 |
| Kim Bannon in AIDS Denialist film 'House of Numbers' |
No comments will are being accepted on this post out of respect for Kim and her family. An earlier post on Kim can be found here.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
No comments will are being accepted on this post out of respect for Kim and her family. An earlier post on Kim can be found here.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
The Truth, Nothing But the Truth: Celia Farber's Defamation Claim Against AIDS Activist Is Dismissed
Brendan Pierson
November 8, 2011
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Louis B. York ruled last week in Farber v. Jefferys, 106399/09, that the journalist, Celia Farber, was a public figure for the purpose of the lawsuit and that her defamation claims against AIDS activist Richard Jefferys could not survive the heightened scrutiny required for public figures.
Ms. Farber began covering the AIDS epidemic for Spin magazine in the 1980s. While at Spin, she conducted a sympathetic interview with Peter Duesberg, a professor of biology at the University of California at Berkeley who rejects the scientific consensus that AIDS is caused by HIV. Mr. Duesberg claims the disease is caused by recreational drug use, and is sometimes aggravated by antiviral drugs used to treat it. He contends that HIV is a harmless "passenger virus" and has argued that the pharmaceutical industry has suppressed dissent in order to sell antiviral drugs.
Ms. Farber continued to give sympathetic coverage to Mr. Duesberg and write skeptically of the medical establishment on the issue of AIDS, culminating in a 2006 article in Harper's, "Out of Control," in which she castigated "so-called community AIDS activists" who "were sprung like cuckoo birds from grandfather clocks." Ms. Farber and Harper's drew harsh criticism for the article. A group of doctors and activists, including Mr. Jefferys, head of the anti-AIDS Treatment Action Group, published a widely circulated 56-point refutation of the article.
In 2008, the Semmelweis Society International, an organization formed to support whistleblowers in the medical field, announced that it was going to give an award to Ms. Farber and Mr. Duesberg for their dissent about AIDS. The group said the award was prompted by the Harper's article.
After learning of the award, Mr. Jefferys sent a Semmelweiss employee an e-mail saying that Ms. Farber and Mr. Duesberg were "not whistleblowers" but "simply liars." He said he could provide numerous examples of their dishonesty, including "altering of quotes from the scientific literature, false representations of published papers, etc." This e-mail is the core of Ms. Farber's defamation suit. She said the e-mail was circulated among members of Congress and the media, that it was false and that it was intended to destroy her reputation.
Mr. Jefferys filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the lawsuit. He said the e-mail was true, and that Ms. Farber was a public figure, making her defamation claims subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny.
Justice York agreed. He noted that Ms. Farber has been writing about AIDS since the 1980s and has spoken at conferences on the subject. He also pointed to examples submitted to the court by Ms. Farber of hostile online statements made about her by AIDS activists. These examples, he said, actually hurt her case.
"Although her purpose is to show the animus of the traditional HIV/AIDS community and impugn defendants' motives in making their statements against her, it also illustrates dramatically that, to AIDS activists angry at the dissenters, Farber has a celebrity status and notoriety," he said.
"Finally, Farber acknowledges that the article 'Out of Control' appeared in Harper's magazine, which has a widespread reputation; that the publication of 'Out of Control' generated enormous attention and publicity not only for the article but for her as its author, resulting in a series of articles about both; that internationally known members of the traditional HIV/AIDS community felt compelled to publish a lengthy document refuting the contentions in 'Out of Control,'" the judge wrote.
"Thus, Farber's own complaint and the papers she submits in opposition to this motion establish that, in the limited context of issues surrounding AIDS and HIV dissenters and the question of whether HIV causes AIDS, she is a public figure," he said.
Furthermore, Justice York said, even if Ms. Farber were not a public figure, Mr. Jefferys' e-mail would be subject to a heightened standard because it involved a matter of public concern. Allowing the defamation claims to go forward would have a chilling effect on the public discourse on an important subject, he wrote.
The judge also rejected Ms. Farber's argument that the suit should go forward even under a heightened standard because Mr. Jefferys' e-mail showed gross negligence.
"Here, Jefferys relied on numerous reliable sources," the judge wrote. "Thus, Jefferys did not exhibit constitutional malice or gross irresponsibility when he relied on them and on his own prior professional research to reach his conclusions about Farber's work as a journalist in 'Out of Control' and her other writings."
Ms. Farber had focused on the word "liar" as an example of gross negligence. But Justice York said that "liar" was just an example of the heated rhetoric around the dispute, noting that Ms. Farber had used similar rhetoric herself.
"Through the various references to him and other 'so-called activists' in the Harper's piece, she strongly suggests that Jefferys and others lie, twist facts or hide data in order to remain in the good graces of the pharmaceutical companies which support them financially," he wrote. "She also accuses him of lying about whether there is a debate as to the cause of AIDS. …Indeed, in her affidavit in support of her opposition, Farber hurls accusations at Jefferys which are strikingly similar to those he has hurled at her."
Andrew T. Miltenberg of Nesenhoff & Miltenberg, counsel to Ms. Farber, said in an e-mailed statement that "We are undeterred and looking forward to appealing this important case. Ideology and belief trumped documented facts in this decision, which is precisely the matter at the heart of this lawsuit. To date, neither Harper's itself nor a single source in Farber's article have disputed her facts.
"We will continue to fight to preserve freedom of the press so that those who report true stories that are unpopular, or threaten industries, are not in a position to be professionally assassinated by the very people whose wrong-doings are exposed. This case is not about a single journalist but about the fate of journalism itself, which has been over-run by vested interests who deploy intimidation tactics to control the press."
Mr. Jefferys was represented by Joseph Evall of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. He declined to comment.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
October 31, 2011
by Peter Aldhous
Opponents of science are experts at winning the battle for hearts and minds. It’s time to learn their game and beat them at it, says Peter Aldhous
Fat chance.
In March, an impressive array of climate scientists did exactly what Holdren wanted, but their efforts seemed only to inflame the scepticism of Republicans opposed to regulation of emissions. For researchers who study how people form their opinions, and how we are influenced by the messages we receive, it was all too predictable. Holdren’s prescription was a classic example of the “deficit model” of science communication, which assumes that mistrust of unwelcome scientific findings stems from a lack of knowledge. Ergo, if you provide more facts, scepticism should melt away. This approach appeals to people trained to treat evidence as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
The problem is that in many cases, it just doesn’t work.
Perversely, just giving people more information can sometimes polarise views and cause sceptics to harden their line. “We can preach the scientific facts as long as we want,” says Dietram Scheufele, a specialist in science communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “This is replicating the same failed experiment over and over again.”
Soft science
The good news is that the latest research on communication and public opinion reveals strategies that anyone who wants political debate to be informed by accurate scientific information should be able to use to get their message across.
Indeed, given recent comments from some Republican presidential hopefuls, it may be high time US scientists put aside their own scepticism about the “soft” social sciences, and embrace what these studies have to say.
