*NEW!*-DEATH: a common "career move" for "HIV-poz" "Rethinking AIDS" supporters

[Rod Knoll, blogger, "Rethinking AIDS" Exposed]

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

(First, let me state that I know these are long posts, but, I've always asserted that the beauty of the internet is having the space to say EVERYTHING that is necessary, and it is up to the READER to decide when he or she can devote the time to read everything.)

After all the back-stabbing, secretive planning of their coup d etat (or, in their case, coup de TWATS) of the old forum; after all the chest-pumping they did once they committed their theft of the old forum (the AIDSMythExposed Forum); after all the meaningless bunk about creating a supposedly "safe" place for them and their fellow idiots to keep on "questioning 'AIDS'" until the end of eternity (or until all their "positive" members die or start taking the meds); after the DEATHS of two of their more popular "positive" members; in other words, after more than two years of fashioning their new, stolen forum into the most egregious example of the failure of the AIDS dissident movement since Christine Maggiore, we now have the latest "advancement" from the brilliant team of defenders of David Crowe's Rethinking AIDS group who stole the old forum that used to be called AIDSMythExposed:

In the spring of 2012, two "positive" members of their OWN "team" of "leaders" started TAKING the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs! Two out of the three original thieves of the old AME forum who have tested "positive" on the so-called "HIV tests" have now decided to start taking the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs!

If true, this is NOT a surprising development. Unlike many other dissidents, I think that the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs SHOULD remain OPTIONS for treatment of those who test "positive" on so-called "HIV tests", although I obviously vehemently disagree with the claim that is made by the AIDS industry and its supporters that ANY of these drugs actually have ANY "anti-HIV" activity. However, in light of the fact that the patient population which has been administered these drugs has been documented to be more oxidized than the general population, it's always possible that some of these so-called "anti-HIV" drugs may have some reducing (or anti-oxidant) activity. I don't care if an orthodox AIDS researcher were to claim that he has found cheese danish to have anti-oxidant activity in a population of "HIV-positive" people or in those who have been diagnosed with "AIDS". Nothing should be off the table. Even the undeniably toxic AZT could be changed from its current oxidizing formula to a reducing substance if researchers would be open to such a modification.

My assertions are in line with what the Perth Group has written about the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs which, admittedly, isn't a lot of material (see http://www.tig.org.za/Umber.html ). Despite the fact that the benefit/risk ratio of these drugs remains unknown, I feel the decision to start taking the drugs is a completely understandable one, especially since-as I discuss below-the medical system is simply not (yet) geared toward-and in fact remains predominantly unaware of-an approach to treatment that is aligned with the Perth Group's theories.

However, when a DISSIDENT decides to leap into such orthodox territory, this warrants an in-depth analysis of his or her past efforts as a dissident, in an effort to avoid any confusion about what that dissident actually did-or did NOT-do prior to making the decision to start taking the drugs. Throughout both of their "careers" as AIDS dissidents, each of these incredibly DENSE dissidents took actions which resulted in the suppression of the Perth Group and the theories that the Perth Group has espoused.

The first dissident who's now singing the praises of so-called "HAART", Jonathan Barnett, was apparently surprised to learn the Perth Group's advice on treatment. Barnett, who had been off the drugs since 2003 and for whom "resistance"-Barnett's apparent reference to resisting the "anti-HIV" drugs-has obviously proven to be FRUITLESS, provided yet another example of his own profound ignorance when he made the following comments late in 2011 after reading the Perth Group's answer a few months before he resumed taking the "anti-HIV" drugs:

"It wasn't exactly what I expected or wanted to hear, either, but I haven't been particularly impressed with the outcomes of some alternative/experimental therapies, either. The real challenge seems to be finding health practitioners (aka doctors) who actually understand redox...BTW, what are the tests used to measure redox that (The Perth Group) refers to in their answer? Much food for thought, indeed...."

INDEED! ....(sigh)....

NO SHIT SHERLOCK! In fact, it is a PROFOUNDLY difficult challenge to find clinicians "who actually understand redox" and equally challenging to get them to start using "the tests used to measure redox" and prescribing (if necessary) the appropriate reducing agents which positively affect the redox. However, all of these already difficult challenges have been made even MORE difficult by the efforts that have been made by IDIOT dissidents like Barnett and Tony Lance, the other dissident thief who stole the old forum who is now taking the "anti-HIV" drugs. When they were "full-fledged" dissidents, both of these twits took actions that helped to SUPPRESS the Perth Group's efforts!

Despite the fact that both have claimed to have tried "everything" they could, I could find no evidence that either Barnett or Lance ever used an approach to his "positivity" which is actually aligned with the Perth Group's theories, and, of course, as I just wrote above, there are PLENTY of obstacles which have rendered using such an approach virtually (but not completely) impossible. Barnett has claimed that he has had his "redox state checked, as recommended by (the Perth Group)" in their answer they provided to him (which he links). He claims that his redox state is "within the 'normal range'".

It is highly doubtful that Barnett actually managed to find both a laboratory that can accurately and readily assay his cellular redox and a doctor who is willing to do so without hesitation. It seems as though Barnett is exhibiting his notorious ignorance....again....as USUAL. This time the poor lad's confusion centers around the "tests" that, as Barnett states, "might be good surrogate markers for an imbalanced redox state". I daresay that they are not any of the tests that Barnett has mentioned, some of which even he himself has called "fairly common". Barnett does not specify precisely what tests were used to have his "redox state checked", but his statement that his "glutathione and selenium levels are either within range, or high" seems to indicate that he thinks that these measurements are indications of the cellular redox!

However, contrary to Barnett's claim, the Perth Group do not actually "recommend" the exact steps that should be performed to check the redox state-nor does the Perth Group even mention glutathione-in their answer to Barnett. In fact, as a rule, the Perth Group do not provide such specific advice in any of their correspondence with lay people. In addition, the Perth Group point out elsewhere:

"The glutathione –SH are not the –SH which determine cellular functioning."

(from: http://www.tig.org.za/Perth_Group_response_to_Fabio_Franchi.htm )

It is perfectly understandable-albeit certainly unadvisable-for those who have been diagnosed "positive" to want to run out and experiment on themselves. No one can blame Barnett for doing that. Everyone has a right to try to survive. However, Barnett not only does that, but he persists in criticizing the Perth Group for much of his treatment failures. He does this because he is under the mistaken impression that he has been following the Perth Group's "protocols".

Like a villain from a low-budget horror movie-or maybe like the bunny rabbit from an advertising campaign for a battery company, Barnett keeps coming back with comments that contain gems like the following claim: "In this document, (The Perth Group) clearly proposes the use of particular (non-ARV) anti-oxidants for treatment of 'KS in AIDS patients', and to 'correct immune deficiencies.' For the record, these protocols have also been, and are a part of my own medical regimen."

...sigh...

Apparently, this point needs further emphasizing:

BARNETT HAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE IS ACTUALLY FOLLOWING-AND , AS SUCH, HE IS MOST LIKELY *NOT* FOLLOWING- ANY APPROACH THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED ALIGNED WITH THE PERTH GROUP'S THEORIES! He simply does NOT know what he is talking about!!

While they may be a particular type of anti-oxidant, sulphydryl compounds (SHs) are themselves rather ubiquitous. In the document cited by Barnett, the only instance where the Perth Group mention specific SHs is the following excerpt:

"...one of us published a paper entitled 'Reducing agents in AIDS - why are we waiting?' Read HERE where the use of antioxidants in particular acetylcysteine and glutathione are advocated for the prevention and treatment of AIDS."

