Editorial Discretion or Censorship at The Street.com? And is it Harder or Easier to Kill Stories Now Than in The Days of Yore?


A journalistic kerfuffle unfolded last week at TheStreet.com, the website spearheaded by CNBC's Mad Money host Jim Cramer. Reason contributor and Washington Center for Politics & Journalism head Terry Michael authored a piece that questioned the link between HIV and AIDS that ran at the site's opinion section for about four hours before being taken down and scrubbed from the site.

The piece used various statements from French medical researcher Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel Prize for his role in connecting the retrovirus HIV with AIDS, to argue that the iconic HIV=AIDS equation is mistaken. In a recent documentary on the same theme, Montagnier says that individuals with healthy immune systems can be exposed to HIV repeatedly without becoming infected. Michael says that Montagnier believes the number of AIDS deaths in Africa is heavily inflated and is more likely attributable to lack of clean water and other issues. And Michael says that the drug cocktails increasingly prescribed to HIV-positive individuals who are not presenting other AIDS symptoms are dangerous in and of themselves (he singles out drugmaker Gilead Sciences as a major culprit). In the brief time that Michael's article was live, the first comment came from Jim Cramer himself, who wrote, "This article makes it sound like [Gilead] is a fraud. That's ridiculous. The franchise is important and helpful. I don't think there is support for this position.. None."

Shortly after that, the piece was taken down. Curious about the speed with which the story was redacted, I contacted TheStreet.com's editor about why it was removed and received the reply, "There were factual errors in the piece, so we ran a correction and then took it down." He did not elaborate on the errors, but Michael cops to some minor errors at his website. Michael has posted the original piece as a screen grab at this site, along with Cramer's comment and his own take on the issue. He says his article was "Kremlin-ized" and that its removal demonstrates the reach of corporate power, which strikes me as a stretch absent any sort of clear evidence. In any case, you can read all that here.

I bring all of this up not because of the issue Michael discussed—I think the connection between HIV and AIDS is established (as does Montagnier) and a major reason for the decline in full-blown AIDS cases in the past 20 years or so are precisely the therapies that Michael rejects—but because of a point he makes at the end of his post on the matter:

In the old days, a publisher bowing to corporate or political pressure could not send his minions out to confiscate all the ink-stained dead trees thrown on your porch by the paperboy. Today, the digital deliveryboy—the web master—can be ordered to erase content when an unscrupulous publisher decides to withdraw some inconvenient truth.

Let's leave aside any specifics about this particular case. Does that argument ring true? It seems to me that, if anything, it's far harder to squelch stories than ever before. Not because publishers, whether scrupulous or un, won't try, but for the very reasons that Michael was able to save cached versions and repost them at his own site. There never has been and never will be a guarantee that anyone will care about your version of the truth (or of the past, or of the present or future, either), but it seems undeniable to me that individuals and small-time actors have more tools by which to tell their stories. Which is a good thing, regardless of the stories they choose to tell.

NEXT: Can the Climate Conference Avoid Diplomatic Doom?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This argument was also proposed in 'Inventing the AIDS Virus', by Dr. Peter Duesberg. A lot of people had fun tearing it apart, and I often get funny looks for admitting that I've read it and taken away a lot from it. But I figure, hey, this is Hit & Run -- what's the worst that could happen?

    1. Why, even now Nick Gillespie is on the phone with your employer, engineering your dismissal.

      1. My CEO would have no idea who Nick Gillespie is, and would tell him to ditch the leather jacket and get a real job.

        Which is why, I think, my employment there will not last more than another year, regardless.

  2. Let's leave aside any specifics about this particular case. Does that argument ring true?

    Not even.

    In a limited way, his argument has a point. Sure, if the New York Times runs a story, prints the papers and delivers them, it can't un-run it.

    But in this day and age, if your story pops up on a webpage that anyone cares about, it's been copied and archived before you can scream "censorship!"

    It will limit who views it, because there are people who don't care and never saw it in the first place. But your ideas don't "die" because the webmaster took it down.

  3. Correction: In my TheStreet.Com piece, I cited Donald Rumsfeld as former "CEO" of Gilead Sciences, Inc. That should read former "Chairman of the Board." And I added a "c" into the name of Gilead Board member, former Sec. of State George Shultz. We all make mistakes--some a little bigger than others.

    I blame Cheney and Halliburton.

  4. It sounds like a private website took down a story it didn't agree with, and I see no problem with that.

    As far as whether it's easier or harder to hide stories now than in the past, I'd say it's harder now. Not only can cached versions be retrieved, but there are so many virtual 'publishers' these days that it's always easy to find a place to post any story. It won't always be on a huge mainstream site, but at least it's out there somewhere.

  5. For a Soviet style disappearance of history the article is sure readily available over a week later.

    Today's reading of the single payer ammendment is a goos example of news availability today vs. decades ago. Decades ago, we might have read about it in tomorrow's paper. Tonight's if we lived in a big city with an evening edition. Compare that with senate clerks reading the ammendment today. We were commenting on it here as it was happening.
    If a story is juicy enough 9Tiger woods comes to mind) and goes viral, it could be on millions of websites within a few hours. A publishor might be able to get all his newspapers back but you can't erase every posting of a story on the web.

