Skip to comments.Weed Could Block H.I.V.ís Spread. No, Seriously.
Posted on 02/16/2014 6:57:09 AM PST by SeekAndFind
But the U.S. government wont let scientists try out this promising treatment on humans. On a warm summer day in Chicago at the International Cannabinoid Research Conference, hundreds of marijuana researchers were giggling.
It wasnt the groundbreaking research theyd just heardproving the ability of THC, one of the active ingredients in marijuana, to stave off HIV (or RIV in monkeys)that did it. Nor was it the author of the study, Dr. Patricia E. Molina, who had them laughing. It was the rogue researcher daring enough to taint the victory with a harsh dose of reality: Whats next, testing this on humans?
As the laughter subsided and the gravity of Dr. Molinas results sank in, reality did too. THC is one of 500 active ingredients in marijuana. And marijuana, despite many studies proving its medical value, is sill classified by the government as a Schedule I Substance. In the face of mounting evidence that it is beneficial in treating diseases ranging from Alzheimers and Multiple Sclerosis, it remains a controlled substance. The joke wasnt funny so much as painfully true: proving that an illegal drug can stop a deadly disease in humanswithout testing it on themis impossible.
This bleak truth renders Dr. Molinas discoveryat this pointfutile. Shes found a key to a door that hasnt been built.
When the journal Aids Research and Human Retroviruses published Dr. Molinas story this weekmore than three years after the study was completedit was followed by a small amount of buzz. But it was largely overlooked by the mainstream mediaperhaps because THC is already well known for treating HIVs wasting symptoms, like nausea and loss of appetite.
For those well-versed in the medical marijuana community, however, the results are too powerful to ignore.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Yeah, get the queers so stoned they will sit on their behinds and keep their mouths closed.
I guess we’ll soon learn that ecstasy and meth stave off AIDS too.
500 active ingredients in marijuana and a stoner says yeah it’s safe.
Somehow, somewhere, this brings to mind all those past pleadings, ‘research’ and other hysterics about what REAGAN, BUSH1, BUSH2, Republicans in general WEREN’T doing for prenatal STEM cell research and its OBVIOUS (yet never proven) benefits to medical research and advancement of disease control could do.
We even had that simp, Michael (Canadian) J. Fox, running ads to unseat some Republican wherein he purposefully didn’t take his meds so he could appear diseased in the ads and in TV interviews. [I boycott this feebs new TV show religiously, as well as the rabid current-day Mork]
What do we hear in the news now about STEM cells? Especially prenatal STEM cells - NOTHING. Never worked, never did. But we have seen recent news where adult STEM cells could be reprogrammed for nearly anything.
Stoned out perverts ~ interesting society we’re building here.
Oh you bet. Since it worked so well in the 80s and90s in SF (a well known locale for pot filled men lusting after men).
IF this is test worthy then they should just go ahead and test IF the FDA let’s them (and of course it will since O says pot is good).
Changing behavior - i.e. no anal teabagging [yuck!] or IV drug use - would stop aids
Perhaps just as it appears that legalized pot causes some to stay home and get stoned instead of going out and drunk-driving, maybe it keeps them from dangerous gay hook-ups.
Or it at least warrants STUDY, in some liberal academic's mind. Oh by the way, can I have a $10 million grant for that study?
Then, you'll find out the yahoo has gotten stoned and engaged in unprotected sex for three years, made up his "research", and fabricated a paper validating that ecstasy and meth stave off HIV. See how it works?
Most won’t like to hear this, but the closer we get to elections the Dems are going to glob on to this marijuana issue and win, in case no one has noticed it has already begun.
I don’t use the stuff, but when I was working, many of my co-workers smoked pot, from what I seen it had no adverse effect on their performance, they didn’t get high at work, some went to church and from all appearances they were normal people.
Then there were those who drank alcohol, always late, unprepared, and moaning and groaning at least half the day and even the casual drinker was to hung over to go to church on Sunday, but they did send their kids, thinking they are exercising wisdom...go figure.
