 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2004Does HIV cause AIDS?
The following are the arguments raised by those who believe that HIV does not cause AIDS: i) HIV is not in semen. It is actually found to a high degree in most investigations. ii) Viruses work exponentially to produce new virions and disease. This statement confuses virus in a cell, where this is true, with disease in individual. There are numerous examples of slow progressive viral diseases. iii) Viruses do not cause disease when neutralizing antibody is present. This is not true. There are examples of diseases which progress in spite of the presence of antibody. iv) Fewer than 1 in 10,000 T4 cells infected. The number is lower than originally stated but this is a problem. v) Few hemophiliacs get AIDS. They die of immune suppression by therapeutic blood proteins. HIV positive hemophiliacs get immune suppression but HIV negative ones do not. vi) Transfusion of HIV contaminated blood not been shown to give AIDS. In a Mexican study of 39 patients given HIV+ blood, AIDS occurred in 3% of the recipients within 12 months, 50% after 29 months, 75% after 36 months, 100% after 48 months. The mean survival time after AIDS onset was 9 months. i) HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates. Postulate 1: An infectious agent occurs in each case of a disease in sufficient amounts to cause pathology. It is said that there are many cases of AIDS without HIV, although it is to be expected that there would be other causes of immune suppression. There is the problem of the majority of uninfected T4 cells. Postulate 2: A specific infectious agent is not found in other diseases. This was later abandoned by Koch when it was found that one agent can cause more than one specific disease. Postulate 3: After isolation and culture, the infectious agent can induce the disease in another individual. In the case of HIV which only causes disease in humans, this is difficult to do as there is naturally a lack of volunteers. In the case of SIV, cloned virus does induce disease in healthy monkeys. This has now, in fact, been done with HIV as the result of the accidental infection of laboratory workers with cloned HIV. With regard to Koch's postulates, Duesberg has argued that the following criteria must be met to show that HIV causes AIDS 1. The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease. 2. It must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture. 3. It must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host. 4. It must be found in the experimental host so infected. It is now apparent that: 1. Virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-infected 2. HIV can be isolated from virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease 3. Health care and laboratory workers accidentally infected with concentrated purified HIV have developed AIDS 4. HIV has been isolated from many of these individuals It should also be noted that: 1. HIV has always preceded AIDS in a population. 2. HIV is the single common factor between AIDS sufferers who are gay San Franciscans, African female heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, children, intravenous drug users. 3. Within any risk group virtually only the HIV+ individuals get AIDS. It could be argued that all members of these groups are subject to immunosuppression but this is not the case with wives of hemophiliacs? 4. There is a better correlation between HIV and AIDS than between cigarettes and lung cancer. Summary of the abundant evidence that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS: 1. Before the appearance of HIV, AIDS-like syndromes were rare, today they are common in HIV infected people 2. AIDS and HIV are invariably linked in time, place and population group 3. The main risk factors for AIDS are sexual contact, transfusions, IV drugs, hemophilia. These have existed for years but only after the appearance of HIV, has AIDS been observed in these populations 4. Infection by HIV is the ONLY factor that predicts that a person will develop AIDS 5. Numerous serosurveys show that AIDS is common in populations with anti-HIV antibodies but is rare in populations with a low seroprevalence of anti-HIV antibodies 6. Cohort studies show that severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur exclusively in individuals that are HIV-infected 7. Persistently low CD4 counts are extraordinarily rare in the absence of HIV or another known cause of immunosuppression 8. Nearly everyone with AIDS has anti-HIV antibodies 9. HIV can be detected in nearly everyone with AIDS 10. HIV does fulfil Koch's postulates 11. New born infants with no behavioral risks develop AIDS if HIV infected 12. An HIV-infected twin will develop AIDS, while the uninfected twin does not 13. Since the appearance of HIV, mortality has increased dramatically among hemophiliacs 14) Studies of transfusion-acquired AIDS has repeatedly led to discovery of HIV in recipient as well as donor 15. Sex partners of HIV-infected hemophiliacs and transfusion patients acquire the virus and AIDS without other risk factors 16. HIV infects and kills CD4+ T cells in vitro and in vivo 17. HIV damages CD4 precursor cells 18. Body viral (HIV) load correlates with progression to AIDS 19. HIV is similar in its genome and morphology to other lentiviruses that often cause immunodeficiency, slow wasting disorders, neurodegeneration and death 20. Baboons develop AIDS after inoculation with HIV-2 that also causes AIDS in humans 21. Asian monkeys develop AIDS after inoculation with simian immunodeficiency virus Clearly, the correlations between HIV and AIDS are very striking indeed. snip >iv) Fewer than 1 in 10,000 T4 cells infected. The number is lower than >originally stated but this is a problem. It is higher--but it is one of the most vexing and annoying bits about this bullshit squabble about HIV. The reality is, it exists and it causes AIDS. But the denialist squealings prevent a discussion of HOW HIV causes AIDS. One observation is that many of the uninfected CD4+ lymphocytes that die are not infected. There are secondary mechanisms, such as oxidative stress, that play a role in this. Neurons aren't infected but undergo cell suicide (apoptosis)--again, due in part to inflammatory cytokine expression by cells that ARE infected (glial cells). Why is that important? Because there are therapeutic implications. For example, oxidative stress may be countered by antioxidant therapy. Partly why a multivitamin can slow disease progression and reduce mortality (as seen in a recent study in Thailand). Not a cure--but another way to address the disease that goes beyond JUST drugs for the bug. (Antiretroviral therapy CLEARLY has helped many of my friends with HIV. It is also artificially costly and, indeed, often carries unpleasant side effects that can be lethal in rare cases.) >v) Few hemophiliacs get AIDS. They die of immune suppression by >therapeutic blood proteins. HIV positive hemophiliacs get immune >suppression but HIV negative ones do not. Correct. I've had friends with hemophilia who died of AIDS. Because they had HIV. Thanks for the rest.... George M. Carter It is a bs squabble, no arguements with you there my friend. There are many factors involved with this disease like you stated. >v) Few hemophiliacs get AIDS. They die of immune suppression by >therapeutic blood proteins. HIV positive hemophiliacs get immune >suppression but HIV negative ones do not. It is also noted that a spouse or partner of a hemophiliac has never developed AIDS unless the hemophiliac was Positive and they were engaging in risky behavior, thus proving infectious agent. Bob Some of your points appear valid, some I am not knowledgable or confident enough to question, and the rest I take issue with. I would like to respond to some of your points. > i) HIV is not in semen (of HIV+ individuals) > It is actually found to a high degree in most investigations. In other words: 'HIV is not found in the semen of all HIV+ individuals.' > ii) Viruses work exponentially to produce new virions and disease. > This statement confuses virus in a cell, where this is true, with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > iv) Fewer than 1 in 10,000 T4 cells infected. The number is lower than > originally stated but this is a problem. Indeed. It is a problem. A serious problem with the HIV theory of aids. > Postulate 1: An infectious agent occurs in each case of a disease in > sufficient amounts to cause pathology. > It is said that there are many cases of AIDS without HIV, although it > is to be expected that there would be other causes of immune > suppression. There is the problem of the majority of uninfected T4 > cells. Indeed. A highly understated problem. Something the HIV/AIDS community seems hesitant to address. I am not sure why. > Postulate 2: A specific infectious agent is not found in other > diseases. This was later abandoned by Koch when it was found that one > agent can cause more than one specific disease. Correction: Postulate 2 - "The specific microorganism should be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture on artificial laboratory media." To the best of my knowledge, HIV has never be purified and isolated. It has only be "co-purified." Indeed I believe there is actually a cash reward available for the first man to isolate HIV. I do not understand why the reward has not yet been collected. > Postulate 3: After isolation and culture, the infectious agent can > induce the disease in another individual. > In the case of HIV which only causes disease in humans, this is > difficult to do as there is naturally a lack of volunteers. Exactly. It is difficult to do. Therefore difficult to prove causation. Therefore unproven. Therefore theory. > In the case of SIV, cloned virus does induce disease in healthy > monkeys. This has now, in fact, been done with HIV as the result of > the accidental infection of laboratory workers with cloned HIV. I would love to read about lab workers dying of AIDS proven to be induced by lab accidents. Please provide some more information. > It is now apparent that: > > 1. Virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-infected In other words: 'Not all aids patients are HIV infected.' > 2. HIV can be isolated from virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in > almost all seropositive individuals > with both early- and late-stage disease In other words, 'HIV cannot always be isolated from AIDS patients.' > 3. Health care and laboratory workers accidentally infected with > concentrated purified HIV have developed AIDS. All of them? How was this documented? > 4. HIV has been isolated from many of these individuals In other words: 'Not all.' > It should also be noted that: > 1. HIV has always preceded AIDS in a population. Aids existed before the HIV test, back when it was called gay-related-immuno-deficiency. Aids was observed, HIV was suggested. > 2. HIV is the single common factor between AIDS sufferers who are gay > San Franciscans, African female heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, children, > intravenous drug users. Such a statement cannot be made, especially after conceding that there are AIDS cases in which HIV is undetectable (see above.) > 3. Within any risk group virtually only the HIV+ individuals get AIDS. Only because aids is defined as requiring the presence of HIV in the first place. > It could be argued that all members of these groups are subject to > immunosuppression but this is not the case with wives of hemophiliacs? > 4. There is a better correlation between HIV and AIDS than between > cigarettes and lung cancer. Yet by your own admission there are exceptions where HIV cannot be isolated from AIDS patients. Does this not suggest additional possibilities? > 1. Before the appearance of HIV, AIDS-like syndromes were rare, today > they are common in HIV infected people TB, maleria, kaposi, influenza and all the other AIDS diseases have always existed. They were no rarer than today. The only difference is that, in the presence of a HIV+ test result, each of these diseases are instead diagnosed as “AIDS.” > 