portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

health

Behavioral Change Is the Only Way To Fight AIDS

HIV/AIDS is the biggest challenge to mankind in the 21st century, comparable to the Bubonic plague of the Middle Ages. In order to avert more deaths and suffering from this insidious viral infection leaders of nations must stand resolute with total commitment to lead the fight and galvanize the entire efforts of communities and nations to face the challenge.
Although a global problem, more than 90% of HIV infections occur in developing countries like Uganda. The morbidity and mortality figures due to HIV/AIDS are well known; they are indeed staggering and the world is nowhere near controlling this rampaging infection.

Eighteen years ago, as we emerged from a two decades protracted peoples' war of liberation against the dictatorial regimes of [Idi] Amin and [Milton] Obote, Uganda was once again under the shroud of a devastating mysterious ailment called "Slim," later to be known as AIDS. Two decades of civil war, state mismanagement and inappropriate monetary policies had left the Ugandan economy and social infrastructure in tatters with extreme levels of household poverty. The medical infrastructure, especially the hospitals, were in a sorry state with many of the medical profession living in exile, and the total per capita expenditure on health at less than $1 per annum. By 1985, Uganda was among the ten poorest countries in the world.

We had to transmit to our people the conviction that behavior change and therefore control of the epidemic was an individual responsibility and a patriotic duty and within their individual means. In our fighting corner was a resilient population and a committed leadership with years of fire-tested experience in mobilizing our people to overcome obstacles at great odds and with minimal resources.

Our only weapon at the time [was] the message: "Abstain from sex or delay having sex if you are young and not married, Be faithful to your sexual partner (zero-grazing), after testing, or use a Condom properly and consistently if you are going to move around. This has now been globally popularized as the ABC strategy." With no medical vaccine in sight, behavioral change had to be our social vaccine and this was within our modest means.

Starting with the highest level of government, we made HIV/AIDS a development issue, mainstreaming it into the public sector. We brought on board other partners and fostered a multi-sectoral response, prioritizing it in all government programs, enlisting a wide variety of national participants in the "war" against the decimating disease. We have encouraged and enlisted the support of civil society, especially the faith-based organizations. As of 2001, there were 1,117 agencies, governmental and nongovernmental, working on HIV/AIDS issues across all districts of Uganda.

With the help of the international community, we embarked on a vigorous program of making blood transfusion and injections safe. We also instituted comprehensive diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections having been convinced that it is these that have fueled the early epidemics in resource-poor countries, especially sub-Saharan Africa, the Asian subcontinent and Caribbean countries.

***

Twenty years down the road, we have had some modest success, learnt some valuable lessons but overall, AIDS has had a devastating impact on our society and nation, an effect that will be felt for generations to come.

During the course of 1993 came the first signs of hope that HIV prevalence in Uganda might be stabilizing or even beginning to fall. The decline continued in six surveillance sites in 1994, with the greatest decline among women under the age of 24.

According to Ministry of Health data, prevalence among pregnant mothers has declined consistently at least over the last decade at all the country's sentinel sites. The national sero-prevalence having peaked at around 18% in 1991, had fallen to 6% as of 2001. This dramatic decline in prevalence is unique world-wide, and has been the subject of curiosity since the mid-1990s, and recently of even more intense scientific scrutiny.

In addition to these biological/medical indicators of change, the AIDS Control Program carried out a study of the sexual behavior of men and women aged 15-49 in Kampala and Jinja. The study compared the sexual behavior of people in this age group in 1995 with the result of a similar study in 1989. Published in 1997 in the international journal AIDS, the results were striking in particular:

? A two-year delay in the onset of sexual intercourse among youths aged 15-24 years. Among girls, the median age increased to 16.6 years; among boys to 17.4 years.

? A 9% decrease in casual sex in the previous year among male youths aged 15-24 years.

? A drop of nearly 50% in the proportion of men and women exchanging sex for money.

? Sharp increases in condom use: from 15.4% to 55.2% among men, and from 5.8% to 38.8% among women.

These researchers also concluded that these changes in behavior could help to account for the previously reported decline in HIV prevalence among young pregnant women at several antenatal clinics in Uganda. Further studies in many countries have found antenatal prevalence data to correlate well with the general adult population.

We are grateful to the international community especially the U.N. family and our other development partners who over the last few years have risen to the occasion by going a long way in raising the necessary funds. International spending on HIV/AIDS over the past years has risen well above $165 million as was documented in 1998. As of mid-2002, aggregate spending for HIV/AIDS was projected to approach $3 billion.

We are grateful to U.S. President George W. Bush who, in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, launched the Presidential Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, asking the U.S. Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. This is a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. Of this money Uganda has been allocated for fiscal year 2004/05, $94 million -- $54 million in new money and $40 million for ongoing programs.

***

AIDS has been like no other pestilence in human history. Other serious disease epidemics kill or immobilize the victims quite early thereby limiting transmission and burning themselves out. With AIDS it is different as the long incubation it allows the carrier to remain in good health so as to spread it over many years. Once disease sets in, it attacks our defenses, not giving us a chance to fight back. At the societal level, its impact makes it self perpetuating in that the weaker and poorer the society becomes, the more vulnerable to HIV infection it becomes. AIDS so far has written all the rules of the game and when we get near to understanding them so as to score, it changes the goal posts.

Ultimately the world needs an AIDS vaccine to control this epidemic as we did with small pox and polio soon. The scientific consensus is that an AIDS vaccine is possible. Non-human primates have been protected by experimental AIDS vaccines and some people repeatedly exposed to HIV resist infection and mount HIV specific immune responses, providing important clues for the design of an effective AIDS vaccine.

When all is said, even if an effective drug and vaccine were announced at this conference, the legacy of AIDS will be with us for generations to come as we still have the orphans to care for. Looking at the world's past experience with diseases like tuberculosis, which have had effective treatments for ages, or gonorrhea and syphilis, which one shot of penicillin used to cure, we have hundreds of thousands with the infections around the world today. Drugs as a magic bullet will never be the only solution.

Individual behavior and personal responsibility, based on knowledge, will be our best protection against AIDS and other future epidemics. In Uganda we managed to bring the HIV sero-prevalence from 18.6% to 6.1% using just a social vaccine, a reduction close to 70%. I am told by the medical scientists that a medical vaccine with 80% efficacy is considered a very good vaccine.

Mr. Museveni is the president of Uganda. This is an edited extract from his speech to the international conference on AIDS in Bangkok on Monday.

homepage: homepage: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108975749589762840,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain%5Feurope%5Fasia


wrong, Yoweri. HIV has nothing to do with AIDS 14.Jul.2004 00:23

GRINGO STARS

AIDS is caused by recreational drug use, antiviral chemotherapy, and malnutrition. These things have long been known to cause immunosuppression and the 29 AIDS-defining diseases that result.
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrchemical.pdf

A BRIEF PRESENTATION;
 http://aidsmyth.addr.com/mythtv/aidsmythbuster_on.htm

MYTHS vs. TRUTH;
 http://healsd.topcities.com/lies.htm

A list of 100 reasons HIV cannot cause AIDS:
 http://www.sickofdoctors.addr.com/articles/top100_aids_inconsistencies.htm

some excellent sources of information:
 http://www.aliveandwell.org
 http://www.virusmyth.net
 http://www.actupsf.com/
 http://www.healtoronto.com/
 http://www.blancmange.net/tmh/hivcont2.html

Disagreement about HIV's role in causing AIDS has been curiously absent from public and scientific debate, even though many of the 700 M.D.'s and/or Ph.D.'s of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis have published their reasons for their concern (Philpott 1999). Members of this group include current and former professors of molecular and cell biology at Harvard, Berkeley, and other prestigious universities, as well as two Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, Walter Gilbert and Kary Mullis. HIV is a "retrovirus", and Peter Duesberg, one of the earliest people to call for reappraisal, has been called the "father of retrovirology". David Rasnick, the president of the Society for the Scientific Reappraisal of AIDS, holds nine patents on protease inhibitors, the drugs claimed to have saved many people from the brink of death. And yet, Dr. Rasnick adamantly maintains that these drugs are contributing to, or directly causing their deaths rather than helping them. For a topic which has become so entrenched in the national and world-wide mindset, such a large number of dissenting voices among people with the highest credentials in their fields is unusual, to say the least, and yet researchers, health professionals, and the public have not been informed about the magnitude of the debate, or about the reasons why these dissenting scientists are questioning conventional dogma.

whatever 14.Jul.2004 01:49

next: gringo on chemtrails, astrology & homeopathy?

I can't address your other links, but I know from direct interpersonal interaction that the people in Act Up SF are full-on paranoid nutballs.

I doubt anybody on this list is qualified to evaluate the truth or falsehood of an assertion like "HIV causes AIDS," but I know people were dropping like flies of AIDS about ten years ago and they haven't been since then. Whether the HIV theory is the actual truth or not, whatever people are doing in America today to avoid AIDS seems to be working better than what they were doing in the '80s.

True 14.Jul.2004 04:18

Tony Blair's dog

"whatever people are doing in America today to avoid AIDS seems to be working better than what they were doing in the '80s"

Today people no longer check if they are "HIV possitive".

Yes, back in the 80s people were scared witless with the spectre of "AIDS".
They were told to check if they "had HIV" and since that was a hoax in it self
people found that they indeed "had HIV" and started with super expensive "medications"
that were said to "hinder" the "AIDS" development.

Unfortunately, they too late found out that the "medications" were in fact
killing the defense mechanisms in the body, effectly killing them with
"AIDS".

No one mentioned that the drug corporations made huge profits of the
AIDS "medications" and still are. And the poor people in Africa are still
slowly but surely being murdered with the "Now Cheaper!" "AIDS medications".

GRINGO STARS is correct in his critic.

yeah but... 14.Jul.2004 09:11

mg

im willing to entertain your 'theory' gringo, although its a little ridiculous of you to present it like you present everything else, that you 'know' everything for a fact. but it doesnt explain the global aids epidemic. why is it such a problem in africa? malnutrition? we've had malnutrition in human civilization for the last 100,000 years, but aids is new. antiviral treatment? no, they dont have that, because they dont have the money. recreational drug use? like what drugs? on second thought, i think your theory is missing out on quite a bit. i think that aids is a disease that is contracted through transmission of a virus. its really the only thing that makes sense.

Good spinning "mg"... 14.Jul.2004 11:09

Tony Blair's dog

"why is it such a problem in africa? malnutrition? we've had malnutrition in human civilization for the last 100,000 years, but aids is new."

It is the same thing with different names in order to be able
to give the poor African people "AIDS drugs". Yet another
word for that is genocide.

But we don't talk about that here in the "civilized" world.

It's not "my" theory, mg 14.Jul.2004 11:11

GRINGO STARS

For an explanation about African AIDS (which is really malnutrition) read:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292571.shtml

It's not "my" theory. There are hundreds of MDs and PhDs who state, very factually, that there is no evidence of the standard HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Did you read my first comment at all?

