 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / July 2006by William Henderson.
by William Henderson http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/print.php?article_code=1964 http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=He&article_code=1964 < HEALTH 25 years of AIDS in New England Here's the history, present and future of the disease as gathered from those who were there, still are here and will be here by William Henderson http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/print.php?article_code=1964 http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=He&article_code=1964 May 31, 2006 On June 5, 1981, 10 years after Fenway Community Health opened in Boston, one year after it started the first gay and lesbian health research programs in New England, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the report "Pneumocystis Pneumonia - Los Angeles." The article was a few paragraphs, and described the deaths of five "homosexual" men. The researchers at Fenway had no idea that the report signaled the beginning of a worldwide pandemic that has claimed an estimated 25 million, infected an additional 40 million, and continues to spread despite increased treatment options. "I was an infectious disease fellow at Harvard, and already a regular reader of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly (MMWR)," said Ken Mayer, who had studied community-based epidemiology as a medical student and started the gay and lesbian research projects at Fenway, "and my curiosity was piqued by the description of a group of MSM [men who sleep with men] with atypical diseases associated with profound immunodeficiency." The CDC followed this report with another, and within a few months, the first cases of AIDS were diagnosed in Boston at Fenway. Because it already had established ties to the New England gay and lesbian communities, it was more prepared than any other organization to lead a community-based response to the epidemic. By December 1982, 11 Massachusetts men were diagnosed as having AIDS, eight of whom identified as gay. In 2004, the latest year for which data is available, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health estimated between 23,000 and 25,000 people have HIV/AIDS in the commonwealth, including a projected 8,000 to 10,000 infected who did not yet know their HIV status or whose status had not been reported. "I worry that we might only be at the midpoint of this terrible tragedy," said Rebecca Haag, executive director of AIDS Action Committee, Boston, (AAC) and the national AIDS Action Council. The AAC was originally under the auspices of Fenway. Under AAC founder Larry Kessler's direction it emerged as an independent agency that continues to advocate for public policy changes and increased funding, as Fenway researchers still are developing cutting-edge treatment options. Fenway, it could be said, is the health center that AIDS built. Here, In Newsweekly presents an history of the disease collected during separate interviews conducted over the past few weeks with politicians, health care workers, non-profit agency employees and the HIV-positive. FEW ANSWERS BUT MUCH SPECULATION (1981 - 1983) Jerry Feuer, a Fenway physician assistant, started volunteering at Fenway in 1978. He remembers that CDC report, how much of it was speculative - how little certainty there was. "Only in retrospect can you look back and say that that's what it was. Only now can we look back and identify it," he said. "[New England] was two years behind the tsunami happening in Los Angeles, meaning we had the time to prepare for it to come our way." And in this preparation, there was much conjecture, said Mayer. "At first we wondered if the emerging epidemic was due to people partying too hard - lots of sex and drugs and burning out the immune system - but once I started seeing people whose only risk was one sexual partner who was sick," Mayer said, "it was clear that this problem was due to a new transmissible agent." Early reports from Haiti and Africa suggested a global pandemic, but before there was a test for HIV, Fenway was collecting behavioral patient histories, cataloguing and storing blood and other bodily fluids from people diagnosed with AIDS. Dr. Robert Gallo, M.D., who co-discovered that the HIV virus was the cause of AIDS and also founded and is the director of the Institute of Human Virology, used these samples to help develop an HIV antibody test, and the first reports of the national prevalence of HIV (then called HTLV-III) came from Fenway's collaboration with research scientists. Douglas Brooks can remember the first time he heard about what would become known as HIV and AIDS. It was 1981. He was a senior in high school and a friend's mother told him and some friends to be careful, that there was something out there killing people, that no one knew what caused it but that it was thought to be in the blood and that it was sexually transmitted. Nine years later, Brooks tested positive for HIV. "I knew a lot of guys who had HIV and who had died from complications due to AIDS, and they were still telling people to expect a life expectancy of about two years," said Brooks. "I thought it was a death sentence, and lived life accordingly, not really thinking about the future or planning for the future in a significant way." As Fenway doctors and scientists worked on the disease and what it did to the body, its counselors worked on what it was doing to the mind and spirit. Just weeks after Rhonda Linde, Ph.D. started working at Fenway in September 1982, several of the men in the medical and mental health departments shared with her concerns about the disease, either in the form of acute anxiety or physical symptoms. During two community forums, she and her co-workers tried to share with the community what they knew about the disease. There weren't many certainties to share. "As a mental health professional, one of my primary focuses was to help people cope with so many unknowns," she said. "People were used to looking to doctors to give them answers and instructions on how to prevent or treat illnesses; however in this case, we felt as helpless as our patients." The committee behind these community forums evolved into the independent Boston AIDS Action Committee. Fenway's reputation gave AAC its initial clout and helped engender respect, but it soon developed a reputation all its own. As the numbers of infections increased, so too did the AAC support groups, where men with AIDS were "smothered with passion, love, and concern," said Larry Kessler, former AAC executive director. NO CURE, LITTLE HOPE, MUCH TO DO (1983 - 1985) In 1983 Governor Michael Dukakis convened the Massachusetts Task Force on AIDS (later to become the HIV/AIDS bureau), bringing together leading medical professionals and community advocates. The Task Force met monthly to develop the commonwealth's response to the epidemic. Fenway, at the time, became one of the first medical facilities to culture HIV from blood and semen samples, and began offering anonymous HIV testing in cooperation with Harvard Medical School. That's the time when everyone was hearing about the new disease. That year, Ben Perkins, currently the AAC's MALE Center director, was a freshman in college. His brother told him about it during a telephone conversation. When Craig Wells, who is currently HIV Drug Assistance Program deputy director at Community Research Initiative (CRI) and coordinates the state's HIV Drug-Assistance Program, first moved to Boston in the early 1980s he heard of "these strange symptoms" appearing in gay men living in other cities. He and his friends were oblivious. "I remember some of us thinking, 'we're not at risk: we exercise, we eat well, we're not heavily into drugs, we take care of ourselves' - totally oblivious to what we would soon learn too well," he said. "As we learned more and began to see some of our colleagues and acquaintances fall ill, we became anxious or fearful." For a while Wells manned the AAC AIDS information hotline, before moving into a job at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital coordinating HIV/AIDS services in its outpatient practice. He also worked with the New England AIDS Education and Training Center, developing HIV care training programs. It was all he could do. Dr. Cal Cohen was in the Bronx, N.Y., when he first learned of AIDS. Today he is the research director at CRI. He says he believes that AIDS is his siren call - it was the disease he was built to cure. "It was pretty obvious to me that this was not going to be some minor event that was going to come and go - that this was coming and coming, and that this was exactly what medicine is about," he said. "There was really no other reason to go into medicine except to join these kinds of fights because what could be more dramatic than: Here's this killer, and [the infected person] could go from healthy to dead in two years, and you didn't even know the name of your killer." It was similar for Mayer. "Young men and women died horrible deaths. One can never forget the images, the suffering," said Mayer. "I remember the first time I met Gail Beverley. It was at the bedside of a friend of hers whom she was nursing." Beverley has lived on Columbus Avenue in Boston since the late 1960s. She didn't know much about the gay community but she knew Kessler, believed in what he wanted to do in the city. She's been involved with mental health counseling as it relates to HIV and AIDS for more than 20 years, and currently directs Fenway's volunteer counseling and testing site. It was at that very friend's bedside where Mayer met Beverley that she decided to dedicate her life to working with HIV-positive men and women. "After that, I knew I couldn't go back to who I was before, as if none of this had happened," she said. "It was a huge experience - learning what questions to ask, what the doctors would and wouldn't tell us. I made them a deal. I would stay in his [her friend's] room, but I couldn't use his bathroom." Fenway was the first clinical site in New England to test an experimental treatment for Pneumocystis pneumonia, the most common opportunistic infection that AIDS patients developed, and, in 1985, Fenway Community Health and the San Francisco Department of Public Health became the first to receive federal funds to study HIV transmission in gay men. Fenway also became the first non-university setting in New England funded for clinical research, and as it had with AAC, it helped initiate another AIDS-related organization, this time CRI. "In the early years, many of us believed that a cure would be found, and our work would come to an end within just a few years," said Haag. "Sadly, we were wrong." 