Clinton and Obama parrot the "vaccine and autism connection inconclusive" line

Adele, has anybody ever told you that you are, like, totally incoherent? Is that why you haven't published your honey bun study of stimulated infected and uninfected cells? - you know the weekly fun you're having now that sex with real people is out of the question?

DT, when I walk with Johnnie on the Bonnie Shores of Loch Lomond for a couple of weeks, I feel great, just me and my Lady Chivas (or am I blending genders here?), but when the bottle is empty and I have to get myself back to the so-called real world, refuge of those who can't cope with Lucy and her Diamonds, that's when I break down with colds and flus and aching joints, in spite of vari-coloured veggies and eminently bioavailable vitaminos. Why exactly is that, DT?

Or if my metallephorical parable is too sophisticated for you, here's the short version, known since Cain slapped Abel serious like with some real hardcore ARVs: Coming on and off stuff, any kind of stuff, are always da most critical points. Get it yet DeeTee?

Adele, has anybody ever told you that you are, like, totally incoherent? Is that why you haven't published your honey bun study of stimulated infected and uninfected cells? - you know the weekly fun you're having now that sex with real people is out of the question?

DT, when I walk with Johnnie on the Bonnie Shores of Loch Lomond for a couple of weeks, I feel great, just me and my Lady Chivas (or am I blending genders here?), but when the bottle is empty and I have to get myself back to the so-called real world, refuge of those who can't cope with Lucy and her Diamonds, that's when I break down with colds and flus and aching joints, in spite of vari-coloured veggies and eminently bioavailable vitaminos. Why exactly is that, DT?

Or if my metallephorical parable is too sophisticated for you, here's the short version, known since Cain slapped Abel serious like with some real hardcore ARVs: Coming on and off stuff, any kind of stuff, are always da most critical points. Get it yet DeeTee?

This is why the idea of ScienceDebate2008 will never come to fruition. Obama, Clinton, and McCain may or may not actually believe this kind of tripe, but they will always cow tow to the least educated wedge of society. How would an autism/vaccine question be answered in a science debate? Probably the question would never be asked, but I can pretty much predict the candidates would be unresponsive at best.

Of course the candidates are screwed either way, if the look at the data and give an educated response, they would be branded as elitist and out-of-touch with the common folk....great now Im angry again.

Hillary may not be fully up to speed about vaccines and autism, but at least the main point of Hillary's statement was about supporting all research.

If Hillary is elected, hopefully she will be able to follow through.

Oh no! And I voted for him! But it doesn't seem like we had any other good choices.

"cow tow to the least educated wedge of society" - its sad that they do that, but gives me hope that Obama doesn't really believe that nonsense.

I'm new to aetiology, nice blog!

Welcome to politics. As Lorax said, they only say what people want to hear. That is the sad part. But why do people want to hear that or think that vaccines-autism are linked? CNN and other news outlets that run stories like the Jenny McCarthy's son curing autism with diet.

I wish just once a scientist would be elected instead of a lawyer or politician.

"I wish just once a scientist would be elected instead of a lawyer or politician."

How about JP Moore? Would you feel safe with him at the helm?

I'm sorry to stray off topic, but Pat has helped pave the way, and I really couldn't let the moment pass without a bit of amateur satire (of a "real" press release) and wishing everyone a very merry

First Rethinking AIDS Day!

Press Release
April 23, 2008

April 23 Is 'Rethinking AIDS Day';
"International" Group Comprised of David Crowe Calls for NewThinking On Anniversary of HIV Discovery, Will Need Others to Do the NewThinking for Him

Rethinking AIDS, aka David Crowe, has established April 23, 2008, as the first Rethinking AIDS Day. For those of you who have never heard of Rethinking AIDS, aka David Crowe, he maintains a list of more than 2,500 students, would-be writers, snake oil peddlers, dead or otherwise unemployed people, and a few scientists and doctors, several of whom actually signed a petition stating that HIV does not cause AIDS, and the rest of whom were placed on the list to make it longer.

On April 23, 1984, Dr. Robert Gallo of the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced that he had discovered "the probable cause of AIDS," a virus later named HIV. Extensive evidence from his lab was already in press, having passed stringent scientific peer review; collaborators at the Pasteur Institute in France had also been studying the virus for quite some time. During the following months and years, with the accumulation of data independently generated by research groups around the planet, scientists, the world media and health authorities recognized HIV as the cause of AIDS.

24 years later, Rethinking AIDS president, PR guy, webmaster, cook, cameraman and janitor David Crowe remains unable to read the scientific literature. This may have caused unimaginable devastation for real people who think the lies he spreads are good reasons to discontinue treatment for HIV infection and AIDS.....and for the real people who care about them.....assuming at a stretch that anyone who isn't already quite mental takes David Crowe seriously.

Fortunately for HIV-infected people everywhere, RA makes "marginal" look mainstream. What have years of scrupulously maintained scientific ignorance and conspiracy theory-based activism added to RA's, aka David Crowe's, influence? Not too much. Through its/his "events site" linked at www dot davidtriestothink-blowsgasket dot com, Rethinking AIDS, aka David Crowe, advertises "activities": a list of people David Crowe wishes would question HIV/AIDS, "mock awards" meant to denigrate real people who actually help real AIDS patients, and "demonstrations" that are sometimes attended by more than two people, at least if you count Michael Geiger's dog. There are also links for attending "Rethinkers'" parties around the world. Par-ty time.

On "Rethinking AIDS Day", people around the world should consider:

Which is more likely? The New York Times running the RA aka David Crowe "press release" or the discovery of Bigfoot at 3:00 PM Alberta time today?

My money's on the hefty, hairy humanoid.

Dear Elkmountain, and you too, Tara, and company. I hope your Rethinking AIDS day was pleasant. In case you did not find the time to do much rethinking yesterday, here are 10 little things to think about today!

HERE ARE 10 QUESTIONS THAT Elkmountain, Tara, many HIV doctors, pharmaceutical companies, THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, and AND HIV/AIDS specialists DO NOT WANT YOU TO ASK!

1) IS HIV PROVED TO CAUSE AIDS? More than 20 years ago, before AIDS came into being, Dr. Robert Gallo, a researcher employed at the National Cancer Institute, tried to prove that retroviruses like HIV caused cancer. With his credibility in question for failed attempts to blame cancer on viruses, he then looked at AIDS and announced that HIV retrovirus caused AIDS. Without explanation or proof, he made his claim at a press conference, thereby circumventing essential rules of scientific process. Weeks later, his published papers showed that less than half of the AIDS patients in his study had evidence of what he called HIV infection. Did you know that no research study providing evidence for his HIV = AIDS hypothesis exists today? Did you know that HIV has never been isolated from a human being? Although more money has been spent on HIV than all other viruses in history, there is still no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

2) ARE THERE OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF AIDS? ALL government funding of research into other non-contagious non-viral causes of AIDS abruptly stopped with Dr. Gallo's announcement that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Although most all AIDS defined illnesses can be explained by non-contagious, non-infectious causes and treated with non-toxic regimens, no funding or media attention is paid to this avenue of research.

3) ARE HIV TESTS ACCURATE? There are NO HIV tests APPROVED by the FDA for diagnosing actual HIV infection. All tests are non-specific and unable to identify actual HIV or even HIV antibodies. Rodney Richards, the developer of the Elisa test has lectured across the country for years that the Elisa test does not work and that the new Rapid Test is even worse. Our federal government has 6 different standards that vary from one federal lab to another and even from most other countries on how to read the results of the Western Blot test. Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR "Viral Load" test has called the use of his PCR test to count HIV or HIV antibodies "an absolute fraud". Because of this, a growing number of doctors and scientists consider the tests to be dubious and unreliable.

4) ARE HIV TESTS RELIABLE? A long list of HIV tests have been recalled in the past. In 2005, the "OraQuick" test was found to be showing 25% false positives in San Francisco, though the cause was never determined. Three months later, the CDC ignored this and purchased several million dollars worth of these tests to distribute to testing centers through-out the country, and the "OraQuick" test is still in common use.

There are more than 60 known conditions such as Flu, Malaria, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis, Pregnancy, Herpes, Hepatitis, even receptive anal sex and others that can cause the immune system to produce antibodies PROVEN to register as a positive on HIV tests.

Tests considered by testing labs to be "indeterminate" are then determined to be "positive" if one is gay or in a high risk group, and "negative if one is heterosexual and in a low risk group.

5) HAVE YOU READ THE FINE PRINT? HIV tests have disclaimers written right on them that a positive result is NOT conclusive of HIV infection. One such disclaimer reads: "THIS TEST IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS A SCREENING TEST FOR HIV OR AS A DIAGNOSTIC TO CONFIRM HIV INFECTION."

6) WHAT HAPPENED TO INFORMED CONSENT? Were you ever told that HIV tests can not diagnose HIV infection? People given these unreliable tests are then encouraged to hit hard and hit early with toxic drugs and lifelong chemotherapy treatments known to be toxic.

7) WHAT ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST? Many of the scientists creating and testing AIDS drugs, and doctors prescribing AIDS drugs are "paid consultants" to the pharmaceutical companies that produce them. They also enjoy other financial incentives such as expense paid trips and huge stock options. All of the major pharmaceutical companies are currently under congressional investigation and/or involved in court cases, for their sales methods and kickbacks to doctors, as well as Pay Offs to the Directors and Chief Scientists of our National Institute of Health (NIH), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)--THE VERY AGENCIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM THE UNHEALTHY PRACTICES OF PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. Recently the New York Times and National Public Radio's weekly show, "Talk Of The Nation", exposed stories regarding payoffs to doctors from pharmaceutical companies including $10,000.00 checks in return for a promise to prescribe their drugs.

8) ARE HIV TESTS NEEDED TO DIAGNOSE AIDS? In a memo from December of 1999, The US Centers For Disease Control reminded American Doctors that NO HIV TEST IS NECESSARY for diagnosing AIDS in Gay men or other suspected risk group members. In the same memo, the CDC announced several NEW ways to declare patients to be HIV positive who previously tested negative to HIV antibody tests.

9) WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON IN AFRICA? In areas of Africa where AIDS is said to be prevalent, the effects of malnutrition, overpopulation, dirty drinking water, and high stress are ign(red). In many remote areas, HIV tests are not required for an AIDS diagnosis. Instead, AIDS is determined by four clinical symptoms of fever, cough, weight loss, and diarrhea! Also, Africans with antibodies to common Tuberculosis and Malaria and Hepatitis can expect to test false positive on an HIV test. The enormous numbers of estimated AIDS cases in Africa, are based on a small number of patients who test positive on non-specific tests that cross react with common African microbes. 80 percent of all notifiable disease in Africa is Tuberculosis with Malaria in second place! AND In Thailand and Asia, only the highly flawed Elisa test is given to patients to determine HIV status!

10) WHAT'S KILLING HIV POSITIVES? During the years of high death rates said to be due to HIV/AIDS, (1987 to 1995), all of the terrified people who were diagnosed as HIV positive were told they could expect to live at most a couple of years. All HIV positives during these years were also given high dosage AZT. When AZT monotherapy ended and the newer generation of drugs were introduced, the yearly AIDS death rate plummeted. A study on nearly 6000 cases of supposedly HIV related death, done by Amy Justice of the University Of Pittsburg Medical Center, was presented, and then igno(red) at the 2002 International AIDS Conference in Barcelona, Spain, and found that, post AZT, and since 1995, the most common cause of death among HIV POSITIVE AMERICANS is LIVER FAILURE CAUSED BY AIDS DRUGS.

Bonus Question Number 11!

HOW MUCH DO THE MIND AND EMOTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH ILLNESS AND HEALTH? Stress has been well proven to negatively affect ones immune system. High mental and emotional stress is proven to cause the thymus gland, where ones CD-4 "T" cells come from, to shrink by as much as 50% in as little as 24 hours Though some might claim that the current generation of HIV drugs are their own key to survival, the fact is that absolutely no HIV drug since AZT has ever been placebo tested. As such, no-one knows what affect is caused simply by belief in the drugs, or because the patient who is taking AIDS drugs is then freed from a mental state of fear, panic, and apathetic hopelessness. The majority of those who were diagnosed as HIV positive and later became ill but then regained their health, even if they took HIV drugs, put mental and emotional well being at the top of their list.

Here, RT, let's see if we can answer your questions accurately, and a little more briefly:
Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Nothing. What about them? No. Disease. AIDS.
and, for the bonus question,
A lot -- that's what the placebo effect is all about.
Hope this helps!

"I'm sorry to stray off topic"

No you're not.

Back on topic: Sad to see all three candidates have bought it to some degree or another. Then again, are any of the three particularly appealing to begin with?

Nice copying Cathy HIVBollyx PPARGAmmaGirl, your info is like twenty yrs out-date tho!! Check out Amy Justice she doesn't say that, read about AIDS diagnosis in Africa it's not like that, tests are for testing , duh you can't say oh your gay so you have AIDS. Sheesh.

How come George Bush's "right-hand-man", Donald Rumsfeld, is a major stockholder, and was the CEO of Gilead Pharmaceuticals, which is currently the manufacturer of the most profitable HIV drugs?

No wonder Bush and Comapany were so happy to promote billions and billions of taxpayer dollars for HIV drugs for Africa!

How come the media and public never questioned these obvious conflicts of interest?

