Jardinier

Bonjour Daddou, 2 ou 3 posts valent mieux qu'un, alors je remets ici le lien vers la pétition pour Rico-Nagel Martinez : http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_kidnapping_and_drugging_of_Infant_baby_Rico_NagelMartinez/?copy Amitiés à toi et à tous, Jardinier

TO BE INFORMED OF ITS REASONS AND GOALS AND SIGN THIS PETITION, PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK HERE BELOW : http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_kidnapping_and_drugging_of_Infant_baby_Rico_NagelMartinez/?copy

Bonjour à tous, Une pétition internationale a été lancée il y a quelques jours via Avaaz concernant le cas de Rico Nagel-Martinez. Le texte est en anglais, il reprend la plupart des éléments déjà communiqués et dont nous nous sommes fait l'écho ici. Elle est adressée à diverses autorités du County de résidence de la famille Nagel-Martinez et de l'Etat du Minnesota. Lors de la dernière audience devant le juge, la situation antérieure a éte reconduite pour 45 jours : le bébé vit dans sa famille, mais sous contrôle légal des Services de Protection de l'Enfance. Suite aux effets secondaires d'un premier traitement, il a subi 3 ou 4 transfusions sanguines, puis a été mis sous un nouveau traitement, toujours à base d'antirétroviraux. Il est toujours alimenté par sonde gastrique, et selon le grand-père Steve Nagel, cela pourrait durer une année. Dans son libellé, le but de la pétition est surtout d'informer le public et ne comporte pas de revendication plus précise, ce qui s'explique car les Nagel, ayant fait appel de la décision des autorités, sont en procès. On peut la signer sans grande complication en allant sur cette page : http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_kidnapping_and_drugging_of_Infant_baby_Rico_NagelMartinez/?copy Au bas de la page sur le site de la pétition, il est indiqué qu'elle a été rédigée en relation avec les sites internets suivants : http://saverico.com/ ; http://www.aztsucks.com/ ; https://www.facebook.com/groups/SaveRico/ ; http://truthbarrier.com/

Aux dernières nouvelles données par Cheryl et/ou Steve Nagel sur leurs pages FaceBook, Rico est de retour dans sa famille avec son nouveau traitement ARV. Il existe un groupe ouvert SaveRico sur FaceBook. En date du 22 mai, y ont été publiées des informations sur les conflits d'intérêt de la clinique Mayo du Minesota dans le domaine des tests et des Arv : * This may explain somewhat why Mayo Clinic is so irrational regarding Rico's treatment. How many others at Mayo receive royalites from the pharmaceutical industry and how does this impact patient care? Mayo at one time partnered with Roche's PCR kit for diagnosis of herpes (in 2003)Mayo Medical Labs is called a global reference laboratory. The Chair of Mayo Medical Labs and President and CEO of Mayo Collaborative Services is Franklin R. Cockerill, III. He receives royalties from Roche Diagnostics and TibMolBio. He also serves on advisory boards to several pharmaceutical companies. http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/live/courses/2011/quality11/osyllabus/12/Group6B/1405Cockerill,WhereHowCanWeDemonstrateTheObjectiveValueOfOurCare.pdf Also appears to be connected to the FDA and is on the CDC Board of Scientific Advisors see http://www.cdc.gov/oid/bsc/profiles.html * Lab testing, hospitals, medical care...are businesses. Testing kits for diseases, for genetics brings in money. Mayo Collaborative Services, aka Mayo Medical Labs is not only a testing lab but in the business of selling its test kits to other hospit...Voir plus HLA-B 5701 Genotype, Abacavir Hypersensitivity, Saliva - Indiana University Health Bloomington iuhealthbloomingtonhospital.testcatalog.org Predicting likelihood of hypersensitivity reactions to abacavir in HIV-infected patients, based on the presence of the HLA-B*5701 allele...

Ce qui se passe actuellement est vraiment odieux : Rico a refait la même allergie tout de suite après reprise du traitement ARV modifié (sans abacavir), et le médecin qui avait diagnostiqué la première allergie et interrompu le traitement est parti de la clinique Mayo. Les autres disent que le bébé fait un sida, et d'après 1 article mi-figue mi-raisin récent, ABC News commence à noyer le poisson sur les effets des ARV : http://www.kaaltv.com/article/stories/S3041808.shtml?cat=0. A mon avis, ça montre bien une fois de plus qu'il y a un dogme et une censure policière très organisée à tous les étages. Un des médecins a d'ailleurs reproché à Steve Nagel d'informer le public via FaceBook...

Nouvelles de Rico Nagel-Martinez : en date du 10 mai dernier, Rico a été victime d'une éruption cutanée qui a nécessité son hospitalisation. C'est un effet indésirable de son traitement ARV bien répertorié et signalé sur les notices des fabricants. Les médecins ont décidé d'interrompre le traitement, considérant qu'il était en danger de mort. L'information a été rapportée par ABC News : http://www.kaaltv.com/article/stories/S3029632.shtml?cat=10151 Les médecins doivent faire des tests dermato pour décider s'il s'agit bien d'une allergie au traitement, auquel cas celui-ci ne serait pas poursuivi.

Je voulais signaler un document très complet, en anglais, mis en ligne par le chercheur dissident Andrew Maniotis. C'est un historique des différentes pistes qui ont été envisagées et non retenues par la recherche sur le sida, et en même temps une mise en perspective des contradictions de la théorie du vih, via des déclarations de spécialistes, des articles de presse, etc., présentés chronologiquement avec des commentaires. On peut y entrevoir notamment le rôle des chercheurs dissidents dans le labyrinthe des pistes alternatives... et leurs apports plus ou moins partiels à la recherche. En conclusion, sur les vaccins notamment, Maniotis explique que pour lui, les échecs de plus d'une centaine d'essais de vaccins, au sens strict du terme de moyen d'immunisation, tendraient surtout à démontrer que la thèse du vih est une fausse piste. http://andrewmaniotis.wordpress.com/421-2/

Jibrail, Le second lien que tu as introduit dans ton post ne fonctionne pas. Je suppose que c'est celui-ci le bon : http://www2.ulg.ac.be/cord/initiation%20au%20met%20oxygene/sommaire.html

Rien de bien nouveau apparemment sur le cas de Rico Nagel Martinez. Cheryl Nagel a seulement annoncé sur sa page Face Book que Rico pourrait être nourri avec du lait en bouteille en journée, et par intubation la nuit. Le dissident Bill de Biaso signale le cas d'un couple en Grande Bretagne qui a renoncé au traitement ARV de son bébé au bout de plusieurs mois en raion des effets secondaires : http://www.askdeblasiowhy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127%3Anervous-british-couple-rejects-arvs&catid=46%3Anews-updates Pour les nouvelles générales, lors d'une conférence sur le Traitement comme Prévention à Vancouver, l'OMS a annoncé se rallier aux recommandations américaines sur les traitements précoces et a entériné une recommandation de mise sous traitement ARV à partir du seuil de moins de 500 CD4 au lieu de 350 : http://www.aidshealth.org/archives/16153