    1. crap. please ignore my missspelllings in the above commant.

  6. As long as the "libertarian democrat" keeps his AIDs conspiracy story as a PDF nobody is going to read it.

    It sucks too.Pretty much claims BUSH forced HIV-infected healthy individuals in Africa to take AIDs drugs to make $$$ for his friends at Gilead.

  7. Let's leave aside any specifics about this particular case. Does that argument ring true?

    Nope. Write some unusual phrase in the comments here at H&R, wait 4 hours, and search for it on Google. Google will probably have it indexed and cached already.

    Terry's argument is just like a "libertarian democrat". You know...imaginary.

    1. I once did this to find my old comment on here about the moon making Earth officially an Islamic planet (a Christian group wanted to launch a cross satelite to declare it a Christian world) and was delighted that it appeared. Alas, it seems to have moved off the Google servers at this time, being indexed is fleeting.

  8. Write some unusual phrase in the comments here at H&R, wait 4 hours, and search for it on Google. Google will probably have it indexed and cached already.

    Google "unstoppable rape machine" sometime.

    1. Dude, I do that every day already.

      1. Egosurfing?

        1. Epi is hip as grits. He? can ego surf if he? wants.

        2. Rapesurfing.

          1. Point Break starring Steve Smith.

        3. "individuals and small-time actors have more tools by which to tell their stories"

          And retrieve them. We are immortal!

  9. "Well that's just great! Of all the times to get AIDS, I get it right when everyone stops giving a crap."

  10. Good article Nick,But you failed to mention the film that was the source of the content of thestreet article.

  11. I don't usually comment on pieces that cite my writing, but--as someone who taught "Journalism 100: Theory and Practice" (at The George Washington Univ. for about five years)--I have some reasonable understanding of journalistic ethical standards. Erasing a piece from a web site which purports to offer news should at least have warranted an explanation to readers, which did not happen at TheStreet.com. The editor of the site had the courage to use my controversial opinion piece about Big Pharma and AIDS; the publishers of the site clearly bowed to pressure from Gilead Sciences, Inc., [GILD is their stock symbol] and ordered it down. As for my views on HIV and AIDS, informed by three years of reading, research and interviewing, you can read them at my web site: "Special Report on HIV-AIDS."
    [ http://www.terrymichael.net/Ht.....eport.html ]
    And be sure to see the trailer for the new documentary on HIV-AIDS, "House of Numbers," by Brent Leung, which you can find by searching Montagnier and Leung at YouTube.
    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_N4zgjF0K0 ]
    You might be amazed at what you see and hear.

  12. Hmmm. Interesting. Does anyone who knows the skeptic's argument know what the "co-factors" were for the gay community in the 1980's, or for hemophiliacs?

    1. Never mind, I finished the Michael article.

  13. Hit it up dude, lets Rock & Roll, know what I mean??


    1. It seems that Anonymity Bot needs to be rebooted.

      1. Whoa, what the hell happened here?

  14. Quoting Nick Gillespie:

    "I think the connection between HIV and AIDS is established (as does Montagnier) and a major reason for the decline in full-blown AIDS cases in the past 20 years or so are precisely the therapies that Michael rejects..."


    This is just one of the quotes from Nobel Laureate Lucky Luc Montagnier that caused Terry Michael's piece to be excised:

    "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, if you have a good immune system; and this is the problem also of Africa, of 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. So it's prone, you know, it can allow HIV to get in and persist."

    You want another?

    Now, tell me again that this piece wasn't squelched because the pharmaceutical companies are dropping bricks from their hind quarters? And tell me again what Montagnier actually thinks?

    And this from the Associated Press last month:

    Whether previous U.N. initiatives are responsible for the epidemic's downturn is uncertain. Some experts said the drop in HIV may simply be a result of the virus burning itself out, rather than the result of any health interventions."

    Say what?

    most sincerely...


    PS - What the hell is HIV? I mean, which one of the ever-changing frankenstein molecules stitched together from cellular detritus, never matching, never reproducible is the magic entity?


    I'm given to thinking that we're looking at cellular 'phenomena' and not singularity, after all this time...

    And then, what the hell is an HIV test? Which one of the 20 plus tests, all of which state that they come up positive for everything from flu to worms to nothing in particular, is the test that tells somebody that they're cursed for life, because they had sex, once, a long time ago, and it was 'bad sex?'

    Oh.. and why the bleeping bleep is Nancy Padian's study censored from the Wikipedia page?

    PPS. If you ever want an honest to goodness piece on the absolutely hidden and buried standard medical literature that describes AIDS as a multi-factorial, highly treatable, mostly toxicological syndrome, written for your very respectable journal, dites-moi, naturellement, mon frere, and I shall answer your request, with journal references in hand.

    With much due respect for your good work over the years in keeping some journalism at least semi-liberty loving.

    Liam Scheff

    1. an HIV test tries to detect the presence of HIV antibodies, which should only be present if you've been infected with HIV. that is just one form of testing there is the Western Blot and ELISA, some check for the virus itself.

  15. Now THAN in the days of yore, Nick. THAN, not then.

    sorry. Nothing sets off my grammar twitch like than/then. cept for its/it's.