As Adele so intelligently put it, "Sheeeessshhhh"!

The three candidates are only doing what they are supposed to be doing.

They are voicing the fear and anxiety that exists in the minds of all parents who need to have their childern vaccinated.

No We-know-better pronunciations by the medical community and certainly not by the elected politicians, is going to take this feeling of dread, that parents every where are experiencing, when they get their child vaccinated with the "approved" multi-vaccine combination in a single dose.

I would like to request a reply from this most credible of all scientific forums, to the following if possible.

Since the problem seems to involve, the combination of the three vaccines in a single dose.

Why is there not an option available, to vaccinate a child with all the three vaccines, but at suitable intervals, as had been the case for a long time before the introduction of the current multi-vaccine dosage?

Why is the commercial producers of this multi vaccine dosage so hostile to the above idea?

Thanks a lot

James

Happy RAD ElkmountainMan

May your ribbon always be green.

http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/general.msnw?action=get_message&m…

Happy RAD from CELIA FARBER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9SrCaTH_oU

Lucky you Tara, the antivaccers are out in force. Oh, and HIV is a big conspiracy. BTW, aliens live among us and control all the universities and so called "colleges." And my wife wouldn't have left me if Bigfoot hadn't told her to. And just for the record, I didn't total my truck because I was drunk, it was signals beamed down from satellites that made me pass out and total my truck. And some other stuff too, because shit doesn't happen there is always a purpose.

If it helps, Sen. Obama was pointing to a guy in the crowd when he said "including this person here." It was NOT a declaration of personal opinion.

Marion,
That helps a lot. Thanks.

"Of course the candidates are screwed either way, if the look at the data and give an educated response, they would be branded as elitist and out-of-touch with the common folk....great now Im angry again." -- Lorax

Well, you're not angry enough since you're still too stupid to realize that the "uneducated" masses have damn good reason to be skeptical of vaccine research that is, after all, being conducted and funded by the very companies that profit from the outcome of the research!

In case you missed it, the ordinarily inept JAMA recently released what has proven to be a powerful indictment against such ludicrous research practices. NPR and other less-commercialized news sources, like the Newshour, offered some insightful commentary on the report, but I'm sure everyone here at aetiology plugged their ears and recited some self-esteem affirmations, in lieu of actually considering the facts. I mean just look at how ridiculous this post by Tara is when it is compared to real news stories, that have very real consequences for those of us who live in the real world--for example, say, anyone who DIED from the effects of taking Vioxx. In the least, if the unctuous ingrates here had sufficient comprehension skills, they'd realize that the conclusion from JAMA's finding are not so easily dismissed when discussing the general public's poor confidence in "scientific" research:

(From the JAMA report)

Conclusions: This case-study review of industry documents demonstrates that clinical trial manuscripts related to rofecoxib were authored by sponsor employees but often attributed first authorship to academically affiliated investigators who did not always disclose industry financial support. Review manuscripts were often prepared by unacknowledged authors and subsequently attributed authorship to academically affiliated investigators who often did not disclose industry financial support.

Notice a trend...something about not revealing financial support seems very relevant, but I'm sure hacks like Tara will continue to shift the focus to the real bad guys -- concerned citizens and concerned political leaders who find such research practices to be the incongruous with the claims that such research is independent.

Yes, it is becoming clearer everyday as to who the uneducated masses really are, isn't it?
________________________________________

Hillary may not be fully up to speed about vaccines and autism, but at least the main point of Hillary's statement was about supporting all research. If Hillary is elected, hopefully she will be able to follow through." -- Joel

Don't count on it, Joel. This credit crisis is the beginning of the end for the reckless funding decisions that have all but ruined independent scientific research. As I've pointed out numerous times on this blog, with the same tiresome condemnations from the resident peanut gallery of course, our country is essentially bankrupt and specious researchers will soon be out-of-work.

The psuedo-elitists on this blog are in for a very rude-awakening come Fall when they not only find that the well is dry for their "research" proposals, but also for their student loan requests.

Things are about to change radically in this country, and I can't wait for the comeuppance to be doled out to all the snotty little morons who are always spouting sanctimonious drivel here at aetiology:

"Oh no! And I voted for him! But it doesn't seem like we had any other good choices. "cow tow to the least educated wedge of society" - its sad that they do that, but gives me hope that Obama doesn't really believe that nonsense. " -- Trisha

_________________________________________

"I wish just once a scientist would be elected instead of a lawyer or politician."
--JustinB

Welcome to aetiology, Justin. You should fit right in if you really believe that a "scientist" being elected would change anything. Hell, most scientists are already compromising their professional integrity for political gains without moving into the explicitly political realm, where I'm sure they'd magically transform the system with their purity. If you believe that, you really should check out the link that appears earlier in this post. Ghostwriters, anyone?

No, undaunted avarice is the core value in our society, and it is beginning to cause serious consequences because the "educated elite" in this country are far less educated than they believe themselves to be. For example, I ask again...where o' where were all the leading economists (from the most prestigious universities) when this historic housing situation was developing?

Since I know that very few on this blog are capable of facing reality or speaking the truth, I guess I'll have to answer my own question. They were of course appearing all over the media telling everyone it was "different" this time...that house price appreciation was going to be a part of a "new economy" (Just like, Adele!). Why did they tell such onerous lies? Because the NAR and numerous other powerful lobbying groups were lining their pockets with enormous "compensation." End of story...or maybe not, have I mentioned that this "downturn" is just beginning?

Education in this country is absolutely pathetic and not for the reason that most on this blog believe. While it certainly fails to educate the most disadvantaged citizens, even more so, it fails to educate very few of the privileged, as well. Even the most prestigious universities are de facto "diploma mills", caring far moore about their bottom line than the "business" of educating. As such, reading the sanctimonious drivel that Tara posts never fails to affirm my belief that we deserve the horrible society that we now have.

Kevin

oh...Happy Rethinking AIDS Day to All, but especially to you, Adele. I'm sure such an event has your powerful mind churning, as usual...

A friend of mine pointed out that what Obama said is technically true, if you interpret "the science is inconclusive" to mean "no link between vaccination and autism has been proven, but the link has not been disproven either". i.e. by the standard of falsification, it is still possible, though very unlikely, that there could be some link. This may be the best one can hope for from any politician on this subject.

lylebot:

Before you can consider causation, you need correlation. Studies do not show correlation. It shows poor logical thought on part of Obama if this is in fact his reasoning.

Mike

Ah, I see what kind of blog this really is now.

No offense to Tara, but I realize now this not a place for people to exchange ideas about epidemiology and related disciplines. Rather, it appears this is a forum for which people can anonymously post conspiracy theories, untested pseudoscience or misinterpretations. It also seems that some people feel the need to belittle, or otherwise berate those of us dedicating our lives to discovering truth through the scientific method by calling us "elitists."

My first post is quickly followed by this one, my last. I have better things to do with my time that to argue over issues which are not science. I also will not stoop to the level of launching verbal attacks at a person when I do not agree with their ideas or beliefs. There are much more constructive avenues for discussion that that-- than the comments on this blog, apparently.

With that said, I am fully aware that many of the comments here are just to "stir things up," so I'll spend my time being more productive than getting in a pissing contest.

Adele - I did not cut and paste anything so "my" information is neither here nor there. I would respond to the point you made but I just didn't get it. Try forming logical thoughts before committing pinkies to keyboard - there's a dear.

Good for Obama!

People are enchanted with the IDEA of vaccines, but the ACTUAL vaccines are pretty much unnecessary.

I don't think any of the current candidates have a good grounding in Science. It is also a bit much to expect any of them to try to alienate any large voting block. The question we need to ask is: which candidate is most likely to act on real evidence when making a decision. For that we have to look beyond the current retoric and gaffs to what each has done in the past.

One can never count on what is said during a campain to be entirely reality based.

David said something quite astute! "The question we need to ask is: which candidate is most likely to act on real evidence when making a decision".

The answer seems to be none of the American candidates to date, and it doesn't look good for any future candidates to do so either, unless foreign born people are allowed to run for office and Thabo Mbeki happens to run for president. At least Thabo had the good sense to bring both sides of an issue to the table to present their evidence, and then Thabo had the courage to act on real evidence even when it was fully against popular "beliefs" and politics.

Thabo Mbeki certainly has my vote as the ONLY head of state to have EVER looked at and "act(ed) on the real evidence" that was presented to him.

Hi Cathy I did not cut and paste anything HIVBollyx!!

i didn't say you cutted and pasted i said you copied stuff. Like all that stuff you said, if you read about it you find out you're wrong. Like you JUST SO HAPPENED on the same Amy Justice lie how everyone else did!!

Amy Justice never says most HIV positive people die of liver failure from anti HIV drugs. Its a lie, you read that at alive and well or some where and you repeat it ohen without reading Justice papers.

Well your other stuff is crap to so whadaya know.

Ummmm, dear addled Adele,

Amy Justice's study on 5700 hiv positive American deaths revealed that the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is indeed liver failure, and that the liver failures were indeed in those taking HAART drugs, dearie. It is in her own black and white report dearie.

Now, be a good girl, and get all that monkey poop cleaned up in those lab animal cages before they get ill from living in their filth and you then blame their deaths on some imaginary retrovirus.

I don't visit here much, but the first thing I've noticed in these coments is women's gender being used as a weapon against them. Further proof that anyone who wants to be taken seriously on the internet better be 1) anonymous and 2) male.

"Further proof that anyone who wants to be taken seriously on the internet better be 1) anonymous and 2) male."

uhmmm.... no one and no thing is taken seriously online.

AIDS is number one killer of HIV positive people.

Liver failure in people on haart can be liver failure bc of haart
or liver failure bc of some thing other or both togehter
Hm like hepatitis alcoholism drug use all known proven causing of liver failure.

Your like oh look these people all died bc of liver failure and they lived in California so living in California makes your liver fail!!

Oh but I get it liver failure in HIV positive alcohol, ID user with hepatitis is liver failure. Liver failure in HIV positive alcohol,ID user with hepatitis on haart is POISONING FROM THE VAST SCIENCE WING CONSIPRACY!!

In the mean time with al;l these "witty remarks" no one bothered to rely to the simple question in my post!

As far as Obama is concerned, here is a video that should get some chattering going:

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v7015364PWgmfXBM

"AIDS is number one killer of HIV positive people."

self-fulfillig.

"Liver failure in people on haart can be liver failure bc of haart or liver failure bc of some thing other or both togehter Hm like hepatitis alcoholism drug use all known proven causing of liver failure."

I will take a leap of faith and actually pretend I understand Adele's assumption:

In HIV Aids, people who die of liver disease die because of:
-1 part HAART and/or
-1 part Alcoholism, dug use, hep, ID user et. al.

Is this not at least 50% Duesbergian theory?

BTW, living in California does make your liver fail.

Which is more likely? The New York Times running the RA aka David Crowe "press release" or the discovery of Bigfoot at 3:00 PM Alberta time today?

My money's on the hefty, hairy humanoid.

Yes, that's certainly where your money is. I'd put mine there too, if I were asked. But that's completely irrelevant, Elkie.

Apparently you don't realize that precisely because the NYT will never run RA's press release all people but the choosen few will nicely keep on being what they are supposed to be: herd nerds.
I think it's quite appropriate here so let me once more link to the following page which so nicely shows the facinating parallels between religion and medical science, between the medieval roman catholic inquisition and today's medical nonscience. Modern Medicine : the New World Religion

Michael is a liar.

Amy Justice's study on 5700 hiv positive American deaths revealed that the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is indeed liver failure, and that the liver failures were indeed in those taking HAART drugs, dearie. It is in her own black and white report dearie.

OK show us black and white bc No it is not. she did not study 5700 deaths. She did not study 5700 people. It was 5985 in Chorus and 881 in vacs3. There was 471 deaths. Liver failures is not leading cause of death, Amy Justice and braithwaite 2005 says a third of deaths are not of AIDS, 22 per cent from those third are from liver thats like 7 per cent!!

Her presentation wasnot promtly ignored it is on aegis here,
ww1.aegis.org/conferences/iac/2002/MoOrB1058.pdf
Go read it dont just copy lying crap off aras, alive and well.

Amy Justice says drug resistence mutations in HIV and people not taking their medicines is the biggest problem not toxic affects on liver.

Dream on Adele.....

The words of Amy Justice

http://www.healtoronto.com/justice_liver.html

speak for themselves:

"Elevations in these enzymes signal injury to liver cells and, in some cases, to other cells in the body. The condition can result from highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART), viral hepatitis or alcohol abuse, all of which are toxic to liver cells. Liver failure is the most common cause of death in people with AIDS.

While ALT and AST testing is routine in monitoring of HIV patients, elevations are not typically addressed unless they are more than twice what is considered normal. The standard remedy for extremely high ALT and AST levels is to stop or change antiretroviral medications and to counsel patients to stop drinking alcohol. Mild to moderate elevations (0.5 up to 2 times the normal level) currently are not treated.

The Pittsburgh-led study was an analysis of data on more than 5,700 participants from two observational studies: Collaborations in HIV Research - U.S. (CHORUS), composed largely of white men who contracted HIV from homosexual activity, and women who contracted HIV from heterosexual activity or intravenous drug use; and the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS), composed mainly of African American men who contracted HIV from heterosexual activity or intravenous drug use.

Study participants with mild to moderate elevations had an increased risk of death that was 1.73 times the risk of those with mid-range normal enzyme levels. Those with two or more times the normal enzyme levels had a 5.06 increased risk of death. Results were consistent in both the CHORUS and VACS cohorts.

"The fact that the findings were similar in two very different cohorts suggests that these results apply to all HIV patients," said Dr. Justice. "Furthermore, the fact that the most common current cause of death among people with HIV is liver failure suggests that liver injury may be a major limiting factor in the effectiveness of current HIV treatment."

"Up to one third of HIV patients have mild to moderate elevations in ALT and AST, yet physicians largely disregard the readings unless they are two to four times above the normal range," said Amy Justice, M.D., associate professor of health services research at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and staff physician at the Pittsburgh Veterans Administration Medical Center.

"Our study shows that even patients whose elevations are mild to moderate have a death rate that is nearly twice that of patients with mid-range normal levels. This association with increased mortality suggests that any elevation in ALT and AST should be addressed."

Elevations in these enzymes signal injury to liver cells and, in some cases, to other cells in the body. The condition can result from highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART), viral hepatitis or alcohol abuse, all of which are toxic to liver cells. Liver failure is the most common cause of death in people with AIDS.

Adele's "Michael is a liar" contribution nicely confirms the Modern Medicine: the New World Religion hypothesis referred to above and she will go to any length to keep the sloppy HIV=Aids castle of cards from falling apart.

So my message to all so-called HIV-Denialists: you can't make 'em HIV=AIDS crappers change their mind unless you make 'em realize what fears they carry around in their little black hearts.

There is great truth in what you say jspreen.

Unfortunately the believers in HIV causing AIDS are overtaken by paranoia and delusions mostly due to their childhood belief in bogeymen under their beds that has morphed into paranoia of invisible viruses that they believe are out to destroy them and all of mankind.

They are yet children and know not what they do, as they create even more death and destruction around them, in their "fight or flight" efforts to outrun their paranoia.

Here is the study that tested Michael's claim that stopping ARVs makes people healthier. It reports incidence of liver disease (table 2).

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/22/2283

So Michael when theres HIV infected drug users on haart
and HIV negative drug users, no haart
First group gets way higher liver death rate right.

oops guess not.

Kohli et al CID 2005, they had that two groups of people,
12% from HIV infected people on haart died from liver disease
37% of HIV negative people died from liver disease.

Heh heh not the first time a dumb journalist intern at a uni f's up a press release. Wanna know about Amy Justice work, read her papers rather a report on healtoronot about a inacurate uni press release.

The real words of Amy Justice

Combination antiretroviral therapy (CART) has transformed HIV from a rapidly fatal condition to a chronic disease, and their benefits overwhelmingly exceed their harms for individuals with pretreatment CD4 counts below 200 cells/μl Value in HEalth 2008

HIV-positive veterans have a higher relative incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and NHL than HIV-negative veterans. For hepatocellular carcinoma, this association appears to be largely explained by the higher prevalence of HCV and alcohol abuse/dependence. Journal of clincial oncology 2006

Of the 382 deaths recorded in CHORUS to date, 126 (33%) were unrelated to AIDS. Of these deaths 28 (22%) were from cardiovascular causes, 15 (12%) were from cancer, 28 (22%) were from liver failure, and 55 (44%) were from other causes. american journal of med 2005

See you accuse Bob Gallo that he had a press conference but his papers was already past peer review.

Then you do your Amy Justice thing with a inacurate press release on a deniosaur site and you ignore her real stuff, all the other research to.

so you are a hypocrite AND liar Michael.

Dear Addled Adele. Bob Gallo's garbage was not peer reviewed by a single retrovirologist! It was rushed through limited review so that it would be published. And furthermore, it showed that a mere 36% of AIDS patients had evidence of RT activity and NEVER showed anyone actually even having had any contagious retrovirus in their blood.

Furthermore, the conclusion in the papers was that HIV MAY BE, not "IS" the cause of AIDS.

Only 36 percent even had rt activity Adele! And ZERO had any purified or isolated retrovirus!

That, Adele, is evidence of NOTHING. So what was even there to peer review?

NOTHING!

Excuse me Adele, I mistakenly said above that Gallo found that 36 percent of his "AIDS patients" had rt activity that was ASS-umed to be due to a retrovirus.

The actual figure on his paper was 36 out of 70 some AIDS patients, or a mere 42% that showed RT activity.

Furthermore, Gallo recently admitted in the Parenzee trial that he did NOT acquire an EM photo of anything, and that the photos he had fraudulently used and claimed as his own, were photos from the Pasteur institutes work and were never proven to be of any actual retrovirus!

Adele, Ballo merely showed that some of these people had RT activity that is nowhere proven to be only caused by a retrovirus. And even if it was, it certainly was not shown that this RT activity was the cause of anything!

Adele, your paranoid delusions are again getting the best of you.

And I do realize that in such a state of paranoid delusion, you, as well as many others, are certainly unable to admit, let alone even consider, that you, just like many others, are quite mistaken about the entire HIV issue in your belief that HIV science is solid. It certainly is not.

Grow up, and deal with it.

Actually, I am at this point quite sure that the HIV orthodoxy is actually more terrified by HIV dissidents then they are of their belief in HIV.

Hey Adele, BOOOOO!!!

Get over it.

Adele,

Of the 382 deaths recorded in CHORUS to date, 126 (33%) were unrelated to AIDS. Of these deaths 28 (22%) were from cardiovascular causes, 15 (12%) were from cancer, 28 (22%) were from liver failure, and 55 (44%) were from other causes. american journal of med 2005

How nice of both you and Amy to confirm Peter Duesbergs work, and admit that HIV positives are not dying of anything having to do with HIV taking out their immune systems.

What is NOT nice about you, is that you continue to scare people to drugs, drinking, self destructive behaviors, and states of mind that are destructive to their well-being by telling them they are going to die from HIV/aids unless they take toxic drugs.

OK. I'm like totaly scared of you and Bob GAllo is what ever you say. So what.

Doesn't change, in the study up there injection drug users without HIV are more likely to die from liver disease then HIV positive injection drug users on haart.

Doesn't change, Amy Justice had 33% of deaths from non AIDS, 22% of them was liver failure.

Doesnt change hepatitis injection drugs or alcohol are there in near every death from liver failure.

Doesn't change haart is so good HIV positive people live longer so they die from heartattacks and cancer like HIV negative people.

Michael why don't you have some body hold the camera for you when you go on you tube, no deniosaurs in your town??

"How nice of both you and Amy to confirm Peter Duesbergs work, and admit that HIV positives are not dying of anything having to do with HIV taking out their immune systems."

Hey Ahemm. 67% of the deaths were related to AIDS. So a much larger percentage of HIV positives ARE "dying of anything having to do with HIV taking out their immune systems" than from non-AIDS related reasons.

And "non-AIDS" does not mean not HIV-related. HIV causes persistent inflammation which can lead to problems distinct from opportunistic infections. That's why people in the NEJM study linked to above who interrupted ARVs had a higher risk of serious cardiovascular, renal and liver disease. Strongest predictors were D-Dimer and IL-6 levels (IL-6 levels have been known to be elevated in people with HIV since the late 80s): http://www.natap.org/2008/CROI/croi_50.htm

ozzy said: 67% of the deaths were related to AIDS. So a much larger percentage of HIV positives ARE "dying of anything having to do with HIV taking out their immune systems" than from non-AIDS related reasons.

and FM said: HIV causes persistent inflammation which can lead to problems distinct from opportunistic infections. That's why people in the NEJM study linked to above who interrupted ARVs had a higher risk of serious cardiovascular, renal and liver disease. Strongest predictors were D-Dimer and IL-6 levels (IL-6 levels have been known to be elevated in people with HIV since the late 80s)

However, kids, absolutely none of your so called "evidences" bothered to take into consideration the physical effects of those who were drug addicts, stressed out, malnourished, the effects of aids drugs, etc.

The supposed inflamation and the D-Dimer and IL-6 levels and their meanings are also unknown because you leap to conclusions that this is not also an effect of some HIV drugs, drug addiction, malnourishment, high stress, or other causes.

Your presented studies never take anything into consideration except the hiv hype pothesis, and are without controls or good common sense and are completely meaningless.

absolutely none of your so called "evidences" bothered to take into consideration the physical effects of those who were drug addicts, stressed out, malnourished, the effects of aids drugs, etc

Poor Michael thats what HIV research does all ways. Amy Justice researched affects of arvs. Kohli R et al from CID 2005 did affects of drugs in drug addicts. Theres lots of stuff on nutrition, HIV. Read some of it, you will know.

When they look on drugs and stress and nutrients and arvs toxicities they find the same thing like when they look on age and co infections and sex and race, yeah alot of this stuff has an affect but HIV is the biggest one.

Adele, nice of you to admit that When they look on drugs and stress and nutrients and arvs toxicities they find the same thing like when they look on age and co infections and sex and race, yeah alot of this stuff has an affect but HIV is the biggest one..

Well, Adele, just how much of an affect does "stuff like drugs and stress and nutrients and arvs toxicities" play in all this AIDS business?

Does it not seem strange to you that this is what was said 20 some years ago, by Peter Duesberg, whom you and others have continuously slandered and stripped of funding, in that he was quite right about drugs and stress and nutrients and the immune system?

And even if he were but partially right, do you really think he deserved to be barred from publishing and funding for these issues?

The "mountain of evidence" of HIV studies has only ever showed correlations, and not causations. Even after 25 long years.

One thing is certain.

I am far from alone in recognizing that the most rational conclusion one can make, as regards the HIV believers-Orthodoxy-and-dogmatists, is that they are completely irrational as regards critical consideration of their own data.

HIV is hyped, while all of the other obvious facts and factors are nearly ignored.

Completely irrational, don't you think?

Yet, so many of these irrational people were given PHD's.

I am far from alone

So get one of your deniosaur buddies holding the camera next time Michael I think you are alone aren't you. Sheesh, videotaping your self!!

Pile on me, but while "Ahemmmmmm" is certainly wrong in every sentence he's written above, "liar" is perhaps unfair. Michael is simply (and credulously) repeating the lies of others he has read on the internet. Because he lacks the education to evaluate these claims, and because his denialism precludes critical thinking and insulates him from accurate information, he can't very well be called a liar.

Also, it's important to remember that liver-related deaths have reportedly made up a majority of deaths in several HIV cohorts. But these cohorts are usually quite small compared with large cohorts like those of the ART or CHORUS studies, and may include mainly IDU. (For one example: Bica I, et al, Clin Infect Dis, 2001 February 1.)

"Your presented studies never take anything into consideration except the hiv hype pothesis, and are without controls or good common sense and are completely meaningless."

Did you follow the NEJM link? 5,472 people were randomized to stop or delay ARVs or start/continue ARVs. The explicit purpose of randomization is to account for potential confounding variables. The people who delayed/interrupted did worse on every outcome measure, including opportunistic diseases, non-opportunistic diseases (the serious cardiovascular, renal and kidney diseases mentioned before) and grade 4 events (many of which had previously been assumed to be drug-related). An analysis restricted to people not using ARVs at the time they joined the trial showed similar results: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/586713

And here is what Celia Farber wrote in Harper's Magazine: "Duesberg thinks that up to 75 percent of AIDS cases in the West can be attributed to drug toxicity. If toxic AIDS therapies were discontinued, he says, thousands of lives could be saved virtually overnight. "

Oddly enough, Duesberg doesn't feature the study that actually tested what he "thinks" on his website.

FM: Lovely!

Your study indicates there isn't a single condition in HIV+ patients, including "Non-AIDS" events, that isn't HIV-viral load-related. And not a single condition not positively influenced by AIDS-drugs.

Next Merck can market Abacavir as a prophylactic against heart attack, perhaps sprinkle it on our cornflakes after the morning yoga session.

http://blog.find-group.com/?p=371

Yes, MEC, the immune system does have the fortunate (or, in cases of deficiency, pesky) tendency to interfere in almost all aspects of human health. When an immune deficiency exacerbates a heart condition and is caused by a virus, antivirals may well be protective. You are the first to suggest antivirals would help against non-virus-related heart disease, though.

PS: Merck marketing Abacavir would be quite the generous gesture towards GlaxoSmithKline, who make Abacavir.

Hehe... Sir Elkie, I thought you'd pick up on the Merck remark. My suggestion was of course that they could market Glaxo's Abacavir to make up for the recent "Vi-oopss-honest-mistake... honestly".

But considering that Abacavir alone doubles the risk of heart attack, rates of HIV-induced heart attacks must be pretty steep for Abacavir to actually improve the situation, wouldn't you say? I wonder why we have never heard about the tremendous rate of HIV-induced heart attacks and liver failures before the drugs came into play. It's very fortunate that "HIV-disease" is not only such a wide net, but also so malleable a concept as to always be able to catch the fish of the day.

Poor Rodriguez! If he had only known that viral load was such a great predictor of heart attack - better even than yellow fingers - maybe he wouldn't have gotten into trouble with the AIDStruth Inquisition over the viral load - CD4 count issue.

http://www.aidstruth.org/rodriguez-lederman.php

I wonder why we have never heard about the tremendous rate of HIV-induced heart attacks and liver failures before the drugs came into play

BC you don't read Claus that, is why.