Now the part many will not want to hear...legalization or decriminalization is inevitable, maybe conservatives should get out in front of it, I’ve no doubt alcohol is worse than pot both physically, mentally, and most destructive to family.
So then why are conservatives not pushing again for alcohol prohibition, because it is a loser and so is marijuana prohibition.
I’m not saying any of this as an authority, it is just observation, and opinion.
Most of the queers who get AIDS smoke weed, too.
The only way weed is going to prevent HIV is if you can’t get it up after smoking it.
At that time the virus hunters had been engaged for over a decade in president NixonÂs War on Cancer with unsuccessful attempts to find a human cancer virus (Duesberg 1996b; Fujimura 1996; de Harven 1999).
Now they were looking for new diseases that could be attributed to viruses (Duesberg 1987). Perhaps AIDS could at last yield clinically relevant lymphoma-, KaposiÂs sar- coma- or immunodeficiency-viruses (Duesberg 1996b). Indeed, virus hunters from the CDC were the first to alert the public that AIDS may be ÂtransmissibleÂ (Francis et al 1983).
A similar alert came from a French virus team, which had discovered a retrovirus in a homosexual man at risk for AIDS, which a year later became the accepted cause of AIDS (Barre-Sinoussi et al 1983).
News, that the cause of AIDS may be a virus, and thus transmissible to the general population, immediately set off a national panic that opened the doors for new surveillance programs by the CDC and predictably set off a race among virus hunters for the AIDS virus (Shilts 1987).
According to an international press conference called by the US Secretary of Health and Human Services in Washington DC on 23 April 1984, that race was won by government researchers from the NIH who had found in some AIDS patients antibodies against a new retrovirus closely related to a hypothetical human leukemia virus (Altman 1984).
The virus was introduced as fortunate fallout of the failed War on Cancer. The next day the new virus was already termed, the ÂAIDS virusÂ, by the New York Times (Altman 1984). Overnight nearly all AIDS researchers dropped the lifestyle-AIDS hypothesis to work on the new ÂAIDS virusÂ, which was already endorsed by the US government.
The CDCÂs director of the Task retrovirologists officially sealed the seemingly tight package of a new ÂAIDS virusÂ and the CDCÂs assumption that immunodeficiency was the common denominator of the 26 AIDS-defining diseases (table 1) by naming it, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) (Coffin et al 1986).
Even before the AIDS virus became the officially acceptted cause of AIDS, the CDC had already made antibodies against the virus the only definitive criterion to diagnose any of the heterogeneous diseases as AIDS in 1985 (Cen- ters for Disease Control 1985, 1987, 1992).
Their unortho- dox decision to use antibodies against the virus (normally functioning as a vaccine), instead of the virus, for the diagnosis of AIDS was based on the flawed analogy with some bacterial pathogens. For example, syphilis bacteria can be pathogenic despite the presence of antibodies, e.g. the Wassermann test for syphilis (Brandt 1988).
But viruses are typically unable to enter cells in the presence of anti-viral antibodies Â the basis for the effectiveness of Jennerian vaccines. Because of the CDCÂs decision, AIDS is diagnosed worldwide if antibody against (!) HIV, rather than HIV, is detectable in a patient along with any of the CDCÂs 26 diseases.
Since 1992 even low T-cell counts are diagnosed as a condition, termed ÂHIV/AIDSÂ, which is treatable with anti-HIV drugs provided it occurs in the presence of antibodies against HIV (Centers for Disease Control 1992), (see table 1, and Â§ 4.2). 3.1 Discrepancies between the predictions of the virus-AIDS hypothesis and the facts.
Despite its spectacular birthday the HIV-AIDS hypothesis has remained entirely unproductive to this date: There is as yet no anti-HIV-AIDS vaccine, no effective prevention and not a single AIDS patient has ever been cured Â the hallmarks of a flawed hypothesis. Indeed the hypothesis was born with several serious birth defects and has developed further defects since; most of these should have given pause to HIV-AIDS researchers to rethink and reconsider.