En document audio d'1 heure 30, l'introduction de Bernard Stiegler à ses conférences de 2008 au Collège international de philosophie. (c'est par erreur que j'ai introduit le tag "Collège de France") La notion et le concept de pharmacologie et de Pharmakon sont entendus ici dans un sens général et politico-philosophique. Mais compte-tenu que le propos fait appel de manière principielle aux idées de toxicité et d'empoisonnement, c'est sans nul doute une démarche de réflexion qui pourra être utilement prise en compte par la dissidence du sida. http://arsindustrialis.org/s%C3%A9minaire-trouver-de-nouvelles-armes-economie-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale-et-pharmacologie

Devinez qui est l'avocat qui a ouvert le premier compte en Suisse de Cahuzac, en 1992 (d'après Le Monde du 3-4-2013) :

D'une part, dans la France de 1982-1985, c'est une opération de déstabilisation de l'Union de la Gauche : introduction de la psychose à l'épidémie + entrée en scène du lepénisme dans la vie politique. Et, de 1986 à 1995, froide extermination médicalement assistée de quelque 20 000 personnes. D'autre part :

Bon, je vais mettre tout le monde d'accord : http://vimeo.com/38507959 http://vimeo.com/17974848 Ceci expliquant en grande partie cela : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Epstein http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un_paradoxe_fran%C3%A7ais_:_antiracistes_dans_la_Collaboration,_antis%C3%A9mites_dans_la_R%C3%A9sistance

AIXUR, JIBRAIL, TOUS, VU LA TENEUR POLITICO-IDEOLOGIQUE PROFONDEMENT EQUIVOQUE DES SITES EGALITE ET RECONCILIATION, KONTRE-KULTURE, ETC, JE SOUHAITERAIS SAVOIR SI QUELQU'UN DE SIDASANTE A OU NON DONNE SON ACCORD POUR QUE LE SITE FIGURE DANS LES LISTES DES SITES AMIS SUR CEUX D'ALAIN SORAL. IL ME SEMBLE TRES IMPORTANT QUE SIDASANTE S'EN DISSOCIE AU MOINS A CE NIVEAU LA. Merci pour vos réponses. Voici quelques appréciations qu'on peut trouver sur la politique marketing de Kontre-Kulture et diverses questions annexes : http://www.jeuxvideo.com/forums/1-51-38262520-1-0-1-0-l-escoquerie-kontre-kulture.htm Un avertissement en page d'ouverture du site Sidasanté.com et de ce forum devrait à mon avis signaler que l'utilisation de vidéos et documents émanant de la dissidence du sida par Egalité & Réconciliation est indépendante de la volonté des responsables de Sidasanté.

Tu nous as asséné des contre-vérités historiques flagrantes. Si je ne t'avais pas répliqué, tu n'aurais pas appellé Henri Guilemin à la recousse. C'est certes un historien rigoureux quoi que perçu comme un franc-tireur dans sa discipline. Il a certes démystifié beaucoup de choses, comme sur les positionnements socio-politiques concrets de Musset et autres grands poètes et écrivains du 19 ème siècle, outre son travail sur le 18 ème siècle et la Révolution de 1789. Il n'en reste pas moins que tu nous mènes grossièrement en bateau dans ton discours de condamnation globale des Lumières. Avec Montesquieu et l'Esprit des Lois, la France et l'Europe ont fait un pas de géant dans le sens de la démocratie et de la liberté des peuples. De même, avec Diderot, d'Alembert et les Encyclopédistes dans le domaine de la démocratie du savoir et des connaissances. De même, avec Rousseau et son Contrat social, de même encore avec Condorcet, même si tout n'est pas sans nuances et si celui-ci, par exemple, a ouvert la voie à un certain progressisme trop scientiste par des orientations philosophiques préfigurant le positivisme. Quant à Voltaire, même si c'était un homme de son temps et s'il défendait les droits inhérents à la propriété privée d'une classe montante dans la société de son époque, il n'en a pas moins agi le plus souvent contre les injustices et en faveur des Droits de l'Homme et des libertés au sens le plus authentiquement démocratique. Les nostalgiques entêtés de l'union sacrée entre le clergé et l'aristocratie issus du Moyen-âge pour le monopole du pouvoir économique, foncier, militaire, idéologique, etc., du 19 ème siècle à nos jours, n'ont jamais eu d'autres horizons que l'autoritarisme, le fascisme et l'oppression barbare des peuples.

C'est la découverte de l'Amérique, entre 200 et 300 ans avant les Lumières et 1789, qui est la cause initiale de la Traite et de l'esclavage pour le compte des Occidentaux en Afrique, puis du colonialisme ensuite. En Amérique du Sud, sont bien connues les critiques et les protestations du prêtre Las Casas face à l'attitude des Conquistadors avec les populations indigènes, mais c'est un cas isolé. Las Casas n'était nullement représentatif des positions de l'église catholique, qui dans l'ensemble a laissé faire au même titre que les Grands d'Espagne et, souvent, de facto prêté main forte plus qu'autre chose. Aux Antilles françaises, 1789 a très vite entrainé une première abolition de l'esclavage. Mais le rôle des Britanniques dans la région, puis Napoléon 1 er ensuite, ont vite permis un retour en arrière qui a perduré jusqu'à Schoelcher et au décret de 1848. En tout cas, c'est bien sous Louis XIV et Louis XV que l'esclavage des Africains dans le cadre de l'exploitation des Antilles françaises est devenu un véritable système.

Si tu regardes le dernier message que j'ai posté ici : http://www.sidasante.com/forum/index.php?/topic/17315-liens-sidasante-sur-le-site-de-soral/ , ce que j'y déplore, c'est que Soral, en mettant sur son site la vidéo de Kémi Séba, prouve qu'il n'est pas cohérent par rapport à la démarche des dissidents scientifiques du sida. En effet, les partisans de la thèse du virus fabriqué entérinent fortement celle de l'existence du virus, alors que précisément les dissidents scientifiques n'ont cessé de montrer qu'à y regarder de près elle ne tient pas et constitue une vaste imposture. Quant à Soral, au-delà de toutes ses désinformations, de toutes ses manipulations, de tous ses faux masques et de ses facéties venimeuses, il ne travaille qu'à la réhabilitation d'un fascisme à la française que l'épisode de Vichy a définitivement discrédité devant l'Histoire. C'est un voyou qui trimballe et propage une psychopathologie très dangereuse. Il brouille les pistes à loisir, encore que, il fait quand même preuve systématiquement d'une grossièreté évidente, mais de toute façon son but et sa philosophie du social et du politique sont très clairs dès qu'on cherche à comprendre. Que ce soit au niveau des références politiques qu'il brandit et promeut ou au niveau des méthodes qu'il emploie, il est autoritariste, réactionnaire, et tout sauf démocrate, que ce soit au sens d'Etienne Chouard ou de qui que ce soit d'autre.

