View Full Version : Advice

August 12th, 2009, 01:18 PM
Okay, I need some advice here (Hi all, by the way :) )...I only found this site yesterday and I'm finding it very hard to accept that this is for real - is this for real?

Anyway, my story is that I've only ever had one "risky" encounter a couple of years back (I say "risky" as it was very brief, and I doubt she "has" HIV anyway), but a few weeks back I was having hearing problems, and was consequently told by a doctor that my adenoids were huge and that this is a suspicion of HIV. Obviously, since then I've had all sorts of symptoms of HIV (when I was perfectly happy and healthy before) - a white coated tongue, the odd night sweat, finding lymph nodes everwhere etc. I know this has to be mainly psychological, but I'm still scared...

Anyway, I'd convinced myself that I needed a test until I found this site and now I'm stalling. What I want to know is: would you guys seriously recommend not getting a test? From what I've heard, the results are far more damaging than any good the treatment can do (and just my suspicion of HIV is making me feel like I'm dying, so I can see how it happens). Should I not get tested? I know it'll be hard to get out of my mind, but once I'm busy with something again, I might manage it...So confused...

PS There's no way I'm having unsafe sex again, even with a test, so that's not really a factor in this dilemma.

How sure are you guys that this isn't real? :(

August 12th, 2009, 01:22 PM
Whoops, maybe this is in the wrong part of the forum but anyway, answers would still be much appreciated :)

Expansive Mind
August 12th, 2009, 02:40 PM
Just a few things to consider. Even by orthodoxy standards, your risk of "transmission" would be considered negligible. Whatever is ailing you, is definitely not because of one round of sex with that woman.

Another approach you could take, even if you don't feel ready to the leap into rethinking the entire hiv/aids construct, is to look at any hiv testing as a complete last resort. Since the odds in your case, by orthodox standards, are so minuscule, why not explore all other options first? Including that you are suffering a bout of fear and anxiety. Others here will be able to articulate the connection between anxiety and health, as well as what other possible "causes" for your symptoms there may be.

The test is voluntary and requires your permission, you don't have to take it and the risks of being labeled "positive" and then suffering a life-time of stigma and being viewed by doctors as a lost cause except for hiv meds is very real. Ask yourself what is worse, giving your body time to work through it's stress, or taking that test.

In my and many alternative health practitioners' view, symptoms that we call illness, are anything but. They are helpful, needed functions that should be allowed to run their course. Blocking symptoms may result in longer term, more serious issues.

August 12th, 2009, 03:45 PM
Thanks for your reply. I know my risk is miniscule, but the risk is still there (presumably, if the odds are on in however many thousands, there's still a chance of being that one). Do people who've never had any risk whatsoever still get HIV? Surely they can't all just convince themselves afterwards that they somehow got it? (virgins who have never taken drugs, had blood transfusions etc).

I've always considered myself to be someone who could eventually handle the stigma and try to turn it into something slightly positive if it happened to me, but you make an excellent point about stigma on the part of the medical practitioners (which I'd never considered). If they tell you you have HIV and you're sick, you'll always be sick and probably will never be treated for the ailments that are actually affecting you (as one would as a "negative" person). Hmm. So...test as a last resort? I have to ask - why even that? If you sincerely believe that HIV is a myth, why should I even hold that thought in the back of my mind?

August 12th, 2009, 05:31 PM
female to male transmission is so unlikely that orthodox western medical graphs, never even break it down, specifically. They just lump it into 'heterosexual transmission' along with male to female transmission, so as to boost the numbers and make it look more of a threat than it really is.

i'll probably get some disagreement on this board for saying such, but i'd recommend you get tested. Most likely it will be negative result, which will close the issue... and if its positive, you are really no worse off than you are at this moment.... You can ascertain your beliefs, at that time.

August 12th, 2009, 05:37 PM
I don't agree that a positive test result is something casual as T.rex implies. If you test negative it can have a tremendous benefit for you of course, but I consider the risk too much for someone in your status.

I will briefly suggest that you don't rush any decision. Think things through and calmly inform yourself first. As far as I can tell you're not dying or anything like that, so relax and use your time to act consciously. I personally would never take the test in the light of what I currently know (unless I feel forced somehow), but as Expansive Mind says you should come to your own conclusions. If all the forum members in here would yell to you that you shouldn't take the test would you simply say "Ok, if you say so." and obey? Your answer shouldn't be a "yes" because you shouldn't rely on others' opinions for something as potentially-critical as this. This includes the medical/scientific orthodoxy too of course. So think for yourself. Compare both sides' arguments etc...

