Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Deny the HIV to AIDS connection and you'll be attacked, crushed, and ruined
Modern Conservative ^ | July 22, 2008 | Clark Baker

Posted on 07/22/2008 9:56:23 AM PDT by thinkingIsPresuppositional

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 next last
To: neverdem

Let it kill them all, especially if it’d drug use.


51 posted on 07/23/2008 4:38:59 AM PDT by dalereed (both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
If queers are spreading it among themselves help them spread it faster!

I suggest you volunteer to help with that.

52 posted on 07/23/2008 4:54:20 AM PDT by onewhowatches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
I am sure you have a good peer reviewed study to indicate this AMAZING thing whereby HIV positive people without drug cocktails have the same chance of acquired AIDS as people with similar risk factors? Or the thousands of people with AIDS who are NOT HIV positive?

People who are HIV positive and have developed AIDS die less now on anti-retrovirals than before there was any medicine for them, so how could it be the medicine that is killing them?

Amazing claims need good evidence. You have supplied none.

53 posted on 07/23/2008 6:32:14 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

You are right, and as I explained I am thousands of mile away from my reference materials. But my assertions are true, never fear. I will post references in due course.

AIDS is the Global Warming of human illness. A complete and total fraud. An invention, a construct. A disease of definition.

I am one of those whow would have been will to be intentionally infected with HIV to prove the point, but it will never happen, for many reasons. But it still doesn’t change the fact that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and there is not a single piece of evidence to the contrary. If there is, show it to me, please.

And don’t direct me to wordy but meaningless self referential papers. Show me one that demonstrates causality.


54 posted on 07/23/2008 7:14:47 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
The papers are only meaningless if you deny their meaning.

Immune deficiency was almost unheard of in human populations until your “harmless passenger virus” made it into the human population. It bears a striking resemblance in genetics and mode of action to S.I.V. which causes AIDS in monkeys. Amazingly HIV,this “harmless passenger virus”, seems to cause AIDS in humans exactly as SIV causes it in monkeys.

Amazing too how those with no other risk factors than exposure to HIV from occupational sources or blood transfusions suddenly got AIDS after exposure to this “harmless passenger virus”. Amazing how it swept through the hemophiliac community as well. Are hemophiliacs suddenly risk prone for AIDS due to IV drug use and homosexuality? And why did hemophiliacs never seem to get AIDS before we started detecting HIV in human populations?

You have nothing but your own paranoid delusions of a conspiracy among those who are working diligently to find cures and treatments for disease.

Do you agree with Rev. Wright that AIDS was invented by the US government to kill blacks? Seems you are reading from the same “wackadoo” page.

55 posted on 07/23/2008 7:24:02 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If the CDC is such an all powerful entity, then why aren't HIV positive people who have spread it to more than one person quarantined

Now that is the best question raised so far!!!

OK, after spending many hours reading both sides of this debate I think it's safe to say that HIV plays a very major role in AIDS, although we do not full understand how it does it.

56 posted on 07/23/2008 9:43:38 AM PDT by chaos_5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

==Unwelcome guests with master keys: how HIV enters cells and how it can be stopped.

If HIV is not the cause of AIDS, then they might as well be talking about how any number of harmless retroviruses bind to their host.

==Inhibition of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Replication by a Dual CCR5/CXCR4 Antagonist

Again, if HIV is not the cause of AIDS, this information is worthless.

==Gene fights off HIV

Ditto.

==Pathologists Believe They Have Pinpointed Achilles Heel Of HIV

Ditto.

==Catalytic antibodies to HIV: Physiological role and potential clinical utility.

Ditto.

More on your remaining questions later.


57 posted on 07/23/2008 10:43:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Heterosexual sex does not spread AIDS.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html

Homosexuals don’t want this info known since it might affect their funding and sympathy.

I have an idea. All known HIV infected individuals should have to register with a national database so that people could scrutinize their sexual partners IN ADVANCE. I’m sure that will happen.


58 posted on 07/23/2008 12:55:26 PM PDT by dervish (After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dervish

Thanks for the link, but the title is misleading after reading the story.


59 posted on 07/23/2008 1:11:50 PM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This was your assertion:

“But they’re not. It’s not much, but it’s enough to sustain the prevalence outside their cohort through heterosexal contact and intravenous drug abuse.”

The article (and many others) refutes that:

From the article:

“Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.”

From your link (Comment section):

“Sex: From 2003 through 2006, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases increased approximately 5% among males and decreased 6% among females (Table 1). In 2006, males accounted for 74% of all HIV/AIDS cases among adults and adolescents. In 2006, rates were 33.8 per 100,000 among males and 11.5 per 100,000 among females (Table 5b).

Transmission category: From 2003 through 2006, the estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases increased among men who have sex with men (MSM) and remained stable among adults and adolescents with HIV infection attributed to high-risk heterosexual contact (heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection) (Table 1). The estimated number of HIV/AIDS cases decreased among injection drug users (IDUs), MSM who were also IDUs, and among children. MSM (49%) and persons exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact (33%) accounted for 82% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in
Those numbers do not support “sustaining the prevalence” ofAIDS through heterosexual transmission.

They do support making public who has the disease so heterosexuals can avoid having sex with those individuals.


60 posted on 07/23/2008 2:23:43 PM PDT by dervish (After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dervish

Nice job, Dervish. I don’t know if I have mentioned this to you in the past, but I have a small (and infrequent) Rethinking AIDS ping list I would love to add you to. If you’re interested, drop me a FReepmail. All the best—GGG


61 posted on 07/23/2008 4:34:40 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5; neverdem

==If the CDC is such an all powerful entity, then why aren’t HIV positive people who have spread it to more than one person quarantined

Could it be that the much hyped AIDS pandemic never materialized as predicted? If the predicted hundreds of millions dead by the turn of the century had materialized, you can bet they would have started quarantining. But instead, AIDS never broke out of the original risk groups, and the scare campaign had no choice but to fizzle out due to the raw numbers. Indeed, AIDS doesn’t even make the top ten list for either gender:

TOP 10 CAUSES OF DEATH IN MEN (2005)

Heart disease - 20.2%
Cerebrovascular diseases - 7.9%
Lung cancer - 6.9%
Chronic lower respiratory disease - 5.6%
Flu/pneumonia - 5%
Prostate cancer - 3.7%
Colon cancer - 3.1%
Lymph cancers - 2.3%
Alzheimer’s disease/dementia - 2.1%
Aortic aneurysm - 2%

TOP 10 CAUSES OF DEATH IN WOMEN (2005)

Heart disease - 16%
Cerebrovascular disease - 12.9%
Flu/pneumonia - 7.9%
Alzheimer’s disease/dementia - 5.2%
Chronic lower respiratory disease - 5.2%
Lung cancer - 4.9%
Breast cancer - 4.5%
Heart failure - 3%
Colon cancer - 2.7%
Urinary diseases - 2.5%


62 posted on 07/23/2008 5:07:18 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

thanks


63 posted on 07/23/2008 5:38:00 PM PDT by dervish (After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dervish; GodGunsGuts
Those numbers do not support “sustaining the prevalence” ofAIDS through heterosexual transmission.

Look at Table 3 and the trends in the age cohorts older than 50 years old. Bisexuals and covert injection drug use transmitting it sexually to the heterosexual population explains it for me. I can't imagine many people in middle age having heterosexual intercourse with known homosexuals or obvious junkies. I don't think it is that big of a problem for whites. Minorities are another story, IMHO.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table3.htm

City Is Pushing for H.I.V. Tests for All in Bronx

AIDS Among Latinos on Rise (14% of the U.S. population, they're 22% of new HIV and AIDS diagnoses)

64 posted on 07/23/2008 6:39:08 PM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Threads like this are what make FR “special.”