This is an important distinction that needs to be made, especially since it is a common misunderstanding among AIDS dissidents that the Perth Group have "recommended glutathione and NAC", thereby implying that the Perth Group make these recommendations to lay people.

"Reducing agents in AIDS - why are we waiting?", Dr. Val Turner's short letter, was a solo piece he wrote in 1990 before he officially joined the Perth Group. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos did not contribute to that letter. While Turner wrote that "Glutathione is the major transport system in plasma" for cysteine, he also pointed out that "the sulphydryl-containing amino acid cysteine...itself is a major antioxidant."

It should be clear that the primary purpose of Turner's letter simply was to ask "would it not be reasonable to give urgent consideration to trials of therapy and prevention with reducing agents?", AMONG WHICH Turner includes glutathione and NAC. Turner's only statement in the letter that could be viewed as "advocating" any treatment was simply a statement of fact about glutathione and N-acetylcysteine: "There are AT LEAST two reducing substances that are cheap, readily available and virtually devoid of any serious side effects. These are glutathione and N-acetylcysteine...(emphasis added)" A year earlier, Eleni P-E wrote THIS LETTER with her colleagues from the Department of Medical Physics (not including Turner) in which she made more general treatment recommendations.

Also, the "we" in the title of Turner's letter, which was published in The MEDICAL JOURNAL of Australia, refers to CLINICIANS who might be willing and ABLE to structure and execute and, as Turner asked in the letter, "to give urgent consideration to trials of therapy and prevention with reducing agents". Suffice it to say, the physicians who comprise the "we" to whom Turner is referring also should be better able to UNDERSTAND all this technical stuff. It is assumed that the average readers of the Medical Journal of Australia-or, for that matter, of any scientific journal where the Perth Group have published papers-are NOT lay people like Barnett. Therefore, Turner's "we" is NOT referring to lay people who've tested "positive" and who want to experiment on THEMSELVES and BY THEMSELVES like Barnett clearly does, without the WILLING participation and expert guidance of a physician who has been informed about these crucial issues at the cellular level!

Equally important is the fact that, as the Perth Group clearly and SPECIFICALLY spelled out in their 2011 answer to Barnett, there are some serious problems with many commercial preparations of NAC which NEED to be taken into consideration by attending physicians BEFORE STARTING their patients on therapy with NAC. As a result of these issues, the NAC often "loses much if not all of its anti-oxidant property". The antioxidant effects of any supplement regimen can only be determined by a competent research laboratory which knows the proper procedures for measuring the (preferably intracellular) -SH levels of the acid-soluble proteins.

LOTS OF LUCK TO ANYONE WHO TRIES TO FIND SUCH A LABORATORY!!

It is important here to emphasize that the only data that any of us have on the -SH deficiencies in "HIV-positive" people come from members of the AIDS *ORTHODOXY* who, for still unknown reasons, have chosen to explore -SH levels in such subjects. To date and despite the fact that, again ""the glutathione –SH are not the –SH which determine cellular functioning", the ONLY -SH deficiency which has been both documented BY THE ORTHODOXY and corrected by them (via supplementation with NAC) is glutathione -SH (GSH) deficiency.

There was one exception, a study by orthodox researchers Eck et al from 1989 in which the authors found low sulphydryl (SH) levels of the acid soluble proteins IN PLASMA. However, Eck et al. did not do intracellular measurements of the acid-soluble -SH, and they did not attempt to correct the -SH deficiencies they found. Indeed, up til that point, everybody in the orthodoxy "considered the redox was defined by GSH" as the Perth Group point out in THIS ARTICLE. The Perth Group also assert in that document that they "were the only people until then (we will gladly accept correction) to claim that the cellular redox is defined by the SH levels of the acid-soluble proteins, and to consider them extremely clinically significant."  Quite understandably, the Perth Group "found (Eck et al's) findings very interesting." However, since Eck et al in 1989, I do not believe anyone-either orthodox OR dissident-has looked at the SH levels of the acid-soluble proteins in "HIV-positive" humans.

Two years later, the same authors found "significantly lower mean plasma" acid-soluble -SH in monkeys after those animals were inoculated with a preparation supposedly containing "SIV". The journal Lancet published a letter from the Perth Group in 1991 in which they questioned Eck et al's claims that the low levels they found were "a direct and early consequence of the retroviral infection". Droge (a colleague of Eck's) replied and pooh-poohed the Perth Group's concerns about all the oxidized products in their "SIV" preparations, but he did agree with Perth's claim that "ambiguity could have been largely avoided if extra controls (animals) had been injected with materials prepared in exactly the same way as those for the test animals, from sick but non-SIV-infected macaques". Droge also agreed with the Perth Group "on the basic interpretation that a distorted balance of oxidants and antioxidants may play a key part in the immunopathology of HIV/SIV infection."

Since 1997,  we NOW HAVE data from at least one such trial of NAC and glutathione in "HIV-positive" human patients. However, again, not only is it true that the measurements that Barnett may be getting (glutathione, etc., i.e., the same measurements used by the Herzenbergs in their 1997 study in PNAS) "...are not the –SH which determine cellular functioning..." - as the Perth Group have pointed out in THIS DOCUMENT, but also in that document the Perth Group describe SEVERAL other problems that they see with the efforts that orthodox HIV researchers have made at both detecting and correcting the -SH deficiencies of "positive" patients:

"It is true that many people treat AIDS patients and those at risk of AIDS with 'antioxidants'.  However:

(1)      Most of them do not realise the best known 'antioxidants' may not be antioxidants.

(2)      As far back of 1982 EPE showed that biological function is a non-linear.  It appears that nobody in the AIDS field, including those who treat patients with AIDS, are aware of this.  We have no doubt that if the Herzenberg study (on NAC supplementation and glutathione deficiency) had taken this fact into consideration the results may have been considerably improved.

(3)      Drugs are absolutely necessary to treat AIDS indicator diseases and 'supplements' to correct proven deficiencies.  Lasting health can be obtained only by diet (with very little adjustment a diet can be turned from an oxidising to reducing), avoidance of stress and by cessation of exposure to disease risk factors..." (emphasis added)

(From: http://www.theperthgroup.com/LATEST/RATPGCommentary.html )

Apparently, Barnett is also of the opinion that he can just walk into his doctor's office and order a "test used to measure redox" from his doctor, and his doctor will give it to him with no questions asked, just like one orders a Big Mac from the cashier at a freakin' McDonald's! The fact is, the laboratory methods to measure cellular redox are not readily available in a commercial assay! As such, there is no proof that Barnett did indeed have his "redox state checked, as recommended by (the Perth Group)", and again, it is virtually impossible for him to have done so.

The Perth Group also warn Barnett and others in their answer to Barnett which he acknowledges he has read, that "although vitamin C is an anti-oxidant relative to metals, it is an oxidant relative to sulphydryl (-SH) groups which are the main determinant of cellular redox. Hence, depending on the conditions and dose, vitamin C may act as either a reducing or an oxidising substance. The evidence is that in high doses vitamin C is oxidising." Despite apparently having read these warnings, Barnett remains a fan of "high dose IV vitamin C"!

Also, it is NOT Barnett's responsibility to determine the "tests" that "might be good surrogate markers for an imbalanced redox state". Contrary to Barnett's assertions, it is NOT true that "if the information can't be simplified, summarized and made understandable to the average reader...", i.e., "...a fifth grader" (such as himself...??), "... it is useless." What IS useless is Barnett's desire as a lay person to obtain "a simplified summary of this concept that can be used to help guide the average person's decisions to repair immune dysfunction and if not restore health, at least slow the progression of chronic disease". Actually, those issues are ALL the responsibilities of the PHYSICIANS ATTENDING to Barnett or any other "positive" patient!