First, though, a bit of perspective. While some of the comments made recently by Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and others may seem alarming, it’s important to bear in mind the relatively narrow audience they were intended to reach.
This is presidential primary season, when candidates must appeal to the most ideologically committed voters to win their party’s nomination. When Perry invoked Galileo in contending that “the science is not settled” on climate change, it was a message crafted to appeal to hard-core Republican voters and big-money donors within the oil and coal industries – not to the majority of Americans who accept that our planet is getting warmer and that human activities are largely to blame.
In fact, few objective measures support the idea that fundamentally anti-science ideology has taken hold in the US. Scientists are generally held in high public esteem, scientific knowledge shapes up fairly well compared to other nations, public interest is high and investment in research remains healthy. “You can’t find a society that’s more pro-science,” argues Dan Kahan of Yale University. Even so, there are a few key areas of US public opinion where this picture begins to break down. People aren’t empty vessels waiting to receive information. Instead, we all filter and interpret knowledge through our cultural perspectives, and these perspectives are often more powerful than the facts. That poses a problem for some areas of science, which have come to clash with the values of a sizeable proportion of the US population.
Evolution provides the clearest example. Religion is a bigger factor in the lives of Americans than it is for citizens of most other developed countries. Evangelical Christian churches that preach literal interpretations of Genesis are especially influential. No wonder the US comes near the bottom of the pile in international surveys measuring the percentage of people who accept evolution (see “Darwin’s doubters”, p 41).
Cultural filters also explain why some social conservatives – including Bachmann – are willing to believe anecdotal reports that the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine can cause mental retardation. Here, evidence that the vaccine is effective and poses little risk is being filtered through the fear that a product designed to protect against a sexually transmitted virus will encourage promiscuity among teenage girls.
Such biases are not the preserve of the right – many of those who falsely believe that childhood vaccines cause autism are left-leaning supporters of “natural” medicine who distrust the pharmaceutical industry. But on climate change, again, it is those on the right who are butting heads with scientists.
Climate is especially interesting because polling indicates a relatively recent and strengthening ideological split on the issue (see “Divisive climate”, p 41). The most ardent sceptics are those who identify with the Tea Party movement, according to a poll run earlier this year for the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. For these voters, the cultural filter seems to be the idea that taking action to limit climate change means “big government” intervention in the US economy, anathema to staunch conservatives.
Hammering another nail into the coffin of the deficit model, Kahan’s latest survey of more than 1500 US adults indicates that far from overcoming our cultural biases, education actually strengthens them. among those with greater numeracy and scientific literacy, opinions on climate change polarised even more strongly.
Kahan’s explanation is that we have a strong interest in mirroring the views of our own cultural group. The more educated we become, he argues, the better we get at making the necessary triangulation to adopt the “correct” opinions. On issues like climate change, for most people these cultural calculations trump any attempt to make an objective assessment of the evidence. As well as explaining how intelligent and educated people come to misunderstand where the scientific consensus lies, Kahan’s work suggests a way to drag debate back towards what the science actually says: change the messenger.
Trusted voices
Kahan scores people on two cultural scales: heirarchists versus egalitarians and individualists versus communitarians. Liberals tend to be egalitarian-communitarian, while conservatives are more often hierarchical-individualist.
In one experiment Kahan examined attitudes to the HPV vaccine. When presented with balanced arguments for and against giving the vaccine to schoolgirls, 70 per cent of egalitarian-communitarians, and 56 per cent of hierarchical-individualists, thought it was safe to do so.
Kahan then attributed the arguments to fictional experts described so as to make them appear either egalitarian- communication (liberal) or hierarchical- individualist (conservative). The “natural” pairing, with an egalitarian- communitarian arguing in favour of the vaccine, and a hierarchical-individualist arguing against, drove the two camps a little further apart. But, crucially, swapping the messengers around had a dramatic effect: 58 per cent of egalitarian-communitarians and 61 per cent of hierarchical-individualists rated the vaccine as safe (Law and Human Behavior, vol 34, p 501).
These findings suggest that one way to change people’s minds is to find someone they identify with to argue the case. Climate scientists have almost certainly been badly served by allowing former Democratic vice- president Al Gore to become the dominant voice on the issue. His advocacy will Have convinced liberals, but is bound to have contributed to the rejection of mainstream climate science by many conservatives. So who might do a better job of carrying the climate message to conservative ears? Perhaps the US military, which is worried about the security implications of climate change, or senior figures within the insurance industry, who are factoring the risk of more frequent severe weather events into their calculations.
Of course, scientists themselves could step up to the plate. But their powers of persuasion may be limited. While it wasn’t always so, US scientists tend to lean heavily towards the Democrats’ camp – which helps explain why the idea of climatologists forming part of a liberal conspiracy to whip up alarm and keep federal research dollars flowing has become part of the climate deniers’ narrative.
The appeal of this story to those on the political right illustrates another key finding: how a message is framed in relation to the cultural biases of the intended recipients is crucial to its persuasiveness. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank that seeks to undermine the teaching of evolution in US schools, has learned this lesson well. After failing to get biblical creationism taught in science classes, the institute came back with the “scientific” concept of intelligent design, and two carefully researched talking points: “evolution is just a theory” and “teach the controversy”.
Not only were these frames attractive to the religious right, they were also difficult for scientists to counter without seeming to endorse censorship. Especially clever was the use of the term “theory”. To many people the word is roughly synonymous with “hunch”, so the frame did its intended job of questioning Darwinism’s credibility.
Matthew Nisbet, a communication specialist at American University in Washington DC, has long argued that scientists need to do a better job of framing (Science, vol 316, p 56). Working with Edward Maibach of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, Nisbet recently found that framing action on climate change in terms of public health benefits prompts a positive response from a broad range of Americans, including those who are ambivalent when it is framed as an environmental issue (BMC Public Health, vol 10, p 299).
Another promising frame is the idea that climate change presents an economic opportunity for the US through the creation of “green jobs”, although in recent weeks this rallying cry has been muffled by the controversy surrounding the Californian solar power firm Solyndra, which went bankrupt despite being loaned more than $500 million by the Obama administration.
Still, Scheufele is convinced that the most effective frames for communicating about climate change will ultimately revolve around economic opportunities, as concerns about the economy are usually where political debates are won and lost.
For many scientists, talk of “framing” and “selling” ideas to the public sounds uncomfortably like misinformation through the dark art of spin. This misses the point, argue advocates of framing. It’s possible to communicate accurately about science in the context of an engaging frame, they say.
New research demonstrates the value of another mode of communication that should come more naturally to scientists. Jason Reifler of Georgia State University in Atlanta and Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, tested two different ways of presenting the same information about temperature records to people who identified themselves as “strong Republicans” sceptical about human-caused climate change. One was in the form of a line graph, the other plain text.
The text had little effect, but the graph made the strong Republicans more likely to acknowledge that global warming is both real and a consequence of human activities. “Given sufficiently unambiguous graphical information, people are much more likely to acknowledge the facts,” Nyhan and Reifler concluded, in a paper presented in September at the American Political Science Association’s meeting in Seattle.
