Andrew Maniotis still pushing his retroids
Which Brink challenges.
The Perth Group comment.
On 21 March 2012 Andrew Maniotis (quoting historian Charles Geshekter billing him as ‘One of the most articulate critics of the Aids orthodoxy’) emailed the Fair Foundation, copying others in, in which he forwarded some of his writing. An exchange followed. Salient excerpts:
According to former NIH director, and Nobel Laureate, Harold Varmus who formed the committee that named “HIV” “HIV,” retrovirus-derived DNA sequences (genes that come from viruses whose genes are made out of RNA instead of DNA), may be ancient molecular “parasites” in their associations with other organisms. … Thus, “retroviruses” or their components are … part of the incredible repertory of the combinatorial complexity of the normal human genome. … these signatures may instead represent the breakdown products of autoimmune diseases that cause cells to spit out “virus-like particles.” … As molecular parasites, and as response of our own cellular reactions to common diseases, foreign proteins or metabolic and even psychological stressors such as an AIDS or cancer death sentence, “retroviruses,” their genes, and their molecules, may be simply a byproduct of our stressed cells, because they always have been, are, and always will be, made by our own cells. “HIV” ORIGINATED FROM THE HUMAN GENOME Recent studies in gene research suggest that the so-called specific markers of “HIV” are produced by our own non-specific endogenous DNA sequences called retroelements or “retroids.” … That these endogenous human genetic elements exist but yet are ill-defined has been shown again and again to be likely from studies on presumptively named “HERVs” (Human Endogenous Retro-Viruses) such as the “Phoenix viruses” (presumptively so named because nobody has shown that endogenous infectious “retroviruses” exist). “HERVs” (viral-like particles that look like “HIV” virus particles are supposed to look) can be produced by infecting (transfecting in Petri dishes) cells with certain sequences of DNA or RNA (16), which then are replicated and packaged by the cells into virus-like “enveloped” particles that look identical to “HIV.” Modern analyses of the human genome database (which presumably wasn’t derived from anyone infected with “HIV”) have revealed more than 120,000 full-length retroids containing (once thought to be) specific viral reverse transcriptase transcripts (17). … Clinical evidence that this non-specific retroid hypothesis is correct and is the cause of “HIV’s” molecular signature(s) is supported by therapeutic studies.
Why are you still selling your retroid molecular signature bullshit? Seeing as the Perth Group pointedly refuted it years ago:
The Perth Group on Etienne De Harven’s and Andrew Maniotis’s ‘unnecessary hypotheses’ that ‘HIV’ is an ‘endogenous retrovirus/endogenous retroviral sequence/retroid’ – but with which ‘unnecessary hypotheses’, trying to sound clever and original, they stupidly persist.
RE: your continued nastiness and vile soul:
Now Anthony, you poor tormented man, I was once willing to give you the benefit of your doubts, but it is increasingly clear to me that you have some real mental illness issues or deep seated emotion/mental disorders plaguing you about which I should pray for you to recover... if I believed in such things as prayer or God. But perhaps even you can begin to recover some small measure of sanity through contemplating the writings of Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob? “…they are usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates. They are not at fault; they seem to have been born that way. They are naturally incapable of grasping and developing a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. Their chances are less than average. There are those, too, who suffer from grave emotional and mental disorders, but many of them do recover if they have the capacity to be honest.” And just for the record, if “HIV” isn’t an exogenous pathogen (which it is not), then what molecule(s) do labs all over the world measure if not same gene products made by the human genome, which are expressed under a variety of imbalanced (and normal states)? Whether it is due to a common protein or nucleic acid sequence, promiscuous antibody and protein interactions as Perth is fond of advancing, or, its “molecular signatures” are consistently, stereotypically, and repeatedly measured as p7/, p18, p24, p31/32, p42-45, p65, gp120/160, or a 4,500+ nucleic acid sequence etc. on our various laboratory machines (gels, antibody tests, PCR) all over the world by the reference labs (and technicians) who attest to the sensitivity and specificity of their tests without awareness of the isolation issue, “HIV’s” supposed signature(s) are real to THEM, and can be consistently measured in such persons, for instance, who have had a recently flu, hepatitis B, or tetanus vaccine, or who are pregnant (at low frequency) or have other autoimmune conditions. How could this fact be made any simpler or clearer is beyond me. A more cogent reason perhaps for pushing retroid signatures in