portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

health

hiv/aids killed by coconut oil

lauric acid, the major fatty acid in coconut oil can disrupt the lipid envelop of hiv
Can coconut oil reduce the viral load of HIV-AIDS patients? "Initial trials have confirmed that coconut oil does have an anti-viral effect and can beneficially reduce the viral load of HIV patients", University of the Philippines' Emeritus professor of pharmocology Dr. Conrato S Dayrit said.

A minimum of 50 ml of coconut oil would contain 20 to 25 grams of lauric acid, which indicates that the oil is metabolized in the body to release monolaurin which is an antibiotic and an antiviral agent. Among the saturated fatty acids, lauric acid has the maximum antiviral activity, he said. Based on this research, the first clinical trial using monolaurin as monotherapy on some of the HIV patients was conducted recently. Dr. Dayrit's conclusions after the study: "This initial trial confirmed the anecdotal reports that coconut oil does have an anti-viral effect and can beneficially reduce the viral load of HIV patients. The positive anti-viral action was seen not only with the monoglyceride of lauric acid but with coconut oil itself. This indicates that coconut oil is metabolized to monoglyceride forms of C-8, C-10, C- 12 to which it must owe its anti-pathogenic activity."

The entire results of Dr. Dayrit's study can be found here in PDF format.

On July 19, 1995, Dr. Mary Enig, noted biochemist and nutritionist, was quoted in an article published in The HINDU, India¡¯s National Newspaper as stating that coconut oil is converted by the body into ¡°Monolaurin¡± a fatty acid with anti-viral properties that might be useful in the treatment of AIDS. The staff reporter for The HINDU wrote about Enig¡¯s presentation at a press conference in Kochi and wrote the following:

¡°There was an instance in the US in which an infant tested HIV positive had become HIV negative. That it was fed with an infant formula with a high coconut oil content gains significance in this context and at present an effort was on to find out how the 'viral load' of an HIV infected baby came down when fed a diet that helped in the generation of Monolaurin in the body.¡±

The reporter commented on Enig¡¯s observations that ¡°Monolaurin helped in inactivating other viruses such as measles, herpes, vesicular stomatitis and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and that research undertaken so far on coconut oil also indicated that it offered a certain measure of protection against cancer-inducing substances."

Enig stated in an article published in the Indian Coconut Journal, Sept., 1995 that Monolaurin, of which the precursor is lauric acid, disrupted the lipid membranes of envelope viruses and also inactivated bacteria, yeast and fungi. She wrote: ¡°Of the saturated fatty acids, lauric acid has greater antiviral activity than either caprylic acid (C-10) or myristic acid (C-14). The action attributed to Monolaurin is that of solubilizing the lipids ..in the envelope of the virus causing the disintegration of the virus envelope.¡±

Dr. Mary Enig has also written a book entitled "Nutrients and Foods in AIDS," and one of the chapters is published on her website here.

In a July 1997 newsletter entitled "Keep Hope Alive" an interview with Chris Dafoe was recorded. Chris Dafoe of Cloverdale, IN who, based on his lab numbers, thought the end was near in September, 1996. His HIV viral load was over 600,000, CD4 count was 10 and CD8 at 300. He prepaid his funeral and decided to take his last vacation in the jungles of South America with an Indian tribe in the Republic of Surinam. Around October 14, 1996, he began eating daily a dish of cooked coconut which was prepared by the local Indians. By Dec. 27th, 1996, a mere 2 and 1/2 months later, his viral load was at non-detectable levels and he had gained 32 lbs and was feeling great. He had some other people he knew with HIV try using coconuts in their diet, and they experienced the same results. The entire interview is recorded here.

Recently the PATA International-Potato and Products Aid Alliance To Africa committed to purchase and send several hundred container loads of Tropical Traditions Virgin Coconut Oil to Africa for distribution among HIV - AIDS sufferers. They state:

"AIDS is the modern day Black Plague. Millions have all ready died from this disease, leaving behind millions of orphans. Millions more will follow in death, unless a low cost way of controlling this illness is found quickly.

Several long term world studies sponsored by various health organizations have found that the high content of lauric acid in unrefined coconut oil can prolong the lives of AIDS patients by dissolving the covering of the virus itself. This same action has been found effective against other infectious, tropical based diseases as well."

If the results from the smaller studies duplicate themselves in the clinics in Africa, PATA intends to extend the distribution of Virgin Coconut oil in Africa.

 http://www.coconut-info.com/aids.htm

MARY ENIG Ph.D. ON NATURAL COCONUT OIL FOR AIDS and OTHER VIRAL INFECTIONS
On July 19, 1995, Enig was quoted in an article published in The HINDU, India¡¯s National Newspaper as stating that coconut oil is converted by the body into ¡°Monolaurin¡± a fatty acid with anti-viral properties that might be useful in the treatment of AIDS. The staff reporter for The HINDU wrote about Enig¡¯s presentation at a press conference in Kochi and wrote the following:

¡°There was an instance in the US in which an infant tested HIV positive had become HIV negative. That it was fed with an infant formula with a high coconut oil content gains significance in this context and at present an effort was on to find out how the ¡°viral load¡± of an HIV infected baby came down when fed a diet that helped in the generation of Monolaurin in the body.¡±

The reporter commented on Enig¡¯s observations that ¡°Monolaurin helped in inactivating other viruses such as measles, herpes, vesicular stomatitis and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and that research undertaken so far on coconut oil also indicated that it offered a certain measure of protection against cancer-inducing substances. "

In another article published in the Indian Coconut Journal, Sept., 1995, Dr. Enig stated:

¡°Recognition of the antimicrobial activity of the monoglyceride of lauric acid (Monolaurin) has been reported since 1966. The seminal work can be credited to Jon Kabara. This early research was directed at the virucidal effects because of possible problems related to food preservation. Some of the early work by Hierholzer and Kabara (1982) that showed virucidal effects of Monolaurin on enveloped RNA and DNA viruses was done in conjunction with the Center for Disease Control of the US Public Health Service with selected prototypes or recognized strains of enveloped viruses. The envelope of these viruses is a lipid membrane.¡±

Enig stated in her article that Monolaurin, of which the precursor is lauric acid, disrupted the lipid membranes of envelope viruses and also inactivated bacteria, yeast and fungi. She wrote:¡°Of the saturated fatty acids, lauric acid has greater antiviral activity than either caprylic acid (C-10) or myristic acid (C-14). The action attributed to Monolaurin is that of solubilizing the lipids ..in the envelope of the virus causing the disintegration of the virus envelope.¡± In India, coconut oil is fed to calves to treat Cryptosporidium as reported by Lark Lands Ph.D. in her upcoming book ¡°Positively Well¡± (1).

While HHV-6A was not mentioned by Enig, HHV-6A is an enveloped virus and would be expected to disintegrate in the presence of lauric acid and/or Monolaurin. Some of the pathogens reported by Enig to be inactivated by Monolaurin include HIV, measles, vercular stomatitis virus (VSV), herpes simplex virus (HSV-1), visna, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Influenza virus, Pneumonovirus, Syncytial virus and Rubeola. Some bacteria inactivated by Monolaurin include listeria, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, Groups A, B, F and G streptococci, Gram-positive organisms; and gram-negative organisms, if treated with chelator.

Enig reported that only one infant formula ¡°Impact¡± contains lauric acid while the more widely promoted formulas like ¡°Ensure¡± do not contain lauric acid and often contain some hydrogenated fats (trans fatty acids). A modified ester of lauric acid, Monolaurin (available in capsules), is sold in health food stores and is manufactured by Ecological Formulas, Concord, CA.

ENIG ON A THERAPEUTIC DOSE
Based on her calculations on the amount of lauric acid found in human Mother¡¯s milk, Dr. Enig suggests a rich lauric acid diet would contain about 24 grams of lauric acid daily for the average adult. This amount could be found in about 3.5 tablespoons of coconut oil or 10 ounces of ¡°Pure Coconut Milk.¡± Coconut Milk is made in Sri Lanka and imported into the United States. It can be found in health food stores and in local grocery stores in the International Foods section or in specialty grocery stores that sell products imported from Thailand, the Philippines or East India. About 7 ounces of raw coconut daily would contain 24 grams of lauric acid. 24 grams of lauric acid is the therapeutic daily dose for adults suggested by Mary Enig based on her research of the lauric acid content of mother¡¯s milk. (1)

1. Positively Well, by Lark Lands Ph.D. Her new book discusses lauric acid and suggests many treatment options for persons with AIDS or CFIDS and may be ordered by calling 905-672-7470 or 800-542-8102

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ON THE ANTI-VIRAL EFFECTS OF LAURIC ACID
Mary Enig cites 24 references in her 7 page article on ¡°Lauric Acid for HIV-infected Individuals,¡± a few of which are as follows:

1. Issacs, C.E. et al. Inactivation of enveloped viruses in human bodily fluids by purified lipids. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1994;724:457-464.

2. Kabara, J.J. Antimicrobial agents derived from fatty acids. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society 1984;61:397-403.

3. Hierholzer, J.C. and Kabara J.J. In vitro effects on Monolaurin compounds on enveloped RNA and DNA viruses. Journal of Food Safety 1982;4:1-12.

4. Wang, L.L. and Johnson, E.A. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes by fatty acids and monoglycerides. Appli Environ Microbiol 1992; 58:624-629.

5. Issacs, C.E. et al. Membrane-disruptive effect of human milk: inactivation of enveloped viruses. Journal of Infectious Diseases 1986;154:966-971.

6. Anti-viral effects of monolaruin. JAQA 1987;2:4-6 7. Issacs C.E. et al. Antiviral and antibacterial lipids in human milk and infant formula feeds. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1990;65:861-864.

Note: Enig¡¯s article in the Indian Coconut Journal has 41 reference cites. To obtain a complete set of both articles she wrote, see our order form on the last page of this newsletter.

RETURN FROM THE JUNGLE
An Interview with Chris Dafoe
May 15, 1997:

In our last newsletter, I reported on a PWA, Chris D. of Cloverdale, IN who, based on his lab numbers, thought the end was near in September, 1996. His HIV viral load was over 600,000, CD4 count was 10 and CD8 at 300. He prepaid his funeral and decided to take his last vacation in the jungles of South America with an Indian tribe in the Republic of Surinam. Around October 14, 1996, he began eating daily a dish of cooked coconut which was prepared by the local Indians. By Dec. 27th, 1996, a mere 2 and 1/2 months later, his viral load was at non-detectable levels and he had gained 32 lbs and was feeling great. Since he continued the cooked coconut for breakfast every day after he returned, both he and I agreed that something in the coconut must have inactivated the AIDS virus(s) (HIV and HHV-6A). In last my phone conversation with him in January, 1997, Chris indicated that he planned to return soon to Surinam and would be there for a few months. I did not hear from him again until April 28th, 1997.

Mark: Welcome back. How are you doing?

Chris: I feel great. I have more energy that ever. I had one setback when I got shingles and had to take a prescription drug. At the time I had the shingles, my viral load increased to 5000. Since then it has dropped back to non-detectable levels.

Mark: Have you had other lab results?

Chris: My total White Blood Count (WBC) increased from 1.7 to 3.0. My RBC and HGB both have increased. My triglycerides have come down from 760 to 547. My platelets are up from 228 to 235. CD4¡¯s are up from 10 to 60. CD8¡¯s increased from 300 to 375.

Mark: Do you know of anyone else who tried the coconut treatment?

Chris: Yes, a friend with a viral load of 900,000 ate 1/2 a cooked coconut a day. After 4 weeks, his viral load dropped to around 350,000. After the second month, his viral load remained the same and his doctor added Crixivan to his protocol. He did not use AZT or 3TC. After 4 weeks, his viral load dropped to non-detectable levels.

Mark: Coconuts and Crixivan?

Chris: Yes.

Mark: Was your friend¡¯s diet the same as yours?

Chris: No. He ate red meats, hamburgers, pizza, french fries, the typical American diet.

Mark: What do you eat?

Chris: I do not eat fried foods, baked foods, red meat, hamburgers, lunch meat, french fries, pizza or bread or any products made from wheat (pasta, spaghetti). I eat raw and steamed vegetables, fruit, legumes and rice, some broiled fish and a little chicken.

Mark: It sounds like your diet is low in fat, gluten-free (no wheat products) and also free from hydrogenated fats and trans fatty acids.

Chris: That would be correct.

Mark: Did you find out why the Indians in Surinam eat cooked coconut every morning?

Chris: The Indian Chief told me that they use the coconut as the basis for all their medicines. They also use the milk from the inside of the coconut and also use other plants and herbs from the jungle to make these medicines. They eat cooked coconut every morning to help prevent illness.

Mark: How have you been making the coconut porridge every morning?

Chris: After I crack open the coconut, I peel the thin brown layer off the white meat and place 1/2 of the coconut meat in a microwave oven for 2 and 1/2 minutes. Then I run it through a food processor to make a fine paste. Then I cook it for 10 minutes and add breakfast cereal and cook them together until done.

Mark: If someone wants to contact you, would you mind giving out your e-mail address?

Chris: No. It is  dafoe@ccrtc.com

Mark: Thank you for sharing this information with our readers. Note: Chris has recently been out of town for interviews for different employment positions he is considering.

PURE COCONUT MILK - OTHER CASE REPORTS
Milwaukee, WI. Jim Prentice, whose experience with Eden, the olive leaf extract, was reported in Positive Health News, Report No 11, under the initials J.P. tried ¡°Coconut Milk¡± in May, 1997.

Around May 1st, Jim Prentice tried the coconut milk and liked it so much he drank up the whole can. Because of its heavy fat content, he later would divide it into 2 or 3 daily portions. His reaction: ¡°I love it, it makes me feel great!¡± After 3 days he reported the last traces of his neuropathy was completely gone.

Brooklyn, NY., Robert Marra tried the coconut milk but because of a gall bladder operation could not tolerate a whole can and consumed 1/2 can daily. He reported 50% of his neuropathy was gone after using it for 3 days. May 21st: In a phone call I received from Don from Jamaica, he had reported previously a persistent pain in his belly that he had had for several months. After starting to drink a large glass daily of ¡°Pure Coconut Milk¡± about a month ago, he reported the pain is completely gone.

While this report is about 5 cases, every new discovery has a beginning. The lab results in the first two cases are impressive but too small a number to draw definitive conclusions. However, the published scientific research on the antiviral properties for Monolaurin and its derivative, lauric acid, are well documented. There is a sound scientific basis for expecting broad spectrum anti-viral activity against all lipid envelope viruses from the consumption of coconuts, coconut milk and/or coconut oil.

