 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 200410 out of 10 for creative B.S.
While reading the latest post from the Perth Group on the BMJ debate website, I found myself just laugh and laughing. It would seem the AID$ industry has now topped itself. It would seem that if you get or die from a given disease BEFORE you go on HAART, you die from AIDS. However, N-O-W, if you develop the EXACT same disease AFTER going on HAART, you are now said to have IMMUNE RESTORATION DISEASE (IRD)!!! I DID NOT MAKE THIS UP! If anyone from the orthodox standpoint is following along this forum, lurking behind the scenes to see what we 'dissidents' are discussing, YOU'RE NUTS! I'll quote the exact section of the reply from the Perth Group below. This is good stuff. This came up in a discussion of T-cell counts and their meaning, or rather lack thereof, in 'HIV' and AIDS. Here is their post: By definition T4 cells helps B cells to produce immunoglobulin, hence their name, T helper cells. According to the "HIV" experts, "HIV" kills the T4 cells, the helper cells. If the T4 cells have a helper function, then all AIDS patients must have hypogammaglobulinaemia (low antibody levels). However, one of the main laboratory findings in AIDS patients is hypergammaglobulinaemia. According to the "HIV" experts the diseases which constitute the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, the S in AIDS, are the consequence of the low T4 cell number, (AID), induced by "HIV". However, according to the same experts these diseases continue to appear even after HAART induces "immune restoration" and decreases of the "viral load" even to non-detectable levels. Since the AIDS indicator diseases appear after HAART "suppression of HIV viraemia" and "immune reconstitution", the only conclusion one can draw is that neither "HIV" nor the T4 cells are causally related to these diseases. Instead of coming to these obvious conclusions, the AIDS/"HIV" experts simply gave these diseases a new name: "Immune Restoration Disease (IRD)".9 This means that one and the same disease in the same individual before HAART treatment in the presence of low T4 cells and high "viral load" is an AIDS disease. After "Suppression of HIV viraemia" and "immune reconstitution" by HAART, the disease is IRD and the patient dies from "immune restoration disease", not AIDS. According to the AIDS/"HIV" experts: "Differentiation of IRD from an opportunistic infection is important because IRD indicates a successful, albeit undesirable, effect of HAART".9 The question is, what does "successful" mean and what is its clinical relevance? Reference #9: 9. French MA, Price P, Stone SF. Immune restoration disease after antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2004;18:1615-27. DYING FROM HIV OR AIDS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER, I DO NOT FIND THIS AMUSING WHATSOEVER! http://Death.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com http://Dying.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com http://Bereavement.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com http://Vigil.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com http://Coping.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com http://Religion.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com http://Religious.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com Thanks, http://hivdate.com/DaveyBoy/ (DaveyBoy) http://www.HIVdate.com http://www.HIVforum.com http://www.HIVsearch.com Sorry Dave! King is not laughing AT the death of those unhappy victims of HAARTAIDS Aggravating Toxics. One must not confound VICTIMS with those Doctors that neither had they cure ONE SINGLE AIDS CASE until today; neither had they let that other alternative solutions might be publicized. King might talk for himself but he is surely laughing from the unashamed pseudo scientists producing unceasing miscarriages like the so recently called IRD one more déjà vus' in AIDS myth bureaucratism. King as all the incorrupt people are laughing at the Establishment's easy-going skill in changing, with all the indecency and impunity, the goal posts of HIV = AIDS game LIE, at least since ICL "Schizoidism Parade" in Amsterdam 4th AIDS Congress till the artfulness of the famous *Expansion of the AIDS definition in 1993* just to disguise the downward trend in AIDS epidemic with obvious repercussions in AIDS budgets However, the more the Devil tries to hide himself the more he shows his tail, and so, only because of that definition change in AIDS it was mathematically possible to prove, with no buts, that AIDS- specific medications were increasing mortality in that syndrome. Don't miss the genial work from Vladimir Koliadin based on the CDC's AIDS surveys: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm Karl > DYING FROM HIV OR AIDS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER, I DO NOT FIND THIS AMUSING WHATSOEVER! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > http://www.HIVforum.com > http://www.HIVsearch.com (snip) > However, the more the Devil tries to hide himself the more he shows > his tail, and so, only because of that definition change in AIDS it > was mathematically possible to prove, with no buts, that AIDS- > specific medications were increasing mortality in that syndrome. > Don't miss the genial work from Vladimir Koliadin based on the CDC's > AIDS surveys: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm Why would anyone with even a mildly critical ability to read English take anything posted on the virusmyth site to be anything other then lies, half truths, misrepresentations, and irrelevancies that they are? If your talking about myths the virusmyth site is total mythology if it wasn't so dangerous it would be laughable. Gary Stein THE MYTH'S DANGER OR THE DANGER'S MYTH? Gary Please... Virusmyth is far from being my Bible. I must half agree with you just on the base that not everything there is peer reviewed. BUT, in the work that we are talking about [see the link again--> ( http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm )--, its author, Vladimir Koliadin, is a mathematician that does nothing there but a mathematical demonstration merely based on official data. There are no such things as polemical concepts or theories in there; JUST NUMBERS. So, a mathematical demonstration of this kind doesn't need to be peer reviewed. You are only supposed to criticize those numbers if you find them exaggerated or false; but you didn't because they deserve to be trusted or else it will be the complete chaos in CDC. So, in this work, either you have a Mathematical sensibility or you don't understand what is really happening there, no matter if it's written in English or Chinese. The fact that this work is very poorly known doesn't prove that