Posted on 05/02/2005 4:59:11 PM PDT by TapTheSource
The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis came into existence as a group of signatories of an open letter to the scientific community. The letter (dated June 6, 1991) has been submitted to the editors of Nature, Science, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine. All have refused to publish it. In 1995 The Group was able to get a letter published in Science.
You can also sign the statement below online.
To the editor:
It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.
(Feel free to click the link and sign the petition!)
(Excerpt) Read more at virusmyth.net ...
Table 4. The HIV-AIDS hypothesis*: 17 predictions versus the facts.
Link:
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
1. Since HIV is “the sole cause of AIDS”, it must be abundant
in AIDS patients based on “exactly the same criteria as for
other viral diseases.”
But, only antibodies against HIV are found in most
patients (1–7)**. Therefore, “HIV infection is identified in
blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences, or viral
isolation.” But, HIV can only be “isolated” from rare, latently
infected lymphocytes that have been cultured for
weeks in vitro – away from the antibodies of the human
host (8). Thus HIV behaves like a latent passenger virus.
2. Since HIV is “the sole cause of AIDS”, there is no AIDS in
HIV-free people.
But, the AIDS literature has described at least 4621 HIVfree
AIDS cases according to one survey – irrespective of,
or in agreement with allowances made by the CDC for
HIV-free AIDS cases (55).
3. The retrovirus HIV causes immunodeficiency by killing
T-cells (1–3).
But, retroviruses do not kill cells because they depend on
viable cells for the replication of their RNA from viral
DNA integrated into cellular DNA (4, 25). Thus, T-cells
infected in vitro thrive, and those patented to mass-produce
HIV for the detection of HIV antibodies and diagnosis
of AIDS are immortal (9–15)!
4. Following “exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases”,
HIV causes AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body
can replace. Thus T-cells or “CD4 lymphocytes . . . become
depleted in people with AIDS”.
But, even in patients dying from AIDS less than 1 in 500
of the T-cells “that become depleted” are ever infected by
HIV (16–20, 54). This rate of infection is the hallmark of
a latent passenger virus (21).
5. With an RNA of 9 kilobases, just like polio virus, HIV
should be able to cause one specific disease, or no disease if
it is a passenger (22).
But, HIV is said to be “the sole cause of AIDS”, or of 26
different immunodeficiency and non-immunodeficiency
diseases, all of which also occur without HIV (table 2).
Thus there is not one HIV-specific disease, which is the
definition of a passenger virus!
6. All viruses are most pathogenic prior to anti-viral immunity.
Therefore, preemptive immunization with Jennerian vaccines is
used to protect against all viral diseases since 1798.
But, AIDS is observed – by definition – only after anti-
HIV immunity is established, a positive HIV/AIDS test
(23). Thus HIV cannot cause AIDS by “the same criteria”
as conventional viruses.
7. HIV needs “5–10 years” from establishing antiviral immunity
to cause AIDS.
But, HIV replicates in 1 day, generating over 100 new HIVs
per cell (24, 25). Accordingly, HIV is immunogenic, i.e. biochemically
most active, within weeks after infection (26, 27).
Thus, based on conventional criteria “for other viral diseases”,
HIV should also cause AIDS within weeks – if it could.
8. “Most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within
5–10 years” – the justification for prophylaxis of AIDS with
the DNA chain terminator AZT (§ 4).
But, of “34×3 million . . . with HIV worldwide” only 1×4%
[= 471,457 (obtained by substracting the WHO’s cumulative
total of 1999 from that of 2000)] developed AIDS in 2000,
and similarly low percentages prevailed in all previous years
(28). Likewise, in 1985, only 1×2% of the 1 million US citizens
with HIV developed AIDS (29, 30). Since an annual incidence
of 1×2–1×4% of all 26 AIDS defining diseases combined is no
more than the normal mortality in the US and Europe (life expectancy
of 75 years), HIV must be a passenger virus.
