And going to the university and the University of Florence in particular, it came out that Professor Ruggiero – that’s myself – was in absolute terms the Best Professor in the Entire University... and not only in biology and medicine but overall, concerning all the professors of the entire university" - Dr Marco Ruggiero, Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of Florence.

"Derrida's method consisted in demonstrating the forms and varieties of this originary complexity, and their multiple consequences in many fields. He achieved this by conducting thorough, careful, sensitive, and yet transformational readings of philosophical and literary texts, to determine what aspects of those texts run counter to their apparent systematicity (structural unity) or intended sense (authorial genesis)."
- Wikipedia: Jaques Derrida (and also copy-pasted to 2,520 other websites)

"I have long ago given up looking at anything from Snout... He has no credentials at all to discuss the things he talks about, yet feels free to denigrate a long-established, peer-reviewed Italian journal, and highly competent, even distinguished scientists and scholars. If anyone prefers to take his opinion rather than mine, I think that shows rather poor judgement in view of the curriculum vitae posted on my website and the anonymity and missing C.V. of Snout…"

- Henry H. Bauer. Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Science Studies and Dean Emeritus of Arts and Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

"House of Numbers" - dishonest and unscrupulous misrepresentation of Montagnier

LYING ABOUT LUC MONTAGNIER and misrepresenting his statements is a favourite pastime among the HIV/ AIDS denialists – for the Perth Group, for example, it’s almost a full-time occupation. Montagnier is a serial target because English is not his first language, and he often doesn’t pick up when he is being led to make statements that are perfectly sensible in the context he’s intended them, but which can be edited and shoehorned into appearing to support a denialist agenda.

As well, while his fundamental views on HIV as the cause of AIDS are entirely conventional, he also advocates some hypotheses that are less well supported by evidence, such as a possible role for antioxidant supplementation in reducing susceptibility to HIV transmission, and as a possible adjunctive treatment for HIV disease - in addition to antiretrovirals – particularly among malnourished populations.

So it is no surprise that one of the chief promotional tools of Brent Leung and the House of Numbers production team was to take an interview with Montagnier, carefully edit it, misrepresent his statements and trumpet this all over the net, not only on his own House of Numbers sites (including Facebook) but also on other HIV/AIDS denialist sites like the Lew Rockwell right-wing "libertarian" conspiracy site and Mike Adams’ quack site Natural News.

And when Leung gets challenged on this misrepresentation, what’s his response? To post another edit of the interview and misrepresent some more.

Leung is no newcomer to HIV/AIDS denialist wingnuttery. In 2000 he was listed as the director for a documentary project to publicise the "theory" propounded over the internet by Boyd E. Graves and his followers that HIV was the product of a secret US government biological weapons program. Graves also pushed the idea that HIV/AIDS could be cured by injecting the patient with the swimming pool disinfectant tetrasilver tetroxide. Apparently this simple "cure" was being hidden by a vast conspiracy. 

Sadly, Graves died in 2009 of AIDS despite making extensive use of his "cure".

Canadian-born Brent W.Leung, appears to be serially gullible when it comes to reading self-evidently barking mad claims on the internet. He combines this superficial aw-shucks naivete with an evasiveness which is more suggestive of of calculating dishonesty. For example at a question and answer session reported by Boston-based gay magazine Bay Windows, he was less than forthcoming when asked who funded his film:
"During a post-film question-and-answer session held before the panel Leung claimed that his film took a neutral stance on the question of what causes AIDS. He declined to say which side he represents.
""The purpose of the film is to present a broad range of ideas, and those ideas are for you, the audience, and for scientists to take and to create a catalyst for more discussion," said Leung.
"One audience member asked Leung who funded the film, noting that Leung seemed to have a large budget for travel. Leung declined to name the sources but described them as a group of "funders from all over the world." When Bay Windows later asked him if most of his funders supported the viewpoint of AIDS denialists, Leung claimed that they did not."
Neutral independent film maker Brent W. Leung, who
 denies that House of Numbers was substantially funded
by the HIV/AIDS denialist organisation whose
members are featured in it.

Of course, while Leung has been trying to present himself as an "neutral" film maker "just asking questions" it is obvious that the film has its ideological and financial origins with the internet-based HIV/AIDS denialist group Rethinking AIDS. For instance, the minutes of the June 11th 2006 meeting of the board of RA records:
"Bob Leppo (the principal financier of RA) moved that RA board authorities authorize the RA foundation to make grants for a wider range of purposes, including films and video. Seconded by Charles Geschekter...
"Robert Giraldo moved that the RA foundation make grants for Brent Leung's film based on available funds (Leppo's money). Seconded by Christine Maggiore. Unanimous agreement..."
 (Hat tip to Anthony Brink)

And they were true to their word. According to the 990-PF filed by Rethinking AIDS for 2006 to the IRS, $25,000 was paid to a recipient by the name of "Brent W. Leung" for the purpose of "AIDS documentary funding". 

SO WHAT IS IT THAT MONTAGNIER said that has the denialists indulging in this orgy of triumphalist mendacity? Here’s the full transcript of the latest edit, together with some explanatory commentary in red:

Leung: You talked about oxidative stress earlier. Is treating oxidative stress one of the best ways to deal with the African AIDS epidemic?
Note the vagueness of “deal with the African epidemic”. Is Leung talking about treatment for those already chronically infected with HIV, or is he talking about ways of slowing down the rate of transmission? Note also that this is a segment culled from a much longer interview.

Montagnier: I think this is one way to approach, to decrease the rate of transmission,
Montagnier is talking about treating oxidative stress as one way of reducing the chances getting chronically infected with HIV following an exposure
because I believe HIV we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected, our immune system can get rid of the virus within a few weeks,
ie in the few weeks between exposure and possible seroconversion.
if you have a good immune system;
LM is a little vague about what constitutes a “good” immune system here
and this is the problem also of the African people. Their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV; so their immune system doesn't work well already.
well, this is perhaps a questionable generalisation about "Africans" and their immune systems
So it's prone, it can, you know, allow HIV to get in and persist.
Again, Montagnier make it clear that he is talking about the factors that lead to persistent or chronic infection following exposure
So there are many ways which are not the vaccine, the magic name, the vaccine, many ways to decrease the transmission just by simple measures of nutrition, giving antioxidants -- proper antioxidants -- hygiene measures, fighting the other infections.
Here LM is voicing his frustration at what he sees as the excessive attention paid to the vaccine (which we don’t have yet) as the main preventive, at the expense of more mundane and less "spectacular" preventive measures which do exist, and which do work to reduce HIV transmission.
So they are not spectacular, but they could, you know, decrease very well the epidemic,
ie, the rate of new chronic infections with HIV
to the level they are in occidental countries, western countries.
Well maybe, but the factors that have resulted in the relatively high numbers of HIV infections in Africa are probably more complex than that...

A small but important point: the subtitling on this clip has Montagnier saying, "our immune system will get rid of the virus..." when in fact he says "can".

Leung: So if you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?

Montagnier: Yes.
He has just been talking about a “good immune system” being one of the variables that allow a person to clear the virus in the first few weeks following exposure, before seeding of the lymphoid organs and chronic infection is established. This is obviously what he thinks Leung’s question refers to.

Leung: Oh, interesting. Do you think we should have more of a push for antioxidants, and things of that nature, in Africa than antiretrovirals (AIDS drugs)?
Leung presents a false dichotomy between ARVs and other measures. He also seems to be subtly shifting the topic from prevention of chronic infection (what Montagnier has been talking about throughout the interview segment) possibly to treatment. Montagnier doesn't pick up this sleight of hand, as is clear from what he goes on to say

Montagnier: We should push for more, you know, a combination of measures
LM rejects the false dichotomy, and emphasises that multiple approaches are needed to reduce HIV transmission
antioxidants, nutrition advice, nutritions, fighting other infections -- malaria, tuberculosis, parasitosis, worms -- education of course, genital hygiene for women and men also, very simple measures which [are] not very expensive, but which could do a lot.
Montagnier is reiterating his comments in his first answer, which addressed the question of prevention of chronic HIV infection, not its treatment
And this is my, actually my worry about the many spectacular action for the global funds to buy drugs and so on, and Bill Gates and so on, for the vaccine. But you know those kind of measures are not very well funded, they're not funded at all, or they are, you know, it really depends on the local government to take charge of this, but local governments they take advice of the scientific advisors from the intelligent institutions, and they don't get this kind of advice very often.
Again, Montagnier is voicing frustration at what he sees as neglect of the basic public health measures already proven to reduce the incidence of new HIV infections in favour of more expensive and "spectacular" approaches.