Taken together, studies of communication provide a recipe to allow science to better inform US political debate: find frames that work with broad sections of the population and stick closely to those narratives; seek allies from across the political spectrum who can reach out to diverse audiences; and remember that a graph can be worth a thousand words. While there’s little evidence the US is in the thrall of a coherent anti-science movement, the penalty for failing to follow this recipe could be the election of a president who is blind to the true scientific consensus on some of the key issues of our time.
Experience elsewhere provides a cautionary tale, argues Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut in Storrs, who studies the movement that denies that HIV causes AIDS. Thabo Mbeki’s flirtation with this movement and his refusal to endorse the use of antiretroviral drugs during his tenure as South Africa’s president has been estimated to have caused more than 300,000 premature deaths (Journal of AIDS, vol 49, p 410).
“You could very easily end up with a US president who holds unscientific views, and that could be as damaging as Mbeki was inSouth Africa,” Kalichman warns.
READ THE ENTIRE STORY @ New Scientist Magazine
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Posted: October 02, 2011
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WND
Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, two presidential candidates who sparred over the issue of Texas vaccinations, may be floundering in the polls, but the topic of Merck's controversial Gardasilis heating up – with an Austrian physician who studied the drug saying it is not only dangerous, but useless in reducing cervical cancer, the stated reason it would have been administered to young girls under an executive order from Gov. Perry.
Dr. Christian Fiala, who successfully fought the use of the drug in Austria, told WND this week "there is no proof of a causal relationship of HPV and cervical cancer (correlation is not necessarily causation) and there is no evidence that HPV vaccine reduces the overall number of cervical cancer (cases)."
'SCARY MEDICINE: Exposing the dark side of vaccines'
In an email, Fiala called the HPV vaccination plan "a money-making machine without any benefit for patients. But some inherent risks."
Officials report that there have been 17,500 or more "adverse" incident reports that have been made over the last few years because of the use of the vaccination.
Fiala, who fought the idea of vaccination with Gardasil as part of a national health standard in Austria, says he was targeted by the vaccine developers for his findings.
"The doctors involved in vaccine development submitted an official complaint ... accusing me of doing harm to the image of doctors," Fiala said. "The investigation did not go far, because I could show that I fully respect evidence based on medicine. Therefore, the investigation was closed. But it could have cost me the right to [practice] medicine. It was meant as a threat."
He said that while he was arguing over the application of the medicine, an 18-year-girl was found dead in her bed.
"She had been absolutely healthy before her death, except some central nervous symptoms in the few days prior to her death. … This happened three weeks post-HPV vaccination," he said.
Then, another girl, 16, was hospitalized with similar symptoms and was in intensive care for a week before she started recovering.
"For obvious reasons this slowed down the enthusiasm for the vaccine in Austria," he said.
As a result, the product is not greatly promoted in his country, "and it is used infrequently."
Dr. Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons also told WND that she battled Perry's plan in 2007 and 2008 to inoculated school girls.
"Our position was that this was a violation of parental rights and patients' rights, to mandate a vaccine without a really good public health reason," she said.
She pointed out that the HPV virus is spread only by sexual contact and not in routine school situations. And she said there were a lot of questions about the brand new drug, among them the direct link between the HPV vaccine and any side effects.
"It tends to worry me quite a lot if I give a shot and [a patient] drops dead," she said.
"It should be that the patient is the one to make the determination [to get vaccinated]; the state should not be demanding that little girls be subjected to this."
She told WND that it was good for the issue to be raised at the level of a presidential race, because the public needs to debate and decide such issues.
When Bachmann raised the issue,the traditional media attacked her for asserting that the vaccine could be dangerous and should not be imposed by government.
The Bachmann attack "may be hurting her considerably more than him," stated theInternational Business Times, citing her narrative about a mother who complained the treatment had injured her daughter. "Bachmann did not offer any scientific evidence to suggest there is actually a viable link between Gardasil and mental retardation."
The report said: "Of the 35 million doses of Gardasil distributed in the U.S., only about 0.05 percent of individuals who have been vaccinated have reported some kind of side effect, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mental retardation was not one of them."
The Washington Post joined the criticism, saying, "Her offense quickly turned to defense when her comments were criticized by an extremely long list of groups and people, including Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Post editorial board, Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control.
"In the wake of Bachmann's comments," the report continued, "there doesn't seem to be a rush of stories questioning the safety of Gardasil. There appears to be only one such story: a WISH-TV Indianapolis report about Zeda Pingel, whose mother claims she's suffered health problems after being vaccinated."
The Student Life publication at Washington University accused Bachmann of making verbal gaffes.
"The virus itself is the most common sexually transmitted infection. According to the Centers for Disease Control, some 50 percent of sexually active American adults will contract HPV during their lifetimes. HPV is a very real problem, and this vaccine can help prevent its spread.
"With women comprising half our population, that this claim, which can do nothing but hurt women's health, was made is concerning," the publication said.
Some 17,500 individuals have suffered side effects such as Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Bell's Palsy and even death.
In the debate, Bachmann said Perry's act was "a violation of liberty interests."
"We cannot forget in the midst of this executive order, there was a big drug company that made millions of dollars because of this mandate," she continued. "Is it about life or about millions of dollars for a drug company?"
Perry said the donation from the vaccine maker, Merck, was only $5,000, and he was insulted if Bachmann was suggesting he could be "bought for $5,000."
"I'm offended for all the little girls who didn't have a choice. That's what I'm offended for," she responded.
Neither the Bachmann nor the Perry campaigns returned WND requests for comment.
But critics of Perry point out that the vaccine is supposed to address a disease only transmitted by sexual activity, and the issue isn't the mundane, clinical argument that Gardasil supporters portray.
At the What Doctors Don't Tell You blog, a campaign called Truth About Gardasil was highlighted.
"What they are not telling you is that thousands of girls are having adverse reactions to the HPV vaccines, some have even died – at last count, at least 103 lives have been lost. We have got to do something about this. These girls need our help! These girls are having reactions such as; seizures, strokes, dizziness, fatigue, weakness, headaches, stomach pains, vomiting, muscle pain and weakness, joint pain, auto-immune problems, chest pains, hair loss, appetite loss, personality changes, insomnia, hand/leg tremors, arm/leg weakness, shortness of breath, heart problems, paralysis, itching, rashes, swelling, aching muscles, pelvic pain, nerve pain, menstrual cycle changes, fainting, swollen lymph nodes, night sweats, nausea, temporary vision/hearing loss just to name some of them!"
Actually, the government itself has documented deaths from reactions to the vaccine, although the total doesn't match the blog's claim of fatalities.
Anecdotally, the government's documents confirm:
The case of a 19-year-old woman who was given Gardasil and reported, "Headache, nausea, dizziness, chilling, tiredness, shortness of breath, complained of chest pain, severe cramps." She died of "acute cardiac arrhythmia."
