Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home/lastexit/public_html/textpattern/lib/txplib_db.php on line 14
Last Exit Magazine « Celia Farber

Accessibility

 

 

[published: February 13, 2009]

5 Questions Celia Farber

Celia Farber

For more than two decades, investigative journalist Celia Farber has doggedly pursued the stories about HIV/AIDS that the medical establishment didn’t want people to hear. We talk with her about the ups and downs of being on the “wrong” side of a story, the demise of investigative journalism and the new model offered by her website, The Truth Barrier.

Your book makes it seem as if your 20 years spent covering AIDS was almost accidental, that the subject pulled you forward. Is this still how you feel about it?

That’s accurate. I did feel that way. But actually I don’t feel that way anymore. I’ve become very recently a convert to this idea that people have been talking about recently, that things are magnetized, and things are meant to happen a certain way, and that we’re all used. That’s how I now feel about it, because I’ve seen it come to fruition. The dissident so-called movement has been fantastically blighted in recent years, by attacks, by a whole new pogrom culture, by deaths, and unresolved questions and an inability to put a total answer or shield up against the question of why people die in the context of immune deficiency, whether HIV caused it or not. So if you had asked me that question a year ago, I would have probably expressed something very bitter about the whole story and my life in it. And now I suddenly feel very at peace with it and very convinced that it’s going to be taken care of by the people who need to now take over, and are taking over, and by the technologies that they have, obviously the internet. People just really connecting from all around the world and forming communities where they exchange information about what’s working and not working, about their true stories. The dictatorship [of the medical establishment] is still in place, kind of having a meltdown on the kitchen floor like a big toddler, not wanting people to be able to communicate freely about AIDS and about treatment choices and about what the antibody status means. But it’s all happening, so I’m seeing that and finally just calming down and realizing that it is all going to be OK.

What does being on the “wrong” side of a story do to one’s career, both for worse and for better? It couldn’t have all been bad, right?

It destroyed the shell of my career — my reputation, my name, my income, my chances to have an easy life, or a life in journalism that would have felt on the surface and immediately like I was succeeding. That’s putting it mildly. What it gave me was a much more specific and private identity, an identity that is specific to me, where I now feel that my voice, for those who do trust that voice, is very clean and intact. And for those who hate me, what else is new? That’s part of the dialectic of this whole thing. And they have their outlets where they scream and throw blood and so forth. What I have found is that as traumatic and terrifying as it can be to have your “reputation” assailed, and mine has been totally firebombed many times, including with utterly fraudulent manifestos claiming that I made wild errors in articles, and these manifestos served the purpose of putting an reputation stain out there without anybody taking the time to see what’s in them.

My experience basically has been that this experience of being simultaneously destroyed and created, you might say, they, the attackers, stripped me of everything I once thought was very important and once thought I wanted — to be accepted, to be palatable, to be included, to be one of some kind of journalism community that I really wanted to be part of when I started out when I was 21. My dream was a very feverish dream, to be an investigative journalist. To be expelled, to be cast out is very painful. Exile, as many ancient cultures have told us, is possibly the worst punishment. So you come through exile, and somehow you are still there at the end of all this, and what I have found is that there is this strange beauty, and that comes from the relationships that I form with readers, people out there who get what I was saying. I didn’t always get why I was saying it, or why it was coming through me, but they in a way fertilized it. They go way out of their way to get in touch with me, and they tell me how it affected them at a time in their lives when they felt hopeless, in most cases about having just tested HIV-positive. So that gave me a huge sense of meaning. Otherwise it would have just been chaos.

And in terms of me and the media, I guess I’m looking at the media and saying, you are not exactly in great shape, are you? I might be in better shape than you. Because of this bullshit, because they have not spoken to people. They formed this tower for themselves and really just didn’t pay attention to what was happening on the street among actual people in a very long time.

Much of your reporting is as much about how the media works as how medicine works. Do you think the herd mentality of journalists, as you call it, is at all diminished by the internet, or has it just given people more places to “scream and throw blood”?

The internet is a total revolution in communications, media and information. And I think what it’s done is to mortally wound the very thing that kept media aloft, and that was authority, and authority was always random if you bothered to study it. What gave these guys — overwhelmingly guys — the prerogative to sit at these magazines and these newsrooms and elect themselves the authorities of what people should know and how people should think about what they are permitted to know. I’m very inspired to see that breaking up, and to see the terror among the media elites as that breaks up, because that’s the product that they sold before the internet. That’s how they sold it, and nobody needs that product anymore. Nobody needs Andrew Sullivan to tell them how to think about something. They probably run their own blog. And then they say, yes, we can’t just have everybody in the world running their own blog. The old cliche is freedom of the press is limited to those who own one. It used to be a very big deal to own one, and now of course it’s literally free. So, as an old anarchist, this is all very thrilling to me, and I was a late convert to grasping the internet because I’m so technically moronic. But lately it’s like I can barely function I’m so excited. I see the possibilities. It’s staggering what’s going to happen, how much things are going to change, largely for the better. I had a conversation last night with a writer who I have pulled into my new website, The Truth Barrier. He’s Greek. He said, “Don’t be so utopian about the internet. The dark forces haven’t figured out how to take it over, but they will.” And I basically said, “I can’t think like that. I can’t function. I don’t think they can, but it remains to be seen.”

I was intrigued that the title of your new website, The Truth Barrier, was the same as the preface in your book. Can you explain what this phrase, taken from Tomas Transtromer’s collection, means to you?

I hope I’m not doing a disservice to Transtromer’s very delicate poem when I try to describe what I think he meant by the truth barrier, which is a nexus between our inner selves and the outer world. So it’s like we each walk around with ourselves as the ultimate camera, and we see the world with that camera. He basically said that the truth barrier is when the camera lens shuts down because we don’t want to see ourselves. The outside world comes toward that self and we just want to shut our eyes and look away. So the media in the past has basically been written I think in a vein and a tradition of people who, regardless of certain outbreaks of gonzo or the New Journalism or first-person narrative, basically weren’t really using themselves in the work. They were just reporting flatly about the world, and judging the world and judging what was going on. And that’s great, as far as it goes. But what intrigued me was having a website where people — it’s not confessional, and it’s not self indulgent — it’s just that I’m going to ask the writers to look at themselves as much as they are looking at the thing that they are looking at. It’s tricky, and one writer has had an almost traumatized response. In the end I said, it’s OK, just back off and write a movie review. I’m not trying to pull down everyone’s goriest stuff here, from childhood and whatnot, I’m just trying to make the reader feel connected to something that’s alive, the way a conversation, the way a dinner party is alive. I want it to be alive in that way, so that people don’t feel alone and alienated, which is how I feel when I read most things, including blogs.

A lot of your first pieces were published in Spin. It’s so hard to imagine Spin magazine of today publishing such serious stuff, much less taking out ads in The New York Times to promote it. I was curious what you’ve seen today that fills that gap, and what it’s been like watching Spin evolve or devolve, as the case may be.

Spin is something, as a product, that is so far from me. I never look at it. I never touch it. I have no idea what it is doing or what it is. I sometimes see it on the newsstand and it is as alien as any magazine. It has nothing to do with my life and my memories or anything. It’s a completely different thing, and that happened right after Bob (Guccione) sold it, after our little court trial. They were so ready. It was so interesting. They were so ready to have a Bob-free Spin that just wouldn’t be problematic, that wouldn’t have all this tension, like this AIDS column. And the new owners just took it back to the shop and cranked it out and turned it into the perfect pop rock music vehicle. It succeeded because it’s a formula. It’s going to work. It just became an industry rag. So good for them. Fine. And it’s like you don’t even have feelings. I don’t think Bob has feelings. I don’t think anybody who has ever worked there had feelings about that thing that’s out there now called Spin. It was alive at one time. It was a very disturbed place, in terms of the dynamic of the workplace and everything. But it was a alive, and now that i look back on those days, it seems it’s absolutely incredible what we were able to do, what we were allowed to do, what Bob urged us to do, and how he wanted all this kind of long-form investigative journalism in the magazine. I guess I came into the profession at a time when long form journalism was actually in its death throes. And I know it still goes on in certain periodicals that have money, but its less and less. But sometimes I haven’t been able to distinguish between what’s happening with my life/career, and what’s happening in the media. And I realized a little while ago that not only do I not do these kinds of stories anymore — where you spend a year, and its a 10,000-word piece and you fly all over the country doing interviews and getting quotes — but I but don’t ever talk to anybody who does that kind of thing anymore either. The whole idea of “I’m working on a piece”, a magazine piece. And I’ve thought about that, why would the magazine piece die? Well, because it’s kind of a production, and there’s a lot of necessary of stage managing and almost falsity that goes into it. And again, I don’t think that anybody really needs that anymore. The idea that there’s a lead that casts a spell where you have some rock star sweeping through a lobby and sitting down in his chair in a certain way. All that stuff that’s the whole ethos of magazine writing, I think is going to become anachronistic very fast.

Because what you can do now is — I’ll give you a quick example of how The Truth Barrier would work, how I want to flip everything. I was having drinks several years ago now with a writer who was in the literary world, unlike me a darling of the literary world, and he had a book review to write. It was about a writer who I feel I shouldn’t mention, but the writer was not Caucasian, it was a black writer. My friend was tortured because this writer’s first novel had been a big hit, and he had been assigned to write the second novel and he didn’t think it was very good. And I said, “So say that.” And there was all this anguish that had to do with political correctness. And I said, “Didn’t we have a civil rights movement in this country? Didn’t he earn the right to write a shitty book?” So the review comes out in the Village Voice, and it was very polished and very well written, but I had no clue how he felt about that book, certainly not that he didn’t like it. In The Truth Barrier, what I would do is, I would put the scene in the bar into the article, which happened to be where the truth jumped. Media is structured so that by the time anything makes it to the surface, nine times out of 10 it is already dead. It’s depleted. It’s not alive and complex and true anymore, and that’s to do with all the values that the media consciously or unconsciously cultivated. Very WASP-y, you might say, or very just terrified of real expression. Very male.

What I’m trying to bring out is the kind of warmth that you get from reading poetry, or in some cases literature. The thing that horrifies the journalistic ethos is the idea of self, and I believed that about Hunter Thompson until I actually started reading him. When I finally read him I thought, Jesus Christ, he’s not writing about himself. He’s giving something so huge, so much more than what the rest of them give. No wonder he had to take so many drugs. It’s really hard work.

Copyright Last Exit 2009


Reader Comments [20]

  1. 1.  

    Celia, you are a class act, my friend. Keep being who you are!

    Karri · Feb 13, 02:47 PM ·#

  2. 2.  

    Celia reminds us of the difference between courageous professionals and everyone else. A class act… yes. Thanks for the conversation.

    Clark · Mar 1, 11:37 AM ·#

  3. 3.  

    Fantastic interview. Celia continues to take the high road and to pursue a “positive” tack in her life. Though I’ll miss her reports, her ability to be OK with letting go of two decades of investigative reporting without being bitter and vengeful is nothing short of inspirational.

    Jonathan Barnett · Mar 2, 04:11 AM ·#

  4. 4.  

    In the last 5 to 10 years many ordinary people were saying that the housing market was ridiculous and out of control and could not last. Yet the media didn’t notice anything wrong, and now say “no-one could have predicted this”.

    In the same way, for at least 15 years straight, white people have known that aids was something that affected other people.

    Celia has been one of the few people who has persistently tried to point out the anomalies with hiv=aids, and tried to get a debate going. When the aids crisis swings around (as it will), the media will not be able to say “no-one could have known”. Celia will have been on record for 20 years pointing out those problems, and craven journalists won’t be able to hide their stupidity and cowardice.

    Joe · Mar 3, 02:58 PM ·#

  5. 5.  

    What is it with Celia’s words? I am not an avid reader, and I’m not particularly well schooled or even interested in most written words. There is, though, something amazing that happens to me when I read what Celia writes. Between the words, or behind the words, or through the words, there is a really fascinating extra communication going on – kind of like a broadcasting or piggy-backing of completely non literal entities – kindness, authenticity, wisdom. They just seem to float into my consciousness as though they were hitch-hiking on each of Celia’s sentences, and then I kind of feel like I’m in love with something! It’s a really cool trick. I’m so grateful to have found a way to be turned on by the simple act of reading. Sorry to be so gushy, but Celia you’ve really got it going on! Thanks for sharing your journey. Liam

    Liam in Maui... · Mar 4, 07:30 PM ·#

  6. 6.  

    Celia Farber is a quack lover. After her post on Christine’s death on Dean’s site, which she took down after realizing what a faux paus that was in how it clearly indicated AIDS took Christine’s life – but she’s not let it go at all. Eliza Jane and Christine have both died of AIDS

    How coincidental that Robin Scovill will live to be an old man, as will Charlie – the HIV negative ones.

    Lord, how stupid could anyone be?

    The ONLY good thing about HIV is that it’s such an effective slate-wiper of the galactically stupid! ;)

    Shay · Mar 8, 11:59 AM ·#

  7. 7.  

    to the last post:
    Robin just won his lawsuit against the LA coroner, being awarded some 15000 USD. The LA coroner had to admit that Eliza Jane did not test HIV anti body positive.

    I have been HIV+ for over 23 years now. Am in perfect health. and only comments from ignorant people such as the previous post, have made my life hell.

    I – all of us – want out lives back. and one day some one will have to answer for all the death caused by ‘‘antiretroviral treatments” such as AZT.

    HIV does not cause AIDS. Stupidity, corruption, poverty and war does.

    whereistheproof · Mar 11, 01:43 AM ·#

  8. 8.  

    The Scovill lawsuit was about breach of privacy – ironically, considering that Maggiore had offered up her & her families lives in support of her false claims about HIV (“Alive & Well”). Maggiore posted on the Aetiology blog that she consulted with a number of expert pathologists about the coroner’s findings, so she knew full well the significance of the coroner revealing that EJ’s lungs showed PCP with GMS staining. Although PCP is ubiquitous, that doesn’t mean it can usually be detected by GMS at autopsy.

    Celia naming her website “The Truth Barrier” is appropriate; her inability to tell the truth about HIV and AIDS has certainly been a barrier to her career (appropriately so, journalists are not supposed to lie). She refers to “fraudulent manifestos claiming that I made wild errors.” Let me take just one example from her Harper’s Magazine article and see if anyone can defend it:

    AZT, which was developed as a chemotherapeutic agent in 1964 but shelved because of its extreme toxicity, is a DNA chain terminator, which means that it brings DNA synthesis to a halt. It is therefore an extremely efficient cell killer.”

    This is wildly false. An email from the first person to synthesize AZT has been online since 1999:

    http://www.davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/Beltz-AZT.html

    “Further work showed that AZT had no effect on the DNA synthesis of T2 bacteriophage propagated in E. coli cultures”

    “I prepared 1 gram of crystalline AZT and sent it to my friend Dr. Alan Sartorelli, Professor of Pharmacology at Yale University, for testing against animal cancers. It proved to be completely inactive in all of the test systems he employed. In my laboratory I found AZT incapable of inhibiting the growth of Jensen sarcoma cells in vitro at very high concentrations. Thus, AZT showed no activity as a potential anticancer drug at that time.”

    So, in flat contradiction of Celia’s claim (purportedly fact-checked by people at Harper’s!), AZT was not shelved due to toxicity but due to it’s inability to kill cells.

    The first paper to describe the antiviral activity of AZT was published in 1974 and the full text is available online:

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=4531031

    The paper specifically notes “the low toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) for the cell but high toxicity for the virus” (a mouse retrovirus).

