Aetiology

Thanks Tara

Posted by: apy | October 10, 2007 4:30 PM

Once again, I wonder how long it will take for the HIV/AIDS deniers to hijack this thread. Counting one, two, three, ...

Posted by: SLC | October 10, 2007 5:12 PM

Excuse me, I meant SLC instead of Apy.

Posted by: noreen | October 10, 2007 5:24 PM

You have a right to voice your opinion, but it would seem like when you are shown that your opinion does not represent the facts you would correct your opinion or simply stop voicing it.
I cannot help but remember all of the various studies that you and the others have pasted here, only to find out that they really state the opposite of what you are claiming, only for you (the plural here) respond by saying the studies are wrong, shills, etc, and seemingly forget that you are the ones that brought the study up in the first place. Stepping back for a second, regardless of if the conclusion reached by those studies is correct or not, the very fact that dissidents claim it says one thing, then find out it says the opposite, only to respond by blaming the mainstream and study, sounds a lot like denial to me. You seem to think that we should all agree with you irrelevant of the fact that the evidence you give us disagrees with what you are saying.

I'm apologize for turning yet another thread into a battle.

Posted by: apy | October 10, 2007 5:43 PM

They also don't remember the scientific history of AIDS/HIV. The standard HIV Denialist narrative goes like this:

Gay men were getting sick. And then Gallo came along and saw the opportunity to make his career by fraudulently identifying HIV as the cause of AIDS. And other scientists saw this as a source of research funds, and immediately jumped on the bandwagon to get a piece of the action. And the drug companies saw this as a chance to make a lot of money by selling toxic drugs that actually caused the disease they were supposed to prevent, and they paid scientists a lot of money to support the HIV "myth." And then brave Duesberg stood up to point out the obvious flaws in the entrenched HIV dogma and to bring new ideas to the AIDS field. More and more people are coming around to Duesberg's way of thinking, and the HIV "myth" is about to collapse Real Soon Now.

What they've forgotten, of course, is that Duesberg's ideas are not new--they go back to the earliest days of thinking about AIDS, and were once widely considered to be plausible by much of the scientific community. Far from being a "rethinker," Duesberg is a holdout, doggedly clinging to a pet hypothesis that other scientists discarded, one by one, over a period of years, in the face of steadily accumulating scientific evidence identifying HIV as the causative agent of AIDS.

Posted by: trrll | October 10, 2007 5:52 PM

tara. instead of condescendingly sneering at people that dont agree with you why dont you provide me with the scientific paper that proves hiv causes AIDS? It should read like this.

"in 1984 Robert Gallo claimed hiv was the cause of AIDS, because of the lack of a relaible model and an ever extending window period we are going to follow 20 hiv positive people for 10-15 yrs with no other risk factors such as AZT, severe mental illness, other infections like mfi, drug abuse and compare them to matched hiv negative controls to prove or falsify gallo's hypothesis"

this study should have been done a while ago, soon after the press conference, by people truly seeking an answer, not by people who view dissidents as nazis. It shouldnt be to hard to find this study on pub med right?, or did all the studies assume Gallo 100% right and assumed hiv already caused AIDS because the medical/government/ industry complex would not dare allow such a study to take place?

Waiting...........afterall this is the only way to test a microbe that does not induce disease in nearly every animal and that has such a long window period. Please give this reference, if you dont provide it than its a debatble issue. maybe hiv does cause aids but more research is needed, waiting.....

Posted by: cooler | October 10, 2007 6:06 PM

Now who's being a denialist Tara...

Posted by: apy | October 10, 2007 6:11 PM

Good morning Trrll,

I liked that history lesson, that was really clever. Touche! If I may say so. And I know you're doing it all for free too, cuz that's the kind of guy you are. But I wouldn't want literary talent such as yours to go unappreciated, so why don't you publish your views somewhere... like Sceptical Enquirer. Maybe you can score a scientific point on the denialists, like Nicoli Nattrass here. See how she caught Val Turner saying "reverse transcription" when he should have said "reverse transcriptase", according to Gallo:

Valendar Turner, testified that HIV had not been
isolated because it had been identified only through the detection of reverse transcription (the process of writing RNA into DNA), an activity not unique to retroviruses (Turner 2006, 4). In subsequent testimony for the prosecution, Robert Gallo (the discoverer of retroviruses and codiscoverer of HIV) pointed out that HIV had been identified as a retrovirus through the detection of reverse transcriptase, which is an enzyme unique to retroviruses, not the activity of reverse transcription, per se. He added that "only a fool" would mistake the two (Gallo 2007b, 1310, 1313-1314).

But even more importantly, Val turner says the activity of reverse transcription is not unique to retroviruses, Gallo says reverse transcriptase is and that's how he identified HIV. What say you Trrll, do you think Val Turner was mistaken?

Feel like going for a bonus point Trrll? Who discovered retroviruses?

http://aidstruth.org/AIDS-Denialism-vs-Science.pdf

Posted by: Pope | October 10, 2007 7:05 PM

Pope, it's uncanny how Greta's essay describes you so well.

What's more, the Gadfly Corollary both reveals and encourages some tremendously lazy thinking. When people assume that "if I'm pissing people off, I must be doing something right," it absolves them of the responsibility of finding out whether they really are right; the difficult, tedious, often humbling work of actually doing the damn research.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 10, 2007 8:51 PM

Ah Dr. Noble, peeved because there's no question for you?

I recognize, as does Nicoli Nattrass, that you're an authority almost on the level og Dr. Gallo, and Aetiology a publication well worth quoting from. In fact in that whole piece the only example she gives of a scientific prediction borne out by HIV/AIDS theory comes from you:

Well, we seem to have drifted a long way from the famous
Padian study which according to Harvey Bialy "demonstrated so well that sexually transmitted HIV was a figment."
I note that Bialy never once made a comment that was relevant to the study. These are the people that claim that HIV cannot possibly cause AIDS. You ask them for justification and they give you the "Padian study." You demonstrate that this study cannot be used to conclude
that HIV is not sexually transmitted and they go all silent, bring up other studies or in Bialy's case proceed to insult everyone that doesn't worship Peter Duesberg.I predict that in the future the exact same people will again
cite the "Padian study" as proof that HIV is not sexually transmitted. (Noble 2006)

That is truly remarkable and quoteworthy don't you think Dr. Noble? Quite possibly the cleverest thing anybody has ever written in support of the surrogate marker theory of HIV infection. Unfortunately, when you click on the link to the source of this supremely convincing example of scientific reasoning it comes up blank. But we gads are always resourceful, so instead I went straight to Gallo himself, the same place where he really showed what an uncientific fool Val Turner (or what say you Trrll, surely "particle associated" reverse transcriptase was isolated from fresh culture by both Montagnier and Gallo, right?) Dr. Gallo has this explanation for why the Padian study, as you say, Dr. Noble, "cannot beused to conclude that HIV is not sexually transmitted":

... a lot of material is out of context or material that is stopped in time. A good example is Padian, a woman who has done epidemiology who is quoted as refuting heterosexual transmission because she found heterosexuals not with AIDS and heterosexuals who have got AIDS. What is not said is she never looked for HIV. (p. 1253)

Wow! that man has a way with words, here revealing clearly the rub of the matter in just one sentence: "she found heterosexuals not with AIDS and heterosexuals who have got AIDS". No wonder Bialy and the other denialists went silent after that well placed correction. Imagine the fools really thought that a study titled, Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a Ten-Year Study. would have anything to do with looking for HIV.

Posted by: Pope | October 10, 2007 11:36 PM

Carter, like everything else you regurgitate we've been over this before.

A Straw Man gets AIDS

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 11, 2007 12:35 AM

The linked article is excellent! It unambiguously makes the point that, until they stopped AZT monotherapy, life expectancy upon diagnosis was less than two years - in many instances only months.

Brilliant. Nobody was dying from AIDS before AZT was introduced. Let's forget about the people that were dying months after being diagnosed with AIDS in the period before AZT. Lets forget about the 19 people that died in the placebo arm of the Fischl et al AZT trial after only a few weeks.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 11, 2007 12:54 AM

Oh for Pete's sake.... Evidence evidence evidence... AIDS AIDS AIDS...

It's all about science isn't it? Untill you guys wake up and see what's happening in the real world it aint gonna get any better. But thats alright, in the meantime lets just get numbers of unsuspecting people walking right up to be tested so they can be indoctinated into AIDS religion. Isn't that how it works for you.

Posted by: carter | October 11, 2007 1:12 AM

Pope:

Dr. Noble, I take it you mean nobody died of HIV before they started prescribing heavy doses of chemotherapy for it.

carter,

Isn't that how it works for you.

Posted by: Peter Barber | October 11, 2007 8:21 AM

@ Dale,

You are exactly right. About ten years ago, Duesberg published two, thick volumes that argued his side. Not only did none of it make sense; but I got the impression that he was a bit unbalanced because every scrap of information that contradicted him was met with increasingly shrill post-hoc rationalization.

Posted by: Joe | October 11, 2007 12:48 PM

funny all my life i beleived in hiv, I got tested several times, and I heard of A duesberg guy when I was 20 and I thought he was totally nuts. I even brought it up in class one day that this guy was a complete lunatic ( I never bothered reading his papers)

many years later I saw the film hiv fact on fraud on google, i was so mad before wtaching it, cause I thought it was BS, but after it totally changed me, that more research is needed.

This same thing thing happened with me and 9/11, thought no way it could be a false flag operation, then we all saw loose change and it blew us all away in our college dorm room.

Weird how much thought control there is in America, and how millions of people are getting exposed to these alternative theories and they are beliveing them, not because they are crazy, but they seem to make more sense to any open minded intelligent person.

Posted by: cooler | October 11, 2007 1:59 PM

cooler asked tara ... why dont you provide me with the scientific paper that proves hiv causes AIDS?

To save Tara the time of reposting something she's posted before:

Pathogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. by J A Levy, Department of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco 94143-0128. (Microbiol Rev 1993;57:183)

This is referenced in The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS

To save lazy people a click, the abstract is pasted in below:

The lentivirus human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causes AIDS by interacting with a large number of different cells in the body and escaping the host immune response against it. HIV is transmitted primarily through blood and genital fluids and to newborn infants from infected mothers. The steps occurring in infection involve an interaction of HIV not only with the CD4 molecule on cells but also with other cellular receptors recently identified. Virus-cell fusion and HIV entry subsequently take place. Following virus infection, a variety of intracellular mechanisms determine the relative expression of viral regulatory and accessory genes leading to productive or latent infection. With CD4+ lymphocytes, HIV replication can cause syncytium formation and cell death; with other cells, such as macrophages, persistent infection can occur, creating reservoirs for the virus in many cells and tissues. HIV strains are highly heterogeneous, and certain biologic and serologic properties determined by specific genetic sequences can be linked to pathogenic pathways and resistance to the immune response. The host reaction against HIV, through neutralizing antibodies and particularly through strong cellular immune responses, can keep the virus suppressed for many years. Long-term survival appears to involve infection with a relatively low-virulence strain that remains sensitive to the immune response, particularly to control by CD8+ cell antiviral activity. Several therapeutic approaches have been attempted, and others are under investigation. Vaccine development has provided some encouraging results, but the observations indicate the major challenge of preventing infection by HIV. Ongoing research is necessary to find a solution to this devastating worldwide epidemic.

Since this is all very technical, some readers may need an overview of the immune system:

Immunology from CELLS alive! A graphics heavy site.

Immunology from The Biology Project. Fewer pictures, more detail, may be a few years old.

Immune System from a Multiple Sclerosis website. No pictures, and no HIV/AIDS discussion, but not very technical.

Infection & Immunity: from MicrobiologyBytes. This site has a good overview of "helper" T-cells: Role of CD4-positive T cells in Bacterial Killing.

For a detailed discussion of how B-cells and helper and killer T-cells differentiate and become specific to one antigen: The Exception to the Rule: Immunoglobulin Genes from DevBio, a companion to Developmental Biology, Eighth Edition by Scott F. Gilbert.

Three of the above sites have discussion of HIV/AIDS.

Posted by: AK | October 11, 2007 2:42 PM

@ Cooler,

I think the evidence is well-summarized in the "Evidence that HIV Causes AIDS" link, just above (posted by AK).

So now, tell me where is the article that supports each of Duesberg's claims that AIDS is caused by 1- recreational drugs (e.g., cocaine), 2- blood factors used to treat hemophilia, 3- AZT. That's just for starters, because Peter has a really long list.

Consider that cocaine was around for decades before the first cases of AIDS. Also, hemophilia treatment was safe before HIV and is safe now that blood products are screened for HIV. And people who already have AIDS get better when treated with AZT.

If you can't understand; maybe it's you: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf This is an article about how people with no background in a field become so, ridiculously, certain of their mis-understandings.

Posted by: Joe | October 11, 2007 3:28 PM

Why are you even wasting our time asking for a paper then? Your response to any evidence given to you is that there is a conspiracy, so even if I found you some mind blowingly amazing paper about HIV causing AIDS you will just respond by saying it's propaganda. So what is the point? What do you want?

Posted by: apy | October 11, 2007 4:19 PM

This is referenced in The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS

Ha! Ha! Ha! The famous fact sheet. Man, it's the most fabulous piece of publicity I've ever seen. Selling what? Disease!
It's a crazy world, man. Some years ago I was still very naive and thought that people would be interested to find out that HIV=AIDS is a lie. Now I know better. They're not interested at all, they even very badly want it to be true. I can't get it man. Interested? They rather throw stones to the person who dares to question.

Well, that's the impression one gets when hanging around on this "science" blog. Of course, most people here are dependend on disease to earn their living. They wear coloured glasses they can't live without.

Posted by: jspreen | October 11, 2007 5:04 PM

in 1984 Robert Gallo claimed hiv was the cause of AIDS, because of the lack of a relaible model and an ever extending window period we are going to follow 20 hiv positive people for 10-15 yrs with no other risk factors such as AZT, severe mental illness, other infections like mfi, drug abuse and compare them to matched hiv negative controls to prove or falsify gallo's hypothesis"

is this too much to ask?

Yes, it is too much to ask. Essentially, you are demanding a modern equivalent of the Tuskegee study, a study in which HIV infected people are denied medications that have been well established (to the satisfaction of everybody except HIV denialists) to be effective in delaying or preventing progression to AIDS. No ethical scientist would conduct such an experiment. No hospital review committee would approve it. And it would be a waste of time, anyway. Everybody capable of rational thought is already convinced, and the HIV denialists would find some kind of flaw in the study (every study has a flaw if you look hard enough) that they could point to as an excuse for discarding its conclusions, just as they have done with the many previous studies that demonstrate the connection between HIV and AIDS.

As an aside, the obsession with Gallo is quite typical of denialist thinking. Evolution denialists are similarly obsessed with Darwin. This seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of science such that they imagine that all of the hundreds of thousands of studies that have been done since then somehow depends upon Gallo (or Darwin), and if they can find a flaw in that initial study, then they can somehow bring down the entire field of study. To real scientists, this comes across as very weird. To a modern scientist, Gallo and Darwin are purely of historical interest. Gallo got the field started, but the tools available at the time were so limited compared to modern scientific methodology, and his findings have been so far surpassed by later studies, that Gallo's initial paper is completely insignificant in terms of the weight of evidence supporting the modern understanding of the role of HIV in AIDS.

Posted by: trrll | October 11, 2007 5:28 PM

well then youve made your hypothesis "unfalsifiable", meaning the only way to prove it, (since most every species of animal doesnt get AIDs when inoculated) according to you the study I mentioned would be unethical

Even though the drugs like AZT are far from life saving, and theres plenty of denialists who are hiv positive that would agree to take part in that study, theyre not going to take the medicine anyways, so theres no ethics problem.

youve just admitted it, the only study that can prove/disprove hiv cannot be conducted, therefore youve made your hypothesis unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific.

Posted by: cooler | October 11, 2007 6:00 PM

oh yeah, the nih fact sheet! the mention that chimpanzees get aids, what they fail to say is that hundereds were inoculated and only a couple had immunosupression, the rest were fine, what else would you expect if you lived in a cage for 20 yrs?

Lies by ommission

Posted by: cooler | October 11, 2007 8:54 PM

I dont agree with duesy's claims, I think the multifactorial hypothesis makes the most sense, other infections might be involved like shyh ching lo's mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe that kills every animal inoculated. Catstrophic stress, AZT, severe drug abuse who knows?
there were only about 4,000 deaths a year early on in 1984-85, it skyrocketed to 50k when people were given monster doses of AZT, seems like the more attention and funding the disease gets the more people die.

more research is needed, does hiv cause AIDS? maybe, but more research is needed. Funny thing is in Garth nicolsons book Project day lily he claims to have uncovered through informants in the Pentagon that mycoplasma incognitus was part of the bioweapons program and the people in charge of it are laughing their asses off on how stupid doctors are not to discover this, how hiv is harmless and mycoplasma incognitus is the only microbe people need to worry about it.

Although nicolson does not claim who his sources are, it is clear from reading the slightly fictionilized version of true events Project Day Lily that it was shyh ching lo himself, the army scientist. This would make sense bc Lo in peer reviewed journals and patents incoulated chimps, monkeys, mice, embryos and they all sickened/died, and he didnt find it in over a hundered healthy controls.(refrences in lonliness thread)

When the nicolsons found it in the blood of gwi vets armed intelligence agents threatened them to stop their research. wonder why?

What a crackup, could it be that hiv is some harmless retrovirus while mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans is the only microbe to worry about? seems like it, Its being found in many patients with complex multi organic symptoms like that have been misdiagnosed with CFS/ALS/AIDS etc. Sad but true that this genocide has been perpetrated by closed minded scientists.

Posted by: cooler | October 11, 2007 10:19 PM

cooler, you seem very stuck on this animal model thing, but I find that somewhat confusing. Are you saying SIV does not exist? Some of the papers that various denialists claim invalidates HIV causes AIDS theory seem to use SIV as the basis of the calculations in it. The most recent one that comes to mind is the study that says HIV + some other factors cause AIDS, not just the CD4+ depletion. This was done by studying SIV, and excuse me but I do not recall if it was you, carter, or another person that posted that. But on top of that you might respond by saying: SIV is not HIV, when you give HIV to animals they don't die. But I'm not sure that logic works, many viruses have a species barrier, which is good because I don't want to get a number of diseases animals have. Are you saying that HIV should not be victim to this same rule? Or are you saying HIV should live outside this and pass between species without issue? Could you please be more specific on what yoru problem is with HIV and animals?

Posted by: apy | October 11, 2007 10:36 PM

I'm not sure what that proves cooler? How lethal a virus is often depends on its ability to get between hosts. A disease like SIV in the wild, it would seem, most likely would not be traveling between hosts as HIV in humans could, but I am unsure as I don't know much about SIV.

On top of this, I'm not sure how good other monkeys are at diagnosing disease in their friends, nor am I aware of what the monkey healthcare system is like, is it possible that some monkeys do die from SAIDS in the wild and we are unaware of it? Or would you mark that off as completely impossible?

On top of that, when monkeys are given SIV in captivity they do acquire SAIDS, I did not notice in your previous statements that you a required the animal model to be in the wild. Are you saying that because monkeys get SAIDS when given SIV in captivity that SIV does not exist? Or that SIV is not causing them to have SAIDS?

I'm also unsure of what you mean by "considering most every animal does not get AIDS", do you know this for fact? It seems most animals are not researched in this way and would most likely succumb to a predator prior to any useful external diagnosis. Many animals live a rather short lifespan next to humans as well. On top of that, I know of very few animals that have the healthcare to live to a ripe old age. Finally, it is well known that FIV does exist, HIV for felines. So we seem to have SIV, HIV, and FIV. Again, I would not necessarily expect a monkey to get sick after injecting it with FIV, given that viruses seem to have a species barrier, but these animals, when infected wiht their corresponding viruses do appear to get sick in much the same way, so there does appear to be some animal model here.

Could you please explain why captivity matters and what point you are making with that statement? Could you please give some information on the FIV and if there are any studies which contradict the existences of FIV? Are there any studies showing that FIV is a product of poor diet? Drug use? Lack of attention? Finally could you please explain how you know most every animal does not get AIDS and why you would expect every animal to get AIDS if HIV does exist, as well as why which species of animals get which diseases is relevant to whate disease humans get?

Posted by: apy | October 11, 2007 11:01 PM

apy, siv is not hiv, siv only occurs in labratory maqacue monkeys, not in the wild, to condemn a whole generation to death bc of siv and macaque monkeys, seems to be unfair considering most every animal does not get AIDS.

SIV and HIV are all related viruses. In fact HIV-1 is closer to SIV-cpz than to HIV-2. In addition some of the SHIV are basically HIV with only small parts of SIV added and these cause SAIDS in susceptible animals.

SIV does occur in the wild in African monkeys and primates. It does not cause disease in these animals. However, it does cause disease in Asian monkeys.

Duesberg argues that retroviruses do not kill cells and that retroviruses cannot cause AIDS. These are blatantly untrue. SIV and SHIV reproducibly cause SAIDS in macaques.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 12, 2007 12:35 AM

On top of that, when monkeys are given SIV in captivity they do acquire SAIDS, I did not notice in your previous statements that you a required the animal model to be in the wild. Are you saying that because monkeys get SAIDS when given SIV in captivity that SIV does not exist? Or that SIV is not causing them to have SAIDS?

The bit about captivity and in the wild is a red herring.

SIV is prevalent in monkeys and primates in Africa. It is not present in Asian monkeys.

If you give Asian monkeys SIV they get AIDS and die.

Is cooler suggesting that we have to introduce SIV into wild populations of Asian monkeys to personally convince him? Doing this under controlled conditions in captivity isn't enough?

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 12, 2007 1:08 AM

Apy, you asked about FIV. The following is from:

http://www.theanimalspirit.com/Questions.html#test

Should I Test Feral Cats For FIV and FeLV?
Testing is not necessary for feral cats who are going to remain within their colony and do not show signs of serious illness. Positive test results are not always accurate and it's necessary to rule-out false-positives. The funds that would have been used for testing can be used toward sterilization. Moreover, killing a cat who is not suffering is unethical. The tests normally administered to ferals are not reliable enough to make life or death decisions. Euthanasia is defined as the mercy killing of a suffering individual. Killing for any other reason is not euthanasia. Cats who show no active sign of serious illness should be returned to their colony.
Many will try to make you feel guilty for not testing. They feel that feral cats lead short, miserable lives and you are choosing to allow them to suffer and die from horrible diseases. We know that this is not accurate.

Amazing. Feral cats are treated more intelligently than human beings!

Ahhhh, but to laugh, as they say the tests should not be used to make life/death decisions for cats. Ahhhh, but to laugh even more as the tests used on cats ARE the very same as those claimed to be 99% accurate and then used to diagnose humans and to put them on expensive, fast-tracked, little studied, unproven to relieve anything but intense fear and panic of the diagnosed, to be taken for a lifetime, lipodystrophy causing, neuropathy causing, bone marrow and liver killing, and quite often death dealing super toxic HIV drugs.

Apy, you asked: Are there any studies showing that FIV is a product of poor diet?

Now why, Apy, why would they ever want to do that? You know damn well that if they did, it would be the end of the highly profitable HIV and FIV business.

Gee, Apy, I really wonder why FIV is such a great concern and so often found in the often malnourished starving wild feral cats. Could it be because stressed wild feral cat poplations quite often suffer from starvation and POOR DIETS and that when such is the case, the starvation is usually affecting nearly the entire colony of cats???

Could the poor diets of some wild feral cats leave them open to many OIs and infections and cellular destruction that causes the FIV tests to blow off false poz just the same as the HIV tests do when humans are run down from drug abuse, stress, and malnutrition?

The well known retrovirologist that JP Moore used to buddy around with is famous for having said the line: "Its the virus, stupid!"

As a dissident who has intensely investigated the HIV and the dissident stuff for years, FIV turning up ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY in malnourished and also at times in other heavily stressed out cats shows me once again that

"IT AIN"T THE VIRUS, STUPID!"

It's the stress and malnourishment and toxed out bodies, that leaves ones immune system unable to fight off common OI's, just as it has been in EVERY AIDS CASE that I have ever seen in my 35 years of living exclusively in the highly affected gay community. And I have personally known and befriended and lived with plenty of them.

That is why I continue to drill it into the heads of the know-it-all HIV promoters, that AIDS is about toxins, stress, emotions, and drugs. Yet, for whatever reason, the HIV pushers just won't wake up and smell the coffee. Much of the gay community is still too paralyzed by panic and fear to smell the coffee, let alone think with any degree of healthy scepticism.

The mainstream HIV pushers and researchers also most always do not even personally know a single person who is or has been an AIDS case on any kind of a personal level. They may know some casually or know of some, but they certainly do not KNOW these people on any intimate or long term personal friendship level as I have with many of them over the last 25 years. I know many who died, and I know the stress and lifestyles they lived. I know the stress that many were under prior to any diagnosis or illness. Many had been disowned by their families for being gay. Many even had their own internal death wishes. I watched as some slowly declined in health due to their mindset and stress and drug habits, etc, and finally came down as HIV or AIDS.

And in knowing so many of these people close up and personally for many years, and in knowing their stresses and fears and problems and habits and addictions, and eating habits, I also know what a crock it is to believe that these peoples main problem was ever any single virus. HIV could be completely removed from the equation and these people would still have been quite ill.

Chris Noble, the biggest mouth on these threads does not even personally know a single HIV positive on any kind of personal level.

Neither does Tara. Neither does franklin, elkmountain, adele, trrll, etc, etc, etc. Neither do you, and neither do 99.99% of the HIV hypothesis promoters and believers who bellow out their programmed beliefs on these threads.

Yet they all certainly profess to know-it-all when it comes to HIV and this supposed disease, even though they don't even know anybody who was ever diagnosed other than some of the dissidents that they argue with in these threads.

Posted by: Michael | October 12, 2007 1:26 AM

...why dont mice get aids?

HIV enters CD4+ cells by binding to specific receptors on the surface of the cells. Mice CD4+ cells do not have the same receptors.

However, if you take SCID mice with no immune system and give them human thymus tissue they produce human CD4+ cells.

Now if you infect these SCIDhu mice with HIV guess what happens. Active HIV infection, CD4+ cell depletion and AIDS!

This is an animal model for AIDS, you know the animal models that the denialists deny exist.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 12, 2007 2:33 AM

Cooler wrote "I dont agree with duesy's claims, I think the multifactorial hypothesis makes the most sense"

Okay, cite the paper that proves this.

Posted by: Joe | October 12, 2007 4:38 AM

funny all my life i beleived in hiv, I got tested several times, and I heard of A duesberg guy when I was 20 and I thought he was totally nuts. I even brought it up in class one day that this guy was a complete lunatic ( I never bothered reading his papers)

many years later I saw the film hiv fact on fraud on google, i was so mad before wtaching it, cause I thought it was BS, but after it totally changed me, that more research is needed.

This same thing thing happened with me and 9/11, thought no way it could be a false flag operation, then we all saw loose change and it blew us all away in our college dorm room.

You are very easy to impress.

I, too, have watched the whole of Loose Change. I, too, have found it very impressive. But there's one thing that clearly wasn't right. When the towers were collapsing, clouds of smoke came out of storeys just below the collapse front. Loose Change says this indicates explosions -- it was a controlled demolition. But think about it. All that stuff coming down presses air out of the building, bursting windows and blowing stuff out. We must expect to see these "explosions" simply due to the fact that the building is collapsing top-down!

There is a scandal and a cover-up in the whole issue, but that is the fact that, because the WTC was on the land of the NY Port Authority and not technically in NYC, it didn't need to have 4 cm of insulating foam around the steel, but only 1.5 or something. And even that was very carelessly done -- in the places where it was difficult to spray on, notably the junctions between the walls and the floors, there often was no foam altogether! This had been known for a long time, but nobody wanted to evacuate the entire building to get the foaming right -- too expensive.

You have made a big mistake: you have assumed malice where incompetence is an entirely sufficient explanation.

Now, why don't mice get AIDS? Because mice and apes are too different. The HI virus is not capable of infecting mouse cells. That's why. Why can't you get foot-and-mouth disease? Same reason. Why can't you get rinderpest? Same reason. Why can't you get psittacosis? Same reason. Sure, not all viruses have the same narrow host range -- you can get avian flu --, but still all have some -- I'd be surprised if you could infect a frog with avian flu, and I'd bet money you can't infect an insect with it.

And if you want to invent a scientific name, get the grammar right: Mycoplasma is neuter, not masculine, so it would be Mycoplasma incognitum.

Margulis is quite a sad case. She found the idea of endosymbiosis, took it, and ran with it right into a wall of opposition that was much stronger than it should have been, for decades. And she was right. (Well, probably not about the cilia, but about everything else, AFAIK.)

The lesson she seems to have taken home is that if she's convinced of any idea and encounters strong opposition, she must be right again. That's where the woo comes in, like the metaphysical version of the Gaia hypothesis and AIDS denialism. Imagine Galileo himself committing the Galileo fallacy -- that's what we're seeing. Again, it's sad to watch.

I don't know whether evolutionary adaptation to the virus is why chimps don't get AIDS more often, although it is certainly true that when a disease coevolves with a species it often gets less damaging.

This is very easy to explain. AIDS susceptibility is inheritable because it depends on the precise sequence of a few proteins. This means natural selection can act. And wherever it can act, it does -- inevitably.

1. Those chimps who got AIDS have already died out.
2. Those viruses that were so virulent that they killed their host before it could spread them have also already die out.

Keep southern Africa as it is, do nothing, and in a few generations it will have a (very sparse) population that consists only of "long-term non-progressors" (i. e. people with a mutation that renders them immune or nearly so), most of whom will carry a very benign version of HIV, the way most of us carry the Epstein-Barr virus or whatever it is, and HPV, and I don't know what else.

This seems to have happened lots of times already over the last few hundred million years (at least). Over half of our genome consists of retrovirus corpses in various stages of decay.

Apy, you asked: Are there any studies showing that FIV is a product of poor diet?

Now why, Apy, why would they ever want to do that? You know damn well that if they did, it would be the end of the highly profitable HIV and FIV business.

"The complete lack of evidence is a sure sign the conspiracy is working."

That is why I continue to drill it into the heads of the know-it-all HIV promoters, that AIDS is about toxins, stress, emotions, and drugs.

Does living in Africa count as "stress"?

The mainstream HIV pushers and researchers also most always do not even personally know a single person who is or has been an AIDS case on any kind of a personal level. They may know some casually or know of some, but they certainly do not KNOW these people on any intimate or long term personal friendship level as I have with many of them over the last 25 years. I know many who died, and I know the stress and lifestyles they lived. I know the stress that many were under prior to any diagnosis or illness. Many had been disowned by their families for being gay. Many even had their own internal death wishes. I watched as some slowly declined in health due to their mindset and stress and drug habits, etc, and finally came down as HIV or AIDS.

There are no "risk groups" in Africa. Hey, there aren't even "risk groups" in the First World anymore. The 1970s, when AIDS was "gay cancer", are long over.

Your sample is too small for statistics. Get a bigger one.

The only place that racism comes into the discussion

are the fucking US of A! Over here, everybody is gleaming white, and some people still get AIDS. What a coincidence that they're all HIV-positive. But most denialists, in my experience, start from the assumption that any country other than the USA exists -- they are in denial about most of the world.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 12, 2007 7:42 AM

I find it fascinating that so many people still take that official 911 version for granted.

Almost as insane that:

- Bush went to Irak because of the mass destruction weapons
- But there were no mass destruction weapons!
- So Bush&Co have been lynched for their lies?
- No, Bush was reelected.

Or like the hole in the Pentagon. 20 feet across or something. No traces of debris on the lawn... The plane completely disappeared through a hole 4 times too small.

Or the way the twin towers' came down. And also, first hit falls second although second hit not nearly as effective as the first.

It's proof of the fact that not only kids are ready to believe anything they're told.

HIV=Aids. 911. Dig a spade deep and you know. Lies, lies, lies.

Posted by: jspreen | October 12, 2007 8:12 AM

This is very easy to explain. AIDS susceptibility is inheritable because it depends on the precise sequence of a few proteins. This means natural selection can act. And wherever it can act, it does -- inevitably.

1. Those chimps who got AIDS have already died out.
2. Those viruses that were so virulent that they killed their host before it could spread them have also already die out.

Yes, I agree with this. My point is that the theory that HIV causes AIDS in humans makes no strong predictions as to whether HIV will cause disease in chimps. It does, however, bear on the hypothesis that HIV originated as a chimp virus that crossed over into the human population relatively recently, because there are two possible results that would have excluded that hypothesis--if (a) HIV did not infect chimps at all, or (b) HIV were rapidly lethal in chimps (for example ebola virus rapidly kills gorillas, so nobody believes that gorillas are the natural reservoir of ebola).

Posted by: trrll | October 12, 2007 8:31 AM

This: Over half of our genome consists of retrovirus corpses in various stages of decay.

Together with this: 2. Those viruses that were so virulent that they killed their host before it could spread them have also already die out.

is fantastic bullshit.

But if you put it otherwise, after carefuly having read Antoine Bechamp for instance, you suddenly understand that viruses, which are are necessary for such or such process, like tissue reconstruction, are handily included in the genes of the host. And suddenly, after having read about Ryke Geerd Hamer's New Medicine, the mechanisms of nature start to make sense.
Nature is not about war between mammals, microbes, insects and all that, but about symbiosis. We forgot, which is why people elect warmongers like George W. Bush. The "Double You" was included but nobody noticed.

Posted by: jspreen | October 12, 2007 9:32 AM

HIV can hardly be aid to be rapidly lethal in humans. Does that mean we are a long established natural reservoir of it?

It sounds as if you have some difficulty following the logic of scientific reasoning. The fact that a particular theory is not excluded does not automatically make it true.

So the fact that HIV is not rapidly lethal in humans means that one cannot exclude out of hand the possibility that HIV has been endemic in some human subpopulation for a long time, and has only recently "broken out" into the larger population (and indeed, this was one of the hypotheses considered in the early days of investigating the origin of AIDS). That means that one must turn to other kinds of evidence to decide between these two competing hypotheses, such as sequence comparison of HIV from different human isolates, as well as chimp viruses. It is on the basis on such studies that the chimp hypothesis has now become the favored one.

Posted by: trrll | October 12, 2007 10:25 AM

I look forward to your scholarly critique of this paper: The SCID-hu mouse: a small animal model for HIV infection and pathogenesis.

Dr Noble, here's my scholarly critique: It's an inbred f-ing freak (not) of nature. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBR_enHK211HK211&q=MOUSE+EAR+photo&btnG=Search&meta=

Posted by: Pope | October 12, 2007 10:33 AM

It sounds as if you have some difficulty following the logic of scientific reasoning. The fact that a particular theory is not excluded does not automatically make it true.
So the fact that HIV is not rapidly lethal in humans means that one cannot exclude out of hand the possibility that HIV has been endemic in some human subpopulation (and indeed, this was one of the hypotheses considered in the early days of investigating the origin of AIDS). That means that one must turn to other kinds of evidence to decide between these two competing hypotheses, such as sequence comparison of HIV from different human isolates, as well as chimp viruses. It is on the basis on such studies that the chimp hypothesis has now become the favored one.

Gee Dr. Trrll, I seem to still have some difficulty following the logic of your scientific reasoning. Are you saying that analyses of chimp and human "HIV isolates" tells us that the jump to humans happened within the last 100 years? Sure? So when did "HIV" enter chimps?

On a slightly related topic, I don't want you to forget this in a hurry:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906214854.htm

Posted by: Pope | October 12, 2007 10:50 AM

Gee Dr. Trrll, I seem to still have some difficulty following the logic of your scientific reasoning. Are you saying that analyses of chimp and human "HIV isolates" tells us that the jump to humans happened within the last 100 years? Sure? So when did "HIV" enter chimps?

Sequence comparison is best at determining the order in which things happened. Exact timing is more difficult to figure out, because that requires estimates of the mutation rate over time. Is there some reason why you are particularly concerned with the precise date? It does look like HIV related viruses have existed in simians for a very long time.

On a slightly related topic, I don't want you to forget this in a hurry:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906214854.htm

And this is relevant to what?

Posted by: trrll | October 12, 2007 11:12 AM

apy,
wow I can't believe they put my name in there now everyone will know about you and me. Just like everyone knows all ready about pope and elisa!

Posted by: Adele | October 12, 2007 11:23 AM

Is there some reason why you are particularly concerned with the precise date?

Dr. Trrll, you may remember the point at which my grasp of scientific reasoning broke down was when I asked you if people were a long established natural reservoir of HIV. You then referred me to something that "determines in which order things happen". That doesn't tell me when HIV jumped to humans or chimps, so I had to ask.

Btw, do you have an example of another hyperactive microbe less than 100 years old that takes more than 10 years on average to kill a reasonably healthy person?

And this is relevant to what?

Just didn't want you to forget.

Posted by: Pope | October 12, 2007 11:32 AM

This: Over half of our genome consists of retrovirus corpses in various stages of decay.

Together with this: 2. Those viruses that were so virulent that they killed their host before it could spread them have also already die out.

is fantastic bullshit.

Why? Put up or shut up.

viruses, which are are necessary for such or such process, like tissue reconstruction, are handily included in the genes of the host.

The other way around: those that happened to have integrated their genome in an interesting place in our genome have had interesting effects due to their strong promoters. One such virus corpse is involved in the formation of the placenta.

Most, however, just lie around as junk.

Nature is not about

I agree with trrll here. And I regard any attempts to paint me as a Bushevik as an incredible insult.

So the fact that HIV is not rapidly lethal in humans means that one cannot exclude out of hand the possibility that HIV has been endemic in some human subpopulation for a long time, and has only recently "broken out" into the larger population

Yes, but aren't lentiviruses always, as their name says, slow?

I want to introduce you to Brenda Powell, who is the organizer of the 2007 LDN conference.

What is LDN, how can anything possibly have an effect on both cancer and Alzheimer's, and what has that got to do with AIDS?

Or like the hole in the Pentagon. 20 feet across or something. No traces of debris on the lawn... The plane completely disappeared through a hole 4 times too small.

You should have seen the documentary I was talking about. Plenty of plane pieces, and corpses, have been found on the lawn and inside the building. That's all on film. The FBI confirms having the plane pieces -- though it doesn't let anyone look at them. Clearly they have something to hide, but it must be something different from what you suppose.

Or the way the twin towers' came down. And also, first hit falls second although second hit not nearly as effective as the first.

Precisely as expected from their construction, the way the planes hit, the time for which the fires burnt, and the illegally missing insulation foam.

Again: I agree there is a scandal which has been covered up. But it's not the destruction of the towers, it's their construction.

Now, people: Does HIV exist? Is it sufficient to cause AIDS? Does "Mycoplasma incognitum" exist? Is it sufficient to cause AIDS? Is stress sufficient to cause AIDS? Is cocaine sufficient to cause AIDS? Are any emotions sufficient to cause AIDS? Is any of these things necessary to cause AIDS? I'd like to know what I'm arguing against.

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 12, 2007 11:48 AM

trrll says,
So anybody who agrees that the accepted theory is wrong is accepted as an ally, even if his reasoning is totally incompatible.

Also people who say Tara or Franklin or someone is a homophobe, no proof, are just fine aobut Duesberg and Henry Bauer and other deniosaurs saying stuff in print about how being gay is wrong illegal against nature they should get silenced whatever.

Popeylisa says phylogentetics is crap.
Umm popeylisa did you read the article in science daily?
Maybe just the headline you didn't get to the part,

Identifying a link between viruses from two people on its own says nothing about who infected whom. Other difficulties include the unlikelihood that all sexual contacts of all HIV infected people will be available for viral testing, co-infection with genetically diverse strains, and similarities in two virus genomes as a result of convergent or parallel evolution.

You don't understand this stuff we know so go ahead and ask questions about it well help you out. or try any way.

Posted by: Adele | October 12, 2007 12:47 PM

Nonono, Dr. Trrll, I said a hyperactive microbe, not a dormant one.

Posted by: Pope | October 12, 2007 1:18 PM

Forguve me Dr. Trrll, I meant a microbe taking 10 years to cause disease There ar eobviously a few who don't kill right away or at all.

NAybody interestedd in revealing examples o fhow John moore conducts himself can go to this address among many. many others:

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/11/the_moore_manif.html

Posted by: Pope | October 12, 2007 1:37 PM

john moore does not beleive in informed consent, you must not hear another side of a issue bc you might believe it! Can you imagine if you were a juror and you heard that ?

This is straight out of Orwells 1984, get over it, people are not as dumb as you make them to be, the reason they beleive Duesberg etc is bc they see vailidity in some of his criticisms, so do many other scientists, they are many more who are getting sick of your intimidation.

Why are you so obsessed with "denialists". People are not stupid, If a group of people claimed the moon was made of cheese, do you think astrophysicists would start a group called "moontruth", this is not the way experts respond to absurd arguments, they realize that they are laughable and wouldnt care about it.

For all we know you guys could be responsible for deaths in real life, monster doses of AZT, ignoring shyh ching Lo's mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe that killed every animal injected and is being found in many people with complex multi organic illnesses, people and scientists should hear all sides of an argument and then make their personal choice when it comes to their health. And more experiments should be conducted to resolve ambiguities.

I don't need gatekeepers like John moore and Mark wainberg telling me what I can and can not hear and beleive. And if I do make a decision based on my own health, as long as I've had informed consent, not only hearing one side of an issue, then Its all on me and no one else. You people insist on people only being exposed to your side of the argument and no one elses, and thats very telling in itself. A good prosecutor with a good case would not care if a jury heard an absurd defense, it would help them actually, yet you are dedicating your entire career to silence/fire anyone that disagrees with you, much like a prosecutor with a very weak case that would do everything to silence the opposition.

Posted by: cooler | October 12, 2007 2:00 PM

illustioruyus prof. mooore, id make aneffort atyping if othought you wereworth it,but u r a seriously wude wabbit.

However,I'll give you the benefit of doubt, just as your "FDA-approved, safe and effective therapies for HIV" infection decribed thus in the authoritative October 2006 NIH fact sheet:

"However, the use of antiretroviral therapy is now associated with a series of serious side effects and long-term complications that may have a negative impact on mortality rates. More deaths occurring from liver failure, kidney disease, and cardiovascular complications are being observed in this patient population."

That NIH is obliged to report this, only a decade after introduction of the cocktails, speaks volumes for how prevalent these "side" effects must be. There is no regular mechanism for reporting such things--the FDA has no rules for reporting problems with drugs after they've been approved, so it took a decade or two to withdraw seldane and hismanal, for example, so if it becomes generally known that a drug has serious problems, it is rather by chance and takes a long time--unless, of course, the bad effects occur very frequently.

Prof Moore, I take your anticipated silence as meaning you are highly embarrased.

Posted by: Pope | October 12, 2007 2:34 PM

this is not the way experts respond to absurd arguments, they realize that they are laughable and wouldnt care about it.

Great point cooler. So when you fly on a plane you don't care who flies it right? Your saying it doesn't matter who flies the plane I should here all sides and decide and if it crashes its my problem. Just a facist country like you say "stalins germany hitlers russia orwells 1984" tells people only licenced pilots get to fly planes. Just Wainberg and Moore say people who pretend to be pilots and get people killed should go to jail.

So I can get a pilot and a video game obsessed freak like cooler and a cashier from the grocery and Peter Duesberg and interview em all and the one I like most I can ask them to fly my plane. And I like PEter Duesberg because I like his theory you can fly a plane with your mind control who cares he never tried it out and what if he crashes me into the ocean and like two hundred other people. Too bad we made our choice, "informed consent."

Problem is, cooler that's not informed consent its just wishfull thinking consent. I know you don't like it since you think the gov is under the Zionists and everything but some times the government has to protect you from yourself. Like a license to drive a car or fly a plane or practice medicene.

