portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

gender & sexuality | health | media criticism

Bad science, Bad Journalism -- The HIV retrovirus: Discovery or invention?

Have you seen "The Truman Show" starring Jim Carrey? Carrey plays Truman, who is the unknowing star of a reality television show transmitted throughout the world. Truman is happily living his perfect life in a perfect suburb with a perfect wife until he begins to catch some clues that something just isn't right. The film is about his process of discovering his entire life, and all of his physical surroundings, are fabricated. The island he lives on is the world's largest television set, viewable from space. Everyone is in on it; Truman is monumentally deceived. His wife, mother, best friend, co-workers and thousands of townspeople are nothing but actors.
When Truman realizes what's going on, he breaks out of his home and hops into a sailboat to get away. After surviving a brutal storm induced by the show's creator, the water is calm and his boat abruptly hits the side of the dome that looks like the sky. Truman is stunned and slowly he touches the wall. As he touches it, he lets out a sigh of relief. Finally, he knows and feels reality! He is angry and beats the wall with his fists; then he collapses and cries.

While researching the subjects of this article, I felt like Truman as he touched that wall. For years I reported on HIV/AIDS for the Seattle Gay News with energy and empathy. I have done a lot of what I consider to be promotional writing to bring attention to countless AIDS events and fundraisers. I edited a minimum of five obituaries per week of young gay men who were said to die of AIDS. I never once questioned, nor did I hear anybody else question, the science behind the discovery of HIV and its connection to AIDS - it was all steadfastly assumed. "HIV/AIDS facts and figures" were fed to us at the gay press by AIDS organizations that were on the front lines of the bloody battle. They were articulate and repetitive about the sexual transmission of HIV. To question the science behind the new retrovirus HIV and its causation to AIDS would be like questioning if the sky was really blue. Or maybe our reality had been constructed, like Truman's.


Defining AIDS: a collection of known diseases


AIDS is not a disease. It is not one disease but a collection of 29 known diseases; which include "signs" of bodily distress, like unexplained weight loss. If you deconstruct the acronym, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, you can see it hinted AIDS is a group of symptoms that characterize immune system breakdown. Media presents AIDS as being a disease ("AIDS is a disease of poverty, AIDS is sexually transmitted,") but the nation's official AIDS registry, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), has always said AIDS is a bunch of diseases, none of which are new. All media representatives seem to fall into non-questioning guilty stupors when AIDS is involved and fail to ask such questions as: "What did the patient actually die of?"

If they did, the answer would be: pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, lymphoma, tuberculosis, herpes simplex, the "wasting syndrome," chronic intestinal isosporiasis, candidiasis of the bronchi, invasive cervical cancer, recurrent salmonella, esophageal candidiasis and 19 other known diseases. These are now "opportunistic infections of AIDS" - if you test HIV antibody positive.

Currently we are at 29 known diseases that are defined as AIDS and we are always anxiously awaiting more. The definition of AIDS has changed at least five times since its invention in 1982. Maybe you noticed a lot of stories about the increase of women with AIDS around 1993 or a little after? The news stories forgot to tell readers the CDCP added cervical cancer, along with several other female-specific conditions, to the definition of AIDS that year.

Some of the most important and absurd definition expansions were in 1987 and 1992. In 1987 the CDC said that even if a patient's immune suppression disorder was already known, like from chemotherapy or born with a congenital immune deficiency, the patient should be counted and regarded as an AIDS patient. In 1992 the CDC said anyone having a low T-cell count has AIDS, even if the individual is not sick, has no symptoms or "opportunistic infections," and has not taken an HIV antibody test. The flu really should be considered to be part of AIDS, because if you receive a flu shot or have the flu, you would test positive on the HIV antibody tests (Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay and Western Blot).

AIDS is the first disease in history that no one can survive by definition, thereby delivering a hopeless and demoralizing message to those diagnosed HIV antibody positive. Once someone is diagnosed with AIDS, he or she stays in that category forever, regardless of improvement or cause of death. There are no criteria listed in any definition that allow a person to fight, and beat AIDS, unlike cancer or heart disease or any other illness.