Dissidents have plenty of work to do with respect to educating physicians and researchers on cellular redox without having to focus on educating lay people. As the extensive debate years ago on the British Medical Journal's web site showed, it is difficult enough to get scientists and doctors to understand the issues behind the cellular redox. As I write in the message below, even the SMARTEST "positive" LAY person STILL NEEDS an attending physician who is open, willing and ABLE to PROPERLY monitor the patient's redox state.

However, there is a long-time supporter of the Perth Group who has himself been diagnosed "positive" who has proven to be INFINTELY smarter than Barnett or Lance and who is now himself considering starting the so-called "anti-HIV" meds. He relayed the following astute observations in a private e-mail:

"I still believe the Oxidative Stress (OS) theory, put so well by TPG (The Perth Group), is what lays behind ill health and that the 'HIV' test when positive is a bumbling and v general marker for existing or potential ill health in a significant percentage of people who react to the test.
Sadly as we know further differential diagnostic testing rarely gets done and no measures to determine a persons oxidative state, let alone the use of reducing agents in those with OS."

These were all issues that I was HOPING to promote and discuss in great detail on the old AME forum, before the halfwits Barnett and Lance STOLE the forum from me!

Barnett does concede: "I'm not nearly as smart as you guys are. I have not found 'the answer' and know what to believe. I just have questions and uncertainties. I know it bothers you that I don't just accept your arguments, based on 'the science' of a group of researchers in Perth."

Ignorance per se is forgivable. However, my point is:

why do these idiots (even those who CONCEDE they are not as smart as others) continue to take steps that SUPPRESS the efforts of those of us who have clearly DEMONSTRATED our understanding of these issues...?? Why can't these idiots just run along and let us adults do our work??

Since it is still unclear to Barnett:

As much as it may hurt him to learn, this is not about Barnett or any individual dissident. I'm not maintaining this site for the benefit of AIDS dissidents, nor do I care to make friends with any dissident. I find most dissidents insufferably ignorant and useless, and the movement would be well advised to purge itself of many of these buffoons. In fact, I disagree with most dissidents on their PRIMARY, fatally wrong presumption vis-a-vis strategy. That is, as someone who has been dealing with these issues since 1995 among both lay people AND professionals with advanced degrees,

I simply do not agree that these issues should be the domain of lay people!!

The second guy, Tony Lance, became famous within the dissident movement (and infamous outside the movement) during HIS dissident "career" by proposing and promoting a theory about anal intercourse in which he provided a rather selective look at the data on this topic. However, he began taking the "anti-HIV" drugs-apparently for the first time-in 2012 after experiencing what he has called "more than a year of significant health challenges".

After unfortunately leaving his readers with such inane statements like: "Everything about my own experience confirms that being well-informed has been the best course of action" and "At this point in my journey, I have problems with the mainstream AND the dissident points of view. I think the truth and the solutions are somewhere in the middle..." (!), Lance abandoned the dissident cause (HINT: Maybe Barnett should do so, TOO!). Barnett's announced "retirement" from the new forum was only a retirement from the administrative duties of moderating that venue. Barnett, unfortunately, is still posting his drivel on that venue and elsewhere.

Unlike Barnett, Lance has run away from public dissident discourse with his proverbial tail between his legs, despite his achieving his aforementioned "fame" within the dissident movement and without offering any apology for having espoused the things he espoused which made him such a "famous" dissident. Lance has not even logged in to the new forum since May, 2012.

It needs to be stressed that no one has forced any of these imbeciles to take public roles in the AIDS dissident movement in the first place. They all decided to do that on their own, and they chose to fashion themselves into public spokespeople for the dissident cause in spite of the fact that they obviously lack the ability to comprehend these technical issues.

They also lack personal responsibility.

I looked, but I could find no evidence that either of these two dildos has decided to do the right thing with respect to their past -and in Barnett's case, PRESENT and unfortunately ONGOING-advocacy. To the best of my knowledge, neither has decided to offer a PUBLIC apology for having disseminated information which they now apparently believe to have been wrong. Instead these idiots are now advocating this RADICAL change in their approach as if their well-documented dissident advocacy from recent years has vanished into thin air. (Unfortunately for them-and for everyone else involved in AIDS discourse, it HASN'T).

Most recently Barnett has been espousing the theories and treatment suggestions of Marco Ruggiero, who is supposedly a "dissident" and supposedly a "scientist" among whose assertions about "HIV" and "AIDS" is "HIV is not the 'sole' cause of AIDS". For more information on Ruggiero and the many problems with him, please see THIS MESSAGE, and pay particular attention to THIS ANALYSIS of Ruggiero's pet treatment.

It is my opinion that, in addition to their ongoing, well-documented and short-sighted suppression -whether overt OR implicit- of the Perth Group and Perth's theories, these dissidents have made-and continue to make-SERIOUS mistakes with respect to their own approaches to treatment. Certainly, dissident history right up until the recent past has shown us that the inevitable outcome for many such "positive" dissidents is bad. Recently hospitalized, Barnett-and quite possibly Lance, too, may be well on their way to joining the ever-growing group of aforementioned "poz" supporters of Rethinking AIDS and Duesberg, such as Christine Maggiore and many others before and after her, whose most meaningful contributions to AIDS discourse were their own deaths.

Obviously, though, these deaths are only meaningful if lessons are actually LEARNED from them. I am always glad, however, when I am afforded the opportunity to offer my insights on these developments as a crucial way of both elucidating the efforts made by the Perth Group and us Perth Group supporters as well as pointing out that these efforts made by these other dissidents from other factions are NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PERTH GROUP.

Before Barnett and the other dimwits stole it from under me, I had already taken the first steps in the process of converting the old forum to a private blog-like venue which I was planning to CLOSE to comments from the public (like this one now is) by banning several members who I deemed repeatedly guilty of spreading flawed information on the old forum. They are now recruiting other dissidents in an effort to replace their leading "team members"-some of whom are literally DYING from following the egregiously flawed approaches that they themselves used to advocate. This will allow them to continue to spread erroneous information until ALL the "positive" members of their wholly ineffective forum are either dead or dying.

Instead, these fools should at long last do the right thing and

**SHUT DOWN THEIR FORUM**

That would be the only sensible thing to do, so, of course, they will not do it. They've had three years with their own venue, and all that these profoundly stupid know-it-alls have to show for their efforts is an increasing number of DEAD and sick members.

Rome is CLEARLY burning here in the AIDS dissident movement, yet that forum, which is a microcosm of everything that is WRONG with the AIDS dissident movement, persists. It needs to be burned and trashed and buried with a stake through its heart! At any rate, I predict that their forum's days are indeed numbered. The unstoppable and unfortunately increasing popularity of Facebook has greatly diminished the purported "need" (which many dissidents unfortunately still believe exists) for other public, non-Facebook venues like their stolen forum.

Truthfully, the fact is there is NO NEED for ANY type of public forums for the AIDS dissident cause. IMHO, "positive" people who are STUPID enough to follow ANY medical advice that is posted by ANYONE on ANY such forum (ESPECIALLY on a Facebook venue) without having a direct, in person discussion with a qualified healthcare practitioner about such medical advice should lose all rights to complain about any failures they may experience as a result of the experiments they CHOSE to do on themselves!

...just my .02

END OF UPDATE

It might help readers if I explain what happened to the old AIDSMythExposed forum and reveal exactly who are the "lo-watt bandits" who executed the hijacking of the old forum or, as I call this action, the "Coup de TWAT".