But maybe before you start all that you should work on getting rid of your stress, which is arguably the real "HIV". Consider yourself "positive" for that one for now. Good news is there is a cure for that one, like meditation and stuff like that. So use it. It's meaningless to go after a hypothetical magical virus with an alleged potential latency period of 20+ years when the stress is harming you right now.

And yes, this is for real.

August 12th, 2009, 05:42 PM
female to male transmission is so unlikely that orthodox western medical graphs, never even break it down, specifically. They just lump it into 'heterosexual transmission' along with male to female transmission, so as to boost the numbers and make it look more of a threat than it really is.

i'll probably get some disagreement on this board for saying such, but i'd recommend you get tested. Most likely it will be negative result, which will close the issue... and if its positive, you are really no worse off than you are at this moment.... You can ascertain your beliefs, at that time.

That's been my train of thought up until now. But, trust me, I would be a lot worse of than I am now were it a positive...I dunno, I'm starting university again in less than a month, and I'll be busy and stuff. Currently, I spend all day on my computer finding out that I have symptoms of AIDS-related diseases. I think I'll be pretty much 100% when I get going again (test or no). It's hard - I'd love to just get it done and carry on with life, but a positive result would be EXTREMELY hard to deal with (especially as I would feel extremely unlucky). Anyway, enough about me...I just was interested to find some different thoughts to the mainstream (which seems to be: must get tested;if positive, take the drugs; die young)

G Man
August 12th, 2009, 05:52 PM
I would say not to get the test, at least not until you are clear in your mind as to what the test really is and what it actually 'tests' for. There is some info here HIV Testing Section (http://reducetheburden.org/?p=93)

August 12th, 2009, 08:19 PM
Expansive Mind

I had a question about the link you posted. well moreso I wanted to hear your opinion. The link you posted about the testing procedures. What are your opinions then on people who test positive after certain situations such as; when a man has tested positive and "infects" multiple women and he ends up getting charged with attempted murder or whatever. Those women arent generally in a "risk group" but there have been many cases where women were tested positive after having sex with such a man. or a woman (or man) who has been raped and then tests positive as well. I mean certainly when they're getting tested they dont take this "pre test survey" When I was in the Marines they never asked us ANYTHING. just took our blood and that was it. you sit down, they take it, you get up and go to the next part of your physical.

August 12th, 2009, 08:41 PM
@SadunKal: Yeah, I'm not dying. I've been nothing but extremely healthy and happy until I had my adenoids checked out (but they are lymphoid tissue, so it makes sense that their swelling is as a result of an infection or something).

So, I guess I'll wait on the test. Maybe one day I'll be bored or not feel well and decide to just get it done, but until then it just seems like no good can come out of it. I feel better already (less stressed, I guess) just knowing that I don't have to find out, at least while I'm not sexually active. The number of ailments I've picked up since hearing that HIV is a cause of what I have is ridiculous. I must be incredibly suggestive like that, so being told I have HIV might not be a great idea...at least not yet...

August 12th, 2009, 08:43 PM
JF: We would have to know all the details, but it's likely that they are just finding what they are looking for. If you tested everyone using the same standard, you would many testing "positive" yet having no "risk factors." Also, imagine if an "epidemic" of appendicitis was declared and huge numbers of people were "screened" for it. There would be a lot more appendectomies, I would bet big money on it (if possible/legal)!

August 12th, 2009, 11:09 PM
JF: We would have to know all the details, but it's likely that they are just finding what they are looking for. If you tested everyone using the same standard, you would many testing "positive" yet having no "risk factors." Also, imagine if an "epidemic" of appendicitis was declared and huge numbers of people were "screened" for it. There would be a lot more appendectomies, I would bet big money on it (if possible/legal)!

I kinda meant as far as the military thing went. If you dont take the "survey" how do they dictate low risk from high risk when it comes to "deciding" how to give the positive or negative result?

August 13th, 2009, 01:21 AM
Questions, G Man and gang:

The following links provide a more accurate picture of the problems surrounding so-called "HIV tests":

1. Question 6 (http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question6.html)

2. Interview with Eleni (http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html)

3. Interview with Dr. Turner (http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/hcvft.html)

August 13th, 2009, 04:54 AM
Written by lay people with brass bits, maybe that is the way to go as the professionals have too much to lose. It could do with some tweeking but it is digestible and plants the seed. Reasonable doubt is all anyone ever needs. Having ones head wedged btwn the pages of science has left many of the trained (thus non lay) non the wiser! These are good men doing something just like all of us are compeled to in the face of media sillies and medical mayhem.