Perhaps the reason you are suffering from such cognitive dissonance, mg, is because you haven't reasearched the facts. Follow the links and think for yourself. Don't take my word for it. In our know-nothing culture, anyone who states opinions with even a small amount of confidence, anyone who doesn't couch their statements in mincing words about "my humble opinion" or "I think that" is seen as some kind of arrogant blowhard. That may be true. But I have researched this extensively. I suggest you do the same. If you only get your facts through spoon-feeding, then you are likely to be consuming propaganda. Contrary to the opinion stated on the comment entitled "whatever", ANYONE reading this list, anyone who cares to look at the facts of the situation, is capable of deciding whether AIDS is what the scientist-priests say it is. Doctors make mistakes too. Huge ones. many medical misconceptions were taken as inviolable truth for decades or even longer.

AIDS is not new. All 29 AIDS-defining diseases have been with humanity for a very long time, centuries for the most recently discovered. Immunosuppression has been with humanity for a very long time as well.

AIDS as a homophobic and racist scapegoat and cashcow for th edrug industry has been with us for only a few decades, and its facade is wearing thin. The main obstacle is a religious reverence for scientists who are dogmatically defending their profitable turf in a very ruthless way (as scientists will do, just read Thomas Kuhn's STRUCTURE OPF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS).

AIDS as contracted from a virus makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Follow the links in my first comment. The inadequacies of the still-unproven HIV/AIDS hypothesis are huge.

why anti-retroviral drug cocktails work 14.Jul.2004 11:43

Already Published

Gringo: I've challenged you before on the ethical consequences of promoting this myth.


Do some re_search:

 link to www.google.com
how we know what isn't so
how we know what isn't so

Priceless... 14.Jul.2004 12:17

Tony Blair's dog

GRINGO, he is challenging you on the "ethical consequences of promoting this myth"!

Hehehe...

Maybe one day he will consider the "ethical consequences" of promoting the AIDS fraud.

Antiviral chemotherapy works alright -- to kill otherwise healthy people 14.Jul.2004 12:22

GRINGO STARS

Actually, it is the myth that HIV has anything to do with AIDS that is killing people. So much research, all in the wrong direction, drug insutry is bloating, gay people and Africans are dying, all because everyone is looking in the wrong direction.

Ethically, you are promoting the genocide of so-called "undesirables" by scaring people into fearing a hypothetical virus, into poisoning their otherwise healthy bodies with antiviral chemotherapy. David Rasnick, the president of the Society for the Scientific Reappraisal of AIDS, holds nine patents on protease inhibitors, the drugs claimed to have saved many people from the brink of death. And yet, Dr. Rasnick adamantly maintains that these drugs are contributing to, or directly causing their deaths rather than helping them.

That picture of HIV you posted is a mere model, based on the detection of cellular particles in cell lines under very special conditions. Such particles never have been isolated or somehow else demonstrated to exist as a virus or to be of viral origin. This is nothing but a model based on a collection of proteins of various size (no other characterization!) which by antibody detection (known as HIV- or AIDS-test) have been chosen to be said to represent parts of HIV according to the ill-minded and false concept of retroviruses and how they should look like.

 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data2/slvirusphotos.htm

References:

1. Stefan Lanka: Fehldiagnose AIDS? Bisher konnte das AlDS-Virus nicht isoliert werden. Wechselwirkung, 48-53, Dezember 1994. Stefan Lanka: HIV - reality or artefact? Continuum Vol 3, No 1, 4-9, April/May 1995. Stefan Lanka: HIV debate. Continuum Vol 3, No 2, 4-7 + 27-30, June/July 1995

2. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John M. Papadimitriou, David Causer: The isolation of HIV: Has it really been achieved? The case against. Continuum Vol 4, No 3, Supplement 1-24, September/October 1996

murder by ad populum 14.Jul.2004 12:47

Already Published

It's not a hypothetical virus Gringo - it's a real virus that has been studied, mapped and hindered with drugs designed to thwart the VIRAL MECHANISMS that hijack OUR CELLS to REPRODUCE MORE HIV.


The consequences of imlicitly promoting unprotected sex by blaming "recreational drug use", amongst other things, can not be underestimated. As a homosexual and recreation drug user, I can not help but be offended by your ignorance of science.


Please explain what seroconversion is to us, Gringo.


And "Tony Blairs Dog" - when you have more to do than ride bandwagons for fraudulent theories I might hear you. Woof!

a real virus? 14.Jul.2004 13:03

.

If it's real how come no one can isolate it? I mean, that would be a quick way to fame and fortune. And yet no one seems to have been able to do it. It's easy to draw a picture, seems much harder to produce proof.


addendum: more inconvenient facts 14.Jul.2004 13:05

Already Published

People with HIV/AIDS Now Considering Quality of Life

In the not-too-distant past, "palliative" care was given to HIV/AIDS patients because there was no other option. "Palliate" means "to reduce the violence of a disease." For patients who are not expected to live long, palliative care involves ways to kill pain and offer soothing comfort during the final stages of fatal illness.

More effective treatment in recent years has GREATLY INCREASED THE LIFESPAN of people with HIV/AIDS in the US. As patients live longer, healthcare practitioners are placing more emphasis on enhancing the quality of their lives by treating HIV/AIDS as a long-term chronic condition. Reducing pain and providing comfort are still important, but no longer always in the same context as late-term palliative care when death is imminent.

 http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002311.html


other inconvenient facts for you to research:

case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Needlestick Surveillance Group.

Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, Srivastava PU, Marcus R, Abiteboul D, Heptonstall J, Ippolito G, Lot F, McKibben PS, Bell DM.

National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.

BACKGROUND: The average risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection after percutaneous exposure to HIV-infected blood is 0.3 percent, but the factors that influence this risk are not well understood. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of health care workers with occupational, percutaneous exposure to HIV-infected blood. The case patients were those who became seropositive after exposure to HIV, as reported by national surveillance systems in France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The controls were health care workers in a prospective surveillance project who were exposed to HIV but did not seroconvert. RESULTS: Logistic-regression analysis based on 33 case patients and 665 controls showed that significant risk factors for seroconversion were deep injury (odds ratio= 15; 95 percent confidence interval, 6.0 to 41), injury with a device that was visibly contaminated with the source patient's blood (odds ratio= 6.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.2 to 21), a procedure involving a needle placed in the source patient's artery or vein (odds ratio=4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 12), and exposure to a source patient who died of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome within two months afterward (odds ratio=5.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.0 to 16). The case patients were significantly less likely than the controls to have taken zidovudine after the exposure (odds ratio=0.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of HIV infection after percutaneous exposure increases with a larger volume of blood and, probably, a higher titer of HIV in the source patient's blood. POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS WITH ZIDOVUDINE* APPEARS TO BE PROTECTIVE.
 link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
* AZT


The average risk for HIV infection from percutaneous exposures to HIV infected blood is 0.3%. In a case-control study among health care workers exposed to HIV infected blood the risk was increased for exposures involving 1) a deep injury, 2) visible blood on the device, 3) a device previously placed in the source patient's vein or artery or 4) a source or patient who died as a result of AIDS within 60 days post exposure (2). In the same case-control studies [immediate] ZIDOVUDINE POST-EXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS (PEP) was associated with a DECREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 79% in the risk for HIV SEROCONVERSION. In HIV infected patients combination therapy with zidovudine and lamivudine (3TC) has greater anti-retroviral activity than zidovudine alone and adding a protease inhibitor such as indinavir provides even greater anti-retroviral activity.

 http://www.rph.wa.gov.au/labs/immunol/needle.html



This is an Abstract from the January 1997 edition of American Family Physician.

Preventing Perinatal HIV Transmission: Zidovudine Use During Pregnancy
Cynthia Carmichael, M.D.
Florida AIDS Education and Training Center, Miami Beach, Florida
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in women of childbearing age are increasing rapidly in the United States. Perinatal transmission can occur during pregnancy, delivery or breast feeding. Because 90 percent of pediatric HIV infections are caused by perinatal transmission, the U.S. Public Health Service has recommended that all pregnant women be offered HIV counseling and testing. Factors that influence perinatal transmission include high maternal viral load, low maternal CD4 count, prolonged rupture of the membranes, premature delivery and symptomatic maternal HIV infection. The results of a recent clinical trial demonstrate that if HIV-infected women become pregnant, the use of ZIDOVUDINE during the prenatal, intrapartum and neonatal periods CAN DECREASE BY TWO-THIRDS THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIV TRANSMISSION TO THE BABY. The U.S. Public Health Service, in conjunction with the American Academy of Family Physicians, has strongly recommended expanding the current noncoercive, voluntary HIV testing to include routine testing of all pregnant women.

 http://www.aafp.org/afp/970100ap/abs_6.html

Gringo Is Right 14.Jul.2004 13:17

RJG

I took an HIV cocktail for the better part of three weeks as a healthy subject in a clinical drug trial in 2002. We were taking 1/3 the daily dose of this toxic garbage patients were expected to take if this drug was approved for marketing. It knocked my liver out and I developed a really bad cold after withdrawing from the cocktail. I don't see how I could live more than two years on that awful cocktail if I took that awful cocktail on a daily basis. My liver would just be destroyed by it. Words can't describe how much me and the healthy subjects hated that cocktail.

HIV has never killed anybody, but the toxic insult of taking lots of drugs has. Gay men in SF and NYC in '70s and '80s were killing themselves with poppers. It was that community's version of a Jonestown, and I think it is a shame they won't this fact. They committed a kind of mass suicide by agreesively marketing toxic inhalants in their newspapers, and it is really sad to watch them buy into the AIDS business. Since the late '80s and up to today, we are killing people with these toxic cocktails.

HIV has never been isolated. Ever. 14.Jul.2004 13:24

GRINGO STARS

By stating that HIV/AIDS can not be transmitted sexually, I am NOT "implicitly promoting unprotected sex." That is th emost asinine straw man argument I have ever heard. Do you henosetly believe this?

There are REAL sexually transmitted diseases, and a condom is no "protection" since for example, herpes (incurable and real) is transmitted via mere skin contact. There are strains of both Gonnorhea and Syphilis that are now immune to antibiotics (partially due to overuse of antibiotics). Hepatitis is a REAL STD. These are all real. And sexually transmitted. In your mythology, do you believe that HIV/AIDS is the only STD? And to point out that non-dogmatic researchers are not funded by the drug industry is to "implicitly promote unsafe sex"? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNSAFE SEX. Condoms have an up to 30 percent failure rate for preventing pregnancy. Pores regularly occuring in latex rubber condoms are hundreds of times larger than your hypothetical (yes it is hypothetical since it has never been isolated) retrovirus. Latex rubber allergies account for severe reactions, even death. So don't give me that BS about "safe sex".

The drugs designed to "thwart viral reproduction" are POISONS, they are chemotherapy designed to destroy ALL life, including the life of the gay man (almost always a gay man in the west). Of course they thwart viral reproduction. They kill all life. That's what antiviral chemotherapy does. It's why gay men are dying. Thank you for supporting the genocide of western homosexuals through your worship of dogmatic scienctists.