A 13-year-old girl was vaccinated and, 10 days later, developed fever. According to federal reports she "did not recover and was admitted to the hospital. … She developed dyspnoea and went into a coma … she expired [that day]."
And a 10-year-old developed "progressive loss of strength in lower and upper extremities almost totally ... nerve conduction studies [showed Guillain-Barre syndrome]." The case was considered "immediately life-threatening."
Those reports have been monitored over the years byJudicial Watch,a Washington watchdog corruption fighter, since the drug's approval by the Food and Drug Administration
"To say Gardasil has a suspect safety record is a big understatement. These reports are troubling and show that the FDA and other public-health authorities may be asleep at the switch," Tom Fitton, president of the organization, told WND when the death and injury reports were arriving.
Judicial Watch launched a comprehensive investigation of Gardasil's safety record in 2008 after the drug's manufacturer,Merck & Co., began a major effort to lobby in state legislatures to impose requirements that girls be given their product.
It was in 2008 when Judicial Watch obtained documents from the FDA documenting "anaphylactic shock," "foaming at mouth," "grand mal convulsion," "coma" and "now paralyzed" descriptions of the complications from Gardasil. The company wanted it to be mandatory for all schoolgirls.
The federal reports document some three dozen deaths in the United States, although an activist organization claims there have been almost 70 deaths, nearly 800 "serious" reactions and thousands of minor reactions.
Merck spokeswoman Jennifer Allen Woodruff told WND that the drug addresses a medical need, that of reducing the rates of HPV.
She said it has been approved widely around the world, with 120 countries having examined and approved its use.
"Nothing is more important to Merck than the safety of our vaccines and those who use them," she said. "The facts about Gardasil are clear and its efficacy and safety … were established."
She declined to say that Merck had not lobbied state lawmakers for laws that would force the vaccine on children and families, instead offering that the company focused on lobbying efforts regarding the "potential school requirements" in some states.
She said the company's goal was simply to provide information to those who made such decisions.
However, the vaccine has had a few bumps. Agence France-Presse reported in 2009 that Spanish authorities withdrew tens of thousands of doses of the vaccine when two teen girls were hospitalized.
In the United Kingdom, an investigation was launched after two young girls died following their injections of the drug.
And the Daily News and Analysis from India said the Indian Council of Medical Research suspended a cervical cancer control vaccination program for girls after four deaths and complications for 120 more.
The Truth about Gardasilhas launched a videocalled One More Girl that publicizes "questions" about Gardasil's safety.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The AIDS Denialists are planning their World AIDS Day conference. If you are in Washington on December 1, you should drop by the Washington Court Hotel. In case you find it hard to believe that anyone in 2011 questions the existence of HIV, seeing these guys is believing. Here is the latest announcement that Rethinking AIDS emailed to potential attendees. Remember, this is not a joke, at least it is not meant to be a joke.
UPDATE: As discussed in comments below, the AIDS Deniers have cancelled their 2011 Rethinking AIDS conference.
So sad.
The reason is obvious --
a clash of delusions.
The AIDS denier camps are fighting, again. There is a battle between those who say HIV does not exist (Perthians) and those who say HIV exists but is harmless (Duesbergians).
I am not sure why they just don't have a denialist debate? What are they afraid of? I would be happy to sponsor the debate and host it on this blog.
Any takers?
Have a few minutes for some mindless entertainment? Visit the Rethinking AIDS page in Facebook.
******************************************************************
99% of the world believes that HIV causes AIDS and quickly death, that HIV is sexually transmitted and that lifelong treatment with AIDS drugs is necessary.
We, at Rethinking AIDS, are the 1% who have the evidence that this is false. Join us at our December 1-3 Rethinking AIDS 2011 conference in Washington DC.For further details and information, please visit www.ra2011.org
Program
The conference will start with the keynote speech, "The Racist Face of HIV/AIDS", by Neville Hodgkinson, former Sunday Times science reporter. Neville was once a fervent promoter of mainstream views but, once he started considering the evidence, adopted the opposite viewpoint, eventually costing him his job. Click here to see the full programUPDATE: As discussed in comments below, the AIDS Deniers have cancelled their 2011 Rethinking AIDS conference.
So sad.
The reason is obvious --
a clash of delusions.
The AIDS denier camps are fighting, again. There is a battle between those who say HIV does not exist (Perthians) and those who say HIV exists but is harmless (Duesbergians).
I am not sure why they just don't have a denialist debate? What are they afraid of? I would be happy to sponsor the debate and host it on this blog.
Any takers?
Have a few minutes for some mindless entertainment? Visit the Rethinking AIDS page in Facebook.
******************************************************************
99% of the world believes that HIV causes AIDS and quickly death, that HIV is sexually transmitted and that lifelong treatment with AIDS drugs is necessary.
We, at Rethinking AIDS, are the 1% who have the evidence that this is false. Join us at our December 1-3 Rethinking AIDS 2011 conference in Washington DC.For further details and information, please visit www.ra2011.org
Program
Screening
Another highlight of RA2011 will be the North American premiere of "Positively False: Birth of a Heresy" by Joan Shenton and Andi Reiss. Joan is well known for the documentaries she made for major British channels in the 1980s and 1990s, eventually causing her to be blacklisted. Click here to learn more about this documentary
Speakers
There will be two full days of educational sessions on Friday December 2nd and Saturday December 3rd with participation from well known AIDS rethinkers like Duesberg, Rasnick and Giraldo as well as new voices like MDs Matt Irwin and Nancy Banks, breastfeeding advocate Marian Tompson, and long term survivor of the diagnosis, Raul Ehrichs de Palma. Click here to see all speakers
Free Session
If you know someone in the Washington DC area who could benefit from this information but might be reluctant to pay for the conference, suggest that they register for the free, two-hour, pre-conference session led by Rethinking AIDS president David Crowe, former Virginia Tech dean Dr. Henry Bauer and Nancy Turner Banks, MD.
Event details: December 1-3, 2011 | Washington, DC | Washington Court Hotel
Friday, October 14, 2011
You recently wrote a letter to Dr. Kalichman requesting his expertise in HIV Criminalization Cases. You made this request for the prosecution, even though you speciously claim to work for the defense. Would you consider this to be an ethical request? If you wish to be accepted as a serious, respected, criminal justice professional, a letter with such childish pandering does not bode well for your credibility. It is not only unprofessional to taunt a man credentialed and well respected in his field, it also gives you the appearance of a bully. It is also a waste of Dr. Kalichman’s precious time.
Strategy & Slander
First you mention the so called strategy of OMSJ. Your stated strategy in the letter is to go over the medical and scientific evidence to be used by the prosecution and “render opinions as to whether they have sufficient evidence or not.” That is the only truth I have ever seen you write. You admit that what you are offering is opinion; speculation; conjecture. How could you offer an educated opinion when you do not accept the current, accepted science of HIV? Or when you do not have the necessary education or experience to render a valid opinion? This obvious oversight on your part is not lost on logical, mentally stable people.