N Engl J Med. 1986 Sep 4;315(10):628-30.
Congestive cardiomyopathy in association with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.Cohen IS, Anderson DW, Virmani R, Reen BM, Macher AM, Sennesh J, DiLorenzo P, Redfield RR.

and SToneburner Science 1988 A Larger Spectrum of Severe HIV-1--Related Disease in Intravenous Drug Users in New York City. B4 AZT they had heigten heart and liver problems in New York City drug users most new deaths in HIV poz.

Alot easier to see heart and liver stuff now bc people live alot longer with haart but they knew it b4 azt.

FM, Thank You! I have been waiting for the opportunity to comment on this NEJM study for quite a while.

Did you follow the NEJM link? 5,472 people were randomized to stop or delay ARVs or start/continue ARVs.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/586713

Perhaps you overlooked that the study was produced by the ACTG drug trials group.

Perhaps you also overlooked that the directors of the ACTG trials are fully funded by the companies selling the hiv drugs.

Perhaps you are unaware that these groups are paid an average of $10,000 and up to trial the drugs for the pharma companies.

Perhaps you are unaware that the directors of the ACTG trials are about as financially conflicted with all of the hiv drug manufacturers as they can possibly get. Most of the directors are stock holders, as well as paid consultants of the pharma company drugs.

Do you really fail to recognize that having the ACTG groups do a trial such as this is like having a police department internally investigate murders done by their own officers?

The financial conflicts alone render this trial meaningless.

I can hear them now, scaring their patients out of their wits: "Well Johnny, I know we have been telling you for years that your virus is gonna mutate out of control if you don't take every single dose of your meds on time, but now we are gonna try to give you a break from the drug side affects, even though we are sure your gonna get sick, and may even become drug resistant by doing this. But here is 750 bucks to go get loaded on so you can forget your worries"

This trial was as poorly done as they get, and included lovely things like those who came down with colds, flus, std's, and herpes outbreaks as being "Opportunistic Infections". The group chosen to do this study had many sex and drug addicts who simply wanted the money they were paid to do the study.

Ignored were overuse of antibiotics in the sex addicts, the physical repercussions of removing someone from the drugs, the stress that was put on those who were now deprived of the placebo effect of taking hiv drugs, poor diets in the addicts who were enrolled in the studies, the effects of illicit drugs, and on and on and on.

Lovely, FM. Thanks for pointing out the "mother of all least credible studies" in all of hiv/aids-dom.

By the way, FM, do you know what "critical thinking" means? If not, please read this post again.

Wow, Adele, you overwhelm me!

Two studies of which one has the word "cardio" in the title. There now, that certainly puts me in my place.

Especially the revelatory study of IV drug users with heightened risk of liver and heart problems. If that doesn't prove rethinkers wrong, I don't know what will.

I guess soon people will live long enough (thanks to HAARTs of course) for us to be able to see the soaring rates of HIV-related deaths of Old Age. But in the beautiful study brought to us by FM and Tara's sponsors, we didn't have to wait quite that long. In fact a few months was enough to show how wonderful the AIDS-drugs were in every conceivable category.

Do you know the one about what to think when something looks to good to be true. . . ?

In the post above, I said:

"Perhaps you are unaware that these groups are paid an average of $10,000 and up to trial the drugs for the pharma companies".

By the way, the $10 grand and up average payment is paid by the pharma companies to the ACTG groups on a per patient, per drug, per study basis. Many patients are enrolled in multiple studies and even taking multiple drugs, with some patients enriching the ACTG group by several tens of thousands at a time.

Randomized you say? Controls? By the ACTG Aids drug trial groups? Who needs em when big bucks and stock portfolios are at stake!

Thanks for the laugh FM.

Wrong again. Study was launched by the Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS (CPCRA). Because it involved interrupting ARVs, many ACTG researchers opposed it and referred to it as the "Dumb Study." The PI was Wafaa El Sadr from Harlem Hospital, who, according to ShillFactor, has no conflicts of interest. The only thing that renders this trial "meaningless" and "too good to be true" is your delusional denial. Arrividerci.

LOL! You guys have lost me. Are you even talking about the same study? Regardless of PI, when I follow the first NEJM link I find this laundry list:

Dr. Lundgren reports receiving consulting fees, advisory fees, or lecture fees from Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Tibotec, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; Dr. Arduino, grant support from Pfizer and Theratechnologies; Dr. Babiker, grant support from GlaxoSmithKline; Dr. Clumeck, grant support from Gilead Sciences, Tibotec, and Abbott; Dr. Cohen, consulting fees or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Abbott, Roche, Tibotec, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer; Dr. Cohn, grant support from GlaxoSmithKline; Dr. Cooper, advisory fees, consulting fees, honoraria, and grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, and Gilead Sciences; Dr. Emery, grant support or honoraria from Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Virax Immunotherapeutics, and Chiron; Dr. Fätkenheuer, advisory fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Abbott, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; Dr. Gazzard, consulting fees or lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer; Dr. Hoy, consulting fees from Janssen-Cilag, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; Dr. Losso, research grants, educational grants, consultation fees, or lecture fees from Tibotec, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Agouron, Triangle, and Pfizer; Dr. Markowitz, consulting fees, lecture fees, or advisory fees from Roche and Pfizer; and Dr. Phillips, advisory fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Tibotec and research grants or consultation fees from Tibotec, Janssen-Cilag, Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Don't you just love that last sentence?!

When I follow the last link I find this under "Editorial Commentary":

Potential conflicts of interest: M.D.H. currently has consultancy agreements with the following companies that have anti-HIV products: Boehringer Ingelheim, Tibotec, and Virionyx. H.R.R. reports no potential conflicts.

All in all hardly first choice for prime-time on the Disney Channel.

Well done Claus, you actually looked at a paper. So now you just need a theory to explain how those people made this happen: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content-nw/full/355/22/2283/T2

And which of these other investigators were in on it, and how they got it past Wafaa (or was she in on it too?).