August 13th, 2009, 05:56 AM
On the second link, Eleni states: "You need an electron microscope. That’s how we know the size and shape of retroviral particles. That they’re almost round and they have an outer envelope covered with knobs and an inner core consisting of some proteins and RNA...

There's one more thing. One of the proteins inside a retrovirus particle is an enzyme which catalyses this process. Not surprisingly, it's called reverse transcriptase."

Thus, in order for there to be a retrovirus as conceived, when there is a retroviral infection there would have to be a large number of such particles, the overwhelming majority of which would have to possess the same proteins, RNA, and also the RT enzyme. Has any attempt been made to verify this? The point is that it's essential to determine if retroviral phenomena is mostly exosomal activity and thus not an "infection," or if it is indeed an exogenous retroviral infection.

Okay, this is her answer: "EPE: We still don't know what any of the particles are. We don't have a definite particle proven to be a retrovirus from which to take proteins and RNA to use in tests for infection in people or to do experiments to try and understand what is happening if there truly is a virus causing AIDS.

CJ: All right. Let's suppose that we do have a picture of a density gradient and it contains nothing but thousands of particles all the right size and shape, and with knobs, to be called a retroviral particle. Let's go over what should be done next.

EPE: The next steps are to disrupt the particles, find out what proteins and RNA are in them, prove one of the proteins is an enzyme which turns RNA into DNA and finally, take more of the density gradient and prove that when PURE particles are put into a virgin cell culture exactly the same particles made up of the same constituents come out.

CJ: And has this been done?

EPE: No..."

I don't understand why she made statements about what "retroviruses" are though, as if this has been determined, and there is no citation.

August 13th, 2009, 09:01 AM
As someone who got tested all I can say to you is that every other day I feel like a guy returning from war, telling stories of the time they walked right over head, howing the gun shot dent in the helmet and having everyones attention. I know full well that the guy standing behind me at the clinic to give bloods is on meds, I know what is going to happen to him. I feel like a survivor, like everyone else who walks in is walking out of that clinic in a bag already. I cant tell them not to take their meds, I cant stand outside the ER/ Sexual health clinic and tell people not to test. But I know. I know the test is crock, I know there is no HIV medicine, just institutionalized negilgence, I know they think I should be sectioned, I think they should be sectioned. HIV is a social malignancy that affects the brain inducing lethargy and hysteria. I think you are right. Leave this alone. Infact forget about it. Do your degree, study, have a life. Dont get mixed u with this. You can only opt out of the maddness at this stage of yur life, pre test. Sorry the world is so screwed up you even had to contemplate needing a test.

Expansive Mind
August 13th, 2009, 01:56 PM

Thank you for that thoughtful question. I am aware that the military does not question people to catagorize them into risk groups. I believe some European countries also do not question people for the tests.

Before I give my complete and best answer to your question I want to review some literature. But I will tease a bit and say that the tests have three possible results; negative, positive, and indeterminate. A doctor has to decide how the indeterminate will be interpreted. Often, in the civilian world, the questionnaire is used to assist in the interpretation, but the doctor, civilian or not, can use clinical symptoms as well. So an indeterminate result on someone with no symptoms might be interpreted differently than an indeterminate result in a person with pneumonia.

Jersey, I also have a question for you on this matter. Did you know anyone in your time in the military to be given a positive test?


You last post is very touching. You are a survivor. I can hear your care and concern for others. Peace.

August 13th, 2009, 05:59 PM
Expansive Mind,

No. In my time I didnt not know a single person who recieved a positive test. I DO remember the first time i went to MEPS (which is where they screen every military applicant regardless of military branch) that I was scared to DEATH because I know i would be getting an HIV test. They take you through every physical k nown to man and somewhere in between there you stand in a long line and one by one you get blood drawn. takes about two seconds. you sit around for HOURS AND HOURS and take tons of mental and physical tests and at the veryyyy end of the day, sometimes the second day depending how many people there are. You get "sworn in" to the military at that time is when you k now that you've passed all required tests to be in the military. Sorry for the description haha not quite sure why I said it. butttt what i was gettin at was that I was terrified to get the test. and that I never personally knew anyone who was denied entry for that reason. But just from reading I guess there's a good bit through the years who have been.