    1. Now than, stubby, its a common mistake.

      1. They're/their offends as well.

  16. stubby, thats to bad. Maybe if your a little more lose about these things, you could except them better. You know, affect a change in you're life.

    1. One must learn too except these things.

      1. Thats what I could of told her. I can't help but think its not to hard. I mean, unless you want too deal with all the amount of mistakes people make, and administrate their writing, hoping their gonna make less mistakes irregardless of what they know, and get all aggravated when people write bad, cause they had ought to have written better.

        1. Ooh, "irregardless" is a personal favorite. Well played.

          1. Thank you. My only regret is that I didn't work in "egregious" as an synonym for "terrible".

            1. Oh fine, yes, I'm too damned picky. But it was in the frigging headline.

              1. stubby, I'm just giving you a hard time, especially since it sounded like grammar error were "nails on a chalkboard" to you. I also wanted to see how many I could fit into one paragraph.

                Quite a lot, actually.

                1. I was going to try it myself, but its harder than it looks and ya'll took all the good ones all ready.

                  1. the way comments show up here now bugs me. That wavery thing, all whoo-whoo like it's fading out and then it comes back...

  17. One would think that a bigger story than the removal of Terry Michael's piece would be the frequent recanting of the main HIV=AIDS dogmas by Luc Montagnier. You know, the guy who got the Nobel for discovering HIV back in the 1980s. This was referred to in Terry Michael's piece, which is one reason his story is important (and it's abrupt removal). The mainstream media hasn't disappeared their coverage of the recent amazing video of Montagnier, parts of which appeared in the documentary "House of Numbers", there never was any coverage. How can society's view of AIDS grow and strengthen if we are protected from information that doesn't fit within the little square box that our thoughts are allowed to exist in? How can people be so sure that the mainstream story is correct when every criticism of it is aborted, stillborn or quickly buried without so much as a funeral?

  18. my ex had HIV and at one point AIDS. AIDS is when your CD4 count drops below a certain level, that level has been changed before and currently you are considered as having AIDS if your CD4 count is below 200 cells per ?L of blood. the AIDS denialist zine Continuum ceased publication after the entire staff DIED OF AIDS. I know that it is possible for CERTAIN people to be exposed to HIV and not catch it but that depends on how much you were exposed to and if they have one or two copies of a mutation in the CCR5 gene. at one point in my life I made some really stupid choices and had lots of unprotected sex and shared straws and rolled up bills with a girl who had HIV and AIDS but luckily I never caught it at least 2 tests 6 months apart seem to confirm that. I agree that it is much harder to keep something off the net once it has been published. but I also think that if I were running a web site I wouldn't want a piece of shit article that says HIV infection doesn't progress to AIDS because that is bullshit, if your CD4 drops too low you have AIDS and in many people with AIDS your CD4 count will drop without medication.

    1. that last sentence should read: if your CD4 drops too low you have AIDS and in many people with AIDS HIV your CD4 count will drop without medication.

    2. I read a book a few years ago on the history of the black plague. In it, it said that a small percentage of the people infected with the plague surived due to some genetic mutation. It also said that it is thought that the decendents of these people are also immune to HIV.

      That to me seems to be the most compelling explination for the facts we know. There is no doubt that some people seem to be unaffected by HIV. And there is also no doubt that it kills plenty of others. If a small percentage of the population has a mutation that makes them immune to the stuff, it would explain the cases the denialists point to.

  19. You can disappear an online story, if you take it down really quickly or your news site that reuses URL parameters in a way that confuses Google.

    Still the world is much better off than when it all stories gradually disappeared into the possession of some microfilm reading room-shushing librarian, and it was virtually impossible to check what the President said in that campaign speech he gave to the Teamsters last year against what he said last night at the trade talks in Abu Dhabi.

    1. Unless the stories mutate into manipulated propaganda, false quotes, outright lies, quoted thereafter and forever as factual. But that never happens.

      1. Isn't that a problem that has remained unchanged since the first time a bunch of cavemen described their hunting trip?

  20. All's I know are my facts:

    I tested "positive" in 1996 (not in a risk group)
    Told I'd "be lucky if I had 6 months to live
    Started the "cocktail" and took the drugs faithfully for 11 yrs.
    Quit all the HIV drugs in April 2007
    All side effects (that they told me were from "AIDS") have disappeared.
    Healthy today!

    By the way, I was "supposedly infected" in the late '80's and had a t-cell count of 29 upon diagnosis.

    Please see my story and pictures here:

    1. did it ever cross your mind that it could be the 11 years of medications and/or your immune system got the virus level to an undetectable point and you recovered. there is still the chance it could come back some time in the future.

  21. If Donald Rumsfeld had something to do with the company then it was a crooked company. I don't even need to waste my resources looking in to it.

  22. This is a great topic.

    Lemme make an analogy:

    Global warming science is mostly policized, agenda-driven claptrap by big government types who want to exert control over our economy.

    I say this, not as a polluter, but as a person who loves hiking, camping, fishing and preserving our national resources in a balanced manner.

    Amazing as it may seem, AIDS is pretty close to this global warming scam.

    AIDS wastes billions of tax-payer dollars.

    AIDS science is often junk, self-contradictory, and politicized.