The members of the SMART study group are as follows: Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS Chair's Office and Operations Center -- F. Gordin (group leader), E. Finley, D. Dietz, C. Chesson, M. Vjecha, B. Standridge, B. Schmetter, L. Grue, M. Willoughby, A. Demers; Regional Coordinating Centers -- Copenhagen -- J.D. Lundgren, A. Phillips, U.B. Dragsted, K.B. Jensen, A. Fau, L. Borup, M. Pearson, P.O. Jansson, B.G. Jensen, T.L. Benfield; London -- J.H. Darbyshire, A.G. Babiker, A.J. Palfreeman, S.L. Fleck, Y. Collaco-Moraes, B. Cordwell, W. Dodds, F. van Hooff, L. Wyzydrag; Sydney -- D.A. Cooper, S. Emery, F.M. Drummond, S.A. Connor, C.S. Satchell, S. Gunn, S. Oka, M.A. Delfino, K. Merlin, C. McGinley; Statistical and Data Management Center -- Minneapolis -- J.D. Neaton, G. Bartsch, A. DuChene, M. George, B. Grund, M. Harrison, C. Hogan (deceased), E. Krum, G. Larson, C. Miller, R. Nelson, J. Neuhaus, M.P. Roediger, T. Schultz, L. Thackeray; Electrocardiography Reading Center -- R. Prineas, C. Campbell; End Point Review Committee -- G. Perez (cochair), A. Lifson (cochair), D. Duprez, J. Hoy, C. Lahart, D. Perlman, R. Price, R. Prineas, F. Rhame, J. Sampson, J. Worley; NIAID Data and Safety Monitoring Board -- M. Rein (chair), R. DerSimonian (executive secretary), B.A. Brody, E.S. Daar, N.N. Dubler, T.R. Fleming, D.J. Freeman, J.P. Kahn, K.M. Kim, G. Medoff, J.F. Modlin, R. Moellering, Jr., B.E. Murray, B. Pick, M.L. Robb, D.O. Scharfstein, J. Sugarman, A. Tsiatis, C. Tuazon, L. Zoloth; NIAID -- K. Klingman, S. Lehrman; SMART Clinical Site Investigators (numbers of enrolled patients are in parentheses) -- Argentina (147) -- J. Lazovski, W.H. Belloso, M.H. Losso, J.A. Benetucci, S. Aquilia, V. Bittar, E.P. Bogdanowicz, P.E. Cahn, A.D. Casiró, I. Cassetti, J.M. Contarelli, J.A. Corral, A. Crinejo, L. Daciuk, D.O. David, G. Guaragna, M.T. Ishida, A. Krolewiecki, H.E. Laplume, M.B. Lasala, L. Lourtau, S.H. Lupo, A. Maranzana, F. Masciottra, M. Michaan, L. Ruggieri, E. Salazar, M. Sánchez, C. Somenzini; Australia (170) -- J.F. Hoy, G.D. Rogers, A.M. Allworth, J.S.C. Anderson, J. Armishaw, K. Barnes, A. Carr, A. Chiam, J.C.P. Chuah, M.C. Curry, R.L. Dever, W.A. Donohue, N.C. Doong, D.E. Dwyer, J. Dyer, B. Eu, V.W. Ferguson, M.A.H. French, R.J. Garsia, J. Gold, J.H. Hudson, S. Jeganathan, P. Konecny, J. Leung, C.L. McCormack, M. McMurchie, N. Medland, R.J. Moore, M.B. Moussa, D. Orth, M. Piper, T. Read, J.J. Roney, N. Roth, D.R. Shaw, J. Silvers, D.J. Smith, A.C. Street, R.J. Vale, N.A. Wendt, H. Wood, D.W. Youds, J. Zillman; Austria (16) -- A. Rieger, V. Tozeau, A. Aichelburg, N. Vetter; Belgium (95) -- N. Clumeck, S. Dewit, A. de Roo, K. Kabeya, P. Leonard, L. Lynen, M. Moutschen, E. O'Doherty; Brazil (292) -- L.C. Pereira, Jr., T.N.L. Souza, M. Schechter, R. Zajdenverg, M.M.T.B. Almeida, F. Araujo, F. Bahia, C. Brites, M.M. Caseiro, J. Casseb, A. Etzel, G.G. Falco, E.C.J. Filho, S.R. Flint, C.R. Gonzales, J.V.R. Madruga, L.N. Passos, T. Reuter, L.C. Sidi, A.L.C. Toscano; Canada (102) -- D. Zarowny, E. Cherban, J. Cohen, B. Conway, C. Dufour, M. Ellis, A. Foster, D. Haase, H. Haldane, M. Houde, C. Kato, M. Klein, B. Lessard, A. Martel, C. Martel, N. McFarland, E. Paradis, A. Piche, R. Sandre, W. Schlech, S. Schmidt, F. Smaill, B. Thompson, S. Trottier, S. Vezina, S. Walmsley; Chile (49) -- M.J. Wolff Reyes, R. Northland; Denmark (19) -- L. Ostergaard, C. Pedersen, H. Nielsen, L. Hergens, I.R. Loftheim, K.B. Jensen; Estonia (5) -- M. Raukas, K. Zilmer; Finland (21) -- J. Justinen, M. Ristola; France (272) -- P.M. Girard, R. Landman, S. Abel, S. Abgrall, K. Amat, L. Auperin, R. Barruet, A. Benalycherif, N. Benammar, M. Bensalem, M. Bentata, J.M. Besnier, M. Blanc, O. Bouchaud, A. Cabié, P. Chavannet, J.M. Chennebault, S. Dargere, X. de la Tribonniere, T. Debord, N. Decaux, J. Delgado, M. Dupon, J. Durant, V. Frixon-Marin, C. Genet, L. Gérard, J. Gilquin, B. Hoen, V. Jeantils, H. Kouadio, P. Leclercq, J.-D. Lelièvre, Y. Levy, C.P. Michon, P. Nau, J. Pacanowski, C. Piketty, I. Poizot-Martin, I. Raymond, D. Salmon, J.L. Schmit, M.A. Serini, A. Simon, S. Tassi, F. Touam, R. Verdon, P. Weinbreck, L. Weiss, Y. Yazdanpanah, P. Yeni; Germany (215) -- G. Fätkenheuer, S. Staszewski, F. Bergmann, S. Bitsch, J.R. Bogner, N. Brockmeyer, S. Esser, F.D. Goebel, M. Hartmann, H. Klinker, C. Lehmann, T. Lennemann, A. Plettenberg, A. Potthof, J. Rockstroh, B. Ross, A. Stoehr, J.C. Wasmuth, K. Wiedemeyer, R. Winzer; Greece (95) -- A. Hatzakis, G. Touloumi, A. Antoniadou, G.L. Daikos, A. Dimitrakaki, P. Gargalianos-Kakolyris, M. Giannaris, A. Karafoulidou, A. Katsambas, O. Katsarou, A.N. Kontos, T. Kordossis, M.K. Lazanas, P. Panagopoulos, G. Panos, V. Paparizos, V. Papastamopoulos, G. Petrikkos, H. Sambatakou, A. Skoutelis, N. Tsogas, G. Xylomenos; Ireland (2) -- C.J. Bergin, B. Mooka; Israel (13) -- S. Pollack, M.G. Mamorksy, N. Agmon-Levin, R. Karplus, E. Kedem, S. Maayan, E. Shahar, Z. Sthoeger, D. Turner, I. Yust; Italy (88) -- G. Tambussi, V. Rusconi, C. Abeli, M. Bechi, A. Biglino, S. Bonora, L. Butini, G. Carosi, S. Casari, A. Corpolongo, M. De Gioanni, G. Di Perri, M. Di Pietro, G. D'Offizi, R. Esposito, F. Mazzotta, M. Montroni, G. Nardini, S. Nozza, T. Quirino, E. Raise; Japan (15) -- M. Honda, M. Ishisaka; Lithuania (4) -- S. Caplinskas, V. Uzdaviniene; Luxembourg (3) -- J.C. Schmit, T. Staub; Morocco (42) -- H. Himmich, K. Marhoum El Filali; New Zealand (7) -- G.D. Mills, T. Blackmore, J.A. Masters, J. Morgan, A. Pithie; Norway (17) -- J. Brunn, V. Ormasssen; Peru (57) -- A. La Rosa, O. Guerra, M. Espichan, L. Gutierrez, F. Mendo, R. Salazar; Poland (54) -- B. Knytz, A. Horban, E. Bakowska, M. Beniowski, J. Gasiorowski, J. Kwiatkowski; Portugal (73) -- F. Antunes, R.S. Castro, M. Doroana, A. Horta, K. Mansinho, A.C. Miranda, I.V. Pinto, E. Valadas, J. Vera; Russia (17) -- A. Rakhmanova, E. Vinogradova, A. Yakovlev, N. Zakharova; South Africa (26) -- R. Wood, C. Orrel; Spain (100) -- J. Gatell, J.A. Arnaiz, R. Carrillo, B. Clotet, D. Dalmau, A. González, Q. Jordano, A. Jou, H. Knobel, M. Larrousse, R. Mata, J.S. Moreno, E. Oretaga, J.N. Pena, F. Pulido, R. Rubio, J. Sanz, P. Viciana; Switzerland (91) -- B. Hirschel, R. Spycher, M. Battegay, E. Bernasconi, S. Bottone, M. Cavassini, A. Christen, C. Franc, H.J. Furrer, A. Gayet-Ageron, D. Genné, S. Hochstrasser, L. Magenta, C. Moens, N. Müller, R. Nüesch; Thailand (159) -- P. Phanuphak, K. Ruxrungtham, W. Pumpradit, P. Chetchotisakd, S. Dangthongdee, S. Kiertiburanakul, V. Klinbuayaem, P. Mootsikapun, S. Nonenoy, B. Piyavong, W. Prasithsirikul, P. Raksakulkarn; United Kingdom (214) -- B.G. Gazzard, J.G. Ainsworth, J. Anderson, B.J. Angus, T.J. Barber, M.G. Brook, C.D. Care, D.R. Chadwick, M. Chikohora, D.R. Churchill, D. Cornforth, D.H. Dockrell, P.J. Easterbrook, P.A. Fox, R. Fox, P.A. Gomez, M.M. Gompels, G.M. Harris, S. Herman, A.G.A. Jackson, S.P.R. Jebakumar, M.A. Johnson, G.R. Kinghorn, K.A. Kuldanek, N. Larbalestier, C. Leen, M. Lumsden, T. Maher, J. Mantell, R. Maw, S. McKernan, L. McLean, S. Morris, L. Muromba, C.M. Orkin, A.J. Palfreeman, B.S. Peters, T.E.A. Peto, S.D. Portsmouth, S. Rajamanoharan, A. Ronan, A. Schwenk, M.A. Slinn, C.J. Stroud, R.C. Thomas, M.H. Wansbrough-Jones, H.J. Whiles, D.J. White, E. Williams, I.G. Williams, M. Youle; United States (2989) -- D.I. Abrams, E.A. Acosta, S. Adams, A. Adamski, L. Andrews, D. Antoniskis, D.R. Aragon, R. Arduino, R. Artz, J. Bailowitz, B.J. Barnett, C. Baroni, M. Barron, J.D. Baxter, D. Beers, M. Beilke, D. Bemenderfer, A. Bernard, C.L. Besch, M.T. Bessesen, J.T. Bethel, S. Blue, J.D. Blum, S. Boarden, R.K. Bolan, J.B. Borgman, I. Brar, B.K. Braxton, U.F. Bredeek, R. Brennan, D.E. Britt, J. Brockelman, S. Brown, V. Bruzzese, D. Bulgin-Coleman, D.E. Bullock, V. Cafaro, B. Campbell, S. Caras, J. Carroll, K.K. Casey, F. Chiang, G. Childress, R.B. Cindrich, C. Clark, M. Climo, C. Cohen, J. Coley, D.V. Condoluci, R. Contreras, J. Corser, J. Cozzolino, L.R. Crane, L. Daley, D. Dandridge, V. D'Antuono, J.G. Darcourt Rizo Patron, J.A. DeHovitz, E. DeJesus, J. DesJardin, M. Diaz-Linares, C. Dietrich, P. Dodson, E. Dolce, K. Elliott, D. Erickson, M. Estes, L.L. Faber, J. Falbo, M.J. Farrough, C.F. Farthing, P. Ferrell-Gonzalez, H. Flynn, C. Frank, M. Frank, K.F. Freeman, N. French, G. Friedland, N. Fujita, L. Gahagan, K. Genther, I. Gilson, M.B. Goetz, E. Goodwin, F. Graziano, C.K. Guity, P. Gulick, E.R. Gunderson, C.M. Hale, K. Hannah, H. Henderson, K. Hennessey, W.K. Henry, D.T. Higgins, S.L. Hodder, H.W. Horowitz, M. Howe-Pittman, J. Hubbard, R. Hudson, H. Hunter, C. Hutelmyer, M.T. Insignares, L. Jackson, L. Jenny, M. John, D.L. Johnson, G. Johnson, J. Johnson, L. Johnson, J. Kaatz, J. Kaczmarski, S. Kagan, C. Kantor, T. Kempner, K. Kieckhaus, N. Kimmel, B.M. Klaus, N. Klimas, J.R. Koeppe, J. Koirala, J. Kopka, J.R. Kostman, M.J. Kozal, A. Kumar, A. Labriola, H. Lampiris, C. Lamprecht, K.M. Lattanzi, J. Lee, J. Leggett, C. Long, A. Loquere, K. Loveless, C.J. Lucasti, R. Luskin-Hawk, M. MacVeigh, L.H. Makohon, S. Mannheimer, N.P. Markowitz, C. Marks, N. Martinez, C. Martorell, E. McFeaters, B. McGee, D.M. McIntyre, J. McKee, E. McManus, L.G. Melecio, D. Melton, S. Mercado, E. Merrifield, J.A. Mieras, M. Mogyoros, F.M. Moran, K. Murphy, D. Mushatt, S. Mutic, I. Nadeem, J.P. Nadler, R. Nahass, D. Nixon, S. O'Brien, A. Ognjan, M. O'Hearn, K. O'Keefe, P.C. Okhuysen, E. Oldfield, D. Olson, R. Orenstein, R. Ortiz, J. Osterberger, W. Owen, F. Parpart, V. Pastore-Lange, S. Paul, A. Pavlatos, D.D. Pearce, R. Pelz, G. Perez, S. Peterson, G. Pierone, Jr., D. Pitrak, S.L. Powers, H.C. Pujet, J.W. Raaum, J. Ravishankar, J. Reeder, N. Regevik, N.A. Reilly, C. Reyelt, J. Riddell IV, D. Rimland, M.L. Robinson, A.E. Rodriguez, M.C. Rodriguez-Barradas, V. Rodriguez Derouen, R. Roland, C. Rosmarin, W.L. Rossen, J.R. Rouff, J.H. Sampson, M. Sands, C. Savini, S. Schrader, M.M. Schulte, C. Scott, R. Scott, H. Seedhom, M. Sension, A. Sheble-Hall, A. Sheridan, J. Shuter, L.N. Slater, R. Slotten, D. Slowinski, M. Smith, S. Snap, D.M. States, M. Stewart, G. Stringer, J. Sullivan, K.K. Summers, K. Swanson, I.B. Sweeton, S. Szabo, E.M. Tedaldi, E.E. Telzak, Z. Temesgen, D. Thomas, M.A. Thompson, S. Thompson, C. Ting Hong Bong, C. Tobin, J. Uy, A. Vaccaro, L.M. Vasco, I. Vecino, G.K. Verlinghieri, F. Visnegarwala, B.H. Wade, V. Watson, S.E. Weis, J.A. Weise, S. Weissman, A.M. Wilkin, L. Williams, J.H. Witter, L. Wojtusic, T.J. Wright, V. Yeh, B. Young, C. Zeana, J. Zeh; Uruguay (3) -- E. Savio, M. Vacarezza.

wow Claus and Michael so brilliant you should never believe a research except

no body gets paid to do it
participants don't get paid
the pi 's give their time for it, don't get $$
they work at Sams Club in the night to pay their bills
they don't have phds bc it would mess up their thinking

or

you agree with the result!!

FC (What happened to FM?)

I have to explain how they made it happen?! My dear chap, you've just seen the laundry list! Why don't you tell me how they made this happen?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9270414?dopt=Abstract

Concerning your impressive Coalition of the Willing, I confess I have no idea how they got it past that guy from Villa Manana, Uruguay, not to mention S. Dangthongdee, Mau Mae Roo Reuang province, Thailand.

Tara, maybe now that ERV is part of the Borg collective, some of your trolls might take up a new residence?

FM, (or is it FC today), Again I must thank you profusely. I have been wanting to comment on dear doctor Wafaa El Sadr for quite some time. Thanks for giving me the opportunity!

You asked "And which of these other investigators were in on it, and how they got it past Wafaa (or was she in on it too?).

Well, ask and you shall receive my friend.

Of course Wafaa was in on it. She is an old hand at concealing her own dozens of conflicts of interest. She works em all. The NIH, the CDC, the pharma companies, all of them!

Turns out that Dear sweet little ole Wafaa was the most financially conflicted of all of the panel members of the IOM's congressionally ordered investigation of the bogus NIH Nevirapine Study in 2005.

The Associated Press reported that two-thirds of a panel of experts appointed by the Institute of Medicine, to investigate a controversial AIDS study conducted in Uganda with funds from NIH, receive grants from NIH.
The experiment involved nevirapine, a controversial AIDS drug. President Bush allocated $500 million offering nevirapine to African nations a "cheap solution" for protecting African babies from AIDS without being informed by NIH officials that the drug had in fact been found to cause "thousands of severe reactions including deaths."

From the AP: "Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, an AIDS expert at Columbia University, received just over $2 million from NIH's infectious disease division last year, NIH said.

Wafaa may look like Mother Theresa, but don't let her innocent old lady looks decieve you. She is the money grubber from hell and does what she can to protect her partners in crime. This little ole lady just can't get enough, and makes sure the rest of the shills always owe her a few big favors for services rendered.

Oh, and by the way, in the investigation of Nevirapine, she found there to be no problem whatsover in the study, even though the log book filled with adverse reactions mysteriously dissappeared in a freak flood.

"no body gets paid to do it
participants don't get paid
the pi 's give their time for it, don't get $$
they work at Sams Club in the night to pay their bills
they don't have phds bc it would mess up their thinking"

Perhaps you are right Adele. Perhaps in a perfect world you would run the show! No doubt people such as you describe above couldn't be any less incompetent then the ship of fools who have run the show for the last 24 years.

And by the way, Adele, knowing that you work as a lab tech in hiv, Who's yo daddy?

Which of the shills you are enslaved under?

Michaels' rules on kickass science,

real scientists volunteer they dont get paid
except P Diddy he should be paid it is a crime he lost funds

people that use their science making money are shills, hacks
except P Diddy he can make companies and stuff

peer review sucks
but P Diddy has awe-some peer review papers and Bob Gallo should of had better peer review

experts shouldn't never give advise for money
except P Diddy and Albayatti that is OK!!

people that do science like me are in slavery
but we stick on it bc we are scared of loosing money????

I'm beginning to see the great wisdom in your words, Adele. Thanks for straightening me out.

It's wonderful that the very brightest of HIV researchers such as yourself are on top of all this aids research business, and are even willing to share your vast wisdom in keeping us ignorant masses informed as to what constitutes perfectly good HIV aids science.

A sincere Thank You, Adele.

Yes, it's outrageous that a researcher would venally apply for, and receive, research grant funding. Wafaa El Sadr should have financed that international, multi-site, 5,472-person trial out of her own pocket! After all, most ACTG researchers were prepared to assume that continuous ARV treatment was the best approach, what was her problem wanting to test the question scientifically?

people that do science like me are in slavery
but we stick on it bc we are scared of loosing money????

No, that's not the reason. The reason why you stick on to it is that your world would fall apart if you found out that your knowledge is just crap.
But why is that so, Adele? Throughout the ages so many approaches finally turned out to be crap. Why stick by all means to a boat that might be sinking with so many ships cruising around?
Come on, dust your brain and use it for once. Look around the world in which we live and you will realize that HIV=Aids=Crap is an equation that stands up like an oak tree in the storm.

Dear cinevision, you said: "what was her problem wanting to test the question scientifically?"

There certainly would have been no problem, no problem at all.....if the question at hand had actually been tested "scientifically".

One of the greatest problems with the "study", is that it failed to note that the HIV drugs have many physical effects, as well as failed to note the negativity of the involved researchers to even doing such a study, as well as the effect such researchers had on patient outcomes.