'SO MANY FUNERALS,' YET THE GAY COMMUNITY RALLIES (1985 - 1990) There were no drug trials in 1985 when Stewart Landers found out he was HIV positive, and little hope. When the first AZT trials were offered in 1988, he joined, and while he watched his friends die, he did not. It wasn't an easy life, and some days were tougher than others, but he remained on AZT until the first drug cocktails were licensed in 1996. He sees himself as lucky. There wasn't a lot of luck in those years. There was no telling who might live and who would die. One of Carr's friends was relatively fine during dinner one night, but was admitted to the hospital the next day. "When I visited him, he could not speak, but [he] wrote the words 'FIGHT THIS' on a piece of paper and handed it to me," said Carr. "He drowned the following day when his lungs filled up." "There were so many funerals at that time," said Beverley who has buried more than she'd care to remember, though remember she does, each of them, for the life they lived, for the lives they didn't. There was no escaping the death, said Mayer, but in this death, in this desolation, you learned how to keep going. "For a period of almost 15 years, AIDS affected every aspect of my life. Friends, colleagues, and clients got ill and died. There was no escaping it," said Mayer. "But like in any other war, examples of courage, camaraderie and shared humanity made the scope of tragedy more bearable. The bonds that I formed [then] ¦ shaped my adult life and will always stay with me." In retrospect, 1987 to 1996 were some of the toughest years for New England and the nation's gay community, but as aggressive as it was, so too were grassroots efforts to create support organizations. The Eastern Maine AIDS Network, AIDS Project Worcester, and AIDS Response-Seacoast (ARS) in New Hampshire separately opened their doors in 1987. The Multicultural AIDS Coalition (MAC) came along one year later specifically to support and strengthen the response of communities of color in Massachusetts to the HIV/AIDS epidemic and related issues. "Over the past 25 years, the AIDS epidemic has brought out the best in Boston," said Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. "Local AIDS service organizations sprung up to raise awareness and educate about HIV, provide support to those afflicted and advocacy for prevention." On the mayor's list is the New England AIDS Education and Training Center, one of 11 regional education centers funded by the Ryan White CARE Act and sponsored regionally by the Office and Community Programs at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. That Act provides medical care and treatment for half a million low-income, uninsured, and underinsured people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States. Named for Ryan White - who was barred from his Indiana school once it became known he was HIV-positive - has been extended twice, but has not been renewed since its 2005 expiration. Who knows when, or if, it will be. President George H. Bush has promised it will be, but agencies, and the people they serve, still wait. Bush is not the first president to shy away from AIDS-related issues. President Ronald Reagan waited about five years before first publicly using the acronym AIDS. It didn't matter if he said it or not; AIDS was here and wasn't going anywhere, and on December 1, 1988, the first World AIDS Day said just that. Those ubiquitous red ribbons came a few years later. But the real story of the late '80s was 1987 and the development and FDA approval of AZT. Extraordinarily expensive, it quickly divided the AIDS community into those who could afford it and those that could not. Users were required to take 100mg capsules every four hours - waking up in the middle of the night to ensure an uninterrupted dose - and while the medication did prolong life, it wasn't a total victory. LOOKING FOR A MAGIC BULLET (1991 - 1996) A photograph on the front page of the Boston Globe of men in wheelchairs at a gay rights march in Washington, D.C. is one of the more vivid images of AIDS for Sophie Godley, currently the AAC deputy director of programs. The day she started at AAC, in 1994, a hotline volunteer had just died. Over the next year-and-a-half, three other volunteers died, including Paul Mitchell, former AAC treatment library coordinator. "I have always thought he missed effective HIV treatment by mere months," she said. "I think in the earlier years, we all assumed there would be a magic bullet that would come around and put a stop to it all. We had no idea it would be so complicated." In 1991, Brooks went to work for the Provincetown AIDS Support Group. "It was an amazing community," he said. "Some folks were there who had come to die, and many did, but some folks were there who had come to live and to get away form their hectic careers and stressful lives and to live in a quiet, safe, and beautiful place." Fenway's anonymous testing program performed 40 percent of all anonymous HIV tests in the state in 1991. Its HIV counseling and test program now administers about 1,600 HIV tests annually, with about 1,000 of those to individuals who identify as MSM. Currently, Fenway is involved in nearly 50 HIV-related research trials. There was less pessimism in the mid-'90s, said Cohen, because the efforts to eradicate AIDS had plateaued. "In 1985, we still thought of [AIDS] as an unknown killer and that death was inevitable," he said. "But by 1995, we were disappointed with how temporary drug regimes were, and we went from the optimism of therapy to disappointment." However disappointed the medical community, there were people with AIDS given a new lease on life through these "temporary" drug regimes. Perkins credits a highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART) with saving his first boyfriend's life. LIVING WITH AIDS (1996 - 2006) In a 1996 interview with The Boston Phoenix, Kessler predicted that based on the lifespan of the average epidemic he expected a cure or treatment by 2006. He's always been idealistic like that. When he first learned of AIDS, he expected a cure to come in three years, or by 1986. "Everyone totally underestimated the potency of the retrovirus," Kessler said. In 2006, though, he's long since stopped trying to predict when a cure will be found. Each of his previous predictions have been wrong. But he still hopes. "The introduction of the drug cocktails meant a time of exhilaration. It was a time of pride that the 15 years we had spent weren't for naught, that this was not simply going to be a field in which you learned how to bury people," said Cohen. "This was a field in which all those years and trials and experiments actually led to someplace dramatic." Saquinavir, the first anti-HIV drug in the protease inhibitor class, when combined with existing therapies, could slow the disease's progression and deaths in those infected. In 1997, U.S. AIDS-related deaths declined by more than 40 percent from 1996, largely due to the AIDS cocktail, a therapy of three anti-HIV drugs. "That was a major turning point," said Feuer. "Death rates dropped off dramatically." The phrase "living with AIDS" was born. Viral loads dropped and then became undetectable; T-cell counts increased. For the HIV-positive, it was no longer about saying goodbye - now it was about living. In 2002, Fenway became the first federally funded partnership with the HIV Prevention Trials Network to study HIV infections in Chennai, India through work with the Y.R. Gaitonde Centre (YRGCare), which like Fenway did in the 1980s, has stepped out front and confronted the disease, and prevented it from being ignored in India. "HIV/AIDS has ¦ served as a mirror - holding up and highlighting to society the deep fissures of inequality based on race, class, access, disability, stigma, homophobia, and the widening rift between industrial and developing countries," said Wells. "I fear these challenges will continue throughout the next 25 years, despite our efforts to address them." CAUTION FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW (2006 and beyond) As horrible as large portions of the past 25 years have been, so, too, have there been tremendous victories. But these victories, some worry, could trigger another epidemic. Feuer thinks that a new generation of sexually active adults who didn't see firsthand what unsafe sex and risky behavior created, are at risk in thinking that HIV has become chronic, not fatal. And Mayer agrees. "A current challenge for both clinicians and the community is to not get complacent," he said. "Just because people are living longer with HIV, doesn't mean that being infected is a minor inconvenience." Just ask Brooks and Landers who each hope for a cure. "I think we're getting closer to HIV being ¦ manageable. I think some day that that will be our reality," said Brooks. Landers agreed. "I think there will be a cure and a vaccine in 20 years. I guess I'm hedging my bets a little, but the pace of biomedical research is incredible, and I think AIDS is not [unsolvable]," he said. The CRI, of which Cohen is a primary researcher, is a couple of years away from announcing results that show viral loads are not impacted on a five-day-on, two-day-off drug regime that would mirror the work week. A 10-person pilot study last year proved 100 percent successful. But again, there is danger in these hopeful signs. "If you don't continue ringing the alarm bells, society is going to turn off to the fact that this is a problem," said Cohen. "It doesn't mean the pills aren't good, but we have a problem helping people realize that they can't take AIDS for granted." Cohen thinks it unlikely that a cure will be discovered in the next 25 years. It might be close, but based on current expectations, eradication will still be out of reach. And there is Fenway, still continuing its research efforts. You might have seen one of their ads on the subway. A hard-bodied shirtless man is given the label "hard." Alongside him is a plea for volunteers. "Finding a HIV vaccine is harder. Volunteer today for a vaccine study. You can't get HIV or AIDS from this investigational HIV vaccine." And then it lists how to contact and connect to Fenway. No one would have thought this a reality, that there would be advertisements on the subway recruiting for HIV-related drug studies. But that's today's reality. "Despite the tremendous toll that HIV has taken here and around the world, we have also learned a great deal and made significant progress," said Wells. "HIV/AIDS has been a catalyst which has changed the way we look at medicine, health care, research, advocacy, patient-provider relationships, even the global economy." Haag thinks it the community's duty to serve, her duty to serve, and she has made it her personal quest to find a way to end the epidemic. Godley thinks it will take more outrage, a shift in the current political climate. And the need to get treatment to as many as quickly as possible is what keeps Perkins going. Carr predicts that AIDS today, and in another 25 years, "will continue to be an epidemic of small victories." http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/print.php?article_code=1964 http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=He&article_code=1964 by William Henderson > by William Henderson > http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/print.php?article_code=1964 > http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=He&article_code=1964 --------------- AIDS began when contaminated polio vaccine was given to homosexuals who had herpes; this was done in the late 1970's in NYC and San Francisco. First AIDS showed up in both cities in the early 80's-- ---right on schedule. it was theSabin vaccine. No, no, NO! You've got it all wrong. AIDS began with the dramatic increas of corn syrup sweetener use in the 1970s. I can show you a graph where both increase in an eerie casually coincidental correlated in tandem indication of a possiblity of connectedness. | AIDS began when contaminated polio vaccine was given | to homosexuals who had herpes; this was done in the | late 1970's in NYC and San Francisco. | | First AIDS showed up in both cities in the early 80's-- | ---right on schedule. | | it was theSabin vaccine. by William Henderson http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/print.php?article_code=1964 http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=He&article_code=1964 No, no, NO! You've got it all wrong. AIDS began with the dramatic increas of corn syrup sweetener use in the 1970s. I can show you a graph where both increase in an eerie casually coincidental correlated in tandem indication of a possiblity of connectedness. | AIDS began when contaminated polio vaccine was given | to homosexuals who had herpes; this was done in the | late 1970's in NYC and San Francisco. | | First AIDS showed up in both cities in the early 80's-- | ---right on schedule. | | it was theSabin vaccine. by William Henderson http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/print.php?article_code=1964 http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=He&article_code=1964 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No--You are all wrong--I actually read this in a newsletter. AIDS or HIV was mixed in with the vaccines that was given to African children. Of course, Americans were the ones that sent the free vaccines containing AIDS to Africa. The Americans wanted to kill Africans which is the reason they mixed it in with the free vaccines. Thousands of people believe this theory. I know that it did not happen but that does not stop people from believing it. What's the truth: Any medical researcher can travel to Africa and still find AIDs in the green monkey. The AIDS in that monkey does NOT cause the monkey to die or even get sick. It's related to the immune system in the green monkey. The immune system in humans is very different which is the reason that humans eventually die as a result of AIDS. Jason ~~ On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:00:08 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote in message <jason-2506061100080001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> > No, no, NO! You've got it all wrong. AIDS began with the > dramatic increas of corn syrup sweetener use in the 1970s. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >Jason >~~ You read it in a newsletter? Thousands of people believe this theory? I've heard this conspiracy theory over the years, but I've never yet seen a citation from a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, or any other convincing evidence. Correlations are not acceptable proof for *any* conjecture. > On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:00:08 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason Johnson) wrote in > message <jason-2506061100080001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > from a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, or any other convincing evidence. > Correlations are not acceptable proof for *any* conjecture. ---------------------------------------- What R. Moshki posted is fact. Of course, it can't be proven--it's been buried by the $20,000,000, 000 per year Vivisection industry. There were enough articles about it in the mid-1990's to satisfy the nay-sayers. Of course you are perfectly correct. The virus was initially engineered by the CIA's medical pathogen division. The original concept in the late 50's and early 60's was to target humans with excess melanin pigmentation, so the virus was designed to link onto melanocorticotrophin-rich proteins in the blood. Work took place in Area 51 under the guise of UFO investigation. Unfortunately for some, evidence of what was going on was leaked to the FBI - and Jimmy Hoffa started undercover investigations and alerted the President. To forstall further disruption of their vital work, the CIA arranged the JFK assasination to divert the CIA's investigation and prevent presidential interference in one fell swoop. However, due to technical difficulties the work was never completed, and so in the 70's they moved on to plan B which was to distibute it directly to the 3rd World by vaccine contamination. Initial trials were on USA gay males, and proved astonishingly successful. Quickly contaminated supplies of Polio vaccine were distributed through Cuban counter-terror agencies who were in Angola at the time of the civil war. These facts are all well known. In 2000 a high level clandestine meeting was arranged between CIA supremos and senior intelligence officers from Israel to see whether there was any scope in engineering a muslimotropic strain of virus. When the Freedom for Islam foundation discovered news of this plot, they met at a secret venue in 2001 in the States to discuss their response. The CIA developed a contingency plan to stop news of their conspiracy gaining wider knowlege, and put this plan into action when the Islamists held their meeting, which took place on the 11th September on floor 56 of the WTC in New York. >Of course you are perfectly correct. Oh, dear God. You had BETTER hope this turns into a new picture by Oliver Stone. Otherwise, it will be found in every tinfoil-hat rightwing psychoblog on the net. Your weak protestations that you "made it all up" will simply be FURTHER proof of the TRUTH of what you laid out so eloquently. What have you WROUGHT?? LOL...let's see! George M. Carter > No--You are all wrong--I actually read this in a > newsletter. AIDS or HIV was mixed in with the > vaccines that was given to African children. Of > course, Americans were the ones that sent > the free vaccines containing AIDS to Africa. Wrong, again! The vaccine was produced locally by a French team. AIDS is extremely similar to -- and no doubt originates with -- a disease that chimps get. The theory is that humans were passed the chimp version of the disease through the vaccine which was cultured using tissue from chimps caught in the wild, and in one or more person the disease mutated enough to survive in humans. AIDS first appears, in Africa, within a few years of the start of this vaccine program. Most telling though is the fact that the head of the program denies ever taking chimps or using them to culture his vaccine. This contradicts the testimony of European & African witnesses (employees), as well as photogragraphs & documents. > The Americans It was a French team producing the vaccine locally. That is to say, it was an American vaccine that was "amplified" using tissue from chimps. > > No--You are all wrong--I actually read this in a > > newsletter. AIDS or HIV was mixed in with the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > That is to say, it was an American vaccine that > was "amplified" using tissue from chimps. --------------------------------------------------------- The origin of the vaccine is either Burundi or Congo (was Zaire) but the first confirmed AIDS cases were in the U.S. > > > No--You are all wrong--I actually read this in a > > > newsletter. AIDS or HIV was mixed in with the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > caught in the wild, and in one or more person > > the disease mutated enough to survive in humans. <snip> > The origin of the vaccine is either Burundi or Congo (was Zaire) > but the first confirmed AIDS cases were in the U.S. That theory has been discounted, and the general area in which it was first transferred to humans has been identified (it was in south eastern Cameroon, near the Congo but most likely had nothing to do with vaccines): <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060525-aids-chimps.html>, <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5427939>, and <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5431256>. The last of these URLS places the first transmission to humans in 1930 (plus or minus a few years). THis is a recent result (May 2006 for the publication date). > > > > No--You are all wrong--I actually read this in a > > > > newsletter. AIDS or HIV was mixed in with the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > THis is a recent result (May 2006 for the publication date). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You discredit yourself by talking 1930---------it's as dumb as some fools claiming GWH Bush was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK-- --then posting a bewidering display of the most tortured examples of logic in a futile effort to prove it. AIDS is not a 50 year-retro disease. > > That theory has been discounted, and the general area in which it was > > first transferred to humans has been identified (it was in south [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > AIDS is not a 50 year-retro disease. See <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/288/5472/1789> for an abstract of an article that appeared in _Science_: that gives a date of around 1930. The new result gave a location in Camaroon. I'd suggest you also read <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/virus/origins.html> (PBS stands for Public Broadcasting System), which also puts the origin around 1930: HIV-1 is surprisingly old, and it probably "debuted" in humans at least three separate times -- one for each subtype, M, N, and O. Scientists' best guess is that the precursor of the most common "M" virus jumped from the Cameroon chimps to humans sometime before 1931. Using samples of HIV-infected tissue harvested over the last three decades, virologist Dr. Bette Korber of Los Alamos National Laboratory has calculated that an ancestral form of HIV started spreading, slowly at first, in humans about 75 years ago. The actual jump from chimps to humans probably occurred shortly before that, says Hahn: "There's no reason to believe this was just lingering around in people." Korber's model estimates a virus' age based on how extensively different strains have mutated. HIV is an unusual virus; it changes its DNA by both mutation and, more often, recombination, when two strains merge within the body and exchange genetic material. Some scientists refer to this process as "viral sex," and it may partially explain why it is so hard for scientists to make a treatment or vaccine. Korber's model does not take recombination into account, but given a virus' DNA configuration, it can roughly predict the age of that strain. Korber has tested the oldest known HIV sample, taken in 1959, and derived the 1931 estimate. > See <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/288/5472/1789> > for an abstract of an article that appeared in _Science_: that gives > a date of around 1930. The new result gave a location in Camaroon. Yet the very earliest confirmed case was in the Congo, and dated almost three decades later... You're like a Wizard of Oz.... "Ignore the dead AIDS patient behind the curtian!" > > See <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/288/5472/1789> > > for an abstract of an article that appeared in _Science_: that gives [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You're like a Wizard of Oz.... "Ignore the dead AIDS patient > behind the curtian!" --------------------------------------------- OK---------have heeded what you both have said. No One--Ronnie apologize for the ad hominem. Ronnie is basing his posts on data from the AP, 'Rolling Stone' (1992)** and his own research, phone calls etc. in 1994. Computer skills are rudimentary at best--pretty poor. have no idea how to access this stuff--quickly --- online. At this point, it's probably not free, either--right? > > See <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/288/5472/1789> > > for an abstract of an article that appeared in _Science_: that gives [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You're like a Wizard of Oz.... "Ignore the dead AIDS patient > behind the curtian!" The earliest "confirmed" case occurred well after it jumped from chimps to humans. Does that really surprise you given that this occurred in a part of the world where medical records and blood samples of people living in tribal communities were more or less nonexistent? Does it also surprise you that this occured in southeastern Cameroon, where SIV infection rates for chimps are as high as 35 percent, where chimps and humans lived in close proximity, and where hunting for food was common? Here's a photo of the living conditions: <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/photogalleries/bushmeat_2/photo9.html>. Also, here's what jtem01 snipped: I'd suggest you also read <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/virus/origins.html> (PBS stands for Public Broadcasting System), which also puts the origin around 1930: HIV-1 is surprisingly old, and it probably "debuted" in humans at least three separate times -- one for each subtype, M, N, and O. Scientists' best guess is that the precursor of the most common "M" virus jumped from the Cameroon chimps to humans sometime before 1931. Using samples of HIV-infected tissue harvested over the last three decades, virologist Dr. Bette Korber of Los Alamos National Laboratory has calculated that an ancestral form of HIV started spreading, slowly at first, in humans about 75 years ago. The actual jump from chimps to humans probably occurred shortly before that, says Hahn: "There's no reason to believe this was just lingering around in people." Korber's model estimates a virus' age based on how extensively different strains have mutated. HIV is an unusual virus; it changes its DNA by both mutation and, more often, recombination, when two strains merge within the body and exchange genetic material. Some scientists refer to this process as "viral sex," and it may partially explain why it is so hard for scientists to make a treatment or vaccine. Korber's model does not take recombination into account, but given a virus' DNA configuration, it can roughly predict the age of that strain. Korber has tested the oldest known HIV sample, taken in 1959, and derived the 1931 estimate. > > Yet the very earliest confirmed case was in the Congo, and dated > > almost three decades later... > > > > You're like a Wizard of Oz.... "Ignore the dead AIDS patient > > behind the curtian!" > The earliest "confirmed" case occurred well after it jumped from > chimps to humans. | Free clue: Go pull up some of the stories on the Oral Vaccine | Theory written BEFORE all this "Evidence" suddenly disproved | it. That's not a fact, it's an assumption. It's based on a given rate of mutation, one which is not realistic. This URL addresses all your claims. You won't like it. It deals with science and not agendas: http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/189/2/ > Does that really surprise you given that this occurred in a > part of the world where medical records and blood samples > of people living in tribal communities were more or less > nonexistent? Given your well establsihed history of defending some of the worst science every performed, nothing you could say would surprise me. > Does it also surprise you that this occured in southeastern > Cameroon, where SIV infection rates for chimps are as > high as 35 percent, where chimps and humans lived in close > proximity, and where hunting for food was common? And this would be opposed to... ? It's amazing. You really can't see it, can you? You have no idea what the infection rate is elsewhere in Africa, not one clue, yet you're spewing this as if it means something. > > > Yet the very earliest confirmed case was in the Congo, and dated > > > almost three decades later... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > | Theory written BEFORE all this "Evidence" suddenly disproved > | it. THere is lots of evidence to disprove it. You might look at <http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/aids/poliovac-hiv-aids-qa.htm#7> and read from item 7 to item 12. Items 11 and 12 state: 11. No. The vaccine was tested in several places in Europe and Africa, including Poland, Switzerland, Croatia, Burundi and Kinshasa (DR Congo). Early cases of AIDS were seen only in Central Africa. If the vaccine had been contaminated with HIV or a similar virus, it is likely that at least some of the people who were vaccinated in the European countries would have contracted the virus as well. 12. The areas where Koprowski’s vaccine was used and where the first AIDS outbreaks occurred are also areas where chimpanzees that carry SIV live. So it makes sense that those areas were the same areas where SIV ‘jumped’ from chimpanzees to people, and HIV-1 and AIDS were first seen. Though some people believe that Dr. Koprowski did use chimpanzee organs to grow the virus for the vaccine, evidence indicates that chimpanzees were only used to test the vaccine, not to produce it. That pretty much shoots down your conspiracy theory. > That's not a fact, it's an assumption. It's based on a given rate > of mutation, one which is not realistic. The rate of mutation is measureable and the researchers were well aware how HIV evolves (including recombination). > This URL addresses all your claims. You won't like it. It deals > with science and not agendas: > > http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/189/2/ You friggin moron - the article I referred to appeared in _Science_, while you go off and pick some random hit piece by some random writer name Edward Hooper whose bio (reached by a link on your web site) states the following: "I was born in 1951. After enjoying a largely happy childhood on the edge of Epping Forest, near London, I graduated in 1973 with a degree in American Literature from the University of Sussex. After two years teaching English at secondary school level, I decided to follow heart rather than head, and spent the next year travelling through Africa." Yeah right - you'd trust this bozo rather than researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratories (where some of the work was done). > > Does that really surprise you given that this occurred in a > > part of the world where medical records and blood samples [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > worst science every performed, nothing you could say would > surprise me. Another of your lies. And given your history of acting like a complete and utter idiot every time anyone disagrees with your uninformed opinions, I quite frankly have zero respect for anything you post. <rest of this idiot's post snipped> > > | Free clue: Go pull up some of the stories on the Oral Vaccine > > | Theory written BEFORE all this "Evidence" suddenly disproved > > | it. > THere is lots of evidence to disprove it. Odd you should say that. Seriously, dude, do you have any idea what the Oral Vaccine Theory suggests? Because this URL you offer as "evidence" against it doesn't. In fact, it throws out on strawman after another. Does that sound like science to you, disproving or theory, or policy? Here. We'll use YOUR examples: > and read from item 7 to item 12. Items 11 and 12 state: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > people who were vaccinated in the European > countries would have contracted the virus as well. The above INVENTS the strawman that the OVT claims the oral vaccine created in the United States contained the AIDS virus. THIS IS A LIE. As YOU and the writers of the website know, the team in the Congo took a small amount of the vaccine and amplified it using tissue taken from chimps. They took a small amount of the vaccine and they turned it into a large amount of the vaccine, and they did it LOCALLY. Where does Poland or, say, Switzerland fit into the above? NOWHERE. Here on usenet, this type of argument is called a (now get this) STRAWMAN, and it is chiefly employed by trolls and idiots. The OTV makes no claims or predictions regarding Europe or anywhere else, yet your "cite" pretends it does. > 12. The areas where Koprowski's vaccine was used > and where the first AIDS outbreaks occurred are > also areas where chimpanzees that carry SIV live. Exactly. It is the same area where 1 million people who were given a vaccine contaminated by those chimps. > So it makes sense that those areas were the > same areas where SIV 'jumped' from chimpanzees > to people, and HIV-1 and AIDS were first seen. So this "cite" actually SUPPORTS the idea that feeding 1 million people with a vaccine contaminated with SIV is a likely AIDS vector. > Though some people believe that Dr. Koprowski > did use chimpanzee organs to grow the virus for > the vaccine, Again, more of that OBVIOUS strawman. Dr. Koprowski developed the vaccine in America. The Oral Vaccine Theory doesn't claim that Dr. Koprowski shipped AIDS tainted vaccine. Instead, it points to the FACT that one million people where given LOCALLY (in the Congo) amplified vaccine which had been contaminated by tissue from chimps. The vaccine was amplified in the Congo by a Paul Osterrieth, not Koprowski as your "cite" pretends. > evidence indicates that chimpanzees were > only used to test the vaccine, not to produce > it. In Philadelphia, sure, but we weren't talking about Philadelphia. At issue is what happened in the Congo. And, yeah, they used HUNDREDS of chimps in the Congo. > That pretty much shoots down your conspiracy theory. You're an idiot. No, wait. I'm serious. What isn't a strawman actually SUPPORTS the Oral Vaccine Theory. > > That's not a fact, it's an assumption. It's based on a > > given rate of mutation, one which is not realistic. > The rate of mutation is measureable and the researchers > were well aware how HIV evolves (including recombination). No. We're talking 'A' researcher, not "Researchers." You're repeating one man's REPORTED results and claiming that everybody agrees with him, though we both know for a fact that is not true. At the same time, you just offered a "cite" that is 100% certified garbage. You offered a 'cite' which obviously (even to you) constructs and then knockes down various strawman argument, even as it ultimately SUPPORTS the Oral Vaccine Theory. > > This URL addresses all your claims. You won't like it. It deals > > with science and not agendas: > > > > http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/189/2/ > You friggin moron - You're a usenet regular who just demonstrated his inability to spot an obvious strawman even with it staring you in the face. The jury isn't out on this one: You have *Zero* critical thinking skills. For this reason I must ask you to never use words like "idiot" again, due to the danger this reprsents to Irony Meters everywhere. > the article I referred to appeared in _Science_, OO! You go from posting strawmen in support of your claim to creating one yourself! Publishing a study STARTS the process. You do understand this, right? Peer review BEGINS with publication, it doesn't end. Interesting note: For an unbiased, purely scientific publication dedicated to the truth & not agendas, "Science" rejected several letters on the subject from W.D. Hamilton. > while you go off and pick some random hit piece by > some random writer name Edward Hooper Okay, let's ignore Edward Hooper because we don't like journalists who write books. That way we can safely ignore everything Edward Hooper says, clinging to our many strawman arguments for comfort.... http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Hamilton94/ http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Pascal91.html Hooper didn't pioneer the Oral Vaccine Theory, he's the investigative journalist who picked up on the story. > Yeah right - you'd trust this bozo rather than researchers > at Los Alamos National Laboratories (where some of the > work was done). Strawman. Hooper is the investigative journalist who smelled blood, and then found it. Some facts: In America, we still execute criminals on the basis of far LESS evidence than the Oral Vaccine Theory has long since amassed. Tookie Williams is a good example of this. Physical evidence: #1. Most importanly: We've got the body. Literally. We've got the very first known example of an HIV-positive human right where the Oral Vaccine "Experiment" took placed. #2. We have the stated source. We have the animals infected with SIV, the origins of AIDS, right there. #3. We know (it is a fact) that it was impossible to prepare 1 million doses of the oral vaccine using material taken from chimps and not expose large numbers of people to the origins of AIDS. #4. We have the eyewitness testimony from both European and African employees of the program who say that large quantities of material were taken from chimps as part of the oral vaccine program. #5. We have photographic evidence of thier efforts to collect this material from chimps. #6. We have at least one document showing that Paul Osterrieth shipped a sample of the material he was collecting from chimps to Dr. Koprowski in Philadelpia. #7. We have further eyewtiness testimony stating that this material collected from chimps was used to produce the vaccine on site, in the Congo. Circumstantial Evidence: #1. Vaccines (plural) had spread diseases in the past. In one example alone (but not the only example) the U.S. government accidentally infected some 50,000 soldiers with hepatitis through a contaminated vaccine. #2. We have an overtly stated agenda from the people who oppose the Oral Vaccine Transmission theory. Quite willingly, and with no ambiguity, the opponents of the Oral Vaccine Theory are quick to express their fears regarding public reaction to the theory, and the potential harm to vaccine & other health projects this could cause. #3. The Oral Vaccine theory was never not rejected. Claiming that a 2001 publication "Disproved" the Oral Vaccine theory requires that prior to 2001 the Oral Vaccine theory was a valid theory that withstood 10 years of vigorous debate. But even a casual glance at mainstream discussions on the theory demonstrate that it was ALWAYS misrepresented as "disproven." Stated another way: The conclusion predates the the so-called "evidence," and never once considered the facts. Your "Science" magazine, for example, first ran a story spelling out the demise of the Oral Vaccine theory in 1992. It's basis for the story was a panel created by the Wistar Institute, the very source of the oral polio vaccine. Few facts were actually addressed by this panel, and their basis for any conclusions have later proven to be incorrect or flat-out lies. #4. Denial. Osterrieth didn't simply deny that he had prepared the vaccine locally using material taken from chimps, he denied EVERYTHING! Strangley enough, Osterrieth admits to making vaccines in the Congo... just not Polio vaccine. | The precise memory recall of Jacques [one of the | the eyewitnesses at the lab] after over 40 years is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | vaccines against enteric bacteria, etc. In any case, | how could he know what vaccines I was making? "I wasn't making vaccine! I was making a different vaccine! Besides, how does he know which vaccine I was making?" #4. Disinformation. This ranges from your obvious example of pretending that the Oral Vaccine theory was invented by an investigative journalist (your obsession with Hooper), to your equally as obvious example of a CDC website that invented a large number of strawmen. Let's make one thing clear: The CDC knows the Oral Vaccine theory in & out. They've picked picked it cleaner than a pack of Bush cronies at a budget conference. IT'S THEIR JOB! When they constructed a bunch of strawmen to post on their website, they didn't do so because they had no idea what a couple of highly respected scientist had determined -- and an investigative journalist had written about. They didn't "Accidentally" not address the theory on a website pretending to address it. What we see on the CDC website -- YOUR citation -- is the result of a POLICY decision, a POLITICAL decision, and not science. And we know this for a fact because, now get this, there is NO SCIENCE there! It doesn't simply ignore the Oral Vaccine theory, it misrepresents it as something completely different. > > Given your well establsihed history of defending some > > of the worst science every performed, nothing you > > could say would surprise me. > Another of your lies. It's not a lie at all, and it's all on the Google archive. You not only have a long history of defending junk as science -- like in the example of Spitzer -- but doing so for the most outraguous, non-scientific reasons. Heck, at one point you even defended the Spitzer study because (now get this) Spitzer did it! That's a lot of things, but it sure isn't logical, it isn't intelligent and it sure the f.ck isn't science! And you yourself have documented RIGHT HERE your inability to distinquish a real argument from useless bunk. Witness your CDC "citation," for example. Witness what you YOURSELF highlighted, stressed as somehow supporting your point. You. Haven't. A. Clue. Your trademark tunnel vision, and legendary adherence to conclusions over evidence has once again succeeded in exposing your stupidity! Did you not even think to read what you were responding to, or what you posted in response? Did the contradictions completely escape you? Seriously, dude, READ YOUR OWN f.cking CITE! Go through it. What in particular did you mistakenly believe it was addressing, and how did you imagine it was refuted it? I said "Amplied locally, in the Congo, using material taken from chimps" and you produced a "Cite" stating that the Philadeliphia lab didn't produce any vaccine using chimps. Did you think that Philadelphia was in the Congo? Is that it? Is that the source of your confusion? Is that why you found your "Cite" so compelling? You. Haven't. A. Clue. > > > | Free clue: Go pull up some of the stories on the Oral Vaccine > > > | Theory written BEFORE all this "Evidence" suddenly disproved [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Odd you should say that. Actually, google said that. :-) > Seriously, dude, do you have any idea what the Oral Vaccine > Theory suggests? Yeah, one more hypothesis that went down the tubes when it was seriously tested. > Because this URL you offer as "evidence" against it doesn't. > In fact, it throws out on strawman after another. Does that [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > NOWHERE. The "writers of the website" I quoted happens to be an official branch of the U.S. government - the Center for Disease Control - which has an interest in detecting and reporting problems in the procedures used to manufacture vaccines, and have the resources to determine where vaccines manufactured in Africa ended up. I'll note too that you snipped the URL to the CDC web site. I wonder why? Could it be that you didn't want the source noticed? > Here on usenet, this type of argument is called a (now > get this) STRAWMAN, and it is chiefly employed by > trolls and idiots. Actually, the typical usenet behavior that you are exhibiting is to quote some flake - basically a high-school English teacher/writer with no professional experience in scientific research - and pretend that he knows more than the CDC and researchers at national laboratories and universities. > The OTV makes no claims or predictions regarding Europe > or anywhere else, yet your "cite" pretends it does. The "cite" is from an official CDC web site and the CDC has the resources to track where a vaccine was distributed. > > 12. The areas where Koprowski's vaccine was used > > and where the first AIDS outbreaks occurred are > > also areas where chimpanzees that carry SIV live. > > Exactly. It is the same area where 1 million people who > were given a vaccine contaminated by those chimps. Never mind that south eastern Camaroon (where recent work shows that the virus first infected humans) is righ next to the Congo. Did you bother to look at a map? Do you think your high school English teacher is more of an expert that the people who work at the CDC? > > So it makes sense that those areas were the > > same areas where SIV 'jumped' from chimpanzees [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1 million people with a vaccine contaminated with SIV is > a likely AIDS vector. The CDC web site claims it was a conincidence. > > Though some people believe that Dr. Koprowski > > did use chimpanzee organs to grow the virus for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > amplified vaccine which had been contaminated by > tissue from chimps. Your theory seems to be BS - the CDC web site claimed that chimps were used only for testing. > The vaccine was amplified in the Congo by a Paul > Osterrieth, not Koprowski as your "cite" pretends. To be blunt, I'll trust the CDC over you. > > That pretty much shoots down your conspiracy theory. > > You're an idiot. No, wait. I'm serious. No, you are are complete and utter idiot who launches personal attacks whenever he sees inconvenient facts. <lots of BS snipped> > You not only have a long history of defending junk > as science -- like in the example of Spitzer -- but > doing so for the most outraguous, non-scientific > reasons. Heck, at one point you even defended the > Spitzer study because (now get this) Spitzer did it! Now we get to this moron JTEM's real issue. Spitzer ran a study of people who had tried to change their sexual orientation, concentrating on the supposed "success stories" and found that some of them (an extraordinarily small fraction of the total who tried such programs) were (a) not harmed and (b) seemed to function well as heterosexuals afterwards. He excluded people who were bisexuals from the study. JTEM got very upset when I suggested that Spitzer (a) had a professional obligation to report his results, (b) was not claiming this "therapy" was a good idea (other research showed that in merely all cases the "therapy" is harmful), and (c) that Spitzer might possibly have discovered that some people have "switchable" sexual orientation, being able to transition from an attraction primarily to men to one primarily to women and vice versa. If so, such people differ from bisexuals who are attracted to both at the same time, and that would be an interesting research result, although of limited practical significance. > > > > | Free clue: Go pull up some of the stories on the Oral > > > > | Vaccine Theory written BEFORE all this "Evidence" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Odd you should say that. > Actually, google said that. :-) Then you should ask someone how to use Google, instead of relying on bogus cites. > > Seriously, dude, do you have any idea what the Oral > > Vaccine Theory suggests? > Yeah, one more hypothesis that went down the tubes > when it was seriously tested. And your vast experience at missing points and misrepresenting questions led you to this conclusion? Why, I can hardly contain myself! Please, oh please, tell us more! > > As YOU and the writers of the website know, the team in > > the Congo took a small amount of the vaccine and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > NOWHERE. > The "writers of the website" I quoted happens to be an > official branch of the U.S. government - the Center for > Disease Control - which has an interest in detecting and > reporting problems in the procedures used to manufacture > vaccines, and have the resources to determine where > vaccines manufactured in Africa ended up. And this disputes what I state above.... how? I mean, seriously, are you putting us on? Your "cite" doesn't even address the theory, never mind refute it. Are you honestly telling us that you can't grasp this obvious fact? > I'll note too that you snipped the URL to the CDC web site. And you're misrepresenting this to mean... what? Did your post expire? Did you include an X-No-Archive flag in your header to avoid the Google archive? What are you pretending? > I wonder why? You wonder because you're an idiot. That's why. > Could it be that you didn't want the source noticed? That wouldn't go a long ways towards explaining why I made such a big deal over the source, now would it? But it's not like this'll >Click< for you, even after pointing it out. It never has in the past... > > Here on usenet, this type of argument is called a (now > > get this) STRAWMAN, and it is chiefly employed by > > trolls and idiots. > Actually, the typical usenet behavior that you are exhibiting > is to quote some flake - basically a high-school English > teacher/writer with no professional experience in scientific > research - and pretend that he knows more than the CDC and > researchers at national laboratories and universities. Oh, okay. Then map it out for us, like a good man. Cut & paste whatever it is on that CDC website you mistakenly believe makes your point, and then type out EXACTLY what you think it's refuting. Because, you being a knuckle dragging imbecile, you missed it when I did the work for you. Seriously, dude, I did it for you. I pointed out what your oh so important "cite" was saying, and how this wasn't addressing -- but was misrepresenting -- the Oral Vaccine theory. Clever that you missed the bleeding obvious, yet again. > > The OTV makes no claims or predictions regarding > > Europe or anywhere else, yet your "cite" pretends > > it does. > The "cite" is from an official CDC web site and the CDC > has the resources to track where a vaccine was distributed. And this changes.... what? You're saying that your "Cite" doesn't misrepresent the issue? You're saying it doesn't go off about Europe & elsewhere as if it were somehow relevant, even though we both know it is not? You're literally arguing here that it doesn't matter what your "Cite" says, because it comes from the CDC. Perhaps a more telling question -- one as educated and intelligent as you pretend to be would ask -- is what is the objective of the website? Is it intended to educated experts within the field of immunology (a medical goal) or is it attempting to quiet the fears of ordinary people (a political/policy goal)? Consider the fact that we also know -- or you will know, as soon as you map it all out for us (there's a good boy) -- that the website's information is not accurate. Which objective -- information/education of experts, or relieving the fears of ordinary folk -- can be archieved with inaccurate information? 'Cus I'll tell you what it looks like to the rest of the world, or at least the parts where people don't have difficulty breathing through their nose. It looks a lot like a website whose sole concern appears to be relieving fears, regardless of facts, is trying to relieve fears regardless of the facts. > > > 12. The areas where Koprowski's vaccine was > > > used and where the first AIDS outbreaks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Exactly. It is the same area where 1 million people who > > were given a vaccine contaminated by those chimps. > Never mind that south eastern Camaroon (where recent > work shows that the virus first infected humans) It doesn't show this at all, and you do know this. Nobody has ever claimed that the SIV in question can't be found within the Congo. Just the opposite. Your CDC "cite" said that it is found there. And nobody said that it's present to a lesser degree in the Congo. Nobody. As for the dating, it is by no means undisputed, to say the least! > > > So it makes sense that those areas were the > > > same areas where SIV 'jumped' from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 1 million people with a vaccine contaminated with SIV is > > a likely AIDS vector. > The CDC web site claims it was a conincidence. So on the one hand we have a well constructed theory, supported by evidence, and on the other you offer a claim. Gee, did your parents have any kids they could be proud of? > > > Though some people believe that Dr. Koprowski > > > did use chimpanzee organs to grow the virus for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > amplified vaccine which had been contaminated by > > tissue from chimps. > Your theory seems to be BS - the CDC web site claimed that > chimps were used only for testing. Maybe you didn't notice -- you being so busy & all -- but I was responding to an actual quote from the website, which you yourself presented as particularly useful in refuting the Oral Vaccine theory. Given your lack of reading comprehension, let me spell it out to you in no uncertain terms: It's claiming that no chimps were used by Dr. Koprowski, in Philadelphia. It is not contradicting the charge that Chimps were used in the Congo. Heck, it's not even addressing it! > > The vaccine was amplified in the Congo by a Paul > > Osterrieth, not Koprowski as your "cite" pretends. > To be blunt, I'll trust the CDC over you. YOU ARE f.cked! Seriously. You are crazy! It's not me, you jackass. It has nothing to do with what I said. THAT IS THE ORAL VACCINE THEORY! THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST! Well, it's not what you ARE arguing against, but it is what you think you're arguing against... > > > That pretty much shoots down your conspiracy > > > theory. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, you are are complete and utter idiot who launches > personal attacks whenever he sees inconvenient facts. Have you ever tried reality? > > You not only have a long history of defending junk > > as science -- like in the example of Spitzer -- but > > doing so for the most outraguous, non-scientific > > reasons. Heck, at one point you even defended the > > Spitzer study because (now get this) Spitzer did it! > Now we get to this moron JTEM's real issue. I think... no, wait! I'm sure. You did try this same bogus argument once before. "He's not attacking my insane arguments because they're insane arguments, he just hates me because of one particular insane argument." I must admit though, unlike you, I really should have known better and not brought up Spitzer. I only did so, as I did last time, as a demonstration of the fact that you have a very long history of defending junk pretending to be science, and my present attacks are not simply ad hominem. > Spitzer ran a study of people who had tried to > change their sexual orientation, concentrating > on the supposed "success stories" and found > that [...] Spitzer's study was not capable of supporting ANY conclusions. But you're simply furthering my point, as if you'd have to after your many lame appeals earlier ("It's the CDC!") Grow the f.ck up. > > > > > | Free clue: Go pull up some of the stories on the Oral > > > > > | Vaccine Theory written BEFORE all this "Evidence" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Then you should ask someone how to use Google, > instead of relying on bogus cites. You idiot - the CDC is *not* a "bogus cite". You know, the U.S. Government's Center for Disease Control. Ever heard of it. > > > Seriously, dude, do you have any idea what the Oral > > > Vaccine Theory suggests? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And your vast experience at missing points and > misrepresenting questions led you to this conclusion? Your "vast experience" at pushing conspiracy theories and ignoring legitimate research speaks for itself. > Why, I can hardly contain myself! Please, oh please, tell > us more! [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > flag in your header to avoid the Google archive? What > are you pretending? The damn post is still on my ISP's server (see Message-ID <m3mzbyksh8.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>) and contains the URL <http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/aids/poliovac-hiv-aids-qa.htm#7> which was right above the text you yourself quoted in your post with the Message-ID <1151502093.475546.134520@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>. You simply snipped the URL in your response. Anyone should be able to look up both messages, and your dishonest insinuations aside, it will be obvious that there was *no* use of an x-no-archive flag. If you had a shred of decency, you'd apologize. > > I wonder why? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That wouldn't go a long ways towards explaining why > I made such a big deal over the source, now would it? Actually it would - you snipped the source, probably in the hope that nobody would remember what we were talking about. > > Actually, the typical usenet behavior that you are exhibiting > > is to quote some flake - basically a high-school English [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > believe makes your point, and then type out EXACTLY > what you think it's refuting. I did that for you in yesterday's post, you moron. Go back and read the damn URL for yourself. <long rant snipped> > > To be blunt, I'll trust the CDC over you. > YOU ARE f.cked! > Seriously. You are crazy! You think people are crazy for trusting the CDC over the likes of you? > It's not me, you jackass. It has nothing to do with what > I said. THAT IS THE ORAL VACCINE THEORY! Oh, it has everything to do with you - whenever someone disagrees with you, you revert to the sort of behavior exhibited by those chimps in Camaroon! > I must admit though, unlike you, I really should have > known better and not brought up Spitzer. I only did > so, as I did last time, as a demonstration of the fact > that you have a very long history of defending junk > pretending to be science, and my present attacks > are not simply ad hominem. The reason your brought up Spitzer's paper yet again is that you never quite forgave me for trusting the judgement of an experienced researcher over the rantings of a usenet troll like you. > Spitzer's study was not capable of supporting ANY > conclusions. But you're simply furthering my point, > as if you'd have to after your many lame appeals > earlier ("It's the CDC!") > > Grow the f.ck up. Thus proving you are an idiot who will trust the words of crackpots and conspiracy theorists over research performed by a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University (or who blames him for wing loons who misrepresented what he actually did.) > You idiot - the CDC is *not* a "bogus cite". I'm at something of a loss. You see, I don't know how to be more clear, more direct than I have already been. I'll try it again, and even make things simpler for you. Previously you cut & pasted the following from the CDC website: | 11. | No. The vaccine was tested in several places in Europe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | the European countries would have contracted the virus | as well. Now spell out for us, exactly, what claim/evidence of the Oral Vaccine theory you imagine the above to refute. I'll give you the answer up front, though you may want to construct your own. You see, it doesn't refute anything. It misrepresents the Oral Vaccine theory, but it doesn't counter/refute/cast doubt on a single claim or piece of evidence presented by the Oral Vaccine theory. HINT: If the Oral Vaccine theory is correct, could we expect to find cases of AIDS in all the other countries that used the same vaccine? No. Because the theory (supported by the evidence) is that the French authorities took a small amount of vaccine and amplified it LOCALLY using material taken from chimps LOCALLY. So nothing in the Oral Vaccine theory suggests a need to find AIDS originating in other locations using the vaccine. Nothing. As I stated before, what the website is presenting us with is a classic case of the STRAWMAN argument. Here's another quote you cut & pasted. Like the last one, you be sure to spell out for us EXACTLY what claim made by the Oral Vaccine theory, or evidence the theory holds in support, that you think it refutes: | 12. | The areas where Koprowski's vaccine was used and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | chimpanzees were only used to test the vaccine, not to | produce it. Sure, it confirms a claim of the Oral Vaccine theory in that it states SIV -- the origins of AIDS -- was present in the Congo, but it offers NOTHING to refute the Oral Vaccine theory. What Dr. Koprowski did or didn't do, used or didn't use isn't at issue. IT'S A STRAWMAN! As I've pointed out previously, and I'm sure you've forgotten already, the Oral Vaccine theory states that vaccine was contaminated LOCALLY, in the Congo, by the French authorities, not by Dr. Koprowski in Philadelphia. So your second quote CONFIRMS one claim of the Oral Vaccine theory, and also misrepresents some strawman as having something to do with the theory. But, by all means, as you see it otherwise, you be sure to spell out for us EXACTLY what it is you think it refutes -- the actual claim made by the theory, or piece of evidence offered in support of the theory. You tell us what you think your quotes refute, and how they refute them. Go house. I say you're a useless idiot and won't even try. Not that I couldn't be wrong. Well, you definitely are an idiot, but you could prove me partly wrong by trying to act almost adult like, and spelling out for us what you mistakenly believe your quotes to refute, and how they refute it. > > You idiot - the CDC is *not* a "bogus cite". > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'll try it again, and even make things simpler for > you. > Previously you cut & pasted the following from > the CDC website: Oh, so now you admit it was the CDC web site (which I cited, providing the URL, and clearly indicating that I was quoting a small part of it, suggesting the original source for additional comments). > Now spell out for us, exactly, what claim/evidence of > the Oral Vaccine theory you imagine the above to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > doubt on a single claim or piece of evidence presented > by the Oral Vaccine theory. Sigh. You are going to sit here and tell us that the CDC doesn't know its business? Nobody is going to believe such nonsense from you. <snip> > You tell us what you think your quotes refute, and > how they refute them. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > spelling out for us what you mistakenly believe > your quotes to refute, and how they refute it. I provided the argument in the previous posts - two problems with your "theory". You responsed by appealing to the "authority" of some high school English teacher who thinks he is an expert on HIV. You then disparaged a CDC report, pretending that the CDC does not understand the issue. You also insinuated that I had used the x-no-archive flag when I hadn't and ignored a citation, pretending it wasn't there, and you have yet to apologize for that outburst. And then you have the nerve to demand that I act like an "adult" when your behavior would get you laughed out of high school! > Oh, so now you admit it was the CDC web site (which > I cited, providing the URL, and clearly indicating > that I was quoting a small part of it, suggesting > the original source for additional comments). You realize, of course, if anyone is following this thread you've convinced them that you are one deeply disturbed individual. > > Oh, so now you admit it was the CDC web site (which > > I cited, providing the URL, and clearly indicating [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thread you've convinced them that you are one > deeply disturbed individual. Projection. You made a fool of yourself, you lied, you tried to cover up, and now you are trying to get out of it by projecting your bad behavior on me. Get help. You need it. > Projection. You made a fool of yourself, you lied, you > tried to cover up, and now [....] I'll try it a third time... Previously, through the magic of cut & paste, you posted the following from the CDC website: | 11. | No. The vaccine was tested in several places in Europe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | the European countries would have contracted the virus | as well. Now spell out for us, exactly, what claim/evidence of the Oral Vaccine theory you imagine the above to refute. HINT: If the Oral Vaccine theory is correct, could we expect to find cases of AIDS in all the other countries that used the same vaccine? No. Because the theory (supported by the evidence) is that the French authorities took a small amount of vaccine and amplified it LOCALLY using material taken from chimps LOCALLY. So nothing in the Oral Vaccine theory suggests a need to find AIDS originating in other locations using the vaccine. Nothing. As I stated before, what the website is presenting us with is a classic case of the STRAWMAN argument. Here's another cut & paste job from the same website. Like the last one, you be sure to spell out for us EXACTLY what claim made by the Oral Vaccine theory, or evidence the theory holds in support, that you think it refutes: | 12. | The areas where Koprowski's vaccine was used and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | chimpanzees were only used to test the vaccine, not to | produce it. Sure, it confirms a claim of the Oral Vaccine theory in that it states SIV -- the origins of AIDS -- was present in the Congo, but it offers NOTHING to refute the Oral Vaccine theory. What Dr. Koprowski did or didn't do, used or didn't use isn't at issue. IT'S A STRAWMAN! As I've pointed out previously, and I'm sure you've forgotten already, the Oral Vaccine theory states that vaccine was contaminated LOCALLY, in the Congo, by the French authorities, not by Dr. Koprowski in Philadelphia. So your second quote CONFIRMS one claim of the Oral Vaccine theory, and also misrepresents some strawman as having something to do with the theory. But, by all means, as you see it otherwise, you be sure to spell out for us EXACTLY what it is you think it refutes -- the actual claim made by the theory, or piece of evidence offered in support of the theory. You tell us what you think your quotes refute, and how they refute them. > > Projection. You made a fool of yourself, you lied, you > > tried to cover up, and now [....] > > I'll try it a third time... Which won't change the fact that you are as wrong as ever. > Previously, through the magic of cut & paste, you posted > the following from the CDC website: He means I cited a CDC site, provided a clearly marked short quote from it, commented on the quote, and suggested that one refer to the site for additional details. You can always tell when someone like JTEM is losing an argument: he starts disparaging any attempt to back up a statement using a reputable source. Of course, providing a citation (a URL in this case), quoting a very short excerpt, clearly marking that excerpt as a quote (which I did in the original post via indented text following a colon), is completely legitimate and is not at all a "cut & paste" job as JTEM would like to pretend. > | 11. > | No. The vaccine was tested in several places in Europe [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the Oral Vaccine theory you imagine the above to > refute. Read what it says, and then combine that with evidence regarding the date at which the virus first infected humans (around 1930), with a recent result, announced a few weeks ago, placing the location in southeastern Cameroon, which borders on the Congo. And then consider that borders in the middle of the jungle are more or less transparent to those living in tribal cultures. > HINT: If the Oral Vaccine theory is correct, could we > expect to find cases of AIDS in all the other countries [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > suggests a need to find AIDS originating in other > locations using the vaccine. Nothing. What evidence? The CDC did not mention any on its web site. Surely they would have if it were real. In fact, the CDC stated the opposite (in item 12 which you quoted below but are not talking about because the facts get in the way of your conspiracy theory). > As I stated before, what the website is presenting us > with is a classic case of the STRAWMAN argument. > Here's another cut & paste job from the same website. You mean the rest of the duly cited quote from that web site, that I had commented about as described above. > Like the last one, you be sure to spell out for us EXACTLY > what claim made by the Oral Vaccine theory, or evidence [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > in the Congo, but it offers NOTHING to refute the Oral > Vaccine theory. Yes it does - it points out that "chimpanzees were only used to test the vaccine, not to produce it." Why don't you at least read what the CDC stated about the issue? And I'll trust the CDC over your unsubstantiated conjecture (and the opinion of some high-school English teacher who has an ax to grind in the one "source" you cited). The CDC has no incentive to protect the reputation of Dr. Koprowski and even less of an incentive to protect the reputation of anyone producing medical supplies in Africa. The CDC does, however, have a substantial incentive to note problem areas in how drugs are manufactured in order to stop the spread of diseases. <rest of JTEM's idiocy snipped>. > > I'll try it a third time... > Which won't change the fact that you are as wrong > as ever. I'm "so wrong" that you can't actually state why. Funny how that works. > > Previously, through the magic of cut & paste, you posted > > the following from the CDC website: > He means [...] I meant for you to respond to the question, not my asking it. Not exactly "Brilliant" of you, is it? > > | 11. > > | No. The vaccine was tested in several places in Europe [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > the Oral Vaccine theory you imagine the above to > > refute. > Read what it says, and then combine that with evidence > regarding the date at which the virus first infected humans > (around 1930), Where you say "Evidence" the word should be "Theory." > with a recent result, announced a few weeks ago, > placing the location in southeastern Cameroon, This is just plain false. You're simply projecting your own stupidity-based conclusion on the report. Nobody claimed that the origin was Cameroon. Nobody. Not even the report you pretend to be quoting. They say they found it Cameroon, but they made no claims to the effect that they couldn't fnd it elsewhere. Again, you're establishing my point concerning your inability to distinquish between "Facts" and "Conclusions." > > HINT: If the Oral Vaccine theory is correct, could we > > expect to find cases of AIDS in all the other countries [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > suggests a need to find AIDS originating in other > > locations using the vaccine. Nothing. > What evidence? So you're saying that it neither refutes nor addresses any of the claims or evidence of the Oral Vaccine theory. > > Like the last one, you be sure to spell out for us EXACTLY > > what claim made by the Oral Vaccine theory, or evidence [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > in the Congo, but it offers NOTHING to refute the Oral > > Vaccine theory. > Yes it does - it points out that "chimpanzees were only > used to test the vaccine, not to produce it." No. It says that Dr. Koprowski, in Philadelphia, did not use any chimps, except for testing. It doesn't say anything about the French team in the Congo. In other words: It neither refutes nor so much as addresses the claims & evidence of the Oral Vaccine theory. So of the two quotes that YOU provided in support of your position, NEITHER supported your position to the slightest degree. ...and you are too f.cking stupid to see this, even after it has been pointed out numerous times. > Why don't you at least read what the CDC stated about > the issue? I did, you complete jackass! That's how I knew it didn't so much as address the Oral Vaccine theory, never mind get around to refuting it. And if you had read it, and then asked an adult to explain it to you, you wouldn't have mistaken a policy-driven (political) statement as a proper & scientific citation. > > > I'll try it a third time... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Funny how that works. What a liar you are. I told you why multiple times. Here's the quote from the message you just replied to: :: Read what it says, and then combine that with evidence regarding the :: date at which the virus first infected humans (around 1930), with a :: recent result, announced a few weeks ago, placing the location in :: southeastern Cameroon, which borders on the Congo. And then consider :: that borders in the middle of the jungle are more or less transparent :: to those living in tribal cultures. And all of those statments were backed up with citations to web sites maintained by the CDC and the journal _Science_. > > > Previously, through the magic of cut & paste, you posted > > > the following from the CDC website: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it. > Not exactly "Brilliant" of you, is it? Here's what he snipped: :: He means I cited a CDC site, provided a clearly marked short :: quote from it, commented on the quote, and suggested that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: and is not at all a "cut & paste" job as JTEM would like :: to pretend. > > Read what it says, and then combine that with evidence > > regarding the date at which the virus first infected huma |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message