Nitrites DO cause AIDS

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
In a long exchange of letters like this, obviously one needs a few hours
only trying to untangle various claims and counter-claims. These
official AIDS honchos are not dummies, and when they try to
misrepresent, you can expect them to try to hide their tracks quite
well.

In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote
in article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000707...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk> :
: On 6 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

[snip the usual distortions from the charlatan at Cambridge.]

: Thus Duesberg tries to discard the refutation by failing to read the paper
: properly, incorrectly ascribing AIDS-defining illness to the cohort
: members, and by assuming that failure to include AZT in the primary
: analysis somehow proves his point (Duesberg being a great believer in
: thinking that because something is not yet known, it is therefore never to
: be known).

Really? So let's see what the authors _finally_ replied to Duesberg.

[quote]

Aetiology of AIDS [Letter To The Editor] Ascher, Michael S.; Sheppard,
Haynes W.; Winkelstein Jr, Warren; Vittinghoff, Eric.

Duesberg also claims that we have confirmed his hypothesis
"because heavy drug users were twice as likely to develop AIDS as
light users". In this claim, he fails to grasp the significant
epidemiological fact that heavy drug-users were 1.56 times as
likely to develop AIDS becausethey were 1.43 times as likely to
be HIV-infected than light drug users. Further, it is of critical
importance that HIV-positive individuals were equally likely to
develop AIDS irrespective of their drug use pattern (51.4% AIDS
among heavy-users versus 47.4% among non-users or light-users),
which is hardly a robust affirmation of a drug-dose dependent
hypothesis; this and the failure of even 1 of the 39 seronegative
heavy drug users to get AIDS is inconsistent with Duesberg's
prediction that the incidence of AIDS should be drug-dose
ependent and unrelated to serostatus.

[unquote]

Let's see it again,

"...it is of critical importance that HIV-positive individuals were
equally likely to develop AIDS irrespective of their drug use pattern
(51.4% AIDS among heavy-users versus 47.4% among non-users or
light-users), which is hardly a robust affirmation of a drug-dose
dependent hypothesis..."

Is this really "of critical importance"? The only thing that this data
shows is that among those who are already HIV+, "heavy drug users" are
somewhat more likely to develop AIDS than "non-users or light-users of
drugs". But clearly this argument is rather pathetic, because,

1. The comparison leaves un-addressed the very important question of how
either group became HIV+ in the first place.

2. "Non-users of drugs" are lumped together with "light-users of drugs".
This, of course leaves a giant gaping hole right there in the authors'
argument.

3. "Drugs" are not further specified. Not all drugs are the same. Not
even close. Lots of drugs have no connection whatsoever with AIDS, but
others show a clear correlation with AIDS.

4. AZT use or non-use by either group is not specified. Which of course
mocks "non-use or light-use of drugs" by this group.

So they prove that there are 39 "heavy drug users" who are HIV negative
and show none of the AIDS defining diseases. So what? Actually there're
probably millions of such individual in the US. So what?

Sure seems like pseudo-science to me.

I guess all this means that the NATURE journal, the bible of science,
are a pack of pathetic and cowardly liars and drug-pushers. By
publishing such "research", they, and their mass-media allies, turned
gay men on to deadly carcinogenic drugs.

Yuri.

-=O=- Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=-

"In _The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko_, Russian historian Zhores
Medvedev ... concludes that "monopoly in science by one or another false
doctrine, or even by one scientific trend, is an external symptom of
some deep-seated sickness of a society."

"To date, there is still no clinical trial that has proven that the
protease inhibitors —either taken alone or in combination with other
antiviral drugs —reduce the mortality of AIDS patients"

From BLINDED BY SCIENCE, by David Rasnick (Spin June 1997)

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drblinded.htm

Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> In a long exchange of letters like this, obviously one needs a few hours
> only trying to untangle various claims and counter-claims.

May I suggest spending a few minutes of that time learning the
difference between nitrites and nitrates? It would lend you
ever so much more credibility if you got the names of the
compounds right.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Nick Bennett

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to

On 10 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

So you cannot address my points, but merely return to trying to
regurgitate other ppl's false arguments in follow-up letters. How about
trying to address the actual article.


> Let's see it again,
>
> "...it is of critical importance that HIV-positive individuals were
> equally likely to develop AIDS irrespective of their drug use pattern
> (51.4% AIDS among heavy-users versus 47.4% among non-users or
> light-users), which is hardly a robust affirmation of a drug-dose
> dependent hypothesis..."
>
> Is this really "of critical importance"?

Yes. Drug use did not affect the chance of getting AIDS. Only ppl with
HIV got AIDS. This completely and irrefuteably destroyes Duesberg's claim
that recreational drugs are a better causative factor than HIV.

The only thing that this data
> shows is that among those who are already HIV+, "heavy drug users" are
> somewhat more likely to develop AIDS than "non-users or light-users of
> drugs". But clearly this argument is rather pathetic, because,
>
> 1. The comparison leaves un-addressed the very important question of how
> either group became HIV+ in the first place.
>

It doesn't matter. Why should it?


> 2. "Non-users of drugs" are lumped together with "light-users of drugs".
> This, of course leaves a giant gaping hole right there in the authors'
> argument.
>

Not at all. The non-user set is specifically analysed in the original
paper.

> 3. "Drugs" are not further specified. Not all drugs are the same. Not
> even close. Lots of drugs have no connection whatsoever with AIDS, but
> others show a clear correlation with AIDS.
>

Again the drugs used are specified in the paper. Read it.

> 4. AZT use or non-use by either group is not specified. Which of course
> mocks "non-use or light-use of drugs" by this group.
>

This is the only reasonable point, but this again ignores all those who
(Duesberg freely admits) died of AIDS before AZT came on the
market. Since drug is was not the cause (as shown in this study) and AZT
cannot _retrospectively_ be the cause, the only one remaining single
unique (get the point?) factor involved is HIV.

> So they prove that there are 39 "heavy drug users" who are HIV negative
> and show none of the AIDS defining diseases. So what? Actually there're
> probably millions of such individual in the US. So what?
>
> Sure seems like pseudo-science to me.

Like, er, you have to take all the data together my dear Yuri. That's
called having an overview, or else you won't be able to see the bigger
picture.

Bennett


terry Smith

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to

"Ken Cox" <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote in message
news:396A5B6A...@research.bell-labs.com...

> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > In a long exchange of letters like this, obviously one needs a few hours
> > only trying to untangle various claims and counter-claims.
>
> May I suggest spending a few minutes of that time learning the
> difference between nitrites and nitrates? It would lend you
> ever so much more credibility if you got the names of the

This calls forth visions of a young girl, a hare a teapot and a certain
response to an offer of refreshment..

Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
terry Smith wrote:
> "Ken Cox" <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> > It would lend [Yuri] ever so much more credibility

> This calls forth visions of a young girl, a hare a teapot and a certain
> response to an offer of refreshment..

;-)

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

corn...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000711...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>,

Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> So you cannot address my points, but merely return to trying to
> regurgitate other ppl's false arguments in follow-up letters. How
about
> trying to address the actual article.
>
> > Let's see it again,
> >
> > "...it is of critical importance that HIV-positive individuals were
> > equally likely to develop AIDS irrespective of their drug use
pattern
> > (51.4% AIDS among heavy-users versus 47.4% among non-users or
> > light-users), which is hardly a robust affirmation of a drug-dose
> > dependent hypothesis..."
> >
> > Is this really "of critical importance"?
>
> Yes. Drug use did not affect the chance of getting AIDS.

As Yuri asked - did these so-called 'aids' victims take AZT? Why wasn't
this vital information not included in the study?

> Only ppl with
> HIV got AIDS.

Do you actually know what 'aids' is defined as? HIV + indicator disease
= 'aids'
Indicator disease - HIV = death by indicator disease.

Get it?
It's a tautological statement. "HIV causes 'aids'" since the very
definition of 'aids' is that you have HIV! DUH!!

>This completely and irrefuteably destroyes Duesberg's claim
> that recreational drugs are a better causative factor than HIV.

No it doesn't - obviously.
How do you explain that after twenty years so few people in the U.K.
are dying of alleged 'aids' that the government no longer publicises
the mortality rates - at least- I'm having a hell of a job finding
them, and I'm *looking* for them! Isn't it rather strange that the
heterosexual population in the U.K. haven't started dropping like
flies, seeing as every other STD is rising every year, and has been
rising every year for the past twenty years? What happened to the
dreaded 'HIV'?
Why do all the programmes about 'aids' on t.v. *never* say "x number of
people died of 'aids' in the U.K. last year"? Because the figures are
too low, that's why - because the 'aids' charities and research
organisations know that their funding would be stopped if the general
public knew what was really happening.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how a mother 'infects' her child with
'hiv' only at the point of birth (or is most likely to 'infect' her
child with 'hiv' when he/she is born - are babies born with cuts that
suddenly get infected as they pass through their mothers' vaginas?


>
> The only thing that this data
> > shows is that among those who are already HIV+, "heavy drug users"
are
> > somewhat more likely to develop AIDS than "non-users or light-users
of
> > drugs". But clearly this argument is rather pathetic, because,
> >
> > 1. The comparison leaves un-addressed the very important question
of how
> > either group became HIV+ in the first place.
> >
>
> It doesn't matter. Why should it?

Because maybe it would show how to prevent HIV transmission (not that
it matters anyway)


>
> > 2. "Non-users of drugs" are lumped together with "light-users of
drugs".
> > This, of course leaves a giant gaping hole right there in the
authors'
> > argument.
> >
>
> Not at all. The non-user set is specifically analysed in the original
> paper.
>
> > 3. "Drugs" are not further specified. Not all drugs are the same.
Not
> > even close. Lots of drugs have no connection whatsoever with AIDS,
but
> > others show a clear correlation with AIDS.
> >
>
> Again the drugs used are specified in the paper. Read it.
>
> > 4. AZT use or non-use by either group is not specified. Which of
course
> > mocks "non-use or light-use of drugs" by this group.
> >
>
> This is the only reasonable point, but this again ignores all those
who
> (Duesberg freely admits) died of AIDS before AZT came on the
> market.

Your stupidity is incredible! Do you really think that nobody died of
heroin use a hundred years ago? Read up about it!
Hard drugs kill! People who take them have - guess what - compromised
immune systems! They also don't eat very much unless they're incredibly
rich, because all their money goes on drugs - they also don't care at
all about their personal health as they are too stoned to!

