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.
The Advocate set out this past summer [1998] to organize a forum to examine two radically opposing views on the cause of AIDS. The result of a season's worth of effort can be summarized in two sentences:
This paper has been called "irresponsible," "offensive" and "dangerous" for reporting on dissident scientists and organizations making their case against the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS. But given the opportunity of a public forum where both sides of the debate could be fairly represented, not one of the orthodox scientists, doctors or activists we contacted would agree to show up to defend the assertion -- reported unflinchingly as fact in the mainstream media -- that HIV is "the virus that causes AIDS."
If it's such an open-and-shut case, as some of those who declined the invitation asserted, why is there so much resistance to presenting it? If the foundation is sound, the house should be able to pass inspection without a second thought. So what's to be made of the homeowner who has a lot of wonderful things to say about the shutters, the shingles and the convenience of central air but never seems to get around to that strange slant the house has when viewed from afar?
According to AIDS reporter Celia Farber -- who wrote SPIN magazine's "AIDS: Words from the Front" column for more than a decade -- the game of taunt-and-dodge that The Advocate encountered is just one of the unbecoming tactics seen all too frequently in the AIDS world today.
Farber attended last summer's 12th World AIDS Conference in Geneva and returned with, as she called it, "some reflections on the sorry state of AIDS journalism."
"'Media' -- to the extent that they are present [at the conference] -- are only there for decorative purposes," she writes in the Aug. 24 issue of the magazine Impression. "If any rogue journalist actually asks a question -- a real question -- he or she is met with a sea of frowning faces and hisses. Microphones are shut off. I've even seen guards called in and seen one journalist expelled from the country (in this case Germany) because he asked questions the AIDS establishment didn't like. These conferences are about the enforcement of an ideology -- not the questioning of it. I have said in the past that they resemble a kind of 'October Parade' for the AIDS Party. ... These 'International AIDS Conferences' are really just microcosms of the AIDS industry itself. They are funded by, driven by and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry."
Some say dissident theory is skepticism gone berserk. Others say it's the only interpretation of the facts that makes any sense.
In the pantheon of scientific ideas, the HIV dissident movement represents one of the greatest -- and most widely ignored -- outcries of "Wait a second!" to be sounded in recent memory.
In brief, HIV dissidents -- or, alternately, "AIDS dissidents" -- argue that not only has the widely touted HIV=AIDS theory never been proven (despite billions of dollars' worth of propaganda and pharmaceutical research every year), it's inaccurate, irresponsible and perhaps even flat-out wrong.
In other words: It's not the virus, stupid.
History is riddled with examples of adverse medical conditions that led Western science -- prone to simplify complex systems to what can be replicated at the petri dish and microscope level -- rushing to the conclusion that a single contagion is to blame.
For more than a century, scurvy was theorized to be an infectious disease because sailors on long voyages tended to come down with it en masse. When a British naval surgeon published a book in 1753 establishing that scurvy was in fact brought about by a nutritional deficiency (not enough Vitamin C), his ideas received the same offhand dismissal that HIV dissidents now encounter. It took 40 years for Dr. James Lind's discovery to be accepted by the prevailing medical orthodoxy of the day. (When the "infectious scurvy" theory finally subsided, the British navy changed its tack and provided sailors with scurvy prophylaxis in the form of lime and lemon juice -- thus giving birth to the nickname "limeys.")
More recently, "infectious" theories for pellagra, scrapie, tertiary syphilis, SMON, KURU, Burkitt's lymphoma and even cancer have been suggested, accepted as conventional wisdom for years or decades, and then cast aside when the true causes were finally discovered and accepted.
If the dissidents are right, HIV is not alone. It's only unique in the extremes to which the prevailing medical orthodoxy is invested in it.
The Advocate has been covering the HIV dissident story for more than two years, presenting some of the essential arguments, individuals and ideas behind the much-vilified movement.
We have now set up a web site (you're looking at it) that reproduces the entirety of ourHIV dissident coverage as well as full transcripts of interviews with researchers, activists, doctors and patients from all points of view concerning HIV and AIDS.
