This should really have gone to the wikien-l list ----- Forwarded message from harry <harrypasternak(a)sympatico.ca> ----- From: harry <harrypasternak(a)sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:21:57 -0500 To: wikipedia-l(a)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