Seroconversion, "Sero" is a latin prefix meaning "blood" - a change in the blood. Usually meaning a test change from negative to positive in this context. But the conversion is meaningless.

You should check out a few inconvenient facts, as 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. Abbott Laboratories' has a standard 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:
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/books/pdbinvent.htm

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:
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/chjppcrap.htm

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:
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/milowcd4.htm
Read an article in The Scientist for more information:
 link to www.the-scientist.com

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

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:
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/books/jlbazt.htm
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:
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epmono.htm

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 graph above)

See this 2002 document "The Trouble with Nevirapine" by Anthony Brink:
 http://www.rethinkingaids.de/afrika/brink.htm
Read this report which shows that deaths from organ failure and other "non-AIDS-related diseases" have increased since HAART was unleashed:
 http://63.126.3.84/2002/Abstract/13805.htm
and another from the 2002 Barcelona AIDS Conference:
 http://rawdeliverys.topcities.com/organfailure.html
For references to the adverse effects of common AIDS drugs, visit the website for the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society:
 http://www.aras.ab.ca/
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."...
 http://healtoronto.com/haart_pcp.html
Powerful antibiotics are also targeted in this article:
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdazt.htm

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?"

What about the connection of! 14.Jul.2004 13:27

Just a thought!

Mercury and other poisons that was put into our water, teeth and foods!

About the same time that aids was descovered!

About the same time as the sexual revolotion!

They had to find a way to stop what they see as immoral!

The problem that I find is they have so many chemist working for them, and know about the effects of the poisons I spoke of above, but they for some reason can't find the connection.

Inhibiting Viral ReProduction 14.Jul.2004 13:30

Already Published

science is not the experience of one person, just as today's temperature is not climate.

Let me repeat:
=====================

More effective treatment in recent years has GREATLY INCREASED THE LIFESPAN of people with HIV/AIDS in the US.
 http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002311.html

The risk of HIV infection after percutaneous exposure increases with a larger volume of blood and, probably, a higher titer of HIV in the source patient's blood. POSTEXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS WITH ZIDOVUDINE* APPEARS TO BE PROTECTIVE.
 link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

ZIDOVUDINE POST-EXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS (PEP) was associated with a DECREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 79% in the risk for HIV SEROCONVERSION.

DECREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 79% in the risk for HIV SEROCONVERSION.
DECREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 79% in the risk for HIV SEROCONVERSION.
DECREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 79% in the risk for HIV SEROCONVERSION.
DECREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 79% in the risk for HIV SEROCONVERSION.
DECREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 79% in the risk for HIV SEROCONVERSION.
 http://www.rph.wa.gov.au/labs/immunol/needle.html


ZIDOVUDINE during the prenatal, intrapartum and neonatal periods CAN DECREASE BY TWO-THIRDS THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIV TRANSMISSION TO THE BABY.

CAN DECREASE BY TWO-THIRDS THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIV TRANSMISSION TO THE BABY
CAN DECREASE BY TWO-THIRDS THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIV TRANSMISSION TO THE BABY
CAN DECREASE BY TWO-THIRDS THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIV TRANSMISSION TO THE BABY
CAN DECREASE BY TWO-THIRDS THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIV TRANSMISSION TO THE BABY
CAN DECREASE BY TWO-THIRDS THE LIKELIHOOD OF HIV TRANSMISSION TO THE BABY

 http://www.aafp.org/afp/970100ap/abs_6.html
=======================================================================


Got it yet?

I get it - do YOU get it, "already published"? 14.Jul.2004 14:00

GRINGO STARS

We understand what you say. That the poison zidovudine (AZT) can kill virus antibodies just like it kills people. We get it. I know that. But HIV seroconversion, and having HIV, has NOTHING to do with AIDS. And no one has ever proven that.

What Do HIV Tests Measure?

When you take an HIV test, your blood isn't tested for a virus, it's tested for your body's natural antibody response to the proteins in the HIV test. These proteins are supposed to stand in for HIV.

In order for an antibody test to be clinically meaningful and accurate, its proteins must belong to a specific virus or particle. This is not the case with the proteins in the HIV test. These proteins, which are grown in artificially-stimulated cell cultures, have been accurately analyzed in the lab, and they don't belong to any specific virus or particle.(16)

In fact, these proteins occur commonly in both sick and healthy people. What HIV tests are known to measure is not the presence of a virus, but is instead, your body's natural "antibody" response to commonly-occurring proteins.

What does HIV-Positive mean?

The HIV test measures "antibody" response to these commonly-occurring proteins. We produce "antibodies" to all the foreign material we encounter - germs, yeast, fungi, bacteria, pollutants, even food. Antibodies are proteins that are produced by our white blood cells to help identify foreign matter in our blood. They "grab" onto the foreign protein so that it can be processed safely.

Antibodies tend to be cross-reactive. That is, one antibody can grab onto a wide variety of proteins. The proteins in the HIV-test are commonly-occurring, and so they cross-react with an even wider variety of antibodies. This non-specific "cross-reaction" is the actual meaning of "HIV-positive."

How cross-reactive is the HIV-Test?

HIV tests can cross-react with antibodies produced from nearly 70 disease (and non-disease) conditions. These include yeast infections, arthritis, hepatitis, herpes, parasitic infections, drug use, tuberculosis, inoculations, colds and prior pregnancy (1-3). The HIV test is also more reactive with people who are chronically exposed to environmental stressors, bacteria, fungi, parasites and toxins (for example, people living in poverty without sufficient food and clean water, such as in Africa).

If you've been exposed to any of these conditions, your body will produce antibodies that can react with the HIV test proteins. This non-specific antibody reaction is what's known as "HIV-positive."

The term "HIV-positive" only has one valid meaning: "Non-specific antibody to commonly-occurring protein-positive." An HIV-positive test result may help identify patients who have a lot of antibodies in their blood. This can indicate a high historical exposure to illness, which can serve as a warning to better support immune function by improving general health. But it's in no way indicative of a terminal, fatal virus or condition.

This is very different from what we've been told about HIV tests for nearly 20 years. But the FDA and the test-makers are legally obligated to state the limitations of their tests. (From HIV test package inserts):

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA)
"The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Genetic Systems HIV Test - Peptide EIA)
"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection" (Roche, Amplicor HIV Test - PCR).
"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." (Epitope, Inc. HIV Test - Western Blot)
"[Positive test results can occur due to] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." [Vironostika HIV Test, 2003].

The medical literature is also clear about the lack of specificity of HIV tests:

"False-positive ELISA [antibody] test results can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear... The WB [Western Blot antibody test] is not used as a screening tool because... it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results. "
Doran TI, Parra E. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Archives of Family Medicine. 2000 Sep/Oct;9:924-9.

"False-positive HIV ELISAs have been observed with serum from patients with a variety of medical conditions unrelated to HIV infection.... False-positive HIV ELISAs [also] occur because of human or technical errors associated with doing the tests or because of antibodies that coincidentally cross-react with HIV or nonviral components in the tests... Notable causes of false-positive reactions have been anti-HLA-DR antibodies that sometimes occur in multiparous [pregnant more than once] women and in multiply transfused patients. Likewise, antibodies to proteins of other viruses have been reported to cross-react with HIV determinants. False-positive HIV ELISAs also have been observed recently in persons who received vaccines for influenza and hepatitis B virus"
Proffitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf Dis Clin North Am. 1993;7:203-19.

Regardless of what the FDA-mandated warnings or the clinical research tells us, these non-specific tests are used to tell people that they're infected with a deadly virus.

The test makers are aware that HIV-positive test results occur because of "prior pregnancy, blood transfusion... and other nonspecific reactions," "vaccines," "human or technical errors," "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear." Given all of this cross-reactivity...

How do we know who is really HIV-positive?

The answer to this question has more to do with sociology than science. Lab technicians, doctors and nurses are instructed by the test manufacturers to make this determination subjectively, based on socio-economic and sexual criteria.

The HIV test has two different names for identical test reactions: "nonspecific" and "specific." A "nonspecific reaction" (HIV-negative or indeterminate) is the diagnosis given to people determined to be in the "low-risk group." A "specific reaction" (HIV-positive) is the diagnosis determined to be in the "high-risk group."

Social, Sexual and Economic Bias in HIV Testing:
Who are the people in these groups? The "high-risk group," according to the test manufacturers, consists of "prison inmates, STD clinic patients, inner city hospital emergency room patients... homosexual men [and] intravenous drug users." The "low-risk group" isn't defined, but can be assumed to include people outside of poverty situations who are under less social, ethnic and economic stress.

For people in the "high-risk group," an antibody reaction is more likely to be considered "specific" (HIV positive). However, for the "low-risk group," the test manufactures state that "nonspecific reactions [HIV negative] may be more common than specific reactions [HIV positive]. (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003)."

What makes a "nonspecific" (HIV negative) reaction "more common" [more likely] than a "specific" (HIV positive) reaction in the "low-risk group"?

What makes a "specific" reaction "more common" in the "high-risk group?"

The answer to this question is different from test to test, lab to lab, and country to country. There are no standards for what makes a test "HIV-positive."

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - ElA)
The final analysis belongs to the subjective interpretation of the person or institution giving the test. The test manufacturers are telling the lab technicians, doctors and nurses who are reading these tests that it's acceptable to determine HIV test results based on subjective consideration of an individual's ethnic, social, sexual and economic status.

"Both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the person studied and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of value in interpreting the test" - (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test - EIA)
It is highly unethical to assume that two identical reactions mean different things, based on socio-economic factors and sexual preference, but that is exactly what is being done every day in HIV test labs.

Given the subjective, variable interpretation of HIV tests, how accurate are they at predicting illness? The medical literature makes this very clear:

"Most patients (68 to 89%) from low risk groups who show reactivity on screening tests will have false-positive results... The predictive value of a positive ELISA varies from 2% to 99%....The Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns. "
Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin Proc. 1988;63:373-9.

HIV antibody tests are exactly 2% to 99% accurate, depending on a subjective interpretation of your "risk group," made by whoever is reading your test. In other words, they're not accurate at all.

The result of this inexcusable lack of medical standards is that if you're black, Hispanic, poor, using drugs, in prison, gay or pregnant, then a "nonspecific" test result becomes a life sentence. You're put on toxic drugs and your children can be drugged and taken away from you.

 http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/house.htm
actual zidovudine label
actual zidovudine label
protease inhibitors have NOTHING to do with AIDS decline
protease inhibitors have NOTHING to do with AIDS decline

for science 14.Jul.2004 14:28

Already Published

It's a fucking MIRACLE, Gringo!

Thanks to protease inhibitors, the lifespans of those infected with HIV have increased substantially, AIDS wards in my city [Melbourne, Australia] are nearly empty, children of HIV infected mothers who have since died of AIDS are still HIV and AIDS free, and needle-stick injury infections have dropped dramatically...


but the HIV/AIDS correlation is just a "myth", you say?