65 posted on 07/24/2008 1:09:16 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: js1138

So “special” they had to ride to school in a “special” bus.


66 posted on 07/24/2008 7:05:29 AM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; dervish

==I can’t imagine many people in middle age having heterosexual intercourse with known homosexuals or obvious junkies.

“Actually the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported a trend of heroin use starting much later in life. The typical story goes something like this:

An older man develops a relationship with a younger, drug addicted woman. One thing leads to another and the seductive link between sex and drug use results in men over 50 trying heroin for the first time. Once addicted, the same rules hold true as they drug with young drug addicted persons. Sharing needles and “works” results in an increased risk of HIV transmission via needle sharing in the over 50 population.”

http://aids.about.com/cs/aidsfactsheets/a/seniors.htm

==Look at Table 3 and the trends in the age cohorts older than 50 years old.

According to your CDC table, the percentage of AIDS cases for 2005-2006 in the 50-54 range has increased 4.3%.

I did some checking, during that same time period lifetime illicit drug use increased amongst that same age group by about the same amount:

Illicit drug use for ages 50-54 (numbers in thousands).

(Lifetime) 2005 = 10,961; 2006 = 11,391...(increase of 3.8%)

Needless to say, Duesberg’s Chemical-AIDS hypothesis would predict this very outcome.

Now for the really interesting statistics. Illicit drug use from year to year had a sharp increase (numbers in thousands):

(Past Year) 2005 = 1,632; 2006 = 1,901...(increase of 14.2%)

And the increase in those who reported using illicit drugs in the past month had the biggest jump of all:

(Past Month) 2005 = 1,028; 2006 = 1,252...(increase of 17.9%)

http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k6NSDUH/tabs/Sect1peTabs1to46.htm#Tab1.14A

If this trend continues, we should see a steady rise in AIDS cases amongst the 50-54 year old cohort that roughly matches the increase in long-term/lifetime illicit drug use. This situation will of course be exacerbated by unlucky HIV-positives who agree to take AIDS chemotherapy drugs.


67 posted on 07/24/2008 11:23:48 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Point of clarification:

With respect to the “sharing needles and works” quote I posted above. I don’t believe HIV causes AIDS. Thus, while sharing needles may result in a number of other serious diseases, I don’t believe HIV transmission via needle-sharing can lead to AIDS. I agree with Duesberg et al that it is rather the long-term immunosuppressive side-effects of the drugs that *come through* those needles that are in fact causing AIDS with respect to IV drug abusers.


68 posted on 07/24/2008 11:50:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; dervish; InterceptPoint; Marty; Fractal Trader; DaveLoneRanger; metmom; Alamo-Girl; ...
==(Duesberg is) fixated on homosexuals using amyl nitrate "poppers." Other than being a mind altering substance and less inhibited about being promiscuous, I don't see an explanation from Duesberg for why homosexuals get AIDS.

Perhaps this will help you understand (note the other drugs listed):

Evidence continued to mount strongly supporting a connection between nitrite use, other recreational drugs, and AIDS. This included articles by James Goedert and William Blattner from the NIH, the CDC's sister institution (Goedert et al., 1982), by Harry Haverkos with the CDC's Kaposi's Sarcoma Opportunistic Infection (KSOI) task force, and an abundance of other studies on the immunotoxic and carcinogenic effects of nitrite inhalants (Newell et al., 1984; Haverkos & Dougherty, 1988a; Haverkos & Dougherty, 1988b). An English team reported in 1984 that 86% of male homosexual AIDS patients from St Mary's Hospital in London had inhaled nitrites compared to 86.4% from clinics in New York, San Francisco, and Atlanta (McManus et al., 1982). In 1983, two dozen of America's leading AIDS investigators including Friedman-Kien, Curran, and CDC worker Harold Jaffe, later director of the CDC's HIV/AIDS Division, had conducted extensive epidemiological studies which revealed overwhelming drug use, including nitrite inhalants, cocaine, and amphetamines by all homosexual AIDS patients studied (Table 2) (Jaffe et al., 1983).

Drugs seemed to be the most plausible explanation for the restriction of AIDS to risk groups, because drug consumption was the only health risk male homosexuals and intravenous drug users had in common (Krieger & Caceres, 1985). This original drug-AIDS hypothesis was euphemistically called the 'lifestyle hypothesis' (Oppenheimer, 1992). Indeed, massive supplies of illicit recreational drugs such as nitrite (poppers) and ethylchloride inhalants, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, phenylcyclidine, and LSD had reached America and Europe since the Vietnam War and were the only statistically significant new health risks that had affected these countries since World War II (see page 103).

Suddenly, after the announcement of the discovery of the 'AIDS virus' by Gallo at the international press conference in Washington on April 23, 1984 (see above), the lifestyle hypothesis was dropped without notice - as if it never existed - in favor of the virus-AIDS hypothesis. Since then, any revisionism was immediately regarded as obsolete, or in the words of David Baltimore even as a 'pernicious and irresponsible' obstacle (Booth, 1988) in the war against the AIDS virus (Weiss & Jaffe, 1990; Cohen, 1994a; Duesberg, 1996d; O'Brien & Goedert, 1996; O'Brien, 1997). Henceforth, recreational drugs were only studied, if at all, as risk factors of HIV infection or as obstacles in anti-HIV medications.

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html

69 posted on 07/24/2008 12:34:06 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; dervish; InterceptPoint
==How do you explain the drop in new HIV/AIDS cases after blood was screened for HIV before transfusion of blood and blood products?

Actually, the number of AIDS cases continued its steep rise long after blood products began to be screened for HIV:


70 posted on 07/24/2008 12:45:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; js1138

This thread is disturbing. I’m sitting here shaking may head at the conspiracy theories and the pseudo-science.


71 posted on 07/24/2008 12:53:26 PM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
Conspiracy theory is the only way that one could discount the mountains of evidence that HIV is a virus that infects and kills CD4+ T-cells and that those with CD4+ T-cell deficiency develop Immune deficiency (AIDS).

Those who believe in massive worldwide conspiracies among many hundreds of people usually also have other delusional unsupported and ill thought out beliefs.

72 posted on 07/24/2008 12:57:19 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; dervish; InterceptPoint; All
(If anyone would like on my infrequent AIDS ping list, drop me a FReepmail. All the best--GGG)

Finally, let's take a look at which chart better explains the rise of AIDS in the United States and Europe??? Notice HIV+ cases remained flatlined while the number of AIDS cases continued to rise. At the same time, the drug epidemic almost perfectly matches the AIDS chart:


73 posted on 07/24/2008 12:59:36 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If this trend continues, we should see a steady rise in AIDS cases amongst the 50-54 year old cohort that roughly matches the increase in long-term/lifetime illicit drug use.

Of course, but you are missing the point here. Sharing a needle with an HIV-infected person, not the drugs themselves, is what leads to AIDS. If what you are saying is true, then a control group of intravenous drug users who do not share needles should have the same high HIV infection-rate. Is there any evidence of this? Would you be comfortable getting a blood transfusion from someone infected with HIV?

This situation will of course be exacerbated by unlucky HIV-positives who agree to take AIDS chemotherapy drugs.

Before the development of AIDS drugs, beig infected with HIV usually meant you would be dead within months or a few years. Today, these drugs have essentially turned AIDS into just another chronic disease.

How do you account for this?