However, the true strategy as stated at your OMSJ site is to perpetuate an agenda of “HIV Science as incoherent gibberish”. You state that “HIV tests are worthless” and that “HIV tests are designed to do nothing more than market HIV as a disease.” You accuse HIV Scientists, Researchers and Doctors as being “Pharma Sluts” and anyone else who disagrees with you as “meth trannies.” How can you make these ridiculous, unsubstantiated and libelous accusations and expect to be taken seriously?
Specific Slander of Dr. Kalichman
In your letter to Dr. Kalichman, you write: “As you know, OMSJ has been extremely impressed by your knowledge and expertise in the field of HIV and AIDS.” And yet there are several examples of your extreme libel and slander of Dr. Kalichman at all 3 of your websites. In July of 2010 you wrote at your Ex-Liberal site that “Professor Kalichman is paid $17 Million Dollars to write (this blog), Denying AIDS and to write harassing emails.” That proves not only your insincerity, but your complete disregard for the truth.
Contradictions VS Proof
The contents of your letter were also contradictory as well as lacking in substance and facts. For example, you claimed that OMSJ has “been involved in several dozen cases since 2009.” However, you only list 28 cases at your OMSJ site not 36. Where are the other 8 cases, Mr. Baker? You also falsely profess a glowing success in “every case that defense attorneys have worked with OMSJ.” I have an entire website in which I meticulously document the truth behind those cases you list at OMSJ. Even though you merely list the name of a defendant and a link to an original news article of the arrest, I have spent a great deal of time documenting case numbers, court documents, attorney records, correspondence with attorneys and court clerks as well as current news articles specific to the outcome of the case. Here is a true summary of why charges were dropped in 8 of your 28 cases:
Charges Dropped Due to Precedent Established in Previous Case
1. Shan Ortiz
2. Darren Chiacchia
Charges Dropped Due to Defendant Testing HIV Negative on ELISA
1. Jose Alex Perez
2. Daniel Hay Lewis
3. Shan Ortiz - this defendant was also shown to be mentally unstable and did not commit the crime of molesting a child. Also, the physical examination of the child confirmed the child was not molested.
Plea Deals - Both Defendants Convicted; Received Incarceration and Fine
1. Cordlin Comer - This was a plea deal. The first time the plea was offered, the defendant turned it down "waiting for medical records". Once they received the medical records proving the defendant was indeed HIV+, the defendant accepted the exact same plea deal, not a reduced plea. One charge was dropped (and the defendant married that accuser who also gave birth to their child).
2. Jerome Walker - HIV Tests proved the defendant was HIV+. He was convicted of 2 of 4 charges and 2 years of confinement.
Attorney Confirmation via email
1. Daniel Allen - Attorney James Galen sent me an email verifying that Baker lied about being "instrumental" in this case. Mr. Galen went on to confirm Mr. Baker not useful at all.
All of these cases prove definitively that you have lied about at least 8 cases that you claim “complete success”. Several of these cases have charges dropped as a direct result of the very science and HIV Tests you claim to be fraudulent and worthless. How do you accommodate for those facts? Detailed information about these cases can be found at the HIV Innocence Project.
How else will you chose to embarrass yourself, Mr. Baker? How about coming clean and provide some transparency? How about providing specifics as to exactly how you have helped each case? How about providing some information about your staff of experts and attorneys? Or is OMSJ just one man perjuring himself with phony affidavits?
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Posted on October 1, 2011 by Stone Hearth News
ANN ARBOR, Mich. and WASHINGTON, Sept. 30, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — More than one-quarter of Americans are concerned about the value and safety of vaccines and 21.4 percent believe vaccines can cause autism, according to the Thomson Reuters-NPR Health Poll.
Thomson Reuters and NPR conduct the monthly poll to gauge attitudes and opinions on a wide range of health issues.
In the latest survey in the series, 26.6 percent of respondents expressed concern over the safety of vaccines. Households with children under the age of 18 demonstrated the greatest level of concern (30.8%). The lowest level of concern (18.5%) was found in respondents 65 years old and up.
Among those with concerns, 47.3 percent attributed their fear of vaccines to future long-term impact on health and 46.0 percent said they were worried about side effects.
Nearly one in five said they have questioned or refused a vaccine for themselves or their children — with a higher rate among those under 35 (28.1 percent) and a lower rate among those 65 and older (12.7 percent).
When asked about specific safety concerns, 21.4 percent of respondents said they believe vaccines can cause of autism, 9.2 percent said they believe vaccines can be linked to cancer, 6.9 percent believe they play a role in diabetes, and 5.9 percent cite a connection between vaccines and heart disease.
Overall, 24 percent of respondents said their opinions of vaccines have changed in the past five years. Of those, 59 percent say their views on vaccines have become less favorable.
“Ironically, these survey results are a testament to the effectiveness of vaccines: older people remember what illnesses like polio did to cripple and kill patients, but the younger generation has never seen someone with polio,” said Raymond Fabius, M.D., chief medical officer at the healthcare business of Thomson Reuters. “Because of the elimination of diseases through immunization, there is a lack of understanding that the benefit of vaccines greatly outweighs the minimal risks of side effects both short and long term.”
For a copy of the vaccine survey results. click here
To date, the Thomson Reuters-NPR Health Poll has explored numerous healthcare topics, including generic drugs, abortion, vaccines, food allergies, and organic and genetically modified foods. NPR’s reports on the surveys are archived online at the Shots health blog here.
The Thomson Reuters-NPR Health Poll is powered by the Thomson Reuters PULSE(SM) Healthcare Survey, an independently funded, nationally representative telephone poll that collects information about health-related behaviors and attitudes and healthcare utilization from more than 100,000 US households annually. Survey questions are developed in conjunction with NPR. The figures in this month’s poll are based on 3,011 participants interviewed from August 1-16, 2011. The margin of error is 1.8 percent.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
On the national stage of presidential primary politics, Rep. Michele Bachmann is ranting that the HPV vaccine can cause permanent damage to children. The HPV vaccine is safe and over 99% effective in protecting against HPV - the cause of genital warts and linked to cervical cancer. Uptake of the vaccine is already low, with less than 1 in 3 US teenage girls being vaccinated. Coverage is worst among minorities and low income kids. 6 million people are diagnosed with HPV each year, and 12,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer. Her misinformed and irresponsible comments will likely do damage to public health, at least among those few who see her as credible.
Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause ‘mental retardation’
The Washington Post
Posted by Rachel Weiner at 11:02 AM ET, 09/13/2011
The Washington Post
Posted by Rachel Weiner at 11:02 AM ET, 09/13/2011
After piling on Texas Gov. Rick Perry in last night’s presidential debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is continuing to attack the 2012 frontrunner for mandating that young girls get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.
Perry has apologized for the mandate, saying it was a mistake. One of his former top aides had gone on to become a lobbyist for vaccine-maker Merck & Co. and pushed the governor for an executive order.
