Introduction to HIV and HIV denial

Noreen, the bogus HIV test is not one test.

There are alot of HIV tests. Different generations of antibody tests. First just antibody. Then antibody and antigen. Now you have antigen tests by themselves. You can do culturing. There's PCR.

Nobody gets a false positive if you test ELISA then Western then PCR. Did you ever hear of one?

Look at Andy's claim. He says some scientist says some other scientists say 2% of people with flu vaccine test HIV positive. But you look at those papers you find out the first scientist was a doctor who had ONE patient. And the guy tested indeterminate for HIV, then they did PCR and he was negative. He had a flu vaccine before that. They didn't do anything to prove a connection. The paper that first doctor gave was from ten years ago and its conclusion was, the flu vaccine DIDN'T cause false positives it was a cross reaction thing with a year's group of tests for a few things not just HIV. When they tested the same samples with NEW kits they were negative.

All of the "false positive" literature is like that. People like Andrew come out and tell you stuff about it because they think you won't read it for yourself. You say 70 conditions. But flu is the biggest one and its a lie. All the others its like a sample size of two or one and you can't get a conclusion about if rabies or HBV or anything is causing indeterminate or false positive.

There's a tiny number of false positives and none if you do enough tests. There's no condition I know is proved to cause one using proof like dissidents say they want for HIV and AIDS. None.

BTW, please don't say bad things about Gallo. He found HIV in that many of his first AIDS patients because he didn't have what we have now. He did an amazing thing back then. If we test those people today 100% gauranteed.

Adele, we dissidents would never say anything bad about your hero Robert Gallo, because he, for us, is our best entertainment value for the money!

For the best descriptions of what a LAB RAT Robert Gallo was, read the book "SCIENCE FICTIONS" 2003 by Pulitzer Prize winner John Crewdson.

Here is an older bit of info on this crook who was found guilty of Scientific Misconduct and then let off by his buddies:

LAB RAT
What AIDS Researcher Dr. Robert Gallo Did in Pursuit of the Nobel Prize
By Seth Roberts

Spy July 1990:

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

"If Machiavelli were to write a book today, he'd call it The Lab Chief."

- a former colleague of Dr. Robert Gallo's

Chris, I think that part of the problem is a bogus HIV Test, which is cannot be so accurate if 70 things cause a false positive and it is not specific to only HIV.

The question isn't whether a number of different things can cause a false positive. The question is how often they cause false positives. The reality is that false positives using the standard protocols are very rare.

I am willing to bet that you have not gone through and read the references for the "Factors Known to Cause False Positive HIV Antibody Test Results" article. Many of them describe single events that are extremely rare. Many of these occurred only in a specific test-kits from the 1980s that are now obselete.

That really is quite a hero, you picked there Adele. Have you always been so taken with psychopaths?

There is an old saying that "A man is known by his heros".

I am sure the same thing goes for women!

Your choice of Robert Gallo as your hero of worship says much about you dear Adele!

Gotta love it:

"About the time that Richard Nixon resigned, and David Gillespie, then second-in-command at Gallo's lab, was discussing the former president with his boss. "I was saying what a lousy president Nixon was, because he put the ends ahead of the means," says Gillespie. "I said it didn't matter to Nixon how he got where he was going; as long as he got there he felt he was justified. Gallo looked at me, and he said basically that I didn't understand the real world. He said, "Nixon did exactly the right thing. It's unfortunate that he got caught."

Gallo did not confine his competitiveness to other big, well-funded labs. For a few years he reviewed grant proposals for the Leukemia Society of America. But each year, Gallo would bring the proposals - which, of course, were supposed to be confidential - back to Bethesda and, at a Monday-morning meeting, pass them out to people in his lab working in related areas. Here are their ideas, Gallo would say. Work on them ("I've never known him to have an idea that didn't come from someone else," says a former co-worker.) Most scientists would be repelled by such underhandedness, but the people in Gallo's lab went through a process of adaptation and selection. Only the weak survived: Gallo was surrounded by yes-people.

NIH lab chiefs themselves go through a similar process of adaptation and selection, but with an emphasis on different traits. Gallo is fond of participant sports, and as someone in his lab delicately told People, "Gallo doesn't just like to win, he insists on winning." According to another lab member, "With something as friendly as a lab softball game, he'd be dirty - he'd kick you in the balls if he thought he was going to lose." Another employee says that when Gallo was losing at tennis, "he would start to deliberately call the lines wrong on your side of the net. He'd hit a ball six feet out, and he'd say, 'That isn't out, that's in.' He argues and rants and raves so long, you let him have it."

Even as it became clearer and clearer that Gallo had not discovered the AIDS virus but merely copied it from the French ("I think science always builds on the discoveries of other people, doesn't it?" Gallo told SPY), his detractors still did not completely write him off. "If he didn't discover the AIDS virus, he still discovered IL-2," they would say, or "He still discovered HTLV-1," the first known virus convincingly associated with human cancer. The AIDS virus mix-up might have been an accident, a case of laboratory contamination, wherein a virus somehow makes its way from one petri dish to another - "an honest mistake," says Beatrice Hahn, a former Gallo employee

In the late 1970s the discovery of IL-2, a molecule important in the immune system, occurred despite Gallo's efforts to ignore it. Doris Morgan, a researcher in Gallo's lab, stumbled on a way to grow certain white blood cells. When she presented her results at a weekly lab meeting,

Gallo was unimpressed. Others in the lab, however, encouraged her to keep working on it, and she continued without Gallo's knowledge. Eventually, with the help of Frank Ruscetti, a cell biologist, the growing cells were identified as T cells - key elements in the immune system. Gallo said that "growing T cells [wouldn't] lead anywhere," and he ordered Morgan and Ruscetti to stop working on that "'worthless molecule." Not long after Morgan was fired, and she remained unemployed for ten months.

After Morgan was canned, Gallo did little with her discovery. Meanwhile, Kendall Smith, a young professor at Dartmouth, started to follow up Morgan's finding. Over the next four years, the Dartmouth lab isolated IL-2, the molecule responsible for the growth that Morgan had observed, and began to determine its role in the immune system. By then Gallo had finally been forced to understand the importance of Morgan's discovery. Ever since, he has claimed credit not only for Morgan and Ruscetti's result (the long-term growth off cells) but also for the Dartmouth discovery. In the early 1980s Gallo went to a meeting in France where he was asked, "Are you still working with Ruscetti on IL-2?" Gallo reportedly answered that Ruscetti worked for him and that he, not Ruscetti, was the brains behind the project. When he returned to Bethesda, Gallo was so angry over this imagined slight that he didn't speak to Ruscetti for months.

What a sweetheart that Bob Gallo is, and such honesty and integrity!

Chris,

You said, "...several live vaccines are stored as lyophilised powders exactly becuase the process does not destroy these viruses. Simply add water and you have live virus."

Really? Wow! How come this sounds like science fiction or the other thing that comes to mind.......

"Grows SIX TIMES (600% !) it's size in water! Having a hard time finding the perfect girlfriend?! Hey - we totally understand that frustration! Here's your answer... grow your own! Find "true love" in just 72 hours away - simply place Miss Right (or is she Miss Right Now?) in water. Within 2 hours, she will begin to grow and will be her full size within 72 hours. (When removed from water, she will slowly shrink back to her original size... hey! Okay... girls don't do that in real life, but we all wish they did!) Seriously, she will shrink back to her original size and you can grow her again and again."

Bob Gallo is a very respected man a great scientist.

BTW, please don't say bad things about Gallo. He found HIV in that many of his first AIDS patients because he didn't have what we have now. He did an amazing thing back then. If we test those people today 100% gauranteed.

I thought Gallo worship ended 15 years ago, when he was mercifully drummed out of the NCI. The guy's a fake, a crook and a liar.

The website Science Fictions has everything you need to know about Dr. Gallo. Check out "Cited Documents" link -- great nasty grams back and forth between Gallo and Montagnier.

From the NY Times:

The tale of Dr. Robert Gallo's role in the discovery of the virus that causes AIDS is one of those stories that wouldn't be believable as fiction...Science Fictions is bursting with allegations leveled at Dr. Gallo, his associates, rivals and enemies, that include deception, misconduct, incompetence, fraud, sabotage, back-stabbing, double-dealing, overstatements, half-truths, outright lies, a clandestine affair with a co-worker, a bribery attempt, denials, evasions, coverups and serial rewritings of history.'

Really? Wow! How come this sounds like science fiction or the other thing that comes to mind.......

Ummm, because you're scientifically illiterate?

The MMR vaccine for example is distributed as a lyophilised preparation.

Chris,

I wasn't Questioning "lyophilised preparation," just your make-believe 'HIV' particle. What's the standard?

WHAT'S THE STANDARD YOU ARE USING TO CLAIM YOU HAVE ANYTHING PARTICULAR THERE IN YOUR PREPARATION AT ALL?

Please do tell!

Dear DT.

I didn't say anything about emotions and AIDS. If you look carefully, the posts in this blog are followed by a person's name. That was Michael's enlightened and remarkable post you refer to, who indeed made a very good point about long-term emotional stress on the immune system, or what has been called "bone-pointing" by Michael Ellner for example, is a known real phenomenon. You ought to read about how stress causes immune depression and many other serious syndromes. Are you aware that approximately 1/10 of spouses die within a year of their loved one, not because of any pre-existing condition, but because of the stress of loss and death? It is frequently written about in the Grief/Death/Dying literature.

Dear Chris,

Please write to my molecular pathologists and ask them to please accept "HIV" samples from patients here if they are allowed to sit around for 1/2 hour at room temp. They won't do it because they know their PCR readings will be thrown off completely because they tell me that unless blood is IMMEDIATELY frozen in the proper tubes,they get all kinds of "false readings" (I have told them why but they just won't listen).

Now let's you and I do an experiment since Adele won't relate to me what relevance her mutant virus's lack of radioactive signal have in her assays, to the hypersuperdrugevading Y181C and K103N mutations that are exhibited in all those "HIV-positive" patients who die on the "life-saving" meds because their virus is said to "mutate" *(41.7% of black mother-infant pairs for instance in Africa put on the US withdrawn severely toxic drug Nevirapine whose safety data was lost in "the flood."

Let's put some "HIV-positive blood on your kitchen table and let the drop dry up (evaportate), and then re-suspend the dried spot in human plasma, and ask my boys to test it (we are the largest medical school in the nation and our molecular labs were inspected recently and CAP (College of American Pathologists). They not only gave us a thumbs up, but said we should be an example for others in the nation they inspect).

Also, the CDC determined, if you recall, early on when the mosquito possibility was still a threat for "HIV" and when hepatitis B was thought to be the best surrogate marker of "HIV" infection (Martin Deleney, Project Inform, Personal communication) in some of the first cohorts of U.S. and Scottish AIDS patients that:

"Hepatitis B virus is found in 90% of drug addicts positive for antibody to AIDS virus" (Peutherer et al., HTLV-III antibody in Edinburgh drug addicts. The Lancet 2: 1129-1130, 1985),

it was concluded by the CDC that "HIV" wasn't transmitted casually, by contact with peoples lips, skin, etc., and they did table-top experiments much like this one I describe above and concluded that "HIV" is so inefficient at transmission that you need 1000 or more sexual contacts (on average) (now that's a whole lot of foreign antigens being presented to non-self if you are the recipient of thousands of perhaps tablespoons full of stranger's foreign proteins), and then presto, you get "HIV" disease (unless of course you were in the Padian study where there was apparently NO transmission in 175 serodiscordant couples (over a ten year study period).

Moreover, you know that apologists are always complaining about how fragile "HIV" is such that you can't even photograph the damn thing in a sucrose density gradient like any other virus that causes a disease, so instead of providing images like this:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/edhlettercont.htm

all kinds of cellular junk is photographed (and made into vaccine material and test kit reactants that look like this:

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

which prompted me to post earlier, and again without comment from the denialist apologists here on this blog:

Too bad the Moore Bergman propaganda film

http://health.scribemedia.org/2007/06/22/fighting-aids-denialism/

didn't show the 3 fold variable size differences reported by the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford University team showed, when they claimed that (BBC News Tuesday, 24 January 2006, "3D structure of HIV is 'revealed'"):

'Scientists have created a map showing the 3D structure of the virus which causes Aids.'

'The variable size and shape of HIV has made it hard to map, the team said in the journal Structure.'

'He told the BBC: "You say can you show me the structure of the HIV virus and the question is which one."

[YES THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION BY THE OXFORD SCIENTIST-WHICH ONE INDEED??????]

'HIV is very variable. It varied in diameter by a factor of three.'

'The way the research team, from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford University, dealt with this was by taking multiple images at different tilts.'

'Despite the variability, the team found some consistent features.'

'This included the finding that the core of virus - which is cone-shaped - spans the width of the viral membrane.'

Somebody ought to tell Dr. Moore and Bergman to show "HIV" particles on their 20 minute propaganda piece that are also 3 different sizes instead of particles all the same size. At least the AIDS establishment ought to clean up their data a bit. They also might want to provide a picture on this propaganda movie that shows at least 1 particle with a "wedge-shaped core."

So "HIV" is "a sensitive" and protean little virus, so how could it survive vacuum drying and freezing that is used in clotting factor preparation, and then go on to infect half of the hemophiliac community, when you need more than 1000 sexual encounters or more to "acquire" it (unless of course you live in Northern California and were studied by Padian, and when it can't survive normal electron microscopic preparation?

One more thing. About Gallo's phone call. I bet him a nickel that he wrote something about "HIV" infecting endothelial cells in his 1995 paper with Flossie (Human lymphotropic retroviruses), and he won the bet! I was wrong. He said that it was HTLV-1 that could, under special lab conditions, infect endothelial cells, and not "HTLV-III". I will send him the nickel in the mail, and won't tell him that some of his seroepidemiological study in Japan on HTLV-1 was conducted 175 miles from Hiroshima. Of course atom bombs don't cause leukemia in Japan-viruses like HTLV-1 do, which is why all the money should go to virologists.

Moreover, he tried to persuade me for almost an hour, that the history of the HI-VEE discovery, the Dingell investigation, the patent rights, the lawyers, Margaret Heckler's disposition at the press conference (he said she had laryngitis), his sun glasses (he'd just been to a Retrovirus conference from Europe and stepped off the plane and was severely jet lagged), his shepparding of the Montagnier paper the year before, his AIDS cohort and tying the syndrome then called AIDS to specific molecular markers (expressed at very low quantities), etc. were all portrayed incorrectly by John Crewdson, and others. Intead of (From John Crewdson: Gallo Case, Truth Termed A Casualty Report: Science Subverted in AIDS Dispute; Chicago Tribune (CT) - SUNDAY, January 1, 1992 from the Dingell Report):

"The violence to principles of responsible, ethical science was just as profound. At a crucial point early in the (Gallo laboratory's) HIV research, international politics and the technocrats committed to those politics virtually took over that research, claiming the laboratory's putative accomplishments as accomplishments of the United States administration and by extension, the United States itself."

"Once done, the (Gallo laboratory's) interests became the government's interests; defending the (Gallo laboratory) scientists' reputations and claimed accomplishments became necessary for defending the honor of the United States. The defense thus became a consuming effort for significant portions of the U.S. government."

"The result was a costly, prolonged defense of the indefensible in which the (Gallo laboratory's) "science" became an integral element of the U.S. government's public relations/advocacy efforts. The consequences for HIV research were severely damaging, leading, in part, to a corpus of scientific papers polluted with systematic exaggerations and outright falsehoods of unprecedented proportions,"

Dr. Gallo convinced me that Luc Montagnier couldn't have possibly claimed anything more than an association of LAV with a patient with ARC or what was called "pre-AIDS" for the simple reason that the LAV work only had the one patient (who BTW had been treated the year before for syphilis, had 2 cases of gonorrhea, herpes, CMV), and did not have AIDS.

This is true. Without Gallo's help, in addition, Montagnier would have never been able to publish the LAV 1983 work because it was rejected, until Gallo "shepparded" the manuscript through. It was then the subsequent work by Gallo's group that established the association between AIDS patients (48 isolates of them, he said), and the molecular signatures you all think is "HIV." ( I hope they hadn't been treated for syphilis the year before as Montagnier's patient 1 had)! Apparently what happened, according to Gallo's account, was that The French lawyers, the politicians, the US government, the patent folks with their non-scientific objectives, etc., but mostly, the fact that a contaminant "virus" confounded the Gallo lab research for about a year "and drove them all crazy" which was the bone of contention and confusing point the Dingell Commission inquiries latched onto, to make the Gallo lab look bad. In effect, it was Gallo's group who legitimately and comprehensively tied a molecular signature to AIDS patients, and not Montagnier. He was very persuasive regarding this, and I believe him.

The pressures and subterfuge of patent law in science is horrible and hateful. When government or political concerns become involved, it can be worse than hell, and indeed the science gets lost behind the money and those interested in money.

He wouldn't of course, as is his style, discuss
"HIV" science with me, but, historically, I am convinced that Gallo's group made "the connection," and not Montagnier's. I don't agree with what he connected or associated with acquired immune deficiency, but we can re-test his hypothesis on a big new shiny microscope that can see virus-sized particles with Angstrom resolution in "wet" samples from patients with 1,500,000 viral loads, and that work is underway. Personally, I think the molecular underpinnings of "classic" AIDS will be not much different than what Val Turner suggested regarding the association with SED rates (erythrocyte sedimentation) and AIDS-in that what Gallo, and everyone else is dealing with are antibodies, antibody damage, autoimmune damage, and not viruses. So Gallo should receive the credit for making the connection, but I believe he connected it to the wrong cause.

Regards,

Andy

I said Gallo's done good science.

Did Crewdson dedicate his life to smearing Gallo? It looks like it. Sad isn't it? If a journalist dedicated their whole life to smearing me or carter or Michael Geiger I bet they find stuff that looks bad out of context. And also people who lie to them to settle scores. If you're powerful, successful unlike me then there's a hundred times so many people who say bad things about you.

I think Gallo was cleared of all charges against him. You can say you don't like his personality. But "a fake, a crook, and a liar," that's an opinion unless you have more back up then Crewdson. "Science Fiction" what an interesting book title!

He probably wasn't cleared of all charges unless one considers a presidental pardon, which is rumored to have occured. And if it did, one should wonder why would he need one in the first place.

Furhter research turned up the following:

Subject: Gallo Confirms Role In Special Virus Program
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 095247 -0600
From: Roy Beavers
To: guru
--------------------------------------------------

Hi everybody:

This has NOTHING to do with EMF (probably)......

Nevertheless, I have received such an intriguing set of messages pertaining to
the following, that I have decided to share it with
a portion of the list. In addition to the message below, I have
separately been sent an intriguing statement, which I quote:

"President Clinton has recently issued a presidential pardon
for Dr. Robert Gallo of the Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute
for any deeds done while in their employment."

[Many of you will know that Gallo is/was the so-called
"discoverer" of AIDS -- a matter that was also disputed in
some circles, mainly France..... He has reportedly been at
work on the creation of an AIDS vaccine. My question: I did
not know that he had ever even been accused of wrong doing?
Much less incriminated to the point where a presidential
pardon would be in order????.... If you follow through the
URL below, you will see that some terribly serious accusations
involve Dr. Gallo and the U.S. Government...... It is the
U.S. Government part that I suspect may interest some of this
group....... I DO STATE: that the strength or objective
"quality" of the evidence is not yet established.... It is
the "pardon" that makes everything so intriguing guru.....]

Cheerio......

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

WEBSITE: http://emfguru.com

PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFIT$$$$

*********************************************************************

From: ARTISTpres@aol.com
Date: Wed Feb 14, 2001 12:19pm
Subject: Fwd: Gallo Confirms Role In Special Virus Program

In a message dated 02/13/2001 5:29:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
joel@s... writes:

<< Subj: Gallo Confirms Role In Special Virus Program Date: 02/13/2001
5:29:06 PM Pacific Standard Time From: joel@s... (Zygote Media)
Sender: joel@s... (Zygote Media)
To: artistpres@a... (Robert Lederman)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
http://www.boydgraves.com/press/021101.pdf
http://www.boydgraves.com/press/021101.html

February 11, 2001

Contact:

Boyd E. Graves, J.D.
www.boydgraves.com
Attn: Joel 785-263-1871

Dr. Robert C. Gallo
Attn: Jerome 410-706-8614

Gallo Confirms Role In Special Virus Program

(Baltimore, MD) In a spirited phone conversation this Sunday evening
between AIDS activist, Boyd E. Graves, J.D. and ââ¬ÅAIDS
co-discoverââ¬*, Dr. Robert C. Gallo, Dr. Gallo affirmed his
participation in the federal virus program, the Special Virus.

Dr. Gallo confirmed his role as a Project Officer which the reports identified.
Experts around the world now believe this under-reported program to be the
birthplace of AIDS.

Dr. Gallo was presented a personal copy of the programââ¬â¢s
ââ¬Åresearch logicââ¬* today after he informed Graves that he
had never seen the Flow Chart before.

The world awaits Bob Galloââ¬â¢s renewed leadership, in now seeking
review of the Flow Chart and 15 yearly progress reports, of the Hershey
Medical Center meetings between 1962 and 1978, that spent $550 Million
to make a contagious cancer that selectively kills. Our call for review
of this virus development program continues to gain support from around
the world.

The Flow Chart is available at www.boydgraves.com/flowchart

###

~Please forward to interested persons.

>>

Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com

Further research showed that Gallo received a presidential pardon from President Clinton for any deeds done while in the employment of the Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute. The pardon was for his role in the Special Virus Program, which many such as Dr. Boyd E. Graves believes is the cause of AIDS. At his website is a flow chart that he managed to obtain about this program.

To believe that the human immune sytem, which has been built up ever since our existance, is now just in 1980 subject to a sneaky mutating retrovirus? Now that's SCIENCE FICTION!

Add the fact that according to the CDC's own statistics from the estimated cases for 2005, table 1 shows 37,367 new cases including HIV+ and the actual AIDS cases, which had to be very low. The numbers change some depending upon what table one is looking at, table 3 shows 41,897 and another one shows 41,993. Out of 300 million Americans, this is extremely low for a spreading epidemic via sex. I find it odd that most other STD's are increasing yet these numbers are not, just one more flaw in the current theory.

"To believe that the human immune sytem, which has been built up ever since our existance, is now just in 1980 subject to a sneaky mutating retrovirus? Now that's SCIENCE FICTION!"

Yes, that pesky thing known as evolution certainly doesn't exist. Everything stays the same from the beginning of time to the end of time.

MRSA and VRE are science fiction too. Becoming resistant to a multitude of antibiotics doesn't happen in our life time.

I just got off the phone with Ernest Gallo...

He says, "Michael and Andrew, it turns out that your last batch of spirits was tainted".

Noreen, Please wake up and respect yourself! These people are all lying to you and you need to think for yourself.

"Further research showed that Gallo received a presidential pardon from President Clinton" ????

Further research??? Boyd Graves is a conspiracy theorist. At least those nutcases get one thing right, HIV is the cause of AIDS and it kills people. They're just wrong about where it comes from, like a weapons lab?!. If you think a scientist could make HIV in 1950 you're off your rocker.

If you want to do some real research look at the U. S. Department of Justice website that has all Clinton's Presidential pardons listed
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

There's no one named Gallo on that list.

Maybe that's because he didn't need any pardons. These charges your talking about were ethics charges and he was cleared of them all. They got brought up because a few guys like Dingell and Crewdson made it their life mission to expose something and they failed because there wasn't much to expose. They wasted their time and everyone else too.

Here's what the New England journal of Medicin said http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/328/22/1634
the Office of Research Integrity found only a handful of relatively minor violations

Dear DT.

I didn't say anything about emotions and AIDS. If you look carefully, the posts in this blog are followed by a person's name. That was Michael's enlightened and remarkable post you refer to, who indeed made a very good point about long-term emotional stress on the immune system, or what has been called "bone-pointing" by Michael Ellner for example, which is a well known and real phenomenon. You ought to read about how emotional stress, depression, fear, etc., can cause severe immune depression and many other serious syndromes. Are you aware that approximately 1/10 of spouses die within a year of their loved one, not because of any pre-existing condition, but because of opportunistic infections due to a failing immune system brought on by the stress of loss and death? It is frequently written about in the Grief/Death/Dying literature.

Dear Chris,

Please write to my molecular pathologists and ask them to please accept "HIV" samples from patients here if they are allowed to sit around for 1/2 hour at room temp. They wouldn't do it when I asked them last year because they feared from experience that their PCR readings would be off completely, because they tell me that unless blood is IMMEDIATELY frozen in the proper tubes, they get all kinds of false positive and false negative readings (I have told them why but they just won't listen).

Now let's you and I do an experiment since Adele won't relate to me what relevance her mutant virus's lack of radioactive signal in her assays means in relation to the hypersuperdrugevading Y181C and K103N mutations that are exhibited in all those "HIV-positive" patients who die on the "life-saving" meds because their virus is said to "mutate" in at least 41.7% of black mother-infant pairs in Africa that were put on nevirapine after the drug was withdrawn in the US for its toxicity, and then dumped on Africans a la Constant Gardener-like, and whose safety data was lost in "the Great Flood" (Lockman et al., 2007).

Let's put some "HIV-positive blood on your kitchen table and let the drop dry up (evaportate), and then re-suspend the dried spot in human plasma, and ask my boys here to test it (we are the largest medical school in the nation and our molecular labs were inspected recently and CAP-College of American Pathologists who not only gave us a thumbs up, but said we should be an example for others in the nation they inspect).

Also, we should keep in mind as we do our little experiment that the CDC determined early on when the mosquito possibility was still a threat for "HIV," and when hepatitis B was thought to be the best surrogate marker of "HIV" infection (Martin Deleney, Project Inform, Personal communication) in some of the first cohorts of U.S. and Scottish AIDS patients that:

"Hepatitis B virus is found in 90% of drug addicts positive for antibody to AIDS virus" (Peutherer et al., HTLV-III antibody in Edinburgh drug addicts. The Lancet 2: 1129-1130, 1985),

and that it was concluded by the CDC that "HIV" wasn't transmitted casually, by contact with peoples lips, skin, etc. We shouldn't forget, in addition, the CDC's "scientists" did "kitchen table-top" experiments much like this one I describe above and concluded that "HIV" is so inefficient at transmission that the average person needs thousands or more sexual contacts to acquire "HIV" (now that's a whole lot of foreign antigens being presented to non-self if you are the recipient of thousands of tablespoons-full of allo foreign proteins) in order to acquire "HIV disease" (unless of course you were in the Padian study and live in Northern California where there was apparently NO transmission in 175 serodiscordant couples (over a ten year study period).

Moreover, you know that AIDS apologists are always complaining about how fragile "HIV" is such that you can't even photograph the damn thing in a sucrose density gradient like any other virus that causes a disease, so instead of providing images like this:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/edhlettercont.htm

all kinds of cellular junk is photographed (and made into vaccine material and test kit reactants) that look like this:

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

which prompted me to post earlier, and again without comment from the denialist apologists here on this blog:

"Too bad the Moore Bergman propaganda film

http://health.scribemedia.org/2007/06/22/fighting-aids-denialism/

didn't show the 3 fold variable size differences reported by the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford University, when they claimed that (BBC News Tuesday, 24 January 2006, "3D structure of HIV is 'revealed'"):

'Scientists have created a map showing the 3D structure of the virus which causes Aids.'

'The variable size and shape of HIV has made it hard to map, the team said in the journal Structure.'

'He told the BBC: "You say can you show me the structure of the HIV virus and the question is which one."

[YES THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION BY THE OXFORD SCIENTIST-WHICH ONE INDEED??????]

'HIV is very variable. It varied in diameter by a factor of three.'

'The way the research team, from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford University, dealt with this was by taking multiple images at different tilts.'

'Despite the variability, the team found some consistent features.'

'This included the finding that the core of virus - which is cone-shaped - spans the width of the viral membrane.'

"Somebody ought to tell Dr. Moore and Bergman to show "HIV" particles on their 20 minute propaganda piece that are also 3 different sizes instead of particles all the same size. At least the AIDS establishment ought to clean up their data a bit. They also might want to provide a picture on this propaganda movie that shows at least 1 particle with a "wedge-shaped core."

So "HIV" is "a sensitive" and protean little virus, so how could it survive vacuum drying and freezing that is used in clotting factor preparation, and then go on to infect the hemophiliac community, when you need more than 1000 sexual encounters or more to "acquire" it (unless of course you live in Northern California and were studied by Padian, and when it can't survive normal electron microscopic preparation?

One more thing. About Gallo's phone call. I bet him a nickel that he wrote something about "HIV" infecting endothelial cells in his 1995 paper with Flossie (Human lymphotropic retroviruses), and he won the bet! I was wrong. He said that it was HTLV-1 could, under special lab conditions, infect endothelial cells, and not that "HTLV-III" could infect endothelial cells. I will send him the nickel in the mail, and won't tell him that some of his seroepidemiological study in Japan on HTLV-1 was conducted 175 miles from Hiroshima. Of course atom bombs don't cause leukemia in Japan-viruses like HTLV-1 do, which is why all the money should go to virologists. Oh! I see some black helicopters outside my front door!

Moreover, he tried to persuade me for almost an hour, that the history of the HI-VEE discovery, the Dingell investigation, the patent rights, the lawyers, Margaret Heckler's disposition at the press conference (he said she had laryngitis), his sun glasses (he'd just been to a Retrovirus conference from Europe and stepped off the plane and was severely jet lagged), his sheparding of the Montagnier paper the year before, his AIDS cohort and tying the syndrome then called AIDS to specific molecular markers (expressed at very low quantities), etc. were all portrayed incorrectly by John Crewdson, and others. Intead of (From John Crewdson: Gallo Case, Truth Termed A Casualty Report: Science Subverted in AIDS Dispute; Chicago Tribune (CT) - SUNDAY, January 1, 1992 from the Dingell Report):

"The violence to principles of responsible, ethical science was just as profound. At a crucial point early in the (Gallo laboratory's) HIV research, international politics and the technocrats committed to those politics virtually took over that research, claiming the laboratory's putative accomplishments as accomplishments of the United States administration and by extension, the United States itself."

"Once done, the (Gallo laboratory's) interests became the government's interests; defending the (Gallo laboratory) scientists' reputations and claimed accomplishments became necessary for defending the honor of the United States. The defense thus became a consuming effort for significant portions of the U.S. government."

"The result was a costly, prolonged defense of the indefensible in which the (Gallo laboratory's) "science" became an integral element of the U.S. government's public relations/advocacy efforts. The consequences for HIV research were severely damaging, leading, in part, to a corpus of scientific papers polluted with systematic exaggerations and outright falsehoods of unprecedented proportions,"

Dr. Gallo convinced me that Luc Montagnier couldn't have possibly claimed anything more than an association of LAV with a patient with ARC or what was called "pre-AIDS" for the simple reason that the LAV work only had the one (or several) patient isolate(s) (who-Patient 1- BTW had been treated the year before for syphilis, had 2 cases of gonorrhea, herpes, CMV), and did not have AIDS.

This is true. Without Gallo's help, in addition, Montagnier would have never been able to publish the LAV 1983 work because it was rejected, until Gallo "sheparded" the manuscript through. It was then the subsequent work by Gallo's group that established the association between AIDS patients (48 isolates of them, he said), and the molecular signatures you all think is "HIV." ( I hope they hadn't been treated for syphilis the year before as Montagnier's Patient 1 had)! Apparently what happened, according to Gallo's account, was that The French lawyers, the politicians, the US government, the patent folks with their non-scientific objectives, etc., but mostly, the fact that a contaminant "virus" confounded the Gallo lab research for about a year "and drove them all crazy" which was the bone of contention and confusing point the Dingell Commission inquiries latched onto, to make the Gallo lab look bad. In effect, it was Gallo's group who legitimately and comprehensively tied a molecular signature to AIDS patients, and not Montagnier. He was very persuasive regarding this, and I believe him.

The pressures and subterfuge of patent law in science is horrible and hateful. When government or political concerns become involved, it can be worse than hell, and indeed the science gets lost behind the money and those interested in money.

He wouldn't of course, as is his style, discuss "HIV" science with me except to accept my nickel bet regarding what he had said in 1985 with Flossie regarding endothial cells (which I asked him about). Historically, it is probable that Gallo's group made "the connection," and not Montagnier's. I don't agree with what he connected or associated with "classic" acquired immune deficiency, but we can re-test his hypothesis on a big new shiny microscope that can see virus-sized particles with Angstrom resolution in "wet" samples from patients with 1,500,000 viral loads, and that work is underway. Personally, I think the molecular underpinnings of "classic" AIDS will turn out NOT to be not much different than what Val Turner suggested regarding the association with SED rates (erythrocyte sedimentation) and AIDS-in that what Gallo, and everyone else is dealing with are antibodies, antibody damage, autoimmune damage, and not viruses. So Gallo should receive the credit for making a connection, but I believe he connected it to the wrong cause.

Regards,

Andy

Noreen if you want to believe Boyd Graves then you'll have to accept HIV is harmfull too. Start asking too why people like ETiene dehaarven were in the special virus cancer program.

New HIV cases 45,000 is the latest estimated number of NEW yearly AIDS diagnoses i saw and I gave the link yesterday. You think this isn't many people? CDC estimates about 40,000 new infections every year. You say this isn't many people?

New infections and new AIDS, way down since HAART. That's because HAART slows progression up and it kills off viral load so new infections don't happen as much. So if it wasn't for those drugs you couldn't say HIV numbers are so low.

But are they really low? I don't think so. 40,000 is 40,000 too much.

What's your basis when you say 40,000 is too low for a std? Every std has a different transmission chance. Gonorrhea is high. Maybe more than 50% chance for one sex act. There's estimated 800,000 infections, USA, every year.

Do you know how much syphilis there is? 70,000 new infections in USA last year. Syphilis is less infectious than gonorrhea maybe a 5 percent chance per act?? but its more than HIV except sometimes when someone has a very high HIV viral load like acute phase. Then syphilis and HIV can be similar and its true alot of people are infected by someone in acute phase.

So,
800,000 gonorrhea
70,000 syphilis
40,000 HIV

Incidence stats ranked by number but same if you rank by transmission chance. All sexually transmitted, all bad for your health.

DEAR TARA, PLEASE POST THIS ONE BECAUSE I CORRECTED IT AFTER IT WAS REFUSED POSTING.

THANKS

Dear DT.

I didn't say anything about emotions and AIDS. If you look carefully, the posts in this blog are followed by a person's name. That was Michael's enlightened and remarkable post you refer to, who indeed made a very good point about long-term emotional stress on the immune system, or what has been called "bone-pointing" by Michael Ellner for example, which is a well known and real phenomenon. You ought to read about how emotional stress, depression, fear, etc., can cause severe immune depression and many other serious syndromes. Are you aware that approximately 1/10 of spouses die within a year of their loved one, not because of any pre-existing condition, but because of opportunistic infections due to a failing immune system brought on by the stress of loss and death? It is frequently written about in the Grief/Death/Dying literature.

Dear Chris,

Please write to my molecular pathologists and ask them to please accept "HIV" samples from patients here if they are allowed to sit around for 1/2 hour at room temp. They wouldn't do it when I asked them last year because they feared from experience that their PCR readings would be off completely, because they tell me that unless blood is IMMEDIATELY frozen in the proper tubes, they get all kinds of false positive and false negative readings (I have told them why but they just won't listen).

Now let's you and I do an experiment since Adele won't relate to me what relevance her mutant virus's lack of radioactive signal in her assays means in relation to the hypersuperdrugevading Y181C and K103N mutations that are exhibited in all those "HIV-positive" patients who die on the "life-saving" meds because their virus is said to "mutate" in at least 41.7% of black mother-infant pairs in Africa that were put on nevirapine after the drug was withdrawn in the US for its toxicity, and then dumped on Africans a la Constant Gardener-like, and whose safety data was lost in "the Great Flood" (Lockman et al., 2007).

Let's put some "HIV-positive blood on your kitchen table and let the drop dry up (evaportate), and then re-suspend the dried spot in human plasma, and ask my boys here to test it (we are the largest medical school in the nation and our molecular labs were inspected recently and CAP-College of American Pathologists who not only gave us a thumbs up, but said we should be an example for others in the nation they inspect).

Also, we should keep in mind as we do our little experiment that the CDC determined early on when the mosquito possibility was still a threat for "HIV," and when hepatitis B was thought to be the best surrogate marker of "HIV" infection (Martin Deleney, Project Inform, Personal communication) in some of the first cohorts of U.S. and Scottish AIDS patients that:

"Hepatitis B virus is found in 90% of drug addicts positive for antibody to AIDS virus" (Peutherer et al., HTLV-III antibody in Edinburgh drug addicts. The Lancet 2: 1129-1130, 1985),

and that it was concluded by the CDC that "HIV" wasn't transmitted casually, by contact with peoples lips, skin, etc. We shouldn't forget, in addition, the CDC's "scientists" did "kitchen table-top" experiments much like this one I describe above and concluded that "HIV" is so inefficient at transmission that the average person needs thousands or more sexual contacts to acquire "HIV" (now that's a whole lot of foreign antigens being presented to non-self if you are the recipient of thousands of tablespoons-full of allo foreign proteins) in order to acquire "HIV disease" (unless of course you were in the Padian study and live in Northern California where there was apparently NO transmission in 175 serodiscordant couples (over a ten year study period).

Moreover, you know that AIDS apologists are always complaining about how fragile "HIV" is such that you can't even photograph the damn thing in a sucrose density gradient like any other virus that causes a disease, so instead of providing images like this:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/edhlettercont.htm

all kinds of cellular junk is photographed (and made into vaccine material and test kit reactants) that look like this:

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

which prompted me to post earlier, and again without comment from the denialist apologists here on this blog:

"Too bad the Moore Bergman propaganda film

http://health.scribemedia.org/2007/06/22/fighting-aids-denialism/

didn't show the 3 fold variable size differences reported by the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford University, when they claimed that (BBC News Tuesday, 24 January 2006, "3D structure of HIV is 'revealed'"):

'Scientists have created a map showing the 3D structure of the virus which causes Aids.'

'The variable size and shape of HIV has made it hard to map, the team said in the journal Structure.'

'He told the BBC: "You say can you show me the structure of the HIV virus and the question is which one."

[YES THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION BY THE OXFORD SCIENTIST-WHICH ONE INDEED??????]

'HIV is very variable. It varied in diameter by a factor of three.'

'The way the research team, from the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford University, dealt with this was by taking multiple images at different tilts.'

'Despite the variability, the team found some consistent features.'

'This included the finding that the core of virus - which is cone-shaped - spans the width of the viral membrane.'

"Somebody ought to tell Dr. Moore and Bergman to show "HIV" particles on their 20 minute propaganda piece that are also 3 different sizes instead of particles all the same size. At least the AIDS establishment ought to clean up their data a bit. They also might want to provide a picture on this propaganda movie that shows at least 1 particle with a "wedge-shaped core."

So "HIV" is "a sensitive" and protean little virus, so how could it survive vacuum drying and freezing that is used in clotting factor preparation, and then go on to infect the hemophiliac community, when you need more than 1000 sexual encounters or more to "acquire" it (unless of course you live in Northern California and were studied by Padian, and when it can't survive normal electron microscopic preparation?

One more thing. About Gallo's phone call. I bet him a nickel that he wrote something about "HIV" infecting endothelial cells in his 1995 paper with Flossie (Human lymphotropic retroviruses), and he won the bet! I was wrong. He said that it was HTLV-1 could, under special lab conditions, infect endothelial cells, and not that "HTLV-III" could infect endothelial cells. I will send him the nickel in the mail, and won't tell him that some of his seroepidemiological study in Japan on HTLV-1 was conducted 175 miles from Hiroshima. Of course atom bombs don't cause leukemia in Japan-viruses like HTLV-1 do, which is why all the money should go to virologists. Oh! I see some black helicopters outside my front door!

Moreover, he tried to persuade me for almost an hour, that the history of the HI-VEE discovery, the Dingell investigation, the patent rights, the lawyers, Margaret Heckler's disposition at the press conference (he said she had laryngitis), his sun glasses (he'd just been to a Retrovirus conference from Europe and stepped off the plane and was severely jet lagged), his sheparding of the Montagnier paper the year before, his AIDS cohort and tying the syndrome then called AIDS to specific molecular markers (expressed at very low quantities), etc. were all portrayed incorrectly by John Crewdson, and others. Intead of (From John Crewdson: Gallo Case, Truth Termed A Casualty Report: Science Subverted in AIDS Dispute; Chicago Tribune (CT) - SUNDAY, January 1, 1992 from the Dingell Report):

"The violence to principles of responsible, ethical science was just as profound. At a crucial point early in the (Gallo laboratory's) HIV research, international politics and the technocrats committed to those politics virtually took over that research, claiming the laboratory's putative accomplishments as accomplishments of the United States administration and by extension, the United States itself."

"Once done, the (Gallo laboratory's) interests became the government's interests; defending the (Gallo laboratory) scientists' reputations and claimed accomplishments became necessary for defending the honor of the United States. The defense thus became a consuming effort for significant portions of the U.S. government."

"The result was a costly, prolonged defense of the indefensible in which the (Gallo laboratory's) "science" became an integral element of the U.S. government's public relations/advocacy efforts. The consequences for HIV research were severely damaging, leading, in part, to a corpus of scientific papers polluted with systematic exaggerations and outright falsehoods of unprecedented proportions,"

Dr. Gallo convinced me that Luc Montagnier couldn't have possibly claimed anything more than an association of LAV with a patient with ARC or what was called "pre-AIDS" for the simple reason that the LAV work only had the one (or several) patient isolate(s) (who-Patient 1- BTW had been treated the year before for syphilis, had 2 cases of gonorrhea, herpes, CMV), and did not have AIDS.

This is true. Without Gallo's help, in addition, Montagnier would have never been able to publish the LAV 1983 work because it was rejected, until Gallo "sheparded" the manuscript through. It was then the subsequent work by Gallo's group that established the association between AIDS patients (48 isolates of them, he said), and the molecular signatures you all think is "HIV." ( I hope they hadn't been treated for syphilis the year before as Montagnier's Patient 1 had)! Apparently what happened, according to Gallo's account, was that The French lawyers, the politicians, the US government, the patent folks with their non-scientific objectives, etc., but mostly, the fact that a contaminant "virus" confounded the Gallo lab research for about a year "and drove them all crazy" which was the bone of contention and confusing point the Dingell Commission inquiries latched onto, to make the Gallo lab look bad. In effect, it was Gallo's group who legitimately and comprehensively tied a molecular signature to AIDS patients, and not Montagnier. He was very persuasive regarding this, and I believe him.

The pressures and subterfuge of patent law in science is horrible and hateful. When government or political concerns become involved, it can be worse than hell, and indeed the science gets lost behind the money and those interested in money.

He wouldn't of course, as is his style, discuss "HIV" science with me except to accept my nickel bet regarding what he had said in 1985 with Flossie regarding endothial cells (which I asked him about). Historically, it is probable that Gallo's group made "the connection," and not Montagnier's. I don't agree with what he connected or associated with "classic" acquired immune deficiency, but we can re-test his hypothesis on a big new shiny microscope that can see virus-sized particles with Angstrom resolution in "wet" samples from patients with 1,500,000 viral loads, and that work is underway. Personally, I think the molecular underpinnings of "classic" AIDS will turn out NOT to be not much different than what Val Turner suggested regarding the association with SED rates (erythrocyte sedimentation) and AIDS-in that what Gallo, and everyone else is dealing with are antibodies, antibody damage, autoimmune damage, and not viruses. So Gallo should receive the credit for making a connection, but I believe he connected it to the wrong cause.

Regards,

Andy

--- "Yes, that pesky thing known as evolution certainly doesn't exist. Everything stays the same from the beginning of time to the end of time."

Oh, Jesus,Mary&Joseph...... You really want us to believe your convoluted failed and bogus theorys are part of evolution?

Get real!

Would you mind being clear on what exactly you are saying? Evolution does not exist (I doubt you are saying that), viruses don't evolve, viruses do not evolve in the span of one generation, or MRSA and VRE do not exist? Which convoluted theories are you referring to and what makes you beleive that evolution is not a part of it?

Awh come on now apy, you know the dissident arguments by now.
1.Convoluted = You change anything and everything to fit your narrow, unquestionable, one sided views on viremia, science, physiology, ect...

2.Failed = in 25 years not a single thing has been done and billions upon billions spent and the mainstream's interventions are killing people.

3.Bogus = all the tests completely and unequivocally cannot detect whole infectious virus in a person, only what you think ought to be.

Therefore, how could you even apply the notion that because there are evolutionary principals at work for other things that there and then the same must apply to HIV, when HIV is still unproven as something that causes disease, or anything at all other than a measurement of someone' antibodies?.

Convoluted? Well science can be hard to understand if you prefer superstition

Failed? Mother to child down from 20-40% to under 1%, new infections down in the US, yearly AIDS deaths from 50,000 to 17,000. "Not a single thing has been done" is right alot of "things" have been done and peoples lives saved.

Bogus? Measurement of someone's antibodies?

We know about viral evolution because of something we don't need antibodies for. Called nucleic acid sequencing. Theres a 10kb genome of HIV and its not found in your genome, unless youre infected. You can sequence it from patients. And you find out if they're on a monotherapy, you see the virus evolving There's selection. You find out what amino acids in reverse transcriptase or protease are changing in that patient. The virus adapts to the drug. If you use a few drugs the virus can't adapt so well.

But just ignore that carter and keep living in 1984 when you couldn't test for HIV except with antibodies. Living in 1984 is something denialists do real well. 1984 the book because they're conspiracy theorists and 1984 the time because they can't get all the progress since then. Hey I liked 1984 too and I was thinner then. Enjoy it while you can.

Well that's quite laughable ..........

Neither the HIV antibody tests nor the HIV genomic tests have been appraised by reference to the only scientifically valid gold standard, HIV isolation and no proof that any of the "HIV proteins" are coded by the "HIV genome".

Only 11 full length "HIV genomes" have been sequenced and accordingly, HIV genotype consignments are derived from sequence analysis of sub-genomes measuring 2% to 30% of the total. The data is that such "genomes" vary between 3-40%.

Therefore, If 30% of the HIV genome varies as much as 40%, please tell me how much does 100% of the HIV genome vary?

Furthermore, in the HIV Western blot, how can an HIV producing one set of proteins detect antibodies that are produced in response to the set of all other disparate "HIV genomes"?

There is no single genetic entity "HIV DNA" to describe the myriads of "HIV genomes". And It is also estimated that patients contain between one and one hundred million distinct HIV DNAs at the one time.

So, Adele, if you would please tell me where others and I could find that without a doubt the genome that is specific to HIV and what control was used then maybe I might tend to agree with you. This is exactly the convolution that happens regularly coming from your failing camp of people hell bent on purporting ridiculous claims.

Only 11 full length "HIV genomes" have been sequenced and accordingly, HIV genotype consignments are derived from sequence analysis of sub-genomes measuring 2% to 30% of the total. The data is that such "genomes" vary between 3-40%

This was nonsense when the Perth Group wrote it last millenium. It is even stupider to regurgitate it now.

If you did a literature search you would find that there are hundreds if not thousands of isolates of HIV that have been sequenced.

Reference standards are available here NIH AIDS Research & Reference Reagent Program

There is no single genetic entity "HIV DNA" to describe the myriads of "HIV genomes". And It is also estimated that patients contain between one and one hundred million distinct HIV DNAs at the one time.

All RNA viruses have high mutation rates. Poliovirus, FMDV and others all exist as quasispecies. Your objections to HIV simply reflect your own ignorance.

Hey Chris, Nancy Padian's peer reviewed study concluded that HIV is transmitted in ONLY one out of a thousand sexual encounters. Which differs greatly from other STDs that transmit more than 50% of the time.

How, Chris, is HIV retrovirus able to evolve in nature and sustain itself as a transmittable virus when it is only transmitted in an average of one out of every one thousand sexual encounters?

Ahhhhemmmm, Chris.....

Yo Chris!

Please do clearly explain this great mystery of life oh brilliant retroanimationologist of PHD's as a world famous viralcartoonologist.

We humbly await your honest pondering answer to this eternally pusilanimously perplexing and puzzling question that perhaps will even perplex your persnickety posing as the prover of AIDSology perpetually and forever until you clearly explain it! Perhaps your creating an animation of a thousand sexual events would help you to figure this mystery out!

HOW IN THE HELL DOES HIV SUSTAIN ITSELF AS A VIRAL ENTITY WHEN IT IS ONLY TRANSMITTED IN ONE OUT OF A THOUSAND ENCOUTERS?

I wasn't Questioning "lyophilised preparation," just your make-believe 'HIV' particle. What's the standard?

It is extremely hard to work out what you are trying to say.

Maniotis deceptively compared lyophilisation to drying on a kitchen counter. Live vaccines are often distributed as lyophilised powders. There is a reason why they don't spread the virus preparation on a kitchen counter to dry in air.

Virus standards are available here NIH AIDS Research & Reference Reagent Program

You can order Gallo's original isolate or hundreds of others.

Chris. Please give us your explanation!

HOW IN THE HELL DOES HIV SUSTAIN ITSELF AS A VIRAL ENTITY WHEN IT IS ONLY TRANSMITTED IN ONE OUT OF A THOUSAND ENCOUTERS?

Adele, Please give us your explanation my dear Yes-Woman of HIV research!

Apy, Give us your explanation.

Perhaps even Dale and DT could explain.

Now don't all speak up at once, be nice and take turns.....

HOW IN THE HELL DOES HIV SUSTAIN ITSELF AS A VIRAL ENTITY WHEN IT IS ONLY TRANSMITTED IN ONE OUT OF A THOUSAND ENCOUTERS?

HOW IN THE HELL DOES HIV SUSTAIN ITSELF AS A VIRAL ENTITY WHEN IT IS ONLY TRANSMITTED IN ONE OUT OF A THOUSAND ENCOUTERS?

There is no single constant transmission risk. There are numerous studies that show that transmission risk depends strongly upon viral load and the transmission rate is much, much higher during the initial acute infection period. None of the HIV+ people in Padian's cohort were in the acute infection period. Padian's cohort were also given extensive information about how to reduce their risk of infecting their partners. Monogamous couples do not create epidemics of STDs.

See for example http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/386333

Ronald Gray has studied a cohort in Rakai using a real epidemiological model rather than Denialist mathematics. He calculated a basic reproduction number greater than 1 showing that a normal number of sexual contacts with a normal number of partners over a normal period of time is sufficient to fuel the epidemic.

Other sex acts such as anal sex have higher transmission risks than vaginal sex. All studies show a transmission risk for anal sex much higher than 1:1000.

Ok, But those nucleic acid sequences are for only a small fraction of the HIV genome, and HIV has never been properly isolated to allow the genome to be unambiguously determined.

So if what you say is true, what is it then Adele that you say 10kb of the genome? Which one (s) are you referring to? Out of those hundreds if not thousands of isolates of HIV that have been sequenced. How do you determine which ones are responsible for causing illness and which ones aren't? How do you know?

RNA Viruses? Why do you find it correct to encompass such HIV DNAs under the umbrella of a quasispecies of "closely related genomes"? Where's the proof that HIV is even a virus like those you reference? More laughable made up convoluted crap again and repeated nonsense. Where's the proof that these sequences are that of HIV. Where's the standard reference for the virus you've supposedly sequenced?

Oh really Chris, anal sex poses greater transmissions. Then you would be willing to show us the study that shows the transmission risk for strictly anal sex to back up your claim.

Have you ever had anal sex Chris? Have you ever thought about it? Be honest!

And by the way Chris, I don't live in Rakai, Africa, I live in the good ole US of A. Home of most HIV research, and certainly the most trusted research. Please show me study cites on anal transmission that have been done right here in the US.

I can't wait to see these imaginary studies!

We all know that African models do not apply here, Chris. For one thing, those uncircumsised whopper Africans have much bigger wankers than our white wieners and therefore present much more difficulty to safely contend with anally for us tight little white boyz, no matter how much or how hard or how often we try!

Ok, But those nucleic acid sequences are for only a small fraction of the HIV genome, and HIV has never been properly isolated to allow the genome to be unambiguously determined.

What do the wrods "full length sequence" and "infectious molecular clones" mean?

The only things that you are demonstrating is that a) you can copy and paste from Denialist websites and b) you have no idea what you are talking about.

Look who funded the Ron Grey Study, http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/gray2/

Acknowledgments
"The study was supported by grants RO1 AI34826 and RO1 AI3426S from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; grant 5P30HD06826 from the National Institute of Child Health and Development; grant 5D43TW00010 from the Fogarty Foundation; the US National Institutes of Health; the World Bank STI Project, Uganda; and the GlaxoWellcome Foundation.

Michael,

http://scholar.google.com/

"hiv transmission risk" "anal sex"

"What do the wrods "full length sequence" and "infectious molecular clones" mean?"

The same they mean to you except that you have yet to prove to the others and myself, where the reference is that the sequences are from an infectious virus?

Where Mr. Chris, where? I want to know so I can then agree with you. Please?

Hey Chris, We American gays are almost all circumsized and lots of us, not myself of course, but lots of American boyz have either nice plump average wieners, and lots also have teeny weenies, so they don't tear the rear too much, if you know what I mean! ;). But wiener size could explain why Japan has so little AIDS problems! Don't you think? Although there are exceptions to every rule, they can often get by wiith those litttle finger condoms that Adele uses in her lab! Certainly quite different from those big ole uncircumsized humungous African boyz with godzilla ramrods. So I hope you understand that the African Rakai anal transmission models just don't fit in the developed world of the West, and certainly don't fit Asia. This is NOT a one size fits all situation, if you know what I mean, so Please dig out those American studies so we average white boyz that can't dance can at least see how well we score on the anal HIV transmission test stuff!

And then, Chris, Just as soon as you show us the American Anal Average White Boy Anal Studies, perhaps you would be so kind as to help out with our understanding of the following:

I just looked at the NIH Reagents list you posted. I looked specifically at Gallo's HIV-1 clone line.

It says:

Special Characteristics:
Virus has high capacity for replication in T cell lines. This virus appears to be well adapted for in vitro culture in T cell lines and replicates less in fresh human macrophages.

How come it is so damned difficult for this supposedly easily transmitted and supposedly highly contagious HIV stuff to even replicate in humans Chris? This doesn't seem to have anything to do with how big our wankers are, or how tight our butts are! I thought human blood of all types were the soup du jour for that nasty old anally attracted HIV-1 stuff!

Chris, the link you gave me to Google is not a study cite to back up your obviously stretched out and overtly torn up and pounded anal and anally retentive claim, now is it?

Please, Chris, show us these anal studies from the US. I have googled this for years and I can't find them!

You made a claim, and you stated it as a proven fact, Chris! Please back it up or admit that your version of science is equivalent to Robert Gallo's, which means that you make it up as you go!

The same they mean to you except that you have yet to prove to the others and myself, where the reference is that the sequences are from an infectious virus?

Plonk.

Please, Chris, show us these anal studies from the US. I have googled this for years and I can't find them!

What takes you years can be done in a few seconds.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/150/3/306

Well the study you presented, Chris, shows, and I have not corrected their poor spelling for dramatic effect:

"per confact risk associated with unportectd ininsertive anal and receptive oral sex with HIV-positive or unknown serostatus partners was 0.06 and 0.04 percent, respectively".

How the hell could HIV survive in nature at such low rates Chris? That is still an astoundingly minor transmission rate when compared to all other STD's that transmit better than 50 percent of the time!

It would also be simply amazing and astounding that such an entity could have ever evolved in present or prior human history or even in nature, as prior to the sexual revolution, there was certainly very little anal sex ever even happening for it to have possibly survived in nature.

Unless of course monkeys are simply avid non-stop little butt fuckers!

But back to your study, Chris.

You notice this study from 1992-1994 absolutely fails to mention how many of the 0.82 percent were drug abusers

It fails to mention how HIV was diagnosed for these men in 1992-1994 as many of the earlier tests have been recalled!

It even fails to mention if any of the seroconverted had any of the 60 plus factors that have been proven to cause false positives.

It also fails to mention how they had proved that it was HIV and not false positives or hepatitis or anything else that sprung the test.

So obviously, not much faith can be put into whether or not these supposed seroconversions were anything more than false positives!

But if the study were real, and if it did show such a rate of anal transmission, DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DISCOVERED, Chris?

You have just discovered a new and key piece of the HIV puzzle Chris!

What you have discovered obviously means that wild monkeys from whence HIV came, for thousands of years through their evolution, are now confirmed to be a bunch of butt fuckers! Yet no scientist living or dead has yet been able to confirm this!

They probably only do it in private when HIV lab monkey researchers like Adele and the other HIV researchers with lab monkeys are not watching, don't you think? Cause they have never even once been caught at it. Pretty sneaky little buttmeisters, those monkeys! They must be doing the anal thing quite often and ALL NIGHT LONG for HIV to have ever possibly evolved in nature!

Perhaps you would show us the study on anal sexual frequency in all those wild African monkeys from where it evolved. I don't think it exists Chris. Just how the hell do those monkeys give each other HIV? Those monkeys must like butt sex, huh? I never knew monkeys did the funky monkey anally. This obviously implicates all of the Africaans too! They must have seen all the monkeys butt sex and learned it from them, obviously! Maybe they even took their great big you know whats and did a monkey's butt. OR....NOOOOOO! Would they let a monkey do them anally? Oh my oh my oh me oh my!

Well you learn something new every day. I never knew you could train a monkey to do stuff like that! If I ever dump my boyfriend maybe I'll get me a monkey or two just like Adele!

Fortunately, I never needed to watch monkeys to learn how to do it! Came quite naturally for me and for lots of my friends. How about you, Chris? Does it come naturally for you, or would you have to watch monkeys or get a monkey to learn how?

Perhaps you could do an animation that proves the monkey butt model for the transmission of HIV to humans and we could use your cartoon for proof of the monkey butt HIV transmission model and theory!

But if word of this monkey biz gets out to the public, Adele better keep her little buttmeister monkeys locked up safely or everyone will want one.

carter after being shown he has no idea what he is talking about, notice he basically agrees that his previous claim was unfounded with he "ok", but still has to try to combat it in some way...
"Ok, But those nucleic acid sequences are for only a small fraction of the HIV genome, and HIV has never been properly isolated to allow the genome to be unambiguously determined."

But never fear a denialist always has to end on a high note. Even though previous established that carter does not know as much as he implies he does, that won't stop him from making more very heated an emotionally charged reponses.
"More laughable made up convoluted crap again and repeated nonsense. Where's the proof that these sequences are that of HIV. Where's the standard reference for the virus you've supposedly sequenced?"

Denialists:
If "AIDS apologists" did nothing but post on here FULL papers on research, instead of just links. Links to obviously biased, and scientifically poor videos liek HIV: Fact or Fiction. Call your claims "laughable". Get so emotionally charged WE TYPE IN CALL CAPITALS. Paste the SAME POSTS several times (cooler posted the exact same post 4 times in a single thread and even repeated it on the Bushwell blog). Were consistently shown that if you actually read the papers the numbers don't represent what the denialist web pages state, would you find AIDS apologists arguments in any way convincing? If you look over these posts you'll see that several times denialists claim a fact of nature, or quote a paper and an apologist turns around and provides proof that the quote or statement is completely incorrect. Carter, you just made a statement in a previous post, were shown it to be incorrect, agreed that it was incorrect but still made an effort at saving face. But what you and the others don't seem to understand is this isn't about face, it's about finding some truth to save peoples lives. Why is it that you can say "ok" to having your statement proven wrong, and the next word is "but" to try to prove how you agree that you are wrong but you are still right? Who does that help?

You can go on repasting the same stuff that has been shown to be incorrect over and over, and eventually people like Chris Noble, Adele, and DT will stop bothering to show you how it is incorrect, but you could just save yourself some time and pick up a book on epiemiology or take a class in virology, and if you still feel the link is wrong then you can atleast come back with some decent, useful knowledge and explain why. I for one am getting sick of people that aren't qualified in this acting as though they are and spouting misconceptions. The worst part is, this genuine plea is going to fall on completely deaf ears who are too busy looking copying and pasting what they have a dozen times over, trying to save whatever reputation they think they have and attack me as a fraud, a shill, and a money-grubber.

You guys are the ones that have no original scientific papers not to prove your claims............none for HIV, none to test thimersol's safety in the 1930's,

You dont have one epidemilogical study that shows matched groups that both have no AZT/drugs differing only in hiv serostatus etc live less longer to prove your barely detectable 1 in 1000 t cells, ever extending 10 yr window period microbe that doesnt sicken/kill 99.9% of animals injected.

I never did any such thing apy, all my posts contain new info that is meant to educate people about the impending epidemic about mycoplasma incognitus, the only microbe that sickens/kills every animal injected.........................this Dr. Shyh Ching Lo md phd is nobel prize material, hes also the military's highest ranking scientist,show a little respect, the only scientist in recent decades to discover a microbe that sickened every animal injected...................we shall all bow our heads in awe of Dr.Lo, we shall have a moment of silence for Dr. Lo...............he is our father and scientific elder............

So, let me make sure I got this right!

Monkeys have done massive repetitive amounts of the anal sex monkey butt thing for thousands of years so that HIV could even exist to present times, cause it is so hard to transmit.

But just a couple of short years before the first HIV/AIDS cases in Los Angeles, back in the mid to late 1970's, Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell, and the religious right moral majority all declared total war on gays.

The government at the time declared War On Drug Addicts.

College students at the time were wearing shirts that said: "Kill a QU33R" and "BURY a FAIRY"!

The general public considered passing laws to approve the Death Penalty for homosexuals.

However, the religious right screwed up, and forgot, however, to ban all of this butt pounding monkey sex and also forgot to ban or declare war on having butt sex with monkeys!

Meanwhile over in Africa some well endowed uncircumsized Big Weinered Black Man was either pounding a monkey or perhaps he was letting a monkey do him in the butt.

This African must have then somehow reamed a new A-hole for some cute little tight butted American Gay Boy with a lisp and a limp wrist who went over there specifically looking for tight butted monkeys.

This lisping limp wrist came back to the states where he must have secretly done some gay guy in New York and five gay guys in Los Angeles that none of these original AIDS cases ever admitted to, because no proper gay guy would admit to getting it on with someone who does oversized black guys or monkeys!

From there the disease went wild, even though it only had a transmission rate of 0.06 percent.

This is obviously proof POSITIVE, that GAY AMERICAN MEN are the POWERHOUSE of HUMAN SEXUALITY.

We are VERITABLE SEX GODS of unstoppable unquentiable SEXUAL FIRE.

No hetero could ever keep up because we do everybody all night long. And we don't care if we do monkeys or uncircumsized blacks, or each other, just so long as we are doin it doin it doin it.

I, as a Gay American Male, am therefore PROVEN to be a SEX GOD!

Don't you think you poor weak and tired heteros should learn to Worship ME and to learn from me and other gay men, how to be sexual superheros, so you can at least attempt to satisfy your poor deprived wives and girlfriends? (before we gays get to them, and do them in the butt and take them away from you!)

Adele wrote: Hey I liked 1984 too and I was thinner then

So, How fat are you now?

We wanna hear more from Andrew Maniotis and this phone call from Robert Gallo, the fraudulent, Nixonian money-grubbing, patent whore!

So, let me make sure I got this right!

If the following text was meant to represent your fantasies then I'll let you be the judge of their accuracy.

Michael, you demanded a reference. I gave you one. Do you ever admit to being wrong?

Now I finally understand why so many men refer to masturbation as "spanking the monkey"!

Hey Philly Boy. You seem to hold interest in Adele now that you know she keeps monkeys! Whats up with that?

I am beginning to think that you too are most likely a Gay SEX GOD.

BUTT....Please leave Adele alone for the moment, and think about this... For a REALLY good time....., imagine safe sex when contemplating doing a chubby monkey!

Love and kisses,
Michael!
The San Diego Sexual Powerhouse and Gay SEX GOD!

Chris, the idea of you and a monkey are my greatest fantasy! It will probably be difficult for me to refrain from masturbating myself to sleep just thinking about it. And be sure that in my fantasy, as well as yours, the monkey will always be on top!

Admit to being wrong? Yes Chris I do admit to being wrong. There was a time when I believed you were an intelligent, reasonable, or rational human being. I admit my error. You are truly irrational. But I am now used to that!

But other than that, wrong about what Chris? Your study verifies a 0.06 percent transmission rate!

And the funniest thing here is that YOU think you are a rational human being!