Although there are nearly as many dissident perspectives as there are HIV dissidents, there is consensus among dissidents on a number of key points:
Despite orthodox claims to the contrary, the dissident movement is not composed of just a few assorted scientists. The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, for instance, boasts more than 2,000 members since 1991. About half of the members are researchers and medical professionals.
Before the emergence of the HIV theory, the presence of antibodies was always considered a sign that the body had successfully fought off an infection. (That's whatimmunization is based on.) There is no compelling reason to suspect that the "HIV test" -- which detects HIV antibodies -- should represent a break from conventional wisdom.
HIV is a "retrovirus." All people are carriers of hundreds, even thousands, of harmless retroviruses. Indeed, one of the basic properties of such viruses is that they do not kill cells. (This is why retroviruses were once thought to be apossible cause of cancer.) The HIV-AIDS theory, on the other hand, posits that HIV is responsible for the decimation of the immune system's T-cells -- the cells most affected by AIDS.
Even at its highest observed concentrations, HIV infects less than 1 percent of the immune system's T-cells. To suggest that HIV, which is completely dormant in T-cells, somehow destroys the entire immune system is tantamount to worrying about bleeding to death from a paper cut.
AIDS in a gay man almost always involves a different set of diseases than does AIDS in a drug addict, which almost always involves a different set of diseases than does AIDS in a hemophiliac. How can a virus "know" whether the patient is gay or straight? Drug addict or transfusion recipient?
A true infectious disease should eventually leave its initial risk groups to infect the population at large. Yet AIDS still remains predominantly confined to its original demographics: gay men, IV drug users, hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients. (The much-reported "growing number of women with AIDS" is in part due to the fact that in 1993 the number of AIDS-defining diseases was expanded to include cervical cancer.)
The same research teams that failed to find a retroviral cause of cancer were the ones who triumphantly pressed forward to begin research on a retroviral cause of AIDS. Is Nature so opportune as to produce the first retroviral epidemic in human history right at the time when a fledgling retroviral research industry was fresh out of work and looking for new sources of funding?
To quote Farber again: "For those of you who have not been following the AIDS-media scoreboard all these years, I can sum it up as follows: The mainstream AIDS media have botched the story virtually beyond repair, by constantly repeating, without any scrutiny, the pronouncements of the federal government's AIDS institutions.
"They bought wholesale the totally unfounded notion of a heterosexual AIDS 'explosion' based on no evidence at all, and indeed it never happened and won't ever happen. They uncritically reported that AZT was a wondrous, life-saving drug, based on studies that were fraudulent and funded by the drug's maker. (Instead, it turned out to shorten lives.) They failed to report that the U.S. AIDS scientist Robert Gallo had stolen his HIV viral sample from the Pasteur Institute, even though it was as plain as day, and they also, inexplicably, never questioned Dr. Gallo's totally unsubstantiated 1984 announcement that HIV was the proven 'cause' of AIDS. They continue to invent an AIDS epidemic that is decimating Africa, even though all African countries afflicted by AIDS are reporting population growth. And they went hog wild with the 'AIDS Is Over' stories of 1996, which credited the new cocktails with bringing people back from the dead. Now the tide has turned, and the drugs are proving to have horrific side effects and little effect on mortality."
Certainly, it is true that the dissidents have only begun the process of scientific inquiry into alternatives beyond the HIV=AIDS paradigm. No one in this debate has all the answers.
But for the AIDS orthodoxy to abrogate the duty of scientists -- to welcome dissenting viewpoints, encourage debate and foster skepticism -- is to sacrifice the claim that the end result of their endeavors can fairly be called "science."
Posted for discusssion ONLY. I am NOT advising any to cease taking their medicine.
In Africa, the panoply of AIDS related illnesses is different from other geographical locales because the diseases which afflict Africa are different, but the principle remains. Any infectious disease is considered AIDS if the individual tests positive for the HIV virus.
