woven into an explanation of what we observe and more importantly, can
predict - basic tenets of science."

Ah, yes. That's absolutely true.  And the more we observe, th more
inconsistencies we find. So... another strand is woven into the fabrik of
HIV/AIDS.  Not based on any evidence, mind you; just added by decree.  Do
patients who are HIV+ die of liver disease?  Well, don't blame the ARVs;
just invent another virus that attacks the liver.
Are there Long-Term-NonProgessors?  Just tell the Moronic Majority that
there are special proteins ("defensins") protecting these people who don't
abide by the rules.

by building upon what we do
know first, and finding out about other things as we go along."

There have been times when it worked that way.  But for heaven's sake,
man!  You and your ilk have had 21 years, and you have not come up with
something that's even halfway believable!  We're still no further than we
were in 1983, and those who wanted to pursue other avenues of research
have been blocked.  I might add that a massive amount of money has been
relocated from taxpayers' pockets to those of pharma stockholders and
corrupt scientists.  Is this how science has to move forward?

"I propose nothing other then looking at the evidence provided by the
clinical data and educating yourself so that you can understand what it is
you are reading before you expose personal opinions that could cost
someone there life."

So, Gary, let me just go out on a limb here...

How is possble for the dissidents to have such *magical powers of
pursuation* that we can convince intelligent adults to abandon their
faculties of reason and jump head-long into some sort of denialist abyss?

Do you honestly think the folks out there who are HIV+ are just too
f.cking stupid to figure out whether, or not, the doctors and scientist
who disagree with the HIV theory of AIDS are full of it?

How dumb do you think these people are?

Don't you *trust them* to make their own informed decisions about their
health based on *all available* information?

What?  Do you think they need to have their hand held while they go to the
bathroom?  Are they just simple-minded, little children to you?

I *trust them* to make their own informend decisions.

I think they are *fully capable* of deciding for themselves whether the
dissidents are full of sh.t.

And I *believe* in their ability to be thinking, responsible adults.

Do you, Gary?

-Paul Whiting

(Hmmm! I'm gonna enjoy this one)

girl poppers or starving her."

Of course I'm not suggesting any such thing.  Children do get sick, you
know.  There are many pediatric diseases (and I've had them all, some 100
years ago).  Personally, I would not have treated a child's ear infection
with antibiotics (too dangerous, and usually ineffective).  But I'm not an
M.D., and I don't treat patients.
But the point is that children get sick from many causes, and
unfortunately, some die.  The U.S. has never been in a favorable position
on the scale of  child mortality (compared to other developed nations).
But you, and other apologists, have a one-track mind.  You simply won't
accept that Eliza Jane Scovill could have died from any other cause than
HIV.  It just has to be.  Otherwise your virtual world will fall apart.

no similarity there obviously!"

You know very well I read that article on SHIVs, and commented on it.
Yes, there IS a similarity with HIV:  Sloppy science!  Like not performing
control experiments.
Do you know what's in the supernatant of a cell culture?

similarity there obviously!"

Oh, stop waving these SHIVs in my face!  I already told you that paper
sucks, and I told you why.
No control experiment without "virus"
Do you have any idea what kind of crap is present in the supernatant of a
cell culture?

"The pharmacology of most of these drugs is rather clear.  So are the
effects of sleep deprivation and malnutrition.

Yes they are and they have nothing in common with AIDS."

"You won't get any argument from any one hear on MHA as to the importance
of diet/nutrition, clean water, and palative health care for people
everywhere around the world. That said while all the above can and does
slow the progression of AIDS it is by no means sufficient to treat someone
who has a less then 200 CD4 Tcell count."

"The only way to ultimately treat AIDS in concert with good nutrition,
clean water and palative health care is with ARV would you agree with that
statement?"

"It seems odd that that should be the case in that the importance of diet
and nutrition in treating AIDS patients has been recognized in the west
since the beginning of the epidemic."

"I think we will ask this question until we are blue in the face, and we
will ask it in hundred different ways, and in the end we will have to
accept what you and I already know. They don't have an answer for our
questions. Their beloved theory can't explain it. What we will hear is a
lot of stuff basically telling us to stop being like 'gnats' and screaming
'theatrically'. Oh wow, that's definitely going to stop me from wanting to
know the answer."

