portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro


Why an HIV Vaccine Can't Work

Why hasn't a viable HIV vaccine been produced after 20+ years of trying?
It's been over twenty years since Robert Gallo's announcement that he'd discovered the probable cause of AIDS. In the U.S., we've spent over 100 billion dollars researching HIV. Worldwide, there are over 100,000 researchers poking and prodding this retrovirus. Margaret Heckler announced in 1984 that a vaccine would be available within two years (1986). So many researchers, so much time, so much money...it's 2005, where's that vaccine?
There are two important points to consider with HIV and vaccines. First, how do vaccines work? To most laypeople, a vaccine must seem like an almost magical fluid that gets injected into a person and voila, they're cured. Vaccines don't cure anybody of anything, not directly anyway. Unlike drugs, which are designed to disrupt, interrupt, alter or terminate certain cellular functions, vaccines essentially help the body help itself. A weakend, or altered form of the virus we're trying to combat is injected into the body. The immune system recognizes this presence as an invader and sets about creating antibodies against it. So far, so good.
The second point to consider is how we go about diagnosing HIV infection. Everybody knows that we use an antibody test to determine HIV positivity. So...we assume somebody's HIV-infected because their blood reacts to an antibody test, which obviously means they're naturally producing antibodies to HIV. Back to the vaccine! So how would a vaccine-induced antibody response differ from one induced by HIV itself? How would a weakened/altered form of HIV entice the immune system into creating better antibodies to HIV than the ones it produces against the real thing? Anybody notice a problem here?
Pretend for a moment that a vaccine against HIV has been made. You get injected with it, and soon your body starts producing antibodies to HIV. Ok, no problem. At some point in the future, you come into contact with HIV. Your immune system notices this invader, and with it's previously-acquired HIV antibodies, sets about to eradicate it from your body. How is this different from people today who are HIV positive (by the finding of HIV antibodies) whose immune systems are doing just what they're supposed to be doing...producing antibodies against HIV? It seems quite paradoxical that an immune system can be vigorously producing antibodies against a pathogen and still be viewed as fatally crippled. Immune systems produce antibodies, that's what they do. If an immune system was overwhelmed or devastated by a pathogen, a good clue would be that it wasn't able to produce antibodies.
So, somebody please tell me how a vaccine against HIV can be created. If our bodies and immune systems are already doing what a vaccine would help do, what's the missing part of the equation?

Dunno why, but.... 02.Mar.2005 15:23


Its been a while since I've done any reading on this, but IIRC, pretty much all vaccines work in the way you describe--augmenting the body's natural immune system response. Thus, the problem with your hypothesis is that it should apply to all viruses, and not just HIV.

If I ever get bitten by a strange dog, I'll be getting a rabies series rather than just letting my body do what it does naturally (certain death, in the case of a CNS rabies infection).

HAART is the REAL killer not some wonder virus that has not been isolated ever 02.Mar.2005 16:27

Paul King

Are AIDS drugs worse than the disease? Don't ask the people who make them.
By Celia Farber

After 20 years of hysteria, alarmism, misplaced recrimination and guilt, AIDS fatigue has beaten the newspaper-reading mind into a kind of blank. Citizens can't be faulted for not knowing how exactly to respond to last week's eruption of scandal from an NIH whistle-blower named Jonathan Fishbein, an AIDS researcher charged with overseeing clinical trials here and abroad. A reverberating language of bureaucracy and euphemism surrounds AIDS stories, making it impossible to know what has actually transpired. When people die from AIDS drugs, for instance, the word "death" is studiously avoided. I have seen medical articles documenting the fact that more people now die of toxicities from AIDS drugs than from the vanishingly opaque syndrome we once called AIDS. Death was referred to as a "grade four event," thus placing it eerily within the acceptable parameters of predictable phenomena in AIDS research—not as a failure, a crisis or even something to lament.

John Solomon broke the first in a series of stories in the Associated Press on Dec. 14. The lede read:
Weeks before President Bush announced a plan to protect African babies from AIDS, top US health officials warned that research in Uganda on a key drug was flawed and may have underreported severe reactions, including deaths, government documents show.

The story held many shocking revelations, but was quickly spun upside-down and inside-out by the AIDS spin machine, which can take any horror and reduce it to banality, keeping the strict focus off of government malfeasance. What Fishbein disclosed was that NIH AIDS research chief Edmund Tramont had airbrushed and cooked damning clinical data from a large experimental trial in Uganda that tested a drug called Nevirapine against AZT, in pregnant HIV-antibody-positive women, intended to reduce HIV transmission. Tramont had censored reports of thousands of toxic reactions to the drug, and "at least 14 deaths," concealing from the White House the truth about the drug, just before Bush rolled out his $500 million plan to push Nevirapine across Africa.

Additional data not widely reported in the media revealed that there were 16 more deaths in babies on Nevirapine, bringing the total to 30, and 38 babies died on AZT (the other arm of the study). The ominous data coincided with findings from an aborted study in South Africa in the late 1990s (stopped due to toxicities and deaths); it was disturbing enough that the drug's manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, withdrew its application to have the FDA approve the drug for use in pregnant women in all Western nations, including the U.S.

In 2000, the FDA put out a black-box label on the drug (which is approved for use in HIV-positive adults as part of a "cocktail therapy"), warning that it could cause fatal kidney damage and a syndrome that causes the flesh to blister and peel as though burned.

This is the drug that countless campaigners—spanning the political spectrum from George Bush to Bono—wish to give all Africans "free access" to. South African President Thabo Mbeki has been savagely pilloried for attempting to stop the drug's distribution to black South Africans. South African lawyer and journalist Anthony Brink's scathing report "The Trouble With Nevirapine" documented the long-known "problems" with the drug. The report was widely read by South Africa's leadership, and is the source of furious debate between black South Africans and the mostly white-run media, which still ridicules all criticism of U.S.-imported AIDS drugs and protocols as being a symptom of not caring about AIDS victims.

Nevirapine is a cheap drug, believed to reduce the transmission of HIV antibodies from mother to child if given before and during birth, despite there being no reliable data to prove that Nevirapine "drastically reduce[s]" transmission." (On average, in women who are well nourished, about eight percent of babies born to HIV-positive mothers with no intervention wind up HIV-antibody-positive; of these, disease progression is not tied to HIV status but rather to the overall health of the mother.) Wild claims about reduction in transmission are based on outdated, flawed research and ignore critical facts. In Africa, for instance, the test used to detect for HIV antibodies cross-reacts with the very proteins of pregnancy, meaning the women may not be true positives to begin with. Furthermore, every baby carries ghost antibodies from its mother for up to 18 months, which it eventually sheds, so all data about HIV status prior to that window of time is useless—but consistently cited anyway.

Nevirapine is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor—a class of drug designed in the hopes of being less toxic than AZT. This isn't asking much, since AZT is chemotherapy that simply terminates DNA synthesis.
"Of all the AIDS drugs, Nevirapine is the most acutely toxic," explained Dr. Dave Rasnick, a fierce critic of the government's AIDS research agenda, and a former drug developer. "It shows its toxic effects quickly. It has been documented in the medical literature for years that a single dose of Nevirapine can kill a person. People don't normally drop dead from taking a protease inhibitor, but that is what happens with Nevirapine. The rationale for this stuff is just as bizarre as it could be."

He continued: "Liver toxicity is the leading cause of death of HIV-positive people in America and Europe in the cocktail era."

Some months ago, I asked Rasnick to send me documentation of this seemingly unfathomable statement, which he did. The statement is in line with interviews I did with healthcare workers back in 2000, who reported that many more people are hospitalized from the effects of the AIDS drugs than from any of the 30-odd symptoms that originally constituted the definition of AIDS (i.e., a disintegration of the immune system).

This would seem to be a p.r. problem for the AIDS industry. But as we learned from the spin that followed the Fishbein revelations, death by AIDS drugs is not viewed as something that should get in the way of a well-intentioned research agenda—either in the West or in Africa.

The high dudgeon, when it came, was directed not at the NIH for experimenting to lethal effect on pregnant Ugandan mothers, cooking and deleting data, stating openly that African research can't be held to the same standards as Western research, or any of the other disturbing things that came out of Tramontgate.
The ire was aimed at the Associated Press and its reporters for spreading alarm about Nevirapine in Africa, which raised "fears that many women there will stop taking the drug."

The New York Times led the Orwellian spin, in a December 21 article by Donald McNeil Jr. The lede went right to the heart of the matter: The dyspepsia of activists and public health experts.

A series of articles critical of past trials of an important AIDS drug has created a furor in Africa, causing many public health experts to worry that some countries will stop using the drug, which prevents mothers from infecting their babies with the virus that causes AIDS.

It went on: "On Friday, The National Institutes of Health for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an arm of the National Institutes of Health, sharply criticized the articles, saying, 'It is conceivable that thousands of babies will become infected with HIV and die if single-dose Nevirapine for mother-to-infant HIV prevention is withheld because of misinformation.'"

Misinformation? The AP stories were specifically about the transmogrification of information into misinformation that Tramont engineered for his White House report. He cooked data. He deleted information about toxic reactions and death. In what kind of inverted universe is this not a gross violation of the entire premise of science and medicine?
Nature soon followed suit. From an article dated December 23, this dizzying opener:
Scientists and patient advocates this week united to defend an HIV treatment against allegations that a key clinical trial was flawed. A doctor from Global Strategis for HIV Prevention was quoted: 'This is the most successful therapy in the entire AIDS epidemic. It should not be attacked.'

"We are now living in a time of psychotic science, or abnormal science as I call it," said former New York Native publisher Chuck Ortleb, who was boycotted by the activist group ACT UP for publishing scathing critiques of AZT in the 1980s—a drug that was later proven to shorten rather than lengthen life. "That's why there are no controls in AIDS science, no dissent, why it's all science by press release. These self-appointed AIDS czars pretending to speak for the gay community, pretending to be revolutionaries, pretending to be anti-government when in fact they've always worked hand in hand with the government."

In recent years, Ortleb has turned to writing satirical novels, plays and a soon-to-be-released film called The Last Lovers on Earth, which is centered on a future dystopia in which AIDS research has been so successful that all gay men are dead.

"With their logic," Ortleb says, "this risk-benefit analysis, it doesn't matter if people die on the drugs, because they died so that the rest of the world could be saved."
His most recent send-up is a fictional press release for a new medical group called "Doctors Without Borders, Brains or Ethics," and focuses on protecting the AIDS establishment from criticism, "before the infection of skepticism spreads."
Let us not forget that Nevirapine is a drug that was pulled by its own manufacturer from use in the West, after an investment of many millions of dollars. It remains banned for use in pregnant first-world women.
Still, the NIH is using it on American women, in experimental trials you never heard about—until now. Alongside the revelations about the Ugandan trial, the AP stories brought to light that Joyce Ann Hafford, a 33-year-old, perfectly healthy, eight-months pregnant HIV-positive woman from Tennessee died from liver failure in an NIH trial testing Nevirapine. Her liver counts had been way off for days, and still doctors didn't take her off the drug.
The doctors told her family, naturally, that she had died of AIDS. The trouble is, cocktail-drug deaths are easily distinguished from AIDS deaths. This was not the case with AZT, a drug that simply decimated the immune system. Cocktail deaths are caused primarily by liver toxicity, heart attacks and strokes—from the effects of the drugs on the body's fat metabolism.

Hafford's death crystallizes the raging conflict between the establishment point of view that HIV is deadly and drugs save lives and the "denialist" or dissident point of view that HIV is not deadly at all by itself, but AIDS drugs are. Hafford had no so-called AIDS symptoms; she was simply HIV positive. She also had an older healthy child, which suggests that HIV may not be as lethal as advertised. By refusing to lament her death, or even the scores of Ugandan deaths, and instead attacking the messenger, the AIDS establishment has shown itself to be lost, with a broken compass, on the map of medicinal ethics.
Once it becomes acceptable to kill patients in experimental clinical trials and cover it up, without

So what? 02.Mar.2005 16:43


Yes, it's quite likely you would test positive for HIV shortly after vaccination when using an antibody test, such as ELISA. This is an annoyance, but hardly a serious problem: you'd use one of the multitudes of other tests available which test directly for the presence of the retrovirus itself: the antigen test, or the nucleic acid tests. Additionally, you could look at an indirect indicator, such as the number of CD4 T-cells present in blood.

Let's leave the doctoring to the doctors, mmmkay?

the short version. 02.Mar.2005 17:46


Here's the short version:

You have to understand the basics of immunity and vaccines (your basic description of how vaccines work is correct). Some problems are: 1) the major target of HIV is the immune system itself that would be activated by a vaccine but is disabled by the HIV virus. HIV infects the key CD4+ T cells that regulate the immune response, modifying or destroying their ability to function, and 2) once the virus infects CD4+ T cells, its genetic material is permanently integrated into the cell's chromosomes, establishing permanent latency.

After infection, HIV incorporates its genetic material into the host cells. If a cell reproduces itself, each new cell also contains the integrated HIV genes. There the virus can hide its genetic material for prolonged periods until the cell is activated and makes new viruses. Other cells act as HIV reservoirs, harboring intact viruses that may remain undetected by the immune system. This would not happen with a vaccine, since the antigen being introduced would be unable to multiply or insert itself into the person's DNA.

After entering the body, the virus rapidly disseminates, homing to the lymph nodes and related organs where it replicates and accumulates in large quantities. Paradoxically, the filtering system in these lymphoid organs, so effective at trapping pathogens and initiating an immune response, actually helps destroy the immune system. As CD4+ T cells travel to the lymph organs in response to HIV infection they are infected by the HIV that is harbored there.

Search google for more.

Questioning Jezebel (sounds like a movie!) 02.Mar.2005 18:06

Questioning AIDS

thanks for the info; you sound very well-read, but you could you possibly answer the question: why, after 20+ years, billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of researchers working on the problem do we not have a viable AIDS vaccine?

"why, 03.Mar.2005 02:35


..after 20+ years, billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of researchers working on the problem do we not have a viable AIDS vaccine?"

because there is no relation between "hiv" and "aids" whatsoever. the hole shebang is a hoax created to kill off people without getting caught.

start researching the *true* facts not the bogus info from the global pharma corps.

The Hidden Face of HIV – Part 1 03.Mar.2005 02:45

Paul King

The Hidden Face of HIV - Part 1
"Knowing is Beautiful"

by Liam Scheff

As a journalist who writes about AIDS, I am endlessly amazed by the difference between the public and the private face of HIV; between what the public is told and what's explained in the medical literature. The public face of HIV is well-known: HIV is a sexually transmitted virus that particularly preys on gay men, African Americans, drug users, and just about all of Africa, although we're all at risk. We're encouraged to be tested, because, as the MTV ads say, "knowing is beautiful." We also know that AIDS drugs are all that's stopping the entire African continent from falling into the sea.

The medical literature spells it out differently - quite differently. The journals that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, as well as the instructional material from medical schools, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and HIV test manufacturers will agree with the public perception in the large print. But when you get past the titles, they'll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are not standardized; that they're arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is not required for AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not describe a single entity, but instead describes a collection of non-specific, cross-reactive cellular material.

That's quite a difference.

The popular view of AIDS is held up by concerned people desperate to help the millions of Africans stricken with AIDS, the same disease that first afflicted young gay American men in the 1980s. The medical literature differs on this point. It says that that AIDS in Africa has always been diagnosed differently than AIDS in the US.

In 1985, The World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS. The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick. He wrote about in his book "Level 4 Virus hunters of the CDC," saying, "If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the cases..." The results - African AIDS would be defined by physical symptoms: fever, diarrhea, weight loss and coughing or itching. ("AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm." Science, 1986)

In Sub-Saharan African about 60 percent of the population lives and dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation. A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily "New Vision" outlined the situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences seasonal flooding. The report describes "heaps of unclaimed garbage" among the crowded houses in the flood zones and "countless pools of water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a dirty environment that favors cholera."

"[L]atrines are built above water streams. During rains the area residents usually open a hole to release feces from the latrines. The rain then washes away the feces to streams, from where the [area residents] fetch water. However, not many people have access to toilet facilities. Some defecate in polythene bags, which they throw into the stream." They call these, "flying toilets.''

The state-run Ugandan National Water and Sewerage Corporation states that currently 55% of Kampala is provided with treated water, and only 8% with sewage reclamation.

Most rural villages are without any sanitary water source. People wash clothes, bathe and dump untreated waste up and downstream from where water is drawn. Watering holes are shared with animal populations, which drink, bathe, urinate and defecate at the water source. Unmanaged human waste pollutes water with infectious and often deadly bacteria. Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which bring malaria. Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and famine are the top killers in Africa. But in 1985, they became AIDS.

The public service announcements that run on VH1 and MTV, informing us of the millions of infected, always fail to mention this. I don't know what we're supposed to do with the information that 40 million people are dying and nothing can be done. I wonder why we wouldn't be interested in building wells and providing clean water and sewage systems for Africans. Given our great concern, it would seem foolish not to immediately begin the "clean water for Africa" campaign. But I've never heard such a thing mentioned.

The UN recommendations for Africa actually demand the opposite -"billions of dollars" taken out of "social funds, education and health projects, infrastructure [and] rural development" and "redirected" into sex education (UNAIDS, 1999). No clean water, but plenty of condoms.

I have, however, felt the push to get AIDS drugs to Africans. Drugs like AZT and Nevirapine, which are supposed to stop the spread of HIV, especially in pregnant women. AZT and Nevirapine also terminate life. The medical literature and warning labels list the side effects: blood cell destruction, birth defects, bone-marrow death, spontaneous abortion, organ failure, and fatal skin rot. The package inserts also state that the drugs don't "stop HIV or prevent AIDS illnesses."

The companies that make these drugs take advantage of the public perception that HIV is measured in individual African AIDS patients, and that African AIDS - water-borne illness and poverty - can be cured by AZT and Nevirapine. That's good capitalism, but it's bad medicine.

Currently MTV, Black Entertainment Television and VH1 are running "Know HIV/AIDS"-sponsored advertisements of handsome young couples, black and white, touching, caressing, sensually, warming up to love-making. The camera moves over their bodies, hands, necks, mouth, back, legs and arms - and we see a small butterfly bandage over their inner elbows, where they've given blood for an HIV test. The announcer says, "Knowing is beautiful. Get tested."

A September, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article considered the "beauty" of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim Malone, who'd been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health was diagnosed as "very poor." He was classified as, "permanently disabled and unable to work or participate in any stressful situation whatsoever." Malone said, "When I wasn't able to eat, when I was sick, my in-home health care nurse would say, 'Well, Jim, it goes with your condition.'

In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually negative. He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at another. Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the first (that was the protocol at the Veteran's Hospital). Having been falsely diagnosed and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to die, Malone said, "I would tell people to get not just one HIV test, but multiple tests. I would say test, test and retest."

In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was "extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.

In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that "68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to represent false positive results." (NEJM - New England Journal of Medicine. 312; 1985).

In 1992, the Lancet reported that for 66 true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, "there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations." (Lancet. 339; 1992)

In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous (indeterminate) test results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted in the ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked Immunosorbant Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain proteins that react with antibodies in your blood.

In the US, you're tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts, you'll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more accurate than the first? That's just the protocol. If you have a reaction on the second ELISA, you'll be confirmed with a third antibody test, called the Western Blot. But that's here in America. In some countries, one ELISA is all you get.