Perhaps you are ready to volunteer for an injection of fresh HIV-infected blood - for science?

Spot the spin... 14.Jul.2004 15:19

Tony Blair's dog

"Thanks to protease inhibitors, the lifespans of those infected with HIV have increased substantially..."

mr. "Already Published" is exposed for the fraudster
he really is.

"HIV" has NEVER killed anyone.

I wonder what the AIDS dissenter/denial people think about chemotherapy 14.Jul.2004 15:54

eek

OK GS, I read the links you gave, and I'm not impressed. It seems they've built up a nice little echo chamber for themselves, amplifying even the tiniest bit of data in their favor, and scrapping that which doesn't conform to their "conclusion" (and they have the nerve to accuse mainstream scientists of doing the very same). They really should get someone to create a readable layout. But I digress.


Here's an article that refutes everything you say. It's doesn't cover the ACT UP SF fiasco, but on the plus side, it makes sense:  http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol3Issue1/editorial.html

HIVNEWSLINE.COM
Volume 3, Issue 1 • February 1997



EDITORIAL

The HIV-AIDS Debate Is Over
What to tell your patients when they ask if HIV causes AIDS
Stephen J. O'Brien, Ph.D.
Director, Laboratory of Genomic Diversity
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
Frederick, MD



Epidemiologists have documented the presence of the human immunodeficiency virus (or antibodies to HIV) in more than 95% of the world's AIDS patients (1-6). Scientists who have examined the clinical data collected from AIDS patients are convinced that it is HIV, and no other etiologic agent, which causes the gradual decline in CD4 cell counts that leads to severe immunosuppression and AIDS. Why, then, is there any lingering doubt about the cause of AIDS? Why, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, do a small number of scientists—and a larger number of infected individuals—continue to insist that HIV does not cause AIDS?

A decade ago, when a highly regarded molecular virologist named Peter Duesberg first suggested that AIDS was caused not by HIV but by a combination of recreational drugs, hyperstimulation of the immune system, and possibly even antiretroviral drugs themselves (7), the scientific community felt obliged to respond to Duesberg's hypothesis. The fact that his argument was largely rhetorical, and was unsupported by the preponderance of the data then available, made Duesberg's claim dubious, but it did not altogether rule out his theory. Erring on the side of excessive caution, respected members of the scientific community gave Duesberg's hypothesis more serious consideration than the data alone seemed to merit—and they rejected his theory as untenable (1, 4, 8-10).

On the face of it, Duesberg's counter-theory made little sense. If AIDS was caused by recreational drugs like nitrate inhalants, also known as "poppers," and prescription drugs like zidovudine, also known as AZT, then how could one account for the millions of cases of AIDS that had occurred in Third World countries, where these drugs were not available? And how did one explain AIDS in hemophiliacs, transfusion recipients, and infants born to HIV-infected mothers—none of whom had used poppers or AZT?

Duesberg's answer was, frankly, bizarre. He simply announced that these AIDS patients—the vast preponderance of those infected worldwide—did not actually have AIDS. They had something, of course—and they were dying of it. But it wasn't AIDS, Duesberg insisted. The fact that these patients tested positive for the presence of HIV or antibodies to HIV, that they had declining CD4 cell counts, and that they developed the opportunistic infections that are regarded as AIDS-defining illnesses did not seem to trouble Duesberg, whose principal research had been with cancer-causing retroviruses in chickens.

Duesberg's assault on the epidemiology and clinical pathology of AIDS—an assault mounted by someone who had little experience in either discipline—blindsided workers in the field. Initially, at least, they were disconcerted by the volume and volubility of Duesberg's attacks on their data, and they were temporarily disarmed by this scientist who disdained reasonable scientific argument and scientific proof.

With each passing year the evidence that HIV causes AIDS grew more persuasive and less refutable, even at the purely rhetorical level. But even as this evidence mounted, Duesberg and his minions grew increasingly shrill and hectoring (11-15). Their unsupported but high-decibel jeremiads garnered some media attention—in 1993, for instance, the London Times labeled the epidemic "a tragic myth"—and even respectable scientific journals felt obliged to address the issue again and again (8-10, 16-18), simply because Duesberg and his outspoken supporters raised the issue again and again.

In a singularly sensational and reckless response to this furor, a 65-year-old Florida clinician actually inserted a syringe into the finger of an AIDS patient and then injected himself with the same syringe—to emphasize his conviction that HIV infection does not cause AIDS (19). In the same vein, Duesberg himself once proposed to let Robert Gallo inoculate him with HIV. That Duesberg never went through with this publicity-generating ploy leads one to wonder if he has reservations about his own theory.

The HIV-AIDS debate grew more acrimonious, and more futile, with each exchange, and it eventually became apparent that no amount of scientific evidence, no matter how unimpeachable, would silence the naysayers. Indeed, the decade-long controversy culminated last year with the publication of Duesberg's 772-page polemic, Inventing the AIDS Virus, a farrago of rhetorical hubris, unsupported speculation, and selective critiques of the tens of thousands of papers written by scientists who are persuaded that HIV is the etiologic agent in AIDS.

In the end, Duesberg's alternative explanation for the AIDS epidemic was little more than an indictment of a certain kind of gay lifestyle, one that is popularly perceived as consecrated to casual sex and equally casual drug-taking (16). As such, his hypothesis was but a variant of the mean-spirited fundamentalist belief that people with AIDS are victims of their own vices.

Over the past decade Duesberg's counter-theory has found two natural audiences, neither with rigorous scientific training. First, he has found an evergreen audience among certain voracious investigative journalists of the lay press. Controversy and conspiracy theories sell better than sobersided factual analysis, especially in fringe publications, and Duesberg has provided those publications with more than his share of both. But even redoubtable journals like Science and Nature have repeatedly featured Duesberg's arguments, generally under the rubric of point-counterpoint (8-11, 16, 17, 20-22). The controversy surrounding Duesberg's claims has doubtless been perceived as good copy by the publishers and the readers of all of these publications.

Duesberg's second, and far larger, audience is men and women who know (or strongly suspect) that they are infected with HIV. There is a certain irony in this, of course, since these adherents to Duesberg's counter-theory are implicitly joining in his condemnation of their life-style choices. But there is also pathos in this situation. Antibody-positive individuals have been given a near-certain death sentence... if HIV causes AIDS. But if something else—poppers, prescription drugs, African swine fever virus—causes AIDS, and if that causative agent can be identified, then maybe, just maybe, their prognosis is less grim.

Denial is a device for coping with death-dealing illnesses, and it is hardly limited to patients with HIV infection—as any clinician who has ever treated a chronic smoker can attest. The dilemma here is that the form of denial that is manifested by the HIV-infected individuals who espouse Duesberg's views thwarts our best efforts to prevent the spread of HIV and treat those who are infected.



How HIV fulfills Koch's postulates

The mainstay of Duesberg's counter-theory is that HIV cannot be the etiologic agent in AIDS because it does not satisfy Koch's famous postulates—postulates that must be fulfilled before it can be concluded that a particular bacterial agent causes a particular disease. Robert Koch, the discoverer of the anthrax bacillus, first posited his three postulates in the late nineteenth century (23), and although minor modifications have been suggested over the years—chiefly to accommodate technological advances (24, 25)—the basic tenets remain essentially unchanged. For more than a century Koch's postulates have served as the litmus test for determining the cause of any epidemic disease:

Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly associated with the disease
Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated—and propagated—outside the host
Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host
During the early years of the AIDS epidemic, both defenders and critics of the theory that HIV causes AIDS agreed that HIV failed to completely fulfill Koch's postulates (1, 7, 13, 14, 25). As defenders of the theory were quick to point out, a number of other diseases, notably typhoid fever, diphtheria, and leprosy, also fail to meet these stringent tests of causality—yet there is no controversy about what causes these illnesses. We know the pathogens that produce these diseases; what we cannot do with consistency is culture those pathogens in vitro.

This was the problem with HIV as well, until recently. There was little question, even among the counter-theorists, that HIV clearly satisfied the first and second of Koch's postulates, but it proved considerably harder to show that HIV also fulfilled the third. Today, however, overwhelming epidemiological and experimental data have been assembled to fulfill all three of Koch's postulates, establishing to a virtual certainty that HIV causes AIDS (26).

Demonstrating the epidemiological concordance of HIV exposure and AIDS was relatively straightforward, once the etiologic agent had been identified. Numerous studies have shown, for example, that prompt and progressive depletion of CD4 lymphocytes—and a subsequent diagnosis of AIDS—follows HIV seroconversion in the vast majority of HIV-infected hemophiliacs (27, 28), and HIV antibodies have been detected in more than 90% of transfusion recipients who received blood from donors who were HIV-positive. In the latter group seroconversion has likewise led to progressive depletion of CD4 cells and the onset of AIDS (27-29).

Two recent prospective cohort studies of HIV-positive hemophiliacs have provided an even more direct link between HIV infection and mortality: They show a ten-fold increase in deaths among antibody-positive patients compared to uninfected individuals, irrespective of the severity of the subjects' hemophilia (30, 31). Significantly, since the screening of donated blood for the presence of HIV was instituted, new infections have dropped almost to zero among hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients—further proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

The fact that HIV itself (or antibodies to the virus) can be detected in more than 95%—but less than 100%—of AIDS patients worldwide is explained by the relative insensitivity of the early tests for the presence of HIV in patients' peripheral blood. By the more sensitive HIV RNA assays now used to detect the virus, it is possible to confirm the presence of HIV in individuals who have as few as 20 viral particles per mL of blood (see "The HIV RNA Assay: A Valuable New Diagnostic Tool," Vol. 2, No. 2, pages 27-30).

Sensitive as these new diagnostic tests are, they will not detect HIV in all profoundly immunocompromised patients—not because the virus fails Koch's test for pathogenicity but because other disorders cause the body's immune system to collapse (32, 33). Certain drugs also produce immune suppression, as do chemical carcinogens, irradiation, and cigarette smoke.


The isolation component of Koch's postulates has been repeatedly demonstrated since the discovery of HIV. Scores of isolates have been cultured from AIDS patients; the virus has been cultivated in fresh human T lymphocytes; and cultured-cell lines have been developed for in vitro propagation (10, 34). This leaves only Koch's third postulate—transmission pathogenesis—as a matter of contention. Ethical considerations preclude the experimental inoculation of uninfected individuals with HIV, and this makes empirical verification of Koch's last postulate exceedingly difficult.

Difficult, but not impossible. For while we cannot deliberately infect anyone with HIV merely to satisfy Koch's postulates and Duesberg's curiosity, we can examine the evidence that has been gathered on healthcare workers who were accidentally infected with HIV in the course of their professional work. Take, for example, the cases of three laboratory technicians who were inadvertently exposed to the HTLV-IIIb strain of HIV-1 while working with that strain in their laboratories (35). All three of these technicians developed antibodies to HIV, and within five years all three showed marked CD4 lymphocyte depletion. Two had their CD4 counts fall to less than 200 cells/mm3, and one of those developed PCP.

