Welcome! You are reading the archives. Click here to visit the Home page and see the latest articles.

July 30, 2008

What if Everything We Think We Know About AIDS is Wrong?

Clark Baker, who is a Los Angeles based Private Investigator, and a former Los Angeles police officer and U.S. Marine, has a compelling new report regarding AIDs. From the web site for his recent interview with Robert Scott Bell:

After the Semmelweis Society International (SSI) presented Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber the Clean Hands Award earlier this year, the controversy that erupted caused SSI to hire a P.I., Clark Baker, to investigate claims by AIDS activist groups that "anyone who questioned HIV as the cause of AIDS" is a criminal.

Baker's new report is called "Gallo's Egg:"

Prof. Duesberg described the flaws in the HIV hypothesis of AIDS causation. Although formal screenings are not required by Academy members, the NAS published Prof. Duesberg's paper after an unprecedented six separate peer reviews. After 20 years, Prof. Duesberg's paper remains unanswered.

Prior to these publications, Dr. Robert Gallo, the cancer virologist who claimed HIV caused AIDS in 1984 described Duesberg as the scientist "who knew more about retroviruses than any man alive."

.....Although he vowed to respond, neither Gallo nor any of his defenders ever published a rebuttal of Duesberg's paper (or the 196 peer citations that supported it) in any peer-reviewed publication.

Instead, Gallo's defenders created the specter of AIDS-Denialists and Denialism, epithets designed to marginalize those who questioned Gallo's opinions as somehow denying the existence of AIDS itself. Because Gallo skeptics never questioned the existence of AIDS, this allegation is false. The fact that malnutrition, septic water, disease, environmental conditions, irresponsible drug use and self-destructive behavior can degrade a body's ability to protect itself from infection and cause death is undeniable. What is in question is Gallo's scientifically unsupported assertions that retroviruses cause leukemia, cancer, and AIDS.

A Nobel-prize-winning scientist, Kary B. Mullis, wrote the forward to Duesberg's book on the subject, published by Regnery in 1995. Mullis' views support Baker's work:

IN 1988 I WAS WORKING as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I had invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they had hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques arc so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AII)S connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and asyet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual-who would surely be Nobel material-was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twentyfive and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.

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 years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite 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 NII)S research, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he give a talk in San Diego. It would he 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.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDs. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint than the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take that drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time. Read this book.

Kary B. Mullis
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1993

Baker's report is sparking new interest in this subject. Read Clark Baker's report, "Gallo's Egg," here.

July 29, 2008

Obama’s Policies are Consistently Contrary to What’s Good for the Flag,the Economy, and the Military

An undeniable pattern has emerged in Obama's policies. Again and again, they are policies which are contrary to what's good for the American flag, the American economy, and the American military. The pattern may be seen repeatedly and consistently.

OBAMA VS. THE AMERICAN FLAG

Obama has refused in the past to wear an American flag pin.

He has refused in the past to put his hand on his heart for the national anthem.

And now he has removed the American flag from his jet: "...the plane that once had an American flag on its tail now sports the Obama 'O.'"

OBAMA VS. THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

Obama is against drilling for oil, preferring instead to have our economy strangled by expensive gas prices.

Obama has sponsored a bill, which is still a danger to this country as it has not yet been defeated, which would require the U.S. to give $845 billion to the United Nations. Don't like paying high taxes? How would you feel about it if your taxes are higher because you're getting taxed by the United Nations too?

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

And Obama wants to nearly double the capital-gains tax rate from 15% to 28%, which not only would devastate the economy, but would also be likely to lose money for the government.

From the NY Sun:

As Senator Obama's presidential platform starts to take shape, economists and tax officials here in New York and Washington are warning that his fiscal policies could have a devastating effect on what is, in effect, New York's biggest crop - capital gains.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends by a staggering two-thirds, moving the rate up 10 percentage points to 25%, which could curtail investment and business on Wall Street, a backbone of the city's and state's economy.

According to the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, Mr. Obama's tax hike would knock off $2.5 trillion in capital formation over five years, or nearly 2% of gross domestic product.

"If we are only growing around 2% over the next five years, then we will have virtually zero growth for the period," the president of the institute, Stephen Entin, said. "This will create a permanent hit of 5% or greater to GDP."

From US News & World Report:

As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent. Leaving the fairness issue aside for a moment-as well as the impact of higher taxes on economic growth-the Obama plan could also be called a "Ways in Which Government Can Collect More Taxes to Pay for New Spending" plan, since Democratic candidates are all scrambling to figure out ways to plausibly pay for new healthcare, education, and infrastructure spending if elected.

But Dan Clifton over at Strategas Research thinks the Dems may be disappointed by the ROT-return on taxes-from higher cap-gains rates. After reviewing the connections between changing cap-gains rates and government revenue during the past five decades, he concludes that higher cap gains could well be a revenue loser for Uncle Sam.

OBAMA VS. THE AMERICAN MILITARY

Obama has pledged to cut our military capabilities:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent defense priorities board to insure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Obama scrapped a visit to wounded American troops in Germany.

Obama wants to have a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Professor Eugene Volokh writes:

So - if Obama means what he says - his civilian national security corps would cost at least another $100 billion a year, and perhaps as much as $500 billion a year. With total federal income taxes of $935 billion in 2005, Obama's proposal would mean using up to half of all federal income tax revenues just to fund his promise "to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military.

Obama's plan would likely remove money from funding our military in order to finance this ill-defined civilian force.

