 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / November 2005a non-believer in HIV as the cause of AIDS got closer to dying his beliefs started changing but not quickly enough to save him.
Yesterday's Boston Globe had an obit about Leroy Whitfield, a non-believer in HIV as the cause of AIDS. As he got closer to dying his beliefs started changing--but not quickly enough to save him. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2005/10/15/leroy_whitfield_ 36_author_wrote_about_effect_of_aids_on_americas_black_community/ > Yesterday's Boston Globe had an obit about Leroy Whitfield, > a non-believer in HIV as the cause of AIDS. As he got closer > to dying his beliefs started changing--but not quickly > enough to save him. > http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2005/10/15/leroy_whitfield_ 36_author_wrote_about_effect_of_aids_on_americas_black_community/ Hmmm. Died at the age of 36 of complications of AIDS without having ever taken any AIDS drugs. Certainly makes one think.  SignatureLarry D. Farrell, Ph.D. Professor of Microbiology Idaho State University I do not deny that AIDS exists. I do whole heartedly appose tactics like "Hit it hard, hit it early" and pushing western drugs as the one shining hope. Also the tactics of using a fellow human beings death as a propaganda tool for discrediting all dissident ideas is an ugly and obviously corrupt path. Are you sure you want to stay on it? Are you HIV positive Larry? Have you had a child born from your HIV positive wife and been threatened by doctors? And the threat of being reported to child protection came after AZT at birth, six weeks of the sh.t after birth and two F***ING negative tests. I simply told them I was not going to test her the F***ING THIRD time till after we moved and would let our new doctor take care of it. I had her case removed from that hospital with the help of my MD friend thank God for that. Being a dissident was forced upon me by this corrupt system. I would rather not have to think about such things. Don't you see how politics and corporate profit have limited our research in AIDS? Why the F*** do I have to be a dissident in the first place, science is supposed to be unbiased. How F***ING long are we going to allow ourselves to be poisoned by Big Pharma without equal money being spent in non toxic non-patentable therapies. Your death post is ugly and heartless > I do not deny that AIDS exists. Good. > I do whole heartedly appose tactics like... pushing western drugs as > the one shining hope. You have this way of exaggerating what hasn't been said to begin with. Is it that, like the 'creationists' you're using the "let's have an option' method of actually pushing alternatives out the window? I do notice you haven't answered my question involving your statement about the ARVs under "dire emergency" what would constitutate a dire emergency to you? > Also the tactics of using a fellow human beings death as a > propaganda tool for discrediting all dissident ideas is an ugly and > obviously corrupt path. The point is that some of you are saying that people aren't dying of AIDS, they are dying from the ARVs. Here's a statement that someone died of AIDS without the ARVs. And to think about that. B/ "The point is that some of you are saying that people aren't dying of AIDS, they are dying from the ARVs. Here's a statement that someone died of AIDS without the ARVs. And to think about that." Yes, but, what *really* killed him? What if he actually had one of the "AIDS defining" illnesses, and it caused him to die, is that some kind of "proof" that "HIV" exists? If the “AIDS defining illnesses” have other causes besides “HIV” who is to say that one of those *other causes* didn’t create the disease and not “HIV.” "But, but they tested positive for HIV!" the apologists will protest! Yet ALL of the "AIDS defining" illnesses exist *without* HIV, and even if someone tests "positive" for "HIV" and they die - regardless of what the actual cause was, as we saw with EJ – the medical establishment proclaims they died of "AIDS." Poof! It’s circular logic. No one gets *in* or *out.* And then the apologists can dance around that person’s grave crying "See, see? We told you it was real!" That's what they did with EJ. They even put it on the news! And, then, they can *trick* others into buying into the bullshit about these non-specific tests actually detecting something called “HIV.” That's why "HIV" does *NOT* cause any NEW diseases (or, more specifically, why it doesn’t cause its *own* disease) even though it's and brand-spanking new virus! “HIV” is NOT *differentiating.* It’s NOT following the theory of evolution! It’s NOT doing something NEW after evolving from something ELSE. If it were a NEW virus, it would cause a NEW disease. That is the nature of the universe: EVOLUTION. And EVERYTHING is evolving! Even mountains evolve! Rivers evolve! The whole GODDAMN Universe is evolving, but HIV is just mimicking what others do. It’s kind of like conformist thinkers… They don’t have any original thoughts, so they rely on others to think creatively for them. They must think like everyone else thinks. They must “go along” with the crowd, which is why they are so bent on belonging to a group and *believing* whatever the group believes, no matter how ridiculous, or implausible, it may get... ”HIV” DOESN'T CAUSE ITS VERY OWN DISEASE. “HIV” DOESN'T BEHAVE LIKE A VIRUS. IT BEHAVES LIKE A *CONSTRUCT* -Paul Whiting > "The point is that some of you are saying that people aren't dying of > AIDS, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > say that one of those *other causes* didn’t create the disease and not > “HIV.” Yeah, and, and, what if cows are really horses, and horses are really cows. I mean gee who would know? Gary Stein Each virus causes a new disease? Could you tell that to adenoviruses, coronaviruses and rhinoviruses? Adenovirus: This nose ain't big enough for the three of us. Rhinovirus: Everyone knows that I cause the common cold you two get out of here. Coronavirus: According to the dissident rules of viral pathogenesis only one of us can cause the common cold therefore it's me. Adenovirus: Hang on, why do we care what some guy called Paulee says. Why can't we all get along. We can all cause the same symptoms. Rhinovirus: Yeah, I'm sick of these dissident types telling us what we can and can't do. I'll share my disease with you. Coronavirus: I like sharing! Chris Noble "Adenovirus: This nose ain't big enough for the three of us. Rhinovirus: Everyone knows that I cause the common cold you two get out of here. Coronavirus: According to the dissident rules of viral pathogenesis only one of us can cause the common cold therefore it's me. Adenovirus: Hang on, why do we care what some guy called Paulee says. Why can't we all get along. We can all cause the same symptoms. Rhinovirus: Yeah, I'm sick of these dissident types telling us what we can and can't do. I'll share my disease with you. Coronavirus: I like sharing!" I have taught you *well*, my young apprentice! That was freakin' funny, Chris! Yet, all of these viruses (according to the definitions I looked up) cause a certain "grouping" of diseases. They don’t cause one type, or grouping, of diseases and *also* cause another type, or grouping, of disease caused by another microbe! Are any other viruses out there, besides "HIV," which are thought to cause *known diseases* that all have *other known causes*? In other words, are there other viruses, besides "HIV," that can literally *mimic* diseases that other microbes cause *so precisely* that the only way to tell the difference between them is to compare them to their gold standard of isolation? And is there any other virus out there, besides “HIV,” that can accomplish this feat of perfect imitation with such a wide, and varied, grouping of diseases? HIV: always imitated, never isolated! -Paul Whiting > "Adenovirus: This nose ain't big enough for the three of us. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Are any other viruses out there, besides "HIV," which are thought to cause > *known diseases* that all have *other known causes*? Oh Paul were did you see anyone here on in the medical literature claim that HIV is the etiologic cause of any opportunistic infection. You have been told that HIV does destroy the bodies immune response thus leaving it's victims susceptible to opportunistic infections. Why do you suppose they are called opportunistic infections in the first place? The OI's labeled as AIDS defining are those that are so rare as to be non-existent in patients with functioning immune systems and many of them even extremely rare in people (such as transplant and cancer patients) with damaged immune systems. What is there about the above statement that bothers you so much that you consistently misunderstand it or make false assumptions as you do in your statements above? Gary Stein "Oh Paul were did you see anyone here on in the medical literature claim that HIV is the etiologic cause of any opportunistic infection. You have been told that HIV does destroy the bodies immune response thus leaving it's victims susceptible to opportunistic infections. Why do you suppose they are called opportunistic infections in the first place?" The AIDS defining illnesses exist *without* HIV as their cause. If they can occur *without* HIV being present, then whether these OIs are caused by HIV - even in someone who's "HIV-positive" - is up to debate. Who's to say the *other* known causes of these diseases are not actually responsible for what is blamed on "HIV." And with "treatments" like AZT, who's to say it is *not* the medication actually causing the disease. All of us already know AZT is deadly. You can't skirt around that one, boys. So, if you're giving toxic meds to "save" someone who's "dying anyway," who's to say what *really* killed the person, huh? It all looks so *terribly innocent* when someone has a "known terminal illness" and dies. One might have to think they're something else going on here. One might have to question what we're being fed... -Paul Whiting > "Oh Paul were did you see anyone here on in the medical literature claim > that HIV is the etiologic cause of any opportunistic infection. You have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can occur *without* HIV being present, then whether these OIs are caused > by HIV - even in someone who's "HIV-positive" - is up to debate. They all exist with out HIV as there cause because as I said above HIV does not directly cause any of the AIDS defining illnesses what about that statement do you not understand. That said will you provide us with a case history of one person with a functioning immune system who had PCP? Gary Stein > "The point is that some of you are saying that people aren't dying of AIDS, > they are dying from the ARVs. Here's a statement that someone died of > AIDS without the ARVs. And to think about that." (snip) Ya know... if you were dipped in clue musk, and dropped into a field of horny clues during clue mating season--you STILL wouldn't be able to attract one. B/ > I do whole heartedly appose tactics like... pushing western drugs as > the one shining hope. >You have this way of exaggerating what hasn't been said to begin with. I see this as an obvious reality in nearly all western medicine. With AIDS is seems even more criminal to focus 99% of research funds on killing a "slow" virus and not spending SH** on things like managing oxidative stress in people dying FAST from AIDS >I do notice you haven't answered my question involving your statement about the ARVs under "dire emergency" what would constitutate a dire emergency to you? Dire emergency would be apparent life threatening illness like the many OI's they have shown effectiveness in treating. I believe there are naturopathic solutions but we will not find or prove them until big pharma can profit from them or we can rise as a nation and enforce spending on non-patenable (low profit to pharma) solutions. >The point is that some of you are saying that people aren't dying of >AIDS, they are dying from the ARVs. Here's a statement that someone >died of AIDS without the ARVs. And to think about that. I hate this dissident/orthodox line we seem to fall into It creates an atmosphere of us and them when actually we all want the same thing, for people to not die of AIDS. ARV's will kill you we all know that. It's are current style in medicine to list cause of death as the bug and not the therapy even when the therapy is highly suspect. It distorts the numbers and misleads people and funding. Using a statement from mass media that is corrupt and backed by drug company sponsors is a poor source for facts. I would be more interested in real life accounts from people without drug company ties or personnel profit on how the facts are presented. Personally I don't remember anyone stating that a person cannot die of an AIDS defining illness without being on ARV's. Although “complications” is a rather vague description in this statement of AIDS defining. I am interested in science and it seems to me that the evidence of HIV is overwhelming. And actually HIV research has pushed immune system knowledge to new heights. Now thousands of scientists are working on immune system issues from university people to pharmacological employees. And it seems rather simple to me. AIDS virus eats (to simplify things) your white blood cells specifically your cd4 cells. So whatever cd4 cells do for you is impaired. Like if I have liver cancer and my liver is destroyed my blood is not detoxified and my glucose is not converted to glycogen.. So I die. So whatever your white blood cells do you lose their function, so if you lose them, you lose part of your immune system so you are not protected and suffer the consequence. And from looking at children born without functioning cd4 cells (which is rare but happens) they will die without being injected with blood from healthy people. The body is full of vital systems that we cannot live long without, like heart, liver, kidney, red blood cells or white blood cells. So why is it so hard to see HIV virus eats cd4 cells and really exists, I live in Los Angeles as a landlord and seen over the last 10 years Aids come into the neighborhood and infect many of my neighbors and tenants, and chew them up, they shrink in height, lose weight, cough, vomit, bloat up with medication and steadily go down hill, while I just get fatter and slower in my old age. I have seen it infect old men, men, women, children babies and others and am scared shitless of getting it, but stay faithfull to one old lady only, don't use drugs, and try to eat good. I would gladly die of heart attack and not go through suffeing. If they could add hiv to a test tube full of T-Cells and watch those cells become infected and die it could be just that simple. It aint that simple... > If they could add hiv to a test tube full of T-Cells and watch those > cells become infected and die it could be just that simple. > It aint that simple... Well actually yes it is..................... Ever read any of the research on the culturing of HIV, or the use of modified HIV as a means of implementing genetic therapies? Gary Stein If they could add hiv to a test tube full of T-Cells and watch those > cells become infected and die it could be just that simple. > It aint that simple... >Ever read any of the research on the culturing of HIV, or the use of >modified HIV as a means of implementing genetic therapies? >Gary Stein You confer my point very well Gary :) P.S. I have little understanding why mainstream thinking has not admitted plausible doubt on this HIV/AIDS theory but I will continue to learn the science and hope my understanding grows. I must admit to having difficulty reading piles of mainstream data but I do my best. Mostly I have read the case that Perth groups makes for plausible doubt in virtually the entire theory. > If they could add hiv to a test tube full of T-Cells and watch those >> cells become infected and die it could be just that simple. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I do my best. Mostly I have read the case that Perth groups makes for > plausible doubt in virtually the entire theory. That's probably the worst example of pseudo science written by so called experts with a lay audience in mind. The Perth group knows very well that what they say and how they say it will have an impact orders of magnitude greater on a lay reader then it does on someone with even a modest understanding of the science they purportedly are criticizing. In the 15 years they have been making there statements the recent debate on the BMJ and one panel discussion at an AIDS conference are the only times that any member of the Perth group has had the courage to face real experts in HIV and AIDS and engage in debate. In both cases they were not credible nor did they manage to provide a single paragraph of data that supports there statements about HIV and AIDS. They are very skillful as writers of personal opinion but when it comes down to science they fail utterly and completely when it comes to providing experimental results that back up there statements and that is what science is about. Did you follow the debate the Perth group attempted to have with real scientists on the BMJ? If you did can you honestly say they were able to back up a single one of there contentions with actual experimental data? They are the most dishonest group of charlatans it has been my misfortune to see published on the web. They know that they have nothing to say to real scientists so they couch there comments in ways that will appeal to the uneducated audience of HIV positive people who are desperately looking for someone to tell them they have nothing to worry about. This is despicable and if they were American's they would most likely find them selves in court facing lawsuits for slander and potentially a few other charges. I understand why they are attractive to those who believe they have reasons to mistrust the medical and pharmaceutical institutions of the western world but I find it inexcusable that they knowingly tell those folks blatant lies and disguise those lies as scientific debate. The Perth Group has to date made not a single attempt to back up there contentions with anything other then there personal opinions. Don't you think if they are the scientists they claim to be that they could do more then that? Just one experiment, just one piece of original thinking, just one actual argument that has data to back it up, but no they seem unable to do any of the things I have just mentioned. This should make anyone mistrust them and there statements, I fail to understand how you can think otherwise. Gary Stein > If they could add hiv to a test tube full of T-Cells and watch those > cells become infected and die it could be just that simple. > It aint that simple... It is that simple. There are many papers showing just this. Here is one example. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=2410792&query_hl=11 A molecular clone of HTLV-III with biological activity. Fisher AG, Collalti E, Ratner L, Gallo RC, Wong-Staal F. Nature. 1985 Jul 18-24;316(6025):262-5. I choose this paper intentionally because Duesberg cites it as evidence that HIV exists. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/continu1.html "In conclusion: HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science has to offer. An infectious DNA of 9.15 kilo bases (kb) has been cloned from the cells of HIV-antibody-positive persons, that -upon transfection- induces the synthesis of an unique retrovirus. This DNA "isolates" HIV from all cellular molecules, even from viral proteins and RNA. Having cloned infectious DNA of HIV is as much isolation of HIV as one can possibly get, it is like isolating the fifth symphony from an orchestra hall by recording it on a CD. The retrovirus encoded by this infectious DNA reacts with the same antibodies that crossreact with Montagnier"s global HIV standard, produced by immortal cell lines in many labs and companies around the world for the HIV-test. This confirms the existence of the retrovirus HIV." What Duesberg does not mention is that this molecular clone was cytopathic. Add it to T-cells and they are infected and die And they used controls! Chris Noble What Duesberg does not mention is that this molecular clone was cytopathic. Add it to T-cells and they are infected and die And they used controls! Thank you Chris, Could you tell me Duesberg's reason for not believing the cytopathic evidence was not valid? Or am I to believe Duesberg just ignores proofs because he enjoys being the underdog? I mean no disrespect but I feel you are leaving something out and you sharing it would save me allot of time looking it up. My guess would be since he supports the papers evidence of HIV he has reason not to support the cytopathic evidence and not that he just chooses to ignore it. > What Duesberg does not mention is that this molecular clone was > cytopathic. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thank you Chris, > Could you tell me Duesberg's reason for not believing the cytopathic evidence was not valid? I have no idea. I have not found an explanation of why Duesberg does not mention the cytopathic effects. Duesberg does frequently mention the immortal cell lines that are used to culture HIV. Duesberg and others frequently cite this as evidence that HIV is not cytopathic. However, Gallo and his coworkers spent a great deal of time finding an immortal cell line and tweaking the conditions so that it could support HIV replication without killing *ALL* of the cells. There are many cell lines which cannot be used for culturing HIV for extended periods because it kills the cells. If you put HIV in ordinary donor T-cells it kills them. > Or am I to believe Duesberg just ignores proofs > because he enjoys being the underdog? I mean no disrespect but I feel you > are leaving something out and you sharing it would save me allot of time > looking it up. There is nothing that I can find in the paper that would suggest a plausible reason for accepting this paper as evidence for the existence of HIV but at the same time not accepting it as direct evidence for the cytopathic properties. > My guess would be since he supports the papers evidence of HIV he has > reason not to support the cytopathic evidence and not that he just chooses > to ignore it. My kindest guess would be that it was carelessness. Duesberg might have read the paper at one stage and acknowledged the evidence for the existence of HIV. Sometime later Duesberg is exasperated by the claims by some dissidents that HIV does not exist. Duesberg thinks that this is a stupid claim and that it will sidetrack his own aims. He responds to the Continuum challenge to try to resolve the issue. He then looks up these referneces but does not read them fully again. My only problem with this guess is that Duesberg does the same thing several times. He cites papers and accepts part of its conclusions when it suits him but ignores other conclusions. In some cases he ignores the original data but accepts the conclusions that were derived from the data. You could try emailing him and asking him. Duesberg appears to have more time for his supporters than for his critics. He is more likely to give you an answer than myself. http://www.duesberg.com/contact.html Chris Noble From what I gather here http://www.duesberg.com/articles/ept4cells.html is he supports the theory that cell death is the result of the oxidizing agents the cultures are exposed to and not to the HIV that is also present Again thank you for the input Chris Cut-n-Paste The conclusion that HIV has an "intrinsic effect" on PCD can be questioned on several grounds: 1. The "slight acceleration of the first signs of apoptosis" in the stimulated HIV infected cultures, as compared to the non-HIV infected stimulated cultures, may not be due to HIV but to the many non-HIV factors present in "HIV" inocula, including: (a) Mycoplasmas and other infectious agents; (b) The many cellular proteins present in the "HIV preparation" (Henderson et al., 1987); (c ) PHA, present in the cultures from which the "HIV preparation" was derived; 2. That HIV is not the cause of apoptosis is also indicated by the fact that in chronically infected cell lines in which virus is continuously produced, apoptosis is not detected; 3. That HIV may play no role in apoptosis is also suggested by the presently accepted mechanism of apoptosis. Apoptosis occurs both in healthy and in pathological conditions, is frequently prominent amongst the proliferating cells of lymphoid germinal centres, and can be enhanced by numerous agents including radiation, cytotoxic drugs, corticosteroids and the calcium ionophore A23187 (Kerr & Searle, 1972; Don et al., 1977; Wyllie et al., 1980; Wyllie et al., 1984). Apoptosis is cellular death characterised by morphological criteria: cellular condensation, DNA fragmentation, and plasma membrane "blebbing" leading to the release of "apoptic bodies" which vary widely in size and some of which contain pyknotic chromatin surrounded by intact membranes (Kerr & Searle, 1972; Don et al., 1977; Wyllie et al., 1980; Wyllie et al., 1984). These changes are thought to be induced by increased concentration of Ca++ which in its turn induces contraction of the cytoskeleton whose main components are known to be the ubiquitous proteins, actin and myosin (Jewell et al., 1982; Cohen & Duke, 1984; McConkey et al., 1988; McConkey et al., 1989; Reed, 1990). However, evidence exists indicating that intracellular Ca++ concentration and contraction of the actin-myosin system (cellular condensation), are induced by perturbances in the cellular redox state (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1985; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1989b). In fact, for more than a decade, evidence has existed showing that oxidising agents, including all mitogenic (activating) agents, can induce: reversible cellular changes; cellular activation; malignant transformation; mitogen unresponsive cells; or cellular death, including death by apoptosis. The ultimate outcome depends on the concentration of the agent, its rate of application, the initial state of the cells and the cellular milieu (See reference (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1982)). More recent data confirm the fact that the intracellular free Ca++ concentration is regulated by the cellular redox state. Oxidation leads to an increased, and reduction to a decreased, Ca++ concentration (Trimm et al., 1986). Cellular surface blebbing (Jewell et al., 1982; Lemasters et al., 1987; Reed, 1990), chromatin