my publicly advanced arguments has always been more of a political than scientifically based idea or strategy...it has been advanced to give those [reference lab folks or those with some education in biology] who measure what they have come to believe are exogenously caused “viral loads,” or antibodies, a rational way out of their 30-year-old box. Indeed, by surveying the ever growing field of HERV’s (HER’s as I’ve conceded changing the term after numerous discussions with Perth) and HERV literature, and more accurately what has been termed the New Science of retroids, it seems safe to say that they (the molecular pinheads) themselves are forging ahead in this direction. While they may never admit that their markers they thought (and still think) are generated by an exogenous “HIV” are in fact not due to an exogenous “HIV,” it has been my observations after years running labs and regarding admissions or reversals of previous enormous blunders in biomedical research (amyloid for instance in the context of Alzheimers, or dystrophin in the case of muscular dystrophy, or currently stem cell witchcraft), that in time, the “ self-correcting nature of science” will readjust its tacit assumptions about “HIV” being exogenous or an infectious agent before it abandons the veracity of their belief in their machines or measurements they generate, or ever overtly admits that it was wrong. … It is abundantly clear you have no grasp of the way science works, and by your record of “accomplishments in law,” I’d need to agree with Clark Baker, that you have no clue as to that discipline either. But I have faith that there even is hope for people as sick as you are if you can begin to “work some steps,” perhaps find someone who will guide you, and just don’t babble in public about either science or the law. … But before you do any research at all, I’d suggest you seek medical help for your mental illness.
The Perth Group:
It is a fact that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS is based on science. Maybe bad science but nonetheless still science. Yet the main argument against it by some dissidents is that the hypothesis is nothing more than a political construct.
For nearly 25 years evidence has existed in the scientific literature that the HIV “molecules” are molecules of normal or abnormal cells (oxidised) and have nothing to do with a virus, any virus. If you are too busy to go through all of these data then all you have to do to realise this fact is to watch Brent Leung’s video “The Emperor’s New Virus?” Or, read our accompanying commentary. Better still, read the commentary and then watch the video. Or simply read the conclusion of the ENV commentary “In a Nutshell”. www.theperthgroup.com/OTHER/ENVCommentary.pdf
Nonetheless, for “political” reasons you are asking the dissidents, that is, the people who belong to a group whose aim is to scientifically reappraise the HIV hypothesis of AIDS, to accept that the HIV “molecules” are not “HIV” but belong to another virus, a human endogenous retrovirus. You ask people to accept this despite the fact that to date, neither you nor anybody else has proven the existence of endogenous retroviruses.
Do you think such a strategy will benefit the dissident movement and AIDS patients? Or is Anthony Brink making a fair point in regard to the motivation for your proposal?
Eleni, John, Val
Crowe thought he’d get clever:
How do you define ‘science’?
The best definition I can find in the OED that appears to apply to the modern, more restrictive sense, is “A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.”
I can’t see how the early work of Gallo or Montagnier fits that definition.
Is this the argument you’re fixing to use in your next HIV case – that see, Gallo’s and Montagnier’s ‘early work’ for which Montagnier got the Nobel Prize, and Gallo got piles of other honours, doesn’t fit the OED definition of ‘science’?
So it’s not science.
Why, you only have to read the OED.
Is this the sort of smart aleck approach you’re fixing to use to lose another case with, like in Parenzee?
Since, as you’ve repeatedly told us, actually examining ‘the early work of Gallo or Montagnier’, as the Perth Group did in the Parenzee case before you came in and screwed it up, is all too much; only mentally exceptional persons such as yourself can understand the Perth Group’s missing virus science.
So this is why judges should rather be told lies, like HIV is a harmless passenger virus.
This is the correct approach in court cases, telling lies.
It’s better telling lies in court, it’s the way to win.
Do you think that before you hit the scene, the Perth Group had a different, insufficient grasp of what ‘science’ is, and that clever you, you put them in the picture by reading and quoting your OED to them?
That you have some insight to offer them?
If not, please stick to your cellphone business.
I was just asking for the definition of science since Val Turner wrote, “It is a fact that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS is based on science”.
If you don’t believe in the OED definition, perhaps you or someone can provide a different one.
