Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Fauci: Despite HAART, viral reservoir is CONTINUALLY replenished !!!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Susie - 14 Nov 2005 18:27 GMT
In the 11/1/05 Journal of Clinical Investigation article titled
"HIV-infected individuals receiving effective antiviral therapy for
extended periods of time continually replenish their viral reservoir,"
Chun et al. (Fauci is senior author) state:

"In the present study, we investigate the presence and status of
residual HIV in patients who had received effective antiviral therapy
for up to 9.1 years and examine the underlying mechanisms by which HIV
persists in CD4+ T cells of such individuals. We demonstrate that all
infected subjects studied carried replication-competent HIV in their
CD4+ T cells and the majority of patients harbored considerable levels
of HIV proviral DNA in their activated as well as resting CD4+ T cell
compartments. Finally, we also provide evidence for cross infection
between these 2 compartments, suggesting a possible mechanism by which
HIV persists in patients who are receiving clinically effective
antiretroviral therapy."

"In the present study, we investigated the source(s) and the extent of
residual HIV replication and examined the underlying mechanisms by which
HIV persists in CD4+ T cells of patients who received effective
antiviral therapy for extended periods of time. We demonstrated
that all infected subjects examined carried replication-competent HIV in
their CD4+ T cells despite having received clinically effective
antiviral therapy for extended periods of time (8.3 years on average).
To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine levels of
replication-competent HIV in the CD4+ T cell compartments of patients
who have received effective antiviral therapy for such long periods of
time (up to 9.1 years). We also demonstrated that, contrary to current
dogma, it is the activated CD4+ T cell compartment that harbors the
majority of persisting HIV in infected individuals who have had no
detectable viremia for extended periods of time as a result of effective
antiretroviral therapy. In the years following the first indications of
HIV latency in infected individuals, the vast majority of studies, if
not all, addressing the persistence of HIV in the era of effective
antiviral therapy focused heavily on the latent viral reservoir in the
resting CD4+ T cell compartment as a major impediment to eradication of
HIV. However, the activated CD4+ T cell compartment has not been fully
explored as a potential viral reservoir in infected individuals
receiving clinically successful antiviral therapy mainly because it has
been believed that such cells are short lived and not expected to harbor
virus. By demonstrating the presence of HIV in activated CD4+ T cells of
maximally suppressed individuals, we thus provide compelling evidence
for contribution of this compartment to the continual reseeding of HIV
reservoirs. Although mitotic division of activated CD4+ T cells
harboring defective virus could account for the higher frequency of
cells carrying HIV proviral DNA in activated CD4+ T cell compartments
compared with resting CD4+ T cell compartments, the evidence presented
herein for spontaneous release of virions and viral migration and the
short half-life of activated CD4+ T cells would argue for the
persistence of infectious virus in activated CD4+ T cells."

------------------------------------

This Article FREE, OPEN ACCESS

J. Clin. Invest. 2005 Nov 1;115:3250-3255. doi:10.1172/JCI26197.

HIV-infected individuals receiving effective antiviral therapy for
extended periods of time continually replenish their viral reservoir

Tae-Wook Chun1, David C. Nickle2, J. Shawn Justement1, Danielle Large1,
Alice Semerjian1, Marcel E. Curlin2, M. Angeline O'Shea1, Claire W.
Hallahan3, Marybeth Daucher1, Douglas J. Ward4, Susan Moir1, James I.
Mullins2, Colin Kovacs5 and Anthony S. Fauci1

1Laboratory of Immunoregulation, National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
2Department of Microbiology, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, USA.
3Biostatistical Research Branch, National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
4Dupont Circle Physicians Group, Washington, DC, USA.
5Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.

Address correspondence to: Tae-Wook Chun, Laboratory of
Immunoregulation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room 6A32, 9000 Rockville
Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA. Phone: (301) 496-0890; Fax: (301)
402-5920; E-mail: twchun{at}nih.gov.

Received for publication July 7, 2005, and accepted in revised form
August 23, 2005.