74 posted on 07/24/2008 1:04:36 PM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

I agree, as demonstrated above, the pseudoscience emanating from the AIDS Alarmist camp is nothing short of breathtaking! First AIDS, now global warming. These guys just don’t quite.


75 posted on 07/24/2008 1:04:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Finally, let's take a look at which chart better explains the rise of AIDS in the United States and Europe??? Notice HIV+ cases remained flatlined while the number of AIDS cases continued to rise. At the same time, the drug epidemic almost perfectly matches the AIDS chart:

There is no real logical problem with this. Full-blown AIDS cases trail HIV infection cases. People are getting better at protecting themselves from infection, but people that are already infected will continue to develop AIDS. You shouldn't expect a 1:1 ration of HIV infections to AIDS cases.

76 posted on 07/24/2008 1:09:47 PM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I agree, as demonstrated above, the pseudoscience emanating from the AIDS Alarmist camp is nothing short of breathtaking! First AIDS, now global warming. These guys just don’t quite.

Trying to connect global warming, which is incredibly difficult to document scientifically, to AIDS research, which is not, is a weak move on your part. The two areas of scientific research have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact the there are people with advanced degrees involved.

Nice try, though.

77 posted on 07/24/2008 1:12:12 PM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

==Trying to connect global warming, which is incredibly difficult to document scientifically, to AIDS research, which is not, is a weak move on your part. The two areas of scientific research have nothing to do with one another, other than the fact the there are people with advanced degrees involved.

Actually, in both cases, one of the primary motivating factors is to increase social control via pseudoscience, rather than the traditional methond—the ballot box. Read the following, and (perhaps) you will be able to recognize some similarities:

The Hidden Agenda behind HIV

Rethinking AIDS, Jan./Feb. 1994

Despite all assurances to the contrary, the AIDS establishment continues to fund only research on HIV. Peter Duesberg inadvertently proved this blackout on all alternative research when he recently submitted a grant proposal to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Institute’s clinical director of AIDS research had personally invited the proposal, which outlined a plan to test the long-term effects of nitrite inhalants, or “poppers,” on the immune systems of mice. The answer came back in December: The anonymous referees had not only turned it down, but had refused even to review the proposal.

Why does such a political correctness continue to dominate the War on AIDS? After all, public health officials cannot yet demonstrate they have saved any lives from the syndrome, while its death toll rises steadily. The scientific predictions have also failed miserably. In contrast to the predicted spread of AIDS in the United States, the epidemic has remained strictly confined to risk groups; nine of every ten AIDS cases have been male, and ninety percent of all AIDS victims have been linked to heavy drug use, whether intravenously or as “fast track” homosexuals. Indeed, epidemiologists have yet to establish that any epidemic at all has struck among blood transfusion recipients. Even individual AIDS diseases prefer specific risk groups, such as Kaposi’s sarcoma among homosexuals and the near-absence of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia among Africans, whose lungs all contain the microbe. And some thirty-nine percent of AIDS diseases in America have nothing at all to do with immune deficiency — witness Kaposi’s sarcoma, various lymphomas, wasting disease, and dementia, for example. In short, AIDS is not an infectious disease.

The obsession with an “AIDS virus” has little to do with science or medicine. Writing in Nature in 1991 (June 21), British HIV researcher Robin Weiss and American CDC official Harold Jaffe hinted at the real purpose in an attack on Peter Duesberg: “But if he and his supporters belittle ‘safe sex,’ would have us abandon HIV screening of blood donations, and curtail research into anti-HIV drugs and vaccines, then their message is perilous.” To whom? If AIDS is not infectious, such recommendations would simply save the taxpayer money and anxiety.

But perhaps this is the point. A 1989 report by the National Research Council more explicitly revealed the hidden agenda. Originally sponsored by the Rockefeller and Russel Sage Foundations and then funded by the Public Health Service, AIDS: Sexual Behavior and Intravenous Drug Use laid out a plan for social engineering on a massive scale — using AIDS as the excuse. “The devastating effect of an epidemic on a community can evoke strong political and social responses,” the committee duly noted. “An epidemic necessitates the rapid mobilization of the community to counter the spread of illness and death” (p. 373). The power of such a method to force changes in cultural values is based on careful manipulation of fear. “Ideally, health promotion messages should heighten an individual’s perceptions of threat and his or her capacity to respond to that threat, thus modulating the level of fear.… What is not yet known is how to introduce fear in the right way in a particular message intended for a particular audience. Acquiring that knowledge will require planned variations of AIDS education programs that are carefully executed and then carefully evaluated,” stated the committee coolly (pp. 267-8).

The report then identified one of the major targets of change — Judaeo-Christian moral values. “Historically, there has been a strong social reluctance in the United States to speak or write about sexuality in explicit terms. Despite recent indications of greatly increased tolerance for sexual explicitness in the media and literature, that reluctance remains strong in much of the population; it is particularly strong in instances that involve the education of children and adolescents” (p. 379). The fear of a supposedly infectious AIDS epidemic, however, could be used to fix such problems. As the report declared, “The committee believes that, during an epidemic, politeness is a social virtue that must take second place to the protection of life” (p. 379).

Other public health officials have been even more forthright. As an officer of the Centers for Disease Control, Donald Francis had in 1984 drafted the CDC’s proposed AIDS strategy. In his 1992 retirement speech at the agency’s Atlanta, Georgia headquarters, Francis voiced the ambitions held by many of his fellow officers in describing “the opportunity that the HIV epidemic provides for public health” (JAMA, 9-16-92). He stated in no uncertain terms the radical nature of the plan:

The cloistered caution of the past needs to be discarded. The climate and culture must be open ones where old ideas are challenged. Those who desire the status quo should seek employment elsewhere. The American HIV prevention program should be the place where the best and the brightest come, where the action is, where history is being made. This is the epidemic of the century, and every qualified person should want to have a piece of the action. The “action” described by Francis was a set of programs that would, as he fully recognized, need strong political protection from angry taxpayers and voters. For example, he bitterly attacked public opposition to condom distribution programs, and called for powerful legal measures to bypass parental discretion. “The ongoing controversies involving abstincence and condoms typify the morass into which schools can fall,” Francis complained. “If, in the opinion of those far more expert than I, schools cannot be expected to provide such programs, then health departments should take over, using as a justification their mandate to protect the public’s health.”

Francis also included proposals for dealing with the AIDS risk of intravenous drug use — including a call for “prescription of addicting drugs” with Federal government sponsorship. Even libertarians who advocate legalizing drugs would balk at such notions, which would ultimately create a massive bureaucracy encouraging drug use. “Following a more enlightened model for drug treatment, including prescribing heroin, would have dramatic effects on HIV and could eliminate many of the dangerous illegal activites surrounding drugs,” he insisted, knowing that only fear of the AIDS epidemic might make such proposals tolerable to the public. Ignoring the toxic, and possibly AIDS-inducing, effects of drugs, Francis emphasized that “In addition to treatment, safe injection [!] must be stressed both for those in treatment programs and those out of treatment. The provision of sterile injection equipment for drug users should be the standard of public health practice in the United States.”

Most chillingly of all, Francis saw the possibilities in harnessing other epidemics to advance similar agendas. As he put it, “if we establish new mechanisms to handle the HIV epidemic, [these] can serve as models for other diseases.”

The common denominator of these and similar plans is that they originate with the Federal government’s Public Health Service, and especially from its frontline public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control. Public perceptions often paint the CDC as a minor office that gathers and publishes dull statistics on disease. The truth is shockingly different. A sophisticated $2 billion-per-year operation, the CDC employs a staff of thousands who see themselves as having an activist mandate. They view epidemics as opportunities for control and for imposing lifestyle changes on the population.