    The are many more equally outrageous errors and false claims in all of Celia Farber’s writings on HIV and AIDS. I don’t think promoting false information about a potentially life-threatening health condition is in any way admirable. It’s morally reprehensible, which is why Celia well deserves the criticism she has received.

    MG18 · Mar 12, 02:54 PM ·#

  9. 9.  

    I’m really amazed at how low some people will go to further their stupidity, such as MG18.

    In the early days of AZT, you can tell who’s on it and who’s not (humps, facial muscle wasting, etc). Even those who are on it swear on the ill effects it had on them.

    Why don’t you take AZT for 2months and let us all see how non-toxic it is.

    The LA coroner’s admission simply proves that they based their findings NOT on scientific findings but on opinions and biases (ie because Christine was said to have “HIV”). Now, if the coroner was so damn right there wouldn’t be any settlement from them, would there? It only shows how they diagose supposed “HIV/AIDS” without sufficient and concrete scientific facts.

    Remember AIDS Bangui definition? Remember the small percentage of AIDS patients where Dr Gallo supposedly found “HIV”? That isn’t science, it’s all politics and money. Like what they say, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything else will look like a nail”. Dr Gallo is a retrovirologist so naturally everything else he does will he want to involve “retroviruses” (ie Leukemia, Cancer).

    I can’t understand how you formulate your logic but I guess AIDS orthodoxy do really formulate the same way and scientific studies isn’t one of them.

    Charles · Mar 13, 07:33 PM ·#

  10. 10.  

    Charles, are you suggesting that AZT’s side effects make it OK for Celia Farber to write things about the drug that are totally untrue? You haven’t addressed any of factual points in what I posted.

    You wrote:

    “Now, if the coroner was so damn right there wouldn’t be any settlement from them, would there?”

    The case wasn’t about whether or not the coroner was right about the cause of Eliza Jane’s death (as Maggiore herself knew, no legitimate pathologist disagreed with the coroner’s conclusion), it was about the release of the findings. PCP is not detectable at autopsy in the absence of underlying immunodeficiency, which Eliza Jane had no other risk factors for.

    http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-05-02-01

    “At the National Cancer Institute, only 7 of 2,887 consecutive autopsies revealed PCP, a prevalence rate of only 0.2% in a high-risk population.(43)”

    Vogel CL, Cohen MH, Powell RD, DeVita VT.
    Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Ann Intern Med. 1968 Jan;68(1):97-108

    The population in this study is referred to as “high-risk” because they had cancer.

    MG18 · Mar 14, 12:29 PM ·#

  11. 11.  

    MG18,

    “no legitimate pathologist disagreed with the coroner’s conclusion”
    Statements like that are extremely indicative of the level of rhetoric and argumentation from you.
    So, some pathologists did disagree with the coroner’s report…ohh, but anyone that did must have not been “legitimate” right? What a great way to dismiss any dissent. Rejection via assumed a priori reasoning. Very good.

    Anyone who doesn’t agree with what I say is not legitimate;
    X doesn’t agree with what I say, therefore
    X is not legitimate.

    A great way to further your knowledge and outlook on life. Indeed, Bravo.

    It’s so funny how vocal you idiots get and come meandering in to all these various sites. You come on to Christine Maggiore’s memorial webpage, just to make some bigoted comment which serves no function but to allow for hatred to be disseminated and create more pain and suffering. You folks come on to a website like this just to make sure to you remind everyone here that there is still idiocy and bigotry in the world alive as ever.
    Good to know. Good to know we’re still dragging our knuckles on the ground. Congrats.

    I just wish that there would be some attempt to debate in public…to get everyone out there aware of the issues and why us dissidents are so stupid and wrong.
    Global warming “denialists” are arguably far more dangerous than AIDS “denialists” right? I mean…if there is a choice between some virus or the Earth overheating…I’m gonna take my chances with the virus. So that could arguably be seen as a far greater “threat to debate” due to the serious implications of “climate change denial” right?
    And yet…there have been countless PUBLIC debates. Over NPR, Australian TV stations, In Britain, etc etc etc.

    Not a word from the AIDS orthodoxy.
    But yet cretins like yourself (yes, pat yourself on the back, you’re officially a cretin) go sneaking around through the net to post some idiotic comment, and for what?

    Let’s go ahead and get this out in the open. It’s been a long time coming. But the establishment doesn’t want to do that do they?

    No. I have a feeling all the dissidents would need is to just put Harvey Bialy in a room where he has a microphone and equal time to speak and perhaps that might be the most brutal one man massacre of each and every single opposing view in the room that ever happened on recorded video.

    You’re gonna sit here and nitpick at some imaginary reference to AZT not killing cancer cells? When you run out of things to nitpick at, you attack the person. When that fails, you scare people into fear of being associated with “a denialist.” But your type never seem to want to man up and engage in public debates.

    I wish the AIDS Truth people didn’t hide behind the cowardly and, in fact criminal excuse of “ohh we won’t debate dissidents, they are already discredited and not worth it.”

    If you have never had an equal exchange of ideas and an open debate, how can there be discredit?

    You fool. Do you realize the AIDS establishment doesn’t even know how HIV is supposed to cause T Cell depletion?
    Did you know that? That would seem like…ohh I dunno…just a SLIGHT impediment and deterrent in claiming certainty that this supposed entity (genetic/molecular sequence) causes disease. Doesn’t seem to stop you brave brave keyboard warriors though does it.