Gee, that's odd. I have been an AIDS doctor since 1982. In my practice, there were 40-80 deaths a year from 1986-1995.
The last patient who died, died two days before Christmas 1995, the month that protease inhibitor therapy was introduced.
Now, it seems to me, without taking a position on any theory, that people should keep taking their anti-HIV medicine. Wouldn't you?
"For example, if the antibody is not present, the individual has Hepatitis. If the HIV antibody is present, the individual has AIDS."
Could a person not have both hepatitis and aids?
I have been left with the impression that the symptoms that identify a person as having full blown "aids" is only reflective of a more advanced stage of the HIV infection.....
Are you saying this is no so?
Please elaborate.....
The article itself is distressingly like so many written by someone who is dying from some deadly disease & complaining that not enough money & time is being spent on research to save him.......which is an understandable & acceptable expression of self pity.....
I have been left with the impression that the symptoms that identify a person as having full blown "aids" is only reflective of a more advanced stage of the HIV infection.....
My understanding - and the AIDS doctor, Jim Noble, can confirm this - AIDS is not a disease per se. One dies from a primary disease and the AIDS theory claims that the HIV virus attacks the immune system allowing the primary disease to progress. By the way, the pictures of emaciated gay men that one often saw on television was a direct result of having taken AZT as a treatment, rather than the consequences of having been afflicted with AIDS. AZT was a drug first brought to market in the late 40's (or early 50's) as a treatment for cancer. It basically kills everything, and the thinking was that it would also kill the virus. Massive blood transfusions were required after each AZT treatment in order to keep the patient alive.
I'm curious that you were having about one person a week dying of AIDS, then within a month of the introduction of the first generation of PI drugs, your mortality goes to zero. As I understand it, a high percentage of those who succumb to AIDS actually die of cancer (KS), which is presumably not an overnight process, nor one which could be reversed by recovering the immune system, even if the drugs worked immediately and with 100% efficacy. Indeed, aren't these drugs supposed to be most effective when you hit the virus early in the 10-15 year latency period? Were you only seeing some subset of the terminal cases in your practice? Can you give as some more specifics?
Thank you.....
It would appear, from your post, that you've not had an AIDS patient die since 1995? Not having followed it closely myself, is that the general trend?
Your post didn't really address the thrust of this article, which is a claim that HIV doesn't necessarily cause AIDS. If HIV doesn't cause it, what does? And if HIV does cause it, what's the mechanism?
KS is probably caused by a second infectious agent (Human Herpesvirus 8, HHV 8). It was epidemic among gay men in the 1970s. In 1982 up to 30% of AIDS deaths were caused by KS, it is now very, very rare (I have not seen a case in five years). KS was always exceedingly uncommon in women, IV users, hemophiliacs, and Haitians.
The most plausible explanation for all this is that the HHV 8 epidemic died out somewhat before the recent decline in new HIV cases.
So you are saying that the old signature disease of AIDS, KS, had all but disappeared by the time you observed this abrupt dropoff in morality? By the mid-nineties, virtually all AIDS cases were opportunistic infections and PI therapy more or less immediately suppresses the virus, causing the immune system to revive and knock out the infection, even in advanced cases?
HIV infection is unquestionably the cause of AIDS.
It does at least two bad things to the human immune system
1) It infects and kills lymphocytes which are important to fighting off certain diseases. Early in the course of HIV infection, they are replaced with new cells, but the body's ability to make new ones is slowly exhausted, the number of healthy lymphocytes falls, and when the number dips below a critical threshold, infections and cancers result.
2) It infects macrophages, which eat and kill certain germs. This infection makes the macrophages sick, and they then a) fail to kill germs they are supposed to, and, b) produce harmful substances they are not supposed to.
Many patients were slowly improving in the immediately pre-protease inhibitor therapy period (9/94-12/95). And, yes, my practice tended to have sicker patients in it.
Yes. KS had almost disappeared by 1992.
Do you think KS had anything to with HIV in the first place, and if so, why?