In all three of these cases it was possible to establish the precise phylogenetic type of the virus that had infected the laboratory workers. When genetic sequencing tests were performed on the laboratory virus and on viral samples taken from the three workers, the sequence divergence was less than 3% (36). This low level of divergence is equivalent to the variation observed in cases of HIV transmission from mothers to their infants—and it is less than one third as great as the extent of variation seen when viral samples from unconnected patients are compared (37, 38). Thus, these three unfortunate individuals provide prima facie evidence of transmission pathogenesis, Koch's third postulate.

This same high level of genetic concordance was also seen when the C.D.C. compared viral samples taken from a Florida dentist who died of AIDS with samples taken from five of his patients who tested positive for HIV and who had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (39, 40). Two independent research groups reached the same conclusion after examining the HIV gene sequences of these six individuals: the dentist had almost certainly infected his patients in the course of those invasive procedures, although the experts could not say exactly how those infections had occurred (41-44).

It is unlikely that we will ever learn how transmission occurred in this unique cluster of infections, but the genetic data gathered from the victims of this tragedy teach us an important lesson: They establish, as conclusively as science can establish such things, that when HIV is inadvertently transferred from a person with AIDS to an uninfected host, it does indeed produce AIDS in that host (45). And thus it satisfies the last, and most rigorous, of Koch's postulates.

Pathogenesis has also been demonstrated in various animal models. HIV-2, a less virulent strain of HIV largely restricted to West Africa, causes CD4 depletion and AIDS-like pathology in yellow baboons (46), and at least 12 strains of simian immunodeficiency virus, a close cousin of HIV, induce CD4 depletion and cause AIDS-defining illness in Asian macaques (47-51). Given that Koch's third postulate can be fulfilled by transmission to either man or animal, these examples offer strong supplemental evidence that HIV causes AIDS.



Conclusion

The last year has seen dramatic breakthroughs in the treatment of HIV infection, and these advances reinforce the causal role of HIV in AIDS. Triple-drug combination therapy has resulted in dramatic reductions in viral burden, sometimes to undetectably low levels, and these reductions are generally accompanied by increases in CD4 cell counts.

The discovery that certain chemokines are crucial secondary receptors for HIV infection (52) led to the discovery, in my laboratory and others, of a deletion mutation in the CKR5 gene that confers protection against HIV infection (53). In homozygous individuals this mutation prevents infection, and in heterozygous individuals it delays disease progression by several years (see "Genetic mutation appears to confer immunity to HIV," Vol. 2, No. 5, pages 114-115). If HIV were not the cause of AIDS, the new antiretroviral "cocktails" would not work and CKR5, a key receptor for HIV infection, would not delay the onset of AIDS.

It is time to recognize that the HIV-AIDS debate is over, as an academic exercise and as a practical matter. This decade-long debate may have been constructive at first, because it obliged scientists to give careful consideration to the epidemiological and clinical data they were gathering, but it has become a dangerous diversion. The doubt that it has fostered, particularly among our patients, carries the potential for great harm: it can lead those at high risk of infection to ignore prevention messages, and it can keep those who are infected from benefiting from recent advances in therapy. The debate should cease, and all energies should be directed toward developing an effective vaccine against HIV and curative treatments for those who are infected.



References

1 Blattner W, Gallo RC, Temin HM. HIV causes AIDS. Science 1988; 141: 515-16.

2 Fauci AS. Multifactorial nature of human immunodeficiency virus disease: implications for therapy. Science 1993; 262: 1011-17.

3 Gallo RC, Sarin PS, Gelmann EP, Robert-Guroff M. Isolation of human T-cell leukemia virus in acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science 1993; 220: 865-7.

4 Weiss RA. How does HIV cause AIDS? Science 1993; 260: 1273-8.

5 Schechter MT, Craib KJ, Gelman KA, Montaner JS, Le TN, O'Shaughnessy MV. HIV-1 and the aetiology of AIDS. Lancet 1993; 341: 658-9.

6 Piot P. AIDS: a global response. Science 1996; 272: 1855.

7 Duesberg PH. Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens: expectations and reality. Cancer Res 1987; 47: 1199-1220.

8 Weiss RA, Jaffe HA. Duesberg, HIV, and AIDS. Nature 1990; 345: 659-60.

9 Cohen J. The Duesberg phenomenon. Science 1994; 266: 1642-9.

10 Moore J. A Duesberg, adieu! Nature 1996; 380: 293-4.

11 Duesberg PH. HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Science 1988; 241: 514, 517.

12 Duesberg PH. Does HIV cause AIDS? JAIDS 1989; 2: 514-17.

13 Duesberg PH. Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1989; 86: 755-64.

14 Duesberg PH. AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88: 1575-9.

15 Duesberg PH. AIDS acquired by drug consumption and other noncontagous risk factors. Pharmacol Ther 1992; 55: 201-77.

16 Dickson D. Critics still lay blame for AIDS on lifestyle, not HIV. Nature 1994; 369: 265.

17 Anon. More conviction on HIV and AIDS. Nature 1995; 377: 1.

18 Evans AS. Does HIV cause AIDS? An historical perspective. JAIDS 1989; 2: 107-13.

19 Weiss R. And now for something completely different. The Washington Post, Washington, D.C., November 1, 1994: 7.

20 Duesberg PH. HIV and AIDS. Science 1993; 260: 1705-6.

21 Hodgkinson N. AIDS plagued by journalists. Nature 1994; 368: 387.

22 Anon. New-style abuse of press freedom. Nature 1993; 366: 493-4.

23 Koch R. Ueber bakteriologische Forschung. In: Verhandlungen X Int Med Congr Verlag von August Hirschwald, 1891: 35-37

24 Rivers TM. Viruses and Koch's postulates. J Bacteriol 1937; 33: 1-12.

25 Evans AS. Causation and disease: effect of technology on postulates of causation. Yale J Biol Med 1991; 64: 513-28.

26 O'Brien SJ, Goedert JJ. HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled. Curr Opin Immunol 1996; 8: 613-8.

27 Goedert JJ, Biggar RJ, Weiss SH, Eyster ME, et al. Three-year incidence of AIDS in five cohorts of HTLV-III-infected risk group members. Science 1986; 231: 992-5.

28 Goedert JJ, Kessler CM, Aledort LM, Biggard RJ, Andes WA, et al. A prospective study of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection and the development of AIDS in subjects with hemophilia. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1141-8.

29 Sullivan JS, Learmont JC, Geczy AF, Dyer W. HIV and AIDS. Nature 1995; 378: 10.

30 Darby SC, Ewart DW, Giangrande PLF, Dolin PJ, et al. Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of hemophiliacs. Nature 1995; 377: 792-8.

31 Goedert JJ. Mortality and hemophilia. Lancet 1995; 346: 1425-6.

32 McKusick VA, ed. Mendelian Inheritance in Man. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.)

33 Dixon FJ, Fisher DW. The Biology of Immunologic Disease. (Sunderland: Sinauer Associates Incorporated, 1983.)

34 Myers G, Berzofsky JA, Korber B, Smith RF, Pavlakis G. Human Retroviruses and AIDS. (Los Alamos: Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1991.)

35 Weiss SH, Goedert JJ, Gartner S, et al. Risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) transmission among laboratory workers. Science 1988; 239: 68-71.

36 Reitz MS Jr, Hall L, Robert-Guroff M, et al. Viral variability and serum antibody response in a laboratory worker infected with HIV-1 (HTLV-IIIB). AIDS 1994; 10: 1143-55.

37 Wain-Hobson S, Vartanian JP, Henry M, Chenciner N, Cheynier R, et al. LAV revisited: Origins of the early HIV-1 isolates from Institut Pasteur. Science 1991; 252: 961-5.

38 Wolinsky SM, Wike CM, Korber BTM, Hutto C, et al. Selective transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type-1 variants from mothers to infants. Science 1992; 255: 1134-7.

39 Palca J. The case of the Florida dentist. Science 1992; 255: 392-4.

40 Palca J. CDC closes the case of the Florida dentist. Science 1992; 256: 1130-1.

41 Ou CY, Ciesielski CA, Myers G, Bandea CI, Luo CC, et al. Molecular epidemiology of HIV transmission in a dental practice. Science 1992; 256: 1165-71.

42 Hillis DM, Huelsenbeck J. Support for dental HIV transmission. Nature 1994; 369: 24-5.

43 Smith TF, Waterman MS. The continuing case of the Florida dentist. Science 1992; 256: 1155-6.

44 DeBry RW, Abele LG, Weiss SH, Hill MD, et al. Dental HIV transmission? Nature 1993; 361: 691.

45 Holmes EC, Brown AJL, Simmonds P. Sequence data as evidence. Nature 1993; 364: 766-7.

46 Barnett SW, Murthy KK, Herndier BG, Levy JA. An AIDS-like condition induced in baboons by HIV-2. Science 1994; 266: 642-6.

47 Desrosiers RC. The simian immunodeficiency viruses. Ann Rev Immunol 1990; 8: 557-78.

48 Johnson PR, Myers G, Hirsch VM. Genetic diversity and phylogeny of nonhuman primate lentiviruses. Ann Rev AIDS Res 1991; 1: 47-62.

49 Hirsch VM, Johnson PR. Pathogenic diversity of simian immunodeficiency viruses. Virus Res 1994; 32: 183-203.

50 Kestler HW, Kodama T, Ringler D, Marthas M, et al. Induction of AIDS in rhesus monkeys by molecularly cloned simian immunodeficiency virus. Science 1990; 248: 1109-12.

51 Hirsch VM, Dapolito G, Johnson PR, Elkins WR, London WT, et al. Induction of AIDS by simian immunodeficiency virus from an African green monkey: Species-specific variation in pathogenicity correlates with extent of in vivo replication. J Virol 1995; 69: 955-67.

52 D'Souza MP, Harden VA. Chemokines and HIV-1 second receptors. Nature Med 1996; 2: 1293-1300.

53 Dean M, Carrington M, Winkler C, Huttley GA, Smith MW, Allikmets R, Goedert JJ, Buchbinder SP, Vittinghoff E, Gomperts E, Donfield S, Vlahov D, Kaslow R, Saah A, Rinaldo C, Detels R, O'Brien SJ. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 1996; 273: 1856-62.

HIV researchers admit they are still utterly perplexed 14.Jul.2004 16:43

GRINGO STARS

<<I'm not impressed. It seems they've built up a nice little echo chamber for themselves, amplifying even the tiniest bit of data in their favor, and scrapping that which doesn't conform to their "conclusion" (and they have the nerve to accuse mainstream scientists of doing the very same). They really should get someone to create a readable layout.>>

That's what it comes down to for you, doesn't it? Who has the more readable layout? WHY do you think they have a more readable layout? Could it be all the billions of dollars poured into the AIDS industry? I guess if you are in the habit of consuming mindless propaganda, a readable layout goes a long way.

