In 1992 a patent was issued for a device capable of destroying HIV. Why is this not common knowledge and being used around the world? How do you think Magic Johnson was cured?
Is The Cure For HIV An Open Secret?
What would you do if you knew about a cure for HIV/AIDS that was being suppressed? What if the patent that detailed it was available to the public but no one knew? Would you try to propagate it, even though you know you'd be ridiculed as a "conspiracy theorist'?
If you really want to end the misery of AIDS, then go to the heart of the matter. Go back in time to the fateful moment that HIV was proclaimed to be the cause of AIDS. Now, ask questions about Dr. Gallo's research, and how he claimed HIV was responsible for Kaposi's Sarcoma and PCP pneumonia. Read about Dr. Gallo's technique to isolate HIV. If you read all of this with an open mind, you'll become aware that something's rotten in Denmark.
We no longer need to consider contrived accounts of Candian airline stewards going to Africa to fornicate with green monkeys. All we need at this point is to question the ethics and integrity of Dr. Gallo...and it's long overdue.
http://www.virusmyth.com/ http://www.aliveandwell.org/ http://www.duesberg.com/ http://www.aidsmythexposed/
1. That Hiv causes Aids
2. That Hiv tests accurately diagnose Hiv
3. That Aids medicines extend life
4. That Aids is heterosexually transmitted
5. That Hiv and Aids are decimating Africa and Asia
2 -- Isn't claimed by anybody if by "accurately" you mean anythign close to 100%. There are plenty of other things that can cause false postitve results and we don't really know how soon after infection a positive test would result. What somebody who wishes to clain this to be false has to bring evidecne for is that it is a STATISTCLY invalid test.
3 -- Like the previous one, a statistical question.
4 -- It would be rather difficult to have a disease that was sexually transmitted between homosexulas but could not be transmitted heterosexually, at least in the male to female direction. The only people who could believe THAT have rather exaggerated ideas about how much sexual behaviors differ between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
5 -- Again this may depend upon how one considers cause of death. We are not sure that HIV can kill anybody DIRECTLY but there are many other diseases like that << which although not themsleves directly fatal, ultimately casue so much damage that almost anything that comes along will polish the patient off >>
Did any of you even read the link in the original post? Where all your points are valid this conversation has nothing to do with the original intent. This guys is talking CURE, or atleast a form of treatment. This, to keep it simple, has nothing to do with the virus' origin or what it can or can't do.
The virus is already spread, we can't change that, so lets clean up after it.
Stop repeating things you've heard a million times and distracting from the purpose. Send out this patent to everyone you know and have them mail it, in mass, to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Fight the disinformation and act instead of babbling on.
Mr. Reverend Tread,
did you click on any of the links from the first reply? If you did, you might find out there there's another side to the HIV story. If you've kept your eyes open and ears peeled for the past twenty years, you'd realize that there's ALWAYS a promising new therapy or cure "just around the corner". We're being lead by the nose, year after year. Maybe there's more to the story?
Anyway, there are plenty of drugs that are "curing" people of HIV/AIDS. They are some of the most toxic pharmaceuticals ever made, and people are taking them until they die from liver failure, heart attack, kidney failure, and so on...*hocus-pocus*...dead=cured.
Instead of going down the same road that we've traveled for over two decades, why not open your mind to other possibilities? You can always come back to where you were, if you want to. Why not consider that there could be flaws in the science behind the HIV=AIDS paradigm? Or do we all just have some deep psycho-spiritual need for an invincible microbe in our lives? Which sounds more rational...flawed science, or a microbe that's so deadly it takes on human qualities in it's ability to evade all attempts to nullify it?
WHO Murdered Africa
by William Campbell Douglass, M.D.
WHO Murdered Africa: The Greatest Murder Mystery of all Time
There is no question mark after the title of this article because the title is not a question. It's a declarative statement. WHO, the World Health Organization, murdered Africa with the AIDS virus. Thats a provocative statement, isn't it?
The answers to this little mystery, Murder on the WHO Express will be quite clear to you by the end of this report. You will also understand why the other suspects, the homosexuals, the green monkey and the Haitians, were only pawns in this virocidal attack on the non-Communist world.
If you believe the government propaganda that AIDS is hard to catch then you are going to die even sooner than the rest of us. The common cold is a virus. Have you ever had a cold? How did you catch it? You don't really know, do you? If the cold virus was fatal, How many people would be left in the world?
Yellow fever is a virus. You catch it from mosquito bites. Malaria is a parasite also carried by mosquitoes. It is many times larger than the AIDS virus ( like comparing a pinhead to a moose head ) yet the mosquito easily carries this large organism to man.
The tuberculosis germ, also larger than that AIDS virus, can be transmitted by formites ( inanimate objects such as towels ). The AIDS virus can live for as long as 10 days on a dry plate. You can't understand this murder mystery unless you learn a little virology.
Many viruses grow in animals and many grow in humans, but most of the viruses that affect animals don't affect humans. There are exceptions, of course, such as yellow fever and small pox.
There are some viruses in animals that can cause very lethal cancer in those animals, but do not affect man or other animals. The Bovine Leukemia Virus ( BLV ), for example, is lethal to cows but not humans. There is also another virus that occurs in sheep called Sheep Visna Virus which is also non-reactive in man. These Deadly viruses are " Retro - Viruses ", meaning that they can change the genetic composition of the cells that they enter.
The World Health Organization, in published articles, called for scientists to work these deadly agents and attempt to make a hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans. " An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself maybe impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less selectively, the cell responding to the virus."
Thats AIDS. What the WHO is saying in plain english is " Let's cook up a virus that selectively destroys the T-Cell system of man, an acquired immune deficiency. Why would anyone want to do this? If you destroy the T-Cell system of man then you destroy man. Is it even remotely possible that the WHO would want to develop a virus that would wipe out the human race?
If there new creation worked, the WHO stated, then many terrible and fatal infectious viruses could be made even more terrible and more malignant. Does this strike you as being a peculiar goal for a health organization?
Sometimes Americans believe in conspiracies and sometimes the don't. Was there a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy? Twenty five years later the debate still continues, and people keep changing there minds. One day it's yes and the next it's no - depending upon what was served for lunch, or how the stock market did the day before.