9. A vaccine against HIV should (“is hoped” to) prevent
AIDS – the reason why AIDS researchers try to develop an
AIDS vaccine since 1984 (31).
But, despite enormous efforts there is no such vaccine to
this day (31). Moreover, since AIDS occurs by definition
only in the presence of natural antibodies against HIV
(§ 3), and since natural antibodies are so effective that no
HIV is detectable in AIDS patients (see No. 1), even the
hopes for a vaccine are irrational.
10. HIV, like other viruses, survives by transmission from host
to host, which is said to be mediated “through sexual contact”.
But, only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits
HIV (32–34), and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infected
(29, 30), (figure 1b). Therefore, an average un-infected
US citizen needs 275,000 random “sexual contacts” to get
infected and spread HIV – an unlikely basis for an epidemic!
11. “AIDS spreads by infection” of HIV.
But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no “spread”
of HIV in the US. In the US HIV infections have remained
constant at 1 million from 1985 (29) until now (30), (see
also The Durban Declaration and figure 1b). By contrast,
AIDS has increased from 1981 until 1992 and has declined
ever since (figure 1a).
12. Many of the 3 million people who annually receive blood transfusions
in the US for life-threatening diseases (51), should have
developed AIDS from HIV-infected blood donors prior to the
elimination of HIV from the blood supply in 1985.
But there was no increase in AIDS-defining diseases in
HIV-positive transfusion recipients in the AIDS era (52),
and no AIDS-defining Kaposi’s sarcoma has ever been
observed in millions of transfusion recipients (53).
13. Doctors are at high risk to contract AIDS from patients, HIV
researchers from virus preparations, wives of HIV-positive
hemophiliacs from husbands, and prostitutes from clients –
particularly since there is no HIV vaccine.
But, in the peer-reviewed literature there is not one doctor or
nurse who has ever contracted AIDS (not just HIV) from the
over 816,000 AIDS patients recorded in the US in 22 years
(30). Not one of over ten thousand HIV researchers has contracted
AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS (35).
And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes (36–38). Thus
AIDS is not contagious (39, 40).
14. Viral AIDS – like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past
(41–43) – should spread randomly in a population.
But, in the US and Europe AIDS is restricted since 1981
to two main risk groups, intravenous drug users and male
homosexual drug users (§ 1 and 4).
15. A viral AIDS epidemic should form a classical, bell-shaped
chronological curve (41–43), rising exponentially via virus
spread and declining exponentially via natural immunity,
within months (see figure 3a).
But, AIDS has been increasing slowly since 1981 for 12
years and is now declining since 1993 (figure 1a), just like
a lifestyle epidemic, as for example lung cancer from
smoking (figure 3b).
16. AIDS should be a pediatric epidemic now, because HIV is
transmitted “from mother to infant” at rates of 25–50% (44–
49), and because “34×3 million people worldwide” were already
infected in 2000. To reduce the high maternal transmission
rate HIV-antibody-positive pregnant mothers are
treated with AZT for up to 6 months prior to birth (§ 4).
But, less than 1% of AIDS in the US and Europe is pediatric
(30, 50). Thus HIV must be a passenger virus in newborns.
17. “HIV recognizes no social, political or geographic borders”
– just like all other viruses.
But, the presumably HIV-caused AIDS epidemics of
Africa and of the US and Europe differ both clinically and
epidemiologically (§ 1, table 2). The US/European epidemic
is highly nonrandom, 80% male and restricted to
abnormal risk groups, whereas the African epidemic is
random.
Also see post #61
Sorry, I dispute some of the figures in your post above, but I am not going to get into an argument with a freaking website, from which you seem to cut and paste all your posts. Nor am I going to respond to a cut and pasted reply.
I have seen AIDS. I have seen the labs from the patients. They are clearly abnormal.
I have no idea why you think political conservatives are a fertile field for this fringe lunacy, but I suggest that it belongs more on Rense.com, or have you tried Art Bell?