Posted by: Adele | October 12, 2007 2:36 PM

Nonono, Dr. Trrll, I said a hyperactive microbe, not a dormant one.

Hyperactive? So far as I know, that term has no scientific meaning when applied to microbes. Are you talking about a microbe with attention deficit disorder?

Posted by: trrll | October 12, 2007 2:38 PM

Dr. Trrll,

The hyper activity and attention deficit disorder is more on the part of the T-cells and failed microbicide researchers. But never mind it's a denialist thing you wouldn't understand it:

1. Although infected cells do not die as a result of HIV replication, HIV replication is hyperactive. Infected cells churn out huge numbers of new HIV, resulting in a large portion of T4 cells in the lymph nodes becoming infected.
2. T8 cells, which kill any host cell harboring an active (virus-producing) infection, kill the T4 cells that are actively producing HIV.
3. Uninfected T4 cells replicate quickly in order to replace those killed by the T8 cells.
4. Because this process occurs quickly, few infected cells ever get a chance to make it to the general circulation. As a result, clinicians drawing blood samples had previously concluded, erroneously, that only a low percentage of T4 cells are HIV-infected.
5. Although few infected cells ever make it out of the lymph nodes, lots of HIV does, and it is this HIV that Ho and Shaw claim to count with their new technique.
6. Over time -- about a decade -- the T4 population wears down trying to replace all of its members killed by the T8 cells.
7. There is no latency period for HIV. From the moment of initial infection, there is hyperactive HIV replication that quickly spreads to a large portion of T4 cells in the lymph nodes. This "massive covert infection," and the hyperactive "turnover" of T4 cells and HIV, continues unabated throughout a decade or more of clinical latency (no symptoms), into AIDS, and ultimately causes the patient to die.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/chjppcrap.htm

Posted by: Pope | October 12, 2007 2:56 PM

Considering denialists appear to be quick to call an attack on them some logical fallacy I'm unsure of what to make of:

As everybody knows, Tara Smith has no writing skills, so she linked to the article of a layperson who on the original site says she doesn't want to enter into debate with "denialists" because she isn't knowledgeable enough.

Posted by: apy | October 12, 2007 3:09 PM

Yes, Pope. It is legal to tell lies about medical conditions, such as lying about HIV not being isolated etc. However, it is not ethical to tell such lies, and Universities should not employ people who tell lies.

Posted by: Dr. Duke | October 12, 2007 3:23 PM

One more time for the mindless:

The www.aidstruth.org site says nothing about "silencing" or "censoring" the denialists.(Duke)

Attempts to shut down these sites or to prevent the dissemination of denialist literature are routinely dismissed on the grounds that dissenters have a right to express their views (AIDStruth)

Nothing about universities in here Duke. It's not only unethical to lie, it's also stupid to persist whenyou;ve beencalled on it, so I suggest you quit while you're behind. Go do some genetic sequencing or sumtin'

Posted by: Pope | October 12, 2007 3:38 PM

Plenty of plane pieces, and corpses, have been found on the lawn and inside the building.

How full of s**t or how totally lost must one be to back up that statement?
Might it be you simply missed this?

Or maybe we should interpret the way people look at the 911 pictures as just another illustration of the principal that reality if forged according to one's convictions and not the other way around.

Ok, I know, I know. This is not a place for 911. Sorry. I'll do my best the next time. See John P Moore dropped a line too. Interesting. Maybe that will give me some inspiration. But not now. Awl that readdingg makez my eyyes hurdtt

Posted by: jspreen | October 12, 2007 4:19 PM

And remember folks, the germ theory is part of a world wide multi generational conspiracy that only the likes of jspreen has been able to uncover.

Posted by: apy | October 12, 2007 4:42 PM

As I recall, jspreen, at least on the websites that I frequent, there was very little reference to EJ Scovill's death from AIDS apologists until after the oh-so-obviously flawed 'analysis' of the coroner's report from Al Bayati, followed by Christine Maggiore's and many other dissidents' very public support of Al Bayati's analysis. Had dissidents not publically challenged the coroner's report, competence and impartiality, I expect that most AIDS apologists would have been perfectly happy to respect the parents pain and leave EJ and them out of it.

Posted by: Dale | October 12, 2007 5:11 PM

My sympathy is with the dead girl who was never given the chance to grow up to make her own informed decisions about how to live her life, and whose death has been used by AIDS denialists, including her mother, for political propaganda and the promotion of a perverse agenda that is antithetical to public health. My sympathy is also with the other children in the USA and South Africa who acquired HIV infection and died of AIDS as a result of Maggiore's proselytising against the use of AZT and other anti-retrovirals (such as nevirapine) to prevent perinatal HIV transmission. The infamous photograph of Maggiore's pregnant belly with a red-painted "No AZT" symbol on it has a poignant irony associated with it, considering that the use of AZT during that pregnancy would most probably have saved Eliza Jane Scovill from the HIV infection that led to her death from AIDS, as would the use of AZT-containing terapeutic regimens after her birth. Does Maggiore deserve any sympathy? No. She deliberately chose to make political capital out of her daughter during her gestation, then after her sad, untimely and unnecessary death, and she is still doing it. Those are actions that merit condemnation, not sympathy. Still, the inevitable failure of her lawsuit against the LA Coroner's Office will finally bring "Justice for EJ", and thereby help prevent the deaths of other children placed in similar situations by irresponsible parents and unprofessional physicians.

Posted by: John Moore | October 12, 2007 5:22 PM

John moore wants to protect "vulnerable" people, by firing professors that dont agree with him, bc somebody intelligent person might believe what Duesberg has to say!

I know of hunderds of people that graduated from stanford, Harvard, UCLA that once exposed to the other side of the issue thinks more research is needed, you dont need to be a scientist to see that aids inc is out of control, go away john we dont need you to protect us by sabotaging academic freedom and the first amendment.

Youre your own worst enemy, all this name calling you are engaging in is making you look like a fool. Youve just insulted Professor Pollock from university of Washington, Im sure the staff there doesnt think too highly of you.

And who gets to judge what is debatable or not? Drug company hacks? The CDC? Deal with it its america, and if some professors disagree with you, and a whole lot of intelligent people think something doesnt make sense, we are not going to mindlessly follow a small cadre of experts who are bought off by special interests and drug companies.

Posted by: cooler | October 12, 2007 6:53 PM

Pretty disgusting that Moore keeps bringing up the death opf a child whos death remains unclear, she had 10,000 WBC count, and she probably died of an allergic reaction to an antibiotic, there has been no hiv positive antibody test for her, wonder why?

Posted by: cooler | October 12, 2007 9:25 PM

Yes, the alternative explanation of the poor girls death was given by a person that is surprised at someone developing a weakened immune system after being given immunosuppressants. I don't know what she died off but it seems pretty clear Al-Bayati is not qualified to say either.

Posted by: apy | October 12, 2007 10:13 PM

A black lawyer from a glossy hood is not at the same risk of testing positive as a black junkie from the ghetto. He is, however, 4 times as likely to test positive as is his white lawyer neighbour.

You have statistics on HIV prevalence in black lawyers and white lawyers? Or are you just pulling these factoids out of a bodily orifice?

Well not too far off.
http://hivnotaids.homestead.com/RACE.html

Henry Bauer's fantasies fail to offer a vaguely plausible explanation of how the HIV tests are supposedly rigged to make blacks and gays test positive.

Bauer conveniently forgets to ask similar rhetorical questions such as "Why does gonorrhea discriminate by race?" and "Why does diabetes discriminate by race?". The answers have nothing to do with tests being rigged.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 12, 2007 10:26 PM

Hey john,
Since youve badmouthed so many scientists like Duesberg,mullis, bialy etc and recently told Professor Pollock that you would never talk to him bc his favorable review of Bialy's book, I was wondering if you could badmouth another scientist on the record.

His name is Shyh-Ching Lo, MD, PhD, chief,. Division of Molecular Pathobiology,. Department of Infectious and Parasitic. Diseases Pathology of the Armed Forces of institute of Pathology.

He and his staff applauded Duesberg for speaking out in 1990. Lo said "There is no good explanation for why and how the virus breaks out of the antibody protection," says Lo. "I'm not saying that HIV plays no role in AIDS-the data shows a clear correlation with disease. But AIDS is much more complicated than HIV."
miami herald 1990

He has not recanted his statement since 1990, can you please badmouth him as well publicly as well, waiting...........

Posted by: cooler | October 12, 2007 10:52 PM

"I know of hunderds of people that graduated from stanford, Harvard, UCLA that once exposed to the other side of the issue thinks more research is needed"

First of all, I doubt you know hundreds of people that have graduated from top schools. Second, if you have in fact talked to anyone who has, my guess would be they are simply humoring you and your suggestions by saying something as vague as "it needs more research" as most, even here, agree. They certainly are not validating your claims.

"And who gets to judge what is debatable or not? Drug company hacks? The CDC?"

You're right cooler, someone working at the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL probably are unfamiliar with the HIV/AIDS data and are just drug company hacks.

"Deal with it its america, and if some professors disagree with you, and a whole lot of intelligent people think something doesnt make sense, we are not going to mindlessly follow a small cadre of experts who are bought off by special interests and drug companies."

Those intelligent people are also more than capable of attending meetings and conducting proper research to back up their points. Instead, they "publish" it on websites and in non-peer reviewed formats. Oh, that's right, because everyone is against them. Sorry I forgot.

There is no "small cadre" of experts, Cooler. There are thousands of researchers currently conducting actual RESEARCH (something the denialists lack) that follow the evidence and agree that HIV causes AIDS.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406015a0.html

Why don't you give them any credence? Because their conclusions don't match your own? You're so willing to fall in line with Duesburg et al but dismiss these 5,000 signatories with a wave of your hand with ZERO basis in evidence. Get a life cooler, you're not as intelligent as you think. You're not as clever as you think.

Posted by: Jim | October 12, 2007 10:59 PM

nothing changed since 1990, they were called charlatans then and still are by the small cadre of drug company hacks.

The durban declaration was sent out like an evite, many signers either had ties to AIDS inc or were never exposed to "denialists" arguments, its called manufactured consent fool.

You dont know anybody anywhere, youre just a militant geek that couldnt get laid to save your life. LOL

Posted by: cooler | October 12, 2007 11:17 PM

Dr. Noble, you are welcome to call whoever is responsible for the official HIV stats a "bodily orifice" if you think that makes you sound adult and reponsible. Maybe your ADStruth master could organize a letter writing campaign to boycot the CDC, NIH and whoever else employs the liars that dream these kinds of things up?

Are you trying to tell me that the CDC keeps statistics of the prevalence of HIV in black lawyers and white lawyers?

You made a statement. Where is your evidence?

A black lawyer from a glossy hood is not at the same risk of testing positive as a black junkie from the ghetto. He is, however, 4 times as likely to test positive as is his white lawyer neighbour.

Why not just admit that you made this factoid up?

Do you have a scientific comment Dr. Noble, or would you prefer to call them names? Perhaps someone should organize a letter writing campaign to shut down this publication as well, considering how they shamelessly publish reviews of scholarly literature.

The review is hardly supportive.

Not only does Bauer ignore contrary evidence but he also selectively interprets the observations of others.

Bauer's interpretations of the data are bizarre.

Take Figure 2 in his book. For a start the graph is terrible. The lines appear to be hand drawn. There is no y-scale. I presume Bauer drops the scale because the data he uses has 4% of male babies being HIV positive. The real data that he uses is not continuous but is really tabulated in intervals of 0-4, 5-12, 13-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49 and more than 50. The real data does not pretend to be the prevalence of HIV in the total US population as Bauer implies. There are no error bars. This makes Bauer's arguments about the male-to-female ratio ludicrous.

But it's his interpretation that is by far the most stupid of all. He concludes that the age distribution of HIV prevalence is inconsistent with HIV being a sexually transmitted microbe.

Hello Earth to Bauer. Anyone there?

What exactly would you expect from a virus that is spread perinatally and sexually? There are babies that are born with HIV or are infected with HIV shorly after birth. Life expectancy for these children is very short. Then we see a dramatic increase in prevalence starting at the time where people become sexually active. Another coincidence?

Bauer's conclusions do not follow from the data. The data is not only perfectly consistent with HIV being spread both perinatally and sexually it is also strong evidence for this conclusion.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 13, 2007 1:11 AM

Dr. Noble, I appreciate your attempt at engaging - if only you would engage on the issue you'd be perfect.

"Are you trying to tell me that the CDC keeps statistics of the prevalence of HIV in black lawyers and white lawyers?"

Darn!! you got me there, Dr. Noble. I thought I could pretend there were published studies of large cohorts of black and white lawyers who are next door neighbors. But I guess nothing of real relevance gets past the AISDtruth watch poodles. Here you go, happy now? I am because every time you pull one of those wilful stupidity stunts I get to link Prof. Bauer's work and show everybody you don't have an answer.

"These intricate technicalities can be side-stepped by looking strictly at the demography of HIV, at how POSITIVE HIV tests VARY IN A REGULAR WAY

among social groups

geographically

over time

with age

with sex

with race

This points to "HIV" being something endemic, not a contagious infection. It also indicates that positive HIV tests measure something quite general about health, not specifically about AIDS. And the data even show that HIV and AIDS are not connected; for example, Black Americans in every tested group are HIV-positive about 5 times more often than White Americans, and that has not changed for twenty years; but the relative proportions of Black and White victims of AIDS has changed by a factor of more than 6 over that time"

http://hivnotaids.homestead.com/

Chris Noble said: "The review is hardly supportive"

"Not only does Bauer ignore contrary evidence but he also selectively interprets the observations of others." (International Journal of STD&AIDS, quoted by Chris Noble)

Tsktsk Dr. Noble, have you not yet learned to be wary of taking what is offered? Why do yo think I linked this specific review? Because it's a rare attempt at an evenhanded discussion in the scientific spirit as opposed to,

"We will not: Engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes."

How about the illustrious Prof. Moore, does he get the point now?

What you so predictably did, Dr. Noble, was to cherry pick from the review article and misrepresent the conclusions of the author. Does that sound familiar to you?

Of course nobody from the orthodoxy is going to publicize a review saying, "Prof. Bauer is right, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is a mistake". However, the reviewer goes as far as he possibly can without risk of having a gang of AIDStruth poodles barking up his tree in his CONCLUSIONS as opposed to the obligatory orthodoxy appeasing introductory remarks:

"[Prof. Bauer's book] can be used as a mirror for some of the major failings of HIV epidemiology during the first quarter century of its existence . . . HIV/ AIDS researchers and health workers . . . should take a hard look at the weak quality of evidence supporting the views of HIV propagation appearing in their pages . . . richly documented . . . asking good questions and . . . detailing how 'competent and qualified people who questioned the orthodoxy have been largely excluded from the leading journals' . . . and, consequently, the media . . .Readers should ask the HIV/AIDS establishment, especially the health agencies entrusted with monitoring and intervening in HIV epidemics, why they have settled for evidence from a lesser god when the stakes for getting the picture right are so high. Bauer, Epstein and Chin ought to be thanked for providing us with such a (regretfully unflattering) mirror. Our task ought to be to recognize the serious weaknesses in the available evidence and to insist on rigorous studies that can supply the strong, direct evidence needed for epidemiologic validity".

Gee, Dr. Noble, with this kind of reckless disregard for the truth and/or inability to read plain prose, how can we trust you to read technical papers about inbred mice correctly?

As for your last point about a missing Y axis or whatever, I refer to my previous observation: you'd be so goddam perfect if you would only address the issues - the issue at hand being. . .

"Black Americans in every tested group are HIV-positive about 5 times more often than White Americans, and that has not changed for twenty years."

Posted by: Pope | October 13, 2007 2:18 AM

Of course nobody from the orthodoxy is going to publicize a review saying, "Prof. Bauer is right, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is a mistake". However, the reviewer goes as far as he possibly can without risk of having a gang of AIDStruth poodles barking up his tree in his CONCLUSIONS as opposed to the obligatory orthodoxy appeasing introductory remarks:

Oh, of course. You know what Potterat really thinks. He might say publicly that the evidence Bauer presents is weak, and that Bauer ignores evidence that contradicts his ideas and misrepresents the observations of others but in secret Potterat really thinks Bauer is correct. Who are you trying to fool?

Potterat is hardly holding back on his own ideas about HIV being transmitted predominantly spread by dirty needles in Africa rather than by sexual transmission. He doesn't sound like somebody who is afraid of expressing disagreemen with the consensus.

"Black Americans in every tested group are HIV-positive about 5 times more often than White Americans, and that has not changed for twenty years."

There is a lot of variation in this about 5 times.

The difference in HIV prevalence in different demographic groups is entirely consistent with HIV being a sexually transmitted virus. The conclusions that Bauer tries to draw simply do not follow from the data. Just like Duesberg, Bauer invents his own laws of epidemiology thatbare supposed to describe how a "real" sexually transmitted disease should behave.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 13, 2007 2:59 AM

I've seen the movie. You haven't. Watch it, and then come back and tell me I'm full of shit.

OK, I'll watch the movie asap. But I may not have the opportunity to do so within years, also because I live in France. So, to help me out of my ignorance, can you please tell me how and where to look at those pictures so I can also see the airplane debris and corpses?

Maybe it's a way of looking at things comparable to the hilarious interpretation of that Rodney King beating tape, introduced by the great Bill Hicks:

This guy, Officer Coon--is life too f---in' weird or what?--Officer Coon looks in the camera and actually says: "Oh, that Rodney King beating tape...it's all in how you look at it."

Courtroom murmurs: Jesus, what balls! I've never seen balls of this magnitude! You must have a specially fitted uniform...in which to place these large testicles. "That's incredible. All in how you look at it, Officer...Coon. *ahem*"

"That's right. It's how you LOOK at the tape."

"Well, would you care to tell the court...how you're lookin' at that?"

"Yeah, okay, sure. It's how you look at it...the tape. For instance, well, if you play it backwards, you see us help King up and send him on his way!''

Posted by: jspreen | October 13, 2007 4:30 AM

Haha, Dr Noble, who are YOU trying to fool? Yep, there certainly is variation, like sometimes blacks are 3 times more likely to test positive within a certain demographic, sometimes the are 7 times more like to test postive. What does not vary, however, is that blacks are consistently much more likely to test positive than whites across the demographic spectrum.

Actually, according to Bauer it varies between 1.5 and 14.

The statistics for gonorrhea in the US show a racial disparity between black americans and whites of about 20:1. For some reason that totally escapes me nobody (except perhaps spreen) appear to be arguing that gonorrhea is not a sexually disease. Racial disparity is seen in many sexually transmitted diseases.

Racial Disparities in Nationally Notifiable Diseases --- United States, 2002

The causes for this disparity is not because the tests are somehow rigged. Socioeconomic factors play a large role in determining the demographics of disease prevalence.

I absolutely do not try to pretend that Potterat is a "denialist". That would ruin my point that people representing conscientious mainstream science rather than the Holy Order of AIDStruth Crusaders can fruitfully snf fearlessly try to engage with Prof. Bauer's critique.

I didn't claim that you did. Your contention was that Potterat was afraid to support Bauer because he feared reprisal from the evil orthodoxy. This is totally at odds with his publicly stated disagreements with the consensus opinion. While Potterat does not deny that HIV exists and causes AIDS he is hardly representative of the "orthodoxy".

You keep on trying to spin Potterat's review of Bauer's book as being positive. It isn't.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 13, 2007 4:53 AM

That Native Americans are closer to whites than to blacks also points to a physical cause and not a socioeconomic or behavioral one.

The rate of gonorrhea in native americans (96.1/100,000) is closer to that in whites (23.6/100,000) than blacks (570.4/100,000).

The rate of syphilis in native americans (2.3/100,000) is closer to that in whites (1.1/100,000) than blacks (9.4/100,000).

Does that mean that gonorrhea and syphilis aren't sexually transmitted diseases?

Why isn't Bauer going on about the "regularities" in the prevalence of gonorrhea and syphilis?

There are differences between urban and rural regions which have nothing to do with some hypothetical genetic polymorphisms that supposedly make people test positive on tests for HIV antibodies,antigens,DNA and RNA. Or are white males in rural America genetically different to white males in urban America?

Bauer ignores data that refutes his theory. The evidence that he does provide is completely underwhelming.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 13, 2007 6:04 AM

Dear Prof. Moore,

Thanks for the clarification of your position on alternative medicines.

Could you define what is really a denialist, is it only the scientist who say "IV is not the cause of AIDS", or is it also the people who thinks that HAART is dangerous but who either accept that HIV is the cause of AIDS or is it the people who thinks that HAART is dangerous but does not know what causes AIDS.

In the first group we would have the famous Perth Group/ Duesberg and friends while in the second we would have Stephen Martin and Mathias Rath while in the third I could see Cooler or Noreen.

It looks to me clear that both Stephen Martin and Mathias Rath are in the same group are they both accept HIV as the cause of AIDS but are looking to promote FDA non-accepted systems of treatment.

Posted by: Braganza | October 13, 2007 6:36 AM

Dear Chris/ Prof. Moore,

What matters to me is that dealings with each subgroup should be different.

I dont think you should mistreat the subgroup of Cooler/Noreen, but deal with the fear of toxicity (justified or not) of the drugs.

Calling them denialists / deniosors/ whatever/
and treatening to crush them would not help in having fruitfull dialogue with them, but would only polarize the discussion.

One way of dealing with the question of toxicity, is to show that less toxic drugs or drugs systems are being developed.

Posted by: Braganza | October 13, 2007 7:36 AM

Actually, I am in another group. I DON'T believe that HIV causes AIDS. I do believe that the meds may help when someone is deathly ill and is being attached by numerous viruses/diseases as they did in my case. That being said, I do not believe that they should be a long-term fix for health. The doctors could use them when the person has symptoms and then ween the patient off of them when the patient has restored one's health. At the same time, the patient could be given an immune enhancing drug such as LDN and I feel that this scenario would be a win/win for everyone.

Posted by: noreen Martin | October 13, 2007 8:40 AM

Instead of cooler I wanted to say carter. carter also paste things, but never is speaking of personal experiences, nobody knows why he (she) is really doing that, except that he (she) is scary of secondary effects of drugs.

does carter have a personal story to say ? something like " a friend had a major problem with liver" ?

Posted by: Braganza | October 13, 2007 9:56 AM

Noreen,

I would like to thank you for bringing the discussion on LDN.

It looks to me that Franklin made a major mistake in his analysis of the potential of the treatment, because he didnt realize that the first communication from Dr. Bihari was referent to a process to be develloped.

At the begining of a devellopment of either a product or a process nothing is perfect.

It is true, as Franklin said, that in the 1988 reported experiment, 44.7% of the patients died, BUT at this time the amount of LDN was only 1.75 mg per day. I guess that mortality would fell and benefits increase as he also increased the LDN to 3.5-4 mg/day, and am waiting to see the results of the present major trial.

However for me the most interesting question is that Bihari managed to show that if when HIV+ decreased the (virus) induced alpha IFN to values of 8 i.u., HIV+ mortality was hudgely decreased.

This first study and some theoretical explanation can be seen at:

http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.org/ldn_aids_1988.pdf

I cannot find any more recent study that suggest that the indicated results were misleading. Subsequent studies performed by others show that LDN indeed reduce alpha-IFN.

This show that :

a) Noreen may well be safe, if she has her alpha IFN lower than the above indicated value, AND THIS without putting her liver/kidney/etc.. in danger as it would be if she was on HAART.

b) The technology may be improved by looking to others ways to modulate the immune system and may have wide interest for others HIV+ people, mainly the ones not using HAART but that dont want to see the fall of their CD4.

Thank you very much and keep me informed on the LDN conference,

Posted by: Braganza | October 13, 2007 10:41 AM

Meant to say, antiretrovirals, I am sometimes dyslexic.

Posted by: noreen | October 13, 2007 10:47 AM

Noreen,

You said

I think what puzzles me the most about the HIV theory is that it should be 50% males vs. 50% female in the states. Nevertheless, actual AIDS cases are still predominately in the male population in America.

Sorry I was sleeping, I wanted to say that AIDS cases may predominantly in the male (homosexual) population because this is were is the virus. Could this be correct ?

Posted by: Braganza | October 13, 2007 11:39 AM

Yes, that is correct. Yet, the military recruits for entering into the military, test 50% male to 50% female for HIV. If HIV causes AIDS, then the AIDS cases should not be lop-sided, yet they are. Yes, according to the CDC's statistics, it is broken down by sexual preference. I believe this information comes from reports across the U.S., health departments, etc.

Posted by: noreen | October 13, 2007 1:24 PM

Braganza,

I have not argued that there is no basis for saying that naltrexone has immunomodulatory activity. I just stated that there is no evidence that LDN is an effective therapy for AIDS patients. These two statements are very different.

In the work of Bihari to which you referred, all of the patients received LDN and 45% of the patients died. Not a great track record.

This is the work in which Bihari looked at alpha-interferon levels. 61% of the patients showed a drop in alpha-interferon, and 39% of the patients showed no significant change in alpha-interferon. All of these patients received LDN--the ones with no change in alpha-interferon as well as the ones with a decrease in alpha-interferon.

There is no reason to assume that the drop in alpha-interferon in a subset of the patients is related to LDN, just as there is no reason to assume that the continued high levels of alpha-interferon in the rest of patients is due to LDN.

The other studies that you referred to about alpha-interefron and naltrexone are not relevant. One shows that naltrexone can counteract the side effects of alpha-interferon treatments for hematological malignancies. This result in no way suggests that naltrexone will lower secretion of alpha- interferon in AIDS patients (Bihari's model), it only suggests that in the presence of pharmacologic doses of alpha-interferon, naltrexone reduces some of the side effects.

The other study suggests that alpha-interferon can act as an agonist of certain opioid receptors. This result is irrelevant to the question of whether LDN is an effective therapy in AIDS patients.

Bihari has provided no evidence that LDN is an effective therapy for AIDS.

Posted by: franklin | October 13, 2007 2:54 PM

Jim wrote:

Cooler do you ever read anything newer than mid-1990's? You do realize that HIV research didn't end then don't you? Update yourself and stop mindlessly toting quotes from people that are decades old. The answer to the quote you post is old enough that I learned it in my general immunology and virology classes.

cooler replied:

nothing changed since 1990, they were called charlatans then and still are by the small cadre of drug company hacks.

You just don't want to believe it, eh?

You dont know anybody anywhere, youre just a militant geek that couldnt get laid to save your life. LOL

And being a militant geek makes him wrong? How does that work?

I am truly in awe of the amazing critical thinking skills of your towering intellect, cooler.

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

jspreen:

David Marjanović, I can't get enough of this phrase, you know. To me it represents to core of all stubborn clinging onto an interpretation of reality because if things weren't like that, the world would fall apart.

No world would fall apart for me. I do not think the Busheviki are morally above blowing up the WTC. (Keyword: WMD.) They just happen not to have done it.

Can you explain your use of the verb MUST, please?

Sure. You implied there was no plane. But we have photos of plane fragments and corpses all around the impact site, inside and outside the building. It follows that there was a plane. In short: you're wrong.

It goes without saying that I know President MORON was warned by the CIA in July 2001 that Bin Laden would try to send someone to hijack planes and fly them into important buildings. This is criminal negligence at best. But, no, the Pentagon really was hit by a plane, and no, the assumption the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolitions is completely unnecessary.

So, to help me out of my ignorance, can you please tell me how and where to look at those pictures so I can also see the airplane debris and corpses?

These were all taken from far away. Just wait for the movie. If you're in France, you should get arte, perhaps they'll send it again.

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

cooler again:

Why are you so obsessed with "denialists". People are not stupid, If a group of people claimed the moon was made of cheese, do you think astrophysicists would start a group called "moontruth", this is not the way experts respond to absurd arguments, they realize that they are laughable and wouldnt care about it.

1. The other way around: you folks are obsessed with this blog.
2. People have tried laughing. It doesn't seem to work. Look at the evolution denialists in the USA.
3. There is, in fact, a site that debunks the "the 1st moon landing was a hoax" myth, another that debunks astrology, and another that debunks the face on Mars. There is also one that debunks the many different versions of Global Warming denial.

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

Oh, of course. You know what Potterat really thinks. He might say publicly that the evidence Bauer presents is weak, and that Bauer ignores evidence that contradicts his ideas and misrepresents the observations of others but in secret Potterat really thinks Bauer is correct. Who are you trying to fool?

To be fair, he could fool every single cre_ti_nist quote-miner. Because that's what he did, quote-mining.

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

Pope quoting Bauer:

Abstract -- Racial ancestry influences the frequency of positive HIV-tests, F(HIV), as an independent variable. In every occupational, social, or other group tested in the United States, at all ages and for both sexes, F(HIV) increases in the order Asian -> white -> Native American -> Hispanic -> black. Data from South Africa display a similar sequence, white/Asian-Indian -> Colored -> black.

Hmmmmm. Why does the gradient go from richest to poorest both times? Could it be that race is (like elsewhere) a red herring?

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

And finally, let me quote myself.

Now, back to the topic. Won't a single of you "rethinkers" answer my questions on which of the proposed factors exist, are necessary, and are sufficient?

<crickets>

<tumbleweed>

Hello? Anyone at home?

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 13, 2007 4:32 PM

My sympathy is with the dead girl who was never given the chance to grow up to make her own informed decisions about how to live her life
writes John Moore, thus trying to convince people suffering from Aids to take their daily AZT dose, as we can read some lines beneath his declaration of sympathy:
considering that the use of AZT during that pregnancy would most probably have saved Eliza Jane Scovill from the HIV infection that led to her death from AIDS

Since only newborn babies do not yet know that AZT is a very toxic chemical, only the mentally disturbed do not immediately understand that Mr Moore would be nothing but a vulgar drug-pusher, weren't it for the fact that John Pee Moore is the same person as professor John P. Moore. Which means that his drug-pushing is not vulgar at all but a legal activity covered by the holy flag of science.

Well, what the heck. Whether AZT is a deadly poison or not, opinions seems to differ and don't want to get into that everlasting fight again. But there's one thing in Pee Moore's writings that clearly shows us that the man may belong to the group of people, refered to above, who do not immediately understand the evidence.

to grow up to make her own informed decisions about how to live her life

What's do you babble there, John? One's own informed decisions. Can you please describe me what I should understand there? I mean, the phrase is written by a scumbag who not only pretends, by pushing his drugs, that he cares more about the well being of a little girl than the little girl's mother herself, but who also, to top it all, repeatedly rattles nonsense about a war against people who dare say drugs may be bad for one's health. By a man who would like to wipe the heritics from the face of the earth. How can one possibly take one's own informed decision if a guy with a gun starts to shoot each time a person reaches a conclusion he doesn't agree with? Can you explain that to me, please, prof Moore?

And you dare to write something like ...My sympathy is with ...? Cut out the shit John. Be a man, show that you do have some balls in your pants and write what you really think: My sympathy is with all those who push the killer drugs and who, due to the damned Aids Denialists, are never given the opportunity to push in peace.

I've always thought that professors and the like were highly gifted people who have passed plenty very difficult exams before they got their title. But when I read your poor writings, Mr Moore, I cannot get around the idea that money and/or obedience, or whatever else, might perform the job of getting within reach of being called professor, each time cleverness is running short.

Posted by: jspreen | October 13, 2007 6:03 PM

Whether AZT is a deadly poison or not

As everyone except you has known since Paracelsus (16th century), that depends on the dose.

AZT is certainly brutal. It switches DNA replication off. When you're infected with HIV, by far most of your DNA replication is replication of the virus genome, so this gets hit first and hardest. This is where the impressive success of AZT comes from: as long as you take it, you are virus-free and don't progress to AIDS. Of course, DNA replication happens elsewhere in the body, too -- wherever cell division happens, such as in the liver and the skin. This is where the side effects come from. AZT is very effective, although it's not very efficient.

Question to those in the know: How commonly is AZT used nowadays, as opposed to much more "surgical strikes" like integrase inhibitor?

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 13, 2007 6:57 PM

"I've tried so many times but I can't, really. Arguing with these people is like shooting fish in a barrel, you know, I just love it"

Except you've never EVER come close to remotely disproving anything discussed on this site. So far all I've learned from you that breast cancer is caused by bad emotions a few months before diagnosis. When pressed for further disucssion you either ignored questions or gave hand waving, question dodging responses about starting at "the beginning of the path." Shooting fish in a barrel? Please, jspreen, you've done nonthing of the sort and are truely delusional and in need of professional help if you truly think that is the case.

"True enough, a discussion with clever people is infinitely more interesting"

You mean a conversation with people who agree (I have trouble believing there are too many more who think like you) makes you feel rightous in your opinions. However, rightousness does not come from approval from like minded individuals, but from a successful defense of ones positions by those who disagree, something you denialists have yet to achieve.

Posted by: Jim | October 13, 2007 8:26 PM

Hello David.

You pointed out some of the problems with AZT. You are correct that one of the major ones is that it inhibits cellular division and that both the skin and the liver rely on cell division. But consider this: Other places in the body that rely on rapid cell division are in the intestines and in the bone marrow. Hence food is not digested well which contributes to and even causes what is called "AIDS wasting". The immune system cells that are created in bone marrow also are not generated at peak performance thusly contributing to the destruction of the immune system itself.

Though there are some HIV docs who will not prescribe it, as the name itself has a bad rap in the HIV diagnosed community, and among some of the docs, there are still many docs who do prescribe it or prescribe other combo drugs that have AZT in them. AZT had been renamed and many "patients" do not even know they are taking it. It is also called Retrovir and Zidovudine. It is still in some of the triple drug "cocktail" drugs and is also still given to many patients, though in two thirds lesser dosage than the ghastly days of 1987 to 1995. The younger the individual, usually the more they can tolerate this. The older they get and the longer they have been on it, the less the liver is able to process the drugs, which seems to lead to most of the HIV deaths by liver failure.

The patients given this stuff longterm often end up needing what is now termed "salvage therapy" drugs. The salvage therapy drugs are also quite toxic.

Note also that many are diagnosed eventually with hep C. Hep C, just like HIV, does not pass Kochs postulates. Note that health care workers do not get hep C from needle sticks or from contact with patients. Hep C is only hitting those whose livers are screwed up from drugs, alcohol, or toxic meds. Hep C seems to me to be perhaps another imaginary virus, whose tests are simply finding markers of a screwed up dying liver that is caused by toxicities, not from anything viral. Or perhaps it is a mere correlation to liver failures, and not a cause.

Though certainly a liver on decline is far more likely to harbor many pathogens than a healthy nontoxed liver.

A recent event brought this clearly to my attention. A friend of mine whom I have known for about 4 years, has been long term taking AIDS drugs and was recently diagnosed as Hep C after a serious bout with jaundice, though he has not even had sexual contact with anyone for years. So how did he suddenly acquire the very difficult to transfer Hep C virus?

But big pharma and its champions such as those gainfully employed in finding drugs for viruses, have no intention of ever finding out. The well connected to pharma virologists and the HIV and Hep C researchers who are associated with HIV/Hep C research and drug grants to support big pharma have no intention of finding they are way off track. Chiron makes quite a bundle from the sale of hep C tests, and others as well from the supposed treatments for Hep C, which cost tens of thousands per patient.

Back to AZT and the other AIDS treatments:

It is unfortunate that even after 25 years of AIDS supposedly being such a top priority, there is still no FDA tracking, nor national database of any of these fast tracked drugs that are given, nor of what the long term health effects overall have been. Therefore, all of the docs themselves are still totally in the dark as to what causes what or results in life or death.

One of the FDA stipulations of allowing fast tracked drugs is that the manufacturers promise to do long term studies. These studies have yet to have been carried out with any of the HIV drugs. The "fast track" system continues to be quite broken and unsalvageable.

http://www.newstarget.com/008363.html

A recent congressional report calls the Food and Drug Administration's fast-track drug approval process "broken." The study says drug companies have used the fast-track process to get quick approval for drugs to treat life-threatening illnesses and failed to follow through with additional, full studies after the drug's release. Since the fast-track program's inception in 1992, 91 drugs have gained approval using the fast process. Forty-one companies with fast-approved products have not completed additional testing, and 21 of those have not started the testing process yet. Experts say this is unsafe for the public, which is unaware the products they are taking may still be in the testing process. The FDA says because its recall rate has not increased since the fast-track program's introduction, there is no reason to believe the system should change.

Posted by: Michael | October 13, 2007 8:59 PM

jspreen, micheal, carter, forget these losers, we should stop using this blog, if we really want to talk to intelligent people, talk to professers not tied to the AIds industry, use facebook as well, the people on facebook are much more intelligent and well rounded then these deranged rejects that think its impossible for the governemnt to lie to them and are hated by everyone they meet.

One of the signature characteristics of the type of delusional thinking that we refer to as "denialism" is conspiratorial thinking. To rationalize the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with them, denialists are compelled to impute ignoble, usually pecuniary, motives to those who persist in pointing out the irrational nature of their obsession. So it is worth reminding you all where we are. This is Tara's blog. Tara is an epidemiologist. Her particular expertise is in identifying the causes of disease, and she is not personally involved in HIV research or treatment. Orac, who also blogs in opposition to HIV denialism, is a surgical oncologist. Not much HIV-related money in that. For the record, I am a neuroscientist, and I am not involved in HIV/AIDS research or treatment. I believe that Chris Noble is a statistician. Not much AIDS money in that, either.

So why do we bother to argue about it? Getting back to the topic of this thread, many of us do remember what it was like before ARV therapy. We remember when our friends were dying miserable, protracted deaths from AIDS. We saw the fall in AIDS deaths that followed the introduction of ARV therapy. And we find it disturbing to see people spreading misinformation that if believed could condemn others, unnecessarily, to that kind of lingering death.

And as for the people involved in what HIV denialists like to call the "AIDS industry," I've known some of those people. And whatever you may believe about HIV, I can tell you that the people actually doing HIV research do believe that they are working with an incurable infectious agent, where one slip or moment of inattention could mean a lifetime of taking (on a rigid schedule) ARV drugs that are not curative, and (as denialists love to remind us) are not without side effects or hazards, with the alternative being a miserable death from AIDS. Not to mention putting a major crimp in their sex lives. You may not believe this, but they do--and they choose to work with it anyway. HIV is far from the only research direction that a scientist could choose--there are many other topics that will bring in the grant funds and that do not require working with infectious agents. Most of the people that I've met who do HIV research chose that direction because they saw it as the way to apply their skills to help the most people. These are heroes, folks. And whether you agree with them or not, they are deserving of a certain level of respect.

Posted by: trrll | October 13, 2007 10:28 PM

Noreen writes:

"Franklin, if LDN helps me to maintain my health, then what's the problem? AIDS persons die from O.I.'s not HIV nor AIDS."

If you beleive that your immune system does not function normally, then it makes perfect sense to take medications that can prevent opportunistic infections.

However, there is no evidence that the medication you have chosen to take, Low Dose Naltrexone, is effective in preventing opportunistic infections in people with AIDS.

Furthermore, given that while you have been on LDN, your CD4 T-cell counts have progressively declined, there is no reason to think that LDN has been effective in maintaining your immune function.

You seem to place a lot of weight on the work of Dr. Bihari, yet the very results from Dr. Bihari to which you directed us included a discussion of patients whose CD4 counts had dropped despite LDN. When Bihari gave these patients 3TC and AZT he found that they had dramatic increases in their CD4 cell counts. He seemed to think this was a good thing.

Amazing, but true.

You might consider sending an email to Bihari to see if he beleives LDN is doing enough on its own to maintain your immune function. He seems to place a little more weight on CD4 Cell counts than you do, and he's your recognized expert in LDN.

Posted by: franklin | October 13, 2007 11:37 PM

What was the name of the guy who countermanded Semmelweiss's suggestion that physicians in the hospital wash their hands?

We need an award named after that fool, to be given out probably monthly, to the person who best exemplifies such blindness in the face of evidence, in AIDS denial.

Or maybe just call it the "Bagdad Bob" award. "What disease? What virus? We have you all surrounded! Saddam's counterattack will wipe AIDS from the face of the Earth by exposing it as lies by [Roswell aliens /the Cardiff Giant / Ludd / the bathtub Millard Fillmore installed at the White House / the six million people who were thought killed by the Nazi death machine but who were really just away for the season in St. Tropez / Judge Crater / Bigfoot / Nessie / take your pick]."

Posted by: Ed Darrell | October 14, 2007 1:47 AM

Correction, have LOW CD4's and be extremely healthy?

Posted by: noreen | October 14, 2007 1:50 AM

Healthy people take supplements, etc. to maintain health.

Only if they are paranoid/into woo or live in unusual conditions.

It is unfortunate that even after 25 years of AIDS supposedly being such a top priority, there is still no FDA tracking, nor national database of any of these fast tracked drugs that are given, nor of what the long term health effects overall have been. Therefore, all of the docs themselves are still totally in the dark as to what causes what or results in life or death.

All of the docs worldwide depend on the FDA of the USA? Methinks not.

Regarding your other points -- you're of course right about cell division being necessary in gut and bone marrow, but if AZT alone is to blame for AIDS wasting and liver failure, why did such things occur in AIDS patients before AZT was invented? And why do millions of people who can't afford AZT die from AIDS every year?

Again, AZT is brutal, but still, a lower dose is needed to knock the HIV out than to knock you out. Don't you think?

Regarding Koch's postulates, the HI virus fulfills them, except probably the second -- is it possible to make a pure culture of CD4+ cells? If not, it is automatically impossible to grow HIV in pure culture.

T made this statement in reference to why scientists seeking funding would pursue HIV since there is no money for the disease from Africans. But T is blind to many facts. Hundreds, if not thousands of HIV researchers have been quite well paid for their time and studies and grant projects and pharma drug projects in Africa.

I don't understand what you even mean by "paid". Sure, a salary and tenure are nice, but if you want to get rich, get another job. Grants go to labs for specific purposes. They are not the private property of any researcher. You can't buy a yacht from a grant, no matter how large the grant is.

Might it be that you have never seen a university lab/office from the inside?

Ed Darrell about cooler:

Have you even bothered to read the journals?

Of course not. He already knows everything. Learning is for losers!

Correction, have LOW CD4's and be extremely healthy?

Freudian slip, eh? ;-) Maybe you have just successfully avoided infections, or at least infections against which you don't already have antibodies. Be careful not to cut yourself too often or to travel too far.

CAn you give the paper that was designed confirm/ falsify the theory hiv positive people with no other risk factors such as AZT, severe mental illness, mycoplasmas, severe drug abuse die any quicker than hiv negative matched controls since most animals like chimps dont get AIDS?

Go get swine fever.

Hint: you can't.

I also note that you simply deny the fact that millions of people die every year in poor countries around the world. No AZT, no fictitious mycoplasmata, no drugs, no mental illness. The mental illness part must be projection.

0.4 Timecubes at least. What do you people think?

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 14, 2007 7:02 AM

I saw Magic Johnson's picture in the paper the other day, and had to catch myself: "He's still alive???" I remember back in 1991 or thereabouts that he came public as HIV-positive.

I had at least three of my junior high and high school teachers die (after I'd left the school) from AIDS; I was in high school 1986-1990. There was a time when learning that you had AIDS meant that you had at best several years left to live. It's boggling to me that people don't remember that.

Posted by: Rob Knop | October 14, 2007 8:32 AM

David, with all of my negative, health issues from the past, I am not "luckily" avoiding infections. Someone on the mainstream side, please explain to us why HIV has become dormant in my body. Afterall, I do have all of the criteria that most of you consider so important to AIDS, meaning high viral load and extremely low CD4's. Someone explain this math as we are all waiting to hear.

Posted by: noreen | October 14, 2007 8:51 AM

So far all I've learned from you that breast cancer is caused by bad emotions a few months before diagnosis. When pressed for further disucssion you either ignored questions or gave hand waving, question dodging responses about starting at "the beginning of the path."

