View Full Version : My chat with Dr. Bob... (ame-g181)

October 29th, 2002, 02:00 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Hi Folks,<BR>I just had my little chat with the AIDS doctor, Doctor Bob from the Seattle/King County HIV/AIDS Prevention department. It was pretty intense.<BR><BR>Here are a couple things he said.<BR>? STDs like ghonoreah and syphilis are upwards of 500 to 1000 times higher in the gay community than the straight community.<BR>? The people he saw got sick and die in the early aids days were otherwise healthy (i.e., their immune systems weren t destroyed by lifestyle).<BR>? Drugs like heroin simply do not create the kind of sickness that HIV does.<BR>? My opinion isn t terribly valid because I haven t treated people with AIDS.<BR>? My opinion isn t valid because I only have book learning" about HIV/AIDS.<BR>? Duesberg s opinions about HIV/AIDS aren t valid because he s not a clinician.<BR>? Only those drug abusers who have HIV get AIDS.<BR><BR><BR>When I tried to discuss the HIV tests, he kept insisting that it isn t necessary to have one if you are sick because AIDS is obviously different from other diseases.<BR><BR>There are some men who have primary infection. The kind where they get that flu/sickness after supposedly seroconverting to HIV. He said these are the men who are the most dangerous because they can infect much more readily than those who have low viral loads.<BR><BR>In fact, he says that he sees about 60% of people who seroconvert develop that infection illness. I asked him for reference to research on that but he didn t have it.<BR><BR>He also said the correlation between the rise of drug use and AIDS in the 70 s and 80 s is merely coincidental, that people have been using these drugs for a long time. When I pressed that it was the amount of drugs and time duration of drug use that predicted AIDS, he still insisted that HIV has to be present to cause AIDS.<BR><BR>Once again, he persisted that you have to work with AIDS patients to see that it is different from other illnesses. All my booklearning was not terribly relevant he said because of my lack of clinical experience in the matter.<BR><BR>I tried pressing the point that the HIV tests simply can t tell you if you have HIV or not by explaining the origins of the research by Bob Gallo and Montagnier. But that didn t get too far.<BR><BR>Anyway, it was really unnerving. I mean, here I am going up against someone with all this AIDS experience and I felt a little freaked out. <BR><BR>Chris</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 19th, 2002, 08:29 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Chris:<BR><BR>Okie-dokie, now to finally tackle this post. I ll try to go point-by-point.<BR><BR>1. "STDs like ghonoreah and syphilis are upwards of 500 to 1000 times higher in the gay community than<BR> the straight community."<BR><BR>I have addressed this issue before. I think this notion is based more likely in HOMOPHOBIA than in any real science. Please review <a target=_top href="http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=926">THIS RECENT POST</a> which critically analyzes data on STDs in the gay community. Where is "Dr. Bob s" proof of HIS notion and his proof that the MUCH higher level of screening for STDs that occurs in the gay community has not artificially created this bias? Oh, yeah, that s right, I forgot, "Dr. Bob" doesn t believe in citing references!<BR><BR>2. "The people he saw got sick and die in the early aids days were otherwise healthy (i.e., their immune<BR> systems weren t destroyed by lifestyle)"<BR><BR>Without any references to support this notion, it is impossible to know HOW "Dr. Bob" arrived at this conclusion. From all indications, this is another notion that is wholly unsupported by the medical literature. Peter Duesberg, for all his faults, has provided consistent data which clearly indicate that illicit drugs DID indeed play a MAJOR role in the epidemiology of the early (pre-AZT) cases of "AIDS". See again, <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrdilemma.htm">THIS MASSIVE ANALYSIS</a> by Duesberg and Rasnick.<BR><BR>3. "Drugs like heroin simply do not create the kind of sickness that HIV does."<BR><BR>This is where things get a little tricky. First of all, it s not heroin that is the culprit in most AIDS cases in the developing world. The largest portion of "AIDS" cases in the west occur in gay men, and, among them, the most commonly used drugs are the nitrites (poppers). While, arguably, heroin may not be as potent as nitrites, they both are oxidising agents. Please review again <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epmedhypo.htm">THIS STUDY</a> on the oxidative origins of "AIDS". This ties in quite nicely with "Dr. Bob s" later utterance of profound inspiration:<BR><BR>4. "Only those drug abusers who have HIV get AIDS."<BR><BR>It is true that only those who have used amounts of heroin and nitrites sufficient enough to cause disturbance in their "redox" (the balance between oxidation and its opposite reaction, reduction) will be the only ones to register "positive" on the "HIV test". As Eleni P-E points out in <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epmedhypo.htm">THIS PAPER</a> I just cited, this is due to DRUG-INDUCED "synthesis of viral antibodies and antigens in the ABSENCE OF THE VIRUS" (emphasis mine). Due to their higher levels of drug use, these patients are also the ones more likely to become ill. Even the more simplistic Duesberg, whose superficial analyses I often criticize on this forum, has had to concede that <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdaztsfstudy.htm">"HIV IS A SURROGATE MARKER FOR DRUG USE"</a>. Of course, what he really means to say is that "HIV *POSITIVITY*" is a surrogate marker for use of (both PRESCRIBED AND ILLICIT) drugs. <BR><BR>A further wrinkle in this scenario is the role of antioxidants. If someone has adequate intake and absorption of antioxidants (AKA "reducing agents"), their heroin or poppers use may not prove as detrimental as that of others who have less exposure to reducing agents.<BR><BR>5. "My opinion isn t terribly valid because I haven t treated people with AIDS."<BR><BR>6. "My opinion isn t valid because I only have book learning" about HIV/AIDS."<BR><BR>7. "Duesberg s opinions about HIV/AIDS aren t valid because he s not a clinician."