It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests, that they produce so many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to cross-react. We produce antibodies all the time, in response to stress, malnutrition, illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a cut, a cold, even pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV tests come up as positive.

The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test results: "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear..."(Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

"[H]uman or technical errors, other viruses and vaccines" (Infectious Disease Clinician of North America. 7; 1993)

"[L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza..." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).

"[U]npasteurized cows' milk... Bovine exposure, or cross-reactivity with other human retroviruses" (Transfusion. 1988)

Even geography can do it:
"Inhabitants of certain regions may have cross-reactive antibodies to local prevalent non-HIV retroviruses" (Medicine International. 56; 1988).

The same is true for the confirmatory test - the Western Blot.
Causes of indeterminate Western Blots include: "lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune disorders. Also, there appear to be healthy individuals with antibodies that cross-react...." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).

"The Western Blot is not used as a screening tool because...it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct 2000)

Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results, even by the test manufacturers. "[False positives can be caused by] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).

This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African nations are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of pregnant women.

In Zimbabwe this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% - overnight. UNICEF's Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press "The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that." (PLUS News, August, 2004)

When these pregnant young women are tested, they're often tested for other illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. There's no concern for cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat testing. One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5% of the population is suddenly HIV positive.

The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported that "the current estimate of 40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 25 percent to 50 percent."

They pointed out that HIV estimates for entire countries have, for over a decade, been taken from "blood samples from pregnant women at prenatal clinics."

But it's not just HIV estimates that are created from testing pregnant women, it's "AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people needing antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy," all from that one test.

I've certainly never seen this in VH1 ad.

At present there are about 6 dozen reasons given in the literature why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is truly positive or negative:

"[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-1 protein, recombinant or authentic." (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 1991). "Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1 infection." (Medicine International. 1988)

And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, "the test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the virus." (Science. November, 1999).

The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, the tests have to be "interpreted." There is no strict or clear definition of HIV positive or negative. There's just the antibody reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine called a spectrophotometer.

The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-off, you're positive; if you test below it, you're negative.
So what determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDC's instructional material: "Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary." (CDC-EIS "Screening For HIV," 2003 )

The University of Vermont Medical School agrees: "Where a cutoff is drawn to determine a diagnostic test result may be somewhat arbitrary... .Where would the director of the Blood Bank who is screening donated blood for HIV antibody want to put the cut-off?...Where would an investigator enrolling high-risk patients in a clinical trial for an experimental, potentially toxic antiretroviral draw the cutoff?" (University of Vermont School of Medicine teaching module: Diagnostic Testing for HIV Infection)

A 1995 study comparing four major brands of HIV tests found that they all had different cut-off points, and as a result, gave different test results for the same sample: "[C]ut-off ratios do not correlate for any of the investigated ELISA pairs," and one brand's cut-off point had "no predictive value" for any other. (INCQS-DSH, Brazil 1995).

I've never heard of a person being asked where they would "want to put the cut-off" for determining their HIV test result, or if they felt that testing positive was a "somewhat arbitrary" experience.

In the UK, if you get through two ELISA tests, you're positive. In America, you get a third and final test to confirm the first two. The test is called the Western Blot. It uses the same proteins, laid out differently. Same proteins, same nonspecific reactions. But this time it's read as lines on a page, not a color change. Which lines are HIV positive? That depends on where you are, what lab you're in and what kit they're using.

The Mayo Clinic reported that "the Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns." (Mayo Clinic Procedural. 1988)

A 1988 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 19 different labs, testing one blood sample, got 19 different Western Blot results. (JAMA, 260, 1988)

A 1993 review in Bio/Technology reported that the FDA, the CDC/Department of Defense and the Red Cross all interpret WB's differently, and further noted, "All the other major USA laboratories for HIV testing have their own criteria." (Bio/Technology, June 1993)

In the early 1990s, perhaps in response to growing discontent in the medical community with the lack of precision of the tests, Roche Laboratories introduced a new genetic test, called Viral Load, based on a technology called PCR. How good is the new genetic marvel?

An early review of the technology in the 1991 Journal of AIDS reported that "a true positive PCR test cannot be distinguished from a false positive." (J.AIDS, 1991)

A 1992 study "identified a disturbingly high rate of nonspecific positivity," saying 18% antibody-negative (under the cut-off) patients tested Viral Load positive. (J. AIDS, 1992)

A 2001 study showed that the tests gave wildly different results from a single blood sample, as well as different results with different test brands. (CDC MMWR. November 16, 2001)

A 2002 African study showed that Viral Load was high in patients who had intestinal worms, but went down when they were treated for the problem. The title of the article really said it all. "Treatment of Intestinal Worms Is Associated With Decreased HIV Plasma Viral Load." (J.AIDS, September, 2002)

Roche laboratories, the company that manufactures the PCR tests, puts this warning on the label:
"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."

But that's exactly how it is used - to convince pregnant mothers to take AZT and Nevirapine and to urge patients to start the drugs.

The medical literature adds something truly astounding to all of this. It says that reason HIV tests are so non-specific and need to be interpreted is because there is "no virologic gold standard" for HIV tests.

The meaning of this statement, from both the medical and social perspective, is profound. The "virologic gold standard" is the isolated virus that the doctors claim to be identifying, indirectly, with the test.

Antibody tests always have some cross-reaction, because antibodies aren't specific. The way to validate a test is to go find the virus in the patient's blood.

You take the blood, spin it in a centrifuge, and you end up with millions of little virus particles, which you can easily photograph under a microscope. You can disassemble the virus, measure the weight of its proteins, and map its genetic structure. That's the virologic gold standard. And for some reason, HIV tests have none.

In 1986, JAMA reported that: "no established standard exists for identifying HTLV-III [HIV] infection in asymptomatic people." (JAMA. July 18, 1986)

In 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that "The meaning of positive tests will depend on the joint [ELISA/WB] false positive rate. Because we lack a gold standard, we do not know what that rate is now. We cannot know what it will be in a large-scale screening program." ( Screening for HIV: can we afford the false positive rate?. NEJM. 1987)

Skip ahead to 1996; JAMA again reported: "the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no reference or 'gold standard' test that determines unequivocally the true infection status of the patient. (JAMA. May, 1996)

In 1997, Abbott laboratories, the world leader in HIV test production stated: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV antibody in human blood." (Abbot Laboratories HIV Elisa Test 1997)

In 2000 the Journal AIDS reported that "2.9% to 12.3%" of women in a study tested positive, "depending on the test used," but "since there is no established gold standard test, it is unclear which of these two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate... " (AIDS, 14; 2000).

If we had a virologic gold standard, HIV testing would be easy and accurate. You could spin the patient's blood in a centrifuge and find the particle. They don't do this, and they're saying privately, in the medical journals, that they can't.

That's why tests are determined through algorithms - above or below sliding cut-offs; estimated from pregnant girls, then projected and redacted overnight.

By repeating, again and again in the medical literature that there's no virologic gold standard, the world's top AIDS researchers are saying that what we're calling HIV isn't a single entity, but a collection of cross-reactive proteins and unidentified genetic material.

And we're suddenly a very long way from the public face of HIV.

But the fact is, you don't need to test HIV positive to be an AIDS patient. You don't even have to be sick.

In 1993, the CDC added "Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia" to the AIDS category. What does it mean? Non-HIV AIDS.

In 1993, the CDC also made "no-illness AIDS" a category. If you tested positive, but weren't sick, you could be given an AIDS diagnosis. By 1997, the healthy AIDS group accounted for 2/3rds of all US AIDS patients. (That's also the last year they reported those numbers). (CDC Year-End Edition, 1997)

In Africa, HIV status is irrelevant. Even if you test negative, you can be called an AIDS patient:

From a study in Ghana: "Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number (59%) of the seronegative (HIV-negative) group who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhea, and chronic fever." (Lancet. October,1992)

And from across Africa: "2215 out of 4383 (50.0%) African AIDS patients from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Lusaka, Zambia, and Kinshasa, Zaire, were HIV-antibody negative." (British Medical Journal, 1991)

Non-HIV AIDS, HIV-negative AIDS, No Virologic Gold standard - terms never seen in an HIV ad.
But even if you do test "repeatedly" positive, the manufacturers say that "the risk of an asymptomatic [not sick] person developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, 1997)

If commerce laws were applied equally, the "knowing is beautiful" ads for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes:

"Warning: This test will not tell you if you're infected with a virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you've been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that you're African. It will not tell you if you're going to live or die; in fact, we really don't know what testing positive, or negative, means at all."

to questioning aids et al 03.Mar.2005 10:40


Similar to the reasons we don't have a vaccine for the common cold... the protein coat of the HIV virus shifts and is variable. The "coat" of the virus is what is recognizable to the immune system. Finding a common denominator that you can replicate in an antigen is difficult.

To Eskimo: no I don't work for "the global pharma corps". I just like science and read. I do also however recognize that there are serious political problems with "AIDS" in Africa being "diagnosed" by weight loss and failure to thrive, and believe that i is used as a way to marginalize native peoples there. However, I do believe that HIV causes AIDS.

Pual King: I've almost never seen such a misrepresentation of literature as your diatribe. (And by the way, I'm allergic to latex and well aware of the problems with condoms. However, it has nothing to do with the link you post. Natural rubber latex is a plant derivative with highly allergenic properties--kind of like peanuts for some people. I carry epinephrine with me at all times because a party balloon can cause me to have an anaphylactic reaction and not be able to breathe...to say nothing of what a condom in contact with my mucous membranes would cause.)

wake upp and smell the coffee 03.Mar.2005 13:54


"However, I do believe that HIV causes AIDS."

of course, the 1924(and growing number of) professors and doctors(see the link) must be smoking crack if they don't buy that meme, right?


hover over the blue words in the header to get a good idea of what is going on.

Protein Coat 03.Mar.2005 14:40

Questioning AIDS

that's it? A protein coat is what's been keeping us from a vaccine for over twenty years? I feel pretty safe in saying that I don't think you even believe that. Your just a little too well-read on this subject than the average indymedia reader. Things that make you go hmmmm.

Latex 03.Mar.2005 15:04


Dear Jezebel,

You are correct that type I, II and IV reactions are thought to be mainly due to latex proteins but the high rates of cancer among latex users and the other conditions including birth defects are the result of Benzene,
Trimethylsiloxy lubricant, Ortho-toluidine, N9, Talc,  N-Cyclohexyl, Thiurams and worst of all N-Nitrosamine.

May 29, 2004
Potent Carcinogen found in Most Condoms

Recent study has discovered the presence of a very potent carcinogen in most condoms. Small amounts of this chemical are released whenever condoms are used.

Nobody knows whether this is serious yet however it is not likely to be healthy to expose the reproductive organs to cancer-causing substances on a regular basis.

This is a potentially serious issue for much of the world's population that cannot afford or access other forms of birth control. I hope further studies will follow on this soon. Could this be related to the rise in cancer in women, and men as well?

May 29, 2004 in Medicine | Permalink


The denger of latex
The denger of latex

an uppity well-read woman 03.Mar.2005 19:09


"Your just a little too well-read on this subject than the average indymedia reader. Things that make you go hmmmm."

Uh oh. She educated. She reads. Lock her up. She must be the enemy. Believe it or not, you can be well-read, even educated, and want to change things.

'Bye now

I believe you 04.Mar.2005 05:48

Questioning AIDS

Jezebel, I believe you. Really. *wink*

Voodoo science 04.Mar.2005 16:22

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Do you play poker, Jezebel? If so, I'm calling and raising you a bundle. The way you describe 'HIV infection' is pure voodoo science. If you are well-read, you certainly read the wrong things.
If 'HIV' would rapidly accumulate in the lymph nodes, we should be able to find it. But... no complete virus particles have been found anywhere in AIDS patients, dead or alive. This mythical 'HIV' is supposed to attack CD4 T-cells directly, immediately after 'infection'. But T-cells are normally produced by the body at a very high rate, so it is impossible for a few supposedly invading virus particles to inactivate them all. That this does not happen is clearly shown by the fact that antibodies do develop.
After knocking the CD4 cells out (so goes your story), the virus produces DNA, its proviral form, which integrates into the cellular genome. Oh well... If that is so, then pray tell me and all the other little readers how this virus is going to reproduce? If its DNA is within the cellular genome, its reproduction will be dependent on mitosis of the cell itself. If that cell doesn't divide, the virus cannot reproduce. And... This virus was supposed to kill the cell? Well, if it did, the whole mechanism wouldn't be very effective, don't you think? This famous virus would be extinct before you can say "AIDS scam".
You also mentioned the common cold, for which there is no vaccine as yet. What strikes me is that frequent mutations are also claimed as an excuse for the poor vaccine results for influenza and rhino viruses. Could it be that these mutations are also invented by the same folks who gave us the HIV schlamazzle? Viruses, in general, don't mutate fast. I've never heard of mutations of pox virus, for which vaccines were developed that really work.
I realize that I may sound patronizing, but if I do, it's because I mean to.

And eh... James: Leaving the doctorrring to the doctors is what got us in this mess in the first place.

I love the lead article of this thread. It's right to the point. And, let's face it, who will find a vaccine against a virus that has not even been shown to exist?

Best wishes, Wilhelm

reverse transcriptase and protease 04.Mar.2005 18:33

Already Published

Good work, Jezebel. Excellent, in fact.

If you see lies to the effect that HIV hasn't been isolated, and you point these liars to thousands of electron microscope images of the virus, they will simply move on to another lie without conceding the point. And when you debunk that lie, they produce another and another and another. When they run out of imagination, they return to the lie about how HIV hasn't been isolated.

It's a very tiring and very deadly troll game, where ignorance is bliss, and scientific knowledge means you must be working for "them".

Good work.

wow 04.Mar.2005 19:00


Go do some basic learning on DNA and virus insertion. Question what you see, but please have a basic understanding of cellular biology before you start quoting every website you see that validates the one before that agrees with what you've already decided.

If you didn't want an intelligent discussion, why do you post? As stated by Already Published, the virus has been photographed via electron microscope and does exist. I'm not going to try to respond to your indivual lies as I have better things to do with my time. When faced with facts, you resort to personal attacks on people. Sorry if I read more than you and have an understanding of biology that you won't reach out to and try to grasp. Believe it or not, that does not make me the enemy.

Your hatred becomes you.

'HIV' has NEVER been isolated 04.Mar.2005 20:43

Paul King


By Paul Philpott

Reappraising AIDS, June, July, Aug. 1997

Does HIV exist? Do HIV tests indicate HIV infections? Here's why some scientists say no. How an Australian biophysicist and her simple observations have taken center stage among AIDS reappraisers.

Of course HIV exists--I've seen pictures of it in text books and on the news--and scientists work with it every day. How could there be HIV tests if there's no HIV? What those tests detect, that's HIV...

So goes the typical response from physicians, biologists, and AIDS activists when faced with a very simple question: Does HIV exist? But like all questions fundamental to the HIV/AIDS model, nobody asked this in 1984, the year Robert Gallo published a group of four papers in Science (224:497-508, May 4) proclaiming the existence of a unique retrovirus, HIV, that causes AIDS.

Gallo's HIV-AIDS model stood unquestioned in the medical literature for three years, until 1987, when UC-Berkeley retrovirologist Peter Duesberg published the first academic paper contesting the notion of pathogenic retroviruses (Cancer Research 47: 1199-1220). Although disputing the infectious AIDS model, Duesberg accepted Gallo's claim of having prepared isolates of a unique retrovirus, HIV, and having abstracted from them proteins needed to construct tests for identifying people and cells infected with it.

By 1987 the plasma and T4 cells of thousands of AIDS patients had been tested for evidence of the proteins and genetic material from Gallo's "isolates." The AIDS reappraisal movement grew out of Duesberg's critique of these data. HIV exists, but the blood contains so little of it, and it infects so few T4 cells, and replicates--harmlessly--in vitro with so much difficulty, and so many patients test negative for it altogether, that it is just too ineffectual, inactive, and imperfectly correlated with AIDS to explain AIDS.

Out of Australia: Questioning HIV's existence

Before Duesberg's 1987 paper made it to press, a second academic, authoritative deconstruction of HIV had already been submitted for publication in another journal. This one was written by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, a medical physicist at Australia's Royal Perth Hospital. In 1988 France's Medical Hypotheses (25:151-162) published her paper, "Reappraisal of AIDS: Is the Oxidation Induced by the Risk Factors the Primary Cause?" Papadopulos had independently reached many of Duesberg's conclusions, but ultimately had quite a different take on Gallo's claims: "Unlike other viruses [HIV] has never been isolated as an independent stable particle."

What she meant was this: Electron microscope pictures, micrographs , of samples Gallo calls "HIV isolates"--and of all "HIV isolates" produced before by Luc Montagnier of France, or since by other scientists--show some objects that look like retroviruses (the "HIV") plus lots of other things, including things that clearly aren't viruses. So there's no way to identify the origin of the "HIV" proteins and genetic material abstracted from these samples. Do the proteins come from the objects that look like retroviruses? Or do they represent some of the contaminants?

And what about those retroviral-looking objects? Papadopulos pointed out that among the microbial objects that look like retroviruses are (1) microvesicles: non-infectious, unstable organelles that bud from cells; and (2) endogenous retroviruses: non-infectious, unstable retroviruses coded for by healthy human DNA. She noted that this presents a special problem for the objects called "HIV." They can be observed only in cell cultures that have been stimulated by agents that induce the production of microvesicles and endogenous retroviruses.

Without true isolates of the objects declared "HIV," there really is no way to determine if they constitute what HIV is claimed to be: a retrovirus of exogenous origin (an autonomous entity unaccounted for by a person's inherent DNA library). There is no way to pull proteins and genetic material out of a heterogeneous sample and know that they came from one group of particular looking objects rather than another, or simply from the surrounding molecular soup.

Oxidative stress: Unifying AIDS, its causes, and "HIV"

In addition to introducing an HIV critique based on the principal of viral isolation, Papadopulos also unveiled in her 1988 paper an explanation for AIDS based on the process of oxidative stress. According to Papadopulos, the stimulants used to induce "HIV" phenomena (retrovirus-looking objects plus certain proteins that may or may not be affiliated with those objects) in cultures are oxidizing agents . As are the factors uniting American AIDS patients, including street drugs, hemophilia treatments, and rectally deposited semen. Papadopulos proposed that both "HIV" phenomena and AIDS conditions are consequences of these and other stressors she would introduce in later papers (such as blood transfusions, anti-AIDS pharmaceuticals including AZT, and antibiotics).

Duesberg drew on the 1988 Papadopulos paper (and even earlier writings by John Lauritsen in the gay press) in formulating his 1992 treatise "AIDS Acquired by Drugs and Other Non-contagious Risk Factors" (Pharmacology & Therapeutics 55:201-277). In that paper, Duesberg added to his HIV critique alternative explanations for AIDS. He agreed with Papadopulos that street drugs and hemophilia treatments caused AIDS, but dismissed rectal insemination as inconsequential. His 1992 paper was the first to implicate "anti-HIV" drugs such as AZT, and Papadopulos subsequently adopted them into her oxidative stress model.