4. Infection by HIV is the ONLY factor that predicts that a person > will develop AIDS You use the word “only...” Yet by your own admission, there are situations where HIV is undetectable in AIDS patients. > 6. Cohort studies show that severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining > illnesses occur exclusively in individuals that are HIV-infected This is because the aids defining illnesses are defined as aids if HIV infection is noted. Otherwise the HIV negative patient is simply diagnosed with the underlying disease. It's like saying “blondes have fun.” Then a blonde-haired person speaks up and says that she doesn't have fun. One might respond to her by stating “Then you cannot be a blonde, because by definition, in order to be a blonde, you have fun”. > 7. Persistently low CD4 counts are extraordinarily rare in the absence > of HIV or another known cause of immunosuppression One might speculate, that in the absense of HIV, why might one even bother checking CD4 levels? Even if true, it is merely correlation. > 8. Nearly everyone with AIDS has anti-HIV antibodies In other words: 'HIV antibodies cannot be observed in all aids cases.' > 9. HIV can be detected in nearly everyone with AIDS In other words: 'HIV virus cannot be observed in all aids cases.' > 11. New born infants with no behavioral risks develop AIDS if HIV > infected Such statements cannot be scientifically corroborated, as it's unethical to deliberately inoculate a newborn with pure HIV. Therefore there are potentially other factors involved. Are you referring to crack-babies? It would not surprise me if they were born with severely weakened immune systems. > 14) Studies of transfusion-acquired AIDS has repeatedly led to > discovery of HIV in recipient as well as donor Repeatedly does not equate to 'invariably.' > 15. Sex partners of HIV-infected hemophiliacs and transfusion patients > acquire the virus and AIDS without other risk factors I would love to see independent studies on this. > 20. Baboons develop AIDS after inoculation with HIV-2 that also causes > AIDS in humans 'Barnett SW, Murthy KK, Herndier BG, Levy JA. An AIDS-like condition induced in baboons by HIV-2. Science 1994; 266: 642-6.' The definition of AIDS so intruiging because it is virtually bulletproof to counter-argument. Makes me wonder how an 'aids-like condition' is defined. > Clearly, the correlations between HIV and AIDS are very striking > indeed. Fortunately, good science is never built on striking correlation; which is defined as a measurable association between variables. Essentially it's 'circumstantial evidence.' Correlations point to a need for greater understanding. Correlation is never enough to make sound, solid, useful conclusion. It is only enough to justify further investigation. Please excuse any typos or spelling mistakes I have made. Adrian. "In other words: 'HIV is not found in the semen of all HIV+ individuals." In a study conducted by the University of Washington, it was found that in a count of 100 semen samples taken from 16 HIV + men over a two-year period found live virus and enfectious virus 22% of the time. The appearance of the virus was intermittent, appearing in the semen from some men during one test, but absent when the same men were tested later. If the virus was found more frequently, then the transmission rate of the disease would be much higher, thus if not found as frequently, then the transmission rate would be much lower. This would explain why some people infect others at one time and don't at other times. The bad side of the findings is that there are no predictors present of who would and whould not be shedding the virus (Through their semen). A report of this study can be found in the Journal of Urology, a peer reviewed medical journal, September, 1995 issue. Seven men receiving various standard-of-care combinations of antiretroviral therapy or haart donated blood cells and semen specimens for analysis by sophisticated laboratory techniques. All of the men had undetectable viral loads in their bloodstreams, in this case meaning less than 50 copies of HIV per ml of blood. The group had been on haart for between five and 41 months. Their CD4 cell counts ranged from 100 to 1050. The cells from the peripheral (circulating) blood showed no detectable HIV rna, meaning that there was no detectable replication of HIV going on. Yet, in each person there was evidence of what is known as proviral dna-the form hiv's genetic code takes after it has infected a T-cell or macrophage and is lying dormant. In other words, even after three and a half years of successful haart (as measured by undetectable HIV), HIV was still lurking quietly in resting T-cells. So this far, nothing new. We already know that so far no one on haart has successfully eliminated HIV from the latently infected cells. These are probably those persnickety memory cells doing their job as the library or archives of the immune system, and have in so doing thwarted the hope of eradicating HIV, at least so far. New Findings Then the scientists looked at the semen. There was no rna and thus no evidence of any active HIV replication. Now this is a new finding. We have been worried that HIV can replicate in the testes and perhaps the brain, even while being totally arrested elsewhere, because of the body's mechanisms for protecting these two critical parts of our organism from outside attack. The "blood brain barrier" and the "blood testes barrier" tend to prevent most drugs including antivirals from crossing over or at least sharply diminish the amount. Theoretically, therefore, the haart drugs could fail to control HIV in the testicles because they could not penetrate there in sufficient quantity. Fortunately, this study shows no evidence that this is the case, though of course it can't be totally ruled out. There could have been some replication earlier on that was not detectable at the time of study. In four of the seven men, however, they found latently HIV infected cells in the semen (as measured by proviral dna, same as was found in the bloodstream T-cells). The next steps of the study were particularly elegant. The researchers compared the viral genotypes of the proviral dna in the bloodstream to the proviral dna in the semen-they were different. The latent virus isolated from the semen in the four men was still sensitive (not resistant) to the drug regimen each man was taking. Some of the latent virus in the bloodstream did have some resistant mutations. This was (a) a good sign that the virus lurking in the semen had not become resistant and (b) circumstantial evidence that it had been deposited there early in the course of each man's infection-and had not evolved since. Finally, the scientists analyzed the latent virus (referring to proviral dna, just to keep track of things here) for evidence of whether or not it might be infectious and transmissible to someone else. In three cases the virus found in the bloodstream was what they termed "replication-competent." In two of these, so was the latent virus in the semen. Replication competent means that given the right conditions, this hiding genetic code could start producing active, infectious HIV again. Furthermore, it was coded for the type of HIV that is most infectious. "Indeed. It is a problem. A serious problem with the HIV theory of aids." After seroconversion, progressors showed a substantial reduction in the pre-seroconversion T-cell development capacity as measured by CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell development in FTOC (Figure 3A). Longitudinal analysis showed that a dramatic loss in T-cell development capacity occurred within 6 months of seroconversion for progressors (Figure 3C). The remaining T-cell development capacity was depleted during the subsequent years of infection preceding AIDS diagnosis. In contrast, LTNPs experienced a slower loss of progenitor development capacity after seroconversion at no time was the difference from pre-seroconversion statistically significant. After 8 years of infection, LTNPs retained 43.4% of their progenitor capacity compared with their pre-seroconversion level Development in FTOC did not correlate with the CD4+ T-cell count, the CD8+ T-cell count, plasma HIV RNA load, or T-cell reactivity to anti-CD3 antibody These data strongly support a role for the loss of progenitor function in CD4+ T-cell depletion and progression to AIDS. Journal of the American Society of Hematology. Blood, Vol. 96 No.1 (July 1), 2000: pp. 242-249 "Correction: Postulate 2 - "The specific microorganism should be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture on artificial laboratory media." To the best of my knowledge, HIV has never be purified and isolated. It has only be "co-purified." Indeed I believe there is actually a cash reward available for the first man to isolate HIV. I do not understand why the reward has not yet been collected." The first part of your statement has a logical explanation, one that Robin Weiss and Harold Jaffee thoroughly trounce this assertion in their commentary appearing in the June 21, 1990,issue of the British medical journal "Nature", citing the etiological agents of cholera, polio, and tuberculosis as well-known exceptions to the outdated postulates. They go on to explain that other researchers, following modernized versions of the postulates, have convicted HIV as the causative agent of AIDS. The second part of your statement about the reward, well in fact if you read up on Duesberg, you will see that he did the isolation and tried to claim the prize, considering he is one of your fellow dissenting scientists, you would think that would be acceptable, however the Perth group, wich by the way posted the reward, has set the guidelines to be impossible for any scientist to meet. So it goes unclaimed. The current cost of one of these so called studies is around 100,000 american dollars, have at it. Rather than trying to dispute the majority of scientific thinking on this entity, raise the funds, then isolate it. However if you go by the outdated postulates you will not succeed, The postulates have been revised to take in those exceptions such as cholera, polio, bartonella and tuberculosis. "Exactly. It is difficult to do. Therefore difficult to prove causation. Therefore unproven. Therefore theory." Robert Koch knew that certain pathogenic bacteria, in particular the tubercle bacillus, did not fully satisfy the criteria. In modern times, established pathogens such as poliovirus do not satisfy Koch's first or third postulate, i.e., the virus cannot be isolated from all cases and only a small proportion of infected persons develop disease. Duesberg and Ellison are wrong when they claim that no medical workers, accidentally infected, have developed AIDS. Till June 2000, 56 documented cases and 138 possible cases were reported to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA. Of the documented episodes, the majority of HCP were percutaneously exposed to HIV-infected blood. The percutaneous exposures most frequently involved hollow-bore and solid needlestick injuries; a few involved other sharp objects. Directely from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/Blood/hivpersonnel.htm The CDC site states As of December 2001, CDC had recieved reports of 57 documented cases and 138 possible cases of occupationally acquired HIV infection among healthcare personel in the United States since reporting began in 1985. "Iwould love to read about lab workers dying of AIDS proven to be induced by lab accidents. Please provide some more information." Go to the CDC site and there you will find the two documented cases of the laboratory workers dieing from AIDS. To be continued "i) HIV is not in semen. It is actually found to a high degree in most investigations. " A higher degree of not being found? Very interesting! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, do you even read the threads or just take a small piece and make sarcastic remarks. With that kind of scrutiny, no wonder none of the mainstream scientific community will never acknowledge the dissenting views with any kind of respect!! I'd like to follow up on your reply, Educatedconcerned9 > In a study conducted by the University of Washington, it was found > that in a count of 100 semen samples taken from 16 HIV + men over a > two-year period found live virus and enfectious virus 22% of the time. > The appearance of the virus was intermittent, appearing in the semen > from some men during one test, but absent when the same men were > tested later. Could this suggest flaws in the HIV testing process? Is it possible that HIV test results are not always necessarily reproducible? If so, this would be in addition to the fact that HIV cannot always even be found in aids patients. > If the virus was found more frequently, then the > transmission rate of the disease would be much higher, thus if not > found as frequently, then the transmission rate would be much lower. > This would explain why some people infect others at one time and don't > at other times. That is a good theory, and yes if true, it might explain your points. However, your theory is speculative. > Seven men receiving various standard-of-care combinations of > antiretroviral therapy or haart donated blood cells and semen [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > three and a half years of successful haart (as measured by > undetectable HIV), HIV was still lurking quietly in resting T-cells. How does this prove HIV-AIDS causality? All it suggests to me is that HAART might make it easier to pass certain HIV tests. It does nothing to validate HIV tests themselves, nor the HIV theory of aids. > New Findings > > Then the scientists looked at the semen. There was no rna and thus no > evidence of any active HIV replication. This statement assumes reverse transcription is relevant. Therefore it is assuming the HIV theory of aids. An assumption goes no ways towards giving credence. > Finally, the scientists analyzed the latent virus (referring to > proviral dna, just to keep track of things here) for evidence of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > infectious HIV again. Furthermore, it was coded for the type of HIV > that is most infectious. Analysis of what was identified as proviral DNA depends upon the assumption that retrovirii are at work. Again, this is assumption of the HIV theory. This is not proof of causation. It is only proof of belief in HIV theory. > "Indeed. It is a problem. A serious problem with the HIV theory of > aids." > > After seroconversion, progressors showed a substantial reduction in > the pre-seroconversion T-cell development capacity as measured by CD4+ > and CD8+ T-cell development in FTOC (Figure 3A). In the study you mention, two groups were used: Seven HIV+ who progressed to AIDS in one group, and seven long-term non-progressors (LTNP), defined as seropositive for more than 8 years without AIDS onset in the other. Your citation gives examples of HIV+ people who have developed, and have not developed aids. It appears that the point you're trying to make, is that in the instances where the HIV+ subjects do indeed progress to aids, the onset begins only after testing positive for HIV antibody. Based on this study alone, correlation cannot be justified, as there were LTNP subjects who did not fit the same model. Therefore the study is not of much value to your position. Even if correlation is nevertheless assumed, is it not possible that merely the knowledge of HIV+ status caused behaviour that lead to the onset of AIDS in the progressor group? This is far from proof that HIV is a biologically causative agent. > "Correction: Postulate 2 - "The specific microorganism should be > isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > polio, and tuberculosis as well-known exceptions to the outdated > postulates. “Further experiments compared the growth of 38 respiratory and lymph node M. tuberculosis isolates when subcultured on the two media. After 6 days of incubation, 21 of 38 isolates had grown on blood agar, and the mean number of colonies was significantly greater on blood agar than on the egg-based medium Blood Agar and Mycobacterium tuberculosis: the End of a Dogma J Clin Microbiol. 2003 April; 41(4): 1710–1711. doi:10.1128/JCM.41.4.1710-1711.2003. You said that TB is one of several pathogens that cannot be isolated and cultured as per postulate 2. Please briefly explain the June 21, 1990 assertion found in Nature in light of above citation April 2003. Let us remember though that this is a HIV-AIDS newsgroup, let us try and stay on topic as much as possible. > They go on to explain that other researchers, following > modernized versions of the postulates, have convicted HIV as the > causative agent of AIDS. In my opinion, faith is not proof of causation. > The second part of your statement about the > reward, well in fact if you read up on Duesberg, you will see that he > did the isolation and tried to claim the prize, considering he is one > of your fellow dissenting scientists, you would think that would be > acceptable I base my opinions on the merit of evidence, not loyalty to a certain view or individual. I am certainly not asserting that duesburg has all the answers. I just want to keep an open mind in light of lack of proof. It is a scientific duty. > however the Perth group, wich by the way posted the > reward, has set the guidelines to be impossible for any scientist to > meet. So it goes unclaimed. In what way are the guidelines “impossible” to meet? Surely they are only “impossible” to meet if no such aids causing particle exists? (I am not making such an assertion, merely exploring such a possibility) As far as I know, the guidelines themselves make no specific references to koch or his postulates. > The current cost of one of these so > called studies is around 100,000 american dollars, have at it. Rather > than trying to dispute the majority of scientific thinking on this > entity, raise the funds, then isolate it. As far as I can tell from what you've stated, the only inconveniences in meeting the guidelines, are either financial, or a matter of circumstantial ethics arising from human experimentation. Besides, if it only costs $100,000 (plus several selfless volunteer guinea pigs) to immediately silence the entire dissident movement... why has it not been done? > "Exactly. It is difficult to do. Therefore difficult to prove > causation. Therefore unproven. Therefore theory." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > first or third postulate, i.e., the virus cannot be isolated from all > cases and only a small proportion of infected persons develop disease. Asymptomatic polio is the most prevalent (95% I once read). Though severity depends upon the region of infection, essentially the disease is different, depending on the region of the body. Perhaps polio colonisation is the issue here in cases? Indeed similarly, MRSA can be found in the noses of over up to half the population, though only a tiny minority develop symptoms (colonisation, versus infection). This is because infection alone does not necessarily denote disease. The location of the infection is paramount in polio. Nevertheless, the existence of poliovirus is backed up by the effectiveness of the weaker vaccine (which has inadvertently caused polio in some cases no less!). Were an 'HIV vaccine' proven to inhibit AIDS onset (or even be proven to inadvertently cause AIDS) then dissidents would therein have little justification in demanding HIV purification. Until that day...! (I would rather avoid off topic disease if possible though.) > Duesberg and Ellison are wrong when they claim that no medical > workers, accidentally infected, have developed AIDS. I'm not attempting to advocate or defend Duesburg. In addition, as mentioned above, developing immuno-suppression post HIV+ test result is correlation, nothing more. > "Iwould love to read about lab workers dying of AIDS proven to be > induced by lab accidents. Please provide some more information." > > Go to the CDC site and there you will find the two documented cases of > the laboratory workers dieing from AIDS. Two? Only two? Respectfully, it doesn't seem worth my time. Two cases are hardly of representative value by which to draw useful conclusion. Adrian > I'd like to follow up on your reply, Educatedconcerned9 > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > assuming the HIV theory of aids. An assumption goes no ways towards > giving credence. You drop a hammer it falls to the ground I say gravity caused it to fall, your comment would be that I assumed gravity was involved and absent that assumption nothing was proved. Yet the hammer did in fact fall to the ground and the experiment can be reproduced by anyone with the strength to pick up a hammer. The dissidents are in no substantially different position when it comes to there arguments against the HIV=AIDS body of evidence. I would argue the there is vastly more data about HIV, it's genetic structure, retrospective data on actual patients and there outcomes, the ability of HIV to kill un-infected T-cells, the effects of anti-viral medications on disease progression and outcomes then there is that describes the cause of gravity. So do you dispute the existence of gravity a part of perceived reality that is significantly less understood then is HIV. >> Finally, the scientists analyzed the latent virus (referring to >> proviral dna, just to keep track of things here) for evidence of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to AIDS in one group, and seven long-term non-progressors (LTNP), defined > as seropositive for more than 8 years without AIDS onset in the other. The whole issue of LTNP's has undergone a complete re-evaluation over the last 2 years researchers all around the globe have gone back and reexamined the studies of the late 1980's to early 1990's that first coined the praise LTNP. What they found was not unexpected by anyone with a bit of common sense. So far out of all the studies that claimed to have identified LTNP's in the 1980's not a single patient could be found that would still meet the criteria to be classified as an LTNP. Of those identified in the 1990's the vast majority had indeed at some point progressed and no longer could be called LTNP's. HIV's ability to have vastly different progression rates across patient populations has been known from the beginning of the epidemic and contains extremes at both ends of the spectrum. There have been cases of deaths with in 12 months or less of infection and there are those who after 8, 10, 15, 20 years did not seem to be progressing. The conclusion of the studies that reexamined the LTNP issue is that we simply have not been following HIV for enough years to know what the outer range of time between infection and progression to AIDS is yet and that the LTNP phenomenon was basically a tempest in a teapot. Only one natural thing has been identified as definitively having any impact on progression rates and that is a genetic difference on one gene and even that is not present in even a majority of those who were classified as LTNP's. Nothing connects the LTNP's as a group except for the fact that there period of time from infection to progression is longer then the mean. It is now agreed that the most likely outcome of the continued study of this group is that the vast majority with either progress to AIDS at some point in the future or will die due to an accident or other unrelated to AIDS medical condition prior to progression to AIDS which due to some of your earlier arguments in this thread I am sure you will agree proves nothing about HIV. > Your citation gives examples of HIV+ people who have developed, and have > not developed aids. It appears that the point you're trying to make, is [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > the answers. I just want to keep an open mind in light of lack of proof. > It is a scientific duty. So what is it about Duesburgs arguments on Koch's Postulate and the isolation of HIV that you do not find convincing? >> however the Perth group, wich by the way posted the >> reward, has set the guidelines to be impossible for any scientist to >> meet. So it goes unclaimed. > In what way are the guidelines “impossible” to meet? Surely they are only > “impossible” to meet if no such aids causing particle exists? (I am not > making such an assertion, merely exploring such a possibility) In that there is not a single person who is a member of the Perth Group who is a trained virologist, or epidemiologist, or anyone who has any formal training in virus isolation, Nor does any member have any formal advanced training in electron- or any other molecular imaging technology. Why is it that you find them qualified to argue for there standard which for all intents and purposes is a creation of the Perth Group in that they can site no single source for the exact specification for isolation or visualization that they claim as the 'Gold Standard'? It seems significantly un-scientific for a group holding a minority position on a scientific question to insist that the majority must follow there premise in order to prove them wrong. It is most commonly, dare I say 99.9999% of the time just the opposite. Those with minority theories must show the majority of the scientific community using methods agreed on and set by the majority and (and this is key) repeatable by any member of the majority who endeavors to test the disputed theory before such a minority opinion has the ability to become a majority opinion. > As far as I know, the guidelines themselves make no specific references > to koch or his postulates. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > guinea pigs) to immediately silence the entire dissident movement... why > has it not been done? Again why would you think it the responsibility of the scientific community which overwhelmingly accepts the HIV=AIDS view to prove wrong what in essence is a theory put forth by a small group of scientists on a topic none of them are qualified by there training to speak on? Shouldn't it be the Perth Groups responsibility to prove to the rest of the world that there theory is in fact the correct one. As strongly as they have argued there point over the years it would seem to me that at least some of them are utterly positive that there theory is correct. Well it is not unheard of for scientists with passionately held beliefs to experiment on themselves to prove there point, many drugs have in fact been tested in this way in the past. It would not seem unreasonable for some members of the Perth Group to go public and on live TV have a neutral scientific group inject them with what the majority view claims is isolated HIV virus and see what the out come is. This to would quickly and conclusively put the argument to rest why hasn't it been done? >> "Exactly. It is difficult to do. Therefore difficult to prove >> causation. Therefore unproven. Therefore theory." [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Until that day...! That day has in fact already occurred in that any lab that studies HIV could with in a matter of hours prepare for you an injection that would without question produce and HIV infection that left untreated would progress to AIDS. There have been if memory serves at least two lab accidents in HIV research labs that resulted in HIV infection that are documented on the CDC website as further proof this could be done simply and without much trouble should any dissident with the courage of their convictions step forward and volunteer. > (I would rather avoid off topic disease if possible though.) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Two? Only two? Respectfully, it doesn't seem worth my time. Two cases are > hardly of representative value by which to draw useful conclusion. Why not, NASA spent over a decade sending people into space on the shuttle and during every launch some of the insulating foam on the main liquid fuel tank fell off and impacted on other parts of the space craft never causing any problems for the system as a whole. Then one day a chunk fell off and impacted the wings leading edge. This one incidence which only in your way of thinking took the lives of one shuttle crew out of the hundreds that had traveled before them. Yet NASA has now grounded the Space Shuttle and is spending Billions of Dollars in order to prevent this single thing from happening again. In our argument two highly trained professionals documented an accident that resulted in there infection with HIV and you ignore the evidence by saying "Only two?... Two cases are hardly of representative value by which to draw useful conclusion". Yet you say just before that "Were an 'HIV vaccine' proven to inhibit AIDS onset (or even be proven to inadvertently cause AIDS) then dissidents would therein have little justification in demanding HIV purification" my reading of the preceding lead me to believe that if just one person got AIDS from a vaccine you would be convinced that HIV causes AIDS. So which is it just one accident of your design, or the two accidents documented by the CDC? In the mean time you and the rest of the dissident movement continue in your dissident views all the while encouraging leaders like South Africa's Mugabe and others around the world to agree with you. Thus sentencing those living under Mugabe's rule to die a horrible death because due to the dissident movements influence on him personally and his governments policies both directly and indirectly there have been many roadblocks set up to hinder the ability of South Africans to gain access to ARV medications? The dissident movement as evidenced by Paul King spews propaganda falsely claiming the use of a condom is more dangerous to an individuals health then is HIV, Kary Mullis tells patients that PCR can not be used in HIV medicine and should be ignored (even though there are 100's of thousands of retrospective studies of patients that show beyond doubt the direct correlation between Viral Load as measured by PCR and disease progression and outcome in AIDS patients. It is my personal belief that the dissident movement is so terrified of having to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of lives they are responsible for destroying that they would rather die them selves then admit that they have been proven wrong, sadly many of them already have, I hope it doesn't have to be that way for the rest of them. GAry Stein I would like to respond Gary, > You drop a hammer it falls to the ground I say gravity caused it to > fall, your comment would be that I assumed gravity was involved and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > substantially different position when it comes to there arguments > against the HIV=AIDS body of evidence. Gravity makes for a poor comparison, and here's why I believe so: Gravity is measurable as a constant. Gravity is consistent. HIV is measured as a variable. Circumstances surrounding the phenomenon of HIV are in my opinion far too inconsistent and speculative to be considered axiomatic. > I would argue the there is vastly more data about HIV, it's genetic > structure, retrospective data on actual patients and there outcomes, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > existence of gravity a part of perceived reality that is significantly > less understood then is HIV. As I said, I do not believe gravity makes for sound comparison. Though I do not deny the wealth of research, time and money that has gone into collecting data on HIV as you state. Yet, wealth of research alone does not make for credibility. >> In the study you mention, two groups were used: Seven HIV+ who >> progressed to AIDS in one group, and seven long-term non-progressors [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to have identified LTNP's in the 1980's not a single patient could be > found that would still meet the criteria to be classified as an LTNP. In my opinion, finding LTNP's in the eighties might have been difficult, simply depending on how “a long term” is defined. Naturally if long term survival is defined as say, I dont know, seven years, then in order to be included in such statistics, seroconversion must have occured in 1983. This is because any seroconversion in 1984 or after, would require the subject to survive into 1990 as defined by a seven year survival definition. My point is that it comes down to how one defines long term. It is my understanding, that aids is meant to manifest between 1 and 15 years after seroconversion. If this is indeed the latent period, then a definition for a “long term” period would surely be greater than 15 years? No wonder it's so hard to find LTNP's given hiv+ status in the early eighties... they'd have to be an early case who survived into the mid to late ninties! > There have been cases of deaths with in 12 months or less of infection > and there are those who after 8, 10, 15, 20 years did not seem to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to AIDS is yet and that the LTNP phenomenon was basically a tempest in > a teapot. I agree in principal. The longer we wait, the closer we are to finding the outer range of time. The problem with the HIV latent period theory is that it was originally a year. Yet as people surpassed this survival milestone, the outer range was too shifted. To the point now where you say it can be 20 years. Of course, should that outer range ever continue to increase with time, to the point of it reaching average life expectancy as a maximum potential range, would one still be able to reasonably sympathise with HIV theory? > Nothing connects the LTNP's as a group except for the fact that there > period of time from infection to progression is longer then the mean. LTNP's are definitively connected by the lack of aids progression. One might reasonably hypothesise in addition, that LTNP's are also connected by behavioural, environmental or medical factors that have contributed to their survival. It is simply reasonable to speculate in this way, yet such views are too often dismissed because they go against the popular hypothesis. > It is now agreed that the most likely outcome of the continued study > of this group is that the vast majority with either progress to AIDS > at some point in the future ... > unrelated to AIDS medical condition prior to progression to AIDS which > due to some of your earlier arguments in this thread I am sure you > will agree proves nothing about HIV. The early 80's aids cases were predominantly limited to gays and iv drug users. Yet the same statements can be made, even today; aids is a gay and drug abusing phenomenon. HIV seems to be spreading (ever increasing HIV+ status), yet AIDS remains in the same original risk groups. Try as I might, I cannot find a rational explanation for this, without exploring the possibility that HIV might not be the causative agent. I certainly find myself unable to believe that a combination of heterosexuality and iv drug abstinence provides an climate under which HIV cannot cause aids onset. >> I base my opinions on the merit of evidence, not loyalty to a certain >> view or individual. I am certainly not asserting that duesburg has >> all the answers. I just want to keep an open mind in light of lack of >> proof. It is a scientific duty. > So what is it about Duesburgs arguments on Koch's Postulate and the > isolation of HIV that you do not find convincing? Respectfully, I will discuss issues pertinent issues only. I maintain that questioning mass assumption is not only good practice, but scientific duty. I do not see how anyone may suggest otherwise. >>> however the Perth group, wich by the way posted the >>> reward, has set the guidelines to be impossible for any scientist to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > any formal advanced training in electron- or any other molecular > imaging technology. Why is it that you find them qualified to argue That is a very politically charged question about who should and should not be listened to. I have a view on the matter, yet it is just that a view, a matter of politics. As such it takes us entirely out of the issue of HIVAIDS, and is therefore inappropriate. > It seems significantly un-scientific for a group holding a minority > position on a scientific question to insist that the majority must > follow there premise in order to prove them wrong. Science is not democratic. It is not dictated by majority preference. It is dictated by virtue of evidence alone, not popularity. > Again why would you think it the responsibility of the scientific > community which overwhelmingly accepts the HIV=AIDS view to prove > wrong what in essence is a theory put forth by a small group of > scientists on a topic none of them are qualified by there training to > speak on? In theory, the scientific community would not need take steps to prove dissidents wrong if they had already taken steps to prove their own research is right. Is this not a reasonable statement? > Shouldn't it be the Perth Groups responsibility to prove to > the rest of the world that there theory is in fact the correct one. I agree with you in principle. Any assertion making entity should bear the burden of proof. Of course in reality, HIV/AIDS gets all the funding, and alternative perspectives do not. Thusly in reality, I find it hard to agree, as a balanced view cannot be presented in the current climate. > As strongly as they have argued there point over the years it would > seem to me that at least some of them are utterly positive that there [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > out come is. This to would quickly and conclusively put the argument > to rest why hasn't it been done? As far as I know, there are such reports, however the product of such experimentation is only ever anecdotal evidence. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22inject+himself%22 +hiv&btnG=Search Besides, even if such an experiment has been conducted a decade ago, we'd all still be waiting a second decade for the 20 year latency period to expire. By which time one might suspect that the official latency period will have moved up a further ten years..... >> Nevertheless, the existence of poliovirus is backed up by the >> effectiveness of the weaker vaccine (which has inadvertently caused [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > would without question produce and HIV infection that left untreated > would progress to AIDS. Lab accidents are anecdotal evidence, not controlled scientific experiment upon which useful conclusion can be derived. Even a ratio of AIDS:LTNP for HIV lab accident seroconversions would be useless because one would be required to wait for the 15 year latent period to expire. 15 years is an awful long time to spend in lab conditions in order to eliminate cofactors. >>> Go to the CDC site and there you will find the two documented cases >>> of the laboratory workers dieing from AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > NASA has now grounded the Space Shuttle and is spending Billions of > Dollars in order to prevent this single thing from happening again. I do not need to because even in assuming that two lab workers indeed did develop aids after HIV onset, it does nothing to prove HIV-AIDS causation. I am quite happy to believe two lab workers developed aids, not that it's conclusion drawing grounds. I enjoyed the nasa analogy however! > In our argument two highly trained professionals documented an > accident that resulted in there infection with HIV and you ignore the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reading of the preceding lead me to believe that if just one person > got AIDS from a vaccine you would be convinced that HIV causes AIDS. The lab worker 'evidence' is identical to presenting a pair of people who developed cancer after beginning to drink coca cola as 'coca cola cancer causation evidence.' In my mind, this is bad science. Similarly, if you presented 5000 people who developed cancer, 4500 of whom were known to have started drinking coke prior to disease onset, I would be justified in examining coke as a possible cause. On the other hand, if just one person taking a high dose of HIV (or coke) under lab conditions, never developed aids (or cancer), then I would be convinced that HIV (or coke) alone is not guaranteed causation. That is a reasonable view to take. All that remains is to debate how high a dose would be required. My current stance is not that I am convinced, but that I am interested in exploring alternatives as possibilities in light of lack of proof of either. How else can one make informed conclusion? > In the mean time you and the rest of the dissident movement continue > in your dissident views all the while encouraging leaders like South [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > many roadblocks set up to hinder the ability of South Africans to gain > access to ARV medications? Attempting to appeal to ones conscience in that way depends on their subscribing to your notions of causation. > The dissident movement as evidenced by Paul King spews propaganda > falsely claiming the use of a condom is more dangerous to an > individuals health then is HIV Paul king is certainly either persistent isn't he! I had no idea that benzene could be a condom constituent until his propaganda suggested so. I am interested in looking into the matter, though with such high condom usage, one might ask why everybody isn't getting ill? > It is my personal belief that the dissident movement is so terrified > of having to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of > lives they are responsible for destroying that they would rather die > them selves then admit that they have been proven wrong You are invited to present proof, encouraged even. It is exactly what would benefit both sides of the debate! >It is my personal belief that the dissident movement is so terrified of >having to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of lives >they are responsible for destroying that they would rather die them >selves then admit that they have been proven wrong, sadly many of them > already have, I >hope it doesn't have to be that way for the rest of them. Are there hundreds of thousands of 'dissident following' AIDS sufferers? There have certainly been hundreds of thousands of AZT users (most now dead or dying). How many people survive long term AZT use? Adrian (snip) > Are there hundreds of thousands of 'dissident following' AIDS sufferers? > There have certainly been hundreds of thousands of AZT users (most now > dead or dying). How many people survive long term AZT use? > > Adrian There are hundreds of thousand of AIDS patients like my self who have been taking AZT daily since 1995 and I have had no side effects that can be associated with AZT use. AZT is still the single most widely prescribe antiviral medication. During the first few years of AZT use it was prescribed in doses much higher then is common today and did cause fatal anemia is a small percentage of patients other then that I am not aware of any data that shows AZT to have a greater number of adverse events then the vast majority of prescription drugs on the market. Gary Stein snip >In my opinion, finding LTNP's in the eighties might have been difficult, >simply depending on how a long term is defined. Naturally if long term [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >subject to survive into 1990 as defined by a seven year survival >definition. Well, there are ample data since then and the term "Long Term Non Progressor" didn't really come into vogue until the early 90s. However, it is not surprising that some people might not develop disease--what is surprising and unfortunate is that HIV disease almost ALWAYS results in progression, unlike diseases like hepatitis C, Ebola infection, 'flu, TB, etc. Indeed, LTNP should probably be changed to LTVSP for "very slow" instead of "non." The study below indicates very gradual progression in one cohort. The second study suggests at least one mechanisms for the delay in progression arising from immunological control. George M. Carter ** Rodes B, Toro C, Paxinos E, Poveda E, Martinez-Padial M, Benito JM, Jimenez V, Wrin T, Bassani S, Soriano V. Differences in disease progression in a cohort of long-term non-progressors after more than 16 years of HIV-1 infection. AIDS. 2004 May 21;18(8):1109-1116. Department of Infectious Diseases, Hospital Carlos III, Madrid, Spain. BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether resistance to immunologic damage in long-term non-progressors (LTNP) will last indefinitely or whether it merely represents the extreme of a Gaussian distribution, and therefore progression will occur eventually. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort of 19 LTNP was established in 1997. Plasma viraemia and CD4 cell counts were measured two to three times each year until 2003. Analyses of nef and vpr viral genes, CCR5 genotypes, co-receptor tropism, viral replication capacity, and immunological parameters were performed. RESULTS: Twelve subjects (non-progressors, NP) showed stable CD4 cell counts over the 6-year follow-up, while seven (slow progressors, SP) showed a trend towards progressive CD4 cell depletion; however, only three SP experienced significant CD4 cell count declines. All SP had detectable plasma HIV-RNA (median 1118 copies/ml). In contrast, five of 12 NP had always undetectable viraemia. Only one patient showed a deletion in nef. The vpr R77Q change was recognized in seven patients. All patients were infected with R5 viruses. The virus replicative capacity was reduced in all tested individuals (range 5-93%). None of the patients was homozygous for the delta-32 CCR5 genotype, which was found in heterozygosis in three. CD8 T-cell activation was low in all but three individuals, all of whom had detectable viraemia and showed progressive CD4 cell depletion. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses were similar to those found in a control group of HIV progressors. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of LTNP show low-level virus replication and progressive loss of CD4 T cells over time. Progressive immunologic damage seems to be directly associated with some degree of virus replication and T-cell activation. ** den Uyl D, van der Horst-Bruinsma IE, van Agtmael M. Progression of HIV to AIDS: a protective role for HLA-B27? AIDS Rev. 2004 Apr-Jun;6(2):89-96. Department of Rheumatology, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam, The Netherlands. HLA-B27 is known for its strong association with inflammatory spondyloarthropathies (SpA), a group of rheumatic diseases. Apart from playing its role in the onset of these inflammatory diseases, HLA-827 is so ubiquitous in the world that the carrying of this gene must have also have an advantage. There are some indications that a beneficial effect can be found as a less severe course of viral infections among B27-carriers. The literature on this subject was reviewed and revealed a favorable course of infection with influenza virus, herpes simplex type 2 virus, Epstein-Barr virus and, even more interesting, a protective effect of HLA-B27 in the progression of HIV infections. The course of HIV infection differs among individuals and is thought to be partly related to host-factor variability, reflecting broad genetic heterogeneity. The polymorphic human leukocyte antigens (HLA) are herein analyzed intensively with respect to this relationship. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) responses, activated by HLA antigen presentation, are implicated in the control of HIV replication. An immunological explanation for the protective role for HLA B27 in HIV disease is that B27+ patients have a specific and strong CTL response against the p24 epitope, a conservative HIV protein that does not easily mutate. Some HLA genes seen in long-term non-progressors (LTNP) (>10 years disease free) are associated with a favorable prognosis. One of the alleles found predominantly in LTNPs is HLA-B27. More genetic factors seem to influence disease progression in HIV infections. Therefore, it would be interesting to further explore the influence of the genetic make up of these HIV-infected individuals. Knowledge of the immunogenetic profile might give clues for the individual course of the HIV infection, may influence the development of drug-resistant viruses and will possibly lead to a tailored therapeutic strategy in HIV-infected persons. > I would like to respond Gary, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > variable. Circumstances surrounding the phenomenon of HIV are in my > opinion far too inconsistent and speculative to be considered axiomatic. HIV is measured by Viral Load a repeatable number that has been extensively proven to directly relate to diease progression and patient outcome by the retrospective study of tens of thousands case histories of HIV/AIDS patients. >> I would argue the there is vastly more data about HIV, it's genetic >> structure, retrospective data on actual patients and there outcomes, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > collecting data on HIV as you state. Yet, wealth of research alone does > not make for credibility. If data that is consistent, repeatable and conclusive it is the foundation of the scientific principal. What besides data does a scientist use to elucidate a theory? >>> In the study you mention, two groups were used: Seven HIV+ who >>> progressed to AIDS in one group, and seven long-term non-progressors [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > milestone, the outer range was too shifted. To the point now where you > say it can be 20 years. This is how science works as more data is made available overtime scientist adjust there understanding as the data leads them to do so. > Of course, should that outer range ever continue to increase with time, > to the point of it reaching average life expectancy as a maximum > potential range, would one still be able to reasonably sympathise with > HIV theory? No I would concede then that LTNP was a valid term. >> Nothing connects the LTNP's as a group except for the fact that there >> period of time from infection to progression is longer then the mean. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > such views are too often dismissed because they go against the popular > hypothesis. I acknowledged that when I said "except for the fact that there period of time from infection to progression is longer then the mean". What I am saying is that the LTNP's have been researched so throughly that no connections regarding behavioural, environmental or medical factors that have contributed to their survival have been found. >> It is now agreed that the most likely outcome of the continued study >> of this group is that the vast majority with either progress to AIDS [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > believe that a combination of heterosexuality and iv drug abstinence > provides an climate under which HIV cannot cause aids onset. That is only pratialy true in the industrialized west and completly false in the rest of the world. Even in the US the population that is growing faster then any other is women of color not gay men. Yes more gay men still get infected each year then women of color but the gap is closeing and if the trend is not brought under control will surpass gay men in actual new cases within the next 10 years. >>> I base my opinions on the merit of evidence, not loyalty to a certain >>> view or individual. I am certainly not asserting that duesburg has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that questioning mass assumption is not only good practice, but > scientific duty. I do not see how anyone may suggest otherwise. You implied that you do not believe HIV has met Koch's Postulate I am asking what part of that Postulate do you feel HIV has failed to meet? >>>> however the Perth group, wich by the way posted the >>>> reward, has set the guidelines to be impossible for any scientist to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Science is not democratic. It is not dictated by majority preference. It > is dictated by virtue of evidence alone, not popularity. That is true however science is also a very conservative institution when viewed monolithically and it was that side of science I was addressing as you seem to understand in the next paragraph. Those scientists who are able to break out of traditional ways of thinking and blaze new frontiers are always met with huge amounts of skepticism and many spend years convincing there colleges that there new theory in fact invalidates the historic thinking on the subject of his work. Sometimes this does not take place until after the death of the innovative thinker. >> Again why would you think it the responsibility of the scientific >> community which overwhelmingly accepts the HIV=AIDS view to prove [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dissidents wrong if they had already taken steps to prove their own > research is right. Is this not a reasonable statement? The virology, epidemiological, medical, and research communities believe that that is in fact the case when it comes to HIV, it is only a handful of in my opinion cranks such as Mullis, Duesburg, and the Perth Group that disagree. >> Shouldn't it be the Perth Groups responsibility to prove to >> the rest of the world that there theory is in fact the correct one. > I agree with you in principle. Any assertion making entity should bear > the burden of proof. Of course in reality, HIV/AIDS gets all the funding, > and alternative perspectives do not. Thusly in reality, I find it hard to > agree, as a balanced view cannot be presented in the current climate. Many of Duesburg's and Mullis assertions could be turned into experiments for very little money yet neither has done any research or even applied for funding in over a decade as far as I can tell. Both are tenured Professors and have access to labs and lab assistants so I do not agree that they could not do work to at least show enough progress to be able to apply for more substantial funding if in fact any of there theories can be turned into repeatable experiments. Which due to there complete avoidance of this route of action one might assume even they know that they stand virtually no chance of proving the points via repeatable experiments. As for the Perth group they recognize that due to there complete lack of educational foundation in experimental sciences that relate to the topic of HIV/AIDS there ability to be funded is and should be very limited. The only real work they have done in the field is a literature review that took place years ago accompanied with there uninformed criticisms of the literature they reviewed. >> As strongly as they have argued there point over the years it would >> seem to me that at least some of them are utterly positive that there [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > expire. By which time one might suspect that the official latency period > will have moved up a further ten years..... So you to doubt the ability of the Perth Group to conduct valid experiments on the topic of HIV and AIDS. It would seem not overly complex to design a study with control subjects and adequate monitoring of subjects for the duration of the test to conclusively show that and injection of isolated HIV produced an HIV infection in the person who was injected. This is the first step in deconstructing the dissident belief system in that many dissidents claim HIV does not exist and even if it did it is not infectious. As to the time required for HIV to progress to AIDS yes this might be a problem but odds are fairly high that the test subject would fall on the short incubation period of the bell curve and could begin to show CD4 declines in as short a time as one to five years. It is my opinion that this would be expositive towards destroying the dissident belief structure. >>> Nevertheless, the existence of poliovirus is backed up by the >>> effectiveness of the weaker vaccine (which has inadvertently caused [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > years is an awful long time to spend in lab conditions in order to > eliminate cofactors. I was not talking about a lab accident I was asserting that any lab that has access to viable HIV could inject a subject with that HIV virus in a controlled environment and the patient would test postive for HIV withing weaks of the injections and would show signs of AIDS within 10 years or less (an incubation period of 10 or less years inculdes something on the order of 70% of all AIDS patients, it's been a while since I looked at that curve but that is what memory tells me is the case). >>>> Go to the CDC site and there you will find the two documented cases >>>> of the laboratory workers dieing from AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > developed cancer after beginning to drink coca cola as 'coca cola cancer > causation evidence.' In my mind, this is bad science. Can you name any other common factor or behaviour shared by the two Lab workers that has every been shown to have any relationship to HIV or AIDS. Are you saying that the CDC did not throughly investigate the two lab workers to rule out just such factors before publishing there conculsion that there exposure of HIV during there lab accidents was the single source of commonality and that no other factors were identified that could even remotly be associated with HIV? > Similarly, if you presented 5000 people who developed cancer, 4500 of > whom were known to have started drinking coke prior to disease onset, I > would be justified in examining coke as a possible cause. The old argument that breast milk leads to drug use while always good for a chuckle really is not remotely applicable to the cases in question. The CDC eliminated recreational drug use, gay sex, unsafe sex with partners how were not the persons primary partner, the sexual practices of both lab workers husbands or wives, the drug use or non drug use of the workers and there partners, there medical histories looking for STD's, chemical exposures that were common between the two lab workers, etc etc and concluded that the only risk for HIV that either lab worker had was exposure in there workplace limited to the actual accidents that exposed them to live HIV via needle sticks. This is a much more controlled risk environment then any of your analogies and frankly none of your analogies are remotely comparable. > On the other hand, if just one person taking a high dose of HIV (or coke) > under lab conditions, never developed aids (or cancer), then I would be > convinced that HIV (or coke) alone is not guaranteed causation. That is a > reasonable view to take. All that remains is to debate how high a dose > would be required. This is the experment I reccomended that the Perth Group undertake. > My current stance is not that I am convinced, but that I am interested in > exploring alternatives as possibilities in light of lack of proof of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Attempting to appeal to ones conscience in that way depends on their > subscribing to your notions of causation. There is no doubt that ARV prolongs the life of AIDS patients, the body of evidence for this is simply so vast and so conclusive that no one with an ability to understand the research can argue otherwise. So even if you do not agree on the causation of AIDS if your dissident statements encourage people to avoid testing and treatment you must assume responsibility for the subsequent shortening of the lives of those who took your advice. >> The dissident movement as evidenced by Paul King spews propaganda >> falsely claiming the use of a condom is more dangerous to an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am interested in looking into the matter, though with such high condom > usage, one might ask why everybody isn't getting ill? Yes latex has been around for decades and the amount of benzene contained in surgical gloves and workmen's gloves is orders of magnitude greater then that found in a condom so one would conclude that users of those products would be the first to exhibit symptoms and that has not happened. Even if some allergic reactions to benzene do take place to argue that that is more deadly then AIDS is absurd on it's face. Paul has been challenged to provide the number of people who have died from workplace exposure to benzene via latex products and has never done so, my guess is that no such data exists because