AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog

AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog => AIDS Dissidents Exposed Blog => Topic started by: Rod Knoll, blogger on March 22, 2010, 02:45:11 AM



Title: *NEW* RA and its sex-crazed supporters pooh-pooh anal sex, ignore data on semen
Post by: Rod Knoll, blogger on March 22, 2010, 02:45:11 AM
One of the most bizarre and persistent phenomena among the at-large AIDS dissident community that is not aligned with the Perth Group is their recurring discussion and pitiful, embarrassing attempts at analyzing the issues surrounding semen and sperm and their role in so-called "HIV/AIDS". These issues have resulted in the creation of additional divisions that exist between the scientifically literate dissidents who know that other dissidents who claim that "sex has nothing whatsoever to do with 'AIDS' or positivity" are WRONG and those dildo dissidents who are making such claims.

Peter-"HIV-exists-because-there-is-an-'infectious-molecular-clone'-of-it" Duesberg himself has pooh-poohed (pun intended) the anal sex/semen issue, but the most vehement critic of the Perth Group and their assertions about anal sex has been an elderly lay gay man from Duesberg's backyard, San Francisco. This zealous defender of all things anal sex is also a staunch defender of Duesberg and has written a couple articles on the topic of anal sex published only in LAY venues. In his critiques of the Perth Group, this elderly lay gay man routinely glosses over the solid technical data the Perth Group have repeatedly cited on the problems with semen and sperm and instead, he concentrates on anecdotal historical accounts from his and others' life histories. His most notable reference he ever cites is a BOOK (!) on "AIDS" and sex in which there is NO analysis of all the technical problems that are well-documented with semen and its constituent parts. Instead, the author of the relevant section of this book-who is a supporter of the HIV orthodoxy and who also published a review paper on essentially the same topic in a sexual behavior journal-discusses "surveys of sexual practices (that) suggest that heterosexual anal intercourse is far more common than generally realized".

This pro-anal sex and pro-Duesberg elderly lay gay man cites this orthodox researcher in an ongoing attempt of his to claim that this sexual practice is as widespread in the general, heterosexual (and presumably seronegative) population as it is in gay men. However, no one in the Perth Group or its contingent of supporters is contending that there is no underestimation of anal intercourse among heterosexuals! In fact, the Perth Group themselves cite from this same author and this same work in their analysis of Luc Montagnier's 1997 video interview! In addition, while it is true that this orthodox author of this reference shares the same goal that the elderly lay gay man has of showing "that heterosexual anal intercourse is far more common than generally realized", the orthodox researcher does NOT share the same motive as the zealous lay gay man whose motive is to reduce what he views as an undeservedly bad reputation that anal sex has. In fact, this researcher hardly takes an exculpatory view of this sexual practice himself, claiming that "(i)nfection with the AIDS virus is increasingly documented in women engaging in anal coitus with infected males" and that he and other researchers have "warned that clinicians and researchers underestimate the extent of heterosexual anal intercourse at some peril"!

Furthermore, the most relevant and scientific epidemiological data collected from the most relevant population of hetero women-those who have been diagnosed "seropositive" and/or with so-called "AIDS"-shows that, as the leader of the Perth Group has pointed out since her first solo paper on "AIDS", "many of the AIDS cases diagnosed in women may have resulted from the practice of anal intercourse by heterosexual couples". The most crucial point to this discussion is the fact that, while no one is disputing the fact that the act may indeed be more widespread among heteros than it is among homosexual men, the most important aspect is not the act of receptive anal sex itself but its *FREQUENCY* (from: http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/reappraisalofaids.html ).

This elderly gay man-who is still cited today by many ignorant, newer dissidents and who freely admits to having had "boatloads" of semen up his butt-apparently never tested seropositive. Nevertheless, he has had a health history that is, in reality, FAR from clean. In the same conversation he had with me when he admitted to having "boatloads" of semen up his ass, this lay gay man also conceded that he had had "two immune deficiencies"(?)! Apparently, in the 1980s, he also suffered from many tangible illnesses-some apparently debilitating-including a bowel disorder of "mysterious" origin (hmmm...I wonder what might have caused THAT?!). In fact, he might even have been a case of "HIV-free AIDS", or so-called "ICL".

Since the apparent retirement of the elderly gay layman from San Francisco, the most "notable" such dissident to issue such a challenge to the Perth Group's assertions on semen is none other than David Crowe, NON-scientist layman, cell phone salesman and President of Rethinking AIDS. In making his challenge, businessman Crowe asserted that he knows more about the data surrounding sex and "AIDS" than the foremost scientific minds of the dissident movement. The Perth Group (http://www.theperthgroup.com) corrected Crowe HERE (http://www.tig.org.za/Semen_and_AIDS.htm), but apparently Crowe is a slower learner than any of us ever knew. Crowe has persisted with his ignorance and The Perth Group felt the need to offer additional commentary HERE (http://www.tig.org.za/Semen_and_AIDS_2.htm).

Unlike lay person Crowe, RA board member and professor of African Studies Charles Geshekter IS a PhD, but he is NOT a PhD in the biological or medical sciences. Geshekter, who was apparently deceived into feeling inspired by Crowe's stupidity, sensed an imaginary weakness in the Perth Group's rock solid science on the issue and tried to outsmart them. Perth put Geshekter in his place HERE (http://www.tig.org.za/Geshekter.htm).

These dildos, whose intelligence seems to rival that of the cast of "Jersey Shore", have an agenda that's as transparent as it is misguided: the return to the sexual freedom days of the pre-AIDS era. Scientifically literate dissidents know that it's not the act of receptive anal sex per se nor the fact that any segment of the population practices this sex act that is relevant to understanding the link between sex and both "positivity" and "AIDS". Again, what matters most in this discussion is the **FREQUENCY** with which the act is practiced.

It is also important to note that gay men are not the only men who enjoy anal sex. I daresay there are a lot of HETEROSEXUAL MEN who enjoy GIVING anal sex to female partners. It should also be noted that the majority if not ALL of the "leaders" of the RA group are heterosexual men. I also assert that many such heterosexual men are not only used to NOT wearing condoms during such activities, but they rather prefer no condoms. Perhaps that is another motivating factor "behind" (pun intended) the stance on anal sex and semen that has been taken by the above mentioned RA dildos.

Anyone who has read The Perth Group's (http://www.theperthgroup.com) approach to sex and "AIDS" knows that a public health policy with regard to sex is warranted and that such policy should be even more stringent than that offered by the AIDS industry, at least with respect to anal sex. The orthodoxy pushses condoms, but they really only care if a "positive" person fails to use "protection" from spreading "the virus". Perth's approach to the issue of sex and "AIDS" requires that ANYONE who practices passive anal intercourse needs to be protected from semen WHETHER OR NOT the semen belongs to someone who registers "positive".

As the Perth Group recently admonished the annoying "Anonymous Annoyed scientist" who attempted to challenge them on another non-scientific internet forum:

"The fact that you accuse us of harming 'others and society as a whole', means you have either not read or understood our papers. There is no scientific basis to your claim. Public health policy based on our views is more stringent than that recommended by the HIV experts. People who do not understand this fact reveal their ignorance of our views."

(scroll down to next message below for updated information)


Title: Re: *NEW*-Are RA's leaders thinking with their PENISES??!!
Post by: Rod Knoll, blogger on September 08, 2011, 12:46:34 PM
At the bottom of this message, I am attaching a recent study ("WangMedHypothes2010") which lends credence to what the Perth Group have been saying about semen for years. (It is not necessary to believe in the existence of HPV nor in its supposedly destructive powers in order to see the evidence for the harmful effects of semen that is presented in this study.)

The following excerpt from a recent e-mail from the Perth Group provides an excellent summary of the Perth Group's contributions to AIDS discourse, including the data surrounding semen which they have cited and analyzed and how these published data compare to the policies of the Rethinking AIDS Group:

"At the beginning of the AIDS era the Perth Group put forward a theory of AIDS pathogenesis, presented supporting evidence and made predictions.  The Perth Group's views have not changed.  Most of them, including,

(a)       evidence that neither Montagnier nor Gallo isolated 'HIV' from 'fresh AIDS tissues' or from cultures, and thus proved its existence;

(b)       evidence that AIDS patients and those at risk are exposed to strong oxidising agents i.e. these individuals will be oxidised;

(c)       the relationship between redox and immune deficiency;

(d)       the relationship between redox, antibody synthesis and antibody/antigen reactions;

(e)       the role of drugs in AIDS and the mechanism (cellular oxidation), that is, the drug theory of AIDS;

(f)       semen toxicity, its role in AIDS and its mechanism;

(g)       the synergistic effects between semen and drugs;

(h)       ways of preventing and treating AIDS;

can be found in:  EPE, Reappraisal of AIDS-Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? (http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/reappraisalofaids.html), Medical Hypoth. 1988; 25:151-162.  Additional data on (f), including

1.         semen does not discriminate between the sexes.  It is toxic irrespective of where it is deposited, gut or vagina.  Although the site may determine different pathological effects.

2.         the toxicity of semen is facilitated by gut trauma, drugs, poor nutrition, stress.

