[WikiEN-l] [harrypasternak at sympatico.ca: HIV+AIDS+Wikipedia]

Wed Feb 2 18:00:06 UTC 2005

This should really have gone to the wikien-l list

----- Forwarded message from harry <harrypasternak at sympatico.ca> -----

From: harry <harrypasternak at sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:21:57 -0500
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: HIV+AIDS+Wikipedia

Without Prejudice 

a) I am baffled about  what's being posted about HIV and AIDS on 
Wikipedia. Despite the number of pages given to HIV and AIDS - the two 
critical piece of information are missing. First of all, there is not 
one reference on Wikipedia to a study published in a scientific 
scholarly journal with peer review that shows that "HIV is the probable 
cause of AIDS". Secondly, there is not one electron microscopic picture 
of the HIV. 
You all know that there is a disease called Polio. You also understand 
that not only are there electron microscopic pictures of the Polio 
virus - there is also a vaccine which prevents Polio.  

Why is the "study published in a scientific scholarly journal with peer 
review that shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS" " required? 
Because that is the accepted test/standard all over the world. The peer 
review examines the validity of the process, data and analysis used in 
the study - included is a review whether study results have been 
replicated by others. Just because 3 people at Wikipedia says something 
is true  - doesn't make it "true"!  

b) At first I posted an alternative viewpoint by Nobel Laureate in 
Chemistry Dr. Kary Mullis - it was then followed by a comment that 
stated that Dr. Mullis viewpoint was in the minority. Yet no reference 
was made to prove that is the case. Nor did the person who posted the 
comment - then post a reference to a study published in a scientific 
scholarly journal with peer review that shows that "HIV is the probable 
cause of AIDS" 

When I attempted to add some background to why many 
professors/researchers are more than happy to say that (HIV=AIDS) 
(because they get $300,000 grants from the NIH) - my entire post was 
removed! So the pro-advocates of HIV=AIDS can post whatever they want; 
but, are required to prove that HIV=AIDS (because everyone knows that's 
true??!!) - while at the same time an alternative viewpoint is 
dismissed (censored). 

I assume that Wikipedia is after the truth. I am interesting in 
sponsoring a live audio debate (in aacPlus codec) on the WWW - with Dr. 
Kary Mullis and anyone one of Wikipedia  "censors" or so-called 
"experts" on HIV=AIDS, I am sure that we would have thousands of 
listeners (from readers of Wikipedia and other news sources) - what 
date and time would "you" prefer for this debate so that I can finalize 
arrangements with Dr. Mullis. (Any takers here??) Below is in essence 
what I attempted to post: 

 Dr. Kary Mullis, is a biochemist who was awarded the Nobel Prize For 
Chemistry - he invented the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a central 
technique in molecular biology which allows the amplification of 
specified DNA sequences. I wonder how many inventions or Nobel Prizes 
the Wilkipedia censor(s) have? 

Dr. Kary Mullis states that there is not one scientific study published 
in a scholarly journal with peer review the shows that "HIV is the 
probable cause of AIDS" (notice PROBABLE). In Mullis book 'Dancing 
Naked In The Mind Field" - Mullis states: 

"I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I 
got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and 
asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly 
problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."  
After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple of years, I was getting 
pretty upset when no one could site the reference. I didn't like the 
ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign 
against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth- century Black 
Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. 
That defied both scientific and common sense.  

"Finally I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and 
AIDS research, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he 
gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to 
ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier 
would know the answer. So I asked him.  
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't 
you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control?"  
I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV 
is the probable cause of AIDS does it?"  
"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He 
looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they 
were all awaiting a  more definitive response, like I was.  
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" 
the good doctor offered.  
"I read that too, Dr. Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those 
monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just 
published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original 
paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS."  
This time, Dr. Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet 
an acquaintance across the room. " 

My second post about HIV=AIDS 

As you may or may not "know" - over 60 billion dollars over a 25 year 
period in the USA was spent primarily by the USA government tax dollars 
trying to find a virus that causes cancer (see Mullis). There is no 
vaccine to prevent breast cancer - why? - because not one virus was 
found that causes cancer in humans! (If you don't believe me - then 
name one virus that causes cancer in humans!) Well, Dr. Kary Mullis, 
the Nobel Prizewinner in Chemistry, states in his book "Dancing Naked 
In The Mind Field" that the same people who were working on "VIRUSES 
Causes Cancer" then switched to HIV=AIDS when the funding dried up for  
"VIRUS Causes Cancer" (because no viruses were found to cause cancer). 

You know that people in general have participated in unethical, immoral 
behaviour when money comes into the picture - and when it comes to 
so-called medical research we are reminded on a daily basis about the 
misinformation/withheld information that the drug industry puts out on 
prescription drugs - e.g. VIOX apparently has killed 56,000 people. 

The NIH (National Institute Of Health) gives out $300,000 research 
grants (for each and every grant) to people "studying" HIV=AIDS. 
$100,000 goes directly to the person getting the grant - a further 
$200,000 is available for hiring and paying TA's (teaching assistants) 
who are in graduate programs at universities. The pressure on 
professors to bring grant research money into a university is enormous 
- to the point that teaching students is secondary compared to the need 
to bring money into a university department. Without this grant money 
many universities would not be able to function - because the hired 
Teaching Assistants who carry out a very large proportion of what a 
professor is supposed to do in class. How to verify this? If you want 
I'll arrange a meeting with a professor at Cornell University - who 
after two years of teaching at Cornell, could not get one research 
grant and was going to resign because the pressure was just to great. 

- Harry Pasternak

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
"La nèfle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org