Leung: Well there's no money in nutrition, right? There's no profit.

Montagnier: There's no profit, yes. Water is important. Water is key.
And indeed it is, especially for reducing mother to child transmission in third world settings

Leung: Now one thing you said, you were talking about the fact that if you have a built [indicates his pectorals] immune system, it is possible to get rid of HIV naturally.
during the “few weeks” following the exposure and before seroconversion to HIV positive status, but not after chronic infection is established

If you take a poor African who's been infected and you build up their immune system, is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it?

Montagnier:  I would think so.
Montagnier is clearly talking about them “naturally getting rid of it” in the few weeks post exposure. This is what he has been talking about throughout this segment. It doesn’t occur to him that Leung is suggesting that Africans (why only Africans?) might be able to clear the virus following the establishment of chronic infection. Not realising that Leung is a denialist, he takes for granted that everyone knows that following seroconversion for HIV, the infection is permanent.

Leung: That's an important point.

Montagnier: It's important knowledge which is completely neglected. People always think of drugs
well, to be fair, it hasn't been "completely neglected". But perhaps Montagnier is right to point out an excessive emphasis on post exposure prophylaxis and reducing the infectivity of HIV positive partners
and vaccine.

Although this film clip is promoted as "uncut" and "unedited" on some websites, there is some obvious and less than seamless editing at this point. In the interim Leung's microphone has been switched off, and a surprised-looking sound recordist can be seen in the background pulling off his headphones and starting to pack up his equipment. This last section is culled from awkward post interview banter, not the body of the interview itself. So what "this message" refers to is not clear.

Montagnier: So this is a message which may be different from what you heard before, no?

Leung: The closing?
Leung is apparently referring to the "closing" section of the interview, which has been edited out of this clip.

Montagnier: No, no, yes, my message, it's different from what you heard from Fauci or...
Here he seems to be having a dig at Fauci for apparently favoring drugs and vaccine as preventives rather than more basic public health approaches to preventing HIV infection he thinks are being neglected

Leung: Yes, it's a little different.

Montagnier: Little different.

And what does Leung say Montagnier is talking about?

“Professor Luc Montagnier, 2009 [sic] Nobel Laureate for the discovery of HIV, reveals his views on the treatment of HIV and its relationship to nutrition and profit with House of Numbers documentary Director, Brent Leung. The clip includes footage not previously seen in the documentary.”
No he doesn’t! He is not talking about the treatment of HIV disease, he is quite clearly talking about ways to decrease the transmission as he makes absolutely clear from the very start of this section. What Leung does in the exchange is subtly shift his questions to the topic to treatment of established infection, without Montagnier realising that he’s changed the subject. This is dishonest and reprehensible on Leung’s part. You could argue that perhaps Leung didn’t understand what Montagnier was saying in the heat of the interview, but the footage has gone through hours and hours of editing and careful perusal that were required to produce this repulsive piece of disinformation.

The House of Numbers production and promotion team and their supporters are intentionally trying to deceive HIV positive people, and twisting the words of a respected scientist to make this case. Their intent becomes clear when you read the comments of supporters. For example, Mike Adams on Natural News informs his readership:
"The pharmaceutical industry operating today is largely a cabal of unindicted criminals who are guilty of crimes against humanity, and one of their favorite methods of multiplying their profits is to push a disease, then sell a vaccine they claim "treats" the disease. It's the same old scam, whether we're talking about cervical cancer, swine flu or even AIDS.

"Getting back to Brent Leung and his film House of Numbers, when the AIDS-pharma promoters saw his film, they knew they had to attack the messenger and try to discredit him as quickly as possible. So they claimed Leung quoted the scientists in the film out of context, thereby distorting what they were saying. In particular, Leung was attacked for his interview with Dr. Luc Montagnier, the Nobel Prize-winning co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, who explained to Leung during the interview that AIDS can be overcome (cured) with nutrition, and that the vaccine approach is entirely overblown."

- Shocking truth about AIDS exposed on World AIDS Day with “House of Numbers” un-cut footage
Or Celia Farber, who tries to make out that Montagnier's words are some kind of "mea culpa" - a confession that HIV, the virus - for whose discovery he shared the Nobel with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi in 2008 - is not the cause of AIDS:

"It’s “World AIDS Day,” and although I despair of this impossible subject, I submit that with this concession from Montagnier, the war is as good as over. It has reached mass public saturation and we can’t wait around forever for the “orthodoxy” and its obedient “media” to admit complete, shattering defeat. Brent Leung’s multi-award winning documentary House of Numbers has penetrated mass public awareness beyond that all previous reportage combined, mine included, since 1987, ever managed to do."

[...] "Read the comments on Health Ranger’s video-blog and start imagining a world where no citizen is abused, accused, fired, harassed, or labeled, as Michael Specter said recently, “homicidal” for saying the same thing the discoverer of what came to be known as “HIV,” says clearly and openly: HIV is not deadly. Oxidative stress, malnutrition, poverty, toxic assaults, and many other things conspire to create illness–not a sexually transmissible retrovirus."

- Montagnier’s Mea Culpa: A Healthy Immune System Can Handle HIV
Farber, of course, appeared in the film as an interviewee. She tells us, "This word AIDS, I don't know what it is any more," implying that she once did - which is doubtful - and appears mouthing a handful of similar inanities. But according to her own words she was more than just a spokesmouth whose vacuous pronouncements were used to punctuate the film. As she writes to Val Turner and Eleni Papadopulos when they tax her on her "Montagnier's Mea Culpa" article:
“Why are you lecturing me about supporting Brent? I did. I do. That caused your irritation as well, as everything I say or do or don't say or don't do does. I am on good terms with Brent and I helped him a whole lot on his film and I am proud of his success. Stop creating problems.”
Or self-described "investigative journalist" Liam Scheff, who is also cast as a commentator in the film, who demands on the Nashville Scene film critic’s blog:
Ask yourself what Luc Montagnier is talking about, when he talks about improving the immune system of AIDS patients, in order to help them ‘get rid of the virus,’ and recover
“That is, if debate is ALLOWED regarding the AIDS industry. Is the AIDS Industry honest? Is it even remotely honest?”
Or Anthony Liversidge , who tells us that:
"...Montagnier freely admits, indeed even emphasizes, that anyone with a healthy immune system has nothing to fear from the so called AIDS virus, which will be quickly defeated by the immune system."
Liversidge's precise role in the House of Numbers production is not clear. Like Farber and Scheff he tells us he was interviewed for the film (although he doesn't appear in the final cut) and has actively promoted both the whole film and the Montagnier segment in his Duesberg-adulation website Science Guardian. He insists that:
"Brent Leung was and is open to all comers and new information on any aspect of this topic, and in no way did he start his film as some kind of propaganda exercise peddling anti-science."
Which is an odd thing for Liversidge to say, given that he was present at the June 2006 meeting in which the RA board voted to fund the film.

But the prize for most creative misrepresentation of Montagnier’s words must go to “Valendar”, a commentator on the film blog of the Tennessean which carried a positive "critical review" of the film written by someone called Arienne Holland. Now, Adrienne Holland is not a film critic. She describes herself as a "communications manager" for a Nashville outfit called Raven Internet Marketing Tools . In other words, she's paid to write advertising copy for her clients and try to get it out on the net. 