CONCLUSION

Obama's patriotism is not in question in this article. What is in question is whether his policies would be good for the flag, the economy, and the military. Obama's policies are consistently contrary to what's good for the American flag, the American economy, and the American military.

July 27, 2008

Obama’s White House Social Calendar, March 2009

A peek into a what an Obama White House might be like ...Obama's White House Social Calendar for 2009.

Date/Time	Event	Description and Details
March 2009
Monday 16th March 12:00pm	Luncheon	Description: Guests - William Ayres, Bernardine Dohrn. Location:  President's Dining Room.
Tuesday 17th March 3:30pm	Afternoon Tea and Biscuits	Description: Greet Minister Louis Farrakhan. Accomodations:  The Minister will be staying in the Lincoln Bedroom. Location: West Sitting Room.
Wednesday 18th March 7:00pm	Dinner	Description: Guests - Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend Wright. Location: State Dining Room.
Thursday 19th March 7:00pm	State Dinner	Description: Guests - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Location:  State Dining Room.
Friday 20th March 4:00pm	Photo Op	Description: President Mahmoud Abbas. Accomodations:  The President will be staying in the Lincoln Bedroom. Location:  Oval Office.

 

July 14, 2008

A Window Into What Islamic Youths in the UK Are Being Taught - In the Words of One Such Youth

We often discuss what's going in Islamic schools in the UK, but rarely do we have a view of it from one of the students. What are Islamic youth there being taught to believe? Two comments came in last month, evidently from a 14-year-old Islamic boy named Samir, living in England. According to a plugin I run (the ip2nation plugin for the ExpressionEngine blog engine), the ip address is indeed from the UK. I'm still thinking about these comments.

First comment:

You all do not understand Islam. It is very gentle, kind, non politics religion of peace and loves. Media tells lies about muslims. Muslims love Allah and he sees that they loves him, he helps them to get better in life and makes muslims get good house and jobs in Kafir countries.

In uk muslims even dont haf to work for allah provides money from government benefits. They efen can wer their own cloths without problems, but burka sometimes little problem in schools and places like this.

Allah has made muslims strong in west, and he is teaching kafir leaders how to respect ALL religion but most of all ISLAM.It is allahs will that ALL countries will become muslim, and one day there will be enuf muslims to take over all europ.When this happens you will see how good it is to be muslim, for allah will take alcohol away and immorals who go with own sex will be executed, no music or dancing except Islam music. Everybody will then say to Allah Thank you, we did not understand how good it is to be muslim.

I tell you all there is no reason to be afraid of Islam, just accept and see how allah will change your lifes.

peace to you all Allua Ackbar

Second comment, posted within an hour of the first:

Sorry forget to say I am 14 only but already I no the way to be happy without trubles. If only everybody see with my eyes, it is so sample if you just bleve what allah says. No body want to go hell so sample thing is just trust allah and the prophet mohammed (pbuh). One thing for shure is if you try verry hard to do good, allah will try his best to take you to paradise with servants there to serve you, and wine to. If anybody want to here about islam I will be happy to tell them.

peace to evry country samir

It's a very revealing set of comments. First of all:

In uk muslims even dont haf to work for allah provides money from government benefits.

Rather than seeing welfare as a safety net for those temporarily out of work, Samir sees welfare as a benefit from Allah so that Muslims don't have to work at all. Is Samir aware that the government benefits come from taxes paid by working Brits? His teachers surely are. It appears that, if not Samir himself, then most likely his teachers, see the welfare payments as tribute paid by a public, subservient to Islam, which works hard so that Muslims in the UK don't have to.

This suggests that in the UK, welfare is a factor that operates powerfully against assimilation of Islamic populations into the broader UK culture. In successful western cultures the need for money forces immigrant populations to assimilate so as to get along with their neighbors, work for them and with them, and make a living. It appears, on the evidence of Samir's comment, that this may not be operational in the UK today.

Also, the comments provide multiple examples of something which has been identified as a characteristic of Islamic teaching - specifically, a tendency to argue in favor of two contradictory things at the same time. Samir says that Islam is a "very gentle, kind, non politics religion of peace and loves." At the same time, he believes that Islam will force people to stop drinking, outlaw music and dancing, and 'execute' gays.

Samir says that Islam is a "non politics religion", and at the same time argues that "Allah has made muslims strong in west, and he is teaching kafir leaders how to respect ALL religion but most of all ISLAM," and says that "one day there will be enuf muslims to take over all europ."

He says that "When this happens you will see how good it is to be muslim," and "Everybody will then say to Allah Thank you, we did not understand how good it is to be muslim." This presumably does not apply to the gays who have been "executed."

His repeated use of the term "kafir" is also notable, since it is a derogatory term, i.e. a term that is "expressive of low opinion." Per Wikipedia:

In cultural terms, it is seen as a derogatory term used to describe an unbeliever, non-Muslims, apostate from Islam and even between Muslims of different sects.

To summarize, this appears to be a window into the Islamic teaching of at least one Muslim youth in the United Kingdom. Samir is being taught that:

• Islam is a peaceful religion that is not political.
• Islam will take over all of Europe.
• Islam will outlaw music, dancing, and drinking, and will execute gays.
• Islam will force non-Muslims to become Muslim.
  

If the United Kingdom wishes to protect its citizens, it must put an end to schools that teach that Islam requires Muslims to take over Europe, enforce Islamic law, and kill non-Muslims.

Page 1 of 1 pages