Showing posts with label House of Numbers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House of Numbers. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

How AIDS Denialism Can Kill You Part VIII: Karri Stokely is Receiving Hospice Care

Karri Stokely, prominent AIDS Denialist, is dying. Below is an excerpt from the blog of Karri Stokely's cousin. I was aware that she had a relative who was outraged by her AIDS Denialism, but I had not seen his blog before today. I heard that he was concerned about her and tried to talk her back to reality. She obviously did not listen. His frustration is apparent. 

Perhaps he should direct his anger at those who facilitated her Denialism, rather than the victim herself. But Karri, like Christine Maggiore before her, is a victim with blood on her hands.

If you are not familiar with Karri Stokely, look back over some of my older posts. You can also visit numerous AIDS Denialism websites, where she is a common feature. Rethinking AIDS shamelessly exploited this woman and her family.  Our goal should be to make it impossible for them to replace her with a new poster-person.


UPDATE: Karri Stokely passed away yesterday. Her health deteriorated and she developed opportunistic infections. Reader comments regarding her death are posted near the end of this thread.  

Goodbye and good riddance, Karri Stokely, you AIDS denialist bitch.


By Todd (guyn2gear), Karri Stokely's Cousin

I received news this morning that Karri is in hospice care with a bad pneumonia infection. As any rational person would deduce from the above, it is an opportunistic infection, known as part of ARC (AIDS-related complex). Most people can fight off most forms of pneumonia with antibiotic and antiviral drugs — and we can thank AIDS research for invention of the antivirals. Karri is not able to fight this one off, not because it's a strange or particularly strong infection, but because her immune system is too compromised to do anything about it anymore.

The person who told me asked me not to say anything about it, to keep it quiet. I'm sorry, Karri, but your shameful actions drove me to shout this to the world:

Karri Stokely, you are getting what you deserve.

Yes, that's a horrific thing to say. I've never before said that about any dying person. Karri, however, has done something much more horrific herself: She has played the pied piper to audiences who are confused and looking for answers, and her unscientific, already debunked answers will get some of those people killed, likely in slow, tortuous ways. Her public denial of the HIV/AIDS connection is itself a virus of the mind, and she has been spreading that virus to the world, consequences be damned.

I'm sorry to Karri's husband, and to her children, who will soon be without a mother, though I'm happy that Karri was able to have time with them without the drug side effects. I'm sorry to Karri's mother, who will now outlive her own child. No one, Karri included, deserves HIV. On the flip side, no one deserves to be harangued by deadly false hope.

To my friends who are HIV+ and taking care of yourselves, I applaud you for keeping it together. I can't begin to imagine how it has reshaped your life.

To those who are HIV-, do what I do. Get tested regularly. Be vigilant about your health. Learn about HIV and other STIs, and talk to your doctor about them.

Regardless of your status, keep yourself protected. The most caring thing you can do for your sexual partner is to cover it up. (Most of the people I know enjoy rubber, right? ...Oh, here's the lyrics for that as well.)

This posting may mean that family members, who didn't know much about my personal life, will discover that I have a very "alternative" view of sexuality. As my inaugural post on this too-infrequent blog said, I'm not hiding myself anymore, so I had no qualms about calling out people, myself included, by name. The topic of AIDS disinformation makes it ever more important for me to stand out and be seen... consequences be damned.

To read the entire post, click here

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Another Tragic Case of AIDS Denialism: Kim Bannon

Another cast member of the AIDS Denialist film House of Numbers is dying of AIDS.
A post at the Denialist website 'Questioning AIDS Forum' reads "Kim Bannon gravely ill".  

"Kim is deteriorating rapidly and there is little hope left. As of now, she can still recognize people, but it seems this will not last long. Her delusions are getting worse. ...The dissident movement owes her a lot, and we can't afford to forget what she did for all of us."

It is fair to say that the 'AIDS Dissident Movement' owes Kim Bannon nothing less than her life.






In April 1992, at the age of 29, Kim Bannon tested HIV positive. She was diagnosed  at her local health department after learning that she may have been exposed to herpes. Kim was referred to a well known HIV/AIDS specialist, Dr. Donna Sweet of the Kansas University School of Medicine who described her diagnosis as "indisputable" and "classic".  Dr. Sweet told Kim that without proper treatment she would develop the full spectrum of AIDS within five to seven years and die soon thereafter.

But Kim is a rebel. A free thinker who unfortunately found what she was looking for - a way out. Seeking AIDS information on the Internet, Kim read that HIV tests are invalid and that HIV may not even exist at all. Kim believed what they said. She believed what she wanted to hear. She soon fell into a sea of convincing propaganda by AIDS Denialists from Perth Australia.