it has never happened. >> It is my personal belief that the dissident movement is so terrified >> of having to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of >> lives they are responsible for destroying that they would rather die >> them selves then admit that they have been proven wrong > You are invited to present proof, encouraged even. It is exactly what > would benefit both sides of the debate! Well sadly the only type of proof available would be anecdotal such as doing a few name searches of known dissidents from the past in county death certificate records. Sadly you will find a large number of people who died from AIDS alone and rejected by there dissident friends because they turned to ARV in a last desperate attempt to save there lives. But sadly for most they had let the disease progress for so long untreated they were unable to reverse the damage and died. Thus enabling there dissident buddies to claim that it was the ARV medications that killed them not AIDS. Though when they make that claim they never talk about what health conditions the poor person was suffering with that caused them to turn to the medications. Nor do they explain why it seems to only be dissidents who are killed by only of month or two of ARV use when the vast majority of patient on ARV therapy have been on it for multiple years and are doing just fine. Many who had been disabled due to AIDS prior to the advent of PI containing drug regimens have regained there health to such and extent that they have been able to go back to work and lead nearly normal lives. Yet it seems that all dissidents who take ARV medication die with in months, could one assume that ARV treatment works when started at the medically appropriate stage of the patients progression to AIDS and that untreated AIDS is so virulent letting it have years to destroy the body is a sure way of committing suicide by neglect and denial. >>It is my personal belief that the dissident movement is so terrified of >>having to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of lives [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There have certainly been hundreds of thousands of AZT users (most now > dead or dying). How many people survive long term AZT use? See my first reply to this message for a reply to the above paragraph. Gary Stein "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in news:_d_vd.7707$DV3.1150@trnddc06: > During the first few years of AZT use it was prescribed in doses much > higher then is common today and did cause fatal anemia is a small > percentage of patients other then that I am not aware of any data that > shows AZT to have a greater number of adverse events then the vast > majority of prescription drugs on the market. Read the label and perform comparison. > Well, there are ample data since then and the term "Long Term Non > Progressor" didn't really come into vogue until the early 90s. Obviously. Since HIV was only made public in the early 80's, one cannot expect to observe 10+ year survivals until the 90's. > However, it is not surprising that some people might not develop > disease-- It is surprising to me: Doctors never say “You are HIV+, but there is actually a slim possibility you'll never actually develop aids.” Far from it. They recommend immediate and long term chemotherapy with chain terminators, the most toxic prescription drugs available. > what is surprising and unfortunate is that HIV disease almost > ALWAYS results in progression, unlike diseases like hepatitis C, Ebola > infection, 'flu, TB, etc. Except that HIV has not yet been proven to cause disease, that's the big difference. > Indeed, LTNP should probably be changed to LTVSP for "very slow" > instead of "non." Except “very slow” would suggest that AIDS is an inevitable consequence of HIV. Yet such an assertion is still unproven, and cannot be backed up with evidence. > The study below indicates very gradual progression > in one cohort. The second study suggests at least one mechanisms for > the delay in progression arising from immunological control. I am not denying 'very gradual progression.' I am questioning inevitable progression. >> Circumstances surrounding the phenomenon of >> HIV are in my opinion far too inconsistent and speculative to be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > patient outcome by the retrospective study of tens of thousands case > histories of HIV/AIDS patients. Viral load is measurable by PCR. The purpose of a PCR is to make a massive number of copies of a gene. Indeed what you are actually counting, are copies made in this process! You say that viral load is repeatable, and by this I am assuming you are asserting that the results are reproducible. This is not the case; not only do bDNA and PCR tests produce differing results, but repeated PCR's despite being accurate in nature, are used with unworkable guidelines... http://www.aids.org/factSheets/125-Viral-Load-Tests.html HOW ARE CHANGES IN VIRAL LOAD MEASURED? “Repeat tests of the same blood sample can give results that vary by a factor of 3. This means that a meaningful change would be a drop to less than 1/3 or an increase to more than 3 times the previous test result. For example, a change from 200,000 to 600,000 is within the normal variability of the test. A drop from 50,000 to 10,000 would be significant. The most important change is to reach an undetectable viral load.” I am unable to see how such a test can possibly ever be of any meaningful use in relation to aids. Not to mention that 'viral load' is not actually an accurate health indicator (CD4+ count is). >> As I said, I do not believe gravity makes for sound comparison. >> Though I do not deny the wealth of research, time and money that has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > foundation of the scientific principal. What besides data does a > scientist use to elucidate a theory? There is no conclusive evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Whilst there is indeed extensive data, coupled with theory elucidating hypothesis elucidating speculation. Put them all together, and they're pretty convincing, depending on who you present such an argument to. But it's still not proof, so it's still not science. >> I agree in principal. The longer we wait, the closer we are to >> finding the outer range of time. The problem with the HIV latent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This is how science works as more data is made available overtime > scientist adjust there understanding as the data leads them to do so. In over two decades, the HIV theory has not adjusted at all. Only HIV's justification has adjusted, and will continue to adjust with time no doubt as further speculation emerges. >> Of course, should that outer range ever continue to increase with >> time, to the point of it reaching average life expectancy as a >> maximum potential range, would one still be able to reasonably >> sympathise with HIV theory? > > No I would concede then that LTNP was a valid term. If I am cancer free smoker throughout life, would you call me a LTNP of cancer? What about if I die at a healthy age of 95, would you call me a LTNP of heart disease? I am confused by your definition of LTNP, as it suggests disease is ultimately either likely or even inevitable. “Long term disease free,” is not terminologically identical to “entirely disease free.” > I acknowledged that when I said "except for the fact that there period > of time from infection to progression is longer then the mean". What I > am saying is that the LTNP's have been researched so throughly that no > connections regarding behavioural, environmental or medical factors > that have contributed to their survival have been found. The original 80's risk groups were fast lane gays, IV drug users, transfusion patients and hemophiliacs. Those are still the high risk groups today. Aids seems to prefer them over heterosexuals. I'm talking about aids here, not HIV for the moment. Aids prefers the risk groups. Why? Seems as though only adequate research can answer this question. >> HIV seems to be spreading (ever increasing HIV+ status), yet AIDS >> remains in the same original risk groups. Try as I might, I cannot [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > is closeing and if the trend is not brought under control will surpass > gay men in actual new cases within the next 10 years. Immune suppression among gays hasn't been growing among gays since the early 80's. So it would be easy to identify another group “growing fastest.” I would hypothesise that AIDS among black americans is linked primarily to IV drug use. Thusly, black women are falling into one of the original risk groups, drugs. I maintain, HIV is spreading, but AIDS is not. If you can provide evidence of sub-200 CD4+ counts of African citizens, please do. All african aids figures I have ever seen are either estimates, or diagnoses made on visual examination alone. Which in my opinion is insufficient evidence. > You implied that you do not believe HIV has met Koch's Postulate I am > asking what part of that Postulate do you feel HIV has failed to meet? Most notably that HIV cannot always be found in an AIDS patient, and that HIV has not yet been proven to induce disease in a patient. Indeed the very existence of LTNP's suggests that HIV may not be causative. > Those > scientists who are able to break out of traditional ways of thinking [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sometimes this does not take place until after the death of the > innovative thinker. Such a theory will not invalidate anything, without scientific evidence. >> In theory, the scientific community would not need take steps to >> prove dissidents wrong if they had already taken steps to prove their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a handful of in my opinion cranks such as Mullis, Duesburg, and the > Perth Group that disagree. The communities believe? Are you saying that belief is enough? Is that what you call science? Just because my neighbor believes in pixies, does it make them real? Sorry but I need proof. I believe that the scientific community is irresponsible not to demand the same. >> I agree with you in principle. Any assertion making entity should >> bear the burden of proof. Of course in reality, HIV/AIDS gets all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > experiments for very little money yet neither has done any research or > even applied for funding in over a decade as far as I can tell. I read that duesburg's funding was axed immediately when he wanted to pursue alternative causative possibilities for aids. I never confirmed the anecdote however. Besides, in my opinion and as I previously stated, the burden of proof lies in the hands of those making the assertion. The HIV/Aids theorists have yet to offer proof of their assertions. It is not in my opinion the responsibility of duesburg to find the funding to disprove what has yet to be proven. What a world we live in. It is like suggesting that unless Adrian can prove that a god does not exist, then every scientist would be justified in assuming that a god does exist. What a burden! >> Besides, even if such an experiment has been conducted a decade ago, >> we'd all still be waiting a second decade for the 20 year latency [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So you to doubt the ability of the Perth Group to conduct valid > experiments on the topic of HIV and AIDS. I doubt the ability of the available data, to prove that HIV causes aids. I am interested in all bodies which are willing to explore alternative possibilities, after 20 years of unproven theory. Is thi8s not a reasonable view? 20 years of assumption is quite remarkable! > It would seem not overly > complex to design a study with control subjects and adequate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the dissident belief system in that many dissidents claim HIV does not > exist and even if it did it is not infectious. I would like to see this, however, disproving the HIV aids link in this way would be time consuming. One would be required to wait 20 (possibly