Update: June 15th, 1997. Case No 6. This late-breaking news came too late to be printed in the hard copy of Positive Health News, Report No 14. On June 13th, a PWA from California called and told me the first lab results of any reported using canned Coconut Milk. He used 3/4 of a can of Pure Coconut Milk daily for 4 weeks. He reported his viral load for HIV dropped from 30,000 to 7,000. He used no other anti-virals. He also used some of the other immune based therapies like Naltrexone and Thymic Factors. He reported a doubling of his T cell counts (both CD4 and CD8) during the 4 week period.

THAI Kitchen Pure coconut Milk(1) and Gourmet Awards Pure Coconut Milk(2) come in 14 oz cans without added preservatives. 11 ounces contain about 24 grams of lauric acid, the therapeutic dose suggested by Mary Enig. I knew if coconut were to be widely used as a treatment for AIDS or CFIDS, we would need to find a more convenient way of using it since many people won¡¯t go through the bother of cracking, peeling and cooking their own coconuts. (Note: Do not buy ¡°Lite¡± Coconut milk. It is watered down and contains about half the lauric acid of regular coconut milk).

1. THAI Kitchens, Berkeley, CA Whole importers - 510-268-0209 E-mail:  thaikitc@crl.com

2. Gourmet Award Foods, St. Paul MN. Wholesale importers for grocery stores 612-646-2981

Since some of the lauric acid in coconut oil is converted by the body into ¡°Monolaurin¡± and the published scientific research indicates that Monolaurin dissolves the lipid membranes viruses, pure coconut oil or coconut oil found in coconut milk might be an effective, non-toxic, long term treatment for AIDS and CFIDS, inactivating not only HIV, but HHV-6A, EBV, CMV as well as other lipid envelope viruses.

Jarrow Formulas carries a ¡°Certified Organic Coconut Oil ¡°made by Omega Nutrition, Bellingham, WA. However, the demand for Organic Coconut Oil is often greater than the supply. As long as the coconut oil is natural and not hydrogenated, it should still work even if not certified ¡°organic.¡± Coconut milk and oil have three things going for it and two against. The three things for it are 1. availability 2. low cost 3. non-toxic/no side effects. The two things going against it are 1. Too few success reports at this time - only 5 persons have given feedback (although there are no failures to report either) 2. Low profit from sales - not likely to be heavily promoted in the media.

Update: A person with CFIDS whom I reported in my last newsletter who was 36 lbs underweight called me the other day to report his CD8 and CD4 counts have doubled and he has gained 15 lbs in the past 3 months. He eats 2 whole raw coconuts weekly, takes Naltrexone daily, supplementation with intestinal flora and received injections of L-Glutathione and ATP from Dr. Patricia Salvato (Houston, TX). He eats no fried foods. He eats squash daily, Okra and other vegetables. He says he is doing much better. John can be reached at  dettling@tenet.edu.

IDEAS ON HOW TO USE RAW COCONUT, COCONUT MILK OR OIL
Raw coconut - 7 ounces contains about 24 grams of lauric acid. For some persons, coconut are free for the picking. One lady in Hawaii told me ¡°we have coconuts all around here. There are several hanging in front of the window as we talk.¡± Raw coconut may be eaten plain or ground in a coffee grinder or food processor into fine tasty moist flakes that can be mixed with yogurt, applesauce or cereal.

Coconut Milk: To 2 and 1/3 cups of skim or low fat ¡°cows¡± milk add one 14 ounce can of pure coconut milk. Shake and refrigerate until used. Three 8 ounce glasses daily provides 24 grams of lauric acid. In place of regular ¡°cow¡¯s milk,¡± you may substitute lactose reduced milk or low fat soy or rice milk.

Other uses for coconut milk. Add 1/2 tsp. of vanilla to a can of coconut milk. Refrigerate. It thickens to the consistency of ice cream. Add it to dishes of berries, apple sauce or other fruits. Add coconut milk to ¡°Stir Fry vegetables¡± - Thai style with added curry.

Use coconut milk or coconut oil in place of vegetable oil for baking purposes.

Whole lemon/coconut oil drink - substitute 2 tablespoons of coconut oil (or 2/3 cup coconut milk) for 1 tbs. of olive oil. Add 3/4 cup pineapple or other fruit juice. Dose: about 12 to 14 grams of lauric acid per serving.

Add 1 scoop of Designer Protein or one packet of Immunocal to a jar and add 2/3 cup of coconut milk and 1/2 cup of fruit juice (pineapple?). Stir. Do this twice a day. This gives you 24 grams of lauric acid.

If you are Allergic to coconuts, use coconut oil
The allergy is caused by proteins in the coconut, not the oil. Mix equal parts of melted butter and coconut oil together and use it in place of pure butter on bread, potatoes and vegetables as well as for frying and baking needs.

To make a drink, add 3 and 1/2 tablespoons of coconut oil to 2 and 3/4 cups of skim or low fat milk (or soy or rice milk) and place in a blender. Add 1 teaspoon of pectin and blend. Pectin is sold in grocery stores for canning jams and jellies. Three 8 ounce glasses daily gives you 24 grams of lauric acid.

Breakfast Pancakes - substitute coconut oil for butter or vegetable oil and double the dose. Two large buckwheat pancakes containing 2 tbs. of coconut oil provide 14 grams of lauric acid.

John Finnegan in ¡°The Facts About Fats¡± recommends the following brands of coconut oil: ¡°Only Omega Nutrition make organically grown, unrefined coconut oil that is packaged in light excluding containers.¡± Omega organic coconut oil is distributed through Jarrow Formulas.

 http://www.keephope.net/report14.html

*HIV=AIDS=DEATH* is false 09.Jul.2003 13:29

GRINGO STARS

"AIDS is a cruel deception that is maintained because so many people are making money from it. Take away this money and the entire system of mythology will collapse."
-- Charles Thomas, PhD, former chair of Cell Biology department, Scripps Research Institute

What have we been told about HIV & AIDS?

The orthodox view on AIDS holds that it is caused by the virus known as HIV that is transmitted through the exchange of bodily fluids. Once infected, a person will remain well for a time, though infectious to others, before going on to develop AIDS and dying. Despite huge sums of money spent on medical research, there is still no cure, just drug therapies said to slow the progression of the disease, and regular T cell counts to measure health. A whole industry has evolved around AIDS, on which many careers and businesses depend, but which offers little hope to those affected. It works on the premise that HIV=AIDS=DEATH.

HEAL asks you to consider the following:

What have the HIV "experts" been telling us?

We are told that HIV causes AIDS.
However, many scientists assert that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
The vast majority of people worldwide who are reported as "HIV positive" remain healthy. Also, within the AIDS risk groups, AIDS conditions may be common even in people who test HIV negative. The official "latency period" (how long it takes HIV+ people to get sick) has been stretched to 15 or more years because people labeled "HIV+" are surviving. People who test HIV positive, including AIDS patients, have no active HIV infections by standard methods of measurement. So-called viral load tests were invented by HIV researchers to try to explain why only vanishingly small quantities, if any virus, could be found. The methods used to "isolate" and detect HIV are so indirect that they may not even measure the presence of a virus. Does HIV exist? These are just a few of the reasons why we need to look beyond HIV in order to overcome AIDS."So why are people getting sick?" The epidemic of AIDS follows a dramatic worldwide increase of immunological stressors: chemical, physical, biological, mental and nutritional. People diagnosed with "AIDS" may be sick due to factors such as one or more of the following:

* misdiagnosis and mistreatment of at least 29 illnesses due to being labeled HIV. (The validity of HIV tests is challenged.)
* toxic chemotherapy with "anti-HIV" pharmaceuticals such as AZT and protease inhibitors
* direct or indirect effects of recreational drug consumption
* multiple infections, STD's and resulting over consumption of antibiotics
* foreign protein mediated immunodeficiency due to hemophilia clotting factor therapy and multiple blood transfusions
* chronic malnutrition
* severely impoverished living conditions
* psychosomatic terror brought on by a HIV positive diagnosis

In fact, HIV may be entirely harmless
- and treatments for it worse than useless.

* We are told by the AIDS establishment that toxic drugs like AZT, DDI, DDC, and protease inhibitors aimed at eradicating HIV are valid and effective treatments.

Pharmaceuticals prescribed to treat HIV infections may be the cause of many AIDS defining illnesses. Many of the "side-effects" of the current antiviral combination therapies are indistinguishable from the symptoms of AIDS.

* We are told that there are now less AIDS deaths thanks to the new protease inhibitor "cocktail" therapies.

The statistics show that AIDS cases were on the decline long before the protease inhibitors were available. Due to the 1993 change of the AIDS definition (U.S.) more than half the current AIDS cases have no illness at all.

* We are told that "everyone is at risk for HIV and AIDS."

At least 90% of people with AIDS are still from the original risk groups: gay men, IV drug users, hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients. If AIDS was a contagious disease it could not remain almost entirely within the risk groups.

* We are told that HIV antibody testing is virtually 100% accurate.

There are at least 8 official standards for "interpreting" the "HIV test" around the world. Your test result can be interpreted as negative OR positive depending on where you live or if you are in a "risk group" or not. There are also 60 conditions unrelated to HIV that can cause a a person to test false positive on an "HIV test."

And the list of facts that don't fit the HIV theory goes on and on...
Public officials, medical scientists, and social activists have accepted the infectious HIV/AIDS model without properly scrutinizing it and dismissed alternative models without properly considering them.

Is the conventional view and treatment of AIDS the answer or part of the problem?
Such gay activist groups as ACT UP and HEAL maintains that "HIV=AIDS=DEATH" is false.


Here is a collection of links to several excellent sites,
many of which have links to other similar sites:

 http://www.healtoronto.com/
 http://www.whatisaids.com/
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm
 http://www.aliveandwell.org/
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/index.html
 http://aidsmyth.addr.com/
 http://www.rethinkingaids.com/
 http://www.rethinking.org/aids/NYRethinkingAIDSSociety.html
 http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TheCausesOfAids.html
 http://www.users.bigpond.com/smartboard/aids/
 http://www.aras.ab.ca/
 http://www.duesberg.com/
 http://www.actupsf.com/
 http://www.thedurbandeclaration.org/

"I have a large population of HIV+ patients who have chosen not to take any anti-viral drugs. They've watched all of their friends go on the anti-viral bandwagon and die."
-- Dr. Donald Abrams: Prof. of Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital

Homeopathy is dope 09.Jul.2003 14:40

ImmyJ

Man, I am so glad that people have begun investigating natural therapies for viruses rather than the traditional "let's shut down DNA replication and protein metabolism" approach that dominated the past two decades. I work with health professionals all day. These people are so blinded by the tenants of Western medicine that they believe the absence of anti-lipid drugs is the sole cause of high cholesterol. The entire idea of a medicine based on 19th and 20th century research without referencing the 5000+ years of Eastern practice is ridiculous.

Vegans rejoice! One more step towards a totally non-destructive, global lifestyle of sharp teeth, good sex, and garbanzo beans. The more research that's performed on naturopathic remedies, the more merit for veganism.

Oh yeah, I've seen the comment from Gringo five times and I have to reply. HIV doesn't necessarily mean death and the therapies are bad shit. Agreed. But not getting yourself tested and putting others at risk for HIV is selfish and evil. Gettting tested for HIV is a social obligation; ignorance is synonymous with voluntary transmission. Getting tested protects yourself and your neighbors. Treatment is your own choice.

-ImmyJ

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc.

Disturbing 09.Jul.2003 16:50

*

I hope I'm not the only one that finds the persistence of the myth that HIV does not cause AIDS disturbing. I certainly don't see how this posting provides any evidence to the contrary. I realize that there are many unanswered questions surrounding the HIV and AIDS epidemic and that not all of the medical approaches are effective or adequate, but claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS does nothing to solve the problem at hand but only contributes to the ignorance that many people worldwide have regarding the virus. This is not the time to lull people into a false sense of security regarding coconut milk, but to ensure that research, education, and treatment for HIV and AIDS is continued in countries in dire need of such aid, and to ensure that Americans do not reach the false conclusion that AIDS is a disease of the Third World, since this has been the focus of so much news coverage of late.
There is a massive amount of work to be done to stop the AIDS epidemic, and many rumors to dispel and people to educate, but this work does not involve promoting such unfounded claims as that which is posted above.

ImmyJ - AIDS is iatrogenic (caused by its supposed cure) - antivirals KILL 09.Jul.2003 17:05

GRINGO STARS

I'm like a broken record player - and will be until people stop believing the murderous lie that HIV is transmittable. There is NO proof of the existence of HIV, as far as many researchers are concerned. And if you get yourself tested twice at different places, telling one place you are gay and one place you are straight - you will get different test results. That is not at all scientific, is it? There are 8 different "ways" to read an HIV test, and over 60 different ways to get a false positive test result. How is this test useful? When you get a postive test result (for a bugaboo that has NEVER been isolated by the methods of virology) THEN you are given drugs that actually suppress the immune system - then you die of "AIDS." Bullshit.

I'm glad, ImmyJ, that you've seen the above comment before - now read it and research the links. Every one of the AIDS indicator illnesses (28 or so of them in all) have been known conditions for at least a century, most of them far longer. Hard drugs, poppers (proven to cause Kaposi's Sarcoma), nutritional deficits, toxic modern chemicals in air, food, water, drink, and stress - are ALL immune stressors. I wish the scientific community would act like RESEARCHERS instead of high priests circling the scientific wagons against any theory that challnges the profitable AIDS industry. The scientific community is no less immune to corruption than the political community is, so let's quit pretending that the AIDS industry has the answer.

So answer me, why do prostitutes have no more instances of AIDS than non-prostitutes? Why are the same groups of people at the same risk level as they have been since the beginning of the AIDS "epidemic?" Face it; AIDS does not act at all like a transmittable disease.