But it doesn't take a bad lunch to see an amazing concatenation of events involving Russian and Chinesse communist nationals, The WHO, The National Cancer Institute, and the AIDS epidemic.
But what about the green monkey? Some of the best virologist in the world and many of those directly involved in AIDS research, such as Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, have said that the green monkey may be the culprit. You know the story: A green monkey bit a native on the ass and, bam - AIDS all over central Africa.
There is a fatal flaw here. It is very strange. Because Gallo, Montagnier and these other virologist know that the AIDS virus doesn't occur naturally in monkeys. In fact it doesn't occur naturally in any animal.
AIDS started practically simultaneously in the United States, Haiti, Brazil, and Central Africa. ( Was the green monkey a jet pilot? ) Examination for the gene structure of the green monkey cells prove that it is not genetically possible to transfer the AIDS virus from monkeys to man by natural means.
Because of the artificial nature of the AIDS virus it will not easily transfer from man to man unless it has become very concentrated in the body fluids through repeated injections from person to person, such as drug addicts, and through high multiple partner sexual activity such as takes place in Africa and among homosexuals. After repeated transfer it can become a " natural " infection for man, which it has.
Dr. Theodore Strecker's research of the literature indicates that the National Cancer Institute ( NCI ) in collaboration with the WHO, made the AIDS virus in there laboratories at Fort Detrick ( now NCI ). They combined the deadly retro-viruses Bovine-Leukemia Virus and Sheep Visna Virus, and injected them into human tissue cultures. The result was the AIDS virus, the first human retro-virus known to man and now believed to be 100% fatal to those infected.
The momentous plague that we now face was anticipated by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 1974 when they recommended that "Scientists throughout the world join with the members of this committee in voluntarily deferring experiments linking animal viruses". What the NAS is saying in carefully guarded english is: "For God's sake. Stop this madness!" The green monkey is off the hook. How about the Communists?
Communist are in the process of conducting germ warfare from Fort Detrick, Maryland against the free world, expecially the United States, even using foreign communist agents within the US Army's germ warfare unit euphamistically called the Army Infectious Disease Unit.
You don't believe it? Carlton Gajdusek, an NIH bigshot at Detrick admits it. " IN THE FACILITY I HAVE A BUILDING WHERE MORE GOOD AND LOYAL COMMUNIST SCIENTISTS FROM THE USSR AND MAINLAND CHINA WORK, WITH FULL PASSKEYS TO ALL THE LABORATORIES, THAN THERE ARE AMERICAN. EVEN THE ARMY'S INFECTIOUS DISEASE UNIT IS LOADED WITH FOREIGN WORKERS NOT ALWAYS FRIENDLY NATIONALS."
Can you imagine that? A UN-WHO communist trogan horse in our biological warfare center with the full blessing of the US government?
The creation of the AIDS virus by the WHO was not just a diabolical scientific exercise that got out of hand. It was a cold-blooded successful attempt to create a killer virus which was then used in a successful experiment in Africa. So successful in fact that most of Central Africa may be wiped out, 75,000,000 dead within 3-5 years.
It was not an accident, it was deliberate. In the Federation Proceedings of the United States in 1972, WHO said : " In relation to the immune response a number of useful experimental approaches can be visualized ". They suggested a neat way to do this would be to put their new killer virus ( AIDS ) into a vaccination program, sit back and observe the results. " This would be particularly informative in sibships," they said. That is, give AIDS to brothers and sisters and see if they die, who dies first, and of what, just like rats in a laboratory.
They used the smallpox vaccine for their vehicle and the geographical sites chosen in 1972 were Ugunda and other African sites, Haiti, Brazil and Japan. The present and recent past of AIDS epidemiology coincides with these geographical areas.
Dr. Strecker points out that even if the African green monkey could transmit AIDS to humans, the present known amount of infection in Africa makes it statistically impossible for a single episode, such as a monkey biting someone, to have brought this epidemic to this point. The doubling time of the number of people infected, about every 14 months, when correlated with the first known cases, and the present known number of cases, prove beyond a doubt that a large number of people had to be infected at the same time. Starting in 1972 with the first case from our mythical monkey, and doubling the number of infected from that single source every 14 months you get only a few thousand cases. From 1972 to 1987 is 15 years or 180 months. If it takes 14 months to double the number of cases then there would have been 13 doublings. 1 then 2 then 4 then 8.. etc...In 15 years, from a single source of infection there would be about 8000 cases in Africa, not 75 million. We are approaching World War II mortality statistics here - without a shot being fired.
Dr. Theodore A. Strecker is the courageous doctor who has unraveled this conundrum, the greatest murder mystery of all time. He should get the Nobel Prize but he'll be lucky not to get "suicided." ( "Prominent California doctor ties his hands behind his back, hangs himself, and jumps from 20th floor. There was no evidence of foul play." )
Strecker was employed as a consultant to work on a health proposal for Security Pacific Bank. He was to estimate the cost of their health care for the future. Should they form an HMO was the major issue. After investigating the current medical market he advised against the HMO because he found that the AIDS epidemic in all probability bankrupt the nation's medical system.
He became fascinated with all the scientific anomalies concerning AIDS that kept cropping up. Why did the " experts " keep talking about green monkeys and homosexuals being the culprits when it was obvious that the AIDS virus was a man-made virus? Why did they say it was a homosexual and drug-user disease when in Africa it was obviously a heterosexual disease? If the green monkey did it then why did AIDS explode practically simultaneously in Africa, Haiti, Brazil, Japan, and the United States?
Why, when it was proposed to the National Institute of Health that the AIDS virus was a combination of two bovine or sheep viruses cultured in human cells in a laboratory, did they say it was " bad science " when thats exactly what occurred?
As early as 1970 the WHO was growing these deadly animal viruses in human tissue cultures. Cedric Mims, in 1981, said in a published article that there was a bovive virus contaminating the culture media of th WHO. Was this an accident or a "non-accident"? If it was an accident then why did the WHO continue to use the vaccine?
This viral and genetic death bomb, AIDS, was finally produced in 1974. It was given to monkeys and they died of pneumocystis carni which is typical of AIDS.