The original piece Holland wrote has since died of embarrassment on the Tennessean and now gets a 404 message along with its attached comment thread, but fortunately “Valendar’s” wisdom has been preserved here :
“FROM Valendar @ the Tennessean Blog:
“Luc Montagnier says “we can be exposed to HIV many times without getting chronically infected. Our immune system can get rid of the virus in a few weeks, if you have a good immune system”. So Montagnier is telling us people are getting infected all the time but shrugging it off as long as they have a healthy immune system. But any HIV expert will tell you by the time the person is HIV positive, (antibody positive, the only proof experts accept), HIV has insinuated itself permanently into the host DNA. From where nothing can get it out. Once infected, always infected. However, according to Montagnier, if your immune system is unhealthy, you can fall prey to HIV. Which is putting the cause (HIV) after the effect (immune deficiency). If you put all this together, a person who looks after his/her immune system could have sex with every HIV positive person on the planet and never get infected. Is this the message Professor Montagnier wishes to convey?”
Now Snout is not suggesting for a moment that the author of this bit of inspired sophistry - this particular blog commenter called “Valendar” - has anything to do with any of the major players in the HIV/AIDS denialist movement. It’s obviously just a coincidence that another “Valendar” appears prominently in HoN.  But what’s interesting is that Henry Bauer  has picked up the theme, alluding to
“Luc Montagnier’s view that HIV is a consequence and not a cause of immunedeficiency
(Hat tip to the December 15 2009 comment below from Fulano de Tal)

IN ESSENCE. WHAT MONTAGNIER SAYS is actually quite unremarkable.

There are multiple well-identified factors influencing the likelihood that a given exposure to HIV will result in chronic infection (HIV positive status). Treating concomitant infections, particularly genital ulcer disease is vital. Good hygiene, including condom use and even circumcision have been proven to reduce transmission. Clean water is Public Health 101, particularly for preventing the diarrheal illnesses of children that increase their susceptibilty to HIV infection. Calling for better education and awareness to help prevent HIV infection is not exactly "paradigm-busting". Bedrock basic public health measures that “are not spectacular, but they could, you know, decrease very well the epidemic”.

Montagnier says, quite rightly, that “we should push for more, you know, a combination of measures” to “decrease the rate of transmission”, and while a safe, effective, affordable vaccine is the holy grail for the prevention and even possible eradication of any infectious disease, the fact is we don’t have one yet, and we need to focus on whatever methods we do have to stop people getting infected, because preventing people getting infected is actually more effective than trying to treat the disease the infection causes.

STOP THE PRESSES!! Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier thinks that preventing people getting infected with HIV is a Good Thing. Furthermore, he reckons that the best way of achieving this, particularly in high incidence populations, is to use "a combination of measures."

Well, there goes the Paradigm.

Where Montagnier wanders off into his own particular interest is in his views about the importance of nutrition (particularly antioxidants) in supporting the immune factors that can prevent an exposure to HIV progressing to chronic infection. He clearly believes that widespread malnutrition may be a factor in reducing people's resistance to developing chronic HIV infection following exposure to the virus, and is thus is a significant factor in the way the HIV epidemic has progressed in sub-Saharan Africa compared to elsewhere. There may be some truth to this, but not a great deal of evidence – the factors involved in southern and eastern Africa’s epidemic are complex and include the particular prevalent subtypes of HIV there (particularly subtype C, which appears to transmit more easily from female to male during vaginal sex), lack of testing and awareness of HIV status, perhaps poor infection control in some medical and quasi-medical settings, other diseases which facilitate HIV transmission, widespread migration for work and its disruption of traditional social structures and sexual mixing patterns, stigma and secrecy, lack of access to treatment, etc, etc.

But to get back to the HoN team's fundamental dishonesty – they are telling HIV positive people that Montagnier claims they can clear their infection through diet. And to judge from the highly selected feedback on Leung’s Facebook page there are individuals - including some who say they have been diagnosed with HIV - who are falling for this spin. The intended message of HoN is not only dishonest - it poses a direct threat to health.

To tell HIV positive people and even people with AIDS that they can clear their infection through diet is a lie – a cruel and negligent lie – from an utterly unscrupulous filmmaking team and the pseudoscientists who financed them.


EXTRA: Not directly relevant to Montagnier's views on HIV as the cause of AIDS, but it looks like Post Nobel Syndrome has carried off yet another victim:

Oh dear.

Dear oh dear oh dear.


Seth Kalichman said...

The real problem is that Montagnier will probably not take corrective action. I doubt he will ever release a statement of outrage. The vast majority of scientists ignore AIDS Denialists. They just do not see them as worth the time. They are also apt to believe that if they ignore denialists the denialists will fade away. They see them as harmless nut cases.

The good news is that Montagnier is no Mullis. He is actually sane. So you wont see him floating about repeating the same excerpts in different interviews, different contexts.

The AIDS Deniers will continue to exploit the House of Idiots snips of Montagnier, we can be sure of that. But it wont be long before it becomes tired old hat, just like everything else in the AIDS Denialist archives.

Seth Kalichman

Anonymous said...

Yes, Snout, you are quite correct in your analysis of the Montagnier interview. First, given that it's only 3.5 minutes long, I find it very hard to believe Leung's statement that it's the "complete interview". My own interviews with him lasted about one hour, and there were two of them. He requested the second interview because he said he specifically wanted to discuss AIDS denialism with me, stating that he was opposed to AIDS denialism, thought it was wrong and dangerous, and wanted me to go on camera to speak out against it and help fight it. My mistake was believing him........ (other scientists' interviews also lasted around an hour, by the way, so, like I say, did Montagnier REALLY speak for only 3.5 minutes?).

It's clear what Montagnier is getting at in the clip. He just doesn't express himself very fluently. It's well known in AIDS science circles that Montagnier speaks poorly in English - it's not that he can't be understood, more that he doesn't phrase his thoughts very coherently at times. That's very exploitable by someone like Leung.

Of course clean water is an important element of public health in Africa nowadays. It's well appreciaeed by some international and funding agencies. Montagnier recognizes that, and rightly so. As well as a general influence on health, one specific problem in the HIV field that is associated with dirty water is the difficulty in providing formula milk to HIV+ women as a substitute for breast feeding that may well transmit the virus. Formula feed, although far from perfect, would help here, but not if there's no clean water to reconstitute the powder!

Of course nutrition is important. Emaciated, sick people are less able to deal with pathogens than well-fed, healthy ones. Who would find that controversial? It's clear what Montagnier is getting at.

And Montagnier is clearly referring to work on sexually exposed HIV-uninfected people who MAY sometimes have localized mucosal HIV infections that are eliminated by the immune system (or just "fizzle out") before they can break out into the draining lymph nodes and the bloodstream, and thereby cause an irreversible, systemic infection. These "occult infections" are also being studied in the macaque vaginal and rectal transmission models. The science here is far from fully understood, and some aspects of it are quite controversial within the field (particularly the nature of the immune responses that may be involved in keeping the infection local, and not systemic). Montagnier knows enough about this work to comment on it, although not with any great fluency. I suspect that what he means is that people with superior immune systems are more likely to be able to prevent a mucosal infection from going systemic. On a superficial level, I would not disagree, although like I say, this is not settled science within the field.

Incidentally, although, several years on, I don't recall all of my interviews with Leung, I'm pretty sure I covered these particular topics with him, at his request. I wonder why he has not released clips of MY answers to such questions? Could it, perhaps, be that I, a native English speaker, answered fluently and in a way that he could not abuse? Perish the thought!

John Moore

Anonymous said...

Possible cures of HIV infection found and ignored!

I don’t want to engage in the sterile discussion of whether HIV causes AIDS. HIV has to be eradicated once and for all, whether is harmless or not!!!! What puzzles me is the lack of media attention and apparent inaction by the public and private funders, NIH and Gates foundation included, when possible treatments leading to eradication of HIV are apparently ignored. I’m talking about the excellent research of Dr. Sundir Paul and Dr. Nobuto Yamamoto.
Dr. Paul is a great scientist who discovered the so called abzymes: monoclonal antibodies with catalytic activity. He also discovered a portion of the HIV virus that does not mutate and thus, is perfect for therapeutical intervention. Dr. Paul received 30 million dollars for his research during more than 20 years and now the NIH doesn't have 2.5 million to do the clinical trials? Strange!! What is wrong here and why is the medical and research communities not shouting loud about this? We should remember that in the Thai trial more than 100 million were spent to test two vaccines that hadn’t work individually in previous trials! This is analysed in detail in the following article on Newsweek:


Why does he have to raise privately money when all his lifetime he was well funded by public money? This is hard to understand considering that Dr. Paul has a completely different approach that the conventional one to tackle the problem of HIV therapeutics. Completely different from the strategies that already failed.