"I think zidovudine [AZT] was never really evaluated properly and that its efficacy has never been proved, but it's toxicity certainly is important. And I think it has killed a lot of people. Especially at the high doses. I personally think it not worth using alone or in combination at all."
-- Dr. Andrew Herxheimer, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford (Continuum Oct. 2000)

How the SF Chronicle invented AIDS;
 http://www.whatisaids.com/howthechroninventedaids.htm

Hold the conspiracy theory 09.Jul.2003 17:21

*

Yes, HIV and AIDS were originally branded as the "gay disease" in the early 80's out of ignorance and fear on the part of the heterosexual population, but since then it should have become clear to everyone that AIDS does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, nor, contrary to what the previous person said, do positive HIV test results get returned to people who are gay. The labs that test the blood have only that-- a little vial of your blood, not your personal sexual history. However, whether you are gay or straight, if you are regularly engaging in high-risk activities, it will be recommended that you be retested. False positives are rare in HIV testing and multiple tests are done on blood that tests positive to ensure that the person is not incorrectly told that he or she has HIV.

Hold the docile acceptance of dogma from a very profitable industry 09.Jul.2003 18:06

GRINGO STARS

There is not a single transmittable disease that acts like HIV is supposed to. You haven't answered my question as to why prostitutes have the same incidence of HIV as non-prostitutes. That alone, after decades of AIDS, should be enough to discount the HIV-as-transmittable theory. For that matter, when have drug companies EVER acted like they cares even a little about their customers. They don't - and they continue to push lethal "cures" on an unquestioning public.

I am not a lone nut - ACT UP and HEAL and AliveAndWell and many other organisations believe as I do. It's no conspiracy theory - it's simple common sense. It is often difficult to face the truth - that you were wrong are got duped. Don't feel bad - everyone begins there. You have to admit that you don't know everything (I certainly don't). The links I provided have ample studies done by competent scientists. I suggest that they are well worth looking into. People are always upset by the existance of "conspiracy theories" because it shatters the peace and makes you take intellectual responsibilty. Trust yourself.


"In defending the purchased consensus, HIV researchers use statistical methodologies shown by their inventors to be invalid and conduct experiments without any controls. They take causes for effects, correlations for causations, and constants for variables. Most important, they haven't stopped AIDS. What they have done successfully is instilled fear into human sexual relations -- an amorphous fear, which most AIDS professionals as well as journalists argue has been valuable."
-- Dr. Dave Rasnick, Biochemist, visiting scientist University of California at Berkeley (Talk Napoli, Italy, April 2001)


"AIDS is a cruel deception that is maintained because so many people are making money from it. Take away this money and the entire system of mythology will collapse."
-- Charles Thomas, PhD, former chair of Cell Biology department, Scripps Research Institute


"HIV does not cause AIDS. There is no scientific evidence that HIV can kill infected T4 cells. The true problem is that the leaders of the HIV hypothesis have been ignoring important medical facts and are blindly attributing AIDS to the HIV virus. It is very sad and frustrating to know that the AIDS establishment are giving highly toxic drugs such as AZT to pregnant women even with studies that show the depression in the immune system can be reversed by nutrition. Prescribing anti-viral drugs to AIDS patients is like putting gasoline on a fire"
-- Dr. Mohammad Ali Al-Bayati, Toxicologist and Pathologist, California

Not the first hoax cure for Aids 09.Jul.2003 19:28

Oz

It is still commonly believed in some part of Africa that sexual intercourse with a virgin female child would cure aids...the result, grown men raping infants. Spreading this myth is nearly as insidious...

Gringo 09.Jul.2003 21:25

James

This HIV+/AIDS myth is truly, truly despicable. It shows precisely how gullible you are, and while I didn't really pay much attention to anything you wrote before -- now I really won't.

It's really infuriating to me when I hear this tossed about. GOD. I wish I was with you so I could scream at you.

First -- the absolute ignorance of it all: OF FUCKING COURSE HIV DOES NOT CAUSE 'AIDS'. If you've been taught that, you were either taught by a COMPLETE MORON, or you yourself are A COMPLETE MORON. Because AIDS is a COLLECTION of diseases. HIV is the disease -- it progresses to the point that your immune system is no longer able to fight off a VARIETY of 'AIDS'-related diseases.

Second, the idea that the drugs are killing people, not the disease -- AZT is a yucky 'drug'. You'll notice everyone espousing this myth always focuses on AZT precisely because it's such a yucky 'drug'. They completely ignore protease inhibitors, etc. But if HIV doesn't kill, and the drugs do, why is the death rate among HIV+ so much higher in Africa -- where there is very little access to HIV treatments. (Even in the urbanized areas). Life expectency in some African countries is below 35 now, specifically because of the AIDS crisis. Why is an AIDS patient in Africa 10x more likely to die then an AIDS patient in America?

Why was it ever a problem? Do you really think it was just invented by the U.S. pharamaceutical complex to steal money from the populace? (Well, apparently you do. You're obviously of the opinion that western medicine is primarily money oriented -- so don't you think the health insurance industry would also be money motivated? Wouldn't they have just a teensy bit of an interest in exposing this myth, if it were true?)

Anyway, I don't want to waste too much time debunking this myth. You're obviously an ignorant asshole, working against the problem instead of for it. It's been debunked on countless other websites anyway.

I really am completely blown away by the arrogance of people like you though. Truly extraordinary. You're so superior to the rest of us -- and the entire medical establishment -- that you're able to see so clearly that HIV is not a life-threatening disease, because you've read a couple of webpages on it. Jesus H. Christ.

That's it, I'm done ranting.

James 09.Jul.2003 22:00

GRINGO STARS

James, it seems all you have to offer is some abuse and the reiteration of those before you who deny what is happening. Don't bring straw men into this. I already mentioned above what AIDS is - a collection of conditions that have plagued humanity long before people decided to lump them all together.

The arrogance of someone thinking for him/herself! The gall! I'm not sorry. I hate to see desperate people victimised by a hugely powerful conglomerate of rich white men. And that is precisely who came to Africa and started calling everything they see "AIDS" - and NOW, thanks to white men in suits, it only requires TWO "symptoms" to be called an AIDS victim; do you have blood shot eyes? Do you have diarrhea? Then POOF you have AIDS (whitey says so - it MUST be true), nevermind the lack of nutrition or decent healthcare, or the overuse of western drugs for the most minor ailments in cities.

The links in my first comment have numerous links - there are several links to African AIDS stories. Let me find you one since you hate to read/think outside what CNN seems to tell you.

INVENTING AN EPIDEMIC
The traditional diseases of Africa are called AIDS
An "African AIDS" primer: Here is the key point that the newspapers won't tell you. To diagnose AIDS in Africa, no HIV test is needed. The presence of the unifying agent that supposedly causes the immune deficiency, the ID of AIDS, does not have to be established. In October 1985, public health officials at a conference in Bangui, a city in the Central African Republic, established the "Bangui definition" of AIDS. Here are the major components of the definition: "prolonged fevers (for a month or more), weight loss of 10 percent or greater, and prolonged diarrhea." No HIV test required. What this meant was that many traditional African diseases, pandemic in poverty stricken areas with tropical climate, open latrines and contaminated drinking water, could be called something else with no fear of contradiction: AIDS.
By Tom Bethell - The American Spectator, April 2000
 http://healtoronto.com/africatb.html

Check this out after you're done fantasizing about doing violence to me, James;
 http://healtoronto.com/africa.html

Here, read this about "African AIDS"...
Sex And HIV: Behaviour-Change Trial Study Shows No Link;
 http://allafrica.com/stories/200303190482.html

Whatever 09.Jul.2003 23:13

James

Gringo, I'm not really interested in debating the subject with you. You're ignorant and gullible, plain and simple. I've seen first-hand the effects of AIDS on a friend. I've seen the progression. I've seen it.

I don't need you to tell me what it is. I've heard all of the myths before. My sister was telling me these stories years ago. I'm tired of it.

The crux of it is that you're part of the problem, spreading FUD, disinformation and rantings. I hope noone here is taken in by your rantings. (It seems most have not.)

Thank you James - for nothing 10.Jul.2003 00:40

GRINGO STARS

Thank you for bringing the intelligence of this discussion WAY down to your level of reasonless denial and violence. Your "whatever" response encapsulates your mental processes perfectly. You are uninterested because you have made up your mind and are going with the flow.

I've lost friends to killer antivirals too and don't want any more people dying because of their lethal misconceptions. Your close-mindedness is typical, and deadly.

Open discussion and questions are all that we have to combat the problem. You seem to think otherwise. That's sad to me.


"When AIDS patients' bodies finally break down from the effects of these anti-viral drugs, they say, 'Now the virus has become resistant, and the drugs have lost their effectiveness.' What really is happening is the toxicity of the drugs builds up to a point where the patient cannot stand it anymore. And, of course, they say it was the virus -- rather than the entirely inevitable and predictable toxicity of these damned drugs."
-- Dr. Peter Duesberg, Professor of Molecular Biology University of Berkeley


"AZT (anti-viral AIDS medicine) has, in countless cases, brought about the inevitable and slow asphyxiation of the patient's body cells. The doctors wrongly diagnose the fatal consequences of AZT medication as AIDS following a prior HIV infection. Treatment with AZT and allied toxic substances may be equivalent to joining a suicide squad with a time fuse." "It is the duty of every doctor to preserve life at any cost -- and not death-curse people based on any test so they are so frightened they kill themselves. I am sad to say that these voodoo methods were practised despite there never being any proof that the detected antibodies are an indication of mortality in all diagnosed people. I consider it medical malpractice to push patients into dying by prophesying an early death. We are medical scientists, not prophets!"
-- Dr. Alfred Hässig, Emeritus Professor in Immunology at the University of Bern, former Director Swiss Red Cross blood banks


"During the past 20 years HIV-AIDS research has shown to a line of critical scientists again and again that the existence of HIV has not been proven without doubt, and that both from a aetiological (causal), and a epidemiological view, it can not be responsible for the immunodeficiency AIDS. In view of the general accepted HIV/AIDS hypothesis this appeared to me so unbelievable that I decided to investigate it myself. After three years of intensive and, above all, critical studies of the relevant original literature, as an experienced virologist and molecular biologist I came to the following surprising conclusion: Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (Letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung Oct. 2000)
-- Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology. Former Director of the Department of Viroid Research, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978


"While first learning about the AIDS controversy, I read whatever I could on both sides. I have not found an instance, when both sides have been able to state their complete case, where the mainstream AIDS view has held up. On the contrary, much of the mainstream view seems to be based on bad research and fallacious reasoning."
-- Dr. Rush Wayne, M.A., Molecular Biology, Harvard University, PhD, Biochemistry, University of California


"A kind of collective insanity over HIV and AIDS has gripped leaders of the scientific and medical profession. They have stopped behaving as scientists, and instead are working as propagandists, trying desperately to keep alive a failed theory."
-- Neville Hodgkinson, former Science Editor, The Times of London


"Dominated by the media, by pressure groups and by the interests of pharmaceutical companies, the AIDS establishment lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed science since the unproven HIV/AIDS hypothesis received 100% of the research funds while all other hypotheses were ignored. How many wasted efforts, how many billions of research dollars gone in smoke... Horrible."
-- Dr. Etienne de Harven, Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto


"The causal role of HIV in AIDS is certainly not proven."
-- Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley


"The hypothesis that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS simply does not fit the clinical and epidemiological facts"
-- Dr. Gordon Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology University of Glasgow


"HIV tests are meaningless. A person can react positive even though he or she is not infected with HIV. The tests are interpreted differently in different countries, which means that a person who is positive in Africa (or Thailand) can be negative when tested in Australia. There is no justification for the fact that most people have not been informed about the serious inaccuracy of the tests. The error has catastrophic repercussions on thousands of people. Since people are reacting positive on tests that are not specific for HIV, let's please stop labeling them as 'HIV positive'"
-- Dr. Roberto Giraldo, Specialist in Internal Medicine, Infectious and Tropical Diseases, New York

'James' needs a BIG TIME WAKE UP CALL on this one. 10.Jul.2003 00:47

see above

'James', this is ONE TIME you NEED to listen to Gringo. Don't get all prickly/defensive/self-righteous.

the AIDS hoax is now a PROVEN scientific fact.

you sincerely need to check out these web links:

 http://www.healtoronto.com/
 http://www.whatisaids.com/ (GREAT site)
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm
 http://www.aliveandwell.org/
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/index.html
 http://aidsmyth.addr.com/
 http://www.rethinkingaids.com/
 http://www.rethinking.org/aids/NYRethinkingAIDSSociety.html
 http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TheCausesOfAids.html
 http://www.users.bigpond.com/smartboard/aids/
 http://www.aras.ab.ca/
 http://www.duesberg.com/ (WORLD'S LEADING AUTHORITY)
 http://www.actupsf.com/
 http://www.thedurbandeclaration.org/

also, the book

by Robert Root-Bernstein,
RETHINKING AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus (1993)

is *essential* reading.

after you've done your research, you're free to come back here and discuss.

one last quote from YOU, 'James' as *proof* of your TOTAL ignorance thus far:

---------------------------------------------------
"HIV is not a life-threatening disease"
---------------------------------------------------

HIV **IS** **NOT** **A** **DISEASE**. It CAN'T BE, *by definition*

HIV (acronym for Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a catch-all, overarching re-name given to the retrovirus discovered in the early 1980s by Dr. Robert Gallo--who *originally* called his (then newly-*patented*--yes, all great virologists obtain *patents* and royalty payments on their viruses) discovery:

HTLV-III,

(or Human T-Lymphocyte Virus 3--the third of several to be identified and isolated by Gallo's team)

HIV is a *retrovirus*.

Retroviruses are a specifically different type of virus whose genetic structure and pathology escaped detection by medical science, until late-1970s advances in electron microscope technology allowed them to be identified.

the "theory" that the retrovirus HIV somehow causes *any of* the several dozen *different* AIDS disease (kaposi's sarcoma, hemophilia, etc.) symptoms is just that--it remains to be proven.

HIV/AIDS nonprogression in a minority of cases; merits more research 10.Jul.2003 09:57

ImmyJ

I'm not trying to dispel all the controversy concerning the AIDS/HIV enigma, but there is further evidence that shows how HIV is not necessarily a lethal disease, albeit very infectious. The underlying theme is to test yourself regularly and, if possible, repeating tests until the possibility of a false positive is ruled out by the laws of probability.

In regions of the world that are most hard-hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, a minority population has been designated as nonprogressors - because of a recessive gene, the people live as HIV positive (the DNA is spliced into the host chromosome, there's no getting rid of it) but never develop the symptoms of AIDS and the viral count of the HIV virus is low and static. The mechanism of the gene's action (may inhibit protease action on the gp160 protein, thus deactivating the mechanism for disease progression or eliminating a key environmental stimulus [unknown] that causes the virus to leave its domancy period) is unknown, but merits further investigation.