Well, I'm very happy to know now that you have at least learned that from me. But, talking about being pressed for further discussion, I do not remember having read, anywhere on this blog, a message coming within miles of the smallest interest in digging a bit deeper. As soon as I dare write the of name Ryke Geerd Hamer, rotten eggs and tomatos are fired in my direction. Which made me decide, years ago, to fire back, not with tomatos or rotten eggs, but with humor and ... what would you call it... common sense statements maybe.

Anyway, you want to know more? Then, if you're willing to start from the beginning and to hear me out, I have some fabulous ideas for you.
Well, no, that's not a way to proceed. Maybe you should try to read this first and, if you appreciated what you read, we can go further from there.

Posted by: jspreen | October 14, 2007 11:20 AM

noreen wrote Someone on the mainstream side, please explain to us why HIV has become dormant in my body. Afterall, I do have all of the criteria that most of you consider so important to AIDS, meaning high viral load and extremely low CD4's. Someone explain this math as we are all waiting to hear.

noreen, probability is not the same as certainty. What the medical literature says is that HIV seropositive individuals with high viral loads and low CD4s are at higher risk for certain opportunistic infections than are seropositive individuals with low viral loads and high CD4s. "Higher risk" and "lower risk" are probabilities that apply to populations which means that among a large group of HIV+ individuals with high viral loads and low CD4 counts, more of them are likely to develop AIDS related opportunistic infections than among a similar sized group of individuals with high CD4s and low viral counts. But within both groups there will be healthy people, people with AIDS related infections and people who die.

Posted by: Dale | October 14, 2007 4:11 PM

Its called thought control, Orwell talked alot about how dumb many experts can be in how they mindlessly except authority. You guys are such morons its not funny, you guys do not represent the consensus at all, you guys are the people in those psychology studies, where the man in a white coat kept saying press the button, and in response, you heard loud screaming, you would continue to keep pushing bc you are obsequious to certain forms of authority.

Duesberg, maniotis, shyh ching lo, strohman, mullis, etc are just more intelligent and can think independently, they would not mindlessly press the button just bc some authority figure said so. Thats why you cowards would never debate them, bc youd get blown away. You guys are not fit to shine their shoes.

And once again, cooler proves the point of this thread--that the denialists have no recollection of history. But some of us did not come to the party as late as cooler did, and some of us still remember how it started. We remember when AIDS was a mysterious cluster of opportunistic illnesses among homosexuals, when Gallo was nobody special, and when the authority...was Peter Duesberg.

So how did things turn around so completely that even people like cooler now think of Gallo as the establishment, while Duesberg is thought of as a senile crackpot by pretty much everybody except a handful of followers?

What happened, of course, is that the results of people like Gallo and Montagnier were confirmed and extended in hundreds of independent laboratories, while Duesberg's theories were not. What happened is that the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches predicated on discoveries made in the laboratories of Gallo and Montagnier turned out to work, as judged by the ultimate jury--the physicians and health care workers treating AIDS patients. Whereas the clinics once were packed with AIDS patients with only a year or two to live--and not good years, at that--today the classic presentation of full-blown AIDS is uncommon, and it has been transformed into a chronic illness that can be managed to yield many good years of life and relative health.

Posted by: trrll | October 14, 2007 5:09 PM

Franklin,

Thanks for looking to my post, and for pointing some irrelevant studies and underlying preliminary studies with poor outcome. But do you agree that these were just the first step in a research ?

Just to go a little bit further I have made some additional statements :

1.Are the HIV induced the reduction of endorphin/ increase of alpha interferon/ or others cytokines critical parameters in determining likeliness to reach AIDS ?

Bihari seems to think that yes. He strongly suggested that controling alpha interferon to less than 8 i.u. would stop the progression. Unfortunatly nobody has repeated his experiments.

It is accepted that HIV infection is associated in NON-HIV CONTROLERS with a gradual dysfunction of the immune system.
"It is known that HIV controlers maintained potent HIV-specific CD4 responses, T cells (...) preserved IL-2 secretion (...)". "IL-2 secretion was lost in viremic patients." Potter SJ, et al , J Virol. 2007 Oct 10; abstract in PubMed.( there are many more studies and reviews on cytokine patterns in HIV AIDS patients).

I therefore deduce that any drug/mechanism which would help the patient to modulate his immune system to counter-act the negative cytokine evolution induced by HIV could allow normal HIV+ to be an HIV controler.

2. Is there any information (independent of Bihari work) suggesting that alpha-IFN or a range of others cytokines relevant to HIV/AIDS pathogenesis, can be modulated by an increase of endorphins and that these can be manipulated by LDN ?

Endorphin levels in autoimmune diseases- Sacerdote measured low beta-endorphin levels in two animal examples of autoimmune disease -- a mouse strain with a lupus-like syndrome and a strain of chicken with an autoimmune thyroiditis. In each case, the low levels of beta-endorphin were found well before the expression of autoimmune disease. This indicate a role for endorphins in regulating immune responses and suggests a therapeutic pathway. Sacerdote P, Lechner O, Sidman C, et al. Hypothalamic beta-endorphin concentrations are decreased in animals models of autoimmune disease. J Neuroimmunol. 1999;97(1-2):129-33.

Endorphins have been reported to stimulate the immune system. Information is quite old, can be seen at United States Patent 4537878

Endorphins can be modulated by LDN. A lot of animal studies by Zalgon (I didnt copy all available references, but you can find them in PUBMED), additional studies in vivo (previously posted) on MS and Crohn diseases.

One unfortunate limitation in Bihari first published study was to measure only HIV-induced alpha interferon, and not all relevant cytokines involved in AIDS.

It is obvious that the action of LDN on HIV+ should also be seen as the action on other cytokines, like IL-2, which is a known marker in HIV infection, and is also found depressed in others conditions coincidently treated with LDN (reumathoid arthritis, MS, Crohn disease)

For info on IL2 in these diseases, see for example:

Kogure T, Niizawa A, Hai LX, Fujinaga H, Shimada Y, Ochiai H, Terasawa K Ann Rheum Dis. 2001 Feb;60(2):166-9. Effect of interleukin 2 on killer cell inhibitory receptors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis;
Lopez E, Racadot E, Bataillard M, Berger E, Rumbach L.Autoimmunity. 1999;29(2):87-92. Interferon gamma, IL2, IL4, IL10 and TNFalpha secretions in multiple sclerosis patients treated with an anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody

interleukin-2 scintigraphy for in vivo assessment of intestinal mononuclear cell infiltration in Crohn's disease.Signore A, Chianelli M, Annovazzi A, Bonanno E, Spagnoli LG, Pozzilli P, Pallone F, Biancone L.J Nucl Med. 2000 Feb;41(2):242-9

3.Conclusions

I understand that there are data that suggest that LDN can modulate the immune system. These has been now proven "in vivo" with a range of autoimmune diseases with cytokine paterns similar to AIDS, HOWEVER I AGREE THAT FURTHER EVIDENCE IS NEEDED TO ENDORSE THE LDN NOVEL AIDS TREATMENT, as there is only anecdotical evidence of the success of the 3.5-4 mg/day. This would be the reason for the trial in Mali.

I understand that Noreen cannot wait for the results of the trial and rely on the above indicated anecdotical evidence. This evidence is not against basic HIV science- as I understand it, and it the absence of contrary evidence, it cannot be dismissed as a quakery.

Modulation may provide a route to transform normal HIV+ in HIV controllers.

The fact that :
"(..) Cytokine production was 3 times higher in controllers than in HAART-treated patients with undetectable viral load, suggesting an intrinsically more efficient response in the former group.(..)" indicated in the above cited Potter study, and the potential of endorphine modulation by LDN is also an indication that, upon more research, HAART patients may benefit from LDN or others immune modulators to be found.

Posted by: Braganza | October 14, 2007 5:54 PM

Go away John, youre whole premise is to protect the public from views from academics because they are many people who might beleive them, people that you believe are stupid.

So your dedicating your career to protect people who you see as "gullible" aka stupid from beleiveing them. Keep in mind most of the people I know that think more research is needed in the hiv field have advanced degrees and would easily outscore you on any IQ test.

Who are you to tell people they are stupid for beleiving something, and not allowing people to hear these views from many prominent scientists? People are not stupid John, and many intelligent people realize its a sham and that the gig is up once word gets out, stop patronizing the general population, and let people make descions based on informed consent, even if that information comes from scientists who teach at universities.

Give it up, you tried to get Darin Brown Fired, you failed, you tried to get Culshaw fired you failed, they are not firing these professors because these schools know the hiv industry is out of control and these scientists have valid arguments. Stop making a fool of yourself, a good scientific argument can stand public scrutiny and open debate, especially when the science is so simple (kochs postulates) and the conflicts of interest are so obvious( Gallo announcing to the world before publishing, patenting tests the same day.) Nobody would believe an absurd argument like eating 20 pizzas a day is good for you, thats why youre so scared and need to try and get anyone fired that doesnt agree with you and your drug company hack pals. Not to protect stupid people from hearing an argument they might beleive, but to deny intelligent people to hear an argument that is more logical. Maybe hiv does cause AIDS, but I dont need gatekeepers telling me what my professors I can learn from.

You are youre own worst enemy, get a life. I have every right to hear Culshaw's/Duesbergs argument and your argument and make choices based on my own health.

Posted by: cooler | October 14, 2007 6:36 PM

Dr. Moore,

Realistically speaking, I would think that such an endeavor to stop dissident academics may be akin to sweeping the ocean back with a broom, in that the more you sweep away, the more turn up to take their place. After all, the dissident issue has spread quite far from the handful of original dissenters. Nonetheless, I do commend you for your herculean efforts to turn this tide.

Also, I realize this is the farthest thing from your own mind, but what if you actually have been mistaken about HIV being the cause of AIDS? What if it turned out that the dissidents were correct in that HIV was not the causative factor? What if it were proven and verified tomorrow?

After having been one of the most public and most vocal of HIV researchers against Duesberg et al, what would you then do and what would you say?

Posted by: Hajjar | October 14, 2007 8:32 PM

Dear John,

You said, "Given the muticiplicity of drugs now available, and the accumulated experience of prescribing physicians, it's almost always possible nowadays to identify a therapeutic regimen that an HIV-infected person can tolerate."

So tell me, please if you would, how is that identified, determined nowadays? I mean now after the study in which Rodriguez, et al. PMID: 17003398 "Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons." Is there some newfangled reasons that we should follow or believe your deadly toxic intervention regimes?

Posted by: carter | October 14, 2007 10:18 PM

Carter, the paper by Rodriguez et al does not and cannot support the bizarre interpretations made by you and other denialists.

What our work means

On another thread you recently copied and pasted quotations from the aras website. These studies have been shown to you to provide extremely good evidence that HAART reduces mortality and morbidity in people infected with HIV.

Why do you continue to make dishonest claims about these and other studies?

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 14, 2007 11:44 PM

This is not correct. In the reference it says, "Encouraging the detoxification of the body through several inexpensive interventions, such as massage therapy, music therapy, yoga, spiritual care, homeopathy, Indian ayurvedic medicine, light therapy and many other methods".

Pope, as usual you can't manage to get anything right.

In the report the passage is prefaced by:The recommendations listed below were proposed as necessary and sufficient to combat all the risk factors that are the real cause of AIDS:

Apparently "detoxification" is supposed to be necessary to "combat all the risk factors that are the real cause of AIDS".

None of the therapies have been proven to have any effect in "detoxification" let alone treating AIDS.

It is ironic that people that argue that HIV has never been isolated promote homeopathy as a treatment for AIDS and those who argue that viral load and CD4+ counts are meaningless think that "detoxification" has any meaning.

While providing clean drinking water to Africans is admirable, charging several dollars for small bottles of homeopathic water with zero active ingredients is despicable.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 15, 2007 1:08 AM

John moore has just admitted that there is no experiment that would falsify his beliefs, therefore admitting his hypothesis unfalsifiable therefore unscientific.

Say for example you followed 20 hiv positive people with no other risk factors, such as AZT, mycoplasmas, severe mental illness and severe drug abuse, a study designed to test gallo's hypothesis (none exist they all had to assume it to be true) and none got AIDS, would that falsify aids apologists beleifs?

If such a study was conducted that didnt already assume hiv was the cause of aids by independent scientists, and the people did get AIDS I would accept the hiv hypothesis.

difference between rethinkers and aids apologists, our theories are falsifiable, therefore scientific, while yours are not.

Kind of sad you dont have one epidemilogical study designed to test the hiv hypothesis, which is what you need when most every animal does not get AIDS. And then you claim questiong hiv is some kind of blasphemy?

Scientists that have questiond the hiv hypothesis at some time
duesberg retroviral expert
kary mullis nobel prize winner
shyh ching lo scientific genius from China brought over to head the armed forces of pathology
margulis NAS member
Walter gilbert nobel prize winner
andrew maniotis harvard trained cancer specialist
many more who are getting sick of moore's intimidation

vs.
john moore
mark wainberg(both recieve heavy funding from drug co's)
and all the people they solicited to sign the "durban declaration" which was sent out like an evite, either the signers had ties to AIDS inc, or they were never told the other side of the story, ie manufactured consent.

Posted by: cooler | October 15, 2007 1:54 AM

John,

The link you provided demonstrates Rodriguez clearly doesn't know. Now I'd like to know from the horses mouth what new and ingenious ways should a person believe they must consume toxic HAART regimes, because Camp Team Virus says one thing and Rodriguez says another. Answer the question please and stop skirting around the issue.

"Twenty-five years after AIDS was first recognized, we have made enormous scientific and medical progress in learning about this disease and how to treat it, but great uncertainty still remains about how HIV infection causes the progressive immune deficiency that results in AIDS.

So to our view, the key important question to ask now is how does HIV infection result in the systemic immune activation that drives CD4 T cell losses? We think that this will soon be illuminated. Stay tuned.

Levels of HIV in blood explain only a small portion of the variability in the rate at which CD4 T cells are lost. Therefore:
a. For any one HIV infected person not receiving antiretroviral therapies it is difficult to predict the rate at which CD4 T cells will be lost.
b. Expanded efforts to identify the other elements that drive CD4 cell losses in chronic HIV infection are needed."

Posted by: Carter | October 15, 2007 2:15 AM

Dear Franklin/ ElkMoutainMan, and all who work in the HIV/AIDS field (with HIV+, low CD4/ high viral load patients),

I just found the following link,

http://www.immun-therapie.net/nahrungserg-bei-aids.pdf

where treatment of AIDS-retroviral naive patients was performed with a botanical rich in oligouronic acid in a nanocarrier.

I would like to know if the results indicated in the Table are plausible, basically a VL >500,000 fell to

In the introduction the authors suggested that the methodology improve the Th1/Th2 balance but they are not measuring it, do you think you can make any comments on the Th1/Th2 balance on the basis of the presented results ?

Can we take the described use of nanocarrier as an useful lead in looking to formulate other materials ?

Thanks in advance for any helpfull interpretation,

Posted by: Braganza | October 15, 2007 6:57 AM

Dear all,

I am providing a translation of the above indicated link, the data from the table can be seen in the original.

I am just providing the translation and not subscribing to any result.
----------------------------------------------------------

Application of a nutritional supplement for AIDS patients

Abstract:

40 AIDS patients with full-blown AIDS (women and men between 19 and 48 years of age) were given for 90 days an oral food supplement from botanicals in nano-carrier, together with oligouronic acid. Measurements were taken on days 12, 45 and 90: body weight, CD4+
count, viral load, the general state of health as well as additional documented disorders.

Two patients died, and two patients declined for unknown reasons to appear for follow-up examinations. On day 90, 28 patients (74% of 38) were over the limits of full-blown AIDS (on grounds of CD4+ cell count and viral load). In all cases, diarrhea resolved and the
bodyweight normalized. In the remaining 10 cases, 8 patients improved in both their health
status, as well as CD4+ and viral load counts. Six months after the start of the trial, 19 patients were well enough to return to normal work.

Materials and Methods:

All 40 patients with symptoms of full-blown AIDS received three tablets daily (each containing 450 mg) from botanicals in nano-carrier. The criteria for AIDS in full stage were used:
CD4+ counts below 200/µl, viral load >500.000 copies/ml (PCR), weight loss under a Body Mass Index of 20. All three criteria were meet. Measurements were taken on days 12, 45 and 90: body weight, CD4+count, viral load, the general state of health as well as additional
documented disorders.

Results:

Patient

Gender
M = Male
W = female

Age in years on exam. day

weight kg

CD4+ cells / µl

PCR HIV-1 Copies / ml

Fever > 38.5 °C

Diarrhea *

Other symptoms **

Health status ***

gestorben = died

ausgescheiden = withdrew from study

* Diarrhea:
+ + +: Very difficult;
+ +: Heavy;
+ Low;
Without ==

** Other symptoms: TB: Tuberculosis
TH: thrush
VI: vaginal infection
CMV: Cytomegalovirus
PCP: Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia
T: toxoplasmosis

*** Health:
+ + +: AIDS in full stage
+ +: HIV infection with severe symptoms
+: With minor HIV infection symptoms
0: Symptom-free

mittelwerte = average [median?]

Discussion

1. Mode of action of the nutritional supplement

AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is not a general immunodeficiency. Full-blown AIDS only involves a blockage of the cellular immunity (TH1 mediated), while the humoral immunity (TH2 mediated) not only remains active, but is often increased (Thomas
1984; Lucy et al. 1996; Klein et al. 1997). The drift from TH1 to TH2 can occur for many reasons. It seems that the redox balance of non-protein thiols plays a key role (Buhl et al. 1989; Eck 1989). It is possible to switch a Th2 reaction back towards a TH1 response by
means of natural COX-2 inhibitors (Gradl 2004).

The use of nanoparticles alone for immune stimulation was published by Pavelic^ et al. 2000, and for use with immunodeficiency by Ivkovic^ et al. 2004. It remains unclear whether it is an antioxidant effect, or a stimulation of macrophages in the lamina propria of the
intestines, or a combination of both effects.

Oligouronic acid in combination with divalent cations can bind to immune cells (Gradl et al. 2000; Mason et al. 2002) and can increase their activity by improving oxygen supply. This combination proved to be very effective in piglets suffering from Th1 immunodeficiency
(post-weaning multi-systemic wasting syndrome).

2. Relationship of this approach to other AIDS Therapies

At present, most AIDS therapies aim to combat HIV. This is a fundamentally one-sided view of the process of infection. Any infectious disease implies a host-parasite relationship. In most
cases the parasite, the Pathogen, plays a subordinate role. For example, leprosy (once widespread in Europe) is caused by the Mycobacterium leprae. However, it is so barely contagious that a nourished person with normal hygiene can work in a leper asylum
without risk of infection. Even in the case of the Spanish flu of 1918, one of the largest pandemics in the last century with approximately 27 million victims, it may be assumed that the virulent virus and high contagiousness exposed 70-80% of the population of central Europe.

Still only 20% become ill, of which only 5% died. For therapy and prophylaxis, the constitution of the afflicted person (based on the immune response) is much more important than the pathogen. This obviously applies also for the mildly-contagious HIV.

3. Conclusion

It was demonstrated that a special nutritional formula for the full- stage AIDS was highly effective. In only 90 days, 74% of the 38 patients were no longer in the full-blown stage of AIDS (based on CD4 + counts and viral load). The diarrhea stopped, and the body weight
normalized. Of the remaining 10 cases, 8 showed improvement in both the health status and lab counts (CD4+ and viral load).

Literature:

Buhl R, Jaffe JA, Holroyd K, Mastrangeli A, et al.: Systemic glutathione deficiency in symptom free HIV seropositive individuals. Lancet 2:1294-1297, 1989

etc....

Posted by: Braganza | October 15, 2007 7:15 AM

He espouses a number of beliefs, all contradicted by scientific inquiry.

Contradicted? What? Where? When? By whom? If those questions are too large, just answer wich scientific inquiry has contradicted Hamer's New Medicine. I bet you will get exactly as far as dear David Marjanović trying to answer this.

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2007 7:48 AM

This is an interesting artilce about treating HIV naturally in India by the Salvation Army:
http://www.awakenedwoman.com/aids_wfsnews.htm

Posted by: noreen | October 15, 2007 8:06 AM

Good morning Prof. Moore,

I have noticed you mention Christine Maggiore and the Eliza-Jane Scovill case at any opportunity you get. I understand you have some important personal concerns regarding this case.

As everybody can satisfy him- or herself by perusing your remarks here and elsewhere, you have staked your professional reputation as a professor and researcher at Weill Medical College on it that Eliza-Jane was HIV positive and that this was the cause of her early death as a result Pneumocystis Carinii Pneumonia (PCP).

In connection with this the Maggiore family doctor, Paul Fleiss, has been under review for gross negligence as documented on your website AIDStruth.org.

The review did not find Dr. Fleiss guilty of gross negligence and these charges had to be dropped. Similar charges against Eliza-Jane's mother, Christine Maggiore, also had to be dropped.

Prof. Moore, why do you not make this clear on your website? Do you accept that both Christine Maggiore and Dr. Fleiss have been cleared of all charges except for a minor matter of record keeping in the latter's case?

Part of the reason no charges could be brought is that it could not be shown from the medical record that Eliza-Jane had been diagnosed with AIDS defining Candidiasis. The charge was trumped up. Do you accept this?

Part of the reason that no charges could be brought was that slides of Eliza-Jane's lungs failed to show any indication of PCP. These slides have in fact been used as negative controls in two legal cases.

Prof. Moore, do you accept this?

The coroner, James K. Ribe, who examined Eliza-Jane post mortem and diagnosed her with AIDS upon learning her mother was HIV positive, has a long history of controversial testimony and have been instrumental in at least one wrongful conviction which was later reversed. He is now himself being charged with criminal neglect.

On your website there are several News Items about Christine Maggiore and D. Fleiss' cases. Why do the charges against Dr. Ribe not figure equally prominently?

Above you state,

Still, the inevitable failure of her lawsuit against the LA Coroner's Office will finally bring "Justice for EJ", and thereby help prevent the deaths of other children placed in similar situations by irresponsible parents and unprofessional physicians.

Can I take your statement as meaning you stake your reputation and that of Weill College on it that Dr. Ribe has never made himself guilty of criminal neglect? What are your reasons for this certainty?

http://www.justiceforej.com/20070827-RibeSuitTrialSet.pdf

http://www.justiceforej.com/ribeflipflops.html

Posted by: Pope | October 15, 2007 10:10 AM

It sounds completely insane actually and I can't see how anything can be done with it in practice. How do you suggest a traumatic event that happens to a parent can affect the child? What is a traumatic event? What do you do if the child has the allergy from birth? Talk the parent through it?

Are you, like cooler/carter, after a single paper that demonstrates that HIV causes AIDS? Or, since your proposed hypothesis lacks any such evidence are you smart enough to not ask for what you cannot give?

Posted by: apy | October 15, 2007 12:13 PM

What is a traumatic event?

Okay, start from the bottom. Say you're very much in love with your girlfriend. Then, one evening, during a cosy dinner, a great bottle of wine, etc., she suddenly tells you she loves someone else and goes away. That's would be some kind of a traumatic event, apy, wouldn't you agree? From there on many reactions are possible, one of which might be the association in your brain of wine and dreadful separation, resulting in an allergy to wine.

And such exactly is the mechanism that causes allergies.

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2007 12:37 PM

Ryke Geerd Hamer was a despicable quack. Evidence? He told the poor girl and her gullible parents the cancer would just encapsulate itself, "turn to cheese" (verkäsen), and go away. It didn't. It kept growing. Prediction falsified.

You just want to believe, don't you?

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 15, 2007 1:14 PM

Scientists that have questiond the hiv hypothesis at some time duesberg retroviral expert kary mullis nobel prize winner shyh ching lo scientific genius from China brought over to head the armed forces of pathology margulis NAS member Walter gilbert nobel prize winner andrew maniotis harvard trained cancer specialist many more who are getting sick of moore's intimidation

cooler, has it never occurred to you that the argument from authority is a logical fallacy?

In order to be the next Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an orthodoxy - you have to be right, too.

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 15, 2007 1:22 PM

Regarding the pentalawn pictures, wait till you see the movie.

So I must ask the same question again. How full of shit are you really, David Marjanović? Since when does watching a movie unveil corpses and plane debris on a photograph which has no such things on it?
I notice also that, as so many others, you find nothing else to do than throw some fistfulls of mud when you see the name Ryke Geerd Hamer on your screen.
Ha, Ha, Ha, the guy wants to be scientific. You seem to ignore that the throwing of mud is not yet classified in the scientific arguments category.

Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2007 3:29 PM

Dear John (Moore),

So good to hear from you indirectly again (I get all of my mail from you forwarded through my deans and chairmen), so it really is a distinct honor to see you are still thinking about my questions (but continue to refuse the 25 G to go to Christine's invitation to sunny California for a simple, and courteous debate. Maybe you should think about her offer before you get up before the next International AIDS conference and make an absolute fool of yourself by stating that AIDS is a disease of too many lympycytes, as in the case of Eliza Jane, and that her mother, who never tested consistently positive is a menace to the world. For shame! I'm quite confident, that if you did engage Christine, or any of us, that you would perhaps be surprised to find that many of the questions we ask are legitimate, and deserve discussion.

To briefly address your slanderous allegations against me, it was the result of merely quoting from at least 8 pieces of documentation regarding the Bethesda-Pasteur collaboration that had been written by others such as Crewdson and Dingell and others. Dr. Gallo corrected this confusing 5 year Dingell-HSS history, for all the good it did in convincing even a single AIDS apologists at my institution I frequently argue with that there was in fact no wrong doing. After Dr. Gallo sent me the material, and after numerous conversations, I apologized to him sincerely, and maintain his version of the correct facts. Since then, I have been reviewing and exploring the nature of the molecular signature found in his 48 of out 119 subjects, but that is another story you might soon hear about.

Despite my in earnest attempts to discuss AIDS science with you more than a year or two ago, only to receive your typical response that AIDS denialists aren't worthy of a response to an email, etc. Dr. Moore, when will you come clean and admit that your "HAIL MARY" experiments in which you described in Toronto smearing microbicides on monkey genitals and inseminating them 3-5 times with "SIV" is nothing more than a complete waste of time and money? Moreover, through your research, and foundation backers, you continue of course to exploit poor people who tend to be African Americans, or Africans, with your microbicide genital smearing campaigns, and as Lawrence Altman rightly recently pointed out, you increase the rates of "infection" in those to whom your genital microbicides are applied. How did you come down on the Tripoli 6, Dr. Moore? Do you agree with Montagnier and want to blame the 426 "infections" on blacks from "subsaharan Africa as well?" Have you heard of institutionalized racism, Dr. Moore?

"It was completely clear scientifically since 2002 that they (the Tripoli 6) were not guilty," said Vittorio Colizzi, a renowned AIDS expert who was invited by the Qaddafi family to study the hospital in Benghazi where the infections took place and was given wide access to wards and medical records. "But the nurses suffered for years from the incapacity of diplomacy and politics to free them in a timely manner."

"He and another expert, Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist whose team discovered HIV, concluded that the AIDS virus was present in the hospital before the nurses arrived, probably brought to Libya by guest workers from countries in sub-Saharan Africa. (In other words, it the fault of the blacks 'from subsaharan Africa', if this quote from Montagnier is accurate)."

We really aren't in a time warp, Dr. Moore, as you claim-the negative reports about the toxicity of medications continue to appear in mainstream journals, and the irresponsible, I'd say criminal wholesale human experimentation your ilk continues to foist on unsuspecting persons continues. For example, your statements about the lack of toxicity about the CCR5, integrase, and other so-called "HIV" inhibitors are countered by recent reports in business magazines that report:

"Some experts said they were a bit cautious about maraviroc, in part because it blocks a human protein instead of a viral one, with possible unknown long-term effects. One CCR5 inhibitor that was being developed by GlaxoSmithKline was dropped because it caused liver toxicity, and a second being developed by Schering-Plough appeared to possibly raise the risk of blood cancers."

Problem with "HIV-integrase," it appears to have no chromatin remodeling activity or have any minor DNA groove-binding activity, according to some of our published work.

Before criticising others for asking questions, you might try to swallow your pride a bit, and explain the failure of the Merck vaccine announced a week or two ago. That brings the failure(s) into the several dozens as far as I'm aware and which is documented on the Congressional Records I have obtained, of completed and reported and completely failed "HIV" vaccine trials that all have failed to evoke humoral, cellular, mucosal immunity, not to mention a failure to activate T-cells because the wrong toxic adjuvants continue to be used. What was so disgustingly downplayed, of course about the recent Merck failure, was not that the control group actually had less seroconversions than the vaccinated group (which is what was reported), but that there was a failure to show seroconversion in the vaccinated group (unless you want to claim of couse that the 21 out of 741 represents seroconversion due to the vaccine and not that it failed to protect more people in the vaccinated group.

What it all means, Dr. Moore, is that although the template for the molecular signatures of "HIV" may derive from common endogenous DNA sequences whose proteins are expressed by normal uninfected yeast, insects, cows, goats, dogs, rhesus monkeys, chimps, mangabeys, and humans independent of T-cell numbers, neither "HIV's proposed 9,150 bp molecular sequence, or its proteins have been isolated or identified without contaminating cellular components as was reported by Bess et al. Gelderblom, and others in 1997. For instance, and as confidence for this interpretation increases, it has been repeatedly shown more than 30 times in "HIV" vaccine trials that antibodies against "HIV" proteins aren't evoked even when the so-called unique and diagnostic "HIV'" antigens are injected directly into the bloodstream of healthy humans (according to "experts," no molecular entity associated with "HIV" sequences, proteins, or glycoproteins such as GP120, has been shown to be immunogenic in humans, perhaps because it is a case of self being challenged by self), and the Merck "HIV" vaccine was only the last utter complete and disappointing failure, not only in preventing acquisition of "HIV," but in the failure to evoke anti-"HIV" antibodies in the 741 volunteers:

"In a major setback, one of the leading experimental AIDS vaccines not only failed to prevent test subjects from becoming infected with HIV, but it didn't offer any indication it might delay the onset of full-blown AIDS, which had been a key hope."

"24 of 741 volunteers who got the vaccine in one segment of the experiment later became infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In a comparison group of volunteers who got dummy shots, 21 of 762 participants also became infected."

"The ultimate fear among researchers is that the whole theory underlying the Merck vaccine might be flawed, which, if true, could doom an entire class of experimental vaccines."

It may be more appropriate to say that the whole theory of "HIV=AIDS" is flawed, because there is no evidence that an exogenous "AIDS virus" has been isolated, and shown to evoke an antibody response in vaccine recipients or cause disease in either an animal model or a human being. Again, I strees that unless one would like to make unfounded assumptions that the 24 of the 741 volunteers that "became infected" in this last of more than 30 failed "HIV" trials actually represents an extremely low rate of seroconversion due to exposure of isolated "HIV" components to the human immune system (24/741), and that these 24 individuals are now immunized against "HIV" instead of having acquired an "HIV" infection, the similar rate of seroconversion in the control group (21/762) suggests that this cannot be the case, and it is more likely, that seroconversion in both groups represents mere testing artifacts.

Hail Mary indeed!

Cheers,

andy
Assitant Research Professor
Director of the Greek Mafia
Special Secret Agent and
Black Helicopter pilot,
Holocaust Denialist,
and Flat Earther

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | October 15, 2007 2:44 PM

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | October 15, 2007 4:16 PM

Ha ha wonder if Andy wants to paste that thing any where else? and he forgot a title too "Supreme Genius Pathologist of the Armed Forces of Pathology"

"Pope" says to Dr. Moore

I have noticed you mention Christine Maggiore and the Eliza-Jane Scovill case at any opportunity you get.

Well "Pope" you a wude wabbit yourself, I said before and Chris noticed it to it's usually deniosauruses like you who talk about EJ first. This threads' the first time I notice someone else gave an example and just in a sentence you make a book out of it yourselves. Very sad she died and too bad her mum didn't let her see responsable doctors. And too bad jerks like you don't leave her and her family alone your always using them for your little personal denialist thing. Maggiores don't care sure because it helps them feel better, their kid died of something kids don't die of any more if they have a good doctor.

Any evidence for this stuff "Pope CJ the Paranoid"? OHH my GAWWD Tara's giving my TAX INFO to the IRS!! I can HERE THE CHOPPERS NOW!!

it could not be shown from the medical record that Eliza-Jane had been diagnosed with AIDS defining Candidiasis. The charge was trumped up.

Were you at the trial PopeyLisa. Did they let off Fleiss with three years probation because of the autopsy. Maybe that's what you like but is it true?

slides of Eliza-Jane's lungs failed to show any indication of PCP. These slides have in fact been used as negative controls in two legal cases

Oh really PopeyLisa? What "legal cases" are those or i guess you just read it somewhere like noreen maybe a "university website". were you at the trial. Did they show slides of lungs and thats how Fleiss "just" got a three yer probation and he has to do standard of care on HIV now. Is that dropping all charges to you ever hear of bargaining?

Sad thing is, all this deniosaurs exhuming bodies doesn't do anything, if EJ died of antibiotic in her Oxcar Meyer lunchables it doesn't say HIVs harmless. There's thousands thousands of babies die of AIDS, millions of people, if Maggiore isn't positive and EJ died of carrot poisoning it doesn't change it. Only reason I talk about this is DENIALISTS started using a dead baby who died of AIDS as a recruiting gimmic and its sick.

Posted by: Adele | October 15, 2007 4:40 PM

"he has to do standard of care on HIV now"

Adele, speaking of medical endangerment of children, have you ever visited HIV believer Jonathan Fishbein's website and read his detailed report on the safety protocols violated during the African Nevaripine trials.

Do you really believe that parents must be compelled, as a result of what happened to Fleiss, to poison their children because of your belief that milllions of babies have died of AIDS?

And it would be most helpful if you could calm down and address the biochemical arguments against antiretrovirals' efficacy that have been raised numerous times here.

Posted by: Mr. Natural | October 15, 2007 6:49 PM

Re: "people simply don't remember the havoc vaccine-preventable diseases used to wreak" --

Yes, I spoke this weekend with a woman about to turn 80 years old, who told me how scary polio was when she was a child. They would lie awake at night, worried that they'd wake up paralyzed. Vaccinations against polio have made this fear a thing of the past.

Posted by: Janice Rael | October 15, 2007 7:29 PM

Popeylisa says

Prof. Moore, why do you not make this clear on your website?

Well Popeylisa last time I checked aidstruth like a week ago maybe they had the med board decision on pdf. So you can read it yourself. And they had the news article on it too. Or did they take it down since then? What do you want a strobe light.

The review did not find Dr. Fleiss guilty of gross negligence and these charges had to be dropped.

Nice try Pope-E-Lisa. See Dr. Fleiss knew what Dr. Moore knew he was in big trouble. So he did a plea deal. Maybe you didn't read that part. Or the one about how they did revoke Fleiss license but they put it on suspension if he stays on probation three years. Did you see how he has to pay fines and go to classes and get monitored. Yeah see they don't do that to someone when they just forget writing something down. Its because its a plea deal, pope Fleiss said yeah you got me and I don't want a trial and their like yeah lets just punish you on a charge and move on but don't try this ish again or we own your license.

Similar charges against Eliza-Jane's mother, Christine Maggiore, also had to be dropped

Umm yeah that's because no charges were filed!! They couldn't file because Maggiore took her kid to the doctor and then she did what the doctor said. Nothing about autopsy report in there Ya know read the report Pope.

Posted by: Adele | October 15, 2007 8:22 PM

Popeylisa wrong again

Duesberg has never said or done anything homophobic

nowhere can I find the basis for this statement: [Duesberg] clearly blamed AIDS on the gay men who contracted it, arguing that it was the product of a life of promiscuity and drug abuse.

Maybe you never read the Village Voice you know a little interview where Duesberg says AIDS comes from :lifestyle that was criminal twenty years ago"

pope what could that be drug use? No I think drug use was criminal twenty years ago. could it be stress? No stress wasn't criminal twenty years ago. Umm he was talking about homosexuality!! But that's not homophobe is it? Because you say so.

Wow kind of like Henry Bauer who wrote in his freaking auto biography I regard homosexuality as an aberration or illness and then he says and I think it's very difficult to draw a line between free speech about civil rights for gays and the tendency for the life-style to be presented as something that it would be perfectly all right for anyone to choose

Yeah so take away free speech for gay people sounds like something a nice LGBT ally would say right.

Guess you didn't read that either Popeylisa, check out aidstruth some time they got it all there. Your not a reader so maybe you can pay someone read it to you?

Posted by: Adele | October 15, 2007 9:08 PM

Hi Chris is that Nathanel S Lehrman MD from National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality? author from JPANDS the fave journal for dneiliasts?

MAybe pope will say Dr. Lehrman just wanna help gays get over their "abberation or illness" like Henry BAuer said. Oh and tell every one Nazis were all "pederasts"

Sheesh these people are sick! Where's just one denialist to stand up and say ok everyone these homophobic sayings are sick and their a disgrace to denialism. Noreen carter cooler maniotis liversedge jensen mark spreen just one of you people or do you agree on bauers freespeech thing and duesbergs gayness causes aids and lehrmans gay people are nazis or they need "cured"

Posted by: Adele | October 15, 2007 9:25 PM

"Problem with "HIV-integrase," it appears to have no chromatin remodeling activity or have any minor DNA groove-binding activity, according to some of our published work."

Dr. Maniotis,

Why do you continually bring this up?

Topo II is a major DNA modifying enzyme and a constituent of the nuclear matrix.

Is HIV integrase a constituent of the nuclear matrix?

Does any viral integrase have the chromosome reconstituing ability you found for Topo II?

Does lamda integrase reconstitute chromatin depleted chromosomes?

Does Cre?

Does Flp?

Does AAV integrase?

Then why would anyone expect HIV integrase to?

And what's more, whether it does, or doesn't; whether you expect it to, or whether you don't, what possible bearing could that have on the existence of HIV?

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | October 15, 2007 9:49 PM

Ok claus big difference.

I give you real quotes and sources.

You give us fiction and song lyrics.

Pope Clausialysa says

this was not my comment but Martin Delaney's "Duesberg has never said or done anything homophobic"

Umm earth to deniosaurus claus, Martin Delaney didn't say that. any where. lets see where you got it. Oh you made it up. Nice.

OK now Duesberg said AIDS comes from "lifestyle that was criminal twenty years ago" in village voice interview 1988. Not me being funny like Claus not my version of it his real words. google it like cooler says. Only way you get around it is, if Duesberg didn't say it someone lied. So did he sue Village voice cause that's a bad lie about Duesberg if so. If Chris is right he usually is then there's more then the village voice thing out there.

Another example Henry Buaer said in his book I think it's very difficult to draw a line between free speech about civil rights for gays and the tendency for the life-style to be presented as something that it would be perfectly all right for anyone to choose He wrote it. He said in his book gay is "abberation or illness" I didn't make it up. I don't have the page number its on aids truth google it. Did Bauer write it. Maybe a boogy man wrote it right? Good kind Bauer, always so tolerant of everyone right. Nasty people writing bad things and making him think he wrote it right? Brain control rays like cooler. Poor kind bauer without tinfoil.

Another one Nathanel S Lehrman MD from Chris, I found his name at a website for National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Did someone make up that did a guy write his thing in JPANDS and make him look bad? Do you agree gay people need therapy, they should get ex-gay and "healthy"?

Wow clausialy you must be so smart. You know how I know not just bc you know about Leda before me, because you have to be to convince us those peoples stuff is not homophobe!

Posted by: Adele | October 15, 2007 11:10 PM

Tara, how in the world do you deal with these denialists without killfiling them the way PZ does?

Posted by: Brian X | October 16, 2007 2:13 AM

Braganza,

The Toni Gradl investigation to which you linked is certainly interesting but it is difficult to evaluate without further information. The study has not been peer-reviewed, and while that bothers me, I am even more concerned with the apparent absence of good experimental design. We, along with Dr. Gradl, cannot know whether the effects are due to the "nanocarrier," one or more components of the "Pflanzenextract" (for which we are given no information), the supplementary acid, placebo effect, etc. This study seems to me more "faith-based" than scientific.

Gradl's explanation linking the "neutraceutical" to a cytokine-related mechanism is also interesting, but is not developed well and looks much like pure speculation to me. Cytokines balances are intricate and complicated and have frustrated scientists' best attempts to reduce them into neat phrases. Gradl's simplistic version of AIDS and the immune system reminds me of the writings of another German doctor, Heinrich Kremer. This all gives me further pause and strengthens my suspicions about this study.

Most importantly of all, Gradl reports the deaths of two (out of 40) patients during the 90-day study period. Another two went "missing," reducing the study size to 38 and placing the mortality rate at over 20 per 100 person-years. Patients with similar characteristics who take HAART do much better. The sample size may be too small for firm conclusions, but the death rate is cause for great concern.

Also, Braganza, I could not find evidence to support your assertion that these patients were antiretroviral-naive. Was this contained in the account, something I missed, or do you know it from elsewhere?

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | October 16, 2007 9:25 AM

Dear ElkMontainMan,

"Cytokines balances are intricate and complicated and have frustrated scientists' best attempts to reduce them into neat phrases."

Would this be a major technico-scientific challenge ? The modulation of cytokines...

Posted by: Braganza | October 16, 2007 10:02 AM

jspreen, I've had a short look at your website. Can I trust my eyes? Together with Hamer, you deny the existence of metastases? That's rich. That's really rich. This is stupidity on the level of Sir Fred Hoyle declaring Archaeopteryx a forgery.

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 16, 2007 11:22 AM

Go ahead, show me.

How can I show you things you don't want to see? Maybe you should trust your own eyes for starters...

Perhaps the pentalawn photos were taken after the place was cleaned up?

Sure man. Fire engins have just turned up, the upper floors haven't collapsed yet but the place has already been cleaned up neatly.
Of course, all the people looking... most important things first... clean up the place John, the whole world will be watching us soon...

Posted by: jspreen | October 16, 2007 12:21 PM

AZT was approved for use in AIDS in March 1987.

I have a good friend who was at the epicenter of the early AIDS epidemic in SF - I was personally aware of it from a distance at that time. He is the only survivor among the people he was friends with. He attended over 50 funerals for good friends in their twenties - he intentionally stopped couting in the mid-40s. ALL of them are dead. Every one of his friends. Most of those funerals were before March 1987 - they were people dying while waiting for any therapeutic, anything at all. You ratfucks trying to rewrite this history for your unfathomable denialist myth-making purposes can't simply dismiss this. It is known, documented history - here is one review:

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-03-01-04
The rate of long-term survival after an initial AIDS diagnosis has been very low. Some persons, nearly all with a diagnosis of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), have survived for more than 5 years after diagnosis, but survival rates are significantly lower in patients with an OI or a neoplasm other than KS. Studies conducted early in the epidemic on persons diagnosed before 1986 showed a median survival time past an initial AIDS diagnosis of 10 to 13 months. An early study of the first 505 AIDS patients in San Francisco captured all reported cases from a city where surveillance was thought to be excellent (estimated at the time by the San Francisco Department of Health as 94% complete)(25). Mortality follow-up was obtained for 98% of these patients, and there was little possibility of bias from loss of follow-up. Of these 505 patients, 99% were homosexual or bisexual males. Overall median survival was 11 months. For patients with OIs, median survival was 9 months. Median survival after an initial KS diagnosis was 16 months. Survival time was significantly shorter for later KS cases, but no difference over time was seen in survival after OIs.

The San Francisco study provides a good estimate of survival among homosexual men prior to the advent of effective therapies for HIV infection and prophylaxis for OIs. The homogeneity of the population in the San Francisco study might raise doubts that its results can be extrapolated to other risk groups, but other survival studies conducted in the same time period that included other HIV transmission groups largely confirm the San Francisco estimates. An analysis of U.S. hemophilia cases showed a median survival of 11.7 months.(26) All cases in Australia diagnosed before July 1987 had a median survival of 10.4 months.(27) A study from Barcelona, Spain, showed a median survival of 12.7 months (including cases diagnosed in 1986 and 1987) and a longer survival in IDUs than in other risk groups.(28)
...
Fewer data are available concerning time from a CD4 lymphocyte count of 200/µl to death. An analysis of time from a CD4 lymphocyte count of 200/µl to death among two cohorts of homosexual men in San Francisco found the median survival time was 38 months and had increased about 12 months over the median time in the period from 1983 to 1986.(24) Comparable estimates were reported from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study; 53% of subjects with a CD4 count in the range 101 to 200 cells/µl survived 30 months in the period from 1985 to 1988 and 71% in the period from 1989 to 1993.(29)
--------

Introduction of AZT, prophylaxis for PCP and other OIs, and experience with treatment regimes, caused slight increases in survival times, up to about 2 years or so, until the introduction of combination therapies in 1996, at which time survival time became rapidly longer.

My friend was near-death in 1987. AZT saved his life, then slowly began losing its effectiveness. He was near death again in 1997, and combination therapy saved his life a second time.
And he is the only survivor from among his circle of friends, having attended dozens of funerals of strong young men from the time before AZT.
He continued to attend funerals of acquaintainces into the early '00s, mostly people who went off therapeutics, then got sick and died. By that time, I was close enough to that community that I was attending those funerals as well.

And I cant begin to say how much I despise you rat fucks bent on convincing people to drop their therapeutics - I've seen too many people do that, then die as a result.

Posted by: Lee | October 16, 2007 12:48 PM

Roy Hinkley, Thanks for bringing up integrase!

You may be aware of it's "existence" as an endogenous gene within all animals next to the LTR gag-pol complex.

It is indeed documented ancient as part of the LTR retroviral-like elements branch of the transposon "tree" and, as you know, part of the mechanism the cell uses to install "pseudogenes" within chromatin for possible later use in an evolutionary crisis.

Perhaps the fine details of its activity are worthy of Dr Maniotis' attention? And since it presented an opportunity for you to present your knowledge on the subject - but it's like my God here we are at Aetiology having a close brush with something like professional collegiality with denialists it's time for the hysteria alarm ...

Posted by: Mr. Natural | October 16, 2007 1:00 PM

Running away.

Running away is the deniosaur thing to do. Run away from facts and evidence. When they show your wrong change the subject to James Joyce and write some poetry.

That's what ELISA did on about the tenth thing we gave him where Duesberg lied in reviews. He admitted he never read the stuff and said Duesberg was "cheeky" and ran away Brave Sir Elisa.

And like "Pope" who is elisa I guess but maybe not who cares they all sound the same. Three denialists with stuff I think is homophobe, sources and everything and all he says is a deniosite talks about hearsay in a story in a satire magazine by a denialist so supposedly Bob gallo said a bad word one time.

What if its true I doubt it but what if pope has a videotape of it, that makes it ok for Bauer saying gay is "aberration or illness"? That's logic for Eugene!

I'm not scared of people like spreen who call me a c---. Bad word, mean, everyone says it some time. I'm scared of people who write books and say being a woman is bad and isn't a good lifestyle and women should get silenced and no civil rights. That's scary for me not a bad word. Or when they say that about gay people. Like HEnry Bauer and then no one like pope or anyone says anything about it. They would like GW or Ron Paul if he said good things about denialism Oh wait they probably do any way.

Posted by: Adele | October 16, 2007 1:15 PM

Gene,

If it is not HIV, can you tell me what is measured by PCR?

I have been in a detailed discussion with Adele and Franklin and they have explained that there is no possibity of major error once the apparatus has been calibrated.

If it give a positive value in an HIV- person, the error is in the technician.

-------------------
For the Miao paper you need to remove the dot.

http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/mol.105.015412v1

Molecular Pharmacology Fast Forward
First published on September 1, 2005; DOI: 10.1124/mol.105.015412

Sulfated polymannuroguluronate (SPMG), a novel anti-acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) drug candidate, inhibits T cell apoptosis via combating oxidative damage of mitochondria
Benchun Miao 1, Jing Li 1, Xueyan Fu 2, Li Gan 1, Xianliang Xin 1, Meiyu Geng 1*

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

There is also Prof. Foster ortomolecular theory, of equilibrating the body with the virus, using selenium, cysteine, tryptophan and glutathione, which he says allow HIV+ to stop the dysfunction of the immune system.

This treatment if it works also dont damage the mitochondria.
------------------------------

There is also the LDN approach that Noreen has been using.

----------------
The Gratz paper that I provided a translation in a previous post.

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

Plenty of solutions to control HIV and dont damage the mitochondria.

Posted by: Braganza | October 16, 2007 1:22 PM

Ah Chris, it's exhilirating to engage your wonderful logic again. Isn't Brave Sir John's behaviour evidence enough that he takes denialists seriously?

How could anybody fail to take the existence of HIV denialism seriously? Just in terms of the potential for producing human misery, HIV denialism is more malign than Holocaust denialism, 9/11 denialism, and certainly evolution denialism (although global warming denialism might perhaps surpass it).

Of course, that is a far, far different thing from taking the ludicrous arguments of the denialists seriously.

It does not surprise me that denialists would love a debate format, where rhetoric routinely wins over facts. A time-limited debate with no peer review or fact checking is made to order for typical denialist strategies of cherry-picking, selective quoting, goalpost-moving, etc.--strategies that don't fare so well in a peer-reviewed journal or even a court of law.

But scientific debate is carried out in the pages of scientific journals. And the problem for denialists is that to get a hearing by a good journal, you have to bring something to the table in terms of original research; merely nitpicking other people's studies does not rate.

By the way, the strategy of calling the other guy names to try to provoke him into fighting you on your own terms may have worked for you on the schoolyard, but most people get wise to this sort of trick around age 15 or so.

Posted by: trrll | October 16, 2007 1:42 PM

you guys are really bad news, if heckler came out with Deusberg or shyh lo and said mycoplasmas or drugs were the cause of aids you guys would mindlessly parrot that.

All funding would go towards this hypothesis, no study would be allowed to question this hypothesis, and anyone who dared question it would be called a woo. the editors of journals heavily brainwashed by this propaganda wouldnt allow dissenters like Gallo to publish.

You guys are responsible for my sisters illness. Shyh ching lo from the Army inoculated chimps, mice, monkeys , and embyros and they all sickened/deformed/ died, with mycoplasma incognitus/penetrans, he didnt find it in over a hundered healthy controls. Unlike hpv hep c hiv that doesnt do zilch in most every animal. refrences in lonliness thread.

Thanks noble, tara etc for creating an epidemic of complex multi organic symptom illnesses misdiagnosed as CFS/RA etc. Thanks for helping almost murder my sister, good work. Read project day lily to find out how the people in the biological weapons program are laughing their asses off on how dumb scientists are to miss this, and focus on HPV with a 30 year window periods and no animal models, just bc merck said it had to be that way.
true story slightly fictionilized, no wonder armed agents from the DOD visted the nicolsons and threatened them when they were doing mfi reasearch, he was one of the few scienitists that figured it out and werent as dumb as you guys are.

Posted by: cooler | October 16, 2007 2:02 PM

Mr Natural,

Hemophiliacs diagnosed before March 1987 had a median survival of 11 months. That wasn't from poppers.

There is some older weak suggestive evidence of a possible link between popper use and incidence of KS in those already diagnosed with HIV/ADS. There are also studies showing a correlation between popper use and HIV infection - but there is also a correlation between popper use and receptive anal sex, and controlling for that shows that receptive anal sex is the risk factor.

Amyl Nitrate has been around for a century or so now. A lot of people have used a lot of poppers - but the ones dying of AIDS, then and now, are the ones who are infected with HIV.

Your crap kills people, Mr. Natural. I don't hate you - I can understand the fear and mythmaking imperative that leads people to where you are - but I despise you for what you are doing and the consequences of those actions. People peddling your kind of crap killed friends of mine by convincing them that they could drop the cocktails, and the side effects of the cocktails, without risking their lives. They were wrong - and you are wrong - and it is other people paying the price with their lives.

Posted by: Lee | October 16, 2007 2:17 PM

"when Gallo was nobody special"

You just make it up as you go along, eh terrel?

Duesberg's outstanding investigator grant came well after Gallo's work on HTLV and his authoritative papers go back into the early 70's.

Of particular note is the biochemical classification of
DNA polymerases with David Baltimore circa 1976.

And yes, what kind of technician posing as scientist continues to believe in cancer viruses and "HIV" vaccines after another "authority" stated, "We can now say that infectious viruses that cause many human diseases do not cause most human cancer. Therefore, we cannot hope to develop a vaccine against a virus that prevents most human cancer ... We do not have the fundamental knowledge to prevent or cure most human cancer". (Howard Temin, 1977, cited by Ralph Moss, The Cancer Industry)

BTW, this book is an excellent introduction to the debate cowardly John Moore is avoiding on the related subject of cancer and alternative medicine. His post above with sweeping negative statements on alternative medicine is a textbook case of argument from authority. Nothing but blowing smoke.

Posted by: Mr. Natural | October 16, 2007 2:34 PM

Wow, I've finally stirred up the hive and here comes the wasp swarm.

Yes, terrel, of course there's nothing in peer reviewed journals to back up what I say. That JAMA/John Hopkins Starfield study is more denialist propaganda. All that stuff about retroviruses, of course the journals show how a killer virus emerges from this gene pool. And Holocaust denialism and schoolyard analogies, how scientific a rebuttal ...

Now go back to sleep, I'm leaving the hive alone for now ...

And dearest Adele, a wasp whose sting consists primarily in putting the strangest of words into my mouth, what else can I say but you go girl, I hope this helps your career ... Paul Kaufman??!! More denialist lies: I never heard of him ...

And to any other wasps swarming around up there, it's time for me to run away ...

Posted by: Mr. Natural | October 16, 2007 2:52 PM

And "suppression of CD4-positive T-Helper lymphocytes" can't be caused by different things in disparate groups?

Have Hatians ever been shown to have a sustained epidemic of KS and PCP?

Posted by: Mr. Natural | October 16, 2007 3:03 PM

Its AZT!!!!

What about before AZT?
Its Poppers!!!

What about groups that didn't use poppers?

Its drug use!!!

What about hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients and haitians and...

Its some unknown "different things in disparate groups" that just happens to cause identical symptomology and just happens to show up simultaneously in groups that share as risk factors semen/blood exposure and HIV infection.

But it isn't HIV It can't be, because, well...

its AZT!!!

What about before AZT?
Its Poppers!!!

What about groups that didn't use poppers?

Its drug use!!!

What about...

rinse, repeat.

Posted by: Lee | October 16, 2007 3:44 PM

Wow that was like the shortest paste the "Assitant Research Professor" ever did!! Assitant!

Posted by: Adele | October 16, 2007 5:58 PM

Dr. Maniotis,

That you used HIV integrase as a control for minor groove binding being the characteristic of Topo II that provides its chromosome reconstituting effects in your experiments is self-explanatory (or at least its iexplained in your paper).

What is not clear, and to me makes no sense, is that you seem to believe that lack of chromosome reconstituting ability by HIV integrase tells you something about HIV.

What can you possibly conclude? That HIV integrase is not likely to be involved in chromosme condensation, architechture, nuclear location,...

This comes as a shock to whom? And, is likely true of every other viral integrase, and therefore proves just as much about the existence of other viruses as it does about HIV.

Nothing.

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | October 16, 2007 6:44 PM

The Toni Gradl investigation to which you linked is certainly interesting but it is difficult to evaluate without further information. The study has not been peer-reviewed, and while that bothers me, I am even more concerned with the apparent absence of good experimental design.

The question I ask is why do we read it on a website registered to Michael Leitner, a well known HIV denialist rather than in a peer-reviewed journal. This is not reason in itself to dismiss the information but it does make me highly skeptical.

The paper gives no details about antiretroviral use, there is no control group. Where was the study conducted? Toni Gradl does not appear to have any university affiliations. Sabina Maurer GmbH appears to be a small company in Bavaria. Where do they get their patients from?

None of this rules out the possibility that a couple of people in Bavaria found the cure for AIDS but excuse me if I am somewhat skeptical.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 16, 2007 7:02 PM

Hey Lee. Go fuck your own self!

You said: "Why don't you (or Deusberg) tell us the number of people who have died from AIDS."

Well, Lee, the fact is that NOBODY EVER DIED FROM AIDS. Get that fool? NOBODY EVER DIED OF AIDS! AIDS is a definition and a syndrome, NOT A CAUSE OF DEATH. People die from actual diseases and from actual bodily failures. Not from AIDS, Lee!

But you, Lee, have AIDS of the brain. You have a strange and twisted victim mentallity with its inability to understand how depression, panic, fear, drug addiction, antibiotics overuse, factor 8, poverty, and hopelessness, and the shaming and guilting and rejection of gays beginning in the 70's with Anita Bryant and the so called Moral Majority that caused immune suppression, which was then topped off with the most toxic of drugs. I know, Lee, cause I lived in the gay community for 30 years. I saw it all come down. I saw as the gay population was taken over with fear, and shame and guilt and depression and panic. I watched as many wonderful people became self destructive drug or sex addicts or alcoholics or suicidal over it all.

You, Lee, are also failing to recognise that LIVER FAILURE has been the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans since the inception of HAART drugs.

Now taking these drugs may help a lot of people stay out of immune destroying states of mind such as total panicked fear of death or states of mind of hopelessness that were prevalent in the 80s and early 90's, but that still does not mean that a simple sugar pill would not do the same and be far less destructive! Not ONE of the drugs you tout have EVER BEEN TESTED for placebo effects! NOT EVEN ONE!

You HIV researchers and pushers really do need to get a life, and a new cause to push and a reason for your existence, other than continuing to scare people into immune suppressing states of mind.

How bout this, cause its true, its current, its in todays JAMA:

More death is currently attributed to Antibiotic resistant staph than is attributed to AIDS in the US.

But I doubt that will happen as there is no money in staph, so I am sure you will all just ignore it and keep on singing about AIDS.

And it is doubtful you good-for-nuthin' HIV/AIDS research dogs can even learn any new tricks anyway. You just keep singing the same old tired, broken, twisted song: "AIDS, AIDS, we are all gonna die from AIDS. Give us more funding cause the sky is falling, AIDS here, AIDS there, AIDS everywhere! AIDS, AIDS, AIDS! AAAAGGGHHHHHH!"

Posted by: Michael | October 16, 2007 8:39 PM

Chris wrote:

Duesberg clearly writes that sexual promiscuity and "peculiar" sexual practises such as fisting in addition to drug use were risk factors for AIDS.

Chris, please tell us.... Is the tearing of the walls of the intestine that is inherent in "fisting" healthy for the immune system or for the blood stream?

Tell me Chris. I am a gay man. Please tell me if fisting contributes to a healthy immune system or is it patently unhealthy for shit to enter the blood stream through tears in the walls of the intestine.

And also, Chris, please tell me if using a lot of antibiotics is healthy for an immune system, as antibiotics usage increases with every increase in STD's that someone who is sexually promiscuous is affected by.

Chris, IS FISTING AND ANTIBIOTICS USAGE HEALTHY FOR ONE'S IMMUNE SYSTEM? Or do you agree with Dr. Duesberg that these factors that are inherent in some gay mens promiscuous lifestyles can precipitate high degrees of immune system stress?

And Chris, in case you think that fisting is healthy, I would like to be the first to FIST YOU, then pry you open with my one foot up your ass, and the other in your mouth.

Do let me know when you are ready to begin.

Posted by: Michael | October 16, 2007 9:10 PM

Chris, please tell us.... Is the tearing of the walls of the intestine that is inherent in "fisting" healthy for the immune system or for the blood stream?

I don't think it is healthy at all. It would increase the risk of infections including HIV.

I seriously doubt that a significant fraction let alone the majority of homosexuals with AIDS engaged in fisting.

The point was that in contradiction to Pope's claim Duesberg has identified "peculiar" sexual practises that he believes explain the epidemiology of AIDS.

You have accused me and every one else that accepts the evidence that HIV causes AIDS of being homophobic. Why don't you think that Duesberg with his interest in fisting is homophobic?

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 16, 2007 9:28 PM

Why don't you think that Duesberg with his interest in fisting is homophobic?

Because, my love, I think he made a very valid and truthful point. Don't you? What could possibly be homophobic about the truth that fisting, constant stds, or drug abuse can be particularly unhealthy for ones immune system?

Undoubtedly the re-affirming of such truths can only be of great benefit in steering some people to more careful or more healthful expressions of enjoying their own sexuality.

Duesberg has undoubtedly saved many gay mens lives by steering them toward more healthy choices than fisting, drug addiction, and overt promiscuity during a time of extreme emotional distress and depression in the gay community, where such unhealthful choices and habits can easily hold sway or go to extreme.

Posted by: Michael | October 16, 2007 9:47 PM

Because, my love, I think he made a very valid and truthful point. Don't you? What could possibly be homophobic about the truth that fisting, constant stds, or drug abuse can be particularly unhealthy for ones immune system?

What could possibly be homophobic about the scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS?

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 16, 2007 10:40 PM

"What could possibly be homophobic about the scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS?

Quite simple Chris.

You take a group of depressed, oppressed, stressed, and religiously and governmentally and societally persecuted minority group of homosexuals who has also been programmed by society to believe they are "sinful sinners" and unworthy and lesser than the hetero majority. These people now suffer from their own internalized battles with feelings of what they have been programmed to believe is sin, and they battle with shame and guilt, with its associated need to be banished or punished, and often battle depression and hopelessness as they cannot change nor can they accept their own inner sexual likes and dislikes.

Every human has an inner need to be accepted and to be loved and to see themselves as valued and valuable. That even includes you, Chris.

You also take a group of white heterosexual virologists who have been societally programmed for their entire lives to also believe the prevailing societal belief that gays are unworthy and lesser and to be despised, and you put this preprogrammed and hostile group to finding why a small number of members of the group that is the object of their hostility, namely the societally disparaged group of homosexuals are getting deathly ill. You send in this team of hetero elite virologists, who are all just as susceptible to being programmed with derision toward homosexuals, and who have all heard and laughed at and agreed with vast numbers of "f@g" jokes deriding homosexuals ever since their ownchildhood. These virologists have also been programmed by their religious affiliations and been preprogrammed by the prevailing beliefs of their society. Then, this group just happens to find a new marker in some of the gays who are most ill. The team then tells the persecuted minority that this marker is contagious and that they are most definitely going to die if they have this marker.

Panic, stress, and depression and hopelessness in this preprogrammed group of disparaged people will do the rest, and will take them to fulfilling their inner belief by focusing them on death, sickness, and dying.

But the marker is not just in the sick people of this group. The marker is found in sick people of every repressed, depressed, stressed group. And every time the virologists find the marker, they tell whoever has it that their death is imminent. The fear and the belief in imminent death carried by receiver of the diagnosis will do the rest, and will often fulful the expectations of the observer and the observed. More programming of course, but now the diagnosed people are programmed to get sick or to die or to take some meds for eternity or they will sicken and die. Becomes quite the self fulfulling prophecy for the believers on all sides, don't you think?

After all, it is well known to mankind for centuries that whatever one holds in mind has a tendency to manifest.

Whether any choose or not to look at the larger picture of mental, emotional and societal dynamics involved, their choice does not change the facts.

What, you asked, is homophobic about the "science" of HIV/AIDS? The belief itself was based in homophobia. What does the word "HOMOPHOBIC" mean? It means FEAR OF HOMOSEXUALS. The supposed and believed fear of homosexuals was behind the now transposed GERMAPHOBIC fear of catching whatever cause of illness the homosexuals may have had.

Therefore, the societal belief in HIV and AIDS was based in homophobia. Both the projected homophobia of the scientists, and the internalized homophobia of gays themselves.

Such a belief system also transposes quite well to be put upon any disparaged group, ie: blacks, drug addicts, the poor, the criminal, any who are perceived as the derelicts or outcasts of society. But of course, the foundation and the origination of the paradigm of HIV/AIDS was homophobia and the perceived "sinfullness of homosexuality" itself.

Posted by: Michael | October 16, 2007 11:33 PM

Dr. Noble we have you on record countless times; are you going to deny now that by your own standards, the standards you hold Duesberg to, you are the homophobe and a racist to boot?

The question was whether Duesberg was homophobic according to the standards that you and other Denialists apply to smear everybody else.

You wrote:

You have concluded that the reason why the "pandemic" has confined itself largely to homosexuals (and Africans) is that the pathogen is spread via their peculiar sexual practices. In contrast, Duesberg has never claimed that gay or African sexual practices explains the epidemiology of AIDS.

I showed that this isn't true.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 16, 2007 11:57 PM

The question was whether Duesberg was homophobic according to the standards that you and other Denialists apply to smear everybody else.

No Dr. Chrissie, that was absolutely not the question, but thanks for bringing it up. Just try and do a search on "homophobia" on AIDStruth.org, then do a corresponding one on Duesberg. com. I think you'll find out very quickly who are the dirty players in this game.

I showed that this isn't true

No you didn't Dr. Chrissie. You showed that Duesberg has an explanation for the many OIs in certain parts of the gay community, the exact same as yours, not that "promiscuity" is a cause of AIDS.

Now show ewhere DUesberg says that "fisting is the cause of African AIDS.

Posted by: Pope | October 17, 2007 12:46 AM

Now show ewhere DUesberg says that "fisting is the cause of African AIDS.

Whoosh - goalpost move. Duesberg does talk about fisting and promiscuity to explain the epidemiology of AIDS in homosexual males. This is something that you claimed he didn't do.

Duesberg doesn't state that fisting or promiscuity in and of themselves cause AIDS. But then HIV researchers don't say that promiscuity or anal sex cause AIDS. Sex without HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

However, I'll agree with the point I gather you are trying to make that some of the articles on Aidstruth that deal primarily with speculations about Duesberg's personality, motives and possible homophobia are not constructive and are in fact counterproductive. If they provide a reason for people like you to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence that is found on the website then they are counterproductive.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 17, 2007 2:28 AM

Dear Chris,

You wrote:

The question I ask is why do we read it on a website registered to Michael Leitner, a well known HIV denialist rather than in a peer-reviewed journal. (..)

The paper gives no details about antiretroviral use, there is no control group. Where was the study conducted? Toni Gradl does not appear to have any university affiliations. Sabina Maurer GmbH appears to be a small company in Bavaria. Where do they get their patients from?
-----------------------------------------------------

I dont know how you find the Michael Leitner stuff, and am very curious, as I also try to search info in the web.

What is your technique/ source to obtain such data?

I suppose that Sabina Maurer/ Toni Gradl are somewhere connected to Dr. H. Kremer, because they are both germans and as ElkMountainMain suggested they have common approaches, so it is plausible that persons who are buying Kremer book, and want to follow his approach, are Sabina/Gradl patients.

However they believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS, otherwise why are they measuring the viral load and looking to have zero viral load ?

Posted by: Braganza | October 17, 2007 6:20 AM

Braganza,

you wrote, concerning Kremer/Maurer/Gradl,

However they believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS, otherwise why are they measuring the viral load and looking to have zero viral load ?

Kremer and those in his circle believe that HIV is not the cause of AIDS and that HIV does not exist. Yet, as you point out, they are quick to use measurements of viral load and CD4 count to establish the putative recovery of their patients.

The answer to this apparent contradiction is that they believe viral load does measure something important, but not a virus. Other visitors to Tara's site have mentioned the "reasoning" behind this assumption: to denialists like Kremer and his followers, "poor nutrition and lifestyle" (the last word could also be "habits") cause AIDS. Not "may be co-factors" or "may contribute to disease progression;" no, according to this particular school of what passes for thought, they "cause" AIDS.

To sum up this strange fiction of medicine, the combination of poor nutrition and "bad habits" (read, taking drugs, wearing condoms, having multiple sex partners, anal sex, exposure to semen, etc.--the list of "bad habits" depends on which denialist is speaking, and to whom, and is often internally contradictory), cause oxidative stress in the body and result in elevated cell death. The release of cellular nucleic acids from cells in the blood floods the bloodstream with the building blocks for making a unique "molecular signature," a long RNA, almost ten thousand units long.

How this RNA is assembled has never been explained by the rethinkers, who usually prefer not to think about this. Using transcriptome data, we could calculate the minimum number of pieces of cellular RNAs that would need to be cleaved precisely (but how?), lined up in a specific order (why and how?), and joined together seamlessly (how?) to produce a HIV genome. The number would be somewhere in the high hundreds or low thousands of pieces. "Improbable" doesn't come close to describing how unlikely this would be. Yet for the Kremer devotee, this process must happen independently for every RNA genome measured by RT-PCR and for every genome cloned full-length and in every HIV positive person.

To get around some of these problems, an alternative explanation sees the process happening within stressed cells, not outside, and to DNA, not RNA. In this view, oxidative stress causes almost instantaneous mutation of normal DNA into a transcriptional unit encoding the entire HIV genome, ready to make viral RNA. The sort of thing, in other words, one might expect from an X-Men movie. In science fiction, though, the "mutants" have different mutations, consistent with the largely random nature of mutation. In the real world, the dissident's random mutations somehow occur at the same places and produce the same easily recognized HIV in millions of people. The same process must occur identically in every one of them and in multiple cells because according to the rethinkers, HIV doesn't exist, so it can't be sexually transmitted or transmitted at all.

Some rethinkers have recognized the problems and tried to improve on the theory, but each ad hoc change just makes the whole more implausible. There is then the issue of why the "molecular signature" can be sucrose-gradient-purified, separated from cellular debris, and yet be shown to associate with unique viral proteins. Also, the issue of why the "molecular signature" resides within a protein shell inside a lipid membrane, a particle with classic complex retroviral morphology, by electron microscopy.

All of this to avoid admitting that HIV is a retrovirus that infects people.

Tragically, many sick and distraught people do not have the background to recognize how foolish and dangerous this theory is. Nutrition and good habits alone will not save a person from AIDS. The example of Raphael Lombardo, told so eloquently by the man himself in a letter Duesberg published in his book (while Lombardo remained healthy) is just one of many.

Dr. Gradl it seems convinced forty people to try an untested plant extract instead of antivirals. (Or were they prescribed HAART, too? We are not told.)

I would like for Dr. Gradl to be right, a cure for AIDS in plant extract. But Dr. Gradl, I fear, is just another salesman trying to profit from vulnerable patients. He sells a product called "OxyBrain," touted to increase mental acuity and keep one awake. Also "OxyLove," said to increase function "in other parts of the body." Have these products been tested? Are they safe? Do they work?

I have a long list of questions about Dr. Gradl, who is referred to as a "microbiologist" in news articles and studied at a university for pscyhology in Munich (I couldn't find what his degree was), and whose previous job was running a waste-water treatment in a small Bavarian town near the Czech border. They include,

Is Dr. Gradl a medical doctor? If not, why was Dr. Gradl allowed to perform an uncontrolled experiment with humans? If not, why is Dr. Gradl the only "author" on the report at the denialist website?

Do the regulatory authorities in Germany allow this sort of "trial?"

Was there any oversight?

Were the patients counseled about the benefits and risks of taking HAART and offered prescriptions?

Were the patients monitored for longer than ninety days? What happened to them?

Michael has been influenced by these ideas, and Andrew Maniotis, who, when writing about Dr. Gallo above, writes about a "molecular signature" rather than a virus. And at least two patients influenced by these ideas died within ninety days in Gradl's human experiment, patients who may have benefitted from standard medical care. Without more information, I consider these people victims of denial.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | October 17, 2007 9:25 AM

To Roy Hinkley:

In response to your question re: "HIV-integrase," as I told you before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, this is when controls can be useful.

You are absolutely correct in stating that there is no a priori reason that "HIV-integrase" should have exhibited any chromatin remodeling activity in our assays (with or without energy molecules added as we always test it both ways). However, we haven't found a molecule thought to be associated with DNA or chromatin structure that we can't measure activity for, both without or with energy molecules added) during the past 15 or so years, except "HIV-integrase," and albumin.

To review, we wanted a control for the minor-groove binding of topoisomerase II because this is believed to be so critical for the mechanics of strand-passing known to occur with the topoisomerases. Using our handy decoder rings, as some of you like to say to me, we looked up on gene bank and elsewhere what could possibly have homology to topoisomerases' minor-groove-binding characteristic. "HIV-integrase" popped out. We found a firm that sold it (it is in the figure legend of the paper I posted above), and I bought it (at considerable expense).

When sprinkled on chromosomes that have not been denatured in any way, even H20 has a modulating effect that is measurable because of the charge differences of DNA and H20. Albumin does not have any activity that we have been able to measure over the years. However, every molecule thought to participate in "nuclear dynamics" of any kind always exhibits some kind of measureable activity, and usually that activity is profound and easy to see. Most are stoikiometric that don't involve energy molecules such as ATP or GTP.

But not "HIV integrase:" a molecule thought to be so important for pro-viral integration. At concentrations that are even physiologically meaningless because they were so high, we saw no activity. How do you propose the "HIV" genome becomes "integrated" unless this so-called essential enzyme mediates minor groove-binding activity for "HIV" insertion, much like the topoisomerases mediate strand passage? Could be, the batch we bought was not active-maybe it was left in a truck somewhere and got boiled? Possible I suppose, but we did buy several different lots and none of them worked. This is when I left the Duesberg camp and began reading Perth. It was also a year or two after my boss, Folkman, who can be recounted in Gallo's book on Virus hunting, communicated to Gallo and others that Kaposi's, one of the first two AIDS-defining illnesses, could not be due to a retrovirus, "HIV."

Oh well, who the hell cares. No matter what I or anyone else writes (to the detriment of their careers), the AIDS culture has such inertia, that it will continue to plague my children's lives, with legions of phony tests, and phony science, and dangerous public health policies. Its kind of like bombing Afghanastan and Iraq because building 7 collapsed like the others demolition style, without any plane even coming close to it, and after Marvin Bush, GW's brother, was seen closing down the buildings during the preceding weeks to allow securicom to "renovate" sections of the World Trade Centers.

I suspect the role of "HIV integrase" in AIDS pathogenesis is somewhat akin to the role of muslims on September 11, unless you can show me data to the contrary.

Woops! The black helicopters are outside....gotta go...

cheers,

andy

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | October 17, 2007 11:24 AM

ElkMountainMan,

Thanks for the explanation.

I would like to point you to two micro-studies suggesting that it is possible, using nutritional techniques, to control both the CD4 depression and the viral load in AIDS patients.

The first one is Prof. Knox Van Dyke proposed treatment for AIDS.

Prof. Knox Van Dyke is a Professor of Biochemistry at West Virginia University. He has a good professional reputation, as he developped new malaria compounds
(recently licenced to Millenia).

He wrote a chapter in the textbook Modern Pharmacology With Clinical Applications - Google Books Result by Charles R. Craig, Robert E. Stitzel - 2003, on treatment of HIV, explaining HAART, so he would know a lot about HAART, and subtilities of why using a particular combination of antiretrovirals,

BUT

He also presented a method to control AIDS using nutritional supplements and an anti-inflammatory steroid, or a plant extract, glycyrrhizic acid (from licorice root).

You can read the details of his method in the US 5686436, that you can download free of charge in extenso from the US Patent database at http://www.uspto.gov/patft/

Or you can click in the link :

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5686436.PN.&OS=PN/5686436&RS=PN/5686436.

The second one is the J.Kaiser Book where he presented somebody who reduced his viral load to zero using nutritional supplements. It is true that this patient was having a pretty good CD4 at the begining (cannot remember exactly but it was around 500). I have the book in the library so I can give you more details if required. He manged to scale down the viral load to indetectable and increase his CD4 to 700 something.

What do you think of that? Would you be wrong on the question of absolute need of HAART to control AIDS.

Posted by: Braganza | October 17, 2007 1:10 PM

adele, the only one that is mentally ill is you, millions of people are questioning 9/11 you big fat idiot.

Yes true if I'm big and fat you must be right. I can't argue with that you convinced me. Was it Marvin Bush put the explosives in there or the Mossad I can't remember? But your totally right cooler. No body flew any planes into buildings it was all holographs. They can't hurt you except when your on poppers like Peter Duesberg says.

So that's settled!! So I want to know more about Huntsville Texas. In websites I saw, the Nicoloson's, say Lo was doing secret tests on people in prison injecting with mycoplasma. Are the Nicoloson's right. if they are why do you, I mean your sister like Lo so much if not why are people lying about him? Whose lying?

Posted by: Adele | October 17, 2007 2:12 PM

Quoth Pope:

the majority of Western AIDS cases are gay

Is that even still the case, your holiness? I know AIDS was largely restricted to gays and drug abusers in the Western world 30 years ago, but is it still? I was even taught at school that it's no longer.

Posted by: David Marjanović | October 17, 2007 2:46 PM

BTW,here is a link to a PDF of the actual 2005 report, the link Maniotis failed to give:

http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/P03093/P030932005.pdf

Posted by: Lee | October 17, 2007 3:15 PM

Manitois also, in that absurd essay,includes a scary quote about a 60-90% (from memory - I cant be bothered to go back and check again) false positive rate in HIV testing. It is in the context of Maniotis casting doubt on the results from HIV test kits.

His cite (reference 22, if I recall correctly) is to a 1985 (19 fricking eighty five!!!) paper reporting results of antibody testing for HTLV-III in sperm donors. I havent read the paper - its not available as text in the ways I usually search, probably becasue it is twenty fricking two years old. But I can tell some things that help to inform the honesty of Maniotis in using that dreadfully outdated paper in this way.

The very first serological HTLV-III / HIV test kit was not approved for market until sometime in 1985, and that kit was rushed to market because of the blood supply crisis, and was very rapidly superceded by more accurate kits. This paper was either an off-label use of the very first serological kit in human sperm, or more likely was not a kit at all - meaning that for Maniotis to use it to undermine confidence in moern kit results is simply wrong.

Moreover, Maniotis implies in that paragraph that these results are looking at reverse transcriptase activity as a marker for HIV. I cant check that, given that I cant find the paper to read, but if so - sperm has an endogenous RT activity, and would be expected to give very high false positives on an RT-based test.

In any case, for Maniotis to use this as a datum in an attempt to cast doubt on the accuracy of modern HIV-detection kits is absurdly - and transparently - dishonest.

Posted by: Lee | October 17, 2007 4:11 PM

Hey Pope,

Why don't you get in your popemobile and go to school, learn about biology maybe history to. People knew about Kaposis a hundred years back. Thing is, there was suddenly more of it in late seventies and later and it was worse cases and it looked like sexually transmisted. So scientists had this debate about ten years about can HIV cause it itself or is there something else? And Gallo said HIV but maybe there's something else but you have to convince me. And some people said no its something else and I think 1991 or something later they found out it was another virus KSHV. But HIV makes it more likely like other OIS. Both sides were right you need KSHV to cause it but HIV to help it along protect it from immune system.

Evidence was good we know KSHV causes Kaposis for like fifteen years. Come join us in 2007 Claus like when your not busy your servants reading James Joyce to you.

Posted by: Adele | October 17, 2007 4:31 PM

Lee, you can get a false positive rate of the HIV test pretty much as high as you want, simply by picking a population in which the true incidence is very low.

After all, in a population in which nobody is infected, the false positive rate is by definition 100%, no matter how good the test is.

Denialists often like to cherry-pick reports of false-positive rates from low-incidence populations to give the impression that the test is worthless.

Posted by: trrll | October 17, 2007 5:31 PM

Abbott Labs -- "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood."

Denialists seem to be irrationally enamored of this particular quote. I've never quite been able to figure out why. I think that maybe they think that "no recognized standard" is some sort of euphemism for "it doesn't work."

Of course, scientists develop assays where there is "no recognized standard" all the time--that's always the case when you invent a new assay. It just means that you have to carry out your own validation with appropriate standards.

Posted by: trrll | October 17, 2007 6:38 PM

I dont know how you find the Michael Leitner stuff, and am very curious, as I also try to search info in the web.

There is an internet toolk called whois which enables you to find out who owns a particular domain name such as immun-therapie.net

owner-contact: P-MJL290
owner-organization: Wunschfilme
owner-fname: Michael
owner-lname: Leitner

While it might be wrong to dismiss the paper solely because it appears on a website registered to Michael Leitner it does raise a number of questions.

Michael Leitner denies that HIV causes AIDS. The paper assumes that HIV causes AIDS.

I also find it hard to believe that the trial as described could be approved in Germany. Perhaps the patients were given HAART. Perhaps it was done in another country.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 17, 2007 7:58 PM

Adele said:

Running away. Running away is the deniosaur thing to do. Run away from facts and evidence. When they show your wrong change the subject

Adele dear, did you mean running away just like John P Moore did? Moore never answered Pope. Never answered Maniotis. Never answered anyone. Just simply up and ran away.

Certainly showed himself to be a complete "deniosaur", according to Adele, as she likes to call them.

Posted by: Michael | October 17, 2007 9:34 PM

so Maniotis is a 9/11 troofer, too. Surprise...

"Its kind of like bombing Afghanastan and Iraq because building 7 collapsed like the others demolition style, without any plane even coming close to it, and after Marvin Bush, GW's brother, was seen closing down the buildings during the preceding weeks to allow securicom to "renovate" sections of the World Trade Centers."

Posted by: Lee | October 17, 2007 10:04 PM

Hey Lee, if the tests are so wonderful at finding HIV, which none of them have ever even claimed to do, then explain this:

It has been repeatedly shown more than 30 times in "HIV" vaccine trials that antibodies against "HIV" proteins aren't evoked even when the so-called unique and diagnostic "HIV'" antigens are injected directly into the bloodstream of healthy humans.

So, Lee, if these "HIV tests" are finding these proteins that are supposedly antigens to HIV, please explain why nobody develops antibodies against these proteins when they are injected directly?

Obviously there is something quite wrong with the picture!

By the way, Lee, I was reading your first post, where you whined about the first San Fran cases of AIDS.

But Lee, you failed to tell us about the lifestyles and poppers and crystal meth drug addiction habits and fisting habits, and antibiotics overuse, and depressions, and panic that these 500 deaths including the plus 40 friends of someone you knew, all share.

Lets go through the list one at a time Lee, and lets look at the REAL FACTS about every one of these deaths, instead of hiding your head in the sand and screaming "HIV, HIV, HIV!"

You can delude yourself about these all you want Lee. But I am a gay man who spent plenty of time up in San Fran and went to some of the parties and visited some of the bath houses, and personally knew and witnessed the self destructive insanity of a good number of my fellow gays, without joining in myself. I witnessed the cholera spreading filth that some of these hard core sex addicted people indulged in. I witnessed how some would go get a friday night shot of antibiotics before partying for the weekend. I witnessed how some were up for 10 or more days straight on crystal meth. I witnessed how some would pour poppers into a pillow and practically smother themselves with it. I witnessed some people spun on a wheel and getting it at both ends depending on who the wheel stopped in front of. The only thing that really surprises me is that so many even survived this, and lived as long as they did.

And believe it or not, I do have compassion for these men regardless of what they had done. All were doing the best they could with what they had. Most all were running away from some very intense emotional pain. Many had been rejected by their families for being gay. Many just had a difficult time with their pasts. Some came from homes where they were severely abused as children. Some had other horror stories of their past. But all were certainly doing the best they could with what they had, and what they had to deal with.

Lee, I am a gay man who used to do a lot of psych counseling in the gay community through the 80s and 90s. I did not do it for a living, nor did I ever charge for it, but because it was what I felt the gay community needed the most due to the pressures of being gay in a society that more and more despised and condemned us, as was evidenced by the movement in the late 70s to get the death penalty instituted for homosexuals. Throughout the 70s and 80s and even through most of the 90s, you could turn on any TV evangelist and listen to them condemning gays. Now, Lee, I don't expect you to know what such as that "feels" like, nor do I expect you to understand the emotional and psychological and even physical impacts of such. Particularly for those who were themselves raised in the most homophobic of families. But I can tell you that many gay men were absolutely tortured inside from this, and struggling just to find a desire to live at all. It is quite understandable how so many fell into self destructive and outlandish addictions to escape the emotional pain they endured.

So, lets see, Lee. You base your perception of HIV and what causes AIDS on the 2nd hand info of an acquaintance who did not even bother to tell you that he too was a popper sniffing crystal meth drug addict and sex addict and that he himself did some rather unhealthful things sexually earlier in his life before you even knew him. I base mine on what my own eyes and ears personally witnessed.

Hmmmmm, which would be more accurate???? Your info, or mine?????

You know Lee, I don't give a damn about how in denial some of the HIV or AIDS affected are, or how convenient their own memories have become about their past or their behaviors, but I do care that the world has not been informed of the truth of what many gays endured, and some still endure, and why some of these men really came down ill.

Posted by: Michael | October 17, 2007 10:33 PM

You know, Lee, as we discuss how much death occured, and of what, in the gay community prior to the explosion of death which occurred after AZT usage, you also have conveniently forgotten to put into context not only the effects of unhealthful lifestyles, and not only the effects of drug abuse, and not only the effects of untreated psyhological and emotional pain and stress on the immune system. But then, add in the panic and extreme fear of AIDS which swept through the gay community onto the immune system. As a handful of men came down sick and some died, the entire thing was hyped in almost every paper and news channel in the country, and ESPECIALLY HYPED in the gay media itself. Fear and panic and depression increased exponentially in the gay community with every diagnosis of HIV or AIDS.

Emotional states of fear itself depletes the adrenal functions which in turn suppresses immune function.

A positive HIV test further creates panic, and further depletes the immune system.

And add to all that the stress that many gays were already enduring as they came from homophobic families and lived in a homophobic world.

Stress shuts down the immune system in several ways. It shuts down the function of the adrenal system, and drug use further depletes this, and stress also shuts down the thymus gland which regulates immune function.

Then add to that the depression that many gays sunk into as one and then two and then more and more of their friends died.

Immune disfunction is often found in depressed people.

Yet you want to blame it all on HIV.

Gee, no, Lee. Thoughts and feelings and beliefs and emotions have nothing at all to do with health, now do they?

Posted by: Michael | October 17, 2007 10:56 PM

Hey Lee. What about hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients?

The death rate in these groups was already exceedingly high prior to HIV/AIDS. Hemophiliacs lives had always been short. And blood products are still dangerous today, though not nearly as dangerous nor deadly as they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Transfusions and organ transplants were almost always deadly before HIV/AIDS.

What exactly is your friggin point about these groups?

And what about Haitians, Lee. Haiti is and was a downtrodden 3rd world country with many people living in poverty and filth. Do you think these people were living in the lap of luxury with easy lifestyles, no stress and good diets?

Hey Lee, don't you know anything at all? You egotistical fuck!

Posted by: Michael | October 17, 2007 11:24 PM

This is how science works: never finding satisfaction in the present state of knowledge, always pressing for more...an attitude antithetical to that of the "rethinkers," who rock to an outdated groove and prefer to keep their knowledge, such as it is, on ice.

Seems to me that it would be quite easy to turn the tables on this statement by replacing the word "rethinkers" with "HIV orthodoxy".

I see no reason why I would be mistaken to replace the word "rethinkers" with "orthodoxy", as certainly it is the "rethinkers" who find no satisfaction in the words or beliefs of the established majority, and who are "always pushing for more", and who push the envelope of knowledge and questioning, instead of "rocking to an outdated groove and prefering to keep their knowledge, such as it is, on ice".

Posted by: Michael | October 18, 2007 12:18 AM

Ummmm, Tara, that is fairly simple to understand if you simply look at the population explosion in the ghettos.

The population density has more than doubled over the last 25 years, and the infrastructure has not, and this has put intense pressure on people, especially the ages of 25 to 45, to find ways to survive. You will find intense competition for the most menial jobs that barely provide a survival. You will find a lot of criminality, and a lot of beggars who are barely surviving. Additionally, there have been many people moving in from other stressed out areas surrounding SA.

Here's a great idea, Tara. Since you are so very concerned with the wellbeing of Africans and South Africa, why don't you spend a lovely family vacation over there touring and tooling around in the ghettos such as those around Soweto, and be sure to go with a mouth full of tea and crumpets. But be sure between your bites of crumpets and slurps of tea to note how difficult life there can be. And be sure to note the poor nutrition and poor hygiene and scarcity of drinking water and stressed out angry populations with many that have sunk into depression and hopelessness. And be sure to note the children playing in the garbage and the sewer in the streets.

Posted by: Michael | October 18, 2007 1:26 AM

But, you fail to cite the numerous publications that show that HIV integrase can insert HIV DNA into target DNA. I suggest a pubmed search with the words HIV and integrase and in vitro.

A pubmed search for HIV based gene therapy vectors is also contructive.

Perhaps these researchers are all incompetent, stupid or liars but given Maniotis' demonstrated inability to read and understand the DAIDS virology manual the most parsimonious explanation is that Maniotis stuffed up.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 18, 2007 1:47 AM

hey misery woman leda dAvid ray griffin real phd in phIlosophy theology top army philosopher collapsing theology buildings google it get blown away thermite faster than gravity see nothing pentlawn

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 18, 2007 2:14 AM

Hey Tara, seeing as how I am fairly sure that you do not have the courage to face poverty eye to eye, here are notes from a recent trip. Undoubtedly you will read this and decide there are really no problems contributing to stress and poor health in the ghettos of Soweto whatsoever, except for that pesky invisible virus HIV:

The day before I was to leave Jo'Berg (or "Crime-berg," as it had come to be known to travelers), I took our machine-gunning friend up o­n his offer. He proceeded to drive, in silence, through the areas of Johannesburg that have some of the worst crime rates in the world. As he reached across and locked my door, he said that everyone we were seeing o­n the streets was a pimp, dealer, junkie, prostitute or gangster. There was razor wire around almost all of the buildings, dwellings, and storefronts. There were no trees, flowers or grassy areas anywhere in the city.

We continued towards the poorest ghetto: Soweto. The "better" areas of Soweto consisted mostly of shacks of tin. There was the occasional o­ne or two room brick structure about the size of a o­ne-car garage in the States. We drove to an exhibit and memorial site that commemorated the student uprising of 1976 that marked the beginning of the end of apartheid in South Africa. The museum consisted of four open freight train containers exhibiting photographs of the Soweto uprising.

We moved o­n until Kliptown - the worst of the worst of the Soweto ghettos. We drove past tents made of sticks covered by scrap cloth, stalls made of discarded wood and branches, erected by the side of the road in efforts to sell fruit to anyone who had the misfortune to have to travel this route. All the black residents were staring at us as we drove into the ghetto, their eyes haunting us as they studied our clean clothes, cameras, and backpacks.

Brian introduced us to Bob Nameng, a Soweto local who proudly displayed his seven-year-old dreadlocks. He was a very talkative and amazingly positive young man, considering his surroundings. I felt instantly at ease in his company. I was to find out later that there are no "tours" that let o­ne out of the car in any area of Soweto at anytime. As I walked through Kliptown with Bob I saw shacks made of scrap tin siding, boards, cloth and dirty cardboard. All had low ceilings, enough so that o­ne had to duck even when inside. There was no running water, no electricity, nothing. We met some black children clothed in old rags, no shoes, nothing. I watched them play as children do, laughing, smiling, and sharing the o­ne toy that they had; a bent metal bar with two wheels attached that could be used as a makeshift wagon. They took turns rolling each other along the dirt, laughing hysterically when o­ne of the wheels would give and they both went tumbling.

Bob was the closest thing to a mayor that this town had. He quoted some shocking statistics to us as boys and girls passed by returning home from school.

"These young women," he said, of the students passing us. "One in three of them will experience her first sexual experience through rape. Also the incidence of AIDS is higher here than anywhere else o­n the planet. Of the world's 34 million cases, seventy per cent occur in Sub- Saharan Africa."

We later found out that he organized all of the community programs, including AIDS awareness, child abuse and rape prevention programs, a shelter for the neglected, charity collection, youth plays, soccer teams and even beauty pageants. He ran all these programs out of the back of an old tire-repair shop. Bob showed us his library, of which he was especially proud. It actually was a collection of 20 or so used books stacked in an old tire rack. He provided beds for children who needed to spend a few nights away from abusive parents, offering two rooms with old dirty cushions o­n the floor. We met Gordon, Tabo and Robert in this center, all community volunteers who worked with Bob. They walked us through their community; between dirty shacks, under clothes lines, over open streams of sewer water and through back alleys as they described what they hoped for their community.

There was a lot of activity in the streets and Bob seemed to know everyone. Old women wrapped in shawls, despite the heat, waved and shouted greetings to him. Teenagers high-fived him as we walked by and children were constantly running up to him as o­ne would a favorite uncle. Through all the poverty and filth, the dirt, depression, maimed and deformed, the shantytown shacks, the hungry and abused, Bob somehow made it seem not so grim. Every time he told or showed me something horrible or devastating, he also let me know how he was trying to improve it. Walking with these four young black South Africans through Kliptown; the worst slum in Soweto, supposedly the most dangerous place in South Africa, I felt more at ease than I had o­n any of my travels.

Posted by: Michael | October 18, 2007 2:31 AM

moment of silence please.

moment of silence for army's the DR. shyh ching Lo md phd the only scientist since koch to discover a microbe that killed/sickened every animal injected. Mycoplasma incognitus, slowly spreading through the population, the new world orders ultimate trick, have everyone worry about a harmless retrovirus while the real killer spread through the population culling the population.

moment of silence please, all the inferior scientists bow your head in awe and in effigy for Lo. Shyh ching lo is your father, he is our master who holds the eternal key.

Project day lily, mind blowing book part of the bioweapons program son true story slightly fictionilized, google it. Written by 2 top cancer researchers.

Posted by: cooler | October 18, 2007 2:42 AM

Michael -

Not sure why you didn't include the reference:

http://www.studenttraveler.com/mod-Pagesetter-viewpub-tid-10002-pid-263.html

Anyway - conditions such as those described could no doubt be found in some of the new magacities in India and China - so why do these not see the same rise in mortality in the 25-45 age group?

Posted by: Andrew Dodds | October 18, 2007 9:10 AM

Tara... to answer Andrews question. I've been to China on many an occasion to these highly populous mega cities in the southern Guangdong Province and although still poor most of the inhabitants are, they are rich as to Africa's standards. The government has spent loads of money for infrastructure, roads, schools, subsidizes farming ect..ect.ect.. There's no way China can be equal to poverty stricken Africa. Since when did you ever see something labeled "made in Africa?" The money goes to China and the Chinese spend it to bring living standards up, hence the huge growth of the middle class there. DongGuan city is as clean as most American cities. There's go garbage or sewers in the streets. Andrew Dodd is ill informed.

Posted by: Carter | October 18, 2007 3:25 PM

Bra-Middle-Man-Ganza, you are more than entitled to continue discussing Herbalism and Organic Chemistry with Brave Sir John and ElkMountainMan, but if you're going to continue to pretend that you want to engage with people from "the other side", like Gene, I advise you go to Duesberg.com and theperthgroup.com then comeback andshoe you've got just a basic understanding of the dissident arguments.

How does that sound Mr. Middle-Man?

Posted by: Pope | October 18, 2007 4:59 PM

If your comments section was a poll and your boss a TV station your show would be the HIV Late Night Comedy Show
because it would be rated XXX

Posted by: pat | October 18, 2007 7:15 PM

To the person who used the screen name "notopos" to make a posting on this blog (sic) "...To Andrew Maniotis:

I suspect the dysfunctional data interpretation skills revealed in your post about HIV integrase explains why you are still a research assistant professor after 7 years. Any graduate student knows that a negative result means nothing in the absence of the necessary controls. Without proof that the integrase protein you purchased was functional your so-called experiment means nothing...," et alia.

For the record, this is a word I coined, nearly 20 years ago, is trade-marked, is my email name, is the name of my incorporated biomedical technology company and is protected by United States Trademark and Patent laws. When, not "if," I learn just whom you are, I can assure you that you will be hearing from my attorney. If you ever use this word-name to identify yourself again, anywhere, and in any context, you can expect swift, additional legal action to be taken. I do not wish to conjecture, here, who you are - I have a good idea, already. If you had an issue with me, personally, you should have kept it personal. When you usurped my identity - which is exactly what this is, according to my attorney - to make statements demeaning to others, and thereby to cause these statements to be attributed to me, you traveled down a road from which there is no safe return. Ergo...

TO ALL READERS: whoever it is that posted using the name "notopos" has broken the law, and cannot be trusted. I will not hesitate, upon determining his/her true identity, to post that name hereon, for all to see.

With all due respect,

Dr. Jonas Moses

Posted by: Jonas Moses | October 18, 2007 7:52 PM

Jonas,
unless he has competing financial interests then you have no chan....oh what the hell, sue him in america; no one cares there about the truth there. I can patent my ASS there!

Posted by: pat | October 18, 2007 8:21 PM

"Pat"...

Respectfully, this is not about competing financial interests. We are talking about identity theft. I am widely associated with the name-word, "notopos." End of conversation...

Sincerely,

Dr. Jonas Moses

Posted by: Jonas Moses | October 18, 2007 8:47 PM

Respectfully, this is not about competing financial interests. We are talking about identity theft. I am widely associated with the name-word, "notopos." End of conversation...

Jonas, I'm curious as to whether you would apply similar criteria to somebody pretending to be Robert Gallo.

(yes, I really am a sort of famous scientist that can't spell).

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 18, 2007 9:29 PM

I suggest that you check the following website for another potential trademark infringement.

What about that Thomas More guy? I'm not sure whether he has a website though.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 19, 2007 12:14 AM

Dear Dr. Moses, BS, PA, PhD,

Upon further consideration, I herebyupon recognize with all due respect that your complaint may have legal standing hereunto. Thereupon, I urge you to pursue this matter furtherabout. The damage to your acting career alone justifies a record-breaking settlement.

Clearly, the pretending "notoxxxx(tm)" is in violation of the law of Life, as all would agree unto-upon. Although I received my PhD only four months ago, I too sign my name with "Dr." in front of it whenever I can. I am also a Prince and a Sultan, address me as such or I shall sue you, your offspring, your hairdresser, your advisor, your advisor's advisor, and anyone else I can think of.

I herefore alert you unto another violation of the Law. My colleague Vinod is a rapacious consumer of the ganja and when I asked him yesterday what he wanted, he said, "Pot. Soon."

Yes. Those same seven letters.

Please give me your top-secret government-issued DOD-funded oh-so-vital-to-national-security email address (the one you put on your correspondence to spammers, as posted on the top-secret internet, with the IP address of your top secret university server) and I will send you-unto the name and address of this sue-worthy scum.

Posted by: another undefinable space | October 19, 2007 1:37 AM

Dear "pat," "jen_m," "Chris Noble," and "sopoton" as well as the person who first posted that entry under the screen name "notopos" and anyone else who feels compelled to weigh in on my posts:

Evidently, you believe I am joking. I am quite serious, and you are being exceptionally juvenile. From a first read of the topics, I was under the impression that this blog was devoted to the discussion of legitimate, fact-based Science and Medicine. Apparently this is far from the case.

If you persist in playing fast and loose with my name, or my character, or persist at including mention of me, whether directly by name or inferentially, in your "conversations" on this blog, you can expect legal action to be taken against you.

In case you think you are being clever, consider this: As I was not even aware of this blog site until yesterday, I would never have known about the use of "notopos" as an identity, if that word was not already closely associated with me, by name. In fact, "notopos" is quite well-known by colleagues, friends, family et al., as a word I coined nearly 20 years ago, have utilized as a company name - for many years - and as my Internet "alter ego." As it is, someone contacted me, within a few hours' time from that posting to inform me that I have been identified as the author of the "notopos" blog submission, which means that you are all quite wrong about your assertions that the word is commonly used by others and not necessarily attributable to me.

This is my final word to the lot of you. I have no patience for your lack of manners, failed sense of propriety or disregard for the privacy of others. Since you behave like children, expect to be treated as such. I must assume you have very deep pockets and are eager to spend your money on legal fees, for I am done mincing words. Stop. Now. There is ample precedent to subpoena the webmaster of this site to acquire the identity(ies) of those who are abusing my identity, my privacy and/or my personal and professional reputation, and I have no qualms about allowing my attorney to pursue this course of action.

It is equally plain those of you who are making derisive remarks about my legal claim(s) have no legal knowledge, whatsoever. If you think I am bluffing, please call my attorney. I shall instruct him to accept any and all of your calls. His name is David Edwards and he is corporate counsel at Barnes & Thornburg, in Chicago, IL. Please note that the contents of what I have written herein are being forwarded to Mr. Edwards, for his reference to this matter.

So, get on with your in-fighting about AIDS and quit resorting to illicitly enlisting the good name of others in your efforts to out-shout one another.

One more time: Cease and desist.

Again, with all due respect,

Dr. Jonas Moses

Posted by: Jonas Moses | October 19, 2007 1:55 AM

Weirdly, this time you get the science completely wrong even though you are one of the authors of the paper!

Maybe Maniotis can sue himself for defamation. I think he should have a good chance considering the damage to his reputation.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 19, 2007 5:14 AM

"Evidently, you believe I am joking. I am quite serious, and you are being exceptionally juvenile. From a first read of the topics, I was under the impression that this blog was devoted to the discussion of legitimate, fact-based Science and Medicine. Apparently this is far from the case. "

You will sue in america where everything goes and nothing makes sense. I believe you are dead serious.

"If you persist in playing fast and loose with my name, or my character, or persist at including mention of me, whether directly by name or inferentially, in your "conversations" on this blog, you can expect legal action to be taken against you."

Evidently, you believe I am joking. I am quite serious, and you are being exceptionally juvenile. From a first read of the topics, I was under the impression that this blog was devoted to the discussion of legitimate, fact-based Science and Medicine. Apparently this is far from the case.

If you persist in playing fast and loose with my name, or my character, or persist at including mention of me, whether directly by name or inferentially, in your "conversations" on this blog, you can expect legal action to be taken against you.

notoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotoposnotopos....sue me

Posted by: pat | October 19, 2007 7:53 AM

Denialism: "they don't remember"

Huh? I remember quite well what happenend in the eighties. But I also remember quite well the looks of the junkies in the streets of Amsterdam in the seventies.
They didn't look healthy at all, you know. The other day I was suddenly very sure of the fact that many of them must have suffered from Aids.
But that's a stupid thought, of course. HIV wasn't dicovered yet so Aids didn't exist in the seventies.

Posted by: jspreen | October 19, 2007 8:15 AM

Franklin, or whomoorever you are, I am disappointed in you.

The topoisomerase work you distort and criticize displays a profound lack of appreciation for the history of chromatin biology. There is no dispute about the strand-passing activity of the topoisomerases. It has been studied, and repeated a multitude of times. Strand passage is the biochemist's explanation for this molecule, but not necessarily the only model.

What our work showed, contrary to widely held beliefs, is that the activity of this enzyme is independent of its catalytic activity. We and the French team teamed up to investigate and characterize the dynamic responses of these enzymes on chromatin that was not chemically treated in any way, and which retained its natural dynamics.

The year before I arrived at UIC, the work was confirmed: that topoisomerase's strand passing ability could occur independent of its catalytic activity by William Beck's group, who is Professor and Department Head of Biopharmaceutical Sciences at UIC:

Mo YY, Beck WT. Association of human DNA topoisomerase IIalpha with mitotic chromosomes in mammalian cells is independent of its catalytic activity. Exp Cell Res. Oct 10;252 (1):50-62, 1999.

Note that when in the Maniotis et al., paper, we compare histone H3 and others, but claim, that not even at concentrations as high as 15 fold, we saw no condensing activity. We saw decondensing activity, and other types of reactions, but this was not the point. We needed to see condensation. Note also that I say that most enzymes thought to participate in chromatin dynamics don't typically have activity-albumin being one of our controls for protein concentration of the applied reagents.

I HOPE notopos, or whomever you are: why don't you all use your real names? What is it that you've got to hide?

As for my lack of association with Folkman, the same journalist involved in Watergate, and who made Robert Gallo's life hell for 5 years, wrote an article in the Chicago Tribune about us after I left the group and found that tumors make their own vascular channels:

http://chicago.tribune.com/news/nationworld/ws/item/0,1308,42540-42548-34630,00.html

The full title stated:

Breaktrhough cancer theory questioned: Human trials of Dr. Judah Folkman's treatment are about to begin as the discovery by an ex-associate that some tumors defy Folkman's conception come to light.

By John Crewdson:

For some reason my version which is free doesn't have this intro. Go figure!

Here are some relevant sentences and a Reuters report:

The NCI's rebuttal that the report was in error was followed by fresh findings from another laboratory that appear to question the underlying premise of Folkman's celebrated research and the burgeoning field of cancer research it has spawned.

A potential chink in that theory appeared this week, when researchers at the University of Iowa reported that at least two kinds of tumors, including a lethal skin cancer called melanoma, appear to be able to grow without creating new blood vessels but merely by channeling blood through the spaces between tumor cells.

Dr. Robert Folberg, a professor of pathology at the University of Iowa's Medical Research Center, which maintains the largest "melanoma bank" in the U.S., said the unexpected failure to find any evidence of blood-vessel formation in the melanomas studied would require a rethinking of Folkman's theory.

The Iowa research, which is being extended to prostate and other kinds of tumors, is the first to question the assumption that all, or even most, tumors secrete chemicals that induce the formation of new blood vessels.

Although the Iowa findings are so far unconfirmed by other laboratories, they carry added weight because the principal researcher, Andrew J. Maniotis, spent several years working on angiogenesis as a postdoctoral fellow in Folkman's laboratory.

After arriving in Iowa, Maniotis recalled, he had begun working on an angiogenesis-related project in which he was surprised not to find blood vessels in a rare form of melanoma. "I'm not going to say that I'm right and Folkman's wrong," Maniotis said. "The whole concept needs to be re-examined."

Or:

Aggressive tumors may form their own blood vessels

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

SOURCE: Reuters [HD]

DATE: Monday, September 6, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK, Reuters [HD] via NewsEdge Corporation: Rather than depend on nearby vessels for blood supply, aggressive tumors can generate their own network of blood vessels, report researchers.

The new finding helps explain why some advanced tumors fail to respond to conventional chemotherapy, according to a report published in the September issue of the American Journal of Pathology.

The investigators, led by Dr. Andrew J. Maniotis of the University of Iowa at Iowa City, examined aggressive melanoma cells from patients and melanoma cells grown in culture. They found that these aggressive skin cancers are capable of building primitive types of blood vessels.

In a statement, Maniotis said that these tumor-directed ''vascular channels'' allow the tumor to continue to carry on basic tissue processes, even when challenged by chemotherapy drugs. He added that ``new forms of cancer therapy could be developed that would specifically interfere with the way tumor cells pack together to form these channels.''

And because these channels can be identified through imaging studies, ``it may be possible to develop new non-invasive imaging tests to detect aggressive cancers,'' co-author Dr. Robert Folberg commented in the statement. ``These tests may complement and perhaps even substitute for some forms of invasive biopsies.''

SOURCE: American Journal Pathology 1999;155:739-752.

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

[09-03-99 at 13:58 EDT, Copyright 1999, Reuters America Inc. [Reuters [HD]], File: m0903144.801]

Or:

Developments and Confirmations of Vasculogenic mimicry since:

Original finding:
Maniotis A., Folberg R., Hess A., Seftor E., Gardner L., Pe'er J., Trent J., Meltzer P., Hendrix M. Vascular channel formation by human uveal melanoma cells in vivo and in vitro: Vasculogenic mimicry. Amer. J. Path. Vol. I55, No 3, pps. 739-752, September, 1999.

Also see: Chicago Tribune, September 17, 1999. "Cancer Theory is Questioned," by John Crewdson,
Front page.

Subsequent developments in vasculogenic mimicry research:
Robert Folberg, Mary Hendrix, and Andrew Maniotis. Vasculogenic Mimicry and Tumor Angiogenesis. American Journal of Pathology. Amer. Journ. Pathol. Vol 156, No.2, 2000.

Folberg R, Chen X, Boldt HC, Pe'er J, Brown CK, Woolson RF, Maniotis AJ: Microcirculation patterns other than loops and networks in choroidal and ciliary body melanomas. Ophthalmology; 98:996-1001, 2001.

Michael A. Warso, Andrew Maniotis, Xue Chen, Dibyen Majumdar, Niu K. Patel, Anne Shilkaitis, tapas K. Das Gupta, Robert Folberg. Prognostic Significance of vasculogenic mimicry patterns in primary cutaneous melanoma. Clinical Cancer Research , Vol 7, 473-477, March 2001.
Reviews:

Folberg R., Chen X, Maniotis A, Vasculogenic Mimicry in Uveal Melanoma: Findings, Critiques, and Future Directions. Leiden Monograph Series, 2001.

Andrew Maniotis, Xue Chen, Christopher Garcia, Phillip J. DeChristopher, Ding Wu, Jacob Pe'er, Robert Folberg. Control of Melanoma Morphogenesis Endothelial Survival, and Perfusion By Extracellular Matrix. Lab Investigation. Vol. 82 No. 8 p.1083-1092, 2002.

Chen X, Maniotis AJ, Majumdar D, Pe'er J, Folberg R: Uveal melanoma cell staining for CD34 and the assessment of tumor vascularity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Aug; 43(8): 2533-9. 2002.

A. Mueller, A. Maniotis, W. Freeman, D. Bartch, U.Schaller, G.Bergeron-Lynn, L. Cheng, Taskintuna, X. Chen, J. Kan-Mitchell, R. Folberg. An orthotopic model for human uveal melanoma in SCID mice. Microvasc Res Vol. 44, 2002.

Elisabeth A. Seftor, Paul S. Meltzer, Dawn A. Kirschmann, Jacob Pe'er, Andrew J. Maniotis, Jeffrey M. Trent Robert Folberg and Mary J.C. Hendrix. Molecular Determinants of Human Uveal Melanoma Metastasis. Clinical & Experimental Metastasis 19: 233-246, 2002.

Chen X, Ai Z, Rasmussen M, Bajcsy P, Auvil L, Welge M, Leach L, Vangveeravong S, Maniotis AJ, Folberg R. Three-dimensional reconstruction of extravascular matrix patterns and blood vessels in human uveal melanoma tissue: techniques and preliminary findings. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Jul;44(7):2834-40, 2003.

Robert Folberg, Jacob Pe'er, Andrew J. Maniotis. Extravascular Matrix Patterns in Uveal Melanoma: Histogenesis, Structure, and Molecular Regulation. In: Uveal Melanoma: A model for Exploring Fundamental Cancer Biology. Swets&Zeitlinger, Publishers, 2004.

Folberg R, Arbieva Z, Moses J, Hayee A, Sandal T, Kadkol S, Lin AY, Valyi-Nagy K, Setty S, Leach L, Chevez-Barrios P, Larsen P, Majumdar D, Pe'er J, Maniotis AJ. Tumor cell plasticity in uveal melanoma: microenvironment directed dampening of the invasive and metastatic genotype and phenotype accompanies the generation of vasculogenic mimicry patterns.
Am J Pathol. Oct;169(4):1376-89, 2006.

Kadkol SS, Lin AY, Barak V, Kalickman I, Leach L, Valyi-Nagy K, Majumdar D, Setty S, Maniotis AJ, Folberg R, Pe'er J. Osteopontin expression and serum levels in metastatic uveal melanoma: a pilot study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. Mar;47(3):802-6, 2006.

Rieber M, Strasberg-Rieber M, Maniotis AJ, Folberg R. Different Chromatin Organization in Benign and Malignant Cells Revealed by Unequal Nuclease Sensitivity between Tumor and Normal Cell Genomes. Am J Pathol. 2007 Feb;170(2):787-9.

Grace Guzman, Scott J. Cotler, Amy Y. Lin, Robert Folberg, Andrew J. Maniotis. Expression of vasculogenic mimicry correlates with earlier hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after orthotopic liver transplant. Submitted.

Tone Sandal, Jonas Moses, Klara Valyi-Nagy, Amin Hayee , John Karavitis , Laurence J Marton, and Andrew J Maniotis. Interactions of polyamine analogs with chromatin, and the relationship of polyamine analog growth inhibitory activity to extracellular matrix control of tumor cell phenotype. Submitted.

Epigenetic reversion of breast carcinoma phenotype is accompanied by changes in DNA sequestration as measured by Alu I restriction enzyme. Tone Sandal, Klara Valyi-Nagy, Virginia A Spencer, Robert Folberg, Mina J Bissell, Andrew J Maniotis. Accepted, American Journal of Pathology, 1-2007.

Confirmations and work by independent groups:
Makitie, T., Summanen, P., Tarkannen, A., and Kivela, T. Microvascular loops and networks as prognostic indicators in choroidal and ciliary body melanomas. J.Nat.Cancer Inst., 91: 359-367, 1999.

Pezella F., Manzotti M, Di Bacco A, Giuseppe V, Nicholson AG, Price R, Ratcliffe C, Pastorino U, Harris A, Altman DG, Pilotti S, Veronesi U. Evidence for a novel non-angiogenic pathway in breast-cancer metastasis. Lancet, 355: 1787-1788, 2000.

E Passalidou, M Trivella, N Singh, M Ferguson, Jhu, A Cesario, P Granone, AG Nicholson, Goldstraw, C Ratcliffe, M Tetlow, I Leigh, AL Harris, KC Gatter, and F Pezzella. Vascular phenotype in angiogenic and non-angiogenic lung non-small cell carcinomas. British Journal of Cancer 86, 244 - 249. 2002.

Baron, J. A., Monzon, F., Galaria, N., and Murphy, G. F. Angiomatoid melanoma: A novel pattern of differentiation in invasive periocular desmoplastic malignant melanoma. Hum.Pathol., 31: 1520-1522, 2000.

Potter CJ. Turenchalk G. Xu T. Drosophila in cancer research. TIG January, Volume 16 No 1, 2000.

SM Rybak PhD, E Sanovich PhD, M Hollingshead PhD, DL Newton PhD, G Kaur BS, EA Sausville MD PhD. Differential effects of drugs on vascular channels formed by tumor cells vs vascular channels formed by endothelial cells. Molecular detection & therapy. Journal of The International Society for Preventive Oncology, Copyright © 2000.

Rybak SM, Sanovich E, Hollingshead MG, Borgel SD, Newton DL, Melillo G, Kong D, Kaur G, Sausville EA "Vasocrine" formation of tumor cell-lined vascular spaces: implications for rational design of antiangiogenic therapies.Cancer Res., Jun 1;63(11):2812-9, 2003.

Shirakawa K, Tsuda H, Heike Y, Kato K, Asada R, Inomata M, Sasaki H, Kasumi F, Yoshimoto M, Iwanaga T, Konishi F, Terada M, and Wakasugi H. Absence of Endothelial Cells, Central Necrosis, and Fibrosis Are Associated with Aggressive Inflammatory Breast Cancer. Cancer Research 61, 445-451, January 15, 2001.

Shirakawa K, Kobayashi H, Heike Y, Kawamoto S, Brechbiel M, Kasumi F, Iwanaga T, Konishi F, Terada M, Wakasugi H. Hemodynamics in Vasculogenic Mimicry and Angiogenesis of Inflammatory Breast Cancer Xenograft. Cancer Research 62, 560-566, January 15, 2002.

Shirakawa K, Kobayashi H, Sobajima J, Hashimoto D, Shimizu A, Wakasugi H. Inflammatory breast cancer: vasculogenic mimicry and its hemodynamics of an inflammatory breast cancer xenograft model. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5(3):136-9. Mar 06, 2003.

Shirakawa K, Wakasugi H, Heike Y, Watanabe I, Yamada S, Saito K, Konishi F. Vasculogenic mimicry and pseudo-comedo formation in breast cancer. Int J Cancer Jun 20;99(6):821-8, 2002.

Kobayashi H, Shirakawa K, Kawamoto S, Saga T, Sato N, Hiraga A, Watanabe I, Heike Y, Togashi K, Konishi J, Brechbiel MW, Wakasugi H. Rapid accumulation and internalization of radiolabeled herceptin in an inflammatory breast cancer xenograft with vasculogenic mimicry predicted by the contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI with the macromolecular contrast agent G6-(1B4M-Gd)(256). Cancer Res. Feb 1;62(3):860-6, 2002.

Clarijs R. Otte-Holler I, Ruiter, de Waal MW. Presence of a fluid-conducting meshwork in xenografted cutaneous and primary human uveal melanoma. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science: Vol. 43 No 4 2002.

Anka Thies, Ulrich Mangold ,Ingrid Mol, and Udo Schumaker. PAS-positive loops and networks as a prognostic indicator in cutaneous malignant melanoma. J Pathol 195 :537 -542, 2002.

You-Jin Lee, Noriyuki Nagai, Chong-Huat Siar, Keisuke Nakano, Hitoshi Nagatsuka, Hidetsugu Tsujigiwa, Cheng-Hsiung Roan, and Mehmet Gunduz. Angioarchitecture of Primary Oral Malignant Melanomas. Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry. Volume 50(11): 1555-1562, 2002.

Judith Favier, Pierre-Francois Plouin, Pierre Corvol, and Jean-Marie Gasc. Angiogenesis and Vascular Architecture in Pheochromocytomas: Distinctive Traits in Malignant Tumors. American Journal of Pathology, Vol. 161, No. 4, October 2002

Liu C, Huang H, Donate F, Dickinson C, Santucci R, El-Sheikh A, Vessella R, Edgington TS. Prostate-specific membrane antigen directed selective thrombotic infarction of tumors. Cancer Res. Oct 1;62(19):5470-5, 2002.

Van Rompaey L, Holland E, Grosveld G. TEL Induces Aggregation in Transformed Cells and Induces Tube Formation in NIH3T3-UCLA Cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. Mar 8;291(4):820-8, 2002.

Dupuy E, Hainaud P, Villemain A, Bodevin-Phedre E, Brouland JP, Briand P, Tobelem G. Tumoral angiogenesis and tissue factor expression during hepatocellular carcinoma progression in a transgenic mouse model. J Hepatol. Jun;38(6):793-802, 2003.

Sun BC, Zhang SW, Zhao XL, Hao XS. Study on vasculogenic mimicry in malignant melanoma. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi. Dec;32(6):539-43, 2003.

Hao XS, Sun BC, Zhang SW, Zhao XL. Correlation between the expression of collgen IV, VEGF and vasculogenic mimicry. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. Nov;25(6):524-6, 2003.

Seifert P, Journee-de Korver JG. An implanted hamster greene melanoma expressing multiple host-tissue differentiation. J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol. Jul;35(3):315-21, 2003.

Sanz L, Feijoo M, Blanco B, Serrano A, Alvarez-Vallina L. Generation of non-permissive basement membranes by anti-laminin antibody fragments produced by matrix-embedded gene-modified cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother. Oct;52(10):643-7. Epub 2003 Jun 19, 2003.

Cai XS, Jia YW, Mei J, Tang RY. Tumor blood vessels formation in osteosarcoma: vasculogenesis mimicry.Chin Med J (Engl). Jan;117(1):94-8, 2004.

Hao X, Sun B, Zhang S, Zhao X. Microarray study of vasculogenic mimicry in bi-directional differentiation of malignant tumors. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. Oct 10;82(19):1298-302, 2002.

Hendrix MJ, Seftor EA, Meltzer PS, Gardner LM, Hess AR, Kirschmann DA, Schatteman GC, Seftor RE. Expression and functional significance of VE-cadherin in aggressive human melanoma cells: role in vasculogenic mimicry. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Jul 3;98(14):8018-23. Epub 2001 Jun 19, 2001.

Bittner M, Meltzer P, Chen Y, Jiang Y, Seftor E, Hendrix M, Radmacher M, Simon R, Yakhini Z, Ben-Dor A, Sampas N, Dougherty E, Wang E, Marincola F, Gooden C, Lueders J, Glatfelter A, Pollock P, Carpten J, Gillanders E, Leja D, Dietrich K, Beaudry C, Berens M, Alberts D, Sondak V, Hayward N, Trent J. Molecular Classification of cutaneous malignant melanoma by gene expression profiling. Nature, 406: 536-540. 2000.

Hess AR, Seftor EA, Gardner LM, Carles-Kinch K, Schneider GB, Seftor RE, Kinch MS, Hendrix MJ. Molecular regulation of tumor cell vasculogenic mimicry by tyrosine phosphorylation: role of epithelial cell kinase (Eck/EphA2). Cancer Res. Apr 15;61(8):3250-5, 2001.

Sood AK, Fletcher MS, Zahn CM, Gruman LM, Coffin JE, Seftor EA, Hendrix MJ. The clinical significance of tumor cell-lined vasculature in ovarian carcinoma: implications for anti-vasculogenic therapy. Cancer Biol Ther., Nov-Dec;1(6):661-669, 2002.

Seftor RE, Seftor EA, Koshikawa N, Meltzer PS, Gardner LM, Bilban M, Stetler-Stevenson WG, Quaranta V, Hendrix MJ. Cooperative interactions of laminin 5 gamma2 chain, matrix metalloproteinase-2, and membrane type-1-matrix/metalloproteinase are required for mimicry of embryonic vasculogenesis by aggressive melanoma. Cancer Res., Sep 1; 61(17):6322-7, 2001.

Seftor RE, Seftor EA, Kirschmann DA, Hendrix MJ. Targeting the tumor microenvironment with chemically modified tetracyclines: inhibition of laminin 5 gamma2 chain promigratory fragments and vasculogenic mimicry. Mol Cancer Ther. Nov;1(13):1173-9, 2002.

Mary J. C. Hendrix, Richard E. B. Seftor, Elisabeth A. Seftor, Lynn M. Gruman, Lisa M. L. Lee, Brian J. Nickoloff, Lucio Miele, Don D. Sheriff, and Gina C. Schatteman. Transendothelial Function of Human Metastatic Melanoma Cells: Role of the Microenvironment in Cell-Fate Determination. Cancer Research, 62, 665-668, February 1, 2002.

Hendrix MJ, Seftor RE, Seftor EA, Gruman LM, Lee LM, Nickoloff BJ, Miele L, Sheriff DD, Schatteman GC. Transendothelial function of human metastatic melanoma cells: role of the microenvironment in cell-fate determination. Cancer Res. Feb 1;62(3):665-8, 2002.

Sharma N, Seftor RE, Seftor EA, Gruman LM, Heidger PM Jr, Cohen MB, Lubaroff DM, Hendrix MJ. Prostatic tumor cell plasticity involves cooperative interactions of distinct phenotypic subpopulations: role in vasculogenic mimicry. Prostate. Feb 15;50(3):189-201, 2002.

Hess AR, Seftor EA, Seftor RE, Hendrix MJ. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase regulates membrane Type 1-matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) and MMP-2 activity during melanoma cell vasculogenic mimicry. Cancer Res., Aug 15;63(16):4757-62, 2003.

Ruf W, Seftor EA, Petrovan RJ, Weiss RM, Gruman LM, Margaryan NV, Seftor RE, Miyagi Y, Hendrix MJ. Differential role of tissue factor pathway inhibitors 1 and 2 in melanoma vasculogenic mimicry.
Cancer Res., Sep 1;63(17):5381-9, 2003.

van der Schaft D., Seftor REB, Seftor E, Hess AR, Bruman LM, Kirschmann DA, Yokayama Y, Briffieoen AW, Hendrix MJC. Effects of angiogenesis inhibitors of vascular network formation by endothelial cells and melanoma cells. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 96, No. 19, October 6, 2004.

Aaron P. Petty, Kiera L. Garman, Virginia D. Winn, Celee M. Spidel, and Suzanne Lindsey. Overexpression of Carcinoma and embryonic cytotrophoblast cell-specific Mig-7 induces invasion and vessel-like structure formation. American Journal of Pathology, 170:1763-1780, 2007.

Garin P. Robertson. Mig-7 linked to vasculogenic mimicry. The American Journal of Pathology, Vol. 170, No. 5, May, 2007.

Vartanian, Amalia A.; Burova, Olga S.; Stepanova, Eugeniya V.; Baryshnikov, Anatoly Yu. The involvement of apoptosis in melanoma vasculogenic mimicry. Melanoma Research. 17(1):1-8, February 2007.

Cheers,

Andy

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | October 19, 2007 11:10 AM

Very dignified Elkie. That should put all speculations to rest about Aetiology posters being either juveniles or pompous a-holes.

I cannot help but wonder, though, how you can tell Jonah Moses that it's ridiculous to ask Commenters to call his lawyer, then immediately following that ask Jonah Moses to contact Dr. Maniotis.

Isn't that a bit juvenile?

Posted by: Pope | October 19, 2007 12:27 PM

"hey misery woman leda dAvid ray griffin real phd in phIlosophy theology top army philosopher collapsing theology buildings google it get blown away thermite faster than gravity see nothing pentlawn"

Chris, you're definitely getting better ...

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

Hunter S Thompson

Posted by: Mr. Natural | October 19, 2007 2:30 PM

Oh poor Maniotis living in the past. Maybe some people have to get this one in the stacks, real good paper and they knew about integrase in 1990,

Bushman Fujiwara Craigie Science 1990 Sept 28 "Retroviral DNA integration directed by HIV integration protein in vitro" in the abstract it says
These results indicate that HIV IN protein is the only viral protein required to insert model HIV DNA sequences into a target DNA in vitro.

They're getting integration with HIV IN but not controls lysates 71 to 0. They did a paper in Cell that year to with Mouse Leukemia and same results that integrase puts leukemia virus in DNA.

There's so many papers about this since then. Now the author from the paper F Bushman does integration preferences and integrase puts virus in DNA but it picks where to put it too! "Retroviral DNA integration: viral and cellular determinants of target-site selection" M K Lewinski et al PLOS Pathogen June 2006, there's lots more.

So Maniotis says HIVs not real and the tests are wrong its not a virus then where does integrase come from why does it put HIV in DNA in a reaction and a cell cultre. Why is there that preference Bushman shows on integration sites, that s in a person and in culture, in a tube too what is it then?

You have to get real complicated and wierd and ignore alot of stuff or you go with a good simple system, lots of good facts, integrase puts virus DNA in other DNA it works in vitro ex vivo in vivo.

Posted by: Adele | October 19, 2007 3:11 PM

"How this RNA is assembled has never been explained by the rethinkers, who usually prefer not to think about this. Using transcriptome data, we could calculate the minimum number of pieces of cellular RNAs that would need to be cleaved precisely (but how?), lined up in a specific order (why and how?), and joined together seamlessly (how?) to produce a HIV genome. The number would be somewhere in the
high hundreds or low thousands of pieces. "Improbable" doesn't come close to describing how unlikely this would be. Yet for the Kremer devotee, this process must happen independently for every RNA genome measured by RT-PCR and for every genome cloned full-length and in every HIV positive person."

Unfortunately, in my Kremer Church that last sentence is pure heresy.

But I must agree with the previous portion, a very improbable event to take place on a meaningful scale and produce measurable quanities of the complete retroviral genome; thus, the 70S or 19Kb dimeric RNA cannot be directly measured from AIDS patients.

Posted by: Mr. Natural | October 19, 2007 3:53 PM

Andrew Maniotis:

100,000 papers on HIV wrong and your one paper is right. You must be so proud!

You are such a hack. Your assay can only detect gross changes. To use it to exclude the function of HIV integrase is poor science. How many labs use this amazing technique. Who has confirmed your work? How many times has Bojanowski et al, (1998) J Cell Biochem 69:127 been cited by others ?

"If all these labs used the same reagents we bought (which is likely), and no chromatin remodeling activity was detected in native chromatin, then perhaps something else in the ill-defined gmish is responsible for the detection of "integration.""

The other labs didn't purchase the integrase like you did. They have generated it by number of techniques. It is also purified as part of complexes with the HIV genome. The recombinant integrase you worked with was likely a fragment because the complete protein is hard to handle. Read the papers.

As for the proof that HIV is an exogenous retrovirus it is very clear. Infection can be started from expression of pure DNA sequence (it doesn't get cleaner than that). Further, the virus can be shown by its DNA coding differences to spread from one cell to another and from one person to another. Do the damn experiment!

Posted by: woodchuck | October 19, 2007 5:44 PM

Andrew,

You accuse me of distorting your work:

The topoisomerase work you distort and criticize displays a profound lack of appreciation for the history of chromatin biology.

I pointed out that although in your previous post you indicated that the results of Bojanowski et al. ((1998) J. Cell. Biochem. 69:127-142) suggested that HIV-1 integrase lacks "minor groove-binding activity," the actual paper never characterizes the assays used as having any relation to DNA-binding activity. The term "minor groove" does not even occur in the paper. Not even once.

In fact, the results of the paper indicate that HIV-1 Integrase binds to chromatin. Based on the results of this paper, you have no basis for your conclusion that HIV-1 Integrase lacks "minor groove-binding activity."

I then directed you to the full text of a paper that demonstrates that HIV-1 integrase possesses the enzymatic activities required of a DNA Integrase: Calmels et al (2004). You buried your head in the sand and ignored this paper.

I conclude that you either 1) are distorting the results of Bojanowski et al. (1998) in an attempt to pretend that you have performed experimental work relevant to HIV or 2) don't understand the results reported in your own publication.

Which is it?

I really don't understand what is going on.
Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D. July 6, 2007

(Apparently not even when discussing his own work.)

Posted by: franklin | October 19, 2007 6:42 PM

Franklin,
Your evaluation of the data presented in Bojanowski et al. ((1998) J. Cell. Biochem. 69:127-142) is truly outstanding. Clearly you have an excellent grasp of science. You took the time to carefully read the manuscript, considered the outcome of the experiments, and formulated a thoughtful interpretation of the results. Such analysis of the data of any paper is always easier after the fact, but your analysis of the results should stand as an example to everyone involved in this discussion. Hopefully the pretenders such as Andrew Maniotis will consider your logic carefully and take a similar approach in evaluating the overwhelming evidence that HIV is a retrovirus that causes destruction of the immune system leading to the disease we call AIDS.

Posted by: woodchuck | October 19, 2007 9:42 PM

The other labs didn't purchase the integrase like you did. They have generated it by number of techniques. It is also purified as part of complexes with the HIV genome. The recombinant integrase you worked with was likely a fragment because the complete protein is hard to handle. Read the papers.

Woodchuck, are you saying that the whole team had omitted to read the small print in the sales ad. where it said "NB! only fragments available", or that the company advertized whole proteins when all they had was fragments?

As for the proof that HIV is an exogenous retrovirus it is very clear. Infection can be started from expression of pure DNA sequence (it doesn't get cleaner than that). Further, the virus can be shown by its DNA coding differences to spread from one cell to another and from one person to another. Do the damn experiment!

We are all impressed with the cleanness of isolation, cloning, transfection, mass production etc. But you must know that the good old fashioned starting with a purified particle and ending with a particle is the damn experiment denialists are looking for, not pieces of RNA or DNA. Otherwise the antigen in the vaccines would provoke the desired antibody production and we would hardly be having this wide ranging discussion with Dr. Maniotis offering such wealth of opportunities to call him a hack.

Posted by: Pope | October 20, 2007 1:11 AM

I think Mr. Smith has had one too many diet sodas.

Posted by: Dr. Duke | October 20, 2007 2:11 AM

Dear John Smith,

What's the difference between a rethinker and a true rethinker? Is it like dumb and dumber?

Mullis and Duesberg have been retired from active science for many years. What is this data? Maniotis is a research assistant professor, something often referred to as a dog meat faculty position in biomedical science. He is not a top scientist. He is a blowhard, who will hopefully be a former research assistant professor soon.

Posted by: woodchuck | October 20, 2007 10:07 AM

Dear Pope,

What exactly is this old fashion experiment that you desire? Start with a particle and end with a particle. I think this has been done numerous times. Please define.

As for HIV vaccine candidates, they do generate antigen responses. The issue is that the response is not broad enough to protect from all variants of the virus. It like the flu virus (do you believe in that one?). The virus changes enough from year to year so that the immunity that was generated the last time someone was infected is not broad enough to prevent infection by the new strain of flu.

Posted by: woodchuck | October 20, 2007 10:21 AM

What exactly is this old fashion experiment that you desire? Start with a particle and end with a particle.

Dear Woodchuck (I seem to remember something about cancer and woodchucks?),

As you see I've been very aggressively accused of being naive by the otherwise so urbane and always well informed Dr. Trrll, which makes me a little bit cautious. It also makes me a little bit confused because you, who are obviously expert on this whole issue, seems to be unaware of something that Dr. Trrll considers common knowledge.

Anyway, since you chose to talk about DNA rather than - and I beg Dr. Trrll's forgiveness for my use of that word -"purified" viral particles, I was just wondering if you were aware that various prizes put up by dissidents for that initial viral particle (not the clone) haven't been collected yet?

Although not an expert by any means, I am well aware of the flu virus, and also some of the supposed differences between that and "HIV". However, what Dr. Maniotis states above - and he might very well be wrong, that's part of science - is that all the "HIV" vaccine initiatives have failed misreably, whereas the flu vaccines seldom fail and are supposed to protect for a year or two.

Dr. Maniotis makes the further claim, I think - in this I may be wrong that's the frequent lot of lay people trying to interpret these lofty matters and I accept it if it is so - is that the "HIV DNA" or whatever you may wish to call it, in the vaccines has failed to evoke the "HIV" specific antibody response.

Now instead of going into detail about the biochemical (non)activity of "HIV" integrase, you could simply tell us that the vaccines do evoke "HIV" specific antibodies and then explain why these antibodies offer zero protection
although the antigens are the same as the ones certified for the well nigh infallible "HIV" tests, if you catch my drift despite my naivete and unfamiliarity with the technical terminology

Posted by: Pope | October 20, 2007 4:51 PM

True AIDS dissidents are NOT conspiracy theorists!

Now what's this John Smith dummy talking about? Are you and Tara twins or what?

Don't you know that the term "conspiracy theorist" is nothing but an idle concept invented to discredit people who have thoughts that are not approved by the leaders of the herds of nerds?
True AIDS dissidents Ha! Ha! ha! Let me laugh. So now people who are not scientists but who simply have a working brain, and thus recognize HIV=Aids science as baby talk, are not TRUE dissidents?

Posted by: jspreen | October 20, 2007 5:22 PM

Cooler,

Do you realize that jspreen thinks Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitius strain) does not cause disease?

Perhaps there is a work of fiction that you would like to recommend to him.

Posted by: franklin | October 20, 2007 7:49 PM

I'm just letting you know that jspeen, who you totally agree with, doesn't beleive that Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitius strain) causes disease.

There may be a work of fiction that you might be interested in recommending to him.

Posted by: franklin | October 20, 2007 10:17 PM

Don't you know that the term "conspiracy theorist" is nothing but an idle concept invented to discredit people who have thoughts that are not approved by the leaders of the herds of nerds?

Scientific denialists pretty much always turn to conspiracy theory to get around a central problem--the fact that virtually all of the scientific progress is being made by people who guide their research based on the theory the denialsit is trying to deny. To rationalize this, the denialist has to convince himself that there is some kind of conspiracy to suppress research that supports his views.

Posted by: trrll | October 20, 2007 11:24 PM

Mysteriously it seems that the middle part(!) of the passage Weiss-Perth exchange I cut and pasted in toto has become victim of some sort of deletion or recombination event I try again.

6. "...purification by this method is no problem..." (Weiss)

If purification of HIV particles by density gradient centrifugation is no problem why has it not been reported? (Perth)

7. "...[HIV] loses most of its infectivity during this laboratory process".(Weiss)

Given the fact there is no electron microscopic evidence for the existence of HIV particles at the density of 1.16 gm/ml, how may one have evidence that the particles lose their infectivity during density gradient centrifugation? If the infectivity of HIV particles is so labile how do they retain their infectivity during the processing of plasma into the factor VIII clotting concentrates which are administered to individuals with haemophilia? (This procedure involves collection of blood, separation of plasma by centrifugation, cool storage followed by freezing, transport to a facility for pooling with donation of similarly obtained plasma, thawing, further freezing and thawing, filtration, lyophilisation and storage as a dry powder for weeks to months before use. (Perth)

Posted by: Pope | October 21, 2007 4:32 AM

It's strange, ancient answers to even more ancient questions suddenly appear in this thread.... I know this is not a place for 911 but one thing for sure, David Marjanović, I won't you let get off the hook with your silly statements about the Pentagone photos I referred to above.

David Marjanović wrote:

Sure. You implied there was no plane. But we have photos of plane fragments and corpses all around the impact site, inside and outside the building. It follows that there was a plane. In short: you're wrong.

Who are "we", please? Were are the pictures? Huh? Oh yes, wait a minute, I see.
"We" are the people who don't mind that millions doubt the aircraft version and the all unveiling pictures we have, well, "we" keep them pictures neatly in the album where we glued them together with the photographs of Grampa, Mamma, The Baby and the barbecue garden parties.

Posted by: jspreen | October 21, 2007 7:43 AM

Are you sure there is no work of fiction you want to recommend to him?

How about Gallo's initial papers on the discovery of the aetiological agent of AIDS?

Posted by: Pope | October 21, 2007 10:24 AM

I'm so sad Andy did not tell me about when his paper's coming out about how you put IL-2 and PHA on normal cells and HIV comes out Magic!

He said that's what Dr. Gallo did and he said Dr, Gallo lied about HIV it was just IL-2 and PHA and interferon antibodies made a "sginature" no HIV, but Gallo destroyed those controls. Fraud Andy said.

I did not see Andy aplogize about saying that did you?

Well a good way to find out if Andy's, right is, start a contest!! I have a "individually wrapped Honey Bun" on my desk, joke about it kiddies but I do. And I will save it for the first denialist who publish in a major perreview journal even tho I love Honey Buns and I'm so fat and ugly bc of them. The winner have to publish this,

Start on cells, no HIV DNA in them by PCR no RNA coming out by qRT-PCR.
Give some HIV IL2 IFN antibodies PHA and some other ones just IL2 IFN ab PHA, and some other ones nothing.
THen you get HIV coming out of the cells even the ones you didn't give HIV to, but not the ones with nothing. And HIV DNA in cells too. And you have to show you didn't contaminate your noHIV control.

So if no one does it that's proof Maniotis is wrong because if there's a contest everyone should try and get the prize right Pope if they don't their totally wrong! The expiration date on the Honey Bun is August 2009, nice preservatives huh? So let me know and take your time you might be trying a while.

Posted by: Adele | October 21, 2007 10:49 AM

Franklin, lo's work on mfi are not fiction, theyre on pub med, what is a work of fiction is the delusional world that your drug company masters have given you.

Like HPV causing cancer 30 years later, no animal model, most everyone who has it does not get cancer, but gotta make money off those vaccines, being the prostitute for merck that you are! Your whole scientific persona is a work of fiction.

Posted by: cooler | October 21, 2007 11:57 AM

Pope said:

"Howbeit, the question has been raised, if HIV continually outmutates the other evolutionary giant, the body's immune defences, and all attempts at a vaccine, why doesn't it outmutate the HIV tests at a corresponding rate?"

Antibodies that are detected for the HIV test are directed against p24, also known as capsid, which is located inside the virus. Therefore it does not change like the envelope (which is on the outside of the virus) in response to the antibody response in an infected individual.

Posted by: woodchuck | October 21, 2007 12:09 PM

Dear Woodchuck,

ELISA and WB are looking exclusively for the p24 core protein?

Anyway, I've checked and I may have misunderstood Dr. Maniotis when he talked about "diagnostic antigens" as being the ones from the antibody tests, I don't know, but that is waht he says. He further says that gp120, which is hardly a core potein, fails to evoke antibody reponses. Perhaps you could comment directly on Dr. Maniotis statement?

it has been repeatedly shown more than 30 times in "HIV" vaccine trials that antibodies against "HIV" proteins aren't evoked even when the so-called unique and diagnostic "HIV'" antigens are injected directly into the bloodstream of healthy humans (according to "experts," no molecular entity associated with "HIV" sequences, proteins, or glycoproteins such as GP120, has been shown to be immunogenic in humans

Posted by: Pope | October 21, 2007 1:03 PM

Pope here's a few papers Maniotis didn't read but if you ever get around they answer the questions you got,

1: Abdel-Motal U, Wang S, Lu S, Wigglesworth K, Galili U.
Increased immunogenicity of human immunodeficiency virus gp120 engineered to
express Galalpha1-3Galbeta1-4GlcNAc-R epitopes.
J Virol. 2006 Jul;80(14):6943-51.
PMID: 16809300 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2: Kim JH, Pitisuttithum P, Kamboonruang C, Chuenchitra T, Mascola J, Frankel SS,
DeSouza MS, Polonis V, McLinden R, Sambor A, Brown AE, Phonrat B,
Rungruengthanakit K, Duliege AM, Robb ML, McNeil J, Birx DL; Thai AIDS Vaccine
Evaluation Group.
Specific antibody responses to vaccination with bivalent CM235/SF2 gp120:
detection of homologous and heterologous neutralizing antibody to subtype E
(CRF01.AE) HIV type 1.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2003 Sep;19(9):807-16.
PMID: 14585211 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3: Sailaja G, Husain S, Nayak BP, Jabbar AM.
Long-term maintenance of gp120-specific immune responses by genetic vaccination
with the HIV-1 envelope genes linked to the gene encoding Flt-3 ligand.
J Immunol. 2003 Mar 1;170(5):2496-507.
PMID: 12594275 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4: Jin X, Ramanathan M Jr, Barsoum S, Deschenes GR, Ba L, Binley J, Schiller D,
Bauer DE, Chen DC, Hurley A, Gebuhrer L, El Habib R, Caudrelier P, Klein M, Zhang
L, Ho DD, Markowitz M.
Safety and immunogenicity of ALVAC vCP1452 and recombinant gp160 in newly human
immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients treated with prolonged highly
active antiretroviral therapy.
J Virol. 2002 Mar;76(5):2206-16.
PMID: 11836398 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5: McFarland EJ, Borkowsky W, Fenton T, Wara D, McNamara J, Samson P, Kang M,
Mofenson L, Cunningham C, Duliege AM, Sinangil F, Spector SA, Jimenez E, Bryson
Y, Burchett S, Frenkel LM, Yogev R, Gigliotti F, Luzuriaga K, Livingston RA; AIDS
Clinical Trials Group 230 Collaborators.
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) gp120-specific antibodies in neonates
receiving an HIV-1 recombinant gp120 vaccine.
J Infect Dis. 2001 Nov 15;184(10):1331-5. Epub 2001 Oct 10.
PMID: 11679925 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6: Hladik F, Bender S, Akridge RE, Hu YX, Galloway C, Francis D, McElrath MJ.
Recombinant HIV-1 glycoprotein 120 induces distinct types of delayed
hypersensitivity in persons with or without pre-existing immunologic memory.
J Immunol. 2001 Mar 1;166(5):3580-8.
PMID: 11207319 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

7: Corbet S, Vinner L, Hougaard DM, Bryder K, Nielsen HV, Nielsen C, Fomsgaard A.
Construction, biological activity, and immunogenicity of synthetic envelope DNA
vaccines based on a primary, CCR5-tropic, early HIV type 1 isolate (BX08) with
human codons.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2000 Dec 10;16(18):1997-2008.
PMID: 11153083 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

8: Binley JM, Arshad H, Fouts TR, Moore JP.
An investigation of the high-avidity antibody response to glycoprotein 120 of
human immunodeficiency virus type 1.
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1997 Aug 10;13(12):1007-15.
PMID: 9264287 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

9: Deckert PM, Ballmaier M, Lang S, Deicher H, Schedel I.
CD4-imitating human antibodies in HIV infection and anti-idiotypic vaccination.
J Immunol. 1996 Jan 15;156(2):826-33.
PMID: 8543839 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Posted by: Adele | October 21, 2007 1:31 PM

why dont Adele, tara, franklin debate harvard trained scientist Dr maniotis in public on hiv as the cause of AIDS, I dont blame you clowns for being scared, cmon it would be 3 against 1, plus you guys could bring all of your "overhelming evidence" to humiliate him.

LOL you have no overwhelming evidence, no original scientific papers that prove hiv causes AIDS (they dont exist), just the NIH fact sheet with cherry picked data that was released years later, now I know why you turkeys always make every excuse not to debate.

You guys think Dr. Maniotis is such a quack debate him in front of students and faculty at a good school, youll have your oppurtunity to make a fool of him. Bring that loser orac along as well, it will be 4 vs 1, surely youll come out on top!

lol even the 9/11 debunkers debate. You guys are just scared dont give me that "its beneath us" crap or that debates only take place in the peer reviewed journals bullshit, as if editors of these journals are could not possibly have biases themselves bc of the governments propaganda campaign with hiv.

the "respectable" academic journals in nazi germany and mao's china also published propaganda and bullshit, same thing nowadays. 4 against 1 are you guys that cowardly?

Posted by: cooler | October 21, 2007 2:36 PM

Test for censorship

Posted by: Pope | October 21, 2007 3:13 PM

Ok I' m seemingly not censored anymore.

I was hoping you'd be a bit more honest and forthcoming. Dr. Maniotis is not, as far as I can see, saying that no antibodies were generated in any of those 30+ trials, only none protective against HIV. You claim that this is due to the terroristic virus outmutating all you clever guys. Maniotis speculates that part of the failure could be due to the fact that self is indeed challenged with self.

On P24 from Dr. Maniotis:

Its even more confusing given that p24 is found, according to at least one group, in the kidneys of non-HIV-infected children (Dura WT, Wozniewicz BM. (Expression of antigens homologous to human retrovirus molecules in normal and severely atrophic thymus. Thymus 22 (4):245-54, 1994).

there is still, no evidence whatsoever, that p24 has anything to do with an exogenous virus called "HIV." I'd like to give a few examples:
1. If you go to figure 3 in this paper, one cannot tell a piece of cellular debris from any other piece of debris or crap. And this is where p24 was isolated from under the best PURIFICATION conditions that "HIV" science could muster? If you want to see what a virus prep for purification should look like, see http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/edhlettercont.htm
And note that there isn't any crap that can co-purify and be mistaken for a unique, exogenous, viral protein, or at least its highly unlikely. The author points to the two pieces of shit in the prep that aren't viral in nature in a background of hundreds that are identical.
2. The authors specifically state that: "Identification and analysis of the virus are complicated by the presence of cellular membrane vesicles which COPURIFY with the virus."
3. "We recently reported a proteolytic procedure (Ott et al., 1995b) that effectively rejmoves greater than 95% of proteins associated with these membrane vesicles. This procedure has allowed us to demonstrate that the cytoskeletal proteins, actin, ezrin, moesin, and cofilin are located IN THE INTERIOR of virions."
Question: If actin, exrin, and cytoskeletal proteins are located INSIDE the virions, how can one tell if p24, which is a faint band on most cellular gels that come from non-infected cells in most labs, is also a cellular protein? The gel shown in figure 1 (the non-infected lane) has weaker bands at all of these weight designations that supposedly the infected supernatants were run (B,C). In fact the p24 band is extremely PRESENT in lane A, which is the uninfected lane. This gel is the basis for giving someone cancer chemo on their cornflakes for life? For shame!

This is either from an unspecified in the context "Bess et al., (1997)" and/or "Laurent-Crawford et al." paper.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/05/smallpox_still_takes_a_toll.php#comment-490510

Posted by: Pope | October 21, 2007 3:28 PM

Howbeit, the question has been raised, if HIV continually outmutates the other evolutionary giant, the body's immune defences, and all attempts at a vaccine, why doesn't it outmutate the HIV tests at a corresponding rate?

In the body, HIV variants that are inhibited by drugs or antibodies do not survive to replicate, whereas those that are resistant are able to replicate. Combined with HIV's high rate of mutation, this is a recipe for evolution within the body of resistant HIV strains. Since a diagnostic test does not influence which viruses replicate in the body and which do not, there is no selective pressure to drive evolution of HIV variants that are not detected by the diagnostic test.

Posted by: trrll | October 21, 2007 3:59 PM

why dont Adele, tara, franklin debate harvard trained scientist Dr maniotis in public on hiv as the cause of AIDS

Denialists have lost the scientific debate in the pages of peer reviewed journals.

The have lost the legal debate in the courtroom.

So now they are desperate to take their case to a forum where they are free of those fact-checking peer-reviewers and those cross-examining lawyers. Where rhetoric trumps evidence, and where they can get away with their favorite tactics of cherry picking, quote mining, and shifting goalposts.

But science is not politics, and scientific decisions are not based on who can produce the best-sounding sound-bites.

Posted by: trrll | October 21, 2007 4:10 PM

Denialists have lost the scientific debate in the pages of peer reviewed journals.

Ha Ha Ha !!!! You sure are some kind of a clown trrll and if I had to write such nonsense on the Web I wouldn't put my name under it either.
trrll... Anyway, it's not because you keep hiding away behind a string of five random letters that I will let you get away with this. A part from some (hastily aborted by the editor) Duesberg/Bialy publications, ages ago, to which scientific debate in which peer reviewed journals do you refer?

!!!!!!!!! ANSWER !!!!!!!!!!!

So now we have two of a kind. David Marjanović who sees lots and lots of corpses and aircraft debris on an immaculate lawn and trrll who reports scientific debate, nobody ever witnessed, with people his party has always openly refused to debate with.

I deeply regret it, but I cannot get past asking the same question for the third time: How full of shit are you, David Marjanović and trrll, to be able to backup such nonsense?

Posted by: jspreen | October 21, 2007 5:18 PM

That's too bad Dr. Trrll, because that there The human genome is sequenced, and we didn't find any HIV is one hell of an impressive-sounding sound-bite.

Indeed. But you could claim the opposite, and it would sound just as impressive. In a public debate, truth is less important than who can sound the most persuasive, because most of the people in the audience will have no way of knowing who is telling the truth. But if you claim that in a paper submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, the reviewers will check your references, and you will be out of luck. And in a courtroom, opposing lawyers will demand that you produce the evidence.

Posted by: trrll | October 21, 2007 5:36 PM

Too late ttrrrlll! I have already published (peer reviewed!!!) an article on the scientific method of how to proof the validity of the equation HIV=Aids. The article is called "The absolute certainty that HIV causes Aids" and as you will notice, Google plays an impressive role in my brilliant exposé.

He had to get a little less subtle for me to finally catch on, but jspreen has been running a satire of denialism worthy of Dr. Richard Paley (the world renowned crypozoologist and theobiologist).

Posted by: Dustin | October 21, 2007 6:07 PM

You still didn't tell us what cases where, links. Are you going to or did you just make it up.

Al-Bayati appears to make his living as an "expert" witness to defend people accused of shaking their babies to death. Predictably the babies always seem to have died from vaccine damage or something else entirely unrelated to being shaken to death.

Perhaps Al-Bayati has used the slides in some of these cases.

If you want you can find most of them in Medical (not)Veritas

If you want a laugh click on the link labelled editors. Familiar faces?

I think the more relevant question relates to Al-Bayati's performance in court. Has he actually won a case? Has he actually made it to court?

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 22, 2007 3:07 AM

This gives us at least 3 methods of defence: the "disguise as self", the "run and hide", and the "mutating around" defence. which one is more important, and why would the virus need the last two when it has already found the perfect disguise as self? More bafflingly, why would it take such a resourceful virus 1o-15 years to accomplish its nefarious ends?

Your wide reading would have also alerted to you the fact that before the discovery of HIV other lentiviruses such as EIAV and maedi-visna were known to cause persistent infections and cause disease after an immune response. Heavy glycosylation is common in lentiviruses as is antigenic escape.

HIV causes a major depletion of CD4+ cells during the initial infection. A "resourceful virus" does not have "nefarious ends". It survives by passing itself onto a new host before the current host dies.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 22, 2007 4:16 AM

So Pope,

What is your explanation for AIDS ?

How do you explain that AIDS occurs mostly in HIV+ ?

How do you explain that HIV+ babies have higher probability to die than the HIV- ?

Waht about HIV+ gradual dysfunction of the immune system, ultimately indicated by the Th1 Th2 shift ?

Looking for your own reading of the facts.

Posted by: Braganza | October 22, 2007 8:28 AM

Braganza, since you showed an interest in the LDN Conference, I would like to give you some of the highlights. The keynote speakers were Dr. David Gluck who specilizes in internal and preventive medicine, Dr. Jill Smith, Professor of Gastroenterology at Hershey Medical Center, Dr. Burt Berkson who practices medicine in New Mexico, Dr. Terry Grossman who is a leading expert on anti-aging and life extension therapies, Dr. Skip Lenz, pharmacits from Florida, Dr. Pat Crowley, faimly practictioner from Kilkenny, Ireland, Dr. Brendan Quinn, Pharmacist from Belfast, Dr. Bob Lawrence from England and a slide presentation from Dr. Jaquelyn McCandless, who is currently doing LDN studies in Africa.

Dr. Gluck told us about 7 clinical trials for LDN. Dr. Smith's clinical trial for Chron' disease has shown 89% improvement and 2/3 remission. The African study is ongoing with LDN and the treatment of AIDS. This study involves patients who do not have malaria, TB or are pregnant. There are three group, one being treated with HAART, the second with HAART and LDN and the third only with LDN. The CD4 count for these groups is 275 to 475, respectively. Interferon-alpha and viral load counts will be measured. There is an Italian study for endorphins in autoimmune disease, the University of California is finishing up a study about LDN and MS, Stanford is conducting a study about fibromyalgia and an Ohio study is being performed concerning MS and brain-fog.

What was really exciting was listening to the speakers present individual cases of treating incurable cancers, lupus, autism, MS and many more diseases. Their approach seemed to be novel in that they prescribed LDN along with diet changes and sometimes chemotherapy in a new way by giving the patient insuling and very low doses of chemo thus eliminating the horrible side effects. In fact, one physician preferred to treat those cases which were hopeless with LDN and other natural means. It was interesting to listen to some of their theories such as nitrous oxide cycle and bladder dysfunction. Several weeks from now, the video will be available from Skip's pharmacy for those who would like to view it. It should cost $10.00. Also, many patients spoke of how LDN had improved their lives. All in all, it was a great conference and hopefully, next year, it will be extended to two days.

Posted by: noreen | October 22, 2007 9:48 AM

Thanks for the report Noreen. Please let us know when the videos available. Thanks.

Posted by: Adele | October 22, 2007 11:13 AM

Adele, honey bun, I have already answeed your challenge. Maybe you missed it since that post a is frequently the case got held up in Tara's Denialist filter:

Adele, thanks your input is as usual invaluable - which is more than can be said about your honey bun prize. Obviously you don't feel very confident it will not be claimed or you would have upped the stakes a bit, like thrown your pet macaque into the bargain or something. Btw. would you happen to have some left over HIV in your fridge? For some unfathomable reason they keep turning down my grant proposal for Experimental Evaluation Of Standard HIV Controls. Maybe I could come and stay with you while I work on it? All those CDC choppers hovering in my garden are starting to get on my nerves.

Posted by: Pope | October 21, 2007 1:51 PM

And please girl, those "answers" a couple of comments up to my "nice questions" wouldn't even fool Braganza. I have treid to resist but I seem to be left with no choice but to resurrect the technical term "Beefless Burger" from its lenti-chromatin-sleep

Posted by: Pope | October 22, 2007 11:26 AM

Woodchuck et al., and the other ab hominim folks,

Read:

1995 Congress of the United States: Office of Technology assessment. Adverse Reactions to HIV Vaccines: Medical, Ethical, and Legal Issues. (Roger C. Herdman, Director). Below are excerpts from this important milestone document, and some comments regarding the status of "HIV" vaccines since Margaret Heckler in 1984 announced that one would be available in 2 years:

From page 1,2 . ("OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS-Potential and Risks of HIV vaccines"):

"A number of vaccines are being developed that use new strategies and each of these strategies carry special risks:"

1.Vaccines using live vectors, such as the vaccinia virus shown to be attenuated in laboratory animals, may prove to be inadequately attenuated, producing the disease caused by the unattenuated vector.
2. Naked DNA vaccines have been shown to create potent immune responses, but there are theoretical reasons to be concerned that they might produce tumors or autoimmune diseases, or be transmitted from mother to fetus.
3.Although inactivated whole virus vaccines have generally been successful in protecting from infection with other viral diseases, it would be difficult to assure that all HIV particles in such a vaccine were inactivated.
4. Live attenuated virus vaccines have also been successful in protecting from other viral diseases, but there is the potential for the viruses to be inadequately attenuated, for an adequately attenuated viral vaccine to cause disease in immunocompromised individuals (Read AIDS patients), and for an adequately attenuated virus to revert to virulence. There is also concern that a live attenuated vaccine could induce tumors.

"A number of social harms-non-medical adverse consequences-may result from vaccination:"
1. Vaccines may cause a false-positive HIV screening testing test...resulting in discrimination against vaccine recipients in, for example, military service, health insurance, life insurance, employment, and travel.
2. Participation in an HIV vaccine trial, itself, may result in stigmatization, as others may assume that all vaccine trial participants are members of groups, such as injection drug users and men who have sex with men, who are at increased risk for HIV infection.
3. Vaccinees, relying on the protection afforded by an experimental vaccine, may engage in behaviors that increase their risk for HIV infection.
4. In June, 1994, the AIDS Research Advisory Committee (ARAC) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Dieases (NIAID) recommended that Phase III clinical trials with enveloped vaccines should not proceed in the United States. Factors contributing to the decision included scientific, political, and ethical issues, and the significant level of scientific uncertainty about the wisdom of immediate trials. Phase I and II clinical trials of HIV will continue."

From page 2,3. There are 15 ethical issues in HIV vaccine development. The last one states:

# 15. "Although vaccine sponsors have no legal obligation to provide compensation to subjects for injuries incurred as a result of their participation, there is an ethical obligation to do so."

From page 3. ("Liability and Compensation for Adverse Reactions"):

"Any system that limits compensation to injuries from one specific cause, like an HIV vaccine, raises questions of fairness to people with similar injuries from a different vaccine. A compensation system limited to persons with adverse reactions to an HIV vaccine invites the question why people living with injuries from other vaccines or from other causes should not be compensated as well."

"More companies are engaged in HIV vaccine research than in research for any other type of vaccine. Potential liability may have discouraged some companies, but it has not stopped HIV vaccine development."

From page 4.
Liability claims based on low levels of effectiveness have NOT been brought against existing vaccines. The likelihood of success of a claim of lack of effectiveness of an HIV vaccine is speculative, but probably small as long as those who take the vaccine are warned of its limited efficacy and advised to take precautions against exposure to HIV infection."

Translation: ...No liability will occur once you tell millions of vaccine test subjects that the vaccine doesn't prevent acquiring "HIV" infections.

"Given the need for an HIV vaccine, it appears unlikely that a manufacturer would be held responsible for distributing a vaccine with a risk of development of cancer that could not be verified at the time it was released."

"The decision whether or not to invest in the development of a vaccine depends on complex financial considerations of a number of factors, including the scientific obstacles to vaccine development, the potential market for the vaccine, the price at which the vaccine could be sold, and the potential liability for vaccines. The major factor influencing vaccine development is the expected return on investment or profitability, and the major obstacles to developing an HIV vaccine are scientific."

"Vaccine manufacturers are not likely to be responsible for harms resulting from the bigotry of others. Physicians who administer HIV vaccines may be the more likely targets for any claim that a vaccine recipient was not adequately warned about possible discrimination."

From page 6. After a description of the immune system and how it eliminates virus, the following statements appear ("Unique Features of HIV"):

"HIV is a "retrovirus" that integrates its genome into the human genome through a process called "reverse transcription," Once this happens, it cannot be detected and eliminated by the immune system."

Comment: Then why immunize against it if immunity is mediated by the immune system?

"HIV is able to evade immune recognition through a process of rapid genetic mutation and selection."

Comment: Then how can you target it if it is constantly mutating to evade the immune system?

"The virus can spread through direct cell-to-cell contact, avoiding immune activation."

Comment: Then why immunize against it if once incorporated by even a single cell (say in a "mucosal dendritic cell" from (for instance) an "uncircumcised penis," HIV is hidden from the immune system? This should take about 2 minutes in some men who "are quick."

"HIV can be transmitted as free virus as well as virus inside cells; it is more difficult to block the transmission of virus inside cells."

Comment: If the immune system cannot see "HIV' once it has incorporated its RNA that has become reverse transcribed to DNA (the first step of viral infection), then how "is it more difficult," instead of impossible to block transmission thereafter from cell to cell?

"Unlike other viral infections that are self-limited, there are few, if any, instances of recovery."

Comment: What about Long-Term Non-Progressors, and people currently who exhibit a positive test but who are not clinical ill in any detectable way? Not even is Ebola 100% fatal or anywhere close, nor has any other syndrome in human history, or else we wouldn't be here.

From page 9: ("ADVERSE REACTIONS TO HIV VACCINES"):
"Ten vaccinees developed a rash to several products, and one also developed joint pain. A few individuals developed a positive antinuclear antibody (ANA) test (which may at times be associated with autoimmune disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis). However further testing ruled out any vaccine-related diseases."

Comment: What further tests ruled out these non-vaccine related diseases? What were these diseases?

From Page 10: ("ADVERSE REACTIONS TO HIV VACCINES" cont.): "As of May 1994, 10 neoplasms (tumors) were observed among participants in 9 vaccine trial protocols. One of the neoplasms was benign."

Comment: That is comforting information! Cancer was only seen in 10 out of 9 trials.

"Cases of malignancy tended to occur among old participants."

Comment: Cancer tends to be a disease of old age-how old were these 10 cancer victims in the 9 trials, and how representative are they of the ages of the rest of the participants?

Comment: Are other autoimmune diseases noted in these trials, such as lupus? Is their conformed consent among trial participants that adjuvants such as squalene cause autoimmune diseases, as demonstrated during its use in Operation Dessert Storm (see 1991).

" There is concern that HIV vaccines have the potential to cause autoimmunity (an immune reaction against the bodies own tissues), because HIV shares several envelope proteins that are identical to proteins on human tissues. For example, there is a similarity between one HIV envelope protein region and a normal human blood-type protein."

Comment: How could "HIV share several envelope proteins that are identical to proteins on human tissues" if its genome codes for unique exogenous retroviral proteins? Did "HIV" hijack cellular lipid-producing genes?

From Page 10: ("ADVERSE REACTIONS TO HIV VACCINES" cont.):
"If they (vaccines) are inadequately or unstably attenuated, they may produce the disease caused by the unattenuated vector. They may result in unwanted spread to contacts and the community at large. And even an adequately attenuated vector may cause disease in individuals with impared immunity."

"Some new vaccines are composed of "naked DNA," our viral genetic material. Persistent antibody and cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses have been induced in laboratory animals immunized with naked DNA (not "HIV"s however-according to the Technology Manual's assessment on page 33 (Reactions to HIV Vaccines: Medical, Ethical, and Legal Issues-so this is a misleading statement that implies that an "HIV" vaccine has caused a T cell response, when what is meant is that OTHER vaccines have evoked a T cell response).

From page 15 ("Informed Consent"):
"Potential subjects of HIV vaccine trials need to be informed of the following:
1. The experimental vaccine has not been demonstrated to be effective, and it is unlikely that any HIV vaccine will be completely effective...Compensation will not be provided for failure of the experimental vaccine to protect research subjects from HIV infection.
2. Receipt of the experimental vaccine may complicate the diagnosis of HIV, because vaccinees may falsely test positive on conventional HIV screening tests...
3. Trial participants should not be tested for HIV outside of the study, since knowledge of their assignment could bias the study's results.
4. Social harms may result from testing positive on an HIV screening test, such as problems with health or life insurance, employment, military service, and travel. All subjects will be provided with documentation of trial participation."

From page 19: (Product liability)"
"Almost 30 candidate vaccines have been in clinical trials."

From page 20: ("Design defects"):
"An increasing number of states have held that makers of FDA-approved prescription drugs or vaccines are entirely exempt from strict liability for design defects, regardless of the product in question, largely for reasons of public policy."

Comment: What are these "reasons of public policy" that make immune design defects of manufacturer's?

From page 20: ("Learned Intermediary Rule"):
"Although the general rule is that all manufacturers have a duty to warn those who use their products of dangers that are not readily appearent, an exception, known as the "learned intermediary rule," permits the maker of prescription drugs or vaccines to warn only the prescribing physician, and not the patient who receives the product..." "...thus vaccine vaccine manufacturers do not ordinarily have a duty to provide a warning directly to a vaccine recipient."

"...Under the learned intermediary rule, a warning is generally not considered inadequate unless the missing information would have caused a physician NOT to give the vaccine to the patient."

From page 21: ("Development of Cancer"):
There has been speculation that, because HIV is a retrovirus, an HIV vaccine might cause cancer many years after vaccination. Although a manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by unforeseeable dangers in its products, there may be some question as to whether a manufacturer adequately investigated a suggested risk (i.e. induction of cancer). Given THE NEED (EMPHASIS MINE) for an HIV vaccine, it appears unlikely that a manufacturer would be held responsible for distributing a vaccine with a risk (causing cancer) that could not be verified at the time it was released."

Comment: Sorta like SV40, hey?

From page 22: ("Susceptibility of HIV vaccines to Liability Claims"):
"Plaintiffs rarely succeed on a claim of design defect, probably because of the difficulty of proving that a safer, equally effective vaccine could have replaced a vaccine that was approved by the FDA. Although most states still permit claims that a vaccine was defectively designed, only one vaccine (Quadrigen) has been found to have a defective design (in warranty, not product oliability, action). No reported court decision after 1969 has held a vaccine maker liable for a design defect. Few courts have found a vaccine maker liable for an inadequate warning of risks."

From page 38, ("Immune Correlates of Protection").
"While primate studies have shown examples of protection under limited circumstances (yeh, right, how limited were these circumstances), as yet the immune responses required for a successful HIV vaccine remain "undefined" (must be quite different than "catching "AIDS" from one of them "high risk folks, heh!) Levels of antibody induced in primates by vaccines are, in themselves, not well correlated with protection against HIV infection."

Very very interesting, I'd say....

"What is the evidence for natural immunity to HIV infection in man? Studies of the natural history of long-term survivors of HIV infection have helped us know what are the clinical indicators of sustained favorable prognosis in HIV infection. But these studies have been less useful in helping us understand the requirements for a protective immune blockade to HIV infection (57). Studies of individuals who have remained seronegative (14) despite intense exposure to HIV, such as infants of seropositive mothers (78) and multiply-exposed men (17) have shown that some of these individuals have developed protective patterns of immune response, suggesting that "natural immunization" to HIV infection may occur."

Comment: Infants of seropositive mothers can't be considered "positive" on any protein-based test (or nucleic acid test-if you heed what it's inventor, Kary Mullis, has warned on many occasions about his invention with respect to "HIV" PCR-based viral load testing routinely used against his recommendations). Infants retain maternal antibodies for up to 18 months, so if treated for "HIV" infection with nevirapine or other toxic drugs, they can't be considered a legitimate cohort because it is well established that a major proportion of them (>50-67%) will spontaneously serorevert (change back to "HIV-negative" ) once their immune systems mature enough to assume total immune autonomy (Parekh BS, Shaffer N, Coughlin R, et al. Dynamics of maternal IgG antibody decay and HIV-specific antibody synthesis in infants born to seropositive mothers. The NYC Perinatal HIV Transmission Study Group. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 9:907-12, 1993; Chantry CJ, Cooper ER, Pelton SI, Zorilla C, Hillyer GV, Diaz C. Seroreversion in human immunodeficiency virus-exposed but uninfected infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 14:382-7, 1995).

Also, as mentioned above, the PCR tests to test for "HIV" "viral genomes" in infants suspected of harboring "HIV" virus has been completely discredited (Dec. 2006), because for any individual tested they have no predictive value [Rodriquez B, Sethi AK, Cheruvu VK, et al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection. JAMA 296(12):1498-506, 2006; see also Cohen J. Study says HIV blood levels don't predict immune decline. Science 313(5795): 1868, 2006].

These two paragraphs are from page 48:
"Some experts have questioned whether priming with an HIV vaccine can potentiate subsequently acquired natural HIV infection (12). The historical prototype giving rise to this concern is dengue virus, a tropical viral disease. The presence of serum antibodies induced by a first attack of mild dengue can facilitate the development of severe disease on subsequent infection with a related dengue virus (40). This "antibody-dependent enhancement" (ADE) of infection can be demonstrated in the laboratory by an increase in growth of virus in cell culture in the presence of antibodies from the serum of exposed individuals. Recipients of envelope vaccines have been shown to develop small amounts of enhancing antibodies (66). The clinical significance of HIV vaccine-induced ADE is unclear. No direct evidence exists at this time that ADE has any clinical significance. Many scientists consider it to be an unrelated laboratory phenomenon only. Enhancement of disease has not been duplicated with HIV-1 or SIV in primate experiments, although it has been recommended that studies in primate models should continue" (59, 67).

Comment: How could enhancement be demonstrated in an ape model if apes do not exhibit AIDS, or in an SIV model since SIV isn't "HIV," and since to date no models appear to generate humoral immunity, mucosal immunity, nor T-cell activation-the three hallmarks of any foreign antigen challenge to the immune system?

Other mechanisms of Enhanced Disease
"Historically, two other vaccines have been associated with an accompanying subsequent natural infection that is atypically severe: an experimental respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine and a licensed measles virus vaccine (27, 54). Both were vaccines composed of whole virus inactivated by formalin (like the Salk vaccine). While the mechanisms of disease enhancement remain unclear, they both appear to occur by mechanisms unrelated to ADE of the dengue fever type. The enhance disease experiences with these vaccines were wholly unexpected and have had a significant effect on further vaccine development. For measles, a live attenuated vaccine has supplanted the inactivated vaccine, and currently there is no licensed RSV vaccine. It has been suggested recently that inactivated RSV vaccine. It has been suggested recently that inactivated RSV vaccine may induce inappropriate cytokines, or cell-to-cell communication substances, that are responsible for enhancement."

Translation: These vaccines cause the diseases for which they are meant to be preventative. This is what is called "enhancement.'

From page 50:

"There is a narrow margin between surviving virus and the destruction of viral immunogenicity; this was highlighted early in the use of licensed polio vaccine when a number of vaccinated individuals developed paralytic poliomyelitis from vaccine lots containing residual live virus (71). The safety problem was resolved by simple refinements in the inactivation process. By contrast, assuring inactivation of all HIV particles could prove difficult. In particular, concern exists as to whether cell cultures or animal models are sufficiently sensitive to detect the minimal residual live virus capable of infecting humans. There has also been theoretical concern regarding residual reactive viral DNA in the product."

"In addition, the safety of the "lymphoblastoid" cell lines used to prepare the virus is unknown. "Adventitious agents," that is, unwanted agents growing silently in the cell cultures used to prepare vaccine stock, have posed safety problems in the past. As an example, SV40, a monkey tumor virus, contaminated early lots of inactivated polio vaccine prepared in monkey cells" (68).

The safety of an inactivated whole-virus vaccine for HIV was reviewed at a workshop in 1990. It was the consensus that a safe product is technically feasible but that product development should proceed with caution (82)."

Live Attenuated Vaccine
"Vaccines using live attenuated virus, exemplified by polio or measles vaccines, are capable of producing immune responses that closely mimic the solid, long-term protective immune response afforded by natural viral infection (see page 33). In addition to a more vigorous and broader antibody response, attenuated virus vaccines may more effectively induce cytotoxic T-lymphocytes and mucosal immunity compared with vaccines composed of inert antigens, such as envelope protein vaccines.

On page 33, however, it is claimed that:

"The number of infectious agents for which we have failed to develop a satisfactory vaccine, even those targeted as high priority (49), is far greater than the number for which we have been successful. Examples of VIRUSES for which we have failed include the viruses Herpes simplex, infectious mononucleosis, cytomegalovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, and rotovirus; vaccines against many sexually-transmited disease agents, such as syphilis and gonorrhea; vaccines against parasitic diseases, such as malaria and schistosomiases; and vaccines against numerous bacterial infections, including tuberculosis."

"Using the SIV/monkey model, attenuated live virus vaccines have been constructed using selective deletions of nonessential auxiliary genes that are required for SIV replication (21). The attenuated virus is stable, not reverting to a virulent form of virus (i.e. a form of virus capable of producing disease) over an observation period of several years. Monkeys vaccinated with an SIV Nef gene deletion show protection against challenge with large doses of virulent virus. By contrast, the control vaccinated monkeys acquire an AIDS-like disease and died in two years (disease(s) not specified)."

The work cited in reference 21 above is by Desrosiers, R. C., et al: "HIV with Multiple gene Deletions as a Live Attenuated Vaccine for AIDS," AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses 8:411-422, 1992. In subsequent years, however, Desroisiers discusses how these vaccines may cause cancer years later, through insertional mutagenesis:

J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 1998 Mar;4(3):45-6.
Does the HIV-1deltakURNe vaccine strain hold the key to curbing HIV infection? An interview with Ronald Desrosiers, PhD.

Desrosiers R.
AIDS: Dr. Ronald Desrosiers of the New England Primate Research Center at the Harvard Medical School provides his opinions on the HIV-1deltakURNe vaccine strain. Dr. Desrosiers explains what this strain represents and how it was chosen for live-attenuated HIV vaccine human safety trials. Further, Desrosiers discusses the balance in using highly attenuated vaccines and protection effectiveness, whether it is possible for the vaccine strain to revert to a disease-causing form, the possibility of transmission of a vaccine virus to unvaccinated individuals, and the issue of cancer development through insertional mutagenesis.

Continuing from Reactions to HIV Vaccines: Medical, Ethical, and Legal Issues:

"Safety Concerns Associated with Attenuated Virus
There are four primary safety concerns about attenuated viral vaccines that have been recognized" (11,22,104).

1. Level of attenuation. Inadequate attenuation (reduction of virulence) of virus may result in a vaccine that induces the disease4 that it was designed to prevent; over-attenuated virus may fail to induce protective immune responses. However, even an appropriately attenuated virus may show virulent behavior when not constrained by a competent immune system , such as in vaccine recipients with immue systems compromised by cancers, immunosuppressant drugs, and other non-AIDS causes. The highly infectious nature of SIV administered orally to monkeys at birth, before the monkey's immune system has developed, has rasied new questions about safety of vaccines in immunocompromised individuals (79).
2. Stability of attenuation. The vaccine strain could undergo genetic reversion to a more virulent form during the lengthy course of replication in the vaccine. Tis risk is of particular concern with vaccines using attenuated strains of HIV, as the human immunodeficiency virus is cyharacterized by rapid and frequentg genetic mutations.
3. Possibility of secondary spread. Spread of attenuated virus to contacts of vaccines (secondary spread) may provide the virus with further opportunity to revert to virulence (e.g. vaccine-induced poliomyelitis in contacts of vaccinees.) However, if it can be assured that the level of attenuation of the virus remains stable, secondary spread of the virus may be beneficial, because the attenuated virus could induce protective immunity in contacts. Sufficient spread of the attenuated virus would result in the induction of herd immunity (as had occurred with poliovirus vaccine." (But if the virus is constantly mutating in people, or able to be induced to mutate with a single dose of Nevirapine, then how could any be stable? See 2007, January).
4. Possibility of induction of tumors. Other members of the retrovirus family regularly produce tumors (e.g., mouse tumors and a form of human leukemia). Theoretically, the prolonged residence of a live attenuated HIV vaccine strain in vaccinees could allow the retrovirus to rpoduce tumors. Recent evidence for a direct role for HIV infection in the etiology of some T-cell lymphomas suggest a need to proceed cautiously while continuing to investigate the long-term potential of these vaccineees to produce tumors (92, 104)...(From page 52, 2nd pararaph-)...The protective mechanism of attenuated SIV vaccine is unclear. It is not correlated with antibody or cytotoxic T lymphocytes responses, and mucosal immunity is not involed."

"New Approaches to Improve Vaccine Performance (page 52):
The mucosal administration of vaccine vectors that grow on mucosal surfaces may provide a critical tool for the prevention of HIV transmission by sexual routes [BUT] antigen uptake from mucosal surfaces is poor compared with injection."

"New Adjuvants and Delivery Vehicles
...Adjuvants have been discovered largely empirically, and are commonly derivatives of bacteria or plants,. They may be combined with chemical surfactants (emulsifiers), forming complexes with specific HIV proteins or individual peptides. The introduction of new adjuvants into clinical practice has been slowed by concerns about the adjuvant's toxicity. Significant transient toxicity was shown in comparative trials of experimental adjuvants" (table 2-6).

"Exploration of adjuvants is currently undergoing a renaissance in an effort to selectively enhance HIV antibody, cytotoxic T lymphocyte, or mucosal immue responses. The HOPE is to move from an empiric to a rational approach to attain specific immune response goals."

"...Any of the above approaches to improve vaccine performance may have unexpected side effects. So far, several new adjuvants have caused early transient difficulties and have been withdrawn from use."

"Social Harms As Adverse Events
Adverse consequences or harms may be expected , not attributable to the biological properties of the vaccine, but rather falling into the realm of "social injury" (2,29). Vaccines may cause "false-positive" screening tests for HIV infection. This vaccine-induced seropositivity can result in discrimination against false-positive individuals, such as in eligibility for military service, employment, health or life insurance, or restriction of travel."

"Seropositivity following inoculation with envelope vaccines can usually be distinguished from HIV infection by the Western blot test which is used to confirm the results HIV enzyme-linked i9mmunosorbant assay) (ELISA) used in HIV screening. Volunteers in NIAIDS-sponsored trials have received identification documents certifying their particip[ation in these trials, although AVEG personnel have had to intervene to provide validation of confounding Western blot confirmatory tests (5)."

"The problem may become more acute in the future as new generation vaccines that include many more types of antigenic proteins than are currently used may render the Western blot test unable to distinguish vaccine-induced seropositivity from true HIV infection. Reliance must then be placed on time-consuming and expernsive polymerase chain r4eaction (PCR_ tests which detect the presence of the virus directly (assuming its nucleic acids were isolated from those present in contaminating cellular debris when Gallo amplified Montagnier's isolate-author's comment), and on viral cultures..."

"Participation in an HIV trial, in itself, may engender social harms. Others may perceive a volunteer's participation in the trial as implying that the volunteer is in a group at special risk of acquiring HIV infection, and this may result in personal stigmatization of the volunteer. Further, volunteers who are immunized with one candidate vaccine may be precluded from participating in clinical trials of subsequent, possibly more effective, vaccine products. Also, trial participants may assume that they are protected from HIV infection, and as a consequence may increase their risk-taking behaviors (they might have sex). This increased risk-taking behavior may occur despite intensive counseling on the possibility of assignment to placebo vaccine and the unknown efficacy of the trial vaccine."

" HIV vaccines will fall short of protecting all recipients. None of the currently licensed vaccines in public health use, even the most effective, vaccines protects all recipients: estimates of protection range from 50 to 70 percent for influenza vaccine, to 95% for measles and polio vaccines. Failure of vaccine to protect is expected in clinical trials. These failures may be perceived as vaccine-induced enhancement of infection, manifest as an increased susceptibility or a more aggressive course of infection. Lastly, questions of responsibility and legal liability for vaccine injury, provision of health care, or other services to trial participants remain unresolved. The concept of social harms is developed further in the discussion of efficacy trials below. These issues are also discussed in further detail in chapters 3 and 4."

From Appendix A, page 162.
"The possibility that HIV vaccination could induce antibodies that facilitate viral entry into immune phagocytic cells has been studied in the laboratory using a variety of cell types (143)...Investigators have presented evidence that macaques that were vaccinated with SIV protein subunit vaccine (17) or transfused with anti-SIV antibodies (26) showed enhanced rates of infection and disease progression when subsequently exposed at mucosal membranes to SIV."

Original antigenic sin (OAS).
HIV infection induces an abundance of antibodies, including neutralizing antibodies: however, several groups have shown that the generation of neutralizing antibodies tends to lag behind the generation of viral escape mutants by several months or even years. One explanation for this observation involves the phenomenon of original antigenic sin (OAS)_, the fixing of an immune response in a non-adaptive pattern.

Translation: Bt evoking the concept of "a non-adaptive pattern" is begging immunology to break the rules of what we understand about the immune response. It is interesting it is couched in the term "original sin," however.

"Vaccine-induced OAS may occur when a vaccinated individual is exposed to a noncross- reactive strain of HIV that induces the production of antibodies specific for the vaccine strain that are unable to neutralize the newly encountered strain."

Translation: "When exposed to HIV, however, vaccinated individuals exhibiting OAS may be no worse off than unvaccinated individuals because unvaccinated individuals also have a lag in generation of antibody to HIV because their immune response has not been "primed" by vaccination. It is not known whether the lab in antibody production in unvaccinated individuals is greater than the lab in the production of antibody direcd o contemporaneous HIV strains in vaccinated individuals exhibiting OAS."

Question: How can any of these statements be made without clear evidence to date regarding humoral, cellular (activation of T cells), or mucosal immunity being generated by a single "HIV" or "SIV" vaccine?

Squalene and other adjuvants added to "HIV" vaccines cause arthritis, neurodemyelination syndromes, lupus, and other life-long debilitating syndromes:
Finally, it should be mentioned, at least as an aside, that toxic adjuvants have been used to boost the non-specific immune response in "HIV" vaccines and many others (adjuvants are compounds such as squalene known as MF59). Adjuvants are supposed to boost the non-specific immune response stimulated by a specific pathogen-associated antigen, because the modern molecular design of the vaccines don't work as well as some of Pasteur's did, against rabies, cholera, or anthrax more than 120 years ago). For example (www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00000972):

A Phase I Clinical Trial to Evaluate: Part A. The Safety of MTP-PE/MF59 Adjuvant Emulsion. Part B. The Safety and Immunogenicity of Env 2-3, a Yeast Derived Recombinant Envelope Protein of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1, in Combination With MTP-PE/MF59.

To evaluate the safety of a fixed antigen dose with an increasing dose of adjuvant (MTP-PE/MF59, a substance to enhance the immune response to vaccine) in volunteers. To evaluate local and systemic reactions (Part A). To determine the safety and immunogenicity of Env 2-3 in combination with MTP-PE/MF59 in volunteers (Part B). The vaccine Env 2-3 is created from one of the viral proteins that make up HIV called envelope glycoprotein gp120. A problem with many immunogens, including candidate HIV vaccines, is that they may evoke relatively weak immune responses, particularly in humans and in nonhuman primates. Thus, there is considerable interest in the development of "adjuvants" (substances that augment immune responses to vaccines). MTP-PE/MF59 is an adjuvant that appears to be particularly promising, and is selected for the studies with this HIV vaccine candidate.

However, some "HIV' vaccine critics claim there is evidence that adjuvants like squalene (MF-59), when they have been added to certain lots of anthrax (and perhaps "HIV") vaccines given to soldiers on threat of court martial if they don't roll up their shirt on command (in contrast to Walter Reed's voluntary experiment with yellow fever), have induced autoimmune syndromes in almost 100% of every sick Gulf-War I veteran tested, and have evoked antibodies to squalene in their blood (P. B. Asa et al., Exp. Mol. Pathol 68, 196-197, 2000; Asa PB, Wilson RB, Garry RF. Antibodies to squalene in recipients of anthrax vaccine. Exp Mol Pathol. Aug;73 (1):19-27, 2002;Gary Matsumoto. Vaccine A, Basic Books Publisher, 2005). This type of "promising vaccine experimentation" on our young soldiers is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that squalene and other adjuvants have been used by scientists for many years to induce rodents to develop arthritis, macrophagic myofasciitis, mutliple-sclerosis (demyelinating syndromes), and lupus (Holmdahl et al. Arthritis induced in rats with nonimmunogenic adjuvants as models for rheumatoid arthritis Immunol Rev. Dec;184:184-202, 2001;Gherardi NK. Lessons from macrophagic myofasciitis: towards definition of a vaccine adjuvant-related syndrome. Rev Neurol (Paris). Feb;159 (2):162-4), 2003).

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | October 22, 2007 11:55 AM

I somewhat recall this too and I'm sure that the information will be found on their website. Their product called immune assist 247 was one of many that I routinely took during my illness. It ran about $100.00 for three bottles of 90 capsules each. As I don't believe that there is one cause of AIDS, neither do I believe that there is one treatment. All things or approaches work together to restore one's health.

Posted by: noreen | October 22, 2007 12:17 PM

Pope, (& jspreen)

May be I am wrong with my last post, sometimes I make some deductions and models and they dont work, so if I am illogic please tell me and why.

On another topic I saw your name in the Hank web page as a co-editor, so I cannot resist to ask you a question. You may have some answers as an insider that you may share with the world.

Thabo Mbeki was a supporter, or at least was interested in allowing a discussion and testing of Duesberg ideas.

However he has now dropped totally his support.

See http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/ for his new position (number 34).

I, (that dont have access to insider info) are thinking that it is not because the JPMoore/Natrass campaign against him. Mbeki has just shown that he does not care about Natrass opinions by firing Madlala-Routledge and maintaining his health minister.

The impression that I have is that Mbeki is too inteligent to have understood that really, there was a problem with AIDS in South Africa, and HIV is not exactly "a passager virus".

"Duesberg theory is just totally wrong, it cannot explain what is happening here". This is Mbeki silent message.

Mbeki could have funded easy additional testing of Duesberg if he wanted, as the amount of money that PDuesberg is claiming is peanuts for the RSA government.

Am I wrong?

Thanks in advance for sharing your opinions about this critical and sensitive question,

Posted by: Braganza | October 22, 2007 1:22 PM

Braganza,

"HIV- with AIDS are an infime minority."

As all the distinguished AIDStruth scientists here will tell you, there are 0.000 AIDS cases without HIV. If they were to allow but a single, the construct would start to crumble. You are very welcome to challenge them on that point.

"HIV- people have zero viral load, this invalidate the passenger virus theory."

What you are trying to formulate (I think) is the argument against HIV being endogenous - the famous "we've sequenced the human genome, and nope, no HIV there" end of science hay-maker. It has no bearing on Duesberg's exogenous
passenger virus theory.

"If HIV is a "passenger virus", it would be distributed into some humans not immuno-suppressed, and these people, which would be HIV- by Elisa/WB would still have a very small amount of HIV that would be detectable by PCR."

Have you ever heard of Long Term Non-Progressors? Antibodies are, as Woodchuck informed, us generated against all non-self antigens, even harmless passenger viruses. I think you are confusing exogenous (non-self)passenger viruses and endogenous (not necessarily expressed) elements again.

I think the confusion may be partly because English is not your first language, not because you don't have the knowledge. As soon as you get clear about the difference in meaning between the terms "passenger virus" and "endogenous elements/viruses" you will be able to understand the different arguments.

However,if you don't stop believing all that Adele and Franklin tells you, the confusion will never go away(-;

Posted by: Pope | October 22, 2007 2:08 PM

As for the latency questions, the virus is continuously replicating in infected individuals, even in the absence of obvious symptoms. This is such old news. Using sensitive viral detection assays it is clear that there is plenty of virus around during "clinical latency". I recommend Coffin JM. HIV population dynamics in vivo: implications for genetic variation, pathogenesis, and therapy. Science. 1995 267:483-9

This does seem like old news. I admit that I am not familiar with every single variation of this theme, but basically it looks like what the ill-fated Jankovich called the "runaway" model, with elements of "hit, hide, hit".

http://aidstruth.org/andrew-yates.php

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/02/anthony_fauci_e.html

What the "sensitive viral detection assays" detect is viral RNA not replication competent virions.

The steady state model looks very attractive, but that is hardly enough to explain how exactly it comes about and is maintained - and why the steady state is really a runaway state. Mathematical models are only as got the known factors going into them, and so far it seems the models are based on some measure of speculation. (see link above)

Posted by: Pope | October 22, 2007 2:43 PM

On a slightly different note, Woodchuck and Chris Noble - and forgive me for snickering, Adele, I am really being quite serious - I see now the basic idea behind HIV outmutating not only the immunesystem but also HIV scientists. In both cases it has to do with Original Sin:

"Original antigenic sin (OAS).
HIV infection induces an abundance of antibodies, including neutralizing antibodies: however, several groups have shown that the generation of neutralizing antibodies tends to lag behind the generation of viral escape mutants by several months or even years. One explanation for this observation involves the phenomenon of original antigenic sin (OAS)- the fixing of an immune response in a non-adaptive pattern.

Translation: Evoking the concept of "a non-adaptive pattern" is begging immunology to break the rules of what we understand about the immune response. It is interesting it is couched in the term "original sin," however.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/10/denialism_they_dont_remember.php#comment-610747

Posted by: Pope | October 22, 2007 2:52 PM

Hey Andrew Maniotis,

How about making your point instead of putting everyone to sleep with pages of copy and pasted junk (8 pages is way too much). If your point is that vaccines can have negative effects, I think that everyone would agree. However, does this mean that we should not have vaccines? No. How many children died in the days before vaccines. What about smallpox, which is now eradicated because of a vaccine. Vaccines have made the world a better place.

One of the main problems with your rants is that you like to cite one paper, saying that it discredits everything before it or discredits some assay or another. You know this is not a right or fair way to represent the scientific process. I will remind you of a public exchange in the American Journal of Pathology relating to a paper that you published there in 1999. McDonald et al present a very scathing and negative look at your paper, which is free at the journal for anyone to see ( http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/156/2/383 ). I paste the first couple paragraphs below. Now using your standard that one negative comment is enough to discredit previous work, I and everyone else world be forced to conclude your work on Vasculogenic Mimicry is a load of crap. Maybe the work is crap or maybe its not. I can assure you there is much data and controversy that requires a careful consideration of all the facts, not the sort of cherry-picking approach you use to argue against HIV=AIDS. Come on Andy, you can't have it both ways. Be a real scientist. I know you were properly trained at Berkeley. Why lower yourself with ridiculous approach.

Vasculogenic Mimicry: How Convincing, How Novel, and How Significant?
Donald M. McDonald*, Lance Munn and Rakesh K. Jain

From the Cardiovascular Research Institute and Department of Anatomy,*
University of California, San Francisco, California; and the Edwin L. Steele Laboratory,
Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

In a recent publication, Maniotis et al1 report that blood vessels of malignant eye tumors known as uveal melanomas are formed by tumor cells instead of endothelial cells. The authors use the term vasculogenic mimicry to describe this phenomenon and consider it a novel concept in the biology of tumor vascularization. The paper has received widespread attention and apparent validation through two commentaries, one published along with the paper in The American Journal of Pathology2 and another published concurrently in Science.3

Despite the paper's impact the evidence is, in our view, unconvincing. The problems are, however, not easily detected by readers unfamiliar with the background or pitfalls of this specialized topic. Although it is intriguing and worthy of further study, the evidence presented in Maniotis et al for a functionally significant contribution of tumor cell-lined blood vessels to vascularization and blood flow in uveal melanomas is neither persuasive nor novel. The purpose of this commentary is to examine the evidence for vasculogenic mimicry and the reasons for our assessment. (Note: This commentary does not address the in vitro or microarray data presented by Maniotis et al, because the interpretation of these results is dependent on the histological, immunohistochemical, and electron microscopic evidence that is the focus of our remarks. Also, this commentary does not question the validity of the relationship between the periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining pattern of uveal melanomas and clinical outcome, as reported by Folberg et al in several publications.4,5 This correlation may be clinically useful even if the PAS staining pattern does not faithfully represent the microvascular architecture. Neither does our commentary question the usefulness of microvascular density as a prognostic factor for survival in uveal melanomas.6,7 Indeed, PAS staining pattern and microvascular density may offer complementary indices of the lethality of these tumors.6-9 )

How Convincing?

A definitive demonstration of tumor cell-lined blood vessels would address several key questions. 1) Are the structures under consideration actually blood vessels, defined as routes through which blood circulates; ie, do they contribute meaningfully to blood flow? 2) Can the presence or absence of endothelial cells and tumor cells in contact with the vascular lumen be established using unambiguous markers? 3) If erythrocytes are used as markers, are they located inside or outside blood vessels? 4) Where is the interface between endothelial cells and tumor cells in blood vessel walls? 5) How extensive is the presumptive contribution of tumor cells to the lining of blood vessels?

The first two of these questions are addressed in Maniotis et al, but the approach is not on target and the results are not straightforward or convincing. Consider the following five problems. (see site for the rest, http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/full/156/2/383)

Posted by: woodchuck | October 22, 2007 4:24 PM

Actually it's a minimally researched commentary on many topics, all quite superficial. Pope, it looks like you couldn't make it past the first sentence. There were 8 pages. Reminds me of high school where even if you didn't study it was possible to get a decent grade by writing several paragraphs of BS. Well this is the real world and the old high school approach doesn't work.

Pope, you still have not articulated what YOU need to see to believe in HIV=AIDS.

Posted by: woodchuck | October 22, 2007 6:10 PM

It's amazing how apologists get deeper and deeper into the shit hole they're digging themselves.

Al-Bayati appears to make his living as an "expert" witness to defend people accused of shaking their babies to death. Predictably the babies always seem to have died from vaccine damage or something else entirely unrelated to being shaken to death. - Writes Chris Noble

I'm always curious and thus, I Google: "Al-Bayati" shaking babies.

One of the links refers to http://www.justiceforej.com/al-bayati.html where I learn more about Al-Bayati's professional activities. While scrolling through those and some other pages, several curious thoughts pop up into my brain, some of which a person using a much less respectful language than I always use myself, might possibly formulate approximately like:

- Who the fuck is this foul-mouthed Chris Noble?*
- How can a scumbag have such a name? Noble + one letter away from Christ?**
- Why is this sucker of Satan's cock spreading shit on my computer screen all day long and why does he invariably come up with stupid accusations like: Each and every scientist / researcher / writer / doctor / poet / musician / engineer / architect / lawyer / judge / professor / etc., who dares question the HIV=Aids equation, is just a low-life criminal quack protector of baby-shakers and wife-beaters?***

(*, ** and ***: Don't forget, it's not me, it's the non-respectful person speaking)

The way good ol' Chris easily classifies all Aids-denialists in the drawer of stupid persons at best, reminds me in a certain way of the classification much applied in the cancer business where ALL cases of healing without chemo-poisoning and the like are shovelled under the carpet with the label: "false initial diagnose".

Posted by: jspreen | October 22, 2007 7:17 PM

What the "sensitive viral detection assays" detect is viral RNA not replication competent virions.

We've already been through this.

Sensitive viral culture assays.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 22, 2007 8:49 PM

Yeah, if there is ever a vaccine, everyone will test positive, people will have to carry around a note saying " I didnt have sex with a chimpanzee (thats how you guys claim aids started) I'm positive because I got vacccinated, dont worry you can fuck me with no worry's!

what a load of bullshit aids science is.

Posted by: cooler | October 22, 2007 10:43 PM

Ah I see Elkie has a way with words. Would you please clarify was it an accused murderer as in a soebody who is a murdere who happens to be also accused of it, or simply somebody accused of murder? There are a lot of people who performs a service for accused people and are compensated for it. They are called lawyers.

But brave Sir Elkie, why ask around here baout Christine Maggiore's motivations when you've been repeatedly invited to go and dicuss it with her in person - show her the erro of her muderous ways andbe compensatedfor for it to boot?

Woodchuck, I don't know why you would think I couldn't make past first sentence of Maniotis reference, but I take it as a compliment, since almost everybody here are proudly pronouncing they had to give up as well.

Posted by: Pope | October 23, 2007 7:52 AM

Dear Pope,

you ask me to
clarify was it an accused murderer as in a soebody who is a murdere who happens to be also accused of it, or simply somebody accused of murder?

Pope, unless I have witnessed the crime in question, I have no way of knowing for sure whether an accused murderer is or is not a murderer, nor can I say with absolute certainty whether a convicted murderer is or is not actually guilty, only that he was convicted in the legal system. If you read my comment again, you will notice that I refer only to "accused murderers," no more and no less.

There are a lot of people who performs a service for accused people and are compensated for it. They are called lawyers.

Pope, the defendant is entitled to a defense; the defense team is entitled to compensation. Like Jan Spreen with Chris Noble's comment, you are reading quite a bit into my words here. I personally find Al-Bayati's work distasteful and some of his conclusions strange, but I recognize that he is performing a needed service.

My questions had nothing to do with whether I like what Al-Bayati does. I asked a simple question about his certification. Is he a certified Pathologist or not? In my understanding (which could be wrong), a Pathologist is a medical doctor who has attained certification as a Pathologist. Al-Bayati does not appear to be a medical doctor or a pathologist. Is he a medical technician who refers to himself loosely as a "pathologist?" Is there another explanation? I would like to understand.

Will you answer my questions, Pope? Or will you repeat your lines about contests and debates?

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | October 23, 2007 9:10 AM

"Pope, unless I have witnessed the crime in question, I have no way of knowing for sure whether an accused murderer is or is not a murderer, nor can I say with absolute certainty whether a convicted murderer is or is not actually guilty, only that he was convicted in the legal syste"

Maggiore was never charged with anything but somehow remains a baby killer, why?

Posted by: pat | October 23, 2007 9:15 AM

OK, I'm a foul-mouthed bastard and have totally mistreated Chris Noble. That was some filthy trick, wasn't it? I'm sorry, I really am. The more because I brutally nailed good ol' Chris to a cross as if he were some other noble Christ, the one who ends on a T. And also because it's really too easy for an Aids-denialist to jump all over an Aids-apologist and leave what's left to the crows, the first, having understood the meaning of many things long before the latter, being per definition superior. But it is not in my nature to leave people's leftovers to thigh-slapping crowds, which is why I will now perform a hit and run rescue manoeuvre, help ol' Chris get back on his feet and refresh his memory, where after I'll receive a second round of applause from the crowd.
Who really is Chris Noble, where does he come from? To restore Noble's noblesse, I will try to provide an answer to that urging question and silence the ignoble maiming Noble. The question was formulated at first, although worded slightly differently, about a quarter of a century ago, when an old man put his eyes on a youngster named Chris, hungrily hanging around clothed in shabby drags, and exclaimed in painful wonder, overcome by the sight of such deep misery: "Noble Christ! Who are you really, where do you come from?"
At first came no response, Chris having been depraved of food and fresh oranges for so many years he could hardly talk anymore. The old man swiftly recognized the signs of ill-being and malnutrition and he invited Chris over to the next coffee-shop. At first Chris only wanted huge parts of space-cake each and every customer was addicted to, but the old man didn't give in and forced Chris into having fresh bread, cheese, milk, peanut-butter and bananas. Three quarters of an hour and $35.50 worth of good food later, a new Chris was born. They talked and talked, the old man and the lost kitten he saved from drowning, they went through all the important questions of life and Chris finally managed to get to where he had left the beaten path some years before, swearing he would never ever allow himself to get near drowning again.
And he kept to his oath. But in doing so, in keeping an eye too close on his own well-being, he drifted away into a direction opposite from where he got lost before. And Chris forgot. About the indisputable positive effect bananas, cheese and milk immediately produce when applied to people showing the signs of ill-being and malnutrition. He drifted far away from poverty but in doing so, he was caught in the nets of greed. Chris met the wrong people. Chris met another kind of drug pushers. The legal kind. The kind who so easily convince the masses of their noble goal. The saviours of humanity, the people who sell life-saving killer-drugs to poor countries. Chris believes in them, unconditionally. This is why Chris writes what he writes, says what he says, thinks what he thinks.
Dear readers, all this may be quite surprising for you. But I've known the barren truth for a long time already, which is why my mean ranting of yesterday evening is absolutely unforgivable. I deeply regret, I swear I do.

Posted by: jspreen | October 23, 2007 11:58 AM

Does anyone else have no idea what that rant of jspreen's actually meant? I could barely follow it.

Posted by: apy | October 23, 2007 1:01 PM

Does anyone else have no idea what that rant of jspreen's actually meant?

apy did you hear, Rumor is, spreen was very busy last two weeks on a creative writing project writing spam emails from famous scientists!

So he is just tired out from it poor thing, give him a break for his incoherant thing about Chris and food and Christ.

Posted by: Adele | October 23, 2007 4:12 PM

Of course it is not impossible that my postings, being written by a stranger to the English language, actually are truly incomprehensible because I use many words that do not even exist. If that's the case, I cannot really judge my crap and you should drop it all.

That is a very parsimonious appraisal for a crank. There's hope for you yet.

Posted by: Dustin | October 23, 2007 4:54 PM

Dear colleagues,

"Dr. Tectonidis says if the United States and the European Union were willing to spend part of their food aid on this, more companies will start making it."

The Doctors Without Boarders finally figured out the cause of the African Holocaust-and it was on 60 minutes this weekend. They concluded that plumpynut is better than antibiotics and antiretrovirals-its essential medicine-at least give them some gruel and water to wash down their nevirapine tablets, will ya guys?

A Life Saver Called "Plumpynut"
Anderson Cooper Reports On A Nutritional Breakthrough

Oct. 21, 2007

See the video free at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/19/60minutes/main3386661.shtml

Plumpynut is cheap, nutritious and needs no refrigeration. It is saving starving children in the developing world and could save more ... if there were more of it. CNN's Anderson Cooper reports.
* Doctors Without Borders
* Doctors Without Borders: Malnutrition
* Doctors Without Borders Briefing Paper: Food Is Not Enough: (.pdf)

(CBS) You've probably never heard a good news story about malnutrition, but you're about to. Every year, malnutrition kills five million children -- that's one child every six seconds. But now, the Nobel Prize-winning relief group "Doctors Without Borders" says it finally has something that can save millions of these children.

It's cheap, easy to make and even easier to use. What is this miraculous cure? As CNN's Anderson Cooper reports, it's a ready-to-eat, vitamin-enriched concoction called "Plumpynut," an unusual name for a food that may just be the most important advance ever to cure and prevent malnutrition.

"It's a revolution in nutritional affairs," says Dr. Milton Tectonidis, the chief nutritionist for Doctors Without Borders.

"Now we have something. It is like an essential medicine. In three weeks, we can cure a kid that is looked like they're half dead. We can cure them just like an antibiotic. It's just, boom! It's a spectacular response," Dr. Tectonidis says.

"It's the equivalent of penicillin, you're saying?" Cooper asks.

"For these kids, for sure," the doctor says.

No kids need it more than a group of children 60 Minutes saw in Niger, a desperately poor country in West Africa, where child malnutrition is so widespread that most mothers have watched at least one of their children die.

Why are so many kids dying? Because they can't get the milk, vitamins and minerals their young bodies need. Mothers in these villages can't produce enough milk themselves and can't afford to buy it. Even if they could, they can't store it -- there's no electricity, so no refrigeration. Powdered milk is useless because most villagers don't have clean water. Plumpynut was designed to overcome all these obstacles.

Plumpynut is a remarkably simple concoction: it is basically made of peanut butter, powdered milk, powdered sugar, and enriched with vitamins and minerals. It tastes like a peanut butter paste. It is very sweet, and because of that kids cannot get enough of it.

The formula was developed by a nutritionist. It doesn't need refrigeration, water, or cooking; mothers simply squeeze out the paste. Many children can even feed themselves. Each serving is the equivalent of a glass of milk and a multivitamin.

To see the impact it's having, 60 Minutes drove for 12 hours from Niger's capital to a remote village, where every week Doctors Without Borders hand out Plumpynut. After sleeping in a field under mosquito nets, Cooper and the team awoke at sunrise to find mothers emerging from the fields. Many had walked for hours in the dark, along treacherous paths, avoiding scorpions, spiders and poisonous snakes.

Rivers of women flowed into the site and within minutes there were more than a thousand of them, all waiting to get packets or tubs of Plumpynut. In a land where plastic bags are a luxury, they carry the food home in their scarves, their hands, or simply stacked on top of their heads.

"When you see some of these kids they don't look sick. They don't look malnourished. They don't have bloated bellies or little stick arms," Cooper remarks.

"The ones that we're used to seeing on TV, that's the worst of the worst of the worst. It's the tip of the iceberg. And then below that, there's the iceberg. So, there's a whole spectrum of malnutrition," Dr. Tectonidis says. "And when we go and check these kids, well, they're way off in height or in weight. They're way off."

(CBS) Niger has become Plumpynut's proving ground. A daily dose costs about $1; small factories mix it here and in three other African countries. Tectonidis says other companies could make similar products wherever children need them.

"There's many countries in Africa now saying, 'We want a factory. We want a factory.' Well let's give it to them," he says. "We just have to focus on these areas. We don't have to feed the whole world. We have to go for the jugular. Where are they dying? Where are they wasted? That's where we have to intervene. If you feed them well until they're two or three years old it's won. They're healthy, they can get a healthy life. If you miss that window, it's finished."

In Niger, most children need help now during what's called the "hunger season," just before the new harvest. Old food supplies have run out and about all that's left is millet, a basic grain women pound for porridge. But millet doesn't have enough nutrients to keep kids alive; in America we use it as birdseed.

Normally a children's hospital 60 Minutes visited would have more patients than beds. But now, thanks to Plumpynut, it has empty beds. Dr. Susan Shepherd, a pediatrician from Butte, Mont., runs Doctors Without Borders in Niger.

She says children that would have been hospitalized in the past can now be treated at home. "The reason we can do that is because we can give children Plumpynut here in the ambulatory center, and they take a week's ration home. Moms treat their children at home and come back every week for a weight check," Dr. Shepherd explains.

That's what Sahia Ibrahim has been doing. She's already lost four children to malnutrition. Now her six-month-old twins, Hassana and Husseina, are malnourished and she's worried they might die too. So she's been coming to the hospital for Plumpynut.

Hassana, at six months old, weighs only seven pounds. While that's what a newborn should weigh, the little girl has put on a pound in just a week thanks to Plumpynut.

Children are weighed and measured at the distribution sites. They're also examined to make sure they don't have any serious infections. Malnutrition destroys a child's immune system, so they're more susceptible to diseases and less capable of recovering from them.

"Often these kids aren't even hungry. It's the opposite. They are anorexic because of the deficiencies they have. They lose their appetite," Tectonidis explains.

That's what happened to Mansour Miko and Maroufee Mazoo. Less than a year old, they had stopped eating and became listless and weak -- so weak that when their mothers brought them to get Plumpynut, the nurse put them in a van and sent them straight to the hospital. Three days later however, they were smacking their lips on Plumpynut, almost ready to go home.

"Have you seen kids who were on the brink of death brought back by Plumpynut?" Cooper asks.

"Oh, yeah, for sure. Again and again and again and again," Dr.Shepherd says.

But not always. Sometimes parents wait too long before bringing their child to doctors. 60 Minutes found Rashida Mahmadou in intensive care, barely clinging to life.

Rashida's condition was very serious. Her skin was literally peeling away -- one side effect of malnutrition, as skin becomes thin, pliable, cracks easily, and bacteria invade.

Just two hours later, Rashida's little heart stopped beating. She was just 19 months old.

"She died of severe, acute malnutrition," says Shepherd, who says she sees this happening every day.

Asked how she deals with so many kids dying, Shepherd tells Cooper, "It breaks your heart. It can break your spirit. It can ruin your confidence in your ability to be a good doctor. And it is sad. And I carry memories of many, many children with me and I'll carry them with me for my entire life. But you certainly cannot indulge yourself in that kind of sadness. We need to do something about this."

CBS) If Plumpynut is the answer, how come kids are still dying?

"The answer is getting to kids earlier," Shepherd says. "Once children are as sick as she is, Plumpynut is not gonna save her."

Rashida was buried in a nearby cemetery. The grave digger, Salifu Ibrahim, told 60 Minutes he used to dig graves for about seven children a day, but now, on most days, he digs only one.

Asked why he thinks fewer children are dying, Ibrahim says, "It is God's will."

God's will and Plumpynut.

Two years ago this region had the highest malnutrition rate in Niger. But now, after widespread use of the Plumpynut, it has the lowest. Dr. Shepherd told Cooper they'll be able to treat more than 120,000 kids this year, up from just 10,000 children three years ago.

What about peanut allergies?

"We just don't see it," Shepherd says. "In developing countries food allergy is not nearly the problem that it is in industrialized countries.

It's hard to imagine a less industrialized country than Niger. On a list of 177 developing countries, the United Nations ranked Niger dead last -- least developed. More than 70 percent of the people don't know how to read. Most work in the fields and earn less than a dollar a day. Nomadic goat herders still roam this land -- their children and their kids travel by camel. Goats seem to be the main garbage disposal, but clearly the goats are falling behind. You can still spot a skinny guard dog, but we were told all the cats have been cooked.

In the countryside, where 85 percent of people live, girls start marrying as young as 11 years old. By the age of 15 most are wed, and by 16 most have already become mothers. The average woman here will give birth at least eight times in her lifetime. But largely because of malnutrition, one in five of their children will die before they reach the age of five. Of those who survive, half will have stunted growth and never reach full adult height.

But now, with Plumpynut, more children are surviving and thriving.

"And kids are doing better. Moms say their child's skin is brighter. Their appetites are better. And they're less sick. You know, what more could you ask for," Shepherd remarks.

Doctors Without Borders is asking for more of this type of food. Their success in Niger proves, they say, that fortified ready-to-eat products, like Plumpynut, save children's lives. Dr. Tectonidis says if the United States and the European Union were willing to spend part of their food aid on this, more companies will start making it.

"Even by taking a miniscule proportion of the global food aid budget, they will have a huge impact, huge impact!" Tectonidis says. "We're not even asking for billions. It will solve so much of the underlying useless death. So we gotta do that now."

"It's useless death," Cooper remarks.

"Wasted life. Just totally wasted life for nothing. Because they don't have this product, little a bit of peanut butter with vitamins," Tectonidis says. "What a waste."

Produced By Robert Anderson and Casey Morgan
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Cheers,
Andy

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | October 23, 2007 5:12 PM

Pope,

You didn't really answer to the question, why mortality of HIV+ newborns is higher than the one of HIV-?

Because you may dismiss all evidence that I wrote as anecdotic, I am giving you a link to the abstract of the research performed in the Soweto hospital, which I just have found on the net.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1618314

Please see that people in Swaziland and Mozambic are saying exactly the same thing from their direct observations in paediatric clinics.

I have noticed that you think that HIV cannot be exogenous.

So tell me directly why this is happening, because this is the problem that people there want to solve- ANORMAL MORTALITY OF HIV+ PEOPLE.

Thanks in advance for your succinct explanation, if you have one or have the courage to recognize that HIV is related with their dead, and try to do something to reduce it.

Posted by: Braganza | October 23, 2007 6:06 PM

Hey guys, why didn't you tell me Chris Noble was around again? I'm always hunting for him, because he is one of the most pernicious pharma-shills around. Only John P. Moore is worse, (but he doesn't have the balls to partake in a public debate).
Anyhow, I missed the opportuninty to explain to Chris (for the umpteenth time) where his propaganda (I wouldn't call it scientific arguments) makes no sense.
You see, all the HIV$AIDS orthodoxy does is quote recent papers, written by 14 authors, that report on studies that are at best mediocre. Let's assume that the data are valid. But then we find that the discussions and conclusions make no sense at all, unless you start out from the basic premise that HIV exists and is the cause of AIDS. (Which is what they should to prove in the first place!)
If you take such a paper and scratch every mention of HIV, then it is still a study with real data. Unimpressive perhaps, but devoid of all nonsense.
"But," say the HIVists indignantly, "Leaving HIV out?? HIV is the cause of AIDS! The evidence is overwhelming!"
Well then, if the evidence is so overwhelming, don't keep us in suspense any longer. Show us the damn evidence!
I don't mean picayune stuff that can be explained on condition that you believe in the paradigm; no, I mean direct evidence. Isolation of HIV would be a good start. That would still not mean that it causes any disease at all, but at least we'd know what we are talking about. Then we would finally get rid of the erroneous claim that Reverse Transcriptase is specific for retro viruses. (Is HIV a retrovirus? Did anybody prove that? Or do we have to believe that?)
I am appalled at the nonsense Gallo uttered in court:

"In subsequent testimony for the prosecution, Robert Gallo (the discoverer of retroviruses and codiscoverer of HIV) pointed out that HIV had been identified as a retrovirus through the detection of reverse transcriptase, which is an enzyme unique to retroviruses, not the activity of reverse transcription, per se. He added that "only a fool" would mistake the two

Wouldn't that run any scientist's blood cold? What does Bob Gallo think causes the activity of reverse transcription per se? Right! Reverse transcriptase, thank you. But if he wants to see them as different, he implicitly admits that reverse transcription also takes place in the absence of a retrovirus. Are you still with me? There is nothing specific about reverse transcriptase It's just part of our system.

And calling Gallo the "the discoverer of retroviruses and codiscoverer of HIV" is wrong on two counts. The first retrovirus (Rous Sarcoma Virus) was discovered in 1911. And the phenomenon of reverse transcription was first proposed (and later confirmed) by Howard Temin and David Baltimore.
And eh... Codiscoverer of what? Nothing was discovered. Just check with Luc Montagnier.

We don't need pseudo-scientific gobbledygook and Peter Palaver. We can do without your sneering. We ask for so little: Without any bombastic rethoric about "overwhelming evidence", show us the virus, and show us that it causes disease.

Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | October 23, 2007 6:21 PM

"Answer, he's all talk. WEll more accurate he's all cute and paste. You know like ten year old articles and WOW!! nutrition is a good thing!! newsflash to Mani-otis"

Where is your outrage at this gros misallocation of aid fundin, Adele. Why billions for research and medicines (that we all know will never find their way to those who need it most)but mere pennies for nutrition? We all know nutrition is the backbone of good health and that none of your fancy cocktails will help if the former isn't solved first, right? newsflash? When you only have so much available you ought to aim for the biggest bang your buck can possibly get. Logistics alone say that drugs first is the worst possible bang you can get. For a gain in life that is only measured in theoretical years the financial whole is unsustainable and in the meantime many still starve needlessly. But I am sure a brave soul somewhere is looking them straight in the eye and explaining why HIV is so much bigger and more important than their bloated bellies. It is sad that Africa needs HIV to get attention from the rest.

Posted by: pat | October 23, 2007 7:07 PM

Will you answer my questions, Pope? Or will you repeat your lines about contests and debates?

Elkie, Others (Jspreen, Dale)have already explained to you what a fool you are for asking questions whose answers are accesible to anybody, even with no scientific/academic training.

I am certainly going to repeat my lines about debates you chickenshit coward. (the contest is Adele's idea didn't you notice?) Tell us the point of your questions, your name and affiliation and all questions will be answered promptly Brave Sir Elkie.

Braganza,

I think I gave you too much credit calling you a scientist. Your party piece is a study involving a grand total of 17 (supposedly) HIV+ infants as determined by the P24 antigen test. Have you ever heard of statistical significance? Do you know what happened to the P24 antigen test? Have you heard about the quid pro quo principle, meaning when I present you with about a dozen facts and you don't answer a single of them, I'm not really obliged to deliver an answer to your anecdotes - I don't f-ing know what Duesberg says about that totally obscure study, ok?! I've said something already, I could say more, but Duesberg is the guy with the F-ing credentials. It hardly matters what I have to say.

Why don't you relate to some of the things Duesberg has said in the peer reviewed papers - something of real importance, not a misplaced comma or something, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: Pope | October 23, 2007 7:24 PM

Lets remember the motto of the last Toronto AIDS festival:

"TIME TO DELIVER"

I vote for taking ALL of the publicly paid salaries and funding that Elkie, JP, Chris, Woodpuke, Adele, Franklin, Tara, Jeanne Bergman, and all of the publicly paid, publicly funded HIV pushers on this site receive,,,,,.... and donate and deliver the funds to where it will do some real good in the world, such as for many hundreds of thousands of plumpynut nutrition snacks for the poor in Africa.

The aforementioned HIV pushers of Elkie, JP, Frankie, Chris, et al, can all be immediately put to work, and good and beneficial societal use, in personally handing out the plumpynut tubes to the poor and destitute.

At least then the world will have received some kind of minimal benefit from the existence of these otherwise mindless and useless creatures, besides sucking up funds that could be put to better use elsewhere.

Posted by: Michael | October 23, 2007 9:43 PM

Michael,

What difference does it make what happened 23 years ago? At this point the evidence is overwelming. HIV causes AIDS. It's 2007. Wake up!

Posted by: woodchuck | October 23, 2007 10:19 PM

Bull shit still abounds in this high-water hell hole.

Elk... Can you please explain your reasoning and show all of us exactly how the P24 tests are good for anything other than pure speculation and as you say Good detection? How is it that a huge jump can be made from this:

"None of the 50 seronegative partners had p24 antigen in their serum. 22 (44%) of the seropositive partners had detectable p24 antigen."
MacGregor RR et al. Failure of culture and polymerase chain reaction to detect human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in seronegative steady sexual partners of HIV-infected individuals. Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Jul;21(1):122-7.

44% -- Wow! Nice and real sensitive I'd say......

To, Tang S, et al. "Nanotechnology-based techniques are being widely evaluated in medical testing and could provide a new generation of diagnostic assays due to their high degrees of sensitivity, high specificity, multiplexing capabilities, and ability to operate without enzymes."

But seriously now, how will you convincingly prove that these protein molecules, surrogate markers, are indeed specifically of retroviral origin to begin with?

This bull is just a newfangled way prove absolutely nothing!

Does anybody else smell science fiction coming from Tang S et al.. especially when one reads the long list beneficiaries: From the *Lab of Molecular Virology, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, MD; †Nanosphere, Northbrook, IL; ‡Blood Systems Research Institute and the Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA; §HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; ∥American Red Cross, Biomedical Services Scientific Support Office, Gaithersburg, MD; ¶National Cancer Institute-FDA Interagency Oncology Task Force, Bethesda, MD; and the #Department of Chemistry and International Institute for Nanotechnology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

GEZZZZZ WIZ

Posted by: Carter | October 24, 2007 12:17 AM

Brilliant and insightful analysis of the paper Carter!

I'm surprised the editors of JAIDS didn't send the manuscript to you for review.

Posted by: Chris Noble | October 24, 2007 12:35 AM

Gallo, Broder, and Fauci along with many others all had their careers on the line and threatened when Duesberg challenged them.

The one, Duesberg, was simply sacrificed for the good of the many.

Today, there are many thousands more who can be added to the list of those whose careers are on the line for the HIV belief.

If those whose careers were not still on the line today were not posting, there would be few arguing with the rethinkers.

Franklin, Adele, Elkmountain, DT, and many others posting anti-dissident messages of protest all have their jobs, careers and egos on the line. All are in denial of this and hence are the real "AIDS DENIALISTS".

How bout you Chuckie. Are You bought off in your beliefs too? Are you financially or egoically invested in by AIDS Inc. and Company? What conflicts of interest do you have in this issue Mr. WoodChuck?

Posted by: Michael | October 24, 2007 12:51 AM

Elk directs you to a paper published in 2007, demonstrating the high sensitivity and specificity of P24 assays for HIV infection. And you pulled your head far enough out of the sand to counter with an estimate of sensitivity from a paper published in 1995.

