Will Y!A do anything to stop HIV-denialist trolls?

Paul King asked the MSN Dissident Action Newsgroup to begin action here at Yahoo! Answers. Paul and his friends have been very active since then. That was March 5, 2007.

Paul King and his MSN groups have plotted attacks against all sources of information about HIV and AIDS. They don't have any science on their side, so they use political action to convince people that HIV does not exist, and that condoms are dangerous.

Y!A is self-moderated, so it is up to other users to report abuse. This is 'democracy' in action.

The users of this and other websites SHOULD be aware that not everything you read is fact. Therefore, it is up to each of us to simply use the web and other media as resources for our own research. Just because someone says they know something, or they are a "Top Contributor" doesn't mean that their word is the absolute authority on the subject.

People on here debate the existence of God, similarly to how these people are debating the existence of HIV/AIDS. Similarly, you can find numerous opinions and debates on religion, abortion, ADHD, gay marriage, politics and the war, etc. So this site makes it clear that there are many opinions out there and that in life, we all have to find our own answers.

"At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood."

This statement comes from the Abbott Laboratories test insert for HIV. It doesn't matter what side of the fence one fights for when a little literacy is all it takes to comprehend the disclaimer. Whether HIV causes AIDS, obesity, or disco fever is irrelevant when the test kits clearly state there is no standard on how to interpret the results. Since the WHOLE HIV/AIDS theory rests on how these tests work, you'll have to excuse my skepticism. You will find similar disclaimers on any of the assays used for HIV.

Ill now take this special time to call out a previous poster on his apparent lack of scientific research. Yes there have been research of mice being infected with genetically-engineered HIV but Id love to see the citation of the paper claiming ANY mouse ever came down with AIDS. In fact, apes and monkeys do not develope AIDS either when infected with HIV.

Onto the needle stick comment. 20-50 times more people die from LIGHTNING strikes as compared to the number of reported infection from needle stick injuries.

My email is open if you wish to provide me with citations or engage in debate.

Wow. I can't believe how many trolls answered your question because the word "HIV" was in your post. Unbelievable!

I actually watched my uncle pass away from HIV/AIDS when I was only 12 years old!! He wasn't even on any medication! So for the people that say "drugs are the killer, not HIV/AIDS", how is that possible??

I don't wish HIV/AIDS on anyone, but I really wish sometimes people like this watched as someone they truly cared for and loved DIED from HIV/AIDS. They really have no CLUE how it feels like to watch someone you love parish from such a horrible disease! I will NEVER get to see my uncle EVER again and it is because of a disease that these trolls think "doesn't exist". Please! They need to get over themselves and think of something better to do with their time then post these outrageous claims.

PS - Prof Sam is another troll to add to the list.

Keep up the good work Gumdrop Girl :o)

I agree that if possible, something should be done. I have read all the information put under this question, and looked at the sites linked away, and I must say I'm shocked. The evidence given against HIV causing AIDS is so weak its unbelievable. Literally. We give mice AIDS by infecting them with the HIV virus. These mice do not take any other drugs or enage in homosexual acts and they get AIDS. Needle stick incidences of AIDS are reported every so often: in upstanding drug free people.

This rot has to stop.

This is not free speech. In fact, it follows a philosophy I thought of years ago which is, if you want to do the most harm to the IV drug using, homosexual and promiscuous communities, the best way is to reassure them that they are at no risk. It's unethical but they want to believe it, and it would destroy the most lives with the least effort.

I went looking for this problem and viewed one of the sites. The "expert opinions" given were between 7 and 15 years old, with an average of 12 1/2 years. In science, that's like ancient history. And how much does the opinion of a mathemetician count when you're talking about disease?

I agree that that sort of thing ISN'T free speech and it must be pretty annoying. I bet they're a bunch of immature teens who think HIV/AIDS is funny. All you can do it report them. You can try a complaint here but that doesn't always work. answers-abuse@cc.yahoo-inc.com

No, they won't because everyone it entitled to their own opinion...and the right to free speech (even if they are wrong)

Quote: "Paul King and his MSN groups have plotted attacks against all sources of information about HIV and AIDS. They don't have any science on their side, so they use political action to convince people that HIV does not exist, and that "condoms are dangerous."