Furthermore, there are dozens of cases of spontaneous remission. No one can say how.

Hoax cures are, I think, vital to figuring the cure for AIDS. The current therapies are only moderately effective and research has been conducted for decades. By exploring alternate therapies, one might stumble across an effective method. Or, more simply, the traditional methods of research have been exhausted. More holistic, Baconian experimentation is necessary to explore the shadowy nature of the virus's lifecycle. The coconut oil evidence is great because it explores an entirely new avenue of treatment, namely virus envelope disruption. I just wonder how it would effect somatic cell growth since virus budding is analogous with cell replication.

blah blah blah i'm so smart (stop rambling fool no one is impressed). In every city of this fair state, community clinics offer free HIV testing clinics periodically (June 27 - National HIV Testing Day for example). If the people that posted replies feel so strongly about this issue, they should contact these clinics and see if they can help out (c'mon, it's three hours of community service a month. You will be paving your own suspension bridge to Nirvana).

The idea of HIV as non-transmissable is asinine, jerk.

-ImmyJ

ImmyJ, why the insults? Remember that we're adults 10.Jul.2003 11:59

GRINGO STARS

Comments made above by me and "see above" have a wealth of information that you are ignoring, ImmyJ. I have studied your AIDS-industry-parrot-rhetoric before. It is forced on everyone through corporate media daily. I am well versed in what typical, duped CNN-watchers believe about AIDS. You fail to understand the arguments against the AIDS hoax because you haven't even read them. What kind of intelligent human fails to research both (or more) sides of an issue?

It's asinine to believe one side of the story without researching all sides - and then insult those who disagree with you. Your kneejerk reaction is typical of portions of the scientific community, except they do it because they are getting billions of dollars to perpetuate the myth, and you only get the honor of spreading lethal misinformation. TAKING ANTIVIRALS KILLS.

MYTHS vs FACTS 10.Jul.2003 12:39

open mind

MYTH: AIDS is a disease of the immune system.
TRUTH: AIDS is a disease of toxicity.

Peter Duesberg, Ph.D. lists these illnesses as unexplainable by immunodeficiency: Karposi's sarcoma, wasting disease, dementia, and lymphoma cancer. Stephan Lanka, Ph.D., and Heinrich Kremer, M.D., add Pneumocystis pneumonia to this list, explaining that "PCP is not an opportunistic infection," but is a reaction to toxicity. Muhammed Al-Bayati,Ph.D., has written Get All the Facts: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS, which details his research into the effects of toxicity in the etiology of AIDS. A study presented at the 2002 AIDS Conference found that the "most common causeof death among HIV+ people is liver failure."

For discussions about recreational drugs and immunodeficiency, read this article by Dr. Al-Bayati; another by Dr.'s Duesberg and Rasnick; and an article about "AIDS and Poppers" by journalist Tom Bethell.

NEW! Read this new 2003 paper by Duesberg, Koehnlein and Rasnick, in pdf form.



MYTH: The HIV virus causes AIDS.
TRUTH: HIV has never been proven to exist.

Scientists such as Stephan Lanka, Ph.D. and the Perth Group point out that there is no proof for the existence of HIV. Dr. Lanka denies the widely published photos are "HIV", and questions the existence of retroviruses in this interview with Zengers. Physician Val Turner explains in this article that the standards for proving the existence of HIV were never satisfied, and in another article explains that laboratory "HIV" is synthetic. The founder of HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, admits he did not achieve viral isolation. See Continuum magazine's Missing Virus challenge, and this list of 100 reasons HIV cannot cause AIDS. In 2003, the original AIDS research chimps retired, alive and well.



MYTH: "HIV tests" detect antibodies to HIV.
TRUTH: "HIV tests" react to cellular particles found in all of us.

Researcher Christine Johnson lists over sixty microbes and conditions that can react positively on the ELISA and WB tests. Click here to see Abbott Laboratories' disclaimer for the HIV ELISA test. The Perth Group explains why the failure to isolate HIV has resulted in non-standardized testing, with different countries, states and labs having different standards for an "HIV+" test result. Roberto Giraldo, MD, exposes the arbitrary sensitivity of the tests and maintains that we all carry "HIV" proteins in our blood. Dr. Peter Duesberg, explains in Inventing the AIDS Virus that there are thousands of AIDS sufferers who do not test "HIV+" and untold millions who would test "HIV+" but will never
develop illness.

The "viral load" test is based on PCR technology, for which Dr. Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize. Dr. Mullis states that this is a tool for magnifying, but not measuring, genetic material. Dr. Stephan Lanka explains that the depression of cellular metabolism caused by "AIDS drugs" often cause the "viral load," or cellular DNA in the blood, to become undetectable, which means that an absence of "viral load" is a negative reaction to toxicity. For more information, read this article by researchers Philpott and Johnson.

Dr. Muhammed Al-Bayati explains that rising t-cell counts can be a negative reaction to inflammation caused by toxicity. An article by Matt Irwin explains a variety of causes for low CD4+ counts, including various infections, injections of foreign proteins, malnutrition, over-exercising, pregnancy, and psychological stress. Read a recent article in The Scientist for more information.



MYTH: "AIDS drugs" prolong life.
TRUTH: "AIDS drugs" cause AIDS, and fatal organ failure.


Actual AZT Label

In Poison by Prescription: The AZT Story, John Lauritsen chronicles how AZT, a deadly chemotherapy drug from the 1960's was resurrected in the age of AIDS. Muhammed Al-Bayati, Ph.D., shows that mortality in the AZT clinical trials increased with the amount of AZT ingested, regardless of HIV status. AZT-like drugs are still components of the modern "cocktails". An article by the Perth Group challenges the use of AZT by pregnant women. For a thorough discussion of the controversial use of AZT in Africa, go to the Debating AZT website.
Journalist Steve Keller depicts the physical abnormalities caused by protease inhibitors, warning us that these drugs also cause liver malfunction and sudden heart attacks. Christine Maggiore of Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives adds these adverse effects to the list: diabetes, renal failure, kidney failure, neuropathy, exhaustion, vomitting, sleep disorders, and sudden death. She also states in her book What if everything you thought you knew about AIDS WAS WRONG? that protease inhibitors were "approved after the fastest and most lenient review process in FDA history". David Rasnick, Ph.D., who holds several patents on protease inhibitors, also warns against prescribing pi's for those diagnosed with AIDS.

Read the fine print for drug disclaimers like this one: "It is not yet known whether Crixivan will extend your life or reduce your chances of getting other illnesses." And contrary to popular belief, the declines in AIDS deaths actually began several years before protease inhibitors became available for general use. (see diagram below)


(Source: US Centers for Disease Control 1998 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report Year-end 1997 p25 Figure 6)

See this 2002 document "The Trouble with Nevirapine" by Anthony Brink. Read this recent report which shows that deaths from organ failure and other "non-AIDS-related diseases" have increased since HAART was unleashed, and another from the 2002 Barcelona AIDS Conference. For references to the adverse effects of common AIDS drugs, visit the website for the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society. Though some individuals have reported a temporary improvement in health from these pharmaceuticals, this article on the HEAL Toronto website explains why this has nothing to do with "HIV." Powerful antibiotics are also targeted in this article.

New research by Dr. Muhammed Al-Bayati also targets corticosteroids and glucocorticoids as the "major causative agent in the U.S. AIDS epidemic." They are commonly prescribed to combat the effects of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as for hemophilia, allergies and "gay bowel syndrome".

In the immortal words of Dr. Peter Duesberg: "With therapies like these, who needs disease?"



MYTH: AIDS is decimating Africa.
TRUTH: Malnutrition is decimating Africa.

Charles Geshekter, Ph.D., explains that "AIDS" in Africa is a redefinition of the diseases of "rampant poverty."
Muhammed Al-Bayati, Ph.D., chronicles his successes in treating immunodeficiency caused by malnutrition, regardless of HIV status. AIDS Liberation Africa, an African affiliate of Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives in the U.S., includes AIDS rethinkers from Namibia, Uganda, Kenya, and Nigeria. South African President Thabo Mbeki has been criticized for not hastily accepting toxic drugs as his country's only option. An article by Rian Malan in Rolling Stone poses serious questions about African AIDS statistics. Read the most recent South African AIDS Panel Report, and get a different perspective on the death of South African AIDS-poster-boy Nkosi Johnson. An article by Christine Johnson explains "Why the 'AIDS Test' Doesn't Work in Africa." Many more articles can be found on virusmyth.net.

Also, visit aidsmyth.com for information on AIDS Rethinkers in India, and see the Perth Group's article, and another by Christian Fiala, M.D., on alleged AIDS in Thailand. Information is also available about the Mexican affiliate of Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives. Also, see this British site. Non-English sites include information in German, Spanish, another in Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Thai, Korean, and another in South Korea.

An article by Robert Herron, Ph.D., gives an interesting perspective on the CIA's involvement in international AIDS politics.

 http://www.healsd.org/lies.htm


Pay no attention, Immy 10.Jul.2003 12:44

James

GRINGO has yet to come across a conspiracy theory he didn't immediately snap-up as his own. He likes to think of himself as supremely educated on the subject, when he's read a couple of websites filled with utter lunacy (e.g., virusmyths.net), and books written by scientists writing far astray from their respective fields of study. What he fails to understand is that it's his very gullibility -- and drive to keep reading this non-sense -- that makes him wholy ineducable.

The entire point is moot, anyway. Treat HIV, and you treat AIDS. We know this. The CDC knows this. The NIH knows this. I've personally seen it. Yet GRINGO and his ragtag band of congresionally censured scientists, banana republic dictators and Internet provocateurs know better.

I don't believe the coconut oil avenue is entirely new, btw. I don't have the medical background knowledge to be sure. But as I recall, research was done using mild, non-toxic soaps in the past. (With the same idea -- dissolve the lipid envelope.)

HIV=AIDS Trolls 10.Jul.2003 12:52

open mind

I suspect that the increased trollage on IMC boards by the HIV=AIDS faction may be due to the steady decline in funding to AIDS organizations. This so-called disease is a mis-guided career move for thousands of people and now that the nonprofit funds are drying up they're getting desperate.

Ya know, I can have a modicum of respect the average street whore who at least gets money for her/his services. But in the case of so-called AIDS activists, some of whom come from Washington DC PR and lobby firms, all they get is free travel expenses and free entertainment for all the trouble they go through to spread disinformation about viruses and promote toxic drug therapies.

Switching over to coconut oil, even though I don't believe in the "AIDS virus" theories I have read that coconut oil has enormous health benefits and can, ironically, be used to help with weight control & loss.

Ad Hominem from James, too? 10.Jul.2003 13:09

GRINGO STARS

James, your attack on my credibility lacks any facts, because I am not gullible at all. If I WAS gullible, I would believe as you do, simply accepting what FOX and USA TODAY tells me. Instead, I question everything I read and see, and research it. James, your gullibility has immunised you against ever finding out the real truth of the matter. James, you don't read any scientific studies. I have read studies fo all kinds, and critiques of studies. I am concerned about the truth. You seem to be unconcerned with it. You said you don't even want to debate the truth of the matter. It seems you prefer to call names (how very mature of you) and make wild assumptions about me. Dictators? censured scientists? What the hell are you talking about? You want to stifle discussion instead of finding out the truth. It is precisely your attitude of the arrogant, proud-to-know-nothing American that is part of the problem. QUESTION *YOUR* SOURCES TOO, GENIUS.

That's right 10.Jul.2003 13:17

James

...Just keep repeating it, and it'll be true. (Where have I heard that before?  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3054423.stm)

Anyone quoting Deusberg is a moron. Deusberg is a moron. He ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary in formulating his opinion.

(Also, he was once going to inject himself with AIDS to prove his point. Interestingly, he later changed his mind. Must not have been so sure, after all).

And one final point, before I am hopefully able to resist the urge to post to this thread again. I've yet to come across a single person pushing drugs -- and drugs alone -- as a means of treating HIV. Of course a healthy lifestyle is important. All HIV+ patients are advised on nutrition, advised against high-risk activities, etc. Drugs are but another option.

AZT is toxic. This we know. But it does seem to raise T-Cell counts, and there is considerable evidence of its thereapeutic value. I'd certainly welcome any research into it. I don't work for the pharamaceutical complex.

The problem with arguments like these is that few among us have the medical and bio-chemical backgrounds necessay to argue the topic effectively. I certainly don't, and I doubt GRINGO nor open mind do either. Thus, we're each left to parroting the research of others.

These conspiracy theories are all the same -- to prove the lie (that HIV != AIDS), you have to prove everything is a lie. Thus, the CDC/NIH are discredited, as part of the medical establishment. HIV tests are faulty. (And their faulty rates are hugely exaggerated). AIDS drugs cause AIDS, not HIV. Africans don't take AIDS drugs, so they don't really have HIV -- they're just malnourished. And on and on and on. These same conspiracy theory types love to invoke Occam's Razor, but only when it suits their purposes.

If GRINGO or others would spend 10 minutes looking a bit further into the subject, they'd see this entire conspiracy theory is rooted in homophobia -- and the idea that HIV is a homosexual disease, only transferrable through anal sex. Those are the roots, everything else is an offshoot.

It's disgusting, and those sputing the theory are disgusting.

Now that you admit you are a mere propagandist, James... 10.Jul.2003 14:03

GRINGO STARS

It is the AIDS hoax which is homophobic. If the HIV retrovirus was transmittable through sex, then why isn't it speading through bisexuals? Why is it still in the same risk groups - in the same proportions, even? Why aren't straight people suffering from AIDS more than they used to? The AIDS hoax is an anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-street-drugs religion not meant to be questioned or even studied - simply believed, as if it is dogma. It is more disgusting to close your mind and quit looking for the truth. It's not like there is a "cure" yet, is there? So why do you think the scientists upholding the disproved HIV=AIDS theory know everything when they obviously can't even "cure" it? Oops I forgot you hate asking questions, or even atrying to answer them. You are a propagandist uninterested in any discussion except slinging names. I have spent A LOT more than 10 minutes on the subject. I have spent years studying this. I will repost a quote;


"In defending the purchased consensus, HIV researchers use statistical methodologies shown by their inventors to be invalid and conduct experiments without any controls. They take causes for effects, correlations for causations, and constants for variables. Most important, they haven't stopped AIDS. What they have done successfully is instilled fear into human sexual relations -- an amorphous fear, which most AIDS professionals as well as journalists argue has been valuable."
-- Dr. Dave Rasnick, Biochemist, visiting scientist University of California at Berkeley (Talk Napoli, Italy, April 2001)

We both are, buddy 10.Jul.2003 14:35

James

I want to put an end to this debate. So let's just agree to disagree.