The other big discovery in the medical field is the GcMAF from Dr. Nobuto Yamamoto. If the results Dr. Yamamoto published in the scientific literature are true, he’s is without no doubt a living legend and the person and the most important contributor to progress of medicine in all eras. Dr. Yamamoto claims that CANCERS and HIV can be CURED by restoring minute quantities of a macrophage activating factor in the body. No more no less!! The problem is that nothing seems to be done to start clinical trials soon. When we would think that all health authorities, NIH and NCI managers and private organizations, such as the gates foundation, would be jumping and trying to rush the start of clinical trials, what we have is absolute silence! The work os Dr. Yamamomoto on Cancer and HIV can be seen here:





Truly impressive, actually the most impressive research of all times if true and nothing seems to be done to confirm Dr. yamamoto’s results!

Both researches promise to end HIV and the need for the terribly poisonous drugs, something that has not evolved significantly in the past 13 or 14 years. Packging 3 poisonous drugs together is not a big progress. I see it more as a marketing strategy!

Anonymous said...

In my previous post the links do not appear. You can access Dr. Yamamoto's on pubmed at


and search for

gcmaf yamamoto

The first 4 paapers are the most important!!

jtdeshong said...

I also watched the entire video and was amazed at how much emphasis they are putting on this.
Let's say some people can clear the virus easily. The main point is, others do not and therefore do become chronically infected and many of those die without medication. Those who do not become chronically infected are not at risk for AIDS. Period.
I can only speak from my experience, and based on that I disagree with Montagnier. When I became infected, I was at my most healthy. I was 30 years old and living in S. Florida and working out 5 to 6 days per week, eating well, spending much of my time at the beach swimming and having fun. I was very happy and healthy at that time, and I do not see why my immune system would not have been at it's peak!
It's crazy what these denialists tend to focus on. Much of it is just illogical and makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

Dear jtdeshong,

I agree that many have to be on meds to keep their immune system functional. But you certainly agree that the best way to restore the immune system is by getting rid of the virus!! I guess that is what you want for yourself. This is where the amazing research of Dr. Paul comes in. It's beyond me to judge why the NIH, FDA, etc are not supporting Dr. Paul in moving quickly to clinical trials. If you want to have a good chance of eradicate the virus pretty soon and have a full life without toxic drugs and very serious side effects you can directly support Dr. Paul. After all President Obama was able to raise considerable sums of money from normal citizens. Just keep in mind these two links:



An email from CIF appeared on the internet:

"Our goal is to conduct a FDA Phase I trial for this promising HIV Vaccine. This Phase I trial will cost approximately $2.5 million and likely involve 20 HIV+ people. We expect that this Phase I trial will demonstrate the safety and potential that abzymes hold for eradicating HIV.

In 2 months, Covalent Immunology Foundation has raised over $50,000, or about 2% of the total cost of the trial. We are excited by this amazing start and we believe that this Newsweek article will help publicize CIF's fundraising approach as well as illustrate the groundbreaking potential of abzyme technology.

CIF is also in the process of forming an important partnership with a clinical research organization (CRO) to conduct the Phase I clinical trial at a sharply reduced rate.

Please continue to support us by sending this article to your friends today for World AIDS Day, and spread the word about the only HIV Vaccine candidate with the potential to protect against every known genetic variation of HIV."

Sincerely Yours

Anonymous said...

I am not an AIDS denialist, but I can assure you that Dr Sudhir Paul's work is total crap. There's a very good reason the NIH won't fund this garbage. It's called the peer review system in action.

Anonymous said...

Then there is something totally wrong with the peer reviewing process!! It took them more than 20 years and 30 million dollars to find out!! Couldn't the reviewers have stopped the process earlier? Or we must then conclude that the peer reviewing process is in the hands of incompetent people!! It took them 20 years and almost 30 million dollars to find out! Where is the problem then? Did the problem manifested in cell cultures or in mice? If not is OK to proceed right? Did somebody try to replicate Dr. Paul’s results and proved that they were faked? Never found any paper dealing with that!

Fortunatelly, others like Prof. Montefiori think that the same old approaches will never work. Maybe some people are not interested in a cure or eradication or whatever we call it of HIV. Who nows!!! For me ALL approaches that reach good results in animal models should be allowed to proceed to phase I trials. If we can afford to spend 100 million dollars in a trial of two ineffective vaccines (when tested alone) then we can certainly fund 20 proof of concept trials like the one suggested by Dr. Paul.

Why are the peer reviewers so interested in protecting the tax payers money now when before Dr. Paul's was lavishly funded? This is the fundamental question! Did they see the light only now?

Anonymous said...

hi, this is all off message for this thread, but whatever. the problem is not with the peer review system, it's caused by irresponsible scientists like sudhir paul and a few others who talk their projects up in the press and give hiv-infected people false hope of a cure. Not every lab based project pans out well enough to justify clinical trials when there's no hope of success. some scientists are not objective about their work. they talk the data up and run to the press and the patient community for support when peer review says no to them. if his approach was TRULY promising, there's NO WAY the nih or the gates people wouldn't support it. But INDEPENDENT assessments don't say the same thing as sudhir paul does about his work. that's WHY there are independent review systems - to allow OBJECTIVE reviews of the prospects of a proposal.

i'm sorry if your hopes of a cure get raised by reading newspaper stories like the ones sudhir paul pushed into the press. he was selfish, cruel and irresponsible, and it's really bad that you and other HIV+ people get your hopes up. A cure for AIDS is a long way off. but world class scientists are working hard on it. the best scientists are not the ones who blow off in the press, they are the ones who just get on with their jobs and do their very best. there's a conference, the annual "HIV Eradication meeting" in a couple of weeks time where the best scientists meet and review progress on SERIOUS efforts to make a difference. you'll not read much about it in the press, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. empty vessels make the most noise. But the best work is done quietly until there's something to say.

i hope this helps you. i'm sorry, again, if your hopes get raised by a few manipulative scientists.

ex-Hollywood Liberal said...

That's rich - someone who is to embarrassed to identify himself as something other than Snout attacks someone who asks questions... Now that Montagnier has expose you goons for what you are, it's fun to watch you all scurry like ants.

So who ARE you, Snout? What's your expertise in all of this?

Anonymous said...

Re Baker saying - What's your expertise in all of this?

This from a man who when interviewed recently admitted that he didn't know what a retrovirus was, didn't know the difference between HIV and other viruses, and said he couldn't define AIDS, excusing himself by saying "I'm only a private investigator, not a scientist".

All this moron does is act as Celia Farber's bit of rough stuff who attacks people he doesn't like.

If anyone wants to know more about this racist, sexist, homophobic, ultra right wing, disgraced ex traffic cop, go and take a look at the AIDS Truth page that exposes him, and also material on Seth Kalichman's Denying AIDS Blogspot.

jtdeshong said...

Congrats, Snout, Clark Baker posted at your site!!
Hey Baker, notice how your comment was NOT MODERATED eventhough it is hateful, stupid and off topic?

Snout said...

Who's this "Clark Baker" dude, Todd? Should I have heard of him?

Sounds like a poorly-written character in a Z-grade pulp fiction novel.

I try to take a light touch to comment moderation, basically because when denialists get the urge to post here they kind of moderate themselves on the "enough rope" principle. Also, I can't really be bothered.

Over the past year the only one I've ever had to moderate here has been Michael Geiger (and his legion of imaginary friends), and even then only when he does something really really dumb like try to jam a thread by posting 27 or more copies of the same abusive comment one after the other.

"Stupid, hateful and off-topic" I can deal with, Todd. This is, after all, the internet.

But is there any reason I should pay any attention at all to this Clark-dude?

Anonymous said...

That's rich, Snout. Someone who's too embarrassed to share his own ID asks an aging heterophobic fag-hag who lives in his mother's basement about someone who actually accomplished something with his life. Are you an HIV scientist, Snout?