The difference between hope and certain doom (by official definition) is how you do on the HIV antibody test. It all comes down to the test. The difference between having AIDS or pneumonia is the test. The difference between having tuberculosis or AIDS is the antibody test. Here's the equation: pneumonia + HIV antibody = AIDS; pneumonia - HIV antibody = pneumonia. Tuberculosis + HIV antibody = AIDS; tuberculosis - HIV antibody = tuberculosis. So, the crucial subject worthy of investigation is: what is HIV and how do you test for its existence?


Retroviruses and HIV


AIDS orthodoxy says HIV is an infectious retrovirus that hijacks the genetic structure of the body's cells, creating more and more of itself to overpower the immune system and make the individual succumb to one of the 29 diseases.

The discovery of retroviruses came about 1970, when Nixon declared a war on cancer and hundreds of millions of dollars were thrown toward research into a viral cause of cancer. The research seemed promising at first because retroviruses do not kill infected cells but integrate into the cell's cancer-causing agents. A retrovirus raids a host cell with the help of an enzyme that catalyzes the synthesis of the host's DNA from RNA. This is called "reverse transcriptase activity" and it may be a clue a retrovirus is there, but not definite identification. Cells without retroviruses also have this activity.

A contradiction surfaces at this base level because if HIV is a retrovirus, how can it kill T-cells? Killing T-cells (immune-helpers) is a cornerstone of AIDS. Retroviruses replicate like crazy, which is a cornerstone of viruses. [Head-scratcher #1.]

The viral war on cancer failed and in 1977 the National Cancer Institute Virus Cancer Program was abruptly closed. But seven years of money and time allowed scientists to thoroughly research and explore retroviruses. Out of that research came protocols for identifying and isolating retroviruses. It was agreed among scientists that an alleged retrovirus must be completely isolated in order to identify its proteins, nucleic acids and RNA/DNA structure, so it is not confused with other confounding cellular matter, which also has its own proteins, nucleic acids and RNA/DNA. Scientists need to identify the thing itself before they can make assumptions about its components, which are the basis for tests and cures.

"Proof for the existence of a virus is unconditionally contingent upon finding a right looking particle (virus-like) that is able to faithfully replicate," says Val Turner, emergency physician at the Royal Perth Hospital in Australia. Turner goes on to explain the virus identification process. "Merely seeing a particle, even viral-like, is not sufficient proof because multiplication is the name of the game with viruses. The method of convincing oneself, or the whole world, that a virus exists is: 1) to grow whatever cells are thought to contain the virus 2) purify the particles, so they are not confused with the cells in which they were grown or constituent proteins or acids 3) document these chemical constituents 4) introduce pure particles into a virgin cell culture and prove what comes out is exactly the same as what went in."

Number two and four seem to be especially challenging to HIV. An accepted fact in retrovirology is to use the original Pasteur Institute virus isolation protocol. Scientists do this by spinning virus-like particles around real fast and particles fall down the test tube in accordance to their density. Retrovirologists agree retroviruses should band at the 1.16 gm/ml density band and that this protocol should be able to be replicated by anyone in the world.

Although knowledge of retroviruses became solid through the 1970s, there was no solid evidence retroviruses played a role in cancer. One good try was by a National Institute of Health (NIH) virologist, Dr. Robert Gallo, when in 1975 he said he had isolated the first human retrovirus from a leukaemia patient. It turned out his samples were contaminated with retroviruses from a monkey, a gibbon and a baboon and therefore his retrovirus connection to human leukaemia was not valid.


Gallo's HTLVs = HIV


Gallo was heavily involved and committed to finding a viral cause to cancer and leukaemia during the 70s. Gallo's sister had died of leukaemia at a young age and it had a darkly profound affect on Gallo and his family. Gallo was also an exceedingly ambitious and competitive personality and those close to him said only his ego challenged the size and fury of his competitiveness and ambition. Imagine the prestige of being the scientist to discover the cause of AIDS - the touted "disease(s)" of the twentieth century," expected to surpass the Black Plague in deaths. This man or woman would surely be awarded God-like status and the Nobel Prize would be a given. Why has the Nobel Prize not been given for discovery of "the cause of AIDS?"[Head scratcher #2].

