>  (himself) writes:
> > holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:

> > > [...]  No one takes the position
> > > that only HIV causes immune deficiency or that HIV-related immune
> > > deficiency is due to HIV without the action of other co-factors.  

> > These claims represent Dr Holzman’s present position. As with
> > the rest of the "Aids" business, what "everyone knows" and what
> > "positions no one takes" are very variable from month to month
> > and apologist to apologist.

> My present postion is one of anger.  

Just you, or are you speaking for everyone? "No one takes the
position…" You should know better than this!

And if you wish to suggest that your views have not changed in the
light of the constantly crumbling "HIV" theory, then you are still
back in the days of 100% mortality after a few weeks. Of course your
views have changed, and will change a great deal more over the next
year or so. Only dissidents have the luxury of a set of principles
that do not need continual revision, because they were correct from
the start. That will *never* be your privilege.

 John
—  
"Taxpayers, and HIV positives and their relatives, potentially
constitute the most explosive opposition to the AIDS establishment.
As the failures of the war on AIDS mount up, the size of the imminent
backlash grows; the longer AIDS officials resist the inevitable, the
harder they will fall. Time, therefore, has become our most valuable
ally."            Prof. Peter Duesberg, "Inventing the AIDS Virus"

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:

>>  (himself) writes:
>> > holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:

>> > > [...]  No one takes the position
>> > > that only HIV causes immune deficiency or that HIV-related immune
>> > > deficiency is due to HIV without the action of other co-factors.  

>> > These claims represent Dr Holzman’s present position. As with
>> > the rest of the "Aids" business, what "everyone knows" and what
>> > "positions no one takes" are very variable from month to month
>> > and apologist to apologist.

>> My present postion is one of anger.  

> Just you, or are you speaking for everyone? "No one takes the
> position…" You should know better than this!

I am speaking for the organized body of data that exist in textbooks and
articles. There is no one who ever believed what you and duesberg ascribe to
orthodox virology or medicine.  You
mistate political rhetoric — vaccine in 4 years, "its the virus stupid" —
for fact and theory.

> And if you wish to suggest that your views have not changed in the
> light of the constantly crumbling "HIV" theory, then you are still
> back in the days of 100% mortality after a few weeks.

No, I was never there and you can’t produce a quote to indicate I was.

Of course your

> views have changed, and will change a great deal more over the next
> year or so. Only dissidents have the luxury of a set of principles
> that do not need continual revision, because they were correct from
> the start. That will *never* be your privilege.

Thats the difference between religious faith and science.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

In article <857598150…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:
> holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:

>> What is meant by "solely" in the above statement?  The discussion
>> that rages here is between those who feel that it has *no* role and
>> those who feel that it is the cause of the epidemic of immune
>> deficiency seen in the last 15 years.  No one takes the position
>> that only HIV causes immune deficiency or that HIV-related immune
>> deficiency is due to HIV without the action of other co-factors.  

> These claims represent Dr Holzman’s present position. As with
> the rest of the "Aids" business, what "everyone knows" and what
> "positions no one takes" are very variable from month to month
> and apologist to apologist.

My present postion is one of anger.  Scientific knowledge advances but you
state that the above is my "present" position, implying that I previously took
some other position and blow with the winds.  Now you have been a poster long
enough to know your statement is untrue.  In case you don’t, here is the
quotation from the sci.med.aids faq that I wrote with David Mertz in the good
old pre misc.health.aids days…

 In summary, to assert that HIV is the cause of AIDS is to assert that HIV was
 the cause of the epidemic of immune suppression that appeared in 1980-81. To
 ascribe this role to HIV it is not necessary to show that HIV is the only cause
 of immunosuppression in those at risk, nor that cofactors are unimportant in
 the development of AIDS, nor that every patient who meets the case definition
 has HIV infection. It is only necessary to show that HIV infection can result
 in immune suppression and that HIV infection occurred in the appropriate
 population at an appropriate time to account for the epidemic.

If you had any sense of shame you would … but then of course you don’t.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

In article <5fi297$qh…@news.rain.org>, h…@rain.org (Hal Finney) writes:
> The Foresight Exchange, http://www.ideosphere.com/fx/main.html, is an
> online game (based on the ideas of Robin Hanson) where players make
> play-money "bets" about various controversial issues.  This produces an
> "idea futures market" where the prices of the claims represent the
> market’s opinion about their likely outcome.

> I’d like to add a claim about the question of whether HIV causes AIDS,
> and I heard that this newsgroup had some people with an opinion on the
> matter.

> One possible claim wording would be "AIDS will be reported in a peer-
> reviewed scientific journal as not being solely caused by HIV."  This would
> have a cutoff date of around 2001.  We might alternately have a specific
> list of journals rather than the generic comment above.

> I’d like the claim to be one which the AIDS-HIV skeptics would view as very
> likely to come true, while those who hold the conventional view would see
> it as very unlikely.  Does the claim above satisfy this?  Or is there
> some other wording which would make it better capture the essence of
> the disagreement?

> Thanks very much for any comments –

> Hal Finney
> h…@rain.org

What is meant by "solely" in the above statement?  The discussion that rages here is
between those who feel that it has *no* role and those who feel that it is the cause
of the epidemic of immune deficiency seen in the last 15 years.  No one takes the
position that only HIV causes immune deficiency or that HIV-related immune
deficiency is due to HIV without the action of other co-factors.  

> What is meant by "solely" in the above statement?  The discussion
> that rages here is between those who feel that it has *no* role and
> those who feel that it is the cause of the epidemic of immune
> deficiency seen in the last 15 years.  No one takes the position
> that only HIV causes immune deficiency or that HIV-related immune
> deficiency is due to HIV without the action of other co-factors.  

These claims represent Dr Holzman’s present position. As with
the rest of the "Aids" business, what "everyone knows" and what
"positions no one takes" are very variable from month to month
and apologist to apologist.

Most of the servants of the "HIV" superstition continue to claim
that "HIV" is the cause of "Aids" with the same blind certainty
that it was once "known" that without human sacrifice the corn
wouldn’t grow.

The question of whether "HIV" causes "Aids" is settled as far as
the UK is concerned, where the epidemiological data flatly and
irrefutibly rule out the possibility of an infectious agent of any
kind in these tragic iatrogenic poisonings. The only consolation
is that we have had many, many fewer of them than in more gullible
societies, due to early warnings about the derelict science behind
the "HIV" delusion.

 John
—  
"Meanwhile, let us hope that the country is not confronted with a real
epidemic in the near future: after the disinformation the government
has told us about Aids, who would believe it?"
                 Andrew Neil, editor, The Sunday Times, 23 June 1996.