    There is no heterosexual AIDS in America. Remarkably, there is barely any homosexual AIDS either, if you really scrutinize the data.

    Go see House of Numbers -- a wonderful documentary.


    And, don't play the "homophobe" card either. Like most Libertarians -- I don't care whether you are gay or not -- live and let live without gov't interference is my motto.

  23. My above post was heavy on commentary, light on facts -- here are salient ones:

    Fact 1: In 1981, the first 41 cases of AIDS in New York, were all gay men with Kaposi Sarcoma, who mostly used amyl nitrates, and had no sex whatsoever with each other.

    --Source: Ny Times, Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals, 7/3/81.

    Fact 2: In 1983, Jaffe of the CDC reported that 96% of gay men used amyl nitrates.

    --Source: Jaffe, Annals of Internal Medicine, 99: 145 - 151, see table 2.)

    Fact 3: In 1987, Jaffee of the CDC reported that 90% of all AIDS cases were gay men and druggies, and that heterosexuals almost never got AIDS.

    --Source: Ny Times, AIDS Expert Sees No Sign of Heterosexual Outbreak, 6/5/87.

    Fact 4: In 1991, only 1 out of 25 gay HIV+ men had detectable HIV in their semen.

    --Source: van Voorhis et el, Fertil. Steril. 55: 588?594 (1991).

    Fact 5: In 1997, the longest study of heterosexual couples, where one partner was HIV+, showed no seroconversions after 6 years of sex.

    --Source: Padian et al, Am J Epidemiol 146, 350-357 (1997).

    The important point to recognize is
    that although AIDS is certainly not a gay disease, most of the first cohort of AIDS cases were, in fact, gay men. This group, though, was ONLY a small subset of gays in general. It was mostly young males, who were partying hard, taking drugs, worst of all, inhaling these amyl nitrites (poppers), which were highly marketed to gay men in the local press.

    AIDS is much more of a multi-faceted syndrome of chemical toxicity, not a new retrovirus.

  24. am hiv+ for 23 years and nearly died taking arvs.

    hiv does not cause aids. greed, poverty, war and corruption does.

    now even montagnier -the discoverer of hiv- says so, thus threatening the demise of a multi-billion dollar aids industry.

    people are not stupid. visit noaids.ca to learn more. the hiv=aids fraud has got to stop. billions are wasted, millions are lied to, hundreds of thousands are poisened. just google side effects truvada and atripla.

    google aids lies - make up your own mind.

  25. To: Hacha Cha
    "did it ever cross your mind that it could be the 11 years of medications and/or your immune system got the virus level to an undetectable point and you recovered. there is still the chance it could come back some time in the future."

    Dear Hacha
    No. As much as you might like it to be.

    But what did "cross my mind" was that after I quit the drugs, all my symptoms and side effects that my HIV doc kept telling me were due to having advanced AIDS, suddenly disappeared!
    But, while we're on the topic of "it could come back sometime in the future...."
    I just recently had a young girl who exclaimed to me that she was an "HIV tester" tell me that "this virus hides dormant for 40-50 yrs and it WILL come back to get you eventually!"

    Priceless advice!

    BTW, did you go to my site and view my pictures? I'm really, truly, not ready to drop.

    1. well that is true, your viral load could rapidly increase at any time in the future. its like hepatitis C, you can get infected and take interferon/pegasys and after going through that antiviral therapy your hep c viral load could drop to undetectable levels. that doesn't mean it won't come back at some time in the future or that your levels will rise and you can risk infecting other people. the same is likely true with HIV antivirals, some people can have their viral load drop to undetectable and their CD4 count recovers to normal levels. some people are lucky and are basically "cured" but my ex was like that and after a few years of being off of antivirals her viral load shot way up and her CD4 plummeted to AIDS level. so good luck to you, I hope your lucky and don't have anymore problems but you should get your viral load and CD4 tested every 6 months to be sure.

      1. also wanted to say your viral load could go up at any point, ESPECIALLY if you get an infection and your immune system is in a weakened state.

  26. global warming is different, it could well be bullshit. if it is true it wouldn't matter, the government will just fuck things up.
    now the AIDS denialists are different, spreading lies like only gays get AIDS and that AIDS isn't caused by HIV is dangerous and lethal disinformation. don't believe in AIDS and are HIV positive, well either be lucky that your genetics is predisposed to fighting the infection and possibly survive or have fun dying of AIDS. not everyone is able to fight the HIV infection without antiretroviral drugs. like I said the AIDS denialits that are HIV+ are funny because they usually end up dying of AIDS. what isn't funny is that these kooks actually convince some people that their lies are truth and that puts people at risk of catching HIV/AIDS. there is cheaper medical technology coming out and someday their will be an HIV/AIDS vaccine and there is an HIV gene therapy called VRX496 that may very well be a cure, and it is cheaper right now than having these people on antivirals for life. climate disinformation creates more bullshit government regulations and more taxes but AIDS disinformation KILLS PEOPLE.

  27. To Bill M,

    Thank you posting actual FACTS instead of doing like the AIDSfalsers, just regurgitating the same vomit they've been spoon-fed for 25 yrs.
    I firmly believe in freedom of choice, so....."Down the hatch" people!