You still have not provided a study that shows HIV to be possibly viable in man or nature!

But you have again verified what we already know! You have just again verified the insanity of your beliefs to consider HIV viable with a 0.06 percent transmission rate!

You have once again shown how lame all HIV studies are and how lame the researchers are! You show us the most simple minded study that a high schooler could pick apart! You show us the lamest of lame studies that do not even attempt to be balanced or honest or eliminate obvious error. You present a study that is based completely on assumptions, and false assumptions at that, such as the well known, verified, and proven innacuracy of the HIV test that was available in 1992! You present a study that conveniently left out ALL of the variables and cofactors that go hand in hand with positive antibody tests.

You present this supposed peer reviewed garbage, done by peers who must have been as moronic as you, or worse, as if you are a bible beating homophobic Religious Right moralist spouting the word of God, instead of presenting anything based in solid science!

You would have made a wonderful contribution to the Moral Majority and all of their gay bashing had you been around in the 70's!

So what can I say Chris? The only rational conclusion to be drawn about you, Adele, Apy, DT, HIV and HIV research, ist that it is all totally, and completely irrational!

But I'll tell you what, Chris, here are a couple of suggestions for you on how to become a rational human being again.

Either get down on your knees and pray to God for forgiveness, as this seems to work for many,

or,

Get down on your knees Chris, right here in front of me! And beg me, your SEX GOD, for repentance and forgiveness for the evils you have transgressed upon your gay brothers in projecting upon them beliefs in inevitable death and disease. And beg forgiveness for the defacing of the Nature Given gift of our human sexuality with your paranoias and fears! And then, if you are very lucky, I will bestow my forgiveness, as I am often most merciful, and then, after you have sung a Village People's song or two to me, perhaps I will allow that you may close your eyes and open your mouth and I might even let you share in Holy Communion the body of mankind as long as you shut up and keep a bag over your head! Perhaps I can then even help you with some emotional and perhaps even sex therapy, to get beyond your own homophobic and internalized and projected fear of homosexual sex which is obviously what drives your rants and screeds and frustrations, just as it seemingly does in JP Moore and many of the other avid fans of HIV belief!

I remember when I was a wee lad, my father loved fly fishing. Every so often off we'd go to the stream and then those long rubber heavy thick boots went on so we wouldn't get our legs wet wading in waste high water.

I wish I had them now to wade through your waste high bullshit.

Your opinion of me is none of my business and I am not concerned with how much you think I know or don't. It does not matter one bit. What you should be concerned about is the fact all you research is of little value to those who simply choose not to believe in your lies, deceptions and far fetched conceptions of what ought to be. But I forgive you for what you do not know and hope that someday you'll have enough balls to understand the errors of your ways.

There's science, then there's reality. Your blind faith in science has clouded your minds to the facts that there are innumerable amounts of people who are not, have not and will not put up with it any longer; the indoctrination into your cult, the useless toxic medications, the fear mongering and many other imposing doctrines you've so far managed to conjure up. I wont be the only one overjoyed when your house of cards you built comes crashing down.

"The number of people with the specific depletion of CD4+ cells that are HIV- is extremely, extremely small."

"Noreen, low CD4+ cell counts are a risk factor for OIs. Having a low CD4+ count does not mean that you have an OI. There are obviously factors other than peripheral blood CD4+ counts that determine who gets OIs. This does not change the reality that the vast majority of people with extremely low CD4+ counts go on to develop AIDS defining illnesses."

If only it were so, Chris. I believe I addressed this issue almost a year ago:

"Why do most individuals with low CD4 counts not develop AIDS-defining illnesses (11, 12)?

Macy & Adelman (11) reported that 5% of 'a large cohort of normal healthy persons' seeking life insurance had CD4 counts below 430/mm^3, and another 5% had an inverted CD4/CD8 ratio of less then 1.00. Estimating the number of 'normal healthy persons' in the US at 200,000,000, since 5% of 200,000,000 is 10,000,000, it follows that 'normal healthy persons' with low CD4 counts or inverted CD4/CD8 ratio greatly outnumber, by at least a factor of 10, HIV positive individuals in the US. Therefore, the 'opportunistic infections' of AIDS patients in the US cannot be due to an HIV-mediated destruction of CD4 cells.

Similarly, in a meta-analysis of CD4 counts in Africa (12), about 1.5% of HIV-negative Africans had CD4 counts below 350. (This number was obtained by estimating raw numbers from Table 1 in reference (12).) In some areas, such as Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, and Uganda, between 3% and 5% of HIV-negative Africans had CD4 counts below 350 (12). Thus, even in Africa, where HIV prevalence is higher than in the US or Europe, there is a significant number of people with low CD4 counts which cannot be explained by HIV infection."

Refs:
=====

11. Macy EM and Adelman DC, 1988. "Abnormal T-cell subsets in normal persons", NEJM 319:1608-1609

12. Williams, Brian, et al, 2006. "HIV Infection, Antiretroviral Therapy, and CD4+ Cell Count Distributions in African Populations", J Infect Dis 194; 1450-1458
=====

One may quibble about the exact delineation between "low" and "normal" CD4 counts -- 200 or 250 or 350 or 430. The point remains -- there are a large number of people with low CD4 counts who are HIV negative.

Regarding Macy & Adelman, the low CD4 counts were reported as NOT being transient.

The reason so few are "reported in the literature", besides the tremendous political pressures against doing so, is the simple fact that the vast majority of these people are HEALTHY. Healthy people don't fall into "risk groups". They don't go to doctors. They don't get bullied into taking HIV tests. And they certainly don't get CD4 counts taken (why should they?? They're perfectly HEALTHY).

Note that in the Williams paper, the "1.5%" was never mentioned in the paper -- although it is arithmetically implicit. Apparently the bald statement of fact that 1.5% of HIV-negative Africans have CD4 counts below 350 is too damaging to admit.

"Third so Duesberg and other people take a hundred studies throw out the ones they don't like and keep one that says a million. And please don't tell me Noreen that you got this number yourself. I know you think for yourself but you want me to believe you came up with a million by yourself? A million in 1984 and a million today? Duesberg came up with that noreen and then his copycats copied him. And now you're joining them which makes me sad because like I said your smarter than that.

Look at those studies noreen and you see they use different methods different samples. But if you take ALL of them, look at the ranges, the medians, you see a trend. A trend upwards. The only way you get a flat line is if you kill most of the data."

Oh, really, Adele?

I'd LOVE to see you come up with a list of references supporting your claim that the "1,000,000 estimate" (plus or minus) is a just a figment of my feeble imagination, and that the "medians" show some kind of upward trend, which is as extensive as my own showing the total opposite:

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Document:US_HIV_Prevalence…

Go ahead, Adele, we're all waiting with baited breath.

Pathetic liar.

darin

For your information, I as a gay man and leader in the gay community, am despising of all you dimwitted homophobic closet cases and sexual repressives and moralists parading as scientists and researchers, and white trash rascist elitists, who have been portraying intimate gay sex as deadly, dirty, and diseased and disgusting for the last 30 years! Your paranoia and belief in HIV proves you all to be exactly that. You have done nothing but project death and disease and sickness at gays for 30 years. You pretend to be compassionate and caring. But the only thing that comes through is your own fear and paranoia and your own irrationality!

You dirtbag AIDS promoting advocates, right along with the religious right extremists, are the very reason for the high suicide rate, high addiction rate, stress induced illness, psychosomatic illness, and high death rate for Gay Americans and gays around the world. Many of which often happen to be your own, goddamned children and brothers and uncles and nephews and friends!

And you do the same thing to blacks!

Why don't all you HIV/AIDS projecting all move to Iraq or Iran? Its legal to kill QU33RS and people who are different from the majority over there!

Regarding Macy & Adelman, the low CD4 counts were reported as NOT being transient.

This is simply not true. The article you refer to is a letter to the editor. The number of people in the cohort is not specified. There are virtually no details.

The authors do recommend that people with a single low CD4+ count and no evidence of HIV infection should wait 6-12 months for another CD4+ count which should be normal. The authors refer to a subgroup with stable low CD4+ counts but do not specify the number. The vast majority of these abnormal CD4+ counts in the absence of HIV infection are transient. Every study since 1988 has confirmed this.

Darin,
the graph you have in your wiki starts from 1985 and has no error bars. (One version of Duesberg's "flat graph" starts from 1984). A mathematician reproducing that graph should be embarassed.

The only reference that Duesberg gives for 1985 is Curran et al, Science 229:2720(1985), 1352-1357.

The basis of the estimate comes from the San Francisco CDC cohort study with a total of 6875 subjects.

In this cohort the seropositivity was found to have increased from 4% in 1978 to 68% in 1984. This is hardly indicative of stable prevalence.

In 1984 it was therefore estimated that of the 6875 subjects 4675 were infected with HIV. The cumulative number of reported AIDS cases in the cohort was 166. The ratio of HIV-infected/AIDS-cases at this point in this sub-epidemic was therefore 28:1. The clinical latency between HIV infection and progression to AIDS can be seen clearly in this cohort. The ratio is very high at the beginning of the sub-epidemic when between HIV-infection and AIDS-cases changes during the sub-epidemic.

Curran et al assumed that in the US as a whole the ratio of HIV-infected/AIDS-cases was higher - somewhere between 50:1 and 100:1. They then took the US cumulative number of AIDS cases ~10,000 and multiplied it by the magic number to get an estimate of between 500,000 and 1,000,000

The magic ratio could equally well be 28:1 as in the SF cohort. Why does Duesberg choose the higher estimate rather than 500,00 or 280,000?

More noteworthy is that Duesberg is prepared to accept the estimate but apparently not the data from which it is obtained. The seropositivity in the SF cohort rose from 4% to 68%! He lists the estimate of 1 million as a fact!

Everybody except HIV Denialists now accept that the estimates from the mid 1980s were overestimates. They were not obtained by testing 100% of the US population.

This is shown in the references that you give
J. M. Karon, P. S. Rosenberg, G. McQuillan, M. Khare, M. Gwinn and L. R. Petersen Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA, JAMA Vol. 276 No. 2, July 10, 1996.

1984 400,000-450,000
1986 550,00-650,000
1992 650,000-900,000

You give the estimate for 1992 from this paper but for some reason neglect to mention the estimates for 1986 and 1984. Why is that?

The height of mathematical stupidity in the "flat graph" can be found in this quote from Duesberg.

On account of these tests, one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1985 and one million Americans were found to be HIV-positive in 1992 and again in 1993. HIV is a totally long-established virus and on the grounds of this type of epidemiology, you can extrapolate this curve back 200 years. It's as solid as that. You can say the virus came with the immigrants 200 years ago to this country. It's an old, long - established virus, but AIDS is a new disease. It's not a good candidate for a new disease.

Can you explain how Duesberg extrapolates back 200 years? A few points and huge uncertainties but yet Duesberg manages to extrapolate back 200 years.

I don't know what Duesberg or others proclaim in great deal. And I do find it atrocious that my own govenment does not proclaim the HIV/AIDS statastics independently, that no epidemiology studies has been done and since almost 90% of all AIDS cases are in the male population, they insist that it is a sexual disease.

Now, you people want me to listen to more lies, I don't think so. We have alredy been lied too, my question is why don't you see that or is it more important to you to hold on to HIV regardless of the cost. Have you ever considered the lives that have been ruined by this HIV diagnosis or the lives shortened by unnecessary drugs? All I hear you talk about is this study or that study. Why don't you listen to the AIDS persons, that ought to be worth more than a piece of paper.

History will sort all of this out but probably won't be so kind to some and neither will karma. It was a sad day when America gave AIDS to the world and now many profit from this fiasco.

How is this "darin" guy a math professor. He doesn't know if there's ten studies you can't just take the one you want? Where the hell could someone like that teach math? I want to know so I don't let my kids go to that school! Chris said it already but I'll repeat it.

Darin said
the "1,000,000 estimate" (plus or minus)
and problem is, Duesberg doesn't say plus or minus and Darin's graph he got from Duesberg doesn't say plus or minus. Its a million on the nose since forever just a little lower in the nineties they're saying. I think aidstruth says some of that "data" was from the same study too Duesberg just uses it over. How does a real mathematician stick up for that kinda crap? I wanna know where this guy's a professor and why or if he's just posing.

Noreen for the first time says something true,
We have alredy been lied too

Yes noreen we have been lied to and you have repeated the lies. Just SUdnay and yesterday here's some false stuff you said.

Noreen:
AIDS in Africa is just malnutrition and other health problems.
Really:
AIDS hits people in Africa like everywhere if they're rich or poor and AIDS spectrum diseases have gone way up in Africa since HIV spread

Noreen:
AIDS in Africa gets diagnosed on four symptoms
Really:
Almost every african country requires tests now

Noreen:
Canada doesn't use CD4 counts for diagnosis
Really:
Canada doesn't use CD4 counts for surveillance but doctors use it for diagnosis etc. everywhere.

Noreen:
There's 15,000 new AIDS cases in USA every year.
Really:
There's 40,000-50,000 new cases every year.

Noreen:
There's always the same number of HIV infected.
Really:
If there's 40,000 new infections every year and only 17,000 deaths then the number's still going up!

Noreen:
A death certificate just says AIDS and it doesn't say what condition killed the person
Really:
A coroner gives the cause of death on the death certificate doesn't matter if its AIDS realted.

Noreen:
Bill Clinton pardoned Bob Gallo
Really:
Bill Clinton didn't pardon anyone named Bob Gallo, and the scientist Gallo didn't need a pardon, he wasn't charged or convicted of a crime.

Noreen its really sad to me most things you say is not true or its some kind of touchy feely mumbo jumbo. I said it before you should be smarter then that but you can't keep taking these lies from other denialists without checking them out!

Adele, you twist every thing around to suit your needs. I take the stats. from the CDC's own website so are you going to argue with them too? All of you mainstream proclaimers know that you cannot inflate these numbers and it has been tried by adding more and more diseases to the pot. Diseases by the way, which have nothing in common with each other and have different modes of causation.

This new, invented disease, uses two unreliable tests, the viral load and the CD4's. If both are so accurate then why is the following inside the package: "there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood" (Hiv ELISA Antibody Test), "not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or to confirm HIV infection"(viral lods test) And maybe you can explain why HIV-Negative persons have been found to have high viral loads? Sure must be a very accurate test, NOT!

Noreen,

I haven't twisted anything.
You said 15,000 new AIDS cases every year.
You said Clinton pardoned Gallo.
You said AIDS diagnosis doesn't need test results in Africa.

They're your own words.

I'm not accusing you of lying. You haven't educated yourself enough to know what your saying is a lie. This last comment from you is so confused, like ELISAs don't measure viral load or CD4 count, and so uninformed I start to think, what's going on? You're getting this bad information from other people and you still say your thinking for yourself.

Noreen it's possible ldn is helping you alot and I hope so! If its a wonder drug I hope it gets studied more and more people use it. I'm not denying good nutrition and healthy lifestyle make peoples life better and longer. And I know different people react to virus different, just like people react to drugs different or allergens or anything. There's some genetics here and some of the stuff I'm working on now is looking at that.

What I'm saying is, you can believe LDN is good and nutrition and healthy life WITHOUT believing these idiots who say there's a million HIV positives in USA since Chris Columbus. Or ELISAs can't be used for diagnosis. Or every diagnostic uses antibodies. Or theres 15,000 new AIDS cases every year. Please think about it Noreen and weed out the lies!

No one is saying ELISA measures viral loads, I am only stating the disclaimers that go with the ELISA and the Viral load Tests. You haven't addressed these disclaimers nor why HIV-Negative persons had high viral laods.

Maybe you can address what was killing the Africians prior to HIV in the 1960's? We all watching them sick and dying on our TV sets. Could it have been what has always been their problem, lack of nutrition, clean water, good living conditions, TB, malaria and other diseases? We don't need a new test to confirm what we should have already known. We don't need to give them toxic drugs unless they are going to address TB and malaria.

Noreen will you admit you were wrong about some of those things?

Ok your questions. Package inserts say alot of stuff lawyers make them put on there. If you read package inserts you'd be too scared to take an aspirin. Can you tell me which inserts you're talking about and where I can find them? Do all the inserts say this or only one?

Which high viral load HIV negative people are you talking about? We do viral loads in lab all the time I've never seen a negative person or animal have a viral load.

There's a good book on African mortality a section is on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?indexed=google&rid=dmssa.chap…

Excerpt,
One of the major achievements of the twentieth century in Sub-Saharan Africa is the unprecedented decline in mortality and the corresponding increase in the expectation of life at birth. At the dawn of the twentieth century, Sub-Saharan Africa was characterized by extremely high under-five mortality levels and by low life expectancy at birth. By the end of the century, however, mortality among children under five had decreased from about 500 per 1,000 live births to about 150 (World Bank 2005). Similarly, the average length of life, which was less than 30 years about 100 years ago, had increased to more than 50 years by the early 1990s. Much of the mortality decline happened in the second half of the twentieth century, the fastest rate of decline occurring in the first decades after World War II (Hill 1991). In the 1990s, mortality decline stalled for the region overall, with many countries experiencing reversals in the upward trend in life expectancy largely because of AIDS mortality.

John Murray has a review called "A Century of Tuberculosis" in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Vol 169. pp. 1181-1186, (2004)

His figure four has tuberculosis statistics from four places, western countries, eastern europe, countries in africa with low HIV and African countries with high HIV. Tuberculosis went down in western countries, goes up a little in eastern europe since end of communism and HIV spread, in low-HIV African countries its flat and in high HIV African countries it goes up like a rocket after HIV spread.

Public health got better by alot in Africa in the 20th century until HIV became wide spread and killed alot of those gains. Look at the epidemiology noreen not just the tv screen.

I know that you cannot blame their problems on HIV. The TV screens were from the 1960's. In regards to the HIV-persons with high viral laods, that doesn't look so good, so the CDC does not want doctors to run this anymore on HIV-Negative persons. As far as I know, all the tests have these disclaimers, which by the way the patient is not told about this nor about the side effects of the drugs. I thought that there was a thing called "full disclosure". One way to find out, purchase a test and see for yourself.

The updated compilation of HIV test kit documentation (now with 23 labels in a 13.8 Megabyte ZIP archive), can be found here:

http://www.aras.ab.ca/HIVTestInformation.zip

Adele, I will admit to being wrong about Gallo. I spoke with Dr. Graves and he said that was posted on his site in the comment section. This is my second comverstion with him, one I had many years ago. He seems to be geniune and intelligent and does cling to his beliefs, which I find admirable. He does have a flow chart supposedly from the government. I don't doubt that there was a secret virus program because the DOD was alloted money for this. However, I don't personally believe that this is the cause of AIDS, the numbers are to low in the states and are still lop-sided in the male population. I think that a virus would infect the entire population and not a select few.

Just for GP, I would recommend that all of you with the mainstream's point of view, take an HIV test via the mail and see if you come up HIV-Positive. If you do, this might put a new light on how you view things.

cooler said:
"I never did any such thing apy, all my posts contain new info ... "
This statement is so obviously untrue and trivially falsifiable that I am unsure if you are a pathological liar or obscenely stupid. I suppose a sane person would say this does a lot of damage to your credibility, but I take it denialists will see this as 'fighting the good fight'.

I did a quick search and found:
These three post are exactly the same and appear in this thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/06/introduction_to_hiv_and_hiv_d…
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/06/introduction_to_hiv_and_hiv_d…
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/06/introduction_to_hiv_and_hiv_d…

This post appears on Kevin's blog and is similar to the one above:
http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/08/hiv_and_aids_denialism_help_m…

These two posts are on Kevin's, ons is actually purely a copy and paste a previous post by cooler but it also contains a copy and paste of a a post cooler had previously posted in the same blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/08/hiv_and_aids_denialism_help_m…
http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2007/08/hiv_and_aids_denialism_help_m…

Thank you noreen,

I'm glad you admit being wrong about Gallo. People went on a witch hunt against him and they've said alot of false things that get repeated by people who don't know what they're talking about.

Back to Africa, "their problems"? What are "their problems" noreen? Africa's a big place. Lots of different people. Of course there was disease before HIV! But things were getting better until HIV spread. Did you look at that paper I gave above? Because its obvious TB was declining until HIV spread. And then you see TB going up in places with HIV and TB staying the same in places with low HIV. You can deny this if you want to but its true.

In regards to the HIV-persons with high viral laods, that doesn't look so good, so the CDC does not want doctors to run this anymore on HIV-Negative persons.

Noreen what is your source. I want to learn more about this because like I said the lab I'm in does viral load all the time and its always negative in virus-negative subjects. Maybe you can find stuff about false positives back when they were getting the test developed twenty years ago but that's normal for any PCR and when you get it worked out it's very reliable. So please let me know where you heard this.

As far as I know, all the tests have these disclaimers, which by the way the patient is not told about this nor about the side effects of the drugs.

As far as you know? Did you read any of them or just repeated what you read on the internet like the Gallo stuff? If you want a doctor to read the whole package insert to a patinet instead of letting them read it themselves, you'll have to pay for alot longer doctor visit! Fine with me but Every drug has the package insert that's why its called the package insert. If people don't read it, it's not anything about "full disclosure."

Andrew Maniotis, Cooler, and Michael. You have not provided ANY references to your claims. This is a science blog, please include REFERENCES.

I have read your posts with great interest. It is now clear to me that you guys are on to something. You have made excellent observations about Aids and the medical "professionals" who would prescribe harmful medicine. I wonder if you could please provide me with some REFERENCES to back up your observations?

Andrew Maniotis.

Cooler.

Michael.

Do you have any references to back up your claims?

Or maybe a link so I can learn more about the facts?

I guess what I am saying is, you guys have made well-informed, logical arguments, but where are the studies which back up the arguments?

ANDREW MANIOTIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCES WHICH BACK UP YOUR EXCELLENT ARGUMENT?

How come you have not provided ANY links or references either, Michael?

It makes your case weak that you have not provided any references.

Come on Adele, as something as serious as AIDS and you do not think that the doctors should take the time to explain important things to them. As a patient, I would go else where. The doctors don't give the patient the inserts as this would alarm them. In fact, they don't volunteer any negative information at all. I will get back to you on the HIV-Negative issue.

Matt Irwin on the virusmyth.net site and on alive and well site mention this plus this is only one reference to it:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/130/1/37.pdf.

Noreen, what evidence do you have no doctors discuss medications with their patients? How many doctors did you see? Of course doctors discuss things with patients including negatives and your right if yours didn't you need a new doctor! Also when I had a test done I asked the doctor about false negatives and positives and they explained it to me. What I said up there was, the product insert is in every box for you to read too if the doctor doesn't explain it.

I think it's great if doctors go over the whole product insert and tell you how many people get which side-effect and how bad it can be. Then more people would know most drugs aren't a tenth as bad as Duesberg says they are.

Noreen unfortunately your link doesn't work. Was it about viral load?

My evidence is personal esperience. If the patient does their homework and questions them, then most will be honest and then tell one but usually not before. Yes, it was about viral loads, I am not sure why it doesn't work as it was copied and pasted form the site.

"... as it was copied and pasted form the site."

Does this mean you didn't actually read it?

Of course I read it! You people just wont't to argue for the sake of argument. Do you ever listen?

I was asking because you said it was odd that it did not work as it was copied and pasted from a website. You did not say "I don't know why it didn't work, it was working fine for me before" which is why I was confused.

Noreen,
From my experience the doctors are not the least bit interested in anything other than pushing their anti-HIV Meds. When I inquired as to what natural holistic ways to help keep this virus at bay, the answer was "Well, if any of that worked, we'd all be doing it. Now wouldn't we?"

OK I figured it out Noreen there was a period on the end that shouldn't be there.

I read the paper, its Rich et al 1999 and basically it says there were three people who had low positive values but when they repeated it they were negative. So they didn't get the PCR to work right away and later they did. Big deal.

Like you said Noreen there's more papers like this and Matt Irwin whose proof anyone can get a MD these days has them all in his stuff.

Schwartz et al 1997 says ONE person tested positive PCR but then they sent the sample to a licensed lab and that lab got negative. So basically they didn't do the PCR right and how the hell did that get published?

Busch et al 1992 who are doing cell free DNA not cell DNA or cell free RNA and we've talked about that already how many times? This is not an assay anyone does and it doesn't make any sense to do it. So no one's perfected that assay because no one needs it. So these results aren't very interesting.

Gerberding et al was that 1994? Irwin also says something about that one but I can't get that paper I just know it was criticized in a letter some months later. So there were problems with it too and also that was thirteen years ago.

So these are all the papers and we're talking like four patients total outside the Gerberding paper and they all tested negative later. False positives on PCR are not a problem at all in HIV. If there's proof show it. Let's see a big study from the last ten years proving HIV-negative people test positive PCR at a high rate. Hint there isn't one.

"Well, if any of that worked, we'd all be doing it. Now wouldn't we?"

carter, Perhaps I am not following but I don't quite see what is wrong with this statement, could you please explain?

apy
It's called entrapment into a death and dying cult, whereas not a single thing is considered other than "we want you to not to listen to anything other than what we tell you."

Haven't you heard that the biggest common denominator that keeps one from developing OI's is the belief by those that all this crap you feed us on a daily basis is utter nonscense, and of those that refuse to consume useless toxic medications?

Yes carter I have heard that and I also heard about those chocolate teapots the other day that orbit the earth and cause every bad thing happening here even traffic jams. I think there's more evidence for the chocolate teapots than your psychosomatic mumbo jumbo and by the way the guy who came up with that died of AIDS. Did you know that?

Why do you think doctors "push" these medicines? Maybe because they work! You can't deny AIDS deaths dropped two thirds since HAART and mother to child is almost at zero. Do you think doctors want to kill of their patients?

But here is the giant irony Adele. You CAN deny it. It makes you wrong, but nothing can stop you.

Since I am not permitted to post my conversations with Dr. Gallo, which actually benefit the apologists position in the short run and perhaps the position of rationality in the long run, I will jump on the African Thread because I am lonely because my post was denied:.

It should be mentioned in the African context, how various statistical packages other than the Wang procedure have been repeatedly used to model the global AIDS pandemic in the absence of any diagnostic confirmation at all, and how these statistical projections have unabashedly presented fictional numbers as actual cases to propagate and maintain a state of fear and funding for AIDS. For instance, this article appeared in The Boston Globe on June 20, 2004:

"Estimates on HIV called too high. New data cut rates for many nations."
By John Donnelly, Boston Globe Staff

"PRETORIA -- Estimates of the number of people with the AIDS virus have been dramatically overstated in many countries because of errors in statistical models and a possible undetected decline in the pandemic, according to new data
and specialists on the disease."

"In many nations, analysts are cutting the estimates of HIV prevalence by half or more."

"Several AIDS specialists said they think the current estimate of 40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 25 percent to 50 percent, based on a wide spectrum of household surveys in nearly a dozen countries. That would go against the grain of years of assertions by UNAIDS that the disease is relentlessly on the rise."

"It is fundamental that we have accurate information of what we're up against," said Robert R. Redfield, cofounder of the University of Maryland's Institute of Human Virology and a leading AIDS specialist. "If you are overestimating the
epidemic, you may attribute positive impacts to things that have nothing to do with it."

"Statisticians traditionally have had a difficult time estimating the size of the pandemic. In 1986, Jim Chin, then a state epidemiologist in California who later developed models for the World Health Organization to calculate HIV prevalence, and several other US officials met in a West Virginia hotel room to figure out how many Americans had HIV."

"Chin recollected that the group arrived at a range of 1 million to 1.5 million people; 18 years later, the number is at about 1 million Americans. "A lot of it was guesswork, based on limited studies," Chin said. "It was the best we could do."

"The tools today are much more refined but still based on a long list of assumptions."

"More than a decade ago, AIDS researchers in sub-Saharan Africa found that HIV tests on blood samples from pregnant women at prenatal clinics provided a good indicator of HIV prevalence among adults aged 15 to 49 in countries with high rates; early household surveys confirmed the finding."

"But the surveys were limited at first to a few sites in countries. "We were talking about four or five urban sites and one or two rural sites, and extrapolating that to the whole country. You can see what potential inaccuracies there can be with this crude methodology," said Chin, who now is an independent AIDS analyst and criticizes UN estimates as overstated."

Because of these types of reports, in combination with what is known about the accuracy of the test kits as already discussed, it is becoming increasingly clear that Public Health Services, as well as WHO and other monitoring agencies, continue to invent the number of "HIV/AIDS" cases. This practice is serious not only because these same individuals are now advocating that the "U.S. is close to eliminating AIDS in infants" and that "screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy might be cost-effective," but because it is just plain lying in order to propagate terror and funding for continued AIDS research and propaganda, as well as to bolster certain political agendas perhaps, that found their way into the human written record around the time when virtue and chastity were juxtaposed with no non-virtuousness and sexual orgy during the time that the modern religions became established.

For example:

"Prison Official's Letter Questions HIV/AIDS Estimates in South Africa.

When will AIDS estimates be replaced by facts?

Neenyah Ostrom -- 02/25/2002

A letter to the British Medical Journal about the unexpectedly low incidence of HIV/AIDS in South Africa's prison population has re-opened the debate about the role played by HIV in causing AIDS. The letter's author, South African prison medical officer Stuart W. Dwyer, comments that his experiences have led him to "partly agree with President Mbeki's skeptical view of current statistical research into HIV infection and AIDS."(1)

In his letter, Dwyer claims that the jails are overcrowded (often as many as 30 people per cell, according to Dwyer), and that he has observed significant homosexual activity (considered to be a major route by which HIV and AIDS are spread) among prisoners. Dwyer claims that, despite the "large number of HIV tests" that are performed weekly at the prison in which he works (unidentified in the article), the facility has a very low incidence of AIDS. "This prison, which holds 550 inmates and is always full or overfull, has an HIV infection rate of 2-4% and has had only two deaths from AIDS in the seven years I have been working there," Dwyer writes.

South Africa is estimated by numerous organizations, including the World Health Organization and UNAIDS, to have one of the highest incidences of AIDS of any country in the world. A recent UNAIDS report estimates the incidence of HIV infection and AIDS among adults in South Africa to be nearly 20% (19.94% among adults, as of UNAIDS's 2000 Update).(4) In contrast, according to Dwyer, the HIV infection incidence for all prisons in South Africa is only 2.3%. "The rate in the prison population should be higher than that in the general population, or at least the same," he adds.

Dwyer notes that the estimates of HIV/AIDS incidence among the general population tend to be abstracted from data collected on pregnant women, and that the HIV antibody test is notoriously unreliable when used during pregnancy. "Pregnancy is known to cause a raised rate of false positive results on testing for HIV infection with enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)," Dwyer writes. "The results of such research lead to frightening statistics, giving the impression that the whole of southern Africa will be depopulated within the next 24 months."(1) The Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, for example, reported on January 28, 2002, that "nearly one quarter [25%] of pregnant women in South Africa are HIV positive."(2)

Dwyer appears to doubt the fact that HIV/AIDS is, in fact, so widespread in South Africa, citing a "mystical attitude" towards it that "gives this disease recognition out of all proportion to its incidence."

"The legal and ethical implications of this attitude ensure that no statistical research is based on random testing of the general, normal healthy population," Dwyer concludes. "Data from this kind of research, were anyone brave enough to conduct it, would probably show figures more like those found in the prisons."(1)

In other words, Dwyer is suggesting that the incidence of HIV/AIDS in South Africa is closer to 2% than 20%.

What is going on in South Africa? According to the UNAIDS web site (a collaborative effort between eight organizations, including the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, and five others), 1 in 9 South Africans (11.1%) is infected with HIV and will develop AIDS. A December 2001 UNAIDS report estimates that 4.7 million individuals -- men, women, and children -- in South Africa have HIV/AIDS.(3) Among adults, nearly 20% (19.94%) were estimated to be "living with HIV/AIDS" at the end of 1999, according to the Epidemiological Fact Sheet on HIV/AIDS in South Africa published by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization.(4) A more recent report from the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) estimates that there are 5 million HIV-positive people in South Africa (11% of the total population, according to the BBC).(5)

This is quite a contrast to the less than 1 million individuals (approximately 0.6 million) who would be estimated to have HIV/AIDS if Dwyer's assessment of the prison incidence of the disease, 2.3%, were applied to the adult South African population of roughly 30 million (the population estimate provided by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency).(6)

The difference between the incidence of AIDS in the general population and the prison population in the United States appears to bear out Dwyer's argument that there is something wrong with either the overall estimates of HIV/AIDS incidence in South Africa or estimates of its incidence in South African prisons. The incidence of AIDS in U.S. prisons is far higher, according to the Department of Justice's estimates, than the incidence in the general population.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of "HIV infection" cases per 100,000 individuals was 14.4 (or 0.014%), resulting in a total of 774,467 reported cases of AIDS as of December 2000, the most recent date for which complete statistics are available.(7)

According to U.S. Department of Justice figures (as of 1999), the incidence of "HIV infection" among U.S. inmates is 150 times higher than the incidence of "HIV infection" in the general population, at 2.1% of all prisoners or 25,757 individuals.(8)

Let's pause for a moment and consider all these conflicting numbers. In South Africa, where the overall incidence of "HIV/AIDS" (a recently-coined term that inexorably links the virus and the disease, which is heavily employed by AIDS researchers discussing countries in which medical care is hard to come by and statistics are generally estimates based on a very small amount of actual data) is said by UNAIDS to be 1 in 9 or 11.1% in the general population.(3) Another UNAIDS/WHO report estimates the incidence among adult South Africans to be nearly 20%,(4) and Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report puts the incidence of HIV/AIDS among pregnant women at nearly 25%.(5) Simultaneously, the incidence of HIV/AIDS is estimated at 2-4% in South African prisons,(1) considerably less than the estimated incidence in the general population.

In the United States, conversely, the overall incidence of "HIV infection" is estimated by the CDC to be 14.4 per 100,000 individuals or 0.0144 percent.(7) The Department of Justice estimates that the "HIV infection" incidence in U.S. prisons is 2.1%(8), which is roughly equivalent to the South African prison estimates. In other words, as noted above, the incidence of HIV/AIDS in U.S. prisons is estimated to be 150 times higher than the incidence in the general population.

How can the estimated incidence of HIV/AIDS in South Africa be as high as 20% among adults in the general population, yet as low as 2.3% among incarcerated adults, while the estimated incidence of AIDS in the U.S. among incarcerated individuals is as much as 150 times higher than the incidence in the general population?

How can a disease, and a disease agent, be acting so completely differently in these populations? Or is South African President Thabo Mbeki correct in doubting the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS?

President Mbeki continues to receive an extraordinary amount of criticism for expressing those doubts and for refusing to allow publicly-funded hospitals to give toxic antiretroviral drugs to pregnant women. No less than the Anglican Archibishop of South Africa, Njongonkulu Ndungane, has labeled President Mbeki's refusal to give pregnant women AZT or nevirapine "a sin" and "immoral,"(2) despite the side effects and birth defects associated with their use during pregnancy. National (and international) icon former President Nelson Mandela has recently directly criticized President Mbeki's actions, calling on the current president to "confront the issue of mother-to-child transmission" of HIV.(5)

According to the BBC, however, President Mbeki stood firm in his February 7 speech marking the new session of Parliament. "The president said he was committed to an intensified fight against AIDS, but defended his policy of not making anti-retroviral drugs available to HIV-positive pregnant women in state hospitals," the BBC reported. ". . . In the past, he has queried the link between HIV and AIDS, and dubbed anti-retroviral drugs dangerous."(5)

In fact, President Mbeki's caution may save many women and their children from serious future health problems -- a task that is usually the responsibility of public health officials, not politicians. Studies are increasingly showing that AZT and 3TC, the two drugs most often used to try to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, are incorporated into both mother and child's DNA in ways that may cause health problems, including cancers, in the future. A National Cancer Institute study in 1999 found that pregnant women taking AZT to prevent transmission of HIV to their unborn infants incorporated the drug into their DNA, as did their infants. This finding caused the study's authors to caution that AZT might cause further mutations that could result in the development of cancer in both mother and child.(9)

This 1999 study, led by NCI researcher Ofelina Olivero, examined non-pregnant adults exposed to AZT, as well as pregnant women treated with AZT and their infants (who were exposed to the drug while in the womb). They found that 76% of all individuals given AZT incorporated it into their DNA. Olivero and co-workers warned that AZT's presence in DNA might result in increased levels of either birth defects or cancers.(9)

Ironically, during the same week that President Mbeki's refusal to distribute free AZT and nevirapine to pregnant women were being denounced as a "sin" and "immoral" in South Africa by Archbishop Ndungane, a researcher in Boston was suggesting that doctors who prescribe these drugs for pregnant women face an ethical quandary because of their potential to cause DNA mutations leading to cancer in both mother and child, as well as developmental defects in babies exposed in utero.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Vernon Walker, a research scientist at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (Albuquerque, NM), presented data showing that AZT and 3TC given to pregnant women cause their babies to have twice as many DNA mutations as infants not exposed in utero to the drugs.(10)

Walker reported that, among 68 babies not exposed to antiretroviral drugs in utero, the rate of DNA mutation (which occurs naturally in us all) was 1.3 per one million cells. Among 71 infants whose mothers took AZT, 3TC, or both during pregnancy, there were twice as many mutations: an average of 2.6 mutations per one million cells.

To measure potential genetic damage in another way, Walker looked at production of abnormal proteins (which are indicative of DNA damage) in exposed and unexposed infants. Among unexposed babies, about 3% had abnormal proteins produced by damaged DNA. Infants born to women who took one or both anti-HIV drugs, however, had a much higher incidence of damage: 9-14% showed evidence of mutated DNA.(10)

To strengthen his data even further, Walker could examine changes in the "junk genes" of the mothers and children, as is currently being done in studying radiation poisoning at the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site in Kazakhstan (the former Soviet Union), where residents were exposed to decades of radioactive fallout from testing of nuclear weapons.(11)

The data on DNA damage produced by Walker, he noted, "show that transmission of these mutations are more than just theoretical."(10)

"We really don't know what this means as far as future problems, such as the risk of cancer," Walker told United Press International (UPI). "However, it does indicate that warnings about future health problems that were promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration about the use of these drugs in pregnant women were justified," he added.(10)

Medical ethicists in the United States are beginning question whether giving these drugs to pregnant women is a moral issue as well as a health-related one. For example, Massachusetts Institute of Technology health ethicist Stephanie Bird told UPI that Walker's findings "indicate there is an ethical problem in treating mothers with the [anti-HIV] drugs."

"She said damage to DNA not only can result in cancer, but might also cause heart and other developmental abnormalities," UPI reported.(10)

Who is correct, President Mbeki and Mr. Dwyer in doubting the link between HIV and AIDS, or former President Mandela in criticizing them for doubting? Is it "sinful" to not distribute free anti-HIV drugs to pregnant women, as Archbishop Ndungane accuses, or is President Mbeki being prudent and actually protecting the women and infants of South Africa? Is President Mbeki doing the job that health agency officials are paid to do: protecting the public from drugs that can cause cancers in children, or catastrophic birth defects as thalidomide did in the 1950s and '60s? Why is there such disparity between the estimated HIV/AIDS incidence in South Africa's general population and its estimated incidence in prison populations? How many people in Africa are suffering from the severe immunosuppressive state known in South Africa as HIV/AIDS, how many are being poisoned by DDT(12) and other environmental toxins (as the World Health Organization has documented), and what is the true relationship between the bug and the disease?

How many more decades into the AIDS epidemic will we have to wait before public policy decisions are based on facts and not on potentially faulty estimates of disease incidence or possibly misplaced moral outrage?

References

1. Dwyer, S.W. "President Mbeki Might Have a Case on Rethinking AIDS." British Medical Journal 324:237; January 26, 2002.
2. Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report. "South African Anglican Archbishop Calls Government Denial of Nevirapine to HIV-Positive Pregnant Women a 'Sin,' " January 28, 2002.
3. AIDS Epidemic Update December 2001. UNAIDS and World Health Organization, available at www.unaids.org.
4. Epidemiological Fact Sheet on HIV/AIDS in South Africa published by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization, available at www.unaids.org.
5. BBC News. "Mbeki Resolute on AIDS Stance," February 8, 2002.
6. Factbook: South Africa. CIA Publications, available at www.cia.gov.
7. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Surveillance Report Vol. 12, No. 2, Table 2: "AIDS cases and annual rates per 100,000 population, by area and age group, reported through December 2000, United States." Available at www.cdc.gov.
8. U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. "HIV Rates in Nation's Prisons Remain Stable; AIDS-Related Deaths Among Prisoners Drop Sharply," July 8, 2001.
9. Olivero O.A., Shearer G.M., Chougnet C.A., et al. "Incorporation of Zidovudine into Leukocyte DNA from HIV-1-positive Adults and Pregnant Women, and Cord Blood From Infants Exposed in Utero"; AIDS 13:919, May 1999.
10. United Press International. "DNA Mutations Seen in Babies of AIDS Moms," February 15, 2002.
11. Dubrova YE, Bersimbaev RI, Djansugurova LB, Tankimanova MK, Mamyrbaeva ZZh, Mustonen R, Lindholm C, Hulten M, Salomaa S. "Nuclear Weapons Tests and Human Germline Mutation Rate." Science 2002 Feb 8;295(5557):1037.
12. Bouwman H., Becker P.J., Cooppan R.M., Reinecke A.J. "Transfer of DDT Used in Malaria Control to Infants Via Breast Milk"; Bulletin of the World Health Organization 70(2):241, 1992.

Also in this context, a series of articles was published in the January 6, 2005 issue of the N.E.J.M. by Berkley et al. [Berkeley et al.,Community-acquired bacteremia among children admitted to a rural hospital in Kenya. NEJM 352-39-47, 2005], and in the same issue, a pointed introductory commentary by Kim Mulholland and Richard Adegbola entitled, "Bacterial Infections-A Major Cause of Death among Children in Africa" claimed:

"For the past 25 years, since the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has been publishing estimates of mortality among children worldwide, the international medical community has been aware of the appalling burden of early deaths among African children. Early studies indicated that, in the absence of any effective medical care, children born in a rural African village had a probability of death before the age of five years of 30 to 50%" [Mosley WH. Primary care: rhetoric and reality. Poluli J UN Fund Popul Act; 10: 41-53, 1983] [which is from a period of time before the "AIDS era"]. From the outset, it was understood that many of these deaths result from the combined effect of poverty and malnutrition. Since 1990, mortality rates have fallen but remain high by global standards. Twelve African countries still report official death rates for children under the age of five of more than 20 percent. Community-based studies of death among children have been able to attribute these deaths to a number of common causes, either syndromes or specific diseases (see Table I)."

"Table I. Official Estimates of Mortality among Children under 5 years of Age According to Cause in Sub-saharan Africa and Globally in 2002.

Cause of Death Africa Global
Acute respiratory infection 16 18
Diarrheal disease 14 15
Malaria 22 10
Measles 8 5
HIV or AIDS 8 4
Neonatal deaths 13 23
Other causes 19 25
All causes 4.5 million 10.9 million

"In the study, 28 percent of children admitted to the hospital with bacteremia died. Even more important, 26 percent (308 of 1184) of hospital deaths were associated with bacteremia. This finding compares with 22 percent of the deaths that were associated with malaria, suggesting that bacterial disease may be responsible for more deaths in children than malaria in this area where malaria is endemic. Did the children who died at home die from a spectrum of causes similar to that among children who died after reaching the hospital? Both malaria and bacterial illness are amenable to relatively simple therapeutic approaches, but antimalarial drugs tend to be more widely available in African communities than are antibiotics. Therefore, in a rural community, bacteremia may be even more important as a cause of death among children than it is in a hospital setting, since the management of bacteremic illness in the community is likely to be less effective than the management of malaria".

The article concluded:

"Only 18 percent of children admitted with bacteremic illness were infected with HIV, whereas severe malnutrition was present in 37 percent, suggesting that the latter is a more important co-factor. During the past six years, the world of international health care has been dominated by high-profile efforts to control HIV infection, malaria, and tuberculosis. Of these, malaria is seen as the most important contributor to death among children in Africa. This study (Berkeley, et. Al.) gives us (Kim Mulholland and Richard Adegbola) cause to question whether this very narrow, disease-based approach is indeed appropriate and whether the most important causes of death among children have been appropriately targeted. Even in an area of rural Kenya with high rates of HIV infection and malaria, there appear to be more deaths of children associated with bacterial infection than with malaria, with malnutrition still the main cofactor. Global health strategies, like any other public health activities, should be based on evidence."

But AIDS researchers count AIDS cases differently. For example, in one African study involving 8735 youths aged 15-24 years in 33 communities in South Africa:

"HIV prevalence was reported to be 20.0% among females and 7.5% among males" (OR 3.93 95% CI 2.51-6.15) [Pettifor AE, Kleinschmidt I, Levin J, Rees HV, MacPhail C, Madikizela-Hlongwa L, Vermaak K, Napier G, Stevens W, Padian NS. A community-based study to examine the effect of a youth HIV prevention intervention on young people aged 15-24 in South Africa: results of the baseline survey. Trop Med Int Health. Oct;10(10):971-80, 2005].

The same group of AIDS researchers in 2003 reported a 15.5 % prevalence among females and a 4.8% prevalence among 15-24 year old males [Pettifor AE,Rees HV, Kleinschmidt I, Steffenson AE, MacPhail C, Hlongwa-Madikizela L, Vermaak K, Padian NS. Young people's sexual health in South Africa: HIV prevalence and sexual behaviors from a nationally representative household survey. AIDS. Sep 23;19(14):1525-34, 2005].

The same group of AIDS researchers reported that of 4393 15-35 year old women from Zimbabwe from whom complete data on sexual behaviors and HIV serostatus were obtained, that HIV prevalence in this sample was a breathtaking 40.1% [Pettifor AE,van der Straten A,Dunbar MS,Shiboski SC, Padian NS.
Early age of first sex: a risk factor for HIV infection among women in Zimbabwe. AIDS. Jul 2;18(10):1435-42, 2004].

These numbers are in complete contrast to those published in the NEJM, and the vital statistics from the Republic of South Africa, which maintains the most reliable mortality and morbidity registry of any African country. We sought to determine how many cases of AIDS were officially reported in South Africa over the period 1995-2005, aggregated according to the country's nine provinces and perhaps listed by race, ethnicity, gender and age; instead, the available statistics only cover "HIV diseases."

By way of background, in July 2000 The African Scholar, Charles Geshekter who has spent 35 years on and off in Africa visited Mseleni General Hospital in the Maputaland area of South Africa (within KwaZulu-Natal province), one of the poorest regions of the country. When he asked the nurses' supervisor to identify the hospital's wards she identified them as follows: 1) ob-gyn, 2) childhood maladies, 3) accidents and personal injury trauma, 4) mental illnesses, and 5) tuberculosis. Not one word about AIDS or HIV. Perhaps all five wards implicitly incorporated HIV or AIDS? She never said.

An explanation for the nomenclature of the wards at Mseleni Hospital may be gleaned from the data available in the May 2006 publication by Statistics South Africa, entitled Mortality and Causes of Death in South Africa, 2003 and 2004: Findings From Death Notification which includes vital statistics back to 1997. [Statistics South Africa, Mortality and Causes of Death in South Africa, 2003 and 2004: Findings from Death Notification, Pretoria, May 2006, Statistical release P0309.3].

This publication arranges data in a statistical category called "Leading Underlying Natural Causes of Death" for South Africa from 1997-2004, an important period in the political history of the country.

In 1999, the year that Thabo Mbeki succeeded Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa, there was a total of 9,782 deaths (in a country with a population then of 42 million) whose cause was officially listed as "HIV Diseases." That number represented 2.6% of all deaths in South Africa for 1999.

In the province of KwaZulu-Natal (whose northernmost district is Maputaland), in 1999 the total number of deaths attributed to "HIV Diseases" was 1,899, or 2.3% of all provincial deaths that year. Perhaps officials at Mseleni General Hospital had good reasons not to devote a special ward to "HIV diseases?"

For the next five years there ensued bruising scientific debates (which the AIDS orthodoxy scorned as "denialism") in which a constant questioning of the efficacy of HAART and ARVs was juxtaposed against the scare-monger predictions of a looming "HIV/AIDS" holocaust about to engulf South Africa.

So what really happened?

In 2004, the total number of South African deaths (in a country then of 47 million) whose cause was officially listed as "HIV Diseases" was 13,220. That number represented only 2.3% of ALL deaths in South Africa that year, a decrease from 2.6% five years earlier.

For both 2003 and 2004, "HIV diseases" were officially ranked #21 in the list of leading causes of death for South Africa.

We have no way of ascertaining from this data exactly how any attending physician, health care worker, or coroner knew for certain that so-called "HIV disease" was the underlying cause of death.

Meanwhile, in KwaZulu-Natal for 2004, the total number of deaths attributed to "HIV disease" that year was 3044 which corresponded exactly to the same 2.3% of all provincial deaths that were reported five years earlier.

It is our contention that statistics amassed on "HIV disease" and/or "AIDS" are littered with inconsistencies and absurd projections that invite criticism. For an example of how inflationary figures routinely characterize orthodox HIV and AIDS statistics, one need only consult the latest annual volume by S. Buhlungu, et. al. (eds.), State of the Nation: South Africa 2007 especially the chapter by H. Schneider, et. al., entitled, "The Promise and the Practice of Transformation in South Africa's Health System" [Sakhela Buhlungu, et. al. (eds.), State of the Nation: South Africa 2007, Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council, 2007].

That chapter utilizes a table that alleges that for 2000, HIV/AIDS was the #1 cause of death in South Africa, accounting for 30% of all the 410,000 deaths reported in the country, or 123,000 HIV/AIDS deaths.

Compare that alarmist data with the sober statistics given in mid-2006 by Statistics South Africa, which state that for 2000, HIV diseases numbered 10,321 or 2.5% of all deaths. In other words, even in 2007 Schneider and her associates retrospectively increased the number of HIV/AIDS deaths for 2000 in South Africa by 12 times!

The data on death rates from "HIV diseases" from 1997 to 2004 in South Africa reveals other interesting anomalies from select provinces:

1) In 1997 in KwaZulu-Natal Province, "HIV diseases" accounted for 2.2% of all its deaths; in 2004, it was 2.3%.

2) In 1997 in Mpumalanga Province, "HIV diseases" accounted for 2.3% of all its deaths; in 2004 it was >2.2%.

3) In 1997 in Limpopo Province, "HIV diseases" accounted for 2.3% of all its deaths; in 2004, it was >2.0%.

4) In 1997 in Free State Province, "HIV diseases" accounted for 3.9% of all its deaths; in 2004, it was >2.1%.

5) And even for South Africa as a whole, in 1997 "HIV disease" was said to account for 2.0% of all deaths; in 2004 it had risen to 2.3%, but that was down from 2.6% in 1999.

It appears that President Mbeki's skepticism had some merit and was empirically based. This stands in sharp contrast to his critics, whose resort to personal vilification and vicious slurs, revealed the reflexively irrational and vindictive manner whereby HIV/AIDS mainstreamers respond to anyone who dares to challenge their assumptions.

Cheers,

Andy

There needs to be a limit to post sizes.

Now back to me.

Adele,
Maybe because they work! You said it clearly.. "maybe"

They work for some, but at what cost! Death by liver failure? Come on now dont deny it.. you're magical life saving drugs kill, disfigure and put more people into ill health then the ones you supposedly save.

Only if you'd stop dreaming of chocolate teapots causing traffic jams and open your eyes. Jesus.. people just might live longer and healthier

Homework for Andy,

1) Learn the meanings of these terms in epidemiology: incidence and prevalence.

2) Find any actual evidence to support Dwyer's claims made in a non peer-reviewed letter.

You know, my weather man predicted two inches of rain last saturday...

But it only rained 1.5 inches.

Do you think water really exists?

I mean, where is an electron micrograph of a water molecule evaporating from the liquid state, rising through the atmosphere, and then adhering to a grain of dust or other nucleus to begin forming a rain drop?

Also, related to the HIV genomes comment, what about snowflakes? They're supposed to all have a unique shape. How can we call any single structure of frozen H20 a "snowflake" if none of them are identical? There's no such entity as a "snowflake"!

Wow!! I'm really starting to understand the "rethinker" movement here, and it's opened my eyes!

Unfortunately, Carter, though most involved in science are seemingly quite intelligent, they often suffer from a lack of worldly experience, as well as what many would call "good common sense".

For instance, they are incapable of pondering the following:

A cohort of individuals all have a very large backpack strapped onto their backs. Rocks of identical weight are placed into each of their backpacks one at a time. Another rock is added into each of their packs until each and every one of the individuals falls. The number of rocks to bring each individual down differs. Seldom in such a cohort would even two of the individuals fall with the same number of rocks in their pack.

HIV scientists fail to see the relationship to the above as it relates to HIV being said to be the cause of AIDS.

All of the individuals affected by AIDS are identical to the above analogy of one too many "rocks" of various stressors before their immune system collapses or is unable to recover or fight off infections.

ALL highly stressed from many varying physical, emotional or nutritional or drug using factors.

For instance the physical "rocks" could be varying std's or other common illnesses found specifically in the environment of the individual. African and gay Americans differ greatly in what common infections each group is most exposed to.

The emotional "rocks" are such as intense and lasting episodes of depression, anger, fear, guilt, and shame of varying intensity and durations for each.

Nutritional "rocks" can be such as the lack of nutritional food in the poor areas of Africa, or the poor diet that often goes with being a drug addict or drug abuser in America.

Each of these factors could be considered to be a rock. Each individual differs greatly in the number or type or intensity or duration of "rocks of stress" involved.

The drug "rocks" are such as illicit drugs of many types, as well as prescribed drugs such as overuse of antibiotics or prescriptions of AZT and most all of the anti-HIV drugs.

The greatest rock of most intensity is of course the HIV or AIDS diagnosis itself. Such a diagnosis puts patients into immune system compromising states of panic, fear, depression, and hopelessness.

As such, these very scientists, who do not have the worldly experience or common sense to see these factors, simply choose to ignore them, as to do otherwise at this point would be to implicate the scientists and doctors and researchers themselves for having exacerbated illness, instead of reducing it, which is exactly what society is faced with.

The presumably well meaning scientists, researchers, AIDS advocates, and doctors have been, and are yet, some of the very greatest contributors to the problem of immune dysfunction, instead of being part of the solution! This is why AIDS has increased instead of being reduced to minimal levels worldwide.

And the nature of this problem, is to be found in the frailty of their all too human egos, which, as is the case with most of us humans, is the very last place that any of them would ever look to find the answers to the problems.

The lack of common sense!

It is quite fascinating to me, and will no doubt be absolutely fascinating as well to future generations of psychologists, anthropologists, and philosophists, how the vast centuries of institutionalized racism and homophobism have affected the science of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Of greatest interest will be how these "isms" became morphed and hence translated into the percieved "scientific findings" of our current medicine, biology, and virology and societal beliefs.

Seemingly the institutionalized rascism and homophobism has mysteriously manifested as the HIV and AIDS epidemic of the last 30 years, that evidenced itself as the physical illnesses and sufferings of the very groups that were the very targets of such long suffering racism and homophobism.

Such a "scientific" belief lends and affirms itself as to concepts of scientific proof that blacks and gays must somehow be inferior, thus giving more credence to the societal institutionalized belief system!

Certainly it seeks to evidence that gays and blacks are "dirty" and inferior, while white heterosexuals are somehow "clean" and superior.

It is absolutely fascinating what many of these unwitting researchers, who are inherently and unwittingly affected by the longstanding institutionalized societal influences of rascism and homophobism, yet believe that they are percieving so indirectly in a test tube, yet have never actually physically seen even once with their own two eyes!

The simple unaware and ill thought out thoughts, beliefs, and perceptions of the minds of men today shall never cease to amaze future generations of their offspring!

Yes Michael,
I've quite noticed the lack of common sense in the orthodox camp. Furthermore, what these die hard apologists don't know, and what a good many of us are witnessing is the common folk, the ones even without knowledge of alternative dissident views, are starting to smell something real fishy. These are the educated ones who are dumping their meds and not telling anyone. These guys get better off those drugs, develop common sense and thriving in spite all they've been told. Slowly but surely the orthodoxy will not be able to explain this phenomena. Fast-forward 20 years from now: Doctor to patient, "You mean you haven't taken the drugs for all those years? I was under the impression you were so healthy because the drugs were working. Wow, how could that be?" But in all actuality that scenario is happening now, today and the good ol' boys up in LaLa HIV land haven't really a clue. They're blinded by their own made up, follow the leader (Gallo) approach. They just simply refuse to acknowledge anything that's out side their "AIDS Zone".........

Hey Hinkley,
Look at the big picture book of viruses and notice that tobacco mozaic virus, phage, herpesviruses, pox virus, etc. aren't snowflakes but have a consistent morphologies from photograph to photograph (and stable genetic make-ups from decade to decade. Some of them can even be self-assembled from isolated components and guess what, they self-assemble into recognizable, functional viruses (in the case of TMV at least).

I repeat, they aren't snowflakes and you don't need to catch them evaporating from water. In fact, you can actually photograph them and experts can identify them by their morphology-they can be separated by gravitational fields in sucrose gradients, because they follow the rules of Newton. Not so with "HIV."

"HIV" is the Anti-Newtonian virus that causes AIDS.

Hey Nobel. Do you think prison officials publish frequently in Nature or Science and get grants from the NIH to do studies of the health of their prison population? You try to impeach Dweyer's statement and experience and ignore all the nice African stats I give provided by the African people themselves. Is the winter that cold down in Australia so that it has affected your reason?

I'll do the homework you suggest regarding epidemiology: incidence and prevalence, and will then make up some numbers on my computer and invent a new disease.

Thanks for the helpful idea.

Sheesh!

Cheers,

andy

A great article by Professor Chin from Uganda -- UN Cries Wolf About AIDS

Basically, these UN idiots over-estimated HIV prevalance in India (by 2.5 million), in Kenya (1.1 Million), in Ethiopia (500,000) and in Haiti (100,000).
No wonder AIDS is falling -- the gross over-estimates are being recanted!

Hey Nobel. Do you think prison officials publish frequently in Nature or Science and get grants from the NIH to do studies of the health of their prison population? You try to impeach Dweyer's statement and experience and ignore all the nice African stats I give provided by the African people themselves. Is the winter that cold down in Australia so that it has affected your reason?

Andrew, there are very little available statistics for HIV prevalence in SA prisons. The SA government does not seem to want to know what the prevalence is. The only real study that I am aware of is from the Westville prison where they found a prevalence of approximately 30%. Approximately 95% of the deaths in this prison were AIDS-related. The HIV positive inmates went on a hunger strike to force the government to supply them with the ARVs that they desperately wanted.

This paper reports the first results of HIV prevalence in an African prison population.

Look at the big picture book of viruses and notice that tobacco mozaic virus, phage, herpesviruses, pox virus, etc. aren't snowflakes but have a consistent morphologies from photograph to photograph (and stable genetic make-ups from decade to decade. Some of them can even be self-assembled from isolated components and guess what, they self-assemble into recognizable, functional viruses (in the case of TMV at least).

Andrew, all RNA viruses have high mutation rates. Other viruses such as polio and FMDV exist as quasispecies and have similar evolution rates to HIV. There is nothing unusual about the genetic variation in HIV.

But I guess you don't believe that poliovirus causes polio.

Andrew,

Once again you prove that you don't know what you're talking about. There is nothing unique about the size variation found in virions of HIV. Enveloped viruses are typically pleomorphic, with variable size. You said:

Look at the big picture book of viruses and notice that tobacco mozaic virus, phage, herpesviruses, pox virus, etc. aren't snowflakes but have a consistent morphologies from photograph to photograph

Andrew, I suggest you look at a picture book of Herpes Viruses so that you can see how variable they are in size and shape. A review paper available for free in PubMed Central, Jacobs A, Breakefield XO, Fraefel C. (1999) Neoplasia. 1:387-401, describes Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 as having a diameter that ranges from 120-300 nm.

For a free paper with electron micrographs illustrating the variable morphology of HSV-1, check out Stannard LM, Fuller AO, Spear PG (1987) J Gen Virol. 68:715-25. The PDF is free.

Is the variable morphology of enveloped viruses a new finding? Of course not, at least not to anyone familiar with Virology.

Look at this paper from 1974 on the morphology of an enveloped bacteriophage: Ellis LF, Schlegel RA (1974) J Virol. 14:1547-51. The first sentence of the abstract is: "phi6 bacteriophage from Pseudomonas phaseolicola has a pleomorphic shape due to an outer layer of lipid." In the results section, they report that the diameter of phi6 ranges from 60-100 nm. The full text is free.

The variable morphology of enveloped viruses is a well-known fact that can easily be verified in the PubMed database or by checking any Virology textbook. Professor Maniotis's claim that this feature is unique to HIV and sets HIV apart from herpesviruses, phage, and all other viruses is simply wrong. This false claim illustrates, once again, the insight Maniotis showed when he made the following verifiably true comment on Tara's Blog:

I really don't understand what is going on.
Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D. July 6, 2007

Carter said

i> Death by liver failure? Come on now dont deny it.. you're magical life saving drugs kill, disfigure and put more people into ill health then the ones you supposedly save.

Like ICL, liver failure deaths you can blame on the medicines are so low you can report cases. Liver deaths in AIDS patients, like almost all, come from hepatitis, then poisoning from injection drugs and alcohol. Deaths from anti virals by themselv are so low can you really estimate a percentage? And the one or two you can find are because a doctor wasn't doing their job right or the patient wasn't seeing a doctor like they were supposed to.

Typical from Maniotis he quotes a non peer reviewed letter like Chris says. This Dwyer guy was a "part-time surgeon" and he gives these statistics without any sources.

Chris already said it and scientists knew it then because you couldn't do that in peer review, there weren't any statistics!

Here's Goyer and Gow, Journal of Public Health Policy 2002 23(3) 307-23 talking about South African prisons,
there is no data available on the level of HIV infection in the prison population.

So where did Dwyers figures come from? They didn't test all inmates and other people say there wasn't much testing in South African jails then. Did Dwyer make it up? Just talk about a few prisoners? Obviously this guy is a Mbeki supporter and a denialist and the letter isn't peer reviewed. Credibility zero.

OK but for the fun of it we can pretend Dwyer is right and infection is only 2to 4 percent in South Africa. And also let's say every country in the world overestamates their HIV by like 2 times so theres' 20 mil instead of 40 mil.

Where does it leave denialists? Still denying. If HIV gets overestimated by 2 and that's crazy I'm just saying it theoretical, it still causes AIDS its stil a big public health problem. Did anybody read Roy HInkley's rain comparison? If I say it rained two inches but you only measure 1.5 inches does that mean rain doesn't happen?

Maybe you could say, if there's so much overestimates you should spend less money on HIV research. But you can't make conclusions about what the virus does!

And then Andrew and Noreen. Andrew gives a list of things killing kids in Africa. Noreen says Africans died in the 1960s.
Therefore AIDS can't kill people? Because other things do too?

Adele, you might want to read what Dr. Justice found in her study in regards to liver failure from the antiretrovirals:http://www.whatisaids.com/wwwboard/messages/109.html

Naturally, most assume that abnormal liver enzymes and abnormal labs reports are due to the virus, that's what my doctors told me too. It's a funny thing though, when I stopped the antiretrovirals, my blood and liver enzymes are in the normal range now.

Noreen, given current theories of how HIV and AIDS progresses, do you know what kind of health the theories predict you would probably be in without intervention at this point in your infection?

Adele....
Go ahead and preach your sermon about how wonderful the benefits are by daily consuming combos like Combivir/Susteva.. You're sitting high on your pulpit completely unaware and without a clue of what's taking place. I allow you to preach your death cult of HIV=AIDS, but there will come a time when hundreds of thousands wont. The reality is very much what Noreen said, which is quite far from what you're spewing as fact. One does not have to be a dissident to see the truth that the drugs are useless as long term therapy and cause far way too much harm then that which is acceptable.

You may want to inquire with the group leaders of Heal and Alive&Well just how many new people join on a monthy basis. You'd be quite surprised.

NOREEN... Get a load of that, what apy said, "current theories!"

carter I don't think anything would surprise me about Heal and "Alive and Well" Like they say there's a sucker born every minute.

Yeah, every minute, so that would mean they can get about 43,000 a month. Am I right? Is that how many join? Or do some of the suckers just get into the UFO circuit or hang out at Loch ness?

And what does that mean anyway carter? There's more of us than you think? There's more of us than you? What a lame argument.