The CDC has traditionally specialized in contagious disease. Its initials, in fact, originally stood for the Communicable Disease Center, from its formation in 1946 until its name changed in 1970. And therein lies its bias, for it tends to interpret almost any epidemic as being infectious. Certainly the CDC has plenty of raw material with which to work; each year brings at least one thousand outbreaks, or “clusters,” of disease that strike in the United States — one every eight hours. These can range from flus and pneumonias to closely-occurring cancers, but most outbreaks involve no more than a handful of people each; since the polio epidemic, none have posed serious threats to the general public. However, by falsely labelling any arbitrarily chosen outbreak as infectious and blaming it on a virus or other microbe, the CDC can quickly generate public fear and political mobilization behind almost any agenda.

The CDC has actually engineered a number of false alarms or misdirected campaigns over the past four decades, neutralizing scientific dissent and calmer voices when necessary. AIDS, though not the first example, has now become the most successful epidemic by far. Two powerful weapons in the agency’s arsenal, both unknown to the public at large, have made this possible: a semi-secret wing of the CDC known as the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), and a quiet “partnership” program with private organizations.

The Epidemic Intelligence Service

Among epidemiologists, it is often half-jokingly referred to as the “medical CIA.” Founded in 1951 by public health professor Alexander Langmuir, the EIS was first designed to act as an elite biological-warfare countermeasures unit of the CDC. Langmuir was hired because he also served as one of the select advisors to the Defense Department’s chemical and biological warfare program.

The first EIS class of 21 recent medical or biological graduates underwent several weeks of intense training at the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters, before being dispatched on their two-year assignments on loan to various state or local health departments around the country. They acted as the eyes and ears of the CDC, carefully monitoring for any possible outbreak of war-induced disease. While on their tours of duty, each EIS officer could be sent elsewhere in the country on a 24 hour-a-day basis. In case of war, the EIS would operate under any emergency powers granted the CDC — potentially including quarantines, mass immunizations, or other drastic measures.

In an article written for the American Journal of Public Health (March, 1952), Langmuir made clear that membership in the EIS did not end with the two year assignment, but was permanent. He wrote that, “As a result of their experience, many of these officers may well remain in full-time epidemiology or other public health pursuits at federal, state, or local levels. Some, no doubt, will return to civilian, academic, or clinical practice, but in the event of war they could be returned to active duty with the Public Health Service and assigned to strategic areas to fulfil the functions for which they were trained.”

Every year since 1951 has seen a new crop of EIS recruits, some classes over one hundred members in size. The nearly 2,000 alumni have gone on to high positions in society, though rarely advertising their affiliation. Indeed, the CDC has now made the EIS more secretive than ever, having suppressed the public availability of the membership directory since last year. Members can be found in the Surgeon General’s office and elsewhere in the Federal government, as well as in the World Health Organization, state and local health departments, universities, pharmaceutical companies, tax-exempt foundations, hospitals, and even as staff writers, editors, or news anchormen for major newspapers, scientific journals, and television news departments. In these positions, EIS alumni act not only as the CDC’s surveillance arm and emergency reserve, but also as seemingly “independent” advocates for CDC policies.

In time, the fear of artificial disease epidemics faded. But Langmuir and other top CDC officials had always held bigger plans for the EIS. Langmuir, for example, an apostle of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, involved the EIS in the population control movement by the 1960s. The CDC has gained most, however, from EIS activities in natural disease epidemics, to which its “disease detectives” have turned their attention.

The flu, being truly an infectious disease, often proved itself most valuable to the CDC. Although the winter following the end of World War I was the last time a flu epidemic caused widespread death, the CDC has pushed annual flu vaccinations up to the present day. At times, the agency has even rung the alarm over an impending flu crisis, hoping to use memories of the 1918 epidemic to gain emergency powers and impose mass vaccinations. By using such tactics in 1957 over the Asian flu, the CDC managed to wrangle extra money out of Congress to expand the EIS and crash-produce a vaccine. But the flu season was already winding down by the time the vaccine was ready, and the flu itself turned out to have been as mild as in any other year.

By 1976, CDC director David Sencer wanted to try again, though on a grander scale. After one soldier in Pennsylvania died of a flu-related pneumonia in January, Sencer predicted that a pig-borne human virus, nicknamed the “swine flu,” would soon devastate the United States. Panicked with visions of impending doom, Congress moved to authorize the CDC’s immunization plan for every man, woman, and child in the country. Unexpectedly, the legislation suddenly stalled when the insurance companies underwriting the vaccine discovered that it had seriously toxic side effects.

Sencer had to do something fast. He immediately set up a “War Room” in Auditorium A at the CDC headquarters, and put the EIS network on full alert to search for any disease outbreak that might resemble the flu. Within weeks, the War Room received word of a pneumonia cluster among men just returning home from the Philadelphia convention of the American Legion. Several Philadelphia-based EIS officers and alumni had detected the outbreak, and acted as a fifth column that not only helped arranged an invitation for the CDC to come in, but also took their orders from the arriving team of CDC and EIS officers. Even the New York Times staff writer sent to cover the story, Lawrence Altman, was himself an EIS alumnus.

The CDC team allowed media rumors to circulate that this Legionnaires’ disease was the beginning of the swine flu. Within days, Congress decided to pass the vaccine bill. Only later did the CDC admit that the legionnaires had not been infected by the flu virus, too late to stop the immunization program. Some 50 million Americans received the vaccine, leading to more than a thousand cases of nerve damage and paralysis, dozens of deaths, and lawsuits awarding almost $100 million in damages. In the ultimate irony, no swine flu epidemic ever materialized; the only destruction left behind by the phantom swine flu resulted from the CDC’s vaccine.

The agency later blamed Legionnaires’ disease on a common soil bacterium, one that clearly fails Koch’s postulates for causing the disease and is therefore actually harmless. The legionnaires’ deaths are not so hard to understand, since the pneumonias struck elderly men, many of whom had undergone kidney transplant operations, and who had become particularly drunk during the Bicentennial celebration — the classic risks for pneumonia. Thus “Legionnaires’ disease” is not an infectious condition, but merely a new name for old pneumonias.

Using its EIS network, the CDC has applied similar tactics to other outbreaks of disease. During the 1960s, for example, the EIS helped fuel the National Institute of Health’s growing Virus-Cancer Program by tracking down every small cluster of leukemia cases, trying to create the impression that some virus was responsible for the cancer. Robert Gallo became one of many scientists so impressed with the CDC investigations that he devoted the rest of his career to finding a human leukemia virus.

More recently, the CDC managed to have a team of EIS officers invited into New Mexico to investigate a cluster of pneumonia cases among Navajo Indians. By June of 1993, the CDC began insisting that the brief and relatively small outbreak was caused by a rat fecal virus, the Hantavirus. But as a letter in the January 1 issue of the Lancet pointed out, most of the affected Navajos actually tested negative for the virus. And unlike a contagious disease, this pneumonia never spread beyond the first few dozen victims. Again, the CDC’s “disease detectives” used a high-profile investigation to create media publicity and frighten the general population, rather than troubling themselves with the scientific method and its more boring answers.

Of all the epidemics mismanaged by the CDC, AIDS proved the most spectacular in achieving political success. By 1981, the EIS had so thoroughly penetrated the medical and public health institutions in the United States that it could now detect even the smallest and most loosely-connected “clusters” of diseases, no matter how far apart the victims were in time and space. The original AIDS cases were all found in homosexual men in the “fast track” lifestyle — those having hundreds or thousands of sexual contacts and using enormous amounts of hard drugs to make such promiscuous activity possible. For the CDC, the trick was to make the illness seem contagious; a simple drug-induced epidemic among homosexuals would hardly have frightened the public, nor have allowed the CDC to accomplish its radical public health agenda.