Gallo's retrovirus money was drying up and he desperately needed a breakthrough. He thought he found one when he grew cells of a leukaemia patient and saw reverse transcriptase activity. Gallo claimed it was a retrovirus because he saw transcriptase activity, but he did not isolate the virus with the aforementioned process. He called his new retrovirus Human T-cell leukaemia virus or HTLV-I. (Then came HTLV-II and HTLV-III became what is now known as the HIV retrovirus.)

There were some now-familiar contradictions right away (that Gallo admitted) like why is HTLV readily found in perfectly healthy people, and how could it be that only one percent of those "infected" with HTLV ever develop leukaemia? [Head-scratcher #3]


Fast track to the "AIDS virus"


In 1982 Gallo presented the hypothesis that the cause of AIDS is a retrovirus. A year later, colleagues of Gallo claimed they found antibodies to HTLV-I in AIDS patients and Gallo made the same claim at about the same time. However, while HTLV-I was accepted to cause T-cell proliferation and cause leukaemia, the hallmark of leukaemia, the hallmark of AIDS was T-cell depletion. [Head-scratcher #4] Gallo noticed the contradiction and easily fixed it by simply replacing the "L" in HTLV from "leukaemia" to "lymphotropic" and later the messy "L" was dropped altogether for HIV. Wha la! Isn't science easy?

In the same month, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in France described the isolation of a retrovirus from the lymph nodes of a homosexual man with lymphadenopathy. Samples of this virus, called Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus (LAV) were sent to Gallo's laboratory on several occasions. Montagnier had not written a paper yet and Gallo offered to look through the draft before publication. Gallo offered to write an abstract for Montagnier's paper and read it to him over the phone. Gallo's last sentence read: "The virus appears to be a member of the human T-cell leukaemia virus (HTLV) family," thereby linking the two in history. Montagnier said he never would have agreed to that statement but he didn't understand Gallo's English. This is important because conventional HIV science is based on these discoveries of Montagnier and Gallo.

Gallo was desperately trying to find a solid connection to his retrovirus family and AIDS, and in 1984 his team was testing the blood of people with AIDS. They had a hard time finding any HTLV, so they used hothouse techniques and pooled together a brew of selected, cancerous cell lines from ten different patients. Gallo said he found another retrovirus in the blood of these samples and called this one HTLV-III, which would later be abbreviated to HIV. Needless to say, pooling together several blood samples is very bad science and is far, far removed from actually isolating and proving a retrovirus is there. But it was good enough for Gallo and the US government, who wanted an answer to this embarrassing, deadly problem without discourse.

On April 23, 1984 Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler, with Dr. Gallo by her side, announced that Gallo and his co-workers "had found the probable cause of AIDS" and they had developed a sensitive test to show whether the "AIDS virus" was present in the blood. Gallo filed for a US blood test patent, which he had developed, the same day. It was a public relations event that will forever reverberate in history.

It is important to note this announcement was made before any scientific papers of Gallo's were published that shared an experiment and findings claiming HIV isolation and its link to AIDS. What was probably most damaging was when The New York Times splashed the announcement on the front page, saying the cause of AIDS had been found and it's the "AIDS virus." Science is a community based on a sportsman-like premise that says, "You come up with an idea, and we - the rest of the community - will see if we can tear you down or replicate your findings." Normally, papers are published and other scientists mimic the experiment and publish their findings in the form of confirmations or disproofs. This never happened with the "discovery" of HIV. The next month Gallo and colleagues did publish four papers in Science, but those papers did not isolate HIV by identifying it under electron microscope nor was isolation at the 1.16 gm/ml band achieved.

It turned out Gallo actually stole Montagnier's LAV sample and photograph when they were sent to his lab. Gallo used Montagnier's stolen sample for his published papers making the claim to have found HIV, the cause of AIDS. He needed to steal the sample, because he was having a hard time finding what he wanted to find. A big battle ensued because now the stakes were very high if LAV a la HTLV-III (HIV) was "known to cause AIDS." Just imagine the royalties on the HIV test! The discoveries, inventions and subsequent patents of scientists are profoundly lucrative for their employer. In Gallo's case, it was the US government's National Institute of Health (NIH). Gallo's inventions provided over half of the organization's enormous income.