> Since drug is was not the cause (as shown in this study) and AZT
> cannot _retrospectively_ be the cause, the only one remaining single
> unique (get the point?) factor involved is HIV.

Duh! Talk about circular logic! Drug use *was* the cause of death of
all those people who didn't take AZT - it destroyed their immune
systems - this is *well* documented. Or maybe you are suggesting that
everybody should start taking heroin because it doesn't harm you in any
way - Daniella Westbrook, anybody?

>
> > So they prove that there are 39 "heavy drug users" who are HIV
negative
> > and show none of the AIDS defining diseases. So what? Actually
there're
> > probably millions of such individual in the US. So what?
> >
> > Sure seems like pseudo-science to me.
>
> Like, er, you have to take all the data together my dear Yuri. That's
> called having an overview, or else you won't be able to see the bigger
> picture.
>

How do you explain the lack of an epidemic in the U.K. and the U.S.,
even though there *is* an epidemic of all other STDs?

Finally - some of the pathetic responses to Yuri's original post show
the intellectual bankruptcy of the 'HIV causes aids' posters. Attempts
at ad-hominem attacks on Yuri convince nobody that he is wrong - your
closed mindedness has got us all where we are today - millions dying in
Africa because of *poverty* and the only thing the west can offer is
chemotherapy drugs that will kill them even faster! Great!


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Marcin Mankowski

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:20:56 +1000, "Mitchell Isaacs"
<misaacs@spam_me_not.student.usyd.edu.au> wrote:

>> > Only ppl with
>> > HIV got AIDS.
>>
>> Do you actually know what 'aids' is defined as? HIV + indicator disease
>> = 'aids'
>> Indicator disease - HIV = death by indicator disease.
>>
>> Get it?
>> It's a tautological statement. "HIV causes 'aids'" since the very
>> definition of 'aids' is that you have HIV! DUH!!

>This is untrue. AIDS could be diagnosed in the deficiencey of HIV. HIV is
>only a prerequisite for HIV-caused AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome regardless of
>the causative factors.

Could be? Experts say differently. For example in
a interview Dr. Eric Rosenberg (a member of a team of AIDS
researchers at Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital) said:

"[Q. Well, I was talking with Kary Mullis, and that was sort of what he was
saying too. Which is that, there is such a thing as HIV, but
it won't always develop into AIDS. AIDS could actually be caused by some other
immuno-suppressive condition. Do you think
that that is possible? ]

Well, there are definitely other immuno-suppressive conditions which give people
illnesses that people with AIDS get. For
example, if somebody undergoes lung transplantation, and are given very heavy
duty medications to suppress their immune system,
they are susceptible to many of the pathogens, the microorganisms which cause
infection in AIDS patients. But those people don't
have what we would call AIDS. They are just immuno-compromised from the
transplantation. AIDS is not one thing. AIDS is
basically a ravaged immune system which is susceptible to a lot of different
pathogens.

[Q. But they only call it AIDS when there is an immuno-suppressive condition in
the presence of HIV? ]

Correct.

[Q. So the definition of AIDS -- ]

Is specific to people who are infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. "

http://www.valleyadvocate.com/hiv-aids/i980807.html

Marcin Mankowski

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:03:22 +1000, "Mitchell Isaacs"
<misaacs@spam_me_not.student.usyd.edu.au> wrote:

>This definition of aids given here is the common usage, not the technical
>one which I'm sure would be used in any research attempting to determine
>the causative factor of aids.

If you are sure then I have to accept that you are right.
Must be, this researcher got confused by the common usage.

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to

corn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Only ppl with
> > HIV got AIDS.
>
> Do you actually know what 'aids' is defined as? HIV + indicator disease
> = 'aids'
> Indicator disease - HIV = death by indicator disease.
>
> Get it?
> It's a tautological statement. "HIV causes 'aids'" since the very
> definition of 'aids' is that you have HIV! DUH!!
>

Well, corncrate, I posted previously that this is a falsehood and
cited the original
case definition. Repeating it again doesn't make it right.

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to

Marcin Mankowski wrote:


>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:20:56 +1000, "Mitchell Isaacs"
> <misaacs@spam_me_not.student.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> > Only ppl with
> >> > HIV got AIDS.
> >>
> >> Do you actually know what 'aids' is defined as? HIV + indicator disease
> >> = 'aids'
> >> Indicator disease - HIV = death by indicator disease.
> >>
> >> Get it?
> >> It's a tautological statement. "HIV causes 'aids'" since the very
> >> definition of 'aids' is that you have HIV! DUH!!

> >This is untrue. AIDS could be diagnosed in the deficiencey of HIV. HIV is
> >only a prerequisite for HIV-caused AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome regardless of
> >the causative factors.
>
> Could be? Experts say differently. For example in
> a interview Dr. Eric Rosenberg (a member of a team of AIDS
> researchers at Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital) said:
>

Unfortunately Eric Rosenberg, member of the team of aids
researchers, was wrong
when he said...

> [Q. But they only call it AIDS when there is an immuno-suppressive condition in
> the presence of HIV? ]
>
> Correct.
>
> [Q. So the definition of AIDS -- ]
>
> Is specific to people who are infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. "
>

you don't have to take my word for it, look at this quote from
the sept 24, 1982 CDC
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Editorial Note: CDC defines a case of AIDS as a disease, at least
moderately predictive of a defect in cell-mediated immunity,
occurring in a person with no known cause for diminished
resistance to that disease. Such diseases include KS, PCP, and
serious OOI.((S)) Diagnoses are considered to fit the case
definition only if based on sufficiently reliable methods
(generally histology or culture). However, this case definition
may not include the full spectrum of AIDS manifestations, which
may range from absence of symptoms (despite laboratory evidence
of immune deficiency) to non-specific symptoms (e.g., fever,
weight loss, generalized, persistent lymphadenopathy) (4) to
specific diseases that are insufficiently predictive of cellular
immunodeficiency to be included in incidence monitoring (e.g.,
tuberculosis, oral
candidiasis, herpes zoster) to malignant neoplasms that cause, as
well as result from, mmunodeficiency((P)) (5). Conversely, some
patients who are considered AIDS cases on the basis of diseases
only moderately predictive of cellular immunodeficiency may not
actually be immunodeficient and may not be part of the current
epidemic. Absence of a reliable, inexpensive, widely available
test for AIDS, however, may make the working case definition the
best currently available for incidence monitoring.

In 1985 certain conditions were added to the defintion if they
were present in conjunction with a postive HIV test. But the HIV
test was never the sine qua non that is claimed here.

Mitchell Isaacs

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
> > Only ppl with
> > HIV got AIDS.
>
> Do you actually know what 'aids' is defined as? HIV + indicator disease
> = 'aids'
> Indicator disease - HIV = death by indicator disease.
>
> Get it?
> It's a tautological statement. "HIV causes 'aids'" since the very
> definition of 'aids' is that you have HIV! DUH!!
This is untrue. AIDS could be diagnosed in the deficiencey of HIV. HIV is
only a prerequisite for HIV-caused AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome regardless of
the causative factors.

Mitchell

Mitchell Isaacs

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
> >This is untrue. AIDS could be diagnosed in the deficiencey of HIV. HIV is
> >only a prerequisite for HIV-caused AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome regardless of
> >the causative factors.
>
> Could be? Experts say differently. For example in
> a interview Dr. Eric Rosenberg (a member of a team of AIDS
> researchers at Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital) said:
<snip>

AIDS is not one thing. AIDS is
> basically a ravaged immune system which is susceptible to a lot of
different
> pathogens.
>
> [Q. But they only call it AIDS when there is an immuno-suppressive
condition in
> the presence of HIV? ]
>
> Correct.
>
> [Q. So the definition of AIDS -- ]
>
> Is specific to people who are infected with the Human Immunodeficiency
Virus. "
And the reason for this you will find - is that people basically only have a
long term auto-immune deficiency of the nature found in classical aids cases
are those that are HIV+.

This definition of aids given here is the common usage, not the technical
one which I'm sure would be used in any research attempting to determine
the causative factor of aids.

Cheers,
Mitchell


Nick Bennett

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to

On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 corn...@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000711...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
> Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> > Only ppl with
> > HIV got AIDS.
>
> Do you actually know what 'aids' is defined as? HIV + indicator disease
> = 'aids'
> Indicator disease - HIV = death by indicator disease.

If you weren't jumping into the thread halfway, you would realise we were
discussing a specific paper by Ascher et al in a 1993 Nature journal. For
your benefit, I should point out that they diagnosed AIDS _purely_ by
indicator disease presentation, and ignored HIV serostatus until the final
analysis.

A better phrase would be "In this study, only people with HIV got AIDS
indicator diseases".

How does that square with your biased and misinformed view of the disease?

>
> No it doesn't - obviously.
> How do you explain that after twenty years so few people in the U.K.
> are dying of alleged 'aids' that the government no longer publicises
> the mortality rates - at least- I'm having a hell of a job finding
> them, and I'm *looking* for them!

They were posted to misc.health.aids just last week.

Isn't it rather strange that the
> heterosexual population in the U.K. haven't started dropping like
> flies, seeing as every other STD is rising every year, and has been
> rising every year for the past twenty years? What happened to the
> dreaded 'HIV'?

Maybe cos most of the UK cases are in homosexuals and drug users, and
maybe because most of the "UK" hetero cases are in fact people who have
moved here from Africa, or who have partners from Africa and other
high-risk areas, so there really isn't much HIV in the hetero population?

Or perhaps you weren't aware of those facts?

> Why do all the programmes about 'aids' on t.v. *never* say "x number of
> people died of 'aids' in the U.K. last year"?

I didn't see any programs on AIDS last year, none about the UK that I
recall certainly. We have one of the lowest HIV rates in the world -
1/3rd that of the US even.

> Perhaps you'd like to explain how a mother 'infects' her child with
> 'hiv' only at the point of birth (or is most likely to 'infect' her
> child with 'hiv' when he/she is born - are babies born with cuts that
> suddenly get infected as they pass through their mothers' vaginas?

(a) It doesn't _only_ happen at the time of birth, it can happen at any
time during pregnancy, but during birth is the most likely time.

(b) Like, er, the vagina is how men get HIV from women - so what's to stop
a baby getting it, especially when there is a fair amount of bleeding
going on?

(c) An awful lot of transmission is through breast milk. You can study
breastfeeding mothers and kids and see the kids seroconvert one by one in
the months after birth - but only if they are breastfed.