    Yeah…keep puffing your chest out over the message boards. When it comes time to face the cameras or engage in public discussion, there is a sweeping silence that makes midnight in a deserted ghost town sound like a Bon Jovi concert in comparison. Literally you folks are shaking in your boots.

    If so confident, why no debate?
    If no debate, why such lame excuse?

    So yeah, how very brave of you to come on here and spew your vile hatred at a lady who has more humanity, common sense, and courage in her left middle finger than you could even imagine having. In fact that same finger is all you deserve as a response.

    Mario C · Mar 14, 10:37 PM ·#

  12. 12.  

    MG18, is that how you aids orthodox see things? I believe not, you just like to muddle things and give false statements and assumptions. Let’s break down your post and see what a complete moron you are.

    “Charles, are you suggesting that AZT’s side effects make it OK for Celia Farber to write things about the drug that are totally untrue? You haven’t addressed any of factual points in what I posted.”
    —> Actually I don’t see much problems with Celia’s statements. On the contrary, yours is typical of an AIDS orthodox willing to cite lots and lots of studies that don’t mean anything. Like what I said, the proof of AZTs toxicity is/was in the people who took them. Liver cancer is the number one killer of HIV/AIDS patients who are taking AZT and other anti-retrovirals. Again, I dare you to take AZT and prove everybody that it isn’t toxic.

    “The case wasn’t about whether or not the coroner was right about the cause of Eliza Jane’s death (as Maggiore herself knew, no legitimate pathologist disagreed with the coroner’s conclusion), it was about the release of the findings. “
    —> I’m not sure if you are really an idiot or you’re just trying to fool casual readers. The lawsuit is about the FINDINGS of the LA county coroner not the release of it. The Maggiores sued the LA county coroner for declaring that EJ died of AIDS even without proper medical evidence. Their not doing an HIV test alone was proof. What do you say about that eh? Or are you going to insist on presumptive AIDS diagnosis? This isn’t africa.
    —> No legitimate pathologist. Haha. Anybody who exhibits a dissenting opinion is illegitimate. This isn’t science, it’s POLITICS. Only in HIV/AIDS world.

    PCP is not detectable at autopsy in the absence of underlying immunodeficiency, which Eliza Jane had no other risk factors for.”
    —> Again like a typical AIDS Inc robot, you’re assuming that what he found was really PCP. HIV was assumed. Is it surprising that PCP was assumed as well?

    Now, why don’t you cite one, JUST ONE (1), one valid medical study that conclusively shows that HIV indeed causes AIDS. We’re not talking of correlation here but actual causation. I’m not going to hold my breath for an answer. Don’t run on us now.

    Again, cite one study, JUST ONE (1), that conclusively shows that AZT is not toxic and that indeed it helps people with HIV. We need a study/trial with VALID controls, that being tested against a placebo and not against other toxic meds.

    We still haven’t touched on the view/s of the original HIV discoverer/s. Obviously, I’m referring to Dr. Luc Montagnier and his group and certainly not Dr. Bob “the LAV thief” Gallo.

    Charles · Mar 15, 07:36 AM ·#

  13. 13.  

    If Christine wasn’t in the HIV/AIDS risk category, then someone explain to me how she gave it to her daughter and how Christine died from it?

    Simple Logic · Mar 17, 10:18 PM ·#

  14. 14.  

    Celia, Thank you for your words of inspiration and tireless efforts over the years. I took hiv drugs for 11 of the past 15 years that I have lived with an hiv positive and AIDS diagnosis. Two years ago I got high speed internet and watched The Other Side of AIDS – a film that forever changed my life – I will never take hiv drugs again. A year and a half ago I created a channel at YouTube because I didn’t know exactly what to do to help others but I knew I had to do something and it needed to be global and very inclusive. It now brings me great joy to have the ability to help so many to not have to suffer through so many years of hiv drugs like I have in this life. www.youtube.com/hivquestions (and healing alternatives)

    Gregory · Mar 18, 02:45 AM ·#

  15. 15.  

    While Mario C and Charles have some facility with terms like “cretin” and “moron,” they don’t seem to be able to offer any evidence that AZT was developed as a cancer chemotherapy and shelved due to “extreme toxicity,” as Celia Farber claimed in what was supposedly a reputable magazine. Instead we have:

    “imaginary reference to AZT not killing cancer cells”

    and

    “Actually I don’t see much problems with Celia’s statements. On the contrary, yours is typical of an AIDS orthodox willing to cite lots and lots of studies that don’t mean anything.”

    What I cited – and gave links to – is an independently verifiable email from the inventor of AZT, Richard Beltz (which has been on the internet since 1999), and the first published paper to demonstrate AZT’s antiretroviral activity, which was published in 1974. These citations are just a sliver of the evidence that the AZT creation myth promulgated by people like Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber is a total fiction. And the AZT creation myth is but one example of the many fictions these individuals promote.

    For the sake of clarity, “legitimate” was intended as shorthand for a qualified human pathologist not on the board of “Alive & Well” – Andrew Maniotis and Mohammed Al-Bayati do not qualify.

    Also, PCP wasn’t assumed in the case of Eliza-Jane, it was detected using GMS staining . Even Al-Bayati does not dispute this, because he takes a couple of pages in his reports to offer examples of PCP being detected in people living with immunodeficiencies other than AIDS. Eliza-Jane, of course, did not have any of those immunodeficiencies so Al-Bayati then has to try and pretend that it may have been caused by a parvovirus. He also fails to cite any literature on the detection of PCP at autopsy (which perhaps isn’t surprising, given how rare that is – see the NCI series cited above).