The epidemic officially began in 1980 after Michael Gottlieb, a new immunologist at the UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, decided to test the brand new T cell-counting technology. He put out an informal request to fellow physicians to refer cases of immune deficiency to him. Over the next several months, colleagues sent him four such cases, all male homosexuals with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Sensing that the CDC might take an interest, Gottlieb called active EIS officer Wayne Shandera in the Los Angeles health department. Shandera had heard an isolated report of a fifth homosexual with the same problem, and compiled a report for the CDC.

Ordinarily, each of the five cases would have been seen by separate doctors, leaving nothing to suggest the word “epidemic” to anyone. But having a pre-positioned EIS agent like Shandera certainly helped the CDC gather such cases together as a potential cluster. Shandera’s report fell on the desk of James Curran, an official in the CDC’s venereal diseases division; the 1987 book And the Band Played On records that Curran wrote “Hot stuff. Hot stuff.” on the report (p. 67). He had the agency publish it immediately.

By the time the report appeared on June 5, 1981, Curran was already organizing a special Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections (KSOI) task force to lead an investigation of the five-victim epidemic. EIS members Harold Jaffe and Mary Guinan, also from the venereal diseases division, helped run the task force. The first order of business was to find as many similar patients as possible, thereby causing the epidemic to “grow.” Next was to explain the syndrome; to the CDC, this meant trying to find an infectious agent. This would be no simple task, since essentially all of the first fifty cases admitted to heavy use of poppers, a drug preferred by homosexuals as a means of facilitating anal intercourse. Even if this toxic drug presented itself as the obvious explanation, the CDC investigators had no intention of letting the evidence interfere. Accordinng to historian Elizabeth Etheridge, “While many of the patients were routine users of amyl nitrites or ‘poppers,’ no one in the KSOI task force believed the disease was a toxicological problem” (Sentinel for Health, 1992, p. 326).

So the EIS was activated to prove AIDS infectious. EIS officer David Auerbach and others confirmed that these extremely promiscuous homosexuals were often linked to one another through long chains of sexual encounters. To prove that AIDS was “spreading” to other people, other officers scoured hospitals to find heroin addicts with opportunistic infections, and blamed their needle-sharing rather than the heroin use, itself a classic risk factor for pneumonias and other illnesses. Bruce Evatt and Dale Lawrence, both members of the EIS, discovered one hemophiliac in Colorado with an opportunistic pneumonia as a side effect of internal bleeding, but rediagnosed the patient as an AIDS case. Even Haitians in Florida and Haiti were interviewed by EIS officer Harry Haverkos, who renamed their endemic tuberculosis as AIDS.

Not understanding the loaded nature of such investigations, the outside world completely bought the CDC line. Soon the race was on for scientific researchers to find the guilty virus. But this search, too, had been rigged. Donald Francis, an EIS member himself since 1971, decided just eleven days after the original Shandera report that the syndrome should be blamed on a retrovirus — with a latent period, no less. Using his various contacts in the retrovirus field, Francis spent the next two years pushing Robert Gallo to isolate a new retrovirus. Eventually Gallo did take an interest, and claimed credit for finding HIV.

With his April 23, 1984, press conference, Gallo completed the crusade begun by the CDC and its EIS. As the cameras rolled and the cameras flashed, Gallo and Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler launched the nation into a War on AIDS. Few people knew the true story behind that announcement, or of the political agenda that Don Francis and others were preparing to foist on the American people.

The Partnership Program

The CDC’s second major weapon for mobilizing public support lay in its assistance programs for private organizations. By funding or otherwise supporting groups not affiliated with the CDC, the agency could create apparently spontaneous mass movements. Spokesmen claiming to represent various communities could all simultaneously advocate policies identical to those of the CDC, while allowing the agency to remain quietly in the background and avoid direct criticism.

In 1984, the CDC began forming “partnerships,” based on “cooperative agreements,” with large numbers of “community-based organizations,” for the purpose of AIDS “education” [read: indoctrination]. At first the funding was channeled through the United States Conference of Mayors, which dispersed the money to a growing network of AIDS activist groups. By 1985, the CDC was giving over $1 million to state governments, influencing their response to AIDS.

After 1986, the money began flowing freely, and the CDC’s corresponding influence expanded quickly. The American Red Cross alone received over $19 million from 1988 to 1991, cementing CDC control among medical institutions. Millions more were targeted to such groups as the American Medical Association, the National Association of People with AIDS (which operates as a coordinating center for much of the AIDS activist and gay rights movements), Americans for a Sound AIDS Policy (which generates CDC-approved materials for evangelical Christians), the National Education Association (the major teachers’ union), the National PTA, the National Association of Broadcasters (which represents most television and radio stations and their networks), the National Conference of State Legislatures, and dozens of others. Even such groups as the National Urban League, the National Council of La Raza, and the Center for Population Options receive CDC grants and other technical aid. Many specifically AIDS-related groups actually depend on CDC money for their very existence.

Naturally, the CDC has established mechanisms for ensuring that its money and other aid are used for the intended purposes. Organizations wishing to receive grants must not only file applications, but are pre-screened by having to send representatives to CDC workshops on how to apply. These meetings allow the CDC to meet and judge applicants directly. Furthermore, any organization receiving aid winds up having CDC supervision of its AIDS-related “educational” activities.

It is little wonder there is so much political pressure, from all sides, to defend both the virus-AIDS hypothesis and the CDC’s public health agenda.

As with so many non-contagious diseases in the past, the CDC has persuaded the public that AIDS is infectious. Thus the taxpayer is manipulated with fear to acquiesce to the radical measures being pushed by the agency. Where “safe sex” programs, sterile needle exchanges, Federal subsidies of drug addiction, and other CDC proposals would normally be thrown out — along with the officials who proposed them — many Americans suspend judgment.

Most people do not yet realize that the entire campaign has been orchestrated mostly by a single agency of the Federal government, rather than being a spontaneous decision by independent experts and activists. As intended, the CDC has been able to mobilize the scientists, the medical institutions, political bodies, the news media, and a bewildering array of AIDS organizations behind its hidden agenda. All such groups will lose their credibility once the public discovers the real source of the campaign, and honest skepticism will spread faster than AIDS itself.

Signs of imminent change are appearing. The CDC’s public health measures — condoms, sterile needles, contact tracing, and the like — have failed to prevent the steady growth of AIDS. As this bad advice is recognized for what it is, more voices are joining the chorus of dissent against the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The CDC may soon have to hold HIV research meetings all by itself.

That is, if Congress doesn’t abolish the CDC first.


78 posted on 07/24/2008 1:22:57 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade
==Of course, but you are missing the point here. Sharing a needle with an HIV-infected person, not the drugs themselves, is what leads to AIDS. If what you are saying is true, then a control group of intravenous drug users who do not share needles should have the same high HIV infection-rate.

Actually, YOU are missing the point. If what Duesberg et al are saying is true, then a control group of long-term intravenous drug users who are HIV-negative should exhibit the same kinds AIDS defining diseases as HIV-positive intravenous drug users.

Are you sure you understand what is being discussed here?

79 posted on 07/24/2008 1:32:29 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

I have to go for now. Looking foward to your responses.