> Because maybe it would show how to prevent HIV transmission (not that
> it matters anyway)

Funny how condom use among African prostitutes has cut the transmission
rate of HIV. Funny how antiviral drugs (especially the "dreaded" AZT) can
not only cut transmission of HIV at birth, but also REDUCE AIDS cases in
kids (who progress within 2 years on average, as opposed to 10 years for
adults). Why would this happen if HIV wasn't involved?

> Your stupidity is incredible! Do you really think that nobody died of
> heroin use a hundred years ago? Read up about it!
> Hard drugs kill!

Yes - I'm a medic. I know more about it than you do!

People who take them have - guess what - compromised
> immune systems!

No they don't. If they did, why did things like PCP and KS _suddenly_
appear in homosexual men who weren't taking drugs. Nice theory cornflake,
but it doesn't fit the facts!

> Duh! Talk about circular logic! Drug use *was* the cause of death of
> all those people who didn't take AZT - it destroyed their immune
> systems - this is *well* documented.

LOL! Yeah, right. Drug use kills, but it doesn't cause a specific
decline in CD4 T cells resulting in a loss of cellular specific immunity
and the appearance of characteristic opportunistic infections.

Or maybe you are suggesting that
> everybody should start taking heroin because it doesn't harm you in any
> way - Daniella Westbrook, anybody?
>

Yeah, very attractive thought. Wasn't that cocaine use anyway...? The
point is that drug use doesn't cause AIDS. Nothing more - the avoidance
of hard drugs goes without saying, but doing that and assuming you're now
safe from HIV and AIDS is, er, what's the word....bollocks.

> How do you explain the lack of an epidemic in the U.K. and the U.S.,
> even though there *is* an epidemic of all other STDs?

See above.

>
> Finally - some of the pathetic responses to Yuri's original post show
> the intellectual bankruptcy of the 'HIV causes aids' posters. Attempts
> at ad-hominem attacks on Yuri convince nobody that he is wrong - your
> closed mindedness has got us all where we are today - millions dying in
> Africa because of *poverty* and the only thing the west can offer is
> chemotherapy drugs that will kill them even faster! Great!

If poverty were the only problem then the factories wouldn't find
themselves closing because all their paid workforce were dying off.

Last year in Zambia the number of _teachers_ who died from AIDS was equal
to 2 thirds the number trained that year. How the hell is a country
supposed to survive with that kind of epidemic? Giving them drugs isn't
going to help as much as telling them to practise safer sex and maybe
someday developing a vaccine. Telling them to eat more is crap. They're
not all natives in mud huts you know. Hell, the BBC is hiring 2 people
per job because the odds are one will die in a year from AIDS. That is no
poverty illness. If it is, why is it affecting the healthiest age group
in places where there is no poverty....?

And you might notice that the countries that took notice of the
"paranoid" scientists telling them about AIDS have very few cases. The
countries that have not listened are reeling from its effects.

Bennett


Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:> In a long exchange of letters like this, obviously one needs a few hours
:> only trying to untangle various claims and counter-claims.

: May I suggest spending a few minutes of that time learning the
: difference between nitrites and nitrates?

So why is the difference so important to you, Ken? Just something to
rant about, because you have nothing relevant to say?

Here's a study that indicates increased risk of cancer from _both_! Is
this really what you want to happen to gay men?

Here's the relevant part:

"After adjusting for confounders, long duration of use of shallow
private wells, which are more likely to be contaminated with nitrate and
pesticides than deep wells, was associated with an increased risk of NHL
(non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). High nitrate levels in private wells or
community supplies (greater than or equal to 8 mg or 4 mg nitrate
nitrogen per liter, respectively) were also associated with an elevated
risk of NHL, with odds ratios (ORs) of 2.0 and 2.4, respectively."

http://infoventures.com/cancer/canlit/eti1195a.html

Cancer Risk from Exposure to
Nitrites and Nitrates

Last modified on: Tuesday, April 20, 1999

Copyright © 1994-2000, Information Ventures,
Inc.

Exposure to nitrites and nitrates, with the attendant
possibility of formation of carcinogenic nitrosamine
derivatives, is one of the most long-standing
environmental concerns. However, while there is
abundant experimental evidence to support the
concept, there is little or no evidence that there is a
risk to humans. A report from the Johns Hopkins
University (Ward; ICDB/95615345) is interesting
in this regard. It describes a case-control study of
385 cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)
diagnosed over a three-year period in Nebraska
and 1432 population-based controls. Information
about demographics, agricultural factors, a family
history of cancer, hair dye use, diet, and smoking
was obtained by telephone interviews. Also
collected was a complete history of residences and
water sources, and this was linked to state-wide
municipal water nitrate data. The duration of use of
private wells for drinking water was evaluated as a
risk factor for NHL. Dietary nitrate and nitrite
intake were not associated with the risk of NHL.
After adjusting for confounders, long duration of
use of shallow private wells, which are more likely
to be contaminated with nitrate and pesticides than
deep wells, was associated with an increased risk
of NHL. High nitrate levels in private wells or
community supplies (greater than or equal to 8 mg
or 4 mg nitrate nitrogen per liter, respectively) were
also associated with an elevated risk of NHL, with
odds ratios (ORs) of 2.0 and 2.4, respectively.

November, 1995

Yuri.

-o- Yuri Kuchinsky -o-

"It will surely lead to a scientifically healthier society if the burden
of proof for HIV as a deadly pathogen is returned to where it belongs -
to those who maintain that HIV causes AIDS - and others are allowed to
pursue alternative approaches in the battle for eradication of the
disease." - Dr. Beverly Griffin, Director of the Department of Virology,
Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London

Alternative AIDS Information,

http://harmsen.net/heal/index.html

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
: On 10 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

[snip the points already addressed by "corncrate"]

:> 2. "Non-users of drugs" are lumped together with "light-users of drugs".


:> This, of course leaves a giant gaping hole right there in the authors'
:> argument.

: Not at all. The non-user set is specifically analysed in the original
: paper.

You're misrepresenting. Again.

:> 3. "Drugs" are not further specified. Not all drugs are the same. Not


:> even close. Lots of drugs have no connection whatsoever with AIDS, but
:> others show a clear correlation with AIDS.

: Again the drugs used are specified in the paper.

How so?

:> 4. AZT use or non-use by either group is not specified. Which of course


:> mocks "non-use or light-use of drugs" by this group.

: This is the only reasonable point,

Thank you.

: but this again ignores all those who


: (Duesberg freely admits) died of AIDS before AZT came on the
: market.

Who's ignoring this? Those who died of AIDS before AZT died because of
Nitrites and/or antibiotic abuse.

: Since drug is was not the cause (as shown in this study)

This is circular reasoning.

: and AZT


: cannot _retrospectively_ be the cause, the only one remaining single
: unique (get the point?) factor involved is HIV.

Is this the kind of reasoning they teach at Cambridge nowadays? Oh, how
the mighty have fallen...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes

corn...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In article <8kiqqi$5es$1...@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>,

"Mitchell Isaacs" <misaacs@spam_me_not.student.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> > > Only ppl with
> > > HIV got AIDS.
> >
> > Do you actually know what 'aids' is defined as? HIV + indicator
disease
> > = 'aids'
> > Indicator disease - HIV = death by indicator disease.
> >
> > Get it?
> > It's a tautological statement. "HIV causes 'aids'" since the very
> > definition of 'aids' is that you have HIV! DUH!!

> This is untrue. AIDS could be diagnosed in the deficiencey of HIV.

You got that right! Like those 30 million Africans dying of 'aids' -
they're not dying of 'aids' - they're dying of the diseases they've
*always* died of, malaria, TB, etc. all caused by the poverty they live
in. But you don't get research grants for stopping poverty, do you?

>HIV is
> only a prerequisite for HIV-caused AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome
regardless of
> the causative factors.

Amazing! The 'S' in AIDS stands for 'syndrome', so it's obviously a
syndrome - but that is meaningless - the question is - what is killing
people in Africa? Is it a sexually transmitted disease? Or is it
several diseases that people succumb to because of poverty? i.e.
unclean drinking water, lack of proper sanitation, etc.

Time will prove the 'dissidents' right, and then an awful lot of people
are going to have a hell of a lot of answering to, especially as their
every wrong move has been documented in all the 'scientific' journals
they publish in.

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In misc.health.aids Robert S. Holzman <holz...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
: Marcin Mankowski wrote:

:> Could be? Experts say differently. For example in


:> a interview Dr. Eric Rosenberg (a member of a team of AIDS
:> researchers at Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital) said:

: Unfortunately Eric Rosenberg, member of the team of aids


: researchers, was wrong when he said...

:> [Q. But they only call it AIDS when there is an immuno-suppressive condition in


:> the presence of HIV? ]
:>
:> Correct.
:>
:> [Q. So the definition of AIDS -- ]
:>
:> Is specific to people who are infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. "

: you don't have to take my word for it, look at this quote from


: the sept 24, 1982 CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Nice scam, Robert. Are you now descending to such depths of
misrepresentation?

Shocking!

: Editorial Note: CDC defines a case of AIDS as a disease, at least


: moderately predictive of a defect in cell-mediated immunity,
: occurring in a person with no known cause for diminished
: resistance to that disease. Such diseases include KS, PCP, and
: serious OOI.((S)) Diagnoses are considered to fit the case
: definition only if based on sufficiently reliable methods
: (generally histology or culture). However, this case definition
: may not include the full spectrum of AIDS manifestations, which
: may range from absence of symptoms (despite laboratory evidence
: of immune deficiency) to non-specific symptoms (e.g., fever,
: weight loss, generalized, persistent lymphadenopathy) (4) to
: specific diseases that are insufficiently predictive of cellular
: immunodeficiency to be included in incidence monitoring (e.g.,
: tuberculosis, oral
: candidiasis, herpes zoster) to malignant neoplasms that cause, as
: well as result from, mmunodeficiency((P)) (5). Conversely, some
: patients who are considered AIDS cases on the basis of diseases
: only moderately predictive of cellular immunodeficiency may not
: actually be immunodeficient and may not be part of the current
: epidemic. Absence of a reliable, inexpensive, widely available
: test for AIDS, however, may make the working case definition the
: best currently available for incidence monitoring.

The Quack from New York is now quoting the obsolete definition that had
been changed numerous times since... Really...

: In 1985 certain conditions were added to the defintion if they


: were present in conjunction with a postive HIV test. But the HIV
: test was never the sine qua non that is claimed here.