It seems that the community of AIDS apologists such as yourself is fact-proof. You have consistently refused to address any of the inconsistencies of your HIV/AIDS hypothesis. You calling the community that questions the HIV religion an "echo chamber" - that is disinformationalist language. Sorry - we don't have a trillion dollar corporate media to shill for us, shouting down anyone that might get in the way of the drug industry's profit, like the AIDS apologists do.

The article you just posted is profoundly unscientific. To claim that "the debate is over" is against a main tenet of science: that the debate is NEVER over. Indeed, the goal of those who challenge the HIV hypothesis is merely to provide funding for ALL researchers. To actually get down to the bottom of things. To provide controls for the research already poorly-done by AIDS industry apologists. But apparently that is so threatening that the debate must be called off "Nothing to see here folks. Everyone go home" and to declare that "doubt is harmful" is the most asinine, unscientific thing I have ever read. Only an AIDS apologist could get such nonsense published.

In July 2003, the esteemed science journal Nature Medicine published an article called "HIV-1 Pathogenesis" by AIDS researcher Mario Stevenson of the University of Massachusetts Medical School. The article was part of its "20 years of AIDS science" special edition. **

The article states with surprising candor what many researchers have been saying for a long time: We don't know how HIV might cause any disease, and we can't prove that it does. The paper begins:

"Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated... considerable efforts have gone into identifying the mechanisms by which HIV-1 causes disease, and two major hypotheses have been forwarded."

Stevenson is using the careful and somewhat deceptive language of an academic. But what he's saying is straightforward: Despite 20 years and 118 billion dollars spent on AIDS ("considerable efforts"), no one's proven how ("the mechanisms" by which) HIV might cause any disease (is "pathogenic"), and no one can prove that it does (it's "still debated"). What Stevenson offers instead of actual proof are two "major hypotheses."

In science, a "hypothesis" is an idea or proposal about how something might work. A hypothesis isn't a fact, it's a guess that a scientist tries to prove is accurate and true. If a hypothesis fails, it's discarded, so that new, better, more accurate ideas can be heard.

Stevenson further explains that we don't know how HIV might damage, let alone kill cells, "... it is debatable whether lymphocyte [white blood cell] damage is due to the direct killing of infected cells..." and we don't have any idea how HIV affects immunity, "... processes contributing to the immune activation state in HIV-1 infection are not well understood..." The HIV hypothesis states that HIV kills T-Cells, but Stevenson tells us bluntly that this has never been proven.

Because HIV's ability to cause any disease remains an unproven, "still debated," hypothesis, it would be more accurate and honest to rephrase Stevenson's initial assertions as follows: "Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is assumed to be pathogenic is still debated... considerable efforts have gone into identifying the mechanisms by which HIV-1 is assumed to cause disease, yet no one has identified a single mechanism that proves the hypothesis is valid."

Stevenson concludes the paper by returning to the main theme - the HIV hypothesis has failed proof:

"There is a general misconception that more is known about HIV-1 than about any other virus and that all of the important issues regarding HIV-1 biology and pathogenesis have been resolved. On the contrary, what we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface of what needs to be known."

Stevenson is clear -- we know almost nothing -- only "a thin veneer," about HIV's "biology and pathogenesis," that is, what HIV might look like, how it might work, and if it causes any illness at all. This is very different from what we're told by the media and the medical establishment about HIV and AIDS. But according to the academically-reviewed article in Nature Medicine," HIV pathogenesis remains an unproven hypothesis.

If we don't know how HIV works, or if it makes anyone sick, then it's unethical to treat any HIV positive person with potentially fatal pharmaceuticals, which the manufacturers themselves admit, do not cure AIDS.

In addition to their long list of serious and potentially fatal side-effects, all AIDS drugs also list this printed warning:

"This drug will not cure your HIV infection... Patients receiving antiretroviral therapy may continue to experience opportunistic infections and other complications of HIV disease... Patients should be advised that the long-term effects are unknown at this time."

** Stevenson, Mario. HIV-1 Pathogenesis. Nature Medicine, HIV Special. July 2003. Vol.9, No. 7. 853-861.

 http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/house.htm

for Gringo 14.Jul.2004 21:10

purple punk

Hi Gringo.

Just going thru this thread, which is rather frustrating due to the sheer volume of required reading, I was flabberghasted by one of your claims. Totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but here goes... "Condoms have an up to 30 percent failure rate for preventing pregnancy." What? Up to 30% if used improperly maybe. Up to 30% if a horrible brand maybe. Up to 30% if -- you get the picture.

I've never gotten a woman pregnant. Having burned through many dozens of condoms, one would imagine that I've accomplished the astronomically improbable (unless I'm sterile, which is highly doubtful). So where'd you get that perplexing number from?

for Purple Punk 15.Jul.2004 00:26

GRINGO STARS

"Condoms always have and always will pose a great use-effectiveness problem. In fact, the FDA requires the manufacturer to list the ideal use-effectiveness rates of approved contraceptives in the package inserts for oral contraceptives, which are even more easily controlled in use. Combining the ideal and the use-effectiveness rates, condoms are listed at 90-70 percent, which translates to a failure rate of 10-30 percent. These rates are based on birth prevention, not disease prevention."

"Condom Effectiveness"
written by Joel McIlhaney, M.D.,
Medical Institute for Sexual Health

 http://www.aimultimedia.com/aidsmythexposed/arc_pages/condom_effectiveness.html

* "24 sets of condoms tested and all failed" and almost 71% failed "In respect of one or more of the physical requirements of the specification, notably freedom from pinholes." SABS report April 89.

* "Spillage from condoms occurs as much as 65% to 75% of the time." Bjorklund and Gordon. Univ of Manitoba. Nov. 1990.

* The ISO standard for condoms allows 2 per 350 to be defective (about six defects per thousand.) (Tough luck if you happen to be one of those six)

 http://www.hli.org/Fact%20Sheet%20on%20Condom%20Failure.html

How Gringo Works 15.Jul.2004 02:04

Already Published

You're doing a fabulous job of disseminating DEADLY misinformation on AIDS for PNAC, Gringo.



Condoms don't work, HIV is a myth, AIDS is caused by recreational drug use(!!) and the only solution is "behavioral change", ie: marriage, fidelity and good ole fashioned biblical values....

Good Work!

bullshit 15.Jul.2004 02:05

clamydia

Epidemiologists have documented the presence of the human immunodeficiency virus (or antibodies to HIV) in more than 95% of the world's AIDS patients (1-6). Scientists (which scientists, specifically?)who have examined the clinical data collected from AIDS patients are convinced that it is HIV, and no other etiologic agent, which causes the gradual decline in CD4 cell counts that leads to severe immunosuppression and AIDSthis statement is misleading, because it implies that every scientist who has studied said data has come to the conclusion that hiv causes AIDS. It is entirely possible that there exist scientists who have studied the same data and refute this conclusion, yet the author of this article chooses to turn a blind eye to them.). Why, then, is there any lingering doubt about the cause of AIDS(Obviously doubt lingers because there are those who dispute the aforementioned conclusions.)? Why, in spite of overwhelming ("overwhelming" in the context of this sentence is an opinionated adjective that has absolutely no place in a scientific essay/article/whatever you want to call this.)evidence to the contrary, do a small (another relative, opinionated adjective that may or may not be accurate)number of scientists—and a larger number of infected individuals—continue to insist that HIV does not cause AIDS? A decade ago, when a highly regarded molecular virologist named Peter Duesberg first suggested that AIDS was caused not by HIV but by a combination of recreational drugs, hyperstimulation of the immune system, and possibly even antiretroviral drugs themselves (7), the scientific community felt obliged to respond to Duesberg's hypothesis. The fact that his argument was largely rhetorical(if you are going to characterize his report as rhetorical, you need to give specific examples and argue them. Also, you can't represent an opinion such as "his arguments are rhetorical" as fact.), and was unsupported by the preponderance of the data then available(which data?), made Duesberg's claim dubious, but it did not altogether rule out his theory. Erring on the side of excessive caution, respected members of the scientific community gave Duesberg's hypothesis more serious consideration than the data alone seemed to merit—and they rejected his theory as untenable (1, 4, 8-10) On the face of it, Duesberg's counter-theory made little sense. If AIDS was caused by recreational drugs like nitrate inhalants, also known as "poppers," and prescription drugs like zidovudine, also known as AZT, then how could one account for the millions of cases of AIDS that had occurred in Third World countriesthe cases of "AIDS" diagnosed in third-world countries were and still are diagnosed by symptoms alone. For example, if a person in a village has lost a lot of weight in the last month, has diahrrea, has a fever, and has any sort of skin lesions (regardless of what type), then they could/can be diagnosed with AIDS without ever undergoing a blood test. The people who test(ed) for AIDS in these countries did not have access to blood labs, and so were forced to make diagnoses based on observed symptoms, many of which can be mimiked by malnourishment, a problem that plagues most third-world countries. And yes, low C4 counts can result from malnourishment as well.), where these drugs were not available? And how did one explain AIDS in hemophiliacs("approximately 75 percent of American hemophiliacs have had H.I.V for more than seven years, yet only two percent annually develop AIDS-inclicator diseases. According to predictions, about 50 percent should have developed AIDS"(http://www.garynull.com/Documents/AIDS/hiv_equals_aids_and_other_myths_.htm), transfusion recipientssame thing, and infants born to HIV-infected mothers—none of whom had used poppers or AZTmore confusing is the low rate of transmission between mother and child, I mean, if AIDS is as ? Duesberg's answer was, frankly, bizarre. He simply announced that these AIDS patients—the vast preponderance of those infected worldwide—did not actually have AIDS. They had something, of course—and they were dying of it. But it wasn't AIDS, Duesberg insisted. The fact that these patients tested positive for the presence of HIV or antibodies to HIV, that they had declining CD4 cell counts, and that they developed the opportunistic infections that are regarded as AIDS-defining illnesses (were all easily explained by other factors such as malnutrition and environmental contamination)did not seem to trouble Duesberg(because of the aforementioned), whose principal research had been with cancer-causing retroviruses in chickens(nothing like a healthy dose of "discredit the principal oppponent" in an argument). Duesberg's assault on the epidemiology and clinical pathology of AIDS—an assault mounted by someone who had little experience in either discipline—blindsided workers in the field. Initially, at least, they were disconcerted by the volume and volubility of Duesberg's attacks on their data, and they were temporarily disarmed by this scientist who disdained reasonable scientific argument and scientific proof(this entire passage is an emotional plea for you to see things the author's way. "Oh, everyone was so shocked and HURT to see this MADMAN traching their expertise!" there is no scientific argument/reference whatsoever in this paragraph.). With each passing year the evidence that HIV causes AIDS grew more persuasive and less refutable, even at the purely rhetorical level(more self-affirming statements with nothing to back them up). But even as this evidence mounted, Duesberg and his minions grew increasingly shrill and hectoring (11-15). Their unsupported but high-decibel jeremiads garnered some media attention—in 1993, for instance, the London Times labeled the epidemic "a tragic myth"—and even respectable scientific journals felt obliged to address the issue again and again (8-10, 16-18), simply because Duesberg and his outspoken supporters raised the issue again and again(more bullshit. The author of this article is not willing to give an inch. If anyone agrees with Duesberg, then they must be doing it because they "felt obliged to address the issue again and again", and not because the issue merited said attention. This is a pathetic attempt at an argument.) In a singularly sensational and reckless response to this furor, a 65-year-old Florida clinician actually inserted a syringe into the finger of an AIDS patient and then injected himself with the same syringe—to emphasize his conviction that HIV infection does not cause AIDS (19)(I have to admit that if somebody did that without fully testing the other individual for every STD known to man first, then that was pretty goddamned stupid). In the same vein, Duesberg himself once proposed to let Robert Gallo inoculate him with HIV. That Duesberg never went through with this publicity-generating ploy leads one to wonder if he has reservations about his own theory(no, it leads me to wonder when the scientists looking for a cure to this "epidemic" will ever be able to produce a culture of it capable of inocculation in a human.). The HIV-AIDS debate grew more acrimonious(no doubt), and more futile(says you), with each exchange, and it eventually became apparent that no amount of scientific evidence, no matter how unimpeachable, would silence the naysayers(because for some reason they couldn't let go of the HIV myth.). Indeed, the decade-long controversy culminated last year with the publication of Duesberg's 772-page polemic, Inventing the AIDS Virus, a farrago of rhetorical hubris(and also a tasty exsufflation of oogely moogley), unsupported speculation(your mom is an unsupported speculation), and selective critiques of the tens of thousands of papers written by scientists who are persuaded that HIV is the etiologic agent in AIDS(selective only because the arguments presented in these thousands of papers were redundant, and thus responses were only given to separate arguments, rather than to each separate person.)in the end, Duesberg's alternative explanation for the AIDS epidemic was little more than an indictment of a certain kind of gay lifestyle, one that is popularly perceived as consecrated to casual sex and equally casual drug-taking (16). As such, his hypothesis was but a variant of the mean-spirited fundamentalist belief that people with AIDS are victims of their own vices (so, now we further attempt to discredit our opponent by labeling him as "anti-gay-lifestyle"). you get my point. you should be able to do the rest of this on your own...

Hmmm... 15.Jul.2004 02:19

Purple Punk

Those studies are 15 years old! If condom technology has advanced at all, I'd say that the numbers aren't nearly so bleak. The ISO standard I can believe. Think of your personal experiences (not to presume too much about a stranger in case you abstain from sex or something). If you're like most of us, you've probably had a couple breaks, and you've probably pulled out & put on a new hat. But have you ever gotten a woman pregnant due to a bad condom?

Of course, to be true to the thread, which I diverged from, a broken condom won't do to well at preventing disease! The moral of the story is clear. If condoms are as good as they have been in my experience, they work well at preventing pregnancy, but are far less reliable if you're trying to keep from exchanging germs.

As always, you do a service to us by providing links. Do you have some "black book" of interesting articles categorized by subject?

for science 15.Jul.2004 02:45

Already Refuted

Would you care for an injection of fresh HIV-infected blood, chlamydia?


for science?

the diseased "science" of clamydia 15.Jul.2004 02:57

Already Published

why are the AIDS wards in my city nearly empty?


I can assure you that gay men are having as much sex as they did in the 70's, 80's and 90's - yet both INFECTION rates and POST-INFECTION MORTALITY has declined since the promotion of "safER sex" (condoms), the introdution of government funded needle exchange programs for junkies, and the use of protease inhibitors for those who test positive for HIV?



Just a coincidence, I suppose....


by the way "gay is not a lifestyle" - it's a BIO-LOGICAL sexual disposition
if it were a "lifestyle", you could buy it, and all the social persecution that goes with it.

Perhaps YOU have a "lifestyle choice" that many do not, clamydia, and you are projecting YOUR choice onto others. I find this is usually the case with people who use the term "lifestyle" to describe sexual orientation.

http://www.virusscience.org/ 15.Jul.2004 12:15

http://www.virusscience.org/


fuck you, you fucking fuck 15.Jul.2004 12:45

clamydia

"Would you care for an injection of fresh HIV-infected blood, chlamydia?[sic]"
1. I think what you mean is "would I care for an injection of blood that tests positive for antibodies that occur in response to many common proteins", and the answer is no, I wouldn't, as many legitimate illnesses are blood-borne, for example Hepatitis. Since I'm poor and I drink a lot, I wouldn't care to get Hepatitis, as it destroys your liver which means you have to quit drinking and start spending tons of money on those fucking chinese herbs.
2. My name is clamydia. I'm not a sexually transmitted disease, I'm a human BEING, damnit!
"why are the AIDS wards in my city nearly empty?"
Let's have some figures. That's a pretty ambiguous and UNscientific statement if I ever heard one.
"by the way "gay is not a lifestyle" - it's a BIO-LOGICAL[PO-TA-TOES] sexual disposition if it were a "lifestyle", you could buy it, and all the social persecution that goes with it."
Being a bisexual tranny myself, I could give a shit if people want to call it either, and I've called it both. As far as my use of wording, goes: I used the phrase "gay lifestyle" because that was the phrase used by the author of the article I was critiquing, which you obviously didn't read or you wouldn't have said anything. If you have a problem with that phrase, then take it up with them, not me. I wonder if you read any of my post at all, or if you just scanned down until you saw the phrase "gay lifestyle", since that is the only thing out of my entire critique with which you chose to take issue.
Perhaps YOU have a "lifestyle choice" that many do not, clamydia, and you are projecting YOUR choice onto others. I find this is usually the case with people who use the term "lifestyle" to describe sexual orientation."
Well I find it is usually the case that you're a sanctimonious prick who doesn't listen to people and throws tantrums when ze doesn't get zeer way.

You should read your own cut-n-pastes, AP 15.Jul.2004 14:36

GRINGO STARS

AP, I'm someone who cuts and pastes and I can obviously teach you a thing or two. First of all, READ what you post. It helps. Then you won't end up looking like an idiot when you critique a term used in the material YOU post. Second, read what others post. There is NO way that you have looked at anything other than the homepages of the sites I linked to. It took me hundreds of hours to research both sides of the HIV debate. You, apparently, dismiss the side without corporate backing (and the eye-pleasing layouts that you so love) within an hour. Miraculous? Or idiotically simple-mided? One or the other.
Third, reposting the same three links ad nauseum within the same thread is not only bad form but a waste of precious Indymedia computer space. It is also very unconvincing, as it reeks of intellectual desperation. And in your case, those three links don't even relate to the debate at hand. They relate to a straw man argument of your own invention: the fact that poisons such as AZT kill antibodies in blood. Duh. No one is dusputing that. AZT kills people, let alone antibodies. How does that link HIV to AIDS? Since it doesn't, perhaps you should move on to real arguments. Another good thing to keep in mind is that when you are wrong, or merely relying on the din of the trillion dollar corporate media's strongarming of all dissent, then you are not relying on reason. For example, NO scientist refers to anything as the "AIDS virus" like you do. There is no such thing. Even AIDS apologists like you call what you think causes AIDS "HIV". I hope this has been helpful.

Purple Punk, the studies I cite are old, but condom technology hasn't progressed much since it has been so profitable. By the way, the pores in latex are large - large enough for sperm to get through. And as far as condoms for keeping HIV out, HIV types have placed the size of HIV at .1 microns, which is much smaller than the pores regularly occuring in latex condoms that are a maximum of 70 microns wide.

Yet those pictures are a sham. There is no evidence that they are what APologist claims. STILL the HIV retrovirus has NOT been isolated. And the discoverer of retroviruses himslef still maintains that person-to-person transmission of AIDS is impossible.
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data2/slvirusphotos.htm
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/award.htm#photos
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slartefact.htm

"An error can never become true however many times you repeat it.
The truth can never be wrong, even if no one ever hears about it."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Don't feel bad, AP. Cancer was thought to be caused by a virus, with better evidence than what you post here, but further study didn't bear that out. However, in the case of cancer there was not a multi-billion dollar industry protecting the bad science.

My question is this: why the single-minded, indeed close-minded, focus solely on HIV? Why not let others study AIDS as they see fit? What is so threatening about the truth, if you are correct? How have you "decided" while scientists you respect have not yet determined HOW or evin IF HIV is involved in AIDS?

Finally, you have the stench of a disinformationalist about you. You post (quite incorrectly) that I am somehow Christian, working for PNAC, anti-sex, anti-gay, promoting marriage, abstinence, etc. Indeed, you devoted more than one entire comment exclusively to making false, baseless statements about me, statements that in your mind invalidate my opinion. I cordially invite you to fuck yourself, if that's the way yopu want to conduct a discussion online. Grow up - bring facts to the table. Quit slinging insults and start telling the truth.

Speaking of unreadable formatting, clamydia... 15.Jul.2004 15:30

eek

Paragraphs help. No really, try them sometime.


Gringo:

Perhaps the term "echo chamber" is inaccurate, if only because it implies a structure the size of Faux News. Even on this smaller scale of virusmyth.net, however, the same principle applies, as every person who has ever said anything that might possibly back up their theorem, gets front-row-center treatment. Funny thing, I never see any follow up, just in case they change their mind one day.
I suppose the term "circle-jerk" is more accurate, but that seems just a LITTLE tasteless, y'know?

Virusmyth.net revolves around a whole bunch of editorials, all written by the same people. The editorials themselves seem to be distilled from some studies Dr. Duresberg did 15 years ago, all of which are THOROUGHLY outdated. New information has surfaced in this time, the least of which proves that HIV/AIDS fulfills Koch's postitulates.

THIS is what I mean by "echo chamber"; the AIDS "dissenters" keep drawing their information from the same stagnant pool. Science is absolute truth- it (is supposed to) takes ALL available information and draw a conclusion. By limiting the scope (by relying on the same damn studies conducted 15 years ago), you don't get science. You get jack shit.


PS: Webpage format readability has NOTHING to do with the amount of money being funneled into the site (in fact, given how flashy and ad-intensive a lot of the bigger sites are (excepting google), there may be an inverse relationship). The original article had plain ol' black-text-on-white-background. Doesn't cost a dime to do that.

There are articles from 2003 and 2004 on virusmyth, heal, aliveandwell, et al 15.Jul.2004 16:33

GRINGO STARS

Once again, AP, you lie. BS. It is not an echo chamber. It is a quickly growing community. You can't hide the truth, no matter how many billions AIDS apologists get
 http://aras.ab.ca/articles/AIDSQuotes.htm

<<Science is absolute truth- it (is supposed to) takes ALL available information and draw a conclusion.>>

I quite agree. Then WHY do AIDS apologists such as yourself cry "heresy!" whenever information that doesn't agree with your theory pop up? You still haven't answered why an open discussion is "dangerous" instead of helpful.

"From 1990 to 1992, the proportion of heterosexuals (aged 18-49) in high risk American cities who reported multiple sexual partners increased from 15% to 19%, while condom sales decreased by 1%, and 65% of respondents admitted they used condoms either sporadically or not all. Americans are not practicing safe sex and for this reason teen pregnancies and venereal diseases are on the rise. Yet 'AIDS' cases continue to decrease sharply and even the fraction of Americans that is assumed to be HIV-antibody positive has declined from an estimated 1 million in 1985 to 700,000 in 1996."
[American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, #11 (November 1995), pp. 1492-99]
-- Catania Joseph A., et. al, Aids Researchers

AIDS doesn't act like an infectious disease. Because it isn't one. And no one has proved that it is. Why don't drug-free prostitutes have it more than drug-free non-prostitutes? If you are right, AP, they would. But they don't. It seems that the only prostitutes who do have AIDS also use illegal hard drugs.

re paragraph tags 15.Jul.2004 17:07

clamydia

I was manually putting my paragraphs in as I typed and forgot to go back and add the tags. There were also a few instances where I forgot to close my bold tags. Oh well. That still doesn't make it impossible to read, just not easy. It's obvious you didn't even try to read it anyway, so I won't bother reposting it.

pissing match? 15.Jul.2004 20:35

eek

Clamydia:

I did read it, at least to my saturation point. Sorry if my smartassed comment led you to believe otherwise. Yes, I would have given it more effort had the paragraph tags gone through (hitting enter would've done the trick). And yes, I think you should have checked what the author sourced, as that would have answered your questions.


Gringo:

"Heresy", huh. You can stop putting words in my mouth now.

Joseph Catania is one of the top 5 AIDS researchers in the country, and a member of the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies. He has NOT come to the conclusion that HIV is not an STD. Cherry-picking from his reports does no good; you have to read the whole thing.

Peter Duresberg's reports are hideously outdated. You even said so yourself, in one of these threads.
Much has been discovered in the 15 years since he wrote them. Don't you think that more up-to-date information might yield more accurate results?

Honestly, it seems you hold on to this one central tenet, that HIV doesn't exist, and fanatically defend that central idea with whatever fits it. That's what big corporations do, that's what PR firms and other dispensers of propaganda do, that's what psychopaths do. And if you don't think that's a fair analogy, then too bad, because it fits.

clamydia: a treatable fungus 15.Jul.2004 21:19

Already Published

quote and reference my so-called "lie" Gringo - just as I quoted and debunked your dishonest claim that HIV has never been isolated. (see electron microscope images).


thanks for the hostile abuse, clamydia.

I do not claim that HIV does not exist 16.Jul.2004 01:45

GRINGO STARS

I claim what literally thousands of doctors and PhDs claim: that there is no evidence that HIV exists. It might. But, contrary to your claim, it still has not been isolated. Duesberg has very recent research. I have never claimed that his research is outdated. Maybe you are thinking of someone else.

Catania's own research does not support his beliefs. And that is all it is: a belief. He is VERY well-paid to contort evidence into the profitable belief that HIV is transmittable, and that it causes AIDS. I suggest you follow your own advice and read his entire study (but more carefully this time please).

Heresy is when someone says something so harmful that they must be shut up and exileed from the community immediately, much like how AIDS apologists (like you) treat people who call for better research (AIDS dissidents). Your wish is for me to shut up because, as you have repeatredly said, if I say what I say then many will die. You are, in essence, calling my words heresy. I am not putting words in your mouth. Heresy means "dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice".

Actually, YOU are the one defending PR hacks and corporate profiteers. The drug industry has a piss-poor track record when it comes to telling the truth. And now you are ad hominem calling me "psychopathic"? I guess that has been your main tactic: failing rational argument, simply attack the heretics personally. Way to bring down the discussion to your level!

Here is a 2003 article from Duesberg, 2003, which is not from a "stagnant pool" (the lie you tell characterizing any information questioning your corporate public relations that AIDS is transmittable from person to person via HIV):
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrchemical.pdf

never been isolated !!!!! 16.Jul.2004 03:33

Already Published

quote and reference my so-called "lie" Gringo - just as I quoted and debunked your dishonest claim that HIV has NEVER BEEN ISOLATED.



===========================
HIV Databases
... news. We have made two changes to sequence names in the HIV Sequence
database. When downloading sequences, we now designate undefined ...
hiv-web.lanl.gov/ - 8k - 14 Jul 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] 21 patents covering HIV genes or gene sequences have been applied ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Page 1. 21 patents covering HIV genes or gene sequences have been
applied for so far. Patent Number Patent holder Granted yet Y/N ...
www.pixunlimited.co.uk/guardian/pdf/Patenthiv.pdf - Similar pages

Stanford HIV Drug Resistance Database
... HIVseq Compare new RT and protease sequences to published sequences with the same ... NRTI
Notes, NNRTI Notes, PI Notes Overview of HIV drug resistance with links ...
hivdb.stanford.edu/ - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

SIGHTINGS
SIGHTINGS. HIV Gene Sequence In India Unlike That Anywhere Else. By Maggie
Fox. Reuters Health and Science Correspondent. 1-10-99. WASHINGTON ...
www.rense.com/health/hivgene.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

AEGiS-Reuters: HIV Gene Sequence In India Unlike That Elsewhere
... HIV Gene Sequence In India Unlike That Elsewhere Reuters NewMedia - Friday
January 8, 1999 Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent ...
www.aegis.com/news/re/1999/RE990103.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

pol gene sequence variation in Swedish HIV-2 patients failing ...
Click here to read pol gene sequence variation in Swedish HIV-2 patients
failing antiretroviral therapy. Brandin E, Lindborg L, Gyllensten ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=hivdb& cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&... - Similar pages

Phylogenetic analysis of the env gene of HIV-1 isolates taking ...
... recognized more easily. MeSH Terms: Base Sequence; DNA, Viral; Genes,
env*; HIV Seropositivity/virology*; HIV-1/classification; HIV-1 ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed& cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8931782&dopt=Abstract - Similar pages
[ More results from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ]

PRESS RELEASE: CCR5 Mutant Gene Sequence Patented For AIDS ...
... the issue of a US patent in the area of HIV infection. The patent claims the important
'delta32' mutation of the CCR5 gene sequence, which encodes a non ...
www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb107422.htm - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

BioAfrica - HIV-1 TAT (Transactivating regulatory protein) ...
... 5 - HIV-1 tat trans-activation requires the loop sequence within tar ... termination of
transcription within the long terminal repeat of HIV-1 by tat gene product ...
www.bioafrica.net/proteomics/TATprot.html - 48k - Cached - Similar pages

Molecular Characterization of HIV in the People
... Nerurkar, VR, Wu, Z., Dashwood, WM., Woodward, CL, Zhang, M., Detels, R., and
Yanagihara, R.: Complete nef gene sequence of HIV type 1 subtype B' from ...
www.pbrc.hawaii.edu/rrl/project2/ molecular_characterization_china.htm - 4k - Cached - Similar pages

 link to www.google.com
=============================


Know much about genetics, Gringo?
heretis again!
heretis again!

actually 16.Jul.2004 12:17

clamydia

Simply hitting enter doesn't cut it if you click on the "use html" box at the bottom. Once you do that, the Mir script leaves all formatting up to you, including paragraphs and line breaks... Example:
Here's what happens when you add the tags:
B
R
E
A
K
...and here's what happens when you just hit enter: B R E A K
...So, what I usually do is simply hit enter as I'm typing, and then go back and look for the P's and line breaks and add the tags in manually. I forgot to do so last time.

Already Published: No problem, any time. Thank you for the sardonic comments, false accusations, and insinuated false assumptions as to my sexual orientation/"lifestyle". You are the one who attacked me personally the minute I entered this argument. Also, what's up with your assertion that debunking the HIV myth in any way promotes unsafe sex? None of us are promoting unsafe sex, as there are plenty of legitimate diseases/reproductive repercussions that can result from people doing that. Hell, chlamydia, for example, is one nasty little disease that can result from unsafe sex. And, FYI, it is a condition caused by the bacteria Chlamydia Trachomatis, and not a fungus, as you previously stated. This is yet another example of your inability to research things before making claims. Seriously, a bacteria and a fungus are two completely different organisms.


GS, your numbers keep fluctuating 16.Jul.2004 14:27

eek

First you said there were dozens of scientists supporting Duresberg, then hundreds, then thousands, then...


Ahh fuck it, I give up. This thread is a waste. There never was any rational discussion of anything, it was just stand to one side and throw everything you've got at the "enemy". If anyone other than GS, Clamydia, AP or myself managed to get this far, you deserve a medal.

IF there were some way to discuss things in a calm, rational manner... but then again, the inherent inflammatory-ness of the concept...

You are the inflammatory one, AP, and you know this 16.Jul.2004 15:06

GRINGO STARS

I don't have to go far to find a lie from you. I already pointed out your "echo chamber" lie in the last comment, but you ignore things that don't support your flimsy arguments.

I NEVER said there were only "dozens" of scientists supporting Duesberg. I DID say there were hundreds. I NEVER said "thousands" - EVER. My numbers have not fluctuated. Once again - YOU LIE. Once again, you are completely making schitt up. You have done this all along, in a cynical attempt to portray me as inconsistent, inept, etc. Your transparent and childish smear tactics are wearing thin. IndyMedia is not for such discussions, but rather for discussing EVIDENCE and STUDIES (in this case at least) as well as actual arguments. It is becoming more and more apparent that the AID$ apologist viewpoint, as religiously "defended" by you, is capable not of rational discussion and only of insults, lies, and disinformational propaganda seeking to silence the opposition rather. You started the fire, then threw gasoline on it. You have been entirely inflammatory the whole time, making baseless personal accusations against anyone who questions your still-unproven HIV theory.


"The case for a link between HIV and AIDS is not proven. I would like the "orthodox" scientists to acknowledge that in Africa there are 29 or 30 diseases which may mimic AIDS, which are related to poverty. But they will not accept that because poverty does not make them big money but HIV makes them money. If we dissidents had only one hundredth of the funds that the orthodox view has, the orthodox view would probably be dead in less than a year."
-- Dr. Sam Mhlongo: Head of the Department of Family Medicine and Primary Health Care at the Medical University of South Africa


"For all we know, it is not HIV that causes AIDS, but the so-called co-factors such as indiscriminate antibiotic use, recreational drugs, poverty, malnutrition, polluted water and pesticised food. AZT and the like (so-called triple therapy) are rank cytotoxic poisons. To give AZT to pregnant women is a crime against the mother and the baby she is making."
-- Dr. Manu Kothari: Professor of Anatomy, Seth G.S. Medical College, Mumbai India


"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." (Talk Napoli, Italy, April 2001)
-- Dr. Dave Rasnick, Biochemist, visiting scientist University of California at Berkeley