The first twat to be discussed is Brian "Clueless" Coogan, web host from Melbourne, Australia:

Web host Coogan may be tall but he's rather short-sighted, weak-willed and..well just plain CHICKEN SHIT. Coogan is the most powerful of all of Rethinking AIDS President David Crowe's clowns who committed the hostile takeover simply because he has been hosting the site--but only because I eventually "hired" him to host the old forum (for no pay, of course).

Compared to yours truly, ALL of these hijacking twits are Johnnies-come-lately. When Coogan's first interaction with others as a dissident occurred it was hardly the dark ages of AIDS dissidence; actually it was probably circa 2004!. Yet he believes he is more qualified to know what is best for the dissident movement than someone who's been a dissident since the mid-1990's (yours truly). According to their own posts in the archives of the forum, "old church ladies" Carter and Barnett apparently did not become AIDS dissidents, either, until well into the 21st century.

Furthermore, when I met Coogan in person in the U.S., I met him at his workplace when he was here. He taught computer classes at "Messiah College", a "Christian" school. I found it a little odd that a gay man would be teaching at a Christian school, and I was more than a little creeped out by that fact. (I remember rolling my eyes when I saw his ISP-"messiah.edu"-appear on our web site's sitemeter statistics page!)

And speaking of "MESSIAH":

It is my belief that Coogan and the rest of these dildos all have profound cases of Messiah complexes. Unfortunately, they are hardly alone among their AIDS dissident peers. Sometimes a Messiah complex is not a major problem, but when medical advice is being dispensed regularly by those who are experiencing Messiah complexes like Coogan and his fellow idiots are, this could lead to problems.

I kept resisting using Brian Coogan as host for the AME forum for three years after meeting him at Messiah College until I felt compelled to give him the go ahead, simply because MSN was terminating its forums service and we HAD to move the AME forum SOMEWHERE.

When he first encountered the excellent critical work of Anthony Brink who exposed the serious problems with Rethinking AIDS and its President Crowe, Coogan idiotically claimed that Brink's discussion was "seriously damaging to Anthony Brink’s otherwise (deservedly) excellent reputation, in particular..."

I'll concede I am no legal scholar, but Coogan's concern about libel liability seems poorly justified. Coogan should have infinitely more concern about liability due to his forum's close and continuous association with Crowe's "Rethinking AIDS" group. Specifically, Coogan's fellow "team members" (what, are we back in HIGH SCHOOL??!!) have, in addition to dispensing the aforementioned medical advice,  repeatedly posted and promoted the egregiously flawed brochure that RA has produced which they've called "The AIDS Trap." For a thorough analysis of this pamphlet, please see THIS MESSAGE.

More vacuous drivel from stupid, naive Coogan:

...the problem comes when valid questions are mixed in with personal abuse; once the line is crossed it's hard to know how to respond without getting drawn into a conversation that really doesn't help anyone.

I have no doubt that some of Rod's questions were entirely valid, and I look forward to hearing them discussed. I think it's fair to say that unanswered questions existed on both sides.

On a related point, there's no doubt in my mind that RA needs to grow and change... On the other hand, neither is <whatever the opposition is called> perfect.

Let's not tear down the one organization that is making a consistent effort; instead, how about backing it up and giving it a go, and where areas for growth exist, let's talk about how we can encourage RA in those directions.

There's a complete difference between attacking an organization and calling on it to grow or move forward; you'll find that most attacks will not bring any growth or change, regardless of whether they're "correct" or not. Any group will take time to change and the most powerful way to call them to do that is to help them create a future and move into it.

There was an earlier thread which Coogan deleted in its entirety from the old forum. To read the thread which Coogan thought was unfit to be posted on the old forum, please see this message. In short-sightedly deleting this crucial thread, Coogan gave the following lame explanation in an e-mail dated 11th August, 2009:

"Please understand that this is a business decision.  I’m not qualified to determine the veracity or otherwise of any of the claims.  I just can’t have this sort of stuff on our servers as it could impact the livelihood of my team, who are immensely important to myself and the business."

Despite the fact that Coogan himself conceded previously that he is "not qualified to determine the veracity or otherwise of any of the claims", five months later Coogan wrote the following brilliant insights n a private e-mail to me the day before he took control of the AME site:

I’m all behind promoting the Perth Group, they’re heroes in my mind, but not at the expense of pulling down anyone else, RA included.  Nobody has it perfect, the ideas should stand on their own merit, rather than needing to attack others to get a hearing....While there might be grounds for the disagreement, this is not the way to get a hearing...

There's Coogan, a web site designer and host by trade who did not enter the dissident movement until well into the 21st century, judging the Perth Group, the most brilliant scientific minds of the dissident movement and dismissing their strategy of attacking the achilles heel of the AIDS industry, the missing virus, so-called "HIV". Anyone who has actually taken the time to review all the evidence that is at http://www.tig.org.za/RA.htm and still holds the above opinions expressed by Coogan is either mentally impaired or a pathological liar.

Years before I finally "hired" him to host the old forum, Coogan assured me that nothing the AIDS industry could threaten would get him to take down the site or thwart any of our efforts on the forum. "Screw them. They would complain to the host, and WE'RE the host", he assured me. However, apparently for Coogan, the well-documented attacks against Crowe were far worse than anything the AIDS industry ITSELF could have threatened.

Most likely, what really happened is that Crowe probably got to Coogan and threatened legal action against Coogan and his web hosting company if Coogan did not delete the material which was critical of Crowe from our site which was then being hosted by Coogan. This is precisely what Crowe had done to me, albeit to no avail, obviously. Ironically-or COINCIDENTALLY?-in yet another indication of collusion between Crowe and these forum-stealing dildos, Crowe made his legal threats to me during what turned out to be the final days of my tenure at the old forum.

(continued below)

[Rod Knoll, blogger, "Rethinking AIDS" Exposed]

On their new, hijacked web site Coogan and his fellow Crowe clowns state:

As AIDS dissidents, we assert that the scientific community has not yet proven the cause-effect relationship between “HIV” and “AIDS”

These twits apparently believe that this "HIV does not cause AIDS" approach is an untested strategy with no history of FAILURE for AIDS dissidents!

I wanted to recommend that everyone take another look at the thread from the now-defunct AME forum which started it all circa three years ago. Anthony Brink archived it for the world, and it's at: http://www.tig.org.za/Rethinking_%27Rethinking_AIDS%27_at_AME_main_cuts.html

After seeing this thread linked above, two of the members of the "governing committee" of the new, hijacked forum-Brian Carter and Jonathan Barnett-behaved like blue-haired old church ladies, sitting in their pew, clutching their pearlstrings and huffing and puffing their disapproval.

(Update: Carter has since left his position as "team member" on the new forum and is now just a regular, albeit "veteran member". This is most likely due at least in part to his staunch objections to some of his fellow "team members"-like Barnett and Lance-starting the so-called anti-HIV" drugs, a development which I have detailed in the message above.)

Jonathan Barnett, who apparently discovered the dissident movement as recently as sometime after 2002 and who has conceded that he became "aware of the online AIDS dissident movement only in 2007", now claims  (3rd February, 2010) on their new, hijacked forum that he

"would expect that constructive criticism of an organization should be acceptable, and hopefully representatives of any AIDS dissident group will want to address those concerns in an independent forum like (the new site)".

However, when he saw the now infamous "deleted thread" that was on AME  in July-August of 2009. (See again: http://www.tig.org.za/Rethinking_%27Rethinking_AIDS%27_at_AME_main_cuts.html ), Barnett-along with Brian Carter-whined and moaned instead of taking the time to carefully review the evidence which Anthony Brink had presented and which even back then was pretty voluminous.  Fast forward to approximately three months later, late October, 2009. I had just changed the home page of the AME forum (a reproduction of which is captured in Brink's article on What's Happened to AME). The following is Jonathan Barnett's reaction to my changes to the home page, from a private e-mail he sent to me on 24th October, 2009:

Subject: WTF?
Saturday, October 24, 2009 12:01 PM
From:
"jonathan" <jonathan@xxxxxx>
To:
rodknollxxxxx, "Brian Carter"

What the hell is going on, Rod?

It looks like you have changed the front page again.  I guess AME is now a "pro-Perth" and "anti-RA" site?!  What happened to being open to various points of view?  AME is obviously YOUR tool, not the community's.

I could give a rat's ass about your personal agenda, but do think you at least owe those of us working the boards a head's up and some communication.

Or are you more interested in sowing discord and destroying what has taken so long to build?

I just don't get where you are coming from, let alone where you are heading.  Please speak up and take responsibility for your actions.  You have no right to drag me along with your agenda without my knowledge.

AIDSMythExposed is not nor has it ever been, a reading and comprehension program. Mr. Barnett had plenty of time to review the evidence supplied by Brink. Suffice it to say, I didn't feel like responding to Mr. Barnett ever again, since I didn't see any hope that he would ever "get where I'm coming from".

The following day (25 October, 2009) Barnett sent the following e-mail:

Subject: rephrase and apology
Sunday, October 25, 2009 6:56 PM
From:
"jonathan" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
rodknoll@xxxxxx

Rod,

I wish I had taken more time to think about my last response to you.  You deserve better from me.  I lost my temper because I felt blindsided by you.

For the record, I have long admired the work you used to do at the MSN site as moderator.  Your style was brusque sometimes, but you were always able to make your point clear and justify your decisions.  I think that is part of what I miss lately... your communication and contribution to the debate.

More than a couple of people have shared with me privately that they are concerned about you and your silence... lack of communication.  That's just not the Rod we know.

I just thought you should know that a lot of people actually like you and care about you, whether you like that or not.  We get hurt and angry when you won't come out and play anymore.   ;-)

As for the criticisms of Duesberg and RA, I have to say I think there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.  I'm not privy to as much info as you and others are, and if I were, too much of it is over my head to evaluate adequately.

(Then why the F doesn't he just SHUT UP and let those of us who ARE do what we clearly see needs to be done??)

I'd like to be able to follow a discussion about it.  Regardless of the faults and flaws of any group or individual, the problem that glares at me when reading about it is EGO.  On both sides.  Everyone wants to prove they are "right" and no one wants to admit they may have made mistakes or are wrong.  Too often I feel like an inconsequential observer with no power to enforce change, yet I am part of the group most directly affected by all of this!

I have to say that I don't sense that ego is a problem for you.  Obstinate, perhaps.  Dedicated, definitely.  Incredibly immersed in and aware of so many of the nuances of the dissident world that I can only sit in awe of.

No, I'm not trying to flatter you or butter you up.  I have never been more sincere with a stranger on line!  lol.  We need you, and would very much like to know what is going on with you and that you are OK.  I'd like to remain your friend.

Take care,

Jonathan..."

So, according to Barnett I mustn't be "OK" if I am "not communicating" and "playing" with him and others, holding their hands and making certain, like a parent explaining things to his two year old child, that they thoroughly understand what should be my blatantly obvious reasons for doing and saying the things I do....

Can anyone blame me for wanting to have NOTHING to do with these dim-witted rednecks??!!

Despite claiming that I and the other scientifically literate dissidents:

1. "...have some very legitimate concerns and have exerted a tremendous amount of effort trying to persuade others to pay attention to some important information."

(Yeah we have indeed done this, but with no help-and an awful lot of obstructionism, in fact- from dildos like Barnett!)

and that

2. "Some of us also share these concerns"

(As the history above proves, Barnett has made every effort to block the critical analysis of Duesberg, Crowe and the Rethinking AIDS organization that is necessary for the survival of the dissident cause!)

Barnett also claims that my "...efforts, however, can only be described as a colossal FAIL(sic)..."

"Failure" is a relative term in the dissident movement. Until recently, Barnett was vehemently defending David Crowe and his RA organization, but now that Barnett is TAKING the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs again, the ever insightful Crowe has recently called Barnett "insane" for doing so. In light of these facts and all these recent developments, one might feel justified in asking:

WHO'S A FAILURE NOW??

As I describe in great detail in this message, I GAVE Barnett MORE than enough of a chance to help me drive David Crowe OUT of the dissident movement. Instead, Barnett, Coogan, Carter and Lance all banded together and ejected ME from the forum I was running, in de facto defense of Crowe who I was heavily criticizing then (and still am, of course). One might feel that, with respect to David Crowe, I am justified in also telling Barnett:

I TOLD YOU SO!

Barnett has also stated that besides "Orthodox trolls... stalking (him) and creating unneeded stress", he finds himself "at odds with some who claim to be dissidents, including some well respected and high profile ones as well" but who, importantly to Barnett, are not "at least also 'poz'..."

This comment really defies logic! This is exactly the same critique of dissidents that has been made by AIDS industry supporters: "many dissidents aren't even 'positive'...". As if one's serostatus has ANYTHING to do with a pursuit of truth! The last time I checked David Crowe is NOT "positive"; neither are Duesberg or Celia Farber. Yet Barnett was very much in sync with these fools and their egregiously flawed efforts in the dissident movement, at least until apparently recently, when Barnett resumed taking the "anti-HIV" drugs.

It's becoming clear that it was actually a HUGE MISTAKE for the dissident movement to allow all these "positive" diagnosed individuals to assume leadership positions, and this practice continues unmitigated to this day, with several moderators at the renamed, hijacked forum being diagnosed "postives". It certainly may seem to make sense from a PR perspective to have "positive" people promoting the dissident cause, and any PR professional with half a brain in his or her head would probably salivate over such a concept. On paper this is a truly fabulous concept. However, what is true in theory is not always true in practice, and repeatedly this idea has proven to be a huge FAILURE.

Those who are still in charge of the dissident movement have never been able to answer the question: what happens when such "positive" dissident leaders get sick or worse?? Obviously, such scenarios have already occurred many times and are, as I write this, CONTINUING to occur in the dissident community, creating tremendous damage for dissidents (can anyone say Karri Stokely??). In fact, one could easily argue that, because of their short-sighted approach, their new hijacked forum has become a breeding ground for sick and dead dissidents. (See update at the top of the first message in this thread).

It is certainly true that there is no proof that any supposedly "positive" dissident who has died has done so while infected with so-called "HIV", but there is also no evidence that we could find that any such dissident who HAS died has ever followed an approach to addressing his or her "positivity" that is aligned with the Perth Group's assertions which they make in their papers and articles and which are supported by published data.

Instead of discussing the latest "olive leaf" and other types of alternative "treatments" and "cures", these dildos would be better advised to TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES (charity, after all, does begin at home) and to start advocating for a medical system which accepts (and starts acting upon) the fact that "positive" people are generally more oxidized than their negative counterparts, as the data have repeatedly demonstrated in the scientific literature.

Before resuming the "anti-HIV" drugs, Barnett claimed that I had "chosen to impose exile on" myself by not posting on their new forum! Since it's not obvious to the persistently dense Barnett, I have to stress that the reason I am no longer participating in ANY other forums is because I have seen the profound FAILURE of such venues. I see absolutely NO POINT (but an awful lot of risk) in outreaching to the lay, general public. Again, without a medical system which accepts (and starts acting upon) the fact that "positive" people are generally more oxidized than their negative counterparts, there is NO POINT in outreaching to the general public.

Granted, this material is VERY technical and many lay people simply will not understand it, and even many seemingly "well-informed" lay dissidents lack the intelligence to mount an adequate intellectual challenge to their mainstream doctors. However, even the SMARTEST "positive" LAY person STILL NEEDS an attending physician who is open, willing and ABLE to PROPERLY monitor the patient's redox state. This is simply something that NO member of the lay public can do on his or her own.

Like his fellow forum bandits, Tony Lance displayed a profound level of insight when he justified his participation in the theft of the old forum in an e-mail to a Perth Group supporter on 1 February, 2010:

"The recent squabbles between Brink and RA have really been discouraging to me and others like me who have more at stake in this than bragging rights about being correct or incorrect with regard to a particular theory. The politics, inflated egos, pettiness and infighting are just so goddamn tedious."

Apparently, they weren't "tedious" enough for Lance to stay the hell OUT of the "squabbles"! Also, and this is important enough to emphasize:

AIDS DISSIDENTS CANNOT AFFORD TO BE INCORRECT!....EVER!

To quote the Perth Group:

"We have to fight science with science. And, unlike the opposition, we have to be 100% scientifically accurate with every single word we write if we want to be believed. Being right is only 3% of the answer and the remaining 97% is politics. But without the 3% the race doesn't start...."

(e-mail from the Perth Group to dissidents, 3 December, 2008)

Prior to the "squabbles" which apparently "discouraged" him, Tony Lance felt the need to write a "paper" about anal sex which made him somewhat famous in the dissident movement. In his paper, Lance cites practically all factors associated with anal sex as contributing to the clinical problems seen in gay male "AIDS" patients. Most of these factors, as Lance himself concedes, have been analyzed and discussed by others prior to his "analysis".

However, a "positive" antibody test result and "AIDS" are directly related to the number of sexual contacts with ejaculation during passive anal intercourse. This, of course implies that semen plays a role in causing both a "positive" test result and "AIDS" and would naturally imply a role for condoms as a step that gay men who practice anal intercourse should take in preventing both a "positive" test result and "AIDS".

Unfortunately, Lance fails to mention these well-documented facts. In his 17-page paper, 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! Perhaps Lance felt that all of the published data on semen are "just so goddamn tedious"?

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. For more information, please see THIS MESSAGE.

Perhaps Lance has or had a similar bias himself prior to experiencing "more than a year of significant health challenges" which were apparently so significant that he felt compelled to start taking the "anti-HIV" drugs?  Also, Lance had another fervent supporter of his theory in conservative homophobe Henry Bauer. Now that Lance is taking the "anti-HIV" drugs, I am not sure if Bauer still supports him or his theory. If Bauer, who also believes in the Loch Ness monster, has withdrawn his support of Lance, it's probably all for the best. Just what the dissident movement needs-yet ANOTHER conservative who hates homos, but THIS one believes in NESSIE, too...(sigh)...

Despite the fact that Lance hasn't even logged into the new forum since 13 May, 2012, his profile has since been updated-presumably by one of the other so-called "team members" to reflect a "demotion" from "team member" to regular "veteran member". I haven't been able to determine if Lance is still held in high esteem by RA and Bauer. I'm also uncertain if Crowe has called Lance "insane" now that Lance has decided to take the "anti-HIV" drugs like he called Barnett insane for doing the same.

For more information on the hijacking of the old forum, click here. For a history of the old AIDSMythExposed Forum, continue to the next message below.

[Rod Knoll, blogger, "Rethinking AIDS" Exposed]

Coup de TWAT, Part Three: World-class bunglers "Paul King" and RA Prez David Crowe: Separated at birth?

Until now, I've resisted commenting on the relatively minor character who apparently still goes by the name "Paul King". There's only so much time in a day, and after all "Paul King" is quite powerless these days.

However, he has emerged from his cigarette butt filled sarcophagus to raise his scratchy voice once again in support of crooked Crowe's clueless clowns in their hijacking of the forum. I have to wonder if any of these twits actually ever MET ...ahem..."Paul King"?? Also, I would like to use "Paul King's" emergence as an excuse to detail a correct history of the AME forum, and in so doing, hopefully clarify some mistaken assertions that the so-called "Mr. King" and others have been perpetuating.

"Paul King"... writes about me:

Having 'entrusted' him as a co-moderator of the forum I started (and named), Rod without warning removed me as a moderator and hijacked the forum.

In addition to his ever-declining mental faculties, one could add history to the list of things that continue to elude the alias-bearing "Mr. King". The fact is, I have known the man who goes by the name "Paul King" since 1995 which is before any of the dildos who pirated the forum from me became dissidents. It was *I* who, in 2001, invited "Paul King" to design a *WEB SITE* for the group which *I* had started (without any input from "Mr. King") that was called AIDS Reality Check. In fact, one could even say that I "hired" "Mr. King" to be our web designer, even though he, of course, was NOT getting paid for the "job". I'd really prefer to stop typing these annoying quotation marks, so just know that every time I type "Paul King", "Paul", "Mr. King", "King", it is INDEED an alias he's using.

By the time Paul came on board with me in summer, 2001, I already had a very simple one-page site for AIDS Reality Check (see: this link ). Furthermore, AIDS Reality Check was the second name for the group that I started more than ten years ago which was originally called ACT UP Hollywood.  Paul also was NOT a part of this group, and I rather quickly changed the name to AIDS Reality Check after growing uncomfortable with what I saw as a careless approach being used by our supposed allies to the north, ACT UP San Francisco. (In hindsight-and after all the dissident deaths which have decimated ACT UP SF, dropping the ACT UP Hollywood name has proven to be a very smart move.)

I wanted something more than the web site we had for AIDS Reality Check. However, I did not feel it was necessary to re-invent the wheel, since there were by that time, several quality dissident sites and all we really needed to do was to link to them. These were the guidelines I gave to Paul in the summer of 2001.
 
SPEAKING OF EGO TRIPS: Unfortunately Mr. King balked at my request that I retain sole editorial control over the forum and insisted upon having editorial control and input and expressed that he would NOT be just a mere webmaster for the site.

AGAINST MY BETTER JUDGMENT, I acquiesced and said OK. Mr. King came back with a HUGE web site, containing graphics, a frameset with top and side menu bars and even some animation. He did volunteer his time, so I thought if he wants to do this, fine, but I never felt it was necessary (again, why re-invent the freakin' wheel?), and I never told him to do all this work. His reason for doing so was, if I recall, primarily because he felt all the other dissident sites in existence at the time were "boring" and that any site should have things like catchy animation and graphics or else we weren't going to attract people. Even a site like ours which covers a SCIENTIFIC topic?? Yes, Mr. King assured me, even a scientific site like ours...

Once I saw his work, I was undoubtedly wowed by his graphics and saw his true talent as a designer. However, remember, web designer Paul was not going to settle for being just a mere designer, so he also created many pages which he eventually filled with original content, after I relented and gave him the OK to do so. It was the quality of THIS content and the subject matter of this content which concerned me. Paul was and probably still is extremely bothered by the anti-sex messages of mainstream AIDS dogma, as David Crowe appears to be. In fact, both King and Crowe are hopelessly out to sea with respect to the potential role that sex may play in the development of "AIDS" (see http://www.tig.org.za/Semen_and_AIDS.htm and http://www.tig.org.za/Semen_and_AIDS_2.htm).

King loves to post many anti-condom, anti-latex messages, as if this were, scientifically and politically, the wisest strategic move for AIDS dissidents. I view the condom debate as, at best, a distraction, and, at worst, a political LIABILITY for us dissidents.

Mr. King is also apparently a MENSA member; if true, he must be the MENSA member with the WORST spelling skills ever. His writing was almost always in need of editing. For these and other reasons some of which I detail below, yes it's true that I was not involved in the original creation of the AIDS Myth Exposed forum. We launched the new AIDS Reality Check site (I paid for the third-party hosting back then) in Fall, 2001. I was kept rather busy adding text to, and editing the actual web site, including almost constantly correcting Paul's errors.

When Paul told me a month or two after the launch of the new, bigger AIDS Reality Check site that he was thinking of starting a forum, I was originally hesitant. By then, I had pretty extensive experience participating in various forums and felt they weren't the best venue to use to get our message out. (I'm now NO LONGER of the opinion that internet forums open to the public ARE of ANY use for advancing the AIDS dissident cause.). Among other problems, the level of intelligence of participants in internet fora varies greatly, and things can degenerate into shouting matches. Plus I felt that the quality of King's own posts on various internet fora left much to be desired as did his original content on the main AIDS Reality Check web site. Instead, I was of the opinion that a constantly updating web site is the best way to go (this was in the days right before blogs became really popular).

Nonetheless, King pushed to start the forum. So I let him. However, he as usual, BUNGLED that right from the beginning. With respect to Mr. King naming the AME forum, I offer the following history: I have NO PROBLEM letting him take credit for the AIDS Myth Exposed name! LOL! However, it needs to be clarified that we were supposed to have a forum called AIDS Reality Check to complement-and piggy-back on-our web site by the same name which complemented our GROUP BY THE SAME NAME. However, for some reason which is still not clear to me, MENSA member "Mr. King" was not able to secure the name AIDSRealityCheck for the forum from MSN but was able to get the name AIDSMythExposed. I still to this day cringe when I hear that name, believe it or not! I have no idea why on earth MSN would allow a name like "AIDS Myth Exposed" but prohibit a name like "AIDS Reality Check"??

(I was the one, however, who secured the AIDSMythExposed.com domain name, and I have owned it ever since it was first created.)

Another HUGE problem with the name "AIDS Myth Exposed" was the fact that, at that time, there already was a dissident web site by the name aidsmyth.com which was VERY popular and had played a pivotal role in getting the word out about the South African Presidential AIDS panel meetings and the internet exchanges that followed the panel meetings. "AIDS Myth Exposed" could have been seen as either duplicating efforts, since many internet users might just remember the "AIDS Myth" part and enter aidsmyth.com into their browsers anyway, or some veteran dissidents even might have seen AME as a slight against the already existing aidsmyth.com site. Some even might have thought we were a site aimed at "exposing" the aidsmyth site. If I'm not mistaken there was also a forum attached to the old aidsmyth.com site at that time.

Nevertheless, Mr. King. persisted with using the AME name. Also, something that Mr. King may forget-and his twitty latter-day supporters not even know-is that, not only was I pretty busy with the main AIDS Reality Check web site (correcting King's many mistakes) when he launched the AME forum in mid-December, 2001, I was knee-deep in paid work during the busiest time of the year for me. Still, even the archives of the current forum show I made my first post to the AME forum on December 23, 2001, a mere ten days after the forum's launch and right before heading out on my holiday break.

Just so it's crystal clear: I've never claimed to be a "founder" of AME; However, I AM a founder of the organization AIDS Reality Check, on whose web site the AME forum was piggy-backing for the first 15 months of the forum's existence.

In late 2002, I changed my life radically and moved to the other side of the country. Shortly after doing this, I decided to pull the plug on the main AIDS Reality Check web site. By this time, I had had many fights with Mr. King over his carelessness and error-ridden work on the main site. He was growing tired of me, too, claiming that he wouldn't tolerate my negative attitude toward him even if I WERE paying him for his work on the site. I was always of the opinion that the dissident cause is far more important than any material that could appear on any corporate-funded web site. The fact that we were all volunteers had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of work we were supposed to be doing.

After I stopped paying for hosting for the AIDS Reality Check web site, Mr. King sent me an e-mail, "begging" me to continue to pay for hosting, because of the countless hours he put into the site, literally thousands of dollars worth of work in a normal, compensated web design marketplace. Remember, I NEVER asked him to do all this; he did it anyway, even though I knew that, at best, it wasn't necessary, and, at worst, all the bells and whistles he added to the site could distract from getting the message out.

I suppose I could have sought donations to continue paying for the hosting of the main web site. However, as co-webmaster, I also had access to our web site statistics data base. I could see that the main site was not generating, even at its zenith, the level of user visits nor the LENGTH of time of user visits that I had hoped. All the snazzy animation and graphics aside, people just weren't spending enough time exploring the all-important information on the main web site. Also, the AME forum was still on MSN at that time and, even though I could not access traffic data for the forum, it was climbing the ranks of AIDS forums on MSN. As a result, I terminated the AIDS Reality Check web site in early 2003 and focused exclusively on the AME forum.

Make no mistake, the AME forum was increasingly popular, but I was growing increasingly unhappy with Mr. King's efforts on it. As they did on the AIDS Reality Check web site, King's anti-condom, anti-latex bent, his carelessness with the science and his poor writing skills continued to embarrass and frustrate me on the AME forum. When I corrected him publicly on the forum in early 2004, he had had it with me.

Paul King claims that I "without warning removed (him) as a moderator and hijacked the forum"! LOL! I will gladly let the reader decide if, based upon the history I've detailed above, my demotion of King to regular member was justified or not. After learning of his demotion, King actually STOMPED OFF the AME forum entirely and in a huff, deleted his OWN profile! Apparently insulted by my constant correcting of his mistakes, he changed the landing page of the forum on MSN (which was linked to a page on a web site under his control) to include a comment inferring that, apparently because I did not care for his carelessness and his tactics, I was not interested in making a "real difference" for the dissident cause. He also added a comment stating that the AME forum was "founded by Paul King". I laughed, then, at the absurdity of wanting credit for something one has done, yet demanding that credit be given TO ONE'S ALIAS! Nevertheless, the man who goes by the alias "Paul King" DELETED himself from the forum. I did not. I just demoted him, but I certainly was glad to see him, his sloppy work and his anti-condom rhetoric go. I had already secured the volunteer services of a very competent co-moderator by then.

Unfortunately, the software on MSN did not allow for a name change nor did MSN allow any forwarding of the pages that were on their forums server.

After the departure of "Paul King", the AME forum continued to grow from around 1,000 members and about 6,000 messages in early 2004 to its zenith of more than 2,100 members and 31,000 messages at the end of our run on MSN in early 2009. It became the number one AIDS forum of ANY persuasion-dissident OR mainstream-on MSN and stayed in that #1 position for the last few years that MSN had its forums service.

In addition, we continue to receive several hundred hits per day on this newer venue, often times exceeding 1,000 hits per day.

I guess AME just couldn't survive without the insights and guidance from the genius "Paul King"!

Whether or not the choosing of the AME name has contributed to the "success" will have to remain a mystery since I retired the AIDS Reality Check name years ago. By the time it became possible to change the forum's name (circa early 2009) when we were being forced to leave MSN.com, the AIDSMythExposed name had become so familiar and so engrained that it no longer seemed advisable to do so.

Also, I have to say, however, that, more importantly, I'm not convinced at any rate that all this "popularity" has made a significant difference in the advancement of the dissident perspective where it counts most, as in, in the REAL WORLD. I tend to think that such emphasis on popularity is indicative of a high-school level mentality. This, however, is the language spoken by those twits in the RA faction.

I'm no longer convinced that an open forum is the best venue, either. I think the history of the dissident movement has clearly shown that these forums do not succeed when they are geared to a lay public.

Because I always felt the AME forum deserved to continue even though I'm no longer convinced it does (and even when I was on a much-needed break from it), I sometimes aligned myself with people I, suffice it to say, never really trusted. In addition to the man behind the alias "Paul King", Brians Coogan and Carter also come to mind.

As always, though, all roads lead to the central core issue that continues to plague dissidents: the scientific efforts aimed at exposing (or suppressing, as RA and Crowe do all the time) the problem of the missing virus. CLICK HERE for a description of the hijacking of the old forum.

At any rate, it is obvious that the man who uses the fake name "Paul King" and the equally lo-watt bandits who stole the old forum don't give a rat's behind about the history of AME because they're always getting it WRONG.
 
Rod Knoll,
"'Rethinking AIDS' Exposed"

(click here for previous discussion)
(click here for next discussion)
(click here to view a list of all discussions)

[Rod Knoll, blogger, "Rethinking AIDS" Exposed]

If anyone is wondering why I sound so angry in my postings right now, I think the following from my friend Anthony Brink sums up my feelings:

"Of course it's all very sad...and everyone loves to wring their hands together and say how very sad it is, because indeed everyone's always wringing their hands together and saying how very sad it is, since it’s always sad when families break up, and we all like to think of ourselves as a big family; but in my view the intelligent, responsible thing to do after drying our eyes is sit up smartly and ask the hard question: how and why did it happen that the universally acknowledged scientific leaders of our movement -- who've attacked the 'HIV' theory of AIDS from the beginning, before anyone else, most radically, most comprehensively and, as the Parenzee case revealed, unanswerably -- dissociated themselves from (Rethinking AIDS), whose original incarnation in 1991 their principal scientist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos co-founded and even lent its name: 'The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis'?

The enquiry into our enormous problems and their causes may excavate some unpleasant discoveries, but ours is not a suburban book club gathering where smiling all the time keeps it working, it's a struggle to advance in the most effective manner possible the truth we've discovered about an enormous medical mistake and rotten political construct causing tremendous harm.

The process will necessarily entail the graceful retirement of those who come off bested in the debates.

It goes without saying that anyone who is shown to have acted in a dishonest, grossly inept and harmful manner will be among the first to leave the field. Since obviously we can't have anyone dishonest, grossly inept and harmful to our work anywhere near the public face of our movement...."

(Excerpted from http://www.tig.org.za/The_Truth_Barrier.htm )

I've also had a really bad case of hemorrhoids for years, but that's another issue...

Rod Knoll,
"'Rethinking AIDS' Exposed"

[Rod Knoll, blogger, "Rethinking AIDS" Exposed]

At the risk of being accused of, in the words of stupid shit Brian Coogan, "attacking", "pulling down" and "tear(ing) down the one organization that is making a consistent effort", I should remind everyone that a lawsuit has just been filed against the President of the Rethinking AIDS Organization, David Crowe.

Last week, in Alberta, Canada, a lawsuit was filed against David Crowe and other former leaders of the Alberta (Canada) Green Party. For more details, please see this PRESS RELEASE.

For more information about the problems the Alberta Green Party has experienced before and after Crowe and the other former party leaders got ousted, please see:

http://www.tig.org.za/Greens.htm

One has to wonder how much longer clueless Coogan and his fellow forum hijackers/redneck dildos will continue "backing (RA) up" and "giving (RA) a go" while the RA board continues to allow someone like Crowe to be their leader??? I wonder, too, if forum hijacker Lance still finds all of our "infighting...just so goddamn tedious" in light of this most recent development? In addition, does the ever insightful hijacker Carter still believe this to be a "perceived flaw" of Crowe's or has it now at long last become an actual flaw of Crowe's in Carter's "razor-sharp" mind? Quite frankly, Carter's writing style has led me to believe that he might have a developmental disability. Also, is the equally dim-witted hijacker Barnett at long last "able to follow a discussion about" this particular issue, and is he still convinced that "the problem that glares at (him) when reading about" our criticisms of RA and Crowe ("EGO") still applies to "both sides" of this dissident civil war??

[aixur 5706]

One or two months before the hijacking of the former forum, I had more and more bad feelings about it. Each time someone wanted to go further than only aids dissidence and reappraise other things (like antibiotics, other illnesses, etc...), they were people who seemed to be there only to counter him. They acted just like infiltrators paid by the medical industry (one thing among others which made me think that was their contempt and rudeness).

I think they are there to prevent aids dissidence to go further. I think people from the CIA could call that "damage control". I have one guy like that on my sidasante forum. He never writes anything on the forum. But, each time I write something going further than classical aids dissidence, he is immediately there to counter me.

And what annoyed me is that moderators from the former forum didn't said anything about this. Everything seemed all right for them. For me, it was a behavior of traitors. At this time, as the moderators were people who have been dissidents for a long time, I thought I was too suspicious. Now, it seems I was completely right.

My opinion is that those guys are paid by the medical industry. Who, other than people like that, would have hijacked this forum ?

So now, American and English aids dissidence is in a bad situation. And as people from the USA and England were the most active ones, the entire aids dissidence is in a bad situation.

[Rod Knoll, blogger, "Rethinking AIDS" Exposed]

"Aixur",

I am sorry that you were annoyed by your experiences on the old forum. One of the many facts which most of my dissident critics fail to acknowledge is that I DID INDEED have to endure input and, before I sacked all other moderators in the very last month that I had control of the forum, I also had to endure contradictory actions from the other moderators. In addition, of course, some of the other MEMBERS were constantly vocal about how they thought the forum should be, as if they possess the insight and in-depth knowledge of the dissident movement that I have. Another thing that many of my fellow dissidents who are constantly criticizing me fail to realize is that perhaps it's remotely possible that I simply do not want them to continue being public advocates for the cause. It never seems to occur to them that I find their posts so dismally void of intellectual rigor that I sometimes actually LAUGH when they say idiotic things like they "wouldn't be caught dead in (my) forum (this site)..."!

What a RELIEF!!

For this reason, I am really TIRED of venues which allow any Tom, Dick or Harry with an internet connection and a browsing history of 5 or 6 hours of reviewing dissident materials to state things as though they know what's best for all of AIDS dissidentdom.

As for the "team members" of the hijacked forum: first, I think that's a really dumb title. This isn't an athletic competition for Christ sake! It sounds like some dippy mid-level corporate sales manager's idea to inspire a weary "team" of salespeople. Also, although I am not a scholar of athletics, it is my guess that any "team" is only as strong as its weakest player. And THAT team (the RA contingent) has some REAL dummies on it!

That's also why I do not think "that those guys are paid by the medical industry". Certainly, anything is possible, but there honestly just doesn't seem to be enough intellectual luminescence emanating from any of these forum hijackers/twits to compete with a lighted matchstick!

As for the (self-appointed) "leaders" whom these dummies continue to embrace (Crowe, Duesberg, Farber, Bauer, etc...), ALL BETS ARE OFF. All of these "leaders" should (and probably DO) "know better". It is indeed tempting to wonder why THESE parties continue with their fatally flawed approach.

OH, and please do not be discouraged by any of these developments. It's about time these actions were taken. Instead of trying to figure out why these jerks behave the way they do, those of us who are literate, astute dissidents should continue working behind and in front of the scenes (as I assure you we have been) to rid the dissident movement of this albatross (the RA contingent) that has been around our collective necks for too long. The first necessary but not sufficient step in accomplishing this is to get everyone to clearly assert their alignment so we all know where everyone stands.

Rod Knoll,
"'Rethinking AIDS' Exposed"

(click here for previous discussion)
(click here for next discussion)
(click here to view a list of all discussions)