How can it be a “fact” that HIV=AIDS is based on “science” if we can’t define science? How can we discuss if we don’t agree what science is?
cc’ing Henry Bauer who has expertise in this area.
Excellent idea, let’s return to basics and have a fruitful discussion. Here’s the definition of politics:
· the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power: the party quickly gained influence in French politics thereafter he dropped out of active politics
· the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states: in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity
· the academic study of government and the state:[as modifier]:a politics lecturer
· a particular set of political beliefs or principles: people do not buy their paper purely for its politics
· (often the politics of) the principles relating to or inherent in a sphere or activity, especially when concerned with power and status: the politics of gender
Based on those definitions do Montagnier’s and Gallo’s early papers strike you as political treatises?
HIV on your famous French village analogy is more than politics; it’s a religion. Underlying politics and religions are belief systems, one could say they are belief systems. If you want to debunk a belief dressed as scientific fact, say that the Earth is flat, is science not a viable option? What convinces you personally that the Earth is not flat?
If you read carefully it was not me saying that the HIV=AIDS theory is science, it is Val Turner. He calls it bad science, but until we agree on what science is I’m not sure we can decide what bad science is versus good science.
My opinion is that there is no such thing as bad science. Bad science is not science.
Therefore it is not a fact that HIV=AIDS is a scientific theory.
I agree that it is political construct so I think you’re arguing against the wrong person.
Again, Val Turner started an email to Andrew Maniotis by saying, “It is a fact that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS is based on science”.
I’m trying to figure out what that means, which is why i asked what definition of science was being used.
If you read carefully, what a couple of people on this list might have, they will know that you dodged my question entirely, demonstrating what a politician does rather than answering my questions about politics.
Let me ask you something else:
You’ve got a least two prominent members of what used to be the group for scientific appraisal of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, who believe that HIV is real, and that Montagnier Gallo and a couple of other pioneers discovered and isolated it.
Are the experiments that constitute the process that led to the discovery, classification, sequencing etc. of HIV removed altogether from the scientific realm? And if so are RA’s most prominent scientists, Duesberg and Ruggiero removed from the scientific realm altogether when they talk about their belief in the validity of the science that proved the existence of HIV?
Are Profs. Ruggiero and Duesberg not only practitioners of bad science, but actually naive believers in mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with science at all in your opinion?
“Science” has multiple meanings.
Arguments that depend on appeals that something is “scientific”, “based on science”, “universally accepted”, etc. etc. are all appeals to authority in one way or another. Every specific issue can only be settled by data, evidence, facts --- if one wants the settling to be finding concordance with reality, that is, rather than a political settlement. In the present instance, how can anything about HIV or AIDS be a fact when neither of those has been defined in a manner that all agree to?
I cannot say how it warms my Continental heart to see that even the most conservative pillars of RA have become postmodern philosophers of a sudden.
So, in the present instance, how can we even refer to “fact” or “reality” when neither of those has been defined in a manner that we all agree to?
Please remove me from this list.
Clark: My sentiments exactly. I should have known better than to venture a statement. What is the topic being discussed??
I also thought you knew better than to venture a statement. In fact, I bet on it with Anthony. But instead you doubled down by informing everybody that you don’t know what you’re replying to although David made pretty clear in the first sentence of his short message that this was about enlisting you to agree with him against Val Turner.
As revealing as the exchange between you and Clark is perhaps it is you who should take the rest of us off your lists while you get your bearings.
Having spoke to quickly perhaps regarding my response to Brink’s rude criticism of my penchant to evoke such terms as “molecular signature (my favorite now for many years), retroids (my second favorite), or HER’s (after discussions a few years back with Perth (especially Eleni) to indicate “signatures” detected that are seen in millions of labs throughout the world yet no virus endogenous or otherwise demonstrated (Human Endogenous Retroids), I see that a new term has been advanced in this blog that I haven’t seen before: Human Endogenous Endosomes (or HEE’s). Good work, whoever wrote this (I am not going to check). Having said these things, let me return to Dr. Turner’s statement about bad science still being science. I understand what he means, as I believe he is referring to not some absolute rock-solid collection of experiments, experimental interpretation, and a predictive procedure and body of information and rigorous theory. It is a qualification he is advancing, to the early historical days of “HIV” “science.” … But in my note to Anthony, I unfortunately promoted that word, politics, rather than the word I actually meant...epistemology, or “how do we know what we know.”