more) for results. > As to the time required for HIV to progress to AIDS yes this might be > a problem but odds are fairly high that the test subject would fall on > the short incubation period of the bell curve and could begin to show > CD4 declines in as short a time as one to five years. The odds? Based on what constant? Remember, the objective is to prove HIV, not to apply HIV theory. >> Lab accidents are anecdotal evidence, not controlled scientific >> experiment upon which useful conclusion can be derived. Even a ratio [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > a while since I looked at that curve but that is what memory tells me > is the case). I hear that you are making an assertion, yet again, you are making assertion based on theory alone. Those very theories are based upon correlation, not proof. The incubation period you speak of is up to 20 years now (or so you earlier said). In 20 years, I would not be surprised if the period was increased to 30 years, or maybe more! >> The lab worker 'evidence' is identical to presenting a pair of people >> who developed cancer after beginning to drink coca cola as 'coca cola [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Lab workers that has every been shown to have any relationship to HIV > or AIDS. Are you offering me a research grant dear friend? :) > Are you saying that the CDC did not throughly investigate the > two lab workers to rule out just such factors before publishing there > conculsion that there exposure of HIV during there lab accidents was > the single source of commonality and that no other factors were > identified that could even remotly be associated with HIV? I am saying that as lab conditions did not apply, there is only correlation. There is no proof of causation. > The CDC eliminated recreational drug use, gay sex, unsafe > sex with partners how were not the persons primary partner, the sexual [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is a much more controlled risk environment then any of your analogies > and frankly none of your analogies are remotely comparable. Such co-factors cannot be eliminated on grounds of testimony alone. That is very bad science. Either an experiment is under strict conditions, or it is not. >> Attempting to appeal to ones conscience in that way depends on their >> subscribing to your notions of causation. > > There is no doubt that ARV prolongs the life of AIDS patients, the > body of evidence for this is simply so vast and so conclusive that no > one with an ability to understand the research can argue otherwise. So what you suggest is that anyone who questions the HIV theory of AIDS is inept? Are you running out of cards dear friend? >> Paul king is certainly either persistent isn't he! I had no idea that >> benzene could be a condom constituent until his propaganda suggested [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that users of those products would be the first to exhibit symptoms > and that has not happened. Gloves are different to condoms. Gloves are used for gentle touch, condoms are used for rough intercourse over a thin membrane. Nevertheless, people do not seem to get ill from condom use. > Even if some allergic reactions to benzene > do take place to argue that that is more deadly then AIDS is absurd on > it's face. Benzene c6h6 is highly highly toxic. Feel free to look it up. >> You are invited to present proof, encouraged even. It is exactly what >> would benefit both sides of the debate! > > Well sadly the only type of proof available would be anecdotal such as > doing a few name searches of known dissidents from the past in county > death certificate records. So? Dissidents cannot cure aids, that doesn't mean they lack the qualification to question the cause. > Sadly you will find a large number of > people who died from AIDS alone and rejected by there dissident > friends because they turned to ARV in a last desperate attempt to save > there lives. But sadly for most they had let the disease progress for > so long untreated they were unable to reverse the damage and died. ARV has never saved the life of one single aids patient. Neither has the very well researched, 20 year old HIV theory of aids. In fact, I have no idea why the theory is so widely supported in lieu of sheer lack of proof! Did the discoverer sleep with someone important or what? snip >Read the label and perform comparison. You mixed replies....Gary wrote about AZT. Toxicity is dependent on individual phenotype and dose, rendering comparisons you suggest more difficult. And pointless, anyway. I wrote the following. >> Well, there are ample data since then and the term "Long Term Non >> Progressor" didn't really come into vogue until the early 90s. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >it. They recommend immediate and long term chemotherapy with chain >terminators, the most toxic prescription drugs available. I don't know what all doctors say, do you? As to recommendations, they currently suggest that people be monitored. If the CD4 count drops below 300, then antiviral therapy is recommended. Your claim that nukes, only one PART of the treatment used, are the most toxic drugs is unsupported. What makes you claim that? >> what is surprising and unfortunate is that HIV disease almost >> ALWAYS results in progression, unlike diseases like hepatitis C, Ebola >> infection, 'flu, TB, etc. >Except that HIV has not yet been proven to cause disease, that's the big >difference. Yes, it has. >> Indeed, LTNP should probably be changed to LTVSP for "very slow" >> instead of "non." >Except very slow would suggest that AIDS is an inevitable consequence >of HIV. Yet such an assertion is still unproven, and cannot be backed up >with evidence. Yes, it can. People don't see CD4+ cells dropping without a reason. The reason is HIV infection. Not "recreational drugs" or any other deranged, not only unsupported but directly refuted, theories of denialists. >> The study below indicates very gradual progression >> in one cohort. The second study suggests at least one mechanisms for >> the delay in progression arising from immunological control. >I am not denying 'very gradual progression.' I am questioning inevitable >progression. Go right ahead. Question away. Won't make much difference. OK. Back to Gary. George M. Carter >>Read the label and perform comparison. > You mixed replies....Gary wrote about AZT. Toxicity is dependent on > individual phenotype and dose, rendering comparisons you suggest more > difficult. And pointless, anyway. That is like suggesting that carbon monoxide toxicity comparisons are pointless on grounds that such toxicity is dose dependant. My friend, all poisons are dose dependant; so what? It simply sounds like you aren't interested in acknowledging the highly poisonous nature of DNA chain terminators. Is that what you're saying? >>It is surprising to me: Doctors never say “You are HIV+, but there is >>actually a slim possibility you'll never actually develop aids.” Far >>from it. They recommend immediate and long term chemotherapy with >>chain terminators, the most toxic prescription drugs available. > > I don't know what all doctors say, do you? Any doctor who does not push for (recommend) highly toxic chemotherapy to low cd4+ patients is liable for medical malpractice. On this basis, I can logically determine what all doctors. Doctors are also within right to prescribe AZT to HIV+ patients manifesting no symptoms at all (outwardly healthy humans). I would love to meet the practising medical doctor, who refuses to ever prescribe chemotherapy to his HIV patients, whom you seem to believe exists. His career would be over in a second. > Your claim that nukes, only one PART of the treatment used, are the > most toxic drugs is unsupported. What makes you claim that? The label did sway my opinion somewhat: ZIDOVIR (ZIDOVUDINE) MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANAEMIA PARTICULARLY IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HIV DISEASE (See Warnings and Precautions). PROLONGED USE OF ZIDOVIR HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS. RARE OCCURRENCES OF POTENTIALLY FATAL LACTIC ACIDOSIS IN THE ABSENCE OF HYPOXEMIA, AND SEVERE HEPATOMEGALY WITH STEATOSIS HAVE BEEN REPORTED WITH THE USE OF CERTAIN ANTIRETROVIRAL NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES http://www.cipladoc.com/html/hivaids/antiretrovirals/zidovir.htm When one cannot distinguish between disease symptoms, and a treatments side effects, I believe there are grounds to take issue. Is this not reasonable? >>Except that HIV has not yet been proven to cause disease, that's the >>big difference. > > Yes, it has. What makes you claim that? Proof is the very thing dissidents are seeking from the establishment. Please demonstrate proof, and dissidents will go away, tails between their legs. That is what you want, right? Then make it happen. >>Except “very slow” would suggest that AIDS is an inevitable >>consequence of HIV. Yet such an assertion is still unproven, and >>cannot be backed up with evidence. > > Yes, it can. People don't see CD4+ cells dropping without a reason. > The reason is HIV infection. If that were the case, then HIV would be found in every aids patient. > Go right ahead. Question away. Won't make much difference. If it wont make much difference, I'm sure you'll have no problem hearing me out then. There is an obsession with viruses in america. There is the borna virus as the cause of depression. Ad-36 adenovirus as the cause of obesity. Herpes simplex virus 1 as the cause of schizophrenia. Rubella virus as the cause of autism. HIV as the cause of aids. All these have one thing in common: unproven theory. Yet people seem to want to believe it... and if people believe it, they become patients, which creates a drugs market. It's a very interesting phenomenon! Adrian Why the obsession with AZT, which isn't even the most toxic antiretroviral? Why the dogmatic statements that HIV cannot be found in all AIDS patients, and doctors give drugs purely on the basis on an antibody test? It sounds to me like you've swallowed the dissident line without checking the facts. The dissidents have had the evidence staring them in the face for the last 15 years or more and haven't run with their tails between their legs yet. I guess there's just no accounting for stupidity. They wanted HIV in all AIDS cases: they got it. They wanted therapy to improve outcome: they got it. They wanted drugs and lifestyle to be ruled out: they got it. They wanted HIV isolated: they got it. That my friend is the interesting phenomenon: the denial of the science. You've. Been. Lied. To. Cheers Bennett Why the obsession with AZT? AZT kills virus in doses hundreds of times lower than those that kill cells. The evidence is in the same literature the dissidents quote to say that AZT is toxic. Daft bastards. If it's so effective as a chain terminator, why isn't it active in treating cancer? AZT was _shelved_ as an anticancer agent because it was inactive, in the lab and in animals. As one of the doctors in question I can safely say that drugs are recommended based on evidence from observations of thousands of other patients. Those that don't use antivirals tend to see sustained drops in their CD4 counts, rises in viral load and eventual secondary infection and death. Those that get treated tend not to have this happen to them. The dissidents have had the evidence staring them in the face for the last 20 years and haven't gone away with the tail between their legs yet. There's just no accounting for stupidity! They wanted HIV found in all AIDS patients: they got it. They wanted proof that therapies would improve outcome: they got it. They wanted purifed HIV: they got it. They wanted proof that drugs and lifestyle didn't cause AIDS: they got it. And yet still they sing the same tune... The fact that you seem to be saying otherwise (e.g. that HIV isn't found in all AIDS patients) just says to me that you've swallowed the dissident line without actually checking the facts! You've. Been. Lied. To. Cheers Bennett |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message