    Charles’s “one paper” rhetoric is frequently reached for by people who deny HIV causes AIDS. But I’ve yet to find anyone who tries this tactic who is able to cite “one paper” for any pathogen that they do believe causes disease, for the simple reason that science doesn’t work that way – it advances based on the weight of evidence, as John Ioannidis recently lucidly described in an artice in PLoS Medicine. So one natural history study showing that untreated HIV infected people lose CD4 T cells and progress to AIDS while uninfected people don’t is not particularly convincing evidence. Multiple different studies showing the same thing, conducted all over the world, represents compelling evidence. Studies in different populations all over the world have also found consistent immunogenetic (Human Leukocyte Antigen) associations with the rate of disease progression in HIV, and yet Duesberg and Farber would have us believe that AIDS is caused by different things in these different populations (and none of those proposed causes would have HLA associations, of course). It’s beyond ridiculous, and it saddens and angers me greatly that some people are so eager to believe these lies that they cannot recognize how outrageous they are.

    Gregory, do you have any explanation for how you were able to survive 11 years of drugs that people like Celia Farber claim are toxic killers? Do you know how many people featured in “The Other Side of AIDS” are still alive?

    MG18 · Mar 18, 11:19 AM ·#

  16. 16.  

    MG18,
    You MUST be thick.

    Perhaps you have not seen the AZT black box skull and cross bones warning. That means you don’t take that drug like you take an aspirin. It means that stuff is TOXIC.
    AZT was attempted to be used in 1964 as a cancer treatment. It did not work. The only effect it had was a toxicity effect on the mice it was tried on, thus TOO TOXIC. The criteria for a cancer drug in those days….in fact I would argue to this day…are PRETTY wide open. So long as you don’t die within 5 years, heck anything that in theory should work against cancer gets approved. That’s the name of the game.

    How many people in the movie “The Other Side of AIDS” are dead today?
    How many of those people reverted back to believing AIDS was caused by HIV by fear tactics? How many people who take the drugs have died…wait….let’s not go there, right?

    Don’t come at us with that weak bullshit. Christine didn’t “GIVE” her daughter any virus idiot.
    If she did…why didn’t her husband or first child “get” it?
    You ever care to answer that friend?

    That’s right…no. We stick to what is convenient.
    Before Eliza Jane had her catastrophic death you know what? People were beginning to spread rumors that Christine really wasn’t HIV positive after all. You see, it was creating so much cognitive dissonance, so there had to be some kind of explanation….So there fore Christine…no more HIV+.

    Once EJ came down with an ear infection…and was treated with the “ohh so mild and harmless” antibiotic (which are EXTREMELY harmful to people, especially little girls)...and she died of a reaction to it….all the sudden everyone who was saying Christine wasn’t HIV+ forgot that whole thing right away. Back to attacking her. “Ah ha! See what happens when you become a “DENIALIST!”

    It’s fucking pathetic and there is a lack of critical thought. But that’s ok.

    Morons will be morons.

    Keep sticking to the convenient stuff and leave all the rest out. And I mean ALL OF IT…because there is a shitload of things the AIDS establishment cannot explain…let’s not even begin to talk about all the things they have no explanation of…for starters…they don’t even know HOW this supposed virus kills T Cells. Nope. No clue. They got guesses…they got possible this and that….they got NOTHING. And they KNOW it.

    And that’s just plain PATHETIC. Because if they don’t KNOW....why are they shutting out all dissenting views as if they know it all?

    MONEY, you FUCKING IDIOT.

    Mario C · Mar 18, 06:34 PM ·#

  17. 17.  

    Mario C wrote:

    AZT was attempted to be used in 1964 as a cancer treatment. It did not work. The only effect it had was a toxicity effect on the mice it was tried on, thus TOO TOXIC. “

    I guess I should just cut and paste the entire email, which is written by Richard Beltz, the person who first synthesized AZT.

    http://www.davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/Beltz-AZT.html

    Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:15:04 -0700
    From: “Richard Beltz”
    X-Accept-Language: en
    To: crowed@cadvision.com
    Subject: AZT and AIDS

    Dear President Crowe:

    I synthesized AZT in my laboratory as a NIH Senior Research Fellow (National Cancer Institute) in the autumn of 1961. The AZT was among a group of four thymidine analogs that I prepared at that time. AZT proved to be the most biologically active of these compounds. My biological tests showed (1) AZT inhibited the growth of E. coli and Salmonella potsdam at very low concentrations, and (2) cultures of E coli put on agar plates containing AZT showed AZT-resistant clones after a few days of incubation. Subcultures of these clones were completely resistant to growth inhibition by AZT. Further work showed that AZT had no effect on the DNA synthesis of T2 bacteriophage propagated in E. coli cultures. Finally, I prepared 1 gram of crystalline AZT and sent it to my friend Dr. Alan Sartorelli, Professor of Pharmacology at Yale University, for testing against animal cancers. It proved to be completely inactive in all of the test systems he employed. In my laboratory I found AZT incapable of inhibiting the growth of Jensen sarcoma cells in vitro at very high concentrations. Thus, AZT showed no activity as a potential anticancer drug at that time. What I have written here summarizes my work with AZT. I did many other experiments within the framework of these findings, but it consisted of filling in the details.

    Now let me say that I am aware of the existence of certain quotes attributed to me on the Internet, such as the one you mentioned in your letter. Such quotes are completely untrue! Never at any time did I study the potential of AZT to cause cancer, nor did I investigate the toxicity of AZT in animals or humans. At that time I was interested in AZT as a potential anticancer drug. When AZT proved to be inactive in the experimental tumor systems that I and Sartorelli tested it against, I discontinued my work on AZT. It seemed possible to me, then, that AZT was a cure looking for a disease, but what disease? [AIDS didn’t emerge until around 1980, as you know.]

    I regret very much being wrongly quoted on the Internet in regard to AZT. I am sorry if such quotes have led to incorrect conclusions about AZT, which we must admit has at least some limited value as an anti-AIDS drug, especially for preventing newborn children from AIDS-infected mothers from acquiring the disease.

    Sincerely yours,

    Richard E. Beltz, Ph.D.
    Professor of Biochemistry
    School of Medicine
    Loma Linda University,
    Loma Linda, CA 92350
    ————————————————

    Oddly, this email was obtained and posted to the web by David Crowe, who I think is a member of the “Rethinking AIDS” cult along with Celia Farber. If you’ve got any interest in the truth you could ask Alan Sartorelli about the animal tests he conducted:

    http://info.med.yale.edu/pharm/faculty/index.php?bioID=16

    To address some other points you raise:

    HIV-infected people don’t transmit the virus everyone they have sex with, and uninfected people who don’t become infected after initial exposures can experience a decline in risk despite ongoing exposure, consistent with acquired immunity. HIV-infected mothers have around a 1/3 chance of passing the virus on to their child. Antibiotic reactions don’t cause PCP to be detectable at autopsy.

    There’s a difference between “dissenting views” and lies.

    MG18 · Mar 18, 08:08 PM ·#

  18. 18.  

    “(MG18) I guess I should just cut and paste the entire email, which is written by Richard Beltz, the person who first synthesized AZT.”
    —> Ok let’s read and break this down to see how stupid you really are.

    * “(Beltz) Dear President Crowe:

    I synthesized AZT in my laboratory as a NIH Senior Research Fellow (National Cancer Institute) in the autumn of 1961. “ *
    —> This was in 1961, Celia’s phrase reads 1964. Are they the same? NO. Shows how low you will get to appear knowledgeable and accurate.

    “(Beltz) In my laboratory I found AZT incapable of inhibiting the growth of Jensen sarcoma cells in vitro at very high concentrations. Thus, AZT showed no activity as a potential anticancer drug at that time. What I have written here summarizes my work with AZT.”
    —> The words IN VITRO says it all. It was done in a controlled environment OUTSIDE of a living organism like in petri dishes so he couldn’t have known the toxicity of it on animals and/or humans.

    “(Beltz) Now let me say that I am aware of the existence of certain quotes attributed to me on the Internet, such as the one you mentioned in your letter. Such quotes are completely untrue! Never at any time did I study the potential of AZT to cause cancer, nor did I investigate the toxicity of AZT in animals or humans.”
    —> So he DID NOT PERFORM a study on the potential of AZT to cause cancer and he DID NOT investigate the toxicity of AZT in animals. This alone should have alerted your hollow brain that the purpose of showing that letter was to precisely debunk the claims of “AIDS Inc” robots like you that it wasn’t toxic.

    “(Beltz) I regret very much being wrongly quoted on the Internet in regard to AZT. I am sorry if such quotes have led to incorrect conclusions about AZT, which we must admit has at least some limited value as an anti-AIDS drug, especially for preventing newborn children from AIDS-infected mothers from acquiring the disease.”
    —> LIMITED VALUE even if he doesn’t know the toxicity of the drug, eh? Again, “AIDS” drugs have a limited value because it has anti-fungal properties but when the toxicity of it was known (high death rate of of “AIDS drugs” users, wasting, humps, anemia, liver diseases, mtDNA destruction, etc) it was stopped. Why don’t you take my bet, I’ll buy you a box of AZT for your hearty consumption and let’s see how you’ll feel? Wanna bet?

    “(MG18) Oddly, this email was obtained and posted to the web by David Crowe, who I think is a member of the “Rethinking AIDS” cult along with Celia Farber. If you’ve got any interest in the truth you could ask Alan Sartorelli about the animal tests he conducted: http://info.med.yale.edu/pharm/faculty/index.php?bioID=16”
    —> Yes, oddly that an “AIDS” Inc. robot like you didn’t get so well in your haste to peddle LIES.
    —> Want more studies on it? Try this idiot. http://aras.ab.ca/azt-animals.html

    —> Now, why don’t you explain this
    ===>In infants of uninfected mothers (AZT-/HIV-) at the three time points, the ratios were 442 to 515, whereas in infants of untreated AZT-/HIV+ mothers the ratios were 261 to 297, and in infants of AZT-treated (AZT+/HIV+) mothers the ratios were 146 to 203. At all three time points, differences between the AZT-/HIV- group and the two HIV+ groups were statistically significant (p < .05), and differences between the AZT-/HIV+ and AZT+/HIV+ groups were also statistically significant (p < .05), demonstrating that AZT exposure causes a persistent depletion of mtDNA.
    http://www.natap.org/2003/june/062303_4.htm

    —> And why can’t you show this study that DIRECTLY studied the toxicity of AZT in rats and mice. It is to be noted that after 30 days of NO DOSING, hematologic effects either RESOLVED or DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED.
    ===> AZT and ddC produced dose-related, poorly regenerative, macrocytic anemias as evidenced by decreases in erythrocyte counts, he-matocrits, and hemoglobin concentrations and increases in mean corpuscular hemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume. Bone marrow samples in rats treated with AZT were hyperplastic whereas those in mice treated with AZT and rats and mice treated with ddC were hypoplastic. The hematologic toxicity of AZT was more severe than that of ddC. Generally, toxic effects of either chemical were greater in mice than in rats and more pronounced in female than in male animals. After 30 days without dosing, hematologic effects either resolved or dramatically improved. In studies in which ddC and AZT were administered in combination for 4 weeks at concentrations of 0/0, 0/500, 500/0, 10/500, 100/500, 500/500, and 500/1000 mg/kg ddC/AZT, there was macrocytic anemia in animals in the lower doses and marked microcytic anemia in surviving male mice in higher dose groups. Most female mice died in the 500/500 and 500/1000 mg/kg ddC/ AZT dose groups. At lower concentrations (100/500, 500/1000 mg/kg ddC/AZT), effects of the two drugs were similar to those in the single drug studies. At higher concentrations (500/500 and 500/1000 mg/kg ddC/AZT), the combination treatment produced enhanced hematopoietic toxicity. These studies demonstrated the early and progressive time course of toxicity of AZT and ddC, species differences in sensitivities and responses, and reversibility of effects after termination of treatment. Based on these findings, a chronic toxicity study is being conducted with AZT in mice.
    http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/1/159

    The problem with you “AIDS Inc” robots is that you stopped thinking long before you got to know the facts well. Maybe that or you are purposely deceiving the public because the very life of your existence depends on the perpetual propagation of this myth that is “HIV and AIDS”.

    “(MG18) HIV-infected people don’t transmit the virus everyone they have sex with, and uninfected people who don’t become infected after initial exposures can experience a decline in risk despite ongoing exposure, consistent with acquired immunity.”
    —> Care to take the Padian study and interpret what “NO SEROCONVERSIONS despite a significant percentage of the cohorts not using condoms regularly or at all”? Where did you get your data about HIV transmission? Ahhh, in your computer model. Right.

    “(MG18) HIV-infected mothers have around a 1/3 chance of passing the virus on to their child.”
    —> Where did you get the figures this time? In a computer manipulated model?

    “Antibiotic reactions don’t cause PCP to be detectable at autopsy.”
    —> Care to show a study on this or did you just pluck this out of your piehole?

    “There’s a difference between “dissenting views” and lies.”
    —> Indeed, dissenting views like ours are being silenced so that perpetual lies of those depending on the propagation of the “HIV/AIDS” myth like “AIDS Inc” and it’s robots like MG18 will flourish.

    “(MG18) Charles’s “one paper” rhetoric is frequently reached for by people who deny HIV causes AIDS.”
    —> Common obfuscation technique of “AIDS Inc” robots who simply cannot provide even a single iota proof of their long held belief now exposed as MYTH. Precisely because that’s only 1 paper that you LIERS and ROBOTS couldn’t give FOR THE PAST 25years and yet you still claim that HIV causes “AIDS”?

    If you have these documents then you would’ve raised this at every chance you get and then there wouldn’t be any dissent, would there? But NO. Simply put it, YOU CAN’T SHOW PROOF.

    I know you “AIDS Inc” robots earn a living by making filthy excuses much in the manner of your “AIDS Inc” masters in the CDC and NIG, but now I must say that you either SHOW US UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that; (1) HIV causes AIDS (by killing Tcells) and (2) that HIV truly exists by showing an EM photograph of HIV after purification and isolation

    ....or JUST SHUT UP.

    Charles · Mar 19, 09:31 AM ·#

  19. 19.  

    Ma’am, I admire you so very much, for your strength, courage, honesty, intellect, well you get the idea I hope ‘cause I’m no good at putting thoughts on paper. I have tried to read all of your writings. And now it is so interesting to see your comments about the internet and to see that you are using it to advantage. I wish all the best ,
    T, N.

    Tage Nielsen · Mar 19, 12:18 PM ·#

  20. 20.  

    Well, I know a great way to solve the AZT debate, why dont we just ask my brother if it’s toxic or not? Ooooohhhhh, thats right, we can’t. And why can’t we? Because AZT killed him 20 years ago. Within weeks after taking it, he developed PCP (after being perfectly healthy prior to that) and never recovered.

    AZT destroyed his immune system faster than you could ever comprehend it. Listen up, idiots – AZT DOES destroy cells in humans. I watched it happen with my own eyes. And to anyone and everyone who thinks otherwise, I invite you to try it and see for yourself.

    And here’s is another news flash for you all – the medical labs that perform the blood tests have one “code” for determning results for gay men, and another for hetrosexuals. Again, I have seen these tests with my own eyes. And what is negative for a hetrosexual is quite often positive for a gay person. Accurate tests? I think not…

    “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”

    Geoffrey · Mar 27, 10:15 AM ·#

Comments closed