Social conservatives argue that the vaccine, which protects against a sexually-transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer, encourages promiscuity. Perry’s decision has already riled up conservative activists; it might be Bachmann’s best hope to win back those voters.
Post-debate, the Minnesota congresswoman sent out a fundraising appeal on the issue with the title “I’m Offended.” In interviews after the debate, she suggested that the vaccine could do permanent damage.
“There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine,” Bachmann said on Fox News. “She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences.”
Bachmann repeated the allegation on the “Today Show” this morning, adding, “It’s very clear that crony capitalism could have likely been the cause, because the governor's former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company.”
And she’s getting support from a sometime-rival, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. "You have to go up against the big guns," Palin said on FOX News last night. “And they will try to destroy you, when you call them out on the mistakes that they have made.” The phrase “crony capitalism” is one Palin used in a speech in Iowa last weekend and repeated last night.
The Center for Disease Control notes on its website that less than one percent of recipients reported “adverse events” after receiving the vaccine. Of those, 8 percent were “serious adverse events” — including Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare neurologic disorder that causes paralysis and muscle weakness, not mental problems. According to the CDC, “There has been no indication” that the vaccine “increases the rate of GBS above the rate expected in the general population, whether or not they were vaccinated.”
But Bachmann clearly thinks she’s found a powerful line of attack against Perry, whose entrance into the race helped precipitate her fall in polls.
Perry has apologized for the mandate, saying it was a mistake. One of his former top aides had gone on to become a lobbyist for vaccine-maker Merck & Co. and pushed the governor for an executive order.
Social conservatives argue that the vaccine, which protects against a sexually-transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer, encourages promiscuity. Perry’s decision has already riled up conservative activists; it might be Bachmann’s best hope to win back those voters.
Post-debate, the Minnesota congresswoman sent out a fundraising appeal on the issue with the title “I’m Offended.” In interviews after the debate, she suggested that the vaccine could do permanent damage.
“There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine,” Bachmann said on Fox News. “She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences.”
Bachmann repeated the allegation on the “Today Show” this morning, adding, “It’s very clear that crony capitalism could have likely been the cause, because the governor's former chief of staff was the chief lobbyist for this drug company.”
And she’s getting support from a sometime-rival, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. "You have to go up against the big guns," Palin said on FOX News last night. “And they will try to destroy you, when you call them out on the mistakes that they have made.” The phrase “crony capitalism” is one Palin used in a speech in Iowa last weekend and repeated last night.
The Center for Disease Control notes on its website that less than one percent of recipients reported “adverse events” after receiving the vaccine. Of those, 8 percent were “serious adverse events” — including Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare neurologic disorder that causes paralysis and muscle weakness, not mental problems. According to the CDC, “There has been no indication” that the vaccine “increases the rate of GBS above the rate expected in the general population, whether or not they were vaccinated.”
But Bachmann clearly thinks she’s found a powerful line of attack against Perry, whose entrance into the race helped precipitate her fall in polls.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Jon Gold
September 11, 2011
Before I begin, I would like to say that theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you’re not being given answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason these answers aren’t being given is “sinister” in nature. As Ray McGovern said, “for people to dismiss these questioners as “conspiratorial advocates”, or “conspiratorial theorists”… that’s completely out of line because the… The questions remain because the President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT.” When you think about everything the previous Administration did in 8 years, the idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of something “sinister” is not crazy. In fact, it’s the most logical conclusion one can come to at this point. After years of obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.
That being said, we have not proven it beyond the shadow of doubt. We do not have documentation that shows they planned it. We do not have a signed confession from someone. We have pieces of the puzzle, and to most of us that have been doing this a long time, those pieces point to more than just Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 19 hijackers. If we could somehow download all of our knowledge to every person on the planet, this fight would be over tomorrow. However, we can’t do that. I wish we could. I wish the media would DO THEIR JOB. But, they’re not. Therefore, we have to be smart with how we approach people. This is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.
As I have often said, we don’t need to come up with a narrative (theory) because our facts speak for themselves. I am going to do my very best to prove my point. A lot of these facts are from mainstream news outlets. Yes, they do report the news, but they DO NOT put the pieces together, they DO NOT ask the tough questions over and over again until they get an answer, they DO NOT give these facts the attention they should, reminiscent of the attention that Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, The Swift Boat Veterans and the “Ground Zero Mosque” got, and they DO NOT portray us in any other light except as “Conspiracy Theorists.”
[See Posting for a discussion of 50 'Facts]
There are so many facts concerning the 9/11 attacks, that it is impossible to know them all. People like to laugh at, and mock our theories (that we all have) concerning the events of 9/11. However, they have a difficult time with the facts. I hope that I have proven my point.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I am convinced some elements within our Government, and others were complicit in the attacks of 9/11. As you can see above, the information that exists today clearly points in that direction. We have pieces to the puzzle, and we KNOW who refuses to give up the other pieces. However, as I said, this is America, and in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. Let’s have a real investigation, be it a domestic or international one, and do what can only be described as the right thing. Holding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, whoever they may be, accountable. It is long overdue. Justice has never been more needed. The perverse usage of that day can no longer continue. It is time to take away the “9/11 Card,” and let those poor 2,973 souls finally rest in peace.
Friday, September 9, 2011
 |
| Clark Baker with the late Karri Stokely (died of AIDS after refusing treatment) |
If you have experienced discrimination due to your HIV status, I recommend that you contact a legitimate legal aide group, such as the HIV/AIDS Law Project or a state organization such as AIDS Law Project Pennsylvania. To learn more about what Clark Baker is up to, particularly the 'cases' he mentions below, visit The HIV Innocence Project Truth.
***********************************
Professor Kalichman:
As you know, OMSJ (Office of Medical and Scientific Justice) has been involved in several dozen criminal HIV cases since October 2009. Our strategy is simple – we ask prosecutors to produce all of the medical and scientific evidence that they plan to use against the accused. We then examine the evidence and render opinions as to whether they have sufficient evidence or not.
In every case that defense attorneys have worked with OMSJ, prosecutors have been forced to significantly reduce or drop all HIV-related criminal charges. Not only is there no evidence that competent physicians have tested and diagnosed their patients, but prosecutors can’t find credible HIV experts who are willing to testify about HIV and AIDS under oath and under penalty of perjury. You’d think that after thirty years as humanity’s biggest existential threat, someone would know somethingabout the testing, treatment and diagnosis of HIV. Sadly, we can’t find any credible experts.
As a trained HIV/AIDS expert, you know that looks very bad. Those pseudo-experts blather all day long about AIDS and HIV but the moment they’re forced to tell the truth in a real courtroom, they recoil like vampires in church. And when asked about their sudden bashfulness, they are as indignant as chocolate-faced six-year-olds who are asked about the missing chocolate cake.