Yes, Greg, along with the question as to how, precisely, the entire
heterosexual pandemic of AIDS is occurring only on the continent of Africa
when "HIV" has spread worldwide.

"How accurate is "so darned accurate" and who says PCR is that accurate?"

You said it, not me...

FALSE POSITIVE VIRAL LOADS - What Are We Measuring? - By Matt Irwin -
2001

Abstract

"Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and other RNA assays are being used with
increasing frequency in a variety of fields of science and medicine,
especially in the study of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). In spite of the widespread use
of these tests, however, there are several inconsistencies that raise
serious doubts about their accuracy. RNA assays are perhaps most heavily
relied upon in the medical management of people diagnosed with AIDS and in
people who test positive on the HIV antibody tests, where they are used to
measure a person's "viral load". Because many important clinical decisions
are made based on these tests, the highest standards of sensitivity and
specificity should be required."

"The most significant inconsistency in RNA assays for people diagnosed
HIV-positive is the presence of false positive viral loads, which occur
commonly in 3% to 10% of people who have no risk factors for HIV and who
test negative on the HIV antibody tests (people considered HIV-negative).
In the United States, where the prevalence of HIV infection is about 0.4%,
this false positive rate means that random screening using the viral load
test would produce 30 to 100 false positives for every 4 true positives."

"Other inconsistencies include the finding that between 99.99% and
99.9999% of the HIV virions estimated by this method are not infectious,
which raises questions about their ability to cause disease. This paper
will review a number of studies that focus on false positive results on
HIV RNA assays, and will also briefly review some of the other
inconsistencies that raise questions about their accuracy. This review is
not meant to be a comprehensive review, but rather to highlight the most
serious problems and discuss their implications for management of HIV
infection as well as their implications for furthur research. The most
likely explanation for the findings to be reviewed in this paper is that
much of the RNA measured by viral load assays does not come from HIV, but
rather comes from other microbes and from normal human cells."

Conclusions

"While this paper does not explain the cause of false positive viral
loads, it does demonstrate that there is a surprisingly high rate of false
positives. This finding raises enough questions to advise caution
regarding the current heavy reliance placed on them when making treatment
decisions for people diagnosed HIV-positive."

"False positive viral loads occur commonly in 3 to 10% of people who are
HIV negative, with the highest reported rate being 60%. The highest false
positive viral load reported was in the range of 10,000 to 100,000 copies
per milliliter, and it is possible that some values over 1.5 million also
indicated false positives although no follow up data is available for
these cases. This fact must be contrasted with the current practice of
changing antiretroviral regimens if a person's viral load does not fall
below 50, as described in Mylonakis et al.'s (2001) description of current
practice guidelines."

"One hypothesis that could explain these findings is that HIV viral load
assays commonly misidentify RNA from normal human cells and from other
microbes as being from HIV. This hypothesis could be tested by measuring
viral loads in acutely ill people with high RNA levels in their blood.
Because anti-HIV medications reduce RNA synthesis in a wide variety of
cells, the reductions in viral load that accompany the use of these
medications may indicate a non-specific reduction in total RNA burden, as
opposed to a specific reduction in HIV RNA. This argument is supported by
the finding of Piatak et al (1993) and others that most people with high
viral loads do not have culturable/infectious virus, and that even in
people who do have culturable virus, between 99.99% and 99.9999% of the
viruses are non-culturable and non-infectious. These "non-infectious"
viruses may represent falsely elevated viral loads due to
misidentification of RNA from human cells and other microbes."

"Another implication of the findings is that the diagnosis of
HIV-infection continues to rely heavily on the ELISA and Western Blot
antibody tests. The accuracy of these antibody tests and the experimental
methodology used to determine their sensitivity and specificity should
thus be carefully examined, especially since some authors consider false
positives to be a problem with these tests as well (Proffitt et al. 1993,
Challakeree et al. 1997, de Harven 1998a&b, Giraldo 1998, MacKenzie 1992,
Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. 1993, Sayre et al. 1996). A strong
correlation between positive viral loads and positive HIV antibody tests
is expected because the viral load tests are designed to look for RNA
sequences that come from the proteins used in the antibody tests. If a
person tests positive for the antibodies, they are likely to have RNA with
the same code sequences in their blood because this RNA is used by the
cells to code for these proteins. This means that a false positive
HIV-antibody test is very likely to increase the risk of a false positive
viral load."

"Furthur examination of what factors increase the risk of false positive
or falsely elevated viral loads would be extremely valuable since many
treatment decisions are currently based in viral load measurements. Until
such research is undertaken, however, it is advisable to make treatment
decisions based on a person's symptoms and on the presence of clinical
illness, and not to rely heavily on viral load test results. If a person
appears to be clinically worse even though their viral load has gone down,
it may be advisable to reduce or stop the medications being administered.
Much of the reduced viral load observed in this situation may be due to
toxic effects on human cells. Likewise, if a person is clinically healthy
even though their viral load is high and they are not on any anti-HIV
medications, it may be advisable to withhold medication and instead
encourage conservative health promoting measures that focus on
nutritional, social, psychological, and spiritual health, rather than
focusing on treatments whose primary goal is to reduce the person's 'viral
load'."

Matt Irwin MD is a family practice resident who wrote several literature
reviews on HIV and AIDS while attending medical school at George
Washington University. He also holds a Master's degree in social work from
the Catholic University of America. In addition to his interest in
alternative views of HIV and AIDS, he specializes in health promotion with
nutritional, psychological, social, and spiritual interventions, as well
as classical homeopathy. He has a practice near Washington, D.C.

For the entire article, please see go to
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/miloads.htm

"How accurate is "so darned accurate" and who says PCR is that accurate?"

You said it, not me...

FALSE POSITIVE VIRAL LOADS - What Are We Measuring? - By Matt Irwin -
2001

Abstract

"Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and other RNA assays are being used with
increasing frequency in a variety of fields of science and medicine,
especially in the study of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the
acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). In spite of the widespread use
of these tests, however, there are several inconsistencies that raise
serious doubts about their accuracy. RNA assays are perhaps most heavily
relied upon in the medical management of people diagnosed with AIDS and
in
people who test positive on the HIV antibody tests, where they are used
to
measure a person's "viral load". Because many important clinical
decisions
are made based on these tests, the highest standards of sensitivity and
specificity should be required."

"The most significant inconsistency in RNA assays for people diagnosed
HIV-positive is the presence of false positive viral loads, which occur
commonly in 3% to 10% of people who have no risk factors for HIV and who
test negative on the HIV antibody tests (people considered HIV-negative).
In the United States, where the prevalence of HIV infection is about
0.4%,
this false positive rate means that random screening using the viral load
test would produce 30 to 100 false positives for every 4 true positives."

"Other inconsistencies include the finding that between 99.99% and
99.9999% of the HIV virions estimated by this method are not infectious,
which raises questions about their ability to cause disease. This paper
will review a number of studies that focus on false positive results on
HIV RNA assays, and will also briefly review some of the other
inconsistencies that raise questions about their accuracy. This review is
not meant to be a comprehensive review, but rather to highlight the most
serious problems and discuss their implications for management of HIV
infection as well as their implications for furthur research. The most
likely explanation for the findings to be reviewed in this paper is that
much of the RNA measured by viral load assays does not come from HIV, but
rather comes from other microbes and from normal human cells."

Conclusions

"While this paper does not explain the cause of false positive viral
loads, it does demonstrate that there is a surprisingly high rate of
false
positives. This finding raises enough questions to advise caution
regarding the current heavy reliance placed on them when making treatment
decisions for people diagnosed HIV-positive."

"False positive viral loads occur commonly in 3 to 10% of people who are
HIV negative, with the highest reported rate being 60%. The highest false
positive viral load reported was in the range of 10,000 to 100,000 copies
per milliliter, and it is possible that some values over 1.5 million also
indicated false positives although no follow up data is available for
these cases. This fact must be contrasted with the current practice of
changing antiretroviral regimens if a person's viral load does not fall
below 50, as described in Mylonakis et al.'s (2001) description of
current
practice guidelines."

"One hypothesis that could explain these findings is that HIV viral load
assays commonly misidentify RNA from normal human cells and from other
microbes as being from HIV. This hypothesis could be tested by measuring
viral loads in acutely ill people with high RNA levels in their blood.
Because anti-HIV medications reduce RNA synthesis in a wide variety of
cells, the reductions in viral load that accompany the use of these
medications may indicate a non-specific reduction in total RNA burden, as
opposed to a specific reduction in HIV RNA. This argument is supported by
the finding of Piatak et al (1993) and others that most people with high
viral loads do not have culturable/infectious virus, and that even in
people who do have culturable virus, between 99.99% and 99.9999% of the
viruses are non-culturable and non-infectious. These "non-infectious"
viruses may represent falsely elevated viral loads due to
misidentification of RNA from human cells and other microbes."

"Another implication of the findings is that the diagnosis of
HIV-infection continues to rely heavily on the ELISA and Western Blot
antibody tests. The accuracy of these antibody tests and the experimental
methodology used to determine their sensitivity and specificity should
thus be carefully examined, especially since some authors consider false
positives to be a problem with these tests as well (Proffitt et al. 1993,
Challakeree et al. 1997, de Harven 1998a&b, Giraldo 1998, MacKenzie 1992,
Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. 1993, Sayre et al. 1996). A strong
correlation between positive viral loads and positive HIV antibody tests
is expected because the viral load tests are designed to look for RNA
sequences that come from the proteins used in the antibody tests. If a
person tests positive for the antibodies, they are likely to have RNA
with
the same code sequences in their blood because this RNA is used by the
cells to code for these proteins. This means that a false positive
HIV-antibody test is very likely to increase the risk of a false positive
viral load."

"Furthur examination of what factors increase the risk of false positive
or falsely elevated viral loads would be extremely valuable since many
treatment decisions are currently based in viral load measurements. Until
such research is undertaken, however, it is advisable to make treatment
decisions based on a person's symptoms and on the presence of clinical
illness, and not to rely heavily on viral load test results. If a person
appears to be clinically worse even though their viral load has gone
down,
it may be advisable to reduce or stop the medications being administered.
Much of the reduced viral load observed in this situation may be due to
toxic effects on human cells. Likewise, if a person is clinically healthy
even though their viral load is high and they are not on any anti-HIV
medications, it may be advisable to withhold medication and instead
encourage conservative health promoting measures that focus on
nutritional, social, psychological, and spiritual health, rather than
focusing on treatments whose primary goal is to reduce the person's
'viral
load'."

Matt Irwin MD is a family practice resident who wrote several literature
reviews on HIV and AIDS while attending medical school at George
Washington University. He also holds a Master's degree in social work
from
the Catholic University of America. In addition to his interest in
alternative views of HIV and AIDS, he specializes in health promotion
with
nutritional, psychological, social, and spiritual interventions, as well
as classical homeopathy. He has a practice near Washington, D.C.

For the entire article, please see go to
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/miloads.htm

antibody tests.  In infants, the antibody tests are less reliable than the
PCR test."

Well, I understood what you meant all along, Mr. Canzi.
In adults, the antibody tests suck (even apologists know that), but PCR is
even less reliable.
In spite of PCR being less reliable in adults, it's still the best we have
for children, because for children the antibody tests are yet even less
reliable. (And that is getting very damn f.cking unreliable, I might
add).

Mr Canzi

You can try and derail my question by tying it up in semantics, but it
won't work. I'm sure YOU would say that the antibody test is accurate in
adults and you are saying that the PCR is less accurate than the antibody
tests in adults. That's fine, I read that and I understood it. You then
said that in babies the PCR test is less accurate than the antibody tests.
I understand that. But the point is that if PCR is suitable to diagnose
infection in babies (even if it less reliable than antibody tests) then it
should be suitable to diagnose adults (even if PCR is less accurate than
antibody tests!). The fact that it is not used to diagnose in adults is an
indication that it is NOT considered to be suitable.

I asked you two questions. Firstly, HOW do you KNOW that a) the antibody
tests are better than PCR in adults and vice versa for infants? In other
words, what gold standard was used in order to validate the comparison?

Secondly, I asked you if you could explain if there were any differences
between detecting RNA in babies as opposed to adults which could account
for the lack of diagnostic power in adults. Please don't tell me again
about maternal antibodies. I understand that they confound the antibody
tests in babies. And I understand that that's why there is a reliance on
the PCR in infants. What I'm trying to determine is if there is a
theoretical underpinning for the policy of relying on PCR in babies but it
is not indicated for use in adults.