Ah, the old "consensus science" argument.

Here's another point of view on "consensus science":

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

"In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

"In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

"There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

"Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

"And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

The quotes are from Michael Crichton, best-selling author of Jurassic Park, from a lecture entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming." See the following link:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches...

While I don't agree with his views on global warming (see realclimate.org for a good rebuttal of Crichton's arguments), as a student of scientific history I wholeheartedly agree with his comments on "consensus science."

The usual rebuttal to this kind of statement is to say that for every Galileo or pair of Wright Brothers who overturned the scientific consensus of their time there are a hundred cranks whose delusional notions have long become extinct. While this rebuttal has some merit, it's important to recognize that a dogmatic defense of the consensus will make one blind to the Galileos of the future. The only real way to know the difference for sure is to LOOK THROUGH THE TELESCOPE!!! In other words, don't adopt the attitude of the Church during Galileo's time and refuse to look at Galileo's evidence, because "everyone knows" it's incorrect. Real science is about weighing ALL the evidence for a theory PRO and CON, no matter how dicey the dissenting evidence for a given theory at first appears to be.

Unfortunately, most of the posters on this board are unwilling to do that. They only look at ONE side before making up their minds. This is RELIGION, not science.

Q.E.D.

"I am in favor of differing opinions, but in this case, the disinformation spread by these people can potentially KILL people."

How is that? Let me remind everyone here that AZT alone is responsible for a very large number of deaths. Deaths from 'AIDS' rose substantially at the introduction of AZT in the mid to late 80's and only began dropping off as AZT doses were both reduced by 1/2 to 1/4 and AZT was coupled with 3TC. 3TC acts like an antioxidant which cancels out the dangerously pro-oxidant effects of AZT.1

Looking at the list of degenerative side-effects from AZT is quite revealing about the nature of this 'drug'.2

For instance, in 2002 a paper published in the Journal of Clinical Virology about infant AZT exposure wrote, 'Our results preliminary suggested that infected infants who were perinatally exposed to ZDV may have a more rapid early disease progression with unfavorable viral manifestations than those without exposure to antiretroviral drug.' (5 of 7 exposed vs 1 of 5 non-exposed progressed to symptomatic clinical stage). 3

Or from the paper published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrom titled, 'Grade 4 events are as important as AIDS events in the era of HAART.'4

The conclusion: More than twice as many people (675) had a drug-related (grade 4) life-threatening event as an “AIDS event” (332). The most common causes of grade 4 events (drug toxicities) were “liver related.” The greatest risk of death was not an AIDS “event” but a drug event—heart attacks (“cardiovascular events”). The authors wrote: “Our finding is that the rate of grade 4 events is greater than the rate of AIDS events, and that the risk of death associated with these grade 4 events was very high for many events. Thus the incidence of AIDS fails to capture most of the morbidity experienced by patients with HIV infection prescribed HAART.”

Or how about this paper, 'Long-term Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy in an Anti-Retroviral Experienced Population'.

• At baseline, 39 percent were classified as asymptomatic, 33 percent were symptomatic and 28 percent had an AIDS defining illness.

• After 18 months [on HAART], 14 percent of the population remained asymptomatic... 39 percent were symptomatic and 47 percent of the population had an AIDS defining illness. 5

As much as the individual putting forth this question wants to believe that whatever we have to say is dangerous, at least we're citing data and references to back up our claims. Had someone like Joyce Ann Hafford become aware of some of this information, she would have been alive to this day. Instead this previously healthy 33 year old woman became severely ill and died after initiating Navirapine 'therapy'. She had recently tested 'positive' on these completely unverified antibody tests after 4 months of pregnancy. No one told her that being pregnant, especially after having more than one pregnancy, can cause a reactive test.

Now her child is without a mother thanks to these 'therapies'.

Now whose 'disinformation can potentially KILL people' is the question I want to ask.

Chris