  28. Here are photos of me before, during, and after taking and quitting the drugs. Make sure to click on each picture to read the caption and dates.
    You decide:


  29. Dear Hacha,
    When I was on the drugs, my viral load was undetectable for the entire 11 yrs (after initially testing) and my t-cell count was anywhere from 29 to maybe 200-250 tops.
    As the years progressed, I developed more "AIDS-like symptoms" and began to have very bad days. I worked through them. I had two small children. It wasn't "optional" for me to lay around on the couch all day.

    Once I quit the drugs, I had one last set of surrogate marker tests done.
    T-cell 96 and V.L. 135,000.
    Felt better than ever. Still never one opportunistic infection in the 20 yrs I've "supposedly been infected".
    I would NEVER submit to these false tests again.

    Thank you for your well-educated advice, but I think I'll just continue doing what I'm doing.

    1. how were you tested? did they find just HIV antibodies? are you sure you didn't get a false positive and never had HIV in the first place? even if you do have HIV and are doing fine without meds that doesn't mean everyone else will have the same experience as you. perhaps you have one or two copies of a mutation in your CCR5 gene, but that is a minority of the population.

  30. In 2007, aidstruth.org, a website run by HIV researchers to counter denialist claims,[55] published a partial list of AIDS denialists who had died of AIDS-related causes. For example, the magazine Continuum, which consistently denied the existence of HIV/AIDS, shut down when its editors all died of AIDS-related causes. In every case, the AIDS denialist community attributed the deaths to unknown causes, secret drug use, or stress rather than HIV/AIDS.[17][54] Similarly, several HIV-positive former dissidents have reported being ostracized by the AIDS-denialist community after they developed AIDS and decided to pursue effective antiretroviral treatment.[56]

    In 2008, activist Christine Maggiore died at the age of 52 while under a doctor's care for pneumonia. Maggiore, mother of two children, had founded an organisation to help other HIV-positive mothers avoid taking antiretroviral drugs that reduce the risk of HIV transmission from mother to child.[57] After her three-year-old daughter died of AIDS-related pneumonia in 2005, Maggiore continued to believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and she and her husband Robin Scovil sued Los Angeles County and others on behalf of their daughter's estate, for allegedly violating Eliza Scovill's civil rights by releasing an autopsy report that listed her cause of death as AIDS-related pneumonia.[44] The litigants settled out of court, with the county paying Scovill $15,000 in March of 2009, with no admission of wrong-doing. The L.A. coroner's ruling that Eliza Jane Scovill died of AIDS remains standing as the official verdict.[58]

  31. "how were you tested? did they find just HIV antibodies? are you sure you didn't get a false positive and never had HIV in the first place? even if you do have HIV and are doing fine without meds that doesn't mean everyone else will have the same experience as you."

    They did an ELISA. Then they "assured me" that it was correct. There was "NO WAY it could be wrong", as they ran the
    back up test (W.B)
    Both complete jokes themselves.

    If I had a "false positive", for 11 YEARS, someone's going to PAY, BIG TIME! Where would you suggest I start? The people you work for?

    As far as the toxic, poisonous drugs, I don't advocate anyone quitting (or starting) these drugs. That is a highly personal decision every individual must make for themselves, ONLY AFTER being presented with and understanding ALL the facts. I am all about informed choice. One that I was NOT given.

    What you do to and with your body is your choice, I really don't care. What I do care about is real, factual evidence purposely being censored and withheld, all in the name of the almighty $$$$. Too many people are making too much $$$$$ off of this false paradigm, and not many are humble enough to step up to the plate and say "I WAS WRONG".
    Shame on all of you.

    1. well I was told that if I got a positive result they would do the 2 two blood tests but ELISA and western blot aren't the only 2 types of blood tests. if I were you I would get a mouth swab test to make sure you have HIV antibodies, if that comes up positive and you take it again and it comes up positive again then you are (or were at one time) infected with HIV. if it turns out you had false positives then you would probably be in a position to sue but its also likely you do have HIV but your body and the 11 years of therapy has put the infection at a manageable level for your immune system. there is no conspiracy, there are companies like virxsys and even the military are working on vaccines and the cure for HIV/AIDS. whoever brings a reliable vaccine and/or cure to market first will make a TON of money. they will make more money by curing and preventing it than by maintaining the status quo. check out VRX496.
      I have seen people who really suffer from HIV/AIDS, some took antivirals, some didn't. all of them got some relief from medical marijuana, which I helped them grow.
      unlike people who spread bullshit and put more people at risk there are smart people who are working on solving the problem. an Arizona research group is developing an infrared femtosecond laser treatment called Impulsive Stimulated Raman Scattering (ISRS), which would destroy HIV, Hep C, MRSA, and other virii and bacteria without harming human cells http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7071750.stm. there is the Virxsys Corp. who is developing an amazing gene therapy treatment that is in clinical trials now called VRX496 http://www.virxsys.com/modules.....works.php. they are also developing an HIV vaccine called VRX1023.