Snout said...

Anonymous, I don't give a rats who you are, but do you recognise the irony of you demanding someone post their personal details on the internet while you comment as "Anonymous"?

Short answer is I'm not interested in using the net as a tool for self promotion or self revelation. If I was interested in that I would do it in real life, not here.

Some people do choose to use the net in that way, and that's fine by me if that's what they want. But that's not my style. I realise this is totally incomprehensible to some people, and they imagine I must either be a plant paid by the pharmaceutical industry, or have some other hidden agenda. Again, I don't give a rats about people's paranoid fantasies. People imagine all sorts of stuff.

Fact is, I'm here to discuss an issue that I care about and which I think is important. Either what I say makes sense in itself or it doesn't, irrespective of whatever claims I might make or not make about myself, or what you might choose to imagine.

So enough about me - how about dealing with the issue, which is about how the HoN team have deliberately misrepresented a well known scientist, and the bizarre promotional campaign that has grown up around that deliberate deceit?

Because that's what I find interesting, and this is my blog. If you want to talk about me then please go elsewhere. Start up a thread on AME or something.

jtdeshong said...

I love the hypocrisy of the denialists when the badger Snout for using a moniker all the while posting "anonymously"! Yet they do it over and over!
Also, I love, love LOVE how they keep trying to tear me down and all they "have on me" is that I (supposedly) live with my mother!!
God, Snout, you are right, they do hang themselves with rope which they weave themselves!
We really need more formidable foes, don't cha think?
Also, had I not jumped into this fray so trusting and naively, I never would have used my own name, and I think others should not use their names. Not unless they want to be stalked, threatened and have their enemies try to get them fired from their jobs!
I am proof positive that these denialists will stoop to any low down, disguisting tactic to hurt someone they are afraid of! I have proven too often that I understand their patholocial psychology and will continue to expose them no matter what they throw at me personally!!
As Kathy Griffin said to Barbara Walters: "Bring it, Bitch!"

Anonymous said...

Seth Kalichman said...

"The real problem is that Montagnier will probably not take corrective action. I doubt he will ever release a statement of outrage."

Could that be because he stands by what he says? unlike others who back pedalled quickly when it appears they have said something "off message"

Or perhaps his English is just so bad he wont understand the statements he made. Now that one ranks up there with AZT is good for you.

Anonymous said...

Seth Kalichman said

"The AIDS Deniers will continue to exploit the House of Idiots"

Yes, we will.

Anonymous said...

I've been reading the traffic, Snout. It looks a lot like you have a little group that complains a lot. Wouldn't it be easier if you and your gay friends just gave posted the proof that they want? Your whining makes you all seem very petty. When I first read your blog i thought that you probably have a point. But now its starting to look like you have alot of excuses. If you're right and they are wrong, why complain about the movie? Im starting to believe that your complaints are designed to make excuses for your lack of proof. Can't you simply post the evidence that they want and get it over with, or do you wankers like the company?

Snout said...

Hello Anonymous.

As you can see, the "dissidents" are quite free to post here if they wish. If you read the comments above you can get a pretty good idea of the quality of "dissident" arguments. You will note that not a single one of them makes even the slightest attempt to engage substantively with the content of the post - or with anything else of substance, for that matter. Gee, I wonder why.

As anyone who has read a lot of threads of this nature will realise, I am often perfectly happy to engage with dissidents on their substantive claims or answer their "genuine" questions where I can.

In fact I had quite an enjoyable and fruitful exchange with a dissident called Dan Jones on youtube over the past three or four days, with about eight back and forth comments each discussing the points raised by the Montagnier interview featured in the clip.


In the last day or two, the owner of the House of Numbers youtube channel, who I understand to be one Brent Leung deleted the whole discussion between Dan and myself.

"Dissidents", including Brent Leung, often play wide-eyed innocents "just asking questions" and then try to claim that their "questions" go unanswered.

They are lying, and Brent Leung is one of the biggest liars of the lot.

Sorry, Brent. Cute mugging and cheezy grins won't get you out of this one, sunshine.

Chris Noble said...

While you are at it Snout, why don't you just give those people who are asking questions about the collapse of the World Trade Centre the evidence that they've been asking for. And surely if there is evidence that man landed on the moon then you could shut up those persistent skeptics who keep on asking those ever so innocent questions about the Apollo missions.

Anonymous said...

Snout said:

In the last day or two, the owner of the House of Numbers youtube channel, who I understand to be one Brent Leung deleted the whole discussion between Dan and myself.

"Dissidents", including Brent Leung, often play wide-eyed innocents "just asking questions" and then try to claim that their "questions" go unanswered.


Yes. In the film, you will notice that when he has a questions, such as "How, exactly, did the public health authorities in a certain country, determine which several of the dozens of HIV testing protocols to put together for diagnosing HIV infection in their country?" He does not go to the people in the public health department who evaluated the various combinations of tests and made the choice. Instead he asks a lab technician.

On the contrary, when he does interview people who know a lot about testing, and why it makes a lot of sense for different countries to use different criteria, he does now ask questions aimed at finding out what the rationale is or was.

Nearly everything in denial-land is backwards. When they claim they never get answers, what they really mean is they did not like the answers they got, so they will keep asking the same question until they find someone, no matter how excentric that person is, who gives them an answer they like. The logic they use to show that antiretrovirals cause AIDS, is the same logic that shows that ambulances cause automobile accidents. I know lots of people who drive cars and are fine, but the 3 that have had rides in ambulances all crashed their cars and got hurt.

Anonymous said...

Snout - I read your arguments and theirs. Both sides make sense. What does not make sense is Montagners video admission that HIV can be cures with good hygeine, clean water and nutrition but that the drug companies can't make a profit without innoculations and pills. The other thing is the proof that Clarke Baker keeps asking for. Would'nt it be easier to post the proof he seeks rather than convince people like me that he is a denialist? I've read his bio and seen his photographs and documents that he posted. He doesn't look or sound crazy and he makes good arguments while you, Dr Kalishman and some others insist he is a denialist. To the uninitiated reader, it looks more like you are the denialist. So if you have proof, post a link so that everyone can see it - otherwise you look like nothing more than bollux.

As for me being anonymous, I've read too many stories about how you people attack others. I have a nice home and a good job and I have never met anyone who has HIV or AIDS. I don't want your friends harassing my family or employer. I just want answers if you have them.

Snout said...

"What does not make sense is Montagners video admission that HIV can be cures with good hygeine..."

Is Montagnier talking about curing HIV positive people of their HIV infection or is he talking about the factors that he thinks increase the probability that an exposure will result in someone becoming HIV positive in the first place?

Snout said...

To put it more simply, Anonymous, when Montagnier is talking about "our immune system... get[ting] rid of the virus within a few weeks", rather than
"allow[ing] HIV to get in and persist" is he talking about the earliest stages of infection prior to seroconversion to HIV positive status or is he talking about after that?

Anonymous said...

Snout - I'm so glad that Nobel Laureates like Montagner have goons like you to explain stuff for him. He would probably be very angry about Leung's trickery is someone explained it to him in French.

Chris Noble said...

As for me being anonymous, I've read too many stories about how you people attack others. I have a nice home and a good job and I have never met anyone who has HIV or AIDS. I don't want your friends harassing my family or employer. I just want answers if you have them.

Is this a joke? How many people has Clark Baker tried to intimidate by harassing their family and employers?

All of this conspiracy mongering by the lead HIV Denialists is likely to one day lead to some of the more delusional supporters resorting to violence. Karl Krafeld, a follower of Stefan Lanka in Germany, has already been convicted for making death threats against the health minister.

Snout said...

Note that "Anonymous" continues the perfect record of denialists in not engaging the issue, but instead goes straight for the (non-sequitur) conspiracy theory.

As I stated earlier, I don't care who you are, Anonymous, although choosing a more imaginative pseudonym might make it easier to distinguish you from all the other Anonymouses, particularly if you are going to pretend to be interested in the issue at hand.

So do you want to try again and actually address the issue, which is what Montagnier is saying in the interview fragment?

James said...