Dr. R. J. Biggar said in Lancet ( a Brittish journal ) that the AIDS agent could not have developed de novo. That means in plain english that it didn't come out of thin air. AIDS was engineered in a laboratory by virologists. It couldn't engineer itself. As Dr. Stricker so colorfully puts it: " If a person has no arms or legs and shows up at a party in a tuxedo, how did he get dressed? Somebody dressed him. "
There are 9000 to the 4th power possible AIDS viruses. ( There are 9000 base pairs on the geneome. ) So the fun has just begun. Some will cause brain rot similar to the sheep virus, some leukemia-like diseases from the cow viruses, and some that won't do anything. So the virus will be constantly changing and trying out new esoteric disease on hapless man. We're only the beginning
Because of the trillions of possible genetic combinations there will never be a vaccine. Even if they could develop a vaccine they would un-doubtfully give us something equally as bad as they did with the Polio vaccine ( cancer of the brain ), the Swine Flu vaccine ( a Polio-like disease ), the Smallpox vaccine (AIDS), and the Hepatitis vaccine (AIDS).
There are precedents. This is not the first time the virologists have brought us disaster. SV-40 virus from monkey cell cultures contaminated Polio cultures. Most people in there 40's are now carrying the virus through contaminated Polio innoculations given in the early 60's. It is known to cause brain cancer which explains the increase in this disease that we have seen in the past 10 years.
This is the origin of the green monkey theory. The Polio vaccine was grown on green monkey kidney cells. 64 million Americans were vaccinated with SV-40 contaminated vaccine in the 60's. An increase in cancer of the brain, possibly Multiple Sclerosis, and God only knows what else is the tragic result. The delay between vaccination and the onset of cancer with this virus is as long as 20-30 years. 1965 + 20 = 1985. Get the picture?
The final piece of the puzzle is how AIDS devastated the homosexual population in the United States. It wasn't from Smalpox vaccination as in Africa because we don't do that any more. There is no Smallpox in the United States and so vaccination was discontinued. Although some AIDS has been brought to the United States from Haiti by homosexuals, It would not be enough to explain the explosion of AIDS that occurred simultaneously with the African and Haitian epidemics.
The AIDS virus didn't exist in the United States before 1978. You can check back in any hospital and no stored blood samples can be found anywhere that exhibit the AIDS virus before that date. What happened in 1978 and beyond to cause AIDS to burst upon the scene and devastate the homosexual section of our population? It was the introduction of the Hepatitis B vaccine which exhibits the exact same epidemiology of AIDS.
A Doctor W. Schmunger, born in Poland and educated in Russia, came to this country in 1969. Schmunger's immigration to the U.S. was probably the most fatefull immigration in our history. He, by un-explained process, became the head of one of the New York City blood bank. ( How does a Russian trained doctor become the head of one of the largest blood banks in the world? Doesn't that strike you as peculiar? )
He set up the rules for the Hepatitis vaccine studies. Only males between the ages of 20 and 40 , who were not monogamous, were allowed to participate in this study. Can you think of any reason for insisting that all expermentees be promiscuous? Maybe you don't believe in the Communist conspiracy theory but give me some other logical explanation. Schmunger is now dead and his diabolical secret went with him.
The Centers for Disease Control reported in 1981 that 4% of those receiving the Hepatitis vaccine were AIDS infected. In 1984 they admitted to 60%. Now they refuse to give out the figures at all because they don't want to admit that 100% of the Hepatitis vaccine receivers are AIDS infected. Where is the data on the Hepatitis vaccine studied? FDA? CDC? No, the U.S. Department of Justice has buried it where you will never see it.
What has the government told us about AIDS?
It's a homosexual disease-----------------------WRONG
It's related to anal intercourse only-----------WRONG
Only a small % of those testing positive
for AIDS would get the disease------------------WRONG
It came from the African green monkey-----------WRONG
It came from cytomegalovirus--------------------WRONG
It was due to popping amyl nitrate with sex-----WRONG
It was started 400 years ago by the Portugese---WRONG
You cant get it from insects--------------------WRONG
The virus can't live outside the body-----------WRONG
The head of the Human Leukemia Research Group at Harvard is a veterinarian. Dr. O. W. Judd, International Agency for Research on Cancer, the agency that requested the production of the virus in the first place, is also a veterinarian. The Leukemia research he is conducting is being done under the auspices of a school of veterinary medicine. Now, there is nothing wrong with being a vet but, as we have pointed out, the AIDS virus is a human virus. You can't test these viruses in animals and you can't test leukemias in them either. It doesn't work. So why would your government give Judd, a veterinarian, 8.5 million dollars to study leukemia in a veterinary college? As long as we are being used as experimental animals maybe it is appropriate.
The London Times should be congratulated for uncovering the smallpox- AIDS connection. But there expose was very misleading. The article states that the African AIDS epidemic was caused by the smallpox vaccine "triggering" the AIDS in those vaccinated. Dr. Robert Gallo, who has been mixed up in some very strange scientific snafus, supports this theory. Whether the infection of 75 million Africians was deliberate or accidental can be debated, but there is no room for debate whether the smallpox shots "awakened the unsuspecting virus infection." There is absolutely no scientific evidence that this laboratory-engineered virus was present in Africa before the WHO descended upon these hapless people in 1967 with their deadly AIDS-laced vaccine. The AIDS virus didn't come from Africa, it came from Fort Detrick, Maryland, U.S.A.
The situation is extremely desperate and the medical profession is too frightened and cowed (as usual) to take any action. Dr. Strecker attempted to mobilize the doctors through some of the most respected medical journals in the world. The prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine said that his material "appears to be entirely concerned with maters of virology" and so try some other publication.
In his letter to The Annals, Strecker said, "If correct human experimental procedures had been followed we would not find half of the world stumbling off on the wrong path to the cure for AIDS with the other half of the world covering up the origination of the dammed disease. It appears to me that your Annals of Internal Medicine is participating in the greatest fraud ever perpetrated."