  32. Pluuuuuease don't tell me your citing aidstruth as an actual, factual resource!

  33. This has now, as usual, become too terribly painful to read. I've got to move on, good luck to all.

    1. I can't wait till the vaccine and gene therapy becomes standard and we won't have to hear retards sticking fingers in their ears and sing "I'm not listening" when confronted with evidence. of course I'm sure there will still be fucktards that won't take the vaccine, oh well smart people will benefit and not die of AIDS and the denialists will. I was citing aidstruth.org so you can see a list of denialists that died of AIDS. good luck on not becoming one of them.

  34. Hi Karri,

    You're story is very compelling. In essence, the AIDS scare was just another big phony scare, like global warming, Y2K, global cooling, Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq --it's the same song, over and over and over again.

    Glad you are healthy. Don't know if you are a Libertarian, but Lew Rockwell's site has been on this issue from the get-go:


    1. Thanks for the kind words Bill. Those are few and far between when you are a "survivor" in this disaster.
      And yes, I am very familiar with the Lew Rockwell site. Great one!

  35. Thank you for your large vocabulary of well wishes. Maybe you should get a better edge-a-ma-cation before you respond.

    One last thing I wanted to clarify, I did have one other "HIV test" shortly after I quit the drugs that were killing me. I had it done anonymous at the health dept.
    It still came back "positive".
    I would think it should, after having 11 yrs of mostly a less than 100 t-cell count. Because a t-cell count THAT low means AIDS, right? It means "no functioning immune system", as they've told me for years, right?

    As far a "being confronted with the evidence", you hate this, don't you?"
    You absolutely CAN'T STAND that I am real life evidence, telling my story, and having people question your unproven, false religion.
    The list of people you've slaughtered on these drugs is HUNDREDS of times greater than the little list of dissidents you cite. I would be embarrassed to cite that, if I were you.
    Blood on your hands, till the day you die.

    1. bullshit, did I say it was impossible to recover from an HIV/AIDS infection? no. all I said was that if you have been infected that there is a chance it could come back in the future, maybe or maybe not. HIV drugs have saved more lives, assholes who say condoms cause AIDS and having sex with a virgin cures it have killed more people than any antiviral drug. you seem to think because you had bad side effects from the treatment/s you received that everyone reacts the same way you do. and that anyone or most people can survive without any HIV treatment, that just is not the case. yes some people can fight HIV without any drugs, that isn't the majority of the population though. do you know anything about the CCR5 gene? you are a fucking idiot. you aren't a skeptic you are anti-science. I've had sex and shared intranasal drugs with someone who had AIDS many times and I was lucky not catch it, perhaps I have CCR5 mutations or maybe I just wasn't exposed, but that doesn't mean other people who do that won't catch it. not everyone reacts to disease and the drugs that fight them the same way.

      1. Your knowledge of the English language is frightening! Actually I find it offensive and childish.

  36. Gillespe concludes: "There never has been... a guarantee that anyone will care about your version of the truth..."

    While PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS have a right to choose what they believe and disbelieve, real journalists share an ethical and professional duty to report facts. Facts are binary ? meaning that they are true or false. Facts are based not on political or financial relationships, but on verifiable evidence.

    The comments and links included in Terry Michael's piece were factual ? indeed, anyone who clicked on Montagnier's video or watches the documentary "House of Numbers" is able to watch the Nobel Laureate and other esteemed scientists who turned their narcissistic interviews into an academic pie-throwing contest. The video speaks for itself.

    Michael's opinion forced Cramer and Feuerstein to make decisions that real journalists must make from time to time: Do they allow the delivery of facts and risk the loss of advertising, or do they compromise their ethical duty to shareholders in favor of a good relationship with an industry that routinely pays billions to settle criminal complaints?

    The fact that Mr. Michael later blogged the spiked opinion has nothing to do with TheStreet's blatant ethical compromise. Thousands of investors rely on TheStreet and CNBC to make intelligent investment decisions. Cramer and Feuerstein's decision eroded any confidence I once had in both outlets. As a result, I will explain to fellow investors why they should ignore Cramer and Feuerstein and why Terry Michael is worth reading.

  37. I know it's hard for people who have been inundated with the orthodox AIDS message for 25 years now to re-assess, but let me offer a series of analogies:

    1. War on Cancer -- failure, cancer rates thru the roof, billions wasted.

    2. War on Poverty -- failure, numbers of poor massively increased under welfare state, billions wasted

    3. War in Iraq -- failure, no weapons of mass destruction, billions wasted.

    4. War on Drugs -- failure, prisons filled with non-violent drug offenders, billions wasted.

    The War on AIDS is the same thing! Stripped of the homophobia and fear and hyperbole, it is a statiscal non-event.

    At its worst, AIDS killed 15/100,000 in the USA. That's trivial compared to heart disease, cancer, stroke, COPD, diabetes or any other major disease.

    But it generates billions for gov't researchers and do-gooders and ditzy hollywood movie stars.

    We need much LESS gov't spending on AIDS.

    I fear Duesberg has been right all along.

    1. some of the most interesting HIV/AIDS therapies are being developed by private companies.

  38. So, it seems one side wants people, real people, to tell their stories and be free to elect not to poison themselves to death over a positive antibody test nobody can even use to predict, within a span of 10-20 years, who will sicken or die.

    The other side uses the Communist/Fascist tradition of crushing all dissent and commanding a death wish upon those who argue for sanity, science, life, freedom of choice, and a humane and informed approach to HIV positivity, whatever it means.