However, in the race to claim a share of the new viral cause for AIDS and of virus-based AIDS treat- ments, ÂThe Trojan horse of emergencyÂ (Szasz 2001) was saddled so quickly that there was little time and no interest to address these defects, not even the most fundamental ones (Weiss and Jaffe 1990; Cohen 1994; OÂBrien 1997).
An analysis of the defects of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis based on its failure to predict AIDS facts is shown in table 4. Our analysis is based on the most recent and most authoritative case made for the HIV-AIDS hypothesis since 1984, namely the Durban Declaration that was published in Nature in 2000 and has been signed by Âover 5,000 people, including Nobel prizewinnersÂ (The Durban Declaration 2000). It can be seen in table 4 that the HIV-hypothesis fails to predict 17 specific facts of AIDS.
The most fundamental discrepancy between the HIV-AIDS hypothesis and the facts is the paradox, that a latent, non-cytopathic and immunologically neutralized retrovirus [a virus that is inherently not cytopathic (Duesberg 1987)], that is only present in less than 1 out of 500 susceptible T-cells and rarely expressed in a few of those, would cause a plethora of fatal diseases in sexually active, young men and women.
And, that the plethora of the diseases attributed to this virus would not show up for 5Â10 years after infection (table 4). As a result of the many discrepancies between the HIV hypothesis and the facts, we conclude that HIV is not sufficient for AIDS, and is most compatible with being a passenger virus. Surprisingly our conclusion is supported by a survey of AIDS researchers conducted by the New York Times, shortly after the publication of the Durban Declaration.
At the 20th anniversary of AIDS, on 30 January 2001, the New York Times interviewed a dozen leading AIDS researchers for an article that turned into a list of questions, ÂThe AIDS questions that lingerÂ (Altman 2001a), similar to those asked by us in table 4: ÂIn the 20 years since the first cases of AIDS were detected, scientists say they have learned more about this viral disease than any other, and few have dispu- ted the claim. Â Despite the gains Â experts say reviewing unanswered questions could prove useful as a measure of progress for AIDS and other diseases.
Such a list could fill a newspaper, and even then would create debate. (E.g.): How does H.I.V. subvert the immune system? . . . Why does AIDS predispose infec- ted persons to certain types of cancer and infections and not others? . . . Dr Anthony S Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, ÂIt is the rare person who gets up and strips himself of his personal agenda and articulates what we really do not know because by saying that they would diminish the impact of their own work, which is their agendaÂ.
(Regarding anti-HIV medications:) . . . the new drugs do not completely eliminate H.I.V. from the body, so the medicines, which can have dangerous side effects, will have to be taken for a lifetime and perhaps changed to combat resistance.
The treatments are now so complicated that it is difficult, expensive and time-consuming to answer basic and practical questions. What combinations of drugs should be started first and when? Why do side effects like unusual accumulations of fat in the abdomen and neck develop? . . . Anti-H.I.V. drugs suppress replication of the virus, which should give the functioning parts of the immune system a chance to eliminate re- maining virus.
That does not happen. ÂSo something is bizarre about that, that we donÂt understandÂ, Dr Fauci said. Is a vaccine possible? . . . many unanswered questions exist about whether and when one can be developed.Â Thus HIV-AIDS researchers have not solved the discrepancies and paradoxes of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, but still do not follow the scientific method of searching for alternative explanations (Costello 1995).
Since 19 years of HIV-AIDS research have failed to produce tangible benefits for AIDS patients and risk groups, and since there are no paradoxes in nature only flawed hypotheses, the scientific method calls for an alternative, testable hypothesis. Here we offer one such hypothesis.