What was causing the slow improvement in patients immediately before the appearance of PI treatments?
KS also occurs in other states of immune deficiency (like after organ transplants)> I think HIV-induced immune deficiency allowed the KS to flourish-but only in patients infected with HHV-8 also.
Two drug treatment with AZT and 3TC, or d4T and ddI.
Did you see many transfusion-AIDS cases with KS, percentage-wise, back when KS was still a signature disease of AIDS?
I saw "And the Band Played On" on HBO, and it implied that KS was exclusive to old men of Mediterranean descent prior to the AIDS "epidemic".
Was that dramatic license, or is the KS in gay men thing being glossed over?
"They bought wholesale the totally unfounded notion of a heterosexual AIDS 'explosion' based on no evidence at all, and indeed it never happened and won't ever happen.
Well I guess we can take thier word for it. I wonder why it only effects those that engage in things that either G-d forbids, or man forbids?
Don't start with your transfusions are good...where did the blood come from? And don't get me started on the fact that transfusions are cannibalism. That is another debate.
The mantra of the HIV/AIDS community has always been NO ONE is immune, but some really are. Those that don't fall into the high risk catagories, have a very real immunity to the disease. After all these years the truth comes out, and from a source that, unwittingly, has given creedence to everything the right has said about this terrible disease. It is after all, a disease confined to a small minority, that engages in "risky behavior", and is not the great epidemic that "knows no victim", but can be contained, and eventually wiped out by simple modifications of behavior.
This article is a great triumph for everyone that has maintained that this disease is confined to a small group. It enters the heterosexual non-intervienious drug world through those that choose to have sex with, or share a drug neddle with someone infected, or is received through contaminated blood during a transfusion, surgery, or other means.
None.
There has always been some KS in elderly people (although it is a very indolent, non-life threatening disease in them). It is almost exclusively confined to people of Italian and Jewish descent, and I believe that there was also an increased case rate among Italian and Jewish gay men with HIV.
There was some attempt in the late 80s to study the genetics of this, but the virtual disappearance of the epidemic (HIV-related) form of KS has limited resources and interest.
I also treat a fair number of AIDS/HIV cases, although it sounds like not as many as you do Jim. My experience has been identical. Patients who were at death's door four years ago are now fully functional although not cured.
For all you skeptics - It is the virus stupid.
Ah, ok.
I've heard some justifications for the amount of money spent on AIDS research -- such as that it could very easily become a heterosexual plague (like in Asia and Africa) and the vast amount of knowledge we're getting about both the immune system itself as well as retroviruses.
On the whole, what do you think about it? I'm not sure if the positives (such as the knowledge) outweigh the negatives (lack of funds for other, more prevalent, though less- or non-contagious diseases like cancer and heart disease).
I'm not very good with the "big picture"-I like to leave work at work, and AIDS politics is a whole different thing from what I do (I don't watch ER, either).
In general, I think it is a misconception that successes in medical science (or any science) will occur in proportion to $$ (this same misconception is what gets us into so much trouble in the rest of the budget). The $$ need to mix with very smart people, with good ideas. In the late 80s and early 90s, both conditions existed with HIV/AIDS, leading to very fast progress, and $$ well spent IMHO.
The same conditions don't necessarily exist elsewhere. For example, "breast cancer" or "lung cancer" research. Cancer is cancer, fundamental questions remain unasked and unresolved about the nature of the disease which prevent fast progress in these specific areas. If the right questions are not being asked, $$ won't make it go faster.
Do all people who test positive for HIV antibodies have the actual virus present in their blood? Do they even bother to check? Do the HIV antibodies ever destroy all of the HIV virus in the body?
Thanks for the "education" of this tragic disease...and may God Bless You, Jim, both on this earth and the here after.
spectre's wife
About 3% of HIV positive people have undetectable virus in the blood. They are called "long-term non-progressors" because after ten to fifteen years, they don't get AIDS. A few of them have had either lymph node biopsies (on purpose) or had their spleens removed (because of accident or disease) and all of them have had the virus found there.