That same year, 1992, Papadopulos formed a writing team with two University of Western Australia physician-professors, Valendar Turner of the Department of Emergency Medicine, and John Papadimitriou, Professor of Pathology. Together they published "Oxidative Stress, HIV, and AIDS" (Res-Immunol. 143:145-148), which restated her Unified AIDS Theory.

Virus tests without virus isolation?

In 1993 Papadopulos finally caught the attention of AIDS reappraisers. "Is A Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?" appeared in Bio/Technology (11:696-707), a major medical journal and sister publication of Nature.

The article debunked the validity of "HIV tests" on several grounds: (1) that they are constructed from the constituents of heterogeneous samples rather than true viral isolates; (2) that proponents of the purported virus (HIV) claim to observe it only in stimulated cultures, as opposed to fresh patient plasma; (3) that accuracies for these tests are established without an independent gold standard (isolation from fresh patient plasma); and (4) that these tests are assumed to be equally accurate for people with and without the risks associated with, and the conditions classified as, "AIDS," a syndrome the purported virus supposedly causes.

Isolation, Papadopulos explains, is the only sure proof that a virus is present--the only direct, unambiguous evidence of a virus. And isolation from uncultured patient plasma is the only sure proof that a person harbors an active infection-- the only sort of infection that can cause disease. She points out that the accuracy for even a properly constructed viral test (one made from true viral isolates) can be established only by answering the following question: In what fraction of people who test positive can the virus be isolated from their fresh (uncultured) plasma?

Instead, "HIV" test accuracies are established using circular logic; "accuracy" for HIV ELISAs is taken as the fraction of positive people who subsequently test HIV Western blot positive. And "accuracy" for HIV Western blot tests is nothing more than reproducibility (the fraction of positive people who test positive when retested).

These pseudo accuracies--each over 99%--are assumed for all people, even those free of the risks and symptoms associated with the syndrome that the purported virus supposedly causes. Yet among risk group members with blood that reacts with these tests--those who test positive--pseudo isolations ("HIV" phenomena in stimulated cultures) are achieved for only some of those with AIDS conditions, and for only a few who are symptom-free.

For example, of risk group members (gay men, drug injectors, and blood recipients) testing "HIV-positive":

(1) Gallo achieved pseudo "HIV" isolations in 26 of approximately 63 (41%) patients with AIDS conditions (this is a generous figure that assumes Gallo's isolations involved only the 88% of his 72 AIDS-diagnosed patients who tested positive) ;

(2) Piatak reported (a) "infectious HIV" (according to some of the same criteria as pseudo isolations) in only 29 of 38 (76%) patients with AIDS conditions and in only two of 21 (10%) patients with no AIDS conditions (Science 259: 1749-1754, 1993); and (b) in one of six (16%) symptom-free patients (Lancet 341: 1099, 1993);

(3) Daar reported "infectious HIV" in none of four symptom-free patients (NEJM 324[14]:961-964, 1991);

(4) Clark reported "infectious HIV" in none of three symptom-free patients (NEJM 324[14]:954-960, 1991); and

(5) Cooper found "infectious HIV" in neither of two symptom-free patients (Lancet 340:1257-1258, 1992).

So among people with AIDS risks, using pseudo isolations from stimulated cultures as an independent standard, HIV antibody tests are between 41% and 76% accurate for people with AIDS conditions, and between 0% and 16% accurate for those with no symptoms, a far cry from the 99% accuracies established using reproducibility and cross-checking.

What about people without AIDS risks? No one has compiled even pseudo isolation data for drug-free, blood product injection-free heterosexuals who test positive. HIV researchers simply assume that the data from risk group studies apply for everyone.

And what about the real accuracy of HIV tests? That is, accuracy established using the only valid gold standard: isolation from fresh plasma. The Australians reason that since isolation from fresh plasma has not been achieved under any circumstance, then the true accuracy for all "HIV tests" should be considered zero , and all positive results should be regarded as false. There is no basis for thinking that a virus observed only in stimulated cultures exists in the plasma of any humans, even those who test positive for it as determined by antibody, antigen, "viral load" or any other assay.

"HIV": Normal cellular residents?

In the Bio/Technology paper, Papadopulos examined what are accepted as substitutes for true HIV isolation. These include "HIV proteins" (gp160, gp120, gp41, p32, p24, and p17), reverse transcriptase, "HIV" DNA and RNA, and retrovirus-looking objects. She suggests that they are each cellular constituents, some normal, some produced in response oxidative stress.

(1) HIV existentialists--those who think HIV exists--hypothesize that gp160 is made of gp120 stuck to gp41, and it decorates HIV, with gp41 embedded in the outer membrane envelope, anchoring gp120, which protrudes outward, ready to latch onto T4 molecules; Papadopulos cites references showing that gp160 and gp120 are oligomers of gp41 (four gp41s stuck together make gp160; three make gp120), and that gp41 might be the ordinary cellular protein actin. (She also cites references showing that cell-free objects considered to be HIV contain no gp120, and thus have no infectious capability, just like endogenous retroviruses.)

(2) The existentialists hypothesize that p17 lines the inside of the envelope, and p24 forms the hollow core; Papadopulos cites references showing that p24 and p17 might be the two constituent globs that form the ordinary cellular protein myosin.

(3) The existentialists hypothesize that p32 decorates HIV's envelope, along with gp160; Papadopulos cites references showing that p32 is the "Class II histocompatibility DR" marker found on all human T immune cells.

(4) The existentialists hypothesize that reverse transcriptase is a constituent of HIV, and is used to make HIV DNA from HIV RNA; Papadopulos cites references showing that this enzyme is a normal constituent of all human cells, and even some ordinary viruses, like hepatitis viruses, which are common in AIDS patients.

(5) Papadopulos shows that no complete "HIV" RNA molecule or DNA genome has ever been identified, that what is claimed to be the "HIV" genome represents bits and pieces of genetic sequences cobbled together, that the "HIV" RNA and DNA haven't been shown to code for what are claimed to be the HIV proteins, and that all the "HIV" genes are very similar to genetic sequences common to all humans.

(6) The existentialists hypothesize that the retrovirus-looking objects in electron micrographs of heterogeneous samples from AIDS patients are identical retroviruses, HIV, that consist of the "HIV" proteins and RNA abstracted from those samples; Papadopulos explains that since those samples are heterogeneous, there's no way to match the retrovirus-looking objects to any material abstracted from the samples, that retrovirus-looking objects are common products of stimulated T-cells, and that such objects are not necessarily viruses of any sort and can be proven to be so only when examined as isolates.

HIV antibodies as autoantibodies

Although the "HIV proteins" haven't been shown to be constituents of a virus, they are the constituents of the ELISA and Western blot antibody tests for HIV. If Papadopulos is correct that these are ordinary cellular proteins, why would humans express antibodies against their own cellular proteins, a condition called autoimmunity ? And why would such antibodies correlate (however imperfectly) with AIDS conditions and AIDS risks?

The Bio/Technology paper argues that antibodies against actin, myosin, and p32 indicate exposure to those proteins donated by other people via injected blood products, unsterile needles, and rectally deposited semen. These factors nearly unify all American AIDS patients, and they are oxidative stressors. So Papadopulos proposes that oxidative stressors cause AIDS conditions and positive HIV tests, thus explaining the correlation between AIDS conditions and positive HIV test results.

(Which is not to say that every positive "HIV antibody" test indicates autoimmunity or oxidative stress, or that autoimmune phenomena always cause disease, or that oxidative stress always causes "HIV" phenomena or AIDS conditions.)

In non-industrial regions such as those in Africa where lots of AIDS patients reside, Papadopulos shows that HIV antibody tests (the only sort of HIV tests used there) cross-react with antibodies against numerous ordinary microbes and parasites that are rampant there due to extremely impoverished living standards. AIDS conditions in these regions, she says, result from those cross-reacting infections, other infections common among impoverished people, and poverty itself.

Proving causation: another need for isolation

Papadopulos' group published another 1993 paper, "Has Gallo Proven The Role of HIV in AIDS?", in the Australian journal Emergency Medicine (5:113-123). This paper presented much of the same data and arguments about the lack of HIV isolation offered in the Bio/Technology paper. But where that paper examined the absolute requirement of viral isolation for constructing and validating viral tests, this paper examined the absolute requirement of viral isolation for demonstrating a causal relationship between a virus and a disease.

The Australians focused here on Gallo's 1984 papers, which they characterized as the most thorough to date. They argued that a virus can only be considered causal for a disease if:

(1) It can be isolated in every case of the disease from fresh (uncultured) plasma. Yet Gallo claimed to isolate HIV only from cultures, and only after stimulation with agents that cause inactive viral DNA (provirus) to produce viruses that might not be present in vivo . Furthermore, Gallo could only claim HIV isolation in 34% of the AIDS patients tested, and even then these claims were based not on real isolation, but on the observation of certain proteins, reverse transcriptase, and retrovirus-looking particles, though usually not all at the same time.

(2) Adding isolates of the virus to cultures of cells of the type affected in the disease in question results in behavior consistent with the disease. In the case of AIDS, that would mean adding HIV isolates to cultures of T4 cells and looking for either cell death (predicted by the original killer HIV model) or high rates of HIV activity (predicted by the new hyperactive HIV "viral load" model). But Gallo found neither. Cells declared "HIV-infected" lived happily ever after, and would produce HIV indicators only when prodded by artificial stimulants.

The Australians emphasized that no researcher since 1984 has improved on Gallo's very weak case for HIV as a cause of AIDS.

All antibodies non-specific

The Bio/Technology paper presented a long list of non-HIV agents that can cause positive reactions on HIV ELISA and Western blot antibody tests. This is very bad news for those tests.

HIV antibody and antigen tests are constructed from heterogeneous samples rather than isolates, and validated against each other rather than the isolation gold standard. Therefore their validity requires that HIV proteins and the antibodies against them be specific . That is, the proteins must be exclusive to HIV, and the antibodies that react with them must react with no other proteins.

Gallo and the other existentialists, Papadopulos explains, simply assume that their "HIV proteins"--and antibodies against them--always indicate a virus made from those proteins, and nothing else. They base this assumption on no data, and no wonder. Only isolation--which none of them has achieved--can demonstrate this sort of specificity. Furthermore, Papadopulos' list of cellular sources for each "HIV protein," and her list of non-HIV entities that cause reactions with "HIV" antibody tests, absolutely falsify the specific antibody ideal for HIV.

False positives

Papadopulos explains that there is no such thing as specific antibodies against any microbial agent. All viral tests (including properly constructed ELISAs and Western blot tests for properly characterized viruses) "cross react" with entities other than their intended targets.

This is why test accuracies must be established for different groups (those with and without symptoms and risks associated with the virus) using the gold standard (virus isolation from fresh plasma).

Properly validated virus tests are not undermined by a list of cross-reacting entities. If the virus can be isolated from the fresh plasma of 99% of the people with certain symptoms who test positive in validation studies, then physicians would have a 99% certainty that a patient with those symptoms who tests positive has an active infection.

The existence of cross-reacting entities becomes important only in circumstances of low accuracy. In the world of properly constructed and validated viral antibody tests, that means symptom-free people, and people who have been exposed to cross-reacting factors.

Virus isolations are rarely achieved in symptom-free people who test positive, which means the accuracy is low for apparently healthy people. The only sensible interpretation for positive results in healthy people is that these people have experienced, sometime in the past, an infection that is no longer active (and is thus inconsequential), or they were exposed to cross-reacting proteins.

Before the introduction of HIV science, physicians did not test healthy people for viral infections, except for people with certain risks, such as recent exposure to someone with a confirmed infection. Validation studies can show a relatively high accuracy for positive tests in symptom-free people with such a risk. So it is rational to test such people. HIV tests are the only viral tests administered routinely to healthy people with no risks.

In the strange case of HIV and AIDS, though, even testing people in the AIDS risk groups is a dubious enterprise. This is because the official risks that define these groups (rectal intercourse, unsterile needle use, blood product injections, residency in impoverished nations), involve exposure to non-HIV factors that cause cross-reactions with these tests.

Virologist Lanka supports Papadopulos

The Bio/Technology paper influenced most reappraisers to question the validity of "HIV" tests, mostly on the grounds of cross-reactivity. Few seemed to appreciate that the isolation question was the real crux of the matter. The question of HIV's actual existence seemed just too big for most reappraisers to tackle. Then along came a young German virologist, Stefan Lanka, co-author of an academic paper that properly established the existence of a marine virus, ectocarpus siliculosis .

The British AIDS reappraisal magazine Continuum published in its April/May 1995 issue Lanka's exposition, "HIV: Reality or Artifact?" This was the first article for a popular audience explaining Papadopulos' contention that HIV simply does not exist, and that the phenomena considered to indicate its presence have non-viral explanations, such as artifacts of the lab procedures applied to cultures made from the blood of AIDS patients. The next issue (June/July) included a fiery and detailed exchange between Lanka and Steven Harris, a physician who advocates the HIV-AIDS model. That article displayed two electron micrographs of properly isolated viruses: Lanka's ectocarpus siliculosis, and adenovirus type 2 (which cause common colds). Those two micrographs exclusively contained identical virus-looking objects. Harris presented a micrograph of what he called an "HIV isolate." Lanka pointed out that this micrograph contained, in addition to retrovirus-looking objects labeled "HIV," lots of microvesicles and "macromolecular debris." Therefore it was not an isolate.

This exchange created such interest--and Continuum 's editor-ial board was so persuaded by Lanka's argument--that the magazine in its January/February 1996 issue posted a 1,000 "Missing Virus Reward" for anyone who could produce a micrograph of a proper "HIV" isolate.

Papadopulos answers the first challenge

In April, 1996, the National AIDS Manual (NAM) Treatment Update published an editorial answering the Continuum challenge. NAM made no claim on the prize, conceding an absence of the micrograph specified by the reward. Instead, NAM argued against the need for such a requirement in establishing the existence of a virus.

Specifically, NAM rejected the Papadopulos/Lanka objections to contaminating material in the available "HIV" micrographs. "...It's like saying that it is impossible to identify a German shepherd dog by its unique appearance," the article reasoned, "if it happens to be surrounded by poodles."

In the May/June issue of Continuum , Papadopulos' team responded to the NAM critique with a remedial lesson in microbiology: "The analogy with HIV is more like someone who does not know what a German shepherd is but who looks at an aerial photograph of a zoo," and notes that some of the objects look like dogs, then "mince[s] up all the objects in the zoo," and presumes to know which teeth, claws, hair, hearts, and stomachs came from the objects that looked like dogs, and claims that those objects are some new breed deserving of a new name.

Instead, German shepherds have been carefully studied on their own, which is why they can be identified merely by their image, even in the midst of other dogs. Certainly a new breed of dog could not be declared--and identified by aerial photographs (the human scale equivalent of an electron micrograph)--without first studying one up-close (the human scale equivalent of viral isolation).

If isolates were obtained of the objects labeled "HIV" in micrographs of heterogeneous samples, and those isolates were shown to consist of a unique, exogenous retrovirus, then there would be a basis for pointing out these objects in heterogeneous samples and declaring them to be "HIV."

Until then, nobody knows what the objects purported to be "HIV" are in any of the "HIV micrographs."

Duesberg demurs, Lanka descries

By the July/August issue, Continuum 's reward had increased to 25,000, and none other than Peter Duesberg wrote in to claim the prize. Conceding that there existed no such micrograph as that sought by Papadopulos and Lanka, Duesberg argued that existing data "exceeded the [Papadopulos/Lanka] criteria" for virus isolation: the isolation of "infectious full length HIV DNA" from "HIV-infected cells," and the detection of this DNA in some T4-cells of nearly 100% of people who test positive for "HIV antibodies," but in nearly 0% of those who test negative.

In the same issue Continuum published rebuttals by both Lanka and the Australian team, which now included a fourth member, David Causer, Senior Physicist at the Department of Medical Physics at the Royal Perth Hospital.

Lanka surprised everyone with his "Collective Fallacy: Rethinking HIV." Leaving it to "the distinguished Australians" to provide "a detailed reply to the Duesberg claim," he leaped past that dialogue and into a novel assertion: all retroviruses are fictions, artifacts of the contrived laboratory conditions invariably used to find them. He described Duesberg as:

limiting his objections to the relatively minor aspect of whether HIV could cause AIDS or not, whereas he really ought to have smelt a rat regarding the whole concept of retroviruses. ...Indeed, the extraordinarily artificial and circumscribed conditions under which reverse transcription could be induced in the laboratory should have alerted everyone to the extreme improbability of such exclusively laboratory conditions having any bearing whatsoever on naturally occurring phenomena

'HIV' has NEVER been isolated - Pt 2 04.Mar.2005 20:44

Paul King


The Papadopulos treatise

Papadopulos' rebuttal was an exhaustive exposition entitled "The Isolation of HIV: Has It Really Been Achieved? The Case Against," included as a 24-page supplement. She asserted that until a virus has been isolated according to the criteria required by the Continuum reward, its constituents--including genetic material and proteins--cannot be cataloged. So there is no basis for a viral explanation for this correlation.

Yet Duesberg has a point. How can Papadopulos and Lanka explain the high correlation between particular proteins (and antibody reactions to them) and the detection of particular DNA/RNA sequences? This can not be a chance occurrence.

Papadopulos agrees. But she points out that isolating DNA does not equal isolating a virus, and certainly does not "exceed the criteria" specified by the reward, which represent, in fact, an official standard procedure for retroviral identification which was discarded only to accommodate "HIV." Logically, there is no basis for concluding that an RNA molecule abstracted from a heterogeneous sample (even one containing retrovirus-looking objects), or a strip of corresponding chromosomal DNA, originates from a retrovirus. Such an assumption can only apply to RNA abstracted from a retroviral isolate (and only if that RNA is shown to code for the proteins abstracted from the same isolate).

To explain the "HIV" protein-RNA/DNA correlation, Papadopulos referenced studies showing that the correlation between the proteins and the genetic material was not quite as high as in the study Duesberg cited. Then she proposed that the "HIV DNA" in cellular chromosomes might result from the rearrangement (transposition) of a few normal cellular DNA sequences in response to oxidative stress caused by both the AIDS risks (street drugs, etc.) and the laboratory agents required to observe "HIV" phenomena.

Duesberg says this would require an improbable number of nucleic acid rearrangements ("recombinations"), one for each of the 9,150 bases said to constitute the HIV genome. Papadopulos says the number of required rearrangements is actually much lower, since each of the supposed HIV genes are already very similar to recognized normal human genetic sequences.

Is Papadopulos certain that oxidation-induced recombination explains the HIV protein-RNA/DNAcorrelation? No. She's simply convinced that this is more likely than the Duesberg-Gallo explanation, which is that the "HIV" genetic sequences originate in a retrovirus that carries with it the "HIV proteins."

To her, the viral explanation is fatally undermined by several facts: (1) heroic attempts to isolate such a virus always fail, de-spite huge financial incentives and numerous attempts to do so by an enormous army of scientists dedicated to "HIV," whereas far less interesting viruses are routinely isolated by much smaller, less-funded groups of virus hunters; (2) what is called HIV RNA and DNA comes in many sizes and varieties that always differ from each other (no two are alike, even when abstracted from the same patient ), whereas viral RNA and DNA should be of uniform length and composition; (3) the lethargy that characterizes what is considered "HIV replication" excludes the possibility that replicative mutation can explain the wide HIV genetic variation; and (4) no one has produced a whole "HIV RNA" molecule or a complete "HIV DNA" strip, offering instead as the "HIV genome" cobbled together bits of genetic material.