    Clark Baker is correct. Real journalists face facts, ignore fashions, and listen to real people and not propaganda websites.

    Let's hear from more people with direct experiences. How could anybody object to that unless they were, say, an AIDS activist, or a paid troll?

    This is NOT different from Global Warming.

    Two kinds of people: Pro-raw data or anti-raw data.

    1. I don't care if a person doesn't want to get medical help, just don't spread the disease to anyone who doesn't want it. but pointing out how the minority of people react to HIV infection doesn't mean the majority of people respond to the disease and the medications that fight it the same way. that is not informed that is disinformed. I know many people who have BENEFITED from antiviral drugs. I know people who died of AIDS and it was horrible, most stopped taking their meds. you people are fucking nuts, like "we never landed on the moon" nuts. you are the type of people that drive away people from the pro-personal and pro-economic freedom movement.

  39. Whittaker wrote:

    Two kinds of people: Pro-raw data or anti-raw data.

    Love it.

    The best raw data on infectious disease comes from Armstrong, JAMA (1999):


    Since 1900, death by infectious disease in the US has declined 95%! This includes all the nasties -- flu, small pox, polio, herpes, syphillis, gonorhea.

    The data conclusively shows that AIDS is merely a statistical blip.

    Yet, it still gets the lion's share of the government funding.

  40. Hey ChaCha - Name one drug that helps HIV+ people? Sustiva? Did you know kids smoke it like crack in Africa? What better drug to deliver to gay crystal meth addicts?

    1. that is hilarious, you obviously don't use drugs. kids huff fermented shit in Africa that doesn't mean normal people try to get high on dumb shit. none of the antivirals are psychoactive. you are a fucking retard. you need to brush up on your pharmacology. the current antivirals are alright for many people for lowering viral load. increasing CD4 count is different, I've heard neupogen and another similar drug can help with that. cannabis, marinol, nabilone, and zofran are goood antinausea and appetite stimulants (well zofran isn't an appetite stimulant). the technology I am looking forward to and was trying to get my ex into a clinical trial for was VRX496 gene therapy. the ISRS laser therapy looks promising too.

      1. I also meant that you couldn't get high on it, its not possible because it doesn't effect the CNS, you are a moron. the only thing you might get is sick from side effects.

        1. this reminds me of the time some quack doctor on Coast to Coast AM was trying to say Tamiflu was being smoked and was similar to PCP. anyone that knows even just a little about chemistry can see there is no fucking relation. these are bullshit scare stories. if they were really psychoactive they would be abused here in the US too .

  41. All I know is my experience, I was diagnosed with encephalitis, shortly after getting herpes. Though documented in medical books as being related, no doctor made the connection between encephalitis and the onset of herpes. Instead, they pushed me, a newlywed of 3 months, to take an HIV test. Ignorantly, I did. Then they pushed my husband to do so. He tested as having AIDS, me as HIV+. No investigation was done into factors that can trigger a false positive. Make a long sad story short, he took the meds, and is now dead. I didn't and am healthier than I've ever been despite t-cells of about 150. His health was damaged because of the meds. Plain and simple, I didn't take the meds, I'm alive, he took them, he's dead. I'd rather argue and share the details in court.
    It is now my passion to bring the truth of HIV and AIDS out. And it will come out. It is as we speak. Thankfully even Luc Montagnier can't deny it.

    1. maybe he died because ITS A SERIOUS FUCKING DISEASE and medicine doesn't always work. if they are so deadly why is the mortality rate for HIV/AIDS going down in people who use antivirals.

  42. Here's a little story: You have a child who was very healthy. Your doctor suggested you have a test to see if he harbors a deadly disease. The test results come back. Your child "has" the disease. You get your child tested again. Same results. The two people who tested your child are from the mighty medical community, so you believe every word they say and put your healthy child on toxic medication. So you go along and your child is getting sicker and sicker. The doctor says your child is dying from the disease. You get another doctor's opinion, with another round of tests. You decide to get a 4th opinion from one of the world's most reknowned medical facilities, and the mighty doctor says, "YUP your child has it, and will be dead within 1-2 years." SO you go to yet a 5th doctor and that doctor says, "YUP, I believe the results of the first 4 doctors, but to prove it to YOU I will rerun all the tests." Then a few days later he calls and says, "Put your kid on AZT or he will die. He will live 1-2 years longer." What the mighty doctors didn't know is that between doctors 2 and 3, you took your kid off the drug and all symptoms of illness went away. All that happened before the kid was 5. SO, now your child is an adult, and is alive. What if you would have followed any one of the 5 doctor's orders, and kept your kid on the drugs? ANSWER: You would not have a child anymore.

    My Question: Aren't the mighty medical doctors interested in why the child made it to adulthood? Don't they wonder? I WONDER EVERY SINGLE DAY.

  43. NO. They don't wonder. They don't care. You, and your child, have ruined their false religion. Poked a HUGE hole in it. Exposed it for what it is.
    And oh, by the way, since your child survived and thrives, I'm "sure that he/she was a FALSE positive"! 😉
    Only in the world of pseudo/junk science.