August 14th, 2009, 02:16 AM
There doesnt seem to be enough time to get an hiv test. You arrive on day one and get sworn in later that day or on the second day? HIV is not a selection criterion. I guess they run you around and fatten you up from day 3 so even if you tested poz you are in a pretty good place to start achieving physical balance. The mental bit- they destroy you so they can build you in their image is a whole other story. I think the body is designed for vigorous activity. The sedentary need massages just to keep from conjesting and nothing like a short brisk walk to induce a big movement lol. Sitting around screws with you, by the time you get fat you messed up in a countless number of ways. Yoga etc is pretty smart in focusing a little pressure in just the right spot, saves you needing to tow and bale hay all day!

August 14th, 2009, 01:40 PM
well im not quite sure how long the actual TESTING of the blood takes. but they have doctors and labs right in the MEPS station where they do the testing. Maybe they can do it there in a few hours?

August 14th, 2009, 02:32 PM
I was impressed with Dr Bauer's stuff until I found out he still believes in the Loch Ness monster and became disheartened :confused: So it seems you have a better chance of testing negative if you tell the testers that you've not been at risk and have no symptoms?

August 14th, 2009, 09:46 PM
We'd all like to believe in many things, and sometimes people with power get the opportunity to ram things that they want to believe down everyone else's throats. One of the reasons why the scientific method was embraced by various "advanced thinkers" a few hundred years ago involved the notion that it was based upon an extension of human reason and could not be "corrupted" by emotions and dogma. Later, there was a hope that it could be extended to society as a whole, leading to "positivisitc" approaches to what one might call early sociology. I prefer to live in the world of reason, logic, evidence analysis, and the scientific method. It seems to me that the major reasons for not doing this, in the land of "HIV/AIDS" and elsewhere, are:

1. Unquestioned acceptance of existing dogma. Many students found it almost "scandalous" that I asked them to put their existing beliefs aside whle in my class and just focus on the evidence, without bias.

2. Desire to believe in certain "new" or "exotic" (like Loch Ness Monster) ideas that are appealing for some reason (probably personal psychological ones).

3. Conflicts of interest.

4. Personality disorders, which often lead to "great minds" becoming "closed minds," because the person is more interested in "besting" a "rival" rather than in determining cause and effect.

August 15th, 2009, 06:36 AM
The problem with the human mind is Refutation, failure or reluctance to achieve it. What is known first is known best and if there is an emotion attached to this piece of knowledge good luck ever convincing even self otherwise even in the face of damning evidence. People do the same thing over and expect a different outcome just because they were so sure the idea would work, they preached it and rationalized and now its stuck fast. That would be called crazy in real life. In medicine its murder, esp when an institution is involved, this kind of crazy goes on and on for decades after the evidence is presents. None has the courage to redesign a form until its so absurd or the founder dies and the emotional investment/power is nolonger understood.lol

Lots of people have gone out to look for Nessy. If you found out the guy about to set your broken leg went on Big Foot 'hunting' expeditions would you send for someone else? I think its healthy to engage in lore and tales. After all its the things those who went before us believe that make us what we are. I think it is a happy brain that says, ok someone saw it, its unlikely but why not? Let me see if I can find a footprint or something. When I discovered Dr Bauers site and saw the Nessy stuff I just clicked back on the AIDS stuff. Never occured to me to doubt the rest of his stuff, his integrity or intent, least of all his reliability as a thorough source- he even writes in plain English even though its clear he could be lofty and jargonized. Would you feel the same if he spent his spare time playing Pink Floyd tribute and put a pic of himself and a drumset!? Do you have this issue with other stuff? Examine yourself, you may be nursing a major brain worm of your own there. Rash judgments, typical. Would you go to a black dentist.In the 80s 80pc of white americans would not and nearly 100pc of dental nurses were white by design if the dentist was white. Yes you strike me that shallow. Your mindset is older than you are. Lets not throw out the good Dr with Bulls bath water just because we love the Lakers!

Its called having an open mind, its a healthy thing. Being able to shift all those decision trees going from and through a piece of information, particularly a long held belief, is an admirable quality in a human being. Even if only speculation. You need to excersize this mental muscle by going with 'what if' scenarios in your head. Things that seem important ofcourse, more than 'if jam were blue would I still like the taste'. lol. I jest but you get the picture. You would be surprised how tenuous some of the strings that hold up our most strongly held beliefs are.