There's no ambiguity in what Luc says. Firstly, apart from an accent Montagnier speaks English very well and is fully aware of what is asked and what he says. He was writing for technical journals in English before you were born Snout. He states that; (a). With a healthy immune system you can be exposed many times to HIV and not become chronically infected. (b).If already infected with HIV, if you build up the immune system with good nutrition you can clear the virus (HIV). (c).This is different from what you will hear from Anthony Fauci (drugs and vaccines). (d) There's no profit in nutrition.

These comments are consistent with similar previous ones he has made for the last 20 years.

I guess it's too bad you can't label him a denialist after winning the Nobel Prize for discovering HIV. If anyone else had come out with those comments that's exactly what you would have done.

Have nice weekend, get away from the computer and get some sun, you're looking a little pale lately.

Snout said...


(a) possibly true, but which immune mechanisms are important here have yet to be worked out, so what constitutes a "healthy" immune system in this context is not clear.
(b) not if the infection has already become chronic. Possibly before then, though.
(c) It's not quite clear what it is that you think Fauci would disagree with.
(d) some farmers would agree, some would disagree. I'm not an expert on agricultural economics.

Point (b) is the issue under contention. Feel free to expand on your position on this question. Or, if you can provide evidence to shed light on (a) please do so.

Anonymous said...

Snout - it looks like Cristine Maggiore and her diaughter didn't die from AIDS after all:


You and your gay friends are caught in another lie or do you think that both pathologists are wrong? And if you think they're wrong, why do you think that drug-funded non-praticing virology and psychology professors know more than two practicing pathologists AND a nobel winning discoverer of HIV?

Answer THAT boyz.

Anna K said...

Here's another link-


Snout said...

If denialists are claiming there's an autopsy report that demonstrates that Maggiore didn't die of AIDS, then they should release it.

But they haven't. Instead they have published a bizarre commentary on this report, written by Al-Bayati.

I think that speaks volumes.

Sarah Kramarsky said...

Are you saying that doctors Posey and Al-Bayati don't exist, or are you saying that they lied about the report?

Since you think the report is "bizarre," it's clear that you cannot competently understand the medical analysis of two practicing pathologists.

If you can't understand what real doctors do in their real practices, how can you competently understand the incoherent bollux of two non-practising ex-doctors write about for their drug company sugar daddies?

You're either incompetent or a poorly trained propagandist. Either way, that seth and jp on you and other burned out fag hags is telling.

Snout said...

Al-Bayati is not a doctor let alone a pathologist, which is a medical specialty. He is not qualified to treat humans, or to conduct autopsies on humans. He's a "veterinary toxicologist".

Al-Bayati's commentary is bizarre, particularly his "explanation" for the typical appearance of PCP in Maggiore's lungs.

Al-Bayati also has a direct personal stake in the case, because he was on the advisory board of Maggiore's "Alive and Well" organisation, and undoubtedly influenced her unfortunate decisions. This conflict of interest alone would disqualify him from credibly offering expert opinion, even if he were qualified to do so.

As for Dr Posey, I understand that in contrast to Al-Bayati, he is a properly qualified and licensed medical doctor and pathologist. However, we do not have access to his report or his findings. So it is not possible to make any sort of judgement about them.

What is telling, though, is that the denialists chose to release Al-Bayati's "analysis" rather than the actual report by the qualified pathologist. Gee, I wonder why.

Anonymous said...

What about Dr. Posey? Unlike Moore and Seth, Posey is a REAL MD and practicing pathologist. Who is the real DENIALIST, Snout? How would you know the difference between a mole and a pimple?

Snout said...

Where's Dr Posey's report, Anonymous? What did he think about the PCP in Christine's lungs?

I guess we won't know until his report is made public.

At least the LA Coroner will know about it now, after being originally told that there was no autopsy.

Not sure how it works in the US, but where I live, coroners don't like being misled, and withholding salient information from them is regarded as Not Cool, particularly when there are allegations of medical negligence flying around.

James said...

Snout, now you've sunk to being a denialist yourself. Denying what Montagnier actually says! Still I guess the guy who got the Nobel for his research in this field is wrong and you are right, again. Do you have a particular theory as to why the co-discoverer Gallo was omitted from this honour, I'm eternally interested in your view on this one.

Snout said...

James, you tell me.

Does Montagnier believe that HIV can be cleared by diet after chronic infection has established, or was he talking about clearing an initial infection?

Hint: "I think this [treating oxidative stress] is one way to approach, to decrease the rate of transmission, because I believe HIV we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected, our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks..."

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

jtdeshong said...

This bullshit about the Maggiore Autopsy is just crazy and incredibly weird.
Why are the NOT releasing the actual autopsy? Why this report of the report? That is the real question. AND why one year later??
Come on people. Wake the fuck up!
This is just some weird tactic to focus attention elsewhere. It is just some smoke screen which will backfire on them. People are not so stupid that they will not want to see the real autopsy report.
And the Al~Bayatti report is very strange discussing her health for the two years before her death. WTF?
And he throws in the new info that Maggiore had P. jeroveci in her lungs! Previously it was said she had bilateral pneumonia, but now Al~Bayatti gives further proof that Maggiore did have an AIDS defining illness BESIDES the herpes infection.
Come on. Grow up. Stop playing games. This is a life and death illness.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't have said it better Sarah

Anonymous said...

Not to be outdone, Henry Bauer has put Leung to shame in the self-validating distortion category. He refers to "Luc Montagnier’s view that HIV is a consequence and not a cause of immunedeficiency" here.

I'll let you ponder the fevered spasms of the denialist mind that led to that one.
Un abrazo,
Fulano de Tal

Anonymous said...

When Leung asks Montangier:"If you take a poor African WHO"S BEEN INFECTED( note: he talks about a poor African who's already been infected - meaning the virus started ravishing poor African's body) and you build up their ummune system, is it possible for them to also NATURALLY(without toxic chemotherapy drugs)get rid of it(HIV)?" Montagnier responds:"I WOULD THINK SO...It's important knowledge that is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccines". And later "Water is key". Where is in this interview A Prominent scientist, Nobel Prize winner underlines the importance of getting rid of HIV WITHIN FEW WEEKS OF INNITIAL INFECTION IF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM IS GOOD, BEFORE GETTING CHRONICALLY INFECTED??? Leung specifically asks Montagnier IF ALREADY INFECTED AFRICAN (AND) YOU BUILD UP - key sentence BUILD UP THEIR IMMUNE SYSTEM - GRADUAL PROCESS, OBVIOUSLY WHICH TAKES TIME THAT HAPPENS DURING SOME TIME - DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS AND NOT!!! JUST FEW WEEKS, BUILDING UP THE WEAKEND IMMUNE DEFFENCES TAKES TIME. HOLY COW! Montagnier - HIMSELF - says loud and clear HE WOULD THINK SO, IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET RID OF INFECTION REGARDLESS OF TIME OF THE INNICIAL INFECTION. LOOKS LKE SOMEBODY'S LOOSING THEIR CASE...HA HA...THE END IS NEAR!!!!!

Snout said...

Just the one, Fulano?

I'm still not sure what to make of Marco. Originally I felt certain his intent was satirical, but there have been numerous denialists I've formed the same opinion about (including at one time a certain Henry H. Bauer), and I have been repeatedly proven wrong in my judgement.


Anonymous, it's time to get your keyboard serviced. Your caps-lock seems to be sticking.

Anonymous said...


Thanks, sweetie, for your concerne, however smart ass you're trying to be...you can't deny the absurdity of your thinking processes. Have a great day!

P.S. Nice pic ;-)

Anonymous said...

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blaaah, Fuckwit

Anonymous said...

May 2010 be the year when this huge HIV=AIDS fraud will finally find its end.

So that we can grief and remember all those that fell victim to this lie.

To remember and honour those that heroically stepped forward to tell the world the truth.

And to hold those accountable that continue to perpetuate this genocide.

Lets be clear about what is at stake: millions of lives are at risk here.

Hundreds of thousands have been told they will die if they do not take ARV's.

Our governments have been corrupted by Pharma, pressing our representatives to push their drugs on us.

