 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / April 2006Review of Harpers's at New AIDS Review
http://www.newaidsreview.com/ Harpers astonishes the world with the extent of AIDS skulduggery Anthony Fauci will probably spill his coffee when he read "Out of Control", everyman's guide to the HIV?AIDS scam Duesberg gets his due as the whistleblower of the Enron of science The red and white cover flap of the new Harpers that will appears on news stands Tuesday (and is already in some mailboxes) will surprise many with one of its headlined stories, and we are not referring to the most obvious bombshell. The immediate attention getter will be the white headline that shouts IMPEACH HIM in giant capitals, a demand which is Lewis Lapham's climactic swansong as editor. The urbane long time editor and social critic is leaving the helm of the influential journal this month, and his cover essay, "The Case For Impeachment: Why We Can No Longer Afford George Bush" is a nine page indictment of our friendly President as a outlaw and a "thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use": The Conyers report doesn't return to the President's focus on Iraq until March 2002, when it finds him peering into the office of Condoleeza Rice, the national security advisor, to say, "f.ck Saddam, we're taking him out."... Footnote 13: As of January 17, 2006, the rap sheet listed 2,229 American military dead in Iraq together with an unknown number of Iraqi civilians; what looks to be the sum of $1 trillion, by some estimates $2 trillion, already committed to The Project for the American Century's real estate development in the Mesopotamian desert.This manifesto (which we haven't had time to read properly yet) will be followed by a public forum titled more politely "Is There a Case for Impeachment?" at Town Hall on March 2, featuring Lapham, Rep. John Conyers, Michael Ratner, and Elizabeth Holtzman, with Sam Seder as moderator. What this loud Parthian shot into the White House from Lapham should only initially upstage in reader's minds, however, is a much more unexpected indictment of skulduggery in Washington listed second on the ad flap and the cover: "The AIDS Machine: Celia Farber on HIV Drugs and the Corruption of Science". The article, which otherwise has the title "Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science" on the actual white cover and inside the magazine, takes up 15 center pages without a break. As a literary work, "Out of Control" can be crudely but fairly described as an armor penetrating, morally fueled missile aimed at the heart of the HIV?AIDS medical-scientific-pharmaceutical complex, the corrupt administrative headquarters of the many hundreds of ongoing, illfounded and lethal (to some participants) HIV?AIDS drug trials at NIAID. It will grip the ordinary reader with its beginning. The article starts off with the chilling story of the obviously needless death of Joyce Ann Hafford, a pregnant single mother, from nevirapine, the toxic drug which supposedly stops HIV transferring to a newborn. The trial did not even have a placebo group, because it was simply intended to compare the known unpleasant if not deadly impact of nevirapine with the equally nasty medication AZT. This black 33 year old, otherwise in perfect health, whose AIDS diagnosis was based one questionable HIV antibody test, soon suffered monstrous symptoms, but was not taken off the drug until just before she gave birth and then died. "Her health started to deteriorate from the moment she went on the drugs," said (her older sister) King....She said to me, 'Nell'_that's what she called me-'I have to get through this. I can't let my baby get that virus.'"...By this time all she could keep down was cans of Ensure. Her blood was drawn for lab tests, but she was not taken off the study drugs... She was admitted to the hospial's ICU with "acute and sub-acute necrosis of the liver, secondary to drug toxicity, acute renal failure, anemia, septicemia, premature separation of the placenta", and threatened "premature labor." She was finally taken off the drugs but was already losing consciousness.... Hafford's last words were a request to be put on a breathing tube.Following this story to make strong men weep, the relentless Farber demolishes the credibility of all nevirapine work at NIAID and calls into question the ethics and the scientific control of the entire DAIDS operation. One can imagine NIAIDS director Anthony Fauci having difficulty breathing as he reads this work. Long and judiciously phrased, the finely polished piece seems irrefutable as it exposes the horrors of HIV?AIDS drug trials at NIAID as little more than knowing medical murder in one case, and then shows how the vicious corruption and antiscience they embody has been enabled and protected by the religious doctrine of HIV=AIDS, a paradigm which has been thrown like a protective mantle over everything that vast federal funds have been spent on in this area. That the fabric of this theoretical mantle is threadbare to the point of disintegration is convincingly suggested by a final section describing the ideas and activities of Peter Duesberg, fairly presented as the one scientist with the intellect, the expertise, the public spirit and the sense of scientific honor to review the HIV claim objectively when it was first made, and when he found that it was worthless, to stick to his guns through twenty years of funding strangulation and professional ostracism. The section on Duesberg completes the piece in a way which should leave very little doubt in the reader's mind that he is right, and that the calumny heaped upon his reputation and the refusal to listen to his critique is political, sociological, and emotional in nature, and without scientific merit. The clincher in the final paragraphs is a brief account of how the promising results of his research into the source of cancer have won him renewed respect and attention from his peers at the NIH and other leading institutes, whose public relations people are now striving in the service of NIAIDS director Fauci to prevent this spilling over into a second look at Duesberg's sustained HIV?AIDS critique. Farber's contribution is by no means over with this seminal piece. For as noted on the first page of "Out of Control", she is writing a book on her years of AIDS reporting for Melville House, a young but already distinguished publisher in New York City. The title is "Serious Adverse Events", the euphemism used in the NIAID drug trials for death. As this reminds us, the consequences of maintaining a false paradigm in HIV?AIDS over two decades, which is what all the signs point to, have been deadly for thousands of individuals. Posted by truthseeker on Sunday February 19, 2006 at 1:18pm. 2 Comments 0 Trackbacks "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > It will grip the ordinary reader with its beginning. The article starts off > with the chilling story of the obviously needless death of Joyce Ann [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > NIAID and calls into question the ethics and the scientific control of the entire > DAIDS operation. Alex, you *are* aware that this is a crock of drivel? HIV positive pregnant woman are never started on any ARVs while they are pregnant except for that single dose of nevirapine just before birth. If you wish to allege that this is actually *true* then post the actual study details so that we can see for ourselves when and where pregnant woment were started on neviropine for AZT comparisons and why no placebo controls were used. For my own interest, please post references to Farber's work on the ethics of the DAIDS operation as I am currently researchin this issue for publication. -- Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. The article Alex is referring to is another of that ultimate hack Celia Farber's pieces of fantasy writing. It is beyond belief that Harpers is publishing such unfounded garbage. Gary Stein > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Moira de Swardt posting from Johannesburg, South Africa > Remove the dot in my address to find me at home. >The article Alex is referring to is another of that ultimate hack Celia >Farber's pieces of fantasy writing. It is beyond belief that Harpers is >publishing such unfounded garbage. I suppose some of us should write a letter to Harper's. I never much read the magazine; I suppose they're desperate for readership by dredging that hack out of the woodwork to display her ignorance. George M. Carter > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > ethics of the DAIDS operation as I am currently researchin this > issue for publication. Good on yer Moira ! Aaaaah. It's a breath of fresh air. Thanks to Celia Farber! Hey, boys! I'm telling you, this AIDS bullshit is coming apart at the seams. I look forward to more robust debates from you guys as you get painted into a tighter and tighter corner. What's REALLY going to be fun is to watch the drama as researchers begin to "jump ship". I'll also be interested to see how many of you continue to hang on as the heat gets turned on. Thanks again, Celia!! >Aaaaah. It's a breath of fresh air. Thanks to Celia Farber! > >Hey, boys! I'm telling you, this AIDS bullshit is coming apart at the >seams. You may believe whatever nonsense you like, dear. But if you are HIV+, the virus is continuing to replicate nicely, destroying your lymph system, gut, penetrating the central nervous system and resulting in a concomitant loss of T cells. Your first indication of this activity will be the development of an otherwise rare infection such as PCP, CMV colitis or retinitis, cryptococcal or mycobacterial disease and so forth. You might experience a nasty case of zoster. Thrush is not uncommon. These are things that happen when HIV infection results in AIDS developing. Compassion is that I think you might be convinced to change your mind before you wind up dead like Pasquarelli and the entire chapter of HEAL in Sydney, among to many millions of others who have dealt with this horror. But you won't. George M. Carter "You may believe whatever nonsense you like, dear. But if you are HIV+, the virus is continuing to replicate nicely, destroying your lymph system, gut, penetrating the central nervous system and resulting in a concomitant loss of T cells." "Your first indication of this activity will be the development of an otherwise rare infection such as PCP, CMV colitis or retinitis, cryptococcal or mycobacterial disease and so forth. You might experience a nasty case of zoster. Thrush is not uncommon." "These are things that happen when HIV infection results in AIDS developing." Keep "workin'" it, George. I'm sure you're scaring *somebody* out there. That seems to be the sad path you've chosen in life...trying so hard to convince people to believe that infection with an imaginary retrovirus will kill them. Gut-wrenchingly, morbidly pathetic. >"You may believe whatever nonsense you like, dear. But if you are HIV+, the >virus is continuing to replicate nicely, destroying your lymph system, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >convince people to believe that infection with an imaginary retrovirus >will kill them. Gut-wrenchingly, morbidly pathetic. Darling, it is utterly irrelevant whether you are experiencing fear or not. Even if you are utterly fearless in your belief, it will not stop the development of AIDS if you are HIV-infected. Indeed, managing stress IS a good idea and can have a good bearing on health. Understanding our mortality doesn't mean living in daily dread--whether HIV+ or not. That is not the point. But living in denial, regardless of one's emotional state, will not save you from AIDS. George M. Carter "Darling, it is utterly irrelevant whether you are experiencing fear or not. Even if you are utterly fearless in your belief, it will not stop the development of AIDS if you are HIV-infected." "Indeed, managing stress IS a good idea and can have a good bearing on health. Understanding our mortality doesn't mean living in daily dread--whether HIV+ or not." "That is not the point." "But living in denial, regardless of one's emotional state, will not save you from AIDS." George, you're so cute when you "work it" this hard. Well, once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. snip >George, you're so cute when you "work it" this hard. Well, once again, >we'll just have to agree to disagree. Your choice. Like Mr. Pasquarelli, you will discover the truth in due time. "Like Mr. Pasquarelli, you will discover the truth in due time." I've already discovered the truth, Georgey. You and "team genocide" are full of sh.t. >"Like Mr. Pasquarelli, you will discover the truth in due time." > >I've already discovered the truth, Georgey. You and "team genocide" are >full of sh.t. LOL. Wrong yet again. You'll see. >>"Like Mr. Pasquarelli, you will discover the truth in due time." >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You'll see. Maybe not, if it's CMV. b/ "LOL. Wrong yet again." "You'll see." Not LOL. Your paradigm's coming apart at the seams. You'll see. >"LOL. Wrong yet again." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Your paradigm's coming apart at the seams. No paradigm here, dear. Just the old one. Infections that cause disease...and I've looked at the denialist cant and blather for over a decade and so far, y'all are batting zero. George M. Carter Since some of the comments to the blog piece below are by me, I figured it might be heplful to recapitulate them here: AIDS is a viral disease of the immune system, the outstanding questions regarding pathogenesis are rooted in scientific ignorance of how the human T cell immune system actually works. HIV infection causes unique immunological peturbations which are not mirrored by malnourishment, drug abuse or anything else. The strongest predictor of disease progression is not viral RNA copies of CD4 T cell counts in peripheral blood, it's the level of IMMUNE ACTIVATION. Immune activation correlates with depletion of the naive CD4 and CD8 T cell pools (the depletion of which also correlates with the onset of clinically symptomatic immunodeficiency), which is also paralleled by a spreading dysfunction among memory CD4 and CD8 T cells, eventually leading to the loss/anergy of recall responses to common pathogens (PCP, MAC, etc.). Combination antiretroviral therapy, for all it's toxicities and limitations, suppresses immune activation, increases naive CD4 and CD8 T cell counts and typically restores functional memory T cell responses to opportunistic pathogens (allowing maintenance therapy for such pathogens to be discontinued). There are rare cases of things like PCP in people with relatively high peripheral blood T cell counts and these are associated with delayed reconstitution of the PCP-specific memory T cell response, The growing scientific understanding of T cell homeostasis (how T cell pools are maintained in the body) suggests plausible mechanisms by which persistent low level T cell activation can eventually lead to frank immunodeficiency (a mouse model has even been developed which recapitulates many features of HIV-related immune dysfunction by overexpressing the costimulatory molecule CD70). As immunologist Zvi Grossman has pointed out, there is no need for HIV to be cytopathic to CD4 T cells for it to cause disease, because activated T cells are inherently short-lived (~1-2 days) whether they are infected or not. HIV essentially feeds off the immune system's attempts to respond to it by preferentially infecting HIV-specific CD4 T cells which are critical for the development of effective CD8 and B cell &antibody reponses. I have yet to see any denialist information that actually attempts to address our current understanding of immunology as it relates to HIV infection, all the arguments (including those in the dismal Celia Farber outing in Harper's) are directed at literature that was published 10-20 years ago (no immunologists give any credence to David Ho's "tap and drain" hypothesis of HIV pathogenesis anymore, nor does the majority of the HIV research field). I should also maybe add that if you want to compare the immunological effects of HIV infection with malnourishment or drug addiction there are studies in PubMed, analyses of individuals with severe malnourishment due to anorexia nervosa for example (there are some similarities but a lot of differences i.e. peripheral blood CD4 T cell counts are reduced but nowhere near as dramatically, there's reduced immune activation, reduced CD8 T cell counts, no opportunistic infection and the abnormalities resolve rapidly upon refeeding). There is no evidence I can find of any recreational drug having persisent effects on T cell populations (there are, however, some preliminary suggestions that crystal meth might). Oh, and immune activation also likely explains the easier transmission of HIV in settings where the enviromental pathogen load is high e.g. Africa (see abstract below) If any denialists on this list want to debate HIV pathogenesis, knock yourselves out, but please try and do so based on current scientific literature. Here are some cites that might be helpful: Nat Immunol. 2003 Jan;4(1):49-54. Epub 2002 Dec 9. Lethal T cell immunodeficiency induced by chronic costimulation via CD27-CD70 interactions. Tesselaar K, Arens R, van Schijndel GM, Baars PA, van der Valk MA, Borst J, van Oers MH, van Lier RA. Laboratory for Experimental Immunology, Academic Medical Center, P.O. Box 22700, 1100DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. It has been proposed that HIV-1, in addition to directly infecting and killing CD4+ T cells, causes T cell dysfunction and T cell loss by chronic immune activation. We analyzed the effects of chronic immune activation in mice that constitutively expressed CD70, the ligand for the tumor necrosis factor receptor family member CD27, on B cells. CD70 transgenic (CD70 Tg) mice showed a progressive conversion of naive T cells into effector-memory cells, which culminated in the depletion of naive T cells from lymph nodes and spleen. T cell changes depended on continuous CD27-CD70 interactions and T cell antigen receptor stimulation. Despite this hyperactive immune system, CD70 Tg mice died aged 6-8 months from Pneumocystis carinii infection, a hallmark of T cell immunodeficiency. Thus, persistent delivery of costimulatory signals via CD27-CD70 interactions, as may occur during chronic active viral infections, can exhaust the T cell pool and is sufficient to induce lethal immunodeficiency. Grossman Z, Meier-Schellersheim M, Sousa AE, Victorino RM, Paul WE. CD4+ T-cell depletion in HIV infection: are we closer to understanding the cause? Nat Med. 2002 Apr;8(4):319-23 Leng Q, Borkow G, Weisman Z, Stein M, Kalinkovich A, Bentwich Z. Immune activation correlates better than HIV plasma viral load with CD4 T-cell decline during HIV infection. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001 Aug 1;27(4):389-97. Koesters SA, Alimonti JB, Wachihi C, Matu L, Anzala O, Kimani J, Embree JE, Plummer FA, Fowke KR. IL-7Ralpha expression on CD4(+) T lymphocytes decreases with HIV disease progression and inversely correlates with immune activation. Eur J Immunol. 2006 Feb;36(2):336-44. Hazenberg MD, Otto SA, van Benthem BH, Roos MT, Coutinho RA, Lange JM, Hamann D, Prins M, Miedema F. Persistent immune activation in HIV-1 infection is associated with progression to AIDS. AIDS. 2003 Sep 5;17(13):1881-8 Messele T, Brouwer M, Girma M, Fontanet AL, Miedema F, Hamann D, Rinke de Wit TF. Plasma levels of viro-immunological markers in HIV-infected and non-infected Ethiopians: correlation with cell surface activation markers. Clin Immunol. 2001 Feb;98(2):212-9. Hazenberg MD, Stuart JW, Otto SA, Borleffs JC, Boucher CA, de Boer RJ, Miedema F, Hamann D. T-cell division in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 infection is mainly due to immune activation: a longitudinal analysis in patients before and during highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Blood. 2000 Jan 1;95(1):249-55. Hazenberg MD, Otto SA, Cohen Stuart JW, Verschuren MC, Borleffs JC, Boucher CA, Coutinho RA, Lange JM, Rinke de Wit TF, Tsegaye A, van Dongen JJ, Hamann D, de Boer RJ, Miedema F. Increased cell division but not thymic dysfunction rapidly affects the T-cell receptor excision circle content of the naive T cell population in HIV-1 infection. Nat Med. 2000 Sep;6(9):1036-42. Roederer M, Dubs JG, Anderson MT, Raju PA, Herzenberg LA, Herzenberg LA. CD8 naive T cell counts decrease progressively in HIV-infected adults. J Clin Invest. 1995 May;95(5):2061-6. Ullum H, Lepri AC, Victor J, Skinhoj P, Phillips AN, Pedersen BK. Increased losses of CD4+CD45RA+ cells in late stages of HIV infection is related to increased risk of death: evidence from a cohort of 347 HIV-infected individuals. AIDS. 1997 Oct;11(12):1479-85. AIDS. 2000 Sep 29;14(14):2083-92. Immune activation in africa is environmentally-driven and is associated with upregulation of CCR5. Italian-Ugandan AIDS Project. Clerici M, Butto S, Lukwiya M, Saresella M, Declich S, Trabattoni D, Pastori C, Piconi S, Fracasso C, Fabiani M, Ferrante P, Rizzardini G, Lopalco L. Cattedra di Immunologia, Universita di Milano, Italy. BACKGROUND: HIV infection in Africa is associated with immune activation and a cytokine profile that stimulates CCR5 expression. We investigated whether this immune activation is environmentally driven; if a dominant expression of CCR5 could indeed be detected in African individuals; and if R5 HIV strains would be prevalent in this population. METHODS: Freshly drawn peripheral blood mononuclear cells from HIV-uninfected African and Italian individuals living in rural Africa, from HIV-uninfected Africans and Italians living in Italy, and from HIV-infected African and Italian patients were analysed. Determinations of HIV coreceptor-specific mRNAs and immunophenotype analyses were performed in all samples. Virological analyses included virus isolation and characterization of plasma neutralizing activity. FINDINGS: Results showed that: immune activation is detected both in Italian and African HIV-uninfected individuals living in Africa but not in African subjects living in Italy; CCR5-specific mRNA is augmented and the surface expression of CCR5 is increased in African compared with Italian residents (CXCR4-specific mRNA is comparable); R5-HIV strains are isolated prevalently from lymphocytes of African HIV-infected patients; and plasma neutralizing activity in HIV-infected African patients is mostly specific for R5 strains. CONCLUSIONS: Immune activation in African residents is environmentally driven and not genetically predetermined. This immune activation results in a skewing of the CCR5 : CXCR4 ratio which is associated with a prevalent isolation of R5 viruses. These data suggest that the selection of the predominant virus strain within the population could be influenced by an immunologically driven pattern of HIV co receptor expression. > http://www.newaidsreview.com/ > [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > > Posted by truthseeker on Sunday February 19, 2006 at 1:18pm. 2 Comments 0 Trackbacks It's a good article. It won't bring down AIDS, inc. by itself. But it certainly is a turning point. Maybe that's why the boys here are suddenly so tense. > It's a good article. It won't bring down AIDS, inc. by itself. But it > certainly is a turning point. Maybe that's why the boys here are suddenly > so tense. Is that anything like "We're winning in Iraq, because the rebel^W^W^Winsurgent attacks have increased?" > > It's a good article. It won't bring down AIDS, inc. by itself. But it > > certainly is a turning point. Maybe that's why the boys here are suddenly > > so tense. > > > Is that anything like "We're winning in Iraq, because the > rebel^W^W^Winsurgent attacks have increased?" Or creationists claiming that the "Darwinists" are running scared because they are so afraid? Chris Noble Geez, Chris, you and your creationists and Darwinists. You're a broken record. Actually, this IS a turning point. Not to worry, though, I'm a long way from gloating yet. I'll start gloating when I read about AIDS researchers beginning to "jump ship". The smart ones will be first in line, cause it will SUCK being the last one holding onto your genocidal paradigm. Talk about "jumping ship" already... Here's a smart researcher who's just recently seen the light. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html She was involved in constructing mathematical models of HIV infection for ten years. Looks like this researcher has jumped ship. Smart. >Talk about "jumping ship" already... > >Here's a smart researcher who's just recently seen the light. Bullshit. It's clear she's been a denialist for 10 years. And she just reiterates the same old crap. Nothing about her research suggests that her own endeavors changed her views. She just decided to come out with her rants--and then ascribe AIDS to that homo lifestyle and drugs and all that other bullshit. George M. Carter I'm enjoying this little moment of vindiction. I stated only a handful of posts ago that researchers were going to start to "jump ship". What do you know? I'm right. I'm sure this is just the first in a long line of researchers who are getting poised to "get out". It will start with a trickle, then turn into a torrent. > I'm enjoying this little moment of vindiction. I stated only a handful of > posts ago that researchers were going to start to "jump ship". What do > you know? I'm right. I'm sure this is just the first in a long line of > researchers who are getting poised to "get out". > > It will start with a trickle, then turn into a torrent. A "HIV researcher" who never actually worked with HIV or AIDS patients is hardly convincing. The arguments she used are just regurgitations of Duesberg. If it makes you happy to believe that there will be a flood of HIV scientists recanting their position then go ahead believe what you want to. This is hardly a new promise from the Denialists. http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/aids1.html So far none of the HIV/AIDS researchers turned Denialists have actually worked with HIV. Chris Noble Chris, nice try. You can't rain on my parade. I'm quite confident that I'm correct. And it feels good. Don't hold onto the paradigm for too long, Chris. You sure don't want to be one of the last ones holding on to this particular hot potato! Let's see just how smart you are. >Chris, >nice try. You can't rain on my parade. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >be one of the last ones holding on to this particular hot potato! Let's >see just how smart you are. Right! Gosh--David Pasquarelli finally dropped that hot potato and look how well he's doing! golly, gee! I'm convinced by your devastating arguments, Wilyanonyme! "Right! Gosh--David Pasquarelli finally dropped that hot potato and look how well he's doing!" George says with macabre glee! "golly, gee! I'm convinced by your devastating arguments, Wilyanonyme!" Poor, Georgey-girl, this Celia Farber thing's really got your panties in a bunch. Your buddies are working overtime on the various forums, *attempting* to do some damage control. The only real success they've had is the ability to foam at the mouth. >"Right! Gosh--David Pasquarelli finally dropped that hot potato and look >how well he's doing!" > >George says with macabre glee! Macabre glee? No. Sadness that a still LIVING human like you can remain so f.cking stupid in the face of the object lesson. He gave his life for your cause--and your cause is hollow and stupid. And people that follow his path will wind up like him. Dead sooner than need be. George M. Carter > > I'm enjoying this little moment of vindiction. I stated only a handful of > > posts ago that researchers were going to start to "jump ship". What do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A "HIV researcher" who never actually worked with HIV or AIDS patients > is hardly convincing. If we're talking about Rebecca Culshaw, she is an epidemiologist. The epidemiology of AIDS, especially in Africa, has never made any sense and is incompatible with the fact that for instance the population of Uganda DOUBLED between 1980 and 2005. The population of Uganda (multiply by 1000): 1980 12,297 2002 24,740 Source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=ug Alex snip >If we're talking about Rebecca Culshaw, she is an epidemiologist. So what? >The epidemiology of AIDS, especially in Africa, has never made >any sense and is incompatible with the fact that for instance the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=ug So what? Doesn't mean HIV doesn't exist or cause AIDS. Not in the slightest. George M. Carter *** http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/2000/MoPeD2501.html The greater impact of AIDS related fertility deficits than direct mortality on population growth. Int Conf AIDS 2000 Jul 9-14; 13:(abstract no. MoPeD2501) Low-Beer D, Stoneburner R D. Low-Beer, Cambridge University, Department of Geography, Downing Place, Cambridge CB23EN, United Kingdom, Tel.: +44 1223 333 399, Fax: +44 1223 333 392, E-mail: lowbeer@btinternet.com BACKGROUND: To analyse the differential impacts of fertility deficits and direct mortality on the demographic impacts of AIDS and population growth over time in Uganda. METHODS: Empirical analysis of the Uganda census was undertaken comparing areas with high to low HIV prevalence. These populations were standardised by age and sex to determine empirically the scale of population deficits due to HIV, and the impact on population growth at different levels of HIV prevalence. Standard deterministic epidemic modelling was used to assess the impacts of AIDS mortality and fertility losses on reducing population growth. Sources of absolute declines in fertility in HIV+ and HIV- populations were also investigated using KAPB behaviour surveys, including abstinence, delaying of marriage and reduction in number of children, and their impacts on population growth quantified. RESULTS: Significant deficits in new-born children were shown to contribute disproportionately to reducing population growth rates by up to 2.5%. The early demographic impacts are dominated by direct paediatric HIV mortality, which accounts for deficits of 5% in new-born infants increasing to 5-10% with time. Ten years after the first demographic impacts are observed, fertility deficits (due to death of mothers) have a much greater impact on population growth accounting for deficits of 10-15% in new born infants. Demographic impacts are further compounded by reductions in absolute fertility rates in HIV+ and HIV- populations. With time fertility deficits have as important impacts as direct mortality resulting in population declines in the most extreme situations. Looseness=1 CONCLUSIONS: Over the medium to long term fertility deficits have as important an impact on population growth as direct mortality. This has implications for HIV and demographic forecasting, and the results should be extended to other countries in Africa linking demographic, behavioural and modelling approaches. MoPeD2501 *** See also http://www.worldbank.org/aids-econ/confront/confrontfull/chapter1/chp1sub3.html > > > I'm enjoying this little moment of vindiction. I stated only a handful of > > > posts ago that researchers were going to start to "jump ship". What do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If we're talking about Rebecca Culshaw, she is an epidemiologist. An epidemiologist? Here is a course description for a degree in epidemiology. http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/epi/course_desc.html > The epidemiology of AIDS, especially in Africa, has never made > any sense and is incompatible with the fact that for instance the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=ug Call me naive but I would suspect that you should take into account that Uganda has the 3rd highest birth rate in the world. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html. Chris Noble > > > > I'm enjoying this little moment of vindiction. I stated only a handful of > > > > posts ago that researchers were going to start to "jump ship". What do > > > > you know? I'm right. I'm sure this is just the first in a long line of > > > > researchers who are getting poised to "get out". > > > > It will start with a trickle, then turn into a torrent. > > > A "HIV researcher" who never actually worked with HIV or AIDS patients > > > is hardly convincing. > > If we're talking about Rebecca Culshaw, she is an epidemiologist. > An epidemiologist? > Here is a course description for a degree in epidemiology. > http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/epi/course_desc.html > > The epidemiology of AIDS, especially in Africa, has never made > > any sense and is incompatible with the fact that for instance the > > population of Uganda DOUBLED between 1980 and 2005. > > The population of Uganda (multiply by 1000): > > 1980 12,297 > > 2002 24,740 > > Source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=ug > Call me naive but I would suspect that you should take into account > that Uganda has the 3rd highest birth rate in the world. > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html. One problem is that the birth rate figure (as well as the death rate figure) are theoretically adjusted to account for all the supposed AIDS deaths. This is from the same 'Factbook': http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ug.html ~ People Uganda ~ Population: 27,269,482 ~ note: estimates for this country explicitly take into account the ~ effects of excess mortality due to AIDS; this can result in lower ~ life expectancy, higher infant mortality and death rates, lower ~ population and growth rates, and changes in the distribution of ~ population by age and sex than would otherwise be expected (July ~ 2005 est.) ~ . . . ~ Birth rate: ~ 47.39 births/1,000 population (2005 est.) ~ Death rate: ~ 12.8 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.) So, no matter how many people are _supposed_ to be dying from the AIDS pandemic, the other numbers can be adjusted to help relieve the discrepancy. This is probably how it works. The death rates are adjusted to the AIDS deaths paradigm which, in turn, is not taken from death counts, but comes from an extrapolation from HIV positive tests in prenatal clinics. Then, to account for a population that shows physical signs of continual rising, the birth rate is adjusted to compensate. Whatever the dodgy method used, by their own admission, the data is adjusted to try to help it align with the articles of HIV faith. BTW, did you notice that there seems no need for them to worry about special adjustments for TB and malaria (or other deadly diseases) - the comparatively serious ones you introduced into the discussion? So do we blame Oprah Winfrey again? The following also helps explain why the drop in Uganda's population, due to AIDS, didn't occur: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cgstereotypes.htm ~ In 1987, the WHO estimated that 1 million Ugandans were HIV-positive. ~ Ten years later, that number was unchanged yet the cumulative total ~ of AIDS cases reported in Uganda was less than 55,000.(66) ~ Researchers did not know the health status of the other 945,000 ~ HIV-positive Ugandans who were not AIDS cases nor evidently noticed ~ the erroneous projections and obvious discrepancies that appeared ~ among articles published in the very same journal. So what happened to the other 945,000 Chris, the outstanding 94.5%? Notice that the one million HIV infected estimate came from the WHO, not from . . . you know who :-) That aside, the bottom line is that the populations of these countries were predicted to diminish due to AIDS. It hasn't happened. Those who said it wouldn't happen were ridiculed. Best regards, Sean McHugh > > > > > I'm enjoying this little moment of vindiction. I stated only a handful of > > > > > posts ago that researchers were going to start to "jump ship". What do [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Whatever the dodgy method used, by their own admission, the data is > adjusted to try to help it align with the articles of HIV faith. Point taken. I don't agree that these results are rigged. These countries definitely have high birth rates. > BTW, did you notice that there seems no need for them to worry about > special adjustments for TB and malaria (or other deadly diseases) - [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Notice that the one million HIV infected estimate came from the WHO, > not from . . . you know who :-) For what percentage of the population was a death certificate recorded? You are incredibly optimistic if you think that a death certificate is recorded for %100 of the people that die in these countries. In addition AIDS is rarely given as a cause of death on death certificates. Without mandatory reporting these figures are always going to vastly underestimate the numbers. You accept the estimates I gave previously of about 3 million people dying from TB and malaria per year. Do you think that WHO based these estimates solely on death certificates from countries with poor records? No of course they didn't. Does this mean that they didn't die? Of course not. > That aside, the bottom line is that the populations of these countries > were predicted to diminish due to AIDS. It hasn't happened. Those who > said it wouldn't happen were ridiculed. Certainly worst case scenarios with negative population growth were probably talked about in some countries. AIDS denialists didn't just claim that populations would continue to increase they also claimed that HIV doesn't cause AIDS or that HIV doesn't exist. They were ridiculed for these ridiculous statements. Chris Noble For brevity, I have snipped an area of relative agreement. <snip> > > The following also helps explain why the drop in Uganda's population, > > due to AIDS, didn't occur: > > http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cgstereotypes.htm > > ~ In 1987, the WHO estimated that 1 million Ugandans were HIV-positive. > > ~ Ten years later, that number was unchanged yet the cumulative total [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ~ the erroneous projections and obvious discrepancies that appeared > > ~ among articles published in the very same journal. > > So what happened to the other 945,000 Chris, the outstanding 94.5%? > > Notice that the one million HIV infected estimate came from the WHO, > > not from . . . you know who :-) > For what percentage of the population was a death certificate recorded? > You are incredibly optimistic if you think that a death certificate is > recorded for %100 of the people that die in these countries. In > addition AIDS is rarely given as a cause of death on death > certificates. Without mandatory reporting these figures are always > going to vastly underestimate the numbers. But I never mentioned death. I referred only to the number of reported cases of AIDS, given that, after 10 years, there were only collectively 55,000 cases of AIDS reported out of the 1,000,000 Ugandans supposedly infected with HIV. I don't think you have done yourself a favour comparing this with malaria and TB. They are much more abundantly found and reported, even though, as you suggested, there are probably underreported: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/indic_306.html ~ The total number of tuberculosis cases reported to the World Health ~ Organization. A tuberculosis case is defined as a patient in whom ~ tuberculosis has been bacteriologically confirmed or diagnosed by a ~ clinician. For Uganda 2001, the table provides 187 per 100,000 people. Working on a population of roughly 25 million for 2001, that's 187 x 250 or 46,750 per year. Extrapolated over a 10 year period, that would probably make over 0.4 million. That is with a rate of 187/100,000 people (about 0.187%). This is actual TB, not latent TB. Compare this to the the sort of numbers we hear for HIV/AIDS. Yet after a decade, there were only reported 55,000 AIDS cases from the 1,000,000 HIV+ patients, who had plenty of time to progress to AIDS. Now for malaria. This is for malaria in Angola: http://www.laboratorytalk.com/news/rti/rti105.html ~ Malaria is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Angola. ~ In 2004, Angola reported 3.2 million cases of malaria, two-thirds of ~ which occurred in children under five years of age. ~ Close to 40,000 of those cases resulted in deaths. And this is for Uganda (1994), the country for which we were examining the AIDS reporting: http://www.doh.gov.za/issues/malaria/red_reference/cross_cutting/cross18.pdf Reported malaria cases: 1,982,000 (From table 2) Note, that is for a single year, not an accumulation as is with the Ugandan AIDS figures and other AIDS figures - AIDS PR uses every possible trick to inflate the situation. So Chris, it is pretty obvious that the AIDS reporting of AIDS cases is strangely low compared to what one would expect, given the hype. > You accept the estimates I gave previously of about 3 million > people dying from TB and malaria per year. Do you think that WHO > based these estimates solely on death certificates from countries > with poor records? No of course they didn't. Does this mean that > they didn't die? Of course not. No doubt there is vast underreporting due to poorer resources of these countries. The malaria page that was used for Uganda (above) invokes such a caveat with its figures. This still doesn't explain the comparative elusiveness of AIDS, which I have demonstrated. African AIDS only ever seems to be a catastrophic pandemic in the projections and estimates and nowhere else. Basically, what I want to know is, where the hell is it? > > That aside, the bottom line is that the populations of these countries > > were predicted to diminish due to AIDS. It hasn't happened. Those who > > said it wouldn't happen were ridiculed. > Certainly worst case scenarios with negative population growth were > probably talked about in some countries. That's a whitewash. Jehovah's Witnesses do much the same with their failed Armageddon for 1975. They say, "some" predicted it. The fact is they (The Watchtower Society itself) encouraged the notion of life as we know it, ending. For the rest of us, HIV/AIDS doomsday was trumps and people will remember that. One is gobsmacked, that after the failure of the HIVine prophesies to deliver, it is the sceptics who are effectively now being accused of exaggeration. In another thread I presented you with some pretty hard evidence of the doomsday hype, coming not from the likes of "Oprah Winfrey", but from the upper echelons of the AIDS ministry. If need be I can copy and paste the items in, giving you another opportunity to respond. > AIDS denialists didn't just > claim that populations would continue to increase they also claimed > that HIV doesn't cause AIDS or that HIV doesn't exist. They were > ridiculed for these ridiculous statements. That denies the true situation and puts words in any HIV/AIDS detractor's mouth (including mine). Just from work, I personally know two people who were not interested in questioning HIV itself, but who, of their own volition, voiced scepticism over the heterosexual HIV/AIDS estimates submitted for Africa (the pandemic). When I was debating the matter several years ago I was not debating whether HIV exists and was not debating whether it causes AIDS. I was ridiculed nonetheless, for suggesting that the African AIDS situation was way overblown. In fact, at that stage, I wasn't even aware of the dissidence in these other areas. I didn't even come across it while researching on the Net. It was well after the debate with Andy that he sent me an email telling me of the challenges to HIV itself. I told him that I already had, in the interim, discovered this, but that I would not be pursuing it. In these threads, I haven't challenged the ontological aspects of HIV or whether it causes AIDS, but that hasn't stopped the mud slinging. I refer _mainly_ to the forum's resident fundamentalist HIV minister - I think you know whom I mean. Anyone who questions ANY tenet of HIV/AIDS dogma is not only ridiculed, but is vilified as a heretic. The way HIV/AIDS has become like some sort of a god, is just something else that makes it different and weird. Please don't get me wrong, I came to this forum fully expecting this sort of evangelistic fervor and I derive some reassurance at being able to see my expectations realized so conspicuously. Best Regards, Sean McHugh - > For brevity, I have snipped an area of relative agreement. > [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > sort of evangelistic fervor and I derive some reassurance at being > able to see my expectations realized so conspicuously. Seeing as I have agreed with you that TB and malaria are massive health problems that are often overshadowed by HIV/AIDS and that early estimates of HIV may well have been inaccurate I don't know what you mean by "evangelistic fervor". What I generally react strongly to is people claiming that a) HIV does not exist or b) it does not cause AIDS. Chris Noble <snip> > > In these threads, I haven't challenged the ontological aspects of > > HIV or whether it causes AIDS, but that hasn't stopped the mud [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > estimates of HIV may well have been inaccurate I don't know what you > mean by "evangelistic fervor". Pardon my poor communication. I didn't actually have you in mind. > What I generally react strongly to is people claiming that a) HIV does > not exist or b) it does not cause AIDS. I am aware of your stance on that. Best Regards, Sean McHugh Hi! Okay. I have been scanning over some of the responses to this article published in Harper's, and here is a question for you all. Just to focus on one aspect here for a minute. I have read several times now that folks in places in Africa can be told they have 'HIV/AIDS' without ever even getting any kind of 'HIV' test? (Well, then I read how some are suing some of the test makers for fraud? But let's just say here, for argument's sake, that we all believe that the tests do indeed indicate that someone has 'HIV,' okay?) If folks can be told they have 'HIV/AIDS' without any kind of 'HIV' test, and this seems to be the case, how is it logical or ethical in any way whatsoever to tell folks that they have a potentially deadly virus with no proof via a blood test that they have such a virus in their bodies? If they are ill, how is it ethical or logical to tell them, with no proof, that it is this 'HIV' making them sick? This is absolutely not ethical or logical, imo. Are medical doctors, researchers, required to take formal logic, ethics, in college? This is basic logic, right? A+B=C is true if, and only if, both A and B are true, right? I asked a friend who has a PhD in Biology about this and at first they were going on about how they don't always have the funds for the tests over there, so could I understand why folks were told they had 'HIV' without a test? I said, 'Uh, no, I absolutely can not see the logic or justification.' After further discussion she agreed and said she felt like a fool really? Whatever. This by itself makes me think something nasty is going on in relation to some of this. Logic entails proving statements to be true, right? Just baloney, ill-logic, is what this sounds like to me? Here is another question. Who can tell me more about something I read about Donald Rumsfeld, and George Schultz too?, holding stock in this company Gilead Sciences, which has been working on 'the latest and greatest' in 'AIDS' drugs? Donald Rumsfeld helped head up this company in CA? (Also, involved in 'Tamiflu,' you know, to fight the big bad bird flu? Yes, I know some folks are talking about how they could replace the entire world poultry food supply with their genetically engineered chicken which would be resistant to this 'Avian flu?' Oh, well, I won't be rushing off to get my Tamiflu. Ha! Ha! Sheesh, couldn't possibly be a scam, an attack on small farmer's, more fear mongering by chemical industry/biotech interests to sell more junk science products? I'll just trust Rumsfeld? Yeah, right. Are many prescription drugs petroleum products? Many prescription drugs based on plant medicinals? Try to make a synthetic version of plant properties?) Also read that initially this whole 'HIV/AIDS' stuff was also being supported by U.S. military medical groups, folks say basically 'the same folks going after gay folks in the military where involved in putting this 'AIDS' propaganda out there; don't think for a second that have folks' best interest in mind?' You tell me? Folks where? What was it called? Fort Dietrich? In Maryland? I don't know, but I would like to know if so. Why are some talking about 'evangelical fervor?' Was that what I read quickly? Well, I did read some commenting that one of the last big 'AIDS' conferences looked more like a religious convention? I think folks are talking about taking things on faith as well? Like taking it on *faith* that some folks in Africa who were never given an 'HIV' test (not that I think these sound very convincing anyway) have 'HIV?' Without proof. > > > > > I'm enjoying this little moment of vindiction. I stated only a handful of > > > > > posts ago that researchers were going to start to "jump ship". What do [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > figure) are theoretically adjusted to account for all the supposed > AIDS deaths. This is from the same 'Factbook': Uganda's total fertility rate (the number of children per woman) has been relatively stable at approximately 7 for the past 40 years. This hasn't been bumped up to fudge for the global AIDS conspiracy. http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=138&Country=UG It is not at all surprising that Uganda has a positive population growth. Chris Noble > > > > > > I'm enjoying this little moment of vindiction. I stated only a handful of > > > > > > posts ago that researchers were going to start to "jump ship". What do [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=138&Country=UG > It is not at all surprising that Uganda has a positive population > growth. I think you present for yourself with a problem. Women in antenatal clinics, in Uganda, were found to have greater than a 30% prevalence of HIV in 1990: http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm That was in the cities. This one concurs with that city figure and for those outside the city, for pregnant women under 20, it submits a prevalence greater than 21% HIV+: http://www.who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm So let's estimate roughly an overall average of 25% HIV+ for pregnant women around that time (1990). Now, on average, many of the women should haven been well progressed in their HIV/AIDS/death program. Now just say that due to ill heath or restraint or AIDS or early death (supposedly guaranteed), the HIV women only had, on average, 4 children instead of 7. That would be a deficit of 3 children for every 4 women, or 25 children among those 4 women instead of 28. That would equate to roughly a 10% reduction in the overall fertility. Now let's look at the table from the page that you present: <http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=138&Country=UG> 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10 7.10 AIDS wasn't an issue in 1970 and currently Uganda is supposed to have greatly reduced HIV/AIDS. Compared to then and now one should see a dip for 1990. But one sees stability throughout and no dip at all for then. A 10% reduction should bring it down to something like 6.39. Once again, the devastation of AIDS is not demonstrated in the demographics in anything other than HIV/AIDS data (guesstimates). Once again the Occam's razor suggests exaggeration in the data presented by the AIDS establishment. Best Regards, Sean McHugh - > > The epidemiology of AIDS, especially in Africa, has never made > > any sense and is incompatible with the fact that for instance the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html. But how is that even remotely possible when (at one point) 30% of the population, mainly the sexually active section of the population, was HIV positive? Why didn't an HIV/AIDS epidemic of those proportions have a massive negative effect on population growth? Instead of the notion that "Africa is a dying continent", in the words of Gore Vidal years ago, the population of Uganda doubled, something not seen anywhere else in the world, let alone the HIV/AIDS free West. Alex From Faith Today: http://www.faithtoday.ca/article_viewer.asp?Article_ID=96 Hope comes in larger measures, too. When BOCAIP was planning its first month of prayer in 1996, the government called upon Ugandan pastors for advice. Uganda, which in the 1980s was seen as one of the worst affected places on Earth, is now held up as a remarkable success story. Early on, the disease wiped out many of Uganda's adults-parents, teachers, professionals and labourers alike-producing a million orphans. Determined to reverse the situation President Yoweri Museveni, supported by both Christian and Muslim leaders, launched a massive prevention campaign with a simple "ABC" message: Abstinence before marriage; Be faithful after marriage; and if you can't manage those, use a Condom. The result: the HIV infection prevalence has been reduced by 50 percent generally and has dropped by two-thirds in the 15-19 age group in the last decade. "Uganda is the only country in the world with a generalized epidemic that has been remarkably reduced," says Dr. Allan Ronald, a Canadian infectious disease physician who is helping to set up an AIDS care resource in Kampala. [Capital letters are just for emphasis, by the way - text only gets a little monotonous. And whose population doubled during the AIDS years. You know, this would be very easy to explain IF THERE HAD NEVER BEEN AN EPIDEMIC! Forget a about massive abstinence campaigns - LOSING A MILLION ADULTS out of a population of 12 million in 1980 would have had to have a massive negative impact on population growth. SOMEHOW IT DIDN'T. The population of Uganda went from 12 million in 1980, to over 24 million in 2002.] >> > It's a good article. It won't bring down AIDS, inc. by itself. But it >> > certainly is a turning point. Maybe that's why the boys here are suddenly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Or creationists claiming that the "Darwinists" are running scared > because they are so afraid? So, is there anything in the article new (say, within 3-5 years) or is it the same old rehash from 15 years ago at the earliest? B/ > >> > It's a good article. It won't bring down AIDS, inc. by itself. But it > >> > certainly is a turning point. Maybe that's why the boys here are suddenly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > B/ Not only is it the same old rehash but Farber doesn't even bother to read Denialist websites. "AZT, which was developed as a chemotherapeutic agent in 1964 but shelved because of its extreme toxicity, is a DNA chain terminator, which means that it brings DNA synthesis to a halt. It is therefore an extremely efficient cell killer. HIV is a retrotirus, and as such replicates itself by inserting its genes into a cell's genome so that when the cell divides a new copy of the virus is produced. AZT prevents the replication of HIV by killing infected T-cells; unfortunately, it kills all dividing cells indiscriminately, whether they are infected with a retrovirus or not, and will very quickly decimate even a healthy person's immune system. AZT's manufacturer, GlaxoSmith Kline, chose not to comment for this article. " http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/Beltz-AZT.html AZT was shelved as an anticancer drug because it did not inhibit the growth of cancer cells. These Denialist myths just refuse to die. Chris Noble > These Denialist myths just refuse to die. Well, the denialists themselves do. B/ > > These Denialist myths just refuse to die. > > Well, the denialists themselves do. > > B/ That's why people like Celia Farber and Peter Duesberg who aren't infected with HIV are so despicable. While many of the Denialists will indeed die from HIV/AIDS people like Farber and Duesberg ensure that there will be another generation of people infected with HIV and desperate for denial. Chris Noble > >> > It's a good article. It won't bring down AIDS, inc. by itself. But it > >> > certainly is a turning point. Maybe that's why the boys here are suddenly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > B/ Not only is it the same old rehash but Farber doesn't even bother to read Denialist websites. "AZT, which was developed as a chemotherapeutic agent in 1964 but shelved because of its extreme toxicity, is a DNA chain terminator, which means that it brings DNA synthesis to a halt. It is therefore an extremely efficient cell killer. HIV is a retrotirus, and as such replicates itself by inserting its genes into a cell's genome so that when the cell divides a new copy of the virus is produced. AZT prevents the replication of HIV by killing infected T-cells; unfortunately, it kills all dividing cells indiscriminately, whether they are infected with a retrovirus or not, and will very quickly decimate even a healthy person's immune system. AZT's manufacturer, GlaxoSmith Kline, chose not to comment for this article. " http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/Beltz-AZT.html AZT was shelved as an anticancer drug because it did not inhibit the growth of cancer cells. These Denialist myths just refuse to die. Chris Noble >It's a good article. It won't bring down AIDS, inc. by itself. But it >certainly is a turning point. Sure it is. Just like Mission Accomplished. Just like "handing over power" (and RUN!)...and this election and that one....turning point. Sure. feh. It just shows Harper's has no fact checkers. And that they've fallen into the gutter like that miserable rag, the New York Times. Little better either one than the NY Post. George M. Carter |
Reply to this Message |
 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.