There are no examples that I know of where the immune response, which is quite strong in most people, has eliminated the virus.
And yes, all patients are checked for virus, because, in the 97% that have the virus in their blood, the amount of virus determines the treatment and the prognosis.
I like to leave work at work, and AIDS politics is a whole different thing from what I do
I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to... pry... probe... ok... can't find a good word. But whatever -- thanks for answering. :-)
Why do you think KS, the original signature disease of AIDS, never showed up in transfusion AIDS cases? Does the KS virus have different characteristics from HIV which prevent it from being passed in blood products?
Yeah, the KS virus is apparantly not transmitted by blood, or at least not efficiently so, accounting for its absence among hemophiliacs, transfusion recipients, and IV drug users.
How does this thing propagate, then?
Don't know.
Very interesting. Perhaps KS was never caused by a virus in the first place.
I hate to bother you again but you seem to have much knowledge on this subject.
Since anal intercourse between homosexuals and heterosexual, male to female, intercourse are two prime methods of AIDS transmission the AIDS virus must be present in the semen.
My question is. In what component of semen is the AIDS virus carried? Blood cells, the sperm or where?
FYI, Check out the article on the AIDSVAX, ...enlightening.....
HIV infection is unquestionably the cause of AIDS.
Quick...somebody explain all of those who have contracted HIV and never gotten AIDS. HIV is questionably the cause of AIDS contrary to your assertion, otherwise there wouldn't be a growing chorus of scientists who in fact do question that assertion. AIDS does not fit within the category of viral infection.
It's an interesting topic but the issue is not quite as open as the article seems to suggest.
1. HIV infects less than 1 percent of the immune system's T-cells. - yes, but the T4 and T8 cells are not the majority of the T-cells. They are intermediaries in the cascade of events that comprises the overall "immune reaction." And the attack mechanism, the attachment, injection, and incorporation of the nucleic acid into the genome of the victim - is observable and well-documented.
2.Before the emergence of the HIV theory, the presence of antibodies was always considered a sign that the body had successfully fought off an infection. - no. They were, and are, regarded as signs that a body has been exposed to an antigen (specifically) and are present in bodies that are actively fighting a disease that is still very much present. You'd find measles antibodies in an active case of the measles, for instance.
3. AIDS in a gay man almost always involves a different set of diseases than does AIDS in a drug addict, which almost always involves a different set of diseases than does AIDS in a hemophiliac. How can a virus "know" whether the patient is gay or straight? Drug addict or transfusion recipient? This is silly. The virus "knows" nothing of the sort, nor can it. The virus removes the immune system's activity and allows existing body flora that the immune system used to suppress to express themselves. Do gay men have different body flora from non-gay drug users? Of course they do - you get a higher percentage of enteric organisms - shigella, amoebic dysentery, enteropathogenic E. coli - in gay men due to oral-anal contact, than you do in a non-gay-male population. Other populations have other typical sets of body flora, and each individual person's is probably unique.
4. Yet AIDS still remains predominantly confined to its original demographics: gay men, IV drug users, hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients. In the U.S., that is. In Africa it's primarily a heterosexual disease - perhaps 26 million victims.
5. They failed to report that the U.S. AIDS scientist Robert Gallo had stolen his HIV viral sample from the Pasteur Institute… No, they did not - it was about the hottest topic in the field until Gallo finally admitted that his methodology had, in fact, used the Pasteur sample.
These are not minor errors. If the alternate etiology camp wishes to question the credibility of the HIV-AIDS camp, it had better improve its own credibility. I'm not defending the tendency of the AIDS "establishment" to stifle debate, but to pretend that there is an equal amount of evidence on both sides is simply misrepresentation.