I guess they didn't like that so Stricker submitted his sensational and mind-boggling letter with all of the proper documentation to the British journal, Lancet. Their reply : " Thank you for that interesting
letter on AIDS. I am sorry to have to report that we will not be able to publish it. We have no criticism" but their letter section was " over crowded with submissions ".
They're too crowded to announce the end of western civilization and possibly all mandkind? Doesn't seem reasonable. What can we do? The first thing that should be done is to close down all laboratories in this country that are dealing with these deadly retro-viruses. Then we must sort out the insane, irresponsible and traitorous scientists involved in these experiments and try them for murder. Then maybe, just ,maybe, we can re-populate and re-civilize the world.
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
I've been collecting data on AIDS for years and have seen numerous examples where the outcome of the disease didn't jive with traditionally accepted knowledge of either the cause or result.
Cases of repeated multible sexual contacts with HIV positive individuals that resulted in no disease even many years afterward as shown by HIV antibody tests.
Yet also cases of HIV-like symptoms with none of the risk factors enumerated by traditional knowledge with a quick mortality.
A strong connection between the highly toxic chemotherapy agents utilized for AIDS treatment and mortality, with conversely asymtomatic cases of HIV positive individuals who continue to live active healthy lives many years after coming up HIV positive.
The data strongly suggests that the whole HIV-AIDS situation is a scam and a fraud - not to mention the direct documented evidence that it's a man-made virus engineered specifically with the intent of being untreatable.
The epidemiology of the outbreaks DOES match vaccine programs - no amount of word play can "deny" that, and it's not the first disease or occurrence for this either.
It's not about superficially denying HIV/AIDS (such simplistic rhetoric only scratches the surface of the issue and discourages further investigation) - it's about the origins, causes, risk factors, treatments and money tied up in the whole scam.
A great example is cancer -
Billions of dollars have been spent on cancer research over the years yet we still aren't any closer to a cure today than we were 40 years ago.
Most of the same researchers who were in the cancer racket moved to the AIDS racket when it became popular.
Dire warnings were issued that millions are infected and would express AIDS and *DIE* when it was first announced in the early 80's. That timeframe has passed and yet the number of mortality cases actually seen has been only a tiny fraction of the doomsayer's predictions.
In this country -
Now looking at Africa we see AIDS is doing very well killing millions as predicted.
A close look at the *living conditions, standard of living, sanitation, and PESTICIDE USE* in Africa is very revealing.
Same as with cancer - all that money and time wasted on treating-curing cancer when the source of and solution to the problem is right under our nose
The very companies and industries that have the majority of the traditional scientists in thier back pockets who are responsible for the cancer and AIDS, are the one's who attempt to bury the real issues and DENY thier own roles in these problems.
They then have a constant supply of denialists who go around demonizing anyone who sees this connection who use rhetorical sound bites to stifle and silence.
Notice how the original poster provided URLs and encouraged further study and research, acknowledging this being a complicated and prolonged subject - to think for yourself, to check the data, etc..
But the detractors simply rely on short attention span emotionally loaded statements that discourage further thought by emotionally shutting down the subject..
I also encourage much more study, research and investigation - specifically on the toxicity of pesticides, byproducts, industrial chemicals, and how they relate to the signs and symptoms of what is often called "AIDS".
See how few of the hundreds of thousands of chemicals in our enviroment have even basic safety testing performed due to COMMERCIAL INTRESTS applying pressure to save money, study Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) where you work, check the MSDS database and look at the raw list of chemicals approved for use, then see how few of them are actually known safe.
In this light the cause of cancer and "AIDS" when a cross-referanced to tonnage v country will become clear.
This is an even stronger correlation between disease and population than vaccines..
Once you have HIV
01.Nov.2005 00:16
Jeremy F. Selvey Project Aids Intern., ACMEbyMailOrder.com
Once you Have HIV, It does not matter what you die From. They will call it AIDS. Just like the AZT studies where they climed a Gun shot wound was an Opertunistic infection (Lead Poision) or one dissident who was said to have died from the O.I. of a broken neck after he fell down the stairs Or Jody Wells who died 2 weeks after a car crash all Declared to be AIDS O.I's. Geees People this is Not science! This is VOO DOO Even Mark Alampi who was with PAI from the Start Died of genetic Epilepsy Grand mall. Was rumored to have Died of Aids Complications. I know for a fact this is not the Case They drew his Blood 3 times in 5 days for testing there was No HIV or.......anti-bodies No CMV Nothing Yet all over the place you can find rumors that he died of Aids. You people who worship the BUG you just slay me! you are like Apple computer users or Volks waggon drivers You only see one point of view and are Blink to anyone with a desenting view.
And if I did not have to watch the people you Convince that Early intervention is there only hope DIE!!!!! I would Laugh! but people are still dying. So this Fight is Not Funny I do not think this will be solved By Scientists or researchers such as my self this Battle will not be won In JAMA or Nature or Even Nugom I believe with all my heart that like SMON and EMS and Pellagra It will be solved in a court of Law With evidence!!! But how many More friends Must I loose before that Day? Jeremy
"As the years slip by, the number of AIDS denialists plummets, as most of them seem to die from mysterious undiagnosed illnesses that their misguided friends assure everyone else "has nothing to do with AIDS". Even at death's door denial continues."
First, the number is not "plummetting". Furthermore, the vast majority of dissidents are not even patients. To quote someone else, the reports of our deaths are greatly exaggerated.
"The list os "scientists" still comprises a fraction of 1% of the world's scientists who know the true facts about HIV/AIDS."
First, science is not a popularity contest. Second, the informed opinion of 99% of scientists on HIV/AIDS has been formed almost entirely through secondary and tertiary means -- major journals like Science, Nature, the mass media, textbooks, informal commentary. Even within the fields of biology and chemistry, with the exception of those who work directly in virology or immunology, very few of these opinions have been based on extended, personal exploration of the literature, documentation, and arguments presented by every side. The difference between the pathetic Durban Declaration and the list of 2,000 dissidents above is that the dissidents have taken the time to actually look around, whereas the Durban Declaration was sent out to people asking them to give their "opinion" based entirely on their knowledge from secondary and tertiary sources.