it might be just fiction. I always recall the fact that the most famous work from Albert Einstein The Theory of Restrict Relativity have never been taken seriously until he won his SECOND Nobel Price in Physics, never being him an academic as everybody knows. Now, back to the link, my question is: What is the wrong thing is Koliadin's demonstration work, according to your sensibility? I'm sorry but you have to answer that in order to keep everybody off all the dangers you refer, mainly when anti retroviral therapy seams to be checkmated with this work... Karl > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Gary Stein > THE MYTH'S DANGER OR THE DANGER'S MYTH? > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Karl I took the time to take a quick glance at the numbers you reffer to above on Koliadin's work. First off I did not take the time to verify my problems with his work if you feel that needs to be done I will be glad to do so. So of the top I find his mortality rates troubling in that he paints an entirely better picture of the 2 year survival rates of post 93 diagnosis patients, if one is assuming that he meant there suriviability from 1993 to 1995. He shows a 11% chance of death in a two year period for those who meet the new defination only. I would challenge that number at least between 1993 and 1996 I would put the chances of death much higher. There were real clincal reasons to change the defination in that new treatments were coming online DDI in 1991 and DDC in 1992 to help the largly failed AZT monothreapy. In 1989 the first effective treatment for PCP pneumonia was found so that also was added as an AIDS defining illness. It was apparent due to the many retrospective studies that had been done by 1993 on the case histories of AIDS patients that the >200 CD4 count represents a turning point in AIDS progression. At this point the patient is at significantly higher risk for PCP, Thrush, MAC, Kaposis Sarcoma, Menigitus and so on and so on. In 1993 if my memory is correct the likely hood of surival once you had a >200 CD4 count was less then two years for the vast majority of patients rather then the 11% Koliadin states above. If you insist I am sure I can find a study or CDC document that will give us the real number and I am postive it will be closer to mine then it is to Koliadin's. Second what does anything Koliadin says in that paper have to do with your premise that HIV does not equal AIDS? Bellow I post a brief chronology of HIV and AIDS it might help you understand were I am coming from; 1930 Some time between 1910 and 1950 with 1930 being the most likely date HIV-1 M appears as a unique new retrovirus (1) There is still much debate as to how HIV first appeared in human hosts. (1) 1959 The oldest confirmed case of HIV is discovered when a blood sample from a Bantu male who died in 1959 is found to be positive for HIV-1 through immunoassay, immunoflourescence, Western blotting, and radioimmunoprecipitation methods. (2) In the 1985 retesting, Emory and Harvard University scientists used four different procedures on the samples and found one that was positive for HIV. The specimen, which came to be known as ZR59, had been taken from an unidentified African male from the area near Leopoldville (present-day Kinshasa) in 1959. 1978 Gay men in the US and Sweden begin to show symptoms of what will latter be identified as HIV/AIDS. The first signs of heterosexual HIV/AIDS appear in Haiti and Tanzania. (3) 1981 Gay cancer (Kaposi's Sarcoma) latter to be called GRID is noticed in New York and San Francisco. 181 die in the US from what is letter determined to be HIV/AIDS 1982 The CDC's Doctor Donald Francis and his team determine that GRID is a blood borne disease agent. 1,201 cases of AIDS and 463 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1983 The CDC warns blood banks of a potential problem with the nations blood supply. The Pasteur Institute in France isolates the HIV retrovirus. 3,145 cases of AIDS and 1,508 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1984 Dr. Robert Gallo claims he discovered the virus that causes AIDS; however, this is about a year after the French discovery. (4) 9,035 cases of AIDS and 3,502 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1985 The US FDA approves an HIV antibody test. Blood products begin to be tested in the US and Japan. Atlanta hosts the first International Conference on AIDS. 11,990 cases of AIDS and 6,972 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1986 C. Everett Koop US Surgeon General issues a report calling for sex education to include information on HIV/AIDS. Europe begins to test blood supplies for HIV antibodies. 19,319 cases of AIDS and 12,110 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1987 Glaxo Wellcome's drug Zidovudine (AZT) becomes first drug approved by the FDA for treatment of HIV/AIDS. Canada begins testing blood supply. FDA approved the first Western blot blood test kit - a more specific test. FDA Published regulations which require screening all blood and plasma collected in the U.S. for HIV antibodies. The US issues rules denying entrance visa's to travelers and closes immigration for HIV infected people. After six years of deadly silence US President Ronald Reagan mentions the word AIDS in a public speech for the first time. Vice President George Bush calls for mandatory HIV testing. 28,999 cases of AIDS and 16,412 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1988 Surgeon General C. Everett Koop pushes forward the printing and distribution of 107 million copies of a booklet entitled "Understanding AIDS". Trimetrexate was the first AIDS drug to be granted pre-approval distribution status under the FDA's new Treatment IND regulations. 35,957 cases of AIDS and 21,119 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1989 First treatment for PCP (pentamidine mist) is approved for use by the FDA. FDA approved Cytovene (ganciclovir) infusion for use in the treatment of cytomegalovirus retinal infections in persons with AIDS. FDA Licensed the first diagnostic kit to detect the presence of HIV-1 by directly detecting the proteins, or antigens, of the virus. 43,168 cases of AIDS and 27,791 deaths due to AIDS in the US 1990Ex-President Ronald Reagan apologizes for his neglect of the deadly HIV/AIDS epidemic during his presidency. FDA approved Diflucan (fluconazole) tablets to treat two serious AIDS-related fungal infections (Cryptococcal meningitis and candidiasis). 49,069 cases of AIDS and 31,538 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1991 Bristol Myers Squibb's anti-retroviral medication Videx (ddI, didanosine) is approved for use in the US. The World Health Organization estimates that there may be as many as 10 million people infected with HIV world wide. A coalition of gay and HIV/AIDS activists campaign for accelerated approval of medications used in the treatment of AIDS and AIDS related illnesses in the US. The CDC estimates that there may be as many as 1 million HIV infected US citizens. 