  44. HaChaCha - Unlike you, I've qualified in court as a drug expert in more than 2500 criminal cases. I've also verified the psychotropic effects (the high) with gay HIV+ men who now smoke Sustiva (Efavirenz) recreationally.

    You're either 1) unqualified to make such statements or 2) you're a pharmaceutial marketing exec or 3) you're an AIDS advocate who receives funding from Big Pharma. Your anonymity and lack of intellectual curiosity speaks for itself.

    1. big deal there are quacks and liars that testify in court every day and you are one of them. I grow medical marijuana for people with HIV/AIDS and I have a degree in pharmacology. so smart ass, tell me what makes sustiva psychoactive? if it got you high people would be selling them on the street and that is not happening. I've never heard any HIV/AIDS patient say that sustiva got them high, quite the opposite, many only got unpleasant side effects. you are a fucking idiot and you are making judging me saying I get paid by pharmaceutical companies, that is a fucking laugh, I wish I got paid to post online that would be a sweet job.

      1. and no one is "unqualified" to make statements that is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority. ask any seasoned drug user if they have EVER heard of anyone actually getting high off of HIV meds and they will laugh at you, or they might say marinol or medical marijuana, the antivirals are not psychoactive. if sustiva had psychoactive effects that would have came out during clinical trials and FDA approval. then it would likely have been placed in the Controlled Substance Act. but since you are a LIAR I doubt you will be able to tell me what mechanism of action it has that gives it psychoactivity.

  45. as a seasoned drug user I can attest to the fact that Clark Baker is a fag and doesn\'t know shit about drugs.

  46. OH COME ON GUYS! don\'t mess up his big conspiracy! anyone that is against him is being paid off by \"big pharma\". ;);)
    SDU, yes he is a fag that knows nothing about drugs.

  47. Clark Baker is a former Los Angeles police officer who was fired in 1991 after being convicted of battering a jaywalking immigrant.

  48. To correct the record;

    1. Clark Baker was vindicated when an appellate court reversed the trumped-up conviction, and he was re-instated at the LAPD where he retired after 20 years, honorably.

    2. I can attest to the fact that Clark Baker is a fag

    To the correct the record again, Clark Baker is married (to a woman). More so, even if he was a homosexual, so what? I thought we libertarians were all for gay marriage/gay rights.

    It looks like the anonymous riff-raff have hijacked the thread.

    Nonetheless, the issue of viral causality of AIDS is an open question which should be further investigated.

  49. Clark Baker still battered a jaywalking immigrant, he won on an appeal in court because of a technicality. he is still an ape. and I said fag not homosexual, he is indeed a fag, homosexual maybe (not that there is anything wrong with being homosexual), but definitely a fag.

  50. Unlike the pharmasluts that have hijacked this comment zone, my bio is easily located, along with hyperlinks to all of the documents. Yes, if you read the documents posted you'll see that I was cleared after several technicalities - judicial misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective counsel to name a few. The DA then appealed and lost them all. He refused to appeal to the California Supreme Court because he didn't want his behavior published as part of the official record.

    The prosecutor also had the opportunity to retry me but decided not to. The LAPD had no obligation to take me back in their ranks but even they determined my innocence. Unlike Robert Gallo, whose misconduct and incompetence is legendary, I was only accused once during the past 30 years. So say what you will ? California licensed me in 1997 and I still have my license. Gallo's investigator who wrote "Dissecting a Discovery" sells filters out of his garage and has never been qualified to take the PI exam in California.

    If you pay attention to my blog in the coming days, everyone will see exactly how much these pharmasluts make from pharmaceutical, NIAID and NIMH grants. Attacking the messenger is why they're paid as well as they are - and why they can't ID themselves as I have. I know who they are and that terrifies them.

    Okay, I'll give you a hint... hmm...

    How about UConn psychology professor Seth Kalichman. What does such an individual make a year as a college professor - and one that his students inform me as a narcissistic bore in the classroom. What does he earn? $120K/year?

    With that kind of job, how long would it take him to earn $17 million? He actually earned more than $17 million but several of the so-called "research grants" he received didn't report what National Institute of Mental Health(NIMH) gave to him. Nor is there ANY available evidence that he accomplished anything related to that funding.

    So just what did Kalichman do with the $1.5 million he received for the "Brief HIV Prevention Counseling In South Africa" between 2004-2006? He made ~$15 million in the last decade with nothing to show for it except a blog and a few unreadable books and comments about denialists - most of it paid for by NIMH.

    A real scientist who does real work, like Kary Mullis who's Nobel Prize-winning work now allows the innocent men to go free - he's paid ZERO ever since he refused to go along with the lies. Why doesn't Dr. Mullis blog? Because he's a real scientist. Kalichman is paid by these governmental agencies to do nothing more than call skeptics crazy - and trolls like Todd DeShong do that from their mother's basements.

    So yes, you can try to attack me personally but after 20 years as a cop, I'm used to being attacked by scum. When someone like Kalichman starts to appreciate my work I'll begin to worry.

    Stay tuned for 2010 - this will be a remarkable year. Galileo's telescope will allow everyone to see the heavens...

    Let's get ready to RUMBLE!

  51. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz books series either as collectible or investment at http://www.RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.