» » Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (Terra Nova)

Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (Terra Nova) download ebook

by Harvey Bialy,Rebecca Culshaw

Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (Terra Nova) download ebook
Harvey Bialy,Rebecca Culshaw
North Atlantic Books (January 2, 2007)
112 pages
1621 kb
1746 kb
Other formats:
doc txt mbr rtf

Harvey Bialy has written the foreword to this book. At one time, Rebecca Culshaw had implicit faith in the official science of HIV/AIDS. Writing both a masters and a P.

Harvey Bialy has written the foreword to this book. Dr. Bialy is currently Scholar in Residence at National Autonomous University in Cuernavaca, Mexico. Bialy is author of Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg. thesis on HIV modeling, she was deeply and professionally involved in that science. And she changed her mind because of the scientific evidence.

This book focuses on the changing definition of AIDS and the flaws in all HIV testing

In Science Sold Out, Rebecca Culshaw describes her slow. There are many well-established scientific reasons that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is highly doubtful.

In Science Sold Out, Rebecca Culshaw describes her slow.

Culshaw, Rebecca, 1974Science sold out : does HIV really cause AIDS? .

Culshaw, Rebecca, 1974Science sold out : does HIV really cause AIDS? I by Rebecca Culshaw ; foreword by Harvey Bialy. Includes bibliographical references.

This book focuses on the changing definition of AIDS and the flaws in all HIV testing

Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (ISBN 1556436424) is a 2007 book by Rebecca Culshaw. It expands on her two Lew Rockwell articles published in early 2006.

Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (ISBN 1556436424) is a 2007 book by Rebecca Culshaw. UPDATE (22 March 2007): Science Sold Out is in its second printing, after only two months. Foreword by Harvey Bialy. Introduction: The Paradox of the Prevalence Curve. How I Came to Change My Mind.

Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, Rebecca Culshaw (2007). AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science: How a Virus That Never Was Deceived the World, Neville Hodgkinson (1996). Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled? Peter H. Duesberg (1995). AIDS: The Good News is HIV Doesn’t Cause it. The Bad News is Recreational Drugs and Medical Treatments like AZT d. Peter Duesberg and John Yiamouyiannis (1995). Inventing the AIDS Virus, Peter H. Duesberg (1996).

Science Sold Out book.

Words of Dr. Harvey Bialy. Homophobic behavior from Dr. Henry Bauer – professor emeritus, Virginia Tech. AIDS Truth member criticizes AIDS denialists (see bottom section). Correcting the falsehoods of Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? A short critique of the more egregious errors committed by Dr. Rebecca Culshaw in her book Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?, and associated with the name of The University of Texas at Tyler.