60,124 cases of AIDS and 36,616 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1992 Roche Labs gains FDA approval for Hivid (ddc, zalcitabine). Combo drug treatment regimens undergo first clinical trials in the US. The US government starts interim licensing (accelerated approval) for medications used to treat AIDS and AIDS related illnesses. 79,054 cases of AIDS and 41,270 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1993 The definition of AIDS used for reporting purposes by the CDC is modified to include new opportunistic infections. The controversial British-French Concorde study is released to the public, indicating that early use of AZT monotherapy does not delay the onset of AIDS. 79,034 cases of AIDS and 44,896 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1994 Bristol Myers Squibb's Zerit (d4t) is approved for us in the US. FDA approved Bactrim and Septra (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) for a new indication for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in individuals who are immunosuppressed and considered to be at an increased risk of developing Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. 71,209 cases of AIDS and 49,311 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1995 For the first time there is a reduction in new AIDS cases compared to the previous year in the US. As a result of combo therapy the rate of growth in deaths due to AIDS also slows for the first time in 1995. In December the first Protease inhibitor class drug Roiche's Saquinavir (invirase) is approved for use in the US. Glaxo Wellcome gains approval for Epivir (3TC, lamivudine). The US government admits that the discovery of HIV was first accomplished by the Pasteur Institute not Robert Gallo. 66,233 cases of AIDS and 49,897 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1996 With the first full year of widespread use of HAART deaths due to AIDS and new AIDS cases both are less then the previous year in the US. Crixivan, Norvir, and Viramune approved for use in the US. Researchers show that Kaposi's sarcoma is most likely caused by the combination of diminished immune function and herpes virus. Dr. David Ho is the name in the news at the Vancouver BC International AIDS conference. 54,656 cases of AIDS and 37,359 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1997 FDA granted accelerated approval for Viracept (nelfinavir) the first protease inhibitor labeled for use in children, as well as adults. FDA approved Fortovase, a new formulation of Invirase (saquinavir) for the treatment of HIV-1. New cases of AIDS and deaths due to AIDS continue to decline in the US. The WHO estimates that the total worldwide death count due to AIDS may be 6,400,000. The approximate number of HIV-positive people worldwide is said to be 22,000,000. There are 31,153 new AIDS cases and 21,437 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1998 FDA approved Sustiva (efavirenz), DuPont Pharmaceuticals, to treat HIV and AIDS. Ziagen (abacavir) is approved for use in the US. New AIDS cases begin to rise in the US deaths due to AIDS continue to decline. There are 48,269 new AIDS cases and 17,171 deaths due to AIDS in the US. 1999Amprenavir is approved for use in the US. Genotype and Phenotype testing see increased use by US physicians in planning treatment for AIDS patients who have shown signs of failure on HAART. The CDC has not released the year end figures for 1999 as of this date. References 1. Korber B, Muldoon M, Theiler J, et al. Timing the origin of the HIV-1 pandemic. Programs and abstracts of the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, January 30-February 2, 2000; San Francisco, Calif. Abstract L5. 2. An African HIV-1 Sequence from 1959 and Implications for the Origin of the Epidemic. Nature (02/05/98) Vol. 391, No. 6667, P. 594 Zhu, Tuofu; Korber, Bette T.; Nahinias, Andre J.; et al. 3. The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in a cohort of homosexual men. A six-year follow-up study.Ann Intern Med. 1985 Aug;103(2):210-4. Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE MED/85249669 Jaffe HW; Darrow WW; Echenberg DF; O'Malley PM; Getchell JP; Kalyanaraman VS; Byers RH; Drennan DP; Braff EH; Curran JW; et al 4. "Gallo Admits French had Sent AIDS Virus" Chicago Tribune (05/30/91), P. 1-4 Crewdson, John Abstract: Dr. Robert C. Gallo will admit, in a written letter to the British scientific journal, Nature, that the AIDS virus he claimed to discover actually was sent to him by scientists in France. In the published version of the letter, Gallo writes that a viral culture in his laboratory "became contaminated" with some French virus that was shipped from the Pasteur Institute in 1983. Since 1983, Gallo has attempted to persuade the scientific community that his lab derived HIV from an American patient. The Pasteur Institute insisted that the virus was from a sample it sent to the National Institutes of Health, and therefore, the AIDS blood test Gallo's lab developed had been made with the French virus. Currently, NIH investigators are attempting to determine whether Gallo's cultures became contaminated with the French virus by accident or on purpose. Related Stories:Philadelphia Inquirer (05/31) P. 10C; New York Times (05/31) P. A12; Washington Post (05/31) P. A3 Gary, I much appreciate your concern about the discussed paper signed by Koliadin in what that concern of yours reveals a rare attitude among ARV therapies' defenders. I've considered your observation and I agree it would be indeed very interesting to search for more updated conclusions (before 1995) on the base of this conceptual AIDS' Group of Control that has spontaneously emerged in the 1992 AIDS' definition switch. BTW a couple of years ago I made myself that question and I decided to email it among several other questions to Vladimir Koliadin. Unfortunately my email has been returned back apparently because I got his wrong address. As I told you before I don't comment data as I presume CDC is an unsuspected source. As to the formal demonstration with Koliadin's signature everyone even slightly knowledgeable about Mathematics or at least with a necessary and sufficient sensibility understands all the exposition without requiring supplementary investigation. You said: « Second what does anything Koliadin says in that paper have to do with your premise that HIV does not equal AIDS? » There must be a terrible mistake of yours as there are no such words as AIDS or HIV in that posting and in all the thread, as you can watch by yourself. However, the fact that AIDS does not equal HIV-seropositivity is another story and if you feel like it, I will bite the hook: That fact must be divided into two independent demonstrations D1 and D2, symbolized by: D1) AIDSHIV IS FALSE and D2) HIVAIDS IS FALSE. To prove [D1] we only need to find one single person HIV seronegative meeting the CDC criteria towards AIDS. In fact there are not only one but thousands of samples to illustrate it-the euphemistic ICL that stands for the acronym of *Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia* as you certainly know. However, the effort to set apart HIV-positive from HIV-negative AIDS cases (ICL) is not based on any clinical or convincing epidemiological criteria and even Fauci have said: "Given the heterogeneity of the ICL syndrome, it is highly likely that there is no common cause" [cf.: Fauci, A.S.: CD+ T-lymphocytopenia without HIV infection-No lights, no camera, just facts. New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 328: 429-431. ] Yet, paradoxically, at the same time, the proponents of the HIV hypothesis, including Fauci himself, insist that HIV must be the common cause of the 29 heterogeneous AIDS diseases. Where is the coherence? How do these two positions assumed by the same "orthodoxy" in AIDS stick together? To prove [D2] we better prove first that seropositivity means always HIV infection. At this point, everybody knows that a gold standard is required to confirm this. That gold standard must be the HIV isolation from every person tested which is never done. BTW, In it's turn, and using, in its due context, Roberto Giraldo's point of view, nobody knows, with any precision, the percentage of false positives among PWA. Contrarily to what happens in other disease proceedings where the microbe isolation is the only way to ascertain about any positive result, God knows why gold standards are so neglectable while scanning HIV when everybody is aware of the absolute incertitude in finding antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood using trivial tests. To prove [D2] we also need to implement the test beyond the classical risk groups invented just to match AIDS with infectious disease. Until that happens, we are condemned to walk on circles and AIDS' mainstream point of view is nothing else but a mere TAUTOLOGY. To keep on insisting in tautologies it might be enough lucrative for half a dozen Godfathers in the Big Pharma business but it is Scientifically insane and a inherited shame for the future generations. However, even in that tautological official scenario, it happens that there are thousands of HIV antibody-positives that are still alive twenty years before being tested. However it is rather difficult to assume that they will never die not only because nobody lives forever but mainly because AID Syndrome's spectrum is sufficiently large to allow any contestant criteria. In [D2] I'm going to be backed up by another work of V. Koliadin where in between four main hypothesis about AIDS and HIV correlation he chooses by mathematical enforcement the only one that states that seropositivity is not contagious being "HIV" just a marker of deteriorated health, which contradicts the official paradigm that HIV-seropositivity causes opportunistic AIDS-defining diseases. Before anything else, I must ask you: Have you ever thought about the fact that the so called HIV never came to USA or Europe during Colonization Age(as it is a institutionalized Faith), but exactly before the last colons move out Africa definitively in 1975 (the Portuguese ones living Guinea, Angola and Mozambique)? Don't you find that a little strange under the stubborn AIDS mainstream assumption Consisting in the association of seropositivity to an infectious vector? It's obvious that Africans were already seropositives before 1974, before 1964, 1954 and so on. Seropositivity always existed, at least in Uganda (a randomized African Country in our African study). Do you know why the last statement is so evident? Now, it's here that really enters the announced work signed by Koliadin: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vkafrica.html I'm going to try to summarize this superb and "Sherlock Holmesian" work deciding at first to round off some numbers without them loosing significance so you the better reach what is essential (mine excuses to Koliadin and Sherlock Holmes) :) Using the historical of CDC surveys, Koliadin decided to study the 9000 seronegatives among 10000 Ugandian natives aged between 13 and 44 with an obvious remainder of 1000 seropositives; and do you know what did he find? He found that mortality taxes among seronegtives in Uganda are almost the same as in USA seronegatives in the same age interval :o . Do you know what this means? I believe you can find the answer by yourself because it is very obvious. That means that seropositivity cannot be a new health condition among Ugandans, otherwise ignoring the 1000 seropositives, the remainder 9000 were just as "healthy" as USA homologous. But how can this be possible as Uganda and all other African countries showed always such high mortality taxes in those age intervals comparing to USA? So we must conclude that seropositivity always existed in Uganda and other African countries, never being transmitted to the foreign colonists during almost six centuries just because it is, obviously, NOT CONTAGIOUS. Quod erat demonstrandum (q.e.d.). Facing this example, I hope you start reappraising your main positions towards AIDS. Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Newton's binomial theory is as beautiful as the Venus de Milo. However, precious few people notice that. ohohoh ohohohohohohohohohoh ohohohohohohooooooooo. ... Fernando Pessoa (a Portuguese Poet) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > THE MYTH'S DANGER OR THE DANGER'S MYTH? > > [quoted text clipped - 227 lines] > Stories:Philadelphia Inquirer (05/31) P. 10C; New York Times (05/31) P. A12; > Washington Post (05/31) P. A3 Gary I'm sorry but I didn't watch the preview of this message. In the line 26 of that posting, when I wrote: « That fact must be divided into two independent demonstrations D1 and D2, symbolized by: D1) AIDSHIV IS FALSE and D2) HIVAIDS IS FALSE. » I should have said, instead: *That fact must be divided into two independent demonstrations D1 and D2, symbolized by: D1) AIDS ==> HIV IS FALSE and D2) HIV ==> AIDS IS FALSE. * Karl > Gary, I much appreciate your concern about the discussed paper signed > by Koliadin in what that concern of yours reveals a rare attitude [quoted text clipped - 375 lines] > > Stories:Philadelphia Inquirer (05/31) P. 10C; New York Times (05/31) P. A12; > > Washington Post (05/31) P. A3 > Gary I'm sorry but I didn't watch the preview of this message. > In the line 26 of that posting, when I wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> as AIDS or HIV in that posting and in all the thread, as you can watch >> by yourself. True however you are using the work to further your argument that HIV does not equal AIDS. >> However, the fact that AIDS does not equal HIV-seropositivity is >> another story and if you feel like it, I will bite the hook: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> stands for the acronym of *Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia* as you >> certainly know. Yes I am aware of ICL, however when a close look is given via retrospective studies of ICL patients they DO NOT follow the same disease progression as do AIDS patients and thus are not useful in showing anything about the HIV=AIDS discussion. >> However, the effort to set apart HIV-positive from HIV-negative AIDS >> cases (ICL) is not based on any clinical or convincing epidemiological [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> camera, just facts. New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 328: >> 429-431. ] Just so, see above which is one of the reasons Fauci makes the above statement. >> Yet, paradoxically, at the same time, the proponents of the HIV >> hypothesis, including Fauci himself, insist that HIV must be the >> common cause of the 29 heterogeneous AIDS diseases. Where is the >> coherence? How do these two positions assumed by the same "orthodoxy" >> in AIDS stick together? No where will you find a mainstream HIV researcher or medical doctor making the claim that HIV is the cause of the opportunistic infections that effect AIDS patients. That you say this is so shows your wish to muddle the waters of this discussion with strawman arguments. HIV disease cause the bodies immune function to decline to the point were it becomes susceptible to opportunistic infections that are only seen in people with very badly damaged immune responses. >> To prove [D2] we better prove first that seropositivity means always >> HIV infection. At this point, everybody knows that a gold standard is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> knows, with any precision, the percentage of false positives among >> PWA. The only ones who seem to know that the so called "Gold Standard" of isolation is required to diagnosis and characterize a viral infection is the dissident movement. There are any number of viral diseases that are commonly diagnosed, treated, and accepted by such luminaries as the Perth Group as being viral diseases that have never been isolated using the Perth Groups Gold Standard. You need only use Google to read any of the 1000 or more posts to this news group made by Doctor Nick Bennett PhD or Doctor Holtzman of NYU School of Medicine to see that what I say is so. >> Contrarily to what happens in other disease proceedings where the >> microbe isolation is the only way to ascertain about any positive [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Godfathers in the Big Pharma business but it is Scientifically insane >> and a inherited shame for the future generations. Isolating a microbe and isolating a virus are not in any way comparable and that you use the term microbe is again a sign that you have not done your homework. PCR is not a 'trivial' test by any standard it is highly accurate and the other issue with both PCR and CD4 testing that dissidents want to ignore are the tens of thousands of case histories that have been studied retrospectively that show a extremely strong consistent correlation between those markers and disease progression and patient health thus showing beyond doubt that what they are measuring is in fact important data as regards HIV disease and the progression to AIDS. >> However, even in that tautological official scenario, it happens that >> there are thousands of HIV antibody-positives that are still alive >> twenty years before being tested. However it is rather difficult to >> assume that they will never die not only because nobody lives forever >> but mainly because AID Syndrome's spectrum is sufficiently large to >> allow any contestant criteria. There have been several recent studies that went back and took at look at those patients labeled long term non-progressors during the mid 1990's and they found that the estimate made during those studies that up to 10% of AIDS patients might fall under that heading to be overly optimistic and the revised number is 5% or less. So while yes there are some people who's immune system is able to fight HIV with out medication that is so for every disease known to mankind and should not be a surprise to anyone. The fact that they are such a small percentage shows just how deadly HIV is when comparing it to other diseases. >> In [D2] I'm going to be backed up by another work of V. Koliadin where >> in between four main hypothesis about AIDS and HIV correlation he >> chooses by mathematical enforcement the only one that states that >> seropositivity is not contagious being "HIV" just a marker of >> deteriorated health, which contradicts the official paradigm that >> HIV-seropositivity causes opportunistic AIDS-defining diseases. I can not imagine any mathmatical method that could show such to be the case. >> Before anything else, I must ask you: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> African Country in our African study). Do you know why the last >> statement is so evident? No please enlighten me, I can not imagine what you are referring to here. >> Now, it's here that really enters the announced work signed by >> Koliadin: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> NOT >> CONTAGIOUS. Quod erat demonstrandum (q.e.d.). The above logic is so completely flawed that I don't even no were to begin explaining the errors in the assumptions you are making. Suffice it to say that no matter how many oranges you study you will learn nothing about onions. That in essence is what you are doing in the above statement somehow you draw a conclusion about seropositives based on comparing the mortality rates of seronegitives in Uganda and the US, that is completely nonsensical you can make no assumptions about seropositives or the presence of HIV in any population by studying the mortality of seroneagitives, hope that helps. Gary Stein You said: «Yes I am aware of ICL, however when a close look is given via retrospective studies of ICL patients they DO NOT follow the same disease progression as do AIDS patients and thus are not useful in showing anything about the HIV=AIDS discussion.» But Gary, how can HIVnegative/ICL patients follow the same disease progression as the homologues HIVpositive/AIDS patients since both groups follow such different therapies? You cannot dissociate therapies from disease progression otherwise your statement is obviously flawed. The 8th AIDS Congress in Amsterdam was the stage of the making up resurgence of one more mystification which consisted at that time in calling ICL to AIDS without HIV, and doing that, an artificial change in the evolution of the syndrome was obviously promoted. This is one more déjà vus' where simple implementations of new definitions in AIDS can artificially alter its progression as we both have seen yet possible in a study signed by Koliadin you have promised to study. ( http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm ) The relevance of ICL in HIV/AIDS discussion entangle with the fact that quite a few laureate scientists believe that HIV might not be involved in the AID Syndrome. Be it the case, all PWA/HIV+ must know, for instance, the mortality taxes in between ICL comparing with PWA/HIV+ either using Anti Retro Virals or not, in order to choose alternatives to the irreversible dangers of ARV. All PWA/HIV+ must also be acquainted with the therapies applied to AIDS in between seronegatives (ICL), unless it might be another taboo. You said: «The only ones who seem to know that the so called "Gold Standard" of isolation is required to diagnosis and characterize a viral infection is the dissident movement. There are any number of viral diseases that are commonly diagnosed, treated, and accepted by such luminaries as the Perth Group as being viral diseases that have never been isolated using the Perth Groups Gold Standard. You need only use Google to read any of the 1000 or more posts to this news group made by Doctor Nick Bennett PhD or Doctor Holtzman of NYU School of Medicine to see that what I say is so.» But Gary, you are about to be true, BUT the fact is that there is no other illness or syndrome that has determined such a loud controversy among the wiser Medical scientists dealing with the HIV. Besides the Perth Group others have followed, at least, Robert Giraldo in this extent. In fact there are 60 identified cross reactions that may produce seroconvertions. The truth about any medical discovery can be taken seriously if and only if there might not be so many obvious money interests around. In fact, the stato quo has too much overestimated HIV either with alarmist positions or with fudged arguments. You said: «Isolating a microbe and isolating a virus are not in any way comparable and that you use the term microbe is again a sign that you have not done your homework. PCR is not a 'trivial' test by any standard it is highly accurate and the other issue with both PCR and CD4 testing that dissidents want to ignore are the tens of thousands of case histories that have been studied retrospectively that show a extremely strong consistent correlation between those markers and disease progression and patient health thus showing beyond doubt that what they are measuring is in fact important data as regards HIV disease and the progression to AIDS.» I don't make such primary confusion between a virus and a microbe; but apparently many doctors do, when prescribing antibiotics to treat common colds and flu. I used the term microbe in a rather slang connotation as others would have chosen Bug', much simply. I never said that PCR is a 'trivial' test. When I referred trivial' it's implicit that I meant Elisa and WB tests. *Consistent correlation* is by no means the same as *Unequivocal causation*, and this seems to be the outworn leit motif' of this thread without any consistent reply of yours. It's World known that CD4 counts can be dramatically lowered owing to many different conjugated causes that even might not have to do with such HIV retroviruses, such as: Psychological and Physical stress, depression, social isolation, mal nutrition, systemic failures of several organs, traumatisms, etc. Those entire events link directly with meaningful rises of CORTISOL in the blood, 'a fortiori' when those factors act synergistically altogether. You said: «There have been several recent studies that went back and took at look at those patients labeled long term non-progressors during the mid 1990's and they found that the estimate made during those studies that up to 10% of AIDS patients might fall under that heading to be overly optimistic and the revised number is 5% or less. So while yes there are some people who's immune system is able to fight HIV with out medication that is so for every disease known to mankind and should not be a surprise to anyone. The fact that they are such a small percentage shows just how deadly HIV is when comparing it to other diseases.» No. HIV is not deadly. HIV is harmless, following the main ideas of Peter Duesberg in this matter. HIV is just a marker of compromised health. Also, it seems that the single most important obstacle in finding the explanation for AIDS is the belief in HIV. Once again we ought to covenant that we must not confound *positive correlation* with *causation*, anymore--the very first lesson of any elemental course of Statistics. HIV is the allopathic medicine's main alibi to hide its real incompetence in curing several infections when appearing altogether owing to namely chronic anti-hygienic life stiles (physical, psychological or spiritual), in body terrains more and more debilitated and immune compromised. In this extent, for our orientation sake, we must not forget that allopathic medicine still doesn't know how to cure a simple common cold caused by a virus (!). To imagine what's happening with AIDS it's enough to multiply that simple common cold's virus by hundreds of other incurable miscellaneous combinations between several diseases that can be easily caught insidiously by super anti hygienic life stiles. However, it's becoming part of the AIDS mainstream busine$$ not to mention those deadly cocktails all gathered under the same nickname: HIV. You said: «The above logic is so completely flawed that I don't even no were to begin explaining the errors in the assumptions you are making. Suffice it to say that no matter how many oranges you study you will learn nothing about onions. That in essence is what you are doing in the above statement somehow you draw a conclusion about seropositives based on comparing the mortality rates of seronegitives in Uganda and the US, that is completely nonsensical you can make no assumptions about seropositives or the presence of HIV in any population by studying the mortality of seroneagitives, hope that helps. Gary Stein » Gary, you must be more unobtrusive when dealing with a subject that has been already debated in this forum a couple of years ago. At least you should have studied the subject before using such rustic comments, but you didn't. You didn't even read the link I fruitless tried to put in a language that even a twelve year old kid might understand. Instead, you tried to depreciate my attempts to make Koliadin's paper a little bit more popular and "layman's friendly" with a minimum minimorum' misrepresentation's risks, although my intention was to catalyze the interest in reading Koliadin's paper itself. I just did it because I realized that very few people that use to read MHA postings can be actually at the disposal of trying to analyze graphics and tables crowded with numbers included in the link: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vkafrica.html On the other side, all the Biology's students know that in the face of several theories explaining a biological phenomenon, the more likely to be THE CAUSE of that phenomenon can be determined by different techniques from which the more famous is synthesized in the Bayes' Theorem that reintroduces the concept of Conditional Probability. However, following Koliadin's paper in reference, the method of rejecting three theories among four is even much simpler in its task to find the more likely relationship between HIV and AIDS. What is really--let us say-- a GENIUS kind of task in Koliadin's work is precisely the fact that he have studied AIDS causation not from the mortality in between Seropositives but from the mortality in between its complementar subset of a Ugandan population where HIV is not to be found--the Seronegative subset :o . It's almost unthinkable but actually it's the remarkable solution however strange it might appear to you while protesting with yours much familiar oranges and onions... I know several critics to this paper although none of them is sufficiently dissuasive towards the essential which is the conclusion that HIV is just a marker and not the cause of AIDS. I hope you try to reconsider the merit of Koliadin in this study. Karl ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Newton's binomial theory is as beautiful as the Venus de Milo. However, precious few people notice that. ohohoh ohohohohohohohohohoh ohohohohohohooooooooo. ... Fernando Pessoa (a Portuguese Poet) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Gary I'm sorry but I didn't watch the preview of this message. > > In the line 26 of that posting, when I wrote: [quoted text clipped - 216 lines] > > Gary Stein > You said: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > progression as the homologues HIVpositive/AIDS patients since both > groups follow such different therapies? Well it's quite simple actually ICL was identified very early on in the late 19880's and at that time there were lots (and there still are lots of untreated AIDS patients to study) untreated AIDS patients to study and compare to ICL patients. ICL patients progression was such that no treatment was ever needed nor have ICL patients needed treatment with the current anti-virals used for HIV treatment. ICL patients while they do show declines in CD4 counts those counts do not fall so low that the patients are in danger from the life threatening opportunistic infections faced by AIDS patients. > You cannot dissociate therapies from disease progression otherwise > your statement is obviously flawed. There is no need to do so. > The 8th AIDS Congress in Amsterdam was the stage of the making up > resurgence of one more mystification which consisted at that time in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have seen yet possible in a study signed by Koliadin you have promised > to study. As I have said in the past there were scientifically valid reasons for changing the definition of AIDS in 1993 that had absolutely nothing to do with the conspiracy theories of the dissident movement around that topic. > ( http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm ) > The relevance of ICL in HIV/AIDS discussion entangle with the fact [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > also be acquainted with the therapies applied to AIDS in between > seronegatives (ICL), unless it might be another taboo. There have been many retrospective studies of untreated AIDS patients that can be used to compare there disease progression to untreated ICL patients and the simple fact is that ICL patients have a mortality rate that is not statistically significantly higher then the general population of there home country while untreated AIDS patients mortality rates are around 90+% thus there simply can be no valid comparison between ICL and HIV/AIDS. Hope that helps. Gary Stein > You said: > «The only ones who seem to know that the so called "Gold Standard" of [quoted text clipped - 406 lines] >> >> Gary Stein THE MYTH'S DANGER OR THE DANGER'S MYTH. Gary Please Virusmyth is far from being my Bible. I must half agree with you just on the base that not everything there is peer reviewed. BUT, in the work that we are talking about [see the link again--> ( http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm )--, its author, Vladimir Koliadin, is a mathematician that does nothing there but a mathematical demonstration merely based on official data. There are no such things as polemical concepts or theories in there; JUST NUMBERS. So a mathematical demonstration of this kind doesn't need to be peer reviewed. You are only supposed to criticize those numbers if you find them exaggerated or false; but you didn't because they deserve to be trusted or else it will be the complete chaos in CDC. So, in this work, either you have a Mathematical sensibility or you don't understand what is really happening there, no matter if it's written in English or Chinese. The fact that this work is very poorly known doesn't prove that it might be just fiction. I always recall the fact that the most famous work from Einstein The Theory of Restrict Relativityhave never been taken seriously until he won his second Nobel Price in Physics, never being him an academic as everybody knows. So, my question is: What is the wrong thing is Koliadin's demonstration work, according to your sensibility? I'm sorry but you have to answer that in order to keep everybody off all the dangers you refer mainly when it seams that anti retro viral therapies are completely checkmated with this work Karl > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Gary Stein Sadly Paul forgot to post my reply which neatly shows where the BS is in this story.... The Perth Group have not replied to this rebuttal. Clearly they cannot. The latest debacle is unfolding even now...keep watching and reading. If the BMJ censors decide my post isn't too libelous it'll be great reading :o) Bennett *************** "CD3 CD4 and all the more modern names..." I never questioned that the CD4 receptor expression wouldn't alter, but I reiterate the fact that it is pivotal in the immune response. Both the acquired syndrome of AIDS, the rare condition of ICL, and inborne errors of immunity in humans and other animals have repeatedly underscored this. What has happened in the immunological field has been an explosion of detail, far surpassing anything from even 5 years ago and drastically refining our understanding (or complicating, depend on how you look at things) of the immune responses. The commentary quoted is from more than two full decades ago: the fact that my undergradate lectures in immunology were outdated three months after the lecturer wrote them speaks volumes about the rate of change in the field: the Perth Group would do well to re -acquaint themselves with the current understanding, as best as can be done. Janeway and Travers is a particularly well written volume. A case in point is the Perth Group's marvelously simplistic view of hypergammaglobinaemia. T Helper cells do all manner of things, basically to induce specific immunity from non-specific. What they fail to mention is that Th cells come in two sorts, Th1 and Th2 (in fact three, if we consider the naive Th0 cells). Th1 induces CD8 and macrophage type responses, Th2 induces antibody responses. The differentiation between Th1 and Th2 lead to the name "Suppressor T cells" seen in some journals, since depending on what function you look at, CD4 T cells will promote or suppress it. Far from CD4 (OTK4) being irrelevant, CD4 is only the tip of the iceberg! The "helper" is not so much to promote the immune responses as to prevent inappropriate activation by providing a second check of antigen presentation before giving a stimulatory signal. The important role isn't the stimulatory signal, it's the antigen check: once the B or CD8 cell is activated it no longer requires confirmatory CD4 T cell "help", and autoimmune diseases are examples of where this checkpoint has gone awry. What is massively clear in AIDS is that along with the decline in CD4 T cells as a whole there is a skewing of Th1 to Th2 responses such that antibodies are incorrectly promoted compared to cellular immunity. The same effect can be seen in lieshmaniasis and schistosomiasis, albeit on a smaller scale. The cytokine profile that causes this is probably why the thymic replacement of T cells is decreased in HIV infection, but maybe the Perth Group don't believe this either. It's a fact, indisputable, and by far the best explanation is HIV infection (not least because uninfected controls are, well, normal, and treatment with HAART reverses the problem). Nothing else from nitrates to the man in the moon is currently offered as a better explanation of this effect that is so clearly related to immune deficiency. CD4+ T cell decline in AIDS is not supposed to be purely cell death, except in the eyes of those trying to refute it. CD4 is downregulated by HIV infection through the actions of specific viral genes (vpu, nef), cell fusion through syncitium-inducing strains will also reduce functional CD4 "count" (and any argument that these fused cells are normal will be met with rolled eyes and derision). Since CD4 is crucial to the actions of Th cells in binding to MHC class 2 molecules, antigen recognition cannot possibly be expected to progress normally. In fact, AIDS is one of the great success stories of the CD-surface antigen field. For once a SPECIFIC subset of T cells does indeed seem to be affected distinctly from any other! Only specific genetic disorders such as Bruton's, Job's and Hyper IgM syndrome have shed similar light on the cascades involved in immunity (but of course the Perth Group favour cell-wide "oxidative" type effects over things like enzyme cascades and cytokine profiles). IRD is a transient phenomenon, not entirely unique to AIDS, as the Perth Group will well know having read all the available literature. They will also know from the same literature that not all AIDS-defining conditions have an associated IRD and in fact HAART is associated with a significant decline in AIDS-defining conditions in those treated versus untreated. They ignore this because it doesn't agree with their world view. In fact IRD is an effect of restored immune function, since those diseases which tend to flare up are those with an inflammatory component (e.g. CMV retinitis). I will quote from the 2004 paper that the Perth Group cite: "Suppression of HIV replication by highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) often restores protective pathogen-specific immune responses, but in some patients the restored immune response is immunopathological" "[HAART] has resulted in a sharp decline in the prevalence of opportunistic infections in HIV patients." "Secondly, a CD4 T-cell count below 50 X 10^6 cells/l is a major risk factor for IRD" One has to ask just how the person got a CD4 count of less than 50 per microliter prior to HAART, the normal range being at the lowest ten times greater! Contrary to what the Perth Group suggest, the return of specific anti -pathogen responses can be documented to explain the IRD, as is detailed in the very same article they cite. As far as I am aware people aren't dying from IRD in quite the same way they died from AIDS in the pre-treatment era. To imply or in fact state otherwise (the patient dies from "immune restoration disease", not AIDS) is not just misleading but downright untrue. What is a sad fact is that those infected with HIV are now living long enough to suffer from significant chronic side effects of the medications, and that unlike other conditions, AIDS-lymphoma risk is not affected by HAART. These reiterate that in this age of infection control we really have a tenous grasp of the reins, and the only way to prevent deaths from HIV is to prevent transmission. To that end, promoting it as a harmless passenger virus and undermining the importance of the HIV tests and antiviral drugs is extraordinarily reckless. The Perth Group have done no original research, have clearly little if any experience in the fields of molecular biology and virology and have a dubious grasp of basic medical tenets such as epidemiology. One has to ask the question why the Perth Group think themselves qualfied to continually question the HIV/AIDS paradigm despite clearly having their flaws and errors pointed out to them. I would understand a questioning viewpoint were it not based on a lack of understanding or knowledge, and if it actually fitted with the facts of the situation. I ask why the Perth Group refuse to acknowledge both the facts that have been repeatedly given to them, and their own errors. Quite simply they are mistaken in their understanding of medical science. Can the Perth Group refute the brief explanation I offered a few weeks ago of the mechanism by which HIV causes AIDS, by fitting their own proposals into the observed facts? I note that the corresponding author of French et al is based at the Royal Perth Hospital: perhaps they could pop in for coffee and a chat about basic AIDS science. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.