3.         the toxicity of semen itself in a gay man may turn out not to be much higher than in a woman practising exclusively vaginal intercourse exposed to a similar volume of semen over a similar time.

can be found in E P-E, VT, JP, Kaposi's Sarcoma and HIV (http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/ks.html). Medical Hypoth. 1992; 39:22-29.  You may also like to read Looking Back on the Oxidative Stress Theory of AIDS (http://theperthgroup.com/CONTINUUM/lookingback.html).

Sometime around the mid 1990s, someone, somehow, changed the name of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis to Rethinking AIDS.  RA has been claiming Montagnier proved the existence of HIV, the virus is sexually transmitted, albeit not very efficiently, but is harmless. More recently 'the last two presidents' claimed they showed there is no evidence that proves the existence of HIV.  But they also claim Montagnier did prove the existence of a retrovirus, an endogenous retrovirus, although all retrovirologists agree there are no endogenous retroviruses.  Neither have they published such evidence.

Now, in its 'new phase' RA lets dissidents know that:

1.    Montagnier says 'HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS'.

2.    According to RA HIV is a cause of AIDS (please see THIS MESSAGE (http://www.tig.org.za/index.php?topic=48.0) for more information) and 'Stopping drug use, providing nutritious food, are obvious solutions to obvious problems and a blood test is unlikely to help'.  (There is no HIV expert who will not agree that factors other than HIV may cause immune deficiency and AIDS indicator diseases;  that HIV needs co-factors, accepted by Gallo in 1986, and that all drugs, recreational, prescription and ART, are toxic).

In other words, in its 'new phase', RA has exchanged position with Montagnier in regard to AIDS pathogenesis.  It appears RA is more devoted to Montagnier’s virus than Montagnier is himself.

There are two main differences between the HIV experts and RA.

1.         The HIV experts advocate testing.  RA states the test for the very virus that is a cause of AIDS, “is unlikely to help”.  In fact, RA advises those at risk to boycott the tests.

2.         The HIV experts claim AIDS is sexually transmitted.  RA states AIDS 'it’s not sexually transmissible' and advise those at risk to ignore safe sex education.

Since RA accepts that HIV is sexually transmitted and is a cause of AIDS, and the scientific literature shows beyond reasonable doubt that sex plays a role in AIDS, RA's advice is not only illogical, it is also grossly negligent. No wonder RA President David Crowe now says 'there is no RA science' and the scope of RA is not to deconstruct the HIV theory of AIDS."

In addition, in his 17-page paper on anal intercourse, openly gay "positive" dissident-and (former?) RA supporter Tony Lance cites the Perth Group's work but then has the gall to carefully cherry pick quotes from the Perth Group, all the while avoiding any mention of semen or condoms!

Lance's theory on anal sex is...ummm... HALF-ASSED because he fails to mention the toxic effects of semen and potential benefits of condom usage. Despite this fact and the fact that it has been very rare historically that an openly gay man would get promoted in RA, Lance and his theory had been promoted within RA by leaders who have repeatedly expressed what I assert is a really clear bias AGAINST condoms. Perhaps Lance has or had a similar bias himself. However, Lance has since experienced "more than a year of significant health challenges" which apparently compelled him to start taking the "anti-HIV" drugs! Also, another big supporter of Lance and his theory was conservative homophobe Henry Bauer who also believes in the Loch Ness monster. YAY! Just what the dissident movement needs-ANOTHER conservative who hates homos, but THIS one believes in NESSIE, too...(sigh)...

I haven't been able to determine if Lance is still held in high esteem by RA and Bauer, nor if Crowe has called Lance "insane", now that Lance has decided to take the "anti-HIV" drugs. For more information on the latest RA dissident supporters to start taking the "anti-HIV" drugs, please see THIS MESSAGE (http://www.tig.org.za/index.php?topic=3.0).

The above examples are hardly the first time that the leaders of Rethinking AIDS and the old "Group for Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis" have thought with their penises. Celia Farber and Christine Maggiore, despite being physically attractive, never possessed the intellectual prowess to comprehend the very technical issues which they so often discussed-and which Farber, unfortunately continues to attempt to discuss-in public fora. That never stopped the mostly male, mostly heterosexual leadership of the dissident movement from promoting both of these bimbos, both of whom were die-hard (LITERALLY, in Maggiore's case) Duesberg dittoheads. (see: http://www.tig.org.za/index.php?topic=23.msg31#msg31 for more on this problem).

RELATED TOPICS:

1. http://www.tig.org.za/index.php?topic=25.0
2. http://www.tig.org.za/index.php?topic=46.0
3. http://www.tig.org.za/index.php?topic=27.0
4. http://www.tig.org.za/index.php?topic=53.0

(click here to view a list of all discussions (http://www.tig.org.za/index.php?board=1.0))