Kim ignored her test results  and refused treatment. And here we are today. Kim has AIDS. She is indeed gravely ill. 

Kim Bannon has told her own story. Here she describes how she became an AIDS Denialist.  

In April of 1992 I was twenty-nine years old. I was a well-respected business woman and an accomplished freelance court reporter in Wichita. I traveled frequently for business as well as pleasure. I spent a lot of time at the gym and in outdoor sports, and I took good care of my diet. I was attractive, healthy, intelligent, successful and energetic. Even though I’d been seeing a certain young man exclusively for a few months, I referred to myself as “happily single”. I was financially and spiritually independent, and my sense of well being was off the charts.

Then the certain young man in my life, Don, went to the local county health department for a sore he thought might be herpes. When he told me the nurses there had confirmed it as herpes, I thought the responsible thing to do would be to find out if I had it as well. At the health department, I was told that since I didn’t have a sore that could be cultured, they could not test me for herpes; but how would I like to have an AIDS test? They were offering it to everyone these days.

I was embarrassed and confused. I felt that a refusal of this AIDS test would be tantamount to a confession of illicit drug use or promiscuity. I had heard that anyone can get AIDS, but I still felt I was in a very low risk group. I agreed to the test and was told to come back in a week for my results.

A week later, I sat in the waiting area for two hours waiting to get my results. I was finally taken to a private exam room by two women. They apologized for making me wait for so long and then explained that the reason for my wait was because they were trying to figure out how to handle the situation. My test was positive. Almost everyone who tests positive is either gay or on drugs or suspects they are positive for some reason. Here I was a heterosexual female, non-drug user, non-prostitute, and I was really giving them a problem.

Then they told me it was just a “screening” test, which was called an ELISA. They said I was not in any risk group, and it would most likely turn out to be negative when I was given the “confirmatory” test. They wanted to know if I’d been recently pregnant, but they didn’t inform me of anything else that could cause a false positive result.......

On April 18, 2002, a friend of mine emailed a link to Nexus Magazine, asking me to check out an article about the benefits of coconut oil. As I scanned the magazine index for the title, I noticed another article entitled “The Yin and Yang of HIV”, and I clicked on it. It was long, it was technical, it was heavily referenced and footnoted. I decided to print it out after reading only a few paragraphs, and settled myself onto the sofa in the lodge to study it.

I emerged from the sofa several hours later in a state of amazement. I began with my friends at the Ranch, telling them what I had found. Then I emailed Dr. Valandar Turner of the Perth Group who had written the article, and at last I started searching the web. I could do nothing but read for hours and hours each day all of this enormous volume of information which confirmed the suspicions I had had about my own supposed “diagnosis” as well as giving support to the holes I perceived in the prevailing AIDS dogma.

Since that time I have done a tremendous amount of research into this subject, first for the purposes of my own health, then in outrage, and finally in an effort to help as many people as I can who find themselves in a similar situation as myself. Now, more than twelve years after my diagnosis, I remain healthy and have never taken any AIDS medications.

Kim became so convinced that her HIV diagnosis was meaningless, she launched a lawsuit against the companies that manufacture HIV antibody tests. Kim's law suit brought her increased attention from AIDS Denialists.

Kim followed the path of AIDS Denialism all the way to the poor house. She spent everything she had on acupuncture, Chelation Therapy, Meta-Physical Therapies,  and Scientology. Kim lost nearly everything in her pursuit of fake cures and quackery. Kim is not the first person to live the contradiction of seeking natural cures for a disease that she believes does not exist. 


Ultimately, Kim was featured in the AIDS Denialist film House of Numbers.  The film was shot in 2006 when Kim appeared healthy. But Kim was not healthy. Within two years of appearing in House of Numbers, Kim's condition deteriorated and she developed AIDS. Indeed, three people featured in House of Numbers have since died of AIDS. 

AIDS Denialists are now scrambling to explain Kim's declining health, especially because of her portrayal in House of Numbers. While Kim's family and doctors try to treat her HIV infection, the AIDS Denialists have other suggestions.

Celia Farber, for example, has written "It is clear she need (sic) intense and radical brain rehabilitation, and treatment for severe trauma, post traumatic stress disorder, brain injury, and over medication with HIV drugs and psych drugs."

Celia Farber recommends treatment at the Life Vessel Institute in New Mexico.

"The Life Vessel uses light, sound, frequency and vibration to balance the Autonomic Nervous System. Detoxify in our beautiful relaxing suites with Far-Infrared Saunas. Release subconscious emotional stress with our highly effective technology utilizing Voice Mapping, Galvanic Skin Response and Frequency. Deep tissue Pain Laser Therapy for back pain, sports injury, tennis elbow, carpal tunnel and many additional injuries. MEDI-SPA offering massage, Facial Treatments, DNA Cryo-Stem Cell Therapy, Micro-Current face enhancements for wrinkle reduction and lifting. Arasys III device for muscle building and inch loss."


The "Life Vessel Package" includes 'one Life Vessel Series of one hour on the first day, two hours on the second day and one hour on the third day.  One Asyra  to determine areas of stress in the body, and one Evox for emotional clearing" for a mere $895.

Another AIDS Denialist, Henry Bauer (also the leading authority on the existence of the Loch Ness Monster) cheers for Kim refusing HIV treatment.  

"Quite often I wonder how many other healthy women have been subjected to the same sort of ordeal that Onnie experienced for years and managed to survive. We know of Kim Bannon, Maria Papagiannidou, Audrey Serrano, Karri Stokely."

While Kim suffers full blown AIDS, Denialists are lying and denying. They are saying that Kim has health problems, but not caused by HIV.

AIDS Denialist Christine Maggiore did the same thing  when David Pasquarelli died of AIDS. Maggiore said it had been the stress of jail that killed him.  When Christine Maggiore died of  AIDS, Denialist Celia Farber said it must have been a 'radical detox' that killed her.  Other AIDS Denialists said that Christine Maggiore could not handle the stress of watching a Law Order SVU episode that portrayed her story of AIDS Denialism. That is right, they said she died from watching a Law and Order episode. AIDS Denialists die of anything, except AIDS.

The same AIDS Deniers are claiming that Kim is weak minded and unable to cope with stress. 

They are....

Lying about her past and present life situation.  

Saying that she was abused and traumatized, and that is why she is ill.

Implying that she is weak and unable to cope with stress. 


Claiming that HIV medications have caused her to become ill.


Kim's condition would be quite different if she had accepted treatment for her HIV infection. Tragically, and with the encouragement of AIDS Denialists, Kim Bannon refused treatment.
How have the AIDS Denialists contributed to Kim's deteriorating health? Kim's friend explained on her Facebook Page.

I have been friends with Kim since 3rd grade, best friends.......she was  always a Daddy's girl.......ALWAYS......everyone was jealous of their relationship, they were so close....Kim worked for her Father and things became tense and Kim removed herself from him and was involved in Scientology, at this time she also removed herself from our friendship, only to call a year later and acted like nothing had happened........this was Kim's personality......still is.......She and her Father are close again, they are Best Friends.....
 
 A little insight......I stayed with Kim many weekends when she was living at her parents home.......so her parents could get away from the 24 hr care......Kim required constant care......and she wasn't always, uhm, cooperative, she can be VERY difficult........I was with them when they made the decision to let her go to the AID's hospital in KC (that she wanted to go to) this was very difficult for them.......I received calls from both of them, they were in constant turmoil.....this was their baby, they couldn't put her into assisted living........it had taken toll on them and their health......they simply couldn't care for her any longer.  And she certainly made it clear that she would never move back to their  home. Ironically, she now asks me to talk her parents into letting her  move back home.........
 
 Kim and I spoke for hours and she wanted me to tell her story.....She  wanted me to help her write something to the effect of......The second  chapter.......living with AID's, she was taking the meds and she was  improving, I witnessed this, she was strong, she still had what my son  called her "6pack", she was still going to the gym and working out with a  personal trainer........she was eating all natural stuff.....(that made  me want to gag).......she was improving..........her mind was good, we did  a lot of talking about Non HIV AID's, she admitted at this point that she  had Aid's.........her counts were doing good........everything was  good.........she did have the neuropathy which she had started showing  signs in 2007....she had to be fed because of her arms trembling.......we  laughed, we cried...we remembered the old days......She felt the drugs  were saving lives.......This was July

Denialists started calling and she got off the meds......I stayed with her  one night, home health had been there til I got there.......she was delusional, she said the devil was on her arms and yelled for him to "Be  Gone".......it got worse quickly.......This was Sept or Oct.......This is  when she started speaking of the dentist and was in denial again......