The current crop of antiretrovirals are eliminating all but the most physiologically buried of the retrovirus, allowing most infected with the garden variety HIV to live extended healthy lives AS LONG AS THEY CONTINUE THE ANTIRETROVIRALS. Some will even have such a low viral count that they test negative for HIV. But if and when they discontinue the antiretroviral therapy, the bug returns and again does its work of destroying the immune system.
There are a couple of new strains of HIV that are resistent to the antiretrovirals and which are much more aggressive in destroying the immune system of those infected. They die a LOT sooner.
I don't doubt that your AIDS patients are "abnormal." Both sides of the debate agree with your observation. The question is what is causing their disease. I challenge you to read the scientific paper linked to my last post in order to at least understand what you are arguing against. As for cutting and pasting, why should I rewrite that the experts on my side have already said, and better than me? Wouldn't it be a shame if your AIDS patients are really dying of something else besides complications/diseases brought on by HIV infection???
==Who gains from such a conspiracy??
Did you read the second link in post #2? Did you listen to the audio file link I sent you? If so, please state specific facts/points you have questions about. I do not respond to overly generalized questions. If you want me to work with you, you're gonna have to work with me--TTS
Like what?
Occam's Razor obtains here. HIV infection actually explains Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. And explains its transmission.
You're dealing with a flunky here, who can't answer anything. My guess is he/she hopes to find some sort of constituency here at FR for Duesen. Thus, your question was "overly general," and couldn't be answered.
Complete BS, imho.
==HIV infection actually explains Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. And explains its transmission.
Actually, no it doesn't...that's why I sent you the link. If you are a concerned health care professional, then I suggest you read the paper I linked for you, and I'd spend some time seriously perusing Duesberg's website before brushing aside the issue as so much junk science.
Here's something to chew on in the meantime...
Top 100 AIDS Science Inconsistencies
Link:
http://www.geocities.com/pharmharm/Top100.html
All of the observations below can be substantiated by independent research. How long can the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma be maintained in the face of so many scientific cracks?
1. AIDS occurs in the absense of HIV (65, 87), a new medical definition (Idiopathic CD4+ T-cell lymphocytopenia) was therefore created.
2. HIV does not satisfy Koch's postulates, the criteria that must be met in order to prove that a microbe causes a disease (90)
3. Anti-HIV drugs, including protease inhibitors, destroy T-cells (4-10)
4. Septrin (also called Septra, Bactrim, Co-trimoxazole) and anti-HIV drugs destroy mitochondria (11,12)
5. The PCP (Pneumocystis Carinii pneumonia) fungus becomes resistant to Septrin (12)
6. Recreational drugs (heroin, poppers, crystal met, ecstasy, cocaine) reduce CD4 cell numbers (13-18, 58, 66-68)
7. HIV positive patients recover after they stop taking drugs (58)
8. Recreational drugs cause AIDS-defining diseases (see table 7 of 58)
9. Anti-HIV drugs cause AIDS-defining diseases (58)
10. Anti-HIV drugs inhibit human enzymes (11)
11. HIV positive Africans in dire poverty in Uganda and no access to anti-HIV drugs lived as long as HIV positives in the West who took anti-HIV drugs (33)
12. There are no comparative studies of survival in HIV negatives and combo-free HIV positive heterosexuals with no other risk factors.
13. Only 38% of healthy long-term positives had ever used AZT or other nuleoside analogs compared with 94% of progressors (80)
14. Decreases in AIDS cases preceded the introduction of new drug treatments (Dec 1995) by three full years (see fig. 6 of 106)
15. Anti-HIV drugs have anti-microbial effects (49, 50, 10)
16. The introduction of AZT did not cause a decline in the AIDS death rate (105)
17. In the only long term trial of AZT (The Concorde study) 172 participants died, 169 while taking AZT, 3 while on placebo (51)
18. Nucleoside analog drugs suppress/destroy the bone marrow where all immune system cells are born (26, 32, 111)
19. HIV+ children born to AZT treated mothers had a higher probability of developing severe disease or severe immunsuppression (53)
20. "Drug holidays" recover immune responses
21. AZT caused the same transient increase in CD4 count in HIV negatives as in HIV positives (55)
22. There are no controlled studies showing that AIDS occurs in the absense of all other possible non-HIV causal factors.
