 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005does hiv cause aids?
FreeRepublic.com Not Open to Debate - Does HIV cause AIDS? Culture/Society Opinion (Published) Keywords: AIDS Source: va;lleyadvocate.com Published: September 17, 1998 Author: Mark K. Anderson Posted on 10/24/1999 17:18:21 PDT by josiban The Advocate set out this past summer [1998] to organize a forum to examine two radically opposing views on the cause of AIDS. The result of a season's worth of effort can be summarized in two sentences: This paper has been called "irresponsible," "offensive" and "dangerous" for reporting on dissident scientists and organizations making their case against the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. But given the opportunity of a public forum where both sides of the debate could be fairly represented, not one of the orthodox scientists, doctors or activists we contacted would agree to show up to defend the assertion -- reported unflinchingly as fact in the mainstream media -- that HIV is "the virus that causes AIDS." If it's such an open-and-shut case, as some of those who declined the invitation asserted, why is there so much resistance to presenting it? If the foundation is sound, the house should be able to pass inspection without a second thought. So what's to be made of the homeowner who has a lot of wonderful things to say about the shutters, the shingles and the convenience of central air but never seems to get around to that strange slant the house has when viewed from afar? According to AIDS reporter Celia Farber -- who wrote SPIN magazine's "AIDS: Words from the Front" column for more than a decade -- the game of taunt-and-dodge that The Advocate encountered is just one of the unbecoming tactics seen all too frequently in the AIDS world today. Farber attended last summer's 12th World AIDS Conference in Geneva and returned with, as she called it, "some reflections on the sorry state of AIDS journalism." "'Media' -- to the extent that they are present [at the conference] -- are only there for decorative purposes," she writes in the Aug. 24 issue of the magazine Impression. "If any rogue journalist actually asks a question -- a real question -- he or she is met with a sea of frowning faces and hisses. Microphones are shut off. I've even seen guards called in and seen one journalist expelled from the country (in this case Germany) because he asked questions the AIDS establishment didn't like. These conferences are about the enforcement of an ideology -- not the questioning of it. I have said in the past that they resemble a kind of 'October Parade' for the AIDS Party. ... These 'International AIDS Conferences' are really just microcosms of the AIDS industry itself. They are funded by, driven by and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry." Some say dissident theory is skepticism gone berserk. Others say it's the only interpretation of the facts that makes any sense. In the pantheon of scientific ideas, the HIV dissident movement represents one of the greatest -- and most widely ignored -- outcries of "Wait a second!" to be sounded in recent memory. In brief, HIV dissidents -- or, alternately, "AIDS dissidents" -- argue that not only has the widely touted HIV=AIDS theory never been proven (despite billions of dollars' worth of propaganda and pharmaceutical research every year), it's inaccurate, irresponsible and perhaps even flat-out wrong. In other words: It's not the virus, stupid. History is riddled with examples of adverse medical conditions that led Western science -- prone to simplify complex systems to what can be replicated at the petri dish and microscope level -- rushing to the conclusion that a single contagion is to blame. For more than a century, scurvy was theorized to be an infectious disease because sailors on long voyages tended to come down with it en masse. When a British naval surgeon published a book in 1753 establishing that scurvy was in fact brought about by a nutritional deficiency (not enough Vitamin C), his ideas received the same offhand dismissal that HIV dissidents now encounter. It took 40 years for Dr. James Lind's discovery to be accepted by the prevailing medical orthodoxy of the day. (When the "infectious scurvy" theory finally subsided, the British navy changed its tack and provided sailors with scurvy prophylaxis in the form of lime and lemon juice -- thus giving birth to the nickname "limeys.") More recently, "infectious" theories for pellagra, scrapie, tertiary syphilis, SMON, KURU, Burkitt's lymphoma and even cancer have been suggested, accepted as conventional wisdom for years or decades, and then cast aside when the true causes were finally discovered and accepted. If the dissidents are right, HIV is not alone. It's only unique in the extremes to which the prevailing medical orthodoxy is invested in it. The Advocate has been covering the HIV dissident story for more than two years, presenting some of the essential arguments, individuals and ideas behind the much-vilified movement. We have now set up a web site (you're looking at it) that reproduces the entirety of ourHIV dissident coverage as well as full transcripts of interviews with researchers, activists, doctors and patients from all points of view concerning HIV and AIDS. Although there are nearly as many dissident perspectives as there are HIV dissidents, there is consensus among dissidents on a number of key points: Despite orthodox claims to the contrary, the dissident movement is not composed of just a few assorted scientists. The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, for instance, boasts more than 2,000 members since 1991. About half of the members are researchers and medical professionals. Before the emergence of the HIV theory, the presence of antibodies was always considered a sign that the body had successfully fought off an infection. (That's whatimmunization is based on.) There is no compelling reason to suspect that the "HIV test" -- which detects HIV antibodies -- should represent a break from conventional wisdom. HIV is a "retrovirus." All people are carriers of hundreds, even thousands, of harmless retroviruses. Indeed, one of the basic properties of such viruses is that they do not kill cells. (This is why retroviruses were once thought to be apossible cause of cancer.) The HIV-AIDS theory, on the other hand, posits that HIV is responsible for the decimation of the immune system's T-cells -- the cells most affected by AIDS. Even at its highest observed concentrations, HIV infects less than 1 percent of the immune system's T-cells. To suggest that HIV, which is completely dormant in T-cells, somehow destroys the entire immune system is tantamount to worrying about bleeding to death from a paper cut. AIDS in a gay man almost always involves a different set of diseases than does AIDS in a drug addict, which almost always involves a different set of diseases than does AIDS in a hemophiliac. How can a virus "know" whether the patient is gay or straight? Drug addict or transfusion recipient? A true infectious disease should eventually leave its initial risk groups to infect the population at large. Yet AIDS still remains predominantly confined to its original demographics: gay men, IV drug users, hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients. (The much-reported "growing number of women with AIDS" is in part due to the fact that in 1993 the number of AIDS-defining diseases was expanded to include cervical cancer.) The same research teams that failed to find a retroviral cause of cancer were the ones who triumphantly pressed forward to begin research on a retroviral cause of AIDS. Is Nature so opportune as to produce the first retroviral epidemic in human history right at the time when a fledgling retroviral research industry was fresh out of work and looking for new sources of funding? To quote Farber again: "For those of you who have not been following the AIDS-media scoreboard all these years, I can sum it up as follows: The mainstream AIDS media have botched the story virtually beyond repair, by constantly repeating, without any scrutiny, the pronouncements of the federal government's AIDS institutions. "They bought wholesale the totally unfounded notion of a heterosexual AIDS 'explosion' based on no evidence at all, and indeed it never happened and won't ever happen. They uncritically reported that AZT was a wondrous, life-saving drug, based on studies that were fraudulent and funded by the drug's maker. (Instead, it turned out to shorten lives.) They failed to report that the U.S. AIDS scientist Robert Gallo had stolen his HIV viral sample from the Pasteur Institute, even though it was as plain as day, and they also, inexplicably, never questioned Dr. Gallo's totally unsubstantiated 1984 announcement that HIV was the proven 'cause' of AIDS. They continue to invent an AIDS epidemic that is decimating Africa, even though all African countries afflicted by AIDS are reporting population growth. And they went hog wild with the 'AIDS Is Over' stories of 1996, which credited the new cocktails with bringing people back from the dead. Now the tide has turned, and the drugs are proving to have horrific side effects and little effect on mortality." Certainly, it is true that the dissidents have only begun the process of scientific inquiry into alternatives beyond the HIV=AIDS paradigm. No one in this debate has all the answers. But for the AIDS orthodoxy to abrogate the duty of scientists -- to welcome dissenting viewpoints, encourage debate and foster skepticism -- is to sacrifice the claim that the end result of their endeavors can fairly be called "science." Posted for discusssion ONLY. I am NOT advising any to cease taking their medicine. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3813a1cd7275.htm "Certainly, it is true that the dissidents have only begun the process of scientific inquiry into alternatives beyond the HIV=AIDS paradigm. No one in this debate has all the answers. But for the AIDS orthodoxy to abrogate the duty of scientists -- to welcome dissenting viewpoints, encourage debate and foster skepticism -- is to sacrifice theclaim that the end result of their endeavors can fairly be called 'science.' Posted for discusssion ONLY. I am NOT advising any to cease taking their medicine." THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS! For all the "HIV-positives" reading this, I was offered the meds, as well, and simply chose not to take them (LONG before I came across the dissident literature), because I was planning to take a holistic approach to my wellness. And I TOTALLY RESPECT the right of anyone to choose whatever path to health they feel is best - even if I don't necessarily agree with that path. It's your life! But I will FIGHT to the DEATH your RIGHT to have ACCESS to *alternative information* about the HIV theory of AIDS that may help you to make a different choice than you are making now! Only those who have been given an "HIV-positive" diagnosis can TRULY KNOW what it's like to be told "knowing is beautiful" and then to LOOK at yourself in the mirror and THINK that you are going to DIE. I know what that feels like! I am one of YOU! I am NOT one of THEM! And for those of us involved in the dissident movement - WHO ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS! - we would like you to see how "Knowing the Other Side of AIDS is beautiful" http://www.theothersideofaids.com/ Read the dissident literature! Talk to you doctor about your views on this! Ask them to read the literature, as well! Consider asking them to read the quotes from *qualified professionals* who publically question HIV: http://www.aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm BUY an copy of "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg, then LOOK your doctor in the EYE and ask them to READ IT! It is FULLY REFERENCED and they should easily be able to tell whether Duesberg's views should receive some consideration. Send them to http://www.theperthgroup.com/ and ASK THEM to consider perusing through the Perth Group's articles. We are not asking you to abandon reason! We are asking you to THINK about what you've been told regarding the HIV theory of AIDS and to make your OWN informed decisions about your health *WITH the HELP* of your physician! "Positively" yours, -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon > "Certainly, it is true that the dissidents have only begun the process of > scientific inquiry [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > I am one of YOU! I am NOT one of THEM! One of what "THEM"? I to remember what those first few years after diagnosis were like. One can become filled with anger, fear, confusion, and despair. I to used the energy generated by those emotions to learn everything I could about HIV AIDS, ARV and the clinical care of HIV and AIDS patients. However I came to entirely different conclusions then you have. I support your right to make your own decisions about what course of action to take in response to your HIV diagnosis however the evidence is overwhelming that at some point in the not to distant future you will begin to see the effects of AIDS in your own body. I pray that you don't wait to long to recognize your error, so that when you do ARV will still be able to prolong your life as it has mine. I had 16 CD4 cells in 1996, was in the middle of my third case of PCP and literally days away from death when I started ARV. I to was a skeptic at first I had seen to many friends die rapidly during the early days of AZT mono-therapy and thus refused AZT mono-therapy and even the two drug therapies that were available in 1994 & 95. But when faced with my own death I took the plunge and started a three drug ARV regimen that contained AZT, Zerit, and Norvir. They treated the PCP with Trimetrexate, oral Leucovorin, IV Amphotericin B, and oral Flucytosine which finally brought that under control and that gave the ARV drugs the time they needed to bring me back from the edge. Since then I have managed to maintain a CD4 count of 200 plus or minus 20 and a low but not undectable viral load. I am now on my sixth ARV regimen and am currently taking 6 different antiviral medications in order keep my numbers in the range stated above. Because I waited to long to start treatment I have never been able to get the full benifits of ARV, had I started treatement sooner my CD4 count would most likely be around 600 I would have an undectectable viral load and would most likely only be on my second or third set of ARV drugs. Gary Stein "I pray that you don't wait to long to recognize your error, so that when you do ARV will still be able to prolong your life as it has mine." Tell ya what, Gary... Why don't you send your HIV specialist these quotes and have him, or her, read every last one of and tell me how it's "prolonging your life"? Don't take my word for it! Have YOUR DOCTOR read ALL of these quotes! For AZT: http://www.aras.ab.ca/azt.html For HAART: http://www.aras.ab.ca/haart.html Or you can peruse them yourself. They are fully referenced. Happy reading! -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon >Why don't you send your HIV specialist these quotes and have him, or her, >read every last one of and tell me how it's "prolonging your life"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >For AZT: http://www.aras.ab.ca/azt.html The first quote about AZT says: | "For this study, 1278 patient charts were screened, and 758 were included | in the study... Of [these], 30.3% (230) were anemic (Hb [hemoglobin] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | ambulatory HIV clinical cohort. | AIDS Read. 2004 Jul 12. All the quote above says about AZT is that anemia was significantly more common in those taking AZT. It doesn't say how much more common. It doesn't say the anemia is any worse nor, if it is, by how much. If the article had said, anywhere, how much more common or how much worse, and either figure had been large enough to embarrass the medical/scientific mainstream, then David Crowe, the web page owner, would have quoted that. He didn't, so the effects of AZT observed in this study couldn't have been large. >For HAART: http://www.aras.ab.ca/haart.html The first quote about HAART is preceded by a mini-editorial: | One of the biggest problems facing doctors prescribing HAART | is acceptance of these drugs. People hear about the awful side | effects and conclude that they will wait until they get sick before | starting. Even with this reluctance, however, sales of antiretroviral | drugs are still huge. The quote says: | "The government [of Niger] hopes to put 4,000 people on free | life-prolonging ARV treatment, but since it began to supply ARV [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | HIV/AIDS drugs available but no takers. UN Integrated Regional | Information Networks. 2005 Jul 1. The quote doesn't support Crowe's editorial opinion: It doesn't say that people were staying away because of anything they'd heard about side effects. If the source Crowe is quoting from had actually said that anywhere, he would have quoted it. He didn't -- it doesn't. I examined the first quote from each file. Neither one proves what you or David Crowe want it to prove.  SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "I examined the first quote from each file. Neither one proves what you or David Crowe want it to prove." David, Are you Gary's doctor? Because that is who those quotes are for. And they are for the doctors of all the other "HIV-positives" out there to read and consider. The whole purpose of this debate, on these many different threads, is to raise questions. Ya know, "questioning is the cornerstone of science." Nothing in science is ever truly "proven" anyway. That's why the terms hypothesis and theory are *always* used to describe any scientific understanding. David Crowe and I aren't trying to "prove" anything. We are trying to get the public to question what they've been told about the HIV theory of AIDS. Why does the questioning your big, lucrative scientific theory bother you so much? -Paul Whiting > "I examined the first quote from each file. Neither one proves what you > or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you Gary's doctor? Because that is who those quotes are for. Canzi Pants is a George Carter sock, just an alter-ego who jumps in to save his HIV+ alter-ego Swinestein from these embarrassing moments. Now if these pharma kiddies had any science to support their AIDS-funded meal tickets, do you think they would be playing these childish games? >Canzi Pants is a George Carter sock, David Canzi and I are distince individuals. Like Rove, you like to accuse others of what you do, don't you Susie/AZT Murder/Lorenzo Valle@alltell? >>Canzi Pants is a George Carter sock, > > David Canzi and I are distince individuals. > > Like Rove, you like to accuse others of what you do, don't you > Susie/AZT Murder/Lorenzo Valle@alltell? No George - you do what you do ... doo doo. Now what about those Nepal questions? Something to hide, dearie? Susie >No George - you do what you do ... doo doo. No, "Susie" frod--not for anonymous coward. Something to hide? I read them they had nothing to say that I haven't seen before nor do they convince anyone that ARV is counter productive for the treatment of AIDS. The thing you denialist want everyone to ignore is the massive amount of clinical data that has been developed about AIDS since the beginning of the epidemic. There are hundreds of studies that look at the medical records of HIV and AIDS patients and compare treated and untreated patients health status. These studies show beyond any doubt that ARV treatment works, that untreated patients sicken and die. You simply can't provide a shred of evidence that disproves those simple facts. Yes a very small number of patients have life threatening reactions to ARV and yes some even die, those facts do not mean that ARV is more dangerous then AIDS as you so blindly want to believe. A few people die from the use of just about every over the counter and prescription drug sold in the US each year does that mean that all of those drugs are to dangerous for the public to use? Gary Stein > "I examined the first quote from each file. Neither one proves what you > or [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > -Paul Whiting "I read them they had nothing to say that I haven't seen before nor do they convince anyone that ARV is counter productive for the treatment of AIDS." Did you have your HIV specialist read them over? "There are hundreds of studies that look at the medical records of HIV and AIDS patients and compare treated and untreated patients health status. These studies show beyond any doubt that ARV treatment works, that untreated patients sicken and die. You simply can't provide a shred of evidence that disproves those simple facts." Gary, I don't need to provide a shred of evidence for proving that there’s NEVER BEEN any double blind PLACEBO control studies done on ARVs. Remember the basics of science, Gary? In order to PROVE a medication is more effective than no treatment at all, you need to do a CLINICAL STUDY with a PLACEBO CONTROL. Period. It's called good clinical practice, Gary. Otherwise, you CANNOT provide the DATA, Gary, to show the effectiveness of the "life saving" medication against no treatment whatsoever without a placebo control. That is why double blind placebo control clinical studies were developed. It's a part of classic science, Gary. It’s like what you learned in school when your teacher taught you about conducting clinical studies according to GCP. Remember? You do a study by factoring out all of the variables you can with your test subjects, then you give them the pills. One group gets the actual medication and the other group gets the placebo. It's a double blind study because no one knows who got what - not even the clinicians or their assistants - so you can truly see whether the medication was more effective than nothing at all. So, where are the double blind placebo control clinical studies, Gary? With all those BILLIONS of dollars, you would THINK those scientists who support the HIV theory of AIDS would have used the most basic of scientific methods to prove the effectiveness of their "life saving" treatments. So how about, Gary? Where are the clinical studies with the placebo control? It's called the basics of science, Gary. And even the HIV theory of AIDS needs to utilize the most basic scientific methods in a clinical study. Right, Gary? Where are the “mountains of data” based on a double blind PLACEBO control clinical studies? Huh, Gary? Let me say that again, just to really my point across: It’s called the basics of science… And I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer to my question that is based on good clinical practice. Questioning is the cornerstone of science, Gary, and the foundation is double blind clinical studies with a PLACEBO control. -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon snip >I don't need to provide a shred of evidence for proving that theres NEVER >BEEN any double blind PLACEBO control studies done on ARVs. There doesn't have to be. But you can certainly try to get one started. Again: most folks with HIV would not wish to participate in a study where they had a 50-50 chance of getting a sugar pill. Maybe the denialists can have a benefit party and raise some funds to do such a ridiculous study? George M. Carter "Again: most folks with HIV would not wish to participate in a study where they had a 50-50 chance of getting a sugar pill." George, I bet they would take their chances on a sugar pill (placebo) if the study being conducted offered a medication with a label that looked like this... http://www.duesberg.com/articles/azt.html ..and has an advisory warning that says this: "TOXIC. Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing." NOTE the skull and bones on the label; the indication for a deathly poison. I sure as HELL would want to know whether this medication has been clinically proven to be more effective than nothing at all! -Paul Whiting Portland, Oregon= > Again: most folks with HIV would not wish to participate in a study > where they had a 50-50 chance of getting a sugar pill. Which proves the pseudo-science of the PharmaTaliban which refuses to study the vast majority of the world's HIV+ population that does NOT take any of the silly chemotherapies given to the few HIV+ rich people of the world. Meantime, Carter continues to suffer lockjaw over a few basic questions regarding his activities in Nepal. What is Carter hiding? Susie > Otherwise, you CANNOT provide the DATA, Gary, to show the effectiveness of > the "life saving" medication against no treatment whatsoever without a > placebo control. It's a gut feeling he has. You know about those, don't you? B/ "It's a gut feeling he has. You know about those, don't you?" Yes I do, Brian! And I applaud Gary for listening to his gut feeling. And I also applaud the members of this forum who are reading this debate and trusting their gut feelings about the things that they DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE about the HIV theory of AIDS. And I would encourage anyone reading this debate to wholly and completely trust whatever they are feeling about what is being said. -Paul Whiting > "It's a gut feeling he has. You know about those, don't you?" > > Yes I do, Brian! > > And I applaud Gary for listening to his gut feeling. Then according to paule universe, he certainly doesn't need to provide data, which is the part you conveniently snipped out. B/ "Then according to paule universe, he certainly doesn't need to provide data, which is the part you conveniently snipped out." Yes, it's sort of like how the data was conveniently snipped out proving that ARVs are a more "effective treatment" than taking nothing at all, based on double blind PLACEBO control clinical studies! >"Then according to paule universe, he certainly doesn't need to provide >data, which is the part you conveniently snipped out." > >Yes, it's sort of like how the data was conveniently snipped out proving >that ARVs are a more "effective treatment" than taking nothing at all, >based on double blind PLACEBO control clinical studies! Where in the world did you get the idea that a placebo-control is the only way to show efficacy for a treatment anyway? A control? Yes. That's important. A placebo? Some argue that it is unethical to ever use a placebo although I think that's a bit extreme. George M. Carter "A control? Yes. That's important. A placebo? Some argue that it is unethical to ever use a placebo although I think that's a bit extreme." Great, George, then why don't you explain to all of us how you would prove that a medication is a "more effective treatment" than nothing at all by NOT using a placebo as a comparison. I can't wait to hear this! Then, maybe you can rewrite the rules of good clinical practice for the entire pharmaceutical industry, since, apparently they are still using placebo controls in clinical studies: "Phase 3 : After a drug has been shown to have positive results in small groups of patients, it may be studied in a larger Phase 3 trial to confirm efficacy and identify adverse events from long-term use. A Phase 3 trial usually