There are many well-established scientific reasons that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is highly doubtful. In Science Sold Out, Rebecca Culshaw describes her slow uncovering of these reasons over her years researching HIV for her work constructing mathematical models of its interaction with the immune system. It is rare that a researcher who has received funding to study HIV ever expresses any doubt in the paradigm, and an even rarer event still when she abandons the field altogether. This book focuses on the changing definition of AIDS and the flaws in all HIV testing. In a much broader sense, it explains how the current, government-based structure of scientific research has corrupted science as the search for truth. It offers not only scientific reasons for HIV/AIDS being untenable, but also sociological explanations as to how the theory was accepted by the media and the world so quickly. In particular, this book offers a scathing criticism of the outrageous discriminatory measures that have been leveled at HIV-positives from the inception.
  • Pooker
A few years ago, a woman was taken to court in the city of Bangor, Maine, by public health officials, to establish that she was an unfit mother. The officials were seeking to remove her child from her own care.
Previously, the woman had had a child testing HIV-positive, and given him the medications prescribed. He developed severe symptoms – and died. Now a second child was tested HIV-positive, and started on prescribed medication. When symptoms like those of her first child developed in the second, the woman panicked, and refused to administer the medication. Hence the court action.
In the end, the judge found in favor of the woman. In his statement, he told the public health officials that they were certain that the medication and treatment they were enforcing was the best treatment. But a few years ago, they were just as certain of their prescriptions – which they now held to be inappropriate. Not going along with these inconsistent people did not make the mother unfit.
A similar case in Quebec ended differently. The judge found in favor of the public health officials. The woman involved had anticipated this, however, and had her car all gassed and stocked. When the decision was announced, the woman grabbed her kids and ran – and became a fugitive.
Rebecca Culshaw, in her book “Science Sold Out: Does HIV really cause AIDS?”, describes the scientific situation:
“In mathematics, a journal article takes a significant amount of time to write and at least several months to go through the review process. By the time a paper appears in print, it may well be years from the time the work was first started. On several occasions I submitted papers with fairly recent references regarding various aspects of HIV’s molecular biology, only to be answered with the criticism from a reviewer that some of these references were now ‘out of date’. Sometimes the references were only two or three years old. I later discovered that this is common occurrence in HIV research. … [I]t seems to be endemic in HIV research that, rather than continually building on an accumulating body of secure knowledge with only occasional missteps, the bulk of the structure gets knocked down every three to four years, replaced by yet another hypothesis, standard of care, or definition of what, exactly, AIDS really is. This new structure eventually gets knocked down in the same fashion.
“Even more disturbing is the fact that HIV researchers continually claim that certain papers’ results are out of date, yet they have absolutely no hesitation in citing the entire body of scientific research on HIV as massive overwhelming evidence in favor of HIV. They can’t have it both ways, yet this is exactly what they try to do.” (p. 11,12)
In another place: “HIV researchers … conveniently ‘forget’ every few years when they announce a new and exciting discovery that will ‘explain everything’ that a similarly new and exciting discovery from a few years back is now shown to be wrong … .” (p.8)
Again: “[HIV researchers] know that the history of HIV/AIDS is littered with documented cases of fraud, incompetence, and poor-quality research, yet they find it almost impossible to imagine that this could be happening at the present moment. They know their predictions have never panned out, yet they keep inventing mysterious mechanisms for HIV pathogenesis. They know many therapies of the past are now acknowledged to be mistakes …. , yet they never imagine that their current therapies … might one day be acknowledged as mistakes themselves.
“It’s time for them to wake up.” (p. 21,22)
The situation with HIV/AIDS science is as follows: Government scientists (at NIH) recognized an association (not very good: only 26 out of a cohort of 72 “had any trace of HIV”, p.61) between a Virus (HIV) and some diseases previously associated with AIDS. They jumped to the conclusion that HIV caused AIDS. And immediately curtailed funding any research into other possible causes. They then built a science on the assumption that HIV causes AIDS. Their science has resulted in an enormous amount of information abut the virus HIV, but continually fails both in predictions and in understanding how HIV might cause AIDS. Consequently, the science is continually being scrapped and restated. This is strong indication that the unproven assumption is, in fact, false.
Prof. Culshaw’s book has been characterized by another reviewer as “denialist literature”. According to the dictionary, the state of being in denial is “a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the reality.” HIV scientists can use the word “denialists” of their critics because they assume that their own perception of HIV science really is reality. Note that what they do here linguistically is exactly what they do with their science: they confuse their own unproven ideas with reality.
At one time, Rebecca Culshaw had implicit faith in the official science of HIV/AIDS. Writing both a masters and a Ph.D. thesis on HIV modeling, she was deeply and professionally involved in that science. And she changed her mind because of the scientific evidence. (By the way, I’ve never heard of an instance of the reverse process – where someone that does not think HIV causes AIDS changes their mind because of the scientific evidence.)
Prof. Culshaw concludes one chapter with the statement, “It is this decline in scientific standards [that she has been demonstrating, and that I myself have witnessed] that I point to when I am asked how so many scientists and doctors could be so wrong. Given the current research atmosphere, it was almost inevitable that a very significant scientific mistake was going to be made.” (p. 15)
My own interpretation of why the HIV mistake was accepted by the medical community differs from Prof. Culshaw’s. What happens to a nurse, if he or she openly disagrees with an MD? What happens if a resident (new MD) criticizes the head of medicine in his or her program? In both cases an entire career is jeopardized. In medicine there is a top-down authority that is adhered to. Physicians are noticed, and possibly in jeopardy, if their care does not line up with the “standard of care”. So medicine has a standing, top-down authority structure. And an accepted, top-down way of getting information. And what happens if at the very top of this structure, where research is done and funding is decided, if we have “Science Sold Out”?
  • Vudomuro
Culshaw asks some of the questions we are not supposed to ask about HIV. After a 10 year, frustrating career doing mathematical models of HIV infection, Culshaw realized something - the models weren't working, either because we have no idea of how HIV works, OR HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS. AIDS, Inc., the AIDS industry is worth billions now and they don't want people asking questions. You're either a true believer or a denialist. That's bull. Science is usually a push and pull between different researchers and theories. Culshaw shows how this is no back and forth in AIDS, Inc., and there needs to be as several underlying assumptions regarding HIV infection are just that - assumptions. We should demand fact.
  • Stick
This text is another piece of AIDS denialist literature, although it does make a couple of interesting points deserving of follow-up. The text starts poorly by claiming the number of PLWHA in the US remains constant at slightly under 1 million. This is factually incorrect. The number is now 1.2 million, and has been steadily rising. It is in no way stagnant as the author claims, and she overlooks the 50,000 new cases occurring each year.