Molecular biologists were not surprised, although their critique is extremely technical. What it boils down to is that if HIV leapfrogs the immune system - with all its astounding complexity - it will easily do the same with antibodies induced by an off-the-shelf manufactured product. Inducing antibodies to one B strain, or two E strains, or five, or fifty XYZ strains, is like buying insurance against being hit by cars with specified license plates.
after reading about aidsvax ,it does not look like theres any hope in the near future of stoping the virus
All of... who?
How about Magic Johnson for starters?
I have several extremely long-term HIV-positive friends (12+ years) but none that used AZT. All of those are dead. Your and CholeraJoe's posts on cocktails are promising. Do most always wait until they're sick?
Thanks BilltheDrill.
What about him? The fact that he has it and ain't dead yet? So?
He doesn't have AIDS. He's been tested positive for HIV and hasn't contracted AIDS much like many others. It destroys the argument that HIV "causes" AIDS.
Generally they wait until the T4-cell titer is down; that's a reliable sign of impending immune system failure. They usually don't wait until a "secondary" complication surfaces - full-blown AIDS - because the treatments are more effective if given earlier.
I know several people who have been HIV+ for over 10 years, with no AIDS symptoms yet. The body can harbor this virus for a very long time if the immune system isn't already compromised by other activity - drug use, for example. And, too, there's nothing says some folks might not actually be immune - indeed, there are claims of African prostitutes that are HIV+ but perfectly healthy. This does not mean HIV isn't the causative agent of the disease when it does occur, and it serves to cloud the picture somewhat.
All semen has white blood cells in it (usually lymphocytes). These carry the virus. People with sexually transmitted diseases (other than HIV) have elevated white blood cell counts in semen.
Sorry, but for me this is like debating whether the earth is flat. I need my online time to save the republic. If Magic stops his drugs and is OK after five years, let us all know.
It destroys it, huh?
Since you're the expert, what's his medical regimen? His T-cell count? How many and what illnesses has he had since being diagnosed with HIV? What drugs is he on? What's his exercise plan? His diet?
And, too, there's nothing says some folks might not actually be immune - indeed, there are claims of African prostitutes that are HIV+ but perfectly healthy.
Roughly how many non-IV drug-using female prostitutes in this country have perished from AIDS?
In the U.S., that is. In Africa it's primarily a heterosexual disease - perhaps 26 million victims.
What diseases do these African AIDS victims perish of, and how do those diseases compare to the U.S. breakdown?
I have several extremely long-term HIV-positive friends (12+ years) but none that used AZT.
That might be because AZT (the main AIDS therapy before PI), is an extremely toxic DNA terminator.
Sorry, that should have been DNA chain terminator. As I understand it, AZT is taken up during DNA synthesis because it looks like one of the natural building blocks of DNA, but it cannot be added to. AZT was originally mooted as a cancer drug (cancer cells make a lot of DNA, since their replication is out of control), but was rejected because of its toxicity.
Do gay men have different body flora from non-gay drug users? Of course they do - you get a higher percentage of enteric organisms - shigella, amoebic dysentery, enteropathogenic E. coli - in gay men due to oral-anal contact, than you do in a non-gay-male population.
I guess only gay men have the virus that causes KS then. Or rather, they did have this virus until about five years ago, when it mysteriously disappeared. Curiously, even though the virus was epidemic in gay men, it proved essentially non-transmissible via blood products, since it never infected IV drug-using straights, and never made it into any tranfusion AIDS victims.
In the U.S., that is. In Africa it's primarily a heterosexual disease - perhaps 26 million victims.
Curious that a virus which transmits so well heterosexually in Africa never leaps from the recipients of HIV-infected blood transfusions to their spouses. It almost makes one wonder if we're talking about the same disease.
Curious that a virus which transmits so well heterosexually in Africa never leaps from the recipients of HIV-infected blood transfusions to their spouses. It almost makes one wonder if we're talking about the same disease.
Never is such an UGLY word. Of course transfusion-related HIV victims can transmit the virus by sexual contact. I've cared for several couples who spread it that way. Heterosexual transmission of HIV is just an inefficient means of spreading the virus compared to transfusion, IV drug use or homosexual sex.
