Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2005
Fauci: Despite HAART, viral reservoir is CONTINUALLY replenished !!!
|
|
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
|
|
|