It takes time to clear the drugs from one's body, which by itself is a drain on the body, and also plays heavily on ones emotions and stress. It also takes time to gain confidence in living drug free.

Six months would be the minimal time necessary, with proper emotional support for the transition, and even a year would not be too short a time.

Once HIV drugs are stopped, patients often get highly stressed (particularly if they are going to a panicked clinician who is sure they will get ill and is jabbing them with needles and apprehension)ill with minor and at times even major maladies until the immune system kicks back in and functions on its own again, and the patient becomes confident and stress free.

To lose dependency on the drugs, the patient is highly benefited by the company of those who are supportive of such a great change in their life.

As such, the "study" was doomed from the word go, as it was highly effected by those who believed the patients would all quickly sicken and die, and who were paranoid that positive results would result in their own loss of jobs and funding. Such clinicians transferred their apprehensions to the subjects and fully contributed to the "no-cebo" effect.

Hardly a well thought out study, now was it?

Michael makes stuff up YES HE IS LYING ELK he says

it failed to note that the HIV drugs have many physical effects

Dood read it first paragraph after abstract they say

However, the therapy is also associated with both short-term and long-term adverse events. Major metabolic and cardiovascular complications have been a particular concern

He also sells second-hand high end laboratory equipment on E-Bay, from "closed university departments" while screaming about shutting down research. No conflict of interest or hypocrisy there!

Adele, thanks for noting that I was unclear as to exactly what
drug effects I was referring to that went unconsidered.

I was referring to the effects of emotional dependency, as the well known placebo effect is highly influential.

I was also referring to the effects of physical immune system dependency, as it too will have a major effect when the drugs that the immune system has become dependent on are suddenly removed.

As an analogy, consider someone who has spent years in a wheelchair and their leg muscles have become very weak from not being used for a very long time. Suddenly pulling the wheelchair out from under someone will likely result in the person being unable to stand at all, or even falling down a few times upon trying. Eventually however, the individual regains strength and coordination and is again able to walk just fine.

These are the effects that I was referring to that went completely unconsidered by those performing this study.

"He also sells second-hand high end laboratory equipment on E-Bay, from "closed university departments".

If he does, God bless him, because someone needs to clean up their mess for them, AND, turn it into another source of funding for the funding strapped universities.

I hear he also fully stocks the labs of Rethinkers such as Duesberg and several others at absolutely no charge for some very high end equipment and supplies!

How completely OUTRAGEOUS!

he also fully stocks the labs of Rethinkers such as Duesberg and several others at absolutely no charge for some very high end equipment and supplies!

So they have conflict of interest, the supplier wants the research having one outcome, way worse then Wafaa El-Sadr and NIH grants!!

Srsly, wow is there another Rethinker with a lab not only Duesberg?? I think they could not do those experiments to prove HIV hype pothesis wrong BC they did not have funds. Well thanks for Michael now they have fully stocked lab and they never do experiments with it!! Why??

WEll I did it for them remember my honey bun challenge, I did it again this week. Stimulate cells, they do not make virus. Stimulate cells and infect, they do make virus.

The denialist hypothesis was that HIV therapy causes a number of "non-AIDS" effects (liver disease, heart disease etc). This hypothesis has been roundly booted into touch, since SMART shows that stopping ARVs worsens all these outcomes. Remaining on ART improves survival for all outcomes, not just those that are HIV/AIDS related.

No amount of gibbering on Ahemmm's part about people taking a year to recover from the terrible, devastating psychological impact and trauma of, god forbid, actually stopping therapy for a time will change this fact. As an explanation to try and explain away the results of SMART I have seldom seen such a poor attempt at contriving a plausible hypothesis.

This hypothesis has been roundly booted into touch, since SMART shows that stopping ARVs worsens all these outcomes.

Yeah, sure. Unluckily for you goddamn drug pushers we've got the 956,554,431 messages roaming around on the Internet written by people saying "Cut it out, man. I stopped taking the socalled medicine and Lo! I'm back in shape!!!". Fuck the studies reported by the drug-pushing self-apointed scientific cummunity members and their lackeys.

956,554,431 messages roaming around on the Internet written by people saying "Cut it out, man. I stopped taking the socalled medicine and Lo! I'm back in shape!!!".

Its like a small percent from people are elite suppressors, they do OK with HIV and no drugs. Like a hundred thousand infected people in the world, may be more then a hundred thousand. So duh you get ten of them on your f-wit websites. Problem is, if your not elite supressor you should not go of drugs!!

Your shills and lackeys!! they try to find out, why are some people that way, how can you know so they don't need taking drugs.

Long Term Non-Progressors, Elite Controllers, Elite Supressors...

...anyone for "Long Term Suppressors"?

It's nomenclature, Pat, and some LTNP would just call themselves "lucky." Technically, a long-term nonprogressor (LTNP) doesn't progress to AIDS; an elite controller/suppressor (ES) maintains viral load below 50 copies per ml; a patient with viral loads consistently in the low thousands/ml or down to 50 copies/ml is in another group of viremia controllers.

Perhaps best would be to use terms reflective of the actual characteristics that distinguish, say, elite suppressors from the general population.....but it's not known what all of these are just yet. It is known that there's more than one way to be an ES. Different HLA alleles seem to play a role, and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes of ES seem to have heightened functionality against HIV.

If you're interested in learning more, Bruce Walker (a well-known doctor who works with elite suppressors) wrote a review of the topic for the August/September 2007 edition of Topics in HIV Medicine. "Elite Control of HIV Infection: Implications for Vaccines and Treatments" is available through the International AIDS Society-USA at www dot iasusa dot org/pub/topics/2007/issue4/134.pdf

HIV "rethinkers" scoff compulsively at the entire notion of elite suppression. For good reason. The existence of ES, like the efficacy of HAART, puts paid to Duesberg's fantasy that HIV is a harmless virus: those who suppress virus don't get sick.

this came to me in my sleep:

"Long Term Non-progressing Elite Suppressors", hows that?

Interesting

It would seem that one or two of those on HAART do get sick:

Interpretation Virological response after starting HAART improved over calendar years, but such improvement has not translated into a decrease in mortality,

Margaret T. May, et al. HIV Treatment Response and Prognosis in Europe and North America in the First Decade of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: A Collaborative Analysis, Lancet, August 5, Vol 368, p451-458 (2006)

Those who "suppress viral load" aren't put on toxic drugs, so of course they don't get sick if their life-styles are otherwise healthy. This is exactomundo what Duesberg predicts

Those who "suppress viral load" aren't put on toxic drugs, so of course they don't get sick if their life-styles are otherwise healthy. This is exactomundo what Duesberg predicts

Yeah exept he says people with high viral load do not get sick either when thye have healthy life style and they do, big problem!!

So wrong so delusioned you are disapointing me Clausey, think one time out side ur deludosaur paradigm!!??

Mmm, recognize any names on that Lancet paper Claus? Lundgren? Phillips? Hardly the first choice for prime time on the Disney Channel, eh?

But to humor you since that poorly edited abstract sentence makes it your go-to paper, how many of the 1232 people that initiated ARVs in 95/96 died, and how many of the 1932 people that initiated ARVs in 2002/3 died? And how long were people followed after they started ARVs?

Elkman: "HIV "rethinkers" scoff compulsively at the entire notion of elite suppression. For good reason."

For very good reason indeed. LTNP's and ES'ers are commonly found in the "Rethinker Communities".

Seems that they generally have several things in common:

1) Diagnosed HIV positive on the highly flawed hiv tests.

2) Are not caught up in drug addiction.

3) Have not overused antibiotics b/c of multiple std's

4) Have lower stress levels as they regard hiv as hype.

5) Have expectations of health and well being instead of expectations of sickness and death.

6) Avoid stressful T-cell and viral load testing.

7) Did not take AZT and will not take haart drugs.

8)Are psychologically well adjusted to their sexuality.

9) Often are health oriented with good diets and exercise.

10) Have families who are supportive of their sexuality.

So many things in common. Quite interesting, don't you think?

Michael are you talking about Raphael Lombardo or Kelly Jon LAndis??

Having personally had much personal and even intimate experience with many of the so-called LTNP's, I would say they share much of the same outlook as is found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9SrCaTH_oU

Mmm, recognize any names on that Lancet paper Claus? Lundgren? Phillips? Hardly the first choice for prime time on the Disney Channel, eh?

So much the more impressive when they aren't able to spin every sentence into "the drugs outperformed every expectation on every level". So much the more impressive.

Adele, please show me a large American cohort of high viral loaders with a drug-free past and an ARV-free present, then show me how they're all dropping like flies.

Adele, thanks for bringing up those two wonderful and amazing people. I for one, certainly miss them both.

Raphael and Kelly both had very difficult and highly stressed and very difficult lives. Matter of fact, they share a few things in common.

Simply read Raphaels very emotionally pained letter to Peter Duesberg and you will see that he suffered massive rejection and social isolation both for his sexuality as well as for having been branded hiv positive, and then again for his choice to rethink his diagnosis. His family and closest friends constantly harassed him about his choice not to take AZT. He also suffered great loneliness and hopelessness as he lost friend after friend who was diagnosed as hiv positive and died from the effects of high dose AZT. He lived a life of emotional torment as a result. As he was one of the first "rethinkers", he at least blazed a partial trail for many others to follow.

I salute his courage and his integrity, and I feel deeply for the pain and suffering he endured as a result of societies homophobia and attitudes toward hiv positives at the time.

As for Kelly, he too suffered extreme emotional stress. He was raised in a Mormon family that absolutely did not want a gay son. He suffered tremendous emotional pain from the rejection he received from his family, church, and childhood friends, though he later did all he good to denounce their homophobia and hate. He too was highly stressed out in his battle against homophobia and the AIDS orthodoxy. It is also unfortunate that he became self destructive, and was addicted to crystal meth. He even hid this from many of his friends in the rethinker community because he well knew they would not be accepting of drug abuse. Unfortunately I did not even know he was addicted to meth. Though in my conversations with him, I do remember well that he would become angry and irrational with any rethinkers who downed the drug abuse in the gay community, and would lash out calling them "homophobic", even if they too were gay. Had I recognized he had the crystal meth monkey on his back, I would have insisted he seek treatment. However, it would still have been ultimately up to him to make peace with his own inner demons and free himself of addiction. However, I do miss him, and I also honor all of the wonderful things he had done to bring greater awareness of homophobia and hiv hype.

Both Raphael and Kelly are greatly missed by those who knew them. They both did all they could to move an intransigent society forward.

Long Term Non-Progressors

Ha ha ha. The only non-progressors I can think of are the drug pushing only_one_single_new_idea_per_life-time no-brainers and self proclaimed scientific community members who cannot possible conceive that their cherished approach HIV=Aids=Death is not correct. Man, do they stick to their convictions. Long Term Non-Progressors indeed.
Time to wake up, you dummies. That's not for you, Adele. You're too much fun where you are right now and you are certainly more effective in making HIV=Aids believers reconsider than the whole rethinkers' community combined.

Srsly Michael do you know one person that has all that stuff??

1) Diagnosed HIV positive on the highly flawed hiv tests.
2) Are not caught up in drug addiction.
3) Have not overused antibiotics b/c of multiple std's
4) Have lower stress levels as they regard hiv as hype.
5) Have expectations of health and well being instead of expectations of sickness and death.
6) Avoid stressful T-cell and viral load testing.
7) Did not take AZT and will not take haart drugs.
8)Are psychologically well adjusted to their sexuality.
9) Often are health oriented with good diets and exercise.
10) Have families who are supportive of their sexuality.

What if some from them dies, then you blame it on the preson and you say oh that person had meth a coupla times and that person got called a bad name in high school it messed them up psychologically and that person smoked tobaco.

And herein, Adele and Elk and FC and Tara, lies the greatest problem the Rethinkers face.

Not only are many of the "rethinkers" hiv positives who are often battling their own inner demons, such as often dealing with acceptance of their own homosexuality in a mostly homophobic world, difficult personal relationships, personal addictions, shaming for their sexuality or their opinion of hiv hype, but they are also derided, ridiculed, shamed, and harassed by those such as yourselves, for having had the courage to reject medical and science authoritarianism and consensus, and take personal responsibility for their own beliefs, health,
and well being.

The rethinkers are also greatly pained by standing by helplessly as they watch their friends and acquaintences become disfigured by protease inhibitors or drop over from heart attacks and liver failure from the haart drugs. However, one also notices that those who choose such paths are often quite self destructive to begin with and are also often dealing with their own inner demons of drug addiction, depression, extreme emotional pain, and so on. It helps to simply have the attitude that "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

And I promise you that to overcome some or all of these difficulties often takes tremendous courage and soul searching and often reaching up to higher levels such as what one would call "spiritual connectedness" in order to overcome the lower levels of shame, guilt, addiction, anger, and hopelessness. Matter of fact, this "spiritual connection" is EXACTLY what the highly effective 12 step programs for addiction recovery are based upon.

But, I am sure none of you would know anything about that.

Personally, I thank God for giving me the courage for dealing with the likes of you, as well as for giving me the compassion and understanding for your own well cushioned and often elitist and comfey little lives to do so. I fully realize I am usually dealing with your tremendous egos as well as your inability to empathize with others, and not your own inner spirit.