I'm with Jim. Debating whether HIV causes AIDS is like the flat earth argument to me.
Speculate on! You don't need CholeraJoe, if you won't listen to reason.
I've cared for several couples who spread it that way.
Interesting, because the CDC reports only 94 wives of hemophiliacs (by far the largest class of putative transfusion AIDS victims) with unnamed AIDS diseases between 1985 and 1991, from a pool of several thousand spouses of HIV-positive hemophiliacs. Sounds like an extrordinarily high percentage of these very rare cases are ending up in your practice. How many of the spouses you saw had progressed to AIDS-defining conditions by the time you saw them, and of those, how many were receiving DNA chain terminators?
Thanks for the education; interesting subject.
Has anyone figured out how many mutations the HIV virus has gone through? Don't viruses generaly get less virulent with sucsessive mutations, so that we might expect this disease to eventualy burn itself out? Or is that wishfull thinking?
Oops, I meant to thank Jim Noble & Marcus Welby as well.
Don't viruses generaly get less virulent with sucsessive mutations, so that we might expect this disease to eventualy burn itself out?
Some do, some don't. Who knows what we'll see?
RE: Your question about number of mutations. There are a number of different strains of HIV. Some appear to be less virulent than others. Some individuals, for whatever reason tend not to become ill once infected.
Thank you for you intellectual willingness to openly debate this topic. CholeraJoe etal. when losing the debate with me threatened to turn me in for ABUSE. Imagine, running to the thought police anytime one's position is threatened. The most difficult part of getting at the evidence of HIV/AIDS? The people with reasons to dodge it.
The Bloodhounds and their tainted blood crusade is a very important service. The unfortunate thing, it does seem to blind them to seeking an alternative to the establishment view on things. They are right to question blood born pathogens. However the evidence doesn't suggest HIV. Check out my bookmarks to see how their argument failed and when they ran to Jim to get me banned.
A bump and an intellectual slip.
The main reasons for the heterosexual infection rates in Africa are: first, much higher rate of unprotected sex than in Europe or the Americas, and second, a higher rate of other infections causing genital lesions which aids in the transmission of HIV.
Doctor,
Please tell me your opinion about hetrosexual HIV transmission. I have been waiting for the hetrosexual AIDS bomb to go off for years now, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet.
And, if you will, please tell me why a recent AIDS clinic worker identified unmarried women 18 to 25 as the highest infection risks.
Thanks
>>Please tell me your opinion about hetrosexual HIV transmission. I have been waiting for the hetrosexual AIDS bomb to go off for years now, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet.<<
There are several well-documented male-to-female cases in my practice, which you would need to multiply by a fudge factor to arrive at a national estimate-but I assume that there are at least several thousand US cases. I have not seen female-to-male transmission, which should be less common for obvious reasons-although I have seen men who allege this as their route of exposure who turn out to be gay.
>>And, if you will, please tell me why a recent AIDS clinic worker identified unmarried women 18 to 25 as the highest infection risks.<<
I have no idea.
Thank you for your reply and the information.
Thank you for you intellectual willingness to openly debate this topic.
For a very long time I have befuddled by the preachings of the AIDS - one might almost call them enthusiasts - who claim that AIDS, per se, is not the illness but merely the camel's nose in that the HIV virus adversely affects the immunes system, allowing for opportunistic invections, and yet the panoply of AIDS related illnesses never seems to include so many diseases which are infectious by nature, for example polio, diptheria, malaria, et al. How is it that such a limited number of diseases constitute AIDS? It has never made any sense to me.
And please view my post, AZT - Down the toilet please. Now the cure is worse than the disease, and the attack leveled at our women and children no less.
Please see my post AZT - Down the Toilet Please
. Sorry I am repetitive. I am learning HTML. Hope this works.
Here is the best page of the latest information on the deception of HIV/AIDS. If you just browse this page you will get an eyefull. To fully explore the entire site would require weeks, as it is several books on the web. A great resource unfortunately too long for most to wade through.
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |