 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2006Rebutal to Rebecca Culshaw
This post is being made to recant an article written by a wonderfully articulate, intelligent, but absolutely ignorant woman by the name of Rebecca Culshaw PhD. I no way am I going to attack her level of degree because I know I am proud of my B.A. Below is a link to the article that she wrote late 2005 entitled "Why I Quit HIV" http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html The purpose of my blog posting is to combat the "truths" that she brought to light in her article. I highly encourage you to FIRST read her article as I will be selecting pieces of that to combat specifically. I would like for you to keep in mind that she is NO WAY a serologist or a doctor but simply a biology mathematician! Here we go... In the fourth paragraph she states that there are "insupportable phrases like "the AIDS virus" or "an AIDS test" have become part of the common vernacular despite no evidence for their accuracy." -Ms. Culshaw is absolutely correct! As AIDS is not a virus there is no test available to test for AIDS. AIDS is diagnosed when your CD4 count is at or below 200 or you have a combination of opportunistic infections. As a "scientist" it is her job to educate people about the differences. Not use it to promote ignorance. In paragraph eight she says "The biological assumptions on which the models were based varied from author to author, and this made no sense to me. It was around this time, too, that I became increasingly perplexed by the stories I heard about long-term survivors. From my admittedly inexpert viewpoint, the major thing they all had in common -other than HIV- was that they lived extremely healthy lifestyles. Part of me was becoming suspicious that being HIV-positive didn't necessarily mean that you would ever get AIDS. -The reason it made no sense to Ms. Culshaw is because every model was created from a different person. Just as it is impossible to make a biological model of the common cold taken from different people, it is impossible to make IDENTICAL HIV models. Second in HIV/AIDS cases you have what is called either fast, slow or non progressors. My best friend has been infected with HIV for over 10 years now and is still simply HIV positive (no AIDS diagnosis). In a rather extreme difference I progressed from HIV to AIDS in only 6 months. The persons immune system ultimately determines how long or if EVER they will "graduate" to AIDS. In paragraph nine she refers to an article published by Dr. David Rasnick in which the following is stated: "the more I examined HIV the less it made sense that this largely inactive, barely detectable virus could cause such devastation." -It is here that it is readily apparent neither her nor Dr. Rasnick spent any time in an HIV/AIDS ward of a hospital. First off it is scientifically PROVEN that HIV replicates 50% faster than your body produces CD4 cells. That is hardly what I would call inactive. Second, the fact that HIV is so small does not mean that it is "barely detectable". My first viral load test was 439,000 per ml of blood, which is very high and very dangerous. When you consider the amount of blood in the average human body, I had BILLIONS of copies floating around in my body at that particular time. Hardly what I would call undetectable. I never had pneumonia, bronchitis, nor neuropathy in my life until after I contracted HIV. Could she or he please explain to me the reason that it just so happened after the fact? I would not comforted by their coincidence answer. Paragraph 12 states "The classification "AIDS" was introduced in the early 1980s not as a disease by as a surveillance tool to help doctors and public health officials understand and control a strange "new" syndrome affecting mostly young gay men.....For one thing, the definition has actually been changed by the CDC several times, continually expanding to include ever more diseases (all of which existed for decades prior to AIDS), and sometimes, no disease whatsoever." -I am going to have break right here for a moment and dissect this paragraph as it is so filled with crap. I want to try and keep things as clear as possible (unlike Ms. Culshaw). It is absolutely true that the definition of AIDS has changed over time. For example when the AIDS epidemic first started you were not given an HIV diagnosis. Why? Because there was no test for the virus. If you tested positive prior to 1995 you AUTOMATICALLY got an AIDS diagnosis without regard to your CD4 count or if you had an opportunistic infections. As our knowledge about this virus grows things the definition will continue to change. Just as opportunistic infections are added to the list some are also removed over time. Since it is important to know and monitor infectious diseases it was vital to have a system in place to provide accurate data in regards to statistics. If you are diagnosed with AIDS you keep that diagnosis. Why? Because it would be practically impossible to maintain a list of people who have AIDS today but not next week. Paragraph 12 goes on to state "And the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, no an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years." -Want to take a stab at what actually causes more cases of liver failure in HIV positive people? Protease inhibitors you say? Wrong! More than half of HIV positive persons are co-infected with Hepatitis C. Any takers on which organ Hep C makes fail? If you guessed liver, then you guessed correctly. If you are on Protease Inhibitors (which I take two EVERYDAY and have for over a year now) I can tell you that my liver function is monitored every time I have my labs drawn. At the first sign of trouble I am sure I will be informed and switched. Paragraph 13 is simply there to try and discredit the public health system, which granted is not the best in the world but I care not about that currently. Paragraph 14: "..HIV has been present everywhere in the U.S., in every population tested including repeat blood donors and military recruits, at a virtually constant rate since testing began in 1985. It is deeply confusing that a virus thought to have been brought to the AIDS epicenters of New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles in the early 1970s could possibly have spread so rapidly at first, yet have stopped spreading completely as soon as testing began. -Here she starts yet ANOTHER conspiracy theory in regards to the spread of HIV/AIDS. It is important to understand that people are always dying. Sometimes it is a known cause sometimes it is a mystery. I am lovingly referred to as the "Mystery Man" at my doctors' office. That being said the actual first case of HIV/AIDS was in St. Louis in 1969. A young street hustler developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and several other infections that they were not sure of at the time. The young man passed away. The doctor being the brilliant man that he is decided to freeze some of his blood and tissue samples thinking that one day there might be an answer. Well, when AIDS broke loose he noticed that the people were experiencing the same symptoms his patient had. He tested it and what do you know, the teenager in 1969 died from complications of AIDS. So "Patient 0" not really. In paragraph 15 she states "Early models assumed that HIV killed T-cells directly, by what is referred to as lysis. An infected cell lyses, or bursts, when the internal viral burden is so high that it can no longer be contained, just like your grocery bag breaks when it's too full. This is in fact the accepted mechanism of pathogenesis for virtually all other viruses. But it became blear that HIV did not in fact kill T-cells in this manner, and this concept was abandoned, to be replaced by various other ones, each of which resulted in very different models and, therefore, different predictions. Which model was "correct" never was clear." Paragraph 16 goes on to say "As it turns out, the reason there was no consensus mathematically as to how HIV killed T-cells was because there was no biological consensus. There still isn't......Worse than that, there are no data to support the hypothesis that HIV kills T-cells at all. -Perhaps it was not clear in 1985. However, there is ABSOLUTELY no doubt what happens now. The sole purpose of any virus including HIV is to reproduce and survive. What happens is when a little HIV attaches itself to a CD4 it instantly becomes a "baby HIV factory." HIV does not kill the CD4 it renders it useless for its original purpose (to fight infection). A CD4 cell lives no more than 24 hours and then the cell bursts. This is the case for both non infected and HIV infected persons. Anyway, on average two new HIV's are produced from 1 CD4 cell. If the HIV catches the CD4 cell in its infancy it may produce 3. For the HIV to make the CD4 cell explode would be for the virus to commit suicide, which is NOT its intentions. Paragraph 17 is where she tries to use difficult abbreviations to try and confuse the reader. However, I hope to clear up some of the mass confusion. You have three different tests that help diagnose HIV infections. The first is the ELISA (which is accurate but can be misleading in RARE circumstances). The other is a Western Blot which is done as a confirmatory to the positive ELISA. The Western Blot tests for the presence of the virus. This again is proven contrary to her statement that "there exists no test for the actual virus." The third is an actual HIV viral load test. While it is not licensed by the FDA for a positive test it can be used in extreme cases to prove infection. For example had they not done a viral load test on me to try to rule out HIV (as the ELISA and Western Blot were both negative due to my suppressed immune system) then they were going to start removing organs in my body. I can assure you that I am glad they used the viral load test. In regards to why HIV has to be reproduced in order to be seen in a specific blood sample is for this reason: because HIV is in every part of my body (sweat, tears, spit, urine...etc.) there is not going to always be the same amount of the virus in my vein that they draw blood from, so it is necessary to culture it in order to get an AVERAGE of how much is in my body at that given time. All three tests are certified by the FDA and held to their "gold standard". In paragraph 18 she really tries to twist the facts, hopefully, again I can explain the truth. She states "The current testing protocol is to "verify" a positive ELISA with the "more specific" WB (which has actually been banned from diagnostic use in the UK because it is so unreliable). But few people know that the criteria for a positive WB vary from country to country and even from lab to lab. Put bluntly, a person's HIV status could well change depending on the testing venue. It is also possible to test "WB indeterminate," which translates to any one of "uninfected," "possibly infected," or even, absurdly, "partially infected" under the current interpretation. This conundrum is confounded by the fact that the proteins comprising the different reactive "bands" on the WB test area all claimed to be specific to HIV, raising the question of how a truly uninfected individual could possess antibodies to even one "HIV-specific" protein. -First off the UK had not been banned the WB for diagnostic use. If anything clinics stopped using it to use the viral load test (which can detect the presence of the virus a day after infection as opposed to the weeks or months for the antibodies test). Why are their false positives? Let's say the specific HIV protein is p-120 and that is what produces the antibodies. You get tested and you have a viral infection that is producing p-141 which very closely looks and acts like p-120. That would cause your test to be false positive. Let's use that example on a more layman level. Let's say someone takes a common pee-stick pregnancy test. If there is one line she is not pregnant if there are two lines then she is with child. Well let's imagine that we're looking at the stick and the first line is as plain as day but the second line is faded. That doesn't mean that she is partially pregnant. It means that she is either with child or the proteins the tests use mimic the ones produced when one is pregnant. She lost all of my respect in paragraph 19 when she says she feel "that these tests ought to be banned for diagnostic purposes." People read this article and immediately assume that since she has a PhD she must know what she is talking about and it's alright to never have an HIV test. Ergo, irresponsibly passing along a very deadly virus. In my opinion she should be tried for murder. Furthermore I STRONGLY RESENT being referred to as a victim in paragraph 20. While I admit that having HIV is not an easy chore it is NOT one that I am a victim of. I am a survivor. I bitch and complain a lot but I want to make this point VERY CLEAR. I AM HIV! HIV IS NOT ME. I personally am glad that she decided to quit HIV. We do not need any more people spreading lies about the cause of AIDS. Medically it is proven that even someone with a compromised immune system does not just get AIDS. It is acquired. If anyone who reads this disagrees I simply offer you this ONE challenge, show me one person who has had AIDS and not HIV. That is all I ask for is ONE person. Good luck! On a side note I would like to personally think a very dear friend of mine and AIDS expert extraordinaire Mr. Guy Pujol for spending the time with me to help compose this article. > This post is being made to recant an article written by a wonderfully > articulate, intelligent, but absolutely ignorant woman by the name of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > opportunistic infections. As a "scientist" it is her job to > educate people about the differences. Not use it to promote ignorance. Actually AIDS diagnosis is not that specific. Especially in Africa, where a combination of a positive test, with weight loss, malaria, tuberculosis, leprocy, etc. are enough for an AIDS diagnosis. Also, in the west, the number of "AIDS defining illnesses" is ever expanding. Note the presence of commonly occuring infections and conditions herpes simplex, candidiasis, cervical cancer and tb in this list: * Candidiasis * Cervical cancer (invasive) * Coccidioidomycosis, Cryptococcosis, Cryptosporidiosis * Cytomegalovirus disease * Encephalopathy (HIV-related) * Herpes simplex (severe infection) * Histoplasmosis * Isosporiasis * Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) * Lymphoma (certain types) * Mycobacterium avium complex * Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) * Pneumonia (recurrent) * Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) * Salmonella septicemia (recurrent) * Toxoplasmosis of the brain * Tuberculosis * Wasting syndrome (Source: http://aids.about.com/od/themostcommonquestions/f/defining.htm ) Here is another long list: http://aids.about.com/od/themostcommonquestions/f/defining.htm > In paragraph eight she says "The biological assumptions on which the > models were based varied from author to author, and this made no sense [quoted text clipped - 178 lines] > have a viral infection that is producing p-141 which very closely looks > and acts like p-120. That would cause your test to be false positive. That also gets to the core of the issue people have with 'HIV tests'. They do not test for HIV itself, but proteins from what are presumed to be antibodies unique to HIV. Which I guess is ok as long as there aren't enough other antibodies floating around to confuse these tests. However, throw into the mix pregnancy, malaria, leprosy, tb, malnutrition, and who knows what else, and there is plenty of opportunity for false positives. And that's the situation these surveys in Africa are in. > Let's use that example on a more layman level. Let's say someone > takes a common pee-stick pregnancy test. If there is one line she is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the proteins the tests use mimic the ones produced when one is > pregnant. The problem I have with these tests is that they don't seem to have been invented with the African context in mind. It should be obvious that single ELISAs should never have been used on pregnant women, and yet for years this is the demographic that was tested to get national prevalence data. The same with the presence of antibodies against malaria and leprosy. Alex You say it is scientifically PROVEN that HIV replicates 50% faster than your body produces CD4 cells ...In my own case CD4 cells have increased by more than 100% ( no meds) from my first test 3 years ago, the PROVEN evidence that shapes that mountain may be irrefutable to some, but Im not yet willing to bet my life on it. Peter. Typically when one sero-converts (goes from not infected to infected) the viral load escalates to a large number and your CD4 count takes a severe hit. However, your body being the fighting machine that it is continues to fight the virus and will keep it at bay for a period of time. However, you will discover just as I did that eventually the virus will continue to multiply and when it does it often happens quickly. For example, I have been on meds for over a year now. I had labs drawn at the beginning of March of this year. My viral load was undetectable (below 50) and my CD4 count was at 925. I had the same labs re-drawn April 27 and suddenly my CD4 is down to 511 (almost a 50% decline) and my viral load is now 4,000. Even on meds your body can only do so much for a specified period of time. I wish you continued health. > Typically when one sero-converts (goes from not infected to infected) > the viral load escalates to a large number and your CD4 count takes a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > decline) and my viral load is now 4,000. Even on meds your body can > only do so much for a specified period of time. [..] Could it be "the meds" CAUSED all this ? http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/milowcd4.htm Uwe Hayek.  SignatureL'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien ! This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power. Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. >Could it be "the meds" CAUSED all this ? No. >>Could it be "the meds" CAUSED all this ? > > No. Mais si ! http://www.sidasante.com/temoigna/temoignage_rockenrock.htm I will try to translate : "After three months of swallowing an impressive amount of colored pills...I took the decision to stop taking [those pills] discreetly... [..] After two years and of curiosity I had myself checked again, specifying my "treatment", but not mentioning I had not took it for 24 months.. [..] 1200 CD4 and NO viral load [..] The quack congratulated himself "this treatment really is excellent, did the side effects not trouble you to much ?" "No, it went fine, one question though doctor, what would have happened if I was unable to get this excellent treatment?" Very outspoken, the practicioner answered : "Without a doubt, you would be in front of me with a toxoplasmosis, a tuberculosis, or a pneumonia " "hell" I said shivering, "I neatly escaped that, how can I thank you doctor" [..] In a paternal and debonnaire tone the man in white responded : "keep a close watch on things, and keep morale high" I closed with "have a fine Holiday, doctor, and express my regards to your wife" That was two and a half years ago.... UNQUOTE Uwe Hayek. QUOTE Second point. Donc et après 3 mois de prise d’une impressionnante quantité de cachets colorés, 15 kgs de moins et un état de délabrement physique inversement proportionnel à la « bonne tenue » de mes analyses, j’ai pris l’initiative personnelle de tout arrêter discrètement … J’ai arrêté de gerber en 24H00 et j’ai repris une forme normale après 3 autres mois … Pour ceux qui prendraient la même initiative, je précise que les troubles gastriques s’arrêtent très vite mais que l’anémie ou autres joyeusetés de ce genre (fatigue, perte de poids, …) sont plus récalcitrantes à disparaître … 3 mois dans mon cas personnel. Par curiosité et deux ans après, je suis allé me faire checker les paramètres en précisant la nature de mon « traitement » (l’initial bien sûr) et en omettant de dire que je ne prenais plus rien depuis 24 mois … par simple curiosité (malsaine, j’en conviens) Au vu des résultats, 1200 CD4 et PCR indétectable, le praticien se félicita : « vraiment ce traitement est excellent ! … pas trop d’effets secondaires tout de même ? ». « Non, non, ça va Docteur … une question quand même : que ce serait-il passé si je n’avais pas bénéficié de cet excellent traitement ? » Très doctement, le praticien me répondit : « Eh bien voyez-vous cher ami, vous seriez sans doute là devant moi avec une toxoplasmose, une tuberculose ou une pneumonie … » « Diable : » dis-je en frémissant … et de continuer : « Je l’ai échappé bel donc ! Comment vous remercier Docteur ? … » (autrement bien sûr qu’en payant la consultation). Presque paternel et débonnaire, l’homme en blanc rétorqua : « En ayant une excellente observance et en gardant un moral intact ! c’est très important le moral » … je pris congé : « Bonnes vacances Docteur et mes amitiés à Madame » … C’était donc il y a deux ans et demi … UNQUOTE SignatureL'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien ! This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power. Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. >Mais si ! >http://www.sidasante.com/temoigna/temoignage_rockenrock.htm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of colored pills...I took the decision to stop taking >[those pills] discreetly... Mais non! This is an anecdote. ARV's can cause side effects. Stopping a regimen may alleviate those side effects. Unfortunately, HIV then returns in force, the immune system is likely to crash and then AIDS can develop. If the individual doesn't try another regimen, they will most likely die of an infection related to AIDS. George M. Carter >> Mais si ! >> http://www.sidasante.com/temoigna/temoignage_rockenrock.htm [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > will most likely die of an infection related to > AIDS. That is exactly what the doctor in the anecdeut said. You do not have to parrot that, we dissidents know your arguments. We can entertain a thought without accepting it. Uwe Hayek. SignatureL'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien ! This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power. Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. snip >You do not have to parrot that, we dissidents know >your arguments. We can entertain a thought without >accepting it. LOL...you sure as hell can. Most thoughts, I suspect, sorta just slide off your brain without ever having fired a neuron. GMCarter a écrit : > >Mais si ! > >http://www.sidasante.com/temoigna/temoignage_rockenrock.htm [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > George M. Carter Just one thing about rock en rock. He is now negative (hiv -). He has done the test again. But this time, not in France, but in England, anonymously. He took care of presenting himself as an ordinary person, with no risk of being HIV+, just doing a routin test. And, surprise ! He is negative. Funy no ? Rock en rock is on the onnouscachetout.com forum , and has now a new pseudo : viduitie. He is alive and well. >snip... >And, surprise ! He is negative. > >Funy no ? Happy, yes. Better to not have HIV I think. >Rock en rock is on the onnouscachetout.com forum , and has now a new >pseudo : viduitie. He is alive and well. That is nice. snip >The same with the presence of antibodies against malaria >and leprosy. So, you ARE a denialist? Poor little Alex can't make up his mind. Well, once again, you spew the denialist party line. Are there some misdiagoses? You bet. Happens all the time. But they represent a tiny fraction of cases, for either malaria or HIV. And regardless, that does not mean HIV does not exist or cause AIDS. Indeed, data show that HIV infection increases susceptibility to malaria, reduces immunity and confounds treatment. But clinicians are also capable of discerning advanced HIV disease without ANY testing. Add to that the fact that various tests are indeed widely available, even in the African context, and you find that there remains a high specificity and sensitivity for the use of HIV testing in many, many settings in Africa. George M. Carter ** Mount AM, Mwapasa V, Elliott SR, Beeson JG, Tadesse E, Lema VM, Molyneux ME, Meshnick SR, Rogerson SJ. Impairment of humoral immunity to Plasmodium falciparum malaria in pregnancy by HIV infection. Lancet. 2004 Jun 5;363(9424):1860-7. Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. BACKGROUND: HIV infection increases the risk of malaria infection in pregnant women. Antibodies to variant surface antigens (VSA) on infected erythrocytes might protect against malaria in pregnancy. We postulated that HIV-induced impairment of humoral immunity to VSA mediates the increased susceptibility to malaria. METHODS: We compared serum concentrations of antibodies to VSA by flow cytometry or agglutination, and to merozoite proteins AMA-1 and MSP119 by ELISA, in 298 pregnant Malawian women, and related the findings to malaria and HIV infection, CD4-positive T-cell count, and HIV-1 viral load. FINDINGS: Concentrations of IgG to placental type VSA were lower in HIV-infected women than in HIV-uninfected women (median 8 units [IQR 4-23] vs 20 [12-30]; p<0.0001), among women with malaria (p=0.009) and those without malaria (p=0.0062). The impairment was greatest in first pregnancy. Agglutinating antibodies to placental VSA were present in a lower proportion of HIV-infected than HIV-uninfected women (58 [35.1%] of 165 vs 50 [53.8%] of 93, p<0.001). The degree of antibody binding by flow cytometry was correlated with CD4-positive T-cell count (r=0.16, p=0.019) and inversely with HIV-1 viral load (r=-0.16, p=0.030). Concentrations of antibodies to AMA-1 were lower in HIV infection (p<0.0001) but were not correlated with CD4-positive T-cell count or viral load. Responses to MSP119 were little affected by HIV infection. In multivariate analyses, HIV was negatively associated with amount of antibody to both VSA and AMA-1 (p<0.001 for each) but not MSP119. INTERPRETATION: HIV infection impairs antimalarial immunity, especially responses to placental type VSA. The impairment is greatest in the most immunosuppressed women and could explain the increased susceptibility to malaria seen in pregnant women with HIV infection. *** Barihuta T, Rigouts L, Barette M, Collart JP, De Bruyn J, Kadende P, Kamamfu G, Douglas JT, Portaels F. Rapid, early and specific diagnosis of tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases in Burundi. Ann Soc Belg Med Trop. 1993;73 Suppl 1:41-51. Centre Hospitalo Universitaire Kamenge, Bujumbura, Burundi. The potential usefulness of ELISA based serological tests to assist in rapid, early and specific diagnosis of tuberculosis was investigated. The materials were selected, based on published data and on our preliminary findings. Initially screening tests were performed using crude antigens such as Purified Protein Derivate (PPD) and a BCG-filtrate. Unfortunately, the results with these antigens were not promising. The specificity of both antigens using sera from 94 healthy controls was 64%. As a consequence of these findings, the crude antigens were excluded from further tests, and the study was continued with purified antigens. The work focused on 2 purified proteins: Antigen 60 (A60), a lipopolysaccharide-protein complex, and P32, a stress protein produced in zinc deprived cultures, identified as Antigen 85 A in the BCG reference system, both isolated from Mycobacterium bovis BCG. The commercial A60 based ELISA and our own P32 based ELISA were used to test a total of 300 sera from HIV positive, negative and unscreened individuals, mainly originating from Burundi. These sera were collected from clinical established cases of pulmonary TB, extrapulmonary TB, and patients with non-tuberculous tropical diseases such as salmonellosis, trypanosomiasis, malaria, etc. and healthy individuals. The A60 based ELISA had a sensitivity of 76.8% for the proven cases of active pulmonary tuberculosis and 61.9% for the extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases. No difference was shown between HIV positive and HIV negative patients. Specificity reached 95.2% for healthy individuals, but dropped to 68.1% when persons with active non-tuberculous tropical diseases were included. Eighty-six percent of the pulmonary cases and 87.7% of the extrapulmonary cases were detected by the ELISA-P32. These findings suggest that this test might be useful as a confirmatory test for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Again no difference was noticed between HIV negative and positive patients. The main contraindication for the use of the ELISA-P32 for the diagnosis of tuberculosis is its low specificity: 70.2% with sera from healthy controls and 22.2% for hospitalised patients and persons with non-tuberculous tropical diseases. In a small recent prospective study 4 out of 10 HIV+ persons with no evidence for TB yielded a positive result for the ELISA-P32. Two of them developed pulmonary tuberculosis within 6 months, whereas 2 P32-positives and 6 P32-negatives remained up to now without any manifestations of tuberculosis. The difference was not significant, but the number of cases was limited.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS) > -First off the UK had not been banned the WB for > diagnostic use. It is worth thinking about where Rebecca Culshaw "learnt" that the WB had been banned in the UK. Was it from talking to staff in hospitals or labs in the UK? Was it from reading scientific literature? No and No. She read it on "rethinker" websites. This is where she gets her information from. Western blots have not been banned in the UK. The only place you will read this is on "rethinker" websites. Far from being skeptical she swallows what she reads on these "rethinking" websites hook, line and sinker. Here is another example of a "rethinker" blindly believing what he reads on "rethinker" websites. http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/223.html Despite the the fantasies of Andrew Maniotis it is not true that HIV=AIDS has been found ILLEGAL in Germany. Chris Noble > ... > Here is another example of a "rethinker" blindly believing what he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Chris Noble Hi Chris, you are right, the message is complete nonsense! It is possible to obtain the verdicts text (Ns 70 Js 878/99 14(XVII) K 11/00) from the database of the German Landgericht Dortmund at http://www.justiz.nrw.de/RB/nrwe2/index.php Just enter '14 (XVII) K 11/00' (without the apostrophes) in the 'Aktenzeichen' field and you will find the verdict. Indeed it is a lengthy verdict concerning 'The AIDS Lie'. The accused has repeatedly threatened selected German politicians he will kill them. He was sentenced to two fines as well as a total of 8 month imprisonment. The verdict rejected appeal. Max P.S. If I found the wrong verdict I'd be very much interested in the verdicts text. > > ... > > Here is another example of a "rethinker" blindly believing what he [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > P.S. If I found the wrong verdict I'd be very much interested in the > verdicts text. That appears to be the correct verdict. The dates match and Lanka is definitely M. Lanka's "translation" of the verdict bears no resemblance to the original text. I only wish that Lanka was the one that was convicted. The accused was not a scientist and had lost a partner to AIDS. In my mind it is people like Lanka that should know better that deserve to be in jail. Chris Noble snip... >I only wish that Lanka was the one that was convicted. The accused was >not a scientist and had lost a partner to AIDS. In my mind it is people >like Lanka that should know better that deserve to be in jail. That's why I'm particularly vicious with people like Iconoclaster, Duesberg and others. When they try to pass themselves off as experts and then spout utter, complete demonstrable crap--repeatedly--it becomes something quite evil. Fools like Mbeki and Celia Farber are not putative experts--but they then embrace the bullshit despite the evidence to the contrary. They become as despicable. And then there is that jackass, Mathias Rath, who continues to spread lies. The very worst of what he does with his bullshit that vitamins "cure" AIDS is twofold: 1) He dissuades people from using ARV which kills people; 2) He makes it easier to dismiss the demonstrated importance of multivitamin/mineral therapy as part of HIV disease management strategy. Unfortunately, some of those that would dismiss this often have their own share of braindead bigotries that harms people living with HIV. George M. Carter Okay. Found this one while searching. What about this one? Yes, sounds to me that this 'Hepatitis C' might just be liver damage caused by other means (alcohol, prescription drugs, etc.) rather than by a virus? Anyway, I have read so many articles now about fraud in research, skewed research, conflicts of interest in relation to different things in the bio medical sciences, misinformation, deceptive drug advertising, corruption of the FDA, corporate corruption of research in universities over many decades, etc., that I am hardly just going to be believing something I read on the CDC site, etc.? I can imagine that many well-intentioned folks might not understand that some things they learned in school, etc., which they thought was 'sound science' could just have been junk science, that much junk science may have shaped the basis of different theories they might just accept as being valid? I don't know. ------ Hepatitis C epidemic - where is the virus? http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/07/05/hepatitis_c_epidemic_where_is_th e_virus.htm On Friday, 13 June 2003, The Age in Australia reported that according to a secret Health Department report, hepatitis C has become "an epidemic". The report has been kept under wraps by Health Minister Kay Patterson since she received it in November last year. The epidemic However does not seem to be confined to Australia only. According to an article in The Toronto Star the Canadian Liver Foundation estimates that "up to 240,000 Canadians are infected with the hepatitis C virus". Clean needles for intravenous drug users are suggested to avoid infection with hepatitis C. Yet, it appears that for hepatitis C, just as for AIDS, no virus has been isolated, at least not one that could plausibly be the cause of the disease. Some say the virus does not exist - hepatitis C has other causes. October 2003 Excerpt from Discussion of hepatitis C "virus" on Heal Toronto's website A third type of hepatitis was found in the 1970s, again restricted to heroin addicts, alcoholics, and patients who have received blood transfusions. Most scientists assumed these cases were either hepatitis A or B, until widespread testing revealed neither virus in the victims. Roughly thirty-five thousand Americans die each year of any type of the disease, a fraction of those from this "non-A, non-B hepatitis," as it was known for years. Today it is called hepatitis C. This form of hepatitis does not behave as an infectious disease, for it rigidly confines itself to people in well- defined risk groups rather than spreading to larger populations or even to the doctors treating hepatitis patients. Yet virologists have been eyeing the disease from the beginning, hoping one day to find a virus causing it. That day arrived in 1987. The laboratory for the job was no less than the research facility of the Chiron Corporation, a biotechnology company located directly across the bay from San Francisco. Equipped with the most advanced techniques, a research team started its search in 1982 by injecting blood from patients into chimpanzees. None of the monkeys contracted hepatitis, although subtle signs vaguely resembling infection or reddening did appear. For the next step, the scientists probed liver tissue for a virus. None could be found. Growing desperate, the team fished even for the smallest print of a virus, finally coming across and greatly amplifying a small piece of genetic information, encoded in a molecule known as ribonucleic acid (RNA), that did not seem to belong in the host's genetic code. This fragment of presumably foreign RNA, the researchers assumed, must be the genetic information of some undetected virus. Whatever it was, liver tissue contains it only in barely detectable amounts. Only about half of all hepatitis C patients contain the rare foreign RNA. And in those who contain it, there is only one RNA molecule for every ten liver cells - hardly a plausible cause for disease. The Chiron team used newly available technology to reconstruct pieces of the mystery virus. Now they could test patients for antibodies against this hypothetical virus and soon discovered that only a slight majority of hepatitis C patients had any evidence of these antibodies in their blood. Koch's first postulate, of course, demands that a truly harmful virus be found in huge quantities in every single patient. His second postulate requires that the virus particles be isolated and grown, although this supposed hepatitis virus has never been found intact. And the third postulate insists that newly infected animals, such as chimpanzees, should get the disease when injected with the virus. This hypothetical microbe fails all three tests. But Koch's standards were the furthest thing from the minds of the Chiron scientists when they announced in 1987 that they had finally found the "hepatitis C" virus. Now more paradoxes are confronting the viral hypothesis. Huge numbers of people testing positive for the hypothetical hepatitis C virus never develop any symptoms of the disease, even though the "virus" is no less active in their bodies than in hepatitis patients. And according to a recent large-scale study of people watched for eighteen years, those with signs of "infection" live just as long as those without. Despite these facts, scientists defend their still-elusive virus by giving it an undefined latent period extending into decades. Paradoxes like these no longer faze the virus-hunting research establishment. Indeed, rewards are generally showered upon any new virus hypothesis, no matter how bizarre. Chiron did not spend five years creating its own virus for nothing. Having patented the test for the virus, the company put it into production and began a publicity campaign to win powerful allies. The first step was a paper published in Science, the world's most popular science magazine, edited by Dan Koshland, Jr., professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley. Edward Penhoet, chief executive officer for Chiron, also holds a position as professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley. The NIH-supported virology establishment soon lent the full weight of its credibility to the hepatitis C virus camp. As Chiron's CEO boasted, "We have a blockbuster product." A regulatory order from the Food and Drug Admin-istration (FDA) to test the blood supply would reap enormous sales for Chiron. Their big chance presented itself in late 1988 as a special request from Japanese Emperor Hirohito's doctors. The monarch was dying and constantly needed blood transfusions; could Chiron provide a test to make sure he received no blood tainted with hepatitis C? The biotech company jumped at the opportunity, making for itself such a name in Japan that the Tokyo government gave the product its approval within one year. The emperor died in the meantime, but excitement over Chiron's test was fueled when the Japanese government placed hepatitis C high on its medical priority list. Chiron's test kit now earns some $60 million annually in that country alone. By the middle of 1990, the United States followed suit. The FDA not only approved the test, but even recommended the universal testing of donated blood. The American Association of Blood Banks followed suit by mandating the $5 test for all 12 million blood donations made each year in this country - raking in another $60 million annually for Chiron while raising the nation's medical costs that much more. And all this testing is being done for a virus that has never been isolated. Profits from the test kit have generated another all-too-common part of virus hunting. With Chiron's new income from the hepatitis C test, Penhoet's company bought out Cetus, another biotech company, founded by Donald Glaser, who, like Penhoet, also holds a position as professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley. And Chiron made an unrestricted donation of about 12 million to the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley that generates $100,000 in interest each year. Unfortunately for Peter Duesberg, who belongs to the same department, his supervisor is yet another professor who consults for Chiron Corporation - and displays little sympathy for Duesberg for challenging modern virus hunting by restricting his academic duties to undergraduate student teaching and by not appointing him to decision-making committees. Such conflicts of interest have become standard fixtures in university biology departments. The modern biomedical research establishment differs radically from any previous scientific program in history. Driven by vast infusions of federal and commercial money, it has grown into an enormous and powerful bureaucracy that greatly amplifies its successes and mistakes all the while stifling dissent. Such a process can no longer be called science, which by definition depends on self-correction by internal challenge and debate. Despite their popularity among scientists and their companies, "latent," "slow," and "defective" viruses have achieved only little prominence as hypothetical causes of degenerative diseases before the AIDS era. Their hypothetical role in degenerative diseases, which result from the loss of large numbers of cells, remained confined to rare, exclusive illnesses like kuru and hepatitis C. However, because latent, slow, and defective viruses cannot kill cells, such "viruses" eventually achieved prominence as hypothetical causes of cancer and thus entered the courts of health care and medical research. The next chapter describes the terms under which these viruses were promoted as causes of cancer and how some of these terms were eventually used to promote latent, slow, and defective viruses as causes of degenerative diseases including, above all, AIDS. HEAL TORONTO >Okay. Found this one while searching. What about this one? Yes, sounds >to me that this 'Hepatitis C' might just be liver damage caused by >other means (alcohol, prescription drugs, etc.) rather than by a virus? Alcohol and prescription drugs can damage the liver, no question. But people who do not use these interventions and who have Hepatitis C have a greatly increased risk of developing cirrhosis and an increased relative risk of liver cancer. >Anyway, I have read so many articles now about fraud in research, >skewed research, conflicts of interest in relation to different things >in the bio medical sciences, misinformation, deceptive drug >advertising, corruption of the FDA, corporate corruption of research in >universities over many decades, etc., that I am hardly just going to be >believing something I read on the CDC site, etc.? Skepticism is fine. And I wouldn't trust much at the CDC under the fundamentalist-inspired, anti-science Bush administration. But there are LOTS of researchers, lots of research around the world. While there is certainly corruption, that doesn't mean viruses don't exist or cause disease. By contrast, I certainly do not believe the crap put out by denialists as they have made demonstrably false statements time and again. The beauty of science, unlike religion, is the key concept of "reproducibility." And the fundamentals remain quite robust in terms of HIV and HCV. These viruses exist and cause disease. George M. Carter > Mathias Rath, Thanks for the tip. I forgot all about him. Thanks to your remark, I found his website... Great reading ! Altough I do not fully agree with his treatment, I agree with his "Business with Disease" analysis. Uwe Hayek. SignatureL'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien ! This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power. Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. snip >Altough I do not fully agree with his treatment, I >agree with his "Business with Disease" analysis. This implies you have some idea of what treatment should be. Nothing? George M. Carter Excellent rebuttal. Let's remember the S in AIDS stands for "syndrome." The disease is a syndrome of underlying infection manifested in various immune-suppressed ways. The term is largely being used only in its larger context; otherwise it is properly HIV that is the pathogen and infector. I'm not sure your co-infection factor of Hep C and HIV is correct. One of the reasons why liver failures are occurring is due to the toxicity of the antiviral's. They've been in use now for ten years, and like any other chemotherapy have severe side effects and consequences. Liver failure is one, so are elevated hypertension and cholesterol. So too is neurological damages, everything from avascular necrosis (due to the virus) and other NMS disorders due either to the virus or to the antiviral's. It is now commonly known that more people will die from complications of antiviral therapy than from HIV, but the overall prognosis of both is dramatically improved since HIV was first identified. >This post is being made to recant an article written by a wonderfully >articulate, intelligent, but absolutely ignorant woman by the name of [quoted text clipped - 234 lines] >mine and AIDS expert extraordinaire Mr. Guy Pujol for spending the time >with me to help compose this article. Forgive me for reacting to your email. It is your final challenge. You ask 'show me one person who has AIDS and not HIV - that is all I ask" I presume you know the CDC guideline for the diagnosis of AIDS as posted on its website. It lists 18 different ways to have AIDS despite being HIV negative. I presume this means quite a few people are diagnosed with AIDS in the absence of HIV. You are right in saying the UK has not banned the Western Blot - but I have just checked (I am in the UK) and the Western Blot is not recommended as the normal confirming test here. As I presume you know, the antibody found with the HIV test adheres to a carbohydrate structure found on certain molecules - which in turn are found in mycobacteria and in fungi. The former was first established by a team including Myron Essex of Harvard - a leading member of the US government's AIDS Task Force. This means it is not unique to any virus. with every good wish, Janine Roberts Actually the CDC maintains currently a list of 28 Opportunistic Infections that could warrent an AIDS diagnosis. Currently the CDC states that if a person develops bacterial/viral pneumonia (non PCP) three or more times in one calander year then a person is diagnosed with AIDS. However, that rule does not apply to persons who does not have HIV. It is possible for a person to both have thrush AND Hepatitis C (which are both Opportunistic Infections) but not have an AIDS diagnosis. When AIDS first was discovered it went from being the "Gay Cancer" to G.R.I.D. (Gay Related Immuno-Deficency). When scientists realized that it was not related to a persons sexual orientation but rather an illness that progressed from something that is when the term AIDS was born. If it was just something that happened then the A (for acquired) would not be necessary. My main point in this Janine is to point out that perfectly healthy people develop things that are on the opportunistic infections list, however, typically they are given treatment and are fine. It is when the immune system is so depleted that it cannot recover is when the issue arises. Respectfully, my challange still stands. Sincerely, James McLarty > Forgive me for reacting to your email. It is your final challenge. You > ask 'show me one person who has AIDS and not HIV - that is all I ask" > > I presume you know the CDC guideline for the diagnosis of AIDS as > posted on its website. It lists 18 different ways to have AIDS despite > being HIV negative. Also, see the NIH's definition of PI or "Primary Immunodeficiency", which is "AIDS" without a positive "HIV test": http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/primaryimmunobooklet.htm Admittedly many of these conditions are relatively rare, but it is more than the one demaned by the emailer. Some are not that rare, such as "Selective IgA Deficiency" (one in 300 people, according to the article). From the NIH website: W H A T I S P R I M A R Y I M M U N O D E F I C I E N C Y ? A PI disease results whenever one or more essential parts of the immune system is missing or not working properly at birth because of a genetic defect. Since the immune system is tremendously complex, hundreds of things can go wrong during development and sometimes the backup systems cannot compensate for the defects. (See section on The Immune Defenses) A variety of developmental errors in the immune system create different types of PIs. They make people susceptible to different kinds of germs and create different sets of symptoms. THE IMMUNE DEFENSE SYSTEM IS A BODY-WIDE NETWORK OF ORGANS, TISSUES, CELLS, AND PROTEIN SUBSTANCES THAT WORK TOGETHER TO DEFEND THE BODY AGAINST ATTACKS BY "FOREIGN" INVADERS. PI diseases were once thought to be rare, mostly because only the more severe forms were recognized. Today physicians realize that PIs are not uncommon. They are sometimes relatively mild, and they can occur in teenagers and adults as often as in infants and children. Very serious inherited immunodeficiencies become apparent almost as soon as a baby is born. Many more are discovered during the baby's first year of life. Others-usually the milder forms-may not show up until people reach their twenties and thirties. There are even some inherited immune deficiencies that never produce symptoms. The exact number of persons with PI is not known. It is estimated that each year about 400 children are born in the United States with a serious PI. The number of Americans now living with a primary immunodeficiency is estimated to be between 25,000 and 50,000. As new laboratory tests become more widely available, more cases of PIs are being recognized. At the same time, new types of PI are being discovered and described. Currently, the World Health Organization lists over 70 PIs and the numbers are increasing. Among the rarest forms of immune deficiency is Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID). SCID has been reported in small numbers, while some deficiencies, like DiGeorge Anomaly, are diagnosed more commonly. At the other extreme, an immune disorder called Selective IgA Deficiency may occur in as many as one in every 300 persons. This figure is an estimate, based on studies of blood from blood donors, since most people with IgA deficiency are healthy and never realize they have this disorder. > I presume this means quite a few people are diagnosed with AIDS in the > absence of HIV. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > with every good wish, Janine Roberts >> Forgive me for reacting to your email. It is your final challenge. You >> ask 'show me one person who has AIDS and not HIV - that is all I ask" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Also, see the NIH's definition of PI or "Primary Immunodeficiency", > which is "AIDS" without a positive "HIV test": Alex you dope did you even bother to read what you posted. "Primary Immunodeficiency... results whenever one or more essential parts of the immune system is missing or not working properly at birth". The quotation above is from the first paragraph of your post. PI is a genetic defect not an acquired disease, get a clue moron. Gary Stein > Forgive me for reacting to your email. It is your > final challenge. You ask 'show me one person who > has AIDS and not HIV - that is all I ask" He must be kidding : the DEFINITION of aids is having an aids defining illness AND a positive hiv test ! If you have exactly the same illness, exactly the same symptoms, but no hiv+ it is NOT AIDS. Look at this slide : Table 4 Common Symptoms shared by a number of Chronic Diseases. http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/malcolm4.gif located in this file : http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/hooper2000a.htm Uwe Hayek. SignatureL'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien ! This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much knowledge but no power. Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. Uwe, are you going to explain the unique perspective on immunology you articulated in the "Duesberg: HIV exists" thread?
|
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.