The Pasteur Institute alleged that Gallo had misappropriated LAV in developing the HIV blood test. The conflict ran through American courts and ended when President Reagan and French Premier Francois Mitterand got together to cut the pie down the middle and agreed both Gallo and Montagnier could claim to be the "co-discoverers of HIV" and, most importantly, both would share royalties.

This conflict caught the attention of investigative journalist John Crewdson and he published a lengthy article in the Chicago Tribune. The article caught the attention of a US senator and three formal inquires followed. One inquiry was done by the NIH, and (big surprise) they thought Gallo's actions did not meet the formal definition of misconduct. Then the case was kicked to the Office of Research Integrity and Gallo was found guilty of scientific misconduct. (If you would like to read in detail about this fiasco, check out Crewdsons book Science Fictions, available at Multnomah County library.)

Although the "co-discoverer" of HIV was found guilty of scientific misconduct because he "created and fostered conditions that give rise to falsified/fabricated data and falsified reports," all HIV/AIDS information, statistics and treatments are based on his science. [Head-scratcher #5]

The four Gallo papers published in Science in 1984 and Montagnier's first paper are the reference and proof of HIV and its causation to AIDS. Montagnier never thought his LAV was related to Gallo's HIV family and later he said he thought HIV alone is harmless. For a detailed analysis of these papers, please use the internet and go to: Virusmyth.net - Find - Papadopoulos et al Eleni (Eleni Papadopulos) or The Perth Group. (Also see attached resource list sidebar.)

We, the public, who are concerned with HIV infection and AIDS, play Truman in this reality show. The creator, the man in "The Truman Show" who manipulates the drama from a fake sun, is not Gallo, but the large, nebulous health organizations that are fused with government. Gallo, and present day rhetoric-with-no-evidence shouting orthodox scientists, health care providers and AIDS organizations are simply our best friends, mothers and spouses.



Resources:

AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science: How a Virus That Never Was Deceived the World, by Neville Hodgkins

Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of a Premature Consensus, by Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein

Positively False: Exposing the Myths Around HIV and AIDS, by Joan Shenton

Prescription For Profit: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Bankrolled the Unholy Marriage Between Science and Business, by Linda Marsa

The AIDS War: Propaganda, Profiteering and Genocide from the Medical-Industrial Complex, by John Lauritsen

AIDS: The HIV Myth, by Jad Adams

The Gravest Show on Earth: America in the Age of AIDS, by Elinor Burkett

Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Dr. Peter Duesberg

Science Fictions, by John Crewdson


To get your free copy of What if Everything You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong? by long-term HIV survivor Christine Maggiore call or write: Portland Health Education AIDS Liasion (HEAL) at:  bwport@comcast.net or (503) 227-2339.


This is part four of a five-part series:
 http://members.tripod.com/~HEAL_Portland/kim4.htm#truestart

 http://heal_portland.tripod.com/

phone: phone: (503) 227-2339


If you tell a lie 17.Jul.2004 03:37

Animus Publications

over and over and over and over and over again...


it must be true!



just like those Weapons of Mass Destruction...

HIV = Iraq WMD 17.Jul.2004 06:29

can't be defined as threat

.

causation 17.Jul.2004 09:14

Animus Publications

HIv does not equal AIDS **CAN** be defined as a threat.

What was your point?



====================
HIV pregnancy care has drawback


Sophisticated drugs are denied to many Africans

Treatment used in poor countries to prevent HIV passing from mothers to babies may have a serious drawback.

Research suggests it may reduce the drug's effectiveness WHEN IT IS NEEDED LATER by the women themselves.

In some impoverished, high-risk areas, HIV positive pregnant women are given a one-off shot of the drug nevirapine.

However, research presented at the Annual Retrovirus Conference in San Francisco suggests this is enough for HIV to build resistance to the drug.

Nevirapine is used because is cheap, and HAS BEEN SHOW TO CUT BY HALF the risk of a pregnant woman passing HIV on to her child.

However, one study, conducted in South Africa, found that 39% of HIV positive women who get nevirapine during pregnancy go on to harbour virus that is resistant to the drug.