Kim Bannon's story is chillingly similar to that of Lambros Papantoniou. Lambros died of AIDS. He too bought into AIDS Denialism. He was persuaded by AIDS Denialists to refuse treatment.  His friends are vocal about the role AIDS Denialist Andrew Maniotis played in Lambros' death. (see April 5, 2010 repost below) Maniotis is said to have gone so far as to actually talk with Lambros' doctors, telling them not to treat Lambros for HIV/AIDS. Instead, he wanted Lambros to go to Germany for an intensive nutritional treatment that would supposedly cure him of his ailments. Sound familiar?

AIDS Denialism is at its worst when it hooks those who are most vulnerable and sells them a bill of self-promoting false information that ultimately kills.

There is a lot of talk about the 340,000 South Africans who died at the hands of AIDS Denialists. But how many Kim Bannons and Lambros Papantonious are there?

No one knows. But 300,000 deaths from denialism is sounding like a small number.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

"Hello Professor, a Brent Leung is here to see you"
















House of Numbers continues to be the talk of AIDS Denialism. There are many lessons to be learned from the AIDS Denialist crockumentary House of Numbers. The real lesson for scientists is that just because a guy has a camera crew does not mean you should agree to be interviewed by him. Thinking twice before sitting down in front of a camera is a worthwhile lesson indeed. The October 15 issue of Nature, a magazine well known for its excellent book reviews, published a great story on the hazards of scientists appearing in documentaries gone wrong. Too bad the article came out after House of Numbers was in the can. I post the article here for future reference.


And don’t forget to check out the new House of Numbers Website. Everyone should see House of Numbers.But be sure to read up before going.


UPDATE: Editors at Science Daily react to the misrepresentation (lying?) about T-Cells and AIDS twisted in House of Numbskulls.

UPDATE: Joseph Sonnabend, MD - Physician and AIDS Researcher speaks out on the fraud behind House of Numbers.


Caught on camera

What to do when you are interviewed for an unscientific documentary


Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, has always had to deal with angry e-mails from people who think that global warming isn't happening, and that Schneider is part of a conspiracy to promote it. He has been vocal about the dangers of climate change for decades.

In the past week, however, Schneider has been deluged by furious messages. They have been provoked by a clip circulating on the Internet from Not Evil Just Wrong, a documentary film claiming that global-warming fears are 'hysteria'. The clip explains how Schneider did an interview — and then how the university informed the film-makers that it had rescinded permission for using any of the Stanford footage and that Schneider had withdrawn permission to use his name or interview. Schneider says he backed out when he realized that the film-makers were polemicists who had lied to him about their intentions. Some climate-sceptic commentators are accusing him of censorship.

Schneider is by no means the first scientist to feel hoodwinked by film-makers. British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins ended up in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a film purporting to show how academics who do not accept evolution are frozen out of academia. Dawkins says that he was conned — that the film-makers had presented the project to him as an even-handed effort entitled Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion. Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, felt he was "swindled" in a like manner by the producers of The Great Global Warming Swindle. And Nikos Logothetis of the Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics in Tübingen, Germany, let a seemingly objective film crew into his primate laboratory — only to see the footage used in an animal-rights documentary that slams him as cruel.

For many scientists, the natural response to such stories is to stop talking to the media. But that would be an overreaction. For one thing, such misrepresentations are rare. Schneider estimates that he has given some 3,500 interviews since the 1970s, and only twice has he been "set up". Most journalists and documentarians are honestly trying to report the facts, and scientists have a responsibility to tell the public about their work — especially if it is supported by public money.

Fortunately, scientists can do much to protect themselves. When someone asks for an interview, for example, a scientist should enquire about starting assumptions, the intended audience and the identity of the project's backers. And, if possible, researchers should check the earlier work of the journalists and any companies behind the film for a partisan tone, or unacceptable levels of sensationalism.

But if these efforts fail, and it is discovered too late that the film-makers are bent on using an on-tape interview to promote a view that seems unscientific, the question becomes what steps to take. There is rarely a way to withdraw an interview that was given on the record, for good reason. In any case, making a fuss can be a gift of publicity to film-makers. Schneider admits that he might have spared himself the deluge of e-mails had he just ignored the makers of Not Evil Just Wrong.

A better approach might well be to complain to the television channels and broadcasting regulators, many of which have standards for their programming. The Great Global Warming Swindle was censured by Ofcom, Britain's broadcasting regulator, for breaking several rules in its broadcasting code. And when the same documentary was aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, it was followed by a point-by-point debate and rebuttal.

In the end, this is perhaps the most effective way to limit the damage. Bad journalism is best met not with red-faced indignation, but with good journalism. The truth is the best revenge.