Nor is she right about the virus never having been identified. The virus has been captured by electron microscopy, and has been isolated successfully and cultures of the isolate grown in laboratories. The structure of the virus is known in great detail.

The author then makes the claim that it has never been proven that HIV causes AIDS; she argues instead that AIDS-like symptoms are caused by the medications such as AZT. That HIV causes AIDS is well-established following Koch's Postulates for an infectious agent: (1) The agent must be present in all instances of the disease; (2) The agent must be successfully isolated and cultured in a lab; (3) Samples of this cultured agent cause the disease when given to a lab animal; and (4) The agent can be isolated from this infected lab animal and shown to be the same as that from the original culture. HIV passes all four tests.

The first test is on somewhat shaky grounds, however, because there have been a number of cases which were diagnosed as AIDS but were subsequently shown to be HIV-negative. These mis-steps could have been avoided if an HIV test had been conducted prior to diagnosis, and an HIV-related condition diagnosed only if HIV is found to be present.

The author ridicules the idea that the virus can remain dormant for so long, progressing to AIDS only after 5-15 years have elapsed. Scientists now working in this area no longer believe in a dormant period, but that, rather, the HIVirus begins its insidious work immediately, and signs of infection -- not merely the presence of antibodies -- can be detected within weeks of infection by HIV. The author points out that the CD4 cells do not die by lysis as is typical of other infections. While this may be the case, it does not account for the discovery of dead CD4 cells carrying the HIVirus.

The author's strongest point deals with the HIV antibody test which she claims is unreliable. She would get no argument from the scientific community there, nor would she even get an argument from the sellers of kits for testing HIV antibodies. The testing kits all carry disclaimers that they are unsuitable for diagnosing HIV infection or AIDS. The test is susceptible to false positives for many reasons, including pregnancy, as well as infection with malaria or tuberculosis. Moreover, the test, as its name implies, tests only for antibodies, not the virus itself. The author argues that the test therefore lacks specificity as it produces false positive results for numerous factors which are not HIV. The author suggests that an HIV diagnosis should be given only if HIV can be cultured from that person's blood. While this may be a valid point, it would be prohibitively expensive, and would likely lead to the opposite problem -- excessive numbers of false negatives -- because of the well-known difficulties of culturing HIV in the lab.

Published in 2007, more than a decade after the "three-drug cocktail" had emerged as a successful treatment for HIV infection, the author dismisses this advance and instead she focuses on AZT. The problems with AZT were well-known by 2007, so the author's concerns are misplaced when she decries the use of AZT. She is quite simply wrong when she equates the three-drug cocktail with AZT. It is true that the three-drug cocktail is not without its side effects, but they do not mimic the symptoms of AIDS as did the large doses of AZT given when that drug was first introduced. AZT and the three-drug cocktail are a false equivalency.

This text is a rehash of familiar denialist arguments against HIV and its role in causing AIDS. I did learn a few new things here (e.g., pregnancy causes false positives on the HIV antibody test), but the book was unpersuasive overall. While the author takes care to support some of her claims with citations to other research, at times she makes breathtaking claims without providing sources. Are these claims conclusions made by the mathematician author or uncited claims she found when researching the literature? I do not recommend this book even as an example of HIV denialist literature. Quite a number of better denialist books have been published, most notably Peter Duesberg's Inventing the AIDS Virus.
  • Cia
Wishing for the truth won't bring us any closer to it, but books like this will. It is a confirmation of what has been stated again and again by "freethinkers". Only Rebecca Culshaw lays out a concise compelling mathematical analysis and argument as to why HIV does not cause AIDS. She is right on target and spells it out so lay people understand the science of false lies, myths and theories surrounding HIV tests, diagnosis and treatments. My favorite parts of this book is her explanation of HIV antibody test, Cd4 and Viral load and why they do not equate to an accurate detection or measurement of HIV in the so called "HIV positive person".
Thank You Professor Culshaw.