West London Homeopaths organise talk by AIDS denialist Janine Roberts
Posted by gimpy on September 16, 2009
West London Homeopaths (WLH) is a local support group for homeopaths and their supporters in west London. WLH run a seminar programme whose past speakers cover subjects such as ‘Fats don’t make you fat’, ‘Chinese facial analysis’ and ‘Indigo Essences’. So far, so lifestyle section. Their next seminar, on the 29th September, is more sinister.
Janine Roberts – Investigative Journalist, and author of ‘Fear of the Invisible’
THE TRUTH ABOUT VACCINATION
How are they made? Are they safe? How scared should we be of viruses and vaccines, HIV & Aids? The amazing story of the cell and the virus – and much more!
Tuesday 29th September, 7.15pm – 9.30pm
Janine Roberts is a notorious AIDS denialist, author of a book, Fear of the Invisible that denies the scientific realities of AIDS and HIV as well as a proponent of long discredited MMR/autism theories and similar scaremongering against vaccination.
At a time when homeopathy is under increasing scrutiny and has been condemned in recent months by the WHO for its use in the developing world one would expect its practitioners and supporters to be careful about linking themselves to deluded and dangerous ideas. Do not forget that AIDS denialism is estimated to have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in South Africa alone. Sadly it seems homeopaths are utterly incapable of recognising a bad idea when they see one, apparently the best they can do is to write articles of a very low academic standard while simultaneously making snide, and mistaken, allegations about the professionalism of their critics to their employers, or, in the case of the professional societies, clear their members of all charges of misconduct by asserting there is proof that homeopathic vaccinations work.
There must be some homeopaths out there willing to curb the excesses of this profession? Surely all homeopaths aren’t anti-vaccination morons delusional about the capabilities of their little vials of sugar pills? Will nobody from the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital speak out against this madness?
Michael K Gray said
Homeopathy is a fully-fledged cult-religion.
It is based on a dangerous fantasy.
The proponents, through willful ignorance,
wish to slaughter your offspring through medical neglect,
and actively preventable genocide.
No joke.
They do.
Just look at their bogus campaign in Africa, lying that homeopathy can prevent/cure HIV.
This is KNOWING genocide.
There is no other lesser term for these maniacs’ criminal insanity.
Teek said
any idea where this seminar is taking place…? would love to attend…
gimpy said
No ideas yet.
Zeno said
You’re not holding your breath are you?
warhelmet said
Slight derail – it is worth visiting the Janine Roberts website. It is fascinating – not because of the woo, but rather the serious journalism that she did in the past. How can someone who, on the face of it, did sensible and valuable stuff in the past switch into woo mode?
draust said
Two standard answers are:
(i) if you write about “establishment conspiracies” there is a danger that you come to believe everything “established” is by definition / inevitably a conspiracy.
(ii) a perceived-as-miraculous personal experience where the person thinks an Alt.Reality modality cured some condition they had.
Hanging around almost exclusively with people who believe firmly in both “everything established is a conspiracy” and in Alt.Medicine (the Alt.Reality fraternity) is another one. Of course, this is an occupational hazard of (i)
wakeupplease said
Or maybe she’s right?
Dr Aust said
While one cannot absolutely dismiss that possibility, the likelihood of it is vanishingly small.
This reminds me of the old joke about the scientist testifying in court about forensic evidence:
Defence Barrister: And can you say, Dr. X, with complete and absolute certainty, that this DNA sample came from my client?
Scientist: Science does not deal in absolute certainties, Mr Y. I can tell you, though, that there is only one chance in ten million that it was not his sample… I suppose some people might call that pretty absolute.
Mojo said
Sometimes science can be reasonably certain. Another courtroom exchange:
Lawyer: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
Pathologist:No.
Lawyer: So then it’s possible the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
Pathologist: No.
Lawyer: How can you be so sure?
Lawyer: Because his brain was sitting in a jar on my desk.
Lawyer: Is it possible the patient could have been alive, none the less?
Lawyer: Well, it is possible that he could have been alive and practising law somewhere.
warhelmet said
Asking the medical homeopaths to speak out against some of the excesses of the lay practitioners (and to be fair, a few of the FoH as well) is asking them to acknowledge that UK homeopathy is not one big happy family. Given that the FoH and the SoH seem to be snuggling up, it is not going to happen.
I was going to say that a seminar isn’t a big deal and that there are probably only 20 people in the West London Homeopaths group, but isn’t that the group that Helen Kimball-Brooke is involved with?
gimpy said
Yep. A few movers and shakers involved here.
warhelmet said
http://www.brookeresearch.com/wellbeing/webpage.pdf
Yes, well.
Alan Smith said
Before anyone makes any judgements as to whether HIV causes AIDS or even Exists, One needs to look at both sides of the coin, Janine deals with fact, she published the Draft paper that no one was ment to see. Clearly this paper says the “After Extensive Research Efforts the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified” this was days before final papers where sent to Science and the cause of AIDS was found.
people need to do some research and not read all the stuff in newspapers, Go to the world health org website and search for the Bangui Definition, you will find that in africa you dont even need to have a HIV test. you simply need to score 12 points to get a AIDS diagnosis.
you only need a few symptons for this, like 10% weight loss =4 points , cough =2 diarrhea =3 fever =3, pretty easy to score 12 points in Africa.
and the prize a AIDS diagnosis, and very easy to get.
Kaposi’s sarcoma give you a instant =12 points.
Also I would not call Janine a AIDS denialist, I consider this a negative term. something has to be proven to first exist, to then deny.
There are actually NO papers anywhere that prove HIV even exists, No conspiracy here.
http://www.houseofnumbers.com
http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/strategic/en/bangui1985report.pdf scroll to bottom of report to see the definition.
gimpy said
Alan,
Don’t be silly. Start here.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/index.html
Derrik said
You could also try the NCBI website.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/gquery?term=human immunodeficiency virus
Where you will find, publicly available, the sequenced genome of various strains of the virus, the 3D structure of its component proteins and a list of 33 thousand papers relating to HIV which are freely available in full text, not to mention the 211 thousand papers on pubmed many of which will be behind pay walls.
Colin said
If HIV doesn’t exist then what is this HIV-derivative retrovirus I’m using to insert genes into my cell cultures?
Alan Smith said
The basis on all papers are based on the foundation papers, Dr Robert Gallo was under investigation over his work under the Dingle commission.
The Office of Research Integrity
http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/unh_round1/www.unh.edu/rcr/Misconduct-FraudGoTo2.htm
The Original document the above investigation uncovered.
http://sciencefictions.net/pdfdocs/draft_of_m_popovic_05.04.84_science_article_undated.pdf
This paper was wrote by Dr Popovic while Gallo was away Popovic was honest in his Draft as he mentions use of LAV the french culture.
this was the key element and proved Gallo was using the French Culture. hence the French now share half the prize and royalties for hiv test kits. But what people didnt notice was Gallo had put a line though “Despite extensive research efforts the causative agent of aids has not been found” there lots of alterations in this draft and this was redited and sent to science.
I must add this draft was sent by Popovic to his sister as his get out of jail card and he used it when he himself was under investigation.
Did anyone hear luc montagnier mention in the House of numbers trailer if you have a Healthy Immune system you can get rid of hiv in a few weeks?
something you dont see in the trailer is this
The interviewer asked luc montagnier to repeat this, The Interviewer then asked if you give africans food and water can they get rid of HIV and Luc says I would think so yes.
luc montagnier is the co discoverer of HIV and he is saying you can get rid of HIV! if you can get rid of the virus would you not be left with antibodies? so what happens when you are later tested for HIV? are people told when tested they they could have cleaned out their HIV infection?
HIV and AIDS is BIG BIG money they dont want to give that up without a fight.
notspock said
Can’t open that pdf. Which section does that “has not been found” sentence go in? If its in the introduction its no news at all.
Lets get this straigh though – you’re saying that a 25 year old paper would remain unchecked? Even by the Nobel commitee? That all the research for the last 25 years would not spot inconsistencies, or consolidate its observations with other aspects of real science.
Luc montagnier – what a turn up – he’s doing research into homeopathy now.
Alan Smith said
Try right clicking and downloading it, or go here and its listed with other documents uncovered http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/fraud-in-key-hiv-research-background
The dingle commission was not looking for the cause of AIDS just did Dr Robert Gallo use the French sample, “LAV”
inconsistencies I may add that the mainstream put out. Bangui Definition, Tests different all over the world I have provided links does that make you not want to question what we are told? people dont want to question the cause of AIDS then or now. people have a lot of time money invested in HIV and AIDS.
notspock said
OK. So the pdf was far bigger than i expected.
I was right.
The famous sentence: “Despite extensive research efforts the causative agent of aids has not been found” was as part of the description of the past.
Its very clear that its not a conclusion, and not what he’s saying about the work he’s done.
Vicky said
Oh come on, now your arguments are becoming really silly.
All the HIV positive people here in Europe don’t need to take their AZT and whatnot (if they eat properly)? If our immune system usually deals with HIV on its own and all that is left later on are the antibodies, how can someone else be infected with HIV when through contact with these antibodies?
Alan Smith said
Vicky,
I DIDNT say that, Luc Montagnier did! and he is the Co discoverer of HIV. if you don’t believe me watch the trailer.
http://www.houseofnumbers.com to see the bit about eating proper you will have to see the film.
these are questions people have to ask.
gimpy said
Alan,
http://aidstruth.org/features/2009/real-answers-fake-questions-%E2%80%9Chouse-numbers%E2%80%9D
Alan Smith said
Aids truth was setup to try to debunk people questioning HIV and AIDS.
all the stuff I posted is out their provided by Science, should we not question what we are told?
http://exlibhollywood.blogspot.com/2009/06/truth-about-aidstruthorg.html
gimpy said
Science with a capital ‘S’? Aids truth was set up to stop the outrageous pseudoscience of the AIDS denialists that was in part responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in South Africa.
wakeuplease said
Thank you Alan for the links.
It seems to show that groups like aidstruth and senseaboutscience who are presenting themselves as being “scienctifically” motivated are really pushing a financial and political agenda.
Derrik said
One thing Alan keeps saying is that questions need to be asked. Generally I would agree with that stance however that innocent position of “only asking questions” has been abused of late but those who just want to manufacture doubt. If you are “just asking questions” you are not required to put together any coherent position yourself.
From what I’ve seen of denialist you would be happy for people to think any of a host of alternatives to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Perhaps HIV doesn’t exist, or it does exists but doesn’t cause AIDS which might be a catch all syndrome or might be real and caused by poverty or degenerate life styles or the ARV drugs themselves or …
There is a vast tapestry of interlinking scientific evidence to back up the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Finding a loose thread to pull doesn’t refute this body of work unless it can unravel the whole tapestry. To properly refute the HIV/AIDS theory actually requires a solid set of hypothesis which make contradictory predictions to those made by the HIV/AIDS theory which can be properly tested.
Can either of you give me an example of such a hypothesis? Even if testing it might be unethical or illegal or practically impossible, just as a thought experiment, give me an example hypothesis.
Derrik said
Having posted that it occurs to me that proposing alternative and testable hypothesise is actually the honest scientific way of posing questions. That is actually what happens at a scientific conference.
Asking peculiar leading questions that betray ignorance of the subject is actually juvenile, disrespectful of the expert you’re asking and scientifically illiterate.
Alan Smith said
Derrik,
I am presenting some things I myself have found out with a little looking. I have listened to the main stream since HIV = AIDs started. there is nothing wrong in looking at whats presented as i have shown in my links that makes one ask questions. why is it they use the Bangui Def in africa? why is it someone can fly around the world and have different results on where they test. the list goes on. cancer is cancer no matter where you are in the world, why should HIV be any different?
I took the time to look at other then what I have been told, I not her to try to convice anyone what I am saying is right.
dt said
Bangui? That is sooo last century.
They used the Bangui definition in Africa for 2 reasons:
1. To help clinicians in areas of Africa with no access to laboratory testing for HIV decide who may or may not have AIDS. It was a CLINICAL case definition. There are several diseases in Africa that by themselves may mimic the effects of HIV, and overlap is common. The Bangui definition was devised to help them try and get a reasonable degree of certainty as to what they were dealing with. The definition is designed to work in the ABSENCE of HIV testing, but is widely acknowledged to be poorly discriminatory in certain settings.
2. The WHO needed to establish quite early on during the pandemic what the extent of HIV’s spread may have been. By asking member states to use the Bangui definition where they did not have HIV testing, they were able to gain some epidemiological information on how extensive the spread of HIV/AIDS was in the poorer countries in Africa. This helped WHO identify problems in many countries before the wherewithal for HIV testing.
The Bangui definition is hardly used now – virtually all African countries have access to testing as well as CD4 counts and in many countries there is a roll out of antiretrovirals. Looking at any publications within the last 10 years you will rarely find anything that mentions the bangui definition or which uses it as the basis for diagnosis.
The Bangui definition was devised in 1985, which is 24 years ago. Most African countries had no access to testing until this century or the 1990s.
Next question?
Alan Smith said
wakeuplease,
here is other link with more documents of the dingle enquiry http://healtoronto.com/gallodocs.html
Well yes they have a career based on it, some 25 years worth. its not something they are going to give up on. One only has to go to the very start of the whole HIV = AIDS and you soon realise that all the things they said didnt actually happen.
Remember SMON in Japan? (Subacute Myelo-Optico-Neuropathy) for 15 years they thought the cause was a virus. but it turned out to be the medication they was on that was causing the problem.
Gallo wrongly thought there was a cancer virus, he even went to a island to see for himself people who had cancer. that island was the one that a nuke was dropped on.
Derrik said
The human papilloma viruses does lead to cervical cancer. Do you think that it doesn’t?
Alan Smith said
I was reffering to Gallos war on cancer. in the 70′s when he worked at the US Government National Cancer Institute.
The human papilloma viruses I have no idea, its not something I have looked at.
Alan Smith said
cigarettes cause cancer does that mean is a cancer virus?
Derrik said
My reply seems to have gone in at number 10.
Also cancer is complicated, has many manifestations and many different causes. It dose not follow from the fact that some viruses cause cancer that all causes of cancer are viruses.
notspock said
Are cigarettes a kind of nuclear bomb?
Rich Woods said
Certainly something of a time bomb for many.
dt said
I just want to know, as someone who has also had prolonged clashes with AIDS denialists in order to debunk their lies, where can I get some of this money the “pro-communist gay organisations” are churning out to fund people who counter denialism?
It would be nice to get paid for my hobby. Please Alan, or wakeup, tell me who I need to contact. You guys obviously have the answers, so you must know.
zeno said
Interesting story about House of Numbers here: Was I conned by AIDS-denialists? by Caspar Melville of New Humanist.
dt said
The Montagnier quote (he always struggles speaking in English and the many nuances of what he is actually trying to say are readily and regularly misinterpreted by denialists, and the clip is cleverly edited so we have no idea what was the question that he was asked) merely confirms what has been described very rarely – exposure to HIV without the establishment of chronic, latent infection.
The Kenya prostitute study verified this; some had clearly been exposed and there was some immune recognition (memory T cell activity) that an initial exposure and immune response to the virus did occur, but some of them did not actually become chronically infected and they remained seronegative. As Luc says, “some people may be very fortunate”.
None of that indicates HIV does not exist or that it may go on to produce AIDS.
notspock said
I should be nicer about Montagnier.
From this (wierd place to find it… ) : http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/dtinterviewlm.htm
on whether HIV exists: “LM: Oh, it is clear. I have seen it and I have encountered it.”
I can only guess that he’s got quite a thing about looking into cofactors. Quite a normal thing to do really, pretty unsurprising and theres some quite easy to understand cofactors.
Interesting that one should pay too close attention to him using a vague expression like “good immune system”. (note not “healthy” or other such Woo stuff). If mistranslating from french he could mean “the right” as in, if you’re particularly lucky. I can’t believe that short and selective clip is being quoted when so many people on it are making quite categoric anti-denial points.
(easier to see bits with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_N4zgjF0K0 (LM more than 3/4 way through) )
Its also quite completely illogical to promote both of the following:
“HIV doesnt exist”
“HIV does cause cronic infections but not all the time”
PS: “growing like couch grass” thats a very fine example of bad translation.
Alan Smith said
Vicky are you also aware they never actually test for the “VIRUS” they only test to see if some antibodies are present. All HIV test kits have disclaimers saying that are not to be used as a diagnostic tool for HIV detection.
There is different criteria around the world with the same test kits so you can fly around the world and in one country test POS and in another country NEG. or even fly east to west coast US and have one pos result and one neg. The Western Blot uses this, but is not used in the UK now.
link to jama pdf doc http://tiny.cc/WAt15
Here is a small image shows the above http://tiny.cc/N5Lnx
Also if you are HIV pos in the US and have a CD4 count of under 200 you are classed as having AIDS even though you are healthy, but if you fly Canada you would just be HIV as they dont use that count.
these are not from conspiracy websites its what Science is telling us.
gimpy said
Alan, you can find the explanations for your assertions here.
warhelmet said
I wonder if the West London Homeopaths harbour AIDS denialists in their ranks? I mean, why would you seek out someone like Janine Roberts to speak at your seminar? To be fair, some of the WLH may give her some stick. I can’t believe that they are all shills of the Health Freedom Movement and the shadowy organisations that control it.
Derrik said
Have you heard of Zeno’s paradox?
It goes like this. Is one stone on the ground a pile of stones? Of course not, it’s one stone. Now add a stone. Are two stones a pile of stones? No, that’s two stones. Add another stone, is it a pile now? Add another, is it a pile yet? Can you pinpoint the moment when adding one more stone makes the transition to a “pile”? No. Yet you know a pile of stones when you see one.
Now look at AIDS, not HIV, AIDS. This is a syndrome whereby the immune system fails and you become susceptible to all manor of infections you would otherwise fight of easily. The thing is patients start with fully functional immune systems and end up with non-functioning ones, where do you draw the line? A cold every other month? A cold every week? Perhaps that’s not very objective. How about something like white blood cell counts. Now you have a continious liner scale from lots to none. Where do you draw the line to define the moment someone changes from being HIV positive without AIDS to having AIDS?
Unsurprisingly different places round the world have drawn the line in different places. I imagine that is slightly irritating for people working on the statistics who would prefer a common definition to make official numbers compatible but there you go.
This is a wider phenomena than calling the onset of AIDS. In the UK the age at which one can purchase alcohol is 18, in the US it’s 21. The notion that one is old enough to drink in the UK but not the US is silly, but administratively you have to draw the line somewhere.
Alan Smith said
AZT was the killer in the early days, that is known. peoples immunes systems got totally shot up with this stuff. its a failed cancer treatment chemo, as everyone knows you dont take chemo for long periods of time. the idea is kill the cancer before the chemp kills you.
yet this very drug was given to people foe long peroids of time, like life, and it killed them simple as that. no wonder their immune system unable to fight of infection.
CD4 cell counts are not a good marker for health, many people can have a low count and be healthy infact.
Being diagnosed with HIV and getting alcohol are totally different things.
When someone is diagnosed being HIV+ is not something people shug off like its getting turned away from getting your beer.
people have killed themselves over this very diagnosis.
dt said
Alan, why is it that when each of your claims are rebutted, you simply switch to another false claim, and don’t display any interest in debating points previously raised?
If there is one specific point you would like to address in depth, I’d be happy to engage, but not if you insist on doing a Gish-gallop through one fallacy after another.
Budicius said
Encouraging for Homoeopathy- http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,134
zeno said
I’ve not read the paper (http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf) yet, but I’d want to see those plots properly – the axes scales are not visible, so it is impossible to verify what they are all about. (Some of it looks pretty dubious however.) There is also no mention of homeopathy in it.
Vicky said
Only if you live in an alternative reality in which “some evidence” that one part of a theory is true means the whole theory is proven.
dt said
Well, perhaps as I have some time, I’ll tackle another of your questions Alan, that about flying around the world and getting different answers on whether or not you have HIV.
As explained to you, tests for HIV in different countries/laboratories may be calibrated or interpreted slightly differently. What you are actually referring to is the situation of someone getting a screening test for HIV by Western blotting. Someone who is negative will be negative wherever they are in the world. Someone who has an equivocal test (some bands are positive but not all the ones necessary to point to positivity) may have their result interpreted differently in different countries. But the point is that in ALL the countries, anyone with an equivocal test will be retested with at least 2 different tests for confirmation.
The closest analogy I can come up with is say a breathalyser test. If you have no alcohol in your blood, you will be clearly negative, and the cops will let you go. If you test is slightly positive, but not clearly so, you will probably be asked to repeat the test and have a blood test. (A strong positive reading gets a blood test just to make sure anyway and for legal documentation reasons).
Different states/countries may have their ideas about where the line is drawn between slightly positive and clearly positive. In practice it makes no difference because all the tests are double checked (and with HIV results are sometimes triple checked).
The risk that someone with a marginally positive or hard to interpret HIV test would be dismissed in one country as being negative, while in another he would be labelled positive is nonexistent, simply because of the confirmatory mechanisms in place. Talk from denialists that this “could” happen is ridiculous. Anyway, can you provide valid, corroborated evidence that this has ever happened?
BSM said
Alan;
You said;
“cancer is cancer no matter where you are in the world, why should HIV be any different?”
You need to find someone wearing the following item and stand next to them while repeating your opinions. It would save us bothering to reply.
http://badscience2.spreadshirt.net/en/GB/Shop/Article/Index/article/I-think-youll-find-its-a-bit-more-complicated-than-that-8097896
leigh said
about homeopathy
look up the folloing link
go down the Indian text until you see English. Many proofs of homeopathy
http://drprabhattandon.wordpress.com/category/स्वास्थ/
phayes said
“it seems homeopaths are utterly incapable of recognising a bad idea when they see one”
Well… duh!
theallseeingbeing said
I think logical thought out and well explained answers have confused him. I’m sure he will be back, with some other weak arguement/question which shows complete lack of understanding (or an inability to read past answers on the thread).
warhelmet said
http://arnica.org.uk/715.html
Oh, so Arnica.org are in with Janine Roberts now?
gimpy said
Birds of a feather, warhelmet. There is considerable overlap between the interests of homeopaths and the interests of Arnica.org.uk.
Just want to find out if the medical research organisations have come up with something to cure HIV/AIDS.? | Aids Vaccine said
[...] West London Homeopaths organise talk by AIDS denialist Janine … [...]
House of Numbers backed by quacks « gimpy’s blog said
[...] know. There is already considerable interest in listening to the opinions of aids denialists, with homeopaths organising seminars, ‘nutrionists’ such as Patrick Holford believing that vitamin C can treat AIDS and [...]