Unlearning is a vital part of Learning.

G Man
August 15th, 2009, 07:39 AM
Man, I just have to say there are some great minds on this board. I've never seen anything like it in my life. Read this thread and you'll see exactly what I mean!

August 15th, 2009, 11:44 AM
@ Starz:

Sheesh, I was just pointing out a concern that most newcomers to this site are bound to have. And I find the stuff about black dentists insulting and irrelevant - there's a vast difference between turning down someone because of their physical "racial" attributes and turning down someone because one is still struggling to comprehend some of their beliefs. Anyway, I'm not dismissing Dr Bauer just becasue of his Loch Ness theories, and it certainly is a healthy thing to interact with lore and question mainstream assumptions, but surely you can forgive someone just discovering the dissident movement for hoping that the doctors on this side of the fence were more on the straight and narrow?

I like to think of myself as fairly open-minded, I just don't like the idea of AIDS dissidence being "relegated" to conspiracy theory. I know there's good evidence supporting Bauer's Nessie theories and to suggest we didn't land on the moon, but I don't want this to go there. I guess it does still make make me nervous about the validity of all this :(

August 15th, 2009, 01:20 PM
You really do have a mental worm. I was illustrating how ridiculous you sound. Look at the data not the person, whipping out but he plays guitar, sings in the chior, is black, is female, has a beard etc is not at all going to help your 'thinking'.
You are unlucky because I happen to know Dr Bauer by name, most of the time I dont even look who wrote it, where or how published, I am too busy devouring the content and shifting the decision trees around to care.

I sincerely hope you have a hobby or are a member to some club. I learned everything I ever needed to know about living in fashion and fabrics aka sewing class! Its amazing how an extra curricular can affect your perception if you are open minded.

At least read the Drs musings on his Nessie experience before calling his credibility, his mental -good lord- character to question. You came here to find bad guys, there really are none, fools even less, those who suffer fools fewer still. What kind of person would I be if I let you walk away with a hole in your reasoning that size. If you are ever gonna learn anything start now, start here, its as good a place as any. Speak now, what are you planning on studying, I will send you a reading list before you waste 4yrs of your life. I wish someone had done me the favour.

Have you even read any of Dr Bauers work. He blew my mind open like a jar of vicks, I think I went around bamboozed and wide eyed for a week after reading almost all his site. I cant see how anyone could walk away with but he is a Nessy enthusiast. He has an inquiring mind. You don't have to believe it, you just have to read till you understand. Its pretty straight forward.

How you make your decisions is clearly how you expect other people must make theirs. NOONE has ever come back with Dr Bauer's extra curriculars after being sent to his site. I am sorry but that bit of fun cost you a whole bunch of credibility, at the very least it shows you cant stay focused. If you didn't want to reduce a life and death discussion to irrelevant stuff like race, sports, (space) alien morphology preferences, moon landings or lack there of etc why did you bring up hobbies? But then life is a journey and I know in no time you will be alright and all set for a full and fruitful life.

In life there are no stupid people, just people whose perspectives you don't understand yet and people telling you what you already know.

Consider yourself chastised.

August 15th, 2009, 01:47 PM
Okay, I've got a mental worm or something.

Look, I'm not here to make enemies and you all seem like highly intelligent, rational people. If it sounds like I'm questioning Dr Bauer's integrity or character, please know that I'm not. All I'm saying is that a (narrow-minded) newbie like me gets disheartened when he finds out that one of the high profile voices behind the dissident movement believes there are Loch Ness monsters. It's obviously not his fault, it's my fault. It is something I'd have to get over, but at the moment I just don't think it's helping the cause.

Can you at least understand why that discovery might dishearten someone new who wants to learn more about the dissident movement, but for whom Loch Ness and that kind of thing is currently a step too far?

August 15th, 2009, 02:05 PM
I think it's perfectly understandable. You're certainly not the first one to feel like you do. And you're much better than those who immediately make up their minds after discovering something like the Loch-Ness-connection instead of just feeling disheartened but continuing to explore despite it. It requires a significantly open and tolerant mind (as required for scientific thinking), which the majority lacks. So you can also consider yourself praised, even if you're not considered to be perfect; nobody is.