The point is important. It is not hard to understand what's wrong with the HIV hypothesis, but the sheer volume of purported arguments against the dissidents can take an enormous amount of time to wade through and figure out. "If you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em" seems to be the tack. The most commonly cited rebuttals to dissidents, such as the Skeptic article, or the NIAID "Evidence that HIV Causes AIDS" pamphlet, or several others, are all meticulously cited and to the eye appear quite convincing. It takes quite a bit of work to sort through them to see how they don't stand up. I suspect very few of the signers of the Durban Declaration have bothered to actually read both sides of the argument and (god forbid) spend several weeks in the stacks at their university library to see which side has more support. You don't have to be a biologist or chemist or even scientist to understand the problems...but you do need time, tenacity, and a highly skeptical and probing mind. Unfortunately, these qualities are apparently inadequately developed in today's scientific educational programs.
I suspect that almost all the individuals listed above have a story similar to mine -- I became involved first after hearing about the debate, and soon after that learning that mathematics was being used to justify some questionable conclusions (in this case, it was the infamous Ho/Shaw papers of 1996). Being a mathematician, (or at least, a graduate student at the time), I felt I had some expertise to judge how math was being used in this particular case. As it turned out, the use of math in this case was sloppy at best and incompetent and fraudulent at worst. Anyone with a basic understanding of differential equations and a week's time to learn the basics of virology in the university library can see the Ho/Shaw articles are a sham.
"Some people on this list don't even know they are on it - and have been aghast that statments concerning one or other fact about HIV which they have been in dispute about have now been misconstrued and placed them in the category of "dissident"."
This is a strawman. This is why the colours were put in place. All the names in blue signed their names to a statement questioning HIV. The ones in black have expressed doubts in various ways, but have been distinguished by their black colour from having officially signed a statement. As you'll note, almost all the names are in blue.
"A large number of "scientists" on the list are not even scientists, but media types, authors, complementary practitioners and so on. But once again, denialists don't let the facts spoil a good story."
You are assuming that clear thought and rational decision-making are the exclusion domain of "scientists". Given the paucity of these qualities shown by "scientists" in this affair, I'm actually apt to put a bit more faith in the ordinary Joe to see through the fraud then the usual "scientist". In any case, your point isn't that strong -- from a cursory glance, it appears that at least half of those listed have advanced degrees in either mathematics, the sciences, medicine, or some other credential which would give them authority to speak.
Darin Brown
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Eastern New Mexico University
I thought this was a serious, public spirited site
I am not surprised that there are still individuals who believe that any view, different from the established view is WRONG. There are individuals who are so blind and believe that what our scientists preach is gospel. It is important to understand the scientific basis of the HIV/AIDS theory, look for politics within the theory and then analyse the Economics of pandemics. This is a multi-billion dollar industry, wake up and you will see. Why is the obvious ignored in this debate, and everytime a different view is presented, it is not the view which is challenged, but the personality and integrity of the Author, something stinks.
Joseph Sonnabend. MD, New York, founder of the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR) [Says Aids is multifactorial, AZT is ?a disaster? and that heterosexual transmission is ?a hoax.?]
Here is an interview with Joe Sonnabend, he is a wise and thoughtful man but he is in no way an AIDS denialist. I wonder how accurate the rest of that list is?
GMHC Treatment Issues
Volume 19, number 9/10/11
September-November 2005
Treating HIV is Rarely an Emergency
An Interview with Joseph Sonnabend
By Bob Huff
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend was one of the earliest AIDS clinicians and researchers. He helped introduce the concept of safer sex and was a pioneer in establishing community-based research. He was mentor to many of the first generation of AIDS activists and is famous among patients for being the first doctor who treated them as equals. He recently retired from medical practice in New York and now lives in London.
BH: When you hear the term "salvage therapy," what does that mean to you?
JS: I'm personally distant from it in the sense that it's not an issue that has arisen much in my years of practice. I haven't taken a great deal of interest when there have been meetings or sessions on salvage therapy. I have not taken a great deal of interest because I have only rarely been in the situation where I have had patients whom I've started on therapy who have reached the point of requiring salvage therapy.
I've had patients in clinics and people who've come to me from other doctors, so I've had a few of those patients whose treatment options were very limited, but not many. I really can not recall ever having prescribed T-20, for example. I would have if that situation had ever arisen, but it never has. And I've had thousands of patients. And I'm obviously speaking about patients who started therapy during the protease inhibitor era.
I know that treatment can fail, of course. Certainly I've had failures; one patient just wasn't very mentally reachable; another decided she had found another source of salvation. But by and large, they've done really well.
So I've had to think about why I have been so fortunate. It's partly what I have done, and partly what I haven't done, and another part is the kind of practice I've had: a private practice consisting largely of gay men; patients who are better educated; better motivated, maybe; more knowledgeable about the medications and probably more likely to stick to their drugs. So, credit goes there, but on the other hand I know there are many patients of this kind who really are in trouble.
BH: This is surprising since the conventional wisdom says that if you've been treating gay men for a long period of time, they've gone through a lot of different regimens and they end up resistant to everything. So what was different about the way you were treating them?
JS: It may have to do with what I have not done. First, I have not started people on treatment too early. When the original version of the treatment guidelines came out I thought they were very, very wrong headed. I wrote a response — I suggested that the way we resolve clinical uncertainly is by doing proper trials, not by issuing guidelines. HIV medicine had already moved somewhat away from the traditional way of trying to find answers by doing many well-designed trials and was moving toward relying on the consensus of a panel of experts.
I thought they seemed to be gazing into a crystal ball as to the long-term effects of therapy. If these drugs were known to be completely non-toxic, it wouldn't be a problem. But the potential toxicities could not have been known then, and of course since then problems have come up; lipodystrophy, diabetes, etc.
So the drugs are quite potent. And the one thing an experienced doctor would think about, I believe, in deciding whether or not to intervene in a patient is the rate of progress of the disease in that particular patient. One of the striking things about HIV is the huge variation in the rates of disease progression. But what those guidelines did was to ask one to make a decision based on a snapshot. Well, we know about blips in viral load; fluctuations in CD4 counts; we know about all sorts of things that say a snapshot does not provide enough information.