A second study, done in Thailand, found mothers who eventually needed drug treatment for their infection were much less likely than usual to respond to it.


Lack of alternative

Kate Carr is president of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, the largest provider of treatment to prevent mothers passing on HIV to their babies in Africa and other poor parts of the world.

She said: "The sad reality is, we do not have another option in most places, either for mothers or babies."

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3475055.stm
========================================



Up to 50% of infants of HIV seropositive mothers are pre- or perinatally infected with HIV, accounting for 90% of HIV infections in childhood. In the developed world this figure may be lower, with vertical transmission rates of 20 - 30%.

Zidovudine REDUCES THE INCIDENCE OF VERTICAL TRANSMISSION of HIV from about 26% to 8% when compared with controls. THIS TREATMENT IS EFFECTIVE regardless of the mother's viral load.

CAESARIAN SECTION MAY HALVE THE RISK RELATIVE TO NORMAL VAGINAL DELIVERY.

Signs and symptoms of HIV infection may be present in the fetus. The reported fetal abnormalities include wide set eyes, short nose, patulous lips, 'box' forehead and growth failure.

However the diagnosis is usually made between the ages of 6 months and 2 years. A common mode of presentation in children is progressive encephalopathy. The number of infant AIDS cases is increasing at an alarming rate.
 http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/697958463.htm
===================================


People living with aids/hiv -- What do THEY say?


============================================================
 http://www.vicaids.asn.au/content/ContentPage.asp?SectionID=22

What Treatments are available?
There is a wide range of treatments available now which can virtually stop HIV replicating in the body. The links below will give you an overview.
_________________

Project INFORM - Advocacy for People Living With AIDS:
 http://www.projinf.org/pub/index.html

Information on Specific Topics
These publications cover a wide range of topics including information about specific anti-HIV therapies, diagnosis and treatments for HIV/AIDS-related diseases and conditions and discussions about things to consider when treating HIV.

introductory packet:
-------------------

Anti-HIV Treatments -
also includes information relating to drug side effects and information on alternative and complementary therapies.


Abacavir (Ziagen)
Adherence: Keeping up with Your Meds
Amprenavir (Agenerase)
Anti-HIV Therapy Strategies
Atazanavir (Reyetaz)
Bone Problems
Cell Cycles, Anti-HIV Drugs and Treatment
Decisions about Therapies, Making
Delavirdine (Rescriptor)
Didanosine (ddI, Videx)
Drug Dosing Chart - also in PDF
Drug Interactions
Drug Levels and HIV (Pharmacology)
Drug Resistance Tests
Drug Side Effects, Dealing with;
Drug Side Effects Chart
Efavirenz (Sustiva)
Emtricitabine (FTC, Emtriva)
Enfuvirtide (T20, Fuzeon)
Federal Guidelines (non PI Links)
Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV Infected Adults and Adolescents, Pediatric HIV Infection, and Perinatal Infection
Fosamprenavir (Lexiva)
Herbs, Supplements and HIV
Indinavir (Crixivan)
Kaletra (lopinavir & ritonavir)
Lamivudine (3TC, Epivir)
Lipodystrophy Syndrome(s)
Medical Marijuana - [WOO HOO!]
Mitochondrial Damage and Lactic Acidosis
Nelfinavir (Viracept)
Nevirapine (Viramune)
New Anti-HIV Therapies
Ritonavir (Norvir)
Saquinavir (Fortovase, Invirase)
Side Effects Chart
Start Anti-HIV Therapy, When to
Stavudine (d4T, Zerit)
Structured Treatment Interruptions (STI)
2000 STI Workshop Summary
1999 STI Workshop Summary
Tenofovir (Viread)
Viral Load: The Mellors Chart, Interpreting
(in Anti-HIV Therapy Strategies)
Zalcitabine (ddC, Hivid)
Zidovudine (AZT, Retrovir)
============================

 http://www.projinf.org/indexS.html#intro
This information is from PEOPLE LIVING WITH AIDS/HIV


Why don't you write them to let them know that they don't know what they are talking about, Gringo?

questioning orthodox corporate-controlled science is healthy 17.Jul.2004 14:15

GRINGO STARS

"There are many African studies reporting HIV-positive children with HIV-negative mothers."
(Int J STD AIDS 2002;13:657-666)
-- Gisselquist D, Rothenberg R, Potterat J, Drucker EM, Aids Researchers


