non-hiv AIDS?
Greg Parkinson
cases of AIDS where no HIV is found, someone posted some facts
showing that the number in at least one study was quite small.
It must have expired from my system - if someone has access
to that posting could they please mail it to me or repost it?
Thanks
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson "Isn't this a disgusting spectacle!"
g...@panix.com Betty, on _I Love Lucy_
Robert S. Holzman
> Recently, in response to the assertion that there are lots of
> cases of AIDS where no HIV is found, someone posted some facts
> showing that the number in at least one study was quite small.
>
> It must have expired from my system - if someone has access
> to that posting could they please mail it to me or repost it?
>
> Thanks
>
The data is in the new england J. the following ollowing excerpt sci.med.aids
from the has the refs and the essence of the posting:
Even the
1993 revision of the AIDS case definition does not require the
documented presence of HIV infection. It is logically
possible for there to be more than one etiology, although
published data (New Engl. J. Med, 1993; 328:373-379.) indicate
that only 299 of an estimated 115,000 (based on Duesberg,
Science, 1992;257:1848) reported with AIDS have been
HIV-negative when testing was done.
DAVID WESTLING
Oct. 28th, 1994 issue of _Science_. This is the paper in which baboons
inoculated with HIV-2 were found to have exhibited symptoms analogous
to AIDS. I am particulary interested in soliciting responses from
the so-called "AIDS dissidents"; does this finding demonstrate HIV
as causative of AIDS?
David Westling
Chris Rywalt
http://enuxsa.eas.asu.edu/~jvagner/rethinking-aids/index.html )
A Statement from the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS
Hypothesis
Some of you may have received advertisements from a source that purports to
represent the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis,
and the newsletter "Rethinking AIDS." These advertisements promote sale of
various materials by Peter Duesberg and other members of the group,
particularly including a book -- "Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS" --
purportedly by Bryan Ellison and Peter Duesberg.
The latest advertisement in particular is irrational on its face, citing without
explanation efforts by Duesberg himself, named in the advertisement as the
senior author, to stop the publication of the book he supposedly co-authored.
Many people are confused by these curious advertisements, and have asked the
Group to explain.
Until recently, Bryan Ellison was Peter Duesberg's graduate assistant. In that
capacity he was writing a book on the HIV/AIDS controversy, co-authored by
Duesberg, under contract with St. Martin's Press. The Press asked for
alterations in the manuscript. The Press wanted clarification of some points,
documentation of others, and elimination of some statements that might be
considered unfair to individuals. Duesberg was very willing to cooperate, but
Ellison refused to deal with St. Martin's and unilaterally published the
manuscript privately without Duesberg's consent-- and with Duesberg's name on it
as co-author. Duesberg is seeking an injunction against this unauthorized
publication.
Neither the unauthorized manuscript publication nor the advertisements has any
connection with the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS
Hypothesis. All members of the Group have repudiated the advertisements, and
have ceased to have any connection with Bryan Ellison or with James Trabulse,
the former publisher of the Rethinking AIDS newsletter, who seems to be working
with Ellison. The Group will soon commence publishing its own newsletter, titled
"Reappraising AIDS," taking this new name to stress the lack of connection with
the unauthorized publication.
This statement was sent by Phillip Johnson to his rethinkaids mailing list on
13 October, 1994.
DAVID WESTLING
Unfortunately I have not read the Oct. 28th _Science_ article.
I am, as I believe you are, very skeptical about the efforts
to prove HIV as the cause of AIDS. For me, Peter Duesberg's arguments
in the nature of HIV basically ring true. However, there are many questions
that seem to be left unanswered by both sides in this debate. Duesberg's
drug threory does not seem to cover all the contingencies. It seems to
me that psychoimmunology is an area that needs to be looked at in the
development of AIDS. What is different now that didn't occur before the
crisis? Our particular historical situation didn't exist. We are at
a crossroads in time in which the drive for self-fulfillment and its
thwarting are both reaching fever pitch. What is the psychological state
of an individual caught in this trap? This is not to suggest that this
state of affairs is alone enough to cause catastrophic breakdown of the
immune system. But could it contribute?
David Westling