The fact is there are no emergencies in HIV medicine — with the exception of people with very low T-cells, of course. But if you're dealing with anybody above 200, there's no emergency; it's not life and death, and you can wait a little while to get a fuller picture. So I think what may have been important in my practice was that I didn't follow the guidelines as they were written when they first came out. As it turns out, more recent revisions of the guidelines seem to be a little bit more in accord with what I actually did.
BH: What would you do?
JS: I would suggest starting treatment at a time when there was a consistent increase in viral load over maybe six or nine months; a decline in CD4 cells; or development of symptoms, whether it be thrush or some other. So it was individualized, and I think it is very important to individualize treatment to the rate of progress. In effect that translates into not staring early. I would start patients where there were stable signs of progression. There were other cases where people were worried and wanted to start treatment and of course I didn't withhold it.
BH: If you saw a change in the rate of progress would you start sampling that person's viral load and CD4 count more frequently?
JS: Yes, I would.
BH: In New York City, nearly 30% of people with an HIV diagnosis also receive an AIDS diagnosis within one month and I imagine many of these patients present as emergencies. It seems your practice was not exactly a cross-section of all the patients who are out there in New York today.
JS: No, as I said, most of the patients I'd been seeing had followed me from my private practice to the clinics at Cabrini and St. Lukes. But that doesn't mean I didn't have experience with the clinic patients as well, and if I had more of them I might have a different story to tell. But on the other hand there are some things I did that were different from what many other people do.
The second thing that I didn't do was switch drugs at the drop of a hat. And I have a sense that that may be quite important. I tended to keep people on the same treatment even if they had detectable viral loads — as long as there was not a consistent increase in the viral loads. As a result, a good number of patients in my practice did have detectable viral loads while on treatment but they didn't increase and they did just fine. Not everybody; some of them did start to increase and that's another matter.
This, again, was against the dogma. You open a manual of HIV medicine education for physicians and you will see: "What are the goals of antiretroviral therapy?" Well, "the goal of antiretroviral therapy is to produce an undetectable viral load using the most sensitive assay available." And that's based on all the theories of viral evolution. But we assume too much and we don't know the whole complexity of this: we don't know about mutations that compensate; mutations that resensitize.
I should also say, as far as viral load goes, on principle I never used the under-50 assay. I wouldn't do it unless people asked for it. I didn't use it because what am I going to do if it is 200 or 300? I'm not going to do anything.
BH: Let's say you saw two in a row at 1,000 copies.
JS: Nothing.
BH: Okay, one's at 1,000 and the next one is at 5,000.
JS: I'd wait a little bit more. It kind of depends on what the CD4 count is and what the clinical stage is, too. There are people who will tolerate 100,000, actually.
BH: Well, doesn't the probability of developing resistance mutations go up as the rate of replication goes up?
JS: Well, that's true, but you have to rely on empirical stuff, too. And what we ought to do is recognize that there are people around with detectable viral loads of 20,000-30,000 on treatment ever since these drugs became available and they are not going up. Now, what is it? They are full of mutations. We could learn something from these people and recognize that the phenomenon exists. It's easy to go along with the Darwinian thing and selection and escape, and of course I believe all of that, but there are complexities in there that are not taken into account. We don't know enough about mutations that may compensate; that may have an effect on fitness; that may resensitize the virus to other drugs. It's something that you have to learn from real life, and we do have these patients with detectable viral loads and they're full of TAMS and they're with us and doing just fine. I've had patients with a viral load continue on treatment and it hasn't gone up, but everybody is different. I think every patient will contribute some degree of viral control themselves; it's variable; it's more or less; so you have to tailor things to each person.
I've said there is a gulf between academic doctors working from the book, who only see patients in the clinic once or twice a week and don't deal with patients at the end of the telephone because they've got residents to do that. They're not field doctors. On the other hand there are on-the-ground doctors who have observations. I've been told it's just a question of time and don't be silly. I've been at meetings when I said I had patients with viral loads who've been stable for years and I've been told I was lying.
So I can say that part of it is because I didn't change regimens quickly. I know others will change on a single viral load increase before seeing if it was a blip or if it was sustained. Their idea is to keep people 100% undetectable, and I think that has hurt people. That is my own belief. Of course there are instances when you have to change. But where do doctors get their information? They are instructed by academic doctors and this is common dogma: you've got to get undetectable, and you've got to stay undetectable, and if the viral load creeps up...do something. This was more in the earlier days. I think people are much more tolerant about this now because they've seen what the effect was.
BH: Did you use resistance assays?
JS: I did use them. Not all that much, but there were times when they were important, for example with the NNRTIs — if you get a K103N, that's bad news.
Another thing I know I did differently is that I had a predilection for using nevirapine (I didn't care for Sustiva because of its neurologic side effects, which I think are much worse that they tell us.) At that time I was doing clinical research at CRI (Community Research Initiative), and I was the principal investigator for trials for nevirapine and delavirdine, so I became familiar with NNRTIs and nevirapine in particular, so I stuck with what I knew. I have had a few rashes, but it wasn't so terrible; and I have had a few liver problems, but it was alright; we just stopped and that was that. But by and large I had a good experience with nevirapine. So in those days in 1996, I did things differently, because I tended to start people on an NNRTI, rather than a protease inhibitor.
I went to one of these company marketing meetings once at the Waldorf Astoria where they give you a little box and everyone in the audience votes their choices to various clinical dilemmas. Press "A" if you'd do this, etc. They'd present you with a patient and give you five options and ask what you'd start them with. Once choice was an NNRTI and two nukes, so I pressed that button, and when they showed the results I think 2% chose what I chose and everybody else was choosing Crixivan and whatever else. And the moderator said, "I wonder who those one or two people are?" And I felt like ducking under the desk. About five years later I went to another meeting and the same question was asked and this time about 60% of them chose an NNRTI and two nukes. Now, nevirapine is an unforgiving kind of drug because you can lose the whole class if adherence isn't good, so that brings in another aspect of what I did differently.
I really think an essential ingredient for success is the relationship between the doctor and the patient. I have come to the view that in HIV medicine more than any other field, the nature of the doctor-patient relationship is absolutely key, particularly with people who are on treatment. When adherence became a big issue, a lot of money was available, and people were hired as adherence counselors, and it was all for the patients. It was all crap. They should have had counseling for the doctors. Maybe you wouldn't call it adherence counseling, but I'm not joking. In order to be an HIV physician there are certain attributes you should have or you should think about doing something else! It's labor intensive and if you choose this profession you ought to be willing to give up a bit of doctor sanctity, if you will, and make yourself available to your patients to a greater extent than in other fields. That's awfully important. You're actually endangering people if you don't have these qualities.
How you present the ARV regimen and how you choose it together with the patient is very important. Don't present it in a threatening way. I've heard of doctors who said, "If you don't do this you're going to die." If you hear something like that and you aren't taking your pills regularly, you're not going to tell your doctor. What you really want to do is let the patient feel that you are working together as a team — as best you can; you can't always achieve this, and maybe not even that often, but do as best as you can. And don't make the disease sound trivial either; it's not a chronic manageable anything. Tell your patient that there is work involved, and that their life is never going to be the same again but we're going to try to make it okay. But let's not kid ourselves that this is a walk in the park, you know. Despite all those ads, you're not going to turn into a mountain climber.
BH: So you tried to make them feel like it was a mutual journey.
JS: What I really tried to do was make it possible for patients to tell me if they were having any trouble with the medicines. Everybody is different as far as far as side effects go: some people will swallow Norvir like water; there are other people who just sniff it and can't stand it. Some people get Viracept diarrhea which is horrible; and others just get a little. Some people can take a million pills without thinking about it and they stick to it; and others can't deal with it. So when it comes to the number of pills or the side effects profile, it's good to work out with the patient what they can live with. So you just have to try the regimen. If they have a reaction with diarrhea or nausea, then you try to keep away from what is causing that. But the most important thing is they have no hesitation in telling you what their situation is. How many patients don't tell their doctors the truth? It's a lot.
The objective is you want to be able to relate to the patient in such a way that if that patient has a problem — say, nausea — that you may not think is terrible (but it doesn't matter what you think) then one should be in the kind of relationship with that person that they can call you and actually get through to you — not an office person or not get a return call or something. That's not for HIV medicine. That may be okay for other things, but it's not for HIV.
So you have to get to understand your patient a bit — unless you have to start treating them because they are really sick with PCP or something — but the more usual thing is that you get to know them first. And you might find that some people are better left untreated because it's going to be a disaster story if you try to treat them.
You have to get patients to have some sort of trust. I can think of one clinic patient, he was declining and it just seemed awful, and it involved a 15 minute discussion. I remember we made a deal and I said I'm going to put you on some heavy duty stuff — we've got to get your T-cells back — but I promise you that within three or four months I'm going to make it easier for you. Now, I don't know about induction/maintenance; it hasn't been sufficiently studied, but in this disease you just have to do it; you can't wait for the studies. So there's every reason to think that this concept of induction/maintenance may be perfectly viable, and as far as this gentleman was concerned, it was the only viable thing because he was not going to stick on the Kaletra and whatever else I gave him forever. And when the time came, he opted to change and I said I think we'll need another month, but after that I did change him to an easier regimen and he did okay. So building up that kind of relationship where you can discuss these things is time consuming, it's a little bit labor intensive, and it may not be entirely practical, given the volume of patients, the reimbursement situation, and the need to see many patients. But it's so important.
BH: So in an initial conversation with a patient, you'd talk about much of what we've been talking about here?
JS: Yes, although it depends. If someone just had PCP as their first diagnosis, I'd have a different conversation. But part of the conversation with a person who is feeling well, is telling them there is no urgency; there are really no emergencies in HIV medicine — with some obvious exceptions. But otherwise there are no emergencies, so you can afford to look and see what is happening. So I would ask people to let me observe them. I would say that everybody progresses at a different rate. I would say, maybe you're a fast progressor; maybe you're a slow progressor. I have no idea, but we'll find out. And mostly they've been comfortable with that. Sometimes they were anxious and wanted to be on treatment. And other people didn't want to be on treatment; they hated the idea, so they were quite willing to go along with this kind of thing. But when they finally did go on treatment, they knew that they had to. So when the time comes and it looks like things are going wrong the whole compliance issue is a little better.
So, just to go back again, I don't know why I've had the success I've had — and I'm not bragging or boasting — but I do know that I've had a very loyal group of patients. Also I think part of it is that I have had some disregard for official recommendations. I'm not suggesting that people do that, but I had been an academic physician, I was in the virus lab for 15 years, an associate professor for eight years, I had a very traditional infectious diseases upbringing, including in immunocompromised hosts in the transplant field before HIV. So I think I'm capable of making some judgments and I'm not saying one should in principle not listen to authorities — that's not the point I'm making. But in my particular case, I haven't respected some of the advice that's out there and I haven't followed it, and I think my patients have done better. But that's sort of selective and we need to have some research.
Another thing, and this is just a personal opinion, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect young people to be on these potent drugs for the rest of their lives uninterrupted. Therefore the need to develop strategies of interruption is absolutely critical and I can't see where the opposition comes in because, if you don't accept that, then you accept the principle that a young person is going to be 30 or 40 years (we hope) on drugs, the full toxicity of which is not known. So I don't know what form the treatment interruptions will take, but that seems to me to be such an obvious thing to do.
The other thing that I have done with a few patients is cycling the drugs — actually it was Mike Mullen who first suggested it and I thought it was a great idea, and I believe there are some studies on it now. The theory is that since the drugs have different toxicities, if you go off a combo that makes you undetectable, you can always come back to it. So if you have a liver-related toxicity, it might be reasonable to give the liver a rest every year or so as a way of toxicity management. Of course, these need to be studied. And when people are used to something, they are very reluctant to change. I've tried, and sometimes I've succeeded, but people are reluctant to change.
The issue of salvage treatment should be discussed in a different way, because it tends to boil down in the discussions to adherence: "You failed because you didn't take your drugs properly." I think that is valid, but it is begging the questions underneath that. That just dumps everything on the patient, but it is the patient, it is the doctor; the economy, the economics of practice; the traditions of practice; it's the communication between patient and doctor; the need to see a certain number of people; clinic structures; managerial interference. We've tended to put it all on the patient and think we can solve the problem by hiring an adherence counselor. And the thing about salvage is that it may be the person who reaches salvage is not going to succeed because there's something about that individual where nothing works.
I've thought we should look at people in the database who'd reached the point of salvage and try and see what it is about them: how many different drugs; what was the trigger for changing; adherence issues? So I think it should be looked into as more than as just a case of a bad patient; a naughty patient who is not taking his drugs.
BH: Did you observe a lot of lipoatrophy or facial wasting in your patients?
JS: Well, yes I did, unfortunately. I tended to shy away from the full dose of AZT more that most, and I'm happy to say that I never have written a ddC prescription in my life. But I did use ddI, d4T, 3TC, because that's what we had at the time, and of course AZT, and abacavir when that came out. So with the d4T, there was lipoatrophy, but I didn't know it at the time; and who did know it? So, sad to say, I've seen a fair amount.
BH: How concentration conscious are you? Do you think about all the factors that can affect drug concentration?
JS: I think that's important. I know there are huge variations in some of the drugs. But I don't think about concentration problems very frequently. Not with the standard dose. I think there is a bit of overkill in the standard doses. I think one tries to aim for a very comfortable level above the minimum inhibitory concentration. You want leeway, and of course people metabolize things differently; and there's not much you can do with the nukes because serum levels don't tell you a whole lot.
BH: Did you use atazanavir unboosted?
JS: No. I wonder if people do? I don't know. I never do. I had one person who wouldn't take it because a friend said, "Oh you're going to turn yellow!" Well, you've got to listen to that. I could have talked him into it, and I can't remember whether I did or I didn't.
BH: Did you have many turn yellow?
JS: I had some, but the same thing happened with Crixivan. But it bothers some and others couldn't care less. So what I take home from this and all my experience, which is coming to an end now, is that, more than any other kind of medicine, HIV medicine involves a closer, more intimate kind of relationship with one's patient, and that may not be attainable given the economics of practice. But if you go into that branch of medicine you should accept that and be willing to try.
The compliance problem underscores the complexity of it all; not these simple minded solutions, these mems-caps and hiring an adherence counselor and beating on the patients: "Studies have proven that if you're not compliant you will fail!" That leads to a punitive, coercive approach: "You're going to die unless you take your pills!" Instead of saying, "Okay these pills aren't working; you're not taking them. Let's talk about it. We have something else for you. We'll find something for you. Give me a call if it is bothersome."
BH: I wonder if it is practical to conduct a practice this way any longer.
JS: I gave up my private practice because of financial reasons. I was doing clinical research at CRI and I was only seeing patients half time, and with the managed care and the billing, I just couldn't afford to keep it open; it was more than I could deal with. So I went to work in the clinic, but my patients came with me. Most of the clinic patients were originally my private patients. About 70% I'd say came with me. So, again, it may not be me as much as the practice and the patients that had that relationship with me that they would follow me from my practice to Cabrini then to St. Lukes. Not all of them liked it but they did it, so that is a factor.
BH: Have all of your patients found new doctors now that you are retiring?
JS: No, some are still calling me. But they need to find a new doctor. I'm almost 73 and it's no good. I can't tell you how difficult it was trying to match people up with new doctors. And the anger some people felt towards me was very hurtful, actually. Well they trusted me. You spend so much time with a doctor and you have to go through the process of finding someone else...
BH: I imagine a lot of people just won't go to the doctor again for a long time.
JS: Yes, there's one guy who called me a few months ago and asked me for new prescriptions because he hadn't been to see anybody.
I see doctors and I see the barriers they put up. Maybe it is necessary for the economics or maybe for the doctor's emotional protection. But I've certainly gone to visit people in their homes. And maybe it has a kind of ripple effect, because people hear that you do that, they'll know that you'll come. Maybe it adds to the way that people trust you, even though they don't require you to visit, they know that you would do so.
Maybe there are some patients who would feel uncomfortable with somebody who was not gay, but not all gay men. There are women doctors and some gay men feel comfortable with them. It's as if you're in this disease and you have to undergo a kind of obstacle course. It needn't be charitable, but nobody should make the mistake of saying it's going to be alright and you're going to climb mountains.
It's the same thing about safe sex, I believe. If you try to eroticize safe sex you're actually defeating yourself. I think the thing to do is be upfront and honest and people will listen to you. So you say, it's not as good as the real thing, unless you're into rubber, but this is reality. That's it. Life sucks. We can make the best of it, but don't pretend that it's actually a turn-on, because that becomes absurd. And it's the same with this: taking pills everyday; having to go to the doctor; having to know your viral load: it's another way of life. The anxiety you feel every few months waiting for your results; stuff like that affects people in different ways but nobody can pretend it's easy. It's a different life. It's not the same any longer. The idea is to recognize that and be supportive and not exaggerate.
I feel blessed that I don't have to do these things. I have high blood pressure and I have to take pills but they have no side effects and I'm very compliant — because I know that I ought to be and I see the consequences of high blood pressure — but the pills don't have any side effects.
If HIV medicines were like that there would be no problem. Just go on them. There's not a downside, other than the cost. That's why I feel that if the answer remains only in drugs, then were going to have to work out some different forms of treatment that involves interruptions, where someone may manage to do nine months out of each year.
I am a big fan of natural cures. However, I developed PCP pneumonia in early 2005. It was awful. My T cells were at 17.
I took the meds for a year and was fine. My T cells stayed around 210 for most of the time.
A few months ago, I stopped my meds and starting drinking my own urine and eating hemp seeds and other supplements. I look and feel great right now. Unfortunately, my T cells have dropped to 58.
I feel healty but I am very concerned. I started taking the meds again just a few days ago.
How do you explain all the myths around HIV/ AIDS ? How do you explain the millions of people who have died ? If HIV isn't the cause then does anyone know why T cells would drop so dramatically ? I know people who abuse their bodies by smoking and drinking/drugs and they don't have AIDS.
homepage: 
We no longer need to consider contrived accounts of Candian airline stewards going to Africa to fornicate with green monkeys. All we need at this point is to question the ethics and integrity of Dr. Gallo...and it's long overdue.