80 posted on 07/24/2008 1:33:23 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
There's no real way to respond to this data dump. But a few selected comments:

Despite all assurances to the contrary, the AIDS establishment continues to fund only research on HIV. Peter Duesberg inadvertently proved this blackout on all alternative research when he recently submitted a grant proposal to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Institute’s clinical director of AIDS research had personally invited the proposal, which outlined a plan to test the long-term effects of nitrite inhalants, or “poppers,” on the immune systems of mice. The answer came back in December: The anonymous referees had not only turned it down, but had refused even to review the proposal.

Where is the evidence that refusing his grant proposal has anything to do with some conspiracy? This is so lacking in details as to be meaningless. Grant requests are rejected for many reasons. And how does he know his request was not reviewed? Maybe it was reviewed and it just sucked?

In contrast to the predicted spread of AIDS in the United States, the epidemic has remained strictly confined to risk groups; nine of every ten AIDS cases have been male, and ninety percent of all AIDS victims have been linked to heavy drug use, whether intravenously or as “fast track” homosexuals.

Not terribly surprising. The easiest way to get infected with HIV is through anal sex between men and sharing needles. Is anyone surprised that gay needle-sharers are going to be an incredibly high-risk group?

And some thirty-nine percent of AIDS diseases in America have nothing at all to do with immune deficiency — witness Kaposi’s sarcoma, various lymphomas, wasting disease, and dementia, for example.

This is misleading. At base, virtually every disease is a result of a failure of the immune system (other than genetic disorders).

The report then identified one of the major targets of change — Judaeo-Christian moral values.

Um, what? If anything, AIDS shows why being a straight, married, monogomous non drug-user is a good idea.

Most chillingly of all, Francis saw the possibilities in harnessing other epidemics to advance similar agendas. As he put it, “if we establish new mechanisms to handle the HIV epidemic, [these] can serve as models for other diseases.”

Why is this chilling? Learning from AIDS and applying to that to future outbreaks of infectious diseases is bad why, exactly?

Signs of imminent change are appearing. The CDC’s public health measures — condoms, sterile needles, contact tracing, and the like — have failed to prevent the steady growth of AIDS. As this bad advice is recognized for what it is, more voices are joining the chorus of dissent against the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The CDC may soon have to hold HIV research meetings all by itself.

Note that this article is from 1994. Over the past 14 years, we have gotten the AIDS epidemic more or less under control in this country. This article is so outdated as to be laughable.

81 posted on 07/24/2008 1:42:14 PM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If what Duesberg et al are saying is true, then a control group of long-term intravenous drug users who are HIV-negative should exhibit the same kinds AIDS defining diseases as HIV-positive intravenous drug users.

Okay, fair enough- if that's his hypothesis, where is the proof?

82 posted on 07/24/2008 1:44:14 PM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: thinkingIsPresuppositional

The only people trying to claim HIV does not cause AIDS are homos looking to play down their disgusting sexual practices.


83 posted on 07/24/2008 1:50:21 PM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Or perhaps those who are HIV positive and don't think that their “harmless passenger virus” should be a topic of concern to any potential sexual partners they have.

Or the nutball who let her children die of AIDS because she denied that her and their HIV could ever cause any problems and thought it was all anti-retrovirals that make AIDS patients sick.

84 posted on 07/24/2008 2:13:32 PM PDT by allmendream (If "the New Yorker" makes a joke, and liberals don't get it, is it still funny?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; GodGunsGuts

“I can’t imagine many people in middle age having heterosexual intercourse with known homosexuals “

Therein lies the problem, in part. How are they “known?”

Was Mrs. McGreevey having sex with Gov. McGreevey? They have children.


85 posted on 07/24/2008 2:35:46 PM PDT by dervish (After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

==Before the development of AIDS drugs, beig infected with HIV usually meant you would be dead within months or a few years. Today, these drugs have essentially turned AIDS into just another chronic disease.

Actually, it’s just the opposite. Duesberg predicted that there would be no cure for AIDS and that the toxic side effects of antiviral chemotherapies would actually increase mortality. As it turns out, the Lancet published a study in 2006 (the largest of its kind, with hundreds of investigators listed) on the effectiveness of AIDS cocktail/HAART drugs. In the discussion section of the study the Lancet investigators admit the following with respect to AIDS cocktail/HAART drugs. Again, Duesberg’s chemical-AIDS theory predicted this outcome all along:

“However, there was no corresponding decrease in the rates of AIDS, or death, up to 1 year of follow-up. Conversely, there was some evidence for an increase in the rate of AIDS in the most recent period.”

http://www.duesberg.com/articles/2006,%20Lancet,%20HIV%20treatment%20resp..pdf


86 posted on 07/24/2008 6:55:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade; InterceptPoint; dervish

==Grant requests are rejected for many reasons. And how does he know his request was not reviewed? Maybe it was reviewed and it just sucked?

Apparently, you missed the point. The main point is that the “AIDS establishment continues to fund ONLY research on HIV.” All research grants into other potential causes of AIDS have been banned by the AIDS establishment right from the beginning. If you doubt this, I challenge you to find one research grant that was approved to challenge HIV-AIDS or otherwise investigate non-viral causes of AIDS from the time of Gallo’s 1984 science-by-press-conference until now.

For more on the political machinations behind the denial of Duesberg’s amyl nitrite/poppers grant proposal, read the following:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/slfund.htm

==Where is the evidence that refusing his grant proposal has anything to do with some conspiracy?

The AIDS establishment was intent on silencing Duesberg the moment his first paper challenging HIV “inexplicably” appeared in the journal Cancer Research. For their first official response, see the following links:

(For instance, what on earth could the Dept. of HHS mean when they say Duesberg’s paper should have been “flagged” by NIH during the prepublication process?...then look at the concluding paragraph...it’s obvious these guys were behaving like politicians with something to hide, rather than scientists interested in a dispassionate pursuit of the truth):

Link #1:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/hhsalert.htm

Link #2:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/hhsmemo.htm

More later—GGG


87 posted on 07/24/2008 7:29:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; dervish; Mia T; Mikey; Plasmaman
More on your remaining questions later.

OK, it's later. I'm still waiting for more explanations of the statements towards the end of comment# 48. I forgot another one.

What is Clinton's Arkansas blood scandal?

There were three threads posted under the keyword clintonbloodscandal.

Many people became HIV positive and then died of AIDS after it. The only reasonable explanation was HIV positive blood products.

88 posted on 07/24/2008 7:50:28 PM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I’m still waiting for your detailed responses to the questions I have already answered. Go back through the thread, you still have a lot to respond to—GGG


89 posted on 07/24/2008 7:57:10 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

==What is Clinton’s Arkansas blood scandal?...Many people became HIV positive and then died of AIDS after it. The only reasonable explanation was HIV positive blood products.

Just checked the links you provided re: the “Clinton blood scandal.”

According to the article you posted, “More than 1,000 Canadians were infected with HIV and as many as 20,000 contracted hepatitis C after receiving the blood.” And yet the very same article claims that 3,000 people died. That’s 2,000 more than were supposedly infected with HIV.

Here’s the link to the article you posted:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1573059/posts


90 posted on 07/24/2008 9:08:34 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Indeed, massive supplies of illicit recreational drugs such as nitrite (poppers) and ethylchloride inhalants, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, phenylcyclidine, and LSD had reached America and Europe since the Vietnam War and were the only statistically significant new health risks that had affected these countries since World War II (see page 103).

The only drugs positively associated with becoming HIV positive and then acquiring an AIDS defining illness are the ones used intravenously, i.e. cocaine, heroin and amphetamines. Heroin is just diacetylmorphine. Morphine, cocaine and members of the amphetamine class are all used as legitimate medicines. When abused as recreational drugs they don't have to be injected. They can be smoked, snorted or swallowed. They do nothing to the immune system regardless of the method of administration or abuse. Give me something better than Duesberg's accusations and correlations that are refuted by too many other studies.