compares how well the study drug works compared with an inactive placebo and/or another approved medication. One group of patients may receive the new drug being tested, while another group of patients may receive the comparator drug (already-approved drug for the disease being studied), or PLACEBO." http://www.lillytrials.com/docs/terminology.html >"A control? Yes. That's important. A placebo? Some argue that it is >unethical to ever use a placebo although I think that's a bit extreme." > >Great, George, then why don't you explain to all of us how you would prove >that a medication is a "more effective treatment" than nothing at all by >NOT using a placebo as a comparison. I did elsewhere. It has been done elsewhere. You have no care or clue about the science--you just want to pretend you're immortal and omniscent. George M. Carter "You have no care or clue about the science--you just want to pretend you're immortal and omniscent." It takes one to know one, George. > "You have no care or clue about the science--you just want to pretend > you're immortal and omniscent." > > It takes one to know one, George. Are you realy saying "neener-neener?" Don't you think that's rather childish? I'm serious here, I'm asking you a SIMPLE question? B/ "Are you realy saying 'neener-neener?'" Yes I am, because humor can be a very powerful teaching tool. "You have no care or clue about the science--you just want to pretend you're immortal and omniscent." Well, George, maybe *you'd* like to see Paul get sick and die. First, so you don't have him making you look stupid in regards to the HIV=AIDS hypothesis (although I think you do a pretty good job all by yourself). Second, so you can tell your loyal followers..."see, I told you that HIV causes AIDS". Third, when you get tired of evoking David Pasquarelli's name, you can switch to Paul's. Looks like a win-win-win situation for you, puddin'. I don't think Paul's interested in complying though. Looks like your stuck with Pasquarelli. Oh well, you've gotten PLENTY of mileage out of him so far, why stop now? >"You have no care or clue about the science--you just want to pretend >you're immortal and omniscent." > >Well, George, maybe *you'd* like to see Paul get sick and die. Of course not. To the utter contrary. I'd like to see Paul get the best care possible. And consider that he may be facing a mortal disease. There are LOTS of things that one can do, living with HIV, to slow progression and manage the disease. But I have seen what happens to HIV+ denialists. For the most part, they die sooner than need be from AIDS. So maybe, wily anonyme, it is YOU that want to see him die? George M. Carter "I'd like to see Paul get the best care possible. And consider that he may be facing a mortal disease." Read: He may be facing a very profitable construct. "There are LOTS of things that one can do, living with HIV, to slow progression and manage the disease." Read: we'll rope you in... poke you, prod you, convince you to take expensive, "life-saving" drugs, prey upon your mortal fears...and never let go. "But I have seen what happens to HIV+ denialists. For the most part, they die sooner than need be from AIDS." How soon do people *need* to die from "AIDS", George? Interesting choice of words on your part. >"I'd like to see Paul get the best care possible. And consider that he >may be facing a mortal disease." > >Read: He may be facing a very profitable construct. Read what you like in it. But once again, you do nothing here but put words in other people's mouths. ALL OF HEALTHCARE is a "profitable" construct and it's despicable. Read The Big Fix as a good review of how pharma,, physicians, insurance companies all work hard to screw the crap out of people. That bears little on the reality of HIV and AIDS. >"But I have seen what happens to HIV+ denialists. For the most part, >they die sooner than need be from AIDS." > >How soon do people *need* to die from "AIDS", George? Interesting choice >of words on your part. You ever consider "ambulance chaser" as a career choice? George M. Carter > ALL OF HEALTHCARE is a "profitable" construct and it's despicable. But George, if "ALL OF HEALTHCARE is profitable", as you say, then how is it even possible FOR YOU to be a DIRECTOR of a "non-profit charitable" organization (FIAR) which declares itself as disease/healthcare oriented? In other words, Mr. Carter, by your own words you are A FRAUD and the taxpayers are subsidizing you and your highly questionable activities. Thus, FIAR = Fraudulent Idiot in AIDS Research > Read The Big Fix as a good review of how pharma,, physicians, > insurance companies all work hard to screw the crap out of people. Looks like The Big Fix is a template for morons like you to rip people off. > That bears little on the reality of HIV and AIDS. No, HIV and AIDS is as fraudulent as you are, Mr. Carter. > You ever consider "ambulance chaser" as a career choice? Carter's choice of terminology for others is so self-defining for him! Now quit running away from the questions about your activities in Nepal, Mr. Carter. Bad enough you are a charity case, but a coward too? The time for you to answer the Nepal questions is running out ... better answer soon. Susie >> ALL OF HEALTHCARE is a "profitable" construct and it's despicable. > >But George, if "ALL OF HEALTHCARE is profitable", as you say, >then how is it even possible FOR YOU to be a DIRECTOR of a >"non-profit charitable" organization (FIAR) which declares itself > as disease/healthcare oriented? I made an error here. Thanks for pointing it out. There are indeed many organizations that provide free healthcare, there are many non-profit hospitals and even some research is done not-for-profit. There are also publicly funded government research and care programs. So thanks for pointing that out. As to the rest? Well, you're completely f.cking full of sh.t. But that's been obvious to everyone with a half a brain. George M. Carter >>> ALL OF HEALTHCARE is a "profitable" construct and it's despicable. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I made an error here. Thanks for pointing it out. OOPS! There's more to come ... AZT Murder "ALL OF HEALTHCARE is a "profitable" construct and it's despicable. Read The Big Fix as a good review of how pharma,, physicians, insurance companies all work hard to screw the crap out of people. That bears little on the reality of HIV and AIDS." So, George, are you saying that "ALL OF HEALTHCARE is a 'profitable' construct and it's despicable," but that the ONLY *exception* to the rule is HIV and AIDS? >So, George, are you saying that "ALL OF HEALTHCARE is a 'profitable' >construct and it's despicable," but that the ONLY *exception* to the rule >is HIV and AIDS? Oh for christ's sakes, don't be such a f.cking moron, Paul. The pharmaceutical industry is in it for the money. Whether it's AIDS, cholesterol, cancer, blood pressure, diabetes. They are out to screw the people of the US for every last goddamn dime they can get. A lot of doctors are in it for the money. Clinics and physicians comprised the bulk of Medicaid fraud in New York State (and I'm sure elsewhere) to the tune of billions of dollars. A LOT of healthcare is about profit. So you can't lay it at the doorstep of AIDS. And a direct RESULT of that is that Bush and his bunch of murdering, thieving sh.ts in Congress, ever at the call of pharma's greed, passed that despicable Medicare drug benefit boondoggle for the industry and meantime, with that a.shole John Bolton, are pushing developing nations to ONLY access medications from overpriced pharmaceutical companies, pressing the notion that intellectual property rights trump human life. But as the invincibly thick and nasty piece of crap Frod Show pointed out, not ALL of healthcare is about profit. And indeed, there are a hell of a lot of good people doing work in not-for-profits, both in terms of research and in terms of service provision. George M. Carter ' I was particularly impressed by this part (mainly bcause I agree with it fully): >"And a direct RESULT of that is that Bush and his bunch of murdering, thieving sh.ts in Congress, ever at the call of pharma's greed, passed that despicable Medicare drug benefit boondoggle for the industry and meantime, with that a.shole John Bolton, are pushing developing nations to ONLY access medications from overpriced pharmaceutical companies, pressing the notion that intellectual property rights trump human life." Right on! You shoulda thrown the bastards out in November 2004 (but you didn't). I still have a question: Do you think killing off people with AEVs should be much cheaper then Mr. carter? "So maybe, wily anonyme, it is YOU that want to see him die?" If I died, George, then wilyretrovirus and couldn't be friends anymore! If he thought I my life were in danger by NOT taking the ARVs, he is a good enough friend to tell me, gently, that he disagrees with my approach. He would not scare me by saying I was going to die if I don't take the poison! >"So maybe, wily anonyme, it is YOU that want to see him die?" > >If I died, George, then wilyretrovirus and couldn't be friends anymore! That's right. We all have to give up our friends and enemies alike cause we are all going to die. >If he thought I my life were in danger by NOT taking the ARVs, he is a >good enough friend to tell me, gently, that he disagrees with my >approach. Ah, that anonymous jerk thinks you should never take ARVs. >He would not scare me by saying I was going to die if I don't take the >poison! The simple fact is that you probably will die of AIDS if you don't take ARVs. You certainly have the right to reject my view. However, there are indeed MANY other things you can try that may prevent the need to use ARV for quite some time. And also many ways to manage toxicities should you choose to use ARV. Ultimately, the choice is indeed yours. George M. Carter >"There are LOTS of things that one can do, living with HIV, to slow progression and manage the disease." Oh yes. It's much better to live with HIV than to be dead with AZT or HAART. >>"A control? Yes. That's important. A placebo? Some argue that it is >>unethical to ever use a placebo although I think that's a bit extreme." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I did elsewhere. It has been done elsewhere. Bad science seems to rule the pharma establishment, and people like Carter declare themselves as "charitable non-profits" like FIAR and solicit their meal tickets in the name of AIDS - a disease they don't have. Meantime, Carter refuses to answer the questions put to him regarding his FIAR experiences in Nepal ... why is George Carter running scared? >>"Then according to paule universe, he certainly doesn't need to provide >>data, which is the part you conveniently snipped out." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >A control? Yes. That's important. Of course, what Carter thinks of as a "control" is one group using a "control" drug versus another group using another drug. Carter and the faith-based AIDS initiative won't f.ck around with placebos - they declare those unethical. Funny thing, though - years ago the ACTUP pharma goons were screeching about not "having the time to waste" to use placebos. To them it was always about "saving lives" - not finding what really works. Now that all those "saved lives" are gone, we STILL don't have any idea what works or what doesn't - and WE CAN THANK PEOPLE LIKE CARTER, SWINESTEIN, DELANEY, MAILMAN and CANZI for that! Some heroes! AZT Murder > "Then according to paule universe, he certainly doesn't need to provide > data, which is the part you conveniently snipped out." > > Yes, it's sort of like how the data was conveniently snipped out proving > that ARVs are a more "effective treatment" than taking nothing at all, > based on double blind PLACEBO control clinical studies! And your new insistence on having data provided to you is based on... what? Certainly, you wouldn't want to appear hypocritical? And are going to start to provide data for your own assertions? I know you don't make any, you just ask questions? Isn't that so, that you simply ask simple questions, with no rhethorical or semantic tricks? B/ "Isn't that so, that you simply ask simple questions, with no rhethorical or semantic tricks?" The "trick," Brian is to get those who are "HIV-positive" to actually start questioning the HIV theory of AIDS by asking simple questions. > "Isn't that so, that you simply ask simple questions, with no rhethorical > or semantic tricks?" > > The "trick," Brian is to get those who are "HIV-positive" to actually > start questioning the HIV theory of AIDS by asking simple questions. No sadly the "trick" is for you to continuously grasp for whatever you can find that helps you believe you are not in danger from HIV and will never have to face the consequences of your illness. That is why I have labeled your position as one of faith rather then one of science. You do everything you can to avoid facts and instead want to make this discussion about any thing but the facts. Weather it be a conspiracy of the Drug Industry, your unsubstantiated claim of censorship of those who question that HIV=AIDS, your wild and mostly false claims about the dangers of ARV, your blathering about the need for Placebo controlled trials, your complete lack of understanding as to the facts of the isolation of and genetic makeup of HIV, etc etc. The one thing lacking in all the above listed of your arguments are facts that back them up why is that Paul? Gary Stein "The one thing lacking in all the above listed of your arguments are facts that back them up why is that Paul?" For one simple reason Gary... "Facts" aren't free from interpretation. So, I would invite those reading this debate to study all dissident "facts" and decide, for yourself, if you think this topic merits further contemplation.... Then, I would invite those readers, who do study further, to start asking his or her own questions and, then, to make two very important observations: 1) Notice how you are treated by those who support the HIV theory when you start questioning it; and 2) Notice what techniques those who support the HIV theory use to refute any, and all, "dissidents" who question the HIV theory. I think you will find this experience rather eye-opening. And their tactics may actually cause you to question the theory even more... -Paul Whiting > "The one thing lacking in all the above listed of your arguments are facts > that back them up why is that Paul?" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1) Notice how you are treated by those who support the HIV theory when you > start questioning it; and Yes and also notice how you are treated by the denialists when you ask them to back up there lists of personal opinions with data and facts..... > 2) Notice what techniques those who support the HIV theory use to refute > any, and all, "dissidents" who question the HIV theory. Yes please do, you will see that the denialists are asked for more then personal opinions and when they provide nothing but personal opinions they are correctly named denialists. When the very few out there who do make an honest effort to provide alternative theories and provide data to back up there ideas they are labeled as honest folks with something interesting to say about HIV and AIDS. Contrary to what Paul would have you believe the medical and scientific community have bent over backwards to provide the so called dissidents ample opportunity to discuss there ideas and present data to back them up. But guess what when it comes to the part about providing data the dissidents always run and hide behind there many silly attempts to explain why they don't have any data to provide. Or even worse they claim that they don't need no stinking data because they know that HIV does not cause AIDS or any problems what so ever and if you don't believe them just listen to all those personal opinions they have posted on there websites from so called experts in the field. Then examine the credentials of those so called experts for your self. You will find that the vast majority of them have no training in virology, or epidemiology or even the clinical treatment of AIDS patients. > I think you will find this experience rather eye-opening. And their > tactics may actually cause you to question the theory even more... Actually in the majority of cases folks read what you guys have to say Paul and they are able to see you for what you are. That is why your movement has not grown or for that matter gained new supporters in the scientific community. Gary Stein "Actually in the majority of cases folks read what you guys have to say Paul and they are able to see you for what you are." Yes, I hope they ARE seeing me for what I am! "That is why your movement has not grown or for that matter gained new supporters in the scientific community." I see, Gary... And could this "lack of growth" that you allege for our movement be thwarted by any these people who are "new supporters"? http://www.aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.htm -Paul > "Actually in the majority of cases folks read what you guys have to say > Paul and they are able to see you for what you are." [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -Paul By your own statements membership in the largest rethinking newsgroup/forum is 1,597 gee after 20 years of this debate shouldn't that number be ten times that. I would think it would be much larger then that if you guys had anything real to offer. The list of so called experts on Virusmyth hasn't changed much since it was first posted in the mid 1980's so again just were is this growth your claiming? Gary Stein >"Contrary to what Paul would have you believe the medical and scientific community have bent over backwards to provide the so called dissidents ample opportunity to discuss there ideas and presentdata to back them up. But guess what when it comes to the part about providing data the dissidents always run and hide behind there many silly attempts to explain why they don't have any data to provide." ..have bent over backwards... Whoohahahahahahaha!!! <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZNfox000' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_72.gif' alt='Too Funny' border=0></a> I see that you have developed a sense of humor too, Mr. Stein. And I must admit, I had never expected that from you. My experience is that the medical and scientific community tries to avoid debate at all cost. They never accept a challenge, even when asked to by their own flunkies. They'd much rather let these flunkies (guess of whom I'm talking) do the fighting. They prefer to stay off the battlefield, mumbling something about "no time; gotta save people's lives, blah blah blah..." Even if we would do studies of our own, paying for it from our own pocket, we would not get the results published. But the orthodoxy publishes lots of papers. And, as you've seen, I tear them all to shreds. because they don't even satisfy the most basic rules of scientific data gathering. > "The one thing lacking in all the above listed of your arguments are facts > that back them up why is that Paul?" > > For one simple reason Gary... > > "Facts" aren't free from interpretation. It's simply facts. It's not a substitution for anything, no quotes needed. > So, I would invite those reading this debate to study all dissident > "facts" Oh, never mind. You do mean a substitution of faith for logic here. B/ .. And may I add: Look at the quality of the papers that are being presented on the orthodox side. They all sidestep the fundamental issue: Does HIV exist, and if so, does it cause AIDS? There are tens of thousands of papers, all presenting data and results. And in each and every one of them, HIV as the cause of AIDS is somply taken for granted. As if that had been proven 20 years ago. Well... It was not. >.. And may I add: Look at the quality of the papers that are being >presented on the orthodox side. Ah--you're ability to analyze the quality of a paper is called into question by your repeated displays of PROFOUND ignorance on just about any topic you've addressed. And you've done NO genuine analysis of ANY paper presented. Just handwaving, squealing and raving. George M. Carter >"And you've done NO genuine analysis of ANY paper presented. Just handwaving, squealing and raving." Ah, look again, Mr.Carter. Thus far, I have analyzed 20 of the 29 papers your co-conspirator, Mr. Stein, has thrown at me. These papers (actually they were just presentations at an AIDS conference in Rio) are in part trashy (despite being produced by 10-13 authors), and the ones with some substance were dealing with a different subject that had nothing to do with HCV, the virus. >>"And you've done NO genuine analysis of ANY paper presented. Just >handwaving, squealing and raving." > >Ah, look again, Mr.Carter. Thus far, I have analyzed 20 of the 29 papers >your co-conspirator, Mr. Stein, has thrown at me. No, you didn't. You waved your hands and dithered. That's not analysis. You provided nothing but some vapid opinions and distortions. Not good solid rebuttals or strong criticism, let alone any basis for the lame comments you made. > "Isn't that so, that you simply ask simple questions, with no rhethorical > or semantic tricks?" > > The "trick," Brian is to get those who are "HIV-positive" to actually > start questioning the HIV theory of AIDS by asking simple questions. And why would you want to do that? B/ >> "Isn't that so, that you simply ask simple questions, with no rhethorical >> or semantic tricks?" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > B/ Because Paul can't deal with complicated questions they make his head hurt to much... Gary Stein " The "trick," Brian is to get those who are "HIV-positive" to actually start questioning the HIV theory of AIDS by asking simple questions. And why would you want to do that?" Brian, It's called "being free." -Paul > " The "trick," Brian is to get those who are "HIV-positive" to actually > start questioning the HIV theory of AIDS by asking simple questions. > > And why would you want to do that?" > It's called "being free." Free of what? B/ "It's called 'being free.' Free of what?" Free of science by consensus. >"It's called 'being free.' > >Free of what?" > >Free of science by consensus. Religions are diverse. Differences of opinion persist for millennia. No one religion becomes dominant. There is no consensus. What is the difference between science and religion that makes scientific consensus possible? What have you got against consensus anyway? Do you think science should be more like religion? SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber "What have you got against consensus anyway?" David, I can't believe you just said that! This is what I have against science by consenus... Closed-mindedness Non-innovative Non-critical Uncreative Stagnant Dead... Here's an interesting article by the way called "Science and Consensus" by Tim O'Reilly: Joi Ito posted a very interesting review of a book entitled Science in Action by Bruno Latour. The focus of the book (or at least of Joi's take on it) is that scientific "facts" are really a form of what some people have called consensus reality. (I point to the wikipedia definition for convenience, but I think that the term may have been coined by sychologist Charles Tart.) That is, facts are not really facts at all, but rather postulates that have become generally accepted through a process of social consensus-building. Many is the "fact" that never achieves that status because no one pays attention to the postulate or observation in question and so no consensus is built. Of course, this is a very anthropocentric view. It reminds me a bit of the time Samuel Johnson was asked to comment on Bishop Berkeley's theory that everything exists only in the mind. Johnson said, "I refute it thus:", kicking a stone to complete the sentence. I like to think that both the external world and the human mind play a conjoined role in defining "reality". In short, I believe A) there is an objective world outside of us, B) that we perceive it, C) that we tell ourselves stories about it (i.e. build language abstractions and other mental models that describe it), and finally D) close the loop by mapping the world into our models and affirming that mapping as "reality". A "fact", in the sense that Joi and Bruno Latour are talking about it, is the completion of all four stages of this perceptual process. But still, Joi's point is a good one. In practice, A, B, C, and D often get out of sync. As Joi notes, "facts" become "black boxes" that are very hard to take apart again. We have theories (C) that have reified into "facts" (D) and are hard to dislodge, even in the face of new data (B) suggesting that things (A) aren't what they seem. And this isn't just in the scientific realm, but in the interpersonal one. How many people do you know who don't have preconceived notions that keep them from seeing a situation or another person accurately? Why should our interpretation of the physical world be any less moderated by our existing beliefs? I remember a history of science class I took in college. Like every other such class, we read Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which introduced the term "paradigm shift" to describe the changeover from Ptolemaic to Copernican astronomy. But my professor, Owen Gingerich, had a twist on Kuhn's idea. Ptolemy's system didn't break down just because new observations prompted a theory that better fit the data, but because of an entire social and intellectual milieu that was ready to accept such a change. It was an aesthetic and philosophical revolution as much as it was a scientific one. And that takes me to one of my all time favorite authors, poet Wallace Stevens. Stevens' theme, repeated throughout his poems, is the dialogue between the world and the mind: And out of what one sees and hears and out Of what one feels, who could have thought to make So many selves, so many sensuous worlds, As if the air, the mid-day air, was swarming With the metaphysical changes that occur, Merely in living as and where we live. In college, a friend of mine named Lewis Gannet (whom I've long lost touch with) wrote an amazing paper drawing ideas from Claude Levi-Strauss's book The Savage Mind and Wallace Stevens' sole book of essays, The Necessary Angel, to argue that while earlier societies had shared belief systems, our challenge today is to build shared beliefs knowing that they are not "true". Stevens' solution, in "Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction", was to recognize that the construction of reality is an artistic act, not just a scientific one. At about the same time, I studied with a man named George Simon, who was trying to build what he called "languages for consciousness," believing, like Benjamin Whorf (author of Language, Thought and Reality), that our language limits our ability to perceive, and that until we have languages for certain states of consciousness and perception, we won't be able to use them. He saw his work as an extension of general semantics, a system developed in the 30's by Alfred Korzybski, author of Science and Sanity. Korzybski's famous statement, "the map is not the territory" is more than an observation; it's a tool for living more perceptively. A lot of my friend George's work was in training people to open up the ladder of perception, to recognize the difference between what you are experiencing directly vs. through various levels of abstraction, to let go preconceived notions and let the world come in fresh. George also argued that as human consciousness evolves, certain things that were once on the frontiers of awareness, and that were experienced with near-mystical force, become commonplaces as they are routinely abstracted into language. In my classics honors thesis at Harvard, I used this premise to assess certain of Plato's dialogues, arguing that the mystical overtones with which Socrates describes concepts like justice and truth were the result of the newness of his ideas. As we "rehearse" these now familiar ideas thousands of years later, we don't get that same rush. Most of us receive them at a level of abstraction, fitting them into our accepted system of facts, rather than taking them in through the entire ABCD perceptual cycle. (And yes, I recently came across a copy of the thesis, and when I find time, I'll scan it and put it up online.) Wow, I had no idea that Joi's blog would set me off on such a tour of the underpinnings of my personal intellectual history! But I have to say that I still find this kind of thinking incredibly stimulating, and my early training a big help in coming at ideas and situations with a fresh and balanced eye. P.S. My friend George died in an accident in 1973, and his writings were never widely published. Korzybski's book is out of print, but there's a contemporary book on general semantics called Drive Yourself Sane that seems to be fairly highly recommended, and of course, there's A.E. van Vogt's science-fiction classic, The World of Null-A, which is about to be reissued. Some related ideas can be found in a book called Focusing by Eugene Gendlin. Gendlin's work comes from a completely different tradition than general semantics, but it has some similarities to parts of George Simon's work in training people to surrender to their perceptions and let new information come in, rather than hanging on so hard to existing maps. Tim O'Reilly is founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, Inc., and an activist for Internet standards and for open source software. For everything Tim, see tim.oreilly.com. http://weblogs.oreilly.com/pub/wlg/1933 >"What have you got against consensus anyway?" > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Dead... You ignored an important question: What is the difference between science and religion that explains why science can achieve consensus but religion can't? I've only been able to skim the article you quote below, but one issue seems to be the idea that a scientific theory achieves consensus mostly through conformity and the use of thought-constraining language. Conformity and thought-constraining language are also features of religion, but somehow they don't result in a consensus there. In the article my signature quote comes from, Celia Farber starts by talking about the effects of language on thought. A paragraph or two later, she quotes a suggestion by Robert Giraldo that we should only talk about severe immune deficiency, not AIDS. Changing the language we speak in this way would prevent us from referring separately to an immune deficiency with observable characteristics that distinguish it from other immune deficiencies. In other words, the effect of Giraldo's suggested change in language would be to constrain thought. It's interesting... Revolutionaries who overthrow oppressors often become oppressors. Some of the people who fled old world religious tyranny became religious tyrants in the new world. The conspiracy theorists in Foucault's Pendulum turned into conspirators the moment they got their hands on power or an illusion thereof. The efforts of one AIDS dissident, who talks about consensus as if it's an evil thing, would if successful result in just another consensus. And another AIDS dissident complains about the constraining effect on thought of the language of "orthodox" science, and then quotes approvingly a proposal to modify language in order to constrain thought. What a fascinating pattern we see here! SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber “It's interesting... Revolutionaries who overthrow oppressors often become oppressors. Some of the people who fled old world religious tyranny became religious tyrants in the new world. The conspiracy theorists in Foucault's Pendulum turned into conspirators the moment they got their hands on power or an illusion thereof. The efforts of one AIDS dissident, who talks about consensus as if it's an evil thing, would if successful result in just another consensus. And another AIDS dissident complains about the constraining effect on thought of the language of "orthodox" science, and then quotes approvingly a proposal to modify language in order to constrain thought. What a fascinating pattern we see here!" David, you are so f.cking smart! Are you gay? Single? Interested in dating an "HIV-positive" guy? Yes, yes, yes, it is the way of the world for the new system of freedom that overthrows the old system of oppression to become the new system of oppression to another system of freedom. We are coming to the end of one system of oppression. The HIV=AIDS paradigm is part of that system. There are other paradigms that are part of that system. I am sure you can think of others that are being highlighted in the news these days... So the "dissidents" are just dissenting the current system of consensus thought. Just as every great scientific discovery has been made by a scientist rebelling against what was "known to be irrefutable," in its day, the dissident scientists are simply rebelling against the “science by consensus” based on old scientific understandings. That's all. That's why the orthodox scientists are all "consensus thinkers." And that's why all the dissident scientists are all "critical thinkers.” Consensus thinking upholds what is thought to be true. Critical thinking calls what is thought to be true into question. Look back at history, folks! Don't you think that all of the grave, colossal, and catastrophic errors of the past CAN'T happen today? Look at the world right now! Look at the state of America! The current system of consensus is, literally, straining under the old ways of thinking! And now we are rethinking things! -Paul Whiting Does hiv cause aids? Can HIV Prevention Make a Difference for Men Who Have Sex With Men? Have we made any progress in the gay community? Absolutely. Men who have sex with men (MSM) were hit hard with HIV early in the epidemic, and remain the group predominantly affected by AIDS nationally. Recent publications have highlighted increased HIV infection in certain MSM populations, drawing the dangerous conclusion that prevention is not working in the gay community. Prevention does work, and many gay/bisexual men would not be alive today if it weren't for rigorous prevention efforts. In the second decade of this epidemic, it's extremely important to balance anecdotes with the weight of scientific evidence that prevention can, indeed, make a difference. In 1990, MSM accounted for 73.2% of AIDS cases, but declined to 68.7% in 1994. Clearly, most of the decline occurred in White MSM, whose percentages declined from 51.2% to 45.5%. No such declines were observed for African-American, Asian-American, or Native-American MSM.(1) While AIDS cases among certain segments of MSM have declined, another wave of infection threatens the gay community if commitment to HIV prevention should falter. We can learn a lesson from the public health experience with tuberculosis. In 1969 the federal government provided $20 million for prevention efforts. Tuberculosis cases went down and with the decrease came further decreases in funding, until twenty years later tuberculosis cases had increased past the level from 1969. This is called a "u-shaped curve of concern", where public health improvements lead to diminished funding, which leads to increased new cases.(2) Funding and dedication to HIV prevention efforts must not follow a similar route. Why are some men still taking risks? J ust because safer sex is effective at preventing HIV, doesn't mean it's easy. Continuing safer sex behavior over a long time is difficult; we all know that it's easier to start a diet than to stay on one. For many men in the gay community, the challenge is not to start having safer sex, but to do so consistently and for the long haul.(3) In the second decade of the epidemic, the gay community is struggling with the fact that AIDS is here to stay, and that the prospect of a cure is far away. Overwhelming psychological, cultural and spiritual issues surrounding living in the midst of an epidemic often overcome the ability or desire to remain uninfected.(4) Can prevention reduce new infections? Yes. Significant and substantial reductions in HIV incidence, risk behaviors, incident AIDS cases, and surrogate markers for risk behaviors (like rectal gonorrhea) have been observed, especially among White MSM aged 30 or beyond.(5) In San Francisco, CA, new HIV infections reached a high of 8,000 in 1982. In 1992, the estimated number of new HIV infections was 1,000. Comprehensive community-based HIV prevention programs targeted towards gay and bisexual men in the early to mid-1980s certainly contributed to this dramatic reduction in new HIV infections.(6) Rates of rectal gonorrhea, an indicator of male-to-male transmission, have declined significantly across the US. In New York City, rates declined from 1,577 in 1982 to 50 in 1994. In Denver, CO, rates declined from 354 in 1985 to 10 in 1994.(5) What's working now? HIV prevention programs using small group counseling, community outreach, community mobilization, stress reduction counseling, peer education, and skills training have been effective among all segments of MSM: men in epicenter cities, men in rural communities, young men, adolescents, men of color, and bisexual men. AIDS education led by peers on a community level is effective at reaching higher-risk men. In several medium-sized towns, the most popular people in social settings were trained to deliver AIDS risk-reduction messages to their friends and acquaintances in gay bars. As a result, fewer men practiced unprotected sex.(7) The STOP AIDS Project, which grew out of focus groups conducted early in the epidemic in San Francisco, CA, uses community outreach and small group counseling to reduce HIV risk. About 8,000 men are reached annually, and about 1,800 attend workshops. Self-reported rates of unprotected anal intercourse declined after the workshops, from 25.1% to 19.4%, with even greater differences among HIV positive men. Who is prevention missing? Young MSM continue to be at high risk for HIV infection. In California between 1987 and 1991, HIV incidence among men born 1960-64 increased 216% in Los Angeles County and 206% in San Francisco. One study estimated that a 20-year old MSM has a 20.2% chance of seroconverting before reaching age 25.(8) MSM of color in the US are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic.(9) By March 1993, Latinos comprised 17% of all diagnosed AIDS cases in the US, yet represented only 9% of the general population.(10) In Washington, DC, White MSM showed a 16% decrease in AIDS incidence between 1988 and 1993, while African-American MSM showed a 63% increase.(11) Men who use alcohol or drugs are at a much higher risk for contracting HIV. A recent study of gay men in substance abuse treatment found alarming levels of high-risk sex, levels that approached those recorded before the AIDS epidemic.(12) What needs to be done? Clearly, the scope of HIV among MSM calls for a national effort to reduce new infections. In Canada, the federal government sponsored a simultaneous survey of 4,803 men in 35 cities across the country. Results were published for the public, and based on this, a national intervention project for MSM is being sponsored by the Canadian AIDS Society.(13) The US is more than ready for a similar national effort. Maintenance of safer practices must be encouraged and examined. Without assistance otherwise, return to unsafe practices should be expected. Service providers and scientists need to study this phenomenon and be prepared to assist those who might or have already relapsed from safer sexual practice either occasionally or altogether. Better surveillance systems are needed. Vital and important HIV data should be much easier to find. Regular systems of surveillance that keep closer track of changes in the epidemic are needed, so that rapid responses can be mobilized in target groups where the spread of HIV is occurring. Interventions targeted to "missed" populations are urgently needed. Although programs exist across the country, shamefully few have been evaluated for effectiveness. A comprehensive HIV prevention strategy uses multiple elements to protect as many of those at risk of HIV infection as possible. Continued funding, evaluations, and controlled trials of HIV prevention interventions for diverse groups of MSM must become a priority.(14) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Says who? a.. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report: US HIV and AIDS cases reported through June, 1994. b.. Reichman LB. The u-shaped curve of concern. American Review of Respiratory Diseases. 1991;144:741-742. c.. Stall R. How to lose the fight against AIDS among gay men: declare victory and leave the field. British Medical Journal. 1994;309:685-686. d.. Van Gorder, D. Building community and culture are essential to successful HIV prevention for gay and bisexual men. AIDS & Public Policy Journal. 1995; e.. Coates TJ, Faigle M, Koijane J, et al. Does HIV prevention work for men who have sex with men? Report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. February 1995. f.. Stryker J, Coates TJ, DeCarlo P, et al. Prevention of HIV infection: looking back, looking ahead. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995;273:1143-1148. g.. Kelly JA, St. Lawrence JS, Stevenson LY, et al. Community AIDS/HIV risk reduction: the effects of endorsements by popular people in three cities. American Journal of Public Health. 1992;82.1483-1489. h.. Hoover DR, Mu-oz A, Carey V, et al. Estimating the 19878-1990 and future spread of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in subgroups of homosexual men. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1991;134:1190-1204. i.. Peterson JL, Coates TJ, Catania JA, et al. High-risk sexual behavior and condom use among gay and bisexual African-American men. American Journal of Public Health. 1992;82:1490-1494. j.. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: trends in AIDS diagnosis and reporting under the expanded surveillance definition for adolescents and adults: United States, 1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1994;43:826-831. k.. Government of the District of Columbia HIV Planning Community Planning Committee & Agency for HIV/AIDS, Commission of Public Health, Department of Human Services. Comprehensive HIV prevention plan. Submitted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; October 3, 1994. l.. Canadian AIDS Society. Gaily Forward. Toronto; 1993. m.. Proceedings from the Summit on HIVPrevention for Gay Men, Bisexuals, and Lesbians at Risk. Dallas, TX; 1994. Prepared by Pamela DeCarlo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Franciso should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National AIDS Clearinghouse at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to FactsSheetM@psg.ucsf.edu. ©1996, University of California -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to Fact Sheets main page Return to CAPS home page >"Men who use alcohol or drugs are at a much higher risk for contracting HIV." Aha! That makes me think of: Men who get shot with a .357 Magnum are at a much higher risk for contracting the .357Magnum Virus. On second thought: Who needs the virus to explain the result? "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message > Aha! That makes me think of: > Men who get shot with a .357 Magnum are at a much higher risk for > contracting the .357Magnum Virus. > > On second thought: Who needs the virus to explain the result? Never heard of that virus. I was however looking for a yes or no answer to: does hiv cause aids. The argument over the meds is useless if hiv does not cause aids and something else does. After seeing all the posting you offer, I thought you may know the most basic answer to the most obvious question. >"Never heard of that virus." Of course not. I made it up, to show the absurdity of the HIV/AIDS theory. >"I was however looking for a yes or no answer to: does hiv cause aids." It does not. My hypothetical concept of a ".357Magnum Virus" with the bullet as a "cofactor" just serves to point out that no virus is needed to explain why people get an impaired immune system, get sick and die. There are lots of possible causes for a weakened immunity. Most of these are of a toxic chemical nature. But malnutrition has a negative effect on your immunity too. Even just getting old is a factor. If you have a healthy lifestyle, and you get pneumonia when you're 25, you'll be sick for a while, but you'll survive. If you get pneumonia when you're 85, then the outcome is not always so good. Why look for a virus (especially one that cannot be isolated) when there are so many other factors that can make you immuno-deficient and/or sick? These cases of immuno-deficiency have never been proven to be infectious. They are not transmitted from one person to another. Many predictions have been made about a terrible pandemic, affecting everyone. None of them have come through. No, HIV (if it exists at all) does not cause immunodeficiency or any of the 29 diseases we call AIDS. So if you ever get shot with a .357 Magnum gun, blame the bullet, not some virus. Does hiv cause aids? Thursday, 22nd September 2005 Lemons 'can stop the spread of HIV'< |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message