Abstract: The persistence of latently infected, resting CD4+ T cells is
considered to be a major obstacle in preventing the eradication of HIV-1
even in patients who have received effective antiviral therapy for an
average duration of 5 years. Although previous studies have suggested
that the latent HIV reservoir in the resting CD4+ T cell compartment is
virologically quiescent in the absence of activating stimuli, evidence
has been mounting to suggest that low levels of ongoing viral
replication persist and in turn, prolong the overall half-life of HIV in
patients receiving antiviral therapy. Here, we demonstrate the
persistence of replication-competent virus in CD4+ T cells in a cohort
of patients who had received uninterrupted antiviral therapy for up to
9.1 years that rendered them consistently aviremic throughout that time.
Surprisingly, substantially higher levels of HIV proviral DNA were found
in activated CD4+ T cells when compared with resting CD4+ T cells in the
majority of patients we studied. Phylogenetic analyses revealed evidence
for cross infection between the resting and activated CD4+ T cell
compartments, suggesting that ongoing reactivation of latently infected,
resting CD4+ T cells and spread of virus by activated CD4+ T cells may
occur in these patients. Such events may allow continual replenishment
of the CD4+ T cell reservoir and resetting of the half-life of the
latently infected, resting CD4+ T cells despite prolonged periods of
aviremia.
DavidT - 15 Nov 2005 15:39 GMT
We heard you the first time.

Clinically effective treatment does not eradicate HIV from the viral
reservoirs.
It would be wonderful if it did, but as Fauci states - this therapy IS
clinically effective, so its the next best thing to a cure, and not a
cause to imply there are problems with HAART
Susie - 15 Nov 2005 17:54 GMT
> We heard you the first time.

No, you merely cringed twice.

> Clinically effective treatment does not eradicate HIV from the viral
> reservoirs.

Gee, imagine that. Anti-viral "treatment" that doesn't remove the virus
is somehow "clinically effective"!

> It would be wonderful if it did, but as Fauci states - this therapy IS
> clinically effective, so its the next best thing to a cure, and not a
> cause to imply there are problems with HAART

Strange how you seemed to miss the point. Religious fervor
tends to do that among its gullible victims.

But what about the FACT that the HAART promise of
"undetectable" virus is a BIG LIE? Or that "undetectable"
virus has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING?

Or hasn't it dawned on you yet that they are only looking in the
most convient place for "viremia" - in the bloodstream?

Convenient, that is, for the drug companies...
DavidT - 15 Nov 2005 18:02 GMT
Insulin doesn't cure type 1 diabetes either, but its a hell of a lot
better than the alternative...
Susie - 15 Nov 2005 18:07 GMT
> Insulin doesn't cure type 1 diabetes either, but its a hell of a lot
> better than the alternative...

Gee, what a wonderfully defective leap of illogic!!!

There is ONE difference between the efficacy of diabetes
treatment and the scurrilous claims of "antiviral cures":

                       P R O O F

but nice try, dear.
wilyretrovirus - 15 Nov 2005 23:10 GMT
Gee, what a wonderfully defective leap of illogic!!!

"There is ONE difference between the efficacy of diabetes
treatment and the scurrilous claims of "antiviral cures":

                       P R O O F

but nice try, dear."

Susie,
what they're doing is quite simple.  No matter WHAT, they don't want
ANYBODY to EVER think there is a way OUT of their nightmare.  It's just
too damned profitable.  Easy as that.
wilyretrovirus - 15 Nov 2005 23:32 GMT
"Gee, imagine that. Anti-viral "treatment" that doesn't remove the virus
is somehow 'clinically effective'!"

Ssshhhh, Susie!

Don't point out the obvious contradictions.  They HATE  that!
Chris Noble - 16 Nov 2005 00:02 GMT
> "Gee, imagine that. Anti-viral "treatment" that doesn't remove the virus
> is somehow 'clinically effective'!"
>
> Ssshhhh, Susie!
>
> Don't point out the obvious contradictions.  They HATE  that!

What contradiction?

Antiviral drugs do not remove HSV from reservoirs in the CNS but it
does control active replication. It is effective in treating HSV but it
is not a cure.

Ignorance is curable.

Chris Noble
wilyretrovirus - 16 Nov 2005 01:58 GMT
>>> "Gee, imagine that. Anti-viral "treatment" that doesn't remove the virus
>>> is somehow 'clinically effective'!"
>>>
>> Ssshhhh, Susie!
>>
>> Don't point out the obvious contradictions.  >>They HATE  that!

>What contradiction?

>Antiviral drugs do not remove HSV from >reservoirs in the CNS but it
>does control active replication. It is effective >in treating HSV but it
>is not a cure.

Chris,

you're right.  You're right in your make-believe, fairy-tale land of the
one retrovirus that can do just about any trick it's asked to perform.  

Susie was correct in pointing out the misleading language.  I would expect
that a "clinically effective" drug regime would be um...effective.  But lo
and behold, the "viral reservoir is continually being replenished".
Doesn't sound "effective" to me.  I suppose "effective" is a rather broad
term, and in "AIDS-land" could mean whatever the researchers at the moment
want it to mean.  So, yes, you're "right", Chris.
DavidT - 22 Nov 2005 18:27 GMT
You have absolutely no understanding of the words "clinically
effective".
I think you have made that fact completely clear.
wilyretrovirus - 24 Nov 2005 21:01 GMT
David,
I understand the words "clinically effective" quite well.  Unfortunately,
most folks out there don't know that the words *effective* and *clinically
effective* may have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  Take Immune
Reconstitution Disease, for example.  Those wonder drugs might be taking
credit for the patient's high CD4 counts and low viral load, but, oops,
they got PCP and died anyway.  Oh well...tra la la...at least the
"treatment" was "clinically effective".
DavidT - 25 Nov 2005 17:04 GMT
You have no concept of the term "clinically effective", quite clearly.
If there is clinical improvment, there is clinical efficacy. If there
is deterioration, there is not. So a patient dying will not be regarded
as an outcome showing clinical effectiveness.

You also have no grasp of the Immune reconstitution. PCP is not one of
the diseases that characterises this type of syndrome. You have just
plucked out a disese name at random, obviously. If you knew the first
bit about the syndrome you would have given any one of several other
well-recognised infections as an example.
Iconoclaster - 25 Nov 2005 22:54 GMT
>"You have no concept of the term "clinically effective", quite clearly.
If there is clinical improvment, there is clinical efficacy. If there
is deterioration, there is not"

Well, I do.  This "clinical effectiveness you're talking about is very
short-lived.  The patient has a brief feeling of well-being (because ARV's
are killing off bacteria and fungi, along with body cells).  Then the
patient dies - of liver failure.
This "clinical effectiveness" has been known since 1895 as the Herxheimer
effect.  Even cancer patients on chemotherapy show this phenomenon.  They
seem to get better, to the delight of close relatives, then they die
suddenly.
For all I care you can stick this kind of "clinical effectiveness" up a
warm and dark place.
DavidT - 25 Nov 2005 18:25 GMT
You have no concept of the term "clinically effective", quite clearly.
If there is clinical improvement, there is clinical efficacy. If there
is deterioration, there is not. So a patient dying will not be regarded
as an outcome showing clinical effectiveness.

You also have no grasp of the Immune reconstitution. PCP is not one of
the diseases that characterises this type of syndrome. You have just
plucked out a disease name at random, obviously. If you knew the first
bit about the syndrome you would have given any one of several other
well-recognised infections as an example.
DavidT - 25 Nov 2005 18:39 GMT
You have no concept of the term "clinically effective", quite clearly.
If there is clinical improvement, there is clinical efficacy. If there
is deterioration, there is not. So a patient dying will not be regarded
as an outcome showing clinical effectiveness.

You also have no grasp of immune reconstitution. PCP is not one of the
diseases that characterises this type of syndrome. You have just
plucked out a disease name at random, obviously. If you knew the first
bit about the syndrome you would have given any one of several other
well-recognised infections as an example.
Iconoclaster - 25 Nov 2005 22:57 GMT
You must have thought your comment was very valuable, Master David, to post
it 3 times
DavidT - 27 Nov 2005 08:37 GMT
You must have thought them very valuable to read them 3 times.
DavidT - 26 Nov 2005 12:55 GMT
No- "clinically effective" implies a beneficial clinical outcome, and
not deterioration/death.
Stop being obtuse.

Also, please look up the Immune reconstitution syndrome before you
start shooting your mouth off about PCP.
There are several OIs that are characteristic of this syndrome, but PCP
is not one of them. Bad guess.
Iconoclaster - 26 Nov 2005 23:48 GMT
Master David, you don't have to remind us: We KNOW "Immune Reconstitution
Disease" is just an excuse for liver failure caused by antiretroviral
drugs.
Inventing these excuses (including the Alibi Virus (Hep-C) has become
quite common among the orthodoxy.    Small wonder; they need all these
auxiliary inventions to keep their main badly flawed paradigm upright.

___________________________________________________
"We're not laughing at AIDS.  We're laughing at you"
           Kary Mullis
Gary Stein - 27 Nov 2005 00:05 GMT
Claster you obviously don't have a clue about "Immune Reconstitution
Disease" so I suggest you look it up and then you might stop making such a
fool out of yourself. A simple PUBMED search  or a search in Google might
show you were you've got it wrong.

Here is a reference with just three authors so I guess it meets your author
cound test that might help you at least sound like you know what your
talking about.

Immune Reconstitution Disease Is Associated with Mycobacterial Infections in
HIV Patients Receiving Antiretrovirals

Immune reconstitution disease (IRD) in HIV-infected patients is an adverse
consequence of the restoration of pathogen-specific immune responses during
the initial months of HAART.

Previously subclinical infections are "unmasked" or pre-existing
opportunistic infections clinically deteriorate as host immunopathological
inflammatory responses are "switched on".

IRD is most frequently associated with mycobacterial infections. A
literature search identified 166 published cases of IRD associated with
mycobacterial infections.

In the current study, researchers review the underlying immunological
mechanisms, difficulties surrounding case definition and diagnosis, the wide
diversity of clinical manifestations, and treatment.

The importance of screening patients for mycobacterial disease before
starting HAART and the critical impact of the timing of commencement of
HAART in patients receiving treatment for tuberculosis are highlighted.

The authors also discuss the problem of IRD associated with mycobacterial
diseases in developing countries where tuberculosis prevalence is high and
access to HAART is currently expanding.

Desmond Tutu HIV Centre, Institute of Infectious Diseases and Molecular
Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; Clinical
Research Unit, Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School
of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

06/08/05
Reference
S D Lawn, L G Bekker and R F Miller. Immune reconstitution disease
associated with mycobacterial infections in HIV-infected individuals
receiving antiretrovirals. Lancet Infectious Diseases 5(6): 361-373. June
2005

Gary Stein

> Master David, you don't have to remind us: We KNOW "Immune Reconstitution
> Disease" is just an excuse for liver failure caused by antiretroviral
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> "We're not laughing at AIDS.  We're laughing at you"
>            Kary Mullis
Iconoclaster - 29 Nov 2005 01:20 GMT
>"Claster you obviously don't have a clue about "Immune Reconstitution
Disease" so I suggest you look it up and then you might stop making such
a
fool out of yourself. "

Who's making a fool of himself, Mr. Stein?  There IS no such thing as
"Immune Reconstitution Disease".  Balderdash! Horsefeathers! Bunkum!
Bullshit!
No matter how many of these fraudulent clinical studies are published by
throroughly corrupt, industry-owned science hacks, and propagated by you
and other con-artists, IRD is and remains an attempt to explain the
obvious facts that run counter to the HIV/AIDS paradigm, and shed doubts
on the 'beneficial' effects of HAART drugs.
An increased activity of the immune system after the administration of
(any) bacteriocidal agent has been known for over 100 years, and is known
as the Herxheimer effect.  You get the same effect with Salvarsan or
Silver nitrate, both of which will kill you as surely as the HAART drugs.
Just because these HIV-crazy clinicians have their brains firmly screwed
down to this ridiculous virus theory, they are not even able to see beyond
it.  They know nothing about human metabolism and toxicology.  Their minds
are strictly one-track.
And you can tell them I said so.
You have fixed me up before with a totally worthless set of publications,
Mr. Stein.  Isn't it time you changed your reading habits?
GMCarter - 29 Nov 2005 11:37 GMT
>>"Claster you obviously don't have a clue about "Immune Reconstitution
>Disease" so I suggest you look it up and then you might stop making such
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Who's making a fool of himself, Mr. Stein?  There IS no such thing as
>"Immune Reconstitution Disease".  Balderdash! Horsefeathers! Bunkum!

Wow. You're around the bend.
Susie, age 9 - 06 Dec 2005 17:59 GMT
> >"Claster you obviously don't have a clue about "Immune Reconstitution
> Disease" so I suggest you look it up and then you might stop making such
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "Immune Reconstitution Disease".  Balderdash! Horsefeathers! Bunkum!
> Bullshit!

> Mr. Stein.  Isn't it time you changed your reading habits?

Iconoclaster is correct on all counts as he rips into yet another
public relations pharmaceutical contractor.

There is NO such thing as "Immune Reconstitution Disease", rather,
the CDC declares "Immune Reconstitution Syndrome" to be what
George Orwell would see as "health through illness", that is,
when the antiviral cocktails CAUSE immune-deficiency-related
illnessess (opportunistic infections), the illness that results is now
officially seen as the desirable result - the PROOF that the drugs
are saving lives!

susie
DavidT - 27 Nov 2005 08:22 GMT
I never mentioned Hep C. Stop using straw man arguments.
You specifically implicated PCP as an immune reconstitution disease,
which shows you know zilch
DavidT - 27 Nov 2005 08:39 GMT
Well it was actually "wilyretrovirus", not "iconoclaster" who mentioned
PCP (but you presumably agreed) - but one of you is probably a sock
puppet for the other, hey Willy?
Iconoclaster - 29 Nov 2005 02:30 GMT
>"Well it was actually "wilyretrovirus", not "iconoclaster" who mentioned
PCP (but you presumably agreed) - but one of you is probably a sock puppet
for the other, hey Willy?"

I did not agree on PCP.  And wilyretrovirus is by no means a sockpuppet
for anybody.  But I know him as a real person, and he will be perfectly
able to speak up for himself.
Iconoclaster - 29 Nov 2005 01:29 GMT
>"I never mentioned Hep C. Stop using straw man arguments. You specifically
implicated PCP as an immune reconstitution disease, which shows you know
zilch"

Now wait a minute!  It was I (Iconoclaster) who mentioned Hep-C.  And
don't tell me now that you are NOT a firm believer in that phantom virus!
You are also an HIV-addict and a pusher of HAART drugs.  So in order to
explain away all those liver damage cases, you simply HAVE to believe in
Hep-C. (which doesn't exist any more that HIV).
I wasn't the one who mentioned PCP; I nailed you on liver-related deaths
of patients on HAART.
And, by the way, immune reconstitution disease is bullshit too.
DavidT - 29 Nov 2005 09:10 GMT
Sorry, you "nailed me" on liver deaths???

LOL!

We never even discussed these. You introduced them as a straw man to
cover your ignorance of immune reconstitution.

>And, by the way, immune reconstitution disease is bullshit too.

Yeah, and the world is flat, aliens stuck probes up your rear and you
are the reincarnation of Napoleon!

Now tell all the patients recovering from bone marrow transplantation
that the immune reconstitution disese they develop is BS!
Iconoclaster - 30 Nov 2005 22:07 GMT
>"Now tell all the patients recovering from bone marrow transplantation
that the immune reconstitution disese they develop is BS!"

Tell you what: I'll do even better than that.  I'll tell them how those
unscrupulous quacks who treated them have destroyed their bone marrow in
the first place with toxic drugs.
Susie, age 9 - 06 Dec 2005 18:04 GMT
> Sorry, you "nailed me" on liver deaths???

>>And, by the way, immune reconstitution disease is bullshit too.
>
> Yeah, and the world is flat, aliens stuck probes up your rear and you
> are the reincarnation of Napoleon!

Do you love it when the pharmaceutical public relations contractors
employ the power of science and logic through their Talking Points?

> Now tell all the patients recovering from bone marrow transplantation
> that the immune reconstitution disese they develop is BS!

Bone marrow regeneration has nothing to do with the immune
suppression of the antiviral drugs other than the fact that the
immune system is suppressed in both cases.

susie
Iconoclaster - 24 Nov 2005 01:32 GMT
>"Ignorance is curable."

Not in your case, Mr. Noble.  How you have the nerve to compare HSV with
"HIV" is beyond me.
But anyhow:  Happy Thanksgiving.
DavidT - 24 Nov 2005 17:40 GMT
Which virus we talk about is immaterial. The point is that there are
many viruses which persist in the host despite there being clinically
effective treatment which can ameliorate or eliminate symptoms of the
disease.
The fact that they can do so does not make the treatments any less
effective at what they do.

It appears there are many things which are "beyond you", not only an
understanding of HIV pathogenesis.
Iconoclaster - 25 Nov 2005 22:44 GMT
>"Which virus we talk about is immaterial."

For you that may be so.  That's just because you live in a ridiculous
inverted world in which high levels of lymphocytes are a sign of good
health, and  antibodies against a virus are a sign of persistent infection
by that same virus.
The nitwits who taught you your trade are the same people who tried in
vain for 20 years to find a virus that causes cancer, and just when
everybody could see clearly how incompetent they were, invented a new
disease to apply their bankrupt virus theory for yet another 20 years.
DavidT - 27 Nov 2005 08:35 GMT
>For you that may be so.  That's just because >you live in a ridiculous
>inverted world in which high levels of >lymphocytes are a sign of good health

And in your world lymphopenia is a sign of good health!?  (Probably
along with having a hemoglobin of 5, a neutrophil count of 1 and
platelet count of 15). ROTFLMAO!

>and  antibodies against a virus are a sign of >persistent infection by that same virus.

Well as you know antibodies merely reflect exposure to infection.
Persisting production of antibodies occurs in cases where the infection
remains latent, and virus can also be detected by other methods,
proving viral persistence.
In your world, antibodies mean "proteins on the filter paper", and you
get to decide who has them and who doesn't.
Now whose world more closely approximates to reality - yours or mine?

>The nitwits who taught you your trade are the >same people who tried in
>vain for 20 years to find a virus that causes >cancer, and just when
>everybody could see clearly how incompetent >they were, invented a new
>disease to apply their bankrupt virus theory for >yet another 20 years.

News for you - virologists grow old. Those who were teaching 40 years
ago have now retired. Unlike what you were "taught", the scientific
method incorporates new discoveries and reworks scientific hypotheses -
one of its strengths, contrary to what you believe.

(Oh, and as for viruses causing cancer, how about HBV, HCV, HPV, EBV,
HHV-8, HTLVs etc, never mind about animal cancer viruses.)
Iconoclaster - 29 Nov 2005 02:27 GMT
>"And in your world lymphopenia is a sign of good health!?"

No, it isn't.  But neither is an extremely high level of lymphocytes
(which signals an infection somewhere).  Like everything else in our body,
these levels may fluctuate between certain limits.
Example: A blood pH of 7.8 is pretty bad. pH 7.4 is much better.  But that
doesn't mean pH 7.1 is still better.

>"Persisting production of antibodies occurs in cases where the infection
remains latent,"

That's hard to believe.  Sounds too much like "HIV-science".  Viruses that
can *really* be latent, such as the Herpes Viruses, spend that time inside
the cell nucleus, and they will not meet any immune cells to take offense
at them, while they're inside.  And of course, the (10-year!) "latency" of
"HIV" is bullshit.

>"and virus can also be detected by other methods,
proving viral persistence."

I hope you're not referring to "Viral Load" methods, where any
coincidental piece of DNA is amplified in a co-culture, and counted as a
virus particle.

>"In your world, antibodies mean "proteins on the filter paper", and you
get to decide who has them and who doesn't."

I must admit I don't understand what you mean by that, but it sounds
exactly what the orthodoxy is doing and thinking, with their Western Blot
test.
They are the ones deciding who has antibodies against "HIV", just because
they react with some proteins of unknown origin.

>"News for you - virologists grow old."

Tell me about it...  I've seen the beginning of the virus-hunting in
Cancer research, and I had nothing but scorn for the dumbfucks who
believed cancer was caused by a virus.  Now it's 40 years later; cancer
has been replaced by AIDS, but the same sloppy brand of Virology is being
pursued.
They are doing experiments without proper controls on systems with too
many variables.  Then they interpret the results, accepting an unproven
theory as the gospel truth.  Well, if that is now called "the scientific
method", then I call myself lucky to be retired; not having to deal with
that sh.t anymore.
But shucks, History is full of old civilisations that once were dominating
science:  The Greeks, the Chinese, the Arabs...  Now they're not so hot
anymore.  From where I'm sitting, it looks like the Anglosaxons have had
their glory days behind them too.

>"(Oh, and as for viruses causing cancer, how about HBV, HCV, HPV, EBV,
HHV-8, HTLVs etc, never mind about animal cancer viruses.)

Yeah, how about them?  Well, all we have is a bunch of animal tumor
viruses.  All the "human cancer viruses" are bullshit from Bob Gallo's
salad days.  Lab artefacts.  The evidence for them is of the same fine
quality as the evidence for HIV causing AIDS.
DavidT - 29 Nov 2005 09:25 GMT
Nuff said.
Just about the clearest example of denialist rhetoric I've encountered.

"I think iruses are bull sh.t.
Cancer doesn't exist.
Hepatitis viruses don't exist.
HIV doesn't exist.
All serology tests and virus specific tests are rubbish.
I sit in a lead lined room waiting for the black helicopters to
come..."

We've heard it all before, Willy. Give it a rest.
Iconoclaster - 30 Nov 2005 22:17 GMT
>"We've heard it all before, Willy. Give it a rest."

You've still got some of them wrong, Master David.  Now pay attention, and
one day you may even know them all by heart:

Some viruses are bullshit

Cancer exists, but is not caused by viruses

Hepatitis Virus B exists, Hep-A is doubtful, Hep-C is bullshit

HIV doesn't exist (you had that one right!)

All serology tests believed to be specific for a virus that has never been
isolated are rubbish.

I sit in a comfortable living room waiting for all the blaring nonsense
that will be strewn about on World AIDS Day.

Keep on trying; you'll get there!
GMCarter - 30 Nov 2005 22:34 GMT
>Cancer exists, but is not caused by viruses
>
>Hepatitis Virus B exists, Hep-A is doubtful, Hep-C is bullshit
>
>HIV doesn't exist (you had that one right!)

Riiiigghhht.....sure. We all are enlightened now cause you said and
gosh, you're doing a heck of a job there, godshock.

Why, you have god in yer name. Ya must be right.
Dumbya
Iconoclaster - 02 Dec 2005 23:07 GMT
Yes, I know I'm right.  And that feels a lot more comfortable than living
in a web of lies, indulging in schemes that you know will blow up in your
face one day.
Susie, age 9 - 06 Dec 2005 18:07 GMT
> Yes, I know I'm right.  And that feels a lot more comfortable than living
> in a web of lies, indulging in schemes that you know will blow up in your
> face one day.

The public relations pharma contractors here are no different than
terrorists driving vehicles laden with high explosives - when
they detonate it is all over in a flash - they have no time to
actually experience the moment.

pity

susie
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.