And there are so many things that don't really help the cause it's almost surreal. But in a way the ridiculous amount of difficulties the rethinkers face makes it also more interesting in my opinion. Not everybody can take it though, or afford to invest time and energy to do something about it. The percentage of those who're actively striving to make a positive change among all the people with doubts about the HIV/AIDS thingy is probably very low. To be able to find the motivation to try to do something about it -perhaps insanely- is not the easiest thing in the world. But there are more than 6 billion different humans on planet earth, so some of them fit the bill and meet in places like this apparently. I think that alone is pretty interesting. :)

August 15th, 2009, 02:27 PM
Leave the AIDS for now. Go and read everything you can about the philosopher Nietzsche. His life, his work, and the outcomes of his work. (okay Wiki will do for starters)

Then spend a week on Dr Bauer's AIDS stuff. Engage, be thorough and aware. YOu really need to do this step. The read Bauer stuff will help you understand more than trying to use the content of his breakfast against a man (what next, the color of his socks!)

Clinging to the Nessie shows a lack of life experience typical of teenagers like you. Throwing your toys out of the cot will not make HIV any more the cause of AIDS than it is not. Maybe you can borrow some wisdom from Nietzsche's/insight fun filled life!

You are very unlikely to make an enemy of me, I don't have time to tow around such emotional detritus. I don't care what you think of me so I cannot hate you, or anyone. I simply am troubled by your lack of objectivity.

This Nessie thing has become your safety blanket. Read the site why dont you, what are you afraid of, that it will change your mind forever?

Please in 10 days start a new thread about what ever strikes you as the most significant discovery you have made. You clearly canot be told, so discover. This is not an assignment you can get wrong so be true to yourself when you report back. Consider it an ink blot test.

August 15th, 2009, 03:32 PM

LISTEN TO YOUR INSTINCTS. That's the most important "advice" anyone can give you. You don't need Bauer. Stick with the links I've provided in MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE (http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/main-forum/5811-advice-2.html#post35110) and any other information you find on The Perth Group HIV-AIDS Debate Website (http://www.theperthgroup.com) and you won't go wrong.

August 15th, 2009, 03:33 PM
...so what are you afraid of, that it will change your mind forever? ...

Probably that it will seem like a waste of time in the end. It's a matter of prioritization. Nobody is equally interested in every bit of information that exists, because some appear to be more useful than the others, depending on the person's interests. For someone who is labeled "HIV positive" and is 100% interested in long-term survival, not taking the time to inform themselves about the dissident perspective is out of question, because it is not impossible for there to be significant truths among the dissidents' arguments. (To be more clear, there either are significant truths or there aren't. But nothing can be known for sure by mere humans with limited and flawed minds, so the decision that is made by the human mind ideally takes all the limits and flaws into consideration.) But I don't think that a human mind can be solely interested in a single thing (e.g. survival), with 100% of its motivation. The pursuit of comfort or pleasure can be distracting to a lethal degree. So the mind weighs the risks and potential benefits (without letting go of its interest in all the other things) and acts accordingly, albeit limited by the way it was conditioned earlier.

So in conclusion, I guess it's critical to strive for being conditioned in a way that serves the worthiest possible interests. But again that's a subjective thingy and depends on prior conditioning too. I myself do consider survival the worthiest of all pursuits and that was a motivator for my mind being so interested in this HIV/AIDS controversy, thus I was/am able to bypass most factors that might dishearten one from informing themselves with a fully open-mind.

(Sorry if the above communication feels somewhat disturbing.At the moment I'm experimenting with my consciousness a bit, in an attempt to increase my awareness. (I can explain later if anyone is interested.) Might be a temporary change, and I guess it may not even be obvious for outsiders. Pay no attention to this last paragraph if it all seemed normal to you.)

August 15th, 2009, 08:35 PM
"Can you at least understand why that discovery might dishearten someone new who wants to learn more about the dissident movement, but for whom Loch Ness and that kind of thing is currently a step too far?"

People sometimes are confused or irritated when they ask me what I believe in, in one context or another, because I answer that I don't believe in belief. Something has to make sense to me, or there has to be evidence which is strong, without any contrary strong evidence. Avoid notions like "movement." Instead, just stick to the arguments and evidence. I'm anonymous for a reason, not that I've done anything that I think most people would consider weird (except perhaps for being on a vegan diet for over a decade, which I went on because I had so many stomach problems while young). The reason is that personality, charisma, etc. can cloud one's judgment. You need to decide whether you are going to stick to the issue or not. Frankly, it was difficult for me to understand the science of this issue, even though I spent hours on many days for several years on it. If I had involved myself in what various "dissident" and "orthodox" folks were doing in their spare time, it would've made things much more difficult.