<BR><BR>Thankfully, these are all variations on a singular preposterous theme that has been oft-repeated by AIDS industry apologists. Far from being a "problem" for dissidents, this notion, my friend, is actually the achilles heel of the AIDS industry. "Dr. Bob" cites NO references to support his notions while at the same time he tries to make you believe your opinion is invalid because all you have done is read research. The obvious question that arises is: WHAT, pray tell, does Dr. Bob think is the basis for all that research that you have read? <BR><BR>Data from siamese cats who are suffering from flatulence?! <BR><BR>To point out the obvious: you should know by now that the data contained in the research you have read emanates from real-life human "AIDS" patients whose attending clinicians have gathered such data from them and published these data in the medical literature. If what Dr. Bob and other AIDS industry apologists CLAIM is actually true, it should be AMPLY documented in the medical literature by now, and no one should have ANY difficulty citing such proof!<BR><BR>I suppose I should congratulate you on taking on someone like this so early in your "career" as a dissident. Take it from someone who has been doing this type of thing for years (Please see <a target=_top href="http://www.aidsrealitycheck.org/arc_pages/breaking_news.html#aidsdocs">THIS LINK</a> for more background on this), Dr. Bob s frustrating response is typical. I ve gotten to the point where I don t care to "get into it" with jerks like this anymore. <BR><BR>Suffice it to say, if these "saintly" clinicians REALLY knew what they were doing, they would have NO PROBLEM coughing up the proof if asked. Quite easily and justifiably, the reverse of Dr. Bob s argument could be made: clinicians have so little time to do the research they SHOULD be doing but instead are not only taking for granted the research of a relatively few scientists but also at the same time entertaining NON-degreed SALES REPS from the pharmaceutical corporations. Can we say CHUTZPAH?!<BR><BR>As Kelly has said repeatedly, "M.D." does NOT stand for "Medical Deity"! I believe that, based upon his recent posts here, SeaDoc will concur with that statement.<BR><BR>Good job of raising the proverbial crucifix to the proverbial vampire, Chris! However, you are probably painfully aware of the fact that "Dr. Bob s" mind will probably NEVER change. If you do decide to do this type of thing again, just don t let it "freak you out" quite so much.<BR><BR>All the best,<BR>Rod Knoll,<BR>Founder,<BR><a target=_top href="http://www.aidsrc.org">AIDS REALITY CHECK</a>a</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 19th, 2002, 09:41 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Gang:<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I figured that, when making a LONG message, I would neglect to mentionsomething.&nbsp; It<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;seems that, in addition to the adverse effects of illicit drugs which I vealready described,<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;these drugs are also routinely manufactured using derivatives of benzeneand acetone.<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Please see&nbsp; <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/sblubejob.htm">THISSTUDY</a>&nbsp; I ve cited often here for more on this. Perhaps this involvementof these<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;toxins in the manufacture of these drugs is a newer development that occurredrelative to the start<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;of the "AIDS" era?</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That s all for now!</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rod Knoll<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a target=_top href="http://www.aidsrc.org">AIDS REALITY CHECK</a></FONT></p></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 20th, 2002, 03:16 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Hi,<BR>Thanks for the long reply. The funny thing was that I showed up with a bunch of material with citations etc. When he saw this he said, well if I had known you were going to bring that I would have brought my citations also."<BR><BR>I thought, well, too bad. I did.<BR><BR>The more I look back on the experience, the more parts of it stand out in my mind. Like the part about the Viral Load test which he talked about in relation to someones ability to pass along the supposed virus. He said the old if someone has a zero VL, they can still pass the virus on, but not as easily as someone with a high VL. <BR><BR>When I explained the basis (or rather lack thereof) of the viral load test and the fact that it isn t tracking actual infectious virus, he seemed almost a bit taken back by it. Like because the name was Viral Load it s self evident that it tests for virus.<BR><BR>I have a friend who was in his early 20 s in the late 70 s early 80 s and has told me his friends were doing drugs all the time, right and left. He said he never had the stomach for doing them. And he s the one still here.<BR><BR>The paper on Benzene is really good. I read it not long ago and found it very informative. I have several friends who have been harping ont he benzene thing for a long time.<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR><BR>Chris</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 20th, 2002, 06:16 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Chris:<BR><BR>You re quite welcome. It seems, though, that, despite his claims that he has citations, too, "Dr. Bob" does not BELIEVE in citing references, judging from the comments he made to you about your "book learning". Sounds more and more like he has a severe God complex.<BR><BR>Also, judging from the profound discrepancies among the results obtained with the different types of viral load tests on the market, it seems that someone s level of "infectiousness" is more dependent upon that patient s doctor s relationships with the various biotech corporations that make these tests than upon any amount of actual virus! Have a look at the chart on the viral load tests in <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vtcorweiss.htm">THIS E-MAIL EXCHANGE</a> between an orthodox scientist who s far more involved in perpetuating the AIDS myth than "Dr. Bob" and a dissenting scientist who knows far more about this issue than you or I could ever hope to know.<BR><BR>Keep asking questions, Chris; you learn just as much from those questions that do NOT get answered as you do from those that DO get answered.<BR><BR>All the best,<BR>Rod Knoll,<BR>Founder,<BR><a target=_top href="http://www.aidsrc.org">AIDS REALITY CHECK</a>?</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>