Regarding nitrites:

Part IV - Sociology and Behavioral Effects

Guthrie in 1859 first described the flushing of the skin of the neck and face that is observed in man following inhalation of amyl nitrite. Therapeutic inhalation of amyl nitrite has been utilized in medicine for the relief of angina pectoris since 1867. Ethyl nitrite was also used in 19th century medicine in the form of "sweet spirits of nitre" (a mixture of 25J% ethyl nitrite with 75% ethanol). This mixture was taken orally in a dosage equal to 1.90 - 3.75 cc mixed with water every three hours as a diaphoretic, diuretic or antispasmodic. Its effects, when inhaled, are described as qualitatively similar to the effects of amyl nitrite, although less intense due to the lower volatility of the mixture (U.S. Dispensatory, 18th Ed., 1899). The therapeutic use of "sweet spirits of nitre" ceased early in the 20th century when it was supplanted by more effective therapeutic agents. Amyl nitrite continues to be used on a therapeutic and diagnostic basis, although it has been largely supplanted by nitroglycerin tablets.

Misuse and Abuse (of nitrites)

Amyl nitrite and other volatile nitrites (“poppers”) have been used illicitly to enhance sexual pleasure. Some initial studies suggested that use of volatile nitrites, including amyl nitrite, may be one of numerous risk factors associated with the development of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and Kaposi’s sarcoma in male homosexuals;100 101 however, more recent epidemiologic studies, while confirming the frequent use of volatile nitrites by homosexual men, have not found nitrite use to be a significant risk factor,102 103 104 and some data suggest that the initial attribution of risk may have been related to an association between nitrite use and certain behaviors and practices associated with enhanced transmission of the human innumodeficiency virus (HIV).104

Misuse and abuse of amyl nitrite and other inhaled volatile nitrites may be associated with potentially life-threatening hypotension and/or hemodynamic compromise when combined with selective phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors, which are used to increase the duration and intensity of erection. (See Drug Interactions: Selective Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors, in the Nitrates and Nitrites General Statement 24:12.08.)

The last quote and link comes from my favorite drug reference book, AHFS/DI - American Hospital Formulary Service - Drug Information. Later for the PDR.

91 posted on 07/24/2008 10:10:00 PM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

==The only drugs positively associated with becoming HIV positive and then acquiring an AIDS defining illness are the ones used intravenously, i.e. cocaine, heroin and amphetamines...They do nothing to the immune system regardless of the method of administration or abuse. Give me something better than Duesberg’s accusations and correlations that are refuted by too many other studies.

Again, nothing could be further from the truth. See next reply.

Key to chart:

N = Nitrites, C = Cocaine, H = Heroine, A = Amphetamines


92 posted on 07/24/2008 11:56:04 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Long-term drug users develop fatal diseases

The first scientific paper on diseases caused by long-term morphine addiction was published in Paris, France, in 1909 (Achard et al., 1909). The paper reported immunodeficiency and several corresponding opportunistic infections as consequences of morphine addiction. Since then at least 63 other studies, summarized in Table 7, have confirmed that recreational drugs, including heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, and nitrite inhalants, cause AIDS-defining and other diseases. As a result of these diseases, and also of overdoses, intravenous drug users typically die at an average age of only 30 years from AIDS-defining, and other diseases - regardless of the presence of HIV (see Tables 4 & 7) (Stoneburner et al., 1988; Duesberg, 1992a; Hayes et al., 1994; Lockemann et al., 1995; Wilson et al., 1996; McEvoy et al., 1998; Baldwin et al., 1997).

Details of how some AIDS era-specific drugs, such as nitrites and amphetamines, cause diseases are briefly summarized:

  1. The first five AIDS cases ever reported were male homosexuals with Pneumocystis pneumonia and cytornegalovirus infections who had all consumed nitrite inhalants (Gottlieb et al., 19 8 1 a). The report even cites nitrites as the possible cause of their diseases. HIV was not even a suspect because it was only discovered in 1983 (Baffe-Sinoussi et al., 1983).
  2. In 1985, Haverkos et al. from the CDC analyzed the AIDS risks of 87 male homosexual AIDS patients, 47 with Kaposi's sarcoma, 20 with pneumonia, and 20 with Kaposi's sarcoma plus pneumonia (Haverkos et al., 1985; Haverkos, 1988). All the men had used several sexual stimulants; 98% had used nitrites. Those with Kaposi's sarcomas reported two times more sexual partners and 4.4 times more receptive anal intercourse than those with only pneumonia. The median number of sexual partners in the year prior to the illness was 120 for those with Kaposi's and 22 for those with pneumonia only. The Kaposi's cases reported six-times more amyl nitrite and ethylchloride use, four times more barbiturate use, and two times more methaqualone, lysergic acid and cocaine use than those with pneumonia only. The authors concluded that the nitrites and other drugs had caused Kaposi's sarcoma because no statistically significant differences were found for sexually transmitted diseases among the patients.
  3. A 4.5 year tracking study of 42 homosexual men with lymphadenopathy, but not AIDS, reported that eight had developed AIDS within 2.5 years (Mathur-Wagh et al., 1984) and 12 within 4.5 years of observation (Mathur-Wagh et al., 1985). All of these men had used nitrite inhalants and other recreational drugs, including amphetamines and cocaine, but they were not tested for HIV The authors concluded that 'a history of heavy or moderate use of nitrite inhalant before study entry was predictive of ultimate progression to AIDS' (Mathur-Wagh et al., 1984).
  4. Other studies also investigated the dose-response relationships between nitrites and AIDS: (i) one compared 20 homosexual AIDS patients to 40 AIDS-free controls (Marmor et al., 1982); (ii) another compared 31 patients to 29 controls (Newell et al., 1985b). Each study reported that multiple 'street drugs' were used as sexual stimulants and concluded that drugs were 94% to 100% consistent risk factors for AIDS (Newell et al., 1985b). Newell et al. derived a direct 'dose-response gradient': the higher the nitrite usage, the greater the risk for AIDS. The Kaposi response was estimated to take a dose equivalent of 7 to 10 years of nitrite use (Newell et al., 1985a; Beral et al., 1990; Lifson et al., 1990; Duesberg, 1992a).

Animals demonstrate that cocaine and nitrites cause AIDS-defining diseases

  1. Surprisingly, in view of the official disregard of the nitrite-AIDS hypothesis, the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences reported in 1995 that nitrite inhalants cause immunodeficiency in mice. Based on exposure of the animals to isobutyl nitrites (IBN) for weeks, the Institute concluded that, 'in the absence of impaired pulmonary host defenses, IBN produces significant and partially reversible suppression of systemic humoral immunity' (Ratajczak et al., 1995). This conclusion directly contradicts that reached previously by the CDC in 1983 in exactly the same system, 'None of the animals exposed to IBN showed any evidence of immunotoxic reactions...', although 'thymic atrophy' was acknowledged (see page 101) (Centers for Disease Control, 1983).
  2. In 1998, Lee Soderberg reviewed his experiments with mice showing that nitrite inhalants are 'depleting many cells of the immune system'. Going beyond the data of his experiments, Soderberg proposed that nitrites are a 'cofactor' of HIV in causing AIDS, because they 'stimulate HIV replication and can also stimulate the growth of Kaposi's sarcoma cells'' (Soderberg, 1998).
  3. Clearly, both the popularity and fundability of investigations on the pathogenicity of nitrites are well served by involving HIV. But, considering that only one in 1000 T-cells that are lost in AIDS patients is latently infected by HIV, the cofactor hypothesis is biochemically unlikely. It may be for this reason that Soderberg did not mention a simple control of the nitrite-HIV cofactor hypothesis: Compare the immune system of a group of HIV-positive nitrite users to those of an otherwise matched HIV-free group.