Quite fortunate are all of you to not have been born gay, black, or diagnosed as a tainted, unwanted, rejected, harassed, gay man, or poor black, or to have been falsely diagnosed as a leperous, tainted, or societally shamed HIV positive whose told they are doomed to die of a supposed lethal virus or given the choice to take the very drugs that will eventually fulfill the iatrogenically assisted belief in an eventual early death.

And I do understand and have full compassion for your inability to empathize, as you have no personal experiences to compare it to in order to understand or empathize with the lives of others.

Certainly one can know what a cat is, but unless one is a cat, they can never know what it really is, or how it actually feels, to be a cat.

Quite fortunate are all of you, and I am glad you are! I hope you will all be sure to give thanks for your own life's blessings sometime before your own last dying breaths as I really don't think any of you realize just how blessed you are.

And meanwhile, I hope you will all please do your best to simply grow up.

Michael you don't know me you obvi don't know any scientist. i never met a scientist that thought what you think we do. White black gay straight scientists yeah there is JAmes Watson but scientists are totaly opposed on discrimination against people. Its people like Duesberg and Bialy say things are mean and hurt people. Sorry its true.

So stop preeching to the choir answer my question do you know one person that has all ten from your list, if not how many does the person need??

1) Diagnosed HIV positive on the highly flawed hiv tests.
2) Are not caught up in drug addiction.
3) Have not overused antibiotics b/c of multiple std's
4) Have lower stress levels as they regard hiv as hype.
5) Have expectations of health and well being instead of expectations of sickness and death.
6) Avoid stressful T-cell and viral load testing.
7) Did not take AZT and will not take haart drugs.
8)Are psychologically well adjusted to their sexuality.
9) Often are health oriented with good diets and exercise.
10) Have families who are supportive of their sexuality.

Adele, you ask "do you know one"?

Adele, I don't know only one, I know many and meet more and more every day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9SrCaTH_oU

You also asked: "your list....how many does the person need??"

Seems to be different for each individual Adele. It seems that well being and good health is the natural state for all of us, though I have noticed that the more one veers from the list, the more actual and the more chronic and the more serious illnesses and diseases that you will find.

I know many and meet more and more every day

Yeah you say Amy Justice looked on 5700 AIDS deaths you say alot of stuff and it is all lies. All talk.

Why there is so many denialists like that you know and a dissident that cant sit still on camera hafta film him self on you tube can't they find some body like ONE PERSON to help out?? May be ask P Diddy when your dropping him all the lab stuff off??

Sheesh I was waiting on a you tube of those April 23 demos where is it?? You got so many friends like that so prove it.

Anencephadele incoherently babbled: "What if some from [sic] them dies, then you blame it on the preson [sic] and you say oh that person had meth a coupla [sic] times and that person got called a bad name in high school it messed them up psychologically and that person smoked tobaco [sic].
And...
"Yeah you say Amy Justice looked on [sic] 5700 AIDS deaths you say [sic] a lot of stuff [sic] and it is all lies. All talk.
Why there is so many denialists like that you know and a dissident that cant [sic 3 and 4 - this post I had to count them] sit still on camera hafta [sic 5] film him self [sic 6] on you tube [sic 7] can't they find some body [sic 8] like ONE PERSON to help out?? May be [sic 9] ask P Diddy when your dropping him all the lab stuff off [sics 10-12]??
Sheesh I was waiting on a you tube [sic 10] of those April 23 demos where is it [sic 13]?? You got [sic 14] so many friends like that so [sic,sic,sick] prove it."
Anencephadele - I'm surprised you have the temerity to continue posting but then I also applaud you; as the beacon of apparently intractable, insipid ignorance you serve a valuable role for the dissidents. You highlight the sick, twisted and ignorant lack of thinking common to your ilk (or Elk) that confirms your "Eddie the Eagle" attitude toward your sinking, dead-in-the-water, murderous paradigm.
Oh yes, and "me and Michael" are "like that" = best buddies - do you have any friends Anencephadele?

"So much the more impressive when they aren't able to spin every sentence into "the drugs outperformed every expectation on every level". So much the more impressive."

I imagined that you were smart enough to be embarrassed by this lame riposte, but perhaps not. It is not the spin in the NEJM paper that presents a problem for you and your favorite "lives would be saved overnight" chemistry professor, it's the data. So are you arguing that the people you think make the study "not ready for prime time on the Disney channel" altered the data, or not?

FC said:

"So are you arguing that the people you think make the study "not ready for prime time on the Disney channel" altered the data, or not?

FC, frankly, I myself had not considered that the data had been altered, as I am not a conspiracy theorist, but thanks for pointing out the possibility. After all, it would not be the first time that such as that has happened.

I can only assume that the data is correct, but it is the interpretation of the data is what presents me with problems. As you well know, data can be interpreted in many different ways depending on one's particular perspective.

Also, as I illustrated above, it is not necessarily what is in the data that presents the majority of problems for me, but what was left out, as well as its interpretation.

Interpretation of any data can vary widely depending on the viewpoint. For instance, as colds and flus were included as "opportunistic infections" and assumed to be related to HIV, if the study participants were enrolled during flu season, the variance would be substantial. Secondly, FC, if std's were included, as they were, consideration of those with sexual addictions, as many had, would also be crucial to understanding the veracity of the assumptions made upon data interpretation. As you are most assuredly an educated and highly intelligent person, I am sure you are quite aware of this. No?

Yay!! Another lie from Michael, woot woot!!
colds and flus were included as "opportunistic infections" and assumed to be related to HIV

Srsly from NEJM supplemmentary material the definition they used of "opportunistic"
Opportunistic diseases (OD) included in the primary endpoint (see Table 2 and web-table I) were: Aspergillosis, bartonellosis, esophageal candidiasis, candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs, invasive cervical cancer, Chagas disease of the central nervous system (CNS), cytomegalovirus virus (CMV) disease, CMV retinitis, extrapulmonary coccidioidomycosis, cryptosporidiosis, extrapulmonary cryptococcosis, HIV-related encephalopathy, persistent Herpes simplex, disseminated Herpes zoster, extrapulmonary histoplasmosis, isosporiasis, Kaposi's sarcoma, leishmaniasis, Burkitt's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, primary lymphoma of the brain, tuberculosis, microsporidiosis, Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), other nontuberculous species or unidentified species Mycobacterium, nocardiosis, penicilliosis, extrapulmonary Pneumocystis jiroveci, Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, bacterial pneumonia (2 episodes within 12 months), progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, Rhodococcus equi disease, Salmonella septicemia (2 episodes within 12 months), toxoplasmosis of brain, wasting syndrome due to HIV.

A WHOLE BOX OF HONEYBUNS for first deniosaur that finds colds and flu!!

Dear Sweet HoneyBun, Adele. Herpes simplex was included as an "OI".

The following definition of Herpes Simplex Virus is right out of the medical dictionary. It is always associated with colds and flus, as it is even commonly called a "cold sore":

Herpes Simplex Virus

Often referred to as fever blisters or cold sores, HSV Type 1 infections are tiny, clear, fluid-filled blisters that most often occur on the face.

Furthermore, Adele,

The study was prematurely cut off on the very date of January 10th, just nearing the end of "Cold and Flu Season".

Would FC or Adele please be so kind as to look look again at the data and share with us all just how many "cold sores" it took for the researchers to decide that the study needs to be cut short because cold sores are best treated with haart?

And also, kids, be sure to share with us the number of individuals who came down with candidiasis yeast growths shortly after their doctors treated their colds and flus with intensive antibiotics and forgot to recommend also treating them with probiotics to counter yeast infections that commonly appear after antibiotics usage.

I had not realized before that Gilead will likely be selling lifelong prescriptions of toxic arvs and haart drugs as the latest preventatives and treatments for common colds and flu.

How utterly brilliant of them!

Now let's see.

A trial with 5472 participants split nearly in half:

120 people who had the arv's removed came down with events of which a whopping 63 events were "nonserious" and mostly cold sores.

The 120 events is equivalent to 3.3 events in 100 years, which is even less then most who people who are HIV negative.

63 events seen in those who still took the arv drugs also came down with events anyway, mostly cold sores.

As the patients were all told that if they did not take the ARV's they would likely quickly sicken or die, and must obviously therefore, highly contribute to any no-cebo effect due to greater psychological stress on those deprived of the drugs.

As such, we might very well consider that as the group who took the drugs still had 30 percent of overall events, the placebo, or rather "no-cebo" effect could likely explain the higher number of events in the group that was suddenly deprived of their former psychological crutch of taking ARV's, and this could easily explain the entire result of the study.

One might also easily conclude, that as the lower stressed group that had the psychological crutch of taking arv drugs intact, and still had half as many events as those not taking them, that the drugs actually have absolutely no effect whatsoever on any opportunistic infections, and that the only effect of these drugs may merely be the well proven toxic effects.

It would be so nice if Wafaa herself would explain this dilemma to us, and why the study was interpreted as it was.

Or at least Elkmountain, FC, Tara, JP Moore, or Tony Fauci should step up to the plate and clearly explain this dilemma.

After all, it clearly seems to me that the arv's are not even worth a plug nickel to treat even a cold sore!

Nice try Michael it was persistant Herpes not a cold sore. Like, doctors have definitions for this stuff ya know.

Who cares, you lied. They did not use colds and flu for opportunistic disease. You are a liar and you are pathetick!!

And you can't find some body to film you for you tube even!! I can help if you want you are very funny I live near you to!!

120 people who had the arv's removed came down with events of which a whopping 63 events were "nonserious" and mostly cold sores

Mostly cold sores, most is like 32 from 63 right at least.

OK check supplement. 24 had candidiasis of esophagus. 2 had candidiasis of bronchi trachea or lungs 1 had CMV 1 had extrapulmonary cryptococcosis, 5 had herpes zoster, 1 had HIV encephalopathy above Stage 2, 7 had Kaposi Sarcoma, 4 had lymphoma 3 had TB, 1 had MAC, 8 had pcp 8 had recurant bacterial pnuemonia, 1 had toxoplasmosis of brain, 4 had wasting syndrome.

How many had herpes simplex what you say is cold sore just and its not?? 6. Six.

Six from 63. Not most.

Adele, honey bun, there is no earthly language so devoid of rules and logic as yours, not even Russian and Dutch.

Tell you what, why don't you agree with Michael that he proofreads you and you film him. Then you can both go on youtube with the Otis/Carla Soul classic 'Tramp'. Do you know the dance for that one? It's shuffle to the right,shuffle to the left, jump in the air and... well no, you don't have to spin around. If you can do that one, it'll only take you a slight waist release to do the real Harlem Shuffle.

All the world loves a dancer, Adele. Don't you?

That's the best you can do Claus? Your nauseating attempts at meanness are like a barometer of your inability to respond to anything substantive. Like the questions about the SMART trial you've left unaddressed. Maybe you should stick with "AIDS Myth Exposed."

Well, here you go FC, here is all that need be addressed.

Thank you Adele for digging up the data on 70 of the events. We can now look upon this with both eyes open, and with both a pro hiv as well as anti hiv viewpoint:

24 had candidiasis of esophagus. 2 had candidiasis of bronchi trachea or lungs

Adele, can you tell me how many of these 26 had been treated with antibiotics for std's or for other illnesses, as such yeast infections are very often follow the use of potency antibiotics.

If your study cannot substantiate that this was not the case, then we must invalidate these 26 as most likely nothing to do with HIV or AIDS.

70 minus 26 ? This would leave us with 44 that may very well be due to HIV.

Now look at the 7 had Kaposi Sarcoma, and 8 had pcp

Adele can you tell me if any of these people had been inhaling poppers, or other inhaled drugs or not, as such is commonly found in the majority of KS and PCP sufferers.

Unless your study can substantiate that these 15 were free of inhaled drug abuse, then I must consider these 15 as likely being nothing due to HIV AIDS.

44 minus 15 leaves us 29 possible HIV influenced cases.

4 had wasting syndrome

Highly questionable as to how "wasting syndrome" was diagnosed. Does this mean they lost a couple of pounds or 5, 10, 15, 20 lbs? Were they dieting? Was the wasting due to protease inhibitors or having priorly taken combivir or trizivir which have AZT in them? Had any of these 4 been active drug abusers, or not eating normal diets, or did not have money to eat? or highly stressed.

These four obviously must be discounted as due to HIV as the loss of weight is not definitely attributed to HIV and could easily have been due to many other factors, leaving us with but 25.

8 had recurant bacterial pnuemonia,

Because alcohol can exert potent suppressive effects on the immune system, the susceptibility of alcohol users to a variety of infections is significant. Among these infections, bacterial pneumonia has the strongest and best documented association with alcohol abuse.

25 minus 8 leaves us 17 possible HIV influenced cases, unless you have documentation verifying these 8 were not alcoholics.

3 had TB

HIV is NOT the cause of TB, leaving us 14 possibly HIV influenced cases.

1 had CMV
1 had extrapulmonary cryptococcosis,
5 had herpes zoster,
1 had HIV encephalopathy above Stage 2,
4 had lymphoma
1 had MAC,
1 had toxoplasmosis of brain,

Were any of these 14 drug addicts? Most likely. Were any of these 14 highly stressed? Most likely.

And more importantly, with a number this low, who really cares. The low number of likely HIV influenced cases has now dwindled to the range of a meaningless difference.