23. Long-living, healthy, drug-free HIV positives are mostly ignored by AIDS researchers
24. Apart from the early (fraudulent) AZT studies and the Concorde study no efficacy studies compare drugs with placebo
25. There are well documented, non-HIV causes for every AIDS disease
26. The incidence of AIDS-defining diseases among Western non-drug users has not been shown to exceed national backgrounds (58)
27. Early AIDS coincided with the cumulative effects of unprecedented, intense use of volatile nitrite (poppers) as a aphrodisiac marketed almost exclusively to homosexuals (102)
28. AIDS can be treated effectively without anti-HIV drugs (39-42, 112)
29. On average viral load overestimates infectious HIV by a factor of 60,000 (21)
30. Even a PCR method that can detect 1 infected cell in 100000 found very little HIV DNA in HIV positives (23)
31. HIV could not be cultured from people with a detectable viral load (19, 21)
32. HIV has never been properly isolated (20)
33. After many billions of dollars of research effort over 20 years, HIV scientists still cannot explain how HIV causes AIDS.
34. After many billions of dollars of research effort over 20 years there is no vaccine and no cure, there are only toxic drugs
35. There was no increase in HIV seroprevalence outside risk groups in the UK despite record STD rates and teenage pregnancy rates (25)
36. HIV DNA was found to be constant from the time of seroconversion but CD4 count continually went down (29)
37. CD4 count goes down and viral load goes up while on the anti-HIV drugs.
38. AZT is hardly triphosphorylated by the body so it cannot possibly have an anti-HIV effect (30)
39. AZT has no effect on HIV DNA but makes viral load (HIV RNA) go down (31)
40. Research throughout the 1970s showed that retroviruses do not kill cells.
41. The probability of heterosexual transmission of HIV was found to be very low (1 in a 1000 for male to female and 8 times less likely for female to male) (34)
42. HIV antibody tests can give repeated false positives and seroreversions can occur (95-100, 114-116)
43. HIV tests are sensitive to non-specific antibody binding
44. HIV tests involve an arbitrary dilution factor, everyone tests positive (because of non-specific antibody binding) if their serum is undiluted (104)
45. All the proteins used in the HIV test are associated with retroviral genes that are found naturally (endogenous) in all humans (72)
46. Endogenous retroviruses can generate immune responses in humans (73, 74)
47. None of the HIV proteins tested for have been proven to belong to HIV (75)
48. There are over 60 different conditions, including pregnancy, that have been known to generate false positives on the HIV test (91)
49. The Elisa, Western Blot and PCR tests for HIV all carry disclaimers nullifying their detection of HIV
50. The criteria for HIV-positivity used in the antibody tests varies between countries and between organisations within a country and can produce indeterminate (neither positive or negative) results (75, 109) The Western Blot HIV test, widely regarded as the most accurate, is not used in England and Wales because it is regarded as inaccurate.
51. The viral load PCR primers were found to be non-specific for "HIV" genetic sequences (35)
52. The viral load test gives false negatives (36)
53. The viral load test gives false positives (36, 113)
54. The viral load test has low reproducibility (36-38)
55. Direct measurements showed no correlation between viral load and CD4 count (43)
56. Many conditions cause reduced CD4 counts (86)
57. CD4 counts between 200 and 300 have been observed in healthy HIV negatives (87)
58. There are no studies comparing CD4 cell variations in combo-free HIV positives (with no risk factors) and HIV negatives.
59. According to the AIDS establishment, a heterosexual AIDS "epidemic" of African origin started off in the West as a homosexual "epidemic"
60. In 1985 HIV incidence in Southern Africa was confined to homosexuals who had been to the US and those who had had sex with them (88, 89).