There's like 100,000 scientists who know more about HIV than you but I don't use that as a argument because its not a good one. One person can be wrong and a million people can be wrong. The evidence HIV causes AIDS doesn't need a number of people to hold it up. But carter goes cuckoo about twenty people joining HEAL or having fifty demented doctors and a few comparative literature PhDs on an internet list.

"NOREEN... Get a load of that, what apy said, "current theories!""

What is wrong with my wording here? The earth traveling around the sun is a theory after all. Noreen keeps on using her own state of health as an argument with statistical significants, I'm curious where the HIV->AIDS theory puts her...

In regards to theories, every one has an opinion. I believe that according to the statistics on AIDS, being a white female should pretty much place me at the bottom of the totem pole. Nevertheless, I have been plagued with a life-time of various diseases, which came to a head in 2003. I don't believe that HIV causes AIDS but rather a life-time of events.

For the past 30 years, I have been plagued with numerous, unrelated symtoms. Today, I found out what has been the majority of my problems, now I am diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The last check, this is not an AIDS defining disease.

noreen, from what I understand, according to the theory of how HIV leads to AIDS, it can take a considerable amount of time between the initial infection of HIV and development into AIDS. Do you know when you would supposedly have been infected with HIV? From how you speak you are relatively healthy, or atleast not showing signs of AIDS. Does this go along with how doctors beleive AIDS progresses? I realize that one argument of dissidents is that they think it is unlikely that a retrovirus would act like this, but playing hypothetical, would you still be in that time period where one appears healthy? If that is the case, does your healthyness suggest that the theory of HIV/AIDS is invalid? Certainly it does not validate the theory but if that is the case it seems difficult to argue purely from your experience that the theory is invalid.

Thanks

Noreen I'm glad you brought up Amy Justice I agree we should read what she found in her study. But I think we get a better idea of Dr. Justice and her work if we read what Dr. Justice wrote instead of what someone from Alive and Well pretending to be a journalist said about her.

Anyway if you read Amy Justice not just a biased article about her you find out she has like 80 papers on this not just one study. HEres some highlights,

She's on a paper in 2002 in the Lancet and they find out like alot of other people progression to AIDS and death are both related to CD4 cell counts, the lower they are the higher your chance of AIDS and death. In every CD4 ranges people with viral load over 100,000 have higher chance of AIDS and death then people w lower viral loads.

2003 Justice is on a paper in Medical Decision Making. They find out HAART improves life expectancy average 4 to 6 years over pre-HAART therapies. They say this can be longer when adherence is good and more options for treatment will make it longer too and they say drug toxicities are important to watch so people can stay on the medicine.

She has a 2003 paper in Clin Inf Diseases and they talk about how almost half their patients with HIV have HCV too and its not even treated and alot of them use alcohol that damages their livers in HCV.

In the American j med in 2005 she's on a paper. and they say "Effective antiretroviral therapies have improved the prognosis for patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." And also they find HIV patients live longer with therapy and the longer they live the more likely to die of comorbid diseases like hepatitis.

Also that year in AIDS they have 25000 patients and they find out its true that HIV and HCV together are worse for your health. And another paper, Justice says smoking lowers expectancy and quality of life in HIV.

She has a bunch of studies in alcohol and risky sexual behavior.

In 2006 there's a paper of her's in Journal clin oncol, and they say the most important thing for stopping liver cancer in HIV infected is find and treat HCV and reduce alcohol. Then she has a article in Topics in HIV MEd and it starts "With the advent of potent antiretroviral therapy, mortality from HIV disease decreased from 29 deaths per 100 person-years to 9 deaths per 100 person-years between 1995 and 1998; between 1997 and 2000, there was a further reduction to 2 to 4 deaths per 100 person-years." She talks about how alcohol and HCV and illegal drug toxicity are the big problems for liver disease and she says too antiretroviral toxicity could have something to do with it to in longer term. But I think the main problem she sees is if the antieretroviral is toxic, people won't take it and they'll get a OI.

IN AIDS 2007 May 31 she reported in the ART cohort study about 20,000 patients and like always there's more likely death or progression at lower CD4 counts and higher viral load.

July 31 2007 AIDS issue she has another interesting study where they look at people who have different adherence and they estimate, how much medicine did these patients take maximum? based on how many prescriptions they filled and they have groups like 0-20% and 20-40% up to 80-100%. So this is one of the studies dissidents are saying they never do and guess what. The people with 0-20% adherence don't control their viral load and their CD4 counts don't rebound in fact they can go down and so their outcomes are worse and its all dose dependent so when you get up to 100%adherence those people are doing the best.

Noreen I hope you agree with me its not fair to boil down this scientists' amazing work to like two sentences about drug toxicity and "the dark side of these drugs" in that Alive and WEll press release you gave us. Do you agree with Dr. Justice' other conclusions all of them peer reviewed or do you only agree with what you hear from alive and well something a fake reporter needled her into saying in an interview about "the dark side"?

Noreen of course there are drug toxicities. It's always better if you don't haveto take them. No one denies that. All drugs are toxic at some dose. A lot of drugs, not just against HIV, you have to go in for liver levels all the time. Its annoying but most people decide to do that instead of take their chances with HIV or another disease.

And you know what else, those same doctors like Amy Justice who are thinking about drug toxic effects and trying to get them down, those same people also always say, taking the drugs outweighs the negatives. That's what Amy Justice says and I don't think she's paid by a drug company!

June 29, Adele said about dissident websites, "I could lose one hand and still have enough fingers to count the facts I saw." (I just heard about this blog through Andrew Maniotis)
For copious facts, go to David Crowe's website http://aras.ab.ca/index.php
My own recent book cites a plethora of CDC, Army, and peer-reviewed papers about HIV-test results. The totality of those data are clearly incompatible with HIV/AIDS theory. For info about the book, see www.failingsofhivaidstheory.homestead.com.
For 3 earlier articles that contain much of the analysis and data, go to http://hivnotaids.homestead.com

Yea Yea Yea -
I'd start looking for new lines of employment if I were you. They need some good people in like oceanography or something don't they?

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/29/blanton.htm

Thanks, carter, for the info about Duesberg and Rasnick attending and presenting at a meeting of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Here is their Wikipedia entry (which also contains a link to their website):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

And an article from their journal about homosexuality:

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/lehrman.pdf

Here are a few sewer-level lowlights:

"Historically, homosexual behavior has been viewed as both criminal and sinful ever since Judaism first defined it as an abomination along with inces t, adultery and bestiality and Christianity continued this stance. Judaism and Christianity's new prohibitions represented an immense moral and legal change that greatly strengthened family life."

"the 'gay' male lifestyle significantly increases the incidence of infectious disease and shortens life expectancy by about 20 years."

"In 1933 when Hitler took power, Ernst Roehm, leader of his 300,000-man terrorist storm trooper was a a notorious pederast, and his corps commanders were 'almost without exception homosexuals.'"

"If a vote by this professional organization is all that is needed to normalize homosexuality, could the same faction-driven process occur with other behavior now considered aberrant, such as pederasty, once a critical mass of politically active practitioners has been reached?"

The same AAPS journal, which is not listed in PubMed for reasons explained in the Wikipedia entry, also recently featured an article by Rebecca Culshaw.

"The evidence isn't totally new, Miller said. But it is hotly contested, "If you can find someone willing to debate facts, you're lucky. Most won't. They can't.""

When you all have enough huztpa to get up off your tired old asses and actually participate in a live moderated debate, I'll be the first to buy front row tickets.

The dogmatic rants and raves from you guys I see hear, you shouldn't have a problem debating Duesburg or the others, now.. right?

Adele, all I know is what works for me and that is LDN. If it ain't broke don't fix it! According to the statistics I should not be doing what I'm doing after having AIDS and low CD4's, but nevertheless I am beating the odds.

All I can say Richard is Oh My God. Nice find. They compare gay men to Nazis? Wow. I said before back when Maniotis was talking about AAPS I thought they were a bunch of anti choice far right freaks but I had no idea they were this bad! Wow. They're like an embarasment to our species.

Carter see that's why there's no public debate with these people. You debate them you give some legitemancy to their neander views, criminalizing homosexuality, sheesh. Actually that's insluting to neanderthals these people are just filth.

Yeah and Rebecca Culshaw is got to be like the biggest hypacrite ever she says scientists are homophobes and then she puts her stuff in a crap magazine like this trash.

Noreen absolutely! If LDN works I'm glad your glad everyone should be glad. I hope LDN does work and I hope there's more studies done with it to confirm it and then how it works too so more people can get it. And you are definately beating the odds and thats great.

I just wish you could maybe put more energy into maybe asking for more LDN research and things, not repeating all these things that end up not being true. When alive and well tells you something about a scientist we need to look at what that scientist says instead of just believing alive and well.

There's so much work going on now with genome studies and people who have different response to HIV and to medicine. Sometime soon I hope we can know who can do better like you seem to do even with low CD4 so you can have more individualized therapy, drugs when their needed and no drugs when you don't need them. Believe me there's progress going on with this.

The article about Dr. Justice are also on university websites, alive and well was the first one that I came too. I am putting energy into LDN research, I am going to the conference in October, I tell doctors about it and the proceeds from my books are going to support Dr. McCandless's LDN trials, which are currently going on in Africa.

Glad to hear your putting energy into LDN research.

But no noreen the article about Dr. Justice is not on university web sites, its on three denialist web sites. That's it. I didn't find it on any university web sites.

There are articles about Dr. Justice on university websites but they have more accurate info than alive and well. Still why trust a press release from anywhere if you can read Justice's own reports? Well of course because if you read her reports you know it isn't true, antivirals kill more people then they save. THat's a lie cooked up by people like AAPS who probably want gay people stoned to death like their "Jehovah" says or maybe just get them to stop taking medication and die that way.

Excuses ~ Excuses ~ Excuses ~
"Carter see that's why there's no public debate with these people."

You dont have the balls - just empty claims and more excuses.

The dogmatic rants and raves from you guys I see hear, you shouldn't have a problem debating Duesburg or the others, now.. right?

There has already been a debate in the literature

Duesberg lost the debate.

Denialists seem to think that it isn't over because Duesberg doesn't admit that he is wrong. This doesn't change the simple fact that the issue has been debated and Duesberg lost.

Dont argue with these two adele/noble...........they are complete rejects who are on these blogs 24/7 because no one wants to be around them, on top of that adele is probably lying about being a "PCR" tech and having a masters in biology.

Google "adele" and "dale" (another poster here) in the same search and youll see. All they talk about is that im a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, like I care, millions of people want a new 9/11 investigation including many of the familiy members. I could easily debate them on this issue and blow them away, but why do I want to associate with losers who lie about their credentials and who have no friends?

Instead of wasting time with these 2 losers people should see the movie Loose change, the most watched movie in internet history, millions of downloads about a 9/11 coverup

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Henry, you say:

(I just heard about this blog through Andrew Maniotis)

but yet you emailed me back in April...

Wow Cooler! Thanks for this outstanding opportunity to demonstrate what is, and even more importantly, what is not an ad hominem attack.

Now, before we waste any more time on Cooler and his conspiracy theories, Dr. Maniotis made a comment way up there that actually had some scientific discussion in it. He said:

"Hey Hinkley,
Look at the big picture book of viruses and notice that tobacco mozaic (sic) virus, phage, herpesviruses, pox virus, etc. aren't snowflakes but have a consistent morphologies from photograph to photograph (and stable genetic make-ups from decade to decade. Some of them can even be self-assembled from isolated components and guess what, they self-assemble into recognizable, functional viruses (in the case of TMV at least)."

Lets look at Dr. Maniotis' suggestion, a terrific model of a virus if I do say so myself, Tobacco Mosaic Virus. An RNA virus, capable of spontaneous self-assembly in vitro from its RNA and protein constituents. It is most definitely a stable genetic entity from decade to decade, as it has been widely recognized as an infection in tobacco plants since the 1800s and certainly was infecting them long before that.

What is the estimated mutation rate of TMV Dr. Maniotis?

It's .11 mutations per genome per replication.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/162/4/1505

How does that compare to HIV's mutation rate of .16 to .22?
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1667/T3

Similar huh? I mean they're estimates right? 1.5 inches of rain, 2 inches of rain... either way,...

you're gonna get wet right?

Take a look at the paper, many other RNA viruses have a much higher mutation rate than HIV: RSV, MLV, VSV, Influenza A, Poliovirus,...
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1667/T2
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1667

Do these viruses exist as genetic entities Dr. Maniotis? Or is Influenza A, with a mutation rate per genome of greater than one, just another figment of your imagination like HIV and Polio?

So this feeble argument: that HIV's mutation rate is somehow extraordinary, impossible, or contrary to the laws of genetics... is an embarassment coming from a Berkely Phd, and a Professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Don't you think? (Maybe you should consider posting anonymously, you'd lose the whole argument from authority thing, but once you embarass yourself enough relying on that it really doesn't do much good anyway does it?)

By the way, I got this picture of VZV (human herpes virus 3) from the Big Picture Book of Viruses you suggested.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/Images/Fenner/herpe2.jpg

Can you, being a microscopist, point out to me, being a molecular biologist (and no doubt lacking the keen eye necessary), the (how did you phrase it?) "consistent morphologies from photograph to photograph" of this particular virus versus this EM of HIV?
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/images/hiv_tm_em.jpg

'Cause they both look like damn good work to me. Here's TMV for good measure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TMV.jpg

So those longer ones and shorter ones, and the more curved ones, is that the consistency? or the morphologies I'm seeing there?

Nice one Tara! That's how they operate.

You know the denialists just keep handing us stuff. Like carter yesterday with the AAPS. And then Henry Bauer that guy should be hiding somewhere in shame but he comes out and wants us to by his book! Did you guys read about Henry Bauer on aidstruth and what he said about gays in the eightys? He sounded like AAPS! Supposedly now he's totally cool progressive, some of his best friends are gay and all that, but my god he said some nasty things. So many denialists homophobes or ex homophobes or maybe closet homophobes. So sad people still respect them. On aidstruth this is from a book Henry Bauer wrote,

I have rather old-fashioned views: I regard homosexuality as an aberration or illness, not as an "equally valid life-style" or whatever the current euphemism may be. As with many aberrations and illnesses, I do not necessarily hold the individual responsible for being ill, and I do not believe that illness is criminal. Again as with many illnesses, I believe that some mixture of genetic or hereditary predisposition combines with environmental exposure to produce the actual condition: I suspect that some people are fated essentially from birth (or even before) to have homosexual inclinations, that others are molded strongly in that direction through early up-bringing, and that some others practice homosexuality almost purely as a matter of choice (in prison or in the armed services, for example). I also believe that life offers to homosexuals certain difficulties in addition to those life offers the rest of us, and therefore----if for no other reason----any given individual is better off being heterosexual than homosexual; I believe, too, that anyone who has a choice in the matter had better opt for heterosexuality. I worry that the opposite choice may be made by a larger number than otherwise, if they are exposed at a crucial time or age to articulate, well-meaning, nice gays who push the view that theirs is a completely viable and legitimate and truly ''alternative'' life-style. Thus I am not entirely in sympathy with gay student alliances, gay awareness festivals, or public forums to explain the validity of the gay life-style. I don't approve of proselytizing by gays; 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.

So then when aidstruth put this one their sight one day, Bauer put something new on his sight the NEXT DAY says aidstruth. And it said he was wrong to say that and now some of his best friends are even gay! Well great Henry Bauer we all make mistakes glad you're not bigoted any more! I just wonder why he kept all that trash on his website so long after he says he changed his mind. and didn't say anything against it on his website til someone caught him.

One question I still haven't figured out yet after all those years is: "Why do they so many people so desperately stick to the HIV=AIDS nonsense?"
I mean, even a virologist or some other kind of medical scientist shouldn't feel definitely condemned to hang on to the same set of dogma for an entire life. A man can earn his living in so many different ways and nobody really needs to use those silly accusations like: "You denialist, you!"

Who said you denialist, you?

Nobody. Roy Hinkley gave alot of references and proved Andrew Maniotis doesn't know what he's talking about. Other viruses mutate as much as HIV. Other viruses are more variable in size than HIV. Roy Hinkley didn't say you denialist you he gave proof and references.

Chris Noble gave the link to Duesberg's debate in the literature he didn't say you denialist you. He corrected something false one of you guys said.

Tara reminded Henry Bauer he'd written her before now and contradicts his "oh i just found out about this blog" She didn't say you denialist you she gave some facts.

Richard Jefferys gave us links and quotes, and they say the AAPS has defanitely homophobic people and the top denialists like Duesberg and Maniotis hang out with them. Jefferys didn't say you denialist you he proved there's homophobia at the AAPS.

I told you about Amy Justice and all the work she did and proving CD4 predicts outcome and viral load predicts outcome and drug adherence predicts outcome and how she doesn't say antiretrovirals kill most AIDS patients like the lie Noreen gullably copied from alive and well. I didn't say you denialist you. I gave the papers.

apy didn't say you denialist you, apy asked some serious questions and didn't get any answers.

OK so here's what carter said, I don't have balls. heh heh.

And here's what BillyBipBip aka cooler said, I'm a liar and I'm married to Dale who I don't even know and why don't we all become 9-11 conspiracy nutjobs like him.

You sorta start to get an idea from all this who has the facts on their side and who has the bigots and the psychos.

she cant defend a single issue, whether on 9/11 or hiv, calls people nutjobs when shes the one who's fat and ugly and doesnt have any friends. Discuss things in terms of evidence, things like 9/11 are dismissed out of hand by losers like Adele, because like the Germans thought, "thers no way hitler would ever put people in gas chambers"

Adele, can you explain operation northwoods, a declassified plan to commit acts of terrorism and blame it on Cuba?

Please explain the collapse of building 7, how did all 90 of the columns fail at the same time when fire/damage has never caused a building to collpase?

what evidence do you have of your conpsiracy thoery? the fatty bin laden confession tape?

the terrorists passport found at ground zero when they couldnt find the black boxes? LOL

how 99.9% of the plane vanished in shankesville, no tail,wing, but they found a terrorists passport and a terrosits bandana! LOL

Thank you cooler for the illustration of my point.

As usual she cant defend a single argument, has zero evidence to support her conspiracy theories (some black guy had sex with a chimp and a few weeks later there was a world pandemic of AIDS, kind of hard to beilieve considering the transmission rate of hiv is 0000000000001% or so)

On 9/11 its the same lunacy, dont examine the evidence, just assume there's no way the government could lie to you, even though they have lied and put plans on paper to committ terrorism against Americans and blame it on Cuba (Operation Northwoods), and if you read Chomksy, (farmore intelligent than these fools here like hinkley/noble/adele) you'll realize that the government has done some pretty bad things.

This kind of attitude enabled Stalin and Hitler to kill millions, "there is no way my governemnt could do that." All real criminal investigation examine different hypothesis/leads, a real detective does not dismiss theories out of hand (especially if there is precedent/motive), only after a full investigation do certain hypothesis get lableled as unrealistic. Now you understand why hinkley/adele/noble are psuedoscientists, they have such an emotional attachment to certain myths like HIV/9/11 etc they dont even bother to look at the evidence, because it upsets their religious beleifs they dismiss it.

See loose change and 9/11 mysteries about the 9/11 coverup

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

Here another fine example of these damn apologists supporting the prescribing thus harming and facilitating death to those who test positive. The following will demonstraight to everyone who the real homophobic and top denialists are....

Glaxo Wellcome puts the following warning in large, bold-faced, capital letters at the start of the section in the 1999 Physician's Desk Reference that describes AZT (referred to under the name Retrovir or Zidovudine).

"RETROVIR (ZIDOVUDINE) MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERE HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANEMIA PARTICULARLY IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED HIV DISEASE (SEE WARNINGS). PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR HAS ALSO BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS."

Jesus! How much more shit do we have to take from these idiots? Retrovir = AZT repackaged for their death and dying AIDS cult. It doesn't get anymore pathetic than this!

Please ady, Adele, Chris and the others, can you please answer how you can promote death and dying with such religious fervor? How, pray tell? How?

cooler, thanks again but that'll be enough. You kids have your own sites to do this stuff on. And do you really believe any of it? 95% of Flight 93 was recovered at Shanksville. No data recorders? Check out http://911debunker.livejournal.com/7467.html about halfway down the page you find pics and theres two of data recorders. You are amazingly completely wrong.

Cooler if you want to comment about HIV do it but remember your racist stuff about sex with monkeys is even more disgusting than your 9-11 loonyness.

"Carter see that's why there's no public debate with these people. You debate them you give some legitemancy to their neander views, criminalizing homosexuality, sheesh."

They are no bigger neanderthals than you or anything of the other HIV apologists on this blog. I know that you don't really care about things like accuracy and diction, Adele, but for future reference "neander" is not a word, much like HIV is not a killer retrovirus.

Philistines, like our own Richard Jeffries, often try to paint complex issues into two colors: black and white, which incidentally is exactly how right-wingers like the AAPS defend their own screwed-up morality. Of course, doing so is always an attempt to redirect attention from the actualities of the central issue. With that said, I don't expect to agree with every HIV dissident on every issue; however, that does not mean that those with whom I disagree on a particular issue, say "abortion", are not right about other issues, say "questioning the science behind the link between HIV and AIDS."

I realize that this distinction is lost on all of the HIV apologists on this blog, for it's clear by now that you must maintain a "pack mentality" where breaking rank is "high treason", but don't apply your own fucked up mentality to the rest of the world.
_________________________________________
Yeah and Rebecca Culshaw is got to be like the biggest hypacrite ever she says scientists are homophobes and then she puts her stuff in a crap magazine like this trash.

You are such a piece of trash, Adele. Censorship, like the kind employed by the AIDS orthodoxy, will often force dissenters to seek publication in less than optimum outlets, however, the Lew Rockwell site that first published Dr. Culshaw's writings is a worthwhile libertarian site, which you obviously are too dense to realize. Furthermore, the libertarian perspective seems to be closer in-line to the political views of at least some of the members of the AAPS. Of course, Richard Jeffreys chose the most inflammatory piece referenced on that site so that he can paint the world black and white, like the closet "right-winger" that he is. Nevertheless, is it any wonder that libertarians are some of the first to see-through the bullshit that is HIV/AIDS? Anyone with ounce of political acumen would not find such suprising.

Of course, this assumes that you know what a libertarian actually is, and given your troubles with diction, Adele, that's no guarantee. It also assumes that you are capable of thinking for yourself and you've proven, time and time again, that you are a poor thinker:

Are you still in denial about the colossal "housing bubble" that is unwinding, Adele?

Kevin

"Please ady, Adele, Chris and the others, can you please answer how you can promote death and dying with such religious fervor? How, pray tell? How?"

I do not promote death and dying with a religious fervor. If you forget for a moment, for the sake of argument, dissident views then you would believe that HIV does leads to AIDS. If you believe this then your goal is to provide a successful treatment for HIV that, if does not cure, at leasts keeps up the quality of life of the patient. Given the state of medicine, this is not a one-shot but rather a series of incremental growths of knowledge. AZT is not perfect, nobody is arguing this with you, there are risks with it. But again, remember we believe that HIV is going to lead to AIDS which is going to lead to 1) a drastic decrease in quality of life 2) death.

AZT is one of several treatments created to to solve these two problems. Or at the very least bring us in the right direction. Again, they are not perfect, and again, if you believe HIV leads to AIDS the hope of finding a good treatment for HIV means solving those two problems, or at least the first one. If the doctor keeps an eye on toxicity of the drug in relation to the patient there is a good chance that, in combination with other drugs, they will see an improvement. Papers by Amy Justice, whom noreen a *dissident* told us to read shows this. (On a side note, please find a hole in that paper rather than just ignoring it, which seems to have been what happened once Adele said that it was actually pro-HIV-AIDS-link).

Don't forget, Aspirin comes with warnings too:

"... If ringing in the ears or loss of hearing occurs, consult a doctor before taking any more of this product. ... As with any drug, if you are pregnant or nursing a baby, seek the advice of a health professional before using this product. It is especially important not to use aspirin During the last 3 months of pregnancy unless specifically directed to do So by a doctor because it may cause problems in the unborn child or complications During delivery."

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/asa_wcp.htm

So carter, in the end, you can accuse us of being fools or illiterate for believing that the scientific literature shows a clear link that HIV causes AIDS, but please don't confuse that for promoting death. If one believes HIV causes AIDS, it seems only natural to try to come up with a treatment.

apy good point about aspirin. Every drug insert you look at has this kind of stuff. If someone dies or gets poison ivy during a trial or even postmarketing you HAVE to include that as possible reaction even when there's no link. Here's something from a product insert of a drug one of my kids takes. There's about 20 mil people in the USA on this drug.

acute renal failure, anaphylactoid reaction, angioedema, blindness, optic neuritis, cataract, increased coagulation times, bradycardia, AV block, atrial arrhythmias, QT-interval prolongation, ventricular tachycardia (including torsade de pointes-type arrhythmias), hypothyroidism, agranulocytosis, aplastic anemia and pancytopenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, lupus-like syndrome, serum sickness, hyperglycemia, galactorrhea, hyperprolactinemia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome-like events, extrapyramidal symptoms, oculogyric crisis, serotonin syndrome, psychosis, pulmonary hypertension, severe skin reactions, which potentially can be fatal, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome, vasculitis, photosensitivity and other severe cutaneous disorders, rare reports of pancreatitis, and liver events--clinical features (which in the majority of cases appeared to be reversible with discontinuation of drug) occurring in one or more patients include: elevated enzymes, increased bilirubin, hepatomegaly, hepatitis, jaundice, abdominal pain, vomiting, liver failure and death.

You read this, you think the drug is pure arsenic! Of course its not they have to put this on hear for their lawyers.

BUT WHY? IF THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH SERIOUS STRONG ARGUMENTS FOR NOT BELIEVING HIV=AIDS=DEATH.

Retorvir = AZT and then theres more here...Physician's Desk Reference, in 1992 made the connection even clearer.

"It is often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with Zidovudine administration from underlying signs of HIV disease or intercurrent illness."

Dont you think warnings like this should bring about a great deal of concern, especially given the litany of contradictions and confusion surrounding the science of "HIV" as the cause??

If you translate some of the above warnings. "Granulocytopenia", also called "neutropenia" means that the primary cells of the immune system, neutrophils, have been depleted, along with some other cells, eosinophils and basophils, which are less numerous but still important to immune function. This condition can be mild, moderate, or severe. The clinical course of severe neutropenia, which is used in most medical schools to study pathology, describes what happens to people with severe neutropenia. CLINICAL COURSE: The symptoms and signs of neutropenias are those of bacterial infections. In severe agranulocytosis with virtual absence of neutrophils, these infections may become so overwhelming as to cause death within a few days

And what if the science was flawed in the very beginning but because of social & political pressures no one wanted or cared for a correction and every single thing made up since then is just coincidence? Science "made to order." made to fit a very unlikely and far fetched reason as to the cause?

Come up with all the medicine you want. Treat the individual diseases. That's what keeps Big Pharma in business. But since AIDS is not by a long shot a single disease, why in hell would any caring medical prof. insist in what amounts to toxic chemo on a daily basis for a thing still unproven to cause anything, with only a shacky correlation to the syndrome. This is ludludicrous!

One question I still haven't figured out yet after all those years is: "Why do they so many people so desperately stick to the HIV=AIDS nonsense?"
I mean, even a virologist or some other kind of medical scientist shouldn't feel definitely condemned to hang on to the same set of dogma for an entire life. A man can earn his living in so many different ways and nobody really needs to use those silly accusations like: "You denialist, you!"

I'm still trying to get a rational response to this post Does drug use cause AIDS.

Perhaps you want to try.

So far the most intelligent response has been "Everyone knows that Ascher was Tony Fauci's well paid buttboy and pet lapdog..."

"And what if the science was flawed in the very beginning but because of social & political pressures no one wanted or cared for a correction and every single thing made up since then is just coincidence?"

carter, I'm confused by your wording here. If something is made up then how would it be a coincidence? But let's say that after the original HIV leads to AIDS hypothesis was wrong and all of the other evidence that "AIDS apologists" put forth is nothing more than coincidence, the possibility of this coincidence is so statistically unlikely I find it impossible to believe that for the past 20 years everything has been a coincidence.

But let's address the "what if" you are presenting. What would happen if the initial science was flawed? Would every other experiment simply use this as truth and attempt to build on top of it without any attempt to validate the hypothesis? This seems to be a common argument among dissidents. The truth of the matter is that is not how the science works. There is an initial paper detailing methods and conclusions for an experiment, such as the isolation of HIV. Other experiments use this fact, but they initially validate it. In many papers you will see that they did the initial experiment, and it worked, and then go on to explain what this paper is going over. Obviously they are not going to write an entire paper, simply repeating what a previous paper wrote, there is no point in that, they simply have a few sentences detailing that they validated the previous experiment.

What does this mean for your question? It means that if the initial science was flawed, we would see it because experiments continually attempt to validate it and they would fail. They have to, it is the starting point for their experiment since they are building off of the previous work.

"BUT WHY? IF THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH SERIOUS STRONG ARGUMENTS FOR NOT BELIEVING HIV=AIDS=DEATH."

But that is what we are disagreeing with you about. I am not trying to be disrespectful, but how many papers have you actually and completely read? For the most part, dissidents have pasted conclusions that other people have come to after reading the papers and these conclusions have been shown, by citing the original paper, to be wrong. When you read a website such as virusmyth do you then look up the paper that they critique to see if their conclusion agrees with what the paper is actually saying? It seems that in many cases the people that paste these conclusions do not go read the original source. You say there is serious reason to doubt the HIV and AIDS argument, but if you read over this blog you should see that almost all of the arguments have been refuted by citing the original paper. You, carter, were shown that your understanding of some of the concepts was incomplete and you even agreed that it was incomplete. But you continued to argue your point. Say what you want about the validity of "AIDS apologist" arguments, but it says a lot when you even agree your understanding of a concept is incomplete but continue to argue your point. Is this not the definition of denial, carter? I'm unsure how you can claim that being shown your argument is wrong and continuing to argue it is anything but denial. I will not be surprised if you find a way though, it would not be denial otherwise. If that isn't enough, some of your most outspoken supporters, such as cooler, have resorted to doing little more than insulting those people here, making comments about 9/11 which are completely off topic and inconsequential to this discussion, and most of all making personal comments about them (have no friends/drunk at bars) that he could not possibly be aware of as he does not know them personnaly. This is obviously a blatent lie and if someone like cooler is willing to make insulting and untrue comments about people here does that not give strong reason to doubt his other arguments? Again, in the throws of denial I will not be surprised if you come back with some logical reason that lying about one thing does not discredit his other posts in any way, it is denial after all.

"Dont you think warnings like this should bring about a great deal of concern"

Yes! But despite what you and the others would have the world believe, doctors are working hard to deal with these concerns and find better therapies. But again, I point you to the Amy Justice paper that noreen brought up (and again ask you to read it and poke holes in it) which shows that those people who take their medicine as prescribed show strong evidence that they do live longer. You keep on attacking the drugs but why do you consistently ignore this paper? The paper gives strong evidence that your argument against medications is incorrect, is this why? If there is something wrong with the paper then you are free to critique it but if you ignore it, doesn't that give strong reason to believe that you are simply in denial and ignoring all evidence that disagrees with your notions? Should I be surprised if you attempt to come up with some argument why that paper is irrelevant no matter how illogical or weak?

Apy said:

"What does this mean for your question? It means that if the initial science was flawed, we would see it because experiments continually attempt to validate it and they would fail. They have to, it is the starting point for their experiment since they are building off of the previous work".

Ummm, Apy, please show us all where the successful experiments are located, because we have not seen any yet!

25 years/ZERO CURED! ZERO SAVED!

Not to mention that YOUR VERY STATEMENT completely backs the dissidents up. Just last month a paper was written saying the basic math proved HIV could not be killing tcells as stated.

Please show us a paper that validated Gallo's work in proving HIV is even the cause of AIDS!

Show us a paper that verifies how HIV does its lethal job!

Show us a paper that verifies HIV as the culprit, that could not have been due to stress itself and other causes.

Show us a paper that proves sexual transmission, because we will show you a paper by Nancy Padian that shows ZERO transmission in 6 years in 160 sero-opposite couples!

Apy, you also said:

"You say there is serious reason to doubt the HIV and AIDS argument, but if you read over this blog you should see that almost all of the arguments have been refuted by citing the original paper."

Then you should have no problem presenting the paper that shows HIV to be the definite cause of AIDS. No-one here has done that yet, you could be the very first!

Apy, you said:

"it says a lot when you even agree your understanding of a concept is incomplete but continue to argue your point, but continue to argue your point. Is this not the definition of denial, carter?."

Apy, this is EXACTLY the dissidents point! The entire orthodoxy, including your very own self agree that their and your own understanding of how HIV could cause AIDS is incomplete, even after 25 years and more than 100 billion spent on an illness that affects way less than even 1/3 of 1 percent of the population.

Apy, you said:

"But despite what you and the others would have the world believe, doctors are working hard to deal with these concerns and find better therapies.

Better than what, Apy? The current therapies are not BETTER than high dosage AZT, they are simply LESS TOXIC and do not kill the patients in the average 8 months to 1-1/2 years that AZT did. That is the ONLY logical conclusion for an unbiased intelligent human being to draw from Amy Justices paper! It is simple common sense.

By the way Apy, do you know any of the hundreds of thousands that have been disfigured with crix bellies, or lipodystrophy, or neuropathy? I suggest you walk through the gay areas of a city, or hang out by an HIV clinic to see them for your own self! When Amy Justices other paper shows that the leading cause of death in looking at the deaths of 5700 HIV positive Americans is LIVER FAILURE, directly co-relating to the therapies of the last 10 years, then you have a problem Apy. You have not shown us a better drug, you have only shown us drugs that kill more slowly. IS THIS YOUR IDEA OF LIFE SAVING? Or do you simply prefer to see primarily gay and black people more slowly killed than AZT had done?

Apy, I am fairly certain you were talking to your own self when you said to Carter:

but if you ignore it, doesn't that give strong reason to believe that you are simply in denial and ignoring all evidence that disagrees with your notions? Should I be surprised if you attempt to come up with some argument why (what I have presented to you) is irrelevant no matter how illogical or weak?

FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR REWARD OFFERED!

Hey Apy, Adele, Chris, Roy, and all you other sad reality denialists!

Christine Maggiore and ALIVE AND WELL, has a direct and PERSONAL CHALLENGE that she would like me to PERSONALLY convey to ALL of you HIV advocating fools!

Alive & Well will present a cash award of $25,000 to the first person to locate a study that provides us with missing evidence about the accuracy of HIV tests, and in celebration of this important finding, will donate an additional $25,000 to Heifer International, a unique charity working to end hunger in the developing world using a holistic approach to building sustainable communities.

The missing evidence we're looking for is a study published in a peer reviewed medical journal that shows the validation of any HIV test by the direct isolation of HIV from the fresh, uncultured fluids or tissues of positive testing persons.

Since no HIV test directly detects HIV itself, and since the tests currently used to diagnose HIV infection rely on surrogate markers such as antibodies or genetic material, a study should exist somewhere in the published medical literature which shows that at least one type of surrogate test for HIV has been validated for accuracy by the direct isolation of HIV itself from people who test antibody, RNA or DNA positive.

HERE'S THE CHANCE FOR ALL OF YOU AIDS APOLOGIST ADVOCATING FOOLS TO PUT YOUR MOUTH WHERE THE MONEY IS!

Link to evidence this offer is legitimate please.

THE LINK TO VERIFY THAT THE FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR OFFER IS LEGITIMATE IS AS FOLLOWS:

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

The FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR REWARD OFFER FOR THE MISSING SCIENTIFIC STUDY has been posted on the Alive and Well Website for more than a month.

Christine Maggiore and ALIVE AND WELL, has a direct and PERSONAL CHALLENGE that she would like me to PERSONALLY convey to ALL of you HIV advocating fools!

Who are the judges of this challenge? Maggiore? The advisory board of Alive and Well?

This isn't the first bogus challenge.

Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer

These sorts of challenges are not offered in good faith.

We already know what happened when Duesberg attempted to claim the Continuum prize by demonstrating the existence of HIV.

Perhaps Duesberg will try to claim Maggiore's prize? Or maybe he's worked out that attepting to "prove" something to people that are in Denial is pointless.

Apy, Look, with your ever so hard core belief in all that you approach and seem to feel here, did it ever occur to you that the there's been nothing of substance? Duh.. that what you have to offer is made up? Dont look at me for conspiracy crap - to me its a matter of business as usual. The NIH/CDC's funding a virus theory is what got the science to conform to bad logic and failed virus theories, because the simple solution to immune suppression isn't something that begets serious money... Your insistence on everything in the name of the one and only almighty HIV, all those papers, all those researchers, all those people, can you not see this limits your thinking?

What evidence? There is no hard concrete evidence that HIV is a harmful virus. "Because this is here and that's there and this shows up here... yada yada yada.. is all just correlation and circular logic.

You said "In many papers you will see that they did the initial experiment, and it worked, and then go on to explain what this paper is going over." YEA - INVITRO!... Tell me were I can find the paper where one took live whole infectious virus out of a person and without adding stressors, adding nothing at all, and were able to identify and photograph the so called entity.... the culprit HIV? Where is it? Where's the viremea? Where, when and how was this documented.. Now I'm sure your going to give wishy washy answers pointing to ridiculous claims that because we see this, because we know this, and because were so damn sure of everything, "we dont have to do that".. I call it bull shit.... now where are my waist high fishing boots?

HEY CHRIS NOBLE, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND POST THE STUDY RIGHT HERE IN THIS THREAD! BUT YOU CAN'T DO SO BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH STUDY, SO SHUT YOUR DENIALIST MOUTH ABOUT IT UNTIL YOU PROVE SUCH A STUDY EXISTS

TWENTY FIVE YEARS! MORE THAN 100 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS TOWARD RESEARCH, AND YET THERE IS NO PROOF THAT ANY HIV TEST HAS EVER FOUND HIV!!!

The missing evidence we're looking for is a study published in a peer reviewed medical journal that shows the validation of any HIV test by the direct isolation of HIV from the fresh, uncultured fluids or tissues of positive testing persons.

HEY CHRIS NOBLE, PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND POST THE STUDY RIGHT HERE IN THIS THREAD! BUT YOU CAN'T DO SO BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH STUDY, SO SHUT YOUR DENIALIST MOUTH ABOUT IT UNTIL YOU PROVE SUCH A STUDY EXISTS

I've already posted a study showing electron micrographs of HIV from uncultured lymph tissue. There are hundreds of such electron micrographs.

There are also many papers demonstrating HIV complete genomes or infectious clones obtained from uncultured T-cells.

These studies show with no room for reasonable doubt that HIV exists.

Once you accept that HIV exists and has been sequenced there are many papers that validate HIV antibody tests. I've already posted a study showing that HIV can be cultured from 100% of people with AIDS. Nucleic acid tests using primers obtained from the sequences also validate the antibody tests.

Face it. The evidence is there. Whether Maggiore is prepared to admit that her daughter died an unnecessary death resulting from a preventable HIV infection is another issue. Maggiore is hardly an unbiassed and informed arbiter of the science. As such the challenge which involves proving something to her personally is neither objective nor demonstrative of anything.

THe funny thing about the magiorre situation is that if her baby did die of AIDS, that would mean shes been positive since 1992 with no symptoms and no drugs for 15 years..................what a coincidence that someone who claims hiv is harmless actually backed it up by being perfectly healthy for 15 years..........yet her child just died suddenly, no positive hiv antibody test, high wbc count...........something doesnt add up.

Adele, they didnt find the black boxes at ground zero, but luckily they found the terrorists passport, thanks for posting the empty ditch in shankesville, they never recovered 95% of the plane, of course they can claim it in Orwellian fashion without any visual evidence, but the pictures show less than 1%, but luckily again a terrorist passport and red bandana survived. Sorry adele youve been caught lying again.

As far as the monkey/hiv theory that a theory advanced by the aids orthodoxy not me. Anyways, i'd rather be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist than somebody who lies about having a masters and being a PCR tech anyday.

thats

Chris:
Either you lie or are just making shit up because (and you may prove me wrong if you can) the "study (s) showing electron micrographs of HIV from uncultured lymph tissue" [your link] there is absolutely nowhere to be found in any of those links/studies any electron micrographs.. none..

But I did find that most start off with a statement that HIV the virus that causes AIDS or that thereof, which presupposes the outcome to be pro mainstream orthodox, and rightfully so knowing who pays for these, why cut off the hand that feeds?

Furthermore, I find that each and every one cited has no reference to fresh uncultered fluids or whatever. They all report - Cultured / Supernative / dilution / PCR / hybridization / stimulation -- all just fancy words for LABORATORY CONSTRUCTS.. --

WHAT GREAT EXAMPLES OF IMAGINEERING AT IT'S FINEST!

Daar ES, "The high viral burden in mononuclear cells was confirmed by quantitative studies using a polymerase-chain-reaction method."

Clark SJ, "...HIV-1 was cultured frequently in dilutions..."

Folks TM, "A cellular clone (8E5), isolated by limiting dilution of a mass culture of survivor cells,

Michael, NL; "but these measurements are selective and thus nonrepresentative of the in vivo viral load."

Emilie D, "To document the in vivo interactions occurring between the immune system and HIV replicating cells, we analyzed using in situ hybridization"

Clause KA, "A T cell clone (ACH-2) derived from T cells infected with HIV-1 was found to produce HIV-1 in response to stimulation with a monokine-enriched supernatant prepared by culturing human monocyte/macrophages with bacterial LPS (LPS-MO SN).

Chomczynski, P. "A new method of total RNA isolation by a single extraction with an acid guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform mixture is described."

Kwok S, "Although these serological tests have significant sensitivity and specificity for detecting exposure to the virus, they do not provide direct identification of HIV."

All these studies and the other whatever thousands you say exist, are so riddled with supposition, contradictions, doubt, assumptions built on assumptions, many with ending statements; additional study required, if we understood, ECT., its a wonder how anyone could even begin to believe in such ridiculous crap. Thanks CHris for making that link as a reminder how demented you guys really are.

What do you think Figure 3 is?

Here's another study.

Western blot profiles, lymph node ultrastructure and viral expression in HIV-infected patients: a correlative study.

And another.

LAV-like viral particles in lymph node germinal centers in patients with the persistent lymphadenopathy syndrome and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-related complex: an ultrastructural study of 30 cases.

cooler, the more you write, the worse you look. Get mental help, seriously, your grip on reality is not nearly as good as you seem to think it is. And you're a nasty-minded little git, as well, which is not actually something you should be proud of.

Kevin made a rare kinda valid point yesterday.

I don't expect to agree with every HIV dissident on every issue; however, that does not mean that those with whom I disagree on a particular issue, say "abortion", are not right about other issues

well of course. What's right doesn't depend on things about the person who knows what's right. Republican or Democrat, meat eater or vegetarian, smoker or non-smoker, SUV driver or environment conscious. You can be any of these things and be totally right or wrong about something else.

Scientists are almost all Democrats but even most conservatives do agree HIV causes AIDS. And a few progressive people fall for HIV denial.

Henry Bauer isn't wrong BECAUSE he wrote that nasty stuff and still had that offensive writing on his website after he says he decided maybe gays were ok and he had a lot of gay friends but he didn't say anything against it on the website til aidstruth exposed him.

AAPS isn't wrong BECAUSE they published even more bigoted stuff than Henry Baeur and they have some members that are homophobes and racists.

They're wrong because they're stuff is flawed. Their logic sucks or its based on wrong assuming.

BUT these people are very educated. Why would they get decieved by this or maybe lie about stuff they know isn't true. That's why the homophobia evidence is relavent. Because it says maybe this is why educated smart people can make such flawed conclusions or ignore facts and use bad thinking they wouldn't use for other subjecs.

Another thing is, what I think about AAPS isn't just because they are anti-immigrant and anti-choice and publish homophobic stuff. Yeah so I disagree with them personally on that. I'm disgusted actually. But it's more important, like Richard showed us they put stuff from the bible!! in a science journal? So if that's the kinda evidence they're gonna except, its not science its propaganda!

IT's not these people are religious or hateful makes them wrong its their hatred and religion gets put into their science and then its not science anymore.

For those who believe that Robert Gallo is a saint, they should read chapter 25 of the new book by Stephen's Davis, ARE YOU POSITIVE. It quite nicely sums up the integrity of Gallo.

Noreen "are you positive" is a fiction novel.

No one says Robert Gallo is a saint in fact probably no one here believes in saints. What we say is, you noreen have repeated vicios lies about a man you never met. Vicious lies from character assasins who spent years of their life trying to bring down Gallo.

Robert Gallo wasn't charged with a crime. He wasn't pardoned by Bill Clinton because there wasn't anything to pardon. Nothing he got accused of ever got upheald. Like I said before say you don't like the guy or you don't like his personality but don't tell lies about him.

From Christine Maggiore:
To Chris Noble & others:

Photographs of Eliza Jane's lung tissue slides are posted on the internet for your comments. These slides appear to show no evidence of the pneumonia that supposedly took my daughter's life. Will you please indicate where you find evidence of fatal PCP? The experts you may be relying on for your opinions about my daughter's death haven't said one word about these photos. Apparently, "Orac" can't find the evidence, Bennett hasn't managed point to it, and Wainberg--despite his obsessive interest in my daughter--can't cough it up. Can you please do so? If so, please respond to the JusticeForEJ web site immediately as there is a 19 year old man awaiting release from prison because of these slides which were used as NEGATIVE CONTROLS FOR PNEUMONIA in proving his daughter was not murdered, but had died of pneumonia and medical complications.

If you see pneumonia, I believe you have a civic duty to speak up and prevent another alleged child killer from going unpunished.

Yes, it is a fiction novel but it is based on fact. Adele, you might ought to read it when it comes out next month.

"cooler, the more you write, the worse you look. Get mental help, seriously, your grip on reality is not nearly as good as you seem to think it is. And you're a nasty-minded little git, as well, which is not actually something you should be proud of."

Dear Ms. catwomen,
Im a nice guy, and damn good looking as well. They are the ones who have been calling us names whether is "nutjobs" or "denialists" etc, so I respond the way one should with personal attacks, I learned it from them, its all good fun anyways! I couldnt care less about what they say about me, I just give them the response they invited.

The 9/11 issue is an issue of where the evidence leads, nothing to get so touchy and emotional about. Some people are not going to beleive that planes vanish into thin air while terrorists passports survive, that its ok to block investigations like Cheney tried to do, that its strange that they could end all this madness by releasing the 80 cameras at the Pentagon and they don't, that all 90 columns of building 7 failed at the same time, when fire/damage has never caused a building to collapse.....................

You are just going to have to get used to it because everyday thousands of more people are demanding answers on HIV and 9/11 etc.

See loose change on google, the most watched internet movie ever, about 9/11. (dedicated to the lurkers here)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Adele,

I can't let this one go unaddressed:

RE:
"Another thing is, what I think about AAPS isn't just because they are anti-immigrant and anti-choice and publish homophobic stuff. Yeah so I disagree with them personally on that. I'm disgusted actually. But it's more important, like Richard showed us they put stuff from the bible!! in a science journal? So if that's the kinda evidence they're gonna except, its not science its propaganda!

Here is what my homophobic friend, former AAPS President Jane Orient had to say before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice a few years ago. Notice her many references to god, Mexican immigrants that should be deported, etc. When her successor and I, Chester Danehauer testified before the Illinois PTA, and he spoke about his experiences with vaccine damage and Stephen Johnson's syndrome, I didn't notice him making statements about God, Hispanic deportation, abortion rights, etc. either.

Adele, you disgust me with your lies and distortions! Should we accept your asking us to wear arm bands with little stars or something on them now?

Statement of the ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS and SURGEONS to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives. Regarding the HEPATITIS B VACCINE on June 14, 1999:

Submitted by Jane Orient, M.D.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Jane Orient, M.D. I am a practicing internist from Tucson, Arizona, and serve as the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons ("AAPS").

AAPS is a nationwide organization of physicians devoted to defending the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship. AAPS revenue is derived almost exclusively from membership dues. We receive no government funding, foundation grants, or revenue from vaccine manufacturers. No members of our governing body (the Board of Directors), have a conflict of interest because of a position with an agency making vaccine policy or any entity deriving profits from mandatory vaccines....

With hepatitis B vaccine, the case for mandatory immunization with few exemptions is far less persuasive than with smallpox or polio vaccines, which protected against highly lethal or disabling, relatively common, and easily transmissible diseases. An intelligent and conscientious physician might well recommend AGAINST hepatitis B vaccine, especially in newborns, unless a baby is at unusual risk because of an infected mother or household contact or membership in a population in which disease is common.

AAPS awaits the release of full information concerning the licensure of hepatitis B vaccine and the mandate for newborn immunizations, as requested under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Vaccine Information Center. It is imperative that independent scientists have the opportunity to review the raw data. In the meantime, all coercive means for increasing the immunization rate should be immediately discontinued. Fully informed consent should be sought before vaccine is administered. This requires full and honest disclosure of the risks and uncertainties of the vaccine, in comparison with the risks of the disease.

Information given to parents about this vaccine often does not meet the requirement for full disclosure. For example, it may state that "getting the disease is far more likely to cause serious illness than getting the vaccine." This may be literally true, but it is seriously misleading if the risk of getting the disease is nearly zero (as is true for most American newborns). It may also be legalistically true that "no serious reactions have been known to occur due to the hepatitis B recombinant vaccine." However, relevant studies have not been done to investigate whether the temporal association of vaccine with serious side effects is purely coincidental or not.

An independent review of the VAERS data; publications by governmental, pro-vaccine, and anti-vaccine groups; and a sample of the medical literature leads to the following conclusions:

For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B.

Overall, the incidence of hepatitis B in the U.S. is currently about 4 per 100,000. The risk for most young children is far less; hepatitis B is heavily concentrated in groups at high risk due to occupation, sexual promiscuity, or drug abuse.

VAERS contains 25,000 reports related to hepatitis B vaccine, about one-third of which were serious enough to lead to an emergency room visit, hospitalization, or death. It is often assumed that only 10% of reactions are reported. (This committee has heard testimony about persons being actively discouraged from reporting, even if they are aware of the reporting system.) Thus, if there have been some 80,000 serious adverse reactions associated with 20 million doses of vaccine, the risk is about 4 in 1000.

(This calculation depends on many assumptions. Moreover, many of the patients experiencing temporally associated adverse reactions had simultaneously received more than one vaccine. Nevertheless, a better estimate has not been put forth.)

It should be noted that a less than 1 in 1,000,000 purely hypothetical risk may be used to justify costly federal regulations on highly useful products that are used voluntarily.

*In nearly 20% of VAERS reports, the first of eight listed side effects suggests central nervous system involvement.

Examining the first listed effects shows about 4,600 involving such symptoms as prolonged screaming, agitation, apnea, ataxia, visual disturbances, convulsions, tremors, twitches, an abnormal cry, hypotonia, hypertonia, abnormal sensations, stupor, somnolence, neck rigidity, paralysis, confusion, and oculogyric crisis. The last is a striking feature of post-encephalitic Parkinson's disease, or it may occur as a dystonic reaction to certain drugs such as phenothiazines.

The CDC admits that the results of ongoing studies on a potential association of hepatitis B vaccine and demyelinating diseases such as multiple sclerosis are not yet available.....

CONCLUSIONS

Public policy regarding vaccines is fundamentally flawed. It is permeated by conflicts of interest. It is based on poor scientific methodology (including studies that are too small, too short, and too limited in populations represented), which is, moreover, insulated from independent criticism. The evidence is far too poor to warrant overriding the independent judgments of patients, parents, and attending physicians, even if this were ethically or legally acceptable.

AAPS opposes federal mandates for vaccines, on principle, on the grounds that they are:

1.An unconstitutional expansion of the power of the federal government.
2.An unconstitutional delegation of power to a public-private partnership.
3.An unconstitutional and destructive intrusion into the patient-physician and parent-child relationships.
4.A violation of the Nuremberg Code in that they force individuals to have medical treatment against their will, or to participate in the functional equivalent of a vast experiment without fully informed consent.
5.A violation of rights to free speech and to the practice of one's religion (which may require one to keep oaths).
AAPS would specifically oppose the campaign for universal immunization against hepatitis B, even if the above did not apply, because the safety of the vaccine is in question.

From Christine Maggiore whose daughter died from too many lymphocytes (10,800/ul) and who has never been ill and tests inconsistently positive on the "AIDS" tests:

Can someone post this for me at Tara's Aetiology blog? Will all you all post
this anywhere and everywhere these vultures circle over my dead daughter,
cawing and shreiking? I am so sick of it all!

>From Christine Maggiore:

Photographs of Eliza Jane's lung tissue slides are posted on the internet
for your comments. These slides appear to show no evidence of the pneumonia
that supposedly took my daughter's life.

Will you please indicate where you find evidence of fatal PCP? The experts
you may be relying on for your opinions about my daughter's death haven't
said one word about these photos. Apparently, "Orac" can't find the
evidence, Bennett hasn't managed to point it out, and Wainberg--despite his
obsessive interest in my daughter--can't cough it up. Can you please do so?

If so, please respond to the JusticeForEJ web site immediately as there is a
19 year old man awaiting release from prison because of these slides which
were used as NEGATIVE CONTROLS FOR PNEUMONIA in proving his daughter was not
murdered, but had died of pneumonia and medical complications.

If you see pneumonia, I believe you have a civic duty to speak up and
prevent another alleged child killer from going unpunished.

Please take time from blogging and take a stand for justice.

This is really sad some denialist pretending to be Maggiore. That's disgusting. Michael Geiger just said last night Christine "asked" him to put something on here, so why did she do that if she just comes on hear herself?

Whoever "christine" is, Michael Geiger or David Crowe probably, why should experts respond? This is apples and oranges anyway its a waste of everyone's time.

What kind of pnuemonia was her daughter's slides used as negative control for? Was it PCP? Of course not.

Interesting thing, I make a point to learn about conditions my kids have. For example if my child got diagnosed with PCP and especially god forbid if they died and someone accused me of not getting treatment for her, I would find out more about it how it works how you test for it how its different from other pnuemonia.

I'm not a pathologist and unlike some people I admit it but the pnuemonia Bayati's seeing in this other kid is completely different sort from Maggiore's kid. So of course its negative. Let's see the silver stain of those slides and let's find out where they're from and then maybe Bennett or someone more experienced then me will respond.

So I wonder what Bayati says killed this other child? Iatrogenic I bet maybe a saline drip?

Oh and Andrew I gave you my opinion of AAPS one that alot of people share. To me their anti immigrant anti choice. Maybe you have different standards or maybe your that way too I don't know you and I don't really care unless you pretend science supports bigotry.

So tell me andrew and don't just paste testimony of someone of course people don't say this stuff in public unless they're dumb, did AAPS or didn't they
-publish that vile stuff Richard told us about?
-pass a resolution in 2003 "Affirming the Sanctity of Human Life" i.e. sorry you DON'T get a choice!?
-tell the FDA they're against morning-after pills?
-again and again say abortions cause breast cancer?
-publish stuff about immigrants being a drain on health care? including a quote "the increasing number of illegal aliens coming into the United States is forcing the closure of hospitals, spreading previously vanquished diseases and threatening to destroy America's prized health-care system."

How many of these things are wrong Andrew?

Redifining STUPIDITY! You should call your blog that. Or Science Whores form outer space, even better. Pathetic. You will all eat dirt on this as more of us prove that you are all wrong with every minute that goes by.

From Christine Maggiore:

Photographs of Eliza Jane's lung tissue slides are posted on the internet for your comments. These slides appear to show no evidence of the pneumonia that supposedly took my daughter's life.

Will you please indicate where you find evidence of fatal PCP? The experts you may be relying on for your opinions about my daughter's death haven't said one word about these photos. Apparently, "Orac" can't find the evidence, Bennett hasn't managed to point it out, and Wainberg--despite his obsessive interest in my daughter--can't cough it up. Can you please do so?

If so, please respond to the JusticeForEJ web site immediately as there is a 19 year old man awaiting release from prison because of these slides which were used as NEGATIVE CONTROLS FOR PNEUMONIA in proving his daughter was not murdered, but had died of pneumonia and medical complications.

If you see pneumonia, I believe you have a civic duty to speak up and prevent another alleged child killer from going unpunished.

Please take time from blogging and take a stand for justice.

Chris:
You're just spewing more bull shit about finding electron micrographs of non-cultered HIV virus - there are none in any of those ref. you make. -- Just crappy nonscense dealing with Antibodies, dendritic cells and virus-like particles.

This is my first and last time here. I only come to support Christine and to express my total disgust for this kind of blog and the utter garbage posted here by some wannabe scientist with a bad attitude and a very obtuse mind. I am surprised to find so many posts here by my friends the dissidents who dignify this junk with intelligent posts.

All I have to say to this woman is: get a life. That way you may start to actually see and hear, as opposed to having delusions and hear voices. Remember that you are just a member of an institution that has no credibility left with anyone anymore. You should be congratulated for making such a staggering contribution to that state of affairs. Brava! Bravissima!!

Manu.

> From Christine Maggiore:

Photographs of Eliza Jane's lung tissue slides are posted on the internet for your comments. These slides appear to show no evidence of the pneumonia that supposedly took my daughter's life.

Will you please indicate where you find evidence of fatal PCP? The experts you may be relying on for your opinions about my daughter's death haven't said one word about these photos. Apparently, "Orac" can't find the evidence, Bennett hasn't managed to point it out, and Wainberg--despite his obsessive interest in my daughter--can't cough it up. Can you please do so?

If so, please respond to the JusticeForEJ web site immediately as there is a 19 year old man awaiting release from prison because of these slides which were used as NEGATIVE CONTROLS FOR PNEUMONIA in proving his daughter was not murdered, but had died of pneumonia and medical complications.

If you see pneumonia, I believe you have a civic duty to speak up and prevent another alleged child killer from going unpunished.

Please take time from blogging and take a stand for justice.

Adele,

The content, tone, voice, and signature of Christine Maggiore's post is unmistakeable. It's interesting to see how your minds works, how it makes leaps, how it conjures things as not only true, but "disgusting," ie, in this instance, that some "sad denialist," who is not Maggiore wrote that post.

If only as an experiment in factual forensics, (how we come to believe that which we believe,) are you willing to do the following:

1. I am 100% certain that Christine Maggiore is the author of the Christine Maggiore post.
2. If I can find a way to "prove" this, will you then write, using your name, a concession that what you speculated was wrong, misleading, and indeed suggestive of a tin ear?

I am so fascinated by you denialist hunters, and how you behave when solid facts are literally pinned through your flailing invective and slander. I am fascinated by how you then adjust reality, how you caterpillar on, how you never say 'I was wrong,' because indeed you have such a systemic disrespect for "right and wrong." Right is whatever bubbles up in your angry minds about anybody whose life has given them cause to think HIV is not pathogenic. I think your consciences must be troubled, deep down, by this abominable conduct toward a grieving mother.

On that point there is no earthly way you can be "right."
Show me a single spiritual teaching by any avatar who has ever lived that says it is OK to cast stones on a mother who has suffered the worst imaginable loss of a child. Show me one who says compassion stops at the line of demarcation where another person's perceptions differ from your own.

Hello Adele,

This is Christine Maggiore and I'm making an exception for you. I don't do blogs; I am unwilling to invest my time in virtual scientific wrestling matches. If anyone wants to debate or discuss AIDS issues with me, they can meet with me in person, in a public forum here in Los Angeles. This invitation includes travel and lodging and has been extended to a number of AIDS enthusiasts who spend endless hours pontificating about me and my daughter from the safety and anonymity of cyberspace.

In reply to your question about comparing pneumonia apples to pneumonia oranges, here's one way to arrive at an answer: Choose the pneumonia you'd like to see in my daughter's lung tissue slides and try to find it. From what I understand, her lungs show no pneumonia of any kind, which is why the slides are used for negative controls. In other words, if a room is empty, does it matter what sort of furniture isn't there?

Since, as you mention, you are a mother and not a pathologist, and don't know how to distinguish between different types of pneumonia, it's interesting that you mention silver staining, a technical process and term most moms don't know.

In any case, if you or anyone writing on your behalf wants to come to Los Angeles and speak face to face in public about AIDS, pneumonia, silver staining, HIV tests, or perhaps the unclaimed $50,000 Fact Finder Award posted at Alive & Well site (http://www.aliveandwell.org), please let me know. The weather is lovely and a debate would be quick leaving lots of time for site seeing.

I'm sorry your kids have multiple health conditions that require your time and attention.

Thank you,

Christine

Bon-Fires Back in Fashion!
A few points regarding Ms. Maggiore's daughter E.J. who died after her first exposure to an antibiotic. It's interesting to note that none of E.J.'s three licensed physicians ever expressed concerns about her health or immune system in any of her medical records.
During her life, none of the three ever described EJ as being unhealthy, immune compromised or anything less than normal. And of course there's nothing in the records about sudden onset late-stage AIDS that the intrepid Dr. Ribe thoughtfully concocted for E.J. at four months post mortem.

As someone who knew E.J. personally and as someone with years of professional experience working with immune compromised (birth to five years) I can affirm that E.J. did not have an immune disorder. On the contrary, she was a healthy, bright, and active little girl as multiple
witnesses have testified.

EJ's teachers and babysitters (all whom are mandated by law to report abuse and neglect) have all stated the same, that E.J. was unusually bright and very active, and never ill ( http://justiceforej.com/fleiss-testimony-evidence.html).

Notice how those in this group who are the most vocal in their attacks against Ms. Maggiore also have the least amount of direct knowledge of E.J.'s case. Notice how none of you these armchair pundits were included in the police investigation, and none were invited to testify in a court of law. The fact is that medical records, witness testimony and facts gathered by LAPD made it impossible to charge Maggiore with abuse or negligence.

I am shocked and offended by the reckless and hateful statements here, especially coming from university professors and other professionals in the scientific community. This blog misrepresents the facts and ignores profound evidence in the case in order to exploit the death of Ms. Maggiore's child for personal agendas. The objective here appears to be destroying Maggiore, inciting hate and more attacks, rather than analyzing and discussing the facts.

Speaking of facts, how come none of the AIDS experts who agreed with the coroner's conclusion that E.J. died of pneumonia are speaking up since the photographic images of E.J.'s pneumonia-free lung tissue slides have been
published online? The loudest and most adamant insisters that E.J. died of pneumonia suddenly went silent when this new evidence was made public. Dr Nicholas Bennett, Dr David Gorski (AKA "Orac"), and Dr. John P Moore not
only have nothing to say on the topic, they have all cowered from a chance to meet Maggiore face to face for a public debate http://www.rethinkingaids/challenges/html Which one of you self-appointed experts would show up in their place?

The sad fact is that no matter what E.J. had died of--poisoning, drowning in a swimming pool or being hit by a car--her death would generate a feeding frenzy among people who cannot tolerate views on AIDS that run
counter to their own. It is quite clear that those of you who continue to condemn Ms. Maggiore care nothing for her lost child, or her family and care only about reinforcing the medical dogma on AIDS. The hateful view on this
blog reveal a mob of self-righteous rock-throwers (and possible relatives of Nancy Grace) who have much in common with the crusaders and other misguided zealots on dubious missions to save souls and save the world. This is not
the dark ages, yet university trained zealots refuse to tolerate anything less than a consensus-diagnosis of death-by-AIDS simply because Eliza Jane Scovill is the child of Christine Maggiore, a loving and thoughtful mother who dared to disagree with simple minded, unproven, advice to poison herself and her child.

According to the latest science, Ms. Maggiore did the right thing by suckling her babes for "cryin' out loud!" Apparently, you've been too busy running lynch mobs to notice the two huge mainstream studies that conclude
exclusive breastfeeding PREVENTS HIV transmission
http://www.anotherlook.org)

How come you never talk about the other child Maggiore breastfed, for "cryin' out loud," the one that tests HIV negative? How do you explain that?
And how come no one ever ponders the anomaly of Maggiore's husband of 10 plus years whose never worn a condom and tests repeatedly negative? You just edit out the parts of the story that don't square with your ideas on so-called HIV transmission, for "cryin out loud!"

These gaping holes in logic seems to matter not to a group of adults who would exploit the accidental death of a child who's life was cut short by an adverse reaction to antibiotics.