I don't dispute that most AIDS drugs have harmful side effects. What I disagree with is the idea that HIV is not harmful, and that HIV is not transferrable.

I don't disagree with the quote you posted. I'm not going to claim AIDS research has been perfect. And further research -- by knowledgable persons -- is a good idea. There very well may be other causes of AIDS. (Despite the lack of documented cases). But the fact of the matter -- in my opinion -- is that AIDS exists, and HIV causes it, at the least most of the time.

You took me to task for not posting facts to back-up my claims. I didn't want to spend the time searching for any -- I'm tired of the subject, and it upsets me. If I were taking a heretical position, I'd spend the time, but I'm not. I could link to cdc.gov, or any other mainstream site, but you wouldn't accept the evidence. You'd say it's biased.

We're not going to get anywhere with this.

for the sceptics 10.Jul.2003 19:05

brian

i sem to have started a fire storm here. I posted the original articles about roconut oils role in treating aids. Some people with little investigation decide that its a hoax, that is there is no scientific evidence.

* speaks of being led into a false sense of security over coconut milk. Presumably he is an aids sceptic. I respect Peter Duesbergs work myself. But i think its important to present evidence for hiv treatments that are safe and efective for those who do believe hiv is the cause of aids.
innany case lipid coated viruses also causes influenze, measles, herpes and SARS.
the active infredient is LAURIC acid, which converts in the body to MONOLAURIN, a proven lipid envelop disruptor

James, i suggest yu tell your friends to investigate the role of coconut oil in killing lipid coated viruses: this info might prove life saving

OZ, what makes yu think it is a hoax cure? Your comparison is baseless. The use of lauric acid is well established.

 http://www.aspartame.ca/page_oho2b.htm

'James'--you DIDN'T DO YOUR RESEARCH before returning 10.Jul.2003 22:04

see above James, DO YOUR RESEARCH before coming back.

James,

let me tell you a little story.

In the early 1990s I was a full-time environmental activist in [unnamed southwestern state], and a young graduate student briefly worked for our office. He was working on his own masters thesis on the topic of AIDS and HIV. I lost touch with him, so I have no idea when he finished the thesis, but he told me some things I COULD NOT BELIEVE at first . . .

He said: HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I was like--WHAT THE FUCK!!?!??!?!????? What about all that stuff i saw/read on the news during the 1980s, about gays and artists dying from immune system collapse, Ryan White the poor hemophiliac AIDS 'poster child', the millions of Africans with AIDS . . . what about them?? He showed me evidence, tests, and research proving that their immune suppression was caused by widespread malnutrition.

There is no proof of the HIV retrovirus causing anything REMOTELY RESEMBLING immune suppression, he said. He showed me all the current (then early 90s, still remains today) medical research literature as proof. He introduced me to Peter Duesberg, and to Robert Root-Bernstein and his book RETHINKING AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus (you *must* read this James!!!).

He told me how the CDC had a list of 2 dozen diseases that qualify *under* the definition of AIDS--meaning that if you were tested HIV-positive and had any one of these 2 dozen diseases, you had AIDS *by THEIR definition*. And they were constantly adding to/revising the list . . .

I was incredulous . . . how in the FUCK can this be real? if the HIV retrovirus discovered by Gallo was NOT PROVEN to cause immune suppression or cause ANY of the AIDS diseases, then what were people thinking and believing? Precisely what the Dan Rather, Time Magazine and the Surgeon General told them to . . . but NOT what many scientists, doctors, and knew . . . and are in consensus about now (2003).

anyway, what I learned from him was--

it ALL COMES DOWN TO HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM SUPPRESSION.

**NOT** to that retrovirus!!

a few quotes from you and your pals above 'James'---

"HIV does not cause AIDS does nothing to solve the problem at hand"

***YES****, it does.

and to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of medical scientists and virology researchers.

the key to treating patients is: concentrate on IMMUNE SYSTEM SUPPRESSION and how to boost the patient's immune system. DON'T give them dangerous--even life-threatening--doses of antiretroviral medication, which in a general way only *further* suppresses their immune system!


"Treat HIV, and you treat AIDS"

NO,

treat HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM SUPPRESSION and you treat AIDS.


"HIV is the disease"
"HIV is not necessarily a lethal disease"

**************NO**************,

it is

**************NOT**************

a disease,

for goodness' sake!

it is a *retrovirus*!!

HIV **IS** **NOT** **A** **DISEASE**. It CAN'T BE, *by definition*

HIV (acronym for Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a catch-all, overarching misnomer given to the retrovirus discovered in the early 1980s by Dr. Robert Gallo--who *originally* called his (then newly-*patented*--yes, all great virologists obtain *patents* and royalty payments on their viruses) discovery:

HTLV-III,

(or Human T-Lymphocyte Virus 3--the third of several to be identified and isolated by Gallo's team)

HIV is a *retrovirus*.

Retroviruses are a specifically different type of virus whose genetic structure and pathology escaped detection by medical science, until late-1970s advances in electron microscope technology allowed them to be identified.

the "theory" that the retrovirus HIV somehow causes *any of* the several dozen *different* AIDS disease (kaposi's sarcoma, hemophilia, etc.) symptoms is just that--it remains to be proven.

MOST IMPORTANT:

NO ONE has *EVER* died of 'AIDS'.

*Yes*, they may have died of:

1. Tuberculosis

2. Kaposi's sarcoma

3. Hemophilia

4. Lymphoma (cancer)

5. candida (severe cases are highly immune suppressive)

6. Toxoplasmosis

etc . . . .

Yes, they had one (or perhaps two) of the above CDC-listed AIDS diseases.

************Yes, they died from collapse of their immune systems.************

Yes, they may have died from OVER-prescription of antiretroviral drugs (which were in turn FURTHER suppressing their already weak immune system)

Yes, they may have been chronic abusers of recreational drugs which contributed greatly to the weakening of their immune systems.

Yes, they may have been malnourished, or chose to follow a poor diet.

but they

DID

**NOT**

DIE

(no one has ever died)

of

AIDS.

James, please check ALL of the links and research material that have been provided in Gringo's and my WAKE UP postings, above.

FINALLY, a quote regarding the definition of 'AIDS':

"Unfortunately, it's very hard to say what the real story is. There have been so many changes in the definition of AIDS and so much manipulation of statistics that it's extremely difficult to separate fact from fiction. For example, the Centers for Disease Control originally defined AIDS as the appearance of one or more opportunistic diseases caused by an underlying immune system defect. Then in 1985, after Robert Gallo announced his miraculous discovery, the CDC revised its AIDS definition to require that the patient be Positive for HIV antibodies. It also required that there must be a low number of T4 "helper" cells or a low ratio of T4 to T8 cells to prove immune deficiency."

http://aliveandwell-eugene.dreamhost.com/aidsgate/text6.htm
James, be sure and check all the GRINGO and WAKE UP links above.

Damn 11.Jul.2003 00:47

Steve

Damn. Indymedia has the largest collection of gullible sheep I've ever seen gathered in one place. They've never heard a conspiracy they didn't embrace. Did you hear that the Space Shuttle problems arose because of a crash with a test flight Santa Claus' new sleigh?

Muddle-headed thinking. Let me guess: none of you are scientists or engineers. And let me guess: many of you are bicycle messengers and coffee shop servers.

to 'Steve'-- 11.Jul.2003 05:45

scientist

"Let me guess: none of you are scientists or engineers."

--Wrong.

I'm a professional geologist who also had 3 years of mechanical engineering coursework (before I changed majors).

just what do you mean by the rest of your assertions,

and what on Earth does it have to do with the originally posted article, or the HIV/AIDS discussion on this thread?

stay on topic.

AIDS Dissidents Credentials and Credibility 11.Jul.2003 09:02

open mind

"Deusberg is a moron."
-- James, credentials unknown

(by the way, James, that's spelled Dues-berg not Deus-berg)


Dr. Peter Duesberg, Professor of Molecular Biology University of Berkeley


Dr. Alfred Hässig, Emeritus Professor in Immunology at the University of Bern, former Director Swiss Red Cross blood banks


Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology. Former Director of the Department of Viroid Research, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978


Dr. Rush Wayne, M.A., Molecular Biology, Harvard University, PhD, Biochemistry, University of California


Dr. Etienne de Harven, Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto


Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley


Dr. Gordon Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology University of Glasgow


Dr. Roberto Giraldo, Specialist in Internal Medicine, Infectious and Tropical Diseases, New York


"Dr. Mullis received a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1993, for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The process, which Dr. Mullis conceptualized in 1983, is hailed as one of the monumental scientific techniques of the twentieth century. A method of amplifying DNA, PCR multiplies a single, microscopic strand of the genetic material billions of times within hours. The process has multiple applications in medicine, genetics, biotechnology
and forensics."

 http://www.karymullis.com/bio.html


This list of esteemed researchers, which isn't the full list of dissident scientists by a long shot, includes molecular biologists, virologists, and other scientists who have published PEER REVIEWED articles the most respected SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS and who work for some of the MOST PRESTIGIOUS RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS IN THE WORLD and includes NOBEL LAUREATES. But to James, they're all morons. By the way, James, it's news to me that the Nobel Prize committee is in the habit of awarding one of the most prestigious award in the world to morons and conspiracy kooks. Thanks for the new development.

So to all the geniuses like James who believe that AIDS dissidents are morons, I'll say this...





It takes one to know one.

[note: before anyone starts whining about MY credentials, look back at my posts and see if any of you can quote me making any direct claims about the supposed lack of intelligence of any particular (credentialed) member of the scientific community. Stating that someone's information isn't backed up by hard science is not the equivalent of calling them stupid or moron or whatever. However, AIDS activists who have no scientific credentials whatsoever are fair game.]

My head is spinning 11.Jul.2003 09:29

snaggle

Both of you guys are really remarkable. I'm not saying that facetiously. Amazing research and debate.

But I don't know what to believe.

Can we agree that the "AIDS" thing started when gay guys who were engaging in promiscuous "unprotected" anal intercourse started getting sick and dying? And that the majority of subsequent AIDS diagnoses in US are with gay guys who engage in promiscuous "unprotected" anal intercourse? And that the gay lobby prevented "AIDS" from being treated like the epidemic it was seeming to become?

I do believe that the AIDS industry (like so many others, e.g., breast cancer) needs to keep these diseases active and uncured. Their funding would end if a cure was found. And the more "PC" the disease (AIDS, women's diseases), the more funding.

World's oldest sexual behavior 11.Jul.2003 10:06

open mind

snaggle, you stated, "Can we agree that the "AIDS" thing started when gay guys who were engaging in promiscuous "unprotected" anal intercourse started getting sick and dying?"

My question is this: Can't we all agree that promiscuous unprotected anal intercourse has been practiced by human beings in since the dawn of mankind, literally thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years ago, and mankind has survived?

Haven't people been getting sick and dying from syphilis for a very, very long time? By the way, why is syphilis now off the radar screen completely?

What are you people saying 11.Jul.2003 10:22

Steve

Open Mind et al,

Please summarize this stand. Are you saying that the retrovirus HIV does not exist? Or are you saying that AIDS does not exist? I don't understand the motivation behind this conspiracy. Please fill me in. Thanks.


Steve

To Steve 11.Jul.2003 10:39

open mind

Haven't you been reading the previous posts? If not, go to them.

some thoughts 11.Jul.2003 10:58

another scientist

I'm a social scientist and computer scientist so let's not make broad assertions about the readership of this site. Besides, anyone with any intelligence knows that you cannot believe everything you read; that is why it is important to keep an open mind. I've wrestled with this issue myself, and I'm in the position of many where I do not know what to think. I have not taken the time to do enough research to convince myself to any particular set of claims. I appreicate all the info though, when I get a chance I want to read through the links presented here more carefully. One request though, can anyone post references to primary source journal material? I see that some are listed but more bibliographic info would be nice for those of us who want to go down to our local library and look some of this up.

The Politics of AIDS 11.Jul.2003 11:13

open mind

I heard that Gary Null's documentaries, "AIDS: A second Opinion" (VHS) and "AIDS: The Untold Story" (VHS) contained a lot of documented info on the individuals and groups from which the AIDS myths started and proliferate, as well as financial connections.

 http://www.garynull.com

Other than that you're going to have to do Google searches and look for articles by typing in "AIDS" "dissidents" and/or "virusmyth" or something.

But I wonder, why is it then, when it comes to the questioning of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy, that people who believe the AIDS establishment all of a sudden seem lose the ability to read, click on links, or do simple Internet searches? Is knowledge kryptonite?

Just click and drag 11.Jul.2003 11:32

open mind

Steve

All of the links posted by GRINGO and the MYTH vs FACT post have articles containing lists of references to scientific journals.

What I don't understand is, when you have all this information that has been provided for you on this thread, which will lead you to the primary sources, why then can't you click on those links, scroll down to the references, and take those references with you to your local library and get those journals for yourself? Is the thinking such that if one can't get all the data spoonfed to them all at once then it can't be valid? Please, help me out here. If this is the only reasons why most Americans have never heard of the other side of the AIDS debate then we're really in trouble as a society.

No offense, but no wonder Europeans think Americans are fat 'n lazy!

'Steve'--HERE'S your Answer. 11.Jul.2003 12:24

see above

"Are you saying that the retrovirus HIV does not exist? Or are you saying that AIDS does not exist?"

--Steve,

HIV (acronym for Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a catch-all, overarching misnomer given to the retrovirus discovered in the early 1980s by Dr. Robert Gallo--who *originally* called his (then newly-*patented*--yes, all great virologists obtain *patents* and royalty payments on their viruses) discovery:

HTLV-III,

(or Human T-Lymphocyte Virus 3--the third of several to be identified and isolated by Gallo's team)

HIV is a *retrovirus*.

Retroviruses are a specifically different type of virus whose genetic structure and pathology escaped detection by medical science, until late-1970s advances in electron microscope technology allowed them to be identified.

the "theory" that the retrovirus HIV somehow causes *any of* the several dozen *different* AIDS disease (kaposi's sarcoma, hemophilia, etc.) symptoms is **just that**--

it remains to be proven.