We are being discriminated against, our children are taken into state custody if we disagree with ARV treatment options, we are sentenced and locked up and paraded like freaks in the media when it is suspected that we passed on a virus that yet has to be isolated and to be shown that it causes AIDS.

We are called 'Holocaust Denialist'. and while our lives pass by those who started this lie make a living off this tragedy.

Many of us believing what they were told now live in isolation. Our human rights are at stake.

May 2010 be the year where all this changes. The year when Gallo and his henchmen are held accountable.

The year when our doctors once again rediscover the meaning of the hipocratic oath. When governments once again realise that science can not be left to greed.

I will continue to ask questions and more importantly I continue to demand the answers we all deserve.

In this spirit and hopeful as ever that this great human tragedy will soon find an end, I wish you all a great 2010.

In Memoria Dr. Robert Willner. said...

I wonder how long you will the previous post online. Or will it be censored?

Snout said...

Anonymous (whereistheproof):

I'm happy to leave your post up, even though it is copy-paste spam you've distributed to multiple other websites.

I have gone against my usual policy and removed a couple of posts from this thread in recent days. I have done this because they included embedded links, and their suspected author is well known for attaching malware such as tracking software and even viruses to such posts that are activated when unsuspecting readers click on those links.

A couple of them purported to be from individuals they clearly weren't from.

None of the deleted posts contained any substantive points, and were merely abusive and insulting for the sake of it. Normally I prefer to leave such posts as they say much more about their author than about their intended targets, but the possible malware links made them unwise to leave unmoderated.

As you can see from the thread above, I don't remove posts that are merely irrelevant, abusive, libelous, silly or clearly the product of disturbed individuals.

So you are quite free to post here, provided you don't embed malware, or do other stupid things like try to jam threads with the same comment over and over.

What I would suggest (from past experience of my dealings with you) is that if you do ever get around to "asking questions" or "demanding answers" that you be prepared to listen to and engage with the replies.

Otherwise you just highlight yourself as a troll.

Anonymous said...

So we can ask questions? Without censorship or deletion? Thats great :) Because I have one.

"Just like "Dr" Eleni Eleopulos-Papadopulos and Valendar Turner, Snout has never been Professor of Anything at the University of Western Australia."

This is what you say at the top of your blog right? But when I looked up the Perth Groups website, it doesn't say anywhere that Eleni or Valender are Professors at the University of Western Australia.
Except for Emeritus Professor John M. Papadimitriou, who is also listed as a member of the Perth Group. So why are you implying that Eleni and Valender are claiming to be Professors at UWA, with John actually being an Emeritus Professor at UWA?

Snout said...

"About the authors: biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and the phycicians [sic] who sit with her on the faculty of the University of Western Australia's medical school."

The Final Act - authored by the Perthians


"Australian medical professor Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos has independently questioned the HIV hypothesis since 1988"

- Duesberg, P: Inventing the AIDS Virus p 152

"The way to treat AIDS has been evaluated in great detail by Professor Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos of the Royal Perth Hospital ..."


"So is Professor Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, a biophysicist from the Royal Perth Hospital in Australia who doubts that HIV even exists. ..."


"Eleni Papadopulos Ph.D. is a Professor of Medical Physics at Royal Perth Hospital, a teaching hospital at the University of Western Australia. "


"Eleni Papadopulos Ph.D. is a Professor of Medical Physics at Royal Perth Hospital, ... Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al give a summary of their hypothesis that ..."


"Eleni Eleopulos, MSc. Professor of Medical Physics University of Western Australia Perth, Australia..."


"An international group of academics headed by Dr Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Professor of Medical Physics at the Royal Perth Hospital , Australia..."


Anonymous said...

Have you noticed that all of the examples you quote are sources other than the Perth Groups own site?

And they differ quite a lot regarding their titles?

So if I didnt read your credentials well and published your title mistakenly as professor Esnout of Aidstruth, then whose fault is that? Mine or yours?

Fact is, that on their own website, from the horses mouth, the Perth Group does not publish titles they do not hold.

It is not uncommon for the media or journalists to get credentials wrong. Especially if you get published a lot - such as the PG.

This isn't the same as Robert Gallo claiming to have discovered HTLV-3 when in fact he only re-discovered the french LAV virus, and blamed it on contamination. I'd say that clearly is taking credentials the wrong way wouldn't you?

Snout said...

Quite right, Anonymous.

It seems that if an internet rumor starts suggesting you might be a Professor of Something-Or-Other at the University of Western Australia it can very quickly get out of control, and even end up published as fact in such closely researched books as Peter Duesberg's or Janine Roberts'.

Which is why I took pains when I set up this blog to nip any such speculation in the bud.

French Letter said...

Cher Luc
Je traduis pour vous ainsi vous comprenez complètement la stupidité totale que vous avez démontrée dans la Maison documentaire récente de Nombres. Parce que vous êtes de manière sélective stupides - assez élégant pour comprendre la différence entre la "clairière du virus" et "le fait de non permettre au virus de passer le seuil" et encore assez stupide pour pas comprendre que vos propres mots de votre propre bouche - me laissent patronisingly expliquent. VIH la mort de moyens et si vous jamais, exposez jamais autrement, vous vous trouverez dans les bottes concrètes au fond du Loire.
Veuillez agréer les sentiments distingués
Le débauché de singe (le Pipi de geai Moore)

sadunkal said...

Take a look:
Speak out, Monsieur le Professeur Montagnier! - Djamel Tahi

“My statement—taken out of its context in a film that glorifies the “Dissidents” and posted on Internet by a website that is searching for polemical debate—is based on observations I made while I was director of the Centre of reference on AIDS virology at the Pasteur Institute: we actually met several cases of persons being transitively HIV–positive for a few months and then turning HIV–negative again.

This is difficult to detect, keeping count of the furtive nature of the infection, but, when applied to AIDS, it simply reflects a general phenomenon that can be found in many viral infections: under the effect of a good immune response, these will disappear after a few weeks.

In the case of HIV, this explains the enormous disparity of prevalence between the North (0,1% in our countries) and the South (5 to 10% in Africa). In southern areas, for a lot of reasons (such as co–infections or malnutrition), the immune system of many Africans is weakened and allows chronic infection to HIV.

These cases of people being transitively HIV–positive do not minimize the dangerous nature of HIV, which remains the key factor in the onset of AIDS, but they suggest that a regression of the epidemic can be obtained in Africa by taking general health measures.”

So apparently he's not just talking about a brief period before seroconversion, he talks about "positive" people "turning HIV-negative again". These people's "positivity" may very well be no different than those of the vast majority of the regular "HIV positives".

Also he basically states that co–infections and malnutrition are the things that make the most difference when it comes to determining the prevalence of "positivity". Were his views widespread, the west's approach to "AIDS in Africa" -maybe in other continents too- would change dramatically, for the better.

Maybe it would be wise of you and other "anti-denialists" to support some of the things the "denialists" do every now and then. It would make a much bigger positive impact for the people of this planet to promote Montagnier's views in order to improve the western approach to "AIDS", instead of spending time with things like "fighting denialism". These are not mutually exclusive anyway. You take the criticism made by the critics seriously, you adjust your behavior to address the issues, and consequently the critics are forced to move on... eventually having nothing left to criticise maybe...

What do you think?

Snout said...

I think it clarifies to some extent what Montagnier is talking about, but I think the term "HIV positive" is highly problematic here, and I'm not sure whether it was the original term used by Montagnier or whether it was the choice of the translator. (Montagnier was speaking in French for the French version of Nexus, and his comments were translated into English for the RA post).

In English, "HIV positive" implies a confirmed diagnosis of HIV infection using multi-test algorithms, not merely transient seroreactivity short of the criteria necessary for a confirmed diagnosis.

I suspect Montagnier is referring to the latter: there are only a couple of cases of true seroreversion following a confirmed HIV positive diagnosis that I'm aware of, and I'd be surprised if Montagnier had come across another one - let alone a series - without publishing.