When I look back at the outpouring of hate, lunacy and hysteria surrounding the tragedy of Eliza Jane's death by those unfamiliar with the facts and how all this was directed towards Maggiore, you all seem like descendants of the depraved and unenlightened folks that burned women as witches. In another time, you were the ones throwing midwives and medicine women on a fire, you were the orthodox physicians who treated the sick with arsenic, mercury, and blood-lettings. It seems Salem bon fires are back in fashion at this blog with Ms. Maggiore accused of witchery for rejecting poisons for herself and her family (and apparently, magically able to spare her husband and son from the devil virus). Your biggest fear is a reality--Maggiore is not alone, she is part of a tidal wave of evolved citizens rejecting toxic immune destroying drugs (poisons) and vaccines--and all your attacks on her won't
change the fact that your paradigm is crumbling.

I wonder, can anyone on this blog take a few minutes off from witch burning to win the $25,000 cash Maggiore offers for a single scientific study validating HIV tests? Note to all of those deeply concerned about the suffering in
Africa: Maggiore will also give another $25,000 to feed starving people there, as part of the prize. The offer is posted on her home page at http://www.aliveandwell.org and you have everything to gain by turning your focus from Christine and EJ to the facts.

Perhaps constructive efforts to feed starving Africans and evidence based scientific exploration will one day distract this angry mob clinging desperately to a tired mantra that EJ died of AIDS.

Ps. To answer one blogger's simplistic question "So when do overall lymphocyte measures count as meaningful?"
Only when people are not ill, or only when you decide they're meaningful? Are you also saying the WHO is wrong to use overall lymph counts to diagnose AIDS in children?
Maybe it's time to stop blogging and alert the WHO to this bright new idea.

You mention that ER personnel did not notice symptoms of anaphylactic shock, but did not mention they noted no symptoms of pneumonia, either. Using your logic, Eliza Jane could not have died of pneumonia or anaphylaxis.

It's interesting to note that none of E.J.'s three licensed physicians ever
expressed concerns about her health or immune system in any of her medical records.
During her life, none of the three ever described EJ as being unhealthy,
immune compromised or anything less than normal. And of course there's
nothing in the records about sudden onset late-stage AIDS that the intrepid
Dr. Ribe thoughtfully concocted for E.J. at four months post mortem.

As someone who knew E.J. personally and as someone with years of
professional experience working with immune compromised (birth
to five years) I can affirm that E.J. did not have an immune disorder. On the contrary, she was a healthy, bright, and active little girl as multiple witnesses have testified.

EJ's teachers and babysitters (all whom are mandated by law to report abuse and neglect) have all stated the same, that E.J. was unusually bright and very active, and never ill
(http://justiceforej.com/fleiss-testimony-evidence.html).

Notice how no one in this group has direct knowledge of E.J.'s case. Notice how none of you were included in the police investigation, none of you were invited to testify in a court of law. The fact is that medical records, witness testimony and facts gathered by LAPD made it impossible to charge Maggiore with abuse or negligence.

I am shocked and offended by the reckless and hateful statements here, especially coming from university professors. This blog misrepresents the facts and ignores profound evidence in the case in order to exploit the death of Ms. Maggiore's child for your own agendas. The objective here appears to be destroying Maggiore, inciting hate and more attacks, rather than analyzing the facts.

Speaking of facts, how come none of the AIDS experts who agreed with the coroner's conclusion that E.J. died of pneumonia are speaking up since the photographic images of E.J.'s pneumonia-free lung tissue slides have been published online? The loudest and most adamant insisters that E.J. died of
pneumonia suddenly went silent when this new evidence was made public. Dr
Nicholas Bennett, Dr David Gorski (AKA "Orac"), and Dr. John P Moore not only have nothing to say on the topic, they have all cowered from a chance to meet Maggiore face to face for a public debate
(http://www.rethinkingaids/challenges/html). Which one of you self-appointed experts would show up in their place?

The sad fact is that no matter what E.J. had died of--poisoning, drowning
in a swimming pool or being hit by a car--her death would generate a
feeding frenzy among people who cannot tolerate views on AIDS that run
counter to their own. It is quite clear that those of you who continue to condemn Ms. Maggiore care nothing for her lost child, or her family and care only about reinforcing the medical dogma on AIDS. The hateful view on this blog reveal a bloodthirsty mob of self-righteous rock-throwers (and possible relatives of Nancy Grace) who have much in common with the crusaders and other misguided zealots on dubious missions to save the world. This is not the dark ages, yet university trained zealots refuse to tolerate anything less than a consensus-diagnosis of death-by-AIDS simply because Eliza Jane Scovill is the child of Christine Maggiore, a loving and thoughtful mother who dared to disagree with simple minded, unproven, advice to poison herself and her child.

According to the latest science, Ms. Maggiore did the right thing by suckling her babes for "cryin' out loud!" Apparently, you've been too busy running lynch mobs to notice the two huge mainstream studies that conclude exclusive breastfeeding PREVENTS HIV transmission http://www.anotherlook.org)

How come you never talk about the other child Maggiore breastfed, for "cryin' out loud," the one that tests HIV negative? How do you explain that? And how come no one ever ponders the anamoly of Maggiore's husband of 10 plus years whose never worn a condom and tests repeatedly negative? You just edit out the parts of the story that don't square with your ideas on so-called HIV transmission, for "cryin out loud!"

These gaping holes in logic seems to matter not to a group of adults who would exploit the accidental death of a child who's life was cut short by an adverse reaction to antibiotics.

When I look back at the outpouring of hate, lunacy and hysteria surrounding the tragedy of Eliza Jane's death by those unfamiliar with the facts and how all this was directed towards Maggiore, you all seem like descendants of the depraved and unenlightened folks that burned women as witches. In another time, you were the ones throwing midwives and medicine women on a fire, you were the orthodox physicians who treated the sick with arsenic, mercury, and blood-lettings. It seems Salem bon fires are back in fashion at this blog with Ms. Maggiore accused of witchery for rejecting poisons for herself and her family (and apparently, magically able to spare her husband and son from the devil virus). Your biggest fear is a reality-- Maggiore is not alone, she is part of a tidal wave of evolved citizens rejecting toxic immune destroying drugs (poisons) and vaccines--and all your attacks on her won't change the fact that your paradigm is crumbling.

I wonder, can anyone on this blog take a few minutes off from witch burning to win
the $25,000 cash Maggiore offers for a single scientific study validating
HIV tests? Note to all of those deeply concerned about the suffering in Africa:
Maggiore will also give another $25,000 to feed starving people there, as
part of the prize. The offer is posted on her home page at
http://www.aliveandwell.org and you have everything to gain by turning your
focus from Christine and EJ to the facts.

Perhaps efforts to feed starving Africans and evidence based scientific exploration will one day distract this angry mob clinging desperately to a tired mantra that EJ died of AIDS.

SA Sarnoff, President & Co-founder

Health Advocacy in the Public Interest

Santa Barbara CA

Celia,
I didn't say "sad denialist" I said And I said it because what the hell? Can't Maggiore get on the internet herself? Why would she have her slaves do this for her? Is she some queen or something? And the answer is yes she thinks she's a queen she comes on here and says hi adele this is christine maggiore like frigging queen elizabeth whose pageboy didn't show up that day.

If you Celia were a compatent journalist you could at least get some quotes right. But your a denailist who can't shut up with the agitprop even after you say your done with this topic. So I have nothing to say to you. Your a failure. You know it. Youre done. I laugh at you.

Now Christine,
How dare you insult me and my children? with your stupid little comment about "I'm sorry your kids have multiple health conditions that require your time and attention." What the hell would you know about that? Everyone's kids have "multiple health conditions". But YOU only let your kids see doctors who're into your own woo becuase you don't want to admit you got HIV and those doctors deny your kid was underweight and all that for two and a half years. You seem to know so much about my kids so you must know my son was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and he takes some medication for that. And he's doing much better now thank you. Now I could have gone into denial when ifound out and said oh I don't believe bipolar exists. That's something the pahrmas manufactured. That's a lie. They just want money. Therefore I'll only take him to doctors that don't believe in depression or bipolar or medical intervention. And I'll keep him away from anyone who can confront the problem. And I'll ignore all the symptoms. And I'll just wait until he jumps off a bridge or gets committed somewhere. And I'll start a organization that says bipolar doesn't exist and say people should never treat their children.

But guess what I didn't do that. I read the literature I found out the equivalent of what a silver stain is in bipolar disorder which is actually much more complicated and less understood than HIV and AIDS. Before I decided to open my mouth and lecture people about it. And you know what else if god forbid my son died i wouldn't have my lackeys publish stuff with his tissues. I would bury him and grieve for him and remember him and not use him as some kinda pawn in my own sick twiested little campaign against people who try to help mentally ill patients.

Sorry I'm so emotional about this but this is ridiculous. you insult me and my children when what kindof mom are you you defend the guy who watched your kid die and maybe could of done something about it. This trendy Hollywood dude Fleiss whose daughter was I don't know what and made a name for himself with anti-circumcision and didn't test if your child had HIV.

And you insult all scientists with your stupid 50,000 prize for whats already been proved? You know what Christine if your serious put that money in escrow and then hire a five person panel of scientists NOT people on your board but real scientists respected scientists they don't have to work with HIV make sure their impartial. And then get back to us because your full of it! You don't want proof your doing a circus stunt.

And those photographs? if you really don't know a silver stain from a H&E or how PCP is different from bacterial than I don't even know what to say it's like you don't know the difference between a brain tumor and skin cancer. Get real and educate yourself. You know what else I think ok first you can't compare PCP H&E to bacterial pnuemona H&E that's right. And also I think someone messed with the contrast on those pics your giving so you don't see the foamy exudates the coroner defanitely saw. Unless you look really close. And that makes me wonder why are you bringing it all up again?

I despise you christine maggiore and I care less what you say about me and my kids. REspond or don't respond i don't care this is my last contact with you.

Dont mind adele, shes on these blogs 24/7 and I highly doubt her claims that she has a masters in biology and is a PCR tech.

Sorry about that everyone. I calmed down a little bit so

Sushi. You said
You mention that ER personnel did not notice symptoms of anaphylactic shock, but did not mention they noted no symptoms of pneumonia, either.

Um, there was cyanosis, umm, not getting enough oxygen. And then the hospital report says the chest x-ray showed pneumonia.

Did you ever read the hospital report?

It also says one of EJ's doctors diagnosed her with pneumonia, that's something you don't hear anything about and that was supposedly based on an interview with the little girl's mother.

Are these all lies? The hospital people getting in on the big conspiracy with all the people in the coroners office and 100,000 scientists and techs plus alot of pharma employees and politicians and god where does it end millions of people? Cooler's little 9-11 conspiracy is believable next to that.

My dear Christine, Celia and the rest who invest time and energy in trying to debate with people like this.

As much as I said that i would not write again i just could not help myself looking in again to see how the debate was progressing (if that's the right word for it) and I must say that after reading the response to all those posts left by everyone I had to pour myself a stiff vodka and ginger ale.

It must be totally evident from this response what you are all dealing with here. If this is not paranoid schizophrenia I don't know what is. This is the kind of person we are dealing with who push and believe in the HIV voodoo and who we all hope to convince that there is no such thing as contagious AIDS.

I must admit that I am shocked to see such pathetic outburst by someone who claims to have intelligence enough to tell us all we are wrong to believe what we believe. This is very disturbing indeed. The bizarre mixture of sheer stupidity coupled with the intent to play victim is nauseating.

I hope no one will try and explain to her that no one has insulted her children; except maybe herself by being so unbelievably deceitful and manipulative on a human level.

I am also glad she herself exposes own sheer hate for people who challenge her lies. She is just like Abigail from The Crucible who will stop at nothing to get her own way. But there are many Proctor's who will stand up to her and her kind, mirror in hand to show them exactly where the virus=devil they see and need to believe in really is.

"A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours! For them that quail to bring men out ignorance, as I have quailed, and as you quail now when you know in all your black hearts that this be fraud? God damns our kind especially, and we will burn, we will burn together!"

A. Miller

I am quite curious, "Manu": which lies do you imagine have been told by this commenter you so vehemently denounce?

The rage, I fear, the irrational hatred, appears to be in your camp. You find one laboratory technician, out of the tens of thousands of scientists who dismiss your unfounded denialism out-of-hand, who (in my opinion unwisely) is willing to debate you, then direct at her all of your foul spleen.

And you wonder why respected scientists refuse to debate you?

miss tara -

your response to Christine and Celia is very unprofessional
- and verbally abusive. Christine s daughter did not look
underweight by any standard and any mother can see it. Nor
did Christine bring it up - she has been hounded since her
daughters death .
There are may interesting studies you can access - also on
the internet , in addition to blog pages like yours - that
discuss the very low risk , for one, of mother to child transmission via breastfeeding and the greater benefits of
feeding - they are probably the same RATIO as the benefits versus the ADVERSE AFFECT 3/4 potential of HAART but we dont
criminalise pharmaceutical companies or administering doctors when patients die of Nevirapine intolerance as one example . We do not criminalise and insult slander and character assasinate - as you do so readily and smugly - those zealous scientists doctors and researchers who use
babies enfants and children for HUMAN TRIALS for known toxic medications . We allow them to dose children in foster care
to the MAXIMUM Limit with multiple medications - polypharmace. This is something that is genuinely contemptible and Celia Farber was one of the committed and
meticulous researchers for the BBC in developing the film documentary of the ICC - Incarnation Childrens Centre in NYC -where children were forcibly medicated until - they died.
What do you have to say on this topic as you have such broad based ethical concerns about hiv treatment management and care . I would be very interested to hear.
I am 'hiv antibody positive ' also. I have never been ill and I dont take HAART. I did for 1 1/2 years and I was so sick and had several AIDS defining illnesses FROM TREATMENT
that I had to give up work and I decided to stop taking these horrific drugs. I have been HIV Drug Free for 10 months now - and no viral rebound no cd4 decimation no illness no decline nothing . I have gradually reversed to my former perfect health.
And why is it that when you get a mathematician and statistician on a roll and study the developing epidemic of
'LOCALISED' HIV Epidemics , there is no reasonable rationale for why they are localised - one example being Papua New Guineas hiv population of - 57,000 in a total pop of less than 8 million whereas in nearby Australia where all the ingredients for epidemic infection have only produced a total hiv aids population of less than 6,000. What gives?
If you look into the history of the island land laws and the attractiveness of this island to foreign industry you may see an altogether new rationale for localised epidemics .
I believe Christine Maggiore was an exemplary mother and in your great democratic society - Land of the Free - she had the right to make both moral and medical choices , after informing herself , for her family.
Many MANY people of other religions and belief systems other than your Pharma Driven Culture - do not have access to HAART if you want to go along with mainstream theories on HIV - and your esteemed colleagues in hiv and aids research into alternative and cheaper treatment solutions regularly
run treatment programs based on indigenous herbal treatments and also on micro nutrients something your colleague Jeanne
Bergman does not seem to be up to date with - do you call them quacks ? They are funded by your government.
Just to finish my son had a false positive which I will never forget . Three tests on he is - negative , and I
also breastfed my son while in the ante natal ward in order to bond with him after a traumatic birth .
The collective arrogance and abusive comments of your professional colleagues leaves your own credibility in
question and if I had to receive treatment or diagnosis
from someone who communicates as you do - I would stay
as far away from medical services as I could - which
incidentally is why so many people do - backed up by studies
into patient doctor communication studies and presented at
AIDS Conferences - which I have attended .

The entire AIDS industry is a great white elephant .

Julianna Kenny

"Show me a single spiritual teaching by any avatar who has ever lived that says it is OK to cast stones on a mother who has suffered the worst imaginable loss of a child. Show me one who says compassion stops at the line of demarcation where another person's perceptions differ from your own."

Celia, consider for a moment your reaction to a situation like this: A group of people have decided, for various reasons, that food is an unnecessary luxury. Calories are not only unnecessary, but detrimental to good health. Protein, carbohydrates, fats... all superfluous to good health. Human beings can thrive simply on water, sunshine, B vitamins and love. Now, one of these people has a three year old daughter who she has maintained on this regimen, and for some inexplicable reason she failed to thrive. In fact, she died.

Where would your compassion stop in such a situation?

Of course you would feel compassion for the child, and of course you would feel compassion for the loss suffered by the misguided mother. But where would your sympathy for the mother's loss end? Is the mother blameless simply because she truly believed that her child would flourish on B vitamins and sunshine? Or does she bear some responsibility for the actions which contributed to her daughter's death, despite her deeply held personal beliefs about nutrition?

Beyond that, if the mother continued advocating to others that the best course of action would be to stop eating themselves and above all, to stop feeding their children.

Nevermind the facts of the death, whether the child died of starvation as the coroner's report states, or whether a veterinarian on the board of the mother's "You don't need food Coalition" is correct that an antibiotic for an ear infection killed the child.

Just consider how you would respond upon hearing of such an event.

You are comparing AZT a chemotherapy and posion to food! LOL

There is much evidence that you die without food, there isnt one epidemiological study designed to test whether or not hiv is the cause of AIDS, which is what you need when you dont have a reliable animal model.

There is much anecdotal evidence that people who dont take drugs dont die, look at Christine herself, if she was positive since 1992, shes alive now with no symptoms 15 years later, why should she trust the Gallo/wainberg/moore mob?

Chances are if she didnt die, and neither did many others long term survivors that her child wouldnt, and that child died of something else.

Cooler,

Of course Roy Hinkley thinks AZT is food. He has just heard John Moore talking about sprinkling it on cornflakes; and there's the well known fact that it butters a lot of people's bread.

Adele, as usual, is just a little better at giving than taking - an admirably motherly quality I must say. However, I did notice that after she had returned from her supposedly mother instinct driven state of rage, she had clean forgotten about the child murderer she can help put behind bars if she would only come in and show how
she thinks,

someone messed with the contrast on those pics your giving so you don't see the foamy exudates the coroner defanitely saw. Unless you look really close. And that makes me wonder why are you bringing it all up again.

Adele, if you would only turn up and look really close at those pictures "someone" messed with to make what the coner "definitely saw" as with your own eyes (almost) disappear, you could finally bring justice to everybody involved. So what's keeping you and the rest of the gang from doing just that? Are you really going to let Christine Maggiore and Allah knows who else get away with conspiracy and criminal tampering through your own failure to act when you had the opportunity?

Christine,

Please accept my condolences for your loss. The death of a child is always a tragedy, especially when it seems like it could have been prevented.

I don't understand why you seem to be having so much trouble finding the evidence for your late child's pneumonia. You wrote:

From what I understand, her lungs show no pneumonia of any kind, which is why the slides are used for negative controls. In other words, if a room is empty, does it matter what sort of furniture isn't there?

The Coroner's Report amply documents the evidence for Pneumocystis pneumonia. The Investigator's Narrative on page 21 summarizes the medical records obtained from Valley Presbyterian Hospital, and it states that while your daughter was in the hospital "a chest x-ray revealed pneumonia".

Have you read the chest x-ray report from your daughter's hospital admission? If you are having difficulty understanding the x-ray report, perhaps you could post it on this blog so that we can help you interpret it.

On page 4 of the Coroner's Report, the gross appearance of the lungs is described, including the following:

The parenchymae of the lower lobes of both lungs have patchy to spot-like white consolidations.

"Consolidations" are gross evidence for pneumonia, but microscopic study is typically used to confirm the diagnosis.

The microscopic studies are reported on page 16 of the Coroner's Report, which states that five slides of your daughter's lungs were examined microscopically, including one slide each of the right upper lobe (RUL), right middle lobe (RML), right lower lobe (RLL), left upper lobe (LUL), and left lower lobe (LLL):

Slides RUL, RML, RLL, LUL, LLL show the formalin-inflated lungs sectioned lobe by lobe. All lobes show pink foamy casts in the alveoli with no inflammatory response. GMS stains show teacup-shaped microorganisms in the foamy material in the alveoli.

Further down the page the Coroner indicates that the histological changes establish the diagnosis of Pneumocystis carinnii pneumonia.

It seems like a pretty straightforward case.

You seem to (erroneously) believe that the described lack of an inflammatory response completely rules out Pneumocystis pneumonia, but the possibility of such a lack is widely recognized in Pneumocystis pneumonia. As described in a standard Pathology textbook [J. Rosai (1989) Ackerman's Surgical Pathology, 7th Ed.. C. V. Mosby, St Louis. p. 287]:

.

The diagnosis [of Pneumocystis pneumonia] depends on the microscopic identification of the organism, since at present there are no reliable microbiologic or serologic tests available. Furthermore, Weber et al. (266) have found that the microscopic features supposed to be characteristic of this infection--i.e., a foamy or honeycombed intra-alveolar exudate accompanied by a lymphoplasmacytic interstitial infiltrate--may be absent. [Ref 266. Weber WR, Askin FB, Dehner LP (1977) Lung biopsy in Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia: a histopathologic study of typical and atypical features. Am J Clin Pathol 67:11-19] .

In your daughter's autopsy, the Coroner identified the frothy intra-alveolar exudates--"foamy casts"--but did not identify the interstitial inflammation. From the brief summary of the lung histology in the report, it is not even clear whether the described lack of inflammation simply refers to the foamy casts within the alveoli rather than to the lung section as a whole. Noting that the alveolar exudates lack inflammation is an important point, given that the clinical diagnosis was of a bacterial pneumonia with sepsis-- bacterial pneumonia would typically have abundant acute inflammatory cells associated with the alveolar exudates. So the Coroner may just be emphasizing that the histologic findings do not support the clinical impression of a community-acquired bacterial pneumonia but are more in keeping with an opportunistic infection in an immunocompromised host.

But even if the slides fail to show the interstitial inflammation usually associated with Pneumocystis pneumonia, that in and of itself does not rule out Pneumocystis pneumonia. In addition to Rosai's textbook, a more recent study that is freely available on the internet also documents that inflammation is not always histologically detected in Pneumocystis pneumonia (Benfield TL et al. (1997) Chest. 111:1193-1199). Table 2 of this paper grades the interstitial inflammation identified histologically on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 means no inflammatory cells, 1 means scattered inflammatory cells in a few alveoli, 3 means numerous inflammatory cells in all alveolar walls, and 2 is intermediate between 1 and 3. Note that the range of inflammation seen in Pneumocystis pneumonia ranges from 0 to 3, and that the median score is 1, i.e., scattered inflammatory cells in a few alveoli. So the lack of inflammation in your daughter's lung slides, as reported by the Coroner, does not rule out Pneumocystis pneumonia. In fact, no or scant inflammation is a common finding in this condition.

The organism, itself, is usually found in the foamy exudates, and in your daughter's autopsy the Coroner detected the organism within the exudates using the GMS stain.

Here's what Rosai's textbook (p. 287) has to say about the GMS stain in Pneumocystis pneumonia:

.

The most reliable stain for detecting the organism is Gomori's methenamine silver (GMS).

The Coroner's diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia is based upon standard pathologic methods, and the pictures posted on your web site provide no reason to doubt the diagnosis. The value of those pictures hinge upon whether they are representative of the pathologic changes in your daughter's lungs. If they are not representative of the lesions, then they are of no value whatsoever in determining the pathologic basis of your daughter's illness.

The diagnosis of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia does not require that all of the alveoli of the lungs must contain the organism. In fact, when sampling an organ for microscopy, pathologists often choose sections that include relatively normal tissue as well as the abnormal tissue, to provide an internal control for histology. If an uninvolved region of a lung slide was selected for the photographs, then the pictures shed no light on your daughter's illness. I can find an empty spot to photograph in my living room, but that wouldn't serve as proof that the room has no furniture.

I understand that when the Coroner appeared on ABC PrimeTime he showed pictures of the Pneumocystis pneumonia from your daughter's autopsy slides and that the interviewer showed you these pictures.

If you truly desire to find the Pneumocystis pneumonia in your daughter's lungs, I suggest that you study the Coroner's pictures of the pneumonia. And if you truly desire other people's assistance in finding the pneumonia, I suggest that you post the Coroner's pictures of the pneumonia on your web page and solicit comments.

Time has shown the mind of Maggiore is able to cut through scientific illusions, and dogmas using logic and wit.
Can we?

Do any of you out there who concern yourselves with attacking the mind of Maggiore also have the God given capacity to feel compassion and love for her also?

Show yourselves oh lovers of scientific-diversity...stand up oh silent ones...

Let's all think about the mind of Maggiore while we imbibe the quotations below. See if y'all can guess which scientist uttered these appropriate phrases for the terminally arrogant.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Quotations by Al. (Einstein that is)

For Nobel Rocks and co.

You are ALL liars ad profoundly STUPID. The commentator and the bunch of Salem-like prepubescent hysterics, who come to defend her; who are all involved in the equivalent to devil-voodoo-pushing they call HIV science.

I don't look at science to explain these phenomena but humanist literature of all kinds. It's all been done before and if you all just look at the world instead of down the microscopes for a while you will all be able to see that if you have the stomachs for it. But alas, that would probably mean the end of your virus-ridden fantasies you call living. So you all cling on to it for dear life, as your lives are probably worthless without it and your ego-trips will be over.

I don't have any rage or irrational hatred, I leave those to you all who daily see how you are time is running out as more of us just simply come out from under the voodoo spells you all push. It's nothing more than that and I will never tire saying it. Voodoo...voodoo!! And you all call it science. Hahaha. What a joke.

The first thing I would expect for any scientist is to be able to make a clear distinction between what is real and what is fabricated, or in this case fantasy. That should be based on hard evidence and COMMON SENSE and LOGIC, which are permanently on vacation with you lot. You all have failed on that one from the start. HIV is a fabricated convenient LIE. A construct. So, just because you then go on to create an absurd mythology based on an initial LIE does not mean that you are talking facts and science. You are all just talking about a mythology based on a fantastical LIE. Nothing more.

It's just like religion: It all hinges on the existence of God. If there is no God then you tell me what that turns all theology into? It turns it into BULLSHIT that's what it turns it all into. Theology=Bullshit. In this case, the science piled on HIV is all bullshit, because it hinges on that same principle, and there is NO proof of any HIV casing AIDS, as it cannot even be detected by any test. NO ISOLATION=NOTHING!!!

The result is a tragic-comic fantasy akin to devil possession fuelled by mass hysteria and vested interests. Nothing more. I don't have to give any scientific evidence for that. That falls to you to do and not me. You are the ones claiming that HIV=AIDS is a scientifically proven fact, even when you have NO evidence for it al all. I say it's a construct and a LIE and i can give plenty of evidence for that, like the fact you can't even detect it in a test. You have had a quarter of a century to do it and you can't. So, whoever you are don't confuse chronic boredom and cyber-shouts of FRAUD FRAUD with hate and rage. They are TAUNTS. Deserved TAUNTS calling you a FRAUD an all levels; scientific and human, and of course STUPID. Very very very STUPID.

Manu.

here, read and learn...
AIDS: A Death Cult by John Lauritsen (an extract)

If HIV were the cause of "AIDS", or any other form of illness, then there would be HIV infection in every case of the disease. This is the logic of Koch's First Postulate, a standard test of whether an infectious agent causes a disease. Not only does HIV flunk Koch's First Postulate, it has never been properly isolated. Although we all have seen pictures of HIV, these are merely artists' renditions of what HIV is assumed to look like. In reality, it has never been seen through the electron microscope, and may not even exist in a cell-free, infectious form.

Amazingly, no-one has ever demonstrated HIV infection, even in a single case, using "infection" in the ordinary sense of the word. "Infection" implies a large amount of virus or microbe, and a high level of biochemical activity; there would be what's known as "viremia": the blood would be teeming with whole, cell-free, infectious viruses, hundreds of thousands to millions of them in every millilitre of blood. In fact, viremia has never been demonstrated.

Many people believe that the so-called "viral load" tests actually count whole viruses in the blood. This is not true, and the tests have been denounced by Kary Mullis, who ought to know, as he received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology on which they are based. According to Mullis, "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron."

Neither of the "HIV-antibody" tests - the Elisa and the Western Blot - has ever been properly validated, which means that no-one knows what their results mean. The tests are chemical reactions to antigens, which are substances that provoke an immune response. Many dozens of conditions can produce a positive result on these tests, including drug abuse, flu vaccinations, past infection with malaria, pregnancy and liver disease. Nevertheless, physicians still use these worthless tests, assume that positive results mean HIV infection and give their patients doom-diagnoses of "HIV-positive" or "AIDS".

"AIDS" is not a coherent disease entity, which has ever been rationally defined, but rather a dubious and contradictory construct, which has changed radically several times. Originally, those with an "AIDS" diagnosis were close to death; now one can obtain the diagnosis without even being sick. When "AIDS" is deconstructed, one is left with 29 (at last count) extremely heterogeneous "AIDS-indicator diseases", and can only say that different people are getting sick in different ways and for different reasons. For gay men, those reasons involve drugs (both "recreational" and pharmaceutical), alcoholism, venereal diseases and powerful psychological factors.

The various AIDS drugs are, without exception, toxic and worthless. It is not true that the protease inhibitor "cocktails" have caused AIDS deaths to drop: on the contrary, they are causing death and deformity in people who would otherwise be healthy. These drugs were approved on the basis of invalid and even fraudulent research; their alleged benefits are concocted by behind-the-scenes public relations firms, who feed their stories into popular media and medical journals.

And just for the record. I too like Julianna am HIV antibody+ whatever the hell that means. This absurd and meaningless label I have had to wear for 16 years. I took that HAART crap for 6 years and all it did to me was turn me into a freakish looking dwarf with a potbelly and a face with concave cheeks.

My doctor, who told me that if I did not take it I was going to get sick soon, put me on that crap just because my tcells for some reason had dropped to some number he deemed dangerous. I was terrorized into taking it and I did, till I found out the real information about this scam and it took me 2 days to react and understand what had been done to us all, and I just flushed all the pills down the loo, and I have never looked back since. I had my face done and got my body more o less back to where it always used to be just eating well and exercising and now I look and feel great.

There was never anything wrong with me nor is there anything wrong with me now. I have never returned to the doctor since because I never even get colds and I don't do any viral counts crap as they are absurd and ridiculous. I am as strong as an oak. So were all my friends who are now dead and who took AZT. I am the lucky one here and in their names I am the one that calls you all murderers. Every single one of you that maintains this outrageous deadly theory, this voodoo, that has killed so many people.

Maybe that's what you pick up on and call it "hate". It's not hate it's determination to live on till that day when you all have will have to finally admit that you are all fools. Just like I was to believe this bullshit. The difference between you and me now is that I have wised up. I looked the voodoo in the face and just said Booo! And it went away. It just disappeared. It's that simple: Booo!

You all still persist in believing that the emperor is wearing beautiful new clothes. The Emperor has no clothes. He is naked but surrounded with the usual fawning bloodsuckers that keep trying to tell us, who see he is naked, that he wears clothes. The funniest thing is that you all try to use science to proven it whan all you need is your eyes and to look at him. Now that's really hilarious.

Even if I had to imagine he were dressed I know that he could never wear clothes befitting any Emperor, but those of Bozo the clown, and his court would all be dress like whores.

This is not anger this is being imaginative, ironic and colourful, which I find to be the best weapons we can have to fight this pathetic concocted but nevertheless ridiculous HIV circus.

Manu.

First I want to apologize for talking about health issues in my family there not anybody's business but mine and I used them for an example of how I'm different from Maggiore yesterday. That was stupid and dumb and its gonna take a while for me to forgive myself for doing that because funily enough its what Maggiore does herself and i don't respect that.

Second let me say, I'm NOT TARA! Tara has a PhD and she's a professor and she would wipe the floor with me if god forbid i ever had to debate her.

Someone in Christines crew said
miss tara - your response to Christine and Celia is very unprofessional - and verbally abusive.

Tara is Dr. not miss and second tara didn't respond to you guys on here I did. If I got abusive yesterday I'm sorry but I don't take snide comments about my children and health very well from people whose whole life is about ignoring health issues when mine is about facing health issues and improving them.

Along time ago I said on here, why it is always denialists who bring up EJ? This time it was her own mother who brought her up she told all her friends to write this blog about her and like four or five did? IT makes me sad when a child dies and it should make everyone sad but when her own mother starts using a tragic and avoidable death like a stick she hits people with and then when they respond their heartless and cruel and she's getting picked on, that's not something i respect. And when she takes her own denial about it and that's understandable she wants to deny, but instead of getting help with it she just tries to get more peopel to do risky things to not avoid transmission, and then she starts making comments about my own children's health, that's a problem.

One way it's a problem is its a distraction. If EJ Scovil died of anaphylactic shock and BAyati proves it someday it doesn't change a damn thing about HIV causing AIDS.

All week long this week we've been knocking down denialist lies. Like about Amy Justice. And for the first time or maybe fourth time, some people heard DR. Amy Justice didn't EVER say protease inhibitors kill more people then AIDS. And she didn't EVER say antivirals are so dangerous you shouldn't take them. And she had 80 papers on HIV and AIDS that prove Bob Gallo was right and everyone else too.

But nobody would debate that or any of the great references other people here brought up. Darren Brown and Henry Bauer Andrew Maniotis Celia Farber Michale Geiger Christine Maggiore all these people who are the MOST ACTIVE "dissidents" right now came here this week to distract and make this debate about something else and right now about a little girl who the coroner said died of a disease, they meaning farber and maggiore and friends know zero about. They don't even udnerstand what PCP is or how its different from bacteria pnuemonia. IF they really want to convince anyone and you know what like I said this case is alot more important to denial than to science, then here's how.

Christine needs to release ALL her medical records so we can see when where how with what test kits what readings she tested postive or indet or negative. And we need to know from her records complete records whether she's telling the truth she never had a AIDS-related condition. Let's see some CD4 and viral load too.

Then publish ALL her daughter's medical records and get ALL the coroner's results and put them on the internet for everyone to see.

Personally I think medical records should be private but Maggiore doesn't, obvi. So why doesn't she jsut release everything instead of letting it just be her word against other people? I don't know I would trust anything from MAggiore including medical records since well we know about who her doctors were but if this stuff all supports her then I might get convince.d

Ok, last thing I will say about the scovill child right now. ELISA said,
Adele, if you would only turn up and look really close at those pictures "someone" messed with to make what the coner "definitely saw" as with your own eyes (almost) disappear
I didn't accuse anyone of anything and I said I wasn't pathology trained. Thanks to franklin for giving some expert comments here because I don't have them on this subject. I just looked at a normal H&E here http://www.pathologyinformatics.org/Resources/ldip2103.jpg
and it looked alot clearer in the open spaces then this one or two a-bayati has in his paper. And I thought, what if I turn up the contrast and make it darker like those other pictures then maybe there's more obvious stuff in the middle. By the way the paper is in "Medical Veritas" is that run by AAPS or just some people who think like AAPS? Anyway why doesn't bayati tell us where these slides were from? Did he stain them? Did he get them from the coroner? How do we know they're from Scovill? Why did he use them? WEll obviously so Maggiore could say they got used as a negative control when of course PCP doesn't usually look like bad bacterial pnuemonia.

Ok maggiores bodyguards. Bring on your Einstein quotes and eightenth century literature and stuff. I'm taking a break so you can all practice your preaching and leave this little girl alone.

Franklin, by the way, is not Franklin, but a very well known HIV/AIDS-aholic researcher. You may all take 3 guesses who, and the first two don't count!

Clues: He himself had railed out in newspaper articles and in speeches against Christine and the dissidents, and has been one of the most vocal to call dissidents murderers. He is very well connected to the AIDStruth Scientific Evidence for AIDS site, as a matter of fact, he is one of the founders. What an imaginative name for his site, because even though the site is filled with 95% ad hominem attacks against dissidents, there is only 5% evidence that HIV is the cause of immune system failure, and the evidence presented is easily picked apart by a high school student!

Franklin, since that is what you wish to be called here! You cannot help that you are a well connected and very highly paid and financially conflicted promoter/commenter on HIV and AIDS, and you also cannot help that you are a shame, guilt, fear, and anger driven HIV/AIDS-aholic! As with most aholics and addicts, you are simply more than eyeball deep in your own denial of reality, and you are quite terrified of the dissidents because your income, and your freedom from exposure, and perhaps even your freedom from possible prosecution for having in the past been a very vocal defender and pusher of AZT and other toxic HIV drug treatments, depends on your keeping your HIV/AIDS belief ball rolling! Good luck, because from here on, you will only be rolling it uphill! But you better keep pushing it, because if it stops, it will simply roll back down the hill and roll right back over you and all of AIDS Incorporated!

Franklin, you thought we could not see through your silly little disguise? You are such a silly little Elmer Fudd, JPM! And just as impotent! We hope you are enjoying your $500,000.00 gift from SmithKline! Be sure to tell Mark Wainberg for us, that all of us dissidents say HOWDIE DOOTY TUTI FRUTI to you both, as you shall both go down in history as a couple of seriously nutty fruitcakes!

Though there is always the 12 step program for you and the rest of AIDS Inc. to get help for your HIV/AIDS-aholism, if you would ever like to seek help!

Hey Adele. You seem to think there is something not quite right about discussing your own childrens health on a publicly accessed internet blog, then you turn right around and say that Christine needs to show everyone her own daughters full medical records.

You certainly seem to be one sick and confused AIDS-aholic yourself, Adele!

But there is help available, should you seek it. Simply apply the 12 steps of AA or of any other 12 step program to your own guilt, shame, and fear driven HIV/AIDS beliefs, and you will be just fine.

I thought there was just 5% correlation, HIV to AIDS.. the rest is all made up convoluted crap.

It's just the "Hannibus Lectrosis" syndrome..... What HIV does, is it programs CD4 cells to become evil little microscopic psychiatrists, who then convince all the other uninfected cells to commit suicide, using the power of hypnotic suggestion. (Occasionally, in fact, it gets really creative and convinces them to hang themselves from the rafters, and cut off their own faces and feed them to the dogs.)

This finally explains how a virus that infects one in a thousand cells, manages to kill most or all of them, without actually even touching them, much less infecting them! This would also explain why the #1 killer of AIDS patients is liver failure -- once HIV has turned the victim's immune system against itself, this leaves HIV free to feast on the patient's liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Carter,

your description of how HIV is an evil little psych doctor that hypnotizes other cells into commiting suicide is not just absolutely hilarious, but also absolutely true!

It explains death by AIDS better, and more succinctly than anything I have ever heard!

Thank you for one of the shortest sweetest truest analogies that could ever be made about HIV/AIDSBelief. And thanks for the laugh as well.

Though I doubt the HIV/AIDS-Aholics are capable of yet comprehending or understanding the joke! It too, like most everything else that has been shown them, will likely go sailing right over their heads. It's very difficult for them to have any sense of humor when they are so paralyzed by levels of sexual shame, projections of sexual or racial guilt, fear and paranoia of germs, and anger at anyone who exposes their mass irrationality.

Hysterical Iatrogenic Voodoo.

Booooooo!

(That's the Einstein quote)

_______________
And by the way The Crucible is XX Century literature. It's a play by an American writer called Arthur Miller. He wrote the piece inspired in the Communist witch-hunt's of the fifties, pretty much like the kind of witch-hunt's people like all you HIV zombies devotees are trying to orchestrate against those who will never accept the belief in the demonic virus possession.

As for XVIII Century literature that could fit the bill for you, I'm sure you could relate to this piece it fits the matter in hand so perfectly. One would almost think Mrs. Malaprop had personally taken your education into her capable and egregious hands.

The Rivals- J.Sheridan

Sir Anthony Absolute:
"It is not to be wonder'd at, Ma'am -- all this is the natural consequence of teaching girls to read. --Had I a thousand daughters, by Heaven! I'd as soon have them taught the black-art [black magic] as their alphabet!"

Mrs. Malaprop:
"Fie, fie, Sir Anthony, you surely speak laconically!"

Sir Anthony Absolute:
"Why, Mrs. Malaprop, in moderation, now, what would you have a woman know?"

Mrs. Malaprop:
"Observe me, Sir Anthony. -- I would by no means wish a daughter of mine to be a progeny of learning; I don't think so much learning becomes a young woman; for instance -- I would never let her meddle with Greek, or Hebrew, or Algebra, or Simony, or Fluxions, or Paradoxes, or such inflammatory branches of learning -- neither would it be necessary for her to handle any of your mathematical, astronomical, diabolical instruments; --But, Sir Anthony, I would send her, at nine years old, to a boarding-school, in order to learn a little ingenuity and artifice. -- Then, Sir, she should have a supercilious knowledge in accounts; -- and as she grew up, I would have her instructed in geometry, that she might know something of the contagious countries; -- but above all, Sir Anthony, she should be mistress of orthodoxy, that she might not mis-spell, and mis-pronounce words so shamefully as girls usually do, and likewise that she might reprehend the true meaning of what she is saying. --This, Sir Anthony, is what I would have a woman know, --and I don't think there is a superstitions article on it."

_____

As for calling us bodyguards, too damned right we are, and really hot ones at that too. When you start to make a little more sense we may even send you some shots of us so you can see what we look like dressed as the Emperor in his new clothes. So be a good little girl and leave Christine and the memory of her daughter alone. She owes you nothing.

You and your kind on the other hand owe it at least to yourselves not to keep on giving such a lamentable spectacle with this little evil campaign of yours which reminds one of the "Kill a queer for Christ" campaign. In your case it would go something like "Kill all queers, blacks drug addicts and a grieving mothers for HIV".

Now I think that with that you have more than enough on your plate to worry about, worry about your own peace of mind, if you actually have one. Let's all hope you don't end up wondering sleep-walking and rubbing your hands mumbling things about "damned spots" of blood and how your hands can never be clean before hurling yourself out the top floor window. I would really worry more about that if i were you.

This is your problem all of you. You know nothing about what it is to be human, with all your scientific bullshit you still cannot accept what is staring you in the face, so like Oedipus you will end up killing your own fathers if they stand in your way, sleeping with your mothers if she can make you the ruler of the manor and then have to gorge your eyes out in horror at what you have done before you can accept that you are just human, and that humans are often wrong. In your case you are all wrong not just scientifically but morally too. If I were you I would look to that...if you have the valour, look to that.

Manu.

LOL Bravo Carter. Just saw that post and i nearly fell off my chair. Hysterical. Now this is a lot more fun. We need to educate and lighten up the HIV zombeez, try and get them singing and dancing a little even. Maybe they can talk J Moooooooooooore into doing a remake of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, they can call it Killer to raise more funds for their cause.

After "Thriller" I think it would be just as entertaining to see JM + Jeanie Bergman and Becky Kuhn do the "Love Shack" B52's........... style

Sounds good to me. John could do drag, we could get that hair up in a bee-hive and they can use it as an anti-denialist homophobia propaganda piece for gay clubs to project to keep everyone zombified and believing that HIV is the cause of AIDS, or hey, even better, maybe they can try to see if they can represent AIDS at the Eurovision Song Contest as if it were an actual state, you know, like the Vatican is a state. It could work; they have their own laws, science and religion even if they are all rolled into one and the same thing. Well, why not? Adele should propose it, now that way she would employ her time and energy in something more "artistic" than this pointless witch-hunting which is really so "{old hat".

And you know in Europe we are not so ridged about having to actually be in Europe to take part. Look at Israel, they are not in Europe and they have always taken part, they even won with a transsexual doing a song called Diva or something like that a few years ago. It would certainly put some colour into their dull dead cause.

yeah you guys should see the film hiv fact or fraud with peter duesberg etc, its free on google video.. Its pretty good.

Mycoplasma incognitus may play a role in some AIDS cases and many other illnesses. Every animal Dr. shyh ching lo, the armys highest ranking scientist, injected with it died, he found it in AIDS patients etc and not in healthy controls. Here's a summary of Lo's peer reviewed work.

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html

Dr.Garth nicolson has found this Bug in CFS/gulf war syndrome, and it appears to have been part of the bioweapons program, 5 of his collegues were killed and they tried to kill him to when he found it in the blood of Gulf war one vets, he developed confidential sources within the pentagon and wrote a book called Project Day Lily that is darn scary and good, you can read chapter one for free.

http://www.projectdaylily.com/

Its a saturday, are you bored? Then cuddle up with the family and watch some free movies.

Loose change/ 9/11 coverup film, most watched film ever on the internet

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Hiv fact or fraud, Learn from Duesberg and his pals in this Documentary,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064591712431946916

Somewhere back deep in this thread I thought I read something about babies born to HIV infected mothers. Well, here's a published study that says something interesting:

"Wafaie W. Fawzi, et. al., "Randomized Trial of Effects of Vitamin Supplements on Pregnancy Outcomes and T Cell Counts in HIV-1 Infected Women in Tanzania," The Lancet, Vol. 351 (May 16, 1998), pp. 1477-82. The absence of good prenatal health care and adequate nutrition also remain major factors in pediatric AIDS cases in the United States where 80% of HIV-infected babies are born to drug-addicted mothers who suffer from a host of vitamin deficiencies."

So, 80% HIV from chemical addiction, THERE is NO VIRUS... and the other 20% probaly from natural occuring antibodies and false positives.

Carter, I really do not have any idea what Gallo thought he isolated or thought was evidenced by RT activity or on PCR, but it is clearly something that is a bodily response to many factors. But when you are a paranoid virologist that sees killer germs everywhere, then all you think you see must be somehow be attributed to a killer germ while ignoring all evidence that other factors are clearly involved!

I think that the mind that sees only through eyes of fear sees everything as somehow connected to something to be afraid of!

I think that the mind that sees only through eyes of fear sees everything as somehow connected to something to be afraid of!

Why not try another way to put it?

I think that the mind that sees only through eyes of greed and applause sees everything as somehow connected to something to make fame and money with!

js

______________________

AIDS $cience: Since we told you that a+b=c we have proved beyond doubt that a+b=c. We will not engage in any public or private debate with anybody opposing to our statements because there is nothing to debate.

AIDS: The Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrom. If you belief it exists you have it.

Deficient in logical thinking is highly prevalent in their retoric..
Gallo/Heckler in 84' said "Probabal cause" - there was never any proof thereafter that it became the cause.

HIV should be called "Follow Thy Leader" and AIDS called "Follow The Money Trail"

Hey everybody - Watch this video and tell if it doesnt remind you of some people?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha0cg7LkQ2w

Sandi, if you want to make a contribution then try to work out a response to my earlier post.

Does drug use cause AIDS

If you had read the thread you would have noticed the conspicuous absence of any rational response to this post.

I don't know whether drug use causes AIDS. I do know that there is a strong correlation. Which doesn't prove causation, however it is a good indication that research should be done in that area.

The HIV=AIDS theory is also based correlation, except that the definition was changed to add the HIV virus as a prerequisite. Which of course removes HIV negative AIDS cases making it easier to correlate near 100 percent. That isn't objective, it's deceptive, and it isn't scientific.

Sandi,

please for the love of god read the Ascher et al paper before you comment on this topic again. Ascher et al used the pre 1993 def of AIDS. They didn't require HIV for AIDS. They still found only HIV positive people had immune decline and only HIV positive people got AIDS. They didn't use a changed definition!!

Also the research on drugs and HIV and AIDS? There's about 13,000 papers on this topic. I'm not exagerating go to pubmed if you don't believe me. Drug use and AIDS has always been a big topic of research.

carter writes where 80% of HIV-infected babies are born to drug-addicted mothers who suffer from a host of vitamin deficiencies."

So, 80% HIV from chemical addiction, THERE is NO VIRUS...

You can only come to that conclusion carter by not looking at all the data. The questions you have to answer are:

1. Are all babies born to drug addicted mothers HIV+?
The answer is no. Only babies born to HIV+ mothers are HIV+

2. All all babies born to HIV+ mothers HIV+?
Again, the answer is no. Only a fraction of the babies born to HIV+ mothers are HIV+

3. Do all babies, HIV+ and HIV-, born to HIV+ mothers develop symptoms of AIDS (PCP,other opportunistic infections etc.).
Nope only the HIV+ babies do.

4. So why should so many HIV+ babies be born to drug addicted mothers?
Because drug addicted mothers (at least in the USA) are more likely to be HIV+ and less likely to get prenatal health care to prevent HIV transmission than non drug addicted mothers.

Dale, You're dance stepping around any sence of logic. All your statements, you state a question then answer your own question, is based on the presupposition HIV is the cause of AIDS. You're obviously suffering from the group trance like all the others. There are better explanations if you'd only get your head out of the sand and stop believing in the one virus theory.

Carter

The HIV=AIDS theory is also based correlation, except that the definition was changed to add the HIV virus as a prerequisite. Which of course removes HIV negative AIDS cases making it easier to correlate near 100 percent. That isn't objective, it's deceptive, and it isn't scientific.

If you are not going to even read what I've previously written then just say so up front. If you want to cling to your ignorance then say so.

Ascher used a definition of AIDS that did not have HIV as a criterion to avoid all claims of circular logic. None of the HIV- people in this cohort developed AIDS despite many of them being in the high drug use category.

As I said before I am yet to get a rational response to my post.

They were probably killed by AZT

They were probably killed by AZT

Another idiot that can't be bothered to read either the paper or what I've written.

Does Drug use cause AIDS

AZT was given after they developed AIDS. Unless AZT can travel back in time then the AZT cannot have caused the AIDS.

Dont call me an idiot! You're the one that couldnt get laid to save your life, ( I've seen your pic, LOL, NO WAY would a hot girl touch you with a ten foot pole),

Funny how all these studies are from people who religiosly support the HIV hypothesis and would probably fudge data here and there, nice if some honest scientists could do these studies. Here's Duesberg's reply to that pathetic study.

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

You guys are forgeting about handing a fatal disease diagnosis to those that got sick and then couple it with recreational drugs before AZT. There was never any virus, only virus hunters.

There is a vast amount of evidence linking inhalant drugs with AIDS. The link established long ago by the CDC, which reported in 1982 that a study of '50 American male homosexuals with AIDS and 120 at risk for AIDS' revealed the following pattern of intensive drug use (with many taking a cocktail of six or more drugs when they go clubbing or partying.).

Nitrite inhalants [poppers] 96%
Ethyl chloride 35-50%
Cocaine 50-60%
Amphetamines 50-70%
Phenylcyclidine 40%
LSD 40-60%
Crystal Metaqualone 40-60%
Barbiturates 25%
Marijuana 90%
Heroin 10%
Drug-free None reported

Jaffe et al 1983 Table. CDC 1983: Drug use by American male homosexuals with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. (Percentage users among 50 AIDS cases and 120 at risk for AIDS.)

Dont call me an idiot! You're the one that couldnt get laid to save your life, ( I've seen your pic, LOL, NO WAY would a hot girl touch you with a ten foot pole),

Brilliant response. Mt original post dealt with Duesberg's ad hoc claims about AZT causing the AIDS in the HIV+ patients. AZT was given after progression to AIDS. No matter how many times you repeat the claim it is still bullshit.

Funny how all these studies are from people who religiosly support the HIV hypothesis and would probably fudge data here and there, nice if some honest scientists could do these studies. Here's Duesberg's reply to that pathetic study.

My original post dealt with this too. Duesberg accused Ascher of fabricating data. The reality is that Duesberg did not read the paper correctly. An independent panel at Berkeley found Duesberg's allegations to be baseless.

Could drugs, rather than a virus, be the cause of AIDS

The surreal aspect is that Duesberg invented 45 HIV- AIDS cases in a pathetic attempt to rethink the Ascher et al study. Duesberg is the one who fabricated data. He claims that he used the CDC definition of AIDS when he clearly didn't.

In my opinion Duesberg's pathetic response to the Ascher paper is the turning point at which Duesberg lost all respect from the scientific community.

Jaffe et al 1983 Table. CDC 1983: Drug use by American male homosexuals with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. (Percentage users among 50 AIDS cases and 120 at risk for AIDS.)

Carter, have you read this paper or are you just copying and pasting from a denialist website. Be honest!

National case-control study of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in homosexual men: Part 1. Epidemiologic results.

"In this exploratory case-control study, the element of homosexual lifestyle most strongly associated with the occurrence of Kaposi's sarcoma and pneumocystis pneumonia was a history os sexual contact with large numbers of male partners."

"In our study, nitrite exposure emerged as a relatively unimportant variable in the multivariate analysis."

Drug use was common in both the cases with KS and PCP and in the controls.

Chris said:

"In my opinion Duesberg's pathetic response to the Ascher paper is the turning point at which Duesberg lost all respect from the scientific community".

Chris, your opinion seems to be way off base. Peter Duesbergs confrontations with the majority of scientists at the time, and most of whom were quite mediocre scientists by the way, started a very long time before 1993, and even before the word AIDS was ever even coined!

Learn your history dude.

You have to remember that the virologists controlled the National Cancer Institute before the concept of AIDS ever happened, since Nixon declared his "war on cancer" and heaped funds at finding the cause of cancer in the early 70's. Matter of fact, ALL of the original AIDS researchers came from the virology dept of the NCI's cancer/virus labs.

Way back, when the NCI was looking for the well known failed-viral-cause of cancer, Peter came up with the "oncogenes" theory of cancer causation. Many of the NCI virologists jumped from the viral theory over to oncogenes. But Peter was far ahead of them, and just as they all settled into oncogenes, Peter pulled the rug out from under them, and said oncogenes was a failed theory. This managed to really pis a lot of his comrades off, cause they were just getting big grants for oncogenes to replace the failed viral thing. Many of his peers wanted to ring his neck at this point!

Now keep the following in mind when considering Ashers 93 paper: Ashers two buddies in his drug-AIDS study were Winkelstein and Sheppard. Both were involved in the cancer research stuff in the 70's and both were rattled and threatened back then by Peters findings.

But lets move on....

Now a few years later, with a lot of other NCI virologists jumping over to AIDS, including Winkelstein and Sheppard, Ashers partners in his study, Peter again rocked their boat with the PNAS piece which basicly pointed out the flaws in HIV theory.

Well this time, the former NCI virologists had enough of Peter. Every time they got geared up for big dollar grants and settled into a line of research, Peter was pulling the rug out from under them. They could take no more. They were pulling their hair out. They were not about to let Peter change their courses again. Peter had to go. He was simply too big a threat to the funding train, and he was making a complete fool of these guys, including those in more powerful positions of authority. They were exasperated, lashed out, and badmouthed him, revolted against him, almost had a revolt at the NCI/NIH against him, which ended up with Peter out of the NIH, and stripped him of funding, and then these former cancer virus specialists did all they could to discredit and humiliate Peter and attempt to prove Peter wrong.

But, they have never done so. The oncogenes thing is still going strong, and is still as fruitless as it ever was at explaining cancer. The HIV thing is still going strong, but is as fruitless as it ever was at explaining AIDS.

The only consolation for the cancer virologists turned HIV experts, is that at least they did not have to contend with Peter derailing their comfortable little grant trains and comfortable research avenues.

So there you have it Chris. Asher himself is a nobody in AIDS research. Google his name. He is a nobody! His interests are mainly in biowarfare.

His cohorts in the study you love to quote, Sheppard and Winkelstein were both avid enemies and highly threatened by Peter, which is why they had Ascher's name up front instead of their own. Both were cashing in on the early HIV research gravy train. Sheppard, like Bob Gallo, still does!

And to top it off, Chris, the study that you are so taken with, was not even an actual hands on study. It was simply second hand information that they themselves had not even collected, but was collected by nurses and receptionists at a couple of public health departments. There was nothing scientific at all in the collection of the data. Just asking people coming into a health clinic if they did drugs! The ONLY thing that the data even showed was whoever was brave enough to be willing to admit to the criminal act of illicit drug use to the employees of public health departments, which as you well know, is not any kind of a trustworthy way to obtain reliable data whatsoever.

But either way you look at it, Peter Duesberg had his enemies lined up years before the word AIDS was ever even coined, and years before his PNAS piece, and more than 10 years before Aschers, Sheppards, and Winkelstinkels attempt to discredit him with their shoddy work of assessing drug use and AIDS via info gathered by some schlepp nurses asking very personal questions as to drug use at public health clinics.

Chris, could you pleeeeeeeease stop with the Ascher crap already? It really makes you look stupid. The study was nonsense, and was not even a controlled or in any way verified study, but was all composed of second hand information by people with serious conflicts of interest and serious need to discredit Peter Duesberg.

Surely you can find something more convincing for us than Asher, Sheppard, and Winkelstink!

Hey Chris, to top it ALL off, please explain to us why recreational drug use was considered an aetiological factor by epidemiologists as the cause of GRID and AIDS before 1984?

And next, Chris, please explain why since 1984 the epidemiologists all dropped their theory to find HIV to be the only cause of AIDS?

Very strange how the Epidemiologists ALL seemed to have changed their perspective at exactly the very same moment when the Department of Health and Human Services restricted funding for AIDS to HIV research!

Fascinating how funding one certain line of research changes the direction of all of the research, don't you agree, there Chris?

Michael, these are bizarre fairy tales and paranoid conspiracy theories

And to top it off, Chris, the study that you are so taken with, was not even an actual hands on study. It was simply second hand information that they themselves had not even collected, but was collected by nurses and receptionists at a couple of public health departments.

Do you know anything about the SFMHS?

It was set up by Winkelstein in 1983 and started recruiting in 1984. He ran the study.

Chris, could you pleeeeeeeease stop with the Ascher crap already?

I'd stop if I got a rational response. The complete inability of any Denialist to come up with any other response than denial should give you a clue.

Hey Chris, to top it ALL off, please explain to us why recreational drug use was considered an aetiological factor by epidemiologists as the cause of GRID and AIDS before 1984?

Drug use had been considered as an aetiological factor before 1984 but had been rejected because the evidence did not support this theory. Most people recognised that the aetiological factor behind AIDS was transmissable a long time before the discovery of HIV.

The ONLY thing that the data even showed was whoever was brave enough to be willing to admit to the criminal act of illicit drug use to the employees of public health departments, which as you well know, is not any kind of a trustworthy way to obtain reliable data whatsoever.

144 out of 812 of the homosexual men admitted to heavy nitrite use.

105 were HIV+ and 39 were HIV-.

Of the 105 HIV+ heavy nitrite users 54(51%) got AIDS.
Of the 39 HIV- heavy nitrite users 0(0%) got AIDS.

Why is it that out of the 105 that admitted to heavy nitrite use that only the HIV+ got AIDS? Were the 39 HIV- heavy nitrite users lying about taking nitrites?

Michael, please don't ask Chris to stop with Ascher. It's like asking Adam to stop wearing fig leaves.

Is Duesberg claiming that he discovered oncogenes, now? GS Martin holds that honor, with Duesberg on the periphery. I know he claims to have discovered the importance of aneuploidy to cancer, but that's been a concept predating his life entirely. Isn't his current claim that oncogenes aren't important at all?

Appealing to his "authority" and Galileo complex does not demonstrate that he has a leg to stand on. He has no data and no compelling hypothesis. His personality cult can't explain the totality of evidence better than the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Regardless of his genius, he is wrong and incapable of admitting it.

Lisa,

The Ascher study stands as valid, regardless of how you attempt to deny it and hold to Duesberg's fabrications. If you want to claim that Duesberg and others have pointed out "holes" in HIV (holes that later research fill in), then you should have the dignity to admit that Ascher's paper is a defeat for Duesberg's beliefs and his response was blatantly dishonest.

1984 - Aids apologists and Aids dissidents start to fight

2007 - They're still fighting. Twenty three years have past by, nine hundred and seventy three trilllion words have been said and/or written on both sides yet nothing has really changed. Each party has all the answers to easily wipe away any critical argument from the other party and everybody firmly sticks to initial convictions.

What have we learned? Nothing but the fact that it makes no sense to argue with people who believe the opposite of what you believe and who never listen but exclusively try to make you change your mind. It makes no sense to argue. What makes sense is try to find out why someone hangs on to one approach rather than to another.

- "Hey Robert Gallo&Co, eminent members of the scientific community, why do you hang on to the HIV=Aids theory?"

- "It's our duty to try to take care of ill people and free humanity of the AIDS plague according to our convictions"

The duty to take care of others.
The only people I know of who seem to really take care of others without thinking of themselves in the first place are far closer to poverty than to wealth and, more important, they never impose themselves. Some rare cases set apart, the so-called care about others generally ends up as a disaster and the phrase The duty to take care of others invariably makes me think of some Roman Catholics, saviors of the human soul, invading the Americas to spread the word. What a mess....

What a amazing insite jspreen! Your like a great dramatist! Do you write plays for a living?

I just have to disagree with
nine hundred and seventy three trilllion words have been said and/or written on both sides

Umm if you don't count Maniotis denialists only said maybe ten thousand words total and then they just repeated and repeated repeated them.

repeat after me, A. Justice proved, most AIDS deaths are from liver toxicity and its caused by antiretroviral drugs, Nancy Padian proved, HIV can't get transmitted sexually, Coutsoudis A et al proved, breastfeeding is better than Nevirapine, Gallo proved, less than half of AIDS patients have HIV, Ascher et al proved, Drug use causes AIDS, Klausner proved, flu shot gives you AIDS.

Unfortunately jspreen words MEAN something. Justice and Padian Coutsoudis Gallo Ascher Klausner didn't do anything like that. You can read their papers to find out. Read their words.

Why do you project on scientists this "duty to take care of" someone? Where did you get that? You just made it up just like you make up stuff about what scientists say.

Yes wouldn't it be great to live in your "Libertarian" wonderland where no one pays taxes and everyone builds their own roads and if you can't pay a doctor you just die and good riddance because THIS LAND IS MY LAND
THIS LAND AIN'T YOUR LAND
I'VE GOT A SHOTGUN
AND YOU DON'T GOT ONE.

Ooo. sorry. Sounds like I just wondered into a AAPS convention. Anyway jspreen that's great why don't you set up your own little society where there's no government and doctors aren't supposed to treat medical conditions just make money. Scientists aren't supposed to research diseases just do whatever the hell they want to do.

"Justice and Padian Coutsoudis Gallo Ascher Klausner" I would bet $10.00 each and every one was funded either whole or in part by NIH/CDC and/or drug manufacturers all with the pretence and supposition that they shall promote and instill as God's honest absolute undisputed fact HIV=AIDS=DEATH... jeeeeus!

Then why did you bring up Coutsoudis as a pro-dissident paper?

Because carter never read anything from Coutsoudis, just saw her name on a dissident website. Carter doesn't know Coutsoudis her work or where she got her funding.

You would think maybe Carter would read one of the SEVENTY papers Coutsoudis is on. Just one. Pick it apart. Show how she's wrong or how Carter's right about what she says.

Just one paper carter. There are seventy of them. Just one.

Here's a nice article about Anna Coutsoudis and what she does.

http://www.unicef.org/southafrica/hiv_aids_809.html

For those of you who don't read except on dissident sites, this article is about a breast milk bank Anna Coutsoudis set up for orphaned babies.

Read this article and think, does this sound like the kind of professor who's just out to defend big pharma, spread poisonous drugs around, kill off babies and their mothers?

Anna Coutsoudis is someone who's trying to find the truth about breastfeeding no matter what it is. Her goal is babies growing up uninfected and healthy. Its too bad some people try to hit up this amazing human being for an authority argument for their crackpot theories Anna Coutsoudis sees disproved every day.

You people are just sick in the head!

How is the very significant health risk of formula feeding compared with the risk of HIV infection? Very simply, it isn't.

You not need to go very far to see other studies too.. [Dunn, 1992}
http://www.anotherlook.org/papers/d/index.php
"Public policy on infant feeding for children of HIV-positive women is increasingly driven by the assumption that infectious HIV is present in breastmilk, and that this poses a greater danger to children than formula feeding. According to the widely accepted estimate of Dunn [1992], breastfeeding will not change the HIV status of 86% of infants, but 100% of infants of HIV-positive women will be exposed to the negative effects of formula feeding."

HIV makes risk analysis trivial. If you are an HIV-positive mother, you will be warned that breastfeeding doubles your risk of infecting your baby, and that therefore you MUST formula feed your baby. You won't be told that doubling your risk actually means that 86% of babies will NOT be infected by breastfeeding [Dunn, 1992]. And, research by Coutsoudis showed that exclusive breastfeeding might be associated with no extra risk.

When are you going to stop your madness? When are you going to see that you're perpetrators of a complete illogical and fundamentally flawed theory, with devastating consequences for those of whom you entrap into your death and dieing cult? Please, I would really like to know. When APY? When ADELE when are you going to stop?

Why did you bring up Coutsoudis as a pro-dissident paper?

Is Anna Coutsoudis part of this "death and dieing cult" carter? With her non-profit for mothers and babies and her non-profit milk bank for abandoned and orphaned babies?

Carter,
Again you didn't read the report this time from Dunn DT et al in Lancet, September 5, 1992. Instead you give us this activist website.

Here's some quotes from the actual Dunn DT et al paper not a activist web site,

The overall risk of HIV-1 transmission via breast milk was 29%.
That was for mothers who got infected after they gave birth.