Our hypothesis extends the early, and now abandoned ÂlifestyleÂ hypothesis (Â§ 2) and subsequent drug-AIDS hypotheses from us and others (Duesberg 1992; Duesberg and Rasnick 1998). ÂHistorically, the first step in determining the cause of any disease has always been to find out if there is anything, apart from the disease itself, that sufferers have in commonÂ (Cairns 1978).
However, the traditional search for the cause is only completed, if something that suf- ferers have in common can also be shown to cause the disease; in other words if KochÂs postulates can be ful- filled (Merriam-Webster 1965). This is true for viruses just as much as for drugs. Following this tradition, we try here to provide proof of principle for our drug and malnutrition hypothesis of AIDS Â alias chemical AIDS. 4.1
The chemical-AIDS hypothesis and its predictions The chemical-AIDS hypothesis proposes that the AIDS epidemics of the US and Europe are caused by recreational drugs, alias lifestyle, and anti-HIV drugs (Duesberg.
1. Since HIV is Âthe sole cause of AIDSÂ, it must be abundant in AIDS patients based on Âexactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases.Â But, only antibodies against HIV are found in most patients (1Â7)**. Therefore, ÂHIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences, or viral isolation.Â
But, HIV can only be ÂisolatedÂ from rare, la- tently infected lymphocytes that have been cultured for weeks in vitro Â away from the antibodies of the human host (8). Thus HIV behaves like a latent passenger virus.
2. Since HIV is Âthe sole cause of AIDSÂ, there is no AIDS in HIV-free people.
But, the AIDS literature has described at least 4621 HIV- free AIDS cases according to one survey Â 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 (1Â3).
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 diag- nosis of AIDS are immortal (9Â15)!
4. Following Âexactly the same criteria as for other viral disea- sesÂ, HIV causes AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body can replace. Thus T-cells or ÂCD4 lymphocytes . . . become depleted in people with AIDSÂ. But, even in patients dying from AIDS less than 1 in 500 of the T-cells Âthat become depletedÂ are ever infected by HIV (16Â20, 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 Âthe sole cause of AIDSÂ, 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 Â by definition Â only after anti- HIV immunity is established, a positive HIV/AIDS test (23). Thus HIV cannot cause AIDS by Âthe same criteriaÂ as conventional viruses.
7. HIV needs Â5Â10 yearsÂ from establishing antiviral immu- nity 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 Âfor other viral disea- sesÂ, HIV should also cause AIDS within weeks Â if it could.
8. ÂMost people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5Â10 yearsÂ Â the justification for prophylaxis of AIDS with the DNA chain terminator AZT (Â§ 4).
But, of Â34â 3 million . . . with HIV worldwideÂ only 1â 4% [= 471,457 (obtained by substracting the WHOÂs 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 1â 2% of the 1 million US citizens with HIV developed AIDS (29, 30). Since an annual incidence of 1â 2Â1â 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 (Âis hopedÂ to) prevent AIDS Â 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 (Â§ 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 Âthrough sexual con- tactÂ.
But, only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV (32Â34), and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infec- ted (29, 30), (figure 1b). Therefore, an average un-infected US citizen needs 275,000 random Âsexual contactsÂ to get infected and spread HIV Â an unlikely basis for an epidemic!
11. ÂAIDS spreads by infectionÂ of HIV.
But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no ÂspreadÂ 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 decli- ned ever since (figure 1a).
12. Many of the 3 million people who annually receive blood trans- fusions 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 KaposiÂs 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 Â 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 con- tracted AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS (35). And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes (36Â38). Thus AIDS is not contagious (39, 40).
14. Viral AIDS Â like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past (41Â43) Â 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 (Â§ 1 and 4).
15. A viral AIDS epidemic should form a classical, bell-shaped chronological curve (41Â43), 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 Âfrom mother to infantÂ at rates of 25Â50% (44Â 49), and because Â34â 3 million people worldwideÂ were already infected in 2000. To reduce the high maternal trans- mission rate HIV-antibody-positive pregnant mothers are treated with AZT for up to 6 months prior to birth (Â§ 4).