Elkie and Frankie, we've already seen you claim that HIV = AIDS was proven retroactively, but that the tests' sensitivity also improves retroactively is a new one on me. Since the tests were performed in '92-'93, I would think it's quite appropriate ro reference a paper from '95.

"All 110 paediatric patients admitted to the ICU with severe community-acquired pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation during the 2 years 1992 through 1993."

I take brave Sir Elkie's sudden silence on the topic as a sign he does not want to confront Al-Bayati and Christine Maggiore personally to explain to them his distaste for child-murderers and those who render them service?

Posted by: Pope | October 24, 2007 2:03 AM

Re: Tang S.et al.

"December 15, 2005--Nanosphere, Inc., a nanotechnology-based molecular diagnostics company, today announced the company's Biobarcode™ technology has been awarded patent number 6,974,669 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.-- The company's ultra-sensitive protein detection and direct genomic testing technologies permit the development of new biomarkers and measurement of existing biomarkers at concentrations undetectable by today's diagnostic technologies."

Tang talks all about Nanotechnology and Biobarcodes and says, "Preliminary evaluation based on testing a small number of samples indicates that the HIV-1 p24 antigen BCA MAY (my emphasis) provide a new tool for sensitive and early detection of HIV-1 p24 antigen in settings where HIV-1 RNA testing is currently not routinely performed.

"May" doesn't mean absolute.

And you are saying p24 is regarded as highly HIV specific protien, antibody specific for HIV? Arn't you?

BULL SHIT!

"FINDINGS: HIV-1 p24 gag seroreactivity was found in 27 (35%) of 77 patients with primary biliary cirrhosis,... The HIV-1 and HIAP antibody reactivity found in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and other biliary disorders may be attributable either to an autoimmune response to antigenically related cellular proteins or to an immune response to uncharacterised viral proteins that share antigenic determinants with these retroviruses." PMID: 9620716

Posted by: Carter | October 24, 2007 2:58 AM

Pope,

They have used the p24 antigen test at this time. They now are using Elisa/WB and PCR and have the same kind of results. HIGHER MORTALITY OF HIV+ NEWBORNS.

If you still claim that there is no relationship what so ever with HIV, can you explain what is happening ?

If you cannot, and you dont have the courage to say it, would it be better to just stay quiet until you have an explanation?

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

On the scientist aspect, I am not a virologist, neither a biologist, and have been interested in HIV/AIDS in the last 8 months. I am not working in the field so I can look to information only in free time, which is not a lot, so obviously I would have a lot of errors.

Are you a scientist ?

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

Thanks in advance for recognising that you cannot answer to the question of disproportionate HIV+ mortality in your Duesbergian intelectual framework.

If you change you still can help people, and I assume that this is the reason that you are contributing this blog.

Posted by: Braganza | October 24, 2007 5:37 AM

Gallo, and others need not to look to far to treating AIDS if they would look at LDN, which basically stops disease progression and prevents the O.I., which are associated with AIDS. Nevertheless, most will not consider it because it is not new and on a "fast track" approval for AIDS. A drug, which has virtually no side effects, works, is inexpensive and is keeping terminal patients alive needs to be looked into. At the conference, many incurable cases were discussed by the doctors who had treated them. MS suffers no longer needed their canes and wheelchairs. Many cancer survivors were in the room and of course me, a full-blown AIDS patient, who no longer needs antiretrovirals and the accompanying side effects. We do not need to wait for the "cure" or a vaccine that won't work, a miracle drug is here now with LDN!

Posted by: noreen | October 24, 2007 7:53 AM

Dear Carter,

You correctly report that Tang S, et al, use the word "may" in their paper. Why? Because they cannot predict whether their particular p24-based test will be the best of the next generation of diagnostics; it needs more testing. If you were to read more scientific articles, not just snippets from virusmyth or abstracts, you would find that noncommittal language is standard in scientific writing. Scientists are usually shy of absolutes. They cannot predict the future, they do not have absolute knowledge, and they recognize their limitations and those of their methods...although their methods and knowledge are often vastly superior to those of their "opponents."

Science and understanding can change. The facts do not. If you have an explanation that explains AIDS better than HIV as etiological agent, the world (including me) would like to hear it. If your explanation makes sense, is corroborated with experimental evidence, and results in prevention, cure, or better therapies, you will find that very few scientists are as invested in the "paradigm" as you now believe. I for one would be fascinated and enthused to learn about a different plausible explanation for AIDS. But as of 7:21 AM on October 24, 2007, I have seen not a shred of reliable evidence for such an explanation.

Pope takes
brave Sir Elkie's sudden silence on the topic as a sign he does not want to confront Al-Bayati and Christine Maggiore personally to explain to them his distaste for child-murderers and those who render them service?

Pope, my own words should have let you know that I have no interest in confronting Christine Maggiore or any of her friends in public. What would be the point? A single case cannot prove or strike down the HIV/AIDS connection, although Christine Maggiore in her grief and denial apparently disagrees. Her child's death is a tragedy, no matter what she died from. If it was AIDS, and it looks as if it was, it's also a reminder of how denial can kill. But no one will convince Maggiore of that, and her delusions are not worth my time.

Again, Pope, since you insist on misreading, I will tell you again: I acknowledge that accused child-murderers MUST have a competent defence in a fair justice system. Lawyers and expert witnesses who provide these services are necessary and important. Because of my distaste for the issues of child abuse and murder, I would not want to do Al-Bayati's job, but I do not begrudge him an honest living. I did question whether Al-Bayati is, indeed, a Pathologist.

I am aware that a medical degree and extensive further training is pre-requisite for certification as a Pathologist in most places, and that Al-Bayati does not have a medical degree. I wanted to know how he can claim to be a Pathologist. Dale provided the best explanation: Al-Bayati is not a medical pathologist. He knows about pathology and its methods (like many scientists), but is not certified and is not even eligible for certification as a Pathologist in most locations.

Al-Bayati's "diagnosis" was written up as a favor to a friend in need. It is not the product of certified Pathology expertise (although he is a Toxicologist, as Dale wrote). His opinion carries less weight than that of the coroners AND of the independent examiners retained by news organizations to review the autopsy report (all of whom supported the coroners' conclusion). From a standpoint of certification, Al-Bayati's report also appears to be below the level of those conducted by Dr. Benett, Orac, and others: those reviewers are medical doctors and Al-Bayati is not.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | October 24, 2007 8:28 AM

Michael wrote;

Dear Woodchuck, you ask what difference it makes what happened 23 years ago. It just so happens to make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD. After all, when anyone is asked for the study that shows HIV is the cause of AIDS, all studies referencing such a point, direct the reader to Gallo's 1984 Science papers.

It still doesn't matter because they were right. The work of thousands of scientists and physicians confirm it. The proof is obvious. Screening the blood supply for anti-HIV antibodies has eliminated HIV/AIDS cases from blood transfusions. Antiviral drugs have greatly decreased the rates of pediatric AIDS. Antiviral cocktails have decreased the number of numbers of deaths of HIV infected individuals. When the virus develops resistance, AIDS follows. Any one of these is proof that HIV=AIDS. Taken together, the evidence is overwhelming.

Posted by: woodchuck | October 24, 2007 9:11 AM

Brave Sir Elkie

Considering these introductory words...

A single case cannot prove or strike down the HIV/AIDS connection (...) her delusions are not worth my time.

... you spend quite a lot of time and words on the case.

Have you checked if your pants are on fire yet?

.

Posted by: Pope | October 24, 2007 9:45 AM

By now, the leading AIDS denialists will be aware of AIDS Truth's latest victory: The acknowledgment by the BBC of the many flaws in the Liam Scheff-inspired documentary "Guinea-Pig Kids", produced by Jamie Doran, attacking the use of ARVs to treat HIV-infected foster children at New York's Incarnation Children's Center. Full details of this victory for science, medicine and public health will be posted on the AIDS Truth website, where additional material will be added once the BBC finalizes its decision on the fate of the producers and editors responsible for the inaccurate and damaging documentary.

Many AIDS professionals contributed to this fight against the BBC, although Jeanne Bergmann deserves most of the credit.

I would, however, like to publicly acknowledge the truly critical role played by Dave Crowe of ARAS, and his colleagues in the Rethinking AIDS (sic) group, in making this victory possible. AIDS Truth's initial complaint to the BBC was gathering dust at a low level of the bureaucracy, and would probably never have been acted on. Fortunately, at just the right moment, Crowe and the RA group issued a press release (appended below). That was of outstanding use to the AIDS Truth team, as it served to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Doran documentary was AIDS denialist-inspired and -supported. I therefore forwarded Crowe's press release to a senior science reporter at the BBC (see email below, name redacted to preserve confidentiality), who then brought the matter to the personal attention of the Deputy Director General. The rest, as they say, was history. So, thanks Dave Crowe! Keep up the good work!
John Moore

-------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:24:18 -0400
To: xxxxxx@bbc.co.uk
From: "John P. Moore"
Subject: The denialists write to the BBC
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

xxxxxxx,
The very fact that the AIDS denialists' umbrella organization has now issued a press release supporting the BBC documentary should say something to the BBC hierarchy about how biased, damaging, misleading and anti-science/medicine that documentary actually was. I'm reminded of the old phrase that one can judge a man by his enemies. Well, one can also judge a man by his friends, and with friends like these, the BBC documentary producer is in pretty disturbing territory. The fact is that the BBC is sitting on a scandal, and how it responds (or not) will affect its reputation in the minds of many AIDS research professionals. The problem with the documentary is specifically highlighted in an article that will appear in the International AIDS Society's newsletter very soon, a newsletter read by thousands of AIDS research professionals.
I know this is not your problem, and I understand the demands on your time, but perhaps you would be able to steer us to someone at the BBC who is willing and able to look seriously at a significant blot on the BBC's reputation in scientific and public health circles. Some of the people concerned about this documentary's contents are London-based. It would not be difficult to set up a meeting to get to the bottom of the problem. The fact is that the producer was either thoroughly fooled or deliberately adopted one of the core agendas of the AIDS denialists: that anti-retroviral drugs cause AIDS rather than treating it. That's so dangerously misleading, and misleadingly dangerous, as to be not allowed to stand unrebutted.
Regards,
John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rethinking AIDS" [press@rethinkingaids.com]
Sent: 03/08/2007 08:17 PM
To: xxxxxx
Subject: For Immediate Release

Press Release
March 7, 2007

Rethinking AIDS Asks BBC to Reject Call to Censor
BBC Documentary About Forced Drug Experiments on Children

SAN FRANCISCO, March 7, 2007--Rethinking AIDS, a global organization of more than 2,300 scientists, medical doctors, journalists, health advocates, and business professionals, asked the BBC today to reject a call for censorship of the 2004 documentary film Guinea Pig Kids. The film, coproduced with NDR, German public television, exposed drug experiments on poor, mostly Latino and African-American New York City children presumed to be HIV positive, conducted at Incarnation Children's Center (ICC) in Manhattan.

In a March 7, 2007, letter to the acting chair of the BBC Trust, RA president Dr. Etienne de Harven wrote, "Thanks to the BBC exposé and other investigative reports in the U.S. and Europe, the disturbing practices at the ICC came to the attention of human rights organizations and local government agencies, prompting hearings, investigations and media coverage that continue to this day."

On January 10, 2007, several AIDS researchers sent a complaint letter to the BBC asking it to remove "editorial support," which includes a transcript of the film, from the BBC Web site and that an apology for "false and misleading" portrayal of the children as "guinea pigs" be posted in its place. The documentary investigators found, however, information from ICCís own former Web site, as well as the Web site of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), indicating that ICC used children to test not only unusually high numbers of highly toxic drugs (mixtures of up to eight drugs) but also at doses that were significantly higher than normal. (See also, the BBCís follow-up story.)

RA has urged the BBC to "refuse censorship of this vitally important film, continuing the courageous stance that led to the pursuit of this story." It requested that coverage of Guinea Pig Kids remain on the BBC Web site and that no apology be issued for what is an accurate report.

The February 2007 issue of Essence magazine contains a feature article inspired by the film, originally aired November 30, 2004. Initial stories ran in the New York Post, New York Press, Fox News and the British Observer. There is evidence that such abusive practices persist in New York, the U.S. and around the world.

RAís letter, and the letter of complaint to which it responds, are available here.

### end ###

Press contact:
Etienne de Harven, M.D., Ph.D.
President
Rethinking AIDS: The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis
Phone: +33-4-93-60-28-39
Saint Cézaire, France

Alternate contact:
David Crowe
Media Relations
Phone: +1-403-289-6609
Mobile: +1-403-861-2225
Calgary, Canada

Posted by: John Moore | October 24, 2007 11:56 AM

So now John Pee Moore cries victory because some TV employees, after having been intimidated by the self-proclaimed representatives of the Scientific Community defending their once in a century gold mine, have agreed to stay away from a dog-fight in which they have no bone at all.

Ha, Ha, Ha! Pee Moore, you should get your ass away from this quickly, your pants are on fire already! Ha! Ha! Ha! People who dare not agree with Signor Moore, even if they're top-rank scientists, they're despicable low-life quacks, but a guy who agrees, never mind the total lack of scientific training, anything will do.

A triumph of science he calls it! Don't forget Johnny Pee Moore: "Forty million infected, zero cured". That's Your Majesty's Own Scientific Community Speaking.

Posted by: jspreen | October 24, 2007 3:45 PM

Gallo, Broder, and Fauci along with many others all had their careers on the line and threatened when Duesberg challenged them.

The one, Duesberg, was simply sacrificed for the good of the many.

So why, then, did Duesberg lose? His scientific credibility and reputation at the time were at least as great as Gallo's. Indeed, Duesberg's criticisms were initially taken quite seriously by much of the scientific community. Yet today, Gallo remains highly regarded, while Duesberg is regarded as something of a crackpot. So what changed? Although Gallo's initial papers on HIV and AIDS had a substantial impact, they did not convince everybody by any means. What happened in the intervening years is that subsequent discoveries supported the predictions of Gallo's theory, rather than that of Duesberg. Discoveries of the molecular details of how HIV infects cells of the immune system, improved methods of detecting the virus, the ability of related viruses to cause similar diseases, etc., etc. supported Gallo's theory, while more extensive epidemiological studies did not fit expectations based on Duesberg's hypothesis. Today, Gallo's original papers are mainly of historical interest, because every conclusion has been confirmed and reconfirmed, often with better methodology than was available at the time of Gallo'w original work.

Posted by: trrll | October 24, 2007 4:21 PM

Woodchucks,

I bet I know a few things about "HIV" you didn't know!

For one thing, smoking causes AIDS;

Saturday, 23 September 2006, 23:06 GMT 00:06 UK

Smokers 'at greater risk of HIV'
Smoking
Smoking is also linked to other sexually transmitted infections
Smokers may be at a greater risk of HIV infection, research suggests.

The UK researchers, writing in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infection, said tobacco smoke may increase people's vulnerability to infections.

However, they also found smoking tobacco did not appear to speed the progression of HIV to Aids.

THIS IS REALLY REALLY GOOD NEWS, HEH!

The team, which reviewed previous studies, said the increased HIV risk could be because smokers were more likely to take sexual risks.

HOPEFULLY NOT UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE FINISHED WITH THEIR DIRTY LITTLE ACT, WILL THEY LIGHT UP!

More research clearly needs to be done in this area

CLEARLY THIS IS AN UNDERFUNDED AND IMPORTANT AREA FOR MORE RESEARCH DOLLARS. MAYBE THE PLUMPYNUT FUNDS CAN GO TO SUPPORT IT?

Dr Andrew Furber
Dr Andrew Furber, a consultant in public health from the South East Sheffield Primary Care Trust and lead author of the paper, said: "We know tobacco can enter the bloodstream and affects the immune system."

He said studies have already shown that tobacco is linked to an increased risk in sexually transmitted infections, but his latest analysis reveals a link to HIV.

HOLY CATS, BATMAN!

Out of about 3,500 studies, six looked into tobacco and HIV.

Dr Furber said five of these papers revealed that smoking increased the risk of acquiring HIV - smokers were between 60-300% more likely to acquire HIV compared with non-smokers.

DAMN! I GOTTA QUIT! HELP! OR AT LEAST SWITCH TO FILTERED CIGS INSTEAD OF THESE DAMN PALL MALLS!

But Dr Furber also added a note of caution. He said the increase could be caused by the fact that smokers could be more likely to take risks, such as unsafe sex, than non-smokers.

NOT HUMPHREY BOGART OR AL PACHINO!

Developing countries

A review of the smoking and progression of HIV to Aids revealed no association.

IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER! WHAT'S AN ASSOCIATION WHEN YOU GOT FACTS ON YOUR SIDE?

But Dr Furber said a link could have been hidden by the fact that antiretroviral drugs, which slow the onset of Aids, were not in use at the time of the research.

THIS IS REALLY TOO BAD! BUT NOT ACCORDING TO HARRINGTON, AS I POSTED ABOVE WHO SAID, "WHO WANTS TO QUIT SMOKING WHEN WE'RE ALL HEADED OFF A CLIFF-THE BIRMINGHAM RESISTANCE DATA WERE WRENCHING, ETC." DO YOU THINK SMOKING CAUSED HARRINGTON'S AIDS?

Dr Furber said: "More research clearly needs to be done in this area. As the tobacco market is squeezed in the developed world, the tobacco industry increasingly looks to Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa.

CLEARLY! CLEARLY! CLEARLY! CLEARLY MORE AND MORE AND MORE MONEY IS NEEDED. THE SUGGESTION STANDS: FORK OVER THE PLUMPYNUT MONEY FOR MORE AND MORE AND MOORE STUDIES, LIKE MICROBICIDES TOO.

"And these are the places where the HIV epidemic is at its greatest.

BUT OF COURSE IT IS!

"So if there is this interaction, it is important to know about, because it could affect the way we run public health programmes in developing countries."

SURE WOULD!

Keith Alcorn, a senior editor at the National Aids Map, said: "The weakness of this analysis, as the authors themselves acknowledge, is that most of the studies reviewed were carried out before the widespread use of antiretroviral therapy in developed countries.

THIS IS INDEED A WEAKNESS!

"Earlier this year, a large US study in HIV-positive women found that smokers had a 36% greater risk of developing an Aids-related illness over five years of follow-up, despite taking potent antiretroviral therapy.

I WONDER IF THEY INCLUDED STUDIES USING LUCKY STRIKES?

"Anyone living with HIV would be strongly advised by their doctor to stop smoking because of the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the much greater risk of various smoking-related cancers for HIV-positive people, whether on treatment or not."

and another thing: GP120 is shaped like a little propeller that probably beats off neutralizing antibodies generated by "HIV-positive" people:

"HIV" uses "a fewer number of boat propellers" than previously thought to attach to cells! Probably the reason why all 30+ vaccine trails have failed to date. Could it be that maybe the particles "propeller away" from neutralizing antibodies made by "HIV-positive" folks?

Scientists Get First Good Look At AIDS Virus' Surface

ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2004) -- A team of scientists at Florida State University has gotten the first detailed look at the surface of the virus that causes AIDS, taking an important step in the international effort to understand how the deadly virus works.

"Future research efforts will use this information to devise new approaches to hopefully neutralize the AIDS virus," said biology Professor Kenneth Roux, who is heading up the research. "These findings have important implications for our understanding of how the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is formed, how it attacks our immune system and how it evades being neutralized by antibodies."

Using electron tomography, a process similar to a CAT scan, the scientists discovered that the molecule used by HIV to attack the body's immune system is composed of three separate but identical units arranged like a boat's propeller. Scientists throughout the world previously thought that this molecule, called "gp120," was only loosely attached to the virus' surface. But Roux and his team found that the molecules are much more tightly bound to HIV and are fewer in number than initially believed.

The findings suggest that a harmless form of the virus itself may be useful in developing an AIDS vaccine that would produce antibodies to attack HIV. A vaccine containing purified forms of the molecule may also stimulate the production of antibodies to attack HIV and neutralize it, Roux said.

The team's findings were recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Roux was assisted by postdoctoral associate Ping Zhu, biology Professor Kenneth Taylor, postdoctoral associate Jun Liu and researchers at the National Cancer Institute.

and another thing:
I bet you didn't know "HIV" particles "gang up" on unsuspecting cells:

If I'd known that multiple "HIV" viral particles must team up to to produce the deadly form of AIDS, I sure would've not been so critical of the "HIV=AIDS"paradigm.

Study Helps Explain How HIV Becomes AIDS

ScienceDaily (Aug. 1, 2007) -- A new UC Irvine study sheds light on how HIV develops into AIDS and suggests a possible way to block the deadly transformation.

UCI biologist Dominik Wodarz has shown for the first time that the development of AIDS might require HIV to evolve within a patient into a state where it spreads less efficiently from cell to cell. This counters the current belief that AIDS develops when the virus evolves over time to spread more efficiently within a patient, ultimately leading to the collapse of the immune system.

The study also finds that multiple HIV particles must team up to infect individual cells, called co-infection, in order for deadly strains to emerge and to turn the infection into AIDS. If just one virus particle infects a cell, the deadliest strains may not be able to evolve, stopping HIV from progressing to AIDS. By keeping more than one HIV particle from infecting a cell, scientists might be able to ward off AIDS, the study suggests. AIDS killed more than 17,000 people in the United States in 2005.

"If this is true, a new approach to therapy could be to block the process of co-infection in cells," said Wodarz, who used a mathematical model to draw his conclusions. "This would prevent deadly HIV strains from emerging and the patient would remain healthy, despite carrying the virus."

HIV develops in three stages. During the first few weeks, the virus grows to very high levels and can cause symptoms similar to a general viral infection such as the flu. The virus then drops to lower levels and the patient enters the asymptomatic phase that lasts on average 8-10 years. During the last stage, AIDS develops and the immune system collapses. Without an immune system, the patient cannot survive.

It is not well understood how the asymptomatic phase transitions into AIDS. The common notion is that HIV evolves to grow better over time following Darwin's theory of natural selection, eventually killing the patient.

But Wodarz's mathematical model, which takes into account how well the virus spreads and how quickly it kills the cells it invades, shows that the most deadly HIV strains do not spread the fastest from cell to cell. This surprised Wodarz because evolution tends to allow strong organisms to thrive, while weaker organisms become extinct.

The explanation, he says, rests with the fact that multiple HIV particles can invade a single cell. Wodarz's calculations show that, in this situation, viral evolution within a patient is fundamentally altered, allowing the deadly, slower-spreading strains to emerge over time and trigger the onset of AIDS.

These notions can be tested experimentally. If confirmed, Wodarz believes scientists could use this knowledge to develop a drug that blocks the cellular invasion of multiple HIV particles. This would create an environment in which the most deadly HIV types cannot emerge. This, he says, could keep HIV from developing into AIDS. No such drug currently exists.

This theory could explain why certain monkeys that are naturally infected with the monkey version of HIV never develop AIDS. According to Wodarz's model, multiple virus particles may infect cells at reduced levels or not at all. Wodarz says this theory also could be tested experimentally.

The study appears online July 31 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

David N. Levy of New York University also worked on this study, which was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

and another thing:
I bet you didn't know that HP68 is a host protein with a weight of 68 kiloDaltons (units of atomic mass), and is found in normal cells in human and monkeys and other animals, and that HP68 temporarily associates with the Gag protein and helps it to form the HIV capsid,"

Rutgers Cell Biologist Sees New HIV Treatment Potential In Protein Discovery

ScienceDaily (Jan. 3, 2002) -- NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Rutgers cell biologist Bonnie L. Firestein is charting a new course in the search for an effective AIDS treatment. Firestein and her colleagues have identified a protein known as HP68 that is critical to the formation of the AIDS virus' outer shell or capsid. Treatments that target this protein could stop HIV production while avoiding the severe side effects found with current treatments.

Firestein, an assistant professor in Rutgers' department of cell biology and neuroscience, and Jaisri Lingappa, assistant professor of pathobiology at the University of Washington, are the co-principal investigators on this project.

"The identification of this protein by members of Dr. Jaisri Lingappa's laboratory, with whom I collaborated, is particularly exciting since it opens up new avenues for the treatment of HIV infection and, potentially, AIDS," said Firestein.

HIV belongs to a class of viruses, called retroviruses, which have genes made of RNA (as opposed to other organisms, such as humans, that have DNA), explained Firestein. Since HIV does not have DNA, it must infect a host cell where RNA can be made into DNA. In order for HIV to be infectious, a number of processes must occur, one of which is the assembly of Gag (group-specific antigens) proteins into a shell or capsid that protects the HIV.

The newly identified protein, designated HP68 because it is a host protein with a weight of 68 kiloDaltons (units of atomic mass), is found in normal cells in human and monkeys and other animals.

"When the cell is infected with HIV, HP68 temporarily associates with the Gag protein and helps it to form the capsid," said Firestein. "If HP68 is mutated or absent, HIV capsids do not form, and hence, HIV cannot infect other cells."

Current treatments use drugs that either stop the production of HIV RNA into DNA or interrupt virus production, but these drugs often have severe side effects. "The identification of HP68 will allow us to develop drugs that interrupt its interaction with Gag, and therefore stop HIV production," said Firestein. "Since we may be able to develop drugs that are specific for HP68, we may be able to avoid the intolerable side effects found with the drugs currently used in other courses of treatment."

Other scientists in the laboratory at the University of Washington and at the University of California at San Francisco were also involved in this research project. The results of the research appear in the Jan. 3 issue of the journal Nature as "Identification of a host protein essential for assembly of immature HIV-1 capsids."

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health AIDS Division and the Pediatric Aids Foundation.

and finally, I bet you didn't know that "HIV"can jump in and out of a nucleus multiple times as demonstrated by McDonald et al:

Tracking "HIV" in living cells leads to doubts about aetology of AIDS.

The most discouraging evidence that the entity called "HIV" is not necessary or sufficient, or even a contributing pathogen in the development of the more than 30 different previously known diseases now referred to collectively as AIDS-defining diseases has been recently put forth by McDonald, Vodicka, Lucero Svitina, Borisy, Emerman, and Hope, in their recent publication entitled, "Visualization of intracellular behavior of HIV in living cells" (The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol. 159, Number 3, November 11, 2002). Although the report was advanced as exciting new evidence regarding the path of "HIV" particles in living cells, the data could be interpreted otherwise.

The paper begins with an articulation of what is perhaps "HIV's" most challenging paradox. Previous HIV-AIDS orthodoxy has maintained that "HIV" must find its way to a cell's nucleus in order to integrate its "evil" instructions into the program of the host cell.

Yet even in the Abstract of the McDonald et al. paper, we are introduced to the exciting idea that with a technology capable of tracking "HIV" in a living cell, it should be easily possible to "determine the state of progression of individual particles throughout the viral life cycle." But here the authors gently point to a serious discrepancy they observed, or rather didn't observe but should have: They suggest that the fluorescent particles they observed were only able to be tracked "during early post entry steps of the HIV life cycle", because one of the the labels they also stained host cell nuclei with made it impossible to observe even 1 "HIV" particle enter the nucleus out of the dozens, or perhaps hundreds they tracked." It has been easy to label other nucleus-residing viruses before, by labeling the virus in isolation and then introducing them to cells for infection, to follow their complete life cycle. Baculoviruses, for example, which must get to the nucleus, are easy to label with nucleic acid binding dyes, and then follow their course to the nucleus, and into the nucleus, and watch them as they set up their factories there. Therefore, at the outset of the work's presentation, McDonald and co-authors alert the reader's mind as to the critical issue before them regarding retroviral ("HIV") inhabitation of host cell nuclei, and warn us up front that they do not observe "HIV" nuclear co-localization occur even once in their study.

The data they present that follows this somewhat shocking juxtapposition of statements presented in the Abstract, in addition, supports their claim of non-nuclear-retrovirus co-localization, which they arrived at experimentally through their use of careful in vivo tracking methodology primarily developed by Hope's and Borisy's group, using tiny particles that were pre-labeled with the green fluorescent-tagged putative "HIV" capsid protein Vpr, and in other experiments, with deoxynucleotide (Alexa-594-dUTP) pre-loaded into cells that later were loaded with putative "HIV" particles. From their results presented in Figure 3, it is unequivocally clear that not a single labeled particle was ever observed to go to an infected cell's nucleus and enter it, while at the same time, the data prove that reverse transcriptase is not specific to retroviruses, as has been demonstrated by numerous studies. For example, RT is found associated with telomere replication, and perhaps other normal cellular functions. (Szutorisz, H., Lingner, J., Cuthbert, A. P., Trott, D. A., Newbold, R. F. and Nabholz, M. (2003), A chromosome 3-encoded repressor of the human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) gene controls the state of hTERT chromatin. Cancer Res. 63, 689-695). These data, and their discussion about this finding make it clear that arguments regarding the specificity of reverse transcriptase for retroviral particles should now indeed be completely abandoned once and for all by "retrovirologists".

The most striking results of the study, however, do not derive from studies of specific particle or nuclear labeling with reverse transcriptase, but from their tracking of a putative albeit ill-defined "HIV" capsid protein, Vpr. Because of the elegant high resolution motion analysis of this molecule obtained by McDonald, Borisy, Hope, and their colleagues, it is crystal clear from the movement tracking records they present in figure 3 of their paper when they follow Vpr, that even though the tracked labeled particles approach and traverse across the nuclear area of the cells, they never enter the nucleus, or if they do, they quickly exit it again, and are unchanged with respect to their surface expression of the fluorescently labeled Vpr molecules used to track their motion (which, if retroviral in nature, should be dissolved or shed at some point at least in order to allow the viral genome to integrate into the nuclear genome). In other words, because the Vpr motion analysis is not obscured by the so called "viral specific" reverse-transcriptase Alexa-594-dUTP, the presented data shows that one Vrp-labeled particle tracked over time in Figure 3 both enters and leaves the nucleus no less than 3 times, or after 3 attempts, it never enters the nucleus. Another particle in the same tracking data in Figure 3 also enters and leaves no fewer than 3 times. However, and as the authors show us in the tracking data, we cannot assume that the particles entered the nucleus even though they had 3 ample opportunities, because no change in the Vpr signal associated with the particles is detectable, as the particles "enter and re-enter" the region of the nuclear border, and leave again. Of course, the more plausible explanation for these Vpr motion data, are that none of these tracked particles, or any other labeled particles tracked during the study ever enter a nucleus at all, they are not retroviral particles, and therefore, do not act consistently with the first "accepted" requirement of a retrovirus particle: to enter a host cell nucleus in order to integrate its genome with that of the host cell.

Regarding this failure to track even a single particle to the nucleus of cells, another argument is presented about efficiency of infection, that 1:10 viral retroviral particles are needed to cause "infection" and a reference is given for this calculation (Andreadis et al., 2000), although this number is at odds with other published data (Duesberg, 1997). Nevertheless, the McDonald study presents convincing data which now can be seen to eliminate all possibility of confusing particles that have had their capsid removed by the absorption processes of the cell from other particles that have not had their capsids removed, and any hypothesis regarding the translocation of this "retrovirus" to the nucleus for completion of its life cycle is laid to rest.

By following Alexa-594-dUTP labeled particles that are negative for Vrp (McDonald et al., p 448, Discussion), and by following particles that are positive for Vrp, it is highly unlikely that a genuine association with the host cell nucleus could have been missed in the McDonald study.

Another advance brought forth by the McDonald paper, is the emphasis on the cytoskeleton's role in non-randomly transporting labeled particles or vesicles from the cell periphery to the region of the nucleus. This region of the cell, as pointed out by the authors, is commonly known as the microtubule organizing center, and as such, it is known to be the depot of intracellular cargo, and among most cells, has the known capacity of self-organization in the absence or presence of the centrioles at its center (Zorn et al., 1979; Dirksen et al., 1961; Maniotis et al., 1991; Khodjakov et al., 2002). This region of the cell has been mysterious for more than a century since it was first called the cell's centrosphere in the last century (Wilson, Boveri, 1925), and because it contains the enigmatic centrioles whose replication is still a paradox of molecular biology (Maniotis et al., 1991; Khodjakov et al., 2002). Centrosomes, in addition, are known to be associated with virus-like and virus sized particles in normal, uninfected cells of all kinds (Kalnins), and much ultrastructural work has been done on these "viral like particles for more than 20 years, along with ultrastructural work on the centrosome.

What is not mysterious about this region of the cell, is that it is almost universally known and accepted amongst cell biologists that the MTOC acts as a "garbage-can" of the cell, because all types and kinds of vesicles, particles, dirt, organelles, and various molecular complexes are brought together near the nucleus in this area. Nevertheless, due to the elegant use of live imaging of microtubules in this study along with the tracking of GFP-labeled Vrp, a series of difficult experiments were performed by McDonald, Borisy, and colleagues, in order to establish whether microtubules were possibly the tracks along which the particles traveled on their route at least to the MTOC. These experiments, taken together, clearly demonstrate that microtubules are used to efficiently carry "the virus-sized" particles from the exterior region of the cell toward the MTOC, but that actin also plays an important role. Thus it is still not clear which cytoskeletal system is predominantly used to transport particles to and toward the MTOC. However, the predominant cargo carried by microtubules and the dynein motors in the retrograde direction (toward the nucleus) are typically ordinary membrane-bound vesicles, about the size of the "particles" tracked by the Hope team. It was claimed that Triton X-100 detergent treatment failed to remove the signal from the particles. Therefore, another way to interpret the McDonald data, is that they have successfully labeled intracellular debris in these cells, which is being transported to the centrosome.

Cheers,

andy

Posted by: Andrew Maniotis | October 24, 2007 5:07 PM

Andrew Maniotis,

I am not familiar with these papers. But you do know something that I don't know. It is how to twist information and cherry pick sentences to misrepresent published information. That's a talent that will get you far in the research world. The evidence is clear. Seven years as an independent researcher with only a demotion to show for it. Keep it up and you can be a graduate student again. Wouldn't that be fun.

Posted by: woodchuck | October 24, 2007 5:34 PM

John P. Moore of the AidsTruth cabal writes:

"By now, the leading AIDS denialists will be aware of AIDS Truth's latest victory: The acknowledgment by the BBC of the many flaws in the Liam Scheff-inspired documentary "Guinea-Pig Kids", produced by Jamie Doran, attacking the use of ARVs to treat HIV-infected foster children at New York's Incarnation Children's Center. Full details of this victory for science, medicine and public health will be posted on the AIDS Truth website, where additional material will be added once the BBC finalizes its decision on the fate of the producers and editors responsible for the inaccurate and damaging documentary."

"Many AIDS professionals contributed to this fight against the BBC, although Jeanne Bergmann deserves most of the credit."

....end excerpt...

I want to point out that the victory here being celebrated is that crack-baby orphans were and are being used in forced-drugging chemical drug trials, in their orphanage.

That's the victory for Moore, the engine of the Aids Crusdade at the NY Times. He who will not debate with "denialists." He who constantly libels and slanders anyone who takes a different view of this paradigm, but refuses to face those he attacks.

This cabal, this John Moore, this NY Times, this is "Aids." Victory is being able to use, and puncture, and drug crack orphans any way they want to, any way they want to, every way they can - and those, like myself, who stand against this practice, we are called "denialists." As in, "holocaust denialists," by those in favor of the laissez-faire drugging of orphans in an orphanage, with FDA black box label drugs.

It's stupefying, really stupefying. These people are nazis, I don't know how else to put it, just nazis, pure mentally ill fascists.

Sorry if that's too blunt. But holy Christ, it is just pure fascism, power-mad, embittered, imbalanced fascism.

Posted by: Liam Scheff | October 24, 2007 6:32 PM

"Now there are alternatives such as the new integrase inhibitor for those who develop resistant virus."

Jeez' guys, how many more times do I have to explain that there is no such thing as a "resistant virus" The concept of resistance has been swiped from bacteriology. Bacteria can become resistant against a bactericidal drug that interferes with their metabolism. That's because bacteria do have a metabolism; they are living organisms and they can develop a path around the blockage. Viruses are not living organisms. They are dead pieces of genetic information that can be transcribed in the right environment (a living host cell). None of the drugs that are used to fight viruses is truly antiviral, i.e., the drugs don't interfere with the virus itself. They just louse up the mechanism by which the virus replicates. But these mechanisms belong to the cell; they are natural processes. Using crap such as AZT is like burning your house down to get rid of termites.
The quacks just give the "ARV cocktail of the month", and when the patient doesn't respond to their liking (CD4 up, VL down), then they whine "Oooh, a resistant mutant!" And they move on to a new poison.
To people who are willig to think (not the pharma shills; they have tuned me out): A virus can mutate, but then something changes. If the change is in the coat protein (replacement of a single amino acid, for example), the altered folding may cause the mutant to be incapable of infecting its host cell. That mutant will never be heard from again. Point mutations cause weakened infectivity.

Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | October 24, 2007 7:02 PM

"HIV" uses "a fewer number of boat propellers" than previously thought to attach to cells!

Gee, Dr. Maniotis, everybody except denialists knows HIV doesn't use propellers anymore; it's long since mutated them into molecular entry claws. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2007/nci-03.htm

What really made the HIV CAT scan worthwhile, though, was this exciting brand new theory

The findings suggest that a harmless form of the virus itself may be useful in developing an AIDS vaccine that would produce antibodies to attack HIV. A vaccine containing purified forms of the molecule may also stimulate the production of antibodies to attack HIV and neutralize it, Roux said.

Imagine that! A harmless form of the virus may be useful in developing a vaccine. Why didn't anybody think of that before?! Give that man an AIDS causing cigar and a pharma grant.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | October 24, 2007 7:08 PM

"On a different topic, I am pleased to note the arrival of Mr. Godschalk. If Mr. Godschalk is on speaking terms with a big prutser named "Iconoclaster,""

Oh yes, Elkieman. I know Iconoclaster very well. Nice guy. Makes a lot of sense too, which cannot be said about you or most of the other shills.
By the way, do you know a guy named George Carter? You remind me of him. I don't mean the Carter who posts on this thread, and who writes intelligent commentaries. No, I mean the guy wo wasted the first half of his life, and now gets paid by big pharma to waste the second half also.

And no, I am not behind the amusing impersonations of Gallo and Montagnier that are making the rounds. I had a good laugh about that, but I don't know who put it on the rails.

Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | October 24, 2007 7:33 PM

Wilhelm writes:

To people who are willig to think (not the pharma shills; they have tuned me out): A virus can mutate, but then something changes. If the change is in the coat protein (replacement of a single amino acid, for example), the altered folding may cause the mutant to be incapable of infecting its host cell. That mutant will never be heard from again. Point mutations cause weakened infectivity.

Then again, if the change is in the polymerase (replacement of a single amino acid, for example), the altered folding may cause the mutant to be incapable of utilizing AZT as a substrate, thereby avoiding the insertion of a chain-terminating molecule into its DNA and allowing it to replicate efficiently in the presence of the drug.

Posted by: franklin | October 24, 2007 7:48 PM

Never mind, Iconoclaster. I missed your comment. As you were.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | October 24, 2007 7:54 PM

"AIDS Truth's initial complaint to the BBC was gathering dust at a low level of the bureaucracy, and would probably never have been acted on. Fortunately, at just the right moment, Crowe and the RA group issued a press release (appended below). That was of outstanding use to the AIDS Truth team, as it served to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Doran documentary was AIDS denialist-inspired and -supported. I therefore forwarded Crowe's press release to a senior science reporter at the BBC (see email below, name redacted to preserve confidentiality), who then brought the matter to the personal attention of the Deputy Director General. The rest, as they say, was history."

Thank you, Small Inquisitor, for clarifying the nature of the BBC decision. Let's recall the timeline:

1. AIDStruth makes a complaint to the BCC.

2. "AIDS Truth's initial complaint to the BBC was gathering dust at a low level of the bureaucracy"

3. Due to AIDStruth's stupid decision to file a complaint, the ICC story gets enormous exposure and more people know about it.

4. RA issues a press release about the matter.

5. That [the RA press release] was of outstanding use to the AIDS Truth team, as it served to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Doran documentary was AIDS denialist-inspired and -supported... The rest, as they say, was history."

In other words, the BBC felt there was no reason to withdraw the story or make a public statement recanting it. Then, after an email from JP Moore, who alerts them about some affiliations (and nothing to do with science/medicine), they suddently decide to make a profuse public apology.

So thank you, Small Inquisitor, for verifying that this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with science or medicine and everything to do with POLITICS.

The best thing for you guys to do right now would be to just SHUT YOUR ****ING TRAPS. That's what Gallo and Baltimore and Fauci have been doing for 20 years, and it served them well. (See, I'm even TELLING you what your best strategy is, and you STILL won't listen to me. Unbelievable.) Too bad you youngen's aren't very good tutees.

darin

Posted by: Darin Brown | October 24, 2007 9:29 PM

If "denialists" (I have yet to find anyone who denies that "AIDS"-like conditions exist) are such a threat, why not do an experiment that just about everyone can understand? Take fluid samples said to transmit "HIV" from those said to have "high viral loads" and those who are said to be "HIV negative." Treat the samples from both groups in identical ways. In the "negative" group, samples should be taken from systemic lupus patients, those training for marathons, pregnant women who at least 8 months pregnant, drug users, etc. If one finds viremia in the "high viral load" group (of particles that fit the textbook description of "HIV") but no such particles in the "HIV negative" people, under the EM, you have won me over, and I will be happy to support the fight against the "denialists." I will also come out of anonymity, and provide my Ph.D. "weight" (whatever that might be) to the cause. I was taught in grad. school that if a claim or criticism can be refuted on a fundamental level, and in a way that would be very clear to a wide audience, then that is the place to start, so to speak, and though it may be obvious, I was also taught not to get involved in "Hannity & Colmes" sort of "screeds."

Posted by: HSWC | October 24, 2007 11:52 PM

Milt writes:

Unless any of these scientific fools have published a WRITTEN RESPONSE IN A JOURNAL to the above-cited article, they have no scientific leg to stand on.

Sorry, this is not how science works, either. When a theory is rejected by the scientific community, it is not because somebody publishes a "written response in a journal." It is because thousands of scientists across the world have independently evaluated the totality of the published evidence, and decided that it would be a waste of time to base their own research on that theory.

The hallmarks of a rejected theory are these: almost no academic researchers are willing to invest their time--and no biotech or pharmaceutical companies are willing to invest their money--in pursuing the theory. Its only remaining advocates are mostly armchair theorists, nitpicking the results of others, but producing none of their own.

HSWC:

If "denialists" (I have yet to find anyone who denies that "AIDS"-like conditions exist) are such a threat, why not do an experiment that just about everyone can understand? Take fluid samples said to transmit "HIV" from those said to have "high viral loads" and those who are said to be "HIV negative." Treat the samples from both groups in identical ways. In the "negative" group, samples should be taken from systemic lupus patients, those training for marathons, pregnant women who at least 8 months pregnant, drug users, etc. If one finds viremia in the "high viral load" group (of particles that fit the textbook description of "HIV") but no such particles in the "HIV negative" people, under the EM, you have won me over, and I will be happy to support the fight against the "denialists."

And this illustrates me point. Denialists always seem to say, "I know what the key experiment is--so why don't you go do it for me?" They never seem to want to invest their own time or money in doing it.

There is, of course, no reason for working scientists to do such an experiment, because by their judgement the evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS is already overwhelmingly convincing--why would they take time away from doing research directed toward saving the lives of people infected with HIV in order to do experiments to retest a theory that they regard as already well established? To convince the denialists?

It is the denialists who believe that the issue is not settled. So why don't they do the study you describe? If you could get cells from HIV negative individuals to produce confirmed HIV particles, wouldn't that support your theory? (in fact, a positive result is generally more convincing than a negative one). But denialists always seem to be armchair scientists with an inflated sense of their own importance--unwilling to do it themselves, but nevetheless believing that some other scientist should feel obligated to do their experiment, just to convince them.

Posted by: trrll | October 25, 2007 1:43 AM