Unfortunately for Robert, Dr. Eric Rosenberg, member of the team of aids
researchers, was right, because he was more up to date, and quoted the
more recent definition.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous -=O=- Words of Dorothy
to the Scarecrow -=O=- "Wizard of Oz" (according to some versions).

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In misc.health.aids Robert S. Holzman <holz...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
: corn...@my-deja.com wrote:
:> > Only ppl with

:> > HIV got AIDS.
:>
:> Do you actually know what 'aids' is defined as? HIV + indicator disease
:> = 'aids'
:> Indicator disease - HIV = death by indicator disease.
:>
:> Get it?
:> It's a tautological statement. "HIV causes 'aids'" since the very
:> definition of 'aids' is that you have HIV! DUH!!

: Well, corncrate, I posted previously that this is a falsehood and


: cited the original case definition.

No, you've just proved that YOU are a falsehood!

Yuri.

-=O=- Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=-

"In _The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko_, Russian historian Zhores
Medvedev ... concludes that "monopoly in science by one or another false
doctrine, or even by one scientific trend, is an external symptom of
some deep-seated sickness of a society."

"To date, there is still no clinical trial that has proven that the

protease inhibitors 容ither taken alone or in combination with other
antiviral drugs 羊educe the mortality of AIDS patients"

corn...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
In article <396cf523...@news5.bellatlantic.net>,

mmankow...@bellatlantic.net (Marcin Mankowski) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:20:56 +1000, "Mitchell Isaacs"
> <misaacs@spam_me_not.student.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> > Only ppl with
> >> > HIV got AIDS.
> >>
> >> Do you actually know what 'aids' is defined as? HIV + indicator
disease
> >> = 'aids'
> >> Indicator disease - HIV = death by indicator disease.
> >>
> >> Get it?
> >> It's a tautological statement. "HIV causes 'aids'" since the very
> >> definition of 'aids' is that you have HIV! DUH!!
> >This is untrue. AIDS could be diagnosed in the deficiencey of HIV.
HIV is
> >only a prerequisite for HIV-caused AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome
regardless of
> >the causative factors.
>
> Could be? Experts say differently. For example in
> a interview Dr. Eric Rosenberg (a member of a team of AIDS
> researchers at Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital) said:
>
> "[Q. Well, I was talking with Kary Mullis, and that was sort of what
he was
> saying too. Which is that, there is such a thing as HIV, but
> it won't always develop into AIDS. AIDS could actually be caused by
some other
> immuno-suppressive condition. Do you think
> that that is possible? ]
>
> Well, there are definitely other immuno-suppressive conditions which
give people
> illnesses that people with AIDS get. For
> example, if somebody undergoes lung transplantation, and are given
very heavy
> duty medications to suppress their immune system,
> they are susceptible to many of the pathogens, the microorganisms
which cause
> infection in AIDS patients. But those people don't
> have what we would call AIDS. They are just immuno-compromised from
the
> transplantation. AIDS is not one thing. AIDS is

> basically a ravaged immune system which is susceptible to a lot of
different
> pathogens.
>
> [Q. But they only call it AIDS when there is an immuno-suppressive
condition in
> the presence of HIV? ]
>
> Correct.
>
> [Q. So the definition of AIDS -- ]
>
> Is specific to people who are infected with the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus. "
>
> http://www.valleyadvocate.com/hiv-aids/i980807.html
>

Thankyou for clarifying that point - I was amazed that after the
'Durban Declaration' anybody would say that 'AIDS' as it is currently
defined does not require you to be HIV antibody positive to be
diagnosed as having 'AIDS'.

Nick Bennett

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to

On 13 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> Here's a study that indicates increased risk of cancer from _both_! Is
> this really what you want to happen to gay men?
>
> Here's the relevant part:
>
> "After adjusting for confounders, long duration of use of shallow
> private wells, which are more likely to be contaminated with nitrate and
> pesticides than deep wells, was associated with an increased risk of NHL
> (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). High nitrate levels in private wells or
> community supplies (greater than or equal to 8 mg or 4 mg nitrate
> nitrogen per liter, respectively) were also associated with an elevated
> risk of NHL, with odds ratios (ORs) of 2.0 and 2.4, respectively."

Wow - Yuri's gone to find some literature to back his ideas up!!

<applause>

However, they're still sadly irrelevant since in terms of AIDS-KS nitrate
use did not correlate to the onset of cancers, once it had been removed as
a confounder. If it was possible to do this, then it could not possible
be causal (only confounders can be removed from analyses without affecting
the result).

Bennett


corn...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to

> In 1985 certain conditions were added to the defintion if they
> were present in conjunction with a postive HIV test. But the HIV
> test was never the sine qua non that is claimed here.

Really? So why did 5,000 'scientist' sign the Durban Declaration that
*specifically* says "HIV causes AIDS"? Any answers? (other than that
they want to keep their research budgets, while millions of Africans
die of poverty?)

Nick Bennett

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to

On 13 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> : Not at all. The non-user set is specifically analysed in the original
> : paper.
>
> You're misrepresenting. Again.

Then what the hell is the graph at the bottom of the second page showing
CD4 T cell counts in "users" and "non-users"? Even Duesberg acknowledges
that.

>
> :> 3. "Drugs" are not further specified. Not all drugs are the same. Not
> :> even close. Lots of drugs have no connection whatsoever with AIDS, but
> :> others show a clear correlation with AIDS.
>
> : Again the drugs used are specified in the paper.
>
> How so?
>

Halfway down the right-hanf column on the first page, the drugs examined
are listed.

> :> 4. AZT use or non-use by either group is not specified. Which of course
> :> mocks "non-use or light-use of drugs" by this group.
>
> : This is the only reasonable point,
>
> Thank you.
>

You're welcome.

> : but this again ignores all those who
> : (Duesberg freely admits) died of AIDS before AZT came on the
> : market.
>
> Who's ignoring this? Those who died of AIDS before AZT died because of
> Nitrites and/or antibiotic abuse.
>

ARRGH! But there _IS_NO_CORRELATION_ with _anything_ except transmission
of HIV. NitrATE use was confounding for ONE set of people (homosexuals)
but not for others (haemophiliacs, IV drug users and women). Occam's
razor comes right along here, and says "Why invoke 2, 3 or 4 different
causes for the same disease, when one factor is common to all?"


> : Since drug is was not the cause (as shown in this study)
>
> This is circular reasoning.
>

Eh? What do you mean? They looked to see if drug use caused AIDS. It
did not. Therefore the pre-AZT AIDS deaths could not be due to drug use -
gettit?

> : and AZT
> : cannot _retrospectively_ be the cause, the only one remaining single
> : unique (get the point?) factor involved is HIV.
>
> Is this the kind of reasoning they teach at Cambridge nowadays? Oh, how
> the mighty have fallen...

It's really very simple. You have theoretical causes A B and C. Prior to
time point X the theory goes that the disease was caused by A. After
timepoint X the disease is thought to be caused by B. An alternative view
is that the disease before and after X is caused by C.

Studies show that the disease cannot be caused by A. Therefore, before X
the cause must be C. After X, there is no need to invoke cause B because
there already is a cause that fits all available data.

A is drug use. B is AZT. C is HIV. X is the time when AZT was made
available. You can work it out yourself.

Bennett


Eric Bohlman

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
corn...@my-deja.com wrote:
: Amazing! The 'S' in AIDS stands for 'syndrome', so it's obviously a

: syndrome - but that is meaningless - the question is - what is killing
: people in Africa? Is it a sexually transmitted disease? Or is it
: several diseases that people succumb to because of poverty? i.e.
: unclean drinking water, lack of proper sanitation, etc.

OK, you've stated a hypothesis here, namely that what's called "AIDS" in
Africa is actually the manifestation of poverty-related conditions. The
test of any hypothesis is the predictions it makes. Your hypothesis
predicts that

1) The poorest African countries should have the most cases of AIDS per
capita, and the wealthiest countries should have the fewest cases per capita.

2) An increase in poverty over time should result in an increase of AIDS
cases, and a decrease in poverty over time should result in a decrease in
AIDS cases.

Please provide some evidence that the actual statistics from Africa are
compatible with these predictions.


Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:8kl4d8$q0r$1...@news.tht.net...

> In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> :> In a long exchange of letters like this, obviously one needs a
few hours
> :> only trying to untangle various claims and counter-claims.
>
> : May I suggest spending a few minutes of that time learning the
> : difference between nitrites and nitrates?
>
> So why is the difference so important to you, Ken? Just something to
> rant about, because you have nothing relevant to say?
>
> Here's a study that indicates increased risk of cancer from _both_!
Is
> this really what you want to happen to gay men?
>
> Here's the relevant part:
>
> "After adjusting for confounders, long duration of use of shallow
> private wells, which are more likely to be contaminated with nitrate
and
> pesticides than deep wells, was associated with an increased risk of
NHL

Just so you know Yuri Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and KS are not the same
type of cancer. Further from the study you quote "... there is little


or no evidence that there is a risk to humans".

--
Gary Stein
ges...@starpower.net
http://www.mischealthaids.org

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
it."
(Gene Spafford)

> (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). High nitrate levels in private wells or
> community supplies (greater than or equal to 8 mg or 4 mg nitrate
> nitrogen per liter, respectively) were also associated with an
elevated
> risk of NHL, with odds ratios (ORs) of 2.0 and 2.4, respectively."
>

> After adjusting for confounders, long duration of
> use of shallow private wells, which are more likely
> to be contaminated with nitrate and pesticides than
> deep wells, was associated with an increased risk

> of NHL. High nitrate levels in private wells or


> community supplies (greater than or equal to 8 mg
> or 4 mg nitrate nitrogen per liter, respectively) were
> also associated with an elevated risk of NHL, with
> odds ratios (ORs) of 2.0 and 2.4, respectively.
>

Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:8kl6gj$qum$1...@news.tht.net...

> In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> : On 10 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> [snip the points already addressed by "corncrate"]
>
> :> 2. "Non-users of drugs" are lumped together with "light-users of
drugs".
> :> This, of course leaves a giant gaping hole right there in the
authors'
> :> argument.
>
> : Not at all. The non-user set is specifically analysed in the
original
> : paper.
>
> You're misrepresenting. Again.
>
> :> 3. "Drugs" are not further specified. Not all drugs are the same.
Not
> :> even close. Lots of drugs have no connection whatsoever with
AIDS, but
> :> others show a clear correlation with AIDS.
>
> : Again the drugs used are specified in the paper.
>
> How so?
>
> :> 4. AZT use or non-use by either group is not specified. Which of
course
> :> mocks "non-use or light-use of drugs" by this group.
>
> : This is the only reasonable point,
>
> Thank you.
>
> : but this again ignores all those who
> : (Duesberg freely admits) died of AIDS before AZT came on the
> : market.
>
> Who's ignoring this? Those who died of AIDS before AZT died because
of
> Nitrites and/or antibiotic abuse.

Although antibiotics are released naturally into the soil by bacteria
and fungi, they did not come into worldwide use by humans until the
introduction of penicillin in 1941. That being the case why do you
suppose they did not cause immune deficency dieases until 1981, Yuri
don't you think that in 40 years of use problems would have shown up
much sooner?

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> In misc.health.aids Robert S. Holzman <holz...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:

> : Marcin Mankowski wrote:
>
> :> Could be? Experts say differently. For example in


> :> a interview Dr. Eric Rosenberg (a member of a team of AIDS
> :> researchers at Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital) said:
>

> : Unfortunately Eric Rosenberg, member of the team of aids
> : researchers, was wrong when he said...
>

> :> [Q. But they only call it AIDS when there is an immuno-suppressive condition in


> :> the presence of HIV? ]
> :>
> :> Correct.
> :>
> :> [Q. So the definition of AIDS -- ]
> :>
> :> Is specific to people who are infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. "
>

Numerous? 1985, 87,93!.

> : In 1985 certain conditions were added to the defintion if they


> : were present in conjunction with a postive HIV test. But the HIV
> : test was never the sine qua non that is claimed here.
>

> Unfortunately for Robert, Dr. Eric Rosenberg, member of the team of aids
> researchers, was right, because he was more up to date, and quoted the
> more recent definition.

No, he wasn't. We will wait for you to produce some evidence
that he was.
For those who want to see for themselves the 1993 revision can be
found at
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm. the
1987 revision
is not posted there but the specifics are that KS and PCP were
aids defining in
the absence of a positive HIV test and even in the presence of a
negative one.
The 1993 revision broadened the 1987 one but did not replace it
totally.

For those who don't want to slog through the full definition, the
key phrase says:

"This expansion includes the addition of three clinical
conditions: pulmonary tuberculosis, recurrent pneumonia, and
invasive cervical cancer -- and retains the 23 clinical
conditions in the AIDS surveillance case definition published in
1987"

Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/13/00
to
"GMCarter" <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:396e600c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On 13 Jul 2000 22:00:48 GMT, eboh...@netcom.com (Eric Bohlman)
wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> The World Bank could help alleviate problems in many debtor
countries
> by writing off debts that are causing enormous financial lesions in
> these resource poor nations. Debt that is being paid simply on
> usurious interest. Debts that arise from Structural Adjustment
> Programs that have been highlighted as inadvertent but clear vectors
> in enhancing the spread of HIV. Programs which have increased
poverty.
> Debt to which they simply wish to add by making AIDS-related funding
> available--at yet MORE interest. They are so vile and despicable in
> the face of the worst crisis in recent human history that it is
beyond
> belief. If they have concerns, they could tie debt relief to
directing
> funds in countries to appropriate prevention AND TREATMENT programs.

You would have been sickened listening to the Republicans argue on the
floor of the house the other day that forgiving the debts of the
African nations would not help the people of Africa at all and would
only help the large foreign owned banks that made the loans.(it seems
that any US bank loans have already been forgiven according to the
Republicans anyway) The reasoning was as follows, the Africans nations
are not replying the principal on the loans now, all they are paying
is interest, and if the US acts to forgive those loans then all that
happens is that the banks get there principal paid by the US
government and the people of Africa get nothing. When Maxine Waters
explained that the interest payment alone in 3 of the poorest African
nations is more then those nations entire health and education budgets
combined the Republicans had no reply and just continued to argue that
forgiving the loans would be a windfall for the banks and no help the
people of Africa. The dishonesty of the House leadership makes me sick
they are as bad as Yuri and Wolfgang.

GMCarter

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
On 13 Jul 2000 22:00:48 GMT, eboh...@netcom.com (Eric Bohlman) wrote:

snip...

>1) The poorest African countries should have the most cases of AIDS per
>capita, and the wealthiest countries should have the fewest cases per capita.

It's not the case (as I'm sure you're aware, Eric!)

>2) An increase in poverty over time should result in an increase of AIDS
>cases, and a decrease in poverty over time should result in a decrease in
>AIDS cases.

It's not the case.

>Please provide some evidence that the actual statistics from Africa are
>compatible with these predictions.

Of course, he won't be able to! The reality of much of the HIV spread
and AIDS deaths in Africa is that they are among the professional and
working people. But also among the poor too, of course, just like in
the United States.

Poverty, however, can accelerate the rate of progression in a number
of ways. Nutritional deficiencies are a hallmark of HIV infection and
when you add inadequate caloric intake to the picture, the rate of
progression to AIDS accelerates. Poverty may also expose individuals
to more pathogens, such as those found in unclean water. Parasitic
infections can also accelerate HIV disease progression. Reactivated TB
is a common problem and much more horrible with HIV disease.

And along with a lack of access to HIV medications due in first and
principal part to their genocidally high prices that the
pharmaceutical industry has tried to enforce by blocking countries'
right to parallel import (from India, Brazil, New Zealand, etc.) or
compulsorily license for cheaper generics, there is also an inadequate
supply of treatments for parasitic diseases, TB, cryptococcal
meningitis, bacterial infections, etc. The pharm co's have basically
almost 100% ignored tropical diseases that kill millions in their
pursuit of the goddamned holy dollar. It's not like they couldn't do
both.

So poverty is a significant factor.

The World Bank could help alleviate problems in many debtor countries
by writing off debts that are causing enormous financial lesions in
these resource poor nations. Debt that is being paid simply on
usurious interest. Debts that arise from Structural Adjustment
Programs that have been highlighted as inadvertent but clear vectors
in enhancing the spread of HIV. Programs which have increased poverty.
Debt to which they simply wish to add by making AIDS-related funding
available--at yet MORE interest. They are so vile and despicable in
the face of the worst crisis in recent human history that it is beyond
belief. If they have concerns, they could tie debt relief to directing
funds in countries to appropriate prevention AND TREATMENT programs.

Instead, there's a lot of jawboning and foot dragging and lying and
bullshit grandstanding instead of genuine effort.

Don't get me wrong. Some nations really have to wake the fuck up fast
before they lose a huge chunk of their working populations. India,
Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Namibia, Dem. Rep of the Congo and a whole bunch
of countries have governments that have their heads planted firmly
between the ample butt cheeks of denial.

Poverty is a threat to global security since it is gasoline on the
fire of the AIDS pandemic. Greed of the wealthy nations,
pharmaceutical and other corporations and despicable organizations
like the World Bank and some of the leaders of poor nations is yet
more fuel to that fire.

Our species needs to grow up. It's really simple. We have to simply
give a damn about other people and take care of this fragile and
remarkable planet we've been blessed with.

Yet, with the remarkable capacity for humans to indulge in abject
idiocy, here we are entertained with the likes of denialist cant and
dizziness, laden with an unhealthy helping of homophobia, AIDSphobia
and racism to boot, all without the sense god gave a goat. The bigger
problems get eclipsed with all this fucking horseshit.

George M. Carter

Terry Smith

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to

"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:8kl4d8$q0r$1...@news.tht.net...
> In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> :> In a long exchange of letters like this, obviously one needs a few
hours
> :> only trying to untangle various claims and counter-claims.
>
> : May I suggest spending a few minutes of that time learning the
> : difference between nitrites and nitrates?
>
> So why is the difference so important to you, Ken? Just something to
> rant about, because you have nothing relevant to say?
>
That you appear to consider any difference `not important', whilst claiming
some competance to judge biochemical findings, is highly relevant. You are
as much as biologist as you were an anthropologist.

Yuri - You make Ed Conrad look educated.

Nick Bennett

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to

On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Robert S. Holzman wrote:

<snip>


> For those who don't want to slog through the full definition, the
> key phrase says:
>
> "This expansion includes the addition of three clinical
> conditions: pulmonary tuberculosis, recurrent pneumonia, and
> invasive cervical cancer -- and retains the 23 clinical
> conditions in the AIDS surveillance case definition published in
> 1987"

Moreover there seems to be a specific mention of HIV diagnosis _only_ for
the added conditions, or at least that's how I read it...

"In addition to retaining the 23 clinical conditions in the previous AIDS
surveillance definition, the expanded definition includes pulmonary
tuberculosis (TB), recurrent pneumonia, and invasive cervical cancer.*
This expanded definition requires laboratory confirmation of HIV infection
in persons with a CD4+ T-lymphocyte count of less than 200 cells/uL or
with one of the added clinical conditions."

HIV+ diagnosis is required for stage A and B HIV infection, but stage C
doesn't actually mention it! (Stage C being AIDS). In addition, the
actual wording of stage B is somewhat flexible, which is interesting.

Category A (requires HIV diagnosis)
Asymptomatic HIV infection
Persistent generalized lymphadenopathy
Acute (primary) HIV infection with accompanying illness or history of
acute HIV infection

Category B (requires HIV diagnosis)
the conditions are attributed to HIV infection or are indicative of a
defect in cell-mediated immunity; or
the conditions are considered by physicians to have a clinical course or
to require management that is complicated by HIV infection.
Examples of conditions in clinical Category B include, but are not limited
to: .....

Note the key word _examples_.

Category C
Category C includes the clinical conditions listed in the AIDS
surveillance case definition.

Errr...that's it. The 3 extra clinical conditions are specifically
mentioned to require evidence of HIV infection through normal diagnostic
means, as is the CD4 count of less than 200 (and even _that_ has been
interpreted by doctors to mean _long-term_ CD4 deficits).

I dunno if it really _is_ the case that AIDS-defining conditions can be
called AIDS without definitive proof of HIV infection, but it certainly
could be interpreted that way...how interesting. The point is of course
that the clinical presentation of the diseases are different in AIDS (and
this is reflected in the definition).

Bennett


GMCarter

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:01:42 -0400, "Gary Stein"
<ges...@starpower.net> wrote:

snip...

>You would have been sickened listening to the Republicans argue on the
>floor of the house the other day that forgiving the debts of the
>African nations would not help the people of Africa at all and would
>only help the large foreign owned banks that made the loans.(it seems
>that any US bank loans have already been forgiven according to the
>Republicans anyway) The reasoning was as follows, the Africans nations
>are not replying the principal on the loans now, all they are paying
>is interest, and if the US acts to forgive those loans then all that
>happens is that the banks get there principal paid by the US
>government and the people of Africa get nothing. When Maxine Waters
>explained that the interest payment alone in 3 of the poorest African
>nations is more then those nations entire health and education budgets
>combined the Republicans had no reply and just continued to argue that
>forgiving the loans would be a windfall for the banks and no help the
>people of Africa. The dishonesty of the House leadership makes me sick
>they are as bad as Yuri and Wolfgang.

This is TRULY sickening. I think we really need to have a genocide
project. This so-called leadership should be brought to justice. The
consequences of their heinous and criminal actions is the deaths of
millions of men, women and children. This is a holocaust that rivals
any known to date. Even the US ambassador to the UN has stated flatly,
the Lehrer News Hour, that HIV/AIDS is the worst crisis facing the
planet today. He's right.

These people may try to rationalize their way out of this with this
kind of bullshit sophistry but I can only pray that there is life
after death and they can get to know the pain and suffering that they
contributed so solidly too when it is their turn to die.

George M. Carter


GMCarter

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/medical/conference_updates/3098.0711.html#sadoh

Position of the South African Government on Access to Pharmaceuticals

The South African Dept. of Health released this statement on July 11,
2000:

Our country is part of the fight for an international dispensation
that ensures greater access to ALL drugs for people in the developing
world and the economically marginalised in the North. South Africa's
engagement with the pharmaceutical industry on this front is well
known. In our support for this international effort we include the
availability of all effective treatment to deal with the epidemic of
HIV and AIDS.

The South African government is encouraged by the growing support for
such interventions as parallel importing, compulsory licensing and
local manufacturing, and we support these initiatives fully.

We reiterate our government's often stated view that in exploring
these options, the South African government will respect international
agreements that it is signatory to, including TRIPS.

We believe that these interventions would improve the capacity of
developing nations to ensure greater access to drugs.

We recognise the benefits that accrue to those who can afford the use
of antiretrovirals, but stress that in our context, this is far from
reality. The pharmaceutical manufacturers must confront this reality.
The ball is in their court.

We also recognise that the cost of these drugs is not the only
deterrent to their use. We need to systematically invest in and build
our health infrastructures so that advances in drug treatment can be
made available to those who need it.

This is the challenge to all peoples and governments of the world,
particularly those in the developed world.

Certainly, lower prices of drugs would enable our government to
redirect some resources to infrastructure building.

We also urge the pharmaceutical industry, development agencies,
government and NGOs to work together and invest in technologies that
would address the burden of disease in developing countries.

We support the Revised Drug Strategy resolution adopted by the World
Health Assembly in 1999, and urge for its speediest and full
implementation. The central feature of this resolution is to improve
access to essential drugs in developing countries.

In 1997 the South African government enacted an amendment to its
Medicines Act. A key element of this was to provide for such measures
as parallel importing and greater use of generics in our market.

This piece of legislation, however, could not be implemented to date
because of a court interdict initiated by the PMA (SA) (Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association).

The PMA represents an association of largely North American and West
European pharmaceutical multinationals in South Africa.

We expect this court case to proceed during the latter part of this
year.

We have noted the recent offers by pharmaceutical companies to begin
dialogue with a view to improving access to antiretrovirals. We
reiterate the views of SADC and African Ministers as expressed in
press releases in Geneva in May 2000 that these discussions must
extend beyond the narrow issue of antiretrovirals.

We support this dialogue within the framework of the active
participation of representatives of the beneficiary countries in this
dialogue.

11 July 2000

Issued by Dr Ayanda Ntsaluba, Director-General, Department of Health,
South Africa

For enquiries, contact Faizel Dawjee (083) 254-2923.


Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> : May I suggest spending a few minutes of that time learning the
> : difference between nitrites and nitrates?
>
> So why is the difference so important to you, Ken? Just something to
> rant about, because you have nothing relevant to say?

No, just mentioning that your inability to use the terms correctly
doesn't exactly inspire confidence that you know what you're doing.
Of course people who've been reading your stuff for any length of
time know that already.


> Here's a study that indicates increased risk of cancer from _both_!

> Here's the relevant part:

Really? I would have thought that the relevant part was either:

> Exposure to nitrites and nitrates, with the attendant
> possibility of formation of carcinogenic nitrosamine
> derivatives, is one of the most long-standing
> environmental concerns. However, while there is
> abundant experimental evidence to support the
> concept, there is little or no evidence that there is a
> risk to humans.

or perhaps:

> Dietary nitrate and nitrite
> intake were not associated with the risk of NHL.

After all, those are the only two times that the word "nitrite"
appears in the text that you cited. The part that you called
relevant says that long-term use of wells with excess *nitrates*
is associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkins lymphomas.
Nothing in the text you cited indicates an increased risk because
of *nitrites*.

Remember that discussion we were having earlier, Yuri, about the
original papers not saying what you claimed that they said? Add
one to the list.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
Nick Bennett wrote:
> On 13 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > Here's a study that indicates increased risk of cancer from _both_! Is

> > this really what you want to happen to gay men?

> Wow - Yuri's gone to find some literature to back his ideas up!!
> <applause>

Why? He's messed it up. See his claim "indicates increased risk
of cancer from _both_"? Try to find anywhere in either what Yuri
calls the relevant part or in the longer text where nitrites (not
nitrates) are said to cause an increased risk of cancer.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
corn...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Robert Holzman wrote:
> > In 1985 certain conditions were added to the defintion if they
> > were present in conjunction with a postive HIV test. But the HIV
> > test was never the sine qua non that is claimed here.

> Really? So why did 5,000 'scientist' sign the Durban Declaration that
> *specifically* says "HIV causes AIDS"?

Perhaps the subtleties of the past tense "was" have escaped you?
Or that the discussion was about the period 1980 to 1985?

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Nick Bennett

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Ken Cox wrote:

> Why? He's messed it up. See his claim "indicates increased risk
> of cancer from _both_"? Try to find anywhere in either what Yuri
> calls the relevant part or in the longer text where nitrites (not
> nitrates) are said to cause an increased risk of cancer.

Yeah, I noticed that too (the title mentions both, but nothing in the body
of the text).

Still, surely posting _some_ form of support is better than nothing? It's
a start at least. There may be hope yet...! Hmmm.

Bennett


relative truth

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
| = Eric Bohlman
| : = corncrate

| : Amazing! The 'S' in AIDS stands for 'syndrome', so it's obviously a
| : syndrome - but that is meaningless - the question is - what is killing
| : people in Africa? Is it a sexually transmitted disease? Or is it
| : several diseases that people succumb to because of poverty? i.e.
| : unclean drinking water, lack of proper sanitation, etc.
|
| OK, you've stated a hypothesis here, namely that what's called "AIDS" in
| Africa is actually the manifestation of poverty-related conditions. The
| test of any hypothesis is the predictions it makes. Your hypothesis
| predicts that
|

| 1) The poorest African countries should have the most cases of AIDS per
| capita, and the wealthiest countries should have the fewest cases per capita.

Don't you know that diarrhea alone (an AIDS defining diseases in the
presence of HIV antibodies) kills more people than AIDS?

The only reason that the spread of tuberculosis in the former Soviet
Union has not been called AIDS, is the undeniable fact that HIV is
very rare there.

In a country where HIV is endemic however, most tuberculosis deaths
are nowadays simply called AIDS.

It is irrelevant whether 1%, 5%, 20%, 50% or even more percent of
disease-caused deaths are called deaths from AIDS, or whether they
are called deaths from tuberculosis, diarrhea, pneumonia, slim
disease, and so on.

Look at some death rates per 1000 per year of 1999:

Afghanistan: 18.30 U.S. Bureau of the Census
Belarus: 13.96 International Data Base
Bulgaria: 14.72 http://www.census.gov/
Russia: 13.75
Ukraine: 16.41

South Africa: 13.52
Uganda: 18.93

It is true that the age distribution of South Africa would allow
a death rate as low as around 5 per thousand, if iz were a rich
country with social security and modern health care for all.

How do you explain the alleged "fact" that HIV incidence in South
Africa increased from less than 14% (lower than in Uganda) to over
20% while at the same time the incidence fell from 14% to 8% in
Uganda? And take into consideration that is not so easy to cover
up a whole population of a poor 20 million country with condoms.
Has Uganda a condom industry? How many condoms were produced
and/or imported during the 1990's?

See also http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=638530073


| 2) An increase in poverty over time should result in an increase of AIDS
| cases, and a decrease in poverty over time should result in a decrease in
| AIDS cases.
|

| Please provide some evidence that the actual statistics from Africa are
| compatible with these predictions.

In principle it does not matter whether you die from tuberculosis
called tuberculosis or from tuberculosis called AIDS. So if we honestly
want to exclude any form of bias and prejudice, then we must examine the
incidence of all (AIDS defining) diseases taken together (irrespective
of HIV status). If we do that, I suppose, we'll find that deaths rates
correlate rather with poverty, health care, political stability and so
on, than with official HIV figures.


Z. at Z.

Nick Bennett

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to

On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, relative truth wrote:

> How do you explain the alleged "fact" that HIV incidence in South
> Africa increased from less than 14% (lower than in Uganda) to over
> 20% while at the same time the incidence fell from 14% to 8% in
> Uganda?

Because Uganda is one of the few (and you can probably count them on one
hand) African countries that _has_ started to educate the public and the
public has changed their behaviour. It has brought out some excellent
research (eg the Nevirapine trials and HIV-resistant
prostitutes). Compare this to SA, where until a few years ago AIDS did
not officially exist, and the health dept has money left _unspent_ that
was dedicated to AIDS prevention.

<snip>

I haven't looked hard at the death rates, except enough to suggest one
thing. Are you looking at overall death rates, or death rates in the
young adult (15-49) age bracket? Hmmm?

Bennett


Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
Nick Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Ken Cox wrote:
> > Why? He's messed it up. See his claim "indicates increased risk
> > of cancer from _both_"?

> Yeah, I noticed that too (the title mentions both, but nothing in the body
> of the text).

The title is accurate: "Cancer risk from exposure to nitrites
and nitrates". It just happens that the assessment in the paper
indicates no increased risk from nitrites.



> Still, surely posting _some_ form of support is better than nothing?

It's not really progress in Yuri's case. He's been citing papers
that don't support his claims for some time now; it's just that
now he's going out and finding his own, rather than using the ones
that virusmyth has collected.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Marcin Mankowski

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:36:42 GMT, corn...@my-deja.com wrote:

>> In 1985 certain conditions were added to the defintion if they
>> were present in conjunction with a postive HIV test. But the HIV
>> test was never the sine qua non that is claimed here.
>
>Really? So why did 5,000 'scientist' sign the Durban Declaration that

>*specifically* says "HIV causes AIDS"? Any answers? (other than that
>they want to keep their research budgets, while millions of Africans
>die of poverty?)

Yes, it is confusing. But if 5,000 scientists who are experts in the
field and who are primarily concerned about truth (as opposed to greedy
career oriented opportunists like Duesberg) says so, then we have
to believe them and not to question any more. The issue is resolved.

Also we do not have right to sabotage the efforts of decent pharmaceutical
companies to make a well deserved profit in Africa, especially after
AZT does not sell so well in the West.

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to

relative truth wrote:
>
> | = Eric Bohlman
> | : = corncrate
>
> | : Amazing! The 'S' in AIDS stands for 'syndrome', so it's obviously a
> | : syndrome - but that is meaningless - the question is - what is killing
> | : people in Africa? Is it a sexually transmitted disease? Or is it
> | : several diseases that people succumb to because of poverty? i.e.
> | : unclean drinking water, lack of proper sanitation, etc.
> |
> | OK, you've stated a hypothesis here, namely that what's called "AIDS" in
> | Africa is actually the manifestation of poverty-related conditions. The
> | test of any hypothesis is the predictions it makes. Your hypothesis
> | predicts that
> |
> | 1) The poorest African countries should have the most cases of AIDS per
> | capita, and the wealthiest countries should have the fewest cases per capita.
>
> Don't you know that diarrhea alone (an AIDS defining diseases in the
> presence of HIV antibodies) kills more people than AIDS?
>

The infantile diarrhea which is the major killer of children in
africa through producing dehydration is not
aids defining, even in the presence of HIV disease.

> The only reason that the spread of tuberculosis in the former Soviet
> Union has not been called AIDS, is the undeniable fact that HIV is
> very rare there.
>


Seems like a good reason to me.

> In a country where HIV is endemic however, most tuberculosis deaths
> are nowadays simply called AIDS.
>

Not in any country that conducts reasonable surveillance.

>
> In principle it does not matter whether you die from tuberculosis
> called tuberculosis or from tuberculosis called AIDS. So if we honestly
> want to exclude any form of bias and prejudice, then we must examine the
> incidence of all (AIDS defining) diseases taken together (irrespective
> of HIV status). If we do that, I suppose, we'll find that deaths rates
> correlate rather with poverty, health care, political stability and so
> on, than with official HIV figures.

No, you won't. That is the point of the UK hemophilia study an
the Uganda
study. Taken together deaths increased. Taken apart, deaths
only increased
in the HIV positive.

Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/15/00
to

"Marcin Mankowski" <mmankow...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:396f9b67...@news5.bellatlantic.net...

> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:36:42 GMT, corn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> In 1985 certain conditions were added to the defintion if they
> >> were present in conjunction with a postive HIV test. But the HIV
> >> test was never the sine qua non that is claimed here.
> >
> >Really? So why did 5,000 'scientist' sign the Durban Declaration
that
> >*specifically* says "HIV causes AIDS"? Any answers? (other than
that
> >they want to keep their research budgets, while millions of
Africans
> >die of poverty?)
>
> Yes, it is confusing. But if 5,000 scientists who are experts in the
> field and who are primarily concerned about truth (as opposed to
greedy
> career oriented opportunists like Duesberg)

I think you meant to say crackpot authors with books to sell like
Duesburg. HTH

Errol Back-Cunningham

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
relative truth wrote:

>
> Don't you know that diarrhea alone (an AIDS defining diseases in the
> presence of HIV antibodies) kills more people than AIDS?

Is it not true to say that you are never killed specifically by AIDS,
but by whatever opportunistic disease or infection takes you away
because it was able to beat your bodies defences? Is diarrhea not common
in AIDS sufferers?


> The only reason that the spread of tuberculosis in the former Soviet
> Union has not been called AIDS, is the undeniable fact that HIV is
> very rare there.
>

> In a country where HIV is endemic however, most tuberculosis deaths
> are nowadays simply called AIDS.

I suggest that you are seeing doctors who are trying to give their
patients a shot at their insurance or attempting to remove the stigma,
by putting the cause of death as TB.


> It is irrelevant whether 1%, 5%, 20%, 50% or even more percent of
> disease-caused deaths are called deaths from AIDS, or whether they
> are called deaths from tuberculosis, diarrhea, pneumonia, slim
> disease, and so on.
>
> Look at some death rates per 1000 per year of 1999:
>
> Afghanistan: 18.30 U.S. Bureau of the Census
> Belarus: 13.96 International Data Base
> Bulgaria: 14.72 http://www.census.gov/
> Russia: 13.75
> Ukraine: 16.41
>
> South Africa: 13.52
> Uganda: 18.93
>
> It is true that the age distribution of South Africa would allow
> a death rate as low as around 5 per thousand, if iz were a rich
> country with social security and modern health care for all.
>

> How do you explain the alleged "fact" that HIV incidence in South
> Africa increased from less than 14% (lower than in Uganda) to over
> 20% while at the same time the incidence fell from 14% to 8% in
> Uganda?

Uganda undertook an AIDS awareness campaign that involved heavy use of
condoms. They appear to be one of the only African countries with the
political will to do so.

And take into consideration that is not so easy to cover
> up a whole population of a poor 20 million country with condoms.
> Has Uganda a condom industry? How many condoms were produced
> and/or imported during the 1990's?

Far more to the point is how many condoms are being dustbinned by
reluctant males immediately after leaving the clinics. There is a very
large womens rights factor here and Africa is not a shining example.

Errol

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
: Nick Bennett wrote:
:> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Ken Cox wrote:
:> > Why? He's messed it up. See his claim "indicates increased risk
:> > of cancer from _both_"?
:
:> Yeah, I noticed that too (the title mentions both, but nothing in the body
:> of the text).

: The title is accurate: "Cancer risk from exposure to nitrites
: and nitrates". It just happens that the assessment in the paper
: indicates no increased risk from nitrites.

You're really not very bright, Ken, are you? The abstract

http://infoventures.com/cancer/canlit/eti1195a.html

is certainly not the complete article.

Duh!

The title of the abstract "Cancer Risk from Exposure to Nitrites and
Nitrates" is probably based on the evidence given in the article itself.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=-

If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous -=O=- Words of Dorothy
to the Scarecrow -=O=- "Wizard of Oz" (according to some versions).

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
: On 13 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> Here's a study that indicates increased risk of cancer from _both_! Is


:> this really what you want to happen to gay men?

:>
:> Here's the relevant part:
:>
:> "After adjusting for confounders, long duration of use of shallow


:> private wells, which are more likely to be contaminated with nitrate and

:> pesticides than deep wells, was associated with an increased risk of NHL
:> (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). High nitrate levels in private wells or


:> community supplies (greater than or equal to 8 mg or 4 mg nitrate
:> nitrogen per liter, respectively) were also associated with an elevated
:> risk of NHL, with odds ratios (ORs) of 2.0 and 2.4, respectively."

: Wow - Yuri's gone to find some literature to back his ideas up!!

: <applause>

: However, they're still sadly irrelevant since in terms of AIDS-KS nitrate


: use did not correlate to the onset of cancers, once it had been removed as
: a confounder.

This is what you need to demonstrate.

: If it was possible to do this, then it could not possible


: be causal (only confounders can be removed from analyses without affecting
: the result).

Yes, I know, this is your wishful thinking.

Yuri.

-o- Yuri Kuchinsky -o-

Here you will find 10 False Myths about AIDS as have been perpetrated so
commonly by our objective Western media. For some strange reason, these
Guardians of Truth and Democracy never seem to find the time to correct
such misleading information. And, in addition, the 9 Wonderful Mysteries
that leave our mainstream AIDS science stumped and bewildered.

Myths and Mysteries of HIV and AIDS,

http://harmsen.net/heal/myths.html

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
In misc.health.aids Terry Smith <po...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
: news:8kl4d8$q0r$1...@news.tht.net...
:> In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

:> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:> :> In a long exchange of letters like this, obviously one needs a few
: hours
:> :> only trying to untangle various claims and counter-claims.
:>
:> : May I suggest spending a few minutes of that time learning the

:> : difference between nitrites and nitrates?
:>
:> So why is the difference so important to you, Ken? Just something to
:> rant about, because you have nothing relevant to say?
:>
: That you appear to consider any difference `not important',

I did not say the difference is `not important'. You're misrepresenting.

: whilst claiming


: some competance to judge biochemical findings, is highly relevant. You are
: as much as biologist as you were an anthropologist.

: Yuri - You make Ed Conrad look educated.

Yuri.

-=O=- Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=-

Why are over 700 MDs and/or PhDs of the Group for the Scientific
Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis so concerned? For a good
introduction to problems with HIV science, please visit,

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm

These professional scientists do not believe HIV exists,

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index/epapadopoulos.htm

There are three steps in the revelation of any truth: in the first, it
is ridiculed; in the second, it is resisted; in the third, it is
considered self-evident -=- Arthur Schopenhauer

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
: On 13 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
:>
:> : Not at all. The non-user set is specifically analysed in the original


:> : paper.
:>
:> You're misrepresenting. Again.

: Then what the hell is the graph at the bottom of the second page showing


: CD4 T cell counts in "users" and "non-users"? Even Duesberg acknowledges
: that.

Nick,

Well then perhaps it's your famous incompetence speaking again?

> However, the drug-free group reported by the
> authors proved to be an empty set, as no
> drug-free AIDS patients were recorded in the
> Nature commentary (Duesberg PH. Can epidemiology determine
> whether drugs or HIV cause AIDS?
> AIDS-Forschung 1993; 12: 627-635

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pddrdrugaids7.htm

:> : but this again ignores all those who


:> : (Duesberg freely admits) died of AIDS before AZT came on the
:> : market.
:>
:> Who's ignoring this? Those who died of AIDS before AZT died because of
:> Nitrites and/or antibiotic abuse.

:>

: ARRGH! But there _IS_NO_CORRELATION_ with _anything_ except transmission
: of HIV.

You're misrepresenting. Again.

: NitrATE use was confounding for ONE set of people (homosexuals)


: but not for others (haemophiliacs, IV drug users and women). Occam's
: razor comes right along here, and says "Why invoke 2, 3 or 4 different
: causes for the same disease, when one factor is common to all?"

You're babbling. Haemophiliacs show almost no KS. Because they generally
didn't use nitrites.

Here's something more for you,

[quote]

Likewise, the NIAID-sponsored MAC study of male homosexuals
published that there is "No evidence for a role of alcohol or
other psychoactive drugs in accelerating immunodeficiency in
HIV-1 positive individuals" (103) although it had never
identified even one drug-free, HIV-positive homosexual with AIDS
in 10 years (109). Indeed, a recent report from the MAC study,
published in the Journal of Substance Abuse seems to contradict
their earlier message: "Men who combined volatile nitrite
(popper) use with other recreational drugs were at highest risk
both behaviorally and in terms of human immunodeficiency virus-1
(HIV) seroconversion throughout the study." All of the 500-800
homosexual men at "highest risk" studied had used nitrites, in
addition to various combinations of 12 other recreational drugs
(104).

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pddrdrugaids7.htm

[unquote]

There are none more blind than those who refuse to see.

These are the Lysenkoists!

Yuri.

-=O=- Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=-

"In _The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko_, Russian historian Zhores
Medvedev ... concludes that "monopoly in science by one or another false
doctrine, or even by one scientific trend, is an external symptom of
some deep-seated sickness of a society."

"To date, there is still no clinical trial that has proven that the
protease inhibitors —either taken alone or in combination with other
antiviral drugs —reduce the mortality of AIDS patients"

From BLINDED BY SCIENCE, by David Rasnick (Spin June 1997)

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drblinded.htm

Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/20/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> : The title is accurate: "Cancer risk from exposure to nitrites
> : and nitrates". It just happens that the assessment in the paper
> : indicates no increased risk from nitrites.
>
> You're really not very bright, Ken, are you? The abstract
> http://infoventures.com/cancer/canlit/eti1195a.html
> is certainly not the complete article.

Of course not. But the abstract that you quoted says that there
was no observed increased risk of cancer from nitrites. Do you
have some reason to think that these authors are so incompetent
that they wrote an abstract that says the opposite of the paper?

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Bennett

unread,
Jul 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/23/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <8l7dv1$2m0v$2...@news.tht.net>...

>In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>: However, they're still sadly irrelevant since in terms of AIDS-KS nitrate
>: use did not correlate to the onset of cancers, once it had been removed
as
>: a confounder.
>
>This is what you need to demonstrate.


Been done. I suggest you return to the deja archives and try a search, or
better still pubmed.

>
>: If it was possible to do this, then it could not possible
>: be causal (only confounders can be removed from analyses without
affecting
>: the result).
>
>Yes, I know, this is your wishful thinking.
>


From my teaching in epidemiology as it happens.

Bennett


--

University of Cambridge Dept of Medicine
Opinions expressed are mine - I'll take the rap for my own mistakes.
(swap cam for spam to reply via email)
A half-truth is like half a brick: You can throw it further

Bennett

unread,
Jul 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/23/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <8l7fv4$2ohd$1...@news.tht.net>...

>In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>: Then what the hell is the graph at the bottom of the second page showing
>: CD4 T cell counts in "users" and "non-users"? Even Duesberg acknowledges
>: that.
>
>Nick,
>
>Well then perhaps it's your famous incompetence speaking again?
>
>> However, the drug-free group reported by the
>> authors proved to be an empty set, as no
>> drug-free AIDS patients were recorded in the
>> Nature commentary (Duesberg PH. Can epidemiology determine
>> whether drugs or HIV cause AIDS?
>> AIDS-Forschung 1993; 12: 627-635
>
>http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pddrdrugaids7.htm


This is a blatant lie by Duesberg. I suggest you go read the original
Ascher article. You will find the description on the first page of the
article of this so-called "empty set". They were recorded alright.

<snip more irrelevant babbling>

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/24/00
to
In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:

And do you have some reason to think that these authors are so
incompetent and/or purposefully deceitful that they invented the title
of their abstract out of the thin air?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/24/00
to
In misc.health.aids Bennett <nj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote in message <8l7fv4$2ohd$1...@news.tht.net>...

:>In misc.health.aids Nick Bennett <nj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
:>
:>: Then what the hell is the graph at the bottom of the second page showing
:>: CD4 T cell counts in "users" and "non-users"? Even Duesberg acknowledges
:>: that.
:>
:>Nick,
:>
:>Well then perhaps it's your famous incompetence speaking again?
:>
:>> However, the drug-free group reported by the
:>> authors proved to be an empty set, as no
:>> drug-free AIDS patients were recorded in the
:>> Nature commentary (Duesberg PH. Can epidemiology determine
:>> whether drugs or HIV cause AIDS?
:>> AIDS-Forschung 1993; 12: 627-635
:>
:>http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pddrdrugaids7.htm

: This is a blatant lie by Duesberg. I suggest you go read the original
: Ascher article. You will find the description on the first page of the
: article of this so-called "empty set". They were recorded alright.

Typical AIDS pseudo-science.

So, according to our charlatan from Cambridge, this study in NATURE was
so rock-solid that even the key data on which it was "based", let alone
its conclusions, is still being disputed many years later.

I guess Duesberg, formerly the top award-winning and celebrated
biologist, is too incompetent even to read that "rock-solid article"...

Yeah, right!

Kapitano

unread,
Jul 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/24/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:8li3kf$1r74$7...@news.tht.net...

> :> : The title is accurate: "Cancer risk from exposure to nitrites
> :> : and nitrates". It just happens that the assessment in the paper
> :> : indicates no increased risk from nitrites.
> :>
> :> You're really not very bright, Ken, are you? The abstract
> :> http://infoventures.com/cancer/canlit/eti1195a.html
> :> is certainly not the complete article.
>
> : Of course not. But the abstract that you quoted says that there
> : was no observed increased risk of cancer from nitrites. Do you
> : have some reason to think that these authors are so incompetent
> : that they wrote an abstract that says the opposite of the paper?
>
> And do you have some reason to think that these authors are so
> incompetent and/or purposefully deceitful that they invented the title
> of their abstract out of the thin air?

So. Let me get this straight. The article was called 'Cancer risk from
exposure to nitrites and nitrates', and concluded that this risk was zero.
We know this because the abstract of the article
(at http://infoventures.com/cancer/canlit/eti1195a.html) says so.
Yuri says that the title itself indicates that the risk is non-zero. We can
therefore conclude that Yuri doesn't read any scientific publications,
otherwise he would know how to interpret titles.

Does this mean that nitrites *don't* cause AIDS? No. Assuming the
absense of *any* other evidence, it's possible that Yuri is right. Just not
for the reasons he gives.

However, there *is* a mountain of evidence that he is wrong, plus
a molehill of questionable evidence that he is right.

So that's all cleared up.


--
Kapitano
"Oh Lord, make me pure. But not yet."
- Saint Augustine


Nick Bennett

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to

On 24 Jul 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> So, according to our charlatan from Cambridge, this study in NATURE was
> so rock-solid that even the key data on which it was "based", let alone
> its conclusions, is still being disputed many years later.

By Duesberg. The guy who resurrected (yes, didn't invent himself) the
drug->AIDS hypothesis years after the infectious link was so well
established that the virus had been officially named after the disease.

>
> I guess Duesberg, formerly the top award-winning and celebrated
> biologist, is too incompetent even to read that "rock-solid article"...
>

Hell, I don't see why he should have broken the habit :-p

Bennett


Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/25/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
news:8li3kf$1r74$7...@news.tht.net...
> Ken Cox wrote:
> : Of course not. But the abstract that you quoted says that there
> : was no observed increased risk of cancer from nitrites. Do you
> : have some reason to think that these authors are so incompetent
> : that they wrote an abstract that says the opposite of the paper?

> And do you have some reason to think that these authors are so
> incompetent and/or purposefully deceitful that they invented the title
> of their abstract out of the thin air?

No, but I now have (additional) reason to think that you aren't very
familiar with the scientific literature and its conventions.

The title, "Cancer risk from exposure to nitrites and nitrates", is
completely correct, as it tells you what the paper is about. The
title does *not* say anything about that cancer risk, just that the
risk was studied. To determine the results of the study, you have
to actually read the paper, or at least the abstract. The abstract
says that there was no increased risk from nitrates.


As an undergraduate, I worked in a lab that was investigating the
effects of medium-wave EM on algae, by measuring the potential across
the algal cell wall and membrane. A series of reports came out of
that lab, all with titles like "Effects of K-band radiation on membrane
potential of _Chlorella_ [*]"

However, for most of the EM frequencies investigated, there *were*
no effects [**]. This was stated in the paper and abstract. But no
one familiar with the conventions of the literature would read just
the title "Effects of K-band..." and assume that there *were* any
effects observed.


[*] I don't actually remember the genus of algae at this point,
though it did begin "ch". I mostly did electronics setup and data
reduction.

[**] This work and related studies were later used by the regulators
and the courts in the power-line and cell-phone cancer cases.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
In misc.health.aids Kapitano <kapi...@lineone.net> wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message news:8li3kf$1r74$7...@news.tht.net...
:> :> : The title is accurate: "Cancer risk from exposure to nitrites
:> :> : and nitrates". It just happens that the assessment in the paper

:> :> : indicates no increased risk from nitrites.
:> :>
:> :> You're really not very bright, Ken, are you? The abstract
:> :> http://infoventures.com/cancer/canlit/eti1195a.html
:> :> is certainly not the complete article.
:>
:> : Of course not. But the abstract that you quoted says that there

:> : was no observed increased risk of cancer from nitrites. Do you
:> : have some reason to think that these authors are so incompetent
:> : that they wrote an abstract that says the opposite of the paper?
:>
:> And do you have some reason to think that these authors are so
:> incompetent and/or purposefully deceitful that they invented the title
:> of their abstract out of the thin air?

: So. Let me get this straight. The article was called 'Cancer risk from
: exposure to nitrites and nitrates', and concluded that this risk was zero.

Nope.

: We know this because the abstract of the article

Learn to read.

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
Jul 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/27/00
to
In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca> wrote in message
: news:8li3kf$1r74$7...@news.tht.net...
:> Ken Cox wrote:
:> : Of course not. But the abstract that you quoted says that there
:> : was no observed increased risk of cancer from nitrites. Do you
:> : h