But, less than 1% of AIDS in the US and Europe is pediatric (30, 50). Thus HIV must be a passenger virus in new- borns.
17. ÂHIV recognizes no social, political or geographic bordersÂ Â 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 (Â§ 1, table 2). The US/European epidemic is highly nonrandom, 80% male and restricted to abnormal risk groups, whereas the African epidemic is random.
Conservatives love their degenerate alcohol and their destructive drunkenness. I smoke cannabis and I’m not afraid to say it. I don’t drink, put myself in a stupor, and abuse my family like the hoards of drinkers I know. I don’t get sloshed and drive around, don’t cheat, or engage in the retarded behavior I see the drunks perform. I’m sober at work, I work hard, and I enjoy my life.
Most of my pot smoking friends are conservative, work hard, and live productive lives. They are doctors, lawyers, teachers, and businessmen. They hide in the shadows because of the drug war brainwashing and legions of anti drug zealots who ignore facts to prop up their near religious and hysterical beliefs. Global warmists have nothing on the degenerate drug warriors and their life and freedom crushing policies. Specials thanks to them for the near police state we live in. They have to ruin lives first to save them.
You are fooling yourself.
You are also setting up a false dichotomy between alcohol abuse and dope smoking.
Both are harmful.
Well, yeah. Perverts and dopeheads. That pretty much sums up America 2014.
i believe meth will prevent homosexuals from contracting it
let’s make sure they’re all on meth
I don’t know, my brother died of AIDS and for a while he was on marinol (I think it’s called) that gov’t approved synthetic marijuanna. He hated it (had a very bad “trip” on it once) and it did him no good. I told him I’d get him real pot, but his view was he’d never been a smoker and why start now. I’m pretty sure he was doomed no matter what, but you always regret you didn’t try something.
You can’t have sex when you’ve got the munchies? Who knew?!
Another thing I’ve observed...people are always referencing dead head kids and adults living in their parents basement stoned all day.
First pot is not cheap, people who smoke pot normally only smoke on occasion, from what I heard 1oz of pot costs around a hundred dollars, 12oz of beer cost around a dollar, those dead head kids are drinking more beer than smoking pot, if they are laying around the house being dead head, it’s their parents fault!!!
Second people are saying there are all kinds of problems in Colorado and Washington, in reality the problems are minor, when measured against the problems after prohibition, people everywhere went crazy on alcohol, more problems than you could shake a stick at, right from the get go and it continues.
Third I do not see pot getting much cheaper than now, taxation will insure that, ok some would say, folks will start growing their own, it’s already being done, like so many folks brew their own beer, personally I looked into it and brewing your own can be a lot of work and sometimes cost more than buying it.
Fourth you can get much more from a cannabis plant than a high, many things can be made from the plant, even a product much better than plastic and much safer...(As well as using hemp fuel for his Model T, Henry Ford used hemp plastics to build the body work).
For more uses for hemp click here...http://www.ccguide.org/uses.php
Gov’t control killed an entire industry in the U.S. and around the world based on myth...What A Waste of a most versatile natural resource.
When did you hear that, mid 60s?
Could you direct me to the article you excerpted? Thanks.
Well...that would be around the last time I tried it, but as I remember then it was about 10 to 15 dollars an oz...the price currently of a hundred dollars I heard on TV or read it somewhere.
I guess counting inflation the price maybe about the same then as now, but I'm not sure, I never cared that much about smoking pot, to follow it, I just recently got very interested, when Colorado and Washington decriminalized it. What ever the price, I'm pretty sure it is much more than alcohol.
I am ignorant on how much pot costs today, could you inform me, I would like to know? Thanks
$45 to $75 per 1/8 oz in Colorado - from a friend who lives there.
That’s for the legal stuff, at those prices, I’m sure there’s a thriving black market.