FINALLY, a quote regarding the Centers for Disease Control definition of 'AIDS':

"Unfortunately, it's very hard to say what the real story is. There have been so many changes in the definition of AIDS and so much manipulation of statistics that it's extremely difficult to separate fact from fiction. For example, the Centers for Disease Control originally defined AIDS as the appearance of one or more opportunistic diseases caused by an underlying immune system defect. Then in 1985, after Robert Gallo announced his miraculous discovery, the CDC revised its AIDS definition to require that the patient be Positive for HIV antibodies. It also required that there must be a low number of T4 "helper" cells or a low ratio of T4 to T8 cells to prove immune deficiency."

PLEAS CONSULT THE REFERENCES GIVEN (in many postings) ABOVE for further information.


For the love of God 11.Jul.2003 12:36

James

"See Above" -- QUIT POSTING THAT. IT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Retroviruses CAN BE DISEASES. A retrovirus is a virus which contains RNA instead of DNA, and uses the host cell for the reverse transcriptase to DNA.

Hepatitis C, for example, is a retrovirus and a DISEASE.

Noone claims HIV causes the diseases. HIV causes AIDS. Once you have the syndrome, the other opportunistic diseases affect you.

Here's part of a post I was beginning to write...but I don't want to finish it. Ya'll are too annoying.

1. AIDS is not transmittable

This is flatly wrong. Prior to the identification of HIV, but after the identification of AIDS symptoms among gay men, studies traced the sexual history between patients and were able to establish a clear link. These tests were conducted independently in various cities in the U.S., and are still being conducted abroad, such as the studies in Nairobi. These studies are nearly always able to establish sexual-partner links amongst those exhibiting symptoms.

HIV antibody testing continually shows the presence of HIV antibodies in those displaying AIDS symptoms. While it is true that there is a risk of false-positives and false-negatives when using HIV antibody tests, the rate is extremely low. ELISA and other antibody tests have consistently shown accuracy levels of between 92% and 99.7%.

It is absolutely essential to the HIV != AIDS argument that all of these tests be shown as ineffective, and much of the HIV != AIDS literature is devoted to that subject. Yet the FDA, NIH, CDC and other government bodies continue to report their effectiveness. virusmyth.net, for example, spends much time debating the effectiveness of ELISA, the most popular test. Yet it largely ignores the accurace of other tests such as Recombigen Latex Agglutination, which exhibits far less cross-reactivity than ELISA. Yet no matter the test -- ELISA, RLA, Murex SUDS -- all show the exact same correlations.

2. HIV is not a disease

Some argue that it is, that it has fulfilled Koch's postulates and should be considered a disease. I don't necessarily believe that's /technically/ true, but it's entirely irrelevant. It's difficult to prove Koch's postulates in the case of HIV, for the same reasons pointed out by the deniers. HIV does not have its own set of symptoms, other than the collective symptoms of a group of opportunistic diseases. Yet some HIV-free persons get AIDS-related diseases. So it's difficult to fulfill the first postulate, that HIV be found in everyone suffering the symptoms.

Further, since HIV is a retrovirus, it's difficult to isolate and culture.

But like I said, it's irrelevant. When we treat HIV, we treat AIDS symptoms.

(That's about as far as I got. Too annoyed to finish. Sorry.)

I am a molecular biologist 11.Jul.2003 12:37

Steve

I do read the journals. Daily. That's why I am so surprised to see the misinformation here.

I looked through the links. They more-or-less include the same content. And way too much old content (80s and early 90s?)

The first thing to catch my eye on this topic was the horrendous misrepresentation of Donald Abrams.

The quote:
"I have a large population of HIV+ patients who have chosen not to take any anti-viral drugs. They've watched all of their friends go on the anti-viral bandwagon and die."
-- Dr. Donald Abrams: Prof. of Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital

The real story:

Ten years ago, when reports about AZT's curative powers made headlines, people with HIV flocked to the drug; only years later did we come to understand the severe limitations of its elixir. San Francisco's Don Abrams, who has been at the dead center of this epidemic since the early 1980s as clinician, researcher and thirtysomething gay man, urges publicly that the mistakes of the early AZT euphoria be avoided with the protease inhibitors. "I have a large population of patients who have not taken any antiretrovirals since the very beginning," he says. "They've watched all of their friends go on the antiretroviral bandwagon and die, so they've chosen to remain naïve to drug therapy. More and more, however, are succumbing to the pressure that protease inhibitors are 'it.' We're in the middle of the honeymoon period with these drugs, and whether this is going to be an enduring marriage is unclear. I'm advising my patients if they still have time, to wait."

 http://www.poz.com/archive/february1997/inside/themorningafter.html


Abrams is not one of you. So stop defaming the man.

 http://ari.ucsf.edu/scientists/DAbrams.htm

Spoonfeeding Steve The Lazy (c'mon man THINK) - play this VIDEO 11.Jul.2003 12:42

GRINGO STARS

I believe that US society has been in huge trouble for awhile now because intellectual dependancy has been taught in US mandatory public schools;
 http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm

But that is off-topic (except for it explains why people readily accept such illogical, disproved theories such as; HIV exists and is contagious and has anything to do with AIDS). Since Steve is a typical American, I'm going to baby him and actually spoonfeed him what the Perth Group says, a group of scientists founded in 1981 which still fights the dogmatism of the HIV=AIDS apologists;

1. Failure to prove the existence of a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV.

2. Failure to verify the HIV antibody tests proof of HIV infection.

3. Failure to prove HIV causes immune deficiency (destruction of T4 lymphocytes) or AIDS.

4. The impossibility of hemophiliacs acquiring HIV following factor VIII infusions.

5. Failure to prove the HIV genome, (RNA or DNA) originates in a unique exogenously acquired infectious retroviral particle.

6. Failure to prove HIV/AIDS is infectious, either by blood, blood products or sexual intercourse.

7. Failure to prove what is called AIDS in Africa or Thailand is caused by HIV or is sexually transmitted.

8. That AIDS and all the phenomena inferred as "HIV" are induced by changes in cellular redox brought about by the oxidative nature of substances and exposures common to all the AIDS risk groups and to the cells used in the "culture" and "isolation" of HIV.

9. That AIDS will not spread outside the original risk groups and that cessation of exposure to oxidants and/or use of anti-oxidants will improve the outcome of AIDS patients.

10. That pharmacological data prove AZT cannot kill HIV and AZT is toxic to all cells and may cause AIDS.

 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/index.html

And even better for Steve, at the bottom of the link above is a RealPlayer movie about the fallacy of HIV=AIDS which never aired on BBC 4 because of considerable pressure from major international drug companies. Actually I'll just post the links for that video, here are the slow, medium, and fast connection links;

 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/video/jsisolation-20kbps.ram
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/video/jsisolation-40kbps.ram
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/video/jsisolation-80kbps.ram

Get the G2 RealPlayer here if you can't play the above;

 http://www.real.com/products/player/index.html

A good explanation of what AIDS really is can also be found in a link to Eugene's chapter of Alive And Well that someone posted above. It is brief and concise yet complete.

I don't use virusmyth 11.Jul.2003 12:50

Steve

This is my last post here. I thought you people might be serious, but you're just simple conspiracy theorists.

Instead of using "virusmyth" to conduct your research, try www.pubmed.com instead. Duh.

hate playing the semantics game 11.Jul.2003 12:59

another scientist

But I am a big believer in discussing semantics; afterall, we can only communicate effectively if we all agree on what our words mean. I wanted to take issue with James' statement: "Retroviruses CAN BE DISEASES" because I do think this is incorrect. Retroviruses can cause diseases but I think the discussion of the virus itself and the diseases that the virus can cause are usually separated in scientific research (and hence, should be separated in a scientific discussion of that research). I could be wrong about this, but it is my understanding. Hepatitis C for example, is a disease caused by a retrovirus, Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). Most viruses have similar names (polio virus, smallpox virus, etc). But there is a distinction between a virus, and the diseases that can be caused by that virus. And I think we should be clear on that, regardless of our views on any other material presented here.

Sorry 11.Jul.2003 13:11

ImmyJ

But Duesberg made the claim that HIV doesn't fufill Koch's postulates in 1988. In 1997, researchers, using more advanced techniques, found that it does, that is, HIV has a direct causitive relationship to AIDS.

 http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/reprint/71/5/4086.pdf

This is getting crazy. The crux of the situation is thus: retroviral drugs are bad news. They wreck the body, but they are only a choice for treatment. Other treatments include naturopathy, diet, excercise, meditation, anything you desire. I just don't want people getting the idea that the advances in clean needle techniques and safe sex are useless. HIV is still a threat, as is heptitis B and chlamydia. By dismissing HIV as a non-entity, you reopen the door for epidemics of different kinds. Fucking and shooting up as if the threat of HIV is realistic protects people from many other diseases, even if there is still controversy behind HIV as a deadly disease. Can you dig this? Or am I too jacked on coffee to make sense?

-ImmyJ

'James'--you CONTRADICT YOURSELF. 11.Jul.2003 13:13

see above

"HIV is not a disease Some argue that it is . . . but it's entirely irrelevant . . . Further, since HIV is a retrovirus, it's difficult to isolate and culture"

IT CAN'T BE **BOTH**, James.

but you were right the *second* time:

HIV is a retrovirus.

that's all it is.

and NO ONE--

not Donald Abrams,

or 'Steve'--(whom I don't believe is a microbiologist or he would have identified himself as such at the beginning of his *first* posting, and who throws the Disinformationalist word "conspiracy" around liberally)

has proven a connection between the retrovirus HIV and causation of Human Immune Deficiency, or any of the AIDS diseases.

p.s.--

ALL of you need to read the *excellent* book

by Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein,

RETHINKING AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus (1993)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p.p.s--'James'
"That's about as far as I got. Too annoyed to finish."

Try anger management counseling--who knows, it might help. Either that or join the Flat Earth Society, who'll welcome you and Steve with open arms.

About that article... 11.Jul.2003 13:20

ImmyJ

I hope I don't piss off any ALF people. They did some core stuff to the chimp. Lates.

Heh 11.Jul.2003 13:27

James

Okay, this really is my last post.

I'm thinking about saving this entire thread locally, to keep for posterity. See above -- Your unabated ignorance and stupidity is simply stunning. I mean, really.

Let's see, you quoted a heading (which was not meant as my position, but as the position of the opposed), and 3 other sentence fragments, and portrayed it as a single quote.

You, sir, are a fucking moron.

I absolutely love the fact that you encourage me to join the Flat Earth Society -- a group of people who continue to believe the Earth is flat, despite clear evidence to the contrary. The irony is wonderful.

GRINGO -- We disagree, but at least you're smart, and make sense. I'd like to see you disassociate yourself from "see above", since he/she is clearly fucking stupid.

to 'ImmyJ'--thanks for the Primate Research article. 11.Jul.2003 13:55

see above

but it proves NOTHING.

some direct quotes:

"In this study we report on the development of AIDS in a chimpanzee infected with HIV-1for over ten (10) years and the rapid development of immunosuppression in a chimpanzee transfused with blood from this animal."

--it took MORE THAN 10 YEARS for symptoms to occur?? and how immunosuppressive is a BLOOD TRANSFUSION--especially among chimpanzees?

"C499 [number given to the experimental chimpanzee] was inoculated on three separate occasions . . . in 1985, 1986, and 1987 with three separate HIV-1 isolates . . . antibody response was detected . . . Clinically, the animal remained healthy until recently . . . In September 1995, this animal developed acute, fulminant diarrhea which was associated with large numbers of Blastocytis Hominis and Balantidium coli . . .Treatment with fluid replacement and antimicrobial and antiprotozoal therapy (doxicyclene, ceftriaxone, enrofloxacin, gentamicin, and albendazole) resulted in the resolution of acute diarrhea within 5 days . . . treatment with antiretroviral therapies was not administered in order to more fully characterize virological, immunological, and pathological parameters in the animal . . . Subsequently, continued, intermittent diarrhea in the animal continued unresolved . . . beginning in the latter part of 1995 and extending into 1996, C499 developed progressive, nonregenerative anemia, (hematocrit levels of 37.5% in December 1995 and 27.2% in January 1996, with respective hemoglobin values of 12.1 and 8.4 g/dl; reticulocyte counts were 0.0% since November 1995). Due to progressive hematologic abnormalities, chronic diarrhea, and continued immunosuppression, the animal was euthanized in February 1996."

--so after 10 YEARS of inoculating this chimpanzee with viruses and drugs, subjecting it to blood transfusions and all kinds of other tests, and keeping it in a cage all that time, are you surprised that it's immune system finally gave out?

This is the problem with so many of the retroviral studies attempting to prove a link between HIV and AIDS--not only have there been no reliable ones conducted in vitro on a human host, but the **concomitant use of intrinsically immune suppressing drugs and treatments in these experiments** causes the subject itself to become susceptible from the cumulative effect of these--making any "observable" immune suppression that supposedly results from HIV's T-Lymphocyte interactions irrelevant, or obscure at best.

They *created* a sick chimp--then they killed it!

From their Conclusion:

"The relevance of the HIV-1 infected chimpanzee as a model for vaccine evaluation has been questioned due to lack of disease development . Indeed, the lack of an animal model which supports pathogenic HIV-1 infection has been a continuing problem for vaccine development. Although the time progression to disease (>10 years), the currently limited numbers of animals available for use, and the overall high costs associated with working with chimpanzees are deterrents to their widespread use in AIDS research, the potential usefulness of this model should not be disregarded . . ."

anybody wanna be a chimp?

ImmyJ, no one ever said that... 11.Jul.2003 13:59

GRINGO STARS

No one ever said "Go and fuck everybody and shoot up, kids!" Don't put words in other people's mouth,

The fact is that there are plenty of bad reasons to have promiscuous unprotected sex, such as Hepatitus C and herpes, both permanent conditions. And since it is the drug use itself which causes immunodeficiency, street drug use is still a bad idea, healthwise - hard drugs used to shoot up (which connotes an extreme addiction) leads directly to immunodeficiency. You seem to imply that dismissing HIV would be a bad thing, WHTHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT, since sex is a medium for other diseases to pass from human to human. Silly me; dealing with the truth instead of incorrect propaganda meant to scare people away from sex.

The crux is THIS; retroviral drugs CAUSE immunodeficiency. They are FAR from "the only treatment." They make people worse. They KILL people. That is why people should know that the AIDS industry's "treatment" is the real killer. Even today, long after '97, they have still not isolated the HIV retrovirus, which you need in order to fulfill Koch's postulates of classic virology.

James; "see above" is right. Drop th eego. No wonder your mind is so closed; you are an egoist who doesn't want to admit that he's ever been wrong. Kinda sad. Suck it up and do more research before calling names (just an idea).

Steve; Abrams is and isn't "one of us" because he confirmed, with daily contact with immunodeficient patients, what people against the AIDS hoax have known; the "cure" is part of the problem. It's interesting, Steve, that you discount a website simply because it has information which contradicts the information you velieve to be true. Wouldn't an intelligent person compare information and say why one set of facts is false while anopther set of facts is correct?

'James'--prove to us you're NOT a MORON. 11.Jul.2003 14:06

see above

"Let's see, you quoted a heading (which was not meant as my position, but as the position of the opposed), and 3 other sentence fragments, and portrayed it as a single quote. You, sir, are a fucking moron."

what's with the name calling?

and btw--don't "sir" me, I'm a workin' man!

WHAT **IS** your "position"? YOU *don't* make sense.

either HIV is a DISEASE,

or it IS NOT a disease.

just answer this single question, please--concisely, clearly and without obfuscation of your pretentious pronouncements.

Must....Control....Fist....Of Death 11.Jul.2003 14:15

James

...And the urge to post. (This isn't a real post :P I'm really going to stop.)

I readily admit when I'm wrong, as I have many times on this board. In this case, I'm quite sure I'm not. I am pretty tired of being called closed-minded, and being told to run off and research this, considering I read the books and the theories years ago when I was first arguing this with my sister.

(And it's not ego that leads to the name calling -- it's anger. This is not, after all, my theory. It's the theory of the medical establishment. I've not devoted a life's work to the subject, and if I were wrong, I'd feel enraged and duped -- but it wouldn't much affect my ego).

It's surprising though that you and see-above and the others can keep insisting that HIV = AIDS is just a theory -- keep hammering that point, despite the contrary evidence -- and then you act as though your own theory -- that HIV != AIDS -- is fact. Proven fact. Scientific fact. (As has been stated in this thread).

Anywho, have fun.

ImmyJ 11.Jul.2003 14:15

Yeah, but

10 years is the average time it takes humans to develop AIDS as well. They kept the chimp in a cage, but it was probably better fed and in a less inclimate environment than most AIDS patients (at least it got NIH-based and Animal Welfare Act protocols for animal care, more than I can say most AIDS patients get). They didn't use retorvirals on the chimp because they wanted to "more fully characterize virological, immunological, and pathological parameters". And blood transfusions were probably the only way to transfer the virus (a chimp that has been mercilessly shitting itself for 5 years probably isn't feeling that horny. And besides, it was only 40 mL). Furthermore, chimps have 98% genetic similarity to humans, the other 2% being the genes for throwing poop and emitting high pitched squeals. The two are essentially similar but nobody's going to fund an HIV study on humans. As for the conclusion, they state that virus transmission and disease manifestation has been questioned in the past, but "the model shouldn't be disregarded". They got good data and the tests are hard to come by because a) it was 1997 and b) they're morally repugnant, but relevant to the current debate. Yeah, the tests were gross and mean, but scientifically poignant since the reality of AIDS is hard to quantify as independent of millions of small variables. Also, this is only one study and definitely not the end of the debate. I'll do more research over the weekend.

-ImmyJ

James Shoots Self In (Fist?) Foot. 11.Jul.2003 14:24

see above

"This is not, after all, my theory. It's the theory of the medical establishment."

-Right On, man.

HIV = AIDS **is** just a theory.

and the "establishment" of which you speak are those AIDS researchers and activist groups who--TRAGICALLY--continue to perpetuate a mythical, unproven causal link between that retrovirus and human immune system suppressions--(and to fund their establishments with millions of dollars.)

btw--how'd you like the chimpanzee research results (about three postings up this wire)??

"Must....Control....Fist....Of Death"

--yeah, I know you're not interested in Flat Earth Society--but don't forget about that Anger Management . . . it could help!

OK, rephrase 11.Jul.2003 14:26

ImmyJ

First, no one doubts that antiretrovirals are immunosuppressants. They are a choice, though, and treatment isn't the issue I'm concerned with. I know a few people that have managed their HIV by maintaining healthy lifestyles and avoiding contact with pathogens that could compromise thier immune system (including antiretrovirals). At least when one has HIV (or has been diagnosed - note the implied difference), one has a choice. It's a game of metaphysics. If the current system is false, and people are being diagnosed, they still can make a choice until the system is proven false.

If the current system is true, and we stop testing people, people lose the choice of treatment because what they are infected with technically doesn't exist. This means tens of thousands of people, in this specific universe, dying from unknown causes.

When you claim that an established belief is incorrect, the inverse must hold up to the same scrutiny. In the matter of HIV, I would rather that people knew if they had it (positive test no matter how unreliable) so they could protect those around them than people not knowing and exposing others until the truth emerges.

I still hold that HIV/AIDS is a plausible truth, but there are serious misconceptions of its treatment. It just seems that dismissing it while there is still controversy is very dangerous.

-ImmyJ

PS: born stubborn me

If anyone wants to discuss this more with me... 11.Jul.2003 14:29

James xjebsmith@hotmail.com

...Feel free to email me:  xjebsmith@hotmail.com.

This will shortly drop off the front page anyway. Hopefully I'll be more civil through email:P

- James

I sympathize, James 11.Jul.2003 14:34

Steve

It is tough to not respond when people say stupid things.

>Steve; Abrams is and isn't "one of us" because he confirmed, with daily contact with immunodeficient patients, what people against the AIDS hoax
> have known; the "cure" is part of the problem.

He is not one of you. The quote that you so rudely misrepresented speaks about antiretrovirals. Not protease inhibitors. Times have changed in the past five years of HIV/AIDS.


> It's interesting, Steve, that you discount a website simply because it has information which contradicts the information you velieve to be true.
> Wouldn't an intelligent person compare information and say why one set of facts is false while anopther set of facts is correct?

Ironic. The conspiracy website you mention ONLY selects articles (or parts of articles) that support its position. Pubmed, on the other hand, includes EVERY article published in EVERY peer-reviewed medical and research journal. An intelligent person would read Pubmed. If the conspiracy website includes an article in a peer-reviewed journal, then it will also appear in Pubmed. On the contrary, the other website will NOT include any research that does not support its fringe position.

ImmyJ--HIV studies on humans. 11.Jul.2003 14:35

see above

"The two are essentially similar but nobody's going to fund an HIV study on humans."

--Actually,

it's not so much the funding. The in vivo human studies--extensive studies and observations of AIDS patients, etc.--have been INCONCLUSIVE as regards HIV causing immune suppression, or any of the AIDS diseases.

Besides--

if it *hasn't* been proven yet using chimpanzees . . .

all of the focus on HIV is a lost cause of money and time, anyway.

if you have immunosuppressive disease symptoms of any kind,

for goodness' sake, get some treatments or a diet that will BOOST YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM,

instead of injecting yourself full of unproven drugs which are designed to chase a phantom virus that *hasn't* been proven to cause anything, while simultaneously SUPPRESSING your immune system--

in a nutshell, *that* is [antiretroviral-drug injected] Acquiring Immune System Deficiency!

Come on 11.Jul.2003 14:44

James

See above -- you must realize that isn't true.

The current US Public Health Service guidelines for treatment of HIV infection recommend starting therapy when the CD4 T cell count falls below 350 cells (Or the HIV viral load exceeds 55,000 copies.)

While a T-Cell count of 350 is not AIDS, it's definitely indicative that something is wrong. Thus, something is causing that, and it's not the antiretrovirals.

discussion options 11.Jul.2003 14:47

indy volunteer

Although this story will drop off the front page it will still be accessible from its topic page for quite some time ( http://portland.indymedia.org/en/topic/health/). There are also similar stories that have been posted in which this can be continued if you so choose. In addition there has been some long running talk about creating a page listing the most commented on stories and this thread is a good example the potential value of that (since concerns mainly focus around trolls artificially inflating the numbers of spam posts and the like). Of course, not all stories with a lot of posts are really worth reading but we may give it a try at some point and see what happens. I do not believe that any volunteer would in any way discourage people from talking outside this forum but if the comments are valid to the subject matter of the story, it can benefit the readers to have access to critiques, comments, and discussion of relevant issues.

hey 'Steve' (or 'Eddie'??)--WHO ARE YOU, REALLY? 11.Jul.2003 14:47

see above

"I am a molecular biologist 11.Jul.2003 12:37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve "

SURE you're *not* a Disinformationalist Troll??

don't give us this bullshit about how you're some "molecular biologist"--only telling us this on your THIRD posting--and then tossing out all the words about "conspiracy"--

on a recent DC Indymedia story regarding HIV and AIDS,

someone named 'Eddie' posted the EXACT SAME VERBATIM comment--wording, URL link, and all--that Mr. 'Steve' posted right here above:

 http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=74105
Eddie 3:41pm Fri Jul 11 '03

The actual story and quote about Abrams:

Ten years ago, when reports about AZT's curative powers made headlines, people with HIV flocked to the drug; only years later did we come to understand the severe limitations of its elixir. San Francisco's Don Abrams, who has been at the dead center of this epidemic since the early 1980s as clinician, researcher and thirtysomething gay man, urges publicly that the mistakes of the early AZT euphoria be avoided with the protease inhibitors. "I have a large population of patients who have not taken any antiretrovirals since the very beginning," he says. "They've watched all of their friends go on the antiretroviral bandwagon and die, so they've chosen to remain naïve to drug therapy. More and more, however, are succumbing to the pressure that protease inhibitors are 'it.' We're in the middle of the honeymoon period with these drugs, and whether this is going to be an enduring marriage is unclear. I'm advising my patients if they still have time, to wait."

 http://www.poz.com/archive/february1997/inside/themorningafter.html

Abrams is not one of you. So stop defaming the man.


Inconclusive 11.Jul.2003 14:51

ImmyJ

Yeah, they're inconclusive because it's impossible to get rid of the critical, chaotic variables such as drug use, lifestyle, stress, exposure, etc. Not to say that there isn't a really high correlation between those who get HIV and then get AIDS. The study was just to show how the disease progresses in a lab setting outside of some of the larger variables, dig? Still, actually finding proof for a widely accepted theory is harder than it seems. Millions of documents based on a theory which hasn't been questioned. Interesting...

-ImmyJ

PS: Will always be

Then read those articles on Pubmed, Steve 11.Jul.2003 14:54

GRINGO STARS

Because every single study on virusmyth is both peer-reviewed and double-blind. I don't care where you read them, just read them. The reason that they are collected on virusmyth is because they are honest about their subjectivity. There is no such thing as an objective news source, person, or website. they omit certain things, they include others, and they arrange it in a certain way too. There is no such thing as objectivity when you are dealing with humans. Virusmyth definitely has an "agenda" in that they are trying to stop people from throwing gas on the fire by using protease inhibitors and antivirals and oxidants and antioxidants. Spreading disinformation about a still unproven theory (the HIV=AIDS theory) is lethal.

The way science works is that a theory must be proven true, and in the science world, which is highly political, no money is given to researchers who don't tow the drug industry line. I won't even get into how useless animal testing is in the world of science right now. 98% DNA similarity isn't accurate since DNA and RNA are still being figured out.

So what's up? 11.Jul.2003 14:55

ImmyJ

Is this thread disappearing or can we continue to thrash heads at a different location?

- ImmyJ

PS: Before you count 1,2,3

'James'-- 11.Jul.2003 14:57

see above

"The current US Public Health Service guidelines for treatment of HIV infection recommend starting therapy when the CD4 T cell count falls below 350 cells (Or the HIV viral load exceeds 55,000 copies.) While a T-Cell count of 350 is not AIDS, it's definitely indicative that something is wrong. Thus, something is causing that, and it's not the antiretrovirals."

--I'm not sure what you mean, here.

If a patient has a low T-cell count, or their immune system is very suppressed or under attack, of course "it's definitely indicative that something is wrong".

but that DOESN'T MEAN THEY NEED antiretroviral drugs, even if the HIV load is high. There are many other viruses and retroviruses to keep track of in a healthy *or* sick person--many of these viruses and retroviruses in our bodies are dormant or don't do anything detrimental at all, except replicate themselves . . . which is the case with Dr. Robert Gallo's HIV--until some research team comes up with proof that this retrovirus causes immunosuppressive diesease.

what these patients NEED is treatments that BOOST their immune system! Stop focusing on the retrovirus. It's been proven in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of patients.

PLEASE check out this website James--just this *one*:

Many experts contend that AIDS is not a fatal, incurable condition caused by HIV. Most of the AIDS information we receive is based on unsubstantiated assumptions, unfounded estimates and improbable predictions. The symptoms associated with AIDS are treatable using non-toxic, immune enhancing therapies that have restored the health of people diagnosed with AIDS and that have enabled those truly at risk to remain well."


when does theory become fact? 11.Jul.2003 15:04

another scientist

Wow, this is quite a hopping thread. In my head a see half a dozen people checking in from their respective work places... Maybe because today is a Friday? In any case, I wanted to point out what I would think everyone here is aware, which is that we are talking theories, and no matter how much evidence we may have found to support them it does not mean that they have been proven. It sounds like everyone that has been commenting has been exposed to academic scientific research and so we know that multiple theories can be proposed, including contradictory ones and find evidence to support all of them. This is nothing new; this is the way science has always worked. I would even offer a theory that it is very rarely that science gets things right the first time (hence, the scientific method, research, debate, inquiry, etc). I'm glad Steve checked back in because I do agree that sites often post that which supports their case, which is not a bad thing to do, because they are trying to make a case (one that could be correct or incorrect as far as I know, and I'm sure I'm far from alone). But it is helpful to be able to get at data which does not support, or even contradicts that case. PubMed is great (although I haven't used it much recently) but it's difficult to put the burden on others, and I for one do not know where to begin searching for the appropriate articles (there are what, almost 60,000 articles on hiv/aids). I find that if I make a case it's up to me to do the research and present it. Anyway, carry on, I know I'm enjoying the debate and discussion.