condensation (Pellicciari et al., 1983), and apoptosis (Morris et al., 1984) are the direct result of cellular oxidation in general and of cellular sulphydryl groups in particular. This is supported by Montagnier's group's recent finding that apoptosis can be inhibited by reducing agents (Ren» et al., 1992). (In fact, at present, Montagnier (Gougeon & Montagnier, 1993) agrees with our view that anti-oxidants should be used for treatment of HIV/AIDS patients (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1988; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1989a; Turner, 1990; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992a; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b)). At present it is also known that: (a) for the expression of HIV phenomena (RT, virus-like particles, antigen/antibody reactions), activation (mitogenic stimulation) is a necessary requirement (Klatzmann & Montagnier, 1986; Ameisen & Capron, 1991; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b); (b) activation (stimulation) is induced by oxidation (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1982; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b); Since both AIDS cultures and AIDS patients are exposed to mitogens (activating agents), all of which are oxidising agents (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1988), both apoptosis and the phenomena upon which the presence of HIV is based (viral-like particles, RT, antigen/antibody reactions (WB), "HIV-PCR- hybridisation"), may all be the direct result of oxidative stress and therefore their specificity questionable (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1988; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992a; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b). As far back as January 1985 Montagnier wrote, "....replication and cytopathic effect of LAV can only be observed in activated T4 cells. Indeed, LAV infection of resting T4 cells does not lead to viral replication or to expression of viral antigen on the cell surface, while stimulation by lectins or antigens of the same cells results in the production of viral particles, antigenic expression and the cytopathic effect" (Klatzmann & Montagnier, 1986). One year later Gallo and his colleagues wrote: "the expression of HTLV-III was always preceded by the initiation of interleukin-2 secretion, both of which occurred only when T-cells were immunologically [PHA] activated. Thus, the immunological stimulation that was required for IL-2 secretion also induced viral expression, which led to cell death" (Zagury et al., 1986). Thus, relatively early after the appearance of AIDS it was known that HIV is not sufficient for the appearance of the cytopathic effects. For some unknown reason, up till 1991 very little (or no) data was presented regarding the effects of the activating agents themselves on cell survival. However, in the above discussed 1991 Virology paper, Montagnier and his colleagues showed that activation, in the absence of HIV, can induce the same cytopathic effects. In other words, Montagnier and his colleagues have shown that HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient for the induction of the cytopathic effects observed in HIV infected cultures. Thus, the presently available evidence from the in vitro studies does not prove that HIV has direct cytopathic effects on any T-cells, T4 or T8. The cytopathic effects observed in the cultures are most likely caused by the many activating (oxidising) agents to which the cultures are exposed. Even if HIV were shown to have cytopathic effects, since it is accepted that "The hallmark of AIDS is a selective depletion of CD4-bearing helper/inducer" lymphocytes > From what I gather here http://www.duesberg.com/articles/ept4cells.html > is he supports the theory that cell death is the result of the oxidizing > agents the cultures are exposed to and not to the HIV that is also > present > Again thank you for the input Chris That is a Perth Group article. The paper I gave used two different controls with plasmids containing non-cytopathic HTLV-I DNA and no retroviral DNA respectivley. These controls were treated exactly the same as the sample containing HIV DNA. All were activated with PHA. Only activated T-cells support retroviral production. The Perth Group's definition of an oxidising agent also seems nebulous. They have been asked to define what exactly they mean but (at least in my opinion) have not dones so. So the Perth Group's arguments about PHA and lack of proper controls does not apply to this paper. I think that the Perth Group would instead chose to question whether the DNA was really HIV DNA. They would fall back to their basic argument that HIV has not been properly isolated. This is despite the fact that Duesberg cites this paper for the evidence that HIV has been isolated. The Perth Group are not willing to listen to Duesberg a fellow dissident. I still maintain that if they had integrity they would be able to settle this difference with Duesberg. If they are all scientists that are governed by the data then they should be able to convince each other. I would argue that one or both of them are ruled by their egos rather than rationality. Chris Noble ....... This is despite the fact that Duesberg cites this paper for the evidence that HIV has been isolated. still he himself cant produce this paper for the evidence that hiv has been isolated. if you ask him please isolate the virus yourself. he cant do it! why is that, that he cant! anyway thats what i read on the diffrent forums on the net. > ....... This is despite the fact that Duesberg cites this paper for the > evidence that HIV has been isolated. > > still he himself cant produce this paper for the evidence that hiv has > been isolated. The paper was published in Nature in 1985. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=2410792&query_hl=11 Anyone can go to their local library and read it. The evidence is there for people willing to look. > if you ask him please isolate the virus yourself. he cant do it! I don't know that anyone has personally asked him to isolate HIV. Duesberg presented the Continuum people with the evidence that HIV had been isolated. > why is that, that he cant! Duesberg thinks that HIV is irrelevant. He has never attempted to work with HIV. His point in claiming the Continuum prize was to move the dissident debate from the decidely nutty claim that HIV does not exist to the more plausible stance that HIV does exist but does not cause AIDS. Chris Noble ....Duesberg thinks that HIV is irrelevant. He has never attempted to work with HIV. His point in claiming the Continuum prize was to move the dissident debate from the decidely nutty claim that HIV does not exist to the more plausible stance that HIV does exist but does not cause AIDS. why doesnt he isolated it himself now. so the debate between him and other dissidents that claim hiv doesnt exit can be put aside! because they dont trust the document that has been publsihed in Nature in 1985 . if hiv is so simple to isolated, he can do it. then bye, bye to those dissidents. i think if he wants to prove , then isloted it himself. then he knows for sure ,then assumming it has been done. he can check if it is right what they did then. >"Duesberg thinks that HIV is irrelevant. He has never attempted to work with HIV. His point in claiming the Continuum prize was to move the dissident debate from the decidely nutty claim that HIV does not exist to the more plausible stance that HIV does exist but does not cause AIDS." That's probably the case. Duesberg may be right, but I doubt it. I don't find the claim that HIV doesn't exist nutty at all. If it exists, *where is it?* Look, these "cloning" experiments are nice kindergarten diversions, but you can put any old piece of DNA in a plasmid and show that it's infectious. If you introduce DNA in any cell, it will replicate. That's what DNA does. Insects inject bacterial DNA into plants. As a result, Crowngall tumors develop on the stem of the plant. Who is to say that the DNA they put in a plasmid and cloned had anything to do with an exogenous virus named HIV? Isolate that sucker! Then we'll believe it exists. >>"Duesberg thinks that HIV is irrelevant. He has never attempted to work >with HIV. His point in claiming the Continuum prize was to move the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >find the claim that HIV doesn't exist nutty at all. If it exists, *where >is it?* Apparently, Duesberg can find it. But we agree. The guy is a whack job. So he's not the guy to look for to see that HIV exists. George M. Carter > >"Duesberg thinks that HIV is irrelevant. He has never attempted to work > with HIV. His point in claiming the Continuum prize was to move the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > infectious. If you introduce DNA in any cell, it will replicate. That's > what DNA does. But it doesn't then go and insert itself into more and more cells nicely pacakged in a viral proteins. This is what infectious means. Chris Noble Ah, Mr. Noble! I knew you had put up this post, but I have been searching for hours in all the threads I've been participating in. Now I've found out you were hiding it in a new thread, hoping I wouldn't find it. >>" Look, these "cloning" experiments are nice kindergarten diversions, but you can put any old piece of DNA in a plasmid and show that it's infectious. If you introduce DNA in any cell, it will replicate. That's what DNA does." That's what I wrote (in a different thread, mind you) >"But it doesn't then go and insert itself into more and more cells nicely pacakged in a viral proteins. This is what infectious means." That's what you wrote - in an unexpected new thread. But indeed it doesn't then go and insert... etc. etc. You're absolutely right: IT DOESN'T. But are you in any way suggesting that the nicely packaged pieces of junk DNA that you are imagining really do that? Or that there is any relation to "HIV"? You've gotta have balls to propagate such an enormous piece of eh... fiction. But let me enlighten you about what really happens: They take some crappy piece of DNA that the cat dragged in, and package it in a plasmid. With this product of craftsmanship, they infect cells... No, not of a person, of course, but cells belonging to an immortal cell line in the lab. Now let's assume the DNA succeeds in entering a cell. What will it do? Well, among the things DNA can do is: replication, coding for an m-RNA, which in turn can code for one of more proteins. But the DNA can also be integrated into the host genome. And it will sit there, until the cell divides. Note that the cell culture is well-supplied with PHA, a mitogenic agent. A Rapid sequence of cell divisions will then result in a multitude of daughter cells carrying the same piece of "street DNA" in its genome. Mitogenic agents are also known to cause apoptosis of cells. The end result will be an amplification of the DNA the experiment started with. Does this mean it "Packaged itself in viral proteins, to infect additional cells"? Of course not! What a ridiculous flight of fancy! > Ah, Mr. Noble! I knew you had put up this post, but I have been searching > for hours in all the threads I've been participating in. Now I've found [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You've gotta have balls to propagate such an enormous piece of eh... > fiction. But let me enlighten you about what really happens: Did you read the paper? > They take some crappy piece of DNA that the cat dragged in, and package it > in a plasmid. With this product of craftsmanship, they infect cells... > No, not of a person, of course, but cells belonging to an immortal cell > line in the lab. Did you read the paper? Where were the cells from? > Now let's assume the DNA succeeds in entering a cell. What will it do? > Well, among the things DNA can do is: replication, coding for an m-RNA, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > multitude of daughter cells carrying the same piece of "street DNA" in its > genome. Did you read the paper? The study used controls that were also treated with PHA. > Mitogenic agents are also known to cause apoptosis of cells. The end > result will be an amplification of the DNA the experiment started with. > Does this mean it "Packaged itself in viral proteins, to infect additional > cells"? Of course not! What a ridiculous flight of fancy! Read the paper before you make up more bullshit. Chris Noble So I didn't read "the paper". *What* paper anyway? I never saw you cite a paper on this subject. The reason is that, every time you answer one of my posts, you start a new thread. Is this a form of "hit and run"? Anyhow, if you actually did quote a paper, please do so again, so I get the chance to read it. >So I didn't read "the paper". *What* paper anyway? I never saw you cite a >paper on this subject. The reason is that, every time you answer one of >my posts, you start a new thread. Is this a form of "hit and run"? Talkabout's article threading is buggy. Other news software and web sites correctly show Chris's article as a followups to yours. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber > So I didn't read "the paper". *What* paper anyway? I never saw you cite a > paper on this subject. The reason is that, every time you answer one of > my posts, you start a new thread. Is this a form of "hit and run"? > Anyhow, if you actually did quote a paper, please do so again, so I get > the chance to read it. Get a real Usenet news group reader program there are plenty that are free hell Outlook Express does a better job then most web based Usenet sites. If you must use a web based newsreader then use Google it at least does decent threading. Gary Stein Why? Talkabouthealthnetwork.com used to do a decent job on threading, and I just use a browser to read it. But lately, since the breakdown, things have changed. New threads are starting up all over the place, even when there's no real reason for it. Have you guys started playing new games? > I am interested in science and it seems to me that the evidence of > HIV is overwhelming. Good advertisement. Who taught you the lesson ? snip > ARV's will kill you we all know that. Your knowledge is flawed. Put a thousand HIV- people on a standard ARV program what do you think would happen to there mortality rate? My point is we do not know how much less we can use ARV's and my community pays for it. My wife’s case alone raises serious questions to the test and the T-Cell markers. O risk group 0 risk behavior never felt sick (until HAART) with three T-Cells her first HIV test. That was 10 years ago. Am I wrong to feel her story is an example of making atleast part of our current theory suspect? This long term ARV treatment for people not involved in risk behavior is highly suspect to me. I am no scientist but I do promise to report my story honestly as it unfolds. At this point I am simply following my heart on a path to long life I no longer care who is right or wrong. > Put a thousand HIV- people on a standard ARV program what do you think > would happen to there mortality rate? Not much, have you actually done any research on ARV at all. Do you know anything about how the drug approval process works in the US. Did you know that in Phase 1 and some Phase 2 trials healthy people are in fact given ARV? > My point is we do not know how much less we can use ARV's and my > community pays for it. Your community? Didn't you mean our community? And yes in fact we do know a great deal about ARV dosing. Some studies actually monitor the levels of the medication in a patients blood via multiple blood samples each day for months. Some specialists actually advocate that this be done on there patients for a week or so to fine tune there dosing of ARV. My point is that you don't know and based on your mistrust you make wild assumptions with little to no facts to back up your assumptions. > My wife’s case alone raises serious questions to the test and the > T-Cell markers. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > At this point I am simply following my heart on a path to long life I > no longer care who is right or wrong. Well that's silly, of course you care or you wouldn't be thinking about it, and you wouldn't be choosing to avoid ARV, and you wouldn't be posting here on MHA. As to you wife see my other post regarding that issue. Gary Stein >Not much, have you actually done any research on ARV at all. Do you know >anything about how the drug approval process works in the US. Did you know >that in Phase 1 and some Phase 2 trials healthy people are in fact given ARV? Gary how F***ing long did the Phase 1 & 2 trials last? And how the hell does that small amount of time apply to how long we have been on them? I would have thought "long term" was assumed sorry I did not spell it out. Why are you down playing the toxicity of the ARV's? Bro I know you are on them but I hope you do everything in your power to use holistic medicine to lower the damage of the ARV's >Well that's silly, of course you care or you wouldn't be thinking about it, >and you wouldn't be choosing to avoid ARV, and you wouldn't be posting here My point is I am searching for truth and do not care which side it happens to be on. >> I do whole heartedly appose tactics like... pushing western drugs as >> the one shining hope. > >>You have this way of exaggerating what hasn't been said to begin with. > > I see this as an obvious reality in nearly all western medicine. Your experience isn't someone else's experience and possibly neither is reality, much less "obvious" reality. > With AIDS is seems even more criminal to focus 99% of research funds on killing > a "slow" virus and not spending SH** on things like managing oxidative > stress in people dying FAST from AIDS Why with you is it always "either/or" and never "and?" And who says that hasn't happened? Look it up, there are studies done on exactly that. >>I do notice you haven't answered my question involving your statement > about the ARVs under "dire emergency" what would constitutate a dire > emergency to you? > > Dire emergency would be apparent life threatening illness like the many > OI's they have shown effectiveness in treating. Uh... no. By the time an OI hits, you have to manage the OI, not the condition that leads to it (i.e., depletion of cd4 cells). In other words, by the time an OI(s) hit, it's too late for the ARVs to have any effect on the current condition. > I believe there are > naturopathic solutions but we will not find or prove them until big pharma > can profit from them or we can rise as a nation and enforce spending on > non-patenable (low profit to pharma) solutions. Possibly, sure. Your arguments are conflated, though, and no one is arguing the meds are fairly priced. I do a see a consistency in your POV, (western medicine bad, eastern medicine good), but in order to prove that 'traditional' medicine doesn't work with HIV/AIDS you're pitching ALL your points into the kitchen sink. Someone once asked the guy who does the med segment on the local news "Why can't you use alternative medicines?" His response? "Well, they don't work. If they worked, we'd be using them and then they wouldn't be alternative." > I hate this dissident/orthodox line we seem to fall into It creates an > atmosphere of us and them when actually we all want the same thing, for > people to not die of AIDS. Cool. This is true. > ARV's will kill you we all know that. No, YOU know that. "We" know they help in defined circumstances. You keep sayint that. Remember... arsenic is natural, belladonna is natural, strychnine is natural, mercury is natural... to show you what you sound like to me (not to be poking fun at you): "well, the obvious reality, is that we all know that natural substances are poisonous!" See? It's much more nuanced than that. It's are current style in > medicine to list cause of death as the bug and not the therapy even when > the therapy is highly suspect. Passive voice can be a killer. YOU suspect "the therapy." > Personally I don't remember anyone stating that a person cannot die of > an AIDS defining illness without being on ARV's. No, that's not what I wrote. B/ I see this as an obvious reality in nearly all western medicine. >Your experience isn't someone else's experience and possibly neither is reality, much less "obvious" reality. There are a great many books published on this horrible corruption with many whistle blowers that have come out of top positions. >Why with you is it always "either/or" and never "and?" And who says >that hasn't happened? Look it up, there are studies done on exactly that. Yes I have read a few and the results showed promise. I am fine with "and" but we are trapped in a nation to profit driven solutions to health so I believe thats why un patentable therapy is criminally understudied and well it's my body at stake here. >Uh... no. By the time an OI hits, you have to manage the OI, not the condition that leads to it (i.e., depletion of cd4 cells). In other >words, by the time an OI(s) hit, it's too late for the ARVs to have any effect on the current condition. Not true, a great many have told there stories of recovering from AIDS and OI's with and without ARV's. I live with one of those stories my friend. At the time of my wifes first HIV test she was diagnosed with AIDS and had three T-Cells she was in 0 risk groups with 0 risk behaviors. Besides a wierd rash she felt perfectly fine and had always been in perfect health. She did not feel sick until she started a trail of ARV's then the horror started. The current AIDS theory does a very poor job explaining this, am I wrong in that conclusion? >Possibly, sure. Your arguments are conflated, though, and no one is arguing the meds are fairly priced. I do a see a consistency in your >POV, (western medicine bad, eastern medicine good), but in order to >prove that 'traditional' medicine doesn't work with HIV/AIDS you're pitching ALL your points into the kitchen sink. I don't understand this statement >Someone once asked the guy who does the med segment on the local news >"Why can't you use alternative medicines?" His response? "Well, they >don't work. If they worked, we'd be using them and then they wouldn't be alternative." Is that a joke? No, YOU know that. "We" know they help in defined circumstances. You keep sayint that. Remember... arsenic is natural, belladonna is natural, strychnine is natural, mercury is natural... to show you what you sound like to me (not to be poking fun at you): "well, the obvious reality, is that we all know that natural substances are poisonous!" See? It's much more nuanced than that. If you are comparing toxicity between traditional natural therapies and current western medicine that’s not much of a nuance It's are current style in > medicine to list cause of death as the bug and not the therapy even when > the therapy is highly suspect. Passive voice can be a killer. YOU suspect "the therapy." Until they can come up with a way to stop ARV's killing our liver and lower there risk of causing heart attack and stroke ARV's account for more AIDS death now than the disease itself in this country at this time. I state this only to keep it intimately in the front of our thoughts and drive home the important need for alternate solutions. My contribution in this regard will be my own story as it unfolds >I see this as an obvious reality in nearly all western medicine. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > then the horror started. The current AIDS theory does a very poor job > explaining this, am I wrong in that conclusion? Well I don't know are you? How do you define a risk group? If she was having unprotected sex with you, and you have said you were HIV positive at the time didn't you? If that is true then I don't know any doctor that would not say she was a member of a risk group. Now I thought you said that she did have health problems at the time of her diagnosis am I mistaken about that? My memory is that she was experiencing some health issues that was why she was at the doctor and why the HIV test and other lab work was done. So your statement that she did not get sick until after taking ARV doesn't seem to follow the facts as you have expressed them here on MHA. Maybe I am mistaken please clarify the issues for me. >>Possibly, sure. Your arguments are conflated, though, and no one is > arguing the meds are fairly priced. I do a see a consistency in your [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > drive home the important need for alternate solutions. > My contribution in this regard will be my own story as it unfolds Well your wrong in that statement. Yes ARV does create liver disease in 'a small number of patients' yes it does increase the risk of heart attacks by about 5% above that of cohorts of the same age. Yes it does increase the likely hood of diabetes in a number of patients. But your claim that ARV is killing more Americans then does AIDS is flat wrong. ARV is letting more HIV and AIDS patients live to an age where Heart disease is a major cause of death and yes that is the cause of death for some ARV patients. However that by no means indicates that ARV is the primary cause of the majority of deaths in patients taking that therapy. If ARV therapy was stopped today in the US there simply can be no doubt that within months AIDS patients would start to die in increasing numbers and within a year the mortality rates for AIDS would be right back were it was in the early days of the epidemic. There is ample evidence and frankly very simple logic that makes that statement self evident. You have yet to explain the simple fact that prior to the use of 2 drug ARV the number of deaths due to AIDS in the US was high and rising each and every year. Yet once 2 drug ARV and then 3 drug ARV came into use those numbers declined rapidly and only in 2003- 2004 did a very small increase occur. Even though the numbers of people living with HIV in the US has grown each and every year since they have been tracked by the CDC. So lets make this real simple for you each year since the CDC began tracking HIV and AIDS the number of people living with HIV has increased. From the start up to 1995 the number of deaths due to AIDS increased every year. 2 Drug ARV started in 1994-1995, Protease Inhibitors came on the scene in 1995-1996 thus 3 drug ARV started. The deaths due to adds dropped and showed steady declines from 1995 to 2003. So what does that all tell us. It tells us that prior to ARV the number of people dieing was high and the number of people living with HIV was growing but not by a significant amount greater then yearly deaths, just enough that the number of people living with HIV did show growth during the periods 1980-1995. Then after effective ARV comes on the scene what do we see. We see the deaths due to AIDS drop rapidly and the number of people living with HIV increase at much higher rates that had been the case prior to ARV. To what else do you attribute these numbers to? How can you explain them if ARV kills more then AIDS does? We are all waiting and if you could be so kind do some thinking and research on these questions and provide us with something other then your or others personal opinions when you answer them. Gary Stein Hi Gary, about my wife's story I need to talk to her when she wakes up and get my facts straight. I can get forgetful and often post when I'm tired. I will post what I know as her story and clear up ant details I'm not sure about when she wakes up. My zero risk is right on. At the time of her positive test well she was a prude and very scared of AIDS from all the media coverage. She had two boyfriends in high school that she always used a condom with. She was married to her first husband at the time that remains HIV negative today. That’s it, no blood transfusions no drugs na da. My wife to this day is a total goody too shu as well as one of the most kind, loyal, honest people I have ever known. I am a little foggy on all the details surrounding her diagnoses. I do know that things seemed to revolve around her building at work that was deemed a "sick building" they found that fire proofing material had leaked into the ventilation system and made a great many people sick including my wife who had a strange rash on her face and possibly thrush. I need to talk to her bro and get this straight. Back to you soon > Hi Gary, about my wife's story I need to talk to her when she wakes up > and get my facts straight. I can get forgetful and often post when I'm [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > wife who had a strange rash on her face and possibly thrush. I need to > talk to her bro and get this straight. Back to you soon Ok that's cool sounds like I might have been mistaken as to what you had to say about her health I look forward to clearing that up, have a great day. Gary Stein There is ample evidence and frankly very simple logic that makes that statement self evident. You have yet to explain the simple fact that prior to the use of 2 drug ARV the number of deaths due to AIDS in the US was high and rising each and every year. Yet once 2 drug ARV and then 3 drug ARV came into use those numbers declined rapidly and only in 2003- 2004 did a very small increase occur. Even though the numbers of people living with HIV in the US has grown each and every year since they have been tracked by the CDC. Gary you know these dates better than I do. Let’s look at a couple known changes to the AIDS diagnoses and treatment over time. Going from high dose AZT mono therapy to lower dose combination therapy = effects the numbers because more people die on high dose AZT, also PI’s most likely have positive short term effects on OI’s. Changing the definition of AIDS from the appearance of an OI and immune suppression to only needing immune suppression (200 or less T-Cells) = effects numbers again. There are other examples as well but I have to hit the sack. I listed these examples just to point out why it may be more than my inability to see simple logic going on here G'night Gary P.S. I recently seen some data on ARV toxicity but I will have to get back to you on that. > .... At the time of my wifes first HIV test she was diagnosed with AIDS > and had three T-Cells she was in 0 risk groups with 0 risk behaviors. Not exactly, if she was having unprotected sex with you. But you've been told this before also. >>Possibly, sure. Your arguments are conflated, though, and no one is > arguing the meds are fairly priced. I do a see a consistency in your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don't understand this statement I think it's pretty clear. In your rush to prove all western medicine "bad" you're throwing in one argument that has nothing to do with another. You are like our pet farmboy that way. You make an argument and when it's countered, you go on to slide something else in as a rebuttal to that and it's not related. >>Someone once asked the guy who does the med segment on the local news >>"Why can't you use alternative medicines?" His response? "Well, they >>don't work. If they worked, we'd be using them and then they wouldn't > be alternative." > > Is that a joke? Not at all, even though it's pretty funny. Think about it. > My contribution in this regard will be my own story as it unfolds And apparently, you believe yours is the only story that's valid. B/ Not at all, even though it's pretty funny. Think about it. I get how that could be funny but are you saying you believe this? I think it's pretty clear. In your rush to prove all western medicine "bad" you're throwing in one argument that has nothing to do with another. I will see if I can work on that. I don't mean to purposely avoid or confuse the argument. I do see some things as connected that you may not or need to show you were I am coming from. > My contribution in this regard will be my own story as it unfolds And apparently, you believe yours is the only story that's valid. B/ I hope not, my views have changed by reading ARV stories, they have taught me more caution. I do believe my story and other similar ones go under represented. I could log onto 10 mainstream sites right now and read 100's of ARV and “my doctor says” stories but if I post mine I risk moderation, banning, slander the works. > Not at all, even though it's pretty funny. Think about it. > > I get how that could be funny but are you saying you believe this? Sure, it's a logical progression. Someone brings in an alternative therapy. Some doctors try it, persuade others. Some get interested enough to do a study and that shows it works. Others pick it up, and voila... it's no longer 'alternative." Kaiser Permanente San Francisco, to my understanding, now has acupuncture provided for those that want it. Their commercials here feature a bowl of blueberries and "we're pro-anti-oxidant." They show an old woman having a merry moment and the voiceover is "we believe laughter is the best medicine" as well as "fruit makes a wonderful dessert." If that's not "holistic," then what is? On a personal note, my own primary--who I will note here is ALSO the head of Kaiser Research (SF) so you'd think he of all people would be into 'western' medicine completely--has recommended I take fish oil and folic acid as cardiac protectives, as well as niacin to lower my cholesterol (which I can't do any more as a pre-diabetic). He's also recommended a few glasses of red wine a week also (which I can't do because the sulfites give me headaches). I was just dealing with a diabetic ulcer on my foot for the past few months, and at one point it got infected with one of those antibiotic-resistant staph thingums (and I'm allergic to MANY meds anyway) so the only way to treat it has been considered to be an IV med that's rather challenging to the kidneys. The podiatrist I was seeing for this recommended instead that I soak it in a hot water-and-bleach-and-epsom-salt solution twice a day, followed with a vinegar compress. I had a discussion with him that if THAT hadn't worked to clear the infection, he would have gone on to recommend binding the wound with maggots to clear out the dead tissue and infection as long as wasn't spreading to the bone. It comes back to "find a doctor YOU trust" not that "all doctors can't be trusted." > I think it's pretty clear. In your rush to prove all western medicine > "bad" you're throwing in one argument that has nothing to do with > another. > > I will see if I can work on that. I don't mean to purposely avoid or > confuse the argument. Again, 'pharma' business has an overlap, but isn't, 'pharma' medicine itself. I think anyone would rather (if it was necessary) take 1 small pill of dapsone 3x a week instead of moving to Texas and finding some armadillos to french-kiss for their spit (and yes, that's where they get it). > I do see some things as connected that you may not > or need to show you were I am coming from. Then you need to demonstrate the connections in a concrete fashion--not to draw inferences and then act as if the inferences are substantive, ok? Otherwise, it's only black helicopters. It's why so many people in the US still believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and actually possessed nuclear weapons (as an example of what I'm talking about, the process, I'm not wanting to discuss that *particular*). >> My contribution in this regard will be my own story as it unfolds > > And apparently, you believe yours is the only story that's valid. > I hope not, my views have changed by reading ARV stories, they have > taught me more caution. NO ONE here says the ARVs are *the* solution. Remember, when you asked the general "should I go on them" I did NOT answer "yes, of course" automatically? And I gave you another course to think about/explore if they were recommended? (i.e., ask for 'resistance testing')? And if you can't get a second opinion you trust, to come here and ask one of the 'orthodox' you might trust a *little* bit with your numbers and get a link to a document? > I do believe my story and other similar ones go > under represented. I could log onto 10 mainstream sites right now and read > 100's of ARV and “my doctor says” stories but if I post mine I risk > moderation, banning, slander the works. This is an unmoderated newsgroup. If you're reading from one of those $(*#((*# kludgy web board interfaces that has someone 'moderating' get yourself a real news reader. B/ No reply... OK, I guess that's an hour or so of life I'll never get back trying to compose a cogent response. B/ >> Not at all, even though it's pretty funny. Think about it. >> [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > B/ > Fondoo > I do not deny that AIDS exists. I do whole heartedly appose > tactics like "Hit it hard, hit it early" and pushing western > drugs as the one shining hope. What other hope is there? Given that hope is not actually a cure. I hope I win the lottery. It hasn't happened yet. Not gonna hold my breath. > Also the tactics of using a fellow human beings death as a > propaganda tool for discrediting all dissident ideas is an ugly > and obviously corrupt path. That statement in itself makes a serious logical mistake. All dissent theories? How about the dissident theory that AIDS is caused by leprechauns? Does this story disprove that? And it doesn't actualy "prove" anything. It's a single data point. Anybody that would imagine it would prove anything is an idiot and knows nothing about real science. > Are you sure you want to stay on it? What does this remark refer to? the path? HIV antiviral drugs? > Also the tactics of using a fellow human beings death as a propaganda >tool for discrediting all dissident ideas is an ugly and obviously corrupt >path. Are you sure you want to stay on it? This is what you're responding to: "Hmmm. Died at the age of 36 of complications of AIDS without having ever taken any AIDS drugs. Certainly makes one think." It's clear that Larry Farrell was discrediting one particular dissident idea, not all of them. When you omit his words from your response, misrepresent their intent, and try to stir up righteous anger based on that misrepresentation, you are the one engaging in propaganda. You are exploiting Leroy Whitfield's death for propaganda value just as much as you have accused Larry Farrell of doing. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber I did not post an unsubstantiated incomplete report on a persons death to try to make a point >Hmmm. Died at the age of 36 of complications of AIDS without having >ever taken any AIDS drugs. Certainly makes one think. Either stubbornness or lack of money. SignatureCanadian Mind Products, Roedy Green. http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts. >"Hmmm. Died at the age of 36 of complications of AIDS without having ever taken any AIDS drugs. Certainly makes one think." Nothing will ever make you think, professor. Do you have any evidence he died of "complications of AIDS"? Or is that what you'd like to believe? Jazz musician Charlie Parker died at the age of 34. He didn't take AIDS drugs either; they didn't exist yet. What do you think: Did he die of AIDS-related complications too? No, but then he didn't have AIDS, did he? >"No, but then he didn't have AIDS, did he?" This is a strange way to start a new thread. But I suspect it's answer to my post in another thread. So, assuming your remark is about Charlie Parker: No, he didn't have AIDS, because it had not been invented yet. Had he lived in the present times, the newspapers would certainly have written that he died of AIDS, just as that other famous jazz musician, Fats Navarro. >>"No, but then he didn't have AIDS, did he?" > >This is a strange way to start a new thread. Talkabout erroneously shows it as the start of a new thread. Other news software and other web sites don't. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber Ah! Now I understand why a new thread was started, instead of answering my last post. Methinks the professor has an ego that's easily bruised. >> Yesterday's Boston Globe had an obit about Leroy Whitfield, >> a non-believer in HIV as the cause of AIDS. As he got closer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hmmm. Died at the age of 36 of complications of AIDS without having ever > taken any AIDS drugs. Certainly makes one think. A statistical sample of one is meaningless. He did survive over 15 years taking no drugs. I can point to people who've survived longer never taking retrovirals but who ARE on wholistic protocols (vitamins, ozone, herbs, etc). The fact is antivirals ARE toxic; they kill healthy cells as well as virus-infected cells. I think he was more a non-believer in retrovirals than HIV but I'm not that familiar with him. Certainly it's foolish to do nothing if you're HIV+ but it's also foolish to dive into any protocol without being fully informed. Natural Light Black and White Photography http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/ -George- >>> Yesterday's Boston Globe had an obit about Leroy Whitfield, >>> a non-believer in HIV as the cause of AIDS. As he got closer >>> to dying his beliefs started changing--but not quickly >>> enough to save him. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/obituaries/articles/2005/10/15/leroy_wh itfield_36_author_wrote_about_effect_of_aids_on_americas_black_community / >> Hmmm. Died at the age of 36 of complications of AIDS without having ever >> taken any AIDS drugs. Certainly makes one think. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/ >-George- I did some extensive research into this case and you are right--he did believe HIV causes AIDS but also believed the ARVs would do more harm than good. Who's to say if he'd have lived a longer or shorter period on the drugs? Is there much info out there on how long people who stay on ARVs for really long periods are doing? What about the fact that those around him did not support his choices? There seems to be much evidence that believing you're going to die can indeed make it so. And what is the possibility that the more you have screwed up your immune system with drugs and indiscriminate sex with people who have multiple STDs, the greater your chance of eventually succumbing to AIDS? Linda snip > And what is the possibility that the more you have screwed up your >immune system with drugs and indiscriminate sex with people who have >multiple STDs, the greater your chance of eventually succumbing to AIDS? None if you don't have HIV. People taking recreational drugs can die from that, of course. However, the most lethal ones are probably nicotine (due to the delivery of being smoked in highly carcinogenic cigarettes or other forms, like chewed) and alcohol (cirrhosis, etc.) Many MANY people with HIV are no more promiscuous or drug using than the "average Jane." Many use no recreational drugs. If sex and drugs caused AIDS, there'd've been a LOT more straight folks with AIDS in the 80s, I daresay. They don't. There's no data to support the theory, some data that outright refute the notion and just common sense and a little thinking will show you that. George M. Carter Not so fast. You'll find I'm not so easy to dismiss. Now, no one's talking about your garden-variety (or even more exotic) heterosexual sex. I'm talking about those gay guys that had dozens of diseases for which they took a great number of antibiotics both curatively and prophylactically. Apparently, there is also evidence that semen is immunosuppressive, especially in places it was not designed by nature to go. No, I'm not in the least homophobic. Any consenting adults can do whatever they desire to each other. I seem to recall that a fair number of early cases tested negative. And I happen to know people who have AIDS in all but name only. Recently I've heard some people say that whatever actually tests as HIV could possibly be something that appears in people who are already immunosuppressed. I think Duesberg's passenger virus theory could well be valid. I am not prepared to comment on the existence of HIV--I have not seen enough evidence either way yet. I just see a lot of questions that have not been answered to my or a lot of others' satisfaction. Take, for instance, the virtual lack of heterosexual transmission among non-drug users. And the lack of an epidemic among prostitutes. And the nonexistence o fAIDs (not just HIV) cases among health care workers. Got explanations for these? Linda |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message