and incorrect, but is no sin. As soon as there is sin, we are inside the walls of the Catholic Church and there really is no way out, including being correct.
(I am not anti-Catholic.)
Thank you, for dealing with this so head on, so courageously.
Not speaking up when a journalist is assailed and villified by paid professionals leads to a more dangerous climate for ALL journalists.
How professional assassinations are carried out is going to come to light, eventually. As we have seen here, nothing tends to be what it seems anymore. Everything is furtive, cowardly, cloaked.
The way we know now, that people ARE interested in the modern story of journalists being scape-goated, is by looking at the sales figures for Steig Larsson’s trilogy about an investigative reporter who exposes all that is hidden beneath society’s facade, and has to be sacrificed.
(Until a girl rescues him!)
It’s always easier to cope with “fiction.”
Dean, one small correction: Nick Gillespie never published my work.
McKiernan: There is no question, at all, that some of the HIV “dissidents” have been known to behave deplorably toward people who did not deserve it. In fact, I still feel bad myself about losing my temper with Nick Bennett. I was wrong to do so.
This does not excuse actual working scientists drawing paychecks from government and foundations to research and treat AIDS for behaving in the fashion we’re discussing here. As I’ve said, even though I myself am critical of the Global Warming research establishment, I simply can’t imagine them behaving this way. If that’s a scientific fistfight, this is an outright gutter fight with broken bottles, crotch kicks, and eye gougings. But to be honest, that’s because the stakes are higher: there’s more money involved, the cause is more immediate, and in truth, I’m sorry, in one thing no one can argue anymore:
The establishment now admits you can live decades with HIV and not get sick. They now admit it isn’t as easily sexually transmissible as they thought. And they admit that overagressive use of AZT on patients who weren’t even sick (yet?) in the ’80s and ’90s killed a whole lot of people. That isn’t even debatable anymore; that story’s over, the “dissidents” were right about that part at minimum, and it damn well ought to be admitted.
But, some people are actually talking to each other now. This is a good thing, and I hope it continues.
Hey, I used to repossess cars, but I’m not sure I’m crazy enough to do THAT job.
(No, actually, I would. I am that crazy. But probably too old.)
> AIDS is clearly (to my mind) a fungal catastrophe brought about by the devastation of the intestinal tract primarily, leaving the immune system (85% of which is located in the gut) unable to protect against fungal/microbial overload.
Hey, I can imagine a scientific study for that! Have you heard of fecal transplants to correct intestinal flora? Go to Africa, set up a treatment clinic for “slim” and start doing fecal transplants. They sound about as cheap as vacinations! You could probably do it on a Peace Corp volunteer salary – cause living in Africa is cheap.
Yours,
Wince
Paging Aziz! How was my latest study idea? Dean is right to value your scientific orthodoxy – but what Catholic convert really wants ditch orthodoxy?
Yours,
Wince
I tried to read this and find the death threat but I just couldn’t go through the entire rant about his crap that no one cares about. Did anyone else get through it and find it?
Seriously, I just didn’t care enough about this guy’s ramblings to finish it.
The Catholic Church (and, let it be said, other branches of the Christian faith as well), believes in a distinction between what is called “revealed truth” and in truth that can be determined solely by human faculties. Revealed Truth is when God reveals to us things beyond our normal comprehension and ability to grasp and determine all by ourselves.
Which does not mean faith eschews reason, it means that faith reasons that some things are true because God showed us something we couldn’t figure out or prove by ourselves. That, at its heart, is a big part of what faith is all about.
As you rightly point out, science isn’t about Revealed Truth, not about truth given by a source infinitely above the human. Science, instead, is about what we can divine entirely with our own (God-given but limited and human, some would say) abilities.
Indeed, while seldom acknowledged, most of the major universities of Europe were founded by that same Church, the Scientific Method as we understand it was created by people fully within that Church, and with the exception of some acknowledged historical mistakes, the Church has long encouraged and endorsed and funded science. And, in fact, still does. Whether those doing so even today are always going about it the right way isn’t always clear, but that’s another question. We hold that faith and science are not in conflict with each other, regardless of some who try to make it so.
That is my long way of saying I didn’t think you were saying anything anti-Catholic. Seemed perfectly reasonable to me.
leaving the immune system (85% of which is located in the gut) unable to protect against fungal/microbial overload.
Explain how 85% of your immune system is in your gut please. Some of us non-sciency folk might have trouble comprehending that assertion.
Yes.
And you have to wonder why the topic was chosen when the photo is from January 2008. Like its not top news unless its a spring board for more of the old spin-o-rama.
All the guys was doing was defending his own photo and it turns into an attack on “them” … yeeks.
And you might ask who is Paul Yeager and what is his expertise.
The meteorologist?
JRogge: It’s the picture itself; if some guy who didn’t like you made a picture like that of your wife, what the hell would you think he was doing? (Note: I know JRogge and his wife–oh look, see, someone else who I don’t mind goes semi-anonymous, maybe because I know he’s not a deceptive smear artist.)
Ultimately you’re right, J, it’s juvenile crap that shouldn’t be taken seriously, it should be ridiculed. It’s as absurd, ridiculous, and unprofessional as my own art.
Speaking of which, did you like the skulls? I was thinking one in the center would have looked better. Maybe a swastika would have been cool too, or a hammer and sickle. I hope someone else can do better.
McKiernan,
When you say, “nobody, not even Celia Farber” deserves that, you are reinforcing the notion that I am a bad person who has sinned but EVEN I don’t deserve to be subject to hateful abuse.
That’s reinforcing the abuse. I am not a lesser person of lesser value because I reported on some serious darkness in society. Do you understand? It’s over. Your ideological cast system, that is.
lol
Apologies in advance, but I can’t address or answer anything at all now, until after August 2nd.
Chuck’s kid?
The skulls are bad ass. I think the pic needs flaming eyebrows though.
As far as that pic of Celia though, I took it as a “bad blood” kind of thing because AIDs is blood related and the claim is she has blood on her hands, etc… But I suppose if you are unclear, such things can be interpreted differently, which is why it’s basically retarded to make a picture like that in the first place.
Celia,
“Nobody, not even ZZZZZ” is a standard joke form. If said with good humor ZZZZZ usually smiles. Even curmudgeonly good humor.
I don’t think McKiernan is trying to establish an ideological cast system. I think he likes you.
Of course, if not said with good humor….
Yours,
Wince
One last thing: Vanguard immune research has located a complete and previously not known or understood immune SYSTEM in the lining of the gut. I READ recently that researchers (not sure whom, where) now think it’s “85%” of the immune system as a whole. That sounds like an odd number as far as nature is concerned, but mankind loves numbers. I can’t swear it IS 85% but I can swear that the focus and locus of immunity has moved to the stomach in recent years. If interested, please go to http://www.rethinkingaids.com and watch the video presentations by Tony Lance, a gay man, long term HIV positive, long term asymptomatic, who formulated the “Intestinal Dysbiosis” theory of AIDS causation, which (and this will excite/please some) leaves all camps somewhat right and somewhat wrong (not in equal proportion) about causation.
It is a theory that seeks to reconcile all critiques and fill in gaps on all sides, and I think it is correct. It seems right.
And in a humorous thread with serious implications, I would expect jokes to be taken too seriously as an unfortuneate side effect.
Yours,
Wince
Here’s Tony Lance, to save you from going to fetch it, if you’re interested in the latest ideas emanating from the AIDS Rethink camp:
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Content/RA2009VideoSeries/tabid/172/Default.aspx
We need to pray for this to be the break we so desperately need.
Yours,
Wince
Celia,
I have no idea how you came to your conclusions that I am re-inforcing some sort of abuse. It certainly never entered my mind that you are a bad person. My apologies if you came to that conclusion.
Ideologically, we probably disagree for the most part., but it has nothing to do with my respect for you as a fellow human.
I do not believe anyone’s image needs to be mocked, distorted, ridiculed or manipulated.
And I have never said nor implied you were ever a lesser person than anyone else.
I do not have an ideological caste system.
So, maybe you owe me an apology.
jt,
They aren’t going to let you speak if or for long.
Wince,
You’re living on dream street.
McKiernan,
Prayer is always good. Besides, it would be hard for them to be less successful at producing a cure than the AIDS establishment, which is still batting .000 after thirty years. That’s a really solid scientific statement I just made. Like it?
Yours,
Wince
Right,
We’re all busy except you’ve been here all day long checking out the comments.
What’s with that ?
I didn’t read it. I am quite sure I don’t want to.
The question I would put forward, and it may explain a lot. Like, I would rather be known by my name then my initials. Especially when BSE ..and here is the qustion..Isn’t that the name for cattles’ hoof and mouth disease? The B stands for Bovine…the rest excapes me. Why would you try to hide behind a plague? “He” is from Britian you say. Well even a horses butt knows about the BSE outbreak they had over there about a decade back. WShat could compell any idiot to hide behind such an acronm?
Tony Lance emailed me this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13micro.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
I suggest, calmly, that this (science) is the beginning of a new paradigm, for not only diseases previously thought to be “caused” by a single microbe, but also for all issues pertaining to human body weight, obesity, etc.
Read this and then consider whether you still think it is plausible that a single microbe can shatter an immune system.
AIDS has a central feature: Wasting.
In Africa, it has always been referred to as “slim disease.”
(And it’s not really correct to call “HIV” a microbe, but I don’t want to fight about HIV.)
I believe that if you have strong intestinal health you can fend off most diseases. Also, hod onto your hats, Lance says that mainstream AIDS research reports 100% correlation between compromised or “leaky” gut and sickness on the AIDS scale. The worse the gut, the sicker the person. How do intestinal colonies get unbalanced? That’s a much bigger question and I’m not starting THAT thread, here, or now, or anytime soon. But I think we can all read this piece and say “aha,” in some part of our soul that was so confused for so long about how disease and health are governed.
Right,
But you’ve managed to spend most of today reading the comments every ten minutes which of course your busy schedule doesn’t permit you to respond until Aug 2,
One last thing: Vanguard immune research has located a complete and previously not known or understood immune SYSTEM in the lining of the gut.
Yep, Roger, on that one. Please do tell more.
Some things require more emotional energy than others.
I have a hard time composing posts with lots and lots of links.
Yours,
Wince
Well I wouldn’t want to say anything but up top at # 42 you told us:
“Apologies in advance, but I can’t address or answer anything at all now, until after August 2nd.”
Okay,
I surrender,
So tell us Celia how your commentary here on this post has anything to do with the subject matter of this DW post which was about BSE and a thinly disguised death threat etc..
A music break for the insomniacs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA6YXuagiuU
McKiernan,
No, Celia is not the best at internet conversations on blogs. But she did respond to your question about the immune system in the gut. And this isn’t the only place I’ve seen something like that. There was an article I read about fecal transplants. Maybe via Insty. So, how did you like my .000 batting average comment above?
Yours,
Wince
McK,
Don’t wake me. I’m having a really beautiful dream about the intestinal flora of millions of strangers. In one hour it’s my birthday. I feel more like I do now than I did when I got here.
Actually, Wince, I think it was nonsense.
But do tell us more.
Happy Birthday, Celia.
Sorry, I don’t have a ecard.
Happy Birthday!
Thank you! I know it’s incredibly tacky to TELL people it’s your birthday but when you’ve just accidentally set off a big blog fight about intestinal dysbiosis, you deflate the parachute and jump.
LOL. You’re learning my dear.
(Yes, cryptic response to others, Celia will get it. Happy birthday, lovely lady. All the world’s coolest people were born in July.)
At no point have I ever made a death threat against Celia. To claim that I have is, frankly, laughable.
BSE
> At no point have I ever made a death threat against Celia. To claim that I have is, frankly, laughable.
It’s credible. Your claim that it is laughable is laughable. That photo looks like a death threat. Blood on her face? Stick to hands and you will be OK. Faces? Not so much.
Sorry, the meaning got away from you.
Right now I would say that the AIDS establishment has the best science. It hasn’t been good enough to produce a cure, but it is the best. It hasn’t been good enough to explain some true mysteries, but it is the best.
This isn’t that big a knock on the AIDS establishment. Physics has been stuck on quantum theory for much, much longer, has spent incredible amounts of money, and in many ways physics is far easier than medicine.
Your “art” and your advocacy do your cause more harm than help. I am more convinced that the people you call denialists should get funding and support now, having seen your work. Maybe you should quit. Your involvement is too big a dose of AZT for your cause. You are killing it.
Yours,
Wince
Wow. What a long discussion to come in on the end of. I’m not sure I’ve taken it all in. But to respond to Mc Kiernan’s challenge that Celia’s comments and the NYT story have nothing to do with the horrid misogynist coward that prompted this post is this: Celia’s reporting on the scientists who challenge the theory that a single microbe has the power to shatter our very complex immune systems is precisely the reason cowards like this have behaved as they have toward her. The connection between the comments and the infantile photo is clear.
I agree, Dean: all the world’s coolest people were born in July. Celia, I hope it was a good dream, and have a great birthday!
Well one article you linked spoke about the common practice of a stool transplant to help restore the normal flora in the intestines of a person. Hardly a cure for AIDS.
I read the article and finally pieced together what these people are calling the “largest part of the immune system” They are referring to the lining of the gut, and it having semi-permeable qualities to allow nutrients and disallow larger particles like cells (microbes) into the body. This is not an immune function. Also information regarding toll-like receptors is being misapplied to form a misleading conclusion.
These scientists are stretching a lot of facts to come to an absurd conclusion here. This is hardly vanguard research, they are using uncommonly known, OLD scientific facts, packaging this as “vanguard research” and boondoggling people who desperately want to believe in something.
The only time the gut has a serious effect on the immune system is early in life, when the lymphoid tissue associated with the area (lymphoid tissue is where the immune system actually produces cells, this is different from the epithelial tissue/lining that some people are describing) produces antibodies for invaders in the gut and learns to leave beneficial flora alive. In some cases the first type of bacteria to colonize an infants colon are probably going to a have the most influence on the type of intestinal flora that will appear throughout life.
Toll-like receptors (what I think the “scientists” involved with this lovely justification for a lowered immune response which is quite bogus I assure you) are in all epithelial tissue. Your skin, the inside of your airways, inside of your stomach, inside of your mouth, and etc. all contain cells that help mediate an immune response.
Where is this all going? The fact that studies have shown that using a probiotic to reenforce the gut flora has helped reduce the shrinking number of CD4 cells of children and adults with HIV probably because of oral tolerance and increased immune system stimulus (notice this is not production of cells, just stimulus this is a key difference) due to reinforcement of gut flora. Oral tolerance also helps mitigate auto-immune reactions and allergies.
Now where the truth is being stretched here is by saying that mediating the immune damage by bolstering the gut flora is the proof that it is not HIV but something happening in the gut. The person still has HIV, their blood cells still diminish, and stopping the probiotic will start the process of unmitigated, HIV caused WBC destruction all over again. What you are seeing here is mitigated WBC destruction, and while it is undoubtedly helpful to the HIV carrier it is not a cure or proof that the disease is not caused by HIV. Also, the time for studies such as these to go for more than a decade hasn’t been reached. Since it can take over 10 years for some people to develop AIDS; studies even going lengths of 2 years are insufficient. In addition, there are no studies done on people with a T-cell count of under 500 that I have read. The results of these studies done on HIV positive patients were positive benefits of maybe 200 more cells after a certain duration than the control group, which is really nothing when you count these things in thousands. However, it does stop many stomach problems and eases intestinal discomfort in people infected with HIV.
It is doubtful that a gut flora imbalance is the cause of AIDS and the people trying to sell you this are quite dishonest.
Gee,
Some-one actually gets it.
Thanks, jrogge.
Jrogge: Yes, the first type of bacteria to colonize an infant’s colon are probably going to influence the type of intestinal flora that will appear throughout life… but whatever flora are established, they can be utterly and completely destroyed by recreational drugs and many medications (including chemo therapies, and ARVs). And when they are, immune function is seriously and adversely affected. Gut flora play a key immune role not only early in life as you said, but throughout life.
Pfft. “Cowardly” has more than one connotation. Fistfights have nothing to do with it. Escaping accountability is what I’m talking about.
Count me as a doubter that just boosting gut flora can fix immune deficiency, although I suspect that destroying your gut flora can impair immune function in a number of areas. I’m not sure this guy Celia’s linking to has “the cure” for immune deficiency. But now we’re just talking about speculation anyway.
By the way, on the 10 years thing: they’re now admitting cases will go 20, 30 years, possibly more of “HIV infection” and no symptoms at all. Starting to look like longer than that but we’ve only HAD 30 years to observe.
So let’s say Duesberg’s wrong; HIV can cause immune deficiency after all. But it can take decades before doing anything, possibly an entire lifetime.
Which is yet another blow to the orthodoxy–which I will remind people as I have so many times, we were told originally this was a sexually transmissable disease and if you got infected you would likely be dead within a year so a positive diagnosis meant you needed to be on chemotherapy immediately.
And while they still won’t admit this, usually, it means we likely killed a bunch of people by putting them on chemo prematurely at minimum.
And that’s not even counting Luc Montagnier (you know, the guy who got the nobel for HIV’s discovery) saying that a healthy immune system can fight off HIV naturally, surviving and fighting off many contacts with it on its own. Some have screamed that he was taken out of context and point to this or that other statement, but it’s the truth, it’s what he said: a healthy immune system can fight this thing off on its own. So even if you believe Duesberg’s wrong and HIV is pathogenic, we grossly, massively overstated its pathogenic potential.
And here we still have these millions in Africa dying of malnutrition and poor sanitary conditions, and we’re giving them chemotherapy before we begin giving them decent food or clean drinking water.
What a tragic mess. All because we believed this was the killer virus of all time.
The AIDS hysteria is over. All that’s left is to clean up what’s left of the mess. And start explaining the corpses with something other than just “the virus killed us, and we did our best at the time.” Obviously there was something wrong with “the best.” There’s no more getting away from it.
But no, let’s not do that. Let’s make blood-spattered photos of reporters who dared to report on the critics instead.
Dean: that last post hit the nail on the head.
As to healthy gut flora having limited power to fix immune deficiency, cures are never guaranteed, pretty much not with anything (what exactly does Medicine cure??). But without healing the gut, a cure is absolutely and completely without reach. That would be the first critical step. And then, depending on how much damage has been done, and what kind of other immune support is available, a full recovery might just be within reach.
Dean:
“By the way, on the 10 years thing: they’re now admitting cases will go 20, 30 years, possibly more of “HIV infection” and no symptoms at all. Starting to look like longer than that but we’ve only HAD 30 years to observe.”
We’ve been over this before. 10 years is (roughly) the median period between initial HIV infection and the onset of AIDS in untreated people. Median means half the people will have developed AIDS up to that point. Half won’t. Most of those who haven’t developed AIDS by year 10 will develop it at some stage after that. Maybe at 15, or 20, or 25 years. Some may never do so. The median “latency” has been known since the late 80s, when there were cohorts with a known date of seroconversion dating back to the late 70s. It was possible to find these cohorts by testing stored blood samples from that time once tests were developed in the mid 1980s.
There have been numerous natural history studies which have confirmed this. This paper reviews 38 such studies from Europe, North America and Australia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10791375
There are similar studies of African and Asian HIV seroconverters:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18032940
“I will remind people as I have so many times, we were told originally this was a sexually transmissable disease and if you got infected you would likely be dead within a year so a positive diagnosis meant you needed to be on chemotherapy immediately.”
No, people were not told to go on therapy immediately after an HIV diagnosis. In fact, throughout the 1980s antiretroviral therapy was reserved only for those who had progressed to AIDS/ARC. From 1990 antiretroviral therapy could be used at an earlier stage than that, but only once there was evidence of disease progression. There was a brief period shortly after the development of HAART when some (notably David Ho) recommended to “hit hard and early” in the hope of knocking out the infection. More recently there is a trend to earlier treatment because there is increasing evidence that the benefits of early treatment outweigh the longer term toxicity of prolonged treatment. But there is still a lot of discussion about how early.
There has never been a time that a “positive diagnosis” was thought to have a prognosis of a year or so. That is complete nonsense. You are confusing a diagnosis of AIDS (which indeed had a median survival of about a year) with a diagnosis of HIV infection.
Comments on this entry are closed.