The summary estimate of the additional risk of transmission via breast feeding was 14% with a wide confidence interval of 7-22%. This indicated that 14% more infants were infected with HIV-1 through breast milk over and above the proportion infected in utero or during delivery.

I won't even try to explain what a confidence interval is of 7-22%. Or how you can't just take 14, subtract it from a hundred and get "breastfeeding will not change the HIV status of 86% of infants."

But guess what else some of these studies Dunn et al used are from mothers who only breastfed TWO weeks swiss study or FOUR weeks european study. In the four week one, 30 percent got infected. So its kinda tough to say 14% like theres no variation.

Something else from Dunn DT et al,
In countries where safe alternatives to breast milk exist, HIV-1 positive mothers should not breast feed their infants.

Like in the USA! But weirdly that activist website you gave us WANTS HIV + women in the USA to breastfeed their babies.

And of course Dunn DT et al say sometimes breastfeeding is better like when safe alternatives aren't around. No one argues with that.

Now tell me what kind of a sick attitude is it to say well if your baby didn't get HIV by birth then its safe to breastfeed him since there's only 7-22% chance he'll get HIV.

Adele,
carter and others are very capable of picking apart these contradictory studies! That's why they claim they are pro-dissident until someone actually reference the paper, then it's contradictory!

In your little protected world of HIV/AIDS theres no room for alternatives or different perspectives, skewed in part by your religion that HIV is the cause of Aids.. you always protray AIDS as a single entity. I'm glad countless others as well as myself can see through your bull shit!

HI ADELE .

I just picked up in your thread a reference to the post I made last week . Yes I muddled the name - thank you for pointing it
out.
Being an epidemiologist does not make you a life saver dear.

All of the comments posted here to Christine are - abusive cowardly sneaky and so easy to do in little text blogs . Why dont you ring up and say these wonderful smart professional
words to her face. Or call her mother and leave a message :-) You will be so highly regarded in your communicative techniques.
I WAS NOT ASKED by Christine to post here. I am not one of
Christines personal friends. I am a supporter as a mother as a woman diagnosed as HIV Positive who is healthy and not dependant on PHARMA INC USA Dogm. I reserve the right to make choices about my health care based on a holistic balance between quality of life cost of care and quantity of
life . I reserve the right to make the moral choices and ethical choices and I applaud the bravery and courage of Christine Maggiore - who began from inside the circle and who could have had it nice and cosy - great career curve on the HIV gravy train - Did you know AIDS counsellors in South Africa are paid 5 times a teachers salary . Who smells a rat?
Anyone .....? No..? Pity. Christine Maggiore DID NOT persuade me to give up my medication and make dangerous choices . I am educated to make my own decisions Adele and
smart enough to sense when science has got it wrong from my
own HANDS ON experience over 11 years both living working and communicating with other hiv antibody positive people , ngos , doctors , children , families . Noone can force you to make decisions regarding HIV treatment - oh , except the United States of America - who make testing and treatment mandatory , who lie to vulnerable populations to use them as
human guinea pigs to promote and I quote from the Irish forum NDP ' a culture of research'......a culture of research for the sake of research.
I gave up my HIV Drugs because they were destroying me , not
curing me - or 'hiv'. I gave up my drugs because I do not wish to have the product of a company who PHARMACEUTICALLY RAPE children enfants and pregnant women with tosic mutagenic poisons - when in many cases they dont have a decent three meals a day to go home to. I gave up my treatment because of the INCARNATION CHILDREN CENTRE approach to developing medication for mass populations -
again PHARMACEUTICAL RAPE.
I am so - heartened - to hear that you speak out about children and their welfare , both you and your associates.
Observing the Hippocratic Oath no longer seems to be of
relevance in the PHARMA driven industry of which you are an
employee.
Reading and listening .
Julianna Kenny

Don't pack too many facts into those posts carter, I won't be able to keep up.

THANKS Julianna.....

See apy/adelle - You have more to fear than you can imagine. Like I said before, if I were you I'd start looking for better lines of work.

I'm very afraid you might quote some more papers that completely invalidate your view point.

Well Julianna Kenny

I'm not an epidemiologist and I'm not Tara Smith. And I would say everything I said to Christine Maggiores face but I hope I never have to meet that irresponsible ignorant selfish person. Talk about a death cult!

You said
AIDS counsellors in South Africa are paid 5 times a teachers salary . Who smells a rat?

I smell something but I think its bad numbers not a rat.

Check out http://www.morehouse.edu/communications/osalp/entry0601.php
Trained HIV/AIDS counselors, paid R2,000 a month--about $330 in U.S. dollars--and patient advocates provide support to children, adults and families affected by HIV/AIDS.

Now look at
http://www.mywage.co.za/main/Sfricaworks/profileteacher
The average teacher's salary, including compensation and all benefits, is currently about R100,000 a year, according to Jon Lewis, spokesperson for the South African Democratic Teachers' Union, which primarily represents teachers in what are now known as "previously disadvantaged" schools.

R100,000 divided by 12 is a math problem but maybe even Darren and Becky could do it since there's no complicated estimates and confidence intervals and stuff. The answer is over R8300 every month.

AIDS counseler: 2000 rand a month
Average teacher: 8300 rand a month.

So the average teacher makes more than four times so much as an AIDS counseler in South Africa.

Say that I'm scared or stupid or deluded or genocidal but please tell me what's wrong with that math. And tell me why you lied about it and where you got your bad figures.

oops sorry you are not the epidemiologist...thats DR Tara :-)
Why do you refer to herbal medicines as meds by quacks .....??????? Dont you know your own government has funded research centres in both Africa and in
China to follow up on treatments used there in the absence of access to ARVs because they have proven succewssful at
Immune reconstitution.

You stated Christine Maggiore should release all her medical records and tests to the public to pore over . Can I add to that , that all HIV antibody positive people be allowed to see their records too - the blot tests everything and compare them instead a word written on page which we are supposed to take as a life sentence _?
I had a nice conversation with a South African counterpart who has been coming to terms with the fact that , really, sit tight , you must accept a hiv positive diagnosis with one ELISA there.Its legal . No need for Western Blot at all. So why are we told we have to have one to confirm our HIV diagnosis here.Over 80% of deaths due to Malaria are written up as death due to AIDS in SA ... Why ?
Can you tell me why is the criteria so different from NY to Durban to Sydney - for testing HIV Positive ? Can we see photo visual evidence of cross correlation between say - My Western Blot result+ Elisa
and that of my South African counterpart and throw in an
Australian sample just to spice it up - they require 4 stripes on your WB not 2 - 3 like USA or 2 like here.
Why so different ? How is this justified ?

Maybe we could see some Poster Presentations and Slide shows comparing the Western Blot and Elisa results of USA positives to South African positives and Australian Positives.
Thats a revolutionary idea Adele - lets all demand the original data and compare notes on the visual data.

How is it justifiable to restrain a child and cut
holes in their stomachs to forcefully medicate them with substances that make them so sick they fought back ?
Who in Gods name can justify this ??????????????????????

But scientists are notorious for their sociopathic tendancies when it comes to - research.

How can this be good medical practise and good research ?

Wow carter was right we have more to fear than we can imagine. We have Julianna Kenny showing up one day without reading anything on this thread or anywhere else and rapid-firing like the top 100 stupid denialist myths! I don't even know where to start!

Maybe we could start with Julianna Kenny telling us where she got that false thing about aids counselers making five times a teachers salary in south africa.

If I CAPITALIZE something randomly it MAKES it gospel TRUTH. In addition, each question mark adds to the poignancy of my remarks by a power of 10?????????????????????????????

Julianna,

I'm not trying to pick on you. You're like Noreen you've been hearing these things so long they start to make sense and you want them to be true. But like what you heard about teacher's salaries and 80% of malaria classified as AIDS this stuff about ICC is also not true.

The ICC "report" is not true. The New York Times investigated the New York state health people investigated and here's what they found, you can look this up.

http://www.icc-pedsaids.org/siteresources/NYSDOH.pdf?oref=login&page

this is from the AIDS institute of NY department of Health.

None of the recently published allegations has been substantiated, to our knowledge. The source of the articles appears to be a group of individuals holding the view that the HIV does not cause AIDS

sorry that last paragraph is in quotes

Adele, Robster, Chris, Apey, you guys keep on telling us that HIV is the cause of AIDS. But I just don't understand yet. You know why? Because you have never explained which of the multiple examples of AIDS you are talking about. From now on, whey you use the word AIDS, I will be asking which AIDS specifically that you are referring to:

Which specific AIDS?

AIDS by which specific definition?

We all know that AIDS is an inexplicit construct of immense complexity, and that before the cause of any given specific form or facet of AIDS can be explained, one must understand which specific "AIDS" one is talking about, whether it's the KS and PCP suffered by American gays in the 1980s, African AIDS, early 1990s AIDS, late 1990s AIDS, African-American AIDS, heroin user AIDS, current-day AIDS (both Western and African,) AIDS by 1984-1987 CDC definition, AIDS by 1987-1993 CDC definition of CD4 counts, AIDS by 1993-present CDC definition, AIDS by WHO definition, AIDS by Bangui definition of weight loss plus diarhea plus fever, ...you get the idea.

(thanks to Gos for pointing out the many variations of the meaning of the construct AIDS)

Gee Michael,

If only there was some kind of blood test we could use...

Yeah,

A unifying diagnosis.

Adele, I do know that one does not need antiretrovirals to survive AIDS and if one can survive without these toxic drugs then I am inclined to believe that others things that we have been lead to believe are also not true. If only for once there was a titer in my blood then I might be inclined to listen to you folks. However, there is nothing in my blood but antibodies, to what no one knows for sure. So you folks can spout your unproven theories till hell freezes over we will not be swayed because we know the truth and like the good book says, for those who do believe in diety, it shall set you free! So in essence you are wasting your time trying to change our minds!

Noreen,

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish. I hope your health does not deteriorate any further.

The sentiments you just expressed reveal the lack of scientific reasoning behind your beliefs. Your mind is made up and the data, to you, is just a waste of time. That is your right.

But when individuals invoke pseudoscientific arguments to support unproven (or even disproven) theories, they should expect those arguments to be criticized.

Michael makes up "facts" about sulfa drugs and fatal immune deficiency caused by the death of a spouse. Maniotis makes up false "quotes" from scientific papers. And they do this to convince other people to make health care choices.

Just look over the many instances inTara's Blog in which Michael and Maniotis have been caught lying about the science. How can you justifiy such actions? Why would you trust your life to the advice of such unreliable people?

I do know that one does not need antiretrovirals to survive AIDS and if one can survive without these toxic drugs then I am inclined to believe that others things that we have been lead to believe are also not true.

noreen, do you have any statistical evidence of this? Given that we are all rather different genetically, I would argue that it is fatal to think that a handful of people that you know who seem to be surviving (at the moment) is evidence of much.

noreen, if you reply to my above paragraph, please understand that I will not read it and I will compeltely dismiss it if you provide me anything other than statistical evidence. I want NUMBERS not more anecdotes. Now I am not trying to attack you here, I am simply saying that I am sick of anecdotes like "I know people that are surviving fine yadda yadda yadda". I don't care how many stories you have, I want verifiable numbers. I want cold hard facts that have no emotion behind them, have no anecdotes, nothing.

So in essence you are wasting your time trying to change our minds!

This is probably the most truth I have heard from you. And in response, I will say this: Then why are any of you here. This blog is obviously for AIDS "apologists" and is obviously not pro-denial. If no minds are changing here then why did any of you even show up at all? Or did you think that, while your minds are chiseled in stone or minds are like silly putty?

And finally noreen, I am curious, did you ever actually read any of those Amy Justice papers that *YOU* referenced as a pro-denialist but Adele showed did not actually say what you claimed at all? You are the one that brought her up and you do not seem to have mentioned her since Adele exposed that alive and well was competely missrepresenting her findings.

So noreen, tell me, if we are such bullshitters and liars and don't understand the science then:
1) Why did you bring up Amy Justice if she is proving that your claims are completely false?
2) If Adele missrepresented Amy Justice's papers, then why did you not respond with the actual quotes from the paper to disprove Adele?
3) If, upon reading Adele's quotes from the paper, you decided that Amy Justice is not actually and AIDS dissidents then how did you come to false conclusion she is?
4) If alive and well is claiming that Amy Justice's papers are pro-dissident and Adele is claiming (by quoting them) then do you still believe Alive And Well is correctly reporting the papers if the quotes 100% disagree?
5) If the papers actually state the exact opposite of Alive And Well then doesn't that severely hurt Alive And Well's credibility if they are missrepresenting the papers?
6) If you agree to question 5, then how can you possibly still see Alive And Well as a useful source of information of they are blatantly lieing or at the very least too ignorant to understand the papers?
7) If you agree to question 6 then how can you still stand by alive and well if you feel that they are misrepresenting information? There is no shame in changing your mind upon learning new information, despite what seems to be stated by people like cooler science does change its mind with evidence.

And noreen, please, IF you are going to answer any of those questions answer them *ALL*, I am far too sick of people like cooler and carter who either do not answer the questions at all or only cherry pick the ones they have some false claim about. I really am interested in reading your responses but if you answer 1 and 3 and ignore the others then I will competely ignore your entire post. I attempt to answer all questions I am asked in a post if I respond and I find it very disrespectful when people don't do the same for me. So far you have been for the most part very curteous and have not gone into personal attacks on people but have seemed to argue the points not the person.

Michael, please don't ask Chris to stop with Ascher. It's like asking Adam to stop wearing fig leaves.

I know talking about evidence that refutes Duesberg is inconvenient for you. I guess I should adopt Michael's technique of referring to Ascher as Fauci's buttboy etc.

For people that are interested in something other than Michael's fantasies about the SFMHS you can read an interview with Winkelstein here.

The AIDS Epidemic in San Francisco: The Medical Response, 1981-1984, Vol. VII

Read about how Duesberg misread the Asher et al paper and then went on to make accusations of data fabrication. Read about how Duesberg instead of going through normal channels simply mailed these accusations to people around the world. Read how Winkelstein himself insisted that an independent investigation took place. Read how the investigation cleared Winkelstein and his colleagues of these accusations.

Do Duesberg's action sound ethical?

Chris that link's broken.

I guess this is close:
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=kt7w10060s&doc.view=frames&chun…

Very interesting Thanks!

Dr. Noble,

Look what your friends answered when Michael pointed out that an AIDS diagnosis is a complex thing.

Gee Michael,
If only there was some kind of blood test we could use...
Yeah,
A unifying diagnosis.

In other words, no HIV no AIDS per definition.

You, Dr. Noble, have the same childish desire for one unifying First Cause of all. That is why you cling to Ascher's butt like Ascher is stuck to Fauci's popo. It is also why to you there's AIDS and then there's real AIDS.

The 45 cases Duesberg came up with were AIDS and one which fell in the category of "AIDS Related Complex", but to you they weren't like really real AIDS, like in good old KS or PCP AIDS. At the same time you want to say the definition of AIDS is not complicated at all, because there's that unifying First Cause, which is the Alpha and the Omega of the simple faith you live, eat and shit by.

So you get kinda upset and kinda obsessive because Ascher just laid it out so neatly and unproblematically for you and the First Cause of all AIDS, but the devil Duesberg cannot just remain excorcised; he has to start criticising the quality and integrity of Ascher's neat little paper and sow doubt about the good old clear cut real AIDS definition and its One Cause. And it's just... well it's just unfair and unethical!!

That's why you can't let it go, Dr Noble, this fig of your faith.

oh, and your link, like everything else in your little Ascher butt world, doesn't work.

Before Dr. Noble bursst any more blood vssels or go overboards on the hail Marys and the vade retros, let me correct that to:

and one condition which fell in the category "AIDS Related Complex"

Well thank you Roy for including the link to the evidence PROVING that Winkelstein was simply an irrational and emotional wreck over what Duesberg had presented.

Notice how Winkelstink even ADMITS, not that any science proved anything, but ADMITS THAT HE SIMPLY "FELT" that Duesberg was wrong, and THAT HE "FELT" VERY UPSET with Duesberg. He FELT so UPSET that he launched into his own ANGRY TIRADE about how Duesberg is wrong because sex is dirty and gays are full of sexual death diseases!

Gotta love winkelstink.

What an old testament religiously based paranoid guilt driven sexually repressed Doom and Gloom "moral majority" is good, and "Sex Is Dirty"/"Gay Sex Is An Affront To God" IDIOT and DOLT!

And THIS IS THE PROOF! It clearly shows why WinkelStank launched the crap and dummied up Ascher report. NOT TO INVESTIGATE SCIENCE, but simply to make himself look right and to make Duesberg look wrong.

No science. Just emotions run amok as has been the case since 5 gay drug abusers got sick in LA in 1981, none of whom even had ANY sexual partners in common!

Read it and WEEP. Oh, the homophobic humanity of it all.....

Winkelstein
At any rate, I saw his paper, and then I saw an announcement that he was going to give a seminar in the department of zoology here on campus in the Life Sciences Building. This would have been in 1987 or 1988. I don't remember. So, I went to the seminar and I was appalled by what he had to say. In particular, at that seminar, he made clear his opinion that AIDS was not an infectious disease and was not sexually transmitted, and that there was no danger from transmission by sexual activity.

Well, this seminar, while it was attended by some faculty, was largely attended by students, mostly graduate students.

that the evidence was overwhelming that this was an infectious disease and that the evidence was overwhelming at that time that it was a deadly disease, and....

I felt that this message was very, very irresponsible at the very least.....

Hughes
What was he basing those statements on?

Winkelstein
Oh, basically the same arguments he's giving today--drug use, homosexual behavior, and so forth, were what was causing the disease, not an infectious agent. He, at that time, was still saying, "I would be willing to be infected. In fact, being HIV-positive is favorable, not unfavorable, because of its antibodies," which, of course, reveals a profound misunderstanding of the concept of immunology. I think he's learned a little immunology since.

So, I got up--I was pretty upset, to say the least--and made an impassioned speech....

....regarding the infectious nature of the disease and the consequences of infection, which were pretty clear by that time. So, that was the beginning of my involvement with Dr. Duesberg on this issue.

Certainly explains winkelstinks and the rest of AIDS Incorporateds need for the ascher/winkelstink/sheppard paper.

WinkelStanks evidence:

"I was APPALLED by what he (Duesberg) had to say."

"I FELT that this was very VERY IRRESPONSIBLE"

"I was pretty UPSET and made an 'IMPASSIONED SPEECH"

Winkelsting the moralist homophobe. No science, just a moral crusade: Gays doing lots of toxic dope is good, gay sex is dirty and poisonous and bad. All Gays are dirty and diseased, and God is gonna kill them all!

What a fool. What a sick puppy. Just like a lot of you closetcases and homophobes!

The 45 cases Duesberg came up with were AIDS and one which fell in the category of "AIDS Related Complex", but to you they weren't like really real AIDS, like in good old KS or PCP AIDS.

None of them were AIDS. All of the conditions that Duesberg used in his "definition" are common in the general population.

I've already been through this. Does drug use cause AIDS

For example Duesberg uses oral thrush as an AIDS defining illness. The definition clearly states that it must ne esophageal. An arbitray distinction? No.

Listen to what Joseph Sonnabend says "Oral thrush occurs in people that are relatively immunologically intact. Esophageal candidiasis is more or less confined to people who are much worse off, immunologically speaking". Remember Sonnabend is a HIV "dissident" according to the Denialists.

Honestly, compare the salmonella food poisoning in the HIV- group with the KS and PCP in the HIV+ group. Is there are clue there?

The "HIV free AIDS" cases that Duesberg "discovered" are also extremely non-lifethreatening. In the 581 that were HIV- at enrolment there were 8 deaths over the time period of the Ascher et al study. Compare this to the 169 deaths in the 400 HIV+.

The evidence categorically demonstrates that drug use cannot explain the AIDS cases. No amount of ad hoc excuses and inventing "HIV free AIDS" cases will change this. Duesberg's blatant lies indicate that he has no answer to the Ascher study nor the studies by Schecter, Darby and Sabin that I have also referenced

Michael said:

"DMITS THAT HE SIMPLY "FELT" that Duesberg was wrong, and THAT HE "FELT" VERY UPSET with Duesberg. He FELT so UPSET that he launched into his own ANGRY TIRADE ..."

"And THIS IS THE PROOF! It clearly shows why WinkelStank launched the crap and dummied up Ascher report. NOT TO INVESTIGATE SCIENCE, but simply to make himself look right and to make Duesberg look wrong."

Michael, Winkelstein says he had seen Duesberg's 1987 Cancer Research paper before he went to Duesberg's seminar. Winkelstein began recruiting subjects for the San Francisco Men's Health Study in 1983. He knew quite a bit about the disease AIDS and the virus that causes it when he heard Duesberg speak in 87-88.

You might be right though, that speech at that seminar could have been the bee in Duesberg's bonnet that caused him to levy baseless accusations of fraud against Winkelstein et al.

Once again, I would like to thank Roy for helping to affirm that Ascher's 1993 study was a piece of propaganda shit done with others who despised Peter Duesberg, and for the sole purpose of discrediting him.

Ascher himself had absolutely no as in ZERO HIV experience. Google his name, Aschers works are all biowarfare papers, and almost no, if not zero actual labwork. And certainly ZERO experience in retrovirus. Aschers partner, Winkelstank, as well, had ZERO experience in retroviruses, and Duesberg was THE MOST PROMINENT AND RESPECTED RETROVIROLOGIST at the time!

Aschers partner in crime, Winkelstank, even admits his own hateful bias, as well as clearly shows his own hysteria driven and homophobicly fueled paranoid delusions of the "GAY DISEASE" that just so happened to begin immediately following the year that the moral majority was seeking to have the death penalty instituted for homosexuals.

No wonder so many turned to drugs and addiction.

No wonder so many gays began to make themselves sick starting in 1981.

No wonder so many just wanted to leave the planet.

No wonder so many couldn't get enough drugs to numb the pain of living in a homophobic world.

What young gay man would have even wanted to live in a world that was so full of old testament beating, religious right, moral majority, hateful, paranoid, satanic rascists and homophobes that wanted them all dead!

I was one of the very fortunate ones who had parents that loved me and accepted me exactly as I was, and despite my being homosexual.

I knew many of the disowned gay children of these absolutely intolerant, unloving, and hateful homophobes. I watched helplessly as their gay children became absolutely self destructive and turned to drug addictions, depression, self destructive behaviors, and self loathing.

All of these friends of mine who had been disowned by their families soon died and the world called it AIDS. They did not die from AIDS that was caused by any HIV.

They all died from their broken hearts and from the stress and shame and guilt that was imposed upon them by a homophobic society and after being disowned by their families for being gay. All of the ones I knew eventually allowed themselves to be poisoned to death by taking AZT. And the denial filled homophobes all have the AUDACITY to claim it was because of an invisible Gay Disease HIV sexual virus.

May their deaths not be in vain, and may the world grow from this experience.

Jesus,

Please protect us from the pseudo-religious pseudo-spiritual pretenders of religion, and also protect us from all of the anti-spiritualist-evolutionists/Darwinists as well!

Can I get an Amen anyone?

Ascher himself had absolutely no as in ZERO HIV experience. Google his name, Aschers works are all biowarfare papers, and almost no, if not zero actual labwork. And certainly ZERO experience in retrovirus. Aschers partner, Winkelstank, as well, had ZERO experience in retroviruses, and Duesberg was THE MOST PROMINENT AND RESPECTED RETROVIROLOGIST at the time!

Once again you spout fanatsies and delusiions rather than facts. If you were capable of doing an actual literature search you would find that Ascher has authored dozens of papers on HIV. He began work on the SFMHS in 1986.

Your attempt at irony is also noted. The most ludicrous statements made by Duesberg are about epidemiology where he has no experience. Winkelstein is an epidemiologist. The SFMHS is an epidemiological study. Most of Duesberg's arguments against HIV causing AIDS are based on his own distorted version of epidemiology. His whole drugs causing AIDS is also based entirely on weak epidemiology.

It is also worth point out that, unlike the researchers that you choose to lampoon, Duesberg has absolutely zero experimental research involving HIV.

Your paranoid delusions about the Ascher et al study being a propaganda piece are unfounded. The SFMHS was started in 1984. It was designed before HIV was recognised to be the aetiological agent behind AIDS. It was designed to determine which factors are associated with AIDS. Reporting the results from the study is hardly propaganda.

Your constant insinuation that everyone that recognises the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is homphobic is getting boring.

Honestly, compare the salmonella food poisoning in the HIV-group with the KS and PCP in the HIV+ group. Is there are clue there?
The "HIV free AIDS" cases that Duesberg "discovered" are also extremely non-lifethreatening. In the 581 that were HIV- at enrolment there were 8 deaths over the time period of the Ascher et al study. Compare this to the 169 deaths in the 400 HIV+.

Dr. Noble,

No need to re-affirm that there's AIDS and then there's really real AIDS.

No need to re-affirm either that there's a huge difference in mortality between groups where people in one get a bone waved at them and are told they WILL die shortly as they are put on permanent chemotherapy, but in the other are simply told they have low CD4 counts and salmonella, not to worry cuz antibodies against the Causal Unifier aren't present.

By the way, you ARE aware aren't you that the more (antibodies against) stuff that's floating around in the blood, the more likely one is to test positive on the ONE Cause of all test, and that there IS a correlation between a lot of stuff in the bloodstream and severe disease?

Michael,

The gay men who were among the first to die in the AIDS epidemic were living in the least homophobic communities in the USA. The main determinant of risk of AIDS in the early epidemiologic work in these communities was the number of sexual partners.

Hardly an indictment of homophobia as the cause of AIDS.

Oh Franklin, me thinks ye doth protest too much! Guilty conscience?

You too Chris!

Now I asked you guys for a simple amen to a nice little prayer for protection.

Whats the matter guys? Cat got your tongue?

One little Amen is all I asked.

How about you Chris? Isn't that a nice prayer for protection asked in Jesus' name? How about joining me with an Amen to it?

Or How bout you Franklin, or Adele, Roy, Tara, Apy.

Is the concept of a simple humble prayer to Jesus a bit too much for you? Does the concept simply scare you or what?

Surely someone around here reading this must have some sense of a spiritual connectedness to God or Jesus besides me,- the one and only "out" homosexual posting here,- that the old testament claims should be stoned to death!, even though you good folks seem to think there is no lingering societal effects from such an ancient and deeply engrained belief in homophobic views.

Does invoking the word GOD or the name of Jesus Christ around you guys always bug you guys out?

Why in God's name is that?

Now One more time, won't you guys join me in a nice simple prayer for the protection of all of humanity:

Jesus,

Please protect us from the pseudo-religious pseudo-spiritual pretenders of religion, and also protect us from all of the anti-spiritualist-evolutionists/Darwinists as well. And may your peace be upon us all.

We ask this in your name, Jesus, and we Thank you.

Can I get an Amen anyone?

Franklin, You said:

"The gay men who were among the first to die in the AIDS epidemic were living in the least homophobic communities in the USA".

I know. I was there. And there were NO LEAST HOMOPHOBIC COMMUNITIES. They were ALL HOMOPHOBIC including the straight community in San Francisco! And I also know that NONE of the gays who "were among the first to die" were even born or raised in any of these cities, but left their hometowns to go live in the gay ghettos where they moved to, to ESCAPE the homophobism of their hometowns and families. That was my reason for moving to California in 1978 myself you fool! But as I said, I was very fortunate in that when I came out to my own family in Pennsylvania in 1986, that they accepted my exactly as I was. Which is quite opposite to the experience that the gays who died had experienced. They were quite rejected by their own homophobic families.

Do not pretend to me to be in the know of any of this Franklin. because you were not there. You do not personally know any of these people as friends. And you are either another fucking closet case, or you are a homophobe. Which is it?

Franklin,
You weren't listening! Homophobia is not the cause of AIDS. It is the evil behind the indoctrination of unsuspecting gay men into the cult of HIV=AIDS=DEATH and subconsciously plants in one mind the firm voodoo hex one recieves by not only the doctors following bad science, but society's belief in general as well.

No need to re-affirm either that there's a huge difference in mortality between groups where people in one get a bone waved at them and are told they WILL die shortly as they are put on permanent chemotherapy, but in the other are simply told they have low CD4 counts and salmonella, not to worry cuz antibodies against the Causal Unifier aren't present.

You are just continuing with more ad hoc justifications for denying the evidence. The study started in 1984 - along time before AZT was introduced. When AZT was introduced it was given selectively to those with advanced AIDS. The records from the SFMHS show that AZT was given after progression to AIDS.

The low CD4 counts in the HIV- group were transient. They were exceptions amongst a background of normal readings. The CD4 counts in the HIV+ group steadily and progressively declined until the development of AIDS. Salmonella is AIDS defining if and only if it is recurrent. Relapses are rare in inmmunocompetent patients but common in HIV disease.

At one stage Duesberg and Ellison were talking about 200 HIV- AIDS cases. I wonder what criteria they used to get that number. Ingrown toenails?

By the way, you ARE aware aren't you that the more (antibodies against) stuff that's floating around in the blood, the more likely one is to test positive on the ONE Cause of all test, and that there IS a correlation between a lot of stuff in the bloodstream and severe disease?

I am aware that the manufacturers of these tests do controls for potentially interfering substances and conditions including various infections and hypergammaglobulinemia before they get approval from the FDA or corresponding agency.

"controls for potentially interfering substances".. WTF? Really? How so? You know that being aware and being correct are two different things, dont you?

Hey Chris, You said "The study started in 1984".

Just how many AIDS deaths were there in 1984? They did not even have an HIV test yet! How the fuck would you or anyone else know what caused their deaths. Oh, I forgot. You didn't even need to be diagnosed as HIV at that time. You just needed to be gay and ill.

But did you know any of the effected personally Chris?

I did and it wasn't from any sexually transmitted virus. I personally know damn well the depression and stress and hysteria and paranoia and drug abuse and fear and guilt and shame and apathy and self loathing and poor diet and insanity that was rampant in the gay ghettos of California at that time. I was there fool. I saw it all first hand. I knew these people personally.

Oh my God... Chris said, "HIV disease." I want to know what that is exactly, can you explain? Or is that another made up convoluted catch phrase meant to scare, confuse and cajole others into thinking non specific, whacked out or unusual antibody measurements are cause of disease? Really now?

Dr. Noble, I do not suppose the SFMHS study started and ended in '84. Do you?.

I've noticed that in your simple ONE Cause of everything world, people are always only put on AZT after they develop "advanced AIDS". How do you define "advanced AIDS" - a CD4 count of 350? 250? 199? HIV + Salmonella? HIV + PCP? Does Noreen have "advanced AIDS"? How long are people off the meds supposed to survive with "advanceed AIDS"?

The reason I want to know is I'd like you to put your money where your mouth seems to be parked for good. Once I have your definition of "advanced AIDS", I'm going to make you a handsome bet that I can find a lot more than 45 or 4000 cases of people put on AZT that didn't have "advanced AIDS", but subsequently died on the llife-saving meds faster than you can say AZT.

And no, I didn't mean that literally, Dr. Noble. It does take a little bit longer to croak on AZT than pronouncing the 3 letters - a little bit longer depending on the dose.

I too would like to ask that question to Dr. Noble or to anyone else. What do I have? Are you going to say that I was misdiagnosed, I don't think so. What is the explanation for me and for many others who contact me by mail and phone and have given up their meds and are healthy? You see, many are becoming wise to this BS and are stopping the meds. And you know what is happening, they are leading normal lives with normal lab reports. So you people want to tell me that I am wrong to be healthy. The problem is that we are proving you wrong and many do not like that.

So Lisa,

What exactly is your prediction on survival time for patients treated with AZT?

Once you make your prediction, we can look for data to test it. That's how science works.

Michael, how many times does someone have to go to Pubmed and spend like two minutes searching to show that you're a liar again, before you stop doing it?

M: "Ascher himself had absolutely no as in ZERO HIV experience."

Ascher has 36 HIV publications. How many does Duesberg, P. have?

Yeah, I know:

'There is NO way Duesberg could be expected to produce one single paper on HIV based on his own primary research in the last 20 years because the NIH passed a law saying that Duesberg cannot do any research related to HIV!!!!!'

Anyway, back to reality. Ascher has a mere 22 HIV related publications prior to the 1993 paper demonstrating that Duesberg was wrong about drug use and AIDS.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&T…

("Ascher MS"[Author] hiv) put it into Pubmed if you don't believe me.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

M:"Winkelstank, as well, had ZERO experience in retroviruses, and Duesberg was THE MOST PROMINENT AND RESPECTED RETROVIROLOGIST at the time!"

Winkelstein was an epidemiologist the works he has published including those that demonstrate that drug use is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS and that HIV infection IS both necessary and sufficient to cause AIDS are works of epidemiology.

Now, regarding working outside one' field, does anyone believe that Michael would allow someone to discard Duesberg's supposed epidemiological analysis of the SFMHS with a simple dismissal that he is a virologist not an epidemiologist? No, of course not. We have to go through every case of food poisoning that Duesberg diagnoses as AIDS and show why he is off his bloody rocker!

As for the homophobia causes AIDS "argument", why did AIDS appear so suddenly instead of having been a chronic gay disease. I mean they were stoning gays to death in the old testament, where were they dying of AIDS in say the fifties,? Sixties? Seventies?

Once you make your prediction, we can look for data to test it. That's how science works

Franklin I know how HIV science works thank you very much: Start with a Universal Unifier then go look for the specific data that seems to confirm the theory and disregard all else. But personally I prefer to base my predictions on induction, that is, I proceed from already observed particulars instead of a declaration of faith, which all else must be made to conform to.

Gee, when Michael earlier in this thread said you were channeling JP Macaque, I went nahh... can't be, he doesn't sound THAT science illiterate. But I gotta hand it, you almost changed my mind with that little lesson in the scientific method. Man, it's up there with JP's hilarious illustration of scientific certainty in the NYT: H.I.V. causes AIDS. It is as certain as the descent of humans from apes and the falling of dropped objects to the ground.

Noreen said,
If only for once there was a titer in my blood then I might be inclined to listen to you folks.

Noreen you told us a few weeks ago you had a titer of 10 to the 6th or higher sorry I'm not remembering the exact number but it was something in that range.

Why do you cling to this bumper sticker phrase about HIV nothing but antibodies?

You can look at HIV infection by
culture
PCR
antigen
in addition to the antibody methods!

Noreen you also said "one" doesn't need antiviral drugs. Thats right "one" person in your experience you doesn't need antiviral drugs or at least it seems that way. I hope you're an exception but all of the studies say something else.

Quick roundup of good "dissident" claims from the last few days none of them with any evidence and all of them ignored after they got exposed. This is a free service to the dissidents here so they can say new stuff today or maybe really impress everyone and defend some of this with facts.

-Theres a 5% correlation between HIV and AIDS
REALLY I think carter's thinking about the rodriguez et al paper that doesn't say anything like that.

-80% HIV from chemical addiction, THERE is NO VIRUS
REALLY, Carter missed the better correlation, 100% of HIV positive babies are born to mothers. Females. Women. People with two X chromosomes. So 100% of HIV from being born to a woman.

-Drug use causes AIDS but you can't tell because of the circular AIDS definition, that one's from Sandi.
REALLY the Ascher paper didn't use the HIV definition but Sandi didn't read that paper and the other "dissidents" ignore it because anyone named "Winkelstink" isn't a good scientist and of course the buttboy stuff. Not bad reasoning by dissident standards.

-Amy Justice said antiretrovirals kill more people than AIDS.
REALLY all you have to do is read one of AJ's eighty papers and you see how wrong that is.

-Anna Coutsoudis says breastfeeding is better than Nevirapine to prevent HIV transmission.
REALLY this is totally made up its also insulting to one of the best human beings in science. Read one of AC's papers and maybe a news article about her before you make stuff up next time. Anna Coutsoudis helps AIDS patients every day women and children and she knows more than anyone how important nevirapine is for stopping vertical transmission and also how its not so toxic as you like to say.

-Dunn DT et al said breastfeeding transmission was low, HIV breastfeeding was less risky than formula.
REALLY Dunn DT et al found transmission risk up to thirty percent in the work they looked at. They said in their paper HIV positive mothers should not breastfeed if safe formula is there.

-AIDS Inc. is a "gravy train" and thats proved by a AIDS counseler in SA makes five times a teacher's salary.
REALLY, the average teachers salary is more than 8300 rand a month, counseler's salary is 2000 rand a month.

-80% of malaria deaths in South Africa get called AIDS.
REALLY ? Where did this come from? I guess if I call up someone from South Africa and they tell me South Africa is changing its name to Aluminia it must be true.

That's not all of them but enough to make me ask, why is it so hard for dissidents to check their facts before they say something here?

Oh I'm also waiting for andrew maniotis to answer my questions about the AAPS.

Noreen,
You forgot to mention, what about the people who get wind of these idiots and their gravely mistaken theories and decided to never take the meds in the first place?.

When Adele seems to think "I hope you're an exception but all of the studies say something else." Virtually means one must have true faith in mainstream western medicine because all those studies are really only based on the preconcieved notion that whatever HIV is, it's supposed to cause disease. She's obviously trying to HEX you.

Theres no proof
"culture" = laboratory constructs
"PCR" = viral load of crap
"antigen" = p24 of no significance
"in addition to the antibody methods!" --to what God only knows.

"fewer than 50% of patients with CD4 counts greater than 200 cells/microliter had positive plasma cultures"
Saag MS et al. HIV viral load markers in clinical practice. Nat Med. 1996 Jun;2(6):625-9.

"Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection." Rodriguez B et al. Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection. JAMA. 2006 Sep 27;296(12):1498-1506

"Baseline serum p24 antigen levels were measured in 71 patients. At entry, 37 (52%) were positive for the antigen...and 34 (48%) were negative, yet all were positive for HIV antibodies."
McKinney RE et al. A multicenter trial of oral zidovudine in children with advanced human immunodeficiency virus disease. N Engl J Med. 1991 Apr 11;324(15):1018-25.

"False-positive ELISA test results can be caused by alloantibodies resulting from transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear...The WB is not used as a screening tool because...it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results."
Doran TI, Parra E. False-Positive and Indeterminate Human Immunodeficiency Virus Test Results in Pregnant Women. Arch Fam Med. 2000 Sep/Oct;9:924-9.

"She's obviously trying to HEX you." said carter. So now I'm a witch too! Actually witches are cool carter but I bet the AAPS doesn't approve of them!

So carter here's what your saying tell me if I get something wrong. And by the way nice use of the literature why don't you keep that up!? With some more practice you might make some good points someday.

Because one group wasn't able to culture virus from a subset of rel. healthy patients therefor virus culture doesn't work and we can't believe it.

Because HIV RNA levels in plasma minimally predict the rate of CD4 decline reported in one paper therfore HIV RNA levels don't correlate with CD4+ levels either and they don't have any predictive value forget about the hundreds of studies proving they do.

Because one trial found antigen in about half their people in the late eighties therefore antigen is a joke and never mind todays antigen tests twenty years later are as sensitive as PCR.

Because false positives can happen on HIV like anything else therefore ELISAs and western blots are a joke and all positive results are false positives.

Because viral load is a phrase you can make into "viral load of crap" and "viral load of bullshit" therefore viral load is is ajoke too.

Carter tell us please did you actually read any of those papers? Did you take a look at that algorithm chart in the Doran paper maybe? And how did you chose these papers? Because they're listed on a dissident website or a dissident paper?

and carter do you still agree with these:
-Anna Coutsoudis says breastfeeding is better than Nevirapine to prevent HIV transmission
-Dunn DT et al said breastfeeding transmission was low, HIV breastfeeding was less risky than formula.
-AIDS Inc. is a "gravy train" and thats proved by a AIDS counseler in SA makes five times a teacher's salary.

So Adele, what'up with "one study" quibble? Are you saying the researchers doing this "one study" were incompetent? unlucky? unbiased? what's the deal, cuz I didn't hear that from you when we were discussing Ascher or any of the other understudies supposedly supporting your side?

C'mon now, why wasn't "one group" able to culture. Isn't culturing HIV child's play? I mean you do it all the time in your secretly located basement from all kinds of non-stimulated cells don't you? What went wrong for Rodriguez? And more importantly, why are his results taken seriously by your side when it's just one contrary paper out of hundreds? http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/03/john_mellors_ad.html

Adele, how many gold standard replication competent virions have you, or anybody else, isolated in that basement of yours, or anywhere else, from a viral load of, say 2 millions?

And that "one paper" on the tests didn't say "false positives can happen". It said, "yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results". What went wrong there, Adele?

ELISA,
It's not a quibble and Im not saying the authors of these papers are wrong incompetent or anything else. I'm saying your side when you very rarely give a reference and my god is that rare! but when you do it you just prove how little you know about science.

Do you know how dumb this sounds,
Isn't culturing HIV child's play? I mean you do it all the time in your secretly located basement from all kinds of non-stimulated cells don't you?
I wasn't ever talking about ex vivo work. Do you know what culturing is? ELISA you have alot to learn and i say that in the nicest way possible. There's lots of people in the world who don't know about things. But why do you advertize it like this? If you don't know something just say so and ask some questions. I don't know Arthur Miller from eighteenth centruy literature but im not going to a Arthur Miller blog and posting my nutty theories about how Miller doesn't exist or he was actually a octopus. Those people there would know rightaway I never read Miller and I don't know anything about him. SAme thing with aetiology and you.

And what's this about Rodriguez? How is Rodriguez a "contrary paper"? ASk yourself
Did Rodriguez et al say viral load isn't related to CD4 counts?
No.
Did Rodriguez et al say viral load doesn't predict disease outcome by itself?
No.
Did Rodriguez et al say CD4 count doesn't predict disease outcome?
No.
Did Rodriguez et al say CD4 and viral load together don't predict disease outcome?
No.

What they did say was, viral load is a minimal predicter of the RATE get that the RATE of CD4 decline.
The rate.
Not viral load has nothing to do with CD4 count. Not HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. They said viral load is corellated but not really well with the RATE of CD4 decline.

ELISA or Gene I guess I offered to send you a textbook so you could read it and stop making a fool of yourself with stuff like this,

And that "one paper" on the tests didn't say "false positives can happen". It said, "yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results". What went wrong there, Adele?

The WB is not used as a screening assay. It's used as a confirmation assay. Do you know why? Do you know what a Western Blot is? Have you ever done one? Because if so you know why its not always a good primary assay. But its ok at confirming something else. Also by the way "false positive" is not the same thing as "indeterminate result" you would know that if you read the paper from Doran et al.

But you didn't read the paper. Carter didn't read the paper. Probably the denialist who first put that paper on some website didn't read the paper. You just repeat stuff you want to be true.

Lisa,

You're getting slipperier by the minute. First:

Once I have your definition of "advanced AIDS", I'm going to make you a handsome bet that I can find a lot more than 45 or 4000 cases of people put on AZT that didn't have "advanced AIDS", but subsequently died on the llife-saving meds faster than you can say AZT.

Then:

And no, I didn't mean that literally, Dr. Noble. It does take a little bit longer to croak on AZT than pronouncing the 3 letters - a little bit longer depending on the dose.

When I asked you just how long you were predicting for the survival time on AZT, you said:

I prefer to base my predictions on induction, that is, I proceed from already observed particulars instead of a declaration of faith, which all else must be made to conform to.

Sounds like you're already welching on the bet.

Make the prediction on "already observed particulars," if you like.

But to be a prediction it has to be stated in advance.

That's how science works.

It's also how bets work.

Adele,

How do you explain the mainstream claim that 1000 people are dying each day from AIDS in Sth Africa when the official stats state that the actual deaths in Sth Africa is abt 490t in total.
That equates to about a 74% death rate from Aids.So those claims cannot be true ,so if they can lie so blatantly about that , doesn't that make other claims about
HIV/AIDS just as suspect.

"controls for potentially interfering substances".. WTF? Really? How so? You know that being aware and being correct are two different things, dont you?

Oh, the irony. You're killing me with it. I know you are only aware of the lies and half-truths that you copy and paste from Denialist websites. I am not responsible for your ignorance.

Table 11: Reactivity of Specimens from Individuals with Potentially Interfering Substances or with Medical Conditions

"fewer than 50% of patients with CD4 counts greater than 200 cells/microliter had positive plasma cultures"
Saag MS et al. HIV viral load markers in clinical practice. Nat Med. 1996 Jun;2(6):625-9.

If you actually read the papers rather than copying and pasting from some Denialist website then you might answer your own questions.

The paper concerns the quantitation of HIV viremia. The paper refers to two different culture techniques a) culture from PBMCs and b) culture from cell free plasma. The latter is a good measure of viremia but is less sensitive. On the other hand viral culture from PBMCs is succesful in 97-100% of HIV+ patients regardless of the clinical stage of HIV disease.

If you copy and paste an isolated sentence from a study without reading or understanding the study you may end up appearing like an idiot. Then again that has never stopped Denialists in the past.

This is so typical:

I publish a list of roughly 30 references, with DIRECT QUOTES from the papers, from the past 20 years, supporting my claim that F(HIV) has not risen substantially in that time. I ask Adele or anyone else who feels they have reason to believe this is NOT the case, to come up with a similar list of references, showing to me that my 30 or so references are indeed "cherry-picked" and do not represent my conclusion.

Rather than addressing my 30 refs, I get the following deflections:

1. 3 pages of whining from Chris Noble about a Curran paper from 1985. Perhaps Chris failed to actually READ my presentation, because then he would have found:

"1986: 1,250,000, Confronting AIDS, Institute of Medicine, 1986. "Prevalence of HIV Infection", pp. 69-70. This estimate is based on the infamous Curran et al paper "The epidemiology of AIDS: current status and future prospects" frequently cited by HIV apologists as being misrepresented ["choosing the highest estimate of 1,000,000"] by Duesberg et al. It is interesting to note that in 1986, the authors of Confronting AIDS did not appear to agree with those currently accusing Duesberg of mispresentation. The exact text of Confronting AIDS states: "Using this method [of using "estimated prevalence of infection and estimates of the size of these risk groups"], the Public Health Service estimated as of mid-1986 that this number [HIV prevalence] is somewhere between 1 million and 1.5 million (Appendix G). The estimate corresponds reasonably well with the estimate (approximately 1.25 million) derived using an infected-to-AIDS-case ratio of 50 to 1 (Curran et al., 1985)" [my emphasis]."

2. Then Chris trots out the tired old "Oh, but they didn't test 100% of the population": "Everybody except HIV Denialists now accept that the estimates from the mid 1980s were overestimates. They were not obtained by testing 100% of the US population." Tell me Chris, can you tell me of a single test where conclusions were drawn where completely 100% of the population was tested? Don't you know that's the whole point of the field of inference?

Why are they overestimates, Chris? Because we have better raw data on seroprevalence from that time? Or because the data we do have just doesn't jive with the HIV hypothesis, so we have to "back-calculate" (in essence, ASSUMING HIV causes AIDS with a 10-year latency period, and then guessing/projecting what SHOULD HAVE BEEN the HIV prevalence given what we know of AIDS incidence).

So, which way should people trust? The actual direct estimates? Or "back-calculation", a form of circular logic (at least, in so far as providing evidence for HIV).

But let's grant Chris a few points. Let's concede that we didn't test "100% of the population" in the early years. Let's concede that we really have no idea how many people were "infected with HIV" back then.

There is still a simple way to settle the matter, and that is to consider fixed groups (sub-populations) who have been tested over time, e.g. first-time blood donors, repeat blood donors, military recruits, Job Corps, etc. If HIV prevalence has really been increasing over the past 20 years as you all claim, then at least some of these sub-populations should reflect this fact. But the fact is that no such sub-population has ever shown an increase since testing began.

"1984 400,000-450,000
1986 550,00-650,000
1992 650,000-900,000

You give the estimate for 1992 from this paper but for some reason neglect to mention the estimates for 1986 and 1984. Why is that?"

Because it's based on back-calculation:

"We estimated HIV prevalence from 3 data sources. We estimated past HIV infection rates from a statistical procedure based on national acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) case surveillance data and estimates of the time from HIV infection to AIDS diagnosis. We also analyzed HIV prevalence data from 2 national surveys, a survey of childbearing woman and a household survey of current health status. We used other data sources to adjust these survey estimates to include groups not covered in the surveys."

The 1992 number is only from a couple years previous -- it's pretty hard to screw up a number from a couple years ago, even using asinine back-calculation techniques. But the 1984 and 1986 numbers are from 10+ years previous.

3. From the sublime to the ridiculous:

"How is this "darin" guy a math professor. He doesn't know if there's ten studies you can't just take the one you want? Where the hell could someone like that teach math? I want to know so I don't let my kids go to that school!"

"Its a million on the nose since forever just a little lower in the nineties they're saying. I think aidstruth says some of that "data" was from the same study too Duesberg just uses it over. How does a real mathematician stick up for that kinda crap? I wanna know where this guy's a professor and why or if he's just posing."

I don't know what you think "aidstruth says". And I don't even know what "kinda crap" I'm supposedly sticking up for. I stick up for my own damn crap. I gave you 30 or so refs to the literature, with direct quotes, supporting the flat line prevalence curve. I then asked for a similar such list supporting you guys claim that it's not a flat line prevalence curve.

I'M STILL WAITING. Go ahead, if I'm wrong, there should be ANOTHER 30 refs or so out there, or 100+ (or 100,000+ or however many you claim proves HIV causes AIDS) that show the flat line prevalence curve is a figment of my feeble imagination. I only have one condition: NO BACK-CALCULATION. So, WHERE ARE THEY?

And, FYI, I was a prof. at Eastern New Mexico University from 2005-2006. I got my ph.d. from UC Santa Barbara in 2004.

So there, everyone knows exactly WHO I AM. I'm still trying to figure out who the hell "Adele" is.

But this is typical. When the chips get down, you start with the usual deflections and tangents and distractions. When that wears out, you start in on the name-calling, ad hominems, accusations of homophobia, questioning of identity and integrity, and general whining/freaking out.

It's not working. You're not fooling anyone anymore.

darin

3 pages of whining from Chris Noble about a Curran paper from 1985. Perhaps Chris failed to actually READ my presentation, because then he would have found:

Perhaps Darin failed to read anything that I wrote.

The Curran estimate was derived solely from the extensive data going back to 1978 from the SFCC cohort. The seroprevalence in this cohort went from 4% in 1978 up to 68%. Why don't you talk about this rather than deflecting? I still have not received a rational response as to why Duesberg and his acolytes ignore this data but use the estimate derived from the data.

The same pattern was seen in numerous cohorts of homosexual men and injecting drug users.

Tell me Chris, can you tell me of a single test where conclusions were drawn where completely 100% of the population was tested? Don't you know that's the whole point of the field of inference?

The problem is that Duesberg does not acknowledge any uncertainity in these estimates. The stupid graph does not have any error bars. In undergraduate science you'd get a fail for that.

The early estimates were based on a relatively small number of positive tests. The vast majority of the positive tests were in subpopulations of homosexual men and injecting drug users where the epidemic had first been recognised. The question is were these results representative of these subpopulations as a whole and what was the total size of these subpopulations.

Everybody knows these estimates had huge uncerntainties. It is stupid to pretend otherwise.

There is still a simple way to settle the matter, and that is to consider fixed groups (sub-populations) who have been tested over time, e.g. first-time blood donors, repeat blood donors, military recruits, Job Corps, etc. If HIV prevalence has really been increasing over the past 20 years as you all claim, then at least some of these sub-populations should reflect this fact. But the fact is that no such sub-population has ever shown an increase since testing began.

This is just stupid. If you use these subpopulations to estimate the total seroprevalence then you would get a fraction of the 1 million that you are desperately clinging to. Which one are you going to chose?

You've read (I presume) the various studies that you have cited and would have noticed that the majority of HIV+s have been in specific subpopulations. These subpopulations are excluded both from the military and giving blood. Anybody that thinks that military recruits and blood donors are representative is just stupid.

An attentive reader would also recognise that all of these studies directly refute Duesberg's claim that HIV is spread predominantly by perinatal transmission although believing mutually exclusive things has never bother Denialists in the past.

Despite Darin's assertion nobody has ever attempted to use the US national estimates of HIV prevalence and the reported cases of AIDS to prove the connection between HIV and AIDS.

There are many cohorts where HIV- and HIV+ people are followed over time. These include the SFCCC that Curran used and the SFMHS that Ascher worked on. In these cohorts they know not only the seroprevalence but the individuals that are infected. The data from these cohorts shows with no room for doubt that HIV causes AIDS.

It is frankly stupid to look at national estimates that have huge uncertainties when there are cohorts with precise data. No back projections are involved in these studies.

Good post Darin.

Dont worry about Adele, shes on these blogs 24/7 and claims to have a masters and be a busy lab tech....................ummmmm I have some doubts about that.

Darin have you looked over the work of Dr. shyh Ching Lo md phd the cheif from the Armed forces institute of pathology on mycoplasma incognitus?, every animal he injected with it died, he found it many AIDS patients and hiv negative people that died of mysterious infections. Here is a summary of his peer reviewed work, he had serious Doubts about the hiv hypothesis as well, and applauded Deusberg in 1990.

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html

Dr garth Nicolson has found this bug by pcr in CFS gulf war syndrome etc, he doesnt rely on antibody testing to detect it bc the animals that died only had a weak antibody response when near death, check out his book Project Day Lily, he claims that he had confidential sources within the Pentagon that informed him it was part of the biowarfre program, you can read a chapter for free. Keep up the good work.

http://www.projectdaylily.com/

But this is typical. When the chips get down, you start with the usual deflections and tangents and distractions. When that wears out, you start in on the name-calling, ad hominems, accusations of homophobia, questioning of identity and integrity, and general whining/freaking out.

Who are you talking about?

Your Denialist friends?

Darin,
I'd bet Adele is Jeanne Bergman, and Frankin is John Moore. Why not? They're both in bed together, or so it seems when watching that droning propaganda video they did together. It seems fitting now that they're getting their jollies on by simultaneously whining here. I just had a frightening thought, can you imagine what kind of person their love child would be?

I'm getting sick of the mental gymnastics performed by the Denialists in the vain attempt to avoid evidence that conflicts with their fantasies.

Here is a direct question for Darin.

Do you accept the data from the SFCCC that show a skyrocketing HIV seroprevalence from 1978 to 1985?

Look at figure 2 in this paper.
The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in a cohort of homosexual men. A six-year follow-up study.

If you read the study you will also note that this reeport from scientists at the CDC gives an estimate of 240,000 for the prevalence of HIV in the US in 1985.

Dropped an h.

The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in a cohort of homosexual men. A six-year follow-up study.

There is still a simple way to settle the matter, and that is to consider fixed groups (sub-populations) who have been tested over time, e.g. first-time blood donors, repeat blood donors, military recruits, Job Corps, etc. If HIV prevalence has really been increasing over the past 20 years as you all claim, then at least some of these sub-populations should reflect this fact. But the fact is that no such sub-population has ever shown an increase since testing began.

This is just stupid. If you use these subpopulations to estimate the total seroprevalence then you would get a fraction of the 1 million that you are desperately clinging to. Which one are you going to chose? (Noble)

Hahah... Dr Noble, it must be you who're channeling JP now, because this is beyond pathetic. The only one clinging to the 1 million is you; we're choosing the flat curve, with or without your undergrad. error bars, thank you.

You chose the Curran paper which apparently shows that over time HIV prevalence in a given cohort increases 1700% or whatever number it is you'd like to exhibit. So how do you square that with no rise in statistically significant groups like military recruits groups at any given point in time?

Let me help you, Dr. Noble, by suggesting to you the "pandemic" is so localized that even an increase from 4% to 68% over time in selected cohorts has no measurable impact on the national average for any statistically significant group at any given point in time.

Of course we're now supposing Curran et als. impressive infection rate didn't disappear over night in '85. But perhaps what you want to say is that HIV exploded in '78, then stopped dead in its tracks and became endemic in '85?

I'm also still waiting for your definition of "advanced AIDS", so I can know just how advanced AIDS has to be to be really real AIDS to you and those who dish out the AZT. And please don't get all confused (I see you get easily confused these days) and forget to answer for the record just because your science pal Franklin thinks this has anything to do with predictions. All us denialists out here simply want to know just how "advanced" our AIDS has to be be before the doc. thinks it's time to push the meds.

Remember it's Ascher's butt on the line here.

Do you know how dumb this sounds,
Isn't culturing HIV child's play? I mean you do it all the time in your secretly located basement from all kinds of non-stimulated cells don't you? I wasn't ever talking about ex vivo work. Do you know what culturing is?

Nothing gets by you Adele lol! But I'm quite frankly disappointed, because I take it your non-answer means you're not culturing and cloning and feeding monkeys using all sorts of freshly unstimulated cells from the -80 fridge in your basement after all? Not even a couple of replication competent virions with the do it at home PCR kit huh?

Chris,
So in 1978 there was an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect a virus? I'll let Darin answer this one, but how in hell could anyone accept this data when it reeks of bull shit to begin with? In that time, what were the controls used to determine and make such bold statements? This is such a classic example how assumptions are built upon assumptions then touted as pure gospel! Seems like someone has an idea here, a set up to sell drugs.

You chose the Curran paper which apparently shows that over time HIV prevalence in a given cohort increases 1700% or whatever number it is you'd like to exhibit. So how do you square that with no rise in statistically significant groups like military recruits groups at any given point in time?

The homosexuals in the Castro district weren't exactly rushing to join the homophobic military were they. Do you need another clue?

Chris,
E-Lisa is`waiting for her answer, what is "advanced AIDS", and I'm waiting for mine, "HIV Disease". Come on now Mr. big shot scientist, you seem to have all the answers!

Chris, you said:

"Do you accept the data from the SFCCC that show a skyrocketing HIV seroprevalence from 1978 to 1985?"

Please explain how this is possible when HTLV-III was not even supposedly yet isolated by Gallo until 1984. The press conference and the date of his Elisa patent are April 20th 1984!

It may be that they tested old blood samples, but the first Elisa of Gallo and Company was completely flakey and went off for everything. It was not ever meant to be used as a diagnostic and was only ever meant to be used to be extra sure the donor blood supplies were safe.

These early studies using the highly flawed first elisa test prove absolutely nothing, except perhaps that you are a mental case for considering them to be reliable.

So even it they had looked at a cohort of very sexually active gays in san fran from 78, of course it would the test would have gone off as these people were loaded with antibodies to every pathogen encountered in the gay bath houses at the time.

Lisa,

You asked for the definition in relation to a wager, but you won't define the terms of the wager in advance. Pseudoscience applied to gambling.

Perhaps you don't care about the impact of HIV infection on "selected cohorts," like the gay men in San Francisco studied by Curran.

I guess you don't care what HIV infection did to hemophiliacs, either, since to you they must represent simply another "selected cohort".

Then again, I guess you could consider persons aged 25 to 44 another "selected cohort" disproportionately affected by HIV.

Michael,

You just claimed that the reported 1978 seroprevalence should be artifactually high due to false positives from the tests.

That implies that the true prevalence in 1978 was even lower than reported by Curran, making the subsequent increase in seroprevalence observed in the study even more dramatic evidence for the explosion of the epidemic.

Just stop trying to write about science. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Keep telling us about how important is to you to beleive that HIV is harmless in order to protect your lover from AIDS.

Chris, You said:

"I'm getting sick....."

Do you mean sicker than you already are?

Perhaps you should go get an HIV test and do some AZT.

However, Before you keel over, Chris, will you please give us all your definitions of "Advanced AIDS" and "HIV disease".

You said these terms and YOU are the one throwing them around, so what the hell EXACTLY are you talking about?

YOUR definitions of YOUR MEANING of these terms are in order!

"Do you accept the data from the SFCCC that show a skyrocketing HIV seroprevalence from 1978 to 1985?"

Sure. Why not.

Doesn't prove a damn thing. It's entirely consistent with the hypothesis that the HIV tests are measuring a non-specific reaction to health risks.

Again, you demonstrate the usual deflection: I point out the discrepancy between the flat line prevalence curve and AIDS incidence, and you deflect to a study of a cohort of men covering a period 6 years previous to the time period I'm addressing.

I think Epi-LISA summed it up best:

"You chose the Curran paper which apparently shows that over time HIV prevalence in a given cohort increases 1700% or whatever number it is you'd like to exhibit. So how do you square that with no rise in statistically significant groups like military recruits groups at any given point in time?"

Indeed. Over a 6-year period, HIV prevalence increased 1700% (or however much you claim) among a particular cohort of homosexual men, yet this astounding epidemic transmission of HIV failed to penetrate other "non-risk" populations, such as military recruits or blood donors, who from 1985 on have shown no rise in seroprevalence. Amazing behaviour for a true STI.

Apparently, either this particular cohort of homosexual men had absolutely no sexual contact with "non-risk" populations such as military recruits or blood donors, over a period of 6 years, or the HIV tests are simply detecting a non-specific response to health risks. I'll leave it to the reader of this thread to decide which possibility is more likely.

"Despite Darin's assertion nobody has ever attempted to use the US national estimates of HIV prevalence and the reported cases of AIDS to prove the connection between HIV and AIDS."

So, Chris Noble, what exactly HAS been "attempted to...prove the connection between HIV and AIDS"?? The "finding" of HIV by Gallo in 1984 in less than half of AIDS patients? What since then?? I just got you to admit that US national estiamtes of prevalence/incidence data have never been "attempted to use...to prove the connection between HIV and AIDS." So, what is left? Virological evidence? But AIDS researchers long ago admitted they have no VIROLOGICAL reasons why HIV should cause AIDS. None whatsoever.

Amazingly, I agree with you on this, Chris. Epidemiology is never sufficient to PROVE causality. But it is more than sufficient to DISPROVE causality. When I claim that HIV seroprevalence and AIDS incidence data DISPROVE the HIV hypothesis, I am simply saying that you cannot DISPROVE the DISPROVING evidence by introducing data based on back-calculation methods. And that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do. The flat line prevalence curve DISPROVES the HIV hypothesis. You try to discount this disproof by suggesting that the data supporting it is not really true after all, because we know by back-calculation that HIV prevlance is rising. But you cannot discount this evidence by citing data based on back-calculation. You cannot discount refuting evidence by assuming the claim you're trying to prove, then using evidence based on this assumption to discount the refuting evidence.

Adele,

"Not viral load has nothing to do with CD4 count. Not HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. They said viral load is corellated but not really well with the RATE of CD4 decline."

Heh. "Not really well." It was 4 ****ING PERCENT. Practically ZERO. The orthodox explanation is that viral load is an accurate measure of HIV, and that the more viral load you have, the greater your destruction of CD4 cells (RATE of CD4 decline) should be. They found FOUR PERCENT. I read that paper up and down a dozen times, line by line. There's no getting around the fact, you either have to admit that:

a) HIV viral load is not a very good measure of HIV
b) CD4 decline is not a very good measure of "progression of AIDS"
c) HIV does not cause depletion of CD4 cells, or at least does not cause reduction in CD4 cell measurements

So, which is it?? In the commentary accompanying the article, the authors gave themselves another "out"; they hedged their bets, essentially suggesting that "the 90% of CD4 cell loss remains enigmatic", a funny euphemism that means "after 25 years, we don't have the faintest idea about 90% of what we've been telling you matters clinically (CD4 cell loss)", that the amount of HIV in the blood as measured by viral load is not really the whole story. Then they proceeded to hypothesize a bunch of ad hoc hypotheses that Kary Mullis would describe as "conjecture of the rankest kind" [paraphrase..."People don't realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions are more so, and that the biological reactions are even more so."]

Chris,

"You've read (I presume) the various studies that you have cited and would have noticed that the majority of HIV+s have been in specific subpopulations. These subpopulations are excluded both from the military and giving blood. Anybody that thinks that military recruits and blood donors are representative is just stupid"

As usual, Chris, you miss the forest for the trees.

The whole point with the military groups and blood donating groups is that the HIV TEST ARE NOT DETECTING A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED MICROBE. It doesn't matter if they're representative or not!! ANY true sexually transmitted microbe would eventually find its way into these groups, and such astounding regularity in prevalence over 20 years time would never be found. If the HIV tests were really detecting a sexually transmitted microbe, and if "HIV" (the microbe) had found its way into these groups (military recruits, blood donors), then we would NOT see a constant prevalence for 20 years. It's really as ******* simple as that!! You either have to concede that the HIV tests are NOT detecting a sexually transmitted microbe, or you have to concede that HIV miraculously never once in 20 years escpaed into these general non-risk groups! So, which absurd scenario is it?? Do the HIV tests not detect a STI, or do STI's never escape into the general population?? WHICH IS IT, Chris???

darin

Franklin, You said:

"That implies that the true prevalence in 1978 was even lower than reported by Curran, making the subsequent increase in seroprevalence observed in the study even more dramatic evidence for the explosion of the epidemic".

The only thing my post implies is that all of these studies have no basis in the reality of why Gays became ill and why some did not recover, though I am sure the fact that none of them have a basis in reality, in itself, clearly explains why you, Franklin, are so attracted to them.

Now, Franklin, what did you say your conflicts of interest on this subject were again?

Oh, my apologies. I forgot that You, Franklin, have refused about 10 times now to share with us your own vested conflicts of interest pertaining to the subject at hand, as it would expose you clearly as either a shill, or as having your own beliefs deeply entwined to your own financial well being.

But that will not stop me from reminding you regularly as well as all readers, of the financial conflicts of interest in this subject that you hold.

Elisa & WB aren't any different then in the beginning. They still measure the same bogus crap they once did. The mainstream wants us to think they're new and improved, then they use the old papers as some stupid example they way they were so dead-on right, even though no proper isloation and Gallo reporting only, what 40% HIV in AIDS patients in 1984.

GARBAGE IN -- GARBAGE OUT

Then again, I guess you could consider persons aged 25 to 44 another "selected cohort" disproportionately affected by HIV.

Franklin, I'm now convinced you are JP, who should really engage some more in scientific debate, cuz he's obviously becoming a bit rusty. Allow me to inform you the subject is the '85 onwards flat graph HIV prevalence. You link to a provisional table showing number of deaths from "HIV infection", whatever that means, cuz I thought it was OIs, wasting syndrome, KS etc. people died from. But what do I know? Apparenly it's HIV itself that kills with no help from other agents.

Regardless, the number of attributed deaths is, to put it mildly, not the same as prevalence of HIV infection. In fact, the point is precisely the conundrum that one increases sharply from '83 through '93, whereas the other remains steady from '85.

You just claimed that the reported 1978 seroprevalence should be artifactually high due to false positives from the tests.

I hate to break this to you, but the point made by Carter was that there were no tests in '78. The tests performed are all the same '85 version donor blood screening tests designed to go off on just about any heightened presence of anything commonly found in the blood of so called "AIDS risk groups". Here's Neville Hodgkinson just for you, Dr. Noble and Ascher's butt:

"It never proved possible to validate the tests by culturing, purifying and analysing particles of the purported virus from patients who test positive, then demonstrating that these are not present in patients who test negative. This was despite heroic efforts to make the virus reveal itself in patients with Aids or at risk of Aids, in which their immune cells were stimulated for weeks in laboratory cultures using a variety of agents.

After the cells had been activated in this way, HIV pioneers found some 30 proteins in filtered material that gathered at a density characteristic of retroviruses. They attributed some of these to various parts of the virus. But they never demonstrated that these so-called "HIV antigens" belonged to a new retrovirus.

So, out of the 30 proteins, how did they select the ones to be defined as being from HIV? The answer is shocking, and goes to the root of what is probably the biggest scandal in medical history. They selected those that were most reactive with antibodies in blood samples from Aids patients and those at risk of Aids.

This means that "HIV" antigens are defined as such not on the basis of being shown to belong to HIV, but on the basis that they react with antibodies in Aids patients. Aids patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV on the basis that they have antibodies which react with those same antigens. The reasoning is circular."

ELISA,

I realize you're not trained to use this properly yet. But, like Dr. Maniotis earlier, the time has come for you to receive your secret decoder ring.

Induction ceremonies are minimal:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/…

Use it wisely.

Well if nervill hodgekinson said it does that make it true. HIV proteins weren't ever proved to come from that sucrose band?

The nucleic acid in that band was sequenced. The nucleic acid codes for those proteins in that band! The sequences aren't from humans or chimps or monkeys. They're virus you don't get them from uninfected Human DNA.

IF that's not enough for you then you can take that band and do some masspec on it. Thats when you take the stuff in the band and break it all up and shoot it at a target and find out what kindof fragments you have. And from that you get what kind of protein you have. and guess what the protein you have is viral protein!

Umm "Dairn" did you change your name? I keep mispelling it Darren sorry but now I've gotta learn a new one! Ok well dairn now we know why your not a professor anymore!

I guess you probably don't believe in global warming right most denialists don't. I can't think of another analogy right now though so anyway. HEre's like what your doing Dairn.

If I go out and do measurments all over the world and different times and then I analyze it and I estimate and I tell everyone hey, don't say this is absolute because its not and its just an estimate and not a great one because I didn't get enough data but right now my model says global temperture whent up between 0.04 and 2.2 degrees C in a decade. Then you come out and write something and say, hey everyone, here's a SCIENTIST whose saying temperature didn't go up at all last decade!

Well that's not what I said. I said between 0.04 and 2.2 degrees. You took that and decided you liked the 0.04 and then you said what the hell screw confidence intervals screw estimates screw error bars lets just say its zero because we want to prove there's no global warming.

Same thing, you take a study it says like the one Chris was talking about 500000 to a mil and its a estimate from tiny numbers. And the authors say that and they say it's an estimate. But you say, what the hell screw it lets say its totally accurate and its a million not 500 thou or anywhere between that.

That's some crappy science and some crappy math. and thank godz your not teaching math any more dairn!

Leda, I'll make this a wee bit easier for you: the point is not if the nucleic acid sequences are human or viral (whatever that opposition is supposed to mean) The point is the selection process.

And don't go fool around with no swans now hear!

human or viral (whatever that opposition is supposed to mean)

sorry i didn't clarify. Most of us do know the difference between humans and viruses but I forgot who I was talking to for a minute so. Humans are people you know the ones with two legs not alot of hair they have a big brain some secondary sex things sound familiar? a virus is a really small thing isn't really alive needs a host to replicate.

Not sure where swans come in but whatever. Swans are large birds with long necks. They have swan DNA. But what do I know maybe humans and swans are the same thing right ELISA?

Ok selection process. What are you talking about? First you say this stuff was never isolated. Then you admit it got banded on sucrose. Then you say they found thirty proteins but none of them got proved theirin virus. Now its the selection process? What selection process?

Well sorry but umm you find stuff in that band that's not in your control humans. Proteins and RNA. The RNA codes for the proteins. The RNA is like other RNAs from viruses you know about. Safe to say, this protein and RNA is from a virus! What are you thinking is wrong here?

Hi Kids!!

Welcome to the Dairn Bworn SKOOL of TEH MATHZ!!! I'm your Full Professor, Full Professor Dairn Bworn!!

Today were learning averages! An average is when you take a bunch of numbers and then you look for um find the um its when you put them together and then um, well you all know what an average is right? So lets do an exampel!

I have three dogs Yippy bippy and zippy.
Yippy is a little dog weights ten pounds! Cute!
Bippy is a medium dog, weighs thirty.
Zippy is a big big dog, weighs sixty pounds!
What's the average weight of my dogs?

So we add them all togehter and take the biggest one! Zippy. Zippy weighs sixty pounds. So the average weight of my dogs is Sixty! Since sixty is more than fifty, we can say its one hundred. Way to go, 100 pound Zippy! My dogs all weigh 100 pounds! Average!

Billy: But Full Professor Bworn, isn't it 10+30+60 divided by 3 and thats 33?

Hmm. Very good Billy. You get to wear the shiney denialist hat today! So the average is 33 you say? Well then that's less than fifty so we can say its zero! So I don't have any dogs! Dogs don't exist! Yay! Isn't mathz fun!?

OK another one! Adele and Dale have three kids. Abe Babe and Cabe! Here's their ages and weights for three years.

Abe (17years) 200, (18) 205, 19 180
Babe (2) 30, (3) 36 (4) 42
Cabe (2mo) 12, (1) 22, (2) 31

So the question is, did these kids grow at all during three years?

Obviously the answer is no. First year range is 12 pounds to 200 second year its 22 pounds to 205 and third year its 31 to 180. So lets make this visible for people on the blackboard. SEe we can make this graph and the average weight is 200 every year!
So we just proved, kids don't gain weight. Eat as much as you want kids! Class dismissed!

Oh wait here's what we do tomorrow we prove with math the WTC towers collapsed at the SPEED of SOUNDS! That's why no one heard the thousand ESPLOSIONZ from the ESPLOSIVZ! You'll love it little Billy! Bye! And don't forget I was a FULL PROFESSOR at eastwestern university!

Lisa,

I know molecular biology and genetics aren't your strong suit, but the proteins defined as viral in origin are those encoded by the HIV genome.

Feel free to surf through the course syllabus. There's some good information in there.

Cooler thinks the genome was created in a secret government bioweapons lab. Ask him, I'm sure he'll be glad to tell you all about it.

Kyle, sorry I didn't get to your question which is a good one I couldn't help my self with the full professor he just puts me in such a fun mood. Can you imagine really? the guy graduates and then he's a "prof." the next year? Or maybe he just didn't hang around long enough to find out there's differences between what he was and a actual prof.

Adele, How do you explain the mainstream claim that 1000 people are dying each day from AIDS in Sth Africa when the official stats state that the actual deaths in Sth Africa is abt 490t in total. That equates to about a 74% death rate from Aids.So those claims cannot be true ,so if they can lie so blatantly about that , doesn't that make other claims about HIV/AIDS just as suspect

a good place to look is http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/P03093/P030932005.pdf
Thats the latest from south african goverment. They just released the report for 2005 in June I think. They recorded 591,000 deaths for 2005. They said they think they got almost 90% of deaths recorded, probably too optimistic but if it's true then there's like 660 or 670,000 deaths in 2005. So if there's 1000 from AIDS every day then it's 50% of deaths.

You can see stuff about this on avert too, SA statistics. There's three estimates,
The head of the MRC has stated that AIDS killed around 336,000 South Africans between mid-2005 and mid-2006. The ASSA2003 provincial model calculates that 345,640 people died because of AIDS in 2006 - comprising 47% of all deaths. Among adults aged 15-49 years, it estimates that 71% of all deaths were due to AIDS. UNAIDS/WHO estimate that AIDS claimed 320,000 lives in 2005 - more than 800 every day.

So anyway I hope those estimates are all wrong and way too high. If they are, those people who estimate are using bad methods and they need new ones. Thing is, those methods are actually good and another thing is, if their not they don't say yes HIV causes AIDS or no HIV doesn't cause AIDS. So if the epidemiologists are all drunk off their ass and getting everything wrong and really there's only 50,000 people dying of AIDS in south Africa every year well that's still too many people dying of AIDS.

Amazingly, I agree with you on this, Chris. Epidemiology is never sufficient to PROVE causality. But it is more than sufficient to DISPROVE causality. When I claim that HIV seroprevalence and AIDS incidence data DISPROVE the HIV hypothesis, I am simply saying that you cannot DISPROVE the DISPROVING evidence by introducing data based on back-calculation methods. And that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do. The flat line prevalence curve DISPROVES the HIV hypothesis. You try to discount this disproof by suggesting that the data supporting it is not really true after all, because we know by back-calculation that HIV prevlance is rising. But you cannot discount this evidence by citing data based on back-calculation. You cannot discount refuting evidence by assuming the claim you're trying to prove, then using evidence based on this assumption to discount the refuting evidence.

Your still performing mental gymnastics. There are several cohorts including the SFCCC, SFMHS, SFYMHS, Schechter's cohort from Vancouver, Sabin's haemophilia cohort. All of them have good data on seroprevalence. All of them show a non-static prevalence that completely refutes the magic flat line graph. All of them show a consistent pattern of HIV infection followed by AIDS.

You choose to ignore or deny this data and instead build a stupid argument about an imaginary flat prevalence that nobody believes is true. Nobody has accurate estimates of the HIV prevalence based on direct testing for the whole of the US for the early years. Stop pretending that we do. We don't. Your entire argument is built upon data that we don't have.

We do have good data for selected cohorts. The data from these cohorts refute the Duesbergian nonsense that you insist on regurgitating.

The whole point with the military groups and blood donating groups is that the HIV TEST ARE NOT DETECTING A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED MICROBE. It doesn't matter if they're representative or not!! ANY true sexually transmitted microbe would eventually find its way into these groups, and such astounding regularity in prevalence over 20 years time would never be found. If the HIV tests were really detecting a sexually transmitted microbe, and if "HIV" (the microbe) had found its way into these groups (military recruits, blood donors), then we would NOT see a constant prevalence for 20 years. It's really as ******* simple as that!! You either have to concede that the HIV tests are NOT detecting a sexually transmitted microbe, or you have to concede that HIV miraculously never once in 20 years escpaed into these general non-risk groups! So, which absurd scenario is it?? Do the HIV tests not detect a STI, or do STI's never escape into the general population?? WHICH IS IT, Chris???

Dairn, look at the CDC estimates that you cite. I mean, you do read them don't you? The male-to-female ratio of HIV infection has steadily dropped since 1985. In 2003 the male-to-female ratio for new HIV infections was 2.7. In contrast syphilis had a male-to-female ratio of 5.2. How is this possible according to Duesbergian epidemiology.

This is the problem. Denialists invent their own strawman versions of how sexually transmitted diseases should spread. They attack only fantasies of their disordered minds. STDs do not spread randomly.

The demographics of HIV infection has changed over time as HIV has spread into different groups including heterosexuals and guess what this also mirrors the changing demographics of AIDS.

Dairn, the prevalence of HIV in army recruits in 2000 was 0.036%.

A mathemeciien would be able to calculate that if this is indeed representative of the general population then the total prevalence in the US would have been about 90,000. So which is it? 1 million or 90,000?

Is HIV primarily spread by perinatal transmission? Just try, try to come up with a consistent explanation. Duesberg can't. why don't you try?

Adele is nuts, Dont listen to anything she has to say Darin.

Adele, where did you get your Masters?

What lab do you work at that lets you sit on the internet all day?

Time to come clean.

Thanks Adele

But in Table 4.4 its states deaths from hiv disease is 14532
no where near 1000 a day

Dear 96% nuts Adele.

Girl. You really are a hooooot!

Not only are you obviously incapable of understanding any math, evidenced by your failure to understand anything Darren just showed you,

but you further prove yourself completely incapable of even comprehending anything to do with numbers with the following:

You claimed there are somewhere around a huge and whopping thousand HIV deaths each and every day in South Africa. For proof, you recommend that we look at the SA governments stats site to get our information. But the site you recommend we look at to get the stats about HIV deaths says there are LESS THAN 40 HIV DEATHS PER DAY IN 2005.

You are therefore only off your rocker by 960 out of a thousand, or very nearly 96% percent completely nuts.

And we are now quite certain that you either cannot read or cannot interpret numbers.

Even with the government data clearly showing less than 40 deaths per day, HIV has still never been proven to even cause any actual disease, so how could the 39.81 possibly be correct as being claimed that the cause of death of these 39.81 people per day was because of HIV?

What I wonder, is how many of the 39 that are claimed to have died from "HIV disease", whatever that is, as no such entity exists, had actually died from the meds they were most likely on? The doctors who prescribed these poisons would never admit the deaths were due to the drugs they gave them! The fact is that most likely ALL OF THEM were drug reactions!

Either that, or their doctors simply scared them to death by giving them the HIV diagnosis in the first place!

Dooohhhhhhh!

Darin Brown,

You have done an excellent job, battling these intellectual retards, Chris Noble and Adele -- the fat pseudo-scientist. These AIDS worshippers are clueless. Their whole mental well-being and stability is somehow co-dependent on a bogus, all-embracing virus. Strange.

You have done an excellent job, battling these intellectual retards, Chris Noble and Adele -- the fat pseudo-scientist. These AIDS worshippers are clueless. Their whole mental well-being and stability is somehow co-dependent on a bogus, all-embracing virus. Strange.

Hmmm. What was Darin saying before?

But this is typical. When the chips get down, you start with the usual deflections and tangents and distractions. When that wears out, you start in on the name-calling, ad hominems, accusations of homophobia, questioning of identity and integrity, and general whining/freaking out.

Status is, Dr. Noble has admitted that HIV is not confined to the risk groups. However, although in his favorite cohort (Curran) HIV prevalence allegedly rose from 4% to 68% over 6 years, he can point to no increase in the overall HIV prevalence in the US population since
mid-eighties.

He therefore desperatly tries to deflect to shifting demographics, which is hilarious because for the virus to start spreading in new demographic groups without overall prevalence increase, would mean that prevalence decreases in one group as it increases in the next with almost pefect symmetry. In this case, he wants us to accept that HIV has not spread, but moved from men to women.

Perceiveing that it may not be possible to interest anybody in a debate regarding male-female ratio of syphilis in view of the simple fact that what we're actually talking about is overall HIV prevalence. Dr. Noble then reintroduces a tack that's already proved resultless. He pins the 1 million on Darin and says army recruits prevalence extrapolated would only correspond to 90,000.

Dr. Noble, we already know the different numbers make no sense, but regardles which number you go by, there's no rise in prevalence, the curve is still flat.

In a desperate last ditch effort he dares us to prove that HIV is spread via perinatal transmission, which is of course equally ridiculous, since however it is spread the fact once again is there's no increase in prevalence. Simple as that.

Leda, my not very well read lab gal, I'll let you ponder swans and their long white necks a bit longer.

In the meantime I repeat for your and Franklin's benefit that although you think there's something characteristic about some nucleic acid that automatically identifies it as belonging to a novel exogenous retrovirus, the point is ON WHAT BASIS THE SPECIFIC PROTEINS WERE SELECTED AS THE RELEVANT PROTEINS FOR THE TEST.

ELISA,

Did you receive your secret decoder ring I presented you above?

One simply sequences the RNA believed to be the viral genome, one sequences, or determines through a technique such as MALDI TOF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MALDI-TOF
the sequence of the protens that copurified with the viral genome, then apply the secret decoder ring to one or the other and see which proteins are encoded by the nucleic acid of the virus. One also checks the protein sequences vs. the human genome to see if they are present there. If they are they may be human genes not viral.

Then further research can be done in which one overexpresses the genes, taken from the viral genome, in bacteria or other systems and see if the same proteins isolated with the virus are produced.

Yes, the basic techniques have been around since the sixties.

Yes, they work.

Yes, I'm sure.

No, I'm not going to prove it to you.

Well, I would suggest getting a college education if you really want to know the answer to that.

Oh, you did graduate from college?

Maybe you should take the biology elective this time around.

Now, alternatively one may do something like what you described and look for proteins that produce an immune response from exposed individuals. But I assure you that the techniques I have described above have been done for HIV and the immune detection methods used previously identified the correct proteins.

Yes, I'm sure.

No, I'm not going to prove it to you.

...

Dearest Roy,

How nice of you to give a proper answer. Now I guess I won't need my decoder ring or biology course after all.

But let me see if I get you right: I simply pick out a piece of RNA which I think may be viral, then I pick out some proteins I think may be viral. Then I sequence my supposedly viral RNA and that sequence reads I-A-M-A-N-O-V-E-L-E-X-O-G-E-N-O-U-S-H-U-M-A-N-I-M-M-U-N-O-D-E-F-F-I-C-I-E-N-C-Y-V-I-R-U-S - And John's your uncle.

But does it also read in that nucleic acid sequence that when you make a test for the novel, exogenous human immunodeficiency virus, using all those proteins you've sequenced and found to be coded for by the inital piece of RNA you fished out, but for some inexplicable reason end up with a ridiculously high rate of undesirable false-positives, you can then create a new confirmatory test, WB, using combinations of bands that are extra, extra specific for that initial piece of RNA? Or do you, dearest Roy, simply select those that tend to point out the groups of people you have decided are in the AIDS risk groups, such as drug addicts, party gays and blacks?

One does not have to have a grasp of numbers to understand HIV prevalence is not high at all - its plain to see this.

But what we do have is an epidemic of TESTING. By testing more people these f__king idiots can conclude anything they want, report it as fact and continue the fear mongering.

ELISA,

ok I'll walk you through it. gotta respond to leda first though.

haha I looked up "Leda" and now I know. Leda and the swan right? Zeus pretended to be a swan! Very nice story.

See ELISA the difference between us is, you bring up something I don't know about and I look it up. I looked up that greek mythology. You don't look up how scientist finds out if some RNA is from humans or swans or viruses. You just assume THEY assume.

Another difference between us ELISA is I admit I don't know greek mythology as good as you. I don't go to greek mythology blogs, are there any? probably, but I don't go there and insult everyone and say they don't know anything about greek mythology and how Leda was the swan not Zeus and it wasn't a swan it was a duck and how greek mythology isn't greek its japanese and the japanese got it from Bigfoot who is a hariy imortal Mongolian guy who is three thousand years old.

Maybe I can explain this RNA protein thing by Greek Mythology?! Give me a few months maybe. Because I don't know it very well right now So I'll just try again until I do.

But let me see if I get you right: I simply pick out a piece of RNA which I think may be viral, then I pick out some proteins I think may be viral.

No ELISA you already banded this stuff in sucrose maybe a few times. Your using a density where you find viruses. YEah youll get a few contaminents now we call them vesicles but you're enriching virus alot so yes you can assume the major RNA you find is viral. Whys that? Because if you banded a real virus the virus genome gets put in there the virus specifically but if there's any stuff from a cell its in there randomly. I mean there might be exceptions but generally yes.

K now you have your RNA and you know how much is in there and you clone it and get a sequence for it. Now you can see if this thing is like another virus you know. Or maybe its just junk. Or maybe its some cellular thing you know. So you look and you find out oh my god its not just a RNA virus it makes a reverse transcriptase! You know that from the sequence its alot like another retrovirus you know about. And you say wow look at all these open reading frames, that's the sequences that can code for proteins. Some of them are kinda like ones from other viruses some of them I never saw before! And then you notice wow there's so many protein sequences here and some of them overlap its like this thing evolved or for your IDers was designed by the GODZ to code like max number of proteins per genome sequence. Unlike the human genome where not much of it codes protein.

But still what if you got just a weird human RNA no one ever saw before? Well today you can look at the whole human sequence so you know its not there but what if this is 1980 or something? So you see if the RNA you got or a DNA of it binds anything in the human DNA. because DNA has two strands so if you separate it like all the DNA from a human cell and then see if this virus DNA can bind it and then if it does you know that sequence is in humans interesting discovery maybe but its not a virus.

Guess what? that's called hybridization they did it it wasn't in humans. That's how you know this virus isn't a human origin and since you got it from a human it can't be swan and it's not a bacteria because of the size and its so much like other virus RNAs really your only good idea is its a virus RNA. That's the selection ELISA.

Maybe you still don't like it. So we can prove that sequence that's not in humans IS in a virion. An actual virion. We make a hybridization thing with a label on it from the virus sequence. Then we take electon microscopy pictures of virions and you can see because of the label the hybridization with the virus RNA in the virion. It's inside! And you can do the same thing with cells. You look at the plasma membrane of the cells and you see how the thing you think is the virus RNA is near the surface and how the membrane is budding away around it to make a virion eventually and for other ones theyr'e in virions leaving the cell.

Please, what's your objections to this?

in Table 4.4 its states deaths from hiv disease is 14532
no where near 1000 a day

Kyle I don't want to be snippy but do you believe Bush when he says he's winning in Iraq. Remember how the insurgency was on its last legs what was that like three years ago? Four? The South African government is run by denialists right now people who brought in denialists for advice. And they don't want to admit there's a problem. When someone shows there is one, they get fired. Theres a whole stigma with HIV and AIDS and government pressure. So that's the first thing, the government is interested to play down the problem.

Then another thing. You know a criticism denialists have is, supposedly death certificates always just say AIDS not the OI or another condition the person died of. Noreen repeated this lie last week. Well it's not true. IT's also not true in South Africa.

Isn't it weird there's a mindblowing increase in tuberculosis, pneumonia and other conditions in the past few years? Especially in sexually-active age groups? After there'd been improvement for so long? Why is that? HIV depletes the immune system then you get AIDS. A person killed by tuberculosis because they have HIV should be recorded like tuberculosis underlying HIV contributing but what if no one knows they have HIV? Or there's a stigma they don't want to say it? So most of it or maybe all of this strange increase of tuberculosis etc is from AIDS in South Africa. The Medical Research Council you should look up their stuff too
http://www.mrc.ac.za/bod/DemographicImpactHIVIndicators.pdf
they say there were 336,000 AIDS deaths in 12 months, 2005-2006.

Even Statistics South Africa that's a government group agrees with them.

Independent studies got similar numbers.

I said before I hope they're wrong I hope there aren't that many people dying. Sad to say though there probably are and it doesn't help when someone pretends there isn't a problem because "only" 49 people are dying a day.

If those ridiculous numbers are right then why did tb and pnuemonia and all this stuff go up all suddenly and why in these age groups? And if they're right guess what that still means South AFrica is losing six times as many people to AIDS as the USA by population.

"Well today you can look at the whole human sequence so you know its not there ..."

Mr. Hinkley, you couldn't be more wrong with this assertion.

The geniuses you're relying on have built artifacts and then hypnotized themselves into believing they're making discoveries when they do experiments with their artifacts.

And people like you happily participate in the delusion with the mistaken belief that you are defending "science".

Adele, I have no problems with any of that at present. I merely wanted to help Dr. Noble solve the riddle why the positive tests correspond so well with the AIDS diseases. To that end I always rely on the written work of others, so it's in this case not I who come in here and "insult everyone", but Perth, Hogdkinson and Rodney Richards, and I certainly do not say you don't know anything about sequencing pieces of RNA or whatever. If you'd care to take another look, you'll notice the insults and accusations of ignorance are almost entirely one-way traffic coming from your side in this case.

And yes you got it. It seemed to amuse you to play around with people's names, so I thought you'd be interested in your own in sort of phonetically reverse.

E-LISA writes To that end I always rely on the written work of others,

Explains your lack of understanding right there E-LISA. Personally, I'd hesitate to be so proud of my ignorance, but up to you.

So I take it, Dale, that either you're in charge of your own lab and do all your own research, or you're proud of spewing free invention not based on anything.

I guess that explains why almost all of your comments are as empty and off target as this latest one

ELISA Adele, I have no problems with any of that at present.

At the present? So you mean right now you're convinced were right but you've got to consult with your Perth library or Maniotis and figure out how we're wrong. Why don't you just do your usual and say something about "hypermethylation of the blah blah blah something I never heard about before plus a word I can't pronounce leads to ubiquitination of the blah blah promoter and its all a artifact of culture."

ELISAsemon, of course you're ENTIRELY OBJECTIVE. Who would question it? And OF COURSE you never insulted anyone on here, like you never said i wasn't "well read"

Problem is, you've got selective memory like you've got selective reading and quoting like when you just quote Perth and Hodgekinson and stuff. No insults? Don't you remember saying Chris Noble was up Ascher's butt and I liked to watch children getting injected with thiomersal? Don't you remember saying this morning John's your uncle and Or do you, dearest Roy, simply select those that tend to point out the groups of people you have decided are in the AIDS risk groups, such as drug addicts, party gays and blacks?

But who cares the point is, this is a science blog and you're coming on here with zero knowledge and acting like a stuck up snob intellectual. You're repeating stuff from people who are just as ignorant as you or liars. So if you get insulted don't cry about it. Like I said before if I went on a greek mythology blog and went on about greek being japanese they would laugh me off the page.

And then you said,
It seemed to amuse you to play around with people's names

I just used the spelling Dairn used himself when he signed that last comment. And that's the last we heard from him so I guess he changed his name and its Full Professor Dairn Bworn since he didn't correct me.

Lisa,

You seem to be arguing that the proteins attributed to HIV are not proven to be derived from the virus:

After the cells had been activated in this way, HIV pioneers found some 30 proteins in filtered material that gathered at a density characteristic of retroviruses. They attributed some of these to various parts of the virus. But they never demonstrated that these so-called "HIV antigens" belonged to a new retrovirus.

So, out of the 30 proteins, how did they select the ones to be defined as being from HIV? The answer is shocking, and goes to the root of what is probably the biggest scandal in medical history. They selected those that were most reactive with antibodies in blood samples from Aids patients and those at risk of Aids.

This means that "HIV" antigens are defined as such not on the basis of being shown to belong to HIV, but on the basis that they react with antibodies in Aids patients. Aids patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV on the basis that they have antibodies which react with those same antigens. The reasoning is circular.

I directed you to a map of the HIV genome, to show you that all of the proteins attributed to HIV are identified as such because they are encoded in the viral genome--not the human genome.

This is proof that all of these proteins are viral in origin, so your claim is specious.

There is no "circular argument"--all of the proteins identified as "HIV" antigens are defined as such not on the basis that they react with antibodies in AIDS patients, but on the basis of being encoded by the HIV genome.

Your response was:

In the meantime I repeat for your and Franklin's benefit that although you think there's something characteristic about some nucleic acid that automatically identifies it as belonging to a novel exogenous retrovirus, the point is ON WHAT BASIS THE SPECIFIC PROTEINS WERE SELECTED AS THE RELEVANT PROTEINS FOR THE TEST.

No Lisa, the point is whether the proteins are viral in origin or non-viral.

If a protein is not viral in origin, the presence of the protein or of antibodies reactive with the protein cannot be used as a specific test for the virus.

If a protein is viral in origin, the presence of that protein in patient material is a marker for viral gene expression and therefore of viral infection. And the presence of antibodies that react specifically with a viral protein is a marker for exposure of the patient to the virus--an ongoing infection, a prior infection, or prior immunization.

Please tell us which of the proteins identified as HIV proteins you claim to be non-viral in origin, and don't forget to cite the written work upon which you base your claim.

To assist you, here is a compendium of sequences of the complete genome of HIV-1. You might want to check the protein sequences you are concerned about against these sequences of the HIV genome, to help you decide if they are viral in origin.

DT, way up there you say that you have experience treating AIDS as a clinician and you're not wedded to the pharmaceutical industry.

This is a great start, so why not continue in this vein by checking out Gary Null's "AIDS, A Second Opinion" with specific recommendations for clinicians.

"Simple misunderstanding about AZT gene and I might even explain it if you stop using sockpuppets."

Adele, the "sock puppets" are my way of keeping a sense of humour while slogging thru this dreary thread - so please forgive. Am I using them as a cover to not be nice to you?

So, as a part of your education, I'm merely suggesting that you should read what Dr Kremer has said about the chemistry of AZT (virusmyth.net) and the obvious meaning of nucleoside analog before your considered response.

Leda MA, Franklin,

I'm sorry if the Hodgkinson quote was not clear. The point is simply this: when the first tests proved too unspecific they were not corrected according to whether the proteins belonged to "HIV" but according to how well they identified AIDS and pre-determined risk of AIDS groups and exonerated those from pre-determined non-risk groups.

What Hodgkinson seems to say is that even the first inaccurate tests were designed on background of reactivity with the pre-determined risk groups. He also says that since HIV wasn't properly purified, the proteins have not been shown to come from a novel exogenous retrovirus HIV. BUT He does NOT claim they're not viral in origin or that RNA found in the same soup does not code for them.

But the origin/existence of "HIV" and its proteins was not the issue. you can have the day on that score... what? No Leda, not because I have to consult my, library (what's wrong with that by the way?) but because this topic is a different one, namely how the tests can pick out those at risk for AIDS.

And don't worry, Leda, I ain't cryin'. Are you?

What Hodgkinson seems to say

He knows even less about the subject than you, Claus. If you're going to try and pretend that Epidemiology-LISA and Pope are two different people, you should restrict that tactic where you say "bluff!" to either one ID or the other.

"Explains your lack of understanding right there E-LISA. Personally, I'd hesitate to be so proud of my ignorance, but up to you."

Come on Dale, this is sub-par from you. Relying on the writings of others indicates a lack of understanding??!!

"Kyle I don't want to be snippy but do you believe Bush when he says he's winning in Iraq. Remember how the insurgency was on its last legs what was that like three years ago? Four?"

Would you look at this? Adele and I appear to agree on someting ...

I'm sure you'll excuse me Mr. Jefferys, since I'm almost as dense and ignorant as Neville Hodgkinson, but where do I say "bluff"? Perhaps Leda can be of assistance?

Speaking of bluff, were you not bluffing, Mr. Jefferys, when you said just a couple of hours ago that high dose AZT was a thing of the ancient past?

http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/times-sets-mbeki-straight.htm#comme…

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/the_whos_bluepr_1.html

Mr. sock, you see there's no debating with you because the more points we make the more you say well there based on artifacts. Everything in science that disproves you is an artifact and how can we argue with that unless you know something about biology so why are you here Nickgene semonaylor?

ELISA i'm going to pretend your not the same person as Mr. Natural. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

the first tests proved too unspecific

huh? Do you have a reference? What's your proof? What is "too unspecific"? Which "first tests"? There's nothing wrong with a library but my god it shouldn't just have perth in it! Total bad information.

I'll go through it again. The first antibody based tests were designed based on, what proteins from those sucrose bands of the purified virus were binding to antibodies from people with symptoms? You get the RNA from that sucrose band and you clone it and sequence it and find out its not anywhere in the human sequences and then you make protein from it. And the protein gets recognized by the patient antibodies. You make proteins from that RNA and you find out the patient antibodies recognize them. That's what the Western Blot is ELISA its proteins made from the RNA and separated by size and then you put your antibodies on them.

So, you have proteins from people with the symptoms that aren't cellular
And you have proteins made from RNA from the sucrose bands that aren't cellular
And the antibodies from the people with symptoms bind them both. They're the same size. They have the same amino acids.

Maybe on planet Maniotis that's not good proof but here on earth it kinda suggests they're the same proteins they're not cellular they come from a virus that's found in patients with the symptoms.

We can talk about EMs and the mass spectrometry stuff franklin or Roy said about, all this stuff confirms it, HIV is an exogenous virus these proteins ARE part of it and when you find them in a patient that person has HIV. The test is accurate sensitive specific.

So I take it, Dale, that either you're in charge of your own lab and do all your own research, or you're proud of spewing free invention not based on anything.

The point is simply this: when the first tests proved too unspecific they were not corrected according to whether the proteins belonged to "HIV" but according to how well they identified AIDS and pre-determined risk of AIDS groups and exonerated those from pre-determined non-risk groups.

Here, E-Lisa, you and Hodgkinson appear to be confusing proteins with antibodies against proteins. But you already knew that, didn't you?

No E-Lisa I don't do all my own research but what I do, that you clearly don't, is to look at the data for myself rather than rely on someone else's interpretation of it.

Come on Dale, this is sub-par from you. In golf scoring below par is a good thing so I'll take that as a compliment Mr. N. Thanks.

Claus or Tony or whoever ELISA is

There's nothing wrong with "relying" on other people's writings who doesn't but you have to think about your source.

Yeah peer review's not perfect. But it does stop people saying the moon is really in Los Angeles and that kind of thing. You've got to be critical of everything but at least with peer review you know somebody should of been critical of it before you. And there's lots of people like you reading it now and looking for problems.

See if you don't have peer review then you get people publishing the moon is in Los Angeles. You even get this in peer review like when a moon in Los Angeles activist gets guest editor for an issue anyone hear about Duesberg and Genetica. But usualy not.

Problem for you ELISA is, your "library" is not peer reviewed or the "peers" are people like AAPS. Or worse its just newspaper articles by activists pretending their journalists like Farber Hodge and LIversedge or worse than that books someone's paying to have printed.

On science a book someone publishes isn't always reviewed real well so it's not accurate necessarily especially when its a fringe group publisher putting it out. So there goes Duesberg Bialy Culshaw Farber and of course the self publishers Maggiore I think and Bauer.

So you're getting your facts from people who don't have a clue or their liars and don't get checked by anyone. And you can't get this because you don't know biology.

"to show you that all of the proteins attributed to HIV are identified as such because they are encoded in the viral genome--not the human genome."

Franklin,

We now (should) know that RNA is so much more than a "messenger".

According to current research on cellular signal transduction, transcriptional regulation in eukaryotes, alternative splicing, RNA editing, etc.; it is not simply a "one-to-three" protein-DNA correspondence with DNA in the animal's chromosomes.

Consider "emergency" (heat shock) proteins found in "purified HIV" that have this same property as so-called HIV proteins of associating with reverse transcriptase reactions in stressed cells.

Have the cells-in-culture been "hijacked" by an "HIV" or does the phenomena associated with reverse transcription represent a programmed response to their alien environment? Can these "immortal cells" even be considered human or is it more logical to say a new "species" is created? And why should this reactive behaviour that includes transcription of 2-10 kb of RNA by cellular RNA polymerase be considered a valid model for infections that cause disease in organisms, when no one can show evidence that even one cycle of "HIV" reproduction takes place in nature?

"Everything in science that disproves you is an artifact and how can we argue with that unless you know something about biology so why are you here Nickgene semonaylor?"

But Adele, you just said it, the idea here is what do we know about biology, which silly me believes to be the study of living organisms within the biosphere.

Leda, there are certain things I thought was not necessary to reference, one of them being that the first donor blood screening tests were too unspecific for diagnostic purposes, which is one of the reasons why the Western Blot was developed. I'm gonna leave that unreferenced for you,so you can claim another victory today.
Franklin, I'm sure I'm often too unspecific (sorry about the pun) in talking about antigen and antibody, but I did actually mean protein in that quote. You can exchange it for antibody if you want, the meaning is the same and refers to which combinations light up on the WB, presumably when antibody meets and recognizes the antigen.

I don't know why the mere mentioning of the names listed by Leda above automatically means one never reads other sources. But in any case, when these people have been there first and come up with a certain critical point, I attribute it to them rather than myself or Gallo.

"You get the RNA from that sucrose band and you clone it and sequence it and find out its not anywhere in the human sequences and then you make protein from it."

Adele, I think the following quote has something to do with the limitations of our ability to draw inferences from models as opposed to the "thing itself", as illustrated by the term "indeterminately".

"Transposable elements (TEs) constitute a large fraction of the human genome (roughly 45% of the euchromatic component, and an indeterminately much larger amount of the heterochromatin), scattered over all chromosome regions with widely different repeat densities. They form an extremely rich community, including many different families pertaining to one or other of four major types: long interspersed repetitive elements (LINEs), short interspersed repetitive elements (SINEs), long terminal repeat (LTR)-containing elements, and DNA transposons."

López-Sánchez et al, Journal of Virology, June 2005, p. 6997-7004, Vol. 79, No. 11

I think I said before the best response to Eugene Semon is laughing! That's what I'm doing now! "Current research on cellular signal transduction blah blah blah" Very amusing. If you don't know a polymerase from your ass you can almost think he knows what he's talking about! Fun fun fun.

ELISA,
I don't know why the mere mentioning of the names listed by Leda above automatically means one never reads other sources.

The mere mentioning doesn't mean it your knowledge of the subject does. Its obvious from what you say you didn't know how the virus was isolated how the tests were developed or how many different ways this stuff's been confirmed since then except what you read in these activist things. We see it here all the time like this past week how the stuff in these books and articles from activists like Maggiore and Duesberg and Co are wrong,

No Amy Justice doesn't say antiretrovirals are worse for you than AIDS.
No Anna Coutsoudis doesn't say breastfeeding is better for protecting from HIV than nevirapine.
No she doesn't say nevirapine is toxic and useless.
No Rodriguez doesn't say HIV viral load doesn't predict disease or CD4 levels.
No a AIDS counseler in South Africa doesn't make 5 times what a teacher makes, its the other way around.
No 80% of malaria deaths are not classified as AIDS.
No there aren't 470,000 deaths in South Africa every year, theres almost 600,000 according to incomplete goverment numbers, probably more like 750,000 total.
No there's not just 14,000 AIDS deaths in South Africa even the SA statistics branch says theres 336,000.

And those are justsome of the ones I caught this week.

Godzalmighty Eugene two words for you
SOUTHERN BLOT.

Years go by and three things stay the same.
Death
Republican stupidity
and Eugene Semon's mindblowing ability, ignoring that a southern blot will find HIV in the genome who cares if its a SINE a LINE or any combination of them.

Lisa,

You continue to refine your question. First you claimed that the "HIV" tests were based on circular reasoning:

This means that "HIV" antigens are defined as such not on the basis of being shown to belong to HIV, but on the basis that they react with antibodies in Aids patients. Aids patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV on the basis that they have antibodies which react with those same antigens. The reasoning is circular. [Epidemiology-Lisa's emphasis]

Several of us have pointed out that all of the proteins are defined as coming from HIV because they are encoded in the viral genome--not the human genome. And, now, you finally concede that point:

But the origin/existence of "HIV" and its proteins was not the issue. you can have the day on that score... what? No Leda, not because I have to consult my, library (what's wrong with that by the way?) but because this topic is a different one, namely how the tests can pick out those at risk for AIDS.

Lisa, when you concede that all of the relevant proteins are authentic "HIV" proteins, you completely refute your earlier argument. Once you accept that the proteins do, indeed, "belong to HIV", you lose any basis for claiming that "The reasoning is circular". You have no argument left.

That the presence of antibodies to HIV-encoded proteins correlates with AIDS and the subsequent development of AIDS provided some of the early proof that HIV infection is the underlying cause of AIDS.

Adele, You said:

"If those ridiculous numbers are right then why did tb and pnuemonia and all this stuff go up all suddenly and why in these age groups?"

The numbers went up and went up in that specific age group for a very obvious reason, if you only sought to look at the entire picture.

Check out health history in Africa. You will find that TB and pneumonia and hepatitis were big problems long before the concept of AIDS. They were very evident at the very first looks at health on the African continent.

Next, check out the UN population database.

You will find a population for the entire continent at about 250,000 in 1950.

Check out the population in 1975, just prior to AIDS.

You will find that it doubled to 500,000.

Then check out the population today, and you will see that it has doubled again, right through the "AIDS Epidemic" to around ONE BILLION PEOPLE TODAY!

Now, it doesn't take a whole lot of common sense to understand the impact of doubling populations on areas of the world where the infrastructure and resources are NOT KEEPING UP with the population explosion.

Simply put, the area with available resources has been exceedingly stretched, and you can only stretch something so far before something breaks. The break is evident in that the population reached a certain mass, and illness and death became very evident in those reaching an age of sexual maturity and leaving their family to make it on their own, when insufficient resources were available for them to thrive and be healthy.

It is fairly basic Adele. Populations versus resources of food and clean water. Too great a population and not enough sustainable resources ALWAYS results in catastrophe for someone.

Notice the epidemics of starvation in both India and Africa.

And I dare you to google the words "starvation" and "africa"! You will find 1,850,000 results.

Adele, are you aware starvation is, and has been a HUGE problem in much of Africa for the last 25 years? Are you aware of the genocides and civil wars that have further stressed the continent?

I have never seen any of the AIDS advocates bring up these very real, and huge and ongoing problems even one time. The dissidents have brought it up repeatedly and the only solution that is brought forth by the AIDS advocates is just to ignore it all and send the starving stressed and uneducated masses a bunch of AIDS drugs!

And by the way, Adele. If you look at the South Africa health sites, you will find that Tuberculosis is 80% of the reportable disease there. Not malaria, as someone else had mistated earlier. Though malaria does come in second place. So you are welcome to get off of your grandstand because someone mistakenly claimed malaria was 80%, when they obviously meant TB.

Here's another great example of a Science Bull Shit Study by Press Release without peer review.

66 news articles transpired from a single convoluted study adapted from a news release issued by Burnham Institute, which was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070815/sc_nm/aids_brain_dc
"The cocktail of drugs known as highly active antiretroviral therapy or HAART that treats HIV does not infiltrate the brain well, allowing for a "secret reservoir" of virus, said Stuart Lipton"
What's this? "secret reservoir"? What next? Harry Potter in there somewhere?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=6BDA7AAE-E7F2-99DF-3CB50C00C…
"HIV is very clever to use such a system to stop proliferation," says Shu-ichi"
Notice once again the "clever" word. There's nothing clever here, just clueless scientists.

From the study itself:
Here they're referring to HIV as a disease, which further demonstrates their dyer need to confuse and cajole:
"Impaired adult neurogenesis has been observed in several neurodegenerative diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1)-associated dementia (HAD)."

And here they presuppose HAD is rising without any consideration that it could be from the HAART meds themselves and presupposes patients actually survive longer on their meds.
"The prevalence of HAD is rising despite highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) because patients survive longer and these drugs have limited penetrance into the brain.." Funny how such drastic HAART chemotherapy administered could "limit" anything.

http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS1934590907…

Jesus Jiminy Cricket!.. How much more crap do we have to endure with the good use of our taxpayer dollars?

Status is, Dr. Noble has admitted that HIV is not confined to the risk groups. However, although in his favorite cohort (Curran) HIV prevalence allegedly rose from 4% to 68% over 6 years, he can point to no increase in the overall HIV prevalence in the US population since mid-eighties.

Admit? Who do you think you are fooling with this rhetoric?
If you read the literature you would have seen that The early 80s saw high incidences of HIV infection in specific risk groups such as homosexual men an injecting drug users. Later the prevalence in these groups decreased (dues to AIDS deaths) and then the prevalence in other groups including heterosexuals began to rise.

He therefore desperatly tries to deflect to shifting demographics, which is hilarious because for the virus to start spreading in new demographic groups without overall prevalence increase, would mean that prevalence decreases in one group as it increases in the next with almost pefect symmetry. In this case, he wants us to accept that HIV has not spread, but moved from men to women.

Desperate? Hilarious? You keep on assuming that the HIV prevalence has been at this magic 1 million number. The figures if anthing show a decrease after 1993 dropping to a low before beginning to increase again in the last few years.

Perceiveing that it may not be possible to interest anybody in a debate regarding male-female ratio of syphilis in view of the simple fact that what we're actually talking about is overall HIV prevalence.

The reference to syphilis was simple. Duesberg makes up his own rules of epidemiology to describe how he thinks HIV should behave. These rules have nothing to do with reality as the statistics oh syphilis infections demonstrate. The male-to-female ratio gives an indication of the prevalence of syphilis in homosexual men. Duesberg has stated that all STDs are equally distributed between sexes. This is clearly not true.

Dr. Noble then reintroduces a tack that's already proved resultless. He pins the 1 million on Darin and says army recruits prevalence extrapolated would only correspond to 90,000.

My point is simple. Nobody thinks that the HIV prevalence in the US in 1985 was 1 million. The paper from 1985 that I cited gives an estimate of 240,000. The Curran paper gives an estimate of 500,000 to 1,000,000. All the available evidence now points to a figure around 500,000. If you push Denialists then you find out that they don't believe there were 1 million people with HIV in 1985 in the US.

The question then is why are the Denialists so intent on arguing that 1 miilion people were infected with HIV in the US in 1985 (and 1975, 1965 ....)

Dr. Noble, we already know the different numbers make no sense, but regardles which number you go by, there's no rise in prevalence, the curve is still flat.

The numbers do make sense for the simple reasons that a) STDs do not spread randomly b) army recruits are not representative of the risk groups for HIV infection and c) people who already know they are HIV positive (or at risk) are not likely to try to join the army whent they know they'll be tested.

If you really think that army recruits are representative then you have to explain why the HIV prevalence in army recruits fell from 0.289% in 1985 to 0.036% in 2000. It's not exactly the flat graph you keep on fantasizing about.

In a desperate last ditch effort he dares us to prove that HIV is spread via perinatal transmission, which is of course equally ridiculous, since however it is spread the fact once again is there's no increase in prevalence. Simple as that.

Duesberg has stated on numerous occasions that HIV is spread predominantly though perinatal transmission. This is completely contradicted by the very CDC statistics that he cites. For some reason the "rethinkers" never bother to rethink their own dogma.

All I ask is for the "rethinkers" to come up with a single consistent and explanatory theory. They can't. Even now they're switching back to arguing that the HIV tests are meaningless.

The hypocrisy is mind blowing. They attempt to use HIV prevalence estimates with huge uncerntainties from 1985 to "prove" that HIV doesn't cause AIDS but then when I provide them with good statistics from well controlled cohorts all of a sudden the tests are meaningless. Pick a standpoint and stick to it.

If you really think that army recruits are representative then you have to explain why the HIV prevalence in army recruits fell from 0.289% in 1985 to 0.036% in 2000.

Chris. The variances in the flakey tests accounts for the difference perfectly. What exact diagnostic tools were used in 85 to diagnose? What diagnostic tools were used in 2000?

Completely different tools were used, yah dingbat!

Not that the diagnostic tools in year 2000 were not also flakey and useless, because they were, but they certainly were not as flakey as the 1985 diagnostic tools. If the 1985 or 2000 tests were accurate, they would have both clearly shown 0.000% HIV in both years.

Chris, how many times do people have to tell you that none of the tests actually detect a sexually transmitted virus.

And none of them ever will, Chris. At least not without going back to square one and actually isolating the missing virus from the actual sera of those supposedly affected. And not as in isolating who knows what artefacts at a certain band, but actually and repeatedly isolating a transmitted virus that causes disease.

There are no dead t cells floating around in the blood of AIDS patients Chris. There is no evidence that HIV does any such thing.

No evidence Chris. As in none.

Only belief Chrs. Just like in your very own head. No proof, just belief.

There is NO sexually transmitted virus CHRIS.

Nancy Padian proved that perfectly well.

The 60 plus factors proven to cause the tests to show poz verify that the tests are useless!

Perhaps, Chris, you should quit your job as a digital cartoonist and apply as a Lenti(meaing slow)Virologist. As slow as you are to catch on, you are most certainly slow enough to fit right in with Gallo and Moore.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see".

Chris, how many times do people have to tell you that none of the tests actually detect a sexually transmitted virus.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat an untruth. It does not change the fact that it is an untruth.

You have been presented with the evidence that demonstrates that a) HIV exists, b) it is detected with high sensitivity and specificity by antibody, antigen, nucleic acid testing and viral culture c) it is transmitted sexually and d) it causes AIDS.

Your inability to comprehend and debate the evidence is of no relevance.

Chris, your said:

"You have been presented with the evidence that demonstrates that a) HIV exists, b) it is detected with high sensitivity and specificity by antibody, antigen, nucleic acid testing and viral culture c) it is transmitted sexually and d) it causes AIDS".

Chris, You have been presented with refutations for all of them.

Chris, It doesn't matter how many times you repeat an untruth. It does not change the fact that it is an untruth.

Chris, Your inability to comprehend and debate the evidence is of no relevance.

Chris, You have been presented with refutations for all of them.

I have the feeling I'm debating with a group of 8 year old girls.

Your "refutations" have been along the lines of "Everyone knows that Ascher was Tony Fauci's well paid buttboy and pet lapdog..."

I'm sure you'll excuse me Mr. Jefferys, since I'm almost as dense and ignorant as Neville Hodgkinson, but where do I say "bluff"? Perhaps Leda can be of assistance?
Speaking of bluff, were you not bluffing, Mr. Jefferys, when you said just a couple of hours ago that high dose AZT was a thing of the ancient past?

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/the_whos_bluepr_1.html

The dosage given is 180-240 mg/m^2/dose twice daily.
For an average adult male with a BSA of 1.9 this comes out to 342-456 mg twice daily.

It would help if you read the actual WHO document which describes the use of body surface area (BSA) to calculate dosage and understand why this is used before you reveal your ignorance.

Sink me if Dr. Noble is not right! The daily recommended dose of AZT for African babies correponds only to 684-912 mg. for an adult. However, Richard Jefferys, in that Marcus Low tread which was subsequently censored said,

"the [adult] dose was reduced from 1500mg to 600mg at the beginning of 1990 when the FDA changed the labeling."

But I suppose the reason why African babies are given relatively higher doses is because, according to the WHO , "Zidovudine (AZT) is generally well tolerated in children". (p. 38)

But Dr. Noble, since you are here, please don't forget to give us your definition of "advanced stage AIDS", so I can go check the literature for myself and see when the patients in the cohorts are put on the drugs. Remember it's not only Fauci's butt(boy) on the line here. . .

Michael says,
You will find that TB and pneumonia and hepatitis were big problems long before the concept of AIDS. They were very evident at the very first looks at health on the African continent.

But P.R. Donald from U. Stellenbosch says in "Epidemiology of Tuberculosis in South Africa" 1998Reports by reliable observers indicate that tuberculous disease did not occur to any great extent amongst South Africa's indigenous peoples prior to European colonization.

Here's TB incidence South Africa
1921, PR Donald, 43 cases in 100,000 people
1958, PR Donald, 365 in 100,000
1986, PR Donald, 162 per 100,000
1993, PR Donald, 221 per 100,000
2006, WHO report, 718 cases for 100,000 people

So African population was doubling or more 1958 to 1986 TB went down from 365 to 162 per 100,000 people in South Africa. Then HIV starts spreading, TB goes up and in 1993 to 2006 almost four times! The population grows 1993 to 2006 I htink about 15 or 20 percent and and the TB rate goes up 400 percent??!! More in sexually active age groups.

Also it wasn't just disease it is deaths too.

this is from avert on their safrica stats page,
The influence of population growth can be removed by looking at death rates per 100,000 people, which are provided by Statistics South Africa in another report called "Adult mortality (age 15-64) based on death notification data in South Africa: 1997-2004". These data show that between 1997 and 2004, the death rate among men aged 30-39 more than doubled, while that among women aged 25-34 more than quadrupled. The changes are even more pronounced when deaths from natural causes only are examined. Over the same period there was relatively little change in the death rates among people aged over 55 and those aged 15-20.

So Michael no high death rates in sexually active ages aren't only from overcrowding bad water or stress their from HIV and AIDS. No one is against clean water! No one's against good nutrition! No one wants wars! Can you tell us one scientist whose said they want wars and starvation and bad water as long as people get their ARVS? And do you have any idea at all about living conditions anywhere in Africa, how they've got worse or better or anything since 1985?

Maybe you should go visit Africa or meet some Africans before you keep on saying there are too many of them. Because if i didn't know more about you I think when you say things like that a word comes into my head and it starts with a R.

One argument from AIDS dissidents is the idea that if you are detecting anti-bodies, it means you are producing anti-bodies which should kill the virus. I didn't see this covered in the myths section of AIDS truth or those such sites. Adele/Chris/... do you have any references on this that I could look at?

apy,

There is a web page maintained by DIADS called The Relationship Between the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome with many references refuting the arguments of the Denialists.

One section is called DISEASE PROGRESSION DESPITE ANTIBODIES and provides numerous references to examples of other infectious diseases that, like HIV infection, show clinical progression despite the presence of abundant antibodies.

One argument from AIDS dissidents is the idea that if you are detecting anti-bodies, it means you are producing anti-bodies which should kill the virus. I didn't see this covered in the myths section of AIDS truth or those such sites. Adele/Chris/... do you have any references on this that I could look at?

Most if not all books on virology describe the difference between acute infections and persistent infections. Persistent infections remain despite antibodies.

Duesberg himself cites this book by Frank Fenner, The biology of animal viruses, which was written before the discovery of HIV and AIDS. It describes viruses such as EIAV (a lentivirus like HIV) that produces disease in horses with a chronic infection.

This idea of Duesberg's is one of the most stupid that he has come up with.

Duesberg is not only wrong by saying that viruses cannot cause disease after the production of antibodies he is also wrong in his claim that HIV does not do any harm before the production of antibodies.

HIV pathogenesis: the first cut is the deepest.

Here's another great examples of a Science Bull Shit Study by Press Release without peer review.

66 news articles transpired from a single convoluted study adapted from a news release issued by Burnham Institute, which was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

"The cocktail of drugs known as highly active antiretroviral therapy or HAART that treats HIV does not infiltrate the brain well, allowing for a "secret reservoir" of virus, said Stuart Lipton"

What's this? "secret reservoir"? What next? Harry Potter in there somewhere?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=6BDA7AAE-E7F2-99DF-3CB50C00C…

"HIV is very clever to use such a system to stop proliferation," says Shu-ichi"

Notice once again the "clever" word. There's nothing clever here, just clueless scientists.

From the study itself:

Here there refer to HIV as a disease, which demonstrates their need to confuse and cajole: "Impaired adult neurogenesis has been observed in several neurodegenerative diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1)-associated dementia (HAD)."

And here they presuppose HAD is rising without any consideration that it could be from the HAART meds themselves. "The prevalence of HAD is rising despite highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) because patients survive longer and these drugs have limited penetrance into the brain.." Funny how such drastic HAART chemotherapy administered could "limit" anything.

http://www.cellstemcell.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS1934590907…

Jesus Jiminy Cricket!.. How much more crap do we have to endure with the good use of our taxpayer dollars?

As usual you got it wrong "carter". First you say on the other thread you're not commenting anymore then you're here with this two min later.

66 news articles transpired from a single convoluted study adapted from a news release issued by Burnham Institute, which was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

study adapted from a news release carter? No, it was a press release based on a peer-reviewed paper reporting the results of a study. A big difference! See the scientists do their work, they write it up they send it to a journal it gets passed around to other scientists who rip it apart and then they revise it and send it back and the journal now or then says ok well publish it and then the scientists institute puts out a press release saying hey look world here's what our scientists did in the peer-reviewed studies.

But I wouldn't expect you to undrestand that or HAD or brain as a privilieged system whoever you are, Mr. "Libertarian". What would you want them to spend you tax dollars on anyway? And are you really a USA citizen and if not what are you complaining about?

Then Adele, Explain the "secret reservoir" to everyone, what he meant and then explain how you could agree with such crap? Please?

Sure carter. Its funny what this guy said, "secret reservoir" I don't know what's so secret about it this was known ten years ago the brain is a reservoir right?

And obviously the virus isn't "clever" either it doesn't have a brain so how can it be clever. Is lightning clever when it hits the tree in your yard, no , its just if there's enough lightning and enough time then sometime its gonna get hit.

But you know this is kinda beside the point what these people said in some interview where theyr not being technical their being collocquial. It's whats' in their paper that counts. Their peer reviewed paper that got peer-reviewed before those interviews. You know what else scientists sometimes try to say stuff in words people will understand and they usually don't always do it in a way that's gonig to make everyone happy like scientists and everyone else!

So when Lipton says "secret reservoir" we can laugh at that and talk about Harry Potter but then think about what he means, ok you've got the brain and its not having the same kind of relation with immune system like most other places in the body. And its got a barrier between it and the body and that doesn't let the drugs in to the brain. So its like the brain is a "secret" from alot of the immune system.

If the virus is "clever" it will go to the brain and hang out becuase then the immune system can't get at it very good and lots of drugs aren't able to get there either. So duh the virus isn't clever its just by chance some of it gets to the brain like in macrophages that crawl in or whatever. When the virus is getting fought by immune system and drugs everywhere else there that virus is floating around like in a "reservoir" in the brain.

This gets confirmed when you find a virus in the brain thats different genetically from virus in the rest of the body like it has different mutations. There are alot of papers about this heres one
Smit TK et al JVirology, September 2004 78(18) "Independent evolution of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) drug resistance mutations in diverse areas of the brain in HIV-infected patients, with and without dementia, on antiretroviral treatment."

Adele,

Thanks for clarifying that AIDS speak is full of collocquialisums, conjecture and hokus pokus spewing from the mouths of so-called scientists.

Like this endearing one from the Godfather himself:
"Fauci, however, remains cautious. "I don't think cure is a common end point in infection because of the special nature of the virus and its ability to integrate itself into the genome of a cell where it becomes almost impossible to get rid of it. You can stop it multiplying and keep someone quite well for many, many years. But so far we haven't even come close to truly eradicating it in anyone, and I think we should just stop talking about it," Fauci said." http://www.thebodypro.com/content/art42372.html

"Special Nature," how completely f__k'd is that?

Carter,
If you had ever opened a book on virology you would have known that a number of viruses such as HSV and VZV evade the immune system in just such "secret reservoirs".

Secret Reservoirs plus the plethora of HIV hiding in the gut hiding in the testicles, hiding here, hiding there, it's a real wonder what the heck you all are detecting if its so evasive. Maybe it's that great mysterious "special virus" like Fauchi says, like the Great Pumpkin on Charlie Brown. Holloween is around the corner ya know. Except the trick is on us and the treats go to those who believe in that almighty one and only tricking, mutating and wirily HIV!

Carter,
or should I call you Johann,
I gave you a honest answer no insults I gave you a reference you could look up and find out more about this.

You didn't look it up. You didn't even think about it.

Here's what I say, stop talking about tax dollars going to HIV research in the United STates. Do you pay taxes in the USA, Johann? Are you a citizen here? If not don't tell me how you want my taxes used.

And if you got nothing to say but joking around about a serious subject where people are dying or getting HIV associated dementia and yes you dunce it is a real condition then screw off Johann you yahoo.

I'm dead serious Adele - It's because of your camp's deadly toxification by Anti-HIV meds that has killed and maimed my freinds and family member when I've watched many others and friends now for 20 years live happily and healthy because they refute the likes of YOU and your death by prescription.

Your holyier that thou, perfect HIV virus balony needs to be called into question and all your ever so enlightend esoteric and consensus driven scientific crap with AIDS pundits from big Pharma calling the shots has to stop. AND it will and you will not be able to do a damn thing about it.

Carter there's a common belief in older people that you "go to the hospital to die" and some people refuse to go to the hospital because they think they're going to die there.

Well it's not the hospital kills people look at the incredible reductions in death rates last century becuase of hospitals better hygiene better medicine. Its sickness kills people and they go to the hospital because they're sick. There's a correlation between hospitals and dying maybe but its fallacy to say its hospitals killing people.

Same with antiretrovirals. For alot of people antiretrovirals extend their life sometimes years and years. Some people don't do as well. Amy Justice remember that scientist youse like to talk about but you never read, her studies showed people who don't take their medicine regular do worse than people who take it 100%. The more in your combination the better you do to.

But still people who are sick are someday going to die and they might die of AIDS even if their taking the right medicines. But its not the medicine kills them its AIDS.

When a friend dies or a relative its natural to want to lash out. Maybe a suicide was really a murder, that's one I thought about a long time even when I knew it wasn't true, I knew this guy had killed himself but I kept trying to tell myself it wasn't true. Maybe when someone died in the hospital it was a doctor who gave them the wrong drug. Maybe when someone dies of AIDS the coroner lied about it it was really a drug killed them. Its a defense mechanism we have and its natural but its usually wrong, completely wrong.

Oh and carter I don't tell anyone to take drugs I don't prescribe them I don't hand out medical advice I'm not a doctor. I'm just telling you what the studies say.

Your holyier that thou, perfect HIV virus balony needs to be called into question and all your ever so enlightend esoteric and consensus driven scientific crap with AIDS pundits from big Pharma calling the shots has to stop. AND it will and you will not be able to do a damn thing about it.

That is really somewhat besides the point carter. The point Adele was making was that your questions about the paper were answered directly with known medical knowledge without attacking your character or beliefs in any way. Adele's post even ended with references to information that validates the information you were given. Again, no insults were made and much less even directed at you. And again, all the information you were given was cited.

What is your response? You put a lot of words in quotation marks, make references to cartoons and reference a holiday. If you feel the information was invalid then please refute it with a study that disagrees or pointing out invalid conclusions or broken logic in the papers. I understand that you have a strongly emotionally involved but they do not equate to proof, so arguing that the HIV equals AIDS theory is invalid because you have family members that aren't taking any drugs for the last 20 years doesn't turn to proof until you have a statistically significantly sized family. That totally sucks I'm aware, you'd like to think your handful of friends represents a valid majority of HIV patients but they don't, and until you can show some statistical or biological evidence that their experiences apply to the majority you have to get over it or at the very least stop thinking Harry Potter jokes some how constitute any form of evidence.

ITS BECAUSE YOU GUYS DONT HAVE A GRIP ON REALITY

Lamine A et al. Replication-competent HIV strains infect HIV controllers despite undetectable viremia (ANRS EP36 study). AIDS. 2007 May 11;21(8):1043-1045

Fox M. "Elite" HIV patients mystify doctors. Reuters. 2006 Aug 16

Rodes B et al. Differences in disease progression in a cohort of long-term non-progressors after more than 16 years of HIV-1 infection. AIDS. 2004 May 21;18(8):1109-16

Clerici M et al. Early and late effects of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a 2 year follow-up of antiviral-treated and antiviral-naive chronically HIV-infected patients. AIDS. 2002 Sep 6;16 (13):1767-73

Furci L et al. Non-cytotoxic inhibition of HIV-1 infection by unstimulated CD8+ T lymphocytes from HIV-exposeduninfected individuals. AIDS. 2002;16:1003-8.

Birch MR et al. An examination of signs of disease progression in survivors of the Sydney Blood Bank Cohort (SBBC). J Clin Virol. 2001 Oct;22(3):263-70.

Prins M et al. Pre-AIDS mortality and its association with HIV disease progression in haemophilic men, injecting drug users and homosexual men. AIDS. 2000;14:1829-37

"We have been following a 78-year-old man who, as a result of a test performed before cataract surgery in 1985, was found to be seropositive for HIV-1...He has never had any symptoms or signs of HIV infection, and repeated clinical examinations and laboratory tests performed since 1985 have revealed no opportunistic infections or abnormalities other than HIV-1 seropositivity and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency...No evidence of CCR5 mutations was found"
Sulis E et al. Prolonged Asymptomatic HIV-1 Infection. N Engl J Med. 2000 Apr 20;342(16):1221-2

Candotti D et al. Status of long-term asymptomatic HIV-1 infection correlates with viral load but not with virus replication properties and cell tropism. J Med Virol. 1999 Jul;58(3):256-63.

...The reason for this lack of progression in the absence of treatment has not been explained"
Levy JA. HIV and the pathogenesis of AIDS [2nd ed.]. ASM Press. 1998.

FURTHERMORE! You dont have any evidence that LTNPs are a minority in your equasions or "far and few between" as you purport, now do you?> HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS FOR SURE?

TYPING IN CAPITALS MAKES ME SMARTER!!!!

Considering all of the studies you have previously cited as AIDS dissident papers which were then, if actually read obviously pro-HIV-AIDS-connection and HAART. I have to ask: did you read any of these studies or just get them off some Alive And Well page?

Considering how many papers you *have* posted that have actually stated the exact *opposite* of what you claim, who has a grip on reality?

Carter no one disagrees, long term nonprogressors, elite controllers, they exist!

How many there are, depends on your definition. Buchbinder and Vittinghoff said 0.5 % all the way to 25% depending on your definition, who you look at. Its a older review but I like it from 1999 Microbes Infect.

I told Noreen before, a big interests now is getting to ID people who don't progress. genetics is a big part of this HLA alleles and stuff. If you can do that then those people maybe wouldn't need to go on drugs so early.

That's another thing no one disagrees with, drugs are always bad. Its just there alot better than AIDS!

That last post Adele, sounds like a sweet talking way to get me to change my mind.... Fat chance!

"That's another thing no one disagrees with, drugs are always bad. Its just there a lot better than AIDS!"

Just a lot better than AIDS? What a snow job that sentence is. What are you selling my dear? What is it you have to protect so much?

However in this case, for the people branded with the HIV label, these drugs are pushed like religious sacrament based on weak correlations that HIV leads to AIDS. Doesn't matter how many scientific studies there are if they're all based upon the one original premise that whatever HIV is, must always cause disease, then AIDS, then death. Also not to mention the fact that the magnitude of research (hence your own study results) being one sided and controlled by the elitists of Big Pharma and the draconian hierarchy of NIH all waiting and eager for the big pay outs.

When you really get down to the matter of it, the disastrous and illogical aspects of AIDS orthodox standards come shinning through these studies a beacon. Then you guys have the audacity to (when the plethora of studies from the orthodoxy actually come to affirm things detrimental to your belief) automatically scream.. no - no - no, they and/or I didn't meant that! Sheer lunacy at it's finest!

Think about those thousands of studies? Do you really think each and every person supporting them and the countless time invested by each is really just based on "I want help save the gays, the drug users, the blacks and the Africans?" I don't think so. Society dictates otherwise, general exceptions of course, but really now? It's all about the funding and "yea, ya know, maybe it's not really an infectious mutating entity, but what the heck, I'll make up a new study based on the previous fallacies so I can earn 7 figures and support my lab and subordinates!" Does cancer and heart disease pay nearly as well?

carter,

Then you guys have the audacity to (when the plethora of studies from the orthodoxy actually come to affirm things detrimental to your belief) automatically scream.. no - no - no, they and/or I didn't meant that!

Is it "audacity" to point out that you are misrepresenting the articles and studies. You are wrong, and we correct your mistakes. Then the denialists claim that their misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) somehow invalidates the paper itself.

Doesn't matter how many scientific studies there are if they're all based upon the one original premise that whatever HIV is, must always cause disease, then AIDS, then death.

A big problem with this statement is that only denialists frame HIV this way. Scientists know that HIV does not always cause AIDS, and that with treatment, AIDS is no longer the death sentence that it once was thought to be.

If the theory of HIV as the cause of AIDS was incorrect, then those studies wouldn't have worked, and science would have corrected itself and we would have moved on to other hypotheses. All those studies work because the theory is correct, not in spite of it. The theory has held up to repeated honest scrutiny, and competing hypotheses did not explain the evidence as well.

It's all about the funding and "yea, ya know, maybe it's not really an infectious mutating entity, but what the heck, I'll make up a new study based on the previous fallacies so I can earn 7 figures and support my lab and subordinates!"

7 figures? That is a rarity in any research field. We don't go into science for money. I think you have been watching a few too many scifi movies.

A surefire way to get fame if not fortune would be to demonstrate solidly that a major concept within science was incorrect. But just being disagreeable isn't enough to overturn status quo. You need compelling evidence.

If you had ever opened a book on virology you would have known that a number of viruses such as HSV and VZV evade the immune system in just such "secret reservoirs".

Yeah, of course! If you open a book on virology you will learn everything about all dumbass concepts and theories. Secret reservoirs for intelligent viruses to hide away. LOL!

Some years ago I listened to Jean Claude Chermann during a conference about Aids. He sure is a champion in the field and while he talked I repeatedly thought: "How come a grown-up person can do such baby talk?" I've never figured out that question but the said conference inspired me to write a cute little story. Here it is. Enjoy!

JS

Jan Johann Carter
"What next? Harry Potter in there somewhere?"

Joking about viral reservoir doesn't make it go away. Joking about brain tumours doesn't make them go away.
Joking about blood circulation doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Joking about evolution doesn't mean it's not true.
Joking about global warming doesn't cool us down.
Joking about Hillary won't keep her from winning.

But joking's what to do when you got no facts. Joke away Jan Johann and Carter. You remind me of a woman whose child died of AIDS and she never even learned the pnuemonia killed her daughter is different from pnuemonia from bacteria. When the facts get uncomfortable deny deny close your eyes and joke.

"What next? Harry Potter in there somewhere" joked Johann Carter.

Joking about viral reservoir doesn't make it go away.
Joking about brain tumours doesn't make them go away.

True enough, Adele. But joking about a ridiculous concept ("It's not because you can't see a virus that it's not there") may sometimes make the ridiculous conceiver reconsider, especially if the said concept is transposed into other tonalities where it suddenly makes sense.
But of course this does not apply to you, Adele. You are too eager to respond and you have in no way given yourself enough time to carefuly read my story, sit back and give it a second thought. It's about a lot more than about HIV causes or causes not Aids Adele. I think...

Robster's right johann
7 figures? That is a rarity in any research field. We don't go into science for money.

Theres a nature article this week
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070820/pdf/448839b.pdf
where they call people below faculty indentured servants
because now a faculty person gets their first grant average age 42 not 34 like in 1970.

Graduate at 22, you could get a industry job like maybe 40,000 a year and you get promoted and promoted and when your 42 youve alrady made a couple million.

Or go to grad school get 20,00 a year for six or seven, then a postdoc maybe 35,000 four or five years then another postdoc well you see what I'm saying. And when you're done you've got no savings and your in debt from your loans and credit cards just to live.

When you get your grant who cares? Find me a professor who makes 7 figures and i find you a thousand who don't even get 6.

oh and to all you people who so worried about how much money we make let's compare W-2s i gaurantee you've got a surprise!

Jan thank you for the link to your creative writing.

I described you and carter the brain reservoir and i gave you a link to just one out of hundreds papers about this. A peer reviewed paper hundreds of hours skilled work in it, a long process where scientists trash the paper however they can, then disappointment, revision, they send the paper back in and my god it got published. Solid stuff really in the end i think and it could tell you about what a viral reservoir is.

Why don't you go and read that paper maybe some other ones to, and give us a review then maybe your in a better position to tell me what little artistic doodlings to read.

Why don't you go and read that paper maybe some other ones to, and give us a review then maybe your in a better position to tell me what little artistic doodlings to read.

I'm so sorry, oh Adele, noble defender of the ivory castels of the Scientific Community. I have of course never intended to trouble your infinite knowledge of the mecanisms of life with my insignificant barking and artistic doodling.

But then again, I ask myself: Why dive into the infinite trench when you're not able to swim on the surface?

You may write 1 000 000 000 000 pages about viral reservoirs and the like. They make no sense, Adele. Unless medical science kicks out Louis Pasteur, lets back in Antoine Bechamp and restarts from scratch, your thoughts about viruses and microbes miss the point.

JS
___

Like the flies on it did not cause the death of a corpse, microbes are not the cause of disease. They are the result.

"Like the flies on it did not cause the death of a corpse, microbes are not the cause of disease. They are the result."

----------

Jan, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You are a murderer and a friend to murderers. Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert's face would haunt your dreams if you had a conscience. It doesn't, because you don't, which is how you stand being the murdering scumbag you are.

Jan I'm not a noble defender of anything I'm a tech whose bored while her boss is on sabbatical. the other people on here? Like Tara or Robster, Chris Noble, they all know alot more than me. Thing is, it doesn't take a PhD to show someone's lying about Amy Justice or Anna Coutsoudis or CDC stats or how a AIDS counseler makes five x a teacher in South Africa!

And you JAn are a denialist of the funniest kind its not just HIV its all infection! Microbes, viruses just manifestations of disease not causes. Well at least your being honest about it, thanks. Those people killed by Ebola, just a mass fantasy about death right? Influenza? Just poverty and malnutrition, stress about a war, mortgage payments all together they make this little virus thing with a genome made of fragments.

I'm sure your creative stuff is very good Jan but this is a science blog. Where you should read a study before you say it doesn't make any sense. There's lots of literature blogs where you can put up your poetry and stuff and have people gush about it but not here. Sorry I'm just being honest too.

Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert's face would haunt your dreams

Well, you may be right in saying that I am a murderer and have no conscience. On the other hand, maybe she doesn't haunt my dreams simply because I do not know her.
I do dream about others though. Who almost exclusively died after regular hospital treatment. True enough, they don't come by very often, patients who badly die after hospital chemo and radiation. Just my luck to have stumbled upon some rare cases. Bummer...

Hey Seth, did you read this?

JS

--
Why do so many people write when so few people read?
Why does everybody talk although nobody listens?

I'm sure your creative stuff is very good Jan

Then read it instead of being bored! I swear they will clear up your dusty ideas with wonderfully new thoughts.

Like Tara or Robster, Chris Noble, they all know alot more than me.

People who seem to know a lot know nothing if they pretend to know a lot. Nobody knows anything when it really comes to it and the fight between Apologists and Denialists is absolutely rediculous. In the end they're simply one of a kind.
Honestly, I don't care about apologists or denialists. All I have in mind are the people who do not know both exist and what they stand for. To me everbody should be well informed so that each person can clearly make up his own ideas.

JS

I do dream about others though. Who almost exclusively died after regular hospital treatment. True enough, they don't come by very often, patients who badly die after hospital chemo and radiation.

I'm a big gal Jan you can go ahead and complete that thought i can take it. "patients who die after chemo and radiation" given to them by the EVIL JOOOOOOZ right Jan?

Are you a raving antiSemite like the rest of the New Medicine cultists Jan? Or do you just tolerate their hatred and neoNazi crap because you like the whole no germ thing so much you don't mind if people think your hatefilled and ignorant like the rest? And don't deny your little Total Health people friends think that way Jan their slime trails all over the world and this neat little thing called google.

What I don't get is, why Jews? Because "too many" JEws are doctors? Because your greatgranddaddy got a mean look from a Jewish woman whose family he was gunning down in a trench in Poland? Why Jan can you explain it to me?

I hope you can better than cooler who can't see the antisemitic hatred in the 911 troofers.

Did I read that?

I spent months researching your lies and bullshit, you murdering bastard. Every word you write makes my skin crawl with disgust. I'm ashamed to be a member of your species.

you don't mind if people think your hatefilled and ignorant like the rest?

People who think I'm hatefilled and ignorant do think so because they're hatefilled and ignorant themselves. Please show me the way out, my dear.

I hope you can better than cooler who can't see the antisemitic hatred in the 911 troofers.

Antisemitic hatred and 911? What are you talking about? 911 is solely about islamic hatred! There's your enemy, brand new, don't you read the newspapers? Watch tele? Listen to the radio?

And why don't you just simply sit back and read the kind letter I sent to the Swiss SCAC?

JS

I'm not trying to resort to insults, but it is important to know that without proper training IN a field one really lacks the ability to criticize it. This has experimentally been shown. Although I am certain that these psychologists were shills for some big pharma company are their findings are really just meant to promote the religious HIV=AIDS death squads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

Maniotis wouldn't come clean on AAPS.
Cooler wouldn't come clean on 911 Troof.
Jan Spreen won't come clean on New Medicine's roots in antisemitic nazi thinking.

That's great if your not a antisemite Jan. I just want to know why so many of your friends are. Or is all that antisemitic stuff I'm reading on the internet planted by the evil Joooz just like the antivirals and the antibiotics and the chemo and the radiation therapy?

Don't change the subject don't tell me some of your best friends are Jews please give me a answer, why so much antisemitism in New Medicine.

"And why don't you just simply sit back and read the kind letter I sent to the Swiss SCAC?"

--------

I have. Your letter is a load of bullshit, and you know it. Every claim in it is false. You have been confronted with the falsity of these claims many times. Still, you continue to peddle lies. This is because you are a soulless killer.

Out of all you guys, maybe you Adele, can someone please tell me why you're always refereing to "AIDS" as a single coherent disease entity, which has ever been rationally defined, but rather a dubious and contradictory construct, which has changed radically several times?

And

Why is it that EIA has to be diluted 400 times or else every test is positive?

AND

Why every dubious post of electron micrographs doesn't show HIV but only cellular debris?

And

Why when repeatedly asked by others and myself, where the purified particle (HIV) reference standard is, no one steps up to the task?

And

Why was Cervical Cancer arbitrarily added recently to the AIDS defining illness?

This should keep you busy since you gots some time on ya hands Ms. Adele............ I have more when you're finished with those.

whoa there carter. you still didn't read about the virus reservoir of the brain! you still didn't say if you're Johann or just copying off him. Why do you get to ask all the questions and get answers and I get none?

But never mind here goes. It wasn't cervical cancer MAggiore already made that mistake and she's been corrected how many times but she can't seem to figure anything out on AIDS or medical stuff in general. It wasn't cervical cancer it was "invasive cervical cancer" and those quotes aren't becuase I don't believe it exists they're becuase I'm quoting from the CDC. It wasn't added arbitrarily it was added because there's a higher incidence of it in HIV infected women. It wasn't added "recently" it was added fifteen years ago well fourteen I guess, 1993.

I and everyone else refers to AIDS as a single thing because its about immune deficiency caused by a retrovirus. Of course its a syndrome what happens when the immune system gets messed up depends on where you are and who you are and what your exposed to and who knows what else. ITs the immune deficiency opens the door to OIs or some cancers, things on the CDC list some things NOT on the CDC list some things we probably don't know about. The CDC list got changed when we found out more. IT wasn't changed "radically" it got changed after alot of research and debate. I can't help it if you and the other cultists want to pretend we're saying something else.

EMs, we went over EMs with andrew maniotis and gods know how many other people. Of course theres cell debris. But No one confuses "cell debris" with a retrovirus. they don't look the same! Maybe maniotis has problems with it but microscopists who do this stuff don't. If there's a question, label the damn stuff and do some immunogold. See if there's viral RNA in the virions see if there's viral proteins. guess what you see it in those viral particles not in the cell debris.

If you want purified HIV go to any HIV lab and ask them to show you their stocks. They might if your polite and you don't start talking about Harry Potter in there to much and make them call security and take you back.

Why is it that EIA has to be diluted 400 times or else every test is positive?

Umm, EIA dilution is different for different tests. How many test protocols did you look at? Wait let me answer for you since I know the answer, none. You just copied something from Richards or Giraldo or Culshaw. Dilutions different for different tests. Some tests you dilute one to ten some one to ten thousand. You use your purified standard to find out the best dilution! HIVs EIA no different then the ones for other agents.

There's your answers and now maybe you can tell me, are you Johann or copying him?
Did you read about the viral reservoir yet?
Do you think anti-semitism is cool, so long as its people who agree with you about HIV?

To:
Robert C. Gallo, MD August 22, 2007
Director and Professor
Institute of Human Virology
University of Maryland
School of Medicine
725 W. Lombard Street
Suite S307

Dear Bob,

The subject of "HIV/AIDS" is very controversial and complex, but it is an issue of extreme importance from social, economic, scientific, medical, political, cultural, and many other perspectives. The very welfare of entire nations depends on getting at the truth regarding all aspects of AIDS science and medicine, as well as correcting perceptions regarding the history of AIDS science and medicine that may be incorrect. It has always been, and will continue to be my aim to present the truth, regardless of my harsh criticisms of AIDS science and AIDS medical policies, which I agree, are not at issue here, and which we have agreed not to discuss at this time.

Therefore, after our several discussions, and a review of all the material you sent to me in recent weeks, you have made me aware that the information regarding specific details regarding the initial collaboration between your group and Montagnier's group has been factually in error.

Therefore, the following information and any reference I have made about it:

1. The legal records from the patent dispute, before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Montagnier et al. v. Gallo et al., Interference No. 101, 574;

2. The documentary record from the Office of Scientific Integrity investigation into the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology at the National Cancer Institute;

3. The documentary record from the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by the Honorable John Dingell (D-Mich);

4. The investigation by the U.S. Attorney for District of Maryland into the case, where she wrote:

"..we recognize that this case transcends the normal type of criminal case in that the conduct of these two scientists [Gallo and Popovic] reflects upon the integrity of the scientific process, the National Cancer Institute, and indeed the conduct of the government as a whole." (Battaglia Letter, dated 1/10/94).

5. The articles in Science: (Culliton, Inside the Gallo Probe, Science. 1990 Jun
22;248(4962):1494-8); (Hamilton, What next in the Gallo case, Science 1991 Nov
15;254(5034):944-5);

6. The numerous articles by John Crewdson in the Chicago Tribune on this issue ("Researchers Dismiss an AIDS Virus Discovery," Crewdson 2/18/88; "Rival Scientists Question Research on AIDS Lesions," Crewdson 6/9/94; "U.S. Inquiry Discredits Gallo on AIDS Patent," Crewdson 6/19/94; "U.S. May Yield on AIDS Royalties," Crewdson 6/26/94,) that claimed such things as:

(From John Crewdson: Gallo Case, Truth Termed A Casualty Report: Science Subverted in AIDS Dispute; Chicago Tribune (CT) - SUNDAY, January 1, 1992 from the Dingell Report):

"The violence to principles of responsible, ethical science was just as profound. At a crucial point early in the (Gallo laboratory's) HIV research, international politics and the technocrats committed to those politics virtually took over that research, claiming the laboratory's putative accomplishments as accomplishments of the United States administration and by extension, the United States itself."

"Once done, the (Gallo laboratory's) interests became the government's interests; defending the (Gallo laboratory) scientists' reputations and claimed accomplishments became necessary for defending the honor of the United States. The defense thus became a consuming effort for significant portions of the U.S. government."

"The result was a costly, prolonged defense of the indefensible in which the (Gallo laboratory's) "science" became an integral element of the U.S. government's public relations/advocacy efforts. The consequences for HIV research were severely damaging, leading, in part, to a corpus of scientific papers polluted with systematic exaggerations and outright falsehoods of unprecedented proportions."

7. The book by John Crewdson, entitled "Science Fictions" (Littler Brown, 2002);

8. The numerous articles in the New York Times ("American Co-Discoverer of H.I.V. is Investigated Anew," Hilts 3/2/92; "Federal Inquiry Finds Misconduct by a Discoverer of the AIDS Virus," Hilts 12/31/92; "Science and Law Clash Over Fraud-Case Appeals," Hilts 11/8/93; "Key Patent on AIDS to Favor French," Hilts 7/12/94).

needs to be revised to reflect the information provided in the documents you provided to me, including:

1. The final HHS Office of Research Integrity ruling which began with the statement "After all the sound and fury...[there was no wrong doing on the part of Gallo, or his collaborators];"

2. Dingell's own disavowal to the wild report of one non-scientist;

3. The New England Journal of Medicine on the history of the finding written jointly by Gallo and Montagnier;
Gallo RC., Montagnier LM. The discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS. NEJM Vol. 349:2283-2285, December 2003;

4. Evidence that Gallo's group had obtained 48 bona-fide isolates of bona-fide AIDS patients that exhibited the molecular signature they believed was "HIV" (as opposed to only the several isolates from ill-defined or ARC patients (with pre-AIDS) as was characterized by the Pasteur group using primary cultures in their 1983 paper.

5. The book, "Dissecting A Discovery, by Nikolas Kotaratos, 2006.

In addition, I feel that it is important for me to state, and for all to be made aware of the fact that you told me directly on the phone that you shepherded through the 1983 paper of Montagnier's group after it was rejected. This single fact, more than any documentation, signifies to me, and should signify to any other scientist or lab director who reviews and publishes the work of others, that you only could have acted in a way in the collaboration with the Montagnier group, that would have been consistent with a sincere and open exchange of scientific information and hypotheses.

For these reasons, please accept my regret that I have passed along incomplete and incorrect information regarding your collaboration with the French group, and here I correct this inaccuracy.

It my belief that many of the harsh and bitter controversies regarding the science, politics, financial interests, and medical policies associated with the entire issue and history of acquired immune deficiency might have been avoided if the openness that characterized your collaboration with the Montagnier group had been known, and had been made widely available, discussed, openly debated, and absorbed by the scientific community two decades ago.

Sincerely,

Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.
Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer
Department of Pathology, and Bioengineering
College of Medicine Research Building
909 South Wolcott Ave.,
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, IL 60607
Email: amanioti@uic.edu

Adele,
Stop throwing the legend of Christine Maggiore at us whenever you get backed into a corner about AIDS. The fact that you were invited on an all expense paid trip to Los Angeles to point out where you see pneumonia--any pneumonia--in EJ's lungs and did not jump on this opportunity can only mean you can't find evidence of pneumonia in the lung tissue slides. So put up or shut up!

So, contact Maggiore and take care of this matter once and for all. And I'll make sure you get a free ride to and from LAX personally! The weather is beautiful in LA and I'm sure you'd love to see the Ripply's Believe It Or Not Museum while you're here.

Adele,

Stop throwing the legend of Christine Maggiore at us whenever you get backed into a corner about AIDS. The fact that you were invited on an all expense paid trip to Los Angeles to point out where you see pneumonia--any pneumonia--in EJ's lungs and did not jump on this opportunity can only mean you can't find evidence of pneumonia in the lung tissue slides. So put up or shut up!

So, why dont you contact Maggiore and settle this once and for all. The weather is beautiful in LA and I'll make sure you get a free ride to and from LAX. Im sure you'd like to see The Rippley's Believe It Or Not Museum while you're there.

For several years, Andrew Maniotis has made false statements, easily-disproven statements, legally actionable statements, about Robert Gallo. I am heartened to read Andrew's retraction and apology here today.

Only Andrew himself knows the degree to which his tongue is planted in his cheek as he makes this apology; for his own sake, I hope that he is sincere.

If he is sincere, I hope, too, that Andrew will reflect upon what led to his previous ill=considered and uninformed claims about Dr. Gallo: a fervent, mean=spirited desire for these fictions to be true; poor fact-checking; a well-honed ability to ignore all data that contradict a position chosen in advance of any research.

These are the same flaws that have led Andrew into folly on so many issues, from artificial sweeteners to vaccination to HIV and AIDS.

Andrew Maniotis is wrong on these subjects just as he was wrong to sell falsehoods about Dr. Gallo. It is time for Andrew to prove his devotion to science and revisit--or, rather, visit without bias for the first time--the data, the scientific literature.

Just read the book on Robert gallo called science fictions, and youll learn about the fraud that Gallo is.

Dr. Maniotis shoulndt retract a thing. All Gallo had was a partial correlation, no animal model with a virus that was in like 1 of 10,000 cells, and he went public? Is this guy nuts? Because the government supported his fallacious research with funding, TV ads etc, there has been one study since to test his dubious hypothesis, they all assumed it to be true.

See hiv fact or fraud on google to hear Duesberg in his own words.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064591712431946916

Read Project Day Lily to learn about the mycoplasma biowarfare program. Every animal Dr. shyh Ching Lo MD PHD injected with this died, no one in the Gallo/Moore/wainberg mob could hold a candle to DR. Lo, the Army's highest ranking scientist.

One of the only scientists since Koch to discover a microbe that induced disease in animals. If you read Project Day Lily you'll realize that Lo was the most brilliant scientist of his generation in China, which is why the Army brought him here, and he was one of the many scientists that applauded Duesberg.

Thanks to the hiv fundamentalists there is an epidemic of CFS etc because they only want to focus on hiv and nothing else, (Cant look for antibodies in MFI, cause the animals that died only had a weak antibody response when near death)...............the most important book of our time.....
http://www.projectdaylily.com/

Adele,
youre nuts, ive already defeated you and your two friends on hiv, id gladly debate you on 9/11 as well, millions of normal americans including half the family members want a new investigation, stop denegrating them as "twoofers", its insulting to people like Bill doyle and Bob Mcalvaine who lost family members on 9/11 who thought the commission was a joke.

See Loose change to learn about the 9/11 coverup
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Spreen,

People who think I'm hatefilled and ignorant do think so because they're hatefilled and ignorant themselves.

Can't a supposedly great author come up with something more than "I'm rubber, you're glue?"

You freely associate with the antisemitic Germanic New Medicine cult. What are we supposed to think that means about you?

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

Cooler, Yeah, let's go to google video and youtube! So much better than pubmed! And a fiction novel like Day Lily is always going to trump real science! Since we are exchanging fun videos, let me suggest Screw Loose Change.

If you want to play 9/11 troofer games, I would suggest that you take it elsewhere. Unless Tara says go, its pretty far off topic. Try James Randi's skeptic forum. They'll have you "claiming victory" in no time.

Adele brought up 9/11 not me...........I have to respond to her lies. Debate Dr David Griffin, have fun.

How do you know Day Lily is fiction?, just proves that you dont know much about science, if someone is accusing people of crimes, first you investigate, then you pass judgment. (he slightly fictionilized the names to keep out of court, but the events he claims are true.

You dont dismiss accusations just because you think they are too "out there" The Tuskegee experiment and holocaust seemed pretty out there as well at one time.

It be nice if we could get some nore people to chime in rather than Adele, Noble and Robster, we need some real scientists, intelligent people who are new to this debate and have not taken sides yet to weigh in.

How do I know Day Lily is fiction? Pretty simple. Its on the website.

Its a true story that was slightly fictionilized (couldnt name names) to stay out of court and not reveal his sources

Dude, you must love the lifetime movie of the week.

Jan Spreen won't come clean on New Medicine's roots in antisemitic nazi thinking.

Adele, if you only read the shit ignorant and/or hatefilled people write about the New Medicine, I can conceive that to you the NM has a very bad odour.
But I assure you that the New Medicine has no roots at all in antisemitic nazi thinking and I deeply regret that people, Hamer himself included, loose control and so poorly express themselves when they try to figure out the cause of the violent opposition the New Medicine has to deal with.

Now, after having said this, may I invite you to cease to exclusively follow the slime traces left behind by people who only throw shit to others and have an honest look to the links I proposed above?

Denialist !

Now, what the heck does that mean? And an insulting term too, if one can judge by the evil look on the face of the person speaking and the resentment expressed by the newly labeled listener.

Logically the term Denialist should apply to somebody who denies something. Let's study some practical examples.

Example I

- Fucker! Why did you take all the beer left in the fridge ?

- I didn't !

- Denialist! There's only you and me here. And I haven't had one drop of beer in the last 24 hours, you asshole!

Here the word "Denialist" makes sense, doesn't it? Clear-cut plain facts, no place for opinion, believe or whatever. It is or it is not, there's no way out.

Example II

- Vincent van Gogh sure painted very beautifully.

- I don't like his works at all.

- Denialist! The whole world loves Vincent van Gogh, people pay millions for some square centimetres, you asshole

Here the use of the word "Denialist" doesn't even make one giggle, it's plain stupid.

Example III

- You've tested HIV+, so you really must take those life-saving killer-drugs
- I took them for years but they really make me feel awfully bad. I don't want them anymore, I feel infinitely better without
- Denialist! The whole world knows they're better for you, science provided clear-cut proof they're better for you. Who are you to pretend you feel better without, you asshole?

Sense or nonsense? Make your choice!

JS

But I assure you that the New Medicine has no roots at all in antisemitic nazi thinking and I deeply regret that people, Hamer himself included, loose control and so poorly express themselves when they try to figure out the cause of the violent opposition the New Medicine has to deal with.

Hamer appears to have expressed himself very clearly.

Teil 2: Es ist doch so: Die jüdische Religion teilt bekanntlich alles ein in gutartig u. bösartig, so auch in der jüdischen sog. Schulmedizin. Wir Nichtjuden werden gezwungen, weiterhin die jüdische Schulmedizin zu praktizieren mit Chemo Morphium, die Prof. Niemitz lapidar einen "einen unwissenschaftlichen amorphen Brei eines Sammelsuriums von Hypothesen" nennt (siehe Gutachten)- die die Juden selbst aber seit 20 Jahren nicht mehr praktizieren. Jeden Abend gehe ich damit zu Bett, dass an diesem Tag wieder 1000-1500 Patienten (allein in Deutschland)"umgebracht" worden sind - ohne Notwendigkeit. Ihr steht alle nur dabei und seht zu, wie vor euren Augen diese armen Menschen gefoltert werden. Entschuldigung, ALLE KÃLBER PLÃDIEREN FÃR WOHLVERHALTEN VOR DEN METZGERN. Was muss eigentlich noch passieren? 15 Millionen Eurer Mitbürger aus Eurem Volke sind in den letzten 20 Jahren "umgebracht worden" und Ihr meint, Wohlverhalten sei doch das Beste. Ãbermorgen seid ihr selbst oder Eure Kinder dran, und dann oh weh - ja, das hatten wir ja nicht gewusst.

Orthodox medicine is a jewish conspiracy to exterminate the German people?

Hamer's "new medicine" is rejected because it is pseudoscience not because of a jewish conspiracy to exterminate germans.

Hamer's "new medicine" is rejected because it is pseudoscience not because of a jewish conspiracy to exterminate germans.

So then, let's drop the silly jewish conspiracy theory and argue about why you think it's pseudo science and why I think it's not.

On the other hand, why should we argue? It doesn't make sense. We live in two different worlds and the things you and your buddies write to defend the scientific standards of the HIV=Aids equation make me laugh about your so-called scientific approach in general. And if you think that my ideas are pseudo science and I think that your ideas are ridiculously non scientific and lack all common sense, where can we possibly meet to talk?

No, Jan, we can't meet to talk as long as your defending New Medicine. That quote Chris Noble gave us is just one out there. You know it goes like this, say the Jews did it, imply Hitler was right to kill those "butchers", imply the Holocaust wasn't so bad if it even happened because now Jews and jewish-brainwashed doctors are killing "15 million of your fellow citizens from your VOLK" justin the last 20 years!

Yep, every death in Germany Switzerland Austria and everywhere else where people had it "right" about the slaughtering butchering Jews, every damn death is because of Jews and their invention medicine.

Go ahead Jan, say you hate antisemitism say you disagree with Hamer say the Holocaust happened and it was wrong. Say medicine isnt controled by Jews and "some of your best friends are Jews."

But funny thing, you don't. You don't even try. You just "regret" Hamer said what he thinks, he "lacks control" I guess unlike better polished neoNazi NewMediciners who keep that talk for good friends of the Volk over a nice altbier or two. And you just say you wanna debate what's a pseudo science?!

Sorry Jan I won't debate people like you like I'll won't debate child killers.

Look on the bright side, me ignoring you from now on means you've got more time to think about excusing anti-Semitism or read up in der sturmer or whatever you like to do.

Here's what I got from Babel Fish translating the quote up there from the NewMedicine fuhrer.

"Part 2: It is nevertheless like that: The Jewish religion divides as well known everything into good and malicious, so also in the Jewish School of medicine. We who aren't jews are forced to practice the Jewish school of medicine to practice with chemo Morphium, Professor Niemitz lapidary "an unscientific amorphous mash of a Sammelsuriums of hypotheses" call (see appraisals) - which the Jews for 20 years no longer even practice on themselves. I go to bed each evening with the fact that on this day again 1000-1500 patients (alone in Deutschland) are murdered - without necessity. You only stand and watch, how before your eyes these poor humans are tortured. Apology, but You're ALL CALVES PLEADING FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR BEFORE the BUTCHERS (the EVIL JOOOOOZ). What has to actually still happen? 15 million of your fellow citizens from your VOLK were killed in the last 20 years "" and it means, good behavior is nevertheless the best. The day after tomorrow it's you or your children, and then oh pain! -, we had no idea."

Everything there except for when I clairified "butchers" is from the NewMedicine volk fuhrer.

Say medicine isnt controled by Jews and "some of your best friends are Jews."

Why should I? None of my best friends are Jews but maybe some are and I simply don't know because I never asked them if they where. I couldn't care less, you know. A nice person is a nice person.
As to whom or what controls medicine: I have no idea whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is controlled by something like a bunch of people you can isolate from others. I think she's controlled by the human brain in general and particularly by its incapacity to live and let live.

But why do you go off your rocker when you hear someone say something about Jews? Did you have the same reaction when the whole world was ready to slice the throat of any Arab around? Do you protest when people spill their bile on everything close to islamic countries now that it is clear today to all but the mentally disturbed that the Bush administration itself is somewhere behind 911? Do you protest when the victims of WWII go after Libanese and Palestinians and are never criticized? Don't you think that's shocking too?

I think it's stupid to justify oneself with a phrase like "Some of my best friends are Jewish" (or black or moslim or whatever). A man is a man. A woman is a woman. A crook is a crook.

Whoa there Adele,
It wasn't cervical cancer it was "invasive cervical cancer" and those quotes aren't becuase I don't believe it exists they're becuase I'm quoting from the CDC. It wasn't added arbitrarily it was added because there's a higher incidence of it in HIV infected women. It wasn't added "recently" it was added fifteen years ago well fourteen I guess, 1993.

Wrong Adele! - DCD wanted more women on the scale to equalize the disparity of men against women, how could they keep instilling fear of "we're all at risk" if they didn't do this? By doing so it was a sure fire way to continue the funding. And furthermore: I read Duesberg's work and I recall an argument was that HPV fails to meet Koch's postulates on the microbiological level, since cervical tumors have been proven to spawn from a single cell, which means, in turn, that out of billions of putatively HPV infected cells, only a handful ever become cancerous (if any.) So, we hear about women getting cervical cancer as a result of HPV infection, but what about the guys who gave it to them? Why aren't they getting an HPV caused cancer in equal numbers?

I and everyone else refers to AIDS as a single thing because its about immune deficiency caused by a retrovirus.

By lumping it all those single diseases together which have their own cures and remedies it goes again to further the scare mongering because now of course AIDS is a death sentence, whereas each individual disease (even multiple diagnosis) is not necessarily and can be treated if not eliminated.

Of course its a syndrome what happens when the immune system gets messed up depends on where you are and who you are and what your exposed to and who knows what else.

That's the other tell tail sign of your camp's twisted logic.

ITs the immune deficiency opens the door to OIs or some cancers, things on the CDC list some things NOT on the CDC list some things we probably don't know about. The CDC list got changed when we found out more. IT wasn't changed "radically" it got changed after alot of research and debate. I can't help it if you and the other cultists want to pretend we're saying something else.

Yes, we are saying something else (aside from pointing out the sheer lunacy you vehemently support) we call for a complete re-appraisal and a stop to the poisoning up to and including death of the masses who have been lead to believe and have succumb to fear and paranoia that HIV/AIDS=DEATH, Death from AIDS or disease and illness caused by highly toxic anti-HIV Meds may never be the case if one truly reads the literature (both sides) and makes make a logical and informed choice without prejudiced notions.

EMs, we went over EMs with andrew maniotis and gods know how many other people. Of course theres cell debris. But No one confuses "cell debris" with a retrovirus. they don't look the same! Maybe maniotis has problems with it but microscopists who do this stuff don't. If there's a question, label the damn stuff and do some immunogold. See if there's viral RNA in the virions see if there's viral proteins. guess what you see it in those viral particles not in the cell debris.

Stuff like that crap stated above, is what leads people to think you're off your f__king rocker. How about some true isolation and purified references Adele? Instead of circular reasoning and conjecture.. come on now..

things on the CDC list some things NOT on the CDC list some things we probably don't know about.

Adele: Why not call a spade a spade? "We think HIV causes 30 some odd illnesses and more when and if we find them."

Haha Adele, thanks for showing us Chris is a liar just like yourself. Your translation shows correctly that nowhere in the quote does Hamer suggest orthodox medicine is a Jewish conspiracy (he may do so elsewhere but that remains to be seen)

And no the butchers aren't the Jews, Adele. You can't just add to what's quoted to make it agree with your interpretation, you seem to understand that very well when you think you're catching Dr. Maniotis in doing it: The butchers are those who practice the orthodox medicine, whethr they are Jews, Aryans or Martians. What Hamer says very clearly is thphilosophy of orthodox medicine sprang from a certain way of viewing the world; a mindset characterized as "Jewish" because it is through Jewish mythology - you know the Old Testament, where women are evil temptreses and the Lord shall wreak his vengeance upon all who displease him and stuff - this mindset has become part of Western civilization, including medical practice. You can disagree with that if you want to -or yo could if you had any background for speaking on the origins of Western thought. I thought I saw in a previous comment you claim to stick to things you understand, like your subterranean fridge where you keep HIV on ice and monkey feeding, I suggest you go back into your cave before you embarrass yourself further, like Tara did in that poorly written PLOS piece.

You also told me that Crowe put a dead guy on his list when I asked for the names of those Chris had verified by correspondence were put on the list without their knowledge. Are you claiming Chris has email exchanges with dead people, Adele? Is that part of the HIV cult?

Wrong again, Carter.

"We think HIV causes 30 some odd illnesses and more when and if we find them."

HIV makes a person more susceptible to those illnesses, not causes them. If you had any interest in honest thinking the first or second time (rethinker, get it?), you would at least try to get the basics correct.

You do pose a question of interest, though...

So, we hear about women getting cervical cancer as a result of HPV infection, but what about the guys who gave it to them? Why aren't they getting an HPV caused cancer in equal numbers?

First, guys don't have cervixes (cervices?). But men do develop HPV related tumors, specifically cancer of the penis, which can be extremely serious if it develops into an invasive tumor. Both men and women are at risk of HPV induced head and neck tumors and anal cancers, and there is some evidence that HPV may play a role in some percentage of prostate cancer cases.

As to Duesberg's claim that HPV does not fulfill Koch's Postulates, he's both right and wrong. HPV are solidly linked by Koch's Postulates as causal factors for warts, including genital warts, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, but not for cervical cancer. Because many viruses are extremely difficult to grow in culture, we uses Hill's Modified Postulates for these (here is a good read on them). Hill's postulates are also used for many chronic diseases as well as exposures to toxic substances. Since some viruses, in this case, HPV, may initiate the changes that lead to the transformation of a lineage of cells into cancer. Hence, it is technically correct that only a handfull of infected cells become cancerous. It is based on probability that one daughter cell out of all those cells initially infected with HPV will accrue the mutations required to become a tumor.

In this kind of case, we look to Hill. How strong is the association? In a large number of cervical tumors, specific strains of HPV are linked very strongly with these tumors.

Is the observation consistent? Has it been repeatedly by different groups? HPV fits the bill here as well.

How specific is the disease to a group? We know which strains of HPV are most closely associated with cervical cancer, and that cervical cancer is rarely found in the absence of these strains.

Temporality is the next one on the list. Does HPV infection come first, or does the tumor. That one is easy.

We look for the biologic gradient next. Can we make a dose response curve? The more strains one is exposed to, the more likely one of those strains is a cancer causing one. The risk of developing cervical cancer increases further if the woman has been infected with multiple high risk strains.

Does HPV fit with what we know about cervical cancer? Is it plausible that HPV can cause cancer? Absolutely. We know a lot about the molecular biology of HPV. We know which strains carry genes for proteins that inhibit tumor suppressor genes.

Is there experimental evidence that HPV can cause cervical cancer? Normal cells can be immortalized by infection with high risk HPVs. Also, the oncogenes carried can be inactivated, with the result being a loss of transforming activity. Are there animal models for HPV? No, but this is a Human Papillomavirus. There are other animal species with their own papillomaviruses, and these do cause cancer in those species, which fulfills the final requirement, analogy.

While Duesberg may be unaware that there have been advances since Koch, the rest of the scientific community has kept up with the times.

Postulates have never been meant to be hard and fast rules of causation, but rather are important guidelines. There are many human diseases that are species specific, or cannot be cultured in a "pure" manner (many STI causing microbes can only be reliably cultured in rabbit testes). Duesberg either knows this and is a liar, or he is blissfully unaware of how dumb he makes himself look to the scientifically literate.

It is, of course, pointless to argue with a racist that another racist is, indeed, racist. The words of Ryke Hamer quoted by Chris Noble above and translated with an on-line program by Adele stand by themselves as proof of Hamer's sick and twisted mind. "Mack Truck" and others who feign intellectualism with their naive (and ignorance-revealing) portrayals of "Jewish mythology" may parse and writhe to their heart's content; Hamer is a vile anti-Semite and those who defend Hamer and the Neue Medizin sect are casting their lot in with a dangerous, hateful criminal, a true psychopath.

We all face difficulty in our lives; some face more than others. Dr. Hamer suffered when his son died of cancer and when he, himself, fought cancer. Many cancer survivors live their lives with renewed vigor and compassion. A few start foundations to raise money for research. Others volunteer with hospices or become grief counselors or participate in any of a thousand different ways to raise awareness and help others. Dr. Hamer, instead, chose to turn his loss into hatred and direct it at a group of people who had nothing to do with his problems.

Here are some additional quotes from Dr. Hamer for those who have not made up their minds as to his bigotry. These and similar passages are available at:
http://www.redok.de/content/view/181/40/
...among many similar internet sites that cover the racist "German New Medicine" sect.

From a 2001 "public declaration:"
Wenn man, wie ich als Theologe, weiÃ, dass die ganze jüdische Religion - vor allem die jüdisch-orthodoxe Religion - praktisch nur aus Haà auf die Nichtjuden besteht (Talmud), deren vollständige Vernichtung quasi als Voraussetzung für das messianische Reich der Juden angesehen wird, dann versteht man erst, welch groÃes Interesse daran besteht, mich - mitsamt der Neuen Medizin - zu vernichten.

My translation:
"The entire Jewish religion--and above all, Orthodox Judaism--consists of little more than hate directed at non-Jews ([as shown in the] Talmud). The complete extermination of non-Jews is seen as a precondition for the messianic Reich of the Jews. When one understands this--as do I, being a theologian--one can understand this great interest in destroying me personally, along with the 'New Medicine.'"

From a 2002 letter to Israel Shahak:
Die Herren glauben anscheinend, sie könnten durch Schweigen noch aus der Sache herauskommen, dabei morden sie jeden Tag weiter, allein in Deutschland werden jeden Tag 1000 Nichtjuden von Ihren Glaubensbrüdern geschächtet.

Translation:
"These people apparently believe they can get away with it by keeping silent, but they just keep murdering every day. In Germany alone, your co-religionists [note: Hamer is addressing a Jewish person here] slaughter a thousand non-Jews every day."

Writing to his supporters in 2003:
Es ist der wahnsinnige Kampf der Talmud-Zionisten in ihrem religiösen Wahn alle Nichtjuden der Welt umbringen zu wollen.

Translation:
"This is the insane struggle of the 'Talmud-Zionists' to murder all non-Jews of the world in their religious insanity."

Throughout Hamer's statements, one finds repeated references to a secret world order of Jews and Freemasons; Jewish medicine and Jewish doctors who force poison on non-Jews while reserving "New Medicine" for Jews, especially in Israel; portrayals of the Germanic people, the "Volk" as innocent sheep, in need of a strong shepherd to save them from slaughter by their Jewish butchers, and so on. These images are taken straight from the dark pages of Germany's past: the blood libels, the conspiracy theories, the cleanliness and innocence of the fine young German (e.g. in Wagner) opposing the conniving craftiness of the Zion Elders.

Those like "Mack" who defend this madness by attempting, ham-handedly, to parse words, affecting a faux-ny intellectualism all the while, are fools or psychopaths themselves or both.

Two quick notes:
First, I mistakenly stated above that Hamer's son died of cancer; he was shot and later died in the hospital. I was thinking cancer for some reason while I wrote that sentence and I apologize for the error.
Second, I don't believe that I used the exact words, so it is probably not relevant, but "Germanische Neue Medizin (TM)" should have a (TM) after it since it is, after all, trademarked. (I'm prompted to wonder: has anyone trademarked "fascism" yet? or "rethinking?")

ElkMountainMan,

Thank you for some quotes better to illustrate Chris's point. I guess owing to his poor German he just didn't identify the correct one.

I see Hamer uses the exact same rhetoric against the "Talmud-Zionists" as most of the Western world, inclsuding Israel, uses against the mythical Al Quaeda, islamo-facism, islamic fundamentalists etc. And incidentally almost the same rhetoric you use against "AIDS denialists". Here a couple of quotes, first the conspiracy:

the AIDS denialists are all inter-connected and they operate globally . . . Coordination on an international scale is now required to defeat them wherever they surface. HIV professionals need to know what the denialists' agendas are, and educate their patients and the public accordingly before the deadly impact of this phenomenon has additional opportunities to expand the AIDS epidemic

http://aidstruth.org/IAS_Newsletter_March2007.pdf

Then the nefarious link between "denialism" and "deadly quackery", killing thousands every day:

The links between AIDS denialism and the alternative medicine industry add yet another twist to the story

http://aidstruth.org/GL-times-article.pdf

Then the link between "denialists" politics and religion:

HIV deniers accuse scientists of quashing dissent regarding the cause of AIDS, and not allowing so-called "alternative" theories to be heard. However, this claim could be applied to any well-established scientific theory that is being challenged by politically motivated pseudoscientific notions--for example, creationist challenges to evolution ... The strategies of HIV deniers, like many other denialist movements, seek to undermine the very philosophy of science itself

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10…

Here the official characterization of prominent "denialist groups":

To draw an analogy [to Celia Farber and the Rethinking Aids group]: would ''Discover Magazine" grant space to a leading member of the Ku Klux Klan to promote a book he/she had written to advance the "science" of Eugenics?

http://aidstruth.org/discover-moore.php

Finally the Endlosung to the denialist threat to science and society from JP himself:

"Dan" has it exactly right when he says:
"If they are able to "justify" their actions, it's most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the "denialists". Nothing more. When you're in a war, there are no rules."
This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/andrew_maniotis.html#….

I reject all of the above on the same grounds. How about you ElkMountainMain? Which way points your PC sensibilitites and which way your gun?

Hey Robster,

You said:

"Is there experimental evidence that HPV can cause cervical cancer? Normal cells can be immortalized by infection with high risk HPVs."

Could you please provide the reference(s) where HPV VIRIONS were actually put on a transformation-susceptible cell like a cervical cell line, or the ultra-sensitive transformable hyperplastic MCF-10A cell line (which will incorporate "HPV-16, 18 DNA sequences even at high copy numbers and which will show either nuclear or episomal integration), and show us where it was demonstrated that perhaps a real HPV virion-positive (not 16 and 18 DNA but real HPV virion-containing) cervical secretion or nasopharyngeal secretion from persons with papillomas in the throat were actually capable of transforming?

Listen, I'll lower the bar. Show us a single publication where HPV virions (not DNA sequences 16 and 18) were placed on any cultured cell, and simply showed integration, as compared to a control integration of 16 and 18 where there are cell lines (like we have and are working with) which have 600 copies of these sequences/cell. We've been searching for this (these) studies for a while now (about a year) and can't for the life of us find them. The girl in my lab working on it was diagnosed with HPV as was her sister a year ago, and she'd appreciate the reference so she can finish the described experiment (

Here's what the experiment M&M looks like:
1. Real, "live" HPV virions from a person positive for 16/18.

2. Easily transformable cell line(s) MCF-10 has had some success with sequence integration of 16, and 18 if that helps you locate the study for us).

3. A control cell from the ATTC with 2 or up to 600 copies of HPV16,18/ cell (we have this line).

Figure legend for figure 1:

Figure 1A. Control-infected HPV16-18 cell line from ATTC. Note the many immunofluorescent speckles in (or around) the nucleus showing efficient and stable integration of HPV 16/18 DNA. Fig 1B. MCF10A cell (or cervical primary cell or cell line) exposed to vaginal or laryngeal secretions derived from a patient in our hospital with diagnosed HPV (gynocological or nasopharyngeal) infection. Note the integration of HPV virion DNA in (and around) the nucleus as exhibited by the immunofluorescent dots. Figure 1C. MCF10A cell (or cervical primary cell or cell line) exposed to vaginal or laryngeal secretions derived from a patient in our hospital with diagnosed HPV (gynocological or nasopharyngeal) infection after heat treatment of the secretion. Note the lack of integration of HPV virion DNA in (and around) the nucleus as exhibited by the immunofluorescent dots.

In this context, it might be helpful to review what "real experts" (not lab rats like me) say about the standardization of the HPV test:

What leading pathologists are saying about the molecular HPV kits and their validation as cancer diagnostics:
Both of these Chicago Tribune articles differ considerably from a front-page statement and 5 page article published in the September 2005 issue of Pathology/Laboratory Medicine/ and Laboratory Management article released monthly by The Collage of American Pathologists (CAP). Instead of asking Merck, The Public Health Service, or Moms and their children what they think about the merits of the new Guardasil "HPV" vaccine, a highly pointed and critical 5-page article was advanced regarding the uncertainties of "HPV" testing. A few examples from the article make the point:

"Dr. Schiffman heads the HPV Troup in the Division of Cancer, Epidemiology, and Genetics at NCI and is a tenured senior investigator. In mid March, Dr. Mark Schiffman, MD, MPH, called CAP TODAY's editor to voice a troubling concern: that laboratories are failing to clinically validate their HPV tests."

"In two subsequent interviews with CAP TODAY, Dr. Schiffman says labs are stumbling badly. His case is straightforward. Laboratories that use HPV tests need to make sure those tests are clinically validated." "It's amazing to me that someone would sell a product that's influencing a patient's life in terms of treatment for cervical cancer without being sure, based on data, that they can do it again and again and again with reliability."

"Mark Stoler, M.D., professor of pathology and clinical gynecology and associate director of surgical pathology and cytopathology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, says the problem is a major concern, not 'some' concern. It's beyond anecdotal." "I certainly see-in the chat areas of the different organizations, at conferences, on the Internet-advertisements and statements that are troubling, because they're indicating an excessive faith in poorly validated assays, he says."

In the CAP TODAY article, Dr. Stoler also pointedly asks,

"The essential question for ASCUS triage (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), is what is the sensitivity of the HPV test, and therefore its negative predictive value, in patients who have equivocal cytology for high-grade lesions? Many physicians, however, focus instead on the positive predictive value of the test, that is, the likelihood of finding high-grade lesions with colposcopy." The problem," he says, "is colposcopy is a terrible gold standard, missing anywhere from one-third to one-half of high-grade disease." "Lots and lots of labs say, 'We think the PCR test is more sensitive because we can pick up fewer DNA copies.' That has nothing to do with what we're talking about," says Dr. Stoler. "If you're going to bring forward a test, you've got to do a clinical validation trial that establishes its performance relative to these other benchmarks," he continues. "And the standard is not analytical molecules of DNA. It's not the analytic validation that matters, it's the clinical validation-how does the test perform in the real world? How sensitive are you with finding high-grade disease in a population of minimally abnormal cytology patients?"

These are all very good questions and warnings. However, when the reference labs throughout the world, and the doctors who run them are asking what the tests mean "in the real world," it should cause some pause, and certainly caution with respect to the certainty with which HPV and cervical cancer and a potential vaccine against HPV and cervical cancer may have been worked out by Merck, and broadcast in the Chicago Tribune and L.A. Times with statements like:,

"...this new vaccine against human papillomavirus, or HPV, was 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical disease, but only when given to women and girls who had never engaged in sex at the time of the shots."

Even Attila Lorincz, PhD, chief scientific officer and senior VP of research development at Digene (one of the HPV test-kit makers) says that:

"much of the confusion simply boils down to analytical and clinical accuracy is not well enough understood or described by people who write or talk about it," and that "the problem surfaces in the HPV literature with distressing regularity."

Toward the end of the CAP TODAY article, Dr. Shiffman again is quoted as saying that,

"What surprises me is that this {the certainty with which these tests for HPV and cervical cancer} could in any way be controversial, he says. "The issue is not so much controversial, of course, as it is loaded-with money and competitive claims, scientific complexity, and grave medical concerns."

If what Dr. Shiffman, a world expert on "HPV," is describing the state of the art in "HPV" testing, then how could anyone suggest that:

"...this new vaccine against human papillomavirus, or HPV, was 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical disease, but only when given to women and girls who had never engaged in sex at the time of the shots,"

unless madness about making money, rather than sound public health policy, were behind it?

Thanks much,

Andy

To:
Robert C. Gallo, MDAugust 25, 2007
Director and Professor
Institute of Human Virology
University of Maryland
School of Medicine
725 W. Lombard Street
Suite S307

In order to clarify my previous letter, my statements were conveyed on this public science forum to acknowledge that you had sent me various documents, and a new book you have drawn my attention to, "Dissecting a Discovery," by Nikolas Kontaratos. According to these documents and the book, and my own belief that what you have told me personally makes sense for various reasons, there is little doubt in my mind that, contrary to what the many damaging reports and investigations have portrayed in the media, in books, in various journals, and in other publicly-available records, there could have been no misconduct in the Gallo-Montagnier collaboration.

Regarding your collaborative relationship(s) with the Montagnier lab, and specifically, the complex specific details about techniques and the molecular signatures both groups associated with 48 AIDS patients and an ARC patient, the following specific statements are questionable in their account of the facts, since they have been contradicted now by these other sources I have listed and which you sent to me. I strongly believe, and I hope that my willingness to make these corrections publicly demonstrates, that an accurate history of this period amidst the confusion of financial, social, and political issues of that time is absolutely critical in order better assess scientific issues. These inaccuracies include:

1) "The Dingell Commission and others concluded Gallo committed fraud." Mr. Dingell himself disavowed the report against Gallo. Also the HSS's Office of Research Integrity ruling concluded there was no misconduct.

2) That "Gallo hijacked the virus from Montagnier." This would be impossible because you shepherded Barre-Sinoussi's 1983 paper.

3) That "Gallo suppressed Montagnier's work". The opposite was true and Luc Montagnier would confirm this if anyone asked him. This would also be unlikely since the 1983 paper was shepherded through.

4) That "Gallo's discoveries of HTLV-1 and 2 were frauds undertaken to get funding for a cash strapped virus cancer program at NIH". The truth is that Gallo did not work in the virus cancer program, and the program was never strapped for funds.

5) That "Gallo's work was not peer reviewed before being published". The truth is that the work was reviewed, but did not appear before HSS Secretary Heckler's press conference, but did appear a month later.

As I stated before, I will endeavor to correct these perceptions and statements not only because I regret passing along this information, but because it is the right thing to do in order to get to the truth regarding the molecular signature of the isolates.

Sincerely,

Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D.
Program Director in the Cell and Developmental Biology of Cancer
Departments of Pathology, and Bioengineering,
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607
Email: amanioti@uic.edu
Office:312-996-4838

In the spirit of the recent grounding of this thread back to molecular biological considerations let me submit the following exchange with the New Jersey Department of Public Health.

Contact Feedback to NJDHSS

Comments TO: Dr. Harte, Dr. Lewis, Dr. Eddy Bresnitz or Dr. Pallay
OF: Public Health Council (PHC)
YOUR MEETING: Update on Licensing of Human Papilloma Virus Vaccines

On Jan 6, 2006, you discussed "The Department described an effort by a couple pharmaceutical companies to license vaccines that would be used to prevent human papilloma virus infection, which is, ultimately to prevent cervical cancer in women and adolescents. The State should begin to discuss and possibly hold a symposium in the
spring. The Council will be advised of the date and location in the future."

A recent article in the Record quoted an NJDHSS official that mandatory vaccinations are being considered for some "women and adolescents".

Before you go off the deep end, evaluate the following.

Presumably, the spring symposium was held, (or at least a valid set of studies reviewed in your department), where the serious objections to this theory of cancer causation were refuted; this would prove that your department is not being pushed around by Big Pharma. I would be interested in any information you can direct me to on this.

By serious objections to this theory of cancer causation I mean the following:

Cervical Cancer Vaccine -- A Shameful Example of How Medical Research is Taking Dangerous Short-Cuts By Nicholas Regush
http://www.mercola.com/2002/dec/11/cervical_cancer.htm (EXCERPTS)(with minor editing for clarity)

HPV is a group of more than 100 viruses, about 30 of which are said to be linked to cervical cancer. Of these 30 or so, HPV-16 is said to be found in 50 percent of cervical cancers. HPV-18 accounts for another 20 percent.

The latest medical frenzy involves a vaccine aimed at cervical cancer. The study was published in the November 21 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

The headline to the accompanying editorial to the study in the NEJM screams out: "The Beginning of the End for Cervical Cancer?"

But the published research doesn't necessarily deserve any praise. Why? Because the study is a disgrace.

I got hold of Howard Urnovitz, who is a scientist dealing in molecular issues and a regular contributor to redflagsweekly.com.

His first reply was that "this is a poorly designed study that fits all-too-well into the legacy of medical incompetence called vaccine research."

Here is what Urnovitz had to say, pretty well reaching the same conclusions that I reached upon careful review of this study:

"These investigators initially enrolled 2,392 women to take part in the study. Immediately, 36 percent were disqualified primarily because they had detectable HPV markers, according to the study's authors, who determined HPV-detectability by either antibody or PCR testing. In other words, the study selected for women who showed some sort of robust natural immunity that kept them from expressing the HPV markers.

"Then the study used a cancer detection method which is known to be inaccurate, with a rate of false negative test results that ranges from 1 percent to 93 percent, despite the fact that it is the only test currently available in the United States to screen women for signs of cervical cancer. (A false negative result means that women who have cervical cancer or precancerous tissues are not being identified when they have a Pap smear.)

"Also, the HPV test is poorly designed. A positive result was defined as any PCR signal that exceeded the background PCR level associated with an HPV-negative sample of human DNA. This is a risky protocol because PCR tests are plagued with false positive reactions (a positive signal that is not a true detection of the target). Since the authors show no data or reference to data on a secondary test that confirms the gene sequence of a positive signal, they cannot conclude that they are measuring HPV."

So here is what the study really amounts to. I'll defer to Urnovitz because he lays it very cleanly on the line:

"The proper conclusion of this study should be: Administration of this HPV-16 vaccine reduced the incidence of an uncharacterized PCR signal from a poorly defined cohort which was strongly biased toward a natural immunity."

Back in 1992, a question was raised about the dominant and increasingly entrenched theory that HPV causes cervical cancer. It came from Peter Duesberg and Jody Schwartz, molecular biologists at the University of California at Berkeley.

Among the various issues they raised about the acceptance of HPV as the cause of cervical cancer was their fundamental concern that there was a lack of consistent HPV DNA sequences and consistent HPV gene expression in tumors that were HPV-positive. They instead suggested that "rare spontaneous or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities which are consistently observed in both HPV and HSV DNA-negative and positive cervical cancers induce cervical cancer."

In short, Duesberg and Schwartz were pointing to the possibility that "carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV or HSV." And here's the key point: "Since proliferating cells [cancer cells dividing wildly] would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would just be indicators rather than causes of abnormal proliferation."

END EXCERPTS

The Duesberg and Schwartz paper is - Latent Viruses and Mutated Oncogenes: No Evidence for Pathogenicity. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology, 43:135-204, 1992 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdlatvir0.htm

More on Howard Urnovitz and the dynamic genome at http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/HERV_TESTIMONY.html and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ERCD.php *

I would appreciate a response.

Best regards,
Gene Semon
*added 8/25/07

I received the following response.

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:19:13 -0400

Dear Mr. Semon:

Your email regarding vaccines for human papilloma virus (HPV) was directed to my office for reply. In this detailed e-mail, you expressed concern for the methodology used in vaccine testing. While I cannot address this aspect of the HPV vaccine issue, I can confirm that the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) held an HPV Vaccine Conference on May 24th to examine the issues involved in vaccinating the susceptible
population in the prevention of cervical cancer. The conference was well attended by public health and health care providers, educators, as well as school administrators. Presentations at the HPV Conference included information on the epidemiology of cervical cancer and incidence of HPV infection, along with background information from the CDC on the vaccines which have received preliminary FDA approval. There were also speakers at the conference to provide insight on the implementation of the vaccine, in anticipation of successful FDA approval and licensure.

In summary, the purpose of the conference was to highlight the existence of vaccines that can prevent cervical cancer, and to encourage thoughtful discussion on the implementation of these vaccines. Your concerns regarding the methodology of vaccine testing are best addressed to the Food and Drug Administration, prior to the licensure of these vaccines. It should be noted that today, the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP) which serves to advise the CDC on immunization issues, unanimously recommended that HPV vaccine be provided to 11 to 12 year old girls. The reference for this news article is:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid…

At this time, the DHSS is not aware of any legislation mandating HPV vaccination. Should such legislation be drafted and proposed, there will be an opportunity to voice your concerns during the public comment period.

I trust that this response provides greater insight regarding the Department's current and potential role in the implementation of HPV vaccination, upon the licensure of the available vaccines. Thank you for your concern about this important health issue.

Sincerely,

Bonnie H. Wiseman, M.P.H.
Executive Assistant
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
Public Health Services/Office of the State Epidemiologist
New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
609.588.7463

To which I responded on March 13, 2007:

Hello again.

The current unsettling campaign to frighten women into believing in a virus-causing cancer hypothesis has reminded me that I still owe you a response.

As you recommended, I went to the FDA Hearing transcript and sure enough, found the following: "it has to do with the E6 and E7 proteins that are produced by HPV high risk types, particularly HPV 16 and 18, and that when there is a high risk lesion or a high-grade lesion, such as CIN 3, what has happened essentially is the virus has infected an immature cell that is prone to replicating and in some fashion, that E6 and E7 has gotten expressed to high levels and it has allowed those cells to accumulate, essentially in a mortalized(sic) clone of cells, that you can imagine over time that does not have the normal breaks to say stop replicating, clean up your DNA or die. It's the -- E6 and E7 are efficient in allowing that cell to continue to replicate with the DNA damage. And that over time, the 15 to 20 years on average, leads to an invasive cancer clone."

Astoundingly, this is simply asserted by Dr Koutsky, with no reference to be found.

Now, as I previously wrote, this modification of the mutated onco/suppressor-gene model does not represent a valid scientific consensus. Please have your staff read "Oncogenes, Aneploidy and AIDS - A Scientific Life and Times of Peter Duesberg" by Harvey Bialy (North Atlantic Books, 2004) for a complete consideration of the critical issue of what, precisely, causes cancer. Additionally, Dr Duesberg made a recent presentation which directly refutes Dr Koutsky, here: http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/peter_duesberg_.html.

I would like you and the staff to be aware, also, that the particular use of PCR technology discussed at the May 18, 2006 FDA Hearing is not endorsed by the Nobel Laureate inventor of it, i.e. Kary Mullis. Why? Because there is no prior documentation of the infectious virions (including replicase isolation)* that the PCR is allegedly detecting. Without proper isolation from those with CIN 2/3, how can one determine that a viral transmission has occurred in the first place? The transcription of E6 and E7 mRNA from HPV DNA episomes in the nucleus, and subsequent translation of these abnormal proteins, may simply be a consistent marker of the genomic rearrangements of stressed cells in karyotypic transition within the cervical environment. This well-documented biological property of HPV DNA ("latency" within the nucleus) means that transmission of its genetic material can only take place by an exchange of epithelial cells between sexual partners.

So I respectfully ask of the NJ Department of Public Health: what good can a vaccine possibly do given this scenario?

Gene Semon
*added 8/25/07

Needless to say, I did not receive a response.

"If you don't know a polymerase from your ass you can almost think he knows what he's talking about! Fun fun fun."

Adele, I'm longing for you ... to straighten me out on the arguments from kinetics (see NAR) and, of course, AZT's nucleotide blocking - preventing their incorporation by the only theoretical 70S-RNA-templated reverse transcriptase reaction in vivo.

Are the details of simple polymerization reactions too much for you?

(Assuming the names of government officials caused the following to be deleted, here's a redo)

In the spirit of the recent grounding of this thread back to molecular biological considerations let me submit the following exchange with the New Jersey Department of Public Health.

Contact Feedback to NJDHSS

Comments TO: Dr. , Dr. , Dr. or Dr.
OF: Public Health Council (PHC)
YOUR MEETING: Update on Licensing of Human Papilloma Virus Vaccines

On Jan 6, 2006, you discussed "The Department described an effort by a couple pharmaceutical companies to license vaccines that would be used to prevent human papilloma virus infection, which is, ultimately to prevent cervical cancer in women and adolescents. The State should begin to discuss and possibly hold a symposium in the
spring. The Council will be advised of the date and location in the future."

A recent article in the Record quoted an NJDHSS official that mandatory vaccinations are being considered for some "women and adolescents".

Before you go off the deep end, evaluate the following.

Presumably, the spring symposium was held, (or at least a valid set of studies reviewed in your department), where the serious objections to this theory of cancer causation were refuted; this would prove that your department is not being pushed around by Big Pharma. I would be interested in any information you can direct me to on this.

By serious objections to this theory of cancer causation I mean the following:

Cervical Cancer Vaccine -- A Shameful Example of How Medical Research is Taking Dangerous Short-Cuts By Nicholas Regush
http://www.mercola.com/2002/dec/11/cervical_cancer.htm (EXCERPTS)(with minor editing for clarity)

HPV is a group of more than 100 viruses, about 30 of which are said to be linked to cervical cancer. Of these 30 or so, HPV-16 is said to be found in 50 percent of cervical cancers. HPV-18 accounts for another 20 percent.

The latest medical frenzy involves a vaccine aimed at cervical cancer. The study was published in the November 21 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

The headline to the accompanying editorial to the study in the NEJM screams out: "The Beginning of the End for Cervical Cancer?"

But the published research doesn't necessarily deserve any praise. Why? Because the study is a disgrace.

I got hold of Howard Urnovitz, who is a scientist dealing in molecular issues and a regular contributor to redflagsweekly.com.

His first reply was that "this is a poorly designed study that fits all-too-well into the legacy of medical incompetence called vaccine research."

Here is what Urnovitz had to say, pretty well reaching the same conclusions that I reached upon careful review of this study:

"These investigators initially enrolled 2,392 women to take part in the study. Immediately, 36 percent were disqualified primarily because they had detectable HPV markers, according to the study's authors, who determined HPV-detectability by either antibody or PCR testing. In other words, the study selected for women who showed some sort of robust natural immunity that kept them from expressing the HPV markers.

"Then the study used a cancer detection method which is known to be inaccurate, with a rate of false negative test results that ranges from 1 percent to 93 percent, despite the fact that it is the only test currently available in the United States to screen women for signs of cervical cancer. (A false negative result means that women who have cervical cancer or precancerous tissues are not being identified when they have a Pap smear.)

"Also, the HPV test is poorly designed. A positive result was defined as any PCR signal that exceeded the background PCR level associated with an HPV-negative sample of human DNA. This is a risky protocol because PCR tests are plagued with false positive reactions (a positive signal that is not a true detection of the target). Since the authors show no data or reference to data on a secondary test that confirms the gene sequence of a positive signal, they cannot conclude that they are measuring HPV."

So here is what the study really amounts to. I'll defer to Urnovitz because he lays it very cleanly on the line:

"The proper conclusion of this study should be: Administration of this HPV-16 vaccine reduced the incidence of an uncharacterized PCR signal from a poorly defined cohort which was strongly biased toward a natural immunity."

Back in 1992, a question was raised about the dominant and increasingly entrenched theory that HPV causes cervical cancer. It came from Peter Duesberg and Jody Schwartz, molecular biologists at the University of California at Berkeley.

Among the various issues they raised about the acceptance of HPV as the cause of cervical cancer was their fundamental concern that there was a lack of consistent HPV DNA sequences and consistent HPV gene expression in tumors that were HPV-positive. They instead suggested that "rare spontaneous or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities which are consistently observed in both HPV and HSV DNA-negative and positive cervical cancers induce cervical cancer."

In short, Duesberg and Schwartz were pointing to the possibility that "carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV or HSV." And here's the key point: "Since proliferating cells [cancer cells dividing wildly] would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would just be indicators rather than causes of abnormal proliferation."

END EXCERPTS

The Duesberg and Schwartz paper is - Latent Viruses and Mutated Oncogenes: No Evidence for Pathogenicity. Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology, 43:135-204, 1992 http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdlatvir0.htm

More on Howard Urnovitz and the dynamic genome at http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/HERV_TESTIMONY.html and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ERCD.php *

I would appreciate a response.

*added 8/25/07

I received the following response.

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:19:13 -0400

Dear Mr.

Your email regarding vaccines for human papilloma virus (HPV) was directed to my office for reply. In this detailed e-mail, you expressed concern for the methodology used in vaccine testing. While I cannot address this aspect of the HPV vaccine issue, I can confirm that the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) held an HPV Vaccine Conference on May 24th to examine the issues involved in vaccinating the susceptible
population in the prevention of cervical cancer. The conference was well attended by public health and health care providers, educators, as well as school administrators. Presentations at the HPV Conference included information on the epidemiology of cervical cancer and incidence of HPV infection, along with background information from the CDC on the vaccines which have received preliminary FDA approval. There were also speakers at the conference to provide insight on the implementation of the vaccine, in anticipation of successful FDA approval and licensure.

In summary, the purpose of the conference was to highlight the existence of vaccines that can prevent cervical cancer, and to encourage thoughtful discussion on the implementation of these vaccines. Your concerns regarding the methodology of vaccine testing are best addressed to the Food and Drug Administration, prior to the licensure of these vaccines. It should be noted that today, the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP) which serves to advise the CDC on immunization issues, unanimously recommended that HPV vaccine be provided to 11 to 12 year old girls. The reference for this news article is:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid…

At this time, the DHSS is not aware of any legislation mandating HPV vaccination. Should such legislation be drafted and proposed, there will be an opportunity to voice your concerns during the public comment period.

I trust that this response provides greater insight regarding the Department's current and potential role in the implementation of HPV vaccination, upon the licensure of the available vaccines. Thank you for your concern about this important health issue.

Sincerely,

Executive Assistant
Office of the Deputy Commissioner
Public Health Services/Office of the State Epidemiologist
New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
609.588.7463

To which I responded on March 13, 2007:

Hello again.

The current unsettling campaign to frighten women into believing in a virus-causing cancer hypothesis has reminded me that I still owe you a response.

As you recommended, I went to the FDA Hearing transcript and sure enough, found the following: "it has to do with the E6 and E7 proteins that are produced by HPV high risk types, particularly HPV 16 and 18, and that when there is a high risk lesion or a high-grade lesion, such as CIN 3, what has happened essentially is the virus has infected an immature cell that is prone to replicating and in some fashion, that E6 and E7 has gotten expressed to high levels and it has allowed those cells to accumulate, essentially in a mortalized(sic) clone of cells, that you can imagine over time that does not have the normal breaks to say stop replicating, clean up your DNA or die. It's the -- E6 and E7 are efficient in allowing that cell to continue to replicate with the DNA damage. And that over time, the 15 to 20 years on average, leads to an invasive cancer clone."

Astoundingly, this is simply asserted by Dr K, with no reference to be found.

Now, as I previously wrote, this modification of the mutated onco/suppressor-gene model does not represent a valid scientific consensus. Please have your staff read "Oncogenes, Aneploidy and AIDS - A Scientific Life and Times of Peter Duesberg" by Harvey Bialy (North Atlantic Books, 2004) for a complete consideration of the critical issue of what, precisely, causes cancer. Additionally, Dr Duesberg made a recent presentation which directly refutes Dr Koutsky, here: http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/peter_duesberg_.html.

I would like you and the staff to be aware, also, that the particular use of PCR technology discussed at the May 18, 2006 FDA Hearing is not endorsed by the Nobel Laureate inventor of it, i.e. Kary Mullis. Why? Because there is no prior documentation of the infectious virions (including replicase isolation)* that the PCR is allegedly detecting. Without proper isolation from those with CIN 2/3, how can one determine that a viral transmission has occurred in the first place? The transcription of E6 and E7 mRNA from HPV DNA episomes in the nucleus, and subsequent translation of these abnormal proteins, may simply be a consistent marker of the genomic rearrangements of stressed cells in karyotypic transition within the cervical environment. This well-documented biological property of HPV DNA ("latency" within the nucleus) means that transmission of its genetic material can only take place by an exchange of epithelial cells between sexual partners.

So I respectfully ask of the NJ Department of Public Health: what good can a vaccine possibly do given this scenario?

*added 8/25/07

Needless to say, I did not receive a response.

All adele does is play the anti semitism race card, we could just as easily call her a arab hating racist, just ignore her, shes on these blogs 24 hours a day, she just want attention because shes lonely..................

Can't you denialists either put up or shut up? Jeez.

ElkMountainMan,

Thank you for some quotes better to illustrate Chris's point. I guess owing to his poor German Chris didn't identify the correct one.

I see Hamer uses the exact same rhetoric against the "Talmud-Zionists" as most of the Western world, inclsuding Israel, uses against the mythical Al Quaeda, islamo-facism, islamic fundamentalists etc. And incidentally it is almost the same rhetoric used against "AIDS denialists". Here a couple of quotes, first the conspiracy:

the AIDS denialists are all inter-connected and they operate globally . . . Coordination on an international scale is now required to defeat them wherever they surface.HIV professionals need to know what the denialists' agendas are, and educate their patients and the public accordingly before the deadly impact of this phenomenon has additional opportunities to expand the AIDS epidemic
http://aidstruth.org/IAS_Newsletter_March2007.pdf

Then the nefarious link between "denialism" and "deadly quackery" killing thousands every day:

The links between AIDS denialism and the alternative medicine industry add yet another twist to the story

Then the link between "denialists" politics and religion:

HIV deniers accuse scientists of quashing dissent regarding the cause of AIDS, and not allowing so-called "alternative" theories to be heard. However, this claim could be applied to any well-established scientific theory that is being challenged by politically motivated pseudoscientific notions--for example, creationist challenges to evolution ... The strategies of HIV deniers, like many other denialist movements, seek to undermine the very philosophy of science itself

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10…

The characterization of prominent "denialist groups":

To draw an analogy [to Celia Farber and the Rethinking Aids group]: would ''Discover Magazine" grant space to a leading member of the Ku Klux Klan to promote a book he/she had written to advance the "science" of Eugenics?
http://aidstruth.org/discover-moore.php

Finally the Endlosung to the denialist threat to science and society from JP himself:

"Dan" has it exactly right when he says:
"If they are able to "justify" their actions, it's most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the "denialists". Nothing more. When you're in a war, there are no rules."
This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/andrew_maniotis.html#….

I reject all of the above on the same grounds. How about you ElkMountainMain? Which way points your PC sensibilitites and which way your gun?

"A man is a man. A woman is a woman. A crook is a crook."

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

And a murdering bastard is a murdering bastard, so I guess we know where the man, crook, and murdering bastard Hamer stands now, don't we?

I don't actual care if Hamer is a racist or not. What I do care about is that Hamer is provably wrong.

Dig through the archives, you'll find the ass kicking administered to that sick freak jSpreen, where we basically showed that Hamer is completely wrong and non-sensical. On top of which, nothing he says has any basis in fact, has ever been tested, etc. Since his only method is to do nothing, the web is littered with stories of his victims, some of them with horrible graphic pictures of rotting flesh... people with treatable cancers eaten alive while that arrogant psychopath laughed.

So really, I don't care if he happens to hate jews. Thats totally secondary to the part where he convinces people not to seek treatment for cancer that has metasticized into the bone.

To the denialists: jan spreen not only doesn't believe in AIDS, he doesn't believe in the flu. Or cancer. He thinks cancer is a healthy response to disease. Here are some pictures of a "healthy response". http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amamiche.htm

Spreen has claimed to care for cancer patients. He supports them doing NOTHING to stop the disease. So I can only assume he is an evil ghoul who loves watching people rot, a subhuman, furtive, and diseased creature who thrills in the scent of decay and death.

You are measured by your friends.

Just as an example, according to the Hamer model, all cancer should metasticize into the brain. Why? Because all disease, all cancer, is a result of a supposed psychological trauma that damages tissue in the brain. To heal, that tissue would require a tumor, according to the hamer model. This is not observed, therefore, Hamer's theory is wrong.

I mean, ignore the fact that Hamer's entire theory depends on the non-existence of neurogenesis (an observed phenomena). Just go with the fact that Hamer's own predictions about what should happen with cancer simply don't bear out at all.

Game. Set. Match. EOF.

It isn't that spreen lives in a different world of evidence. Its that he doesn't live in the world of evidence at all. He doesn't give a shit about evidence, as long as he can breathe in the stench of the dying to satisfy his diseased cravings.

Haha Adele, thanks for showing us Chris is a liar just like yourself. Your translation shows correctly that nowhere in the quote does Hamer suggest orthodox medicine is a Jewish conspiracy (he may do so elsewhere but that remains to be seen)

If you are going to accuse somebody of being a liar then produce evidence.

"Schulmedizin" is the word used by pseudoscientists to designate orthodox medicine (think of allopathy). Hamer clearly states that orthodox medicine is jewish and that jews themselves do not use "Schulmedizin" on themselves but instead use it to kill nonjews.

The babel translation was good but "Der jüdischen sog. Schulmedizin" should be translated as "the jewish so-called orthodox medicine".

This stuff is straight out of the Protocol's of the Elders of Zion.

Tara,

Nice to see you now have your own publicist at Wikipedia. Some comments on your recent PLoS paper (which really reads like a poorly written high school sophomore book report):

"The Internet is an effective tool for targeting young people, and for spreading misinformation within a group at high risk for HIV infection."

Oh, really, "high risk for HIV infection". Last time I checked, Tara, teenagers had the lowest "HIV prevalence" of ANY AGE GROUP, independent of all of other factors. (See Figure 2 of Bauer's book.) I'm curious where you get this delusion that "young people are at high risk for HIV infection".

"Two excellent online fact sheets have been prepared to counter many of the most commonly used arguments to deny HIV causation of AIDS"

Oh, really, the NIH "Fact Sheet"?? Is that the best you can do??

"Although other forms of science denial will not be specifically discussed, the characteristics described below apply to many other forms of popular denial, including denial of evolution, mental illness, and the Holocaust."

That's right. Pull the Holocaust card. Real classy.

"Peter Duesberg initiated the HIV denial movement with a 1987 article suggesting that HIV does not cause AIDS"

Geez, you can't even get your basic facts straight. Schmidt published his Journal of Psychohistory paper in 1984. Lauritsen began publishing his criticisms of the CDC reports in 1985. Eleni submitted her oxidative stress paper in 1986, I believe (before Duesberg's 1987 paper). And many molecular biologists were certainly doubtful of Gallo's claims between 1984 and 1986.

"Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised."

There's another reason: the standards of what it takes to get a degree in science have become so low that almost any IDIOT can become a scientist or get a ph.d. in science nowadays. This blog is living proof of that. Fortunately, such lower standards haven't affected math yet. A proof is still a proof, now as it was 2,000 years ago.

"This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy"

No grand conspiracy. Just a state of affairs where anyone can get a ph.d. in science who can't think their way out of a paper bag.

"Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards..."

Oh, you mean standards like "correlation does not imply causation"??:

"They reject correlation as insufficient to establish causation."

Tuition at Yale University: $30,000.
Microbiology and epidemiology textbooks: $3,000.
Chinese take-out and Domino's pizza delivery during all-night laboratory sessions: $5,000.

Putting your foot in your mouth in a major medical journal: Priceless.

"However, multiple independent correlations pointing to the same causation--in this case that HIV causes AIDS--is a legitimate and generally accepted form of epidemiological evidence used to establish causation. The same type of evidence, for example, has been used to establish that smoking causes certain types of lung cancer."

Tell me, Tara, where can I find these "multiple independent correlations"?? All epidemiological data I can find tell me that HIV and AIDS are NOT correlated -- not geographically (check out the Southern states), certainly, not by race either (check out blacks), not by any meaningful criterion, other than the generic correlation, "if AIDS, then more likely to test HIV positive".

"These signatories do not, however, suggest who the "suitable independent" group should be"

Okay, Tara, how about the Society of Actuaries? They're a group of pretty smart people. And epidemiology is RIGHT up their alley!! And their motto is: "The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances and demonstrations for impressions." - John Ruskin, something HIV researchers would be advised to take to heart.

"The deniers claim that they are just on the cusp of broader acceptance in the scientific community and that they remain an underdog due to the "established orthodoxy" represented by scientists who believe that HIV causes AIDS."

Couldn't have said it better myself!!

"Interestingly, alternative hypotheses for AIDS causation depend on where the patient lives."

That's right, Tara! Because "AIDS" is a phony construct! Funny that -- when you make up a phony construct out of a mish-mash of conditions that "depend on where the patient lives", then the "alternative hypotheses" will...SURPRISE... depend on where the patient lives.

"and yet they support the idea that poppers or other drugs--including many that have not been shown to cause severe immune deficiencies--could cause AIDS"

Now I KNOW for a fact you never read Infectious AIDS or Duesberg's Drug Consumption paper. You already LIED about whether you had read the 1995 Ho/Shaw papers, about reading the NON-EXISTENT "responses to the replies to the rebutalls to the responses to the replies", etc. (yes, I remember your reply from A YEAR AND A HALF AGO...) because THEY DON'T ******* EXIST. THERE WERE NO REPLIES TO THE REPLIES TO THE REPLIES. You can't read something that doesn't exist. Liar.

"And indeed, most of the HIV deniers' arguments were answered long ago by scientists"

Where, in your NIH "Fact Sheet". Yeah, right. Next you'll be telling me to look at the infamous O'Brien paper.

"The strategies of HIV deniers, like many other denialist movements, seek to undermine the very philosophy of science itself, to distort public understanding of the scientific process, and to sow distrust of scientific institutions"

No, I don't seek to "undermine the very philosophy of science". I seek to protect science from people like you, who promote unsubstantiated beliefs and inflict suffering on millions from your defense of a dead theory.

"There remains a deep problem of overall scientific illiteracy in this country and others, creating fertile soil for those who wish to spread scientific misinformation"

Wow! We agree for the SECOND time. ;-)

Dig through the archives, you'll find the ass kicking administered to that sick freak jSpreen, where we basically showed that Hamer is completely wrong and non-sensical.

Each time I read a contribution written by Seth Manapio, I am impressed by the hate of the man. Why do you go beserk all the time, Seth? Every single one of your bile spitting writing is just that plus a clear message that you have absolutely no idea what Hamer's New Medicine is all about. I suggest you'd try to master your angry feelings caused by I don't know what. Maybe you'd gain some insight. Calm down and try to read this at least once without getting angry. Then you'll also find out that you've basically showed nothing at all and that every single word I wrote to the Swiss sheepherders stands as a rock.

Another thing I learn from Seth's messages is that normal logical thinking seems to be impossible for any person backing up mainstream dogma. Would this be the result of too much holy mantra reciting?

Repeat after me:

"HIV, the virus that causes Aids."
"HIV, the virus that causes Aids."
"HIV, the virus that causes Aids."
"HIV, the virus that causes Aids."
"HIV, the virus that causes Aids."
"HIV, the virus that causes Aids."
"HIV, the virus that causes Aids."
"HIV, the virus that causes Aids."
...

What do you get? Sheep. Stupid sheep. Angry stupid sheep. Very angry stupid sheep. Ready to go to any length to keep the mainstream flag afloat on the breeze of fanatism from hell.

To quote Prof. John "Pee" Moore:
This is a WAR there are NO RULES and we will DESTROY YOU DENIALISTS one at a time

And those are the people that pretend to care for other people's health? Hate as starters for healthcare? Sure, in you we blindly trust, Mr Moore.

"Why do you go beserk all the time, Seth?"

----------

Because you disgust me, Spreen. Everything about you disgusts me. The lies you tell, the bullshit you spread, your inability to think, your poison pen, everything. There is nothing good about you. As far as I am concerned, you are evil, and while I don't actually hate you, I do utterly despise you. It actually makes me sick to my stomach to read anything you write. Bile rises in my throat.

I don't think that there is anything redeeming about you. I think you are a souless ghoul and a friend to a psychopathic murdering shitbag. You bring nothing of value into the world. You are, in short, a complete waste as a human being.

I read Hamer's so called ideas. They are self contradictory and contradict reality. That isn't a result of my not getting them, its a result of them being total bullshit.

For example, Hamer claims that brain cancer is impossible because adults don't grow new neurons. Adults do grow new neurons. Therefore Hamer is totally full of shit. Its really that simple.

Your letter is a lie from start to finish. It is filled with quotes from people who--shockingly--will deny saying what you said they said. How convenient for you. How convenient that all of these people are on record saying the exact opposite of what you claim they said.

C.Q.F.D.

Thank's Seth.

C.Q.F.D.

---------

I couldn't agree more. It is totally demonstrated. Every word that Hamer writes can easily be demonstrated to be untrue, and Hamer himself revealed as a murderer.

When Olivia Pilhar was brought to the hospital, taken out of Hamer's hands, she was (according to the attending) "Skin, bones, and tumor." The tumor that was removed by emergency surgery had a volume of six liters. Six. In a child.

You claim that this physician gave the girl back to her father, stating that he could do nothing for her. I have read several statements from that doctor villifying Hamer and stating that they barely got to her in time.

So it is demonstrated also that you are a liar.

Wow cooler and Mack Sock saying I hate Arabs typical response when a neanderthal get exposed they say ,

"Well there's some people who hate Arabs so it's ok I hate Jews or my friend hates JEws or this dude I worship hates Jews". Or "since you didn't say slavery was bad specficially or you didn't say Armenia massacre was bad that means you hate African Americans and Armenians so your just as bad as people like me who hate Jews." Or this is a good one "Yeah, well there's people who hate Nazi war criminals and want them to DIE, so thats hatred and thats bad you can't discriminate against a group of people like that"

Guess what swastika polishers? Yes I do not like Nazi war criminals. Just like I despise Jewish war criminals and Arab war criminals and American war criminals. See theres people who don't like someone because of what they DO you know and then theres people who don't like someone because of who they ARE, where they were born, color of their skin, gender etc.

Here's things people ARE they shouldn't be hated for, thats racism and bigotrey:
being in a racial or ethnic group
a gender
gay or straight
being tall or short or fat or skinny

Here's stuff people DO I don't like them for and I don't think that's wrong,
Jans people killing off Slavs and Jews in world war two,
or European people and Americans enslaving other people and making up crap science about how the slaves weren't real people so its ok,
or Europeans coming to someone else's land and killing them and taking their land,
or hick jerks shooting people they think are Muslims or spray painting a mosque because they think twenty nutcases mean everyone whose Arab is like that just because their Arab or just because they're Muslim,
or idiots saying Jews are exterminating germans to get back for holocaust that didn't really happen,
or denialists getting people to do stuff that gets their kids infected so they're not alone without a alive and well child, other people's are sick and dying too.

Hint I'm not saying these atrocities are EQUAL to each other whatever that means. Obviously there's alot more people killed and hurt by Nazis and slavery or expansionism than by stupid hicks who don't know what Islam is or Arabs from Sikhs. Alot more people than Maggiores crap gets killed or Duesbergs and even antisemitic tuetonic new medicine.

But you know what Seth is totally right yeah fine Hamer's like Goebels today but what's really matters is, people are dying because of Hamer and Spreen. Yeah it's bad their granddad was killing people and they don't care and now they still hate those people their grandad was trying to kill. The important thing is, THEY are killing people. People die because of Hamer and Spreen and Duesberg and probably Maggiore to. So as bad as I hate Hamer's racism its the killing that's more important.

Sorry I have to stop using neanderthal that's speciesist sorry neanderthals if your still around putting people like Spreen in with you guys is really insulting and actually I'm embarrased I'm in the same species with them.

Some drawbacks to being extinct I guess but you guys at least don't have to put up with these swastika polishers.

jspreen,
I think we have less to worry about the likes of these morons playing follow the leader and wearing blinders to reality. We need to worry about the nasty HIV care givers and docs who play God with our fellow brothers and sisters, convincing them to step right on up for a bogus test and then prescribed chemo for the rest of their lives which facilitates an early death among other atrocities. They could give two shits about the well being of others for these people are the ones who unfortunately without them knowing it are acting like the nazis.

Sorry me again but is there anyone I mean any "rethinker" who thinks this Hamer guy goes over the line with that Tuetonic Medicine? I mean if someone came on here and said yeah I agree with Franklin and Robster and Chris and people HIV causes AIDS and I think its all because of the evil JEws or evil Arabs or evil gays or evil witch women umm I think Franklin and Robster and Chris an all the other "apologists" would jump on that person real fast and tell them to crawl back on their slime hole. YEah its nice when people agree with you but you have to have some standards!

So is there any rethinker who wants to say sorry people for carter and spreen and mack I kinda agree with them about HIV but I want to condem that racism? Is there a rethinker who wants to say hey spreen and cooler you guys are a minus to this cause with your conspiracy crap and racist crap so go to hell?

"I think we have less to worry about the likes of these morons playing follow the leader and wearing blinders to reality."
------------

So, carter, you also deny the germ theory of disease completely? You don't think that the common cold is caused by a virus? You don't believe that cholera and plague are caused by bacteria? You think that all cancers are the result of an emotional shock, and that a virus or bacteria is merely cleaning up the cancer?

Did you see the pictures I linked to? Would you advise that person to just try to avoid stress?

Bear in mind: unless you reject the germ theory of disease, and believe that brain cancer is merely the healing phase of an emotional trauma, you are not a member of Jan's new medicine cult. And since Jan's cult is a death cult focused on one particular antisemitic, charismatic, insane leader, your probably don't want to belong to his cult, or be associated with it.

Seth
You can stop with the subterfuge. Sorry if I bother you, but if any educated person were to objectively take a close look into both sides without the wearing of AIDS Inc's rose colored glasses, then maybe better answers to immune deficiency could happen without the need to poison and prematurely put to death people who merely register positive on non-specific and convoluted tests. I question your basic need to follow questionable theories, which have done nothing for two decades other than make more people sick and carry on the intense fear mongering. Why?

So is there any rethinker who wants to say sorry people for carter and spreen and mack I kinda agree with them about HIV but I want to condem that racism?

Grin grin grin... Adele agrees to widen up her horizon and she's even willing to haul in HIV denialists if they're only willing to throw the first stone and the following to my kind yet so criminal face.
You don't have to, Adele. If you need allies to throw stones to antisemitic people I'm your man. Let's clear the job together. But you must know that we'l be throwing stones to all racists. We'll aim nigger-haters, gay-haters, arab-haters and all haters of the other who think that the world can be divided in two groups. The group of the just, the good to which they belong and where they'll find protection and salvation, and the group of the others, the bad and the ugly, who are the cause of all evil and harm.

Drop me a line, Adele, I'll be around.

"You can stop with the subterfuge."

-----------

I don't think you know what that word means. I am not employing any subterfuge. Jan Spreen is a supporter of an actual psychotic killer named Hamer, who counsels cancer patients to let their cancer kill them. I posted a link to the obit of one of his victims.

No subterfuge there.

Spreen does not believe that germs cause disease. He does not believe that cholera is caused by a bacteria. He believes cancer is caused by an emotional trauma, and cholera would be the sign of a body healing from cancer. This is literally what he says. No subterfuge there.

You have expressed solidarity with him against morons like me. Are you saying that you agree with his beliefs about cancer and cholera, or not? Do you support, as he does, the cessation of all cancer research and epedemiological research into any disease, and a complete reputdiation of all western medicine dating back to Pasteur?

I'm trying to expose subterfuge of the worst kind, being perpetrated by a sick and evil man.

So is there any rethinker who wants to say sorry people for carter and spreen and mack I kinda agree with them about HIV but I want to condem that racism? Is there a rethinker who wants to say hey spreen and cooler you guys are a minus to this cause with your conspiracy crap and racist crap so go to hell?

Spreen, carter and cooler are representative of the Denialists. If they got rid of the conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientists and anti-science nuts they wouldn't have anyone left.

Dear Franklin, APY, Adele, Steth, Et Al.

A recent study was brought to my attention and just like a whole plethora of other studies from AIDS Inc., this one here further goes to demonstrate how completely asinine and utterly insane you and all the rest of the believers/proponents of HIV=AIDS truly are!

A large study of HIV-positive people not taking drugs. Shows a strikingly low death rate among groups with high CD4 counts and then recommends they should all be put on AIDS drugs.

"17 609 [HIV-positive people] contributed a total of 30 313 person-years to the analysis of rates of AIDS or death in ART[anti-retroviral-therapy]-naive patients...The first AIDS events occurring at CD4 cell count >350 cells/mL were...examined: 63 (20%) were Kaposi's sarcoma (compared with 16% overall), 62 (20%) oesophageal candidiasis (17% overall), 42 (14%) tuberculosis (13% overall), 35 (11%) herpes simplex (6% overall), 37 (12%) recurrent bacterial infections (6% overall), 20 (6%) Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (19% overall), 17 (5%) cryptosporidiosis (3% overall) and 13 (4%) lymphoma (3% overall)...[Table 1 shows that the risk of death in 100 person years is 0.32 for CD4 counts 350-499, 0.20 for 500-649 and 0.17 for over 650]...[despite this, the authors conclude]...Our findings suggest that risk of AIDS and death might be reduced by using ART to raise CD4 cell counts even among patients with high CD4 cell counts"

Rate of AIDS diseases or death in HIV-infected antiretroviral
therapy-naive individuals with high CD4 cell count. AIDS.
2007 Aug 20; 21(13): 1717-1721.

I would really like to know how you could ever stand behind and support this LUNACY? How could you be a proponent of death and dying? I would really like to know.

Seth
I don't support things that that dont make sense and sometimes that includes the other dissidents in whole or in part. We're creatures of independent thought. So, why do you vehemently conclude I should automatically agree with each and every point someone else trys to put forth?

"So, why do you vehemently conclude I should automatically agree with each and every point someone else trys to put forth?"

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

I don't. But you, carter, expressed solidarity with jspreen against morons like me. I'm drawing the rational conclusion, which is that you think that his ideas are not moronic.

Which emphasizes my point about denialism. You automatically joined forces with spreen. You didn't stop to analyze the content of his ideas, because what is important to you is that he challenges "AIDS Inc".

Well, the homeless guy on the street who thinks that government vampires are the real cause of AIDS (these are lymphatic vampires, not vascular) is also challenging "AIDS Inc". But that doesn't mean that he isn't a moron.

On to the article that you are referencing: clearly, the authors thought those deaths were preventable, based on their knowledge of HAART. I would guess that rates of deaths or sickness from side effects are lower than the deaths from disease cited in the study.

That's a strawman argument Seth and instead of guessing that rates of deaths or sickness from side effects are lower. prove it.

"That's a strawman argument Seth and instead of guessing that rates of deaths or sickness from side effects are lower. prove it."
------------

First off, go look up logical fallacies so you can use "strawman" properly. You're embarrassing yourself.

Second, you made a claim: Death rates in that study are not high enough to warrant HAART. You presented no evidence to support that claim. My guess is as good as yours. Can you prove your original claim? If not, you are just as likely to be wrong as I am... slightly more so, because my guess is at least consistent with the existence of the recommendation.

So, given that we have both presented equal evidence, and you are making a claim that a specific study is making a bad recommendation, how is it my responsibility to provide more evidence than you do? How the hell does that work?

Carter,

Thanks for bring this paper to our attention:

The UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (CHIC) Study Steering Committee. (2007 ). Rate of AIDS diseases or death in HIV-infected antiretroviral therapy-naive individuals with high CD4 cell count. AIDS 21: 1717-1721.

The authors collected data on a population of 25,274 patients, including 17,609 patients who had not received any anti-retroviral therapy (ART) when they were entered into the study. Cumulatively, these patients provided 30,313 person-years of experience with patients who were ART-naive. The study examined the relationship between the development of an AIDS-defining event or of death and the patient's CD4 cell count, HIV viral load, and other parameters.

Not surprisingly, they found that the risk of an AIDS event or of death was highest in individuals with CD4 cell counts below 50. Patients with a CD4 cell count greater than 350 had a 30-fold lower risk of an AIDS event or death than those with a CD4 count below fifty.

Focusing on the patients with a CD4 cell count greater than 350 revealed that the risk of an AIDS event or of death was still related to the CD4 cell count--patients with a CD4 cell count between 500 and 649 were 1.5-fold more likely to die or develop an AIDS-defining complication than patients with a CD4 cell count greater than or equal to 650.

And patients with a CD4 cell count between 350 and 499 were almost twice as likely to die as patients with a CD4 cell count greater than or equal to 650.

Based upon these findings the authors suggested that patients with CD4 cell counts greater than 350 or greater than 500 might benefit from HAART.

They stated that only a randomized controlled trial comparing the current treatment algorithm to the initiation of HAART at higher CD4 cell counts will be able to determine whether there is a benefit to HAART for patients with CD4 cell counts greater than 350 or 500. They point out that such a trial will allow the determination of the relative risk of complications due to therapy compared to the risk of AIDS or death if the patients are not offered therapy.

What, specifically, is your objection to this paper?

What, specifically, is your objection to this paper?

Carter has no idea what the paper is about. He just copied and pasted something from a denialist website. There is no reason to believe that he has read the paper let alone understood it.

Do you support, as he does, the cessation of all cancer research

Hey Seth, where did you get the idea that I think we should stop all cancer research?
I don't think that at all, on the contrary. I think we should urgently start cancer research. Real research, with open-minded people who can think intelligently and who are capable of reading between the lines of tabloid hate campaigns.
Real research with real peer review, not today's products of scientific inbred but say an article written by John P. Moore and peer reviewed by Peter Duesberg.

Dear Dr Franklin,

Thank you for your summary of the AIDS paper.

Now that you provided us data on the mortality of HAART naïve HIV + people, would it be possible to compare these data with the mortality of HAART-using HIV+ people?

I dont have access to most of medical journals, basically I only can read abstracts in pubmed and free access information papers provided in the web, so my sources are not exaustive and may not be very accurate.

Thanks in advance for your time.

Braganza

sorry brazanga I'm not Franklin but I'll give it a try.

This CHIC study in AIDS has a table where they show what rate of AIDS event or death is in people with different CD4 cell numbers,
less than 50 is 102.7 per 100 person years
50-199 is 20.8
200-349 is 4.9
350-499 is 2.49 it keeps going lower at higher CD4.

Thing about this study, is, they say "Qualifying CD4 counts were those made when there had been no prior treatments use and no previous AIDS disease." Thats the point though they took alot of people and only looked at the ones who were naive and didn't have history of AIDS yet.

OK so we want to compare this study to one where they have the same no AIDS events and instead of staying without drugs, they go on drugs right away.

Problem, a study like MacArthur et al lancet 2006 starts with HAARTnaive participants where 62% have CD4 less than 200 or an AIDS event at the start.

Another problem, HAART studies are like any drug study its difficult to get people to remember theyre meds. So like MacArthur et al Lancet 2006 I think over a third of people or almost a half went off meds for thirty days sometime in 5 years of follo up. Thats a problem because like Amy Justice showed the better you adhere to meds the better your health and the worse you adhere the worse your health.

OK but even with these problems that are going to give the HAART study higher rates than what it would be, look at MacArthur et al Lancet 2006, they see rate of AIDS or death at 4.8 per 100 person year. So this mainly people who start out at CD4 less than 200, people in that category that had a 20-100 per person year rate in the CHIC study.

So its not a great comparison sorry but kinda gives you an idea of how much HAART is reducing mortality and morbidity

AIDS 21: 1717-1721.

Jesus Mary! What dont you get!

"Table 1 shows that the risk of death in 100 person years is 0.32 for CD4 counts 350-499, 0.20 for 500-649 and 0.17 for over 650"

The establishment wants and supports people be put on toxic chemo/watered down AZT for life even if the risk of death is that low? 0.17 to 0.32. They've got to be kidding and you've got to be nuts to support that! Where's your damn logic?

I'm constantly making references to "watered down AZT" or "AZT Lite" as in:
Retrovir
Combivir
Trizivir

The medical establishment admits prescribing AZT monotherapy early in this debacle was a mistake and harmed and killed more than it helped.

Why is it its still prescribed? Even in a weakened state, is it not still the worst toxic chemo around?

Carter needs this reminder, a life saved is a life saved. Also whats it worth sparing someone a OI? Means nothing to carter. She's leaving out the death OR AIDS event numbers to make it look like it doesnt matter. Where the hell does she get this crazy idea AZT is the most toxic thing in the universe "even in a weakened state" whatever she means by that.

Toxic events that make people stop are in single digits. Most of them I mean 77% in the Lancet 2006 I said about above are minor effects like rash or nausea. Very similar to trials for alot of drugs.

The "medical establishment" does NOT say AZT monothereapy was a mistake they say its all we had and now we've got better options. Mono WOuLD be a mistake today because now we know about resistance. Also no AZT did not kill more people than it helped theres no proof for that. Denialists are always saying 200,000 people died of AZT then its 300,000 and then 400,000. Anyone who ever took AZT and died, died of AZT. Just like anyone who ever took cancer chemo and died was killed by the chemo not the cancer. Anyone who had heart surgery and died was killed by the surgery not heart disease. Anyone who died in the trauma unit was killed by the trauma unit not the car accident.

Thats carter's logic and she says other people are stupid!

So what you're saying Adele is that the deaths from AZT and like the trials on orpahans at the NYC Incarnation Center are just collateral damage?

AZT is a poison that is cytotoxic. It was originally developed for chemotherapy but was never approved for use in humans because of its toxicity.

That is until you dick heads came along.

Opps! - Sorry did I say dick heads? I digress. I didn't mean to say that. I meant you wonderful, sympathetic, all knowing, deeply devoted, vastly incredible, enlightened individuals. [sic]

It was originally developed for chemotherapy but was never approved for use in humans because of its toxicity.

carter gets this wrong like she gets everything else wrong. AZT was never approved because it didn't work. IT didn't work for cancer. It wasn't toxic enough to kill cancer cells!

It did work stopping HIV RT. Problem was, people got resistence to it fast. Its resistence not toxicity why AZT isn't good in monotherapy. Lets see the evidence of where people died of AZT not AIDS carter there isn't any. Stop blaming a drug you don't know about not the disease.

The medical establishment admits prescribing AZT monotherapy early in this debacle was a mistake and harmed and killed more than it helped.

Why is it its still prescribed? Even in a weakened state, is it not still the worst toxic chemo around?

A correction to your version of rethought history -
The medical establishment admits monotherapy with AZT was a mistake because patients quickly developed resistance. It is a perpetual denialist myth that AZT "killed hundreds of thousands" - a baseless lie without any evidence to suggest it is anything but. Studies of AZT have consistently shown better (or equivalent) survival in comparison to those on no treatment.

It is still prescribed because, as part of a combo, it is very effective. It is currently being phased out in favour of drugs with lower risk of long term toxicity, but has served HIV patients well over the 20 years it has been in use.

Oh, you people come up with the finest bull shit on the face of the earth. Everything developes resistance in your world.

You cannot say there is no increased Risk of Sickness and DEATH with AZT in any shape or form and you're wearing your AIDS blinders evermore with this stupidity. AZT actually accelerate illness and death.

"participants of open-label ZDV [AZT] still had four to five times the incidence of ARC/AIDS/death of participants on blinded therapy [of which approximately half were on AZT and half on placebo]...The unadjusted hazard of ARC/AIDS/death was 4.6 times higher for participants [in the deferred group] who had received ZDV...after adjustment for latest CD4 this became 1.6...There was a suggestion of a benefit in terms of [slower] progression to ARC, AIDS or death [with AZT], no effect on progression to AIDS or death, and a suggestion of an increase in mortality."
White IR et al. Impact of treatment changes on the interpretation of the Concorde trial. AIDS. 1997;11:999-1006.

"Extended follow-up of patients in one [AZT] trial, the Concorde study, has shown a significantly increased risk of death among the patients treated early...where is the evidence that for a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter and a low plasma viral level, it would not be better to wait before initiating therapy?...In 1990...a patient with a CD4 count of 450 cells per cubic millimeter would have been advised to start monotherapy with zidovudine. We now tell such a patient that, in fact, follow-up data for up to 4.5 years since that time have shown no survival benefit"
Phillips AN, Smith GD et al. Viral load and combination therapy for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. N Engl J Med. 1997 Mar 27;336(13):958-9; author reply 960.

"The mortality rate was significantly higher among [a group of 1372] patients who had received antiretroviral therapy [principally AZT] before enrollment in the clinic"
Chaisson RE, Keruly JC, Moore RD. Sex, race, drug use and progression of human immunodeficiency virus disease. N Engl J Med. 1995 Sep 21;333(12):751-6.

"None of the LTAs [long term asymptomatics] received any antiviral drugs during the study; however, 3 [of 6] rapid progressors...were treated with zidovudine...[and] a rapid progressor was treated with didanosine during the study."
Hogervorst E et al. Predictors for non- and slow progression in HIV type-1 infection: low viral RNA copy numbers in serum and maintenance of high HIV-1 p24-specific antibody levels. J Infect Dis. 1995;171:811-21.

"despite the evidence that purified [blood clotting] factor VIII is beneficial in maintaining or even increasing T-cell counts, several studies testing purified factor VIII [as opposed to the older forms of Factor VIII which were 99% to 99.9% impurities] are ambiguous about its effectiveness in preventing or treating AIDS. Some of these studies have only tested partially purified, i.e. 2-10 units/mg, instead of highly purified, i.e. 2000-3000 units/mg, factor VIII. But each of the studies that are ambiguous about the benefits have also treated their patients with toxic antiviral DNA chain terminators like AZT. Indeed the study by de Biasi et al. was the only one that has tested purified factor VIII in the absence of AZT. The study by Seremetis et al. initially called for no AZT, but later allowed it anyway. Thus in all but one study, the potential benefits of highly purified factor VIII have been obscured by the toxicity of AZT."
Duesberg PH. Foreign-protein-mediated immunodeficiency in hemophiliacs with and without HIV. Genetica. 1995;95:51-70.

"Adjusted for baseline CD4 [immune cell counts] and age [correlated with lifetime exposure to clotting factor infusions], subjects [hemophiliacs] who had started on zidovudine [AZT] had increased risks, especially for AIDS [4.46 times greater risk!] and death [2.37 times]"
Goedert JJ et al. Risks of immunodeficiency, AIDS, and death related to purity of factor VIII concentrate. Lancet. 1994 Sep 17;344(8925):791-2.

"Only 38% of the HLP [Healthy long-term positives] had ever used zidovudine [AZT] or other nucleoside analogues, compared with 94% of the progressors."
Buchbinder S et al. Long-term HIV-1 infection without immunologic progression. AIDS. 1994 Aug;8(8):1123.

"A total of 172 (96 Imm, 76 Def) participants died [169 who had taken some AZT, 3 who had only taken placebo]...The results of Concorde do not encourage the early use of zidovudine in symptom-free HIV-infected adults. They also call into question the uncritical use of CD4 cell counts as a surrogate endpoint for assessment of benefit from long-term antiretroviral therapy...Representatives of the Wellcome Foundation [Glaxo Wellcome manufactures AZT] who were also members of the Coordinating Committee have declined to endorse this report."
Concorde Coordinating Committee. Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection. Lancet. 1994 Apr 9;343(8902):871-81.

"Leukopenia [white blood cell deficiency] occurred in 82% of the patients receiving early therapy and 77% of those receiving late therapy [AZT only when AIDS occurred]; 20% and 16%, respectively, had anemia. 14% and 10%, respectively, had severe leukopenia...and 5% and 2% had severe anemia requiring transfusion. Nausea (or vomiting) and diarrhea occurred more frequently in the early-therapy group than in the late-therapy group (40% vs. 23%, respectively; P <0.01)...The dosage of blinded study medication was reduced because of adverse reactions in 64 [38%] of the patients assigned to zidovudine (early therapy) and in 29 [17%] of those assigned to placebo (late therapy)...Once AIDS developed in patients receiving early therapy, more of them tended to have multiple AIDS diagnoses, a slightly higher proportion died, and the median survival time was slightly shorter than in similar patients who received late therapy"
Hamilton JD et al. A controlled trial of early versus late treatment with zidovudine in symptomatic human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(7):437-43.

"None of the asymptomatic individuals was receiving zidovudine[AZT]. The CD4 count of patients receiving zidovudine was lower than that of those not receiving the antiviral (mean of 69 and 217/cubic-mm, respectively)...CD4 numbers were significantly lower in patients who developed HIV-related malignancies while receiving zidovudine"
Crowe SM et al. Predictive value of CD4 lymphocyte numbers for the development of opportunistic infections and malignancies in HIV-infected persons. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1991;4(8):770-6.

"after starting antiretroviral treatment...the estimated probability of developing lymphoma ...by 36 months, [was] 46.4% (CI, 19.6% to 75.5%)...a direct role of therapy itself cannot be totally discounted...Zidovudine can act as a mutagen"
Pluda JM et al. Development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in a cohort of patients with severe human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection on long-term antiretroviral therapy. Ann Intern Med. 1990 Aug 15;113(4):276-82.

GO AHEAD PEOPLE - JUST DISMISS IT LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO!

8 CHILDREN POISONED & ONE DIED.... You call it collateral damage... I call it sheer f__king lunacy!

"Eight children with mitochondrial dysfunction were found...the first patient presented with visual impairment...[and] died aged 13 months because of respiratory and cardiac-rhythm disorders...The second patient, from age 4 months until until death at 11 months, had refractory epilepsy and deterioration of cognitive and psychomotor abilities...At age 8 months...patient three had a seizure...At age 4 years, the child's cardiac function was normal, but moderate muscular deficit persisted...In the fourth patient...between ages 14 and 27 months, the child had four episodes of febrile seizures...From age 7 months until 15 months, patient five had repeated seizures...at age 16 months...large necrotic lesions of the [brain]...At age 3-1/2 years the child had severe sequelae and microcephaly [abnormally small head]. Patient 6 was symptom-free until age 14 months, but persistent biochemical abnormalities were seen on standard follow-up...Patient 7 was symptom-free until age 4 months, at which time he became hypotonic [low muscle tone] [and stopped breathing]...The eighth child was symptom-free. Persistent hepatic and pancreatic abnormalities were seen from birth...At age 20 months, biological abnormalities persisted...electroretinography...was abnormal, and cerebral NMR imaging...showed abnormalities of the periventricular white matter...No child was infected with HIV-1 [but because their mothers were HIV-positive] all children were treated after birth with zidovudine [AZT] alone or with zidovudine and lamivudine [also a nucleoside analog]. Treatment continued for 6 weeks in four children and was stopped prematurely because of haematological or biochemical intolerance in four children...The observation of several cases [of mitochondrial abnormalities] in a population of about 1700 exposed children [as compared with 1/5,000 to 1/20,000 in normal populations] strongly suggests an acquired mitochondrial dysfunction...Pregnant women should be informed of the potential effects associated with these treatments during pregnancy."
Blanche S et al. Persistent mitochondrial dysfunction and perinatal exposure to antiretroviral nucleoside analogues. Lancet. 1999 Sep 25;354(9184):1084-9.

"Real research with real peer review, not today's products of scientific inbred but say an article written by John P. Moore and peer reviewed by Peter Duesberg."

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

Okay. So its clear that you are repudiating Hamer at this point, right? I mean, Duesberg is a follower of germ theory and is actively involved in cancer research with pharmaceutical funding, so...

At this point, spreen, you've ceased to be consistent even in your own insanity. How do you mange to make toast or tie your shoes with that brain?

"Everything developes resistance in your world."

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

Well, yes. Viruses adapt to their environment. The process is called evolution. Maybe you've heard of it?

Carter, all your papers are quite old. I've cited newer papers that show decreased mortality for HAART use.

If we can trust your studies, we can trust peer review, which means we can trust my studies (unless you know some reason we can't). So wouldn't that mean that using today's drugs, HAART is the best bet?

Carter,

The paper you brought up (The UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (CHIC) Study Steering Committee. (2007 ). Rate of AIDS diseases or death in HIV-infected antiretroviral therapy-naive individuals with high CD4 cell count. AIDS 21: 1717-1721) does not advocate treating anyone with AZT monotherapy.

It doesn't even advocate treating individuals with high CD4 counts with HAART.

Rather, the authors describe data collected on a large population of HIV-infected people, and the data show that death and progression to an AIDS-defining event are related to the CD4 cell count--even in those with high CD4 cell counts.

Based upon this observation, they suggest the establishment of a clinical trial to determine if HAART is of benefit to HIV-infected people with high CD4 cell counts. They don't conclude that HAART will be beneficial but suggest that since HAART is llikely to raise the CD4 cell count of these patients, it may improve their survival and decrease their morbidity.

Unlike you, they take a scientific approach and advocate collecting data to determine the best course of action for these HIV-infected people.

I see that the same cast of characters is still here, fervently defending HIV from all the "bad" people. Myself, as much as I'd like to spend all of my time debating ignorant HIV defenders everywhere, I have found that it is quite a thankless task and downright unhealthy. I mean it takes a special person to spend valuable time attempting to civilly engage such a rotten group of people? I offer my condolences as well as my gratitude to all of those who have gone before. I now know what a thankless job it has been, but the work has paid off as people are finally beginning to wake up. That said, the world would certainly be a better place if Adele and DT, and all their minions, were interesting enough to have other interests. Obviously, they aren't that interesting.

Nevertheless, I thought I should at least take a moment to quickly check in with Adele, DT, and the rest of the Aetiology gang, to see if everyone has been following current events outside of the Church of HIV. After all there's been some exciting developments in the economy, replete with such ghastly occurrences as "liquidity injections" ( I hope Adele can explain that phenomenon to me). A few months ago, I contributed several posts on that topic, on this blog, comparing the shell game that is known as "HIV science" to the shell game that is known as Economics, (more specifically, the current real estate bubble). Of course, I was immediately labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and a "denialist". Well, imagine my surprise (not really) when all the predictions I've made about the housing market began to come true:

Sub prime mortgage implosion? Check!
Rising Foreclosures? Check!
Falling prices? Check!
Shaky Stock Market? Check!
Recession? I'll hold off on putting a Check! Here but I think it's clear that it's only a matter of time.

For those interested what I stated in some of my original posts on the topic, see the following:
The housing market has HIV, post #1

The housing market has HIV, post #2

__________________________________

In the above posts, I suggested that there was a similar phenomena at work in both HIV "science" and the economy, namely a loss of important self-correcting mechanisms. I attempted to engage the gallery here at aetiology in a discussion on the issue and would have gladly debated those who disagreed with my premise. Yet, not a single HIV defender was willing to engage me civilly. Adele offer the following nugget of wisdom:

Kevin your paranoia is still expanding isn't it? Like a bubble I think. Here's a hint though to make your rants more believable. A "Ponzi scheme" is not the same thing as a bubble. The current housing market has been at a stand still for a few years slightly higher in some markets lower in others. If it crashes like if everyone loses half their value then we had a bubble. If it doesn't its not even a bubble. And no way is it a Ponzi scheme even if it's a bubble which is doubtful. Also someone who owns a house and forecloses is not an indentured servant.
Kevin you've convinced everyone here you don't know anything about HIV and you're not interested in learning anything about it. Now your busy convincing us you're a ignorant in other areas. If you make some better analogies though maybe you could get someone to take you seriously. Maybe but I doubt it. Good luck!

So, Adele, would like to revise your original reply? If so, be careful that you don't reveal yourself to be the true Denialist that we all know you really are. Nevertheless, perhaps you can now, in the least, explain to everyone why my analogy was a poor one, as you so smugly suggested in your original reply. Like usual, you were quick with the insults, but you certainly failed to demonstrate a command of the issue in the confused comment above. Now is the time to show us what you know, Adele. Of course, you'll need to include an explanation of the what exactly is going on in the economy, particularly related to the sub prime mortgage blowup ,and it's effects on a visibly wobbling Stock Market. If you could include an explanation of the curious "liquidity injections" that were needed to keep credit flowing, I sure would be grateful.

There were many others on this blog who smugly replied to my comments on the housing market that I would love to hear from, as well, including Seth Manapaio, Robster and David MarjanoviÄ. Now, that my predictions have come true, and in relatively short order, perhaps you could all give at least a moment's thought to opening your minds to viewpoints that are counter to the consensus, as sort of a respectful nod to the realities of the situation. After all, everyday that we live only offers further truth that the consensus as been thoroughly compromised by unprecedented greed -- no matter the cause. The outcome of our current financial and social bankruptcies will depend on how each and every one of us responds to the coming crises, and the only way to mount a worthwhile response is to get your goddamn head out of the sand and face the facts. That includes you, too, Tara. Your recently published Denialist Diatribe was laughably unscientific and not in the spirit of what I'm suggesting here.

__________________________________

Here is my own interpretation of the significance of the aforementioned "liquidity injections":

(Snippet from a post of mine on another, more democratic, blog):

The French were late to the game. That's why they purchased all of the hedge funds that were the first to lose so much value, so fast, but they won't be the last. The dominoes are already lined up, and there will continue to be ever-increasing "injections of liquidity" into the market. Tell me, what's the difference between an "injection of liquidity" and "monetary inflation" that requires a printing press? I think not much has changed and, apparently, we have forgotten all that we learned in 1929 and beyond because now we have monetary hyperinflation combined with severe domestic, deflationary pressures. How apathetic our citizens have become! Such an outcome is an impressive example, especially given that we live in the information age. Any honest economist with half a brain realized long ago that the built-in risks were deleteriously skyrocketing because HOUSES CAN RAPIDLY BECOME ILLIQUID. Now, I don't often use caps, but that simple, but ever so important, fact was collectively ignored while extreme corporate greed conspicuously replaced the more progressive business practices that are necessary for a healthy society...and by "healthy", I mean in more ways than one. I guess after the first few tens of million lose their home and their access to credit, we'll know more about just how far down the bottom is.

I think that I've demonstrated the my eyes are clearly open to the real state of affairs in this country. Corporations control EVERYTHING, and most of Americans have been willing to give up their role as "Citizen" in exchange for the ability to be an "Endless Pit of Consumption." HIV Scientist is exactly the same. The only thing that matters is the financial bottom line. The truth about HIV will be known by all, in time, and fixing what's wrong with the science that produced such a fuckup will be much easier if we don't allow our entire society to collapse, in the meantime. I encourage all of the HIV apologists on this blog to stop making excuses and to start making an honest assessment of the situation. Otherwise, you are all cowards, and the end result of continuing such willful ignorance will be very bad, indeed.

Kevin

So Science is everything? In the name of science HIV has become tantamount to gospel. When nothing seems to fit and studies point out flaws all you can do is point to more science. Then the sheer lunacy is supported over and over again without rational thought. That's what I and a whole host of others see here. You're supporting a failed camp with nothing to go by other than your "science" or science fiction rather.

Seth
Your claim that work is out of date is disturbing yet you have no hesitation in citing overwhelming evidence in the orthodoxy's entire scientific references in favor of HIV. You cant have it both ways.

"Your claim that work is out of date is disturbing yet you have no hesitation in citing overwhelming evidence in the orthodoxy's entire scientific references in favor of HIV."

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

That sentence doesn't even make sense. Seriously.

Anyway, I think I know what you meant, but you didn't understand me. Try this: your papers are old. My papers are new. Your papers analyze different drugs than mine. Since my papers come to the conclusion that HAART decreases morbidity, and yours do not, it would be reasonable to conclude that the drugs and drug regimens have changed (which they have).

If you believe that the peer review process for your papers is good, than it is reasonable for the peer review of newer papers to be good as well. Therefore, if evidence mattered to you, new evidence might possibly sway your thinking.

WTF?

New evidence based on what Seth, an underlying failed hypothesis? You got to be joking! Assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions. Its just more of the same crap. Why are you completely void of any logical thinking?

Carter,

Having read your display of apparent scholarship from earlier today, I am left to ponder two important questions:

First, why have you not written a book on HIV? You are quite dextrous with the keyboard, and your cut-and-paste skills are right up there with those of Maniotis. Or have you written a book already? I ask because so many of the distinguished rethinker commenters have written books: Noreen, Henry "I regard homosexuality as an aberration or illness" Bauer, Rebekah Culshaw. David Crowe is currently writing, Maniotis says he has a tome in the wings, and I am most likely forgetting several other worthy authors. Carter, lack of knowledge of the subject matter did not deter any of these men and women from writing...pages and pages...of inane garbage...that few would read. Since you cannot possibly have less knowledge than these individuals, what keeps you from the word processor, Carter, what stays your hand? Do you not consider it your duty to inform the world, via several sacrificed trees, made into bound volumes paid for and distributed in the tens or even hundreds of copies at your expense, of the menace of AID$ Inc., the "death and dying cult?"

My second question:

Did you copy your out-of-context quotes about AZT from virusmyth or from Gary Null's website?

This question, in turn, engenders another:

Did Gary Null copy them from virusmyth, or did virusmyth copy them from Gary Null?

Had you, Carter, bothered to read any of the studies you "quoted," you would have found that they do not say about AZT what you seem to need them to say.

That said, AZT has side effects. So do most drugs. AZT may act as a mutagen during pregnancy. There are few cases that would indicate this. It doesn't seem to be a potent mutagen, based upon the number of children exposed to it and the number of reported problems, even if all of these reports are in fact due solely to the actions of AZT or other antiviral drugs. I find interesting the strong tendency of rethinkers on the one hand to attribute AIDS to drug abuse and other "lifestyle" factors, yet on the other hand, when a child is born with a birth defect, to attribute this solely to AZT or other drugs, while completely ignoring any other potential conflicting factors.

If the allegations leveled by Carter are correct, and several children have suffered due to toxicities of a drug, does it then follow that society should declare this and related drugs off-limits to pregnant women? Should society do this despite the well-documented fact that tens of thousands of children have been successfully protected from vertical transmission of HIV by these drugs?

Hey ILKMountain, is that the mountain next door to BrokeBack Mountain?

Didn't we all learn cut and paste in kindergarten? So shut up. Furthermore one does not have such an advanced degree or a lucrative career in science to understand basis principals. You are just like the others here who have this elitist mentality that disallows any critical debate on your sacred holly cow conglomerate of crap-shoot science based on grandiose misconceptions and utter nonsense.

"New evidence based on what Seth, an underlying failed hypothesis? You got to be joking!"

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

Interesting... somehow, the studies that you cite are proper and correct and good evidence, while the studies that I cite are "based on an underlying failed hypothesis"? How, precisely, do you decide which studies are good and which are not?

Could it be that you have a preconceived idea of what the result should be, and you only trust research that you think reinforces your preconceived idea? Because that's what it looks like from here.

"You are just like the others here who have this elitist mentality that disallows any critical debate on your sacred holly cow conglomerate of crap-shoot science based on grandiose misconceptions and utter nonsense."

----------

Again, you'll have to pardon me for not understanding your ideas... so, all of us are disallowing debate by asking you questions, addressing your objections, and generally spending huge amounts of time having a conversation with you? I don't get it.

Carter,

I assure you, I have neither an advanced degree nor a lucrative career in science. And while I am an avid fan of topiary, I quite unfortunately have never had the pleasure of viewing a "holly cow," much less of defending said herbaceous bovine from its detractors. (Would a holly cow be herbaceous, though, or woody? Never mind.)

As for elitism, my particular brand of this thrice-cursed affliction extends only to an insistence that those who affect expertise on a subject actually master its rudiments; that those who clamor for debate demonstrate an ability to use proper vocabulary in a dispute; that those who "quote" from scholarly papers have, on occasion, truly studied the works in question. As it is, neither you nor any of the feted authors mentioned in my previous comment has satisfied any of these points.

Given that your desire for debate is not so overwhelming as to prompt a bit of self-education (no, cutting and pasting from virusmyth doesn't count), I have urged you to turn your energies to book-writing and self-publishing. You may scorn my advice as you wish.

But please, Carter, whatever you do, please follow this one admonition: feel free to make fun of my presumed sexual orientation, but try to find something a bit less passe than "BrokeBack Mountain." That is so two years ago.

Elk & Seth
Look, All I'm trying to do is get you to see that in the vast literature on both sides there are points to be made by both sides and that you may not be correct, but time will tell. When it comes right down to it, the matter of antibodies to HIV being the culprit in immune deficiency, (by all logical comprehension) HIV certainly is not capable of being, doing and becoming all that you say it is. There's to damn much controversy to say it causes disease unequivically and to negate, dismiss and belittle what others have said and are saying, plus the alternative ways of thinking; that's what I call sheer lunacy. We can all make fun, act like children or act the poseur but in the end you'll see that there will be a mass rethinking of the whole paradigm. There just has to be.

Dear Friends,

I've been doing a lot of thinking, and, I'm real confused.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman."

The ABC's of AIDS (Abstinence, Be Faithful, and wear CONDOMS or A=B=C) should be mandated by Martial law if necessary. I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Yours in Christ,

Andy

"I've been doing a lot of thinking, and, I'm real confused."

---------

Carter, in case you are still studying logical fallacies, Dr. Maniotis' post is what we call a "red herring".

On to your points... you make a point of describing the possible limits of HIV, that it can't do everything ascribed to it. I am not sure what to make of this, as the claims that I am aware of are quite modest compared to other known pathogens.

My understanding of HIV is that it is not particularly virulent, being difficult to transmit. It has a preference for a particular kind of host cell, which I don't think is unusual in a virus. It lacks mechanisms to promote accurate copying, which promotes rapid mutation... but I suppose that could also weaken the virus depending on how the mutation goes.

I don't think it would surprise anyone if one or more cofactors had a strong influence on the progression of AIDS, but I'm not sure that it is necessary to explain the facts.

That said, I could be wrong. HIV may have nothing to do with AIDS. I just think that, based on everything we know (and I've looked extensively at both sides) this is extremely unlikely.

And while you say that you are mostly interested in getting me to accept the possibility of being wrong, this is not a possibility you accept yourself.

Carter follows the classic rethinker template for action:

Make bold claims, the more ridiculous and uninformed, the better. (E.g., AZT was "too toxic" for FDA approval, Bob Gallo is a criminal pardoned by Bill Clinton, antiretrovirals kill more patients than are aided by them.)

When challenged, cut and paste freely from the vast compendium of out-of-context quotes available at virusmyth, aras, and other internet sites, taking care not to read the relevant studies and think about what they mean.

If your debate partners perceive that you have no knowledge of the subject matter and have never ventured beyond the distortions of a handful of internet sites, accuse them of elitism, of being unfair. Make these points:

1. You are simply trying to underscore the presence of dissent in the scientific community and in the literature.

2. Your opponents are guilty of belittling or posing; studiously ignore the fact that most of the name-calling and pretention has come from your corner.

3. Your opponents' thinking runs counter to tenants of fauxlosophy that were at their trendiest in the 1980s, therefore it must be wrong. Insert phrases such as "alternative approaches," and "different ways of knowing" as if the scientific method were only one of many equally valid means of determining disease etiology or treatment approaches.

4. The "paradigm" is about to come crashing down on the heads of the silly orthodox Philistines. You may give a general time frame for this event (a few months, by next year) or leave it unspecified. Be sure to pepper your comments liberally with phrases such as "There just has to be" instead of giving any references or proof.

Carter, I am quite serious: your mastery of this protocol indicates that it is past time for you to contribute to the "vast literature on both sides." Never mind that the "literature" on your side presents no experimental evidence for its claims; that it was written (or copied) by people with no more knowledge of the subject than you; that it has never been peer-reviewed, with the possible exception of several flawed Duesberg reviews. These minor faults should not deter you from making your own contribution to dissident literature.

Honestly, Carter, you could spend several hours to compile and slightly edit your comments on this blog, and you could produce a volume as large as those published by Maggiore or Culshaw. Good luck, and please let me know if you need any advice (I do have some knowledge of the publishing industry).

Dr. Maniotis has, once again, pasted his entire comment without sourcing it. Once again, his comment is off-topic.

This famous letter apparently began its Internet circulation in the spring of 2000 (see snopes dot com), and it was originally addressed to "Dr. Laura," the conservative "doctor" whose strident views on human sexuality are made a laughingstock in this piece.

Later versions were addressed to the Pope and to President Bush, among others.