As you know, OMSJ has been extremely impressed by your knowledge and expertise in the field of HIV and AIDS. Because of this, we’d like to forward your name and copies of your CV to prosecutors who are handling our criminal HIV cases. As hopeful as we’ve been to secure a criminal trial, prosecutors are simply giving up when we’re involved. As strange as it seems, the only wins they’ve enjoyed since 2009 have usually occurred in small towns where the accused (usually black men) were defended by white lawyers whose families attend the same schools and ice cream socials as the prosecutors and judges. These lawyers usually say something like we don’t need your services. The next thing you know, their client is goes to prison.
So please let me know if you or Mrs. Kalichman would like to testify as AIDS experts. Prosecutors don’t pay as well as Tony Fauci, but think of the prestige that comes with being a leader in your field. With your help, they might start winning cases. BTW, can you ask Dr. Fauci if he wants to testify as an expert too?
On another note, how many people have written to you complaining about “denialists?” Your list must be getting very long. Let us know if you require any investigative assistance. We’re trained and licensed to do that too.
Cheers!
Clark Baker CPI #26869
PO Box 1507
Studio City, CA 91614-0507
(323) 650-6667
(323) 656-3909 (fax)
www.OMSJ.org
CWBPIØ1 (Skype)
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Why Washington DC? Rethinking AIDS says "It was the Washington National Capital area at Robert Gallo's infamous press conference in April 1984 that the infectious theory of AIDS took hold, just before patents were filed and a month before any science had been published. The National Capital area is also home to the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD) that provides the bulk of AIDS research funding in the USA and globally. Washington, DC also has a very large black population and sizable gay community, both of which are targets for AIDS medications. Washington is also the seat of the American government that is a leading promoter of the fear of HIV and AIDS around the world and the consumption of toxic antiretroviral drugs as the dominant means of addressing both treatment and prevention."
The conference is organized by Canadian freelance conspiracy theorist David Crowe, "a science critic and writer based in Calgary, Canada. He has a [Bachelors] degree in biology and [another Bachelors'] mathematics and has written extensively on HIV/AIDS, failures of modern medicine and telecommunications. He was one of the founders of the Green Party of Alberta, and is president of Rethinking AIDS and the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society." David Crowe has also written extensively as a contributor to cancer screening and treatment denial as well as climate change denial.
Who will you see present at this conference?
Peter Duesberg will address major contradictions between HIV/AIDS statistics as measured in Africa and the classical bell-shape epidemic of an infectious disease.
Charles Geshekter will demonstrate how endemic poverty in Africa explains the fabricated AIDS epidemic, and how simple methods to improve health, rather than condoms and toxic pharmaceuticals, can address the real causes of immune deficiency and disease on the continent.
Who will you see present at this conference?
Peter Duesberg will address major contradictions between HIV/AIDS statistics as measured in Africa and the classical bell-shape epidemic of an infectious disease.
Charles Geshekter will demonstrate how endemic poverty in Africa explains the fabricated AIDS epidemic, and how simple methods to improve health, rather than condoms and toxic pharmaceuticals, can address the real causes of immune deficiency and disease on the continent.
David Rasnick will explain how the book Disciplined Minds revealed to him the nature of his experiences with colleagues, who exhibited shock, anger and departure when exposed to discussions of flaws in the HIV/AIDS dogma.
Henry Bauer will talk about how HIV/AIDS is not Unique: It Exemplifies the State of Contemporary Medicine
Roberto Giraldo will explain how oxidative stress is a major factor in explaining both positive HIV tests and the various syndromes called "AIDS".
Who will be missing from the conference?
Kim Bannon, outspoken supporter of Rethinking AIDS, suffering from late stage AIDS
Henry Bauer will talk about how HIV/AIDS is not Unique: It Exemplifies the State of Contemporary Medicine
Roberto Giraldo will explain how oxidative stress is a major factor in explaining both positive HIV tests and the various syndromes called "AIDS".
Who will be missing from the conference?
Kim Bannon, outspoken supporter of Rethinking AIDS, suffering from late stage AIDS
The late Karri Stokely, Rethinking AIDS activist, died of AIDS April 2011
The late Emory Taylor, Rethinking AIDS enthusiast, died of AIDS March 2011
The late Lambros Papantoniou, Rethinking AIDS enthusiast, died of AIDS 2009
The late Rex Poindexter, Rethinking AIDS enthusiast, died of AIDS
The Late Christine Maggiore, Rethinking AIDS activist, died of AIDS December 2008
The late Eliza Jane Scovill, daughter of Christine Maggiode, died of AIDS at age 3
The Late Christine Maggiore, Rethinking AIDS activist, died of AIDS December 2008
The late Eliza Jane Scovill, daughter of Christine Maggiode, died of AIDS at age 3
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Peter Duesberg continues to claim that HIV is a harmless passenger virus that cannot possibly cause AIDS. Although AIDS Denialists rely on Duesberg to spin their alternative universe, Duesberg himself has most recently been focused on cancer. He says that cancer, all cancer, is caused by environmental toxins/carcinogens, an idea dating back to Theordor Boveri in 1914 . Duesberg's assistant, David Rasnick, even claims that the HIV medication AZT causes cancer. Duesberg and Rasnick state that there are no genetic bases for cancer - none!
Peter Duesberg points to Aneuploidy - the abnormal number of chromosomes that are characteristic of cancer cells - as the cause, rather than an effect, of cancer. The article below published in The Scientist discusses important new discoveries that identify the genetic causes of Aneuploidy.
If we know anything about Peter Duesberg it is that the genetic evidence will not change his mind. The bad news is that Duesberg's failed ideas on cancer may be just as destructive as his nutty stand on AIDS. David Rasnick, David Crowe and other Denialists claim that cancer screening is a scam and cancer chemotherapy does not work. They use Duesberg's fringe science to bolster their claims. The article in The Scientist, which does not mention Duesberg, helps to keep people informed. A follow-up article is needed to correct the misinformation spread by Duesberg and his Denialist followers. Chromosomes and Cancer
By Jef Akst | August 18, 2011
Aneuploidy—when the cells of an organism contain more or fewer than the standard number of chromosomes for its species—is found in greater than 90 percent of all human cancers. But how exactly it relates to cancer, and whether it is a cause or merely a consequence of genomic instability, has long been a mystery. Two new studies published today (August 18) inScience show that it’s probably both, pointing to a gene defect that can cause aneuploidy, and elucidating the disastrous effects of aneuploidy on a cell’s genome.“Aneuploidy is found in virtually all cancers, yet very little is known about its origins or its effects,” said a cancer biologist Bert Vogelstein at Johns Hopkins Medicine, who was not involved in the research. “These two papers provide some really excellent clues to what’s going on.”
The first paper, from Todd Waldman’s group at Georgetown University School of Medicine, identifies a potential cause of aneuploidy—a gene that encodes a protein subunit of the cohesin complex, which plays a key role in correctly separating sister chromatids during cell division. An MD/PhD student in Waldman’s lab, David Solomon, was examining brain tumors for missing genomic regions when he stumbled upon a sample that was missing the gene STAG2. He then looked at a dozen or so other brain tumors and found that several of them were similarly not expressing STAG2.
The first paper, from Todd Waldman’s group at Georgetown University School of Medicine, identifies a potential cause of aneuploidy—a gene that encodes a protein subunit of the cohesin complex, which plays a key role in correctly separating sister chromatids during cell division. An MD/PhD student in Waldman’s lab, David Solomon, was examining brain tumors for missing genomic regions when he stumbled upon a sample that was missing the gene STAG2. He then looked at a dozen or so other brain tumors and found that several of them were similarly not expressing STAG2.
“And then we expanded our study to a variety of other tumor types and found that inactivation ofSTAG2 was actually quite common in a diverse range of human cancers,” Waldman said. Specifically, the team found evidence of mutated or missing STAG2 in some 20 percent of brain tumors, 20 percent of melanomas, and 20 percent of Ewing’s sarcomas, a pediatric tumor.
To see if this gene defect could indeed lead to the aneuploidy characteristic of the tumor cells they were examining, the researchers repaired STAG2 in two brain tumor lines, and found that the cells subsequently became less aneuploid. The cell populations showed less variation in the numbers of chromosomes they carried, and in some cases, the actual chromosome number was reduced, bringing it closer to normal. Conversely, when the team induced a STAG2 mutation in otherwise normal cells, the cells almost universally gained a chromosome. “I think that this work, together with some previous work, strongly implicates the inactivation of cohesin in general as a cause of aneuploidy in cancer,” Waldman said.
The second study looked at the consequences of aneuploidy. Geneticist Angelika Amon of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and her colleagues had already shown that aneuploidy puts stress on the protein quality control pathways of the cell. “When you now have an extra chromosome or multiple extra chromosomes, all of a sudden thousands of proteins are imbalanced, and the cell has to deal with that,” she explained. “But we wanted to know if these protein imbalances could cause stress on the genome maintenance functions of the cell.”
So Amon and her team created haploid yeast cell lines with a single additional chromosome, and examined the cells for signs of genomic instability. Sure enough, the aneuploid yeast lines showed increased chromosomal instability, increased mitotic recombination, and increased structural abnormalities, such as those caused by double-strand breaks in the DNA. “Aneuploidy impacts basically all genome replication and segregation functions,” Amon said.
Exactly how an abnormal number of chromosomes causes such instability is unclear. One possibility is that having too many copies of a particular gene or set of genes increases the chance of genomic disruption. Or, the stress that results from the imbalance of protein levels overall could somehow lead to genomic instability. Additionally, it could simply be the increased number of chromosomes that causes the problem.
“I think the Amon paper emphasizes this, that cells with grossly abnormal numbers of chromosomes have some level of chromosome instability just by virtue of their abnormal chromosome count,” Waldman said. “When cells are in a state of aneuploidy, their mitotic machinery gets somewhat confused by the abnormal chromosome count and that perpetuates the instability.”
These results were obtained in haploid yeast cells, however, which is “a fairly reductionist model system,” said cell biologist Duane Compton at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, who did not participate in the study. “So the overall implications for human cancer are really not entirely clear.” Human cells, for example, have mechanisms that guard against such genomic chaos, such as the tumor suppressor protein p53, which signals the cells to stop dividing once the genome gets to be in such disarray.
Still, “I find the observation very, very interesting,” Compton said. “Waldman is showing that there’s a single gene mutation that causes aneuploidy. Amon is saying if you’re aneuploid, you get all sorts of other genomic changes. Taken together, the grand implication is that mutation of one single gene can be responsible for all sorts of instability seen in tumors, which to me is extraordinary.” Clearly there are some holes to fill in—namely whether aneuploidy will similarly cause genomic instability in mammalian cells, he added, but “if that were true, it would be hugely powerful.”
Sunday, August 21, 2011
A simple, inexpensive, non-toxic cure for AIDS that has no negative side-effects has been described by Pacini and Ruggiero at the 6th International AIDS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (Rome, 17-20 July 2011).The basic mechanism involves stimulation of the immune system which increases CD4 counts and corrects CD4/CD8 balance, in “HIV-positive” people and also in HIV-negative people.
Recall that AIDS was discovered and defined in the early 1980s as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the immune deficiency being specifically a loss of CD4 cells. Later the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defined AIDS as being “HIV-positive” with a CD4 count below 200. Therefore an increase of CD4 above that level constitutes reversion of AIDS to non-AIDS.
Note in particular that Pacini and Ruggiero obtained increases in CD4 counts
of several hundred in a few weeks whereas the claimed benefits of anti-retroviral therapy cite increases of only about 90 per year.
That a healthy immune system can withstand HIV has also been emphasized by Luc Montagnier, co-discoverer of HIV, on several occasions. Two decades ago, it was shown in Montagnier’s laboratory that in fact HIV alone is harmless to immune-system CD4 cells but that the latter may be damaged by a mycoplasma that appears to be often present in some patients.
The immune-system stimulation described by Pacini and Ruggiero appears to act in a similar fashion as yogurt-type bacteria that are among (or are similar to) the beneficial microflora found in healthy guts. This work therefore confirms the intestinal dysbiosis hypothesis of Tony Lance which explains why “AIDS” first appeared as Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, restricted to fast-lane gay men, and why gay men still tend to test “HIV-positive” more frequently than others.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his skepticism about climate change one step further on Wednesday, telling a New Hampshire business crowd that scientists have cooked up the data on global warming for the cash.
In his stump speech, Perry referenced "a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their projects."
"We're seeing weekly, or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what's causing the climate to change," Perry said. "Yes, our climates change. They've been changing ever since the earth was formed."
It isn't the first time Perry has accused climate scientists of fibbing. ThinkProgress' Brad Johnson reported on Monday that in Perry's book, Fed Up!, the governor calls climate science a “contrived phony mess.”
Among his fellow GOP presidential contenders, however, Perry's views are not so extreme.
Herman Cain has called the very premise of climate change "a scam," while former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has referred to it as nothing more than a "trend," accusing the left of "taking advantage" of it by creating "a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm."
Back in 2009, meanwhile, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) argued on the House floor that the very concept of global warming is faulty because “carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of nature!"
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has also become increasingly skeptical of climate change. In a 2009 interview with Fox News, he said, "the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming."
As for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), it's hard to say what he believes. In 2008, he appeared in an ad alongside then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urging the country to address climate change. Since announcing his 2012 candidacy, Gingrich has walked back those views, but that hasn't stopped his fellow climate deniers from hitting him over the flip-flop.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy earlier this summer, telling a crowd of 200 in Manchester, N.H. that humans are at least somewhat responsible for climate change.
"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he said at the town hall this June. "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."
Green advocates' best hope within the GOP presidential field may lie with former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Huntsman has been an outright proponent of the need for climate action, going so far as to sign his state up for a regional cap-and-trade program when he was in office. In 2009 he called Republicans' failure to address climate change at the national level "immensely frustrating."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