And add to this the fact that the placebo effect including the highly stressful no-cebo effect can easily influence 30 percent of illnesses, leaves you with a massive deficit of negative 24 percent of illness or disease to substantiate that this study had any value whatsoever.

It obviously did not.

Furthermore, it would seem Peter Duesberg and other rethinker scientists need not bother using Michael's equipment or supplies for HIV experiments, as there is no data in any study you have yet exhibited supporting that such experimentation would be anything but a complete waste of time.

And it is obviously so easy to disembowel current studies, that even a high schooler could do it.

By the way, I quite oversimplified the teardown. Candida infections are quite common and have a variety of associated causations. To be quite honest, unless the study shows us that such as antibiotics, corticosteroids, malnutrition and alcohol/drug abuse were absent, the 26 cases are meaningless. Yeast infections are verry common, and it is quite meaningless to casually relate such to hiv without addressing underlying factors.

All the following is From: http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ija/vol2n3/ca…

Candida albicans has become a major nosocomial pathogen in the hospitals. It is the fourth leading cause for isolated positive blood cultures in U.S. hospitals.

A. Immune suppression
Corticosteroid drugs,b/>
C. Absence of normal flora
Broad spectrum antibiotics
Gastric acid-reducing treatment
D. Nutritional
Chronic malnutrition
Alcohol and IV drug abuse

Respiratory System

Candida is often a contaminant of respiratory tract and definite diagnosis can only be made by culturing the bronchial lavage fluid and/or bronchoscopic biopsy. Pulmonary involvement is usually blood borne.

1. Jarvis WR, Epidemiology of nosocomial fungal infections, with emphasis on Candida species, Clin Infect Dis., 1995;20:1526-30

2. Beck-Saque CM, Jarvis WR, National nosocomial infections surveillance system, Secular Trends in the Epidemiology of Nosocomial Fungal Infections in the United States, 1980-1990, J Infect. Dis., 1993;167:1247-51

3. Benerjee SN, Emori TG, Culver DH, et al., Secular Trends in Nosocomial Primary Blood Stream in the United States, 1980-1990, Am J Med. 1991;3B(Suppl):86S-89S

Adele, seeing your own reactions to the rethinkers obviously well considered presentations and obviously correct way of thinking, reminds me of the old Russian saying, "Until lightning strikes, a peasant won't cross himself".

But the fact is that now lightning has finally struck, and just like the massive corruptions and lies of communism in the motherland that finally fell at the feet of those men of courage who stood up to the lies and corruption with calls for truth and freedom, the old inefficiencies, lies, and corruptions have to be wrung out of HIV AIDS and out of the entire science system.

And if need be, it will be electrocution to those who stand in the way of lightning, and off to a future toilet cleaning job for the likes of you, and the gulag for the top dogs who profited from the lies and stand in the way of truth and freedom.

So you might just consider putting down the vodka and turning off the P.Diddy and using your brain for the first time and get out of the way, before you get yourself electrocuted and land in a toilet.

But the fact is that now lightning has finally struck, and just like the massive corruptions and lies of communism in the motherland that finally fell at the feet of those men of courage who stood up to the lies and corruption with calls for truth and freedom

What LS?! Are you suggesting St. Reagan didn't bring down the Sovjetunion single-handedly? Shocking! Next, I imagine, you'll be preaching the Marxist-structuralist approach to certain theological categories as they are presented in the apocryphal interpretations of the Gospels, or Black liberation Theology as it is also known.

FC,

You must have a dark view of the world if you can take a reference to a satirical song where a woman exposes an empty braggart of a man, with hints of consequent quality make-up time as meanness towards Adele.

There's another old Russian saying...

"You can never really finish remodeling. You can only make it stop."

After 25 years of remodeling the "scientific research" that has all been done in the name of believing HIV is the cause of AIDS, the present "Mountain of Evidence" is nothing more then an everexpanding maze of dead end twists and turns, with none of them conclusively leading anywhere.

The relentless re-remodeling of this maze of dark tunnels has only created deeper and darker tunnels that have also led to nowhere and nothing but more dead ends.

No vaccine, no cure, no lives saved, no causation, no answers, and nothing but more and more and ever more irrelevant correlations and deeper/darker tunnels are proposed.

After 25 unproductive years of research that has cost many times what has been spent on diseases that claim many times the lives lost to what is misnamed as HIV/AIDS, such as heart disease or cancer, this research has concluded nothing except 10,000 more "maybe this's and maybe thats".

It is now far past time to admit that it is nothing more then an ugly creation, and scrap this ugly montrosity that we may begin anew with a new foundation for the entire structure based in greater truth and firmer reality, instead of the simpleminded belief that HIV is at the core of the issue.

Out with the old, and in with the new.

To those attempting to use a NEJM study of 5472 participants in which half were on arv's and half had them taken away in an attempt to show how wonderful arv's are and how hiv was the cause of all adverse events:

I read the paper.

What I found most revealing about this study was:

"Only 8% of deaths were due to opportunistic disease."

The cognitive dissonance here is astounding.

Opportunistic diseases have that name because their opportunity comes from failing immunity (the term is used whatever the cause of the immune deficiency). DIseases caused by inflammation are not called opportunistic.

FCF, Thanks for your brilliant oratory.

We fully realize that even if the deaths due to OD's in this study were 1/8th of 1 percent, you would still claim that this proved HIV was the cause, and you would still claim this 1/8th of 1 percent was sufficient to keep all on arv's.

Whose "we"? Are the greatest minds of AIDS denial now poring over the paper? The study was done because ARVs are far from perfect and anecdotal evidence and several smaller studies indicated intermittent therapy was safe. But viral activity provokes inflammation and it turns out that - much to the great disappointment of the people who advocated for, supported, and participated in the trial - the inflammation is severe enough to have clinical consequences for a small proportion of people who used the interruption strategy, approximately doubling their risk of serious illness and death compared to those that used continuous ARVs (the vast majority of people in both arms did fine). Inflammatory cytokines and D-Dimer rose significantly in the interruption group, in parallel with viral load, and were associated with a massively and significantly increased risk of death. This did not happen in the continuous group. Analyses of adjusted for CD4 and viral load showed that the frequency of all events (not just opportunistic diseases) increased at higher viral loads and lower CD4s (these analyses are in the paper).

Is it somehow news to you that HIV infection can cause persistent inflammation and non-opportunistic disease? The very first case reports published in the NEJM in 1981 cited persistent fevers and elevated levels of T10 (now known as CD38).

"We fully realize that even if the deaths due to OD's in this study were 1/8th of 1 percent, you would still claim that this proved HIV was the cause, and you would still claim this 1/8th of 1 percent was sufficient to keep all on arv's."

Well, they weren't, and you "fully realize" wrong. The best outcome, for many reasons, would have been that intermittent use of ARVs was superior to continuous.

FU,

you're not only a funny guy, citing classics like that NEJM study which begins "four previously healthy homosexuals. . . " lOL!, you're a closet denialist to boot.
On or off ARVS, HIV'AIDS is not a disease of cell-killing and OIs. It's an inflammatory disease. Well haven't you just solved the biggest conundrum of them all? Should we make bold right away and rename the little changeling right away as Human Auto-Immune Virus (HAIV)?

HaHa MEC.

Fact must be FU can not help his self.

Old Russian saying, "If you live with the wolves, you howl like a wolf, but when you live with chickens, you just squawk".

If HIV "causes persistent inflammation", increased D-dimer and inflammatory cytokines, and ARVs appear to attenuate this via some mysterious mechanism, why not give them plain old aspirin?

And MEC, always remember the most important old Russian saying:

Pervyni blin komom:

"The first blini's a lump!"

If we are waiting on wise words of wisdom, Adele will likely be here early in the morning with words of P.Diddy.

And Adele, you know the old Russian saying "Two Russians-- three points of view", so I can not wait to hear you squawk when the sun is up. But remember when you do, I know well the Russian proverb points out, "The bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe", but only easy for other chickens say I.

So when Adele is squawking, nothing she say would I believe unless P diddy tells me direct.

Before Adele seeks the great wisdom of P.diddy for to lash us and strip our dignity with, I should probably warn Mister diddy of Adele. She is probably be enough to turn him to head bang music.

After all, "Vodka has an effect on everything but the glass." - Old Russian saying.

Adele.

Will you please leave your diddy and your monkeys alone for long enough to attend to your husband? You seem to have upset him again.

Husband? You think I am husband of Russian diddy hiv monkey girl?

You need me tell you old Russian saying about Russian girls?

You do not want this information, I promise. You do not want.

Actually, Lightning, we really DO want this information. It may perhaps help us to better understand and communicate with the lovely, and well worded, Adele.

And just may also benefit us in understanding the lovely but frustrated blog host.

Is enough to say Russian women the reason we choose communism for so long. We need something severe enough to shake us Russian men, but mostly to shake the Russian woman, back to our senses.

Understand?

Of course you do, and I knew you would.

I just remember Ahemmmm. You are gay man, so maybe you don't understand so well.

But I tell you this much. You are the lucky one. The reason for worldwide homophobia, is that women are angry you do not want them, and men are angry they are unable to join you.

May your life be good. HIV AIDS is nonsense that comes from feelings of womans anger and mans envy and mothers desire for grandchildren, and religious nonsense.

Tara, Im agree with you so you beat trolls out, OK? And why pepel so much argyu HIV not caus AIDS? I can proof much easy HIV cause AIDS.

1) Each inteligent pepel knows HIV cause AIDS
2) Pepel say this not so all stupid
3) So proof HIV caus AIDS because iteligent pepel know and stupid pepel they count not.

PS
If you wish, you may yuse my proof for AIDSTRUTH of prof. Moore)

PS 2
Sorry my english not good

FFS Tara, clean this muck out sometimes will ya? Look at this comment thread. The denialists here cannot be taught, there is nothing to achieve. If you like to mutely point at the sheer deluded idiocy of the denialist movement as a way of underlining the paucity of their arguments, that's great, but you're preaching to either the converted or the deaf.

Sometimes I'd like to see what people think about the actual topic, and not the same delusions lovingly stroked over and over again. I think the nuts flock here purely becuase you're one of the few that let them post, let them think they're making a difference.

What do you guys expect to achieve? Do you just like teasing the retarded kids?

Wow is all I can say. Making fun of people bc of language and sex. I am glad your laughing Cathy and Michael for me it is sad.

I agree with you Adele and I feel your sadness. These people need to learn some self restraint, and compassion and forgiveness and a bit of tolerance.

And speaking of such, thank you FCF for bringing up the origination of the viral origin beliefs of HIV and AIDS in your pointing out the very first study of four ill gay men in LA:

Is it somehow news to you that HIV infection can cause persistent inflammation and non-opportunistic disease? The very first case reports published in the NEJM in 1981

Why, FCF, did Dr. Gottleib fail in his study to recognize that these four men shared in common several highly important factors:

1) Excessive use of poppers nitrate sniffing.

2) Excessive use of crystal meth that was manufactured from some of the worlds most toxic chemicals in the garages of the southern california biker gangs. Including the fact that crystal meth use kept these men high and flying on speed for days on end without sleep or proper nutrition.

3) Excessive use of antibiotics to treat the bath house lifestyle of excessive std re-infections that all four of these men had shared in at the time.

4) That none of these men had sex with each other, nor did they have sexual partners in common.

Can you please explain to us, FCF, why these factors were not even considered as to the reason for inflamation and a weakened immune system?

Was it perhaps because these embarrased and ashamed gay men did not care to share with the doctor the sordid details that they had become self loathing drug addled sex addicts who were stressed to breaking by out of control addictions that were enhanced by their families having disowned them for being gay?

If so, we must forgive Dr. Gottliebs ignorance of these facts.

But we are no longer ignorant of these facts today, so why would we want to continue Gottliebs ignorance or ignoring of the facts?

Plenty of other things were considered at the time. What has happened is that 27 years of research has consistently confirmed that HIV causes inflammation and elevates T10(CD38) levels in every infected person. Look in PubMed. Even people suppressing the virus immunologically still have significantly higher levels vs. uninfected controls. Aspirin has been discussed and studied as a therapy going back to the late 80s/early 90s; wasn't effective because it was unable to treat the cause of the inflammation. There's nothing mysterious about how ARVs have succeeded where other anti-inflammatories failed: they go right to the cause and by suppressing HIV replication they shut down inflammation. It's odd how you know so little about a subject when you claim your insights are so important that they should be shoveled into every thread on this blog, whatever the topic.

Yeah allright, Ahemmm, very clever. But I swear, previous to and apart from all that, they were four really healthy homosexuals.

"Look in PubMed" - oh thank you so much FU - I never would have considered that! Dumb bunny that I am.
"Plenty of other things were considered at the time" - since Gallo announced the "cause of AIDS", just how much money has been devoted to "other things"? Less than has been devoted to the study of the mating habits of the lesser-spotted titmouse I'll wager. Can you prove CD38 increases are not the CAUSE of "positive" HIV tests? What weight in kDa proteins make up a CD38 cell anyway?
What you fail to realise FU is that repeating a mantra over and over again does not a theory make.

Here, RT, let's see if we can answer your questions accurately, and a little more briefly:
Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Nothing. What about them? No. Disease. AIDS.
and, for the bonus question,
A lot -- that's what the placebo effect is all about.
Hope this helps!

Jim, you're so good with your stiletto, he won't even mind the pain!

Great response.