Papadopulos notes that when "HIV DNA" shows up, it does so in only a tiny fraction of T4 cells. Duesberg's explanation is that this means HIV simply infects too few cells to explain any disease. But if HIV is so lethargic as to infect only a few cells, how can its amazing variability be explained? Papadopulos' hypothesis predicts wide variability: if "HIV DNA" originates from the rearrangement of normal cellular DNA sequences, then each one originates independently and separately in each cell where it is found. Various points of origin would result in a variety of recombination products: DNA strips of varying lengths and composition, and corresponding RNA molecules transcribed from that DNA.

Papadopulos stresses that her argument against the existential hypothesis of HIV does not require that her alternative hypothesis be correct. Since the existence of HIV is not a default hypothesis, we are not obligated to assume that HIV exists in the absence of a better explanation. To the contrary, until unambiguous evidence is provided for HIV--in the form of a proper viral isolate--explanations for the data are open to suggestions. As far as the Australians are concerned, the viral model has been thoroughly examined, and it comes up empty. It's time to propose and study some new ideas.

The Duesberg-Papadopulos dichotomy

Papadopulos' advocacy of a non-viral explanation for microbiological phenomena labeled as "HIV" remarkably resembles Duesberg's advocacy of a non-HIV explanation for pathological phenomena labeled as "AIDS": (1) Duesberg explains that the HIV-AIDS correlation is not as high as it's made out to be; Papadopulos makes the same claim about the HIV protein-DNA/RNA correlation; (2) Duesberg shows that the microbiological data unqualifiedly exclude a role for HIV; Papadopulos shows that the microbiological data unqualifiedly exclude definitive evidence of a virus; (3) Both say we should therefore consider non-viral explanations; and (4) Duesberg says that even if the alternative hypotheses are ultimately falsified, the HIV-AIDS model is not consequently resurrected, because it fails all on its own; Papadopulos says the same thing about the HIV existential model.

The February/March 1997 Continuum carried a second appeal from Duesberg responding to the Papadopulos and Lanka rebuttals. The editors entitled the article, "Near Enough Is Good Enough?" reflecting their sympathy for the non-existentialist position. Duesberg restated his conclusions that rearrangement of normal chromosomal DNA sequences was less likely than the viral explanation, and that the traditional virus isolation requirements advocated by Papadopulos and Lanka were outdated and, in any case, less rigorous than those which he said had been achieved by HIV.

This defense of HIV's existence recalls the arguments used against Duesberg's own proposal that HIV is harmless. Within that discussion, Duesberg shows that HIV fails to meet the traditional and logical standards of microbiology, including Koch's postulates. Advocates of the HIV-AIDS model respond by proclaiming those criteria are outdated, and offer new criteria which accommodate the HIV-AIDS model.

The Australian response is summarized in the title, "Why No Whole Virus?", and reemphasized points made in their previous exposition.

Electron microscopy

More interesting was Lanka's second rebuttal to Duesberg, which included some new insights. Lanka expounded on the implications of a lack of "HIV isolates" despite dogged efforts. This should not be so for a virus that exists. Lanka writes:

It has been long known that what "AIDS" researchers have presented as photos of "HIV" show normal cellular [microvesicles]... As those particles are designed, in contrast to viruses, for cellular use only, they are very unstable when removed from their context, and not able to be isolated and photographed in an isolated state. Viruses are stable because they have to leave cells or even the organism in order to infect other cells or organisms anew. Using centrifugation techniques it is no problem to separate viruses from all contaminating components and in doing so to isolate them--then photograph them, then represent their proteins and genetic substance in a direct way... Genuine viruses are so stable that it is easy... to photograph them directly as three dimensional particles in the [scanning] electron microscope without prior chemical fixation. In contrast [microvesicles] are so unstable they can only be photographed [with a transmission electron microscope, which requires they be] in a chemically fixed state... in very thin sections. All that have been shown to us as [micrographs of] "HIV" are ultrathin sections [that include what are agreed to be] cellular particles. ..

Sure enough, the micrographs of proper viral isolates presented by Lanka in his rejoinder to Steven Harris were photographed with the scanning electron microscope, and thus showed--with high resolution and three-dimensional relief--the outer surfaces of the viruses. In contrast, the purported "HIV" micrograph presented by Harris was photographed by the transmission electron microscope in "ultrathin sections," producing flat, transparent, cross-sectional images with no surfaces and poor resolution. According to Lanka, viruses are hardy enough to be photographed either way, and ought to be, since one reveals the surface in great detail, and the other reveals important cross-sectional information.

But there exists no published scanned micrograph of anything claimed to be "HIV." Since there are billions of dollars and tens of thousands of scientists annually devoted to the study of "HIV," it seems improbable that this could indicate an oversight. More likely the retrovirus-looking objects called "HIV" are, like microvesicles, simply too unstable for scanned electron microscopy and procedures that could otherwise separate them from all other objects into pure samples, which is to say--in Lanka's opinion--they are too unstable to be viruses.

(Instability, by the way, gives the objects labeled "HIV" both the characteristics Papadopulos assigns endogenous retroviruses, the other being non-infectivity in their cell-free form.)

"'HIV' has never been identified as a secure biological entity," he concludes. "The logical explanation given that all the characteristics ascribed to 'HIV' are well-known cellular entities and characteristics, is that 'HIV' never was, and the claim of the existence of 'HIV' is not sustainable."

On hemophilia-AIDS, T4 counts, and African AIDS

Papadopulos' contribution to the AIDS reappraisal movement transcends the discussion of HIV's existence. Remember that she unifies all the proposed causes of AIDS, and even the agents required for "HIV" expression, by a common denominator: they all cause oxidative stress. She also shows that oxidation is a logical source of many diseases, including all that qualify as "AIDS."

In 1995 her team published a lengthy consideration of "AIDS" in hemophiliacs, "Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS: An Analysis of Their Relationship" (Genetica 95: 25-50). To their assertion that factor VIII contaminants cause AIDS conditions in both HIV-positive and -negative hemophiliacs, they also stress a point promoted by no other reappraising scientists: that there is not even a basis for HIV transmission via Factor VIII injections--or any other mechanism, for that matter--since what is called cell-free "HIV" is bare of the surface protein (gp160) supposedly required for infection.

The Australians have also advanced--with Bruce Hedland-Thomas and Barry A. P. Page joining Papadopulos and Causer from the Medical Physics Department at Royal Perth Hospital--another novel hypothesis, this one refuting the role of lost T4 cells in AIDS. In "A Critical Analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS Hypothesis," they argue that the progressive drop in T4 counts observed in many AIDS patients does not reflect a loss of T4-cells. Rather, it indicates the conversion of many T-cells from producing T4 surface markers to producing T8 markers instead. Thus there is no need to propose a T4-specific factor, such as HIV, to explain AIDS.

Then there is the issue of AIDS in Africa, where the symptoms and proposed causes are often quite different than in the industrialized world. In 1995 the Papadopulos team published "AIDS in Africa: Distinguishing Fact and Fiction" (World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 11: 135-143), co-authored by PhD biologist Harvey Bialy, research editor of Bio/Technology who has spent a great deal of time in Africa. This paper attributes AIDS cases there to the same thing that causes identical symptoms (persistent fever, wasting, and diarrhea) in Africans who test negative: extreme poverty, featuring subsistent diets and rudimentary or nonexistent sanitation.

The paper also explores the implications of the very poor heterosexual transmission rate (one per thousand unprotected contacts with a positive person) assigned to HIV in the face of high fractions of African heterosexuals testing HIV-positive. Either African heterosexuals are much more promiscuous than their American counterparts, or HIV tests are especially problematic in Africa.

The Australians show that problematic testing is the more likely explanation. Malaria, tuberculosis, and other tropical microbes that are widespread in Africa feature proteins that elicit the same antibody response as some of the "HIV proteins." HIV proponents have not accounted for this in any of their experiments. They simply assume that Africans who test positive are indeed infected by HIV, when these tests may instead be indicating very common and conventional infections.

Gordon Stewart joins Papadopulos

"It seems tragic," Duesberg said in one of his Continuum papers, "that over 99% of the AIDS researchers study a virus that does not cause AIDS and that the few who don't are now engaged in a debate over the existence of a virus that doesn't cause AIDS."

Charlie Thomas, the retired biochemistry professor who used to teach at the medical schools at Harvard, John Hopkins, and the University of Michigan, takes a more popular view. "The debate over HIV's existence instigated by the Australians," he has said, "is the only issue of high scientific interest that has emerged from this HIV/AIDS mess."

The "HIV non-existentialists," as Duesberg calls them, acquired an important endorsement this year from the eminent British epidemiologist and physician Gordon Stewart, who is emeritus public health professor at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. Stewart co-authored the Australians' latest paper, "HIV Antibo-dies: Further Questions and a Plea for Clarification" (Current Medical Research and Opinion 13:627-634), which argues that "the evidence for the existence of HIV and its putative role in AIDS must be reappraised."

Voltaire, though, might side with Duesberg on this one. He said, "To not be occupied and to not exist amount to the same thing." And Duesberg and Papadopulos do agree on one thing. There is no HIV occupied with AIDS-causing activities. *

ROCK ON - The puritan agenda behind 'AIDS' 04.Mar.2005 20:57

Vivian Stamp



The fear of the LORD prolongeth days:
but the years of the wicked shall be shortened.
Proverbs 10:27
NOTE: This is EVERY death of a Rock star we've found.

Typical of the anti sex agenda behind 'AIDS'

ROCKS STAR WHO DIED OF AIDS: - 4 (In 23 years)

Freddie Mercury Queen 91-11-24 45 Aids
David Mankaba Bhundu Boys 91-10-..   Aids
Fela Kuti   97-08-02 58 Aids (actually died of 'heart failure NOT AIDS)
Sean Hayes   95-07-12 49 Aids

Four (mainly obscure-except for Poppers addict Freddy) 'rock stars in twenty years. There have been more than 25,000 rock groups over that period in America with an average of four members each.

That gives a figure (if you even believe they really died of 'AIDS')
of 4 in 100,000.

The U.S. national average is 6 per 100,000 meaning that this highly sexually active has far lower 'AIDS' than the national average.


So much for 'AIDS' being an std.

Why is there no vaccine yet? 05.Mar.2005 14:09


For all the reasons people have mentioned; the virus attacks the immune system, it is difficult to eliminate latent virus, the virus mutates rapidly (because reverse transcriptase is a very error prone replication enzyme).
But there is still reason for optimism regarding an AIDS vaccine because there are people out there who are apparently at least partially resistant to either infection by HIV or progression from HIV infection to overt disease. Understanding how the immune systems in those individuals differ from everybody elses may make it possible to come up with an effective vaccine.

"Optimism" 05.Mar.2005 15:52

Questioning AIDS

hate to take the wind out of your optimistic sails, but I just read that Bill Gates will "eat his hat" if an HIV vaccine is developed in less than ten years. That will bring us to 30+ years of AIDS and no vaccine. People make a lot of excuses for this, I'm just not buying it anymore.

Challenge 06.Mar.2005 10:27

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

'Already Published', I've got a challenge for you.:

"If you see lies to the effect that HIV hasn't been isolated, and you point these liars to thousands of electron microscope images of the virus, they will simply move on to another lie without conceding the point." ?????

Well, I'm not moving to another issue, and I won't concede the point either.


No artist's renditions in color, plese, or one of those fake images showing only cell material (I even saw some with inner structures that looked like chloroplasts)


How about my question? 06.Mar.2005 11:18

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Oh Jezebel... ♪♪ ??

"Go do some basic learning on DNA and virus insertion."

Matter of fact, I did. A long time ago, when James Watson and Francis Crick published their first paper on the double helix structure of DNA. I was doing biochemical research in those days, and there were not even websites for me to quote.

"If you didn't want an intelligent discussion, why do you post?"

Well Ma'm, that's exactly what I had in mind. I asked you a simple question: How can a virus DNA that is integrated in the host cell's genome reproduce if it kills or disables the cell. When can I expect your answer?

"I'm not going to try to respond to your indivual lies as I have better things to do with my time."

Why do I get the distinct feeling that you want to withdraw from the discussion?



It may take ten years 06.Mar.2005 13:25


Questioning AIDS,

Yeah, it may take ten years, it may take a lot less or it may take a lot more. That's the way science works. The fact that people with at least partial natural immunity exist argues that it's feasible; not that it's going to happen tomorrow.

Something else is bothering me 06.Mar.2005 17:11

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Let's assume for a moment, we are in Wonderland. HIV has just been proven to exist, and a vaccine against it has been developed.
You get your shot of anti-HIV vaccine, and your immune system is activated instead of destroyed. Everything hunky dory, so far.
But now comes an invasion of real HIV... <groan> And that, as the story goes, attacks the immune system DIRECTLY (!) So everything you've built up with the vaccine is torn down again by the virus.
Things are getting curiouser and curiouser. Brrrr! Let's step back through the mirror into the real world again.


And yet ... 06.Mar.2005 18:20


there are individuals whose immune systems are at least partially resistant. Who don't become infected even after multiple exposures. Who don't progress or progress very slowly to AIDS after HIV infection.

And I would be willing to bet that a significant proportion of the naysayers would still get vaccinated, were a vaccine to be developed.

Back in the real world now 07.Mar.2005 15:42

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Yest indeed, Dale, "at least partially resistant", but personally I would have capitalized "at least". I am such a person. I am totally resistant against 'HIV', and I can guarantee that I'll never get 'AIDS. I don't take any drugs either.
But I'm willing to offer te same deal as David Resnick did: I'll take a shot of the virus if you take the shots of the medications that are used to treat patient who are 'infected'.
And whenever a vaccine will be offered: Thanks, but no thanks.


Lucky you 07.Mar.2005 19:09


Being HIV resistant makes you one lucky dude and clearly not a candidate for a vaccine. But I have no reason to believe that you speak for a significant proportion of the naysayers.

partial resistance 08.Mar.2005 16:40

Questioning AIDS

this "partial resistance" you mention...how does it work? Can you tell me in detail how a person can be "partially resisitant" to HIV? Does their immune system fight back...just a wee bit more than other people's? Do they posess some special enzyme, gene or protein that gives them just partial immunity? Since they're "partially immune", does it take a nice even 20 years before the onset of AIDS diseases as opposed to the standard, nice even 10 years before the onset of AIDS diseases? How does that work? I'm interested to know.

How does partial immunity work? 09.Mar.2005 05:57


In detail? If the details were known there's a good chance there would be better treatments for preventing and treating HIV infections.

But yeah, it probably mostly comes down to genetics of the virus and the individual. And since the human immune system changes in response to environmental exposure to foreign materials, personal history is going to influence immunity as well. Some of the factors that have been shown to be involved are cytokine genes, cytokine receptors, maybe histocompatability genes, viral isolate, route of infection, age, general health. As a consequence of all those factors, some people don't seem to get infected even after repeated exposures to HIV while others get infected after one exposure. Some people get sick within a year or two of infection and some people remain well for at least 20 years. By ~ 10 years, ~ 50% of infected people have progressed to AIDS. By ~20 years >90% of infected people have progressed to AIDS.

But I'm sure you've heard all that already. You just don't believe it.

Why I don't believe it 09.Mar.2005 17:47

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Yes Dale, we've all heard it But we cannot help being flabbergasted. Not only is the evidence for the 'HIV causes AIDS' theory completely lacking, but in addition, it doesn't even sound plausible to those who are not reaping any economic benefits from it.
Why is immunology completely turned upside down for this mythical virus? Normally, antibodies against a pathogen signal immunity to the disease, and victory of the body over the pathogenic agent. It has been this way ever since Edward Jenner (18th century) developed his smallpox vaccine. Now why do antibodies all of a sudden signal the presence of an infectious agent that will cause disease in 10-20 years? I can even add a prediction of my own: In 90 years, all the infected subjects will be dead.
From my own research days I remember that the nucleic acid people always excelled in postulating new intermediary factors named XQ431AV, or something like that, whenever they could not explain their experimental results. And afterwards, they could talk a mile a minute about it, as if 'XQ431AV' really existed. With the development of molecular genetics, it got worse. We have now 'switched on' and 'switched off' genes, and whenever something cannot be explained using regular scientific reasoning, we invoke 'gene expression', as if it were a genie out of a bottle.
They have spent 20 years now, fooling all of the people all of the time. They cannot keep that up. We finally want to see some detailed mechanisms, as proof that the AIDS-virus theory works. No more dreaming and postulating.
But of course, that won't happen. So it's time to fund the research of dissident scientists who will explore other avenues of investigation.

If you see gene expression 09.Mar.2005 18:41


as outside the scope of 'regular scientific reasoning', then I suppose I can understand why you are flabbergasted by scientific explanations.

Buzzwords 10.Mar.2005 16:01

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

No, it's not gene expression itself that I find so weird. It's the people who use the term as if it explains every phenomenon or lab result they cannot account for. As if just mentioning 'gene expression' silences all questions and all dissent.
The same problem exists with 'mutation' Whenever the HIV orthodoxy has painted itself into another corner, 'rapid mutation' is invoked. Am I denying the occurrence of mutations? Of course not. But Hugo de Vries (who first formulated the mutation hypothesis) would turn in his grave if he saw how his concept is misused these days. For the record: There is no such thing as rapid mutation of viruses. Unless you call the appearance of a new strain of flu virus every few years 'rapid'.
Too many fashionable buzzwords these days. And too little science.

Of course there's rapid mutation of viruses 10.Mar.2005 18:12


Everything's relative but relative to viruses that utilize cellular DNA polymerases to replicate, retroviruses mutate rapidly.

How rapid is rapid? 11.Mar.2005 19:59

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Yes, everything is relative. I agree with you there. Some virus types mutate more rapidly than others. But usually this happens after several passages on cell cultures. Or you cheat a little, with 5-Bromo-deoxyuridine (Rous Sarcoma Virus).
Genetic recombination has been clearly demonstrated with DNA viruses, but not RNA-viruses. Spontaneous mutation is a random effect, so the picture the 'HIV' proponents dangle in front of our face, of 'HIV' that acts as a master of disguise and can mutate quickly in the course of the infection process, just to fool us, is so far-fetched that it takes a lot of dollars to make someone believe it.

Disingenuous? 14.Mar.2005 19:49


Just wondering. Since despite your personal scepticism, multiple samplings from infected individuals shows that the HIV virus does indeed mutate rapidly.

Samplings? 15.Mar.2005 16:15

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Multiple samplings from infected patients? Not a single HIV particle has ever been isolated from 'infected patients. This must be the 'footsie-mutation', where the virus suddenly mutates itself out of existence.

Ah! I see 15.Mar.2005 19:05


So you probably don't believe in PCR either? Perhaps that make you one of those who thinks that patients should have several liters of blood removed in order to isolate virus?

yawn 16.Mar.2005 15:03

not convinced

you're bringing nothing new to the conversation. I can go to any garden-variety HIV/AIDS website and read the same material about the many wonderful, magical, mystical things HIV happens to be doing this week. Unfortunately, those things contradict all of the things HIV was doing LAST week. HIV sure is one wily virus. It "hides", "lurks", "waits", and needs to be "teased" out of tissue, It's just amazing all the many feats HIV is capable of.
Don't let any flights of fancy or leaps of logic get in the way of AIDS science though. My latest favorite is the obvious logic of Immune Reconstitution Disease. It's the disease one can get after successful treatment with AIDS drugs. The drugs supposedly help boost CD4 counts (which mean one's immune system is in good condition...hence "immune reconstitution"), yet the patient still developed an AIDS indicator disease. Hmmm...the immune system is just hunky-dory now (according to CD4 counts), but the patient developed pneumonia. Immune Reconsitution Disease. It doesn't sound like a contradiction in terms at all! What was I thinking?

Immune Reconstitution Disease- Is it a contradiction in terms? 16.Mar.2005 15:42


Not really. Just another facet of the complexity of the human immune system.

Of course I'm not saying anything new. All I'm doing is reiterating what's in the scientific literature which is what Dissidents do as well. However, unlike most Dissidents, I try to read all of it; not just a line here or there that supports my personal view. The things HIV does are only magical and mystical if you don't understand the science. Early man found the behaviour of astronomical bodies mystical until some persistent individuals came along and explained them in a way that allowed future behaviour to be predicted. But if you prefer to see AIDS and the behaviour of HIV as some sort of supernatural and illogical phenomenon; well, I guess that's up to you.

About PCR and Immune Reconstitution Disease 16.Mar.2005 16:34

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl


Yes, I do believe in PCR. So does Kary Mullis, and he should because he invented it. Yet, Mullis finds the way his technique is used in 'HIV science' extremely stupid. PCR should never be used quantitatively, because the results vary all over the map. That means the calculated 'viral load' is just an inaccurate extrapolation, and means nothing.
Besides, PCR amplifies any old piece of genetic material you feed it. So who's to say that the material they isolate from the patient comes from HIV? Or whether it's viral material at all? We cannot compare it to the real thing, because there is no pure HIV preparation anywhere. Oh yes, there are 'HIV-stocks', but what are they really? <whisper>: They come originally fro Gallo's lab.

Just one comment on the "Immune Reconstitution Disease". This phenomenon occurs in patients who are treated with HAART. Of course they get sicker (from the medications), but as a side effect, their CD4 counts go up too.
This upswing of the immune system has been known since 1895 (!) It occurs when a medication is administered that is so toxic that it destroys cells (bacterial of host) indiscriminately. This produces so much protein debris that an immense serological reaction is triggered. Oh well, the patient is dead, but his CD4 count is way up! So the treatment was a great success!

PCR can be quantitative using modifications of Mullis' orginal technique but 16.Mar.2005 17:41


that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about amplifying HIV sequences from cells from infected patients. PCR amplifies only DNA that will hybridize at specific sites to the specific primers you put in the reaction. And it's viral because it contains viral genes and it's only found in cells from HIV infected patients (or cell cultures infected with HIV). Pretty specific, if you ask me.

Faith 17.Mar.2005 08:33

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Yes, apart from the quantitative version of PCR (which Kary Mullis criticizes also), I did say PCR has poor specificity. But for a technique that amplifies one single little piece of DNA a billion-fold, can you expect otherwise? Try this: Search Google for "PCR specificity", and you get more than half a million links (!) Most of them deal with "improving specificity". Would there be so much discussion about it if specificity were no problem? To begin with, there are all kinds of restrictions on the primer: Not too much GC, no G at the 5' end, etc. Yet, any short sequence of DNA can be amplified. If the primer can be shown to be of viral origin, that is no big deal either: There are many pieces of viral DNA in the human genome, and they are quite innocent.
But you call them HIV-sequences, because you want to believe they are from HIV. Pure faith, not science, because we don't have the real thing to compare them with. And that's why I call PCR and 'viral load' non-specific.
Here is a nice article on the subject:


PCR reactions and viral DNA sequences 17.Mar.2005 11:03


PCR carried out properly is highly specific. And sequencing PCR products from HIV infected people gives DNA sequences that are unique to HIV infected people. Moreover, if you put those DNA sequences back into cells that can't be infected with HIV (because they don't have the proper proteins on their membranes to allow the virus to get into the cell); you can get infectious virus out of those cells. Like I said before; that's pretty specific to me.

A nice article? Hardly, Wilhelm. 17.Mar.2005 14:04


The author of the article you linked clearly doesn't understand the difference between the terms sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value as they apply to ALL screening tests, not just those for HIV.

Sensitivity, specificity, and PCR 17.Mar.2005 17:48

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

I had a sneaking suspicion, Dale, that you wouldn't like the article. The author is Italian, and his English is a little awkward at times, but one thing is very clear: Sensitivity and specificity are inversely related. You could also come to that conclusion if you consider the extreme dilution of blood serum that is needed in order not to make every ELISA or Western Blot come up positive.

I'm not sure I understand your remarks about PCR. Well sure, you can put a small DNA-sequence into a co-culture, and amplify it with the PCR technique. But then you say you get infectious VIRUS out? That could not be. In the first place: If that were so, we could obtain a pure virus culture that way (and take nice electron micrographs of the particles). And secondly: Even if you get an infectious virus culture, how do we know it's HIV? We have nothing to compare it to. It would be just another lab artifact (Just like Gallo's non-existing HL23V).
I have read articles where the orthodoxy tried to counter all the dissidents' objections. But they always base their arguments on the basic dogma that HIV exists and that it causes AIDS. And it seems impossible to shake their faith in that dogma, because if that happened, the whole house of cards would fall apart.

Hey Wilhelm! 17.Mar.2005 18:58


If you take each of the genes encoded by HIV and introduce them into a cell then yes, you can get infectious virus out. Do a literature search and you'll see for yourself.

There are published electron micrographs of HIV; AIDS researchers aren't interested apparently in generating more.

Now convinced 18.Mar.2005 07:14

Thanks, Dale!

I'm now utterly convinced by your iron-clad arguments that HIV does indeed exist and causes at least 29 diseases, and that HIV tests are at least 99.9% accurate and that should I test positive, the only reasonable course of action would be to start taking HAART...and should I get pneumonia or maybe lymphoma that only HIV could possibly be doing the harm. Ok, super! Now let's see what you can do to pick apart Liam Scheff's article on Portlandindymedia that was posted last night. See you there!

Dale, please help me out 18.Mar.2005 18:45

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Dale, I think the specificity of PCR can be good if you have a complete genome available. But that is not the case for the 'HIV' material. They only use small pieces of nucleic acid of unknown origin, and then the specificity drops off sharply.
But the main point is: Although they produce nucleic acid using PCR, nobody has produced complete virus particles. You say they have. Well, I've done a lot of literature searches, but I cannot find any record of that. So could you direct me to a paper describing how they have done that? And while you're at it, could you also give me a link to a place where I can see those EM pictures? I asked 'AlreadyPublished', but he didn't respond.
And after I've seen a picture with virus-like particles, there is, of course, the additional question: What are they? Because we don't have a Gold Standard of the real thing.
And remember: The burden of proof is upon the authors of the theory.

Magical and mystical explanations 23.Mar.2005 19:52



There is a big difference between a hypothetical and highly speculative explanation of the behavior of alleged HIV and the real world behavior of the alleged entity. You have literally accused dissidents of "not understanding" things that are not proven to be real. Believers in the HIV "theory" continually wave away the necessary step of actually isolating an entity, in this case the alleged HIV particle, before attempting to describe its behavior. They also wave away the step of actually observing this behavior in a manner that makes any description of such behavior provable in any way that has any scientific credibility.

Tom, I agree with you completely 24.Mar.2005 14:33


There is a big difference between a hypothetical and highly speculative explanation (such as a virus shouldn't behave like that because there are other viruses that don't and we should be able to purify virus from a few milliliters of blood because the Perth group says we should ) and the real world behaviour of HIV (as in laboratory experiments showing that HIV and genetically related viruses such as SIV do indeed exhibit the behaviours that they've been credited with). I don't think dissidents don't understand; I think they deliberately ignore laboratory data. There is no necessity to "actually isolate" HIV in the manner that the Perth group claims; I can't see gravity but I know it exists by the fact that if I drop a ball or a pen or any of a variety of other objects on earth, it falls to the ground. HIV's DNA has been isolated many, many times; HIV particles have been seen under the em; HIV's infectivity has been demonstrated by passing virus from infected to uninfected cells. The list goes on and on. The lack of scientific credibility lies not with the establishment but with the dissidents.

That's agreeing? 24.Mar.2005 17:20

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Sorry Dale, but I've missed completely what exactly you're agreeing with. One of the problems is that the retro viruses that are supposed to be related to 'HIV' (monkeys, mice, chickens) do not at all show the exotic behavior that is ascribed to HIV.
These viruses don't have all that many genes, so they could not be so different from one another.
And I don't see why it's so hard to isolate HIV, when Peyton Rous succeeded already in 1911 to isolate Rous Sarcoma Virus. All he had to work with were bacterial filters. He did not have those wonderful ultracentrifuges that we employ these days.
If you worry about blood to be taken from patients, no problem. Surely there are dead people (who died of 'AIDS') who can be autopsied. Even Robert Gallo pooled blood from several victims, in the course of his slipshod research.
I think very highly of laboratory results, but the cultures they are working with are lab artifacts. Interesting maybe, but hardly relevant to human disease.
You still insist that there are (honest) EM pictures of HIV. Where can I find these? And if there are pictures, how do I know they are HIV if the particles have never been isolated? You say this is not necessary, but you know very well that DNA is not the same as a whole virus (especially one that does not contain DNA).
Is AID$ Inc. trying to postpone the moment when they have to confess they made a very stupid choice when they picked a retrovirus as the cause of AIDS? Any other type of virus would have been more plausible than a retrovirus. But with all those toxic chemicals, who needs a virus at all?

Round and round it goes. Where it stops... 25.Mar.2005 07:34


Dale, many of the AIDS advocates that I have seen stand firmly on shifting ground. "HIV" has been made the pivot of this circle.

You, Dale, do not know where there are any, let alone thousands of electron micrographs that clearly show the existence of HIV. The case is ambiguous even when you have a field that consists of mostly one distinct type of particle, and even such a graphic would have to be shown, over and over again, to be able to show similar results consistently. The case for the existence of HIV, and the case for its alleged ability to cause illness, these cases do not even meet minimal criteria for scientific credibility. You, Dale, seem to be a staunch advocate for said ideas but you do not know enough about these things to make a good case for them, or to show anyone where a good case might have been made. Have you ever even dug into your own material? The results that dissidents return come from actually studying the works of people like Robert Gallo, and their shenanigans.

I have literally been told, repeatedly, that there was "never time" to scientifically verify any findings by creating experiments and repeating them. I am sure that this is why, when I read the literature, it's like the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

Where it stops? 25.Mar.2005 10:54



The case for the existence of HIV as a virus is pretty much as ironclad as anything in science. Peter Duesberg acknowledges its existence. Even many dissidents appear to admit it exists since they often cite literature based on its existence.

I did not imply there were thousands of electron micrographs available on the Internet; I said there were some, as anyone who bothers to Goggle HIV and electron micrographs, can see for themselves. Your comment about a field that "consists mostly of one distinct type of particle" suggests that you yourself have seen such photos but don't believe they represent a virus named HIV. There are certainly hundreds if not thousands of HIV sequences published in the scientific literature and collected in the human genetic database but you don't believe they represent sequences of HIV. Even though they are DNA sequences only isolated from HIV infected cells and not found in uninfected cells. I'd like to hear the "scientific" explanation for that! There are dozens, if not hundreds, of papers showing viral infectivity but you apparently don't believe them either. As for the evidence that HIV causes immunosuppresion, I find the data showing that HIV seropositive individuals are many times more likely to develop immunosuppression than HIV seronegative people, pretty compelling and certainly more scientifically credible than any alternative theory for AIDS that I have read. You obviously have an alternative explanation for the strong correlation between HIV positivity and immunosupression. But is it a scientific theory supported by data?

You speak of the case for HIV causing AIDS as not meeting the minimal criteria for scientific credibility and yet you don't specify what you would consider those minimal criteria to be. Reproducibility? Check the literature, it's there. Double blind studies? Check the literature, they're there too. Laboratory studies supporting what has been observed in patients. It's all in the literature.

I'm curious though (as I have come across many Dissidents who make statements similar to yours but have yet to find one who can my question) as to exactly what kind of "experiments" you want to create to support or refute the HIV/AIDS hypothesis?

Funny thing about genes 25.Mar.2005 11:21



Current estimates put the number of genes in a human being at less than twice that in a worm and yet most people would agree that you would never mistake a worm for a human; they are that different. Humans and chimpanzees are far more similar genetically than HIV-1 and HIV-2 or either of the HIVs and any other virus, and yet most people would agree that humans and chimpanzees differ in very many respects. All retroviruses are not identical nor should anyone expect them to be.

You can in fact isolate HIV the same way Rous used to isolate Rous Sarcoma virus by taking medium that infected cells have been growing in, pass it through filters to remove cells and bacteria, and show that you can use it to infect previously uninfected cells. So your point was ....?

DNA is not the same as a whole virus. DNA is the part of the virus that provides the instructions for replicating the virus. So if you can take the DNA and put it into a cell and have a whole virus come out the other end, that pretty much proves the DNA belongs to the virus.

Dog excrement isn't the same as a whole dog either; but if I step in the former I can be pretty sure that the latter was somewhere nearby at some point. You are trying to set an arbitrary standard for proving HIV exists. Like a member of the Flat Earth society; ignore all the indirect evidence and say you won't believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun until you personally go up in a spacecraft and see it for yourself.

This conversation 25.Mar.2005 15:10

is going around in circles

Well, I'm glad I never completely bought into the HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm. First, because it reeked of (mass) hysteria, and that had me asking questions. Secondly, in the early days I lived in a small city with a small gay community where everybody could easily trace their sexual liasons to those who had died of "AIDS" and were dying of "AIDS", myself included. Third, and very importantly, my mind had problems with the sudden change in the rules in virology (which only seemed to apply to "HIV"). As a rational, thinking person, it just wasn't making sense for me.
When I had my first "HIV" test a number of years into the epidemic, I simply assumed that I would come up "positive". To my astonishment and disbelief, I was negative. Something was definitely wrong with this picture from all that I was told, and how that should have related to my sex life. Stranger still, I had sex with a friend just a week before we tested...he came up "positive". I thought that after the "waiting period" of six months, that NOW I would finally come up "positive". Four years later, I would be tested again...NEGATIVE.
Now, I'm sure the orthodoxy would have some sort of convoluted explanation for my personal history (dumb luck, I suppose). I don't believe it anymore. Sorry. I'm glad the dissidents are around and asking questions, and not trying to save their sorry asses for their faith in an unproven hypothesis.

Convoluted explanation? 25.Mar.2005 18:08


Hardly convoluted. If you throw a couple of dice it can take you any number of throws before you shot snake eyes. Keep shooting and your odds of eventually shooting that particular combination increase.

This Conversation 25.Mar.2005 19:01


Yes, Dale,
if I continue subjecting myself to a non-standardized, non-specific antibody test, I may eventually test "reactive". You're right.

If they can, why doesn't anybody do it? 25.Mar.2005 19:03

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl


You say they can isolate HIV the same way as Rous did with RSV. Well... why doesn't anybody do it? That would put a lot of unnecessary debate at rest. Yes, I feel much better about the idea that the Earth is round since I saw pictures of it taken from outer space. I've seen some 'EM pictures of HIV' that were obvious fakes, and one that showed particles that could be viral or something else. But there was no standard material to compare it to.

Tell me: When you step in dog excrement, how do you know it's from a dog, and not from another animal? Unless you know the morphology of the stuff because you have had an opportunity to compare it with the real thing, from a real dog. Somebody who has never seen a dog could only say it's... well, generic excrement. (I think there's a shorter term for it). Well, nobody has ever seen HIV or its RNA, so how do we know that the DNA in a cell culture, which can indeed be sequenced, and with which you can infect new uninfected cells, has been produced by HIV?
In 1970 Peter Duesberg isolated a gen from a cancer patient, which was widely celebrated as the first 'cancer gene'. It could be reproduced in a cell culture, and infect naive cells. But it was really a lab artifact. Duesberg had the honesty and moral fiber to admit that later. That is more than can be said about Robert Gallo. He came out with a virus he called HL23V, which was supposed to cause leukemia. Examination by other researchers showed that his preparation was contaminated with no less than 3 monkey viruses. HL23V was never heard from again, and not even an "oops!" from Gallo.
Now everybody in HIV-research is working with cell cultures in which 'something' is growing. You can isolate DNA from the cells, sequence it, and infect new cells with it. You can also infect cells with a filtrate that passes though a bacterial filter. My point: WHAT IS IT? It's all done with laboratory cell cultures that have their origin in Gallo's brew. And we know by now how he handled lab samples...

"So if you can take the DNA and put it into a cell and have a whole virus come out the other end, that pretty much proves the DNA belongs to the virus."
Well now, it's especially the part about "a whole virus coming out the other end" that I cannot possibly believe without any evidence. A whole virus? I never saw pictures of those virus particles. And even if there is a virus coming out of those cells, what is it? There are about 3000 known retroviruses.

Twice as many genes as a worm has, eh? Could be. That's still a lot of genes. Enough to make a difference. But these retrovirus-related DNAs have very few genes. The absolute numbers determine the genetic differences.

These lab cultures may be interesting in themselves, but when it comes to in vivo effects, the AIDS establishment folds itself into every conceivable contortion to explain the observed phenomena. All of a sudden, HIV is able to do things no virus has been able to do before: Hiding from view, producing a burst of virus particles while embedded in the cell genome, rapid mutation when antibodies or enemy drugs appear, spontaneous disappearance whenever an attempt is made at isolation, etc.
This is all Disney stuff. Why not just admit that there is no virus? Cell cultures may infect one another, but humans don't. Not with HIV, that is. Some of the indicator diseases included in the AIDS definition are infectious, such as pneumonia. Others are not, such as cervical cancer. Let's come to our senses, and see the whole mess for what it is. And to hell with the reputations of the 'experts' who staked their careers on this piece of fiction. As for the big pharma companies... Well, no comment. I couldn't express my opinion in polite language.

Still spinning 25.Mar.2005 22:30


Dale, you and I have the same problem. Neither one of us have seen an article that makes the case for the existence of HIV as a disease-causing entity. You cannot show me an article or other publication that brings the evidence together and shows that HIV causes any kind of disease. There has been a lot of speculation, but when Gallo made his world-shaking announcement, he didn't even have the evidence to back up his claim that "HIV is the probably cause of AIDS."

Duesberg brought the evidence together, and it showed that HIV, whatever it is, cannot be the cause of any cases of AIDS. How do I account for a lot of the things that AIDS believers want me to account for? The circular reasoning that renders the "evidence" invalid is usually written into the articles. It's like saying that the flu has a 100 percent mortality rate if you only count people as having had the flu who have died of it. Really early, using a test that was known to be invalid, doctors got into the habit of diagnosing AIDS only in people who tested positive for HIV. Then they administered drugs to those people, including AZT, that would kill healthy people after a few years. Like any poison, the deadly effects of AZT are dose dependent. Doctors also got into the habit of blaming HIV for some of the symptoms of AZT poisoning, like "AIDS dementia." How can any such thing constitute valid science? I would think that even witch doctors would be hesitant to claim that they "just knew" wish symptoms were caused by the actual disease and which were caused by AZT. The company that makes AZT tells you straight out that AZT causes the symptoms of AIDS.

Is AZT the best available treatment for AIDS? 26.Mar.2005 09:06


Now that's another question.

AZT treatment of individuals in late stage AIDS improved immune status and apparently prolonged life. I say apparently because all one ever has to go on in these cases is the statistics. You can't compare treating and not treating the same individual at the same time. AZT treatment of individuals not yet showing disease symptoms was a bad idea. The medical establishment proved that and admits it. Current treatments appear to be better, at least in the short term, but clearly have negative side effects and in the long term may indeed turn out to be no better than AZT was. Only time will tell. The data I've seen so far says better but maybe not by a whole lot. But there is still no evidence out there that there are any better treatments currently available. Dissidents like to say that the treatments cause the disease but the data says otherwise. The majority of HIV positive people around the world have never seen an antiretroviral and they are still dying at rates that are much higher than HIV negative people.

Duesberg showed nothing. What Duesberg did is make a lot of hand waving arguments based on either old data (i.e. what was known about the virus in late 80s or early 90s while ignoring what has been learned since) or he took comments from more current literature completely out of context. I know this because I spent a lot of time tracking down and reading some of the references from his 2003 paper. The scientific establishment ignores his views on HIV and AIDS because he's not making scientific arguments. His views on aneuploidy and cancer are treated somewhat more seriously because those he is backing up with some scientific arguments.

You admit cell cultures infect one another but deny that humans do. Again, the evidence says otherwise. Obviously one can't do extensive studies but especially since the advent of PCR, there have been several examples where sequencing of the virus from known sexual partners has clearly indicated transmission of the virus. Mother to child transmission has been demonstrated with depressing regularity in Africa and elsewhere around the world. Up to 25- 30% of the babies of HIV positive women are HIV positive while the babies of HIV negative women aren't.

Can I show you a single article making the case for HIV as a disease causing entity? Nope. Because it's the thousands of articles in the scientific literature that together make a compelling argument.

This conversation 26.Mar.2005 10:20


It's the thousands of articles that get used to continually prop up the failed HIV=AIDS hypothesis. The only way to conceal the original mistake is to continually create a mountain of research that claims to support it, and divert attention from it's fatal flaws.

This is the consistent comeback when the orthodoxy gets painted into a corner...they use the words "overwhelming evidence" and "compelling evidence", and bypass the basic fact that there is no ONE paper that makes the case for HIV being THE single cause of the syndrome known as AIDS.

Also, consider that there are many thousands of reports every year of people claiming to have seen spaceships and objects described as "other-worldly". It sounds a lot like your "overwhelming evidence", or "compelling"...all those thousands of reports. The only thing missing is the physical evidence.

Another spurious argument 26.Mar.2005 13:52


Many theories in science get modified over the years; rarely a theory gets completely rejected. But if a theory is wrong there is generally a growing list of papers that refute it. You want one paper that "proves" HIV causes AIDS? It has always been my impression that nothing in science is ever proved so I would like you to give me an example of what you mean; a single paper that "proves" some particular scientific theory. Scientific theories are generally considered good if they make useful predictions and bad if they don't. The HIV/AIDS theory predicts that HIV positive individuals are more likely to get sick from particular causes than those that are HIV negative. It's a pretty good theory in that regard. I'd like you to cite me a study that puts the HIV/AIDS theory into question, that shows a correlation with something other than HIV positivity that predicts who shows the same form of immunosuppression that is associated with AIDS. Having looked through much of what Duesberg and the Perth group have published; what I have seen is a lot of sweeping statements that declare (with no supporting evidence) that whatever causes AIDS should behave in a particular way. I have yet to see them publish any actual data that would support their position. But if persuasive evidence is really out there, I'd like to see it.

TC 26.Mar.2005 15:01

and so on...

if you read my post again, you'll notice that I didn't use the words "prove" or "proof". I didn't ask you to find the paper that "proves" HIV causes AIDS. What might be cool though is if there was a paper that "shows" (how about that?) how HIV causes AIDS.

Yes, I know the basic equation...HIV kills T-cells(or lies dormant in them for 10 years until it's timer goes off), or "tricks" them into committing suicide (it's a different story every week, don't let that concern you...just "science" marching boldy forward!), or whatever it is that HIV is doing to lessen T-cell numbers. THEN, after HIV has done whatever it does to T-cells (even the CDC admits it's "unclear", but the evidence is "overwhelming"...very confident-sounding), opportunistic infections are manifested (the twenty-nine and counting AIDS-indicator diseases). Maybe it's just a problem of semantics, but not all of the "opportunistic infections" are infectious diseases.

No, I know you won't lead me to that fateful paper that either Gallo or Montagnier must have written "showing" (that still work for you?) how HIV CAUSES AIDS. There's "overwhelming" evidence out there, and luckily the story changes every week, thereby confusing the average person who doesn't know up from down when it comes to HIV. They just know enough to be frightened out of their wits.

Doesn't look like a good theory at all 26.Mar.2005 16:21

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Dale, I quote: "The HIV/AIDS theory predicts that HIV positive individuals are more likely to get sick from particular causes than those that are HIV negative. It's a pretty good theory in that regard."

Where could they that with a straight face? Their statistics were skewed from the start, because all their 'HIV-positive' people went to see a doctor as they were feeling sick in the first place. After this, they got tricked or bullied into getting tested for 'HIV'. Surely nobody will take that test because he or she is feeling fine. Nobody is that stupid.
If someone chooses his cohort in such a way that the results will automatically prove his theory, then he is pulling off a con, not doing scientific research.

After all the HIV propagandists will have been tarred and feathered, and all rumors about HIV have stopped, don't expect anybody to come up with an alternative 'cause of AIDS', let alone a 'cure for AIDS' AIDS is a hodgepodge of known diseases that never should have been lumped together at all. The only common denominator is a depressed immune system. But that is a condition that can be induced by many different causes. Chemicals (street drugs as well as medicinal drugs) are very effective.
The best thing is just to forget about AIDS and start treating the underlying diseases again.

Where she stops, nobody knows 26.Mar.2005 20:38


Well, Dale, people who would read your rhetoric and accept it at face value have a dire need to re-educate themselves about the scientific method and about biology. They also need to read Duesberg, because contrary to your rhetoric, he has not said anything that is unscientific or inaccurate.

On the other hand, the AIDS "establishment" has deliberately thwarted the scientific method at every turn. "There was no time" doesn't cut it. Gallo misconducted himself in many ways that are documented and are available on the net. Others did also. Without careful skeptical examination no responsible person should have made the authoritative-sounding statement that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." You very well can talk your way around the necessity for the scientific method and careful scrutiny of results, but THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

Everything you have, and everything I have seen that might compel someone to believe that AIDS is caused by a sexual transmissible virus is somewhere out there, but it is never right here. It is simply very very wrong to even attempt to convince people that a disease exists using evidence that is not reproducible and is not properly peer reviewed. The AIDS promoters very commonly use a lack of evidence and a lack of science as the very reason we must "have faith" in the existence of HIV. I have to believe those supporters of AIDS who say that evidence and science have no bearing on this.

Those who read this and other such threads need to actually read the dissident sites like www.virusmyth.net . I wish more people would get it into their heads that they can take charge of their own lives and take control away from the people who have been running them down. In all of the battles I have had with such people, not limited to battles over AIDS Incorporated, I have seen that for the most part they are intellectually and ethically bankrupt. They are the school bullies who cannot go a day without ruining at least one other person's day, and they live to ruin other people's lives. Most of them individually are stupid and weak. This is why they have to use low cunning and physical and mental abuse to push whatever it is they are pushing. Many of us have simply been too nice to these people.

Now who's being rhetorical? 27.Mar.2005 14:40



I stated why I don't believe Duesberg's arguments are scientific (ignoring new data and misquoting old data, making sweeping statements about how a virus "should" behave without any supporting evidence). Rather than accuse me of posting rhetoric, why don't you give me a reason to believe Duesberg's arguments are scientific?

I stated quite clearly that the reproducibility and peer-review that you claim are lacking from the AIDS literature are actually not lacking at all. Have you provided me with a single shread of evidence that they are?

And I asked you what experiments you believed would be required to either support or refute the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Those experiments you said several posts ago are clearly missing. I'm still waiting.

I too think people should read a dissident site like virusmyth. Then they should go to some of the papers that virusmyth puports to quote and look at how the data in those papers has been misrepresented.

Wilhelm you have a point 27.Mar.2005 14:56


but it works both ways. HIV and AIDS statistics have been skewed from the start because a large percentage of HIV positive people never see doctors or get tested until they are already sick. And when people start to get sick they go to doctors and many of them end up on antiretrovirals. It's not the antiretrovirals that make people sick; it's that sick people take antiretrovirals. Like I said, the bias works both ways.

So to try to get an unbiased look at the effect of HIV you have to try to look at unskewed populations. And there are some. Look at the data on the children of pregnant African women. Among HIV positive African women - their HIV positive babies are more likely to die than their HIV negative ones are. HIV negative women don't have HIV positive babies and their babies are less likely to die than those of HIV positive women.These are studies where nobody's getting antiretrovirals.

The American military is another relatively unbiased population where everyones been tested for years. Of course people who already think they might be HIV positive are unlikely to apply to the US military because they know they'll be tested so if anything HIV positive individuals will be underrepresented.

All immigrants to the US are tested for HIV, regardless of race or gender, and have been for years. Not all HIV testing is biased.

Among less healthy populations you get HIV testing at STD clinics and HIV testing at clinics for IVD users. And in all those groups the immunosuppression is associated with the HIV and not with the drug use or the STD although drug use and certain STDs may increase the risks of becoming HIV positive or progressing to AIDS.

The underlying diseases are being treated. The problem being that HIV infectivity and the immunosuppression it causes makes it harder to treat many of the underlying diseases.

More and more rhetoric 27.Mar.2005 16:06


Dale, you simply cannot prove your point. No AIDS believer ever has been able to prove that AIDS is caused by a little retrovirus, and no AIDS believer that I have met can present a case for this idea. You have to leave out some very important facts, and fight with everything you have to divert your opponents from these facts, and to remove them from consideration.

Even if you can talk your way around the fact that AZT destroys the immune system and any DNA it comes in contact with, you shouldn't try. No one who tries to prove a point in science should ever try to talk their way around facts like this. Go to www.gsk.com , the official website of the makers of AZT, look up "Retrovir", read, know and understand the simple facts that GlaxoSmithKline publishes about its flagship product. It causes the symptoms of AIDS, it damages DNA, and it has a host of negative effects. And if you think that those FDA studies were so great then read this article:  link to www.virusmyth.net . The reason that babies who are born HIV positive die more often than do HIV negative babies is because the doctors give the HIV positive babies, or those who are born to HIV positive mothers, extremely high doses of AZT, which is a deadly poison whose action is dose dependent. It takes effort to cram 1200 milligrams of AZT into a body that weighs between eight pounds and thirty pounds. The pain in their guts starts immediately because the disruption of the function of their DNA happens immediately, and the consequences start immediately.

The problem that is most obvious with your rhetoric is your stock of ready excuses for junk science, ridiculous reasoning, and dangerous practices. "HIV disease" is junk science from the start simply because the promoters cannot bring scientific evidence with them. Not that the evidence for other fondly held notions is that much better, but you have not brought us anything (because you can't) and you have denounced, without good reason, Peter Duesberg who did bring all of the evidence together.

Still waiting Tom 27.Mar.2005 17:31


For those experiments that you were going to tell me about that are "missing". Remember?

Still waiting Tom for you to give me one example of Duesberg's "science".

Still waiting Tom for you to "explain" the HIV positive babies dying in Africa. In some cases there is no treatment; in some cases the HIV positive mothers and ALL their babies are treated with AZT. But it's the HIV positive babies, not the HIV negative ones, that are dying at high frequencies. But I'm not going to argue that there aren't problems with AZT as a treatment or even that newer therapies i.e. HAART have problems. That's not the point. The point is that HIV causes AIDS and sadly, the nature of the virus has made it difficult to develop effective treatments.

You know what would convince me that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? If somebody developed a treatment that eliminated the virus but didn't affect the immunosuppression. That would cause me to question the role of HIV in AIDS.

Still waiting Tom for you to present a single argument to support your position.

TC 27.Mar.2005 18:14


how are all of those babies being diagnosed with HIV infection? Are they using the Bangui definition? Since the Bangui definition relies on common physical symptoms with no need for a blood test, how do you know they aren't sick from parasitic infections, malaria, malnutrition or starvation?...all of which can appear to be AIDS.

So...you diagnose babies using the Bangui definition as having AIDS because they're currently sick (weight loss, fever, itching, diarrhea) and compare them to babies that aren't sick. Of course, it's no wonder that you get the results that support your hypothesis...it's been built into the system.

TC 27.Mar.2005 19:56


No TC, their mothers are diagnosed using ELISAs, Westerns and clinical evaluations and they are diagnosed in pretty much the same way an American baby would be diagnosed; using PCR. Read the literature and see for yourself.

You don't have a case, Dale 27.Mar.2005 21:23


It is not up to Duesberg or anyone else to provide experiments proving that "HIV" does not cause "AIDS." It is up to the "AIDS scientists" and other promoters of AIDS to provide experiments and other information proving its existence. Before they do this, "HIV disease" literally does not exist. A lot of us have been led around by the nose by a fraudulent disease. All I see supporting its existence is slick talk. It is, by the way, unacceptable to revise science to support phenomena that could not be proven to exist without such revision. We could "prove" that all planets are hollow and have worlds pasted on the inside of them by declaring that every planet contains a singularity that generates negative gravity and the rules turn inside out by the time that negative gravity reaches the shell. Then we could go around saying that we have proven that planets are hollow and we don't have to prove that said singularities are there. Even to an honest enthusiast, though, such a process should be unacceptable. So should it be with the supporters of the AIDS theory.

Duesberg, Rappaport, Lauritsen, and others have shown that several necessary steps have not been done to prove that HIV causes disease. These steps would include using honest statistics, being honest about the effects of the drugs, and not trying to confuse the issues, but it looks like we have to work with something other than that. Honesty would be the first step, which would mean dispensing with slick talk. The honest thing for you to say, Dale, is the same thing that Robert Gallo should say. Neither you nor Gallo know enough to come up with an explanation of why I should believe that HIV exists that can stand up to any skeptical scrutiny. You cannot show that a virus has been isolated. Even where you say that Duesberg "admits" to the existence of "HIV", sort of as if an agnostic admitted to the existence of Satan, he was simply demonstrating that the best evidence of isolation did not stand up to scrutiny. There is nothing for him to "admit." A real scientist would be unable to conclude that something like this was a probable anything until the weight of the evidence was overwhelming. In the case of HIV, the evidence has next to no weight.

Until the virus is isolated, and a standard for determining the existence of infection is established, no test is valid for determining its presence. The warning label on the test kits says that there is no standard for determining the presence of HIV infection. An antibody test does not prove the presence of an infection. Talking your way around it does not prove the presence of an infection. The tests that have put so many people into the AIDS system for so many years weren't even licensed for the diagnosis of HIV infection in humans.

Dissidents keep having to go around finding out things about this so-called disease that the rest of the world just can't be bothered to learn. It would be understandable if we were talking about people who couldn't be bothered to memorize the entire RNA sequence of the virus. We are talking about people who couldn't be bothered to find out if there was any substance to the theory, ever. We are talking about doctors who simply took the word of people who are not doctors about the existence and nature of the syndrome and didn't check it out.

I've already made my point,Tom 28.Mar.2005 07:26


Apart from throwing around phrases like "skeptical scrutiny" and accusing those who don't believe what you believe of fraud and dishonesty, you don't have an argument. If you did, you'd have made it by now.

Are there dishonest scientists? Yes there are; just as there are dishonest dissidents. Neither changes the science demonstrating that HIV is an infectious virus responsible for a human disease nor that the majority of HIV positive people who are left untreated become immunosuppressed and develop a host of physical problems that often kill them.

You say Duesberg and others have already mentioned the "necessary steps" missing in the scientific evidence for the HIV/AIDS connection but you don't seem to be able to articulate a single one. Likely because you know that all of Duesberg's so called arguments have been scientifically refuted time and again.

You say it's up to supporters of the HIV/AIDS connection to "prove" their point; they have. They have proven it to the satisfaction of the vast majority of scientists and to almost everyone who hasn't put their fingers in their ears and continued to go "nah, nah, not listening".

You talk about revising the rules of science as if that were somehow a bad thing. Seriously. Nature doesn't follow the rules of science; the rules of science are human constructions that are continually being altered to better explain and predict natural phenomena. HIV is killing people and it isn't going to stop or go away just because you refuse to believe in it.

Where have I heard that before? 28.Mar.2005 08:16


When called upon to make a case for the existence of HIV, Dale, you can't do it. No one ever has. Declaring that it is there and we must believe is not the same as making a case for it.

"Thank God they didn't die of AIDS" 28.Mar.2005 08:32


HIV is killing people and it isn't going to stop or go away just because you refuse to believe in it.

You're absolutely right Dale. "HIV" is killing people. Killling them with stress and worry and liver failure and lypodystrophy and "IRD" and suicide. What a marvelous construct!!!

No one dies of "AIDS" anymore, Thanks be to God, just HIV related "treatment". That's sooooooo much better.

One little problem.

Dead by any cause is still DEAD.

Well Tom, I must say you describe your own argument perfectly 28.Mar.2005 09:28


" Declaring that it is[n't] there and we must believe is not the same as making a case for it. "

Killing them with stress and worry and drugs ... 28.Mar.2005 10:42


If it's stress and worry and drugs that's killing AIDS patients now, what was killing back in the 80s and why were they dying in much higher numbers when there were fewer treatments available than there are now?

Just wondering ...

He's got... Mud-dy water... He's got... 28.Mar.2005 15:52


For crying out loud. Intelligent people should never have believed you or your kind of rhetoric ever, Dale. Why do domineering people use false accusations and accusations of things that are not even misconduct to put people on the defensive? It is to get people into the habit of being on the defensive when those domineering people want them to be. You, Dale, have a thesis to defend and you can't. Your "what if" questions don't prove your case. They are a way to PRETEND that you have a case. All you have is pretense, Dale, and that is all that your side of this debate ever had.

I'm sorry, Tom 28.Mar.2005 18:46


Do you have something to say?

I've spelled out my position; I'm still waiting to hear yours.

What is your position again? 28.Mar.2005 20:56


I haven't seen you make a case. Don't feel bad, neither can Robert Gallo.

I don't feel bad at all Tom 29.Mar.2005 14:31


But I am beginning to see why a lot of people call you guys Denialists rather than Dissidents.

Yes, we all can see 29.Mar.2005 19:40


It's just another way that you confuse the issues.

It's sort of like this 30.Mar.2005 12:40


The logic of AIDS is like this. You have an assembly line making radios. Quality control picks out the ones to "test" according to certain criteria, which have nothing to do with whether the radio actually works. Those criteria might as well be randomly chosen serial numbers. Weight is given to the gender, national origin, and sexual preferences of the workers who build each radio.

Quality control "tests" the radios by first smashing the radios with sledgehammers. Then they plug the radios in and see if they work correctly. They also judge the appearance of the radios. The correctness of their criteria for selecting potential rejects is affirmed. Every radio they pick to test fails either the functional test or the test of appearance. The sledgehammer didn't break the radios. They were bad radios to start with.

The HIV test is of course the first criteria for selection. It is just that random and just that wrongly biased. Extra points are given to the recipient of the test for race and sexual preference. The testing methods are even altered to increase the chance of a positive test if you are gay or come from Africa or have had sex with any African. The obvious thing that is wrong with this is that if there were actually a greater tendency for gays or African blacks to have an HIV infection, it would show up on the test without fudging the results. To put it even more bluntly, the testers fudge the results. There is no way that this is right. It is fraud, it is using a defective product in an even more defective manner, and it has caused many premature deaths.

AZT is of course the sledgehammer. It causes AIDS, period. GlaxoSmithKline says so at www.gsk.com . AZT is what makes a very high percentage of HIV positive people contract AIDS. Those who don't take the drugs are ignored by what passes for the medical establishment these days, but they survive. People who don't take the drugs survive much longer than those who do. You can't simply assume that someone who takes "the appropriate medication" has a greater chance of survival. Prescription drugs used as directed are one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. Different researchers have told us over and over again that overmedicating people, with much less damaging drugs than AZT, does not make them healthier, it makes them sicker. Even the common oral antibiotics cause a greater chance, overall, of ill health and death because while they may help with minor pains and infections, they destroy and change the bacteria in the gut.

No; it's not at all like that. 30.Mar.2005 14:10


The HIV test is given to many individuals like those in the military or those seeking to immigrate to the USA without any bias whatsoever; everybody gets tested. The HIV test is also given to individuals who request an HIV test or agree to have one performed by their physician. In the latter case, yes the suggestion is probably based on the patient belonging to a high risk group or exhibiting symptoms consistant with HIV infection, although even that is changing in the USA. Doctors in my area of the country are now recommending HIV tests for all women, regardless of whether they belong to a high risk group. In any case, the HIV test is performed and read by clinical laboratories who have no idea who the blood/serum/saliva etc. came from. If the test is positive, the test is then repeated; again by laboratory technologists who don't know anything about the race or sexual preference of the patient. The result is then sent to the doctor who is supposed to tell the patient what that result is and what it means. The interpretation of the test may indeed be subject to bias, based on the doctor's knowledge of the patient and the quality of his medical training, but the test itself is impartial.

In Africa, AIDS is often diagnosed without the benefit of HIV testing but at least one study comparing diagnosis based on clinical presentation versus HIV testing suggested that clinical presentation is at least as likely to underrepresent the number of Africans with AIDS as to overrepresent it. Plus, as far as I can tell, nobody is prescribed antiretrovirals, even in Africa without an HIV test.

AZT is a sledgehammer but it doesn't cause AIDS. That is a gross misrepresentation of what it says at gsk.com

AZT doesn't make HIV positive people contract AIDS. If that were the case, there would be very little AIDS in Africa where the vast majority of HIV positive people die without ever seeing AZT. And what about all those gay men in the 80s who were diagnosed and died before AZT was introduced as a treatment. What do you suppose killed them? The data also does not support your contention that people who don't take the drugs survive longer than people who do; quite the contrary - the data says the drugs prolong quality and probably length of life. What the data say that I think you are deliberately misinterpreting is that some people can be HIV positive for a very long time before needing the drugs; the medical establishment has never questioned that. Nor does it ignore those patients; many of them have been actively recruited into studies to determine what distinguishes them from the less fortunate patients who go from seroconversion to disease in much shorter periods of time. There was a time when doctors hoped that the drugs used to treat HIV infection might eliminate the virus if patients were treated early enough but since it became clear that wasn't the case, HIV positive patients are not given antiretroviral drugs until they are already showing signs of disease.

Overmedicating for many diseases is indeed a problem in modern medicine but in spite of that, life expectancy has risen over the past hundred years and most of that increase can be attributed to advances in medical technology.

I did my homework, did you? 30.Mar.2005 15:13

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

You encouraged me repeatedly to read the literature, Dale. So, of course, that's what I did the past few days. Especially the data on the children of pregnant African women, whose HIV positive babies are more likely to die than their HIV negative ones are, without antiretrovirals being used at all, intrigued me. And guess what? I couldn't find those data anywhere. And when I can't find something, chances are that it's not there. I did find this, however:

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you're not lying to us. But perhaps you have been lied to by those who benefit from the scam. If you have references to the data you described, please present them here. I see that you have repeatedly asked Tom for references to prove his points, and several of us, myself included, have quoted pertinent articles about the topics we're discussing, but thus far you have not given us any yourself. And need I remind you again that the burden of proof is upon those who propose a theory. How in the world is Tom supposed to present evidence that 'data are missing'? They're just not there, that's all. I don't believe the Unicorn exists. Can I prove that? Of course not. But I don't have to. Let those who believe in it prove the beast does exist. It's the same with HIV.

As you state, the U.S. military and the Immigration service could indeed provide unbiased cohorts. But are the applicants who test 'HIV-positive' getting a medical follow-up? No, they're just rejected. Who cares if they get sick or live happily ever after? So these cohorts are never used for gathering statistics.

Let's examine your statement: "Among less healthy populations you get HIV testing at STD clinics and HIV testing at clinics for IVD users. And in all those groups the immunosuppression is associated with the HIV and not with the drug use or the STD although drug use and certain STDs may increase the risks of becoming HIV positive or progressing to AIDS."
If we leave 'HIV' completely out of the equation, the essence of that sentence is: "Drug use and certain STDs increase the risks of getting sick" Who needs to invoke HIV as an intermediate? Unless your money is on the HIV-falderal, of course.

Finally, the statement "It's not the antiretrovirals that make people sick; it's that sick people take antiretrovirals." sticks in my craw. Indeed some sick people take antiretrovirals, and as a result they get even sicker, or they die. On the other hand, there are many sick people (and I've met a lot of them) who don't take antiretrovirals, but clean up their act, and get better. I, for one, will never take antiretrovirals, and I will defend myself, with a firearm if necessary, against being tested. And I can assure you I'll never get AIDS.

Mother to child transmission 30.Mar.2005 19:45


Here's a reference for you Wilhelm.

Cent Afr J Med. 2004 Jan-Feb;50(1-2):1-6.

Survival pattern among infants born to human immunodeficiency virus type-1 infected mothers and uninfected mothers in Harare, Zimbabwe.
Nathoo K, Rusakaniko S, Zijenah LS, Kasule J, Mahomed K, Mashu A, Choto R, Mbizvo M.
Department of Paediatics and Child Health, University of Zimbabwe, Medical School, PO Box A178, Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe.  knathoo@healthnet.zw
OBJECTIVES: To determine the mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) rate of HIV-1 and to compare the survival patterns among infants born to HIV-1 infected and seronegative mothers. DESIGN: A two year prospective study from 1991 to 1995. METHODS: 345 HIV-1 infected mothers and 351 seronegative mothers and their infants were examined at regular intervals up to 24 months of age. RESULTS: The intermediate estimate of MTCT rate of HIV-1 was found to be 31.9%; (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.9 to 37.1). Of infants born to HIV-1 infected mothers 17% died compared with 2% of infants born to seronegative mothers. Forty six (43%) of the 107 HIV-1 infected infants died compared with 16 (219%) of the 559 uninfected infants. In a multivariate analysis, risk factors independently associated with infant mortality were low birth weight (hazard ratio (HR) 2.80; CI 1.52 to 5.13), HIV infected infant (HR 10.50; CI 5.48 to 20.15), HIV infected mother (HR 3.23; CI 3.17 to 15.85) and maternal death (HR 2.77; CI (1.09 to 7.06). CONCLUSION: The estimated MTCT rate of HIV-1 is comparable with rates of 25% to 45% reported from the African region. The poor survival of HIV-1 infected infants indicates the necessity for effective and comprehensive HIV/AIDS control strategies in Zimbabwe.

That's right, Dale 31.Mar.2005 10:19


The only fuzzy pink unicorn that I have to believe in is the shade of paint that I have seen sold at some hardware stores. Even then, it's just a name, not an animal.

You, Dale, deliberately falsely accused me of "gross misrepresentation" and deliberately ignoring the facts. I think I've mentioned before that you are not targetting a particularly intelligent audience. In other words, you are treating people as if they are idiots when you promote the way you are doing here. "Mother to child transmission" of what? Of a mythical virus that you cannot prove exists or causes any harm, that's what. You ignore the fact that "false positives" are caused by pregnancy, among other common conditions. You also continue to use the discredited idea that an antibody test indicates the presence of infection.

Tom, If the gsk.com website states that AZT 31.Mar.2005 12:44


causes AIDS then I have indeed falsely accused you of grossly misrepresenting what is posted there, and I will be happy to apologize as soon as you show me where to find this statement.

You speak of a "mythical virus that cannot be proved to exist or cause harm". I believe that the paper I pointed Wilhelm, among many others, strongly suggests that the virus exists, is transmitted and causes harm. Of course there are no experiments to directly prove it because the only way to do that would be to deliberately infect people with HIV which no ethical doctor or researcher is ever going to do.

As far as ignoring that false positives may be caused by pregnancy or other common conditions; nothing I have seen in the literature would indicate that this is a frequent occurrence with the antibody tests nor that it occurs at all with PCR based tests. The current antibody tests are credited with being more than 99% specific; this is far from being a "discredited" test for HIV infection.

You're right Tom 31.Mar.2005 13:03


you're correct in your observation that Dale doesn't seem to think he's dealing with an intelligent audience. It's funny how he keeps coming back saying that HIV causes AIDS because all of these scientific papers work with that unquestioned premise. Funny.

A lot of people won't do their homework 31.Mar.2005 16:11


I'm more than a little tired of being smacked on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper for doing a lot of digging, then providing lists of direct links. All I get out of it is a hand(or finger)-waving dismissal. Do you know that real people get real money for doing that kind of research? They deserve it, too.

The fact is that anyone who makes use of the gift of literacy is able to go to www.gsk.com and look up "retrovir" and "AZT." Glaxo provides a search engine. I'm not at all surprised that so many people find it to be too much trouble. When I provided a direct link to the same information, it was too much trouble for some of the audience to click on that. It wasn't too much trouble for some of them to verbally abuse me.

We got into this situation because too many people, including doctors and scientists, did not take the trouble to do the research. Too many people fall for phrases like "the evidence strongly suggests." What does that mean, anyway? Some domineering personality sees it, thinks he or she likes it, and says it in a way that means "authority has spoken." Must be some sort of designated hitter thing because I don't think that authority even wants to know what either of its hands are doing.

Curious Tom because when I search the GSK website 31.Mar.2005 17:28


I find over 200 references to AZT but reading through the ones identified as the most relevant, I see nothing indicating that AZT causes AIDS.

How does offering to tend you an apology in exchange for a demonstration that my statement was factually inaccurate, translate into smacking you with a rolled up newspaper? Seems like a simple request to me.

If not the scientific literature, TC, 31.Mar.2005 17:32


which by the way, even Duesberg and the Perth group quote, what are we supposed to use to determine the validity of a scientific hypothesis? Soothsayers?

Something may be transmitted, but what? 31.Mar.2005 17:44

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

OK Dale, you came through and you did provide a reference, so we're getting somewhere. From the looks of it, these are real data. And I must say, I like the data, but not necessarily the interpretation.
As the 'HIV test' is a test for antibodies, they are not directly measuring the mother-to-child-transmission of a virus, but the transmission of antibodies (supposedly against a virus). For at least the first 9 months (probably longer) the baby has the same antibodies as the mother, so the transmission rate should be 100% during that period. But the studies lasted for 24 months, so at least part of the time the baby was on its own, so the final transmission rate came out under 100%. With 'HIV-negative' mothers there was no such MTCT at all, of course, because mother and child were specifically tested for 'HIV antibodies', so there was nothing to see.
The data show that the child mortality is greater for the seropositive children. The authors choose to explain this by postulating that there is a virus that gets transmitted from the mother to the child. There is no proof that this virus exists, and if it did, that it causes illness or death. Apart from the authors' conclusion, is there another possible explanation? I think there is:
The 'HIV tests' in general use (ELISA and Western Blot) are not specific at all. One of the conditions that may give a false positive test is pregnancy itself. But in addition to that, there are many others. I name a few: Leprosy, Tuberculosis, Flu, Malaria, etc. These are all serious health threats, and if you pass any of them on to your newborn, the child's survival chances are not all that great.
I prefer this explanation to the more contrived one where I have to believe there is a deadly virus being transmitted. The whole story would seem more plausible if they only could find this virus, or test for it directly. Why this paper would suggest that this undetected virus exists and causes harm, I don't see. An interpretation of the data without this assumption is far more appealing.

Wilhelm 01.Apr.2005 06:00


In the first place I have seen no data suggesting that flu, malaria or TB are common causes of false positive HIV tests using the current tests. In any case, the chldren in this case would be tested for virus using PCR for the reasons you state; can't use the antibody tests on young kids of positive mothers. The only confirmed cause of false positive PCR tests that I have read about is laboratory error.

Unbiased cohorts 01.Apr.2005 08:40



Something I missed commenting on before. You suggest that what happens to military applicants is not followed up as they are rejected. This may be the case but I wasn't referring to the testing of applicants so much as individuals already serving in the US military. They have been tested at regular intervals since sometime in the 80s I believe and they are followed up.

Here's an example of a paper from 1993 demonstrating the infrequency of seroreversion.

JAMA. 1993 Jun 9;269(22):2876-9.
Absence of true seroreversion of HIV-1 antibody in seroreactive individuals.
Roy MJ, Damato JJ, Burke DS.
Department of Medicine, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC 20307.
OBJECTIVES--First, to determine whether there is evidence for loss of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) antibody in seroreactive individuals. Second, if true seroreversion occurs, to determine its incidence relative to errors in the testing process. DESIGN--A retrospective cohort study reviewing the results of 5,446,161 HIV-1 antibody tests performed on 2,580,974 individuals (the US Army HIV Data System) from 1985 through 1992. For all patients with one or more seroreactive sample followed by one or more nonreactive sample, we examined available records and retested the samples. PARTICIPANTS--Serum samples had been obtained from active-duty and retired military personnel, their dependents, and applicants to the military. RESULTS--Of 4911 individuals reported to be seroreactive for HIV-1 by two independent samples, only six were potential seroreverters. Review of the six cases revealed that five actually were HIV-seroreactive patients who had samples from nonreactive individuals mistakenly attributed to them, while the sixth had a testing error proven by retesting the discrepant specimen. Errors in the testing process were identified (n = 23) or suspected (n = 3) in another 26 individuals who had not had independent confirmation of reactivity by a second sample. The cumulative error rate was 12.4 per 1 million patients tested. An additional group of 31 uninfected infants appeared to serorevert due to loss of antibody acquired from their HIV-1-infected mothers. CONCLUSIONS--Review of this database demonstrates no evidence for true seroreversion of HIV-1 antibody status. We conclude that if seroreversion occurs at all, it is exceedingly rare. In fact, most (if not all) cases of apparent seroreversion represent errors of attribution or testing.

Clearly there has been some followup of rejected military applicants as well; at least early on.

Mortality among 2419 HIV-positive U.S. military service applicants: an update.

Int Conf AIDS. 1991 Jun 16-21;7(1):46

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Long term follow-up is ongoing to assess cause-specific mortality among civilian applicants excluded from military service due to HIV infection compared to applicants excluded due to other unrelated medical conditions. METHODS: The 1985-1988 files of the National Death Index (NDI) were searched for 2419 HIV-positive applicants (HPA) and 7254 HIV-negative applicants (HNA) (matched 3:1 on age, race, sex, and date and location of screening) identified by the US Dept of Defense (DOD) between 10/85 and 12/88. HPAs were 93% male, 40% white and 53% black. The age range was 17-55 years (median 24 years). Mean follow-up time was 20 months (range 0-39 months). Identifiers and HIV status of living applicants were known only by DOD. RESULTS: The NDI identified death records for 68 of 2419 HPAs (28/1000) and for 23 of 7254 HNAs (3/1000)(p less than .0001). The death rate for HPAs (but not for HNAs) was higher (p less than .0001) than the expected all-cause death rate based on age-, race- and sex-specific 1986 U.S. death rates. Based on death certificates from state vital statistics offices, HPAs died from AIDS (n=52), pneumonia (4), lymphoma (1), suicide (5), homicide (2) and drug abuse (4), while HNAs died from unintentional trauma (9), suicide (4), homicide (5), drug abuse (1), heart disease (2), lupus (1) and hepatitis (1). For the five HPAs who died of suicide, the time from screening to death was 1, 2, 14, 20 and 25 months, respectively. Annual mortality follow-up of this cohort is continuing. CONCLUSIONS: While these preliminary data are insufficient to calculate death rates for non-AIDS causes such as suicide, they suggest an increased all-cause short term risk of death in HIV-infected persons, primarily from AIDS.

What are we supposed to use? 01.Apr.2005 21:39


Dale, you don't even have soothsayers.

Some supporting references 02.Apr.2005 14:01

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl


You state you have not seen any data suggesting that flu, malaria and TB (among many other things!) cause false positive tests for HIV. Well, here are some:


V. Ng: "Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins", Clin. Chem. 37, 1667 (1991)

FLU VACCINATION (Vaccines are known to often contain viruses and other crap):

W. Mackenzie et al.: "Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis C following influenza vaccination", JAMA 268, 1015 (1992)

N.L. Arnold et al.: "Donor follow up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity", Vox Sanguinis 67, 191 (1994)

K. Challakere & M. Rapaport: "False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects", West J. Med. 159(2), 214 (1993)

J. Hisa: "False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus after influenza vaccination", JID 167, 989 (1993)

R. Cordes & M. Ryan: "Pitfalls in HIV testing", Postgraduate Medicine 98, 177 (1995)

M.R. Profitt & B. Yen-Lieberman: "Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection", Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7, 203 (1993)


R. Biggar et al.: "ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans", Lancet ii, 520 (1985)

G. Charmot & F. Simon: "HIV infection and malaria", Revue du practicien 40, 2141 (1990)


O. Kashala et al.: "Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna", J. Infect. Dis. 169, 296 (1994)

Some viruses (such as Epstein-Barr) are also known to cause false antibody tests:

G. Ozanne & M. Fauvel: "Perfomance and reliability of five commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects", J. Clin. Micro. 26, 1496 (1988)

Herpes simplex can cause problems too.

The PCR tests we discussed before. I agree that the only false results come from laboratory error. But that's exactly the point: The major weakness of PCR is that it's is not really reproducible. And if 'something' is produced upon amplification of a small piece of nucleic acid, the question reamins: What is it? Certainly not whole virus particles; that much we know. But the DNA that is produced in the test cannot be compared with that from 'real HIV', because nobody has any to offer.
The HIV-pushers say they are growing real HIV in their co-culturs, anf they want us to take their word for it. But I and many others (you want a list of more than 2000 with scientific credentials?) will only believe that HIV exists if we see a paper with real solid data that proves it. But such a paper does not exist. Many people searched for it, but to no avail. And even if a retroirus named HIV would exist, it still cannot destroy T-cells. Retroviruses don't kill cells, because they are dependent for their reproduction on mitosis.

Thanks for your reference on military testing. So they do test the whole force. Yes, that represents indeed an unbiased cohort. But if you read that paper, they didn't come up with much in the way of remarkable conclusions. They state that the rate of seroreversion is extremely small. I'll gladly accept that. Once you have antibodies against 'something', they rarely disappear again in a relatively short time. But the results on morbidity for the two groups are not really conclusive, and they admit that.

I think this way of discussing the subject is a lot more productive than the behavior of other participants who withdraw in a huff whenever their beliefs are challenged.

We keep going on 02.Apr.2005 22:56


Mr. Godschalk, when I see what Dale writes here, I get the impression that he doesn't want to see what is in the material we give him. A lot of people are like that. Wilhelm Reich might have mentioned the emotional plague in connection with this. I see people who are trapped in some kind of dark mental thing that won't let them see the sunlight, or that makes the light hurt them. I know about this from personal experience.

Willful blindness is neither virtuous nor is it intelligent. It is also dishonest. My accusation of willful blindness is not personal against any one person. It is against our society and the way we deal with facts. I don't think anyone, even myself, has been blind to the idea of sexual transmitted disease. My problem is that when I study the facts behind the big bad ones, they tend to dissolve in my hands. What are the symptoms of syphilis in sailors who are suffering from scurvy, which is a syndrome caused by lack of vitamin C? What are the symptoms of syphilis in someone who is being treated with mercury or arsenic? The oversimplified thinking is this: Sex bad, medicine good. To the perpetually clueless, the mere accusation of having an STD is as good as a conviction, and because it is an STD, it has to be an overwhelmingly bad thing that utterly destroys a person's relationship with God and all of reality. There are a lot of people like that out there. They use their fear and hatred of nature itself to rule the rest of us by fear, threats, and physical abuse.

People are blind to good news. The good news is that the sex lives of homosexuals and African blacks are going to cause little or no harm to the scared white population, unless we do it to ourselves. People don't want to hear that. Many people don't even want to hear that we aren't all going to be smushed by the atomic bomb, an asteroid, Planet X, or the trumpet of the archangel Gabriel. Some of them even pity me for my blindness to these things. Some of them also pity me for being unable to see their invisible companions.

In the last two weeks two people asked me why I was even involved in this. What the devil? How is it possible, since I live in the USA, to not have some kind of involvement? What can possibly be wrong or crazy, being an American of better than average intelligence and being human, with taking an interest in whether AIDS and HIV are actually problems? What "thing" is there that I am not supposed to "be involved" in, or participate in? It's a lot like that "thing" where I am not supposed to get involved when I see a woman lifting a child up by one arm and beating its butt with her free hand. That "thing" has a certain existence. It makes me feel strange, inhibited, unable to breath freely. It forces me to look the other way, not get involved, and even to lie to myself and others.

Of course, for the most part, we would say that this "thing" is our socialization, our training to function correctly within "our" society. It is exactly this kind of training that made possible the oppression of black people, American Indians, and so many other people. "Why are you involved" is pretty much the same as accusing me of being a "fag" or a "nigger lover." And all of this becomes some kind of "thing" with a sharp edge that cuts off the living connection between people. It forces the ones who are more driven by fear and anger to become more fearful, more angry, and to domineer and control those who do not become fearful and angry for stupid reasons. The ones of us who are most affected by this thing find ourselves lying to people, cheating them out of their goods and their lives, and joining with groups of others like us who get together to legally commit mass murder, like the murder (again) of the citizens of Iraq.

Bleeding heart, liberal, sexual libertine, or whatever, most of this stuff just insults my intelligence.

Couldn't find it eh, Tom? 03.Apr.2005 13:03


Where you claim gsk.com says AZT causes AIDS? I guess I won't get the opportunity to apologize to you after all.

Using current tests, Wilhelm, using current tests 03.Apr.2005 13:32


What I said was that I could find no evidence that current testing for HIV infection had a lot of problems with false positives. The paper I cited was a research study; these women were tested more than once would by itself tend to eliminate potential false positives; most of which disappear on retesting.

In reference to the testing of applicants to the military what you say is "But the results on morbidity for the two groups are not really conclusive, and they admit that." while what they say is that results on morbidity FOR NON-AIDS RELATED CAUSES are not conclusive. 28/1000 HIV positive applicants died versus 3/1000 HIV negative applicants; a difference that the authors say is highly significant.

The laboratory data says that HIV can destroy T-cells; either directly or through HIV produced proteins from infected cells killing unifected cells. The current literature also suggests though that much of the T-cell depletion that occurs over time is not through direct killing of T-cells but through long term activation of the immune system.

Are current tests better? That would be a miracle! 03.Apr.2005 18:30

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl


Current tests would not have problems with false positives? Hard to imagine. There are more than 30 tests marketed to test for HIV, but none of them are approved by the FDA to diagnose the presence or absence of HIV. Not even the viral load. The FDA and manufacturers clearly state that the significance of testing positive on the Elisa and Western Blot test is unknown. The packet inserts with the various test kits are very revealing. The tests are recommended (and approved) specifically as "an aid to diagnosis and screening". A test kit, approved in 2003 states: "Published data indicate A STRONG CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)." Not a very assertive statement, don't you think? You can find the whole text of the insert on:


If there is a cross-reaction with antibodies in the serum of a test person, it's inconceivable that these antibodies would not react the same way with newer test kits.

As to the military results: You say there is a follow-up for military personnel on duty. Are you sure the positive subjects were not treated with any antiretrovirals until death followed? Just because Tom was not quick to present references to the effect that AZT causes AIDS (he probably thinks you wouldn't read them anyway), that doesn't mean they don't exist. Here goes:


The laboratory data do NOT say HIV can destroy T-cells; either directly or through HIV produced proteins from infected cells killing unifected cells. A few invading HIV-particles (in the hypothetical case HIV would exist) could not possibly kill of all thos T-cells. And an HIV-produced protein? Impossible! HIV (supposing it exists) cannot produce proteins it doesn't carry with it in its capsid, unless it reproduces. And it doesn't when it infects a T-cell, because its pro-DNA gets locked up into the cellular genome. Besides, if that were possible, the sequence DNA --> RNA --> proteins would mean that massive amounts of complete virus would be produced. And nobody has found any.

The point is 03.Apr.2005 18:41


Dale, the point is that you have not bothered to fully inform yourself about the nature of the syndrome that you are promoting. Don't insult my intelligence by denying that you are promoting. I knew before this started that you would deflect any inquiries that might reveal your real ignorance of the subject of AIDS. You don't even know what the father of AIDS, Robert Gallo, said in his first papers on the subject. You don't know what the manufactures of the drugs and of the tests say about the drugs and the tests, except in a pharmaceutical company brochure kind of way. That's the same thing as knowing nothing useful. There are two conclusions that one can draw from this evidence. They are not mutually exclusive. One is that you don't have enough information to qualify yourself to speak on this subject even on a grassroots level. The other is that you have no use for accurate information on the subject of AIDS. Another problem that is obvious is that you want the audience to believe that because you can't find the negative information about AZT, it doesn't exist. You can't have really tried. I didn't have any trouble finding it again.

Definitely, 28 of a thousand HIV positive people will die versus 3 out of a thousand HIV negative people in a given survey. This is because at least some of them will take lethal drugs in an effort to "combat" this disease. If the drugs cause them problems, the doctor may very well increase the dosage, which will increase the rate of morbidity and mortality. In words that more of us can understand, that's sickness and death.

GlaxoSmithKline most certainly does say that AZT causes at least four of the symptoms that are usually blamed on HIV disease. These include suppression of the immune system, fever, muscle pain, and skin rashes. Of course you, Dale, would know this, having thoroughly familiarized yourself with your material before you went around spreading the word.

What's it going to be? Peter Duesberg wrote one book and co-wrote another book that explained, in quite scientific terms and with the proper references, that HIV disease is bunkum. He is much more informed about the subject than you are. So am I. What is it that you use to try to make it appear that you know more than I do? I can explain what you are doing but I can't actually explain why it works. You don't know this, you don't know that, you don't know anything that can be used to explain why I should believe in HIV disease, but you got it second and third hand from sources that you trust. Dissident sources know a lot more about the Gallo papers than you do. You'd probably have to go to dissident sources to even find out that those papers existed.

So, really, you are coming from nowhere at all.

The link for AZT 03.Apr.2005 18:57



Dissidents are so much more informed about "AIDS" and "HIV disease" that it isn't even close. I don't know how we could still be wrong. People who don't have the information, who close their eyes to the information, who warn people not to read it because it is "dangerous", these people who know essentially nothing lord something over us, but God knows what.

GlaxoSmithKline does NOT say that AZT causes AIDS 03.Apr.2005 21:58


which is what you initially claimed and which is the reference I was asking for. AZT is a toxic chemical as with many chemotherapeutic agents; but there is no evidence that it causes the disease it's used to treat. In the reference you supplied, GSK claims that AZT can have side effects including (at high doses) neutropenia and anemia (neither of which is the same thing as a progressive loss of a particular class of T-cells that is characteristic of AIDS). GSK claims the side effects of AZT may include fever, muscle pain and rashes; all of which are non specific symptoms of dozens of diseases and none of which are specifically diagnostic of AIDS. AZT does not cause reactivity on HIV tests either. So I stand by my original statement that you are misrepresenting what it says on the gsk.com website to claim that the website says that AZT causes AIDS.

"AIDS" is a syndrome, not a disease 03.Apr.2005 23:10


Saying that AZT causes AIDS is like saying that rat poisoning causes hemmorhaging due to the inability of blood to clot. It is an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

All of the quibbling about exactly what constitutes "AIDS" is a way to establish, without having to prove, a theory that HIV causes it, and nothing but HIV causes it. There is massive evidence that does a lot more than "suggest" that a lot of other common problems cause severe immune suppression. To you, Dale, the "suggestion" that HIV causes AIDS is good enough, but no evidence of other causes is ever acceptable, no matter how strong or provable that evidence is.

Even reading what you have written here, it is plain that you did not need evidence to believe that HIV causes AIDS. You won't accept evidence to the contrary. A lot of people are going to believe what you say and not see what is wrong with your attitude or the way you do things. That belief will hurt them badly. You haven't the faintest idea how to know whether or not something causes AIDS and that doesn't matter. You can still get a lot of people to follow the program, and cause grief for themselves and others.

AIDS is a syndrome 04.Apr.2005 05:46


True enough, Tom. Of course there are other things that can cause immune suppression but HIV causes a specific form of immune suppression and there isn't much else out there that causes the exact same form of immune suppression. The literature also suggests that other causes are likely pretty rare. In any case the issue has never been whether or not other things might also cause AIDS but whether HIV causes AIDS. It's probably time to stop refering to AIDS as a syndrome and refer specifically to HIV infection.

You accuse me of not needing evidence that HIV causes AIDS; I could countercharge that you apparently don't need evidence to believe that it doesn't, since that is clearly your belief in the face of thousands of scientific papers supporting the hypothesis that it does. How I do things is to read both sides of an argument and decide who makes the most credible case. Do you really think that attitude is going to hurt anyone?

It's not that kind of argument 04.Apr.2005 09:49


"HIV disease" is something that needed to be proven scientifically, not by government fiat, press release and slick talk. It can't be accepted on maybes or from articles that "strongly suggest" that it exists. Do you, Dale, actually think that you have presented a case? There is a big difference that you don't seem to understand, that you need to understand. An article on mother to child transmission of the alleged HIV virus does not prove that HIV exists. Its being factual depends on the kind of proofs that you can't find and seem reluctant to look for. You wave your hand at these thousands of articles as if they prove something, but you seem quite unable to use them to actually build a case. Once again, what are you giving me that I should believe? I shouldn't have to spell out to you the basics that you should have before you start saying that a syndrome is caused by something.

I, on the other hand, can prove several things. I can prove that the manufacturers of the tests say that they are not fit to use to diagnose disease. I can prove that AZT is highly toxic and deadly. AZT was the drug of choice for a long time, and its manufacturer says in its information that AZT causes symptoms like those of "AIDS" or "HIV disease." In this discussion you have used the excuse that definitive experiments might be "unethical." Why is it unethical to attempt to determine whether the drug itself might be making people sick? It's not like that's never happened before.

Somehow, because of "ethics" and because of government decisions, we don't seem to have to know things anymore, like if the therapies have any positive effect or what proofs there are that a virus exists and causes disease. We don't have to have a scientific method. People who make public statements that are then used to form policy don't have to prove what they say. They just have to say it. They are "experts" so we just go along.

Well said, Tom 04.Apr.2005 12:52


Just wanted to say that your last post was concise, succinct and well-written.

There is nothing unique about the disclaimers on HIV tests 04.Apr.2005 13:29


The manufacturers of HIV tests say they should not be used by themselves for diagnostic purposes because there are factors that may cause both false positives and false negatives. The manufacturers of pregnancy tests say the same thing. It is the nature of pretty much any medical test. Nonetheless women take pregnancy tests because prenatal care improves the chances for a successful outcome for both mother and child if she really is pregnant and it can serve as an advance warning of a potentially serious medical problem if she isn't. Same thing for HIV tests; a negative result can guide a doctor in looking for other causes of particular symptoms and a positive result can be useful in providing prophylatic care for potential opportunistic infections.

Good try, Dale 04.Apr.2005 14:32


The more likely explanation for the tests stating that they can't be used to diagnose HIV-infection and that there's no standard to determine HIV infection is simple. There's no gold standard.

a little problem... 04.Apr.2005 15:34


"Same thing for HIV tests; a negative result can guide a doctor in looking for other causes of particular symptoms and a positive result can be useful in providing prophylatic care for potential opportunistic infections"

The above sounds good, but the reality is that most people are encouraged to test (especially in the gay community)even though they are symptom-free. AIDS, as redefined in 1993 allows one to be asymptomatic...all you need is a "positive" test and a T-cell count below 200, no AIDS-defining illness required. There are people (of course) who decide to test because they aren't feeling well...under that guise, your statement is logical. The nagging problem still remains...where's that gold standard?

Semantics, semantics 04.Apr.2005 18:15

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl

Well, of course Glaxo-SmithKline does not say their product causes AIDS. Does any restaurant say "Our food will make you throw up"? Yet, AZT is known (even to the orthodoxy) as a poisonous substance. It is a DNA chain terminator, so it kills cells. All cells, including T-cells. It destroys the bone marrow, so in addition to the suppression of the immune system, the patient develops aplastic anemia, which is usually lethal.

I was especially puzzled by the sentence: "GSK claims the side effects of AZT may include fever, muscle pain and rashes; all of which are non specific symptoms of dozens of diseases and none of which are specifically diagnostic of AIDS."

I'm letting this sink in slowly again: "non specific symptoms of dozens of diseases" Well now, Isn't that exactly what 'AIDS' is? What's so specific about AIDS? It comes in 29 different flavors. It really doesn't matter to me whether someone dies exactly according to the HIV-protocol (if there is such a definition; they change it all the time). What matters is that people die or get hopelessly ill from AZT, so it should not be used. I'm willing to give the orthodoxy the same deal as David Rasnick did: I'll take their virus if they agree to take the drugs that are used against it.

GSK and its followers may be fussy about what exactly constitutes AIDS, but they're not so critical when somebody dies of liver malfunction, which is not an AIDS-defining disease. They will still say the patient died of 'AIDS-related complications' Just a matter of semantics. The real cause is, of course, AZT toxicity, and the 'complications' are the health nazis who decided to treat the poor slob with this drug.

How can we say that "HIV causes a specific form of immune suppression" if there is no HIV around to prove it? We might as well say that the devil causes a specific form of immune suppression. I haven't seen the devil anywhere either. Does he exist at all?

They pretend to have a precise definition 04.Apr.2005 18:39


At the same time, none of the symptoms are specific to anything. The excuse is that HIV does nothing except to suppress the immune system. They tell us that every symptom under the sun is specific to AIDS. How can that be when the symptoms are not specific to anything? We're not supposed to look at the logical inconsistencies.

We are supposed to accept as fact things that aren't even constructed as facts. A fact has some sort of internal consistency, or support more substantial than "a magic thing has occurred." Some churches like to talk about divine mysteries. We can't have that. A thing like AIDS must come from science and must be accompanied by strong scientific evidence. I think Dale talked about subatomic particles a few messages back. Those are different because we have ways to generate truly unique signatures to go with every detected particle. There is no such thing with the alleged HIV. Even if there were one type of particle visible in the electron micrographs, we wouldn't know how many different genomes there were in a given sample.

Well we've probably wandered about as far off topic 04.Apr.2005 20:26


as we're likely to get. And I could reiterate that HIV causes a pretty specific set of symptoms involving reductions in a particular type of T cell. And you could reiterate how different opportunistic infections cannot define a specific disease. And I could point out that the underlying problem is very specific but the opportunistic infections depend on a number of factors. And I could point out that the fact that there are HAART associated toxicities is coming from the establishment literature; not the Dissidents. And I could point out that offering to take the virus is a suckers' bet because no one who believes that HIV causes AIDS would encourage someone to put their life at risk in that manner; no matter how misguided their views might be. But I think I"ve exhausted the amusement quotient in this exercise so thanks Tom and TC and Wilhelm ... however many different people you might be. It's been fun. You all be careful out there.

Amusement quotient? 04.Apr.2005 22:20


Knowing how many people fall for your kind of tripe, Dale, and knowing that you voluntarily use these methods to persuade your audience, it's hard to say which one of us might have more contempt for the intelligence of your target audience.

A sucker bet? 05.Apr.2005 16:56

Wilhelm Godschalk wgods@xs4all.nl


Well, maybe it is a sucker bet, because I know I would attend the funerals of all those who would take the drugs instead of the alleged virus. By the way, there is a guy by the name of Willner (he's an M.D.) who has been traveling around accepting shots of 'HIV preparations' from the labs of HIV breeders. He's still in perfect health. Unfortunately, he doesn't even ask for a counter offer, as I do. And guess what? None of these HIV-believers cares about the man's well-being enough to discourage him from doing these experiments. Either they are very callous people, or they know in their hearts that this virus consists of glorified nothing.
There has been a scientist like Willner before: Max Pettenkofer. He drank a whole cholera culture, after which his health was better than ever.

But you know the old adage: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

What can I say? 06.Apr.2005 10:58


The promoters of AIDS pretend to be moral while they are in fact moral cowards. They, and their like, I have seen that they are willing to do absolutely any immoral, unethical, or violent act to push their moral agendas. One of the most false beliefs in the European cultures is the belief that the dark ages are over.

Those who have followed the discussions have seen that the promoters of AIDS will do literally anything to push their ideas. One of them, the alleged head of an organization, made literal death threats on About.com. I'm quite certain that she will deny that this happened. Others raid dissident forums and say any nasty thing that they can think up to derail discussions and drive away people who are looking for information. They very well did start it, and thus doing they put dissidents perpetually on the defensive.

A good piece of evidence that AZT causes AIDS 06.Jun.2005 01:30


 link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Abstract conclusion : Our results preliminary suggested that infected infants who were perinatally exposed to ZDV may have a more rapid early disease progression with unfavorable viral manifestations than those without exposure to antiretroviral drug.