As director of the reference lab at Pasteur he would have been in a position to observe pretty well all the "problem sera" from HIV testing in France - those that look as though they might be evolving over time toward full seroconversion (for example a mildly reactive EIA with indeterminate WB in a person highly likely to have been exposed) but then stop short and revert back to negative. There are a number of these in the literature, some with PCR or culture evidence of transient viremia, but they are quite rare. Certainly there are many cases in which the evolution of full seroconversion has been observed over multiple serial samples, and it's pretty unusual for the process to reverse itself midstream.

The first question is does this represent initial infection that the immune system is able to prevent progressing to chronic infection? I think that's quite possible.

The next question, though, is whether the differences in the efficiency of this immune mechanism could account for the epidemiological differences between the West and Africa? I think this is doubtful, because it seems to be a rare event, at least as far as we are able to detect. I think there are far more plausible explanations, particularly in the different serotypes involved in the African and Western epidemics, and the extremely high rates of undiagnosed HIV infection in many parts of Africa.

And the third question is: even if such immune responses to initial infection were the primary determinant of a chronic infection outcome, is diet the principal determinant of how "good" that response is?

I don't think Montagnier's hypothesis is a crank one, but it's not well-supported by evidence, and I suspect it's wrong. Which is fine - lots of perfectly reasonable scientific hypotheses turn out to be wrong.

But that wasn't the point of my post - it was to point out how the HoN team and their supporters have deliberately misrepresented Montagnier to make out that he's saying something completely different to what he intended. As he says himself, his comment was "taken out of its context in a film that glorifies the “Dissidents” and posted on Internet by a website [just the one, Luc?] that is searching for polemical debate."

Whatever else he might be right or wrong about, he is spot on there.

sadunkal said...

"...But that wasn't the point of my post - it was to point out how the HoN team and their supporters have deliberately misrepresented Montagnier..."

And I question why you make this your priority when what Montagnier says is so extremely important with regard to how "AIDS" should be handled by those with power -especially in Africa.

Why aren't you interested in finding out more about what Montagnier is saying, instead of trying to convince yourself (and others) that he isn't saying anything that requires the attention of the orthodoxy? If you think what he says is important then why don't you do something about making the orthodoxy pay more attention to his words?

Here's once more what I wrote:

"Maybe it would be wise of you and other "anti-denialists" to support some of the things the "denialists" do every now and then. It would make a much bigger positive impact for the people of this planet to promote Montagnier's views in order to improve the western approach to "AIDS", instead of spending time with things like "fighting denialism". These are not mutually exclusive anyway. You take the criticism made by the critics seriously, you adjust your behavior to address the issues, and consequently the critics are forced to move on... eventually having nothing left to criticise maybe...

What do you think?"

And with regard to this:

"Montagnier was speaking in French for the French version of Nexus, and his comments were translated into English for the RA post"

If you suspect that the translation misrepresents his views, then maybe you should try to get hold of the original french text, no? Did you try, or does it feel safer to be merely suspicious, instead of risking to find out that your suspicions may be wrong?

You can email and ask Djamel Tahi about it.

Will you?

I quote from Tahi:

"..It is very regrettable that Brent Leung, the young American film director who recorded Professor Montagnier’s words, did not encourage him to reveal what was behind such assertions. On what scientific studies are they based? Have those studies been published anywhere? We want to know if those people, whose “good” immune system has been able to eliminate the virus, still had traces of the infection. If so and if we believe that Professor Montagnier’s assertions are right, there would therefore be millions of HIV–positive people around the world, living in a state of perpetual anxiety of developing AIDS even though they do not have the virus in their bodies! A good many of them follow a treatment whose side effects are extremely toxic and can be detrimental to their health. This information is crucial, and the people who are concerned should be immediately informed so that they are aware of the virus’ harmlessness and can stop their treatment as quickly as possible. But what should then be the clinical and biological standards that could allow the determination of whether an infection has actually been neutralized and the virus suppressed? If, on the contrary, these people are HIV–antibody–negative (which should be, to say the least, very surprising), how is it possible to prove they’ve been in contact with the virus if it has not left any trace of its brief stay?

As we clearly see, this statement by Professor Montagnier is far from being insignificant and casts a serious doubt on many aspects of the AIDS research, such as the syndrome’s pathogenesis and aetiology to start with.
That is why, today, Professor Montagnier’s remarks have lead to the urgent need for clarification of his position regarding the causation of AIDS. This is the least we have every right to expect from a Nobel Prize laureate in Medicine."

I agree that clarification is of extreme importance. The only obstacle is an unwillingness to clarify. Ask yourselves where that may source from... and why.

Snout said...

What Montagnier is talking about is quite clear to anyone familiar with the basic science. Sure, it would be interesting to have more details on the “transitively HIV positive” samples he observed, and I’m sure if he thinks these worth writing up he will. I doubt these represent seroreversion from confirmed HIV positive status, but rather transient appearance of some reactivity on some antibody tests, sometimes with evidence of transient viremia. And then it disappears and the person remains HIV-antibody negative and uninfected. This phenomenon doesn’t appear to be common, but it does happen. I actually touched on this briefly in an earlier post: http://snoutworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/bauers-basic-factual-howlers-i-very_19.html

Montagnier is just one scientist out of hundreds of thousands who has made a contribution to solving the problems of HIV/AIDS. He and his team at Pasteur did some crucial early work in the early 1980s (for which he and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi were recently rewarded with a trip to Sweden, and he has done other valuable work during his long career. However - and this is something the dissidents seem to be having some trouble grasping – this doesn’t make his opinions any more “extremely important”. Scientific fact is not established according to what Someone Important thinks. It is established by evidence.

If the Washington Post ever broke a story proving that Robert Gallo had kept his mother chained up in his basement for decades and was also (heaven forbid) mean to puppies, it would make no difference to what we know about HIV/AIDS. If Tony Fauci called a press conference tomorrow and announced, “Nah, I was just kidding you – I reckon it was the poppers all along,” it would make no difference to the facts. If Le Monde announced that Montagnier had decided HIV was in fact brought to earth by a flying saucer full of Kary Mullis’ glowing space raccoons, it would not make the slightest difference to HIV science. (We’d just mark it off as another example of Post-Nobel-Syndrome. It wouldn’t be the first time.)

The really bizarre thing is that the denialists like Leung and his backers think that if Montagnier has an opinion outside the usual range of the “mainstream” this will make the slightest difference to the facts. The annoying bit is when they go to such lengths to deliberately misrepresent him in order to give the illusion of such opinions when he doesn’t hold them. I’d be really pissed off if I were him.

Anonymous said...

concerning a small detail in the transcript: there it says "...intelligent institutions". I first understood "intelligence institutions", which would make more sense to me - at least in terms of meaning, if not in terms of science.

have i misunderstood that passage, or is that not relevant?

Snout said...

I think a native English speaker probably would have used a word like "academic" rather than "intelligent". Montagnier's command of English isn't perfect (although it's infinitely better than mine is of French).

So no, I don't think he was trying to suggest that African governments have their health policy dictated by the CIA or other "intelligence" organisations.

Eugene Semon said...


I'm just wondering how you know that Montagnier isn't talking about chronic infection:

"Montagnier is clearly talking about them 'naturally getting rid of it' in the few weeks post exposure. This is what he has been talking about throughout this segment. It doesn’t occur to him that Leung is suggesting that Africans (why only Africans?) might be able to clear the virus following the establishment of chronic infection. Not realising that Leung is a denialist, he takes for granted that everyone knows that following seroconversion for HIV, the infection is permanent.

Have you asked him what occurred to him or not during Mr Leung's follow up question. It's a follow up Snout, Montagnier has already given an answer on "transient exposure".

Maybe he is familiar with mechanisms that establisk "latency", i.e. what's documented by HIV researchers for those with undetectable RNA "viral load"?

This has also been shown BTW for those who do not go on HAART -for "long term non-progressors".

Snout said...

Gene, the comment rate on this post has slowed down a bit lately (currently clocking in at approximately one comment per solar year), but did you follow the... ummm... relatively recent exchange about profoundly stupid arguments from authority?

And are you the same "Gene" (Gene Semon) who posted:

"It seems to me that Val Turner’s expertise qualifies him as the world’s leading authority on cross-reactive antibodies"?

Someone posted it here on October 25, 2006 at 12:16 PM:


God, I hope that wasn't you.