61. The USA was found to be the world's most sexually promiscuous nation (27)
62. Condoms (made from polyisoprene) have holes in much larger than HIV (28, 110)
63. Reducing STD incidence in Africa did not reduce the rate of HIV seroconversion* (101)
64. Only a minute proportion of Africans have actually been tested for HIV, seroprevalence estimates are derived from extrapolations based on unrepresentative samples from maternity clinics.
65. In Africa a single positive ELISA test or even a single "rapid" (saliva/urine) test is considered proof of HIV infection, "proof" in the developed world requires a series of tests
66. HIV seroprevalence was found to be much lower in South African prisons than in the general population (1)
67. The vast majority of African "AIDS patients" tested HIV negative (44, 45)
68. In "AIDS ravaged" Zambia since 1980 the population has increased and even the rate of increase in population has increased! (46)
69. In "AIDS ravaged" South Africa many coffin makers are either doing a slack trade or have gone out of business (47)
70. The total number of AIDS cases in Africa consists almost entirely of estimated cases rather than known, registered cases (54)
71. PCP is the typical AIDS defining disease in Western adults but it is almost entirely confined to young children in Africa (2,3)
72. There is no Western heterosexual AIDS epidemic
73. IVDUs who consistently used a clean needle exchange program were 10.2 to 22.9 times MORE likely to test HIV positive than non-users (48)
74. Non-human primates "progress" to AIDS (SAIDS) much quicker than humans do (107)
75. SIV does not cause SAIDS in wild primate populations (108)
76. SIV seroprevalence is too low in wild primate populations to account for SIV resistance in these populations (22)
77. SIV seroprevalence in captive SIV naïve primate populations was found to be very low (22)
78. Until the early 1930s many thousands of European men received transplants from chimpanzees and did not get AIDS (62)
79. Uganda study showed HIV-positivity did not indicate a new cause of disease, only decreased mortality in HIV negatives (52)
80. One thousand medical staff a year accidentally contract hepatitis from needles yet by 1998 there were no documented cases of surgeons or emergency medical technicians/paramedics getting AIDS, or even HIV, from occupational exposure (58, Table 16 of 106)
81. All AIDS patients have lowered levels of glutathione, the major water soluble intracellular antioxidant (59, 60)
82. The antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine inhibits "HIV replication" (61)
83. Reactive oxygen species are implicated in the induction of HIV expression and cell death (40)
84. Treatment with oxidising, mitogenic*** agents is necessary for HIV "isolation" from cell culture (56, 57)
85. Significant HIV replication was found to follow rather than precede AIDS defining disease (94)
86. Low T-cell counts were shown to occur before HIV seroconversion and to predict seroconversion (92, 93)
87. HIV-like genetic sequences have been found in the HIV negative human genome (63)
88. Epitopes** of HIV regulatory proteins tat, rev and nef are expressed in normal human tissue (71, 116)
89. Toxic intracellular stresses can create novel genetic sequences (64)
90. HIV showed over 40% variation in an essential gene (protease) sequence within a single subtype (103)
91. Foreign protein transfusions were found to be immune suppressive (79, 81, 84, 85)
92. Hemophiliacs can have hypergammaglobulinaemia which can cause false HIV positive test results (69)
93. Up to 99.9% of HIV genomes in plasma may be defective (70)
94. Mortality in hemophiliacs began to increase in exactly the same year they began taking AZT (81, 82)
95. The AIDS risk of hemophiliacs on AZT was 4.5 times higher, and mortality 2.4 times higher, than untreated controls (83)
96. Infectious HIV (a delicate virus) does not survive the Factor VIII preparation process (76-78)
97. HIV theorists have made incorrect predictions throughout the HIV era.
98. Corticosteroids and endogenous cortisol suppress cellular immune responses and cortisol destroys immature T-cells (24)
99. Effective cellular immunity relies upon nitric oxide gas defence, see for example Eur. J. Immunol. 2002, 32(5):1455-63
100. AIDS spreads non-exponentially, unlike infectious disease (58)
References
(1) http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7331/237
(2) American J of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1994, 149(6):1591-1596
(3) Central African J of Medicine 1999, 45:127-8
(4) J Virol 2002, 76(12):5966-73
(5) J Biol Chem 1989, 264:6127-33
(6) Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1990, 34:637-641
(7) Antiviral Chemistry and Chemotherapy 1991, 2:125-132
(8) AIDS 1989, 3:417-422
(9) NEJM 1987, 317:192-197
(10) Physicians Desk Reference 1999
(11) Nature Medicine 1995, 1(5):417-422
(12) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/hkpneumo.htm
(13) Pharmacotherapy 1984, 4:284-291
(14) Cancer Research 1983, 43:1365-1371
(15) Lancet 1982, Feb 20, 412-416
(16) AIDS 1991, 5:35-41
(17) Annals NY Acad. Sci. 1987, 496:711-21
(18) Life Sciences 2001,69:2931-2941
(19) NEJM 1995, 332:201-208
(20) Virol. 1997, 230:125-133
(21) Science 1993, 259:1749-1754
(22) http://www.geocities.com/pharmharm/SIVisharmless.html
(23) J Virol 1990, 64: 864-872
(24) Medical Hypothesis 1996, 46:551-555
(25) The Times (UK) June 2nd 2001
(26) Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin 1996, 178:675-8.
(27) Durex Global Sex Survey 2001, see also http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/press01/sex.html
(28) Rubber Chemistry and Technology, 1989, 62(4):683-697 (see page 692)
(29) J. AIDS 1994, 7:381-388
(30) Current Medical Research and Opinion 1999, Vol. 15, supplement 1
(31) J. AIDS 1991, 4:766-9
(32) See manufacturers insert at http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdr-azt.htm look under heading Bone Marrow Suppression.
(33) http://healtoronto.com/richards.html
(34) American J. Epidemiology 1997, 146(4):350-357
(35) AIDS 1998, 12:2076-2077
(36) Annals of Internal Medicine 1996, 124:803-815
(37) J. of AIDS and Human Retrovirology 1997, 15(2):174-5
(38) J. AIDS 1992, 5(9):872-877
(39) Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94:1967-1972
(40) Medical Hypothesis 1993, 40(2):85-92
(41) Trans. Assoc. Am. Phys. 1984, 97:70-79
(42) Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 1997, 216:201-210
(43) Nature Medicine 1999, 5(1):83-89 (see fig. 4b)
(44) J. AIDS 1994, 7(8):876-877
(45) Lancet 1992, 340:971-972
(46) http://esa.un.org/unpp
(47) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rmafrica.htm
(48) American J. Epidemiology 1997, 146(12):994-1002 (see table 5)
(49) J. of Infectious Diseases 2000, 181:1629-1634
(50) J. of Infectious Diseases 1999, 180:448-453
(51) Lancet 1994, 343:871-881
(52) Lancet 1994, 343:1021-1023
(53) AIDS 1999, 13(8):927-33
(54) See tabulated data in the annex to the WHO Global Report 1998
(55) AIDS 1996, 10(12):1444-5
(56) Science 1986, 231:850-853
(57) Nature 1986, 319:10-11
(58) Genetica 1998, 104:85-132
(59) FASEB J. 1997, 11:1077-1089
(60) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94:1967-1972
(61) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1991, 88:986-990
(62) Hamilton D. The Monkey Gland Affair, Chatto and Windus Ltd., London 1986
(63) J. Virol. 1992, 66:2170-2179
(64) Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 1992, 6(3):330-335
(65) Biotechnology 1993, 11:955-956
(66) AIDS 1987, 1:105-111
(67) American J. Epidemiology 1993, 137(9):989-1000
(68) Clin. Immunol. Immunopathol. 1994, 70:245-250
(69) Isr. J. Med. Sci. 1991, 27:557-561
(70) Nature 1993, 364:291
(71) Am. J. Pathol. 1992, 141:1209-1216
(72) JAMA 1988, 260(5):674-679
(73) Immunological Reviews 1996, 152:193-236
(74) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1996, 93:5177-5184
(75) Biotechnology 1993, 11:696-707
(76) CDC Fact sheet on HIV transmission January, 1994
(77) JAMA 1989, 261:1275
(78) J. AIDS 1992, 5:822-828
(79) Ann. Int. Med. 1985, 103:723-726
(80) AIDS 1994, 8:1123
(81) Genetica 1995, 95:51-70
(82) Lancet 1995, 346:1371-1372
(83) Lancet 1994, 344:791-792, see table on page 791
(84) NEJM 1984, 322:941-949
(85) Am. J. Hematol. 1985, 20:1-6
(86) http://www.news-gap.com/mb/sda/irwinlowcd4.html
(87) J. Antimicrobial Therapy 1996, 37(Suppl. B):171-83
(88) S. Afr. Med. J. 1985, 68(8):617-8
(89) NEJM 1985 312(19):1257-8
(90) See "full text" at http://www.thedurbandeclaration.org
(91) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjtestfp.htm
(92) J. AIDS 1993, 6:820-822
(93) Epidemiology 1990, 1:453-459
(94) Journal of Infectious Diseases 1996, 174:401-3
(95) Annals of Internal Medicine 1988, 108:785-90
(96) Annals of Internal Medicine 1985, 103:545-7
(97) AIDS 1992, 6:1547-48
(98) JAMA 1992, 268(8):1015-1017
(99) Lancet 1992; 339:1548
(100) Lancet 1993, 342:1458-1459
(101) Lancet 1999, 353:525-535
(102) Kitzerow M. The AIDS Indictment, MRKCO Publishing, Chicago, 2000. See http://www.aidsindictment.com
(103) Nature Medicine 1996, 4(7):753-759
(104) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rgelisa.htm
(105) http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrsupp81/fig9.htm
(106) CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Year-end 1997 (Vol. 9 No. 2)
(107) Science 1990, 248:1109-1112
(108) J. Virol. 2001, 75:2262-2275
(109) The Perth Group, Mother to Child Transmission of HIV and its Prevention with AZT and Nevirapine, ISBN 1876763728, page 5.
(110) http://www.rubbernews.com/latex2001/2000/abstracts.html
(111) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dchaart.htm#adverse_nukes
(112) http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/TreatingAndPreventingAIDS.html
(113) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/miloads.htm
(114) Absts Ist National Conf. Human Retroviruses. Abst. 1993, #86, p. 71.
(115) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrbmyths.htm
(116) NEJM 1988, 319:961-964
Footnotes
*Conversion from HIV negative to HIV positive
**Epitopes are part of a molecule against which antibodies are made
***Stimulates cell division
You only show your own ignorance, Judith Anne. I don't waste time or energy on people who appear to be spoilers or just plain dishonest. If you have a specific question, I will be more than happy to answer it or find the answer to the same and post it. But I begin to think you don't want to get to the heart of the matter of whether HIV causes AIDS because deep down you know it could prove that all your efforts to "fight AIDS" would not only have been in vain, but downright counterproductive (and all that that implies).
Who knows, perhaps one day you will wake up and smell the coffee:
http://www.aras.ab.ca/thelist.htm
You are spamming FR with your efforts to promote the Duesen Agenda here on a CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL WEBSITE.
In my opinion, you are USING FR to get a wider constituency for discredited, unscientific and dangerous theories of an HIV nutcase.
No one reads, listens to, or has any truck with these clearly crackpot paranoid fantasies, so you came here. I consider that lower than low.
How many of these posts have you made in the last week? Why? What is your personal agenda? What are your conservative bona fides?
You have no reason to think that you will receive any kind of warm welcome from those of us who were on the front lines of HIV treatment. You are wasting the entire forum's time, and I intend to post on every single thread you start from now on with my arguments that you should be banned. You aren't dealing with any kind of interesting speculation, you are dishing out dogma--and you are as dogmatic as the scientific establishment you claim to decry.
And Duesen has done NOTHING for any sufferer of HIV. Period.
Can you name a cure? Can you name a treatment? Can you name one single person or point to any peer-reviewed literature that gives a Duesen-treated recovery case history?
No.
You have quoted gospel here, and I know that is the orthodox view.
The problem is that there are huge holes in the theory. For example, there really isn't any evidence that HIV destroys T-cells. People with these opprotunistic diseases have ravaged immune systems, but we don't know that it is HIV that did it to them or rather that the suppressed immune system has itself opened the way for the HIV infection. There are any number of other explanations that are more plausable than the HIV hypothesis.
Then there is the question of the missing virus. These folks with the suppressed immune systems don't have active HIV infections at all. What is measured is HIV antibody, which means that the HIV is gone. Even the tests for HIV antibody give false positives - sometimes in the order of over 1000 false positives for one true positive. The incidence of HIV infection is WAY overstated, perhaps by two orders of magnitude, and many of the people suffering from an AIDS marker disease don't have an HIV infection at all, but need to be classified as AIDS to qualify for federal treatment money. Thus there isn't any incentive to question bogus HIV positive tests.
The incidence of HIV in the population is and has been stable for decades. It has the epidemiological profile of a very old passenger virus. How come it all of a sudden started killing people? No explanation has been offered up by the orthodoxy.
Instread, the response of the establishment even to highly credentialed researchers has been, "How dare you question our almighty wisdom!?" "Get in line or we will cut off your grants and deny you access to our research facilities." There is a whole lot of big time arm-twisting as might be expected with billions of dollars at stake.
I'm sorry, but I have seen enough to convince me that this entire episode is the latest equivalent of the 1960's SMON epidemic in Japan wrongly attributed to a virus, and treated with a medicine that turned out to be the main cause of the epidemic. This physician caused epidemic created 11,000 victims. Even after it was conclusively shown that the treatment was causing the disease, papers were still published with the erroneous viral attribution.
AIDS is the same, writ large. Most of the damage done has been caused by the antivirals prescribed to try to cure a disease that prpbably never was virally caused in the first place.
You may not want to accept all this coming from me. You say you have a nursing background. Good. You will be able to understand Duesberg's book, "Inventing The AIDS Virus". I suggest very strongly that you read it. Duesberg speaks with an authority few can match.
Consider it a challenge from me to you: read the book and come back to me and tell me you still think about AIDS in the same way.
Just point me to an archived National Review or American Spectator article on line.
Just point me to an archived National Review or American Spectator article on line.
I just read your post 72 and I now realize that you are from the "dark side", with no intention of trying to come to grips with the facts.
I doubt very much you have ever read any honest researech from the non-orthodox researchers like Duesberg, but are simply reacting like a trained parrot. But You are NOT a parrot.
Start thinking for yourself! My challenge stands. Read Duesberg's book. If you have the guts to chance finding out how you have been participating in bad medicine.
And it just doesn't do calling Dr. Duesberg a nutcase. That has been the best the entire medical establishment ahs been able to come up with agsint his ideas in two decades. It's pitiful.
And yes, this is a conservative website. And I hope that as a Conservative you would object to pouring billions of dollars down the biggest medical rathole in history.
YEs
Read "Inventing the AIDS Virus". If you dare.
==Just point me to an archived National Review or American Spectator article on line.
And this is just for starters...
Reason
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/kmreason.html
Policy Review
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdpolicy.htm
National Review
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/tbcould.htm
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/tbcure.htm
American Spectator
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/tbafrica.htm
The New American
http://www.attacreport.com/ar_archives/art_na_aids.htm
See post #79. So much for this not being a conservative issue!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.