What's there to figure out? 11.Jul.2003 15:17

ImmyJ

What's there to figure out? Knowing the exact nature of RNA transcription and virus RNA splicing into the host genome isn't the matter. Almost all animals rely on the same cellular mechanics. Having a 98% similarity means that there's a significantly reduced chance of a chimp having a gene (like the non-progessor gene) that interferes with HIV replication. The mechanisms of RNA splicing are not pertinent to discussion of the disease. Chimps still make a hella good model for HIV/AIDS progression since they're essentially identical to humans. It seems like the study shows, pretty dramatically, though in isolation, how HIV directly causes AIDS, or AIDS as defined by the CDC.

-ImmyJ

PS: I will have grown my own branch

See above 11.Jul.2003 15:18

James

No, if a patient's T-Cell count is 350 it doesn't mean they need antiretrovirals. But the point I was making is that they are already on their way to AIDS, and since they haven't even started antiretroviral therapy yet, it wasn't caused by the antiretrovirals.

In making that point, I wasn't arguing in favor of anti-retrovirals, or even the idea that HIV causes AIDS. I was just arguing that something was wrong, and it wasn't being caused by antiretrovirals.

Most people who test positive for HIV go years before their T-Cell count falls to 350. I realize that's a post hoc argument. I'm not trying to prove the cause and effect right now. Just trying to rule out the antiretrovirals as the cause of the initial fall in T-Cell counts among HIV+ patients.

P.S., I went to the website. Was there something in particular you wanted me to read? It's just more of the same, I've read the arguments before.

ImmyJ 11.Jul.2003 15:26

indy volunteer

No, this thread will always be here. Bookmark it and you can come back. What James was pointing out was that it will drop off the right side of the front page (only most recent 90 stories at this time, or about 2-3 days). Readership and discussion is highest for stories on the front page, features are the highest, front page newswire follows that. There are still discussions on older threads but they do tend to have less readers, and so less commenters over time. I just wanted to point out other ways you, or others, could find the thread.

Article 11.Jul.2003 15:28

ImmyJ

I think this article may be important to the current discussion:

 http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol3Issue1/editorial.html (what to tell patients when they ask if HIV causes AIDS)

-ImmyJ

PS: Out of this tree.

'ImmyJ'--Your KEY Point. 11.Jul.2003 15:28

see above

"AIDS as defined by the CDC."

--and this has been one of the biggest problems all along.

with such an amorphous definition--'AIDS' absolutely does **NOT** describe *one* disease, rather an entire, disparate RANGE of them--

how can we spend millions upon millions of dollars and research hours on attacking and attempting to eradicate this one retrovirus, which hasn't even been proven to cause immunosuppressive disorders?

The human immune system itself is a HUGE research topic--[e.g. like the human brain] there is *so much* that medical science doesn't know or understand about how our white blood cells and other immune system components interact and work to fight off bacteria, viruses, etc.

if ANY immunosuppressive condition AT ALL can be lumped into the CDC AIDS definition rubric,

THEN WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE TREATING, IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I vote to boost patients' immune systems--that's been *proven* to work, by satisfied customers!

Theory never truly becomes fact - it is just *not-proven-wrong-YET* 11.Jul.2003 15:40

GRINGO STARS

A theory is just the BEST way of describing reality SO FAR.

The fact is that the scientific community is not all it should be. The scientific establishment, like any status quo, fiercely defends its own theories while shooting down its opponents. I wish scientists, of all people, wouldn't see others as "opponents" but in this case it is telling that the HIV=AIDS apologists, who recieve virtually all the money for research, are the most dismissive and insulting to those who disagree with them. The most open seem to be those who question the still unproven HIV=AIDS theory, which is very telling. Usually, the old guard scientists slowly die off, and only then (about 20 years usually) the new guard becomes the new boss, same as the old boss, viciously defaming anyone who dares to question them. Only the very best of research scientists have escaped this bad behaviour. Read Thomas Kuhn's book STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS about this.

When I am researching theroies, I not only take into account bood science and bad science, but also the very human behaviour of the people and groups involved. One group, for example the drug industry, seeks to only make profit$ from selling drugs. Another non-profit group like ACT UP or HEAL or Alive And Well for example, seek no profit and only to educate. These are factors that should be considered.

By the way, when I am in an IMC discussion, I simply make it a favorite page - yet I often end up talking only to myself when the story goes of the front page. Oh well.

Ya 11.Jul.2003 15:45

ImmyJ

My point exactly. I'm not arguing about the bad - acidness (badassedness) of antiretrovirals. Alternative therapies are key. That's why lauric acid is so exciting; it prevents viral loads from getting high enough to cause immune suppression. And yep, there's a lot of conditions that cause immnosuppression. I am just worried that the anti-HIV=AIDS rhetoric will prevent people from being tested and will cause people to unwittingly spread HIV before the facts have been tallied. I'm no proponent of the current treatment. Finding alternatives that are less deadly are key. Giving AIDS vicitims more years of liveable life is key (dude, we all have to die of something. With any luck, I'll have cancer in five years. Not doing the chemo either.). But the idea that we should ignore two decades amount of research on a supposedly deadly disease is criminal. If and when you test positive, you can protect those around you by participating in safer activities (rubbers and clean needles). But the idea that HIV is not a threat without substantive evidence opens up a lot of doors for people to get sick. But at the same time, toxoplasmosis occurs in HIV-negative old people because their immune systems are so devestated by old age. The current standards for AIDS identification and directly relating them to HIV have serious problems, but the numbers are such that the high majority of those that have AIDS conditions are also infected by HIV, thereby creating direct causation between the two. Also, how do you explain all the well-nourished, non-pill popping individuals that develop AIDS each year? They have to be sick with something, and Duesberg never entered that realm (hell, he's into cancer research, not viral pathology).

-ImmyJ

PS: I never thought I would compromise (somebody snuck into my house and stole everything. The last tape I have is Bjork and I can't get it out of my head. Ahhhh . . . Bjork. Je vous aime, mon petitie chou-chou.)

'James'-- 11.Jul.2003 15:48

see above

"Most people who test positive for HIV go years before their T-Cell count falls to 350. I realize that's a post hoc argument. I'm not trying to prove the cause and effect right now. Just trying to rule out the antiretrovirals as the cause of the initial fall in T-Cell counts among HIV+ patients. "

--no one here has ever asserted that antiretrovirals are some sort of PRIMARY CAUSE of immunosuppression.

the point is --they sure ain't helping! And when there's already so little connection between HIV and immunosuppression, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to go with what you know . . . boost the patients' immune system!

and as far as "testing positive for HIV"--well, that's a CDC/Public Health requirement now . . . they give you that test even if you're just being treated for a case of gonorrhea . . . and it's *part* of the reason there are so many people out there who have tested 'positive' for HIV, but have no immunosuppressive diseases or symptoms AT ALL.

one small "what if" to think about: If you believe in the Retroviral Theory of Immunosuppresion,

what if we're following THE WRONG RETROVIRUS?? What if there's a retrovirus out there besides Gallo's HTLV-III WHICH HASN'T EVEN BEEN DISCOVERED, IDENTIFIED, OR PATENTED yet, but is present in all of the 'AIDS' patients who ever were diagnosed--and perhaps distributed much more widely? Well, get used to it--because the science of virology is going to spend the next few centuries discovering ALL KINDS of viruses and retroviruses in human pathology, many of which will do nothing at all except replicate themselves.

"P.S., I went to the website. Was there something in particular you wanted me to read? It's just more of the same, I've read the arguments before."

--NOT "arguments" . . . there are some good articles and references there. But you should really check out the long list of links which Gringo and I provided above.

and MOST importantly, READ Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein's book RETHINKING AIDS! It has excellent overviews of:

1. What is the Human Immune System (T-cells, etc.)?

2. What is a virus?

3. What is AIDS and how is it defined by the Centers for Disease Control?

4. What is the nature of immune suppression, and how the AIDS patients are affected by it

5. Contribution of immunosuppressive behaviors and environment to the condition of AIDS patients

and so on . . .

please, READ THAT BOOK, James!

Oh Ya 11.Jul.2003 15:52

ImmyJ

So we're to wait 20 years, stop testing people for HIV, and hope that future research turns out in our favor? Risky, at best, and I'm sure the families of everyone that dies during that time are going to be really pleased if, in 20 years, the old guard still makes its case. As for pharmaceutical companies, fuck 'em. Alternative therapies are the best. No doubt that they're making a buck by keeping people sick (example: thalidomide. nobody's fessed up to that one yet). But this lies within the realm of the reaction to, not the cause of, a disease. The cause and the diagnosis have to be defended until there is insurmountable evidence contrary to the accepted belief. As it stands now, there isn't.

-ImmyJ

ImmyJ 11.Jul.2003 17:15

GRINGO STARS

I love Bjork too. She rawks. It's always nice to find SOME common ground. Anyways...

There is no evidence to suggest that HIV is spread through sex. I am not suggesting that we wait 20 years for the truth about immunodeficiency to come out (that comment was to "another scientist"). On the contrary I want people to wake up NOW. The pharmaceutical companies that you rightfully despise are the ones keeping the failed HIV=AIDS theory alive, pumping it up with billions of dollars of research. They want to keep this cash cow. What does that tell you? I want people to wake up NOW. I want people to quit with the poppers and hard drugs NOW. let's deal with the problem, eh? Why do you think that the organisations and people that are against the HIV=AIDS hoax do what they do?

Really? 11.Jul.2003 17:28

James

"There is no evidence to suggest that HIV is spread through sex."

What about the sexual partner links, as I referenced a way up this thread? Many of these studies were performed prior to the identification of HIV, but after the identification of AIDS symptoms. Thus, they strongly suggest sexual transmission of some agent that causes AIDS symptoms.

Furthermore, what about the HIV RNA tests performed on semen, which show the presence of HIV RNA in 97% of those previously identified as HIV+?

Also, one more point to respond to 11.Jul.2003 18:51

James

"Well, get used to it--because the science of virology is going to spend the next few centuries discovering ALL KINDS of viruses and retroviruses in human pathology, many of which will do nothing at all except replicate themselves."

Of course. But I would point out that that's all every virus does -- they replicate. The problem is that the very process of replication is what's destructive! Viruses are not capable of replicating on their own -- thus, they hijack host cells and cause them to replicate the virus over and over until the host cell explodes, releasing new viruses.

Thus, any virus replicating within your body is necessarily causing harm, in that it's destroying your body's cells. The question then is only one of degree, and immune response.

Denial? 11.Jul.2003 20:14

ImmyJ

Maybe the people working against the theory are HIV+ and in denial that they will develop AIDS. Maybe they're rampant homophobes that don't want to believe that non-junky Aryans are suceptible too. Maybe they get a kick out of being forced so far into the minority that they have to rise up in violent protest against any assertation of fact.

Or maybe they're onto something. People are making money and people that make money don't want to stop making money. But then there are researchers who are fighting to keep research grants alive and hopping by selectively admitting to certain facts while ignoring others. Maybe the people working against the hoax are right, but I'm not willing to wager 40 million lives on a hunch.

Until I die, I'm going to make sure people are tested. I'm also going to make sure that they can get chemical dependency help if they need it. I'm going to try to keep them informed of what they may not know to keep themselves and the people they live around as healthy and free as possible. And I'm going to do it while dirt broke. The minority population that criticise the established belief are just as broke as those who deal hands-on with the community. Man, I'm going to need a few eunuchs to prop up my altruistic sentiment. (Jesus I'm overdramatic). The only people that are making cash on the situation are either a) pharmaceutical giants that never directly contact their patients, b) doctors who get kickbacks, c) the administrators of large social enterprises, and d) a fat man named Sal. This said, I'm not willing to believe that there isn't a foundation of truth to their claims . . . yet.

-ImmyJ

PS: Go volunteer some hours.

People making money 11.Jul.2003 20:31

James

And one very important fact to keep in mind -- The insurance companies spend billions on AIDS claims. The AIDS Deniers claim the medical establishment is interested only in money, not helping people. So, wouldn't the true be same of the insurance companies?

The insurance companies have large medical staffs constantly evaluating treatments too. If there were real, hard, evidence that the AIDS drugs were unnecessary, and a simple healthy lifestyle without drugs was a better treatment, why are the insurance companies paying out billions in AIDS claims? Why aren't they at the very least funding research to further prove the AIDS deniers claims?

If any AIDS denier can answer that simple question poignantly, I'd love to hear it.

insurance companies 13.Jul.2003 17:29

nessie

"If there were real, hard, evidence that the AIDS drugs were unnecessary, and a simple healthy lifestyle without drugs was a better treatment, why are the insurance companies paying out billions in AIDS claims? Why aren't they at the very least funding research to further prove the AIDS deniers claims? "

The insurance companies are keeping their capitalist mouths shut as payback for going along with Bush's 9/11 Plot.

PS - I don't want to hear any criticism of this position or I will go to Portland myself and institute a censorship regimen like the one I operate in SF.

Not really sure if your comment was sarcastic 14.Jul.2003 02:02

James

If it was, excuse my dense response.

"The insurance companies are keeping their capitalist mouths shut as payback for going along with Bush's 9/11 Plot. "

I think you've got your logic upside down. Who's paying who back?

Really? Coconut Oil ? 15.Dec.2003 09:52

kim kimowen888@hotmail.com

Ok
I am clearly not a scientist, stupid or gullable !

But . . . in curiousity as a 15 year old is, Coconut Oil ? ? ? How, Why, What ?

I think this is a good theory and you cant knock it really, can you ! So it has lauric acid in the substance, does this mean it can prevent AIDS or HIV or both? u never know !

Has it been proven ?

If you could email me with this information, I dont mind if you turn around and say its a myth id like to know as this article has caught my attention and as I say, im a curious 15 year old !

Thank you !

I'm a medical student 12.Mar.2004 00:39

Medical student earlypearly@hotmail.com

Syfillis and Klamydia and such STDs disappeared after a while because of safe-sex advice are being treaded with antibiothics - therefore they dissapear. After their disappearance Klamydia has reflorished though since people thougt, that it was safe to have unprotected sex now. The same goes for HIV, which cannot be cured for the time being and can therefore not be prevented through medication. This of course helps spread HIV.

Now I call it HIV - maybe HIV doens't exist, but I think that the evidence, that AIDS is sexually transmitted is striking and should be taken seriously. That it hasn't been isolated is indeed a problem and requires further study.

But from saying that and then just jump in conclusion and claim that AIDS is caused by "poppers" or something ... no! no! that is going too far. The AIDS epidemic started in the 1970-80's and since homosexual men and drug users have been on the streets before that and practicing unsafe sex - then I must conclude that AIDS is infectious. The only other logical explanation would be space radiation or something since AIDS occured so suddenly.