Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Ken Witwer eats Denier Culshaw ALIVE

And I helped!

See, Culshaw wrote this great expose on the HIV LIE (turns out you can uncover a massive world-wide multi-decade conspiracy in fewer pages than a Nancy Drew novel!) . I refused to buy the book and I couldnt find it in a local library (though Ill still read it if a Denier sends me a copy!), but Ken Witner had a firm enough grip on his sanity and temper to write a patient (though appropriately sharp) rebuttal to Culshaws claims. Cherry on top: he wrote it in a language accessible to Average Joe readers. I dont know Ken all that well, but Im really proud of this final product. Its beautiful.

Science Outsold? Correcting the falsehoods of Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS?

Oh, and after he dismembered her claims, he delivered a bonus roundhouse kick to her ethics. Turns out Blondie plagiarized other papers/Deniers, and Ken could pick up on some of them through a casual reading.

An examination of Dr. Rebecca Culshaw’s scholarship

And you know how it goes with plagiarism-- for every phrase you catch, theres at least one you missed. Shes setting a great example for her students.

10 comments:

Chris Noble said...

I'm impressed.
Not only did he manage to read through all of Culshaw's book without performing self trepination to relieve the pain induced by reading concentrated stupidity but he had the strength to go back and detail exactly what the errors/stupidity was.

I haven't read the book and like you I'm not going to give Culshaw any money by buying it. If it gets to my local public library (unlikely) or university library (virtually impossible) I'll read it. I've read all of Duesberg's pseudo/scientific papers on HIV. I don't bother reading his books that have nothing extra other than rhetorical arguments.

My impressions from reading Culshaw's stuff on the net have been confirmed. Culshaw produces nothing original. She has just credulously assembled all the "rethinker" arguments and put them in a book without bothering to check any of them.

Sadly many if not all of the points that Ken Witwer made have been made before in various places. Hell, I have gone through some of them myself. The "rethinkers" seem never to learn. Sometimes they will stop making a particular argument if you give them enough evidence but then they or some other creduloid will regurgitate it some time in the future. Stupidity is eternal.

Ken Witwer deserves recognition for writing an extensive rebuttal with all the arguments in one place. Perhaps he can put a link to this document on his amazon review of Culshaw's book. I guess Culshaw could get it removed.

Of course all the "rethinkers" will come to Culshaw's defence. here are some of my predicted responses.

Why are people so mean to this nice young girl who is only interested in the truth.

Witwer's rebuttal is really an ad hominem attack.

Witwer is a pharmacy shill.

Culshaw might not know what an enveloped virus is or the difference between RNA and DNA but she is a real HIV researcher so you have to take her seriously

Anonymous said...

Chris, AIDS denial is not science. It is politics. And in politics a lie repeated often enough is as good as the truth.

There is a reason why many religions rely on repetition of certain prayers and activities.

drpsduke said...

Quiz question: How often can you find a denialist saying that the heterosexual partners of HIV-seropositive hemophiliacs never get AIDS? And that this therefor proves that HIV can't be a sexually transmitted virus.


Ragni MV, Kingsley LA, Nimorwicz P, Gupta P, Rinaldo CR.
HIV heterosexual transmission in hemophilia couples: lack of relation to T4 number, clinical diagnosis, or duration of HIV exposure.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1989;2(6):557-63.
PMID: 2573720
"Six (13%) of 45 female partners of 45 HIV antibody positive [Ab(+)] hemophiliacs in Western Pennsylvania have become HIV Ab(+), a mean of 10.4 months from the time of first exposure."

Roumelioutou-Karayannis A, Nestoridou K, Mandalaki T, Stefanou T, Papaevangelou G.
Heterosexual transmission of HIV in Greece.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1988 Jun;4(3):233-6.
PMID: 3395518

Maurin N, Kierdorf H, Hofstaedter F.
Fatal cases of AIDS in a hemophiliac (with Kaposi's sarcoma) and his female partner.
Thromb Haemost. 1988 Apr 8;59(2):343.
PMID: 3388305

etc...

windy said...

Thanks for this! It's very amusing when HIV skeptics try to frame (heh) PCR and other basic molecular biology techniques as somehow suspicious. And with the silent endorsement of Kary Mullis.

Chris Noble said...

Quiz question: How often can you find a denialist saying that the heterosexual partners of HIV-seropositive hemophiliacs never get AIDS?

Likewise, how often do you hear "rethinkers" claiming that only homosexuals get KS.

The fact that these "rethinkers" repeat these claims means that they are getting all their information from "rethinker" websites and books. They aren't being skeptical at all. They credulously believe whatever they read from these sources.

In one of her LewRockwell pieces she was claiming that the Western blot has been banned in the UK. This is not true. The recommended practice in the UK involves using three different ELISA's or similar tests but Western blots have not been banned. I woinder whether this nonsense survived into the book.

Chris

ERV said...

Chris--Ken Witwer deserves recognition for writing an extensive rebuttal with all the arguments in one place.
Im going to reference this paper every chance I get!

Why are people so mean to this nice young girl who is only interested in the truth.
See someone using that argument, point them my way. Im a nicer, younger, and prettier girl.

Anon-- Thats what I tried to emphasize in the Horwitz 'debate.' Rather than dousing the audience in data (hard to do in real life where you can draw pictures-- impossible on radio), I made sure to emphasize Horowitzs problem with HIV was a Conspiracy Theory, not a problem with the science.

duke-- They think 100 impossible thoughts before breakfast! Thanks for the paper links!

windy-- Ah dont thank me, I just helped a little bit and posted a link!! Thank Ken by passing that info around (friends, free thinking e-mail lists, message boards, etc)
Gawd isnt it AWESOME! I wish I wrote it!

Chris Noble said...

See someone using that argument, point them my way. Im a nicer, younger, and prettier girl.

But you have come to the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS therefore you're a racist and a homophobe who wants all blacks and gays to die!

Seriously. I find Rebecca Culshaw more creepy than anything else. It is difficult to imagine how someone that obviously has some intelligence at (least for mathematics) can say the stupid things that she does.

An empty brain or at least one that isn't being used is a huge turnoff.

Thats what I tried to emphasize in the Horwitz 'debate.' Rather than dousing the audience in data (hard to do in real life where you can draw pictures-- impossible on radio), I made sure to emphasize Horowitzs problem with HIV was a Conspiracy Theory, not a problem with the science.

I think the two knockouts in the debate were: 1) asking him why if HIV is a conspiracy by the US government why aren't the Chinese revealing the truth and 2) getting him to open up about his electrogenetics.

This should have convinced most listeners that he was a conspiracy theorist with pseudoscientific tendencies. Of cause you run the risk of having die-hard fans and contrarians accuse you of using ad hominem attacks.

ERV said...

Chris-- hehe My favorite was 'I make $20,000 a year. How much do you make?'

I HATE how 'pharma shill shillers' never hold wooers to the same standards. If youre going to say one side is 'doing it for the money', you better make damn sure the other side is making more than the people you support.

Chris Noble said...

My favorite was 'I make $20,000 a year. How much do you make?'

I suspect that Horowitz has convinced himself that he is saving the World. Any profits that he makes from selling tetrasilver tetroxide creams etc are only a means to achieve his worthy goals.

I actually think that deluded fools that believe they are saving the world are more dangerous than those who are just out to make a profit.

ERV said...

*sigh* And I cant tell them apart.