"The HIV/AIDS myth is the most devastating scientific fraud in the history of mankind. The toll in ruined lives is incalculable. When will the scientific and political communities muster the courage to squarely face the truth?"
-- Eugene Watson, Manufacturer of Scientific Instruments


"I look for the day when HIV/AIDS will be eradicated, not via toxic drugs but by informed science committed to authentic healing and not merely waging war on a mythical/overrated virus."
-- Victor Pond, Project Director, MOCHA Coalition (Men Of Color Committed to Healthier Alternatives), Chicago Department of Public Health, Chicago, Illinois


"I have medical training but work as a journalist... I have seen many people die as soon as they start intense AZT cocktail treatment... our president [Mbeki] has been ridiculed for what I believe might be correct thinking. There is something that always puzzles me and that is that if AIDS... had really taken hold would we not see huge exponential growth, bodies in the streets, villages decimated? I also believe that while working in the sudan, I got so many illnesses that had I had an AIDS test I would have tested positive. Doctors have been wrong on so many things, why not this?"
-- Lin Sampson, Journalist, Sunday Times, Cape Town, South Africa


"During the middle ages doctors of the day deeply believed that midwives were witches. The result; thousands of midwives were executed. In the 1700 to 1800's doctors then believed that as much as four-fifths of a person's 'bad' blood should be drained out of the body for a simple sore throat. The result; thousands of people (among them President George Washington) bled to death during medical bloodletting sessions. For centuries the medical profession stubbornly believed that scurvy had absolutely nothing to do with diet. The result; literally millions of preventable deaths due to scurvy... The seemingly endless litany of medical crimes and arrogance is written in blood across the pages of history and yet they still expect us all to keep on believing... Do you still have faith in the church of modern medicine?"
-- Dr. James P. Hilton, PhD, author, Burden of Proof: Surviving Cancer, AIDS and Most Other Illnesses

Government officials, AIDS organizations and the media unanimously agree that the recent decline in AIDS cases and deaths is an unprecedented occurrence due to a new combination of drugs that include protease inhibitors, chemicals said to block the replication of HIV. However, a careful look behind the headlines reveals that there is no medical evidence to support these popular claims about the protease inhibitor "combo cocktails."

The declines in AIDS deaths attributed to combination therapies actually began several years before protease inhibitor drugs became available for general use. (72) Since the first protease inhibitor received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in December of 1995, a more likely explanation for decreased deaths would be the change in the official AIDS definition adopted in 1993 which allows HIV positives with no symptoms or illness to be diagnosed with AIDS. Since 1993, more than half of all newly diagnosed AIDS cases are counted among people who are not sick. (73)

CDC data also show that decreases in AIDS cases commonly ascribed to "AIDS cocktails" preceded the introduction of the new drug treatments by three full years. According to the CDC's HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, AIDS diagnoses peaked in the third quarter of 1991, increased once in the first quarter of 1993 as a result of the 1993 expanded AIDS definition, and have dropped each year since. (75)

News stories of AIDS patients who rise from their death beds to run marathons after taking the drug cocktails, are just that -- stories. In science, such unverified accounts are dismissed as anecdotal, a term that comes from the Greek word anekdotos, meaning unpublished. None of the anecdotal tales of recoveries attributed to new drug combinations have been substantiated by controlled studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals, a fact acknowledged in the fine print of pharmaceutical advertisements:

"At this time there is no evidence that Ziagen will help you live longer or have fewer of the medical problems associated with HIV or AIDS."

"It is not yet known whether Crixivan will extend your life or reduce your chances of getting other illnesses associated with HIV."

"At present, there are no results from controlled clinical trials evaluating the effects of Viramune [on] the incidence of opportunistic infections or survival."

"There have been no clinical trials conducted with Combivir." (76)

Incomplete and inconclusive data from one 1997 study are used to claim that mortality rates are lower among HIV positives treated with protease inhibitors. (77) This particular trial was prematurely terminated before statistically significant results could be obtained, and no placebo control comparing unmedicated HIV positives was used, no recurrent AIDS-defining illnesses that appeared among participants were recorded (except recurrent pneumonia), and the results mentioned in the final report are for only a small fraction of the patients enrolled in the study. (78) Current pharmaceutical ads use this study to declare that their new drugs are "proven to help people with HIV live longer, healthier lives" while simultaneously admitting that "because the study ended early, there was insufficient data to determine [the drug's] statistical impact on survival." (79)

While there is no evidence that cocktail therapies produce clinical health benefits, well-documented side effects include headache, fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, oral lesions, abdominal pain, severe fatigue, sexual dysfunction, general ill feeling, skin rashes, a hypersensitivity reaction that can result in sudden death, nervous system damage, enlarged liver, liver failure, kidney stones, kidney sludge, physical deformities including hunchbacks, sunken cheeks, and "stick-like limbs," diabetes, heart disease, "unmasking" of various opportunistic infections including CMV retinitis (a viral infection which can lead to blindness), and spontaneous bleeding in hemophiliacs. (80)

Media reports attributing declines in AIDS to protease inhibitor cocktails often neglect to mention the high rate of drug failure or the considerable number of HIV positives who either quit the new combinations because of intolerable side effects or have never taken them at all. Recent studies place drug failure rates at 50% while others note that as many as 40% of participants drop out of protease inhibitor drug trials due to adverse effects, and as AIDS expert Dr. James Curran laments, "fewer than 10% of US AIDS patients have access to and are on the new wonder drugs." (81) For more information on the chemotherapy/protease inhibitor drug combinations known as HAART, please see A Sobering Report on AIDS Cocktails and What's Up with Viral Load? on pages 32 and 36.

 http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/aids_drug_fact/aidsdrugfact.html

Changing the AIDS Definition Increases AIDS Survival Rates...

"When you suddenly label large numbers of illness-free, symptom-free people HIV positives as 'AIDS patients,' this must result in increased survival in the overall AIDS patient population. This has to do with the labeling, not with the effects of any treatment."
 http://healtoronto.com/rrsurvival.html

ad vercundium 17.Jul.2004 18:09

Animus Publications

"God does not play dice"
- ALbert Einstein

But he was wrong, Gringo - the evidence was against his *** faith ****



So go ahead and quote as many names as you like.

It won't help your case.

Don't mind if I do... (thanks for shutting down all discussion though) 17.Jul.2004 19:28

GRINGO STARS cifarber@aol.com

Readers are intelligent enough to recognize arguments when they see it. And non-arguments as well. And personal attacks. I think it's important that all theories of what may cause AIDS are researched and investigated.

"It seems to evade our critics that there is real, actual, quantifiable doubt as to whether HIV causes AIDS, and that if it isn't, it would be the height of scientific or journalistic immorality to continue to pretend that it does strictly to enforce sexual behaviour control. On some level they seem to be saying: What we mean by that HIV causes AIDS is that we have all agreed that it does, and until we agree otherwise, that is reality.

"The real problem is that the very notion of an objective reality, of truth, independent of media projections, is fading out of the universe. The real problem is that at the end of the day, truth is of so little interest to so many people. When AIDS dissidents are attacked for being "dangerous and irresponsible," as we invariably are by the keepers of La Machine, it is not so much because they absolutely know that HIV causes AIDS (how could they?) as because they resent the impact the question itself may have on a population they deem in need of (their) behavioural guidelines. Truth is often disruptive, in fact you may even argue that lies are essential to a functioning society. Plato argued precisely that in The Republic, and indeed the text is said to have had a great influence on at least one political movement -- fascism. (The Noble Lie)

"But all of that aside, the only thing that matters is how or whether people are staying alive in the age of AIDS. If I hadn't been poking around in it for seven years, if I hadn't heard countless versions of the same story, namely that people who believe in HIV as a death sentence wind up dead and people who don't don't, if I didn't know so many people who have been HIV positive and healthy for up to fourteen years without "doing" anything, and others who took AZT and died in a few months, if I didn't see the terror, pain and confusion caused by the false and shameless marketing of AZT, and so on and so on, then maybe I would be nicer, better, more objective, more responsible. But you cannot ask a journalist not to engage as a human being, not to make decisions, not to have passions and opinions. The journalists on the other side are loaded with theirs -- it's only because they repeat the party line that they are considered objective.

"The dissidents are not crazy, immoral, dangerous, irresponsible, homophobic, racist, deluded, flat-earthers, or holocaust revisionists. (I forget what else we've been called.) Nor do we pretend to be saints. We're just people -- scientists, journalists, activists, and HIV antibody positives -- who agree that the pursuit of truth in the question of what really causes AIDS is vital, inevitable, and therefore just. Nothing weird, nothing shameful, just tracing the dots, trying to attain clarity. All the other rhetoric, all the ribbons, all the quilts, can wait. No reason people can't keep their condoms while the truth is being sought.

"I propose a new set of moral guidelines: Anybody who dares step up at this point and attempt to obstruct the HIV debate should be considered flat-headed, dangerous, demented and ridiculous, and should be placed inside a glass case at a historical museum. Then the people can get on with the obvious task at hand: solving AIDS. Not 'spreading the message about HIV,' but solving AIDS."
-- Celia Farber

 http://healtoronto.com/aidsinc.html

Celia Farber has written on the issues and controversies surrounding HIV and AIDS for more than a decade. She is a regular contributor to Esquire, Spin, USA Today, and Gear, among other U.S. publications. Here is an archive of her articles:
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/cfarber.htm

screw it all, arrest the close minded 18.Jul.2004 00:23

dsflkj

if animus publications actually put that crap into print, it would be copyright infringement.

say something of your own between those quotes other than snipes and one line non-refutes; i'm so f-ing sick of people who defend orthodox opinion blindly.(and what the fuck IS your post ABOUT? a damn big-pharm AD?!, did you already sell of your stocks of prozac and viagra?)

read the damn article again; you werent paying attention.
>:(


by the way 18.Jul.2004 11:48

clamydia

Albert Einstein was actually an agnostic. That often repeated quote has been propagated out of its original context. Here is another quote from Einstein, which more accurately describes his "faith":
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Debunk 18.Jul.2004 13:04

The Debunkers

Gringo wrote:
>AIDS is caused by recreational drug use, antiviral chemotherapy, and malnutrition. <

And yet I know people who have "AIDS" who were well nourished, non-drug using and not getting chemo. How do you explain them ? Since you can't, is your entire theory debunked? Just using your logic...

I urge people to continue using protection while exploring alternative explanations for HIV and AIDS.

There are many ways towards toxic overload or immunosuppression 18.Jul.2004 14:25

GRINGO STARS

First of all, not everyone is 100 percent honest when dealing with their sexuality or drug use or their STD history, not even with friends sometimes, so knowing the real deal can be difficult sometimes.

Overuse of antibiotics, because of repeated treatment of STDs or other ailments, is another route towards immunosuppression. Also, the use of poppers is very widespread, and is more often considered a sexual aid than an actual drug. Even straight-laced types will use poppers, which is incredibly toxic.

Also, people can be malnourished even when they are getting enough to eat. You can stuff your gullet and still be vastly undernourished. Pesticides and food additives have also been proven to stress the immune system severely, depending on the additive/pesticide.

Opportunistic infections are also a proven cause of immunosuppression. Stress itself can stress the immune system as well. The mere knowledge of having a 100 percent fatal "HIV infection" has been a major factor is many AIDS patients stress levels, as well as their immunity.
 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrchemical.pdf
 http://healtoronto.com/ifnothiv.html
 http://robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TheCausesOfAids.html

Head Scratchers 19.Jul.2004 15:32

"denialist"

Kim,
coming from somebody who's spent the last 2&1/2 years feverishly asking questions from the "rethinkers", I've found more "head-scratchers" than I have the time to count. I've found that everybody I know who believes HIV=AIDS, doesn't have a CLUE how the tests work, don't know ONE THING about Gallo and/or Montagnier's "isolation" , or even Gallo's and Montagnier's names. Yet they're CONVINCED HIV=AIDS, because that's what they've been told for so long. The AIDS hypothesis has become pathologically entrenched as the media tow the party line unquestioningly, and the public receives little to no information about the basic "science" of "HIV".