Post-scriptum : Sur cette page http://www.sidasante.com/forum/index.php?/topic/17315-liens-sidasante-sur-le-site-de-soral/#entry315110 , où je viens d'insérer un nouveau post contenant une info importante, j'avais écrit aussi, à propos de la façon dont Soral s'est accaparé les interviews de De Harven et Roussez (y compris celle publiée initialement, plus récemment, sur le blog "Le Libre Penseur"), j'avais écrit, et je le maintiens : Si vous ne voulez toujours pas voir de quoi je parle, sachez que ces temps-ci, Soral se revendique textuellement sur son site comme "nationaliste de gauche" - donc national-socialiste, non ?!

Aixur, Jibrail, Olivier, tous, En complément à mes 3 posts récents en réponse à Olivier sur l'affaire Roussez-De Harven-NonameTV_Egalité et Réconciliation, je voudrais d'abord rappeler ce que j'avais écrit plus haut : En faisant une recherche via Google, je viens de découvrir une vidéo sur le site Egalité et Réconciliation par un Africain, Kémi Séba, qui défend la thèse d'un virus fabriqué, donc l'existence du virus dont les dissidents ont plus sérieusement montré la dimension de virus fantôme : http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Kemi-Seba-Le-SIDA-l-arme-bacteriologique-creee-par-l-oligarchie-contre-l-Afrique-14270.html Sa version de l'historique des faits se réfère, non seulement à Allan Cantwell, mais au malheureux Boyd Graves, baptisé à tort docteur pour l'occasion et en réalité malheureux à plus d'un titre, et bien sûr à l'incontournable cassandre amphibie Leonard Horowitz. C'est tragique, parce qu'au regard de ce qui s'est passé de 1985 à 1994 avec l'AZT, on sait bien que ce sont les antirétroviraux qui "miment" le soi-disant virus, ce que la thèse défendue par Séba occulte totalement. Il suffit en outre d'analyser attentivement le discours de Kémi Séba pour comprendre que ce qu'il pratique avant tout, c'est une récupérapération intégriste et homophobe de l'anti-racisme. Ce n'est nullement par hasard si, en regard à droite de la vidéo, figure une publicité pour une conférence s'intitulant "L'effroyable imposture du MRAP", puis à gauche un lien voyant vers une page sur le mariage gay, dont on imagine aisément sous quel angle il peut être abordé par Egalité et Réconciliation...

Olivier, Je viens de répondre, ci-dessus, à ton injonction enthousiaste de lire toutes affaires cessantes le bouquin de Soral. Je voudrais juste ajouter un nota bene à propos de ce que tu rappelles à Jibrail en souvenir de son post du 10 mai 2010. Voici en effet un extrait d'un courriel d'explication qu'Etienne de Harven m'avait adressé le 1 août 2010 et que je me permets de reproduire. Dans ce courriel, il se disait blessé de l'intervention à ses yeux inappropriée de Jibrail sur le forum, mais il m'écrivait aussi : Libre à chacun de conjecturer et de tirer les conclusions de cette déclaration.

Bon, précisons que pour la 2ème citation ci-dessus notamment, celle-ci expose des considérations politiques dont la portée dépasse la seule analyse critique du personnage Alain Soral et de ses opinions. Il n'en reste pas moins que celui-ci est bien entre autres un idéologue et un activiste au service d'un projet politique, et même si elle émane d'un courant politique adverse, l'analyse dudit projet que comporte la communication en question m'a semblé assez objective et éclairante pour la citer.

http://www.bakchich.info/societe/2009/03/13/alain-soral-et-son-canard-rouge-brun-heureusement-incompetents-54844 http://bellaciao.org/fr/spip.php?article127788

J'ai trouvé récemment des documents d'archive en anglais intéressants : - L'un sur les conditions précises du "baptême" du HIV au niveau des institutions politico-scientifiques (c'est moi qui ai souligné certains passages) : http://www.alexalienart.com/sonia.htm The Political Taxonomy of 'HIV': Selling a Signifier without a Signified Alex Russell, CONTINUUM Vol. 5, No. 5 Midwinter, 1998-1999 "What's in a name? The latest name for the AIDS virus is in trouble before the christening is over. It is understandable that Gallo should now be unwilling to use the recommended name for any but generic purposes." Nature, 1st May, 1986, Opinion, p.2 "AIDS Virus Has New Name - Perhaps. The name 'human immunodeficiency virus' has been recommended for the AIDS virus, but some prominent dissent raises questions about its acceptance." Science, 9th May, 1986, News & Comment, p 699. "A thing is what it is not because of its place in the ideal classification system but because of its place in real history. The order of concretely existing things is from now on determined not by ideal essences outside them but by the historical forces buried within them." Gary Cutting, Michel Foucault's Archeology of Scientific Reason, Cambridge University Press, 1989. The taxonomic classification of 'HIV' (22-23 May, 1986) was ostensibly a strategic invention to present a nomenclature that would unify a diversely identified putative 'retrovirus': human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III ('HTLV-III'), immunodeficiency-associated virus ('IDAV'), aids-associated retrovirus ('ARV') and lymphadenopathy-associated virus ('LAV'). The not so hidden agenda behind this politically expedient move was to enforce the 'belief' that an alleged 'human retrovirus' caused 'immunodeficiency'. Thus the manufacturing of 'HIV' hegemonic (misinformed) consent reinforced a 'retroviral' episteme for 'aids' causation. However, thirteen years on 'HIV' has still not proved to be a human immuno-deficiency virus. If the function of a name is to designate its individuality, then clearly 'HIV' was a baptism by mistaken identity. The moment of fictional baptism was reported in Science (Harold Varmus et al., 9 May, 1986), in which eleven of the thirteen members of a subcommittee - ("empowered by the International Committee on the taxonomy of Viruses") - nominated 'HIV': We are writing to propose that the AIDS retroviruses be officially designated as the human immunodeficiency viruses, to be known in abbreviated form as HIV...The name is readily distinguished from all existing names for this group of viruses and has been chosen without regard to priority of discovery. The name is sufficiently distinct from the names of other retroviruses to imply an independent virus species...We hope that this proposal will be adopted rapidly by the research community working with the viruses. This letter was followed by this EDITOR'S NOTE: Myron Essex and Robert C. Gallo, who are also members of the Human Retrovirus Subcommittee, did not sign the above letter. The same letter was also published in Nature (1st May, 1986) followed by a cautious Editor's note: An earlier version of this letter asked that journals publishing it should make use of the name HIV a condition for the publication of research articles. Nevertheless, Nature will continue its present practice of allowing its contributors to use whatever nomenclature seems to them appropriate..." Science also rejected the use of the name 'HIV' as a "condition" for the publication of articles and deleted the request from the published letter. The original letter from the nomenclature committee asked: that the editors of all journals that print this letter insist that published papers conform to these rules. Harold Varmus, Chairman, Human Retrovirus Subcommittee, told Science (9 May, 1986): We're not a policing outfit. We can only strongly recommend that researchers use the name and that journals as their authors to use it. While the international sub-committee wanted all journals and scientific papers to refer to 'HTLV-III' as 'HIV', Gallo, who sat on the sub-committee, disagreed by refusing to sign the letter announcing the new name, and refused to call the virtual virus 'HIV' (New Scientist, 15 May, 1986). Gallo wanted the new name to be "human retrovirus" ('HRV'): the power of naming gives one kudos and control over the name. Most committee members felt that 'HRV' was too "nonspecific". Joseph Palca ('Controversy over AIDS virus extends to name', Nature, News,1 May, 1986) reported that the name 'HIV' did not win hegemonic consent: But HIV never had unanimous support from Varmus's subcommittee. Nearly half of the members preferred the current compound name, HTLV-III/LAV. Others, including Gallo, Essex and Temin preferred human retrovirus (HRV)...Steve Gillis of Immunex Corporation at Seattle, Washington, who is familiar with controversies over new names from his own experience with lymphokines, questions whether a name that is not supported by Gallo can win general support. In addition to Gallo and Essex, a prominent AIDS researcher who asked not to be identified indicated that he would not use the new name. Following the Gallo/Heckler paradigm by press conference announcement ("the probable cause of aids has been found") of April 23, 1984, The New York Times ('A Viral Competition over AIDS', April 26, 1984) was quick to spot the power-politics of naming referring to the old dispute between 'LAV' and 'HTLV-III': In the world of science, as among primitive societies, to be the namer of an object is to own it. While being the proud 'owner' of 'HTLV-III', opportunist Gallo did not rule out the possibility of switching to 'HIV' and soon fell into line: It's not that I hate the name. If it is accepted widely I would gravitate toward it. (Science, 9th May, 1986). Max Essex objected to the name 'HIV' because he thought that it revealed "little or nothing about the nature of the virus and may even be confusing". (Science, 9 May, 1986). Essex and Gallo also objected to the name 'HIV' because 'HTLV-III' and 'LAV' had been widely used both in the primary scientific literature and in the popular press: The terms are so thoroughly engrained in the literature that it may be impossible to change them in the minds of people who use them, Essex explained. (Science, 9 May, 1986). Pressure built. F. Brown, President, International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, wrote to Nature (20th June, 1986): At a meeting on 22 and 23 May 1986 the Executive Committee of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) endorsed the name human immunodeficiency virus recently proposed by a large majority of the members of a study group of ICTV headed by Harold Varmus (Letters, 9 May, p.697) as appropriate for retrovirus isolates implicated as causing the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The new name describes the host and a major biological property of the virus from isolates of human T cell lymphotropic virus types I and II...the committee recommends the use of the name human immunodeficiency virus as the vernacular name to replace HTLV-III and LAV. Contrary to F. Brown's claim, the "new name" could not describe "the host and a major biological property of the virus...". There was no isolated evidence then (as now) that this amorphous stuff was a putative 'retrovirus' that caused 'immunodeficiency'. The acronym 'HIV' is meaningless. The Executive Committee of the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses should be charged under an appropriate jurisdiction for ratifying a fraudulent nomenclature. There is no 'gold standard' definition of 'HIV', as Eleopulos et al. state: There is no agreement on the precise taxonomic classification of HIV. Initially, HIV was reported as an Oncoviral type-C particle, then a type-D particle, and then as a member of a different Subfamily, a Lentivirus... ('Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS?', Eleni Eleopulos et al., Emergency Medicine, 1993). Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biology at Berkeley, observed that to many, the name 'HIV' itself becomes the 'proof' of 'HIV'! : One of the things I want to point out is the tricky business of naming a virus. Naming something HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Avian Leukosis Virus, Avian Myelocytosis Virus - all of those names fix in the minds of those who use them, or work with them, that this is the proof. It's like Noah naming the animals, a way of controlling them. It's really more of a political than a scientific problem. Lacanian cultural theorist, Slavoj Zizek pinpoints the idiocy behind the tautological belief that a 'name' of an 'object' is what 'it is' because 'it' says 'it is': Here we encounter the dogmatic stupidity proper to a signifier as such, the stupidity which assumes the shape of a tautology: a name refers to an object because this object is called that... (The Sublime Object of Ideology, Verso, 1989). Meditel's 'AIDS'-analyst Michael Verney-Elliott dismisses 'human retroviruses': I propose there are no human retroviruses..'HIV' is not Human, it has never been proven to be the cause of Immunodeficiency, and is not a Virus, but a misinterpreted artefact of human and simian cell cultures. Therefore the acronym 'HIV' is wrong on all counts. ('SIV' and Poliovaccination - A Shot In The Foot?, unpublished, 1999). Virologist and political activist, Dr. Stefan Lanka has long argued that 'HIV' is non-viral material: I found that when they are speaking about HIV they are not speaking about a virus. They are speaking about cellular characteristics and activities of cells under very special conditions... I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses, in fact do not exist at all. (Zenger's, December, 1998). What has been taken for 'HIV' is mimesis: the construction of an object according to verisimilitude, rather than truth: 'mock-virus', 'virus-like particles', etc. Philosopher, Jaques Derrida's strategy for achieving the suspension of elusive acronyms such as 'HIV' is the device of placing words 'under erasure' , signified by crossing them through - thus invalidating their putative meaning and warning the reader not to accept them at face value. This textual strategy will help to emphasise that the correspondence between the signifier (HIV) and the signified-stuff (non-viral material, microvesicles, etc.) is spurious and arbitrary. Critical Theorist, Mark Cousins on the problematic of naming: "Who has the authority to name? The question of naming is deeply embedded in questions of authorisation. The name is an externally imposed form of bureaucratic registration. What is at stake is not the object but the name of the object...What is in the name is not there. To call upon a name is to fail because by definition, nothing is there. The name is that which is there in the absence of the object. There is nothing behind the name...The name is the last survivor." ('In the Name of the Object', Mark Cousins, 6th November, 1998). As there is nothing behind the name HIV why do retrovirologists still hunt for the impossible object of desire - HIV? They desire the signifier ('HIV') because the signified (HIV) does not exist. Retrovirologists' insane scopic drive to penetrate HIV is just an objectification of a void; their 'scopicdrive' to unveil HIV becomes the impossible infinite quest to recover a lost object of desire. The HIV paradigm embodies a 'theory of desire': it 'promises' without ever quite 'delivering'. Thus it is the absence of HIV that sustains the drive. According to Slavoj Zizek, HIV exemplifies psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan's 'object petit a' (the object-cause of desire): "an object that is, in a way, posited by desire itself". Lacan stated that the 'objet a' is not a Real object, but the "presence of a hollow, a void, which can be occupied...by any object". The desire to unveil the (illusory) 'HIV' (the 'petit objet a') under the gaze of the electronmicroscope inevitably throws up a distortion of 'objective reality' because the retrovirologists gaze has inserted his/her desired (distorted) interpretation of the image over the imaged signified-stuff. Zizek's thesis on the economy of desire epitomises the 'retrovirologists' psychotic desire to penetrate the phantom HIV: The paradox of desire is that it posits retroactively its own cause, i.e., the object a is an object that can be perceived only by a gaze 'distorted' by desire, an object that does not exist for an 'objective' gaze. In other words, the object a is always, by definition, perceived in a distorted way, because outside this distortion, 'in itself', it does not exist, since it is nothing but the embodiment, the materialization of this very distortion, of this surplus of confusion and perturbation introduced by desire into so-called 'objective reality'. The object a is objectively nothing, though, viewed from a certain perspective, it assumes the shape of 'something'...Desire 'takes off' when 'something' (its object-cause) embodies, gives positive existence to its 'nothing', to its void... ('How Real is Reality?': Looking Awry, MIT Press, 1991). The 'HIV' signifier "perfectly exemplifies the way fantasy space functions as an empty surface, as a kind of screen for the projection of desires" (Zizek). Lacan stated that "what makes man desire, what is the cause of their desire...is this 'objet a'...a phantom...which fascinates them". HIV is a phantom that can assume an infinite number of mutable strains to meet the HIV fantasists' ('hiv-researchers') infinite desires. The 150,000 plus papers written 'In The Name Of HIV' represent a 'scopic-drive' group-fantasy concerning the ontological and metaphysical maneuvers of kitsch kamikaze HIV kinetics. Thus the papers written 'In The Name of HIV' merely reveal the arbitrariness and distance between the signifier ('HIV') and the signified-stuff (non-'HIV') which becomes more and more dislocated and dissolved the more they try to penetrate the signified stuff until all that is left is the spurious signifier. The drive to see the stuff turns out to be just a drive to see the name: with the failure of the object HIV to be present - all they have left is the 'name'; and there is nothing 'in' the 'name'. Yet hundreds of thousands have been sacrificed 'In The Name of HIV'. The name 'HIV' (as a curse) becomes a sacrificial effigy to which the 'diagnosed' are offered: just like those who are sacrificed to the 'Whicker Man'. Names can kill. The taxonomic construction of HIV is the most sadistic-hex-hoax since the invention of 'GOD'. Those Acting In The Name Of HIV have initiated man-made mass death. We must erase the names 'HIV' and 'GOD' before these names erase us. The names 'HIV' and 'GOD' existed only in order to be annihilated. Psychoanalyst and author, Julia Kristeva observes the name betrays the Thing-in-itself: ...the belief in conveyability ('mother is nameable, God is nameable') leads to a strongly individualized discourse...But in that very practice we end up with the perfect betrayal of the unique Thing-in-itself (the Res Divina). Why is the nomination a betrayal? Because if all the fashions of naming it are allowable, the verbal reality, the Thing postulated in itself, becomes dissolved in the thousand and one ways of naming it... In 1980 Gallo's HL23V was 'decommissioned', 'declassified', 'unnamed' and was agreed to be 'non-existent' - it is now time for the sacrificial-signifier HIV to be 'decommissioned', 'declassified', 'unnamed' because the stigmatised signified-stuff is non-existent. What will be the devastating consequences of unnaming HIV? Alex Russell ______________________ ______________________ - Et un autre document qui approfondit ce qu'on savait déjà sur les rôles et positionnements de Gallo, Popovic et Gonda dans la vraie-fausse découverte du HIV, la réécriture des communications dans Science, etc. Je ne sais trop s'il s'agit d'un extrait d'un bouquin de Henry Bauer ou d'un texte d'un autre auteur. Mais il apporte des compléments d'information et des précisions qui éclairent encore mieux cet épisode clé que les analyses et documents d'archive fournis par John Crewdson : http://umlingo.wozaonline.co.za/important+information How the HIV Papers were fixed at the last moment. I was now faced by a quandary. The very papers the above investigations found to be riddled with fraud were the ones I was told to go to if I wanted to know how the French HIV was proved to cause AIDS, for the American government investigators had praised as successful the last of the experiments documented in them, those carried out after February 22nd and before March 30th 1984. These, they said, had used the French virus and had finally and successfully proved it to cause AIDS. (Yet they also said these experiments were so poorly recorded that they were unrepeatable.) I was unused to the idea that I could trust only parts of scientific papers, but this was what I was expected to do. The prestigious investigations and institutions were all in agreement. They condemned as false Gallo's claim that he and his team had isolated this virus in 1982, in other words, before the French. Instead they scathingly concluded that, as of the 22nd February 1984, that is six weeks before these Science papers went for publication on March 30th, Gallo could not have identified HIV, since up until this date ‘no HIV-specific reagents [antibodies] were available to prove that a particular sample harboured the AIDS virus.' In other words, Gallo could not have identified HIV in 1982 and 1983 as he has claimed, by detecting antibodies specific to it. The investigating scientists pointed out that it was impossible to prove an antibody targeted the AIDS virus before proving what virus caused AIDS! It was not that the French had earlier proved their . They had stated in 1983, just before sending a sample of their virus to Gallo, that: ‘the role of the virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined.' However it was not just viruses they sent him. It was reported that it was a sample of a culture grown in their laboratory from the blood cells of a suspected AIDS patient, but their 1983 paper stated birth umbilical cord cells were in fact used, with no mention of the mother being infected. They thought some particles in the culture might be retroviruses that caused AIDS - but could not be sure. Montagnier later confessed, they could not find in their serum any particles with ‘the morphology typical of retroviruses.'Therefore, it was evident that, as it was not the French, it must have been Gallo and Popovic who proved the French virus to cause AIDS - and they must have done this in that final six weeks of experimenting. I thus began to read the account of Gallo and Popovic's final 1984 experiments in the Science papers with great care and some expectation. These are recorded in the first of the four papers, the one for which Popovic is the lead author. From the reports of the US investigations and of others involved at the time. I knew that Gallo had been so confident in their coming success with the French virus that he had left his senior investigative scientist, Popovic, in charge of the vital work with the French virus while he went off to France to boast that they had already discovered the AIDS virus. In the same total confidence, before going abroad, he also made advance arrangements for Popovic's paper, and three others based on it, to be published together in the May 4th issue of Science. He would not return until only two weeks before the papers were to be submitted for publication on March 30th 1984. I found this most odd - how could Gallo be absolutely certain of the outcome of these vital experiments before they were carried out! Otherwise, how does one explain his otherwise irrational confidence, his putting at risk of his professional status, by going off to boast of his success before it was achieved? I needed to know more, so I raked through the Gallo laboratory documents these investigations had unearthed, including some that John Crewdson retrieved under Freedom of Information legislation. One of these turned out to be the draft of the key Science paper, as typed up by Popovic and presented to Gallo on his return from France, a few days before the papers went to the publisher. I was thrilled to find this. I had learnt of its existence from the reports of the investigators. They told me it had only survived because Popovic had taken extraordinary steps to protect it from the shredding machine. He had secretly sent it to his sister in Austria for safekeeping, only to be made public if needed to prove who had falsified his research. He had retrieved it when the investigations began - but had hoped not to use it. Then after an interview with the OSI, he was sent by mistake a tape that recorded, not just his answers to questions, but also the comments made after he left the room. This revealed that he, rather than Gallo, was to be found guilty of scientific misconduct. Next morning he had a lawyer give this carefully hidden draft to the OSI. Knowing all this, made me extremely curious to read the manuscript. I was keen to see what Popovic had reported before Gallo did his editing. After all, it was he who had completed these experiments, not Gallo. The Investigators had reported: 'Dr. Popovic single-handedly carried out the most important early HIV experiments.' They had also verified that the handwritten changes on the draft were by Gallo. On his return to the States from Europe, Gallo had collected this draft, started to read it and then received a terrible shock. It was nothing like what he had anticipated. Popovic had only just left for a skiing holiday in Utah. Gallo contacted him urgently on the Friday 21st of March and ordered him back. This was only 9 days before the paper had to be sent for publication. The government investigators report that Gallo then extensively changed the paper's typed text in his own hand at the last moment before sending it for publication. His changes are the key evidence later cited to prove that he had deliberately hidden the use of the French virus. The Congressional Staff Report stated: ‘The cover-up of the LTCB's [Gallo's Laboratory] work with the IP [institut Pasteur] virus advanced to a more active phase in mid-March 1984, when Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB paper.' I now had in front of me what Popovic saw when he got back to the laboratory in Washington on Monday 24th March, only 6 days before this key paper had to be submitted to Science. It was fascinating to see that his 13 page typed manuscript had been absolutely covered in Gallo's scribbled comments, redrafted paragraphs and furious notes in the margins. There were also two extra pages of his rough notes added at the end. Gallo had changed the title of the paper. When published it would claim that they had ‘isolated' the virus. But there was no mention of isolation in the title originally. I was intrigued. Isolation is said to be a key step in the study of any virus. I looked over the whole draft paper with care and found there were no experiments in it designed to isolate the virus for research purposes. But where was the justification for calling the virus ‘cytopathic'! I knew that elsewhere Gallo claimed that it killed T-Cells, But extraordinarily, I could find no trace in this paper, as drafted or as published, of any evidence produced to prove this - despite this claim being made in its title. But, wasn't this paper supposed to prove this virus to cause AIDS by killing T-Cells? That is what everyone has said of it since. As far as I could see, after the most careful of readings, the paper simply stated that proteins thought to be from a virus were found in serum samples from less than half of the AIDS patients tested. This was not just weak evidence. It established no causal relationship at all. Surely I must be missing something? I went back to reading the draft with great care. ---------- continues I shrugged aside my sceptical thoughts and started to read the body of the paper. On its page three was the famous admission by Popovic that he had used the French virus LAV ‘which is described here as HTLV-III'. Gallo deleted this and noted alongside: ‘I just don't believe it. You are absolutely incredible.' It seems he must have previously instructed Popovic not to mention the French origin. The investigators commented later that these edits were 'highly instructive with respect to the nature and intent of Dr. Gallo's actions'. It was fortunately, I thought, that he had left the underlying text mostly legible. From what I read, Popovic seems to have been entirely honest in reporting their renaming of the French virus, although he must have known this would make Gallo furious. This made me wonder if Popovic had wisely decided to make Gallo write the deceptive text himself. (Was this why Popovic went away to ski?) I hoped the rest of his original typed draft would be equally honest. The rest of that page was simply a summary of Gallo's earlier work with the leukaemia-linked HTLV-I. It said: ‘epidemiologic data strongly suggests AIDS is caused by an infectious agent' but presented none of this data to support this. But when I turned the page, I was riveted. Gallo had deleted a statement by Popovic saying: 'Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.' (images in book - scanned copies of the words as typed by Popovic and changed by Gallo) This was totally unexpected. Nothing I read had led me to expect this. No one had mentioned these deleted words. Not Crewdson, not any of the investigators, no history of AIDS science. No one had reported these words, let alone their deletion by Gallo. If Popovic had said ‘prior to our research, the causative agent of AIDS had not been identified', I would not have been at all surprised. It would have been precisely what I expected. But - the sentence was unexpectedly in the present tense. Was he saying that their work with the disguised French virus had not yet succeeded? He had been brutally honest about admitting that he was using the French viruses. Was he being equally honest here? Since then, I have repeatedly re-read the paper - and, much to my surprise, I find it contains no attempt at any point to prove that this virus causes AIDS! It is all about their efforts to grow a virus in a laboratory culture, not about research on this virus. Was Popovic admitting here that they had not yet managed to prove it causes AIDS? If so, then this would give an entirely new meaning to one of the most famous papers in virology. However, I decided that I would carefully read what else Popovic had to report before making up my mind. Gallo clearly thought no one but Popovic would see his editing. When the paper was retyped and published a few weeks later it would be so completely changed that a government Research Integrity Adjudications Panel would report of it; ‘The paper in question, it is undisputed, made a major and lasting contribution to establishing that a retrovirus was the etiological agent of AIDS.' I wondered with what had Gallo had replaced these words ‘despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified' in the final published document. I checked and found that they were replaced with words that said precisely the opposite. It now read 'that a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiological agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings'. I then found Popovic had upset Gallo still further in the very next sentence by calling Gallo's theory that a retrovirus caused AIDS an 'assumption'. Gallo deleted this word, replacing it with ‘hypothesis', as can be seen in the clipping (reproduced in book) Popovic then summarized the tenuous basis of their ‘assumption.' This went: as Myron Essex had found a retrovirus believed to cause in cats a T-cell leukaemia that suppresses the immune system, as Gallo had found in humans a retrovirus HTLV-I similarly said to cause a rare leukaemia, since 30 to 40% of AIDS patients had proteins in their blood similar to those from this retrovirus, and as the putative virus in their blood produced giant cancer cells (‘syncytia') in the laboratory; it was assumed that the AIDS virus was a newly evolved, out-of-Africa, member of the same very small HTLV family of viruses! But it was immediately clear that Popovic had no intention of testing and proving this theory in this paper. All he went on to report were his attempts to find a way to grow the disguised French virus in a laboratory dish. Gallo and Popovic were well aware that their earlier efforts to prove their virus (HTLV-3) caused AIDS had ended in failure. That was why Popovic was now working with a disguised French virus. I continued to read the paper with care. From Gallo's scribbled comments, I was surprised to learn that he clearly expected Popovic to achieve no more than to find a way of growing enough of the disguised French virus to enable them to patent a blood test for it. He never once asked for a test to be included showing it causes AIDS. Thus in these papers there are no experiments to prove their virus killed T-cells. This was more important than one might think; given to this day no other human retrovirus is known to kill. If HIV were such an exception, if it has a unique capability, then one would expect to find here an effort to prove this. Reading more widely, I have found scientists still do not understand how HIV can destroy T-Cells. Joseph McCune reported in Nature in 2001; ‘We still do not know how, in vivo [in the patient], the virus destroys CD4+ T cells... Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the loss of CD4+ T cells, some of which seem to be diametrically opposed.' But, at that time, the early 1980s, Gallo was on a rescue mission. He was trying to rescue his hypothesis that retroviruses were major causes of human diseases. He had failed to prove they were a major cause of cancer. He now wanted to prove they caused AIDS. As I read on, I began to understand Popovic's difficulties. He explicitly stated they could not test their suspect virus or analyse its genetic code before they found a way to produce enough of it in a laboratory culture for them to experiment with it. In this paper he was thus totally concerned with achieving just this first step. After failing to produce retroviruses in many cell cultures, Popovic had finally tested a culture that he had found abandoned in the laboratory fridge. He divided this to make a few cultures, and then tested each to see if any would grow the French virus. He was pleased to report that some of these showed signs of retroviral growth. This was the heart of his paper - his great achievement. Nothing more or less. And how did he judge which culture was the most successful? A table in his report explained that he had worked this out by assessing ‘the amount of released virus' through measuring ‘ RT activity in the culture.' Now RT, meaning the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase, is naturally part of all our cells as well as of all retroviruses and some other viruses. So, how did Popovic know the RT activity he measured was from a retrovirus? He never explained this. Yet on this depended the success of his modest experiment. And it was not as if this ‘RT activity' had appeared spontaneously. Popovic had only detected it after adding chemicals to the cells that were known to provoke RT activity. (These he called the ‘T-Cell Growth Factor' or TCGF). He presumed that if these provoked RT activity in the culture, then his virus must be present. He explained: ‘the successful detection and isolation of HTLV was made possible by the discovery of TCGF.' But Popovic found and noted that, after adding these chemicals, he only detected ‘transient' spikes of RT activity. This frustrated him immensely. He interpreted this as meaning his retrovirus had briefly appeared - and then vanished. He stated (before Gallo edited this): ‘HTLV variants ... can only be detected transiently...' I had to ask; what if these spikes of RT activity are part of defensive reactions by cells to these chemicals? Why should they be solely linked to a particular retrovirus? But - I then had another thought. What if the ‘AIDS virus' was in fact a human retrovirus created by our cells to defend them against toxins? In recent times, evidence has been found for retroviruses sometimes being able to repair damaged DNA. (More about this in a later chapter.) Could the ‘HIV' virus be in fact a particle sent out to repair damage caused by drug-based toxins - or damage caused by the diseases common in AIDS cases? This was but a thought, but Popovic had produced no evidence that proved any retroviruses to be doing damage. Popovic wrote in his paper that, when he examined his cultures with an electron microscope, he saw particles that might be retroviruses. He had centrifuged culture samples, and found RT activity in the band with the right density for retroviruses. So - retroviruses might be present - but which ones? In any case, this did not prove they caused AIDS. --------------------- continues... Popovic began his conclusion to his paper with these words: ‘We report here the establishment and characterization of an immortalized T-Cell population which is susceptible to and permissive for HTLV cytopathic variants.' To my great surprise, this from start to end was all of consequence that Popovic had to report in this ‘key' paper - and he seemingly had got even this wrong by equating RT enzyme activity with the presence of their virus. After noting ‘RT activity' in their cultures, he had felt he had no need to prove anything else before concluding: ‘Thus, the data clearly indicate continuous HTLVIII production by permanently growing T-Cell population in a long term culture.' But, the very last paragraph of his conclusion was even more revealing. (Please excuse its technical jargon. I will explain.) ‘The transient expression of cytopathic variants of HTLV in cells from AIDS patients and the lack of a proliferate cell system which would be susceptible and permissive for the virus represented major obstacle in detection, isolation and elucidation of the agent of this disease. The establishment of a T-Cell population, which, after virus infection, can continuously grow and produce the virus, provides the possibility for detailed biological, immunological and nucleic acid studies of this agent. ‘ This is the sum total of his claims. Despite the enormous spin that Gallo later put on this paper; Popovic did not claim in it to prove any virus the cause of AIDS! He explained that all he had tried to do was to develop a culture of T-cells that would grow (‘was permissive for') their suspect virus - as the lack of such a culture was ‘a major obstacle' both to finding and studying such a virus. ‘Transient expression' meant no more than that RT activity was intermittent in his culture. His last sentence states that finding such a culture - ‘providing the possibility' for the necessary research to be carried out. That is it. These were the very last words of his paper - before Gallo rewrote them. They make it crystal clear that all that Popovic claimed to achieve was to have made the vital detailed tests a future ‘possibility'. Without such future studies it would be impossible to identify a virus as causing AIDS, as Popovic well knew. This at last made sense of his earlier statement that the cause of AIDS remained to be discovered. It explained why Popovic's paper contained no experiments designed to prove a virus the cause of AIDS. It explained Gallo's urgent rewriting of the text. If he had not rewritten this paper and made it near impossible to verify, his gamble of announcing a major discovery before he had made it would have been revealed and, without any doubt, would have ended his career. Thus, in the paper widely credited with proving HIV to cause AIDS, there is nothing of the sort. There is no mention of any experiment carried out to prove this, or even to establish that the HIV virus was in any way ‘cytotoxic'. If Gallo did fix and spin these papers, this might explain why, against all scientific norms, he afterwards refused samples of his culture and virus to scientists whom he suspected might want to verify his conclusions and imposed on others an outrageous agreement that they would not use them to attempt to repeat these experiments. It may also explain why Gallo documented their experiments so badly, according to the ORI, that it was impossible to repeat them, leaving scientists, and all of us, having to rely on trust that he got things right. As for AIDS being spread by the sexual transmission of HIV, no evidence at all to support this was presented in the four Science papers. Yet, immediately after these papers appeared, the press described AIDS as caused by a sexually transmitted virus. Was this also the result of spin by Robert Gallo? I would have to search for the evidence. But first, I needed to look at the other documents unearthed by the governmental investigations to see if these might contain evidence that proved HIV dangerous. The evidence that HIV kills T-Cells Popovic's paper calls HTLV-3 a 'cytopathic' retrovirus; that is, one that causes degeneration or disease in cells. But when I searched for any evidence in his paper to support this, I could only find the observation that AIDS patients typically have low numbers of ‘Helper' (DC4) T-Cells - with the implied inference that this was because the AIDS virus had killed them. It is widely known in science that many factors can diminish the numbers of these cells - such as chronic drug addiction, severe malnutrition and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Sometimes even healthy people have low numbers. As I have noted, in 2001 Nature reported that it still was not known how HIV could kill T-cells. In 2006 a paper by Benigno Rodriquez reported that HIV can't be killing more than 4% to 6% of the CD4 cells lost in AIDS cases - in other words not enough by itself to cause AIDS. Popovic noted in his paper that there was a CD4-CD8 ‘reverse ratio', before Gallo deleted it. Popovic meant by this that when Helper CD4 T-Cells cells fall in number, the population of Killer CD8 T-cells goes up commensurately, and vice versa. We now know our immune system can change CD4s into CD8s as needed. It needs only a very small surface change to them. This too might explain why sometimes there are fewer CD4 cells. It may simply be that we need more CD8s. In some frustration I have since searched for earlier papers in which Gallo or Popovic might have proved LAV, renamed as HTLV-3, able to kill or as cytopathic - but there are none, utterly none. The Institut Pasteur likewise seems not to have proved this. Neither had Popovic or Gallo proved their own virus, HTLV3, able to kill T-Cells. All I could discover of any possible relevance is that, whenever Gallo tried to grow T-cell cultures before 1983, the T-cells died. Many factors could have caused this, such as the wrong nutrients, bacterial contamination, or mould - the latter found by the investigators to be contaminating some of his cultures. Gallo did mention later that cells in the culture sometimes seemed to be enlarged and clumped - but that was a consequence of them being ‘immortalised' by being made cancerous, not of them dying. So, did the Science papers contain any firm evidence for HIV killing blood cells? I had to conclude, after a thorough search, that no evidence at all of this was presented in these papers, despite Gallo adding the word ‘cytopathic' to this Popovic paper's title. But, this omission is surely something anyone can confirm - so why are so few asking these vital questions? ‘HIV is not in Gallo's pictures of HIV.' A letter I found preserved in the inquiry records contained further disturbing evidence. It was from Dr Matthew Gonda, the Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, replying to a letter from Gallo of March 1984 that had asked him to prepare for publication EM micrographs of the ‘enclosed samples' that ‘contain HTLV' [HIV]. Gonda's reply is dated March 26th, just four days before these images were needed for publication. Gonda told him: 'I would like to point out that the ‘particles' ... are in debris of a degenerated cells' and 'at least 50 per cent smaller' than they should be if they were retroviruses. He concluded: 'I do not believe any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II or III.' He devastatingly added that: 'No other extracellular ‘virus-like' particles were observed.' Gonda copied this letter to Popovic. Discovering this was an enormous surprise because the Science articles, as sent for publication four days later, included four micrographs ‘of HTLV-III' credited to Gonda. In the accompanying text, Gallo declared all these particles of the right shape and correct size for HTLV-III - although close examination reveals most are of different shapes and sizes. (See the images below - HTLV-III is said to be the roundish dots bordering the vastly bigger cell.) If these are the same images - then, for Gallo to say these are definitely of HTLV-III was highly unethical and most misleading since he had received Gonda's expert advice to the contrary. (the chapter continues to cite other similar letters that cast doubts on the veracity of these key HIV papers.... later chapters of the book look at recent HIV research and finds the errors continued.) ‘The Dynamics of CD4+ T-cell Depletion in HIV Disease' by Joseph McCune in Nature, April 19, 2001 Benigno Rodriguez et al., published 27th September 2006 in the Journal of the American Medical Association Letter from Matthew Gonda, Head Electron Microscopy Laboratory; to Mika Papovic (stet), 26th March 1984 Quoted in Crewdson, page 503. The appeal was heard by the Research Integrity Adjudications Panel ‘The Dynamics of CD4+ T-cell Depletion in HIV Disease' by Joseph McCune in Nature, April 19, 2001 Dingell Congressional Inquiry Staff Report. Around mid-February [1984] further work was done by Gallo's laboratory to try to get a rabbit antiserum that was specific to the virus, but without the virus being first truly isolated and analyzed, this was still an impossible task. There is no laboratory record of such work being done - and Popovic explicitly stated in March 1984 that this work had not been done. (In his paper as he had prepared it for publication in Science prior to Gallo editing it. Francoise Barre-Sinoussi et al. (including. L. Montagnier). 1983. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Science 220: 868-871 Professor Etienne De Harven has pointed out to the author that the microphotographs Montagnier produced of this virus show it as grown on birth cord lymphocytes. The 1983 paper stated: ‘These were detection of: ‘umbilical cord lymphocytes showed characteristic immature particles with dense crescent (C- type) budding at the plasma membrane...' Barre-Sinoussai et al. Isolation of T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science 1983;220: 868-71. Interview with Djamel Tahi-1997. Text of video interview with Professor Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute July 18th 1997. Continuum 1998; 5:30-34. The original French is given in a later footnote. Staff Report of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Dingell Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Popovic et al.; Science, 225, 1984, pp. 497-500. How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth The nature of scientific activity has changed dramatically over the last half century, and the objectivity and rigorous search for evidence that once defined it are being abandoned. Increasingly, this text argues, dogma has taken the place of authentic science. This study examines how conflicts of interest--both institutional and individual--have become pervasive in the science world, and also explores the troubling state of research funding and flaws of the peer-review process. It looks in depth at the dominance of several specific theories, including the Big Bang cosmology, human-caused global warming, HIV as a cause of AIDS, and the efficacy of anti-depressant drugs. In a scientific environment where distinguished experts who hold contrary views are shunned, this book is an important contribution to the examination of scientific heterodoxies. About the Author Henry H. Bauer is professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies and dean emeritus of arts and sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (Virginia Tech). The author of numerous books, including a three-volume examination of scientific heterodoxies, he lives in Blacksburg, Virginia. Paperback Publisher: McFarland & Company; Original edition (Aug 30 2012) Language: English ISBN-10: 0786463015 ISBN-13: 978-0786463015

C'est aussi dans l'expression de l'orthodoxie et de ce qui lui est de facto assujetti que l'on peut prendre l'exacte mesure de ses contradictions et de ses trompe-l'oeil.

Econoclaste, juste un petit correctif : la page de l'OMSJ reproduit un communiqué et un témoignage de Celia Farber sur son site, The Truth Barrier. Sur le site créé par Cheryl Nagel, Saverico.com, une correspondante a inséré un lien vers une pétition de séropositifs et de sympatisants qui me semble intéressante. Elle est destinée au Parlement européen et comporte une description de son objet en 11 points. Elle me paraît très pertinente, car elle se réfère par des liens à des communications scientifiques avec l'aval du National Instiute of Health américain sur des questions clé, aux points 6 (sur la PCR), 10 (sur les bases scientifiques de la déclaration choc de Montagnier) et 11 (sur la mortalité depuis l'introduction des ARV) : http://www.thepetitionsite.com/263/201/306/petition-hiv-aids/?fb_ac