  4. An article entitled 'acute and chronic effects of cocaine on the immune system and the possible link to AIDS' points out in 1998 that 'human and animal studies document that cocaine alters the function of ... T-cells, neutrophils and macrophages.' In view of this, the authors propose a 'wide-ranging capacity for cocaine to suppress the immune system.' Again, cocaine is proposed to be just a 'cofactor' of HIV in the 'pathogenesis of AIDS' without suggesting a control of the cofactor hypothesis by testing the effects of cocaine on HIV-free addicts (Baldwin et al., 1998).
  5. Yet another review describes in 1998 the 'in vivo effects of cocaine on immune cell function' (Pellegrino & Bayer, 1998). The article carefully avoids a decision whether cocaine is immunosuppressive on its own, but acknowledges that immune suppression in animals is dose-dependent. It proposes animal studies to investigate 'decreased immune responsiveness in cocaine addicts,' which is thought to be responsible for an increased risk of HIV infection. However, the risk of viral or microbial infection is independent of immune function, but the possible consequences of an infection are not. Again, the question whether the immunodeficiency diseases of cocaine addicts depend on HIV is not asked.

Despite their scientifically uncontrolled loyalty to HIV, each of the last three reviews confirm that nitrites and cocaine are at least 'cofactors' of immune deficiency in animals and man.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pddrdilemma.htm

93 posted on 07/24/2008 11:56:33 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sorry, text with chart was supposed to contain numbered points. Didn’t come through for some reason. I guess it’s back to the html drawing board for me. All the best—GGG


94 posted on 07/25/2008 12:01:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Around 20 years ago, I met a nurse who had worked with the original AIDS patients. She was an oncology nurse and had been responsible for drawing blood from these patients. She had accidentally poked herself with needles from these patients and several years later was still not testing positive for HIV.

I’ve always wondered what happened to this woman and if she ever did get sick. I don’t remember her name.

Can you add me to your ping list?


95 posted on 07/25/2008 4:36:32 AM PDT by Mrs. P (I am most seriously displeased. - Lady Catherine de Bourg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; dervish
I’m still waiting for your detailed responses to the questions I have already answered. Go back through the thread, you still have a lot to respond to—GGG

From what I have read you just regurgitated prior comments. See comments# 36 & 78. You haven't answered anything that I asked in comment#48. Your assertions of fact find give me no satisfaction. They leave me wanting much more. Answer these please.

How do you explain the drop in new HIV/AIDS cases after blood was screened for HIV before transfusion of blood and blood products?

Why does giving antiretroviral drugs to HIV positive pregnant women just before and around the birth of their children reduce the rate of HIV positive children being born?

Why do HIV negative children breastfeeding from HIV positive mothers get AIDS and die from it?

Why do the highly active antiretroviral therapy(HAART) drugs decrease mortality and increase longevity.

Don't give me accusations of a cabal. Show me some real evidence not correlations.

Global warming doesn't count. There's no evidence, just fear and lame IPCC models.

96 posted on 07/25/2008 5:33:11 AM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Surprisingly, in view of the official disregard of the nitrite-AIDS hypothesis, the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences reported in 1995 that nitrite inhalants cause immunodeficiency in mice. Based on exposure of the animals to isobutyl nitrites (IBN) for weeks, the Institute concluded that, 'in the absence of impaired pulmonary host defenses, IBN produces significant and partially reversible suppression of systemic humoral immunity' (Ratajczak et al., 1995). This conclusion directly contradicts that reached previously by the CDC in 1983 in exactly the same system, 'None of the animals exposed to IBN showed any evidence of immunotoxic reactions...', although 'thymic atrophy' was acknowledged (see page 101) (Centers for Disease Control, 1983).

Humoral immunity, i.e. the part of the immune system involved with antibody response and antibody production, is not the part involved with HIV/AIDS with the exception of the antibodies used to confirm exposure and infection by HIV/AIDS.

The HIV/AIDS virus selectively attacks and depletes CD4 positive T lymphocytes which constitute part of the cell mediated immunity system NOT humoral immunity.

97 posted on 07/25/2008 6:35:11 AM PDT by neverdem (I'm praying for a Divine Intervention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Actually, it’s just the opposite. Duesberg predicted that there would be no cure for AIDS and that the toxic side effects of antiviral chemotherapies would actually increase mortality.

You are seriously claiming that people with AIDS today are worse off than people who got AIDS 20 or so years ago? In the early years of the disease, people with AIDS rarely survived more than a few years. Now, with proper use of AIDs drugs, people with AIDS can live decades. Look at, for example, Magic Johnson versus Arthur Ashe.

In the discussion section of the study the Lancet investigators admit the following with respect to AIDS cocktail/HAART drugs. Again, Duesberg’s chemical-AIDS theory predicted this outcome all along:

“However, there was no corresponding decrease in the rates of AIDS, or death, up to 1 year of follow-up. Conversely, there was some evidence for an increase in the rate of AIDS in the most recent period.”

And in the paragraph right after this section, the Lancet article notes that the changing demographics of people using these drugs- i.e., the huge increase in people in Sub-Saharan Africa who are now getting access to these drugs- makes it impossible to compare apples to apples.

98 posted on 07/25/2008 7:25:52 AM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Apparently, you missed the point. The main point is that the “AIDS establishment continues to fund ONLY research on HIV.” All research grants into other potential causes of AIDS have been banned by the AIDS establishment right from the beginning.

The link between HIV and AIDS was dicovered fairly early in the game, and since then a mountain of evidence has piled up. True, nothing is ever proven in science- AIDS could be caused by little plague demons- but to trained scientists, after the mountain of evidence gets as high as Everest, it's pretty much pointless to keep going down the same road. The HIV-deniers are claiming that AIDS is caused by something other than HIV, but they have not shown any evidence that makes re-opening the issue worthwhile, given that we live in a world of limited research funds.

If you doubt this, I challenge you to find one research grant that was approved to challenge HIV-AIDS or otherwise investigate non-viral causes of AIDS from the time of Gallo’s 1984 science-by-press-conference until now.

If serious medical researchers have no interest in going down a certain research path, that should tell you something- that path is probably not fruitful.

The AIDS establishment was intent on silencing Duesberg the moment his first paper challenging HIV “inexplicably” appeared in the journal Cancer Research.

From what I can tell, there is no conspiracy here- Duesberg has gone far beyond the world of legitimate disagreement into quackery, pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. When every other serious, intelligent and experienced expert in a given field is telling you you're nuts, it's time to re-evaluate your position.

The fact of the matter is, we essentially have AIDS under control, especially in the US. The much-prophesised fear of a global AIDS epidemic hasn't really materialized. New drugs are allowing HIV-infected people to live longer and longer lives.

But people like Duesberg seem to think that all this progress needs to be thrown overboard and that we should focus on his obsession with party drugs and his hysterical fear of AIDS drugs.

Come on.

99 posted on 07/25/2008 7:37:03 AM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; neverdem
According to the article you posted, “More than 1,000 Canadians were infected with HIV and as many as 20,000 contracted hepatitis C after receiving the blood.” And yet the very same article claims that 3,000 people died. That’s 2,000 more than were supposedly infected with HIV.

The article doesn't say that they all died from HIV- people infected with Hep C probably make up the difference.

100 posted on 07/25/2008 7:40:28 AM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson