Viral load nonsense
Alex Damien
The following excerpt is from Continuum magazine Vol. 4, No. 5,
“Protease Inhibitors in Provincetown” by John Lauritsen.
“The Case Against Protease Inhibitors
The alleged benefits of protease inhibitors are unproven by
scientifically credible research. Developments on the AIDS-drugs front
happen so quickly that it is impossible to keep up with everything, but
to the best of my knowledge no protease inhibitor has been tested
against a placebo (that is, against no drug at all). Claims of benefits
are based, not on improvement to the health of human beings, but on
results from experimental and highly questionable laboratory
measurements, primarily the so-called “viral load” tests, which are an
offshoot of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Although being
used to evaluate the success of protease inhibitor therapy, the viral
load tests have not even been approved for use by the FDA. (Rasnick
1996, Philpott and Johnson, 1996)
Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in (Chemistry) for inventing the
PCR, is thoroughly convinced that “HIV” is not the cause of “AIDS.”
With regard to the viral load tests, which attempt to use PCR for
counting viruses, Mullis has stated: “Quantitative PCR is an
oxymoron.” PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by
its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a
common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number
of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious
viruses at all. The tests can detect genetic sequences that are from
viruses, or theorised to be so, but not viruses themselves.
What PCR does is to select a genetic sequence and then amplify it
enormously. It can accomplish the equivalent of finding a needle in a
haystack; it can amplify that needle into a haystack. Like an amplified
antenna, PCR greatly amplifies the signal, but it also greatly amplifies
the noise. Since the amplification is exponential, the slightest error
in measurement, the slightest contamination, can result in errors of
many orders of magnitude.
In short, the viral load tests are a scam. When molecular biologists
Peter Duesberg and Harvey Bialey analyzed the 1995 papers by Ho and Wei
(Nature 373) that launched the whole viral load bandwagon, they found
that estimates of free virus had been overestimated by several orders of
magnitude. In the Wei study, 100,000 so-called “plasma viral RNA” units
really amounted to less than two infectious viruses per milliliter of
plasma. And in the Ho study, 10,000 “plasma virions” corresponded to
less than one infectious virus. Duesberg and Bialy concluded, “there is
no evidence for infectious virus in Wei et al.’s and Ho et al.’s
patients.” (Duesberg 1996)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ALEX DAMIEN:::::::::Visit Web site under continual construction @
http://pw1.netcom.com/~alexdn/male.html
YOUR comments and suggestions are necessary.
Ale...@ix.netcom.com Thank
you.
Yes, the public is wonderfully tolerant.
It forgives everything except genius.
The Critic As Artist,
Oscar Wilde
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Wally Boulton
Alex Damien wrote:
>
> The following excerpt is from Continuum magazine Vol. 4, No. 5,
> “Protease Inhibitors in Provincetown” by John Lauritsen.
And with these opening words, we can consider ourselves warned off from
wasting our time.
Wally
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33BD8A...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> The following excerpt is from Continuum magazine Vol. 4, No. 5,
> “Protease Inhibitors in Provincetown” by John Lauritsen.
>
>
> The alleged benefits of protease inhibitors are unproven by
> scientifically credible research.
Untrue unless one considers that no federally sponsored or company sponsored
research is credible. In which case virtually no medication is supported by
credible research.
> Developments on the AIDS-drugs front
> happen so quickly that it is impossible to keep up with everything, but
> to the best of my knowledge no protease inhibitor has been tested
> against a placebo (that is, against no drug at all).
Plenty of such work in test tubes. Not in man.
> Claims of benefits
> are based, not on improvement to the health of human beings, but on
> results from experimental and highly questionable laboratory
> measurements, primarily the so-called “viral load” tests, which are an
False. Many studies, including 3 published in the Annals of Internal Medicine
a Few weeks ago show that these tests are strong predictors of the development
of AIDS and those people who respond best to therapy on these measures are the
least likely to have aids develop in the future.
Alex Damien
> > Developments on the AIDS-drugs front
> > happen so quickly that it is impossible to keep up with everything, but
> > to the best of my knowledge no protease inhibitor has been tested
> > against a placebo (that is, against no drug at all).
>
> Plenty of such work in test tubes. Not in man.
The statements stills holds true. The tests must be conducted in a
human being not a test tube.
> > Claims of benefits
> > are based, not on improvement to the health of human beings, but on
> > results from experimental and highly questionable laboratory
> > measurements, primarily the so-called “viral load” tests, which are an
>
> False. Many studies, including 3 published in the Annals of Internal Medicine
> a Few weeks ago show that these tests are strong predictors of the development
> of AIDS and those people who respond best to therapy on these measures are the
> least likely to have aids develop in the future.
Now your reply is very curious. Kary Mullis, Ph.D., the guy that won the
Noble Prize for inventing PCR that is used for viral load testing, has
recently stated that if you need PCR tests to find the virus then it is
not there. Please give someone that is more of an authority of PCR than
Mullis before your predictable answer.
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> In article <33BE66...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >> > Developments on the AIDS-drugs front
> >> > happen so quickly that it is impossible to keep up with everything, but
> >> > to the best of my knowledge no protease inhibitor has been tested
> >> > against a placebo (that is, against no drug at all).
> >>
> >> Plenty of such work in test tubes. Not in man.
> >
> > The statements stills holds true. The tests must be conducted in a
> > human being not a test tube.
> >
>
> review board (which is intended to protect human subjects) would not let me do
> so if I wished to. Now this board is not made up of aids researchers (I don't
> think there are any on it). They must know something you don't.
They know the lie.
> >> > Claims of benefits
> >> > are based, not on improvement to the health of human beings, but on
> >> > results from experimental and highly questionable laboratory
> >> > measurements, primarily the so-called “viral load” tests, which are an
> >>
> >> False. Many studies, including 3 published in the Annals of Internal Medicine
> >> a Few weeks ago show that these tests are strong predictors of the development
> >> of AIDS and those people who respond best to therapy on these measures are the
> >> least likely to have aids develop in the future.
> >
> > Now your reply is very curious. Kary Mullis, Ph.D., the guy that won the
> > Noble Prize for inventing PCR that is used for viral load testing, has
> > recently stated that if you need PCR tests to find the virus then it is
> > not there. Please give someone that is more of an authority of PCR than
> > Mullis before your predictable answer.
> >
>
> This is a non sequitur. Mullis statement, true or false, has nothing to do
> with the studies cited. which show that the test, whatever it measures, is a
> powerful predictor.
>
> And it is untrue that one must use PCR to detect the virus. It can be
> cultured and is cultured regularly in research laboratories.
Please give the lab that has isolated the virus? Also the evidence of
such isolation.
As far as the PCR test, contact Kary Mullis and let him tell you what
the PCR does. He will teach you that it is not a predictor.
George M. Carter
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Proper scientific research to determine whether or not a drug is
>effective demands placebo.
No it doesn't. "Gold" standards, or treatments extant, are frequently
considered ethically superior to providing a placebo or non-care. I
have not ever felt AZT monotherapy was a good choice period. It's
effects are about as long lasting as a placebo plus the bonus of
toxicity. But AZT does not cause AIDS or anything like it.
More importantly, consider: who would enroll in a placebo-controlled
study? People usually join them to access drugs. Not to get a sugar
pill. People who do not believe in the drugs will not be interested in
a study. So enrollment in this day and age with combination therapy
will be very unlikely.
Alex, you've proven once again you're either very young and naive,
stupid or worse, that you have some other agenda that is less savory.
George M. Carter
dav...@home.com
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Please give the lab that has isolated the virus? Also the evidence of
>such isolation.
See...
- Barre-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F, et al. Isolation of a
T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for
acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science 1983;
220:868-71.
- Popovic M, Sarngadharan MG, read E, Gallo RC.
Detection, isolation and continuous production of cytopathic
retrovirus (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS. Science
1984;224:497.
- Levy JA, Hoffman AD, Kramer SM, Landis JA, Shimabukuro JM, Oshiro
LS. Isolation of lymphocytopathic retroviruses from San Francisco
patients with AIDS. Science 1984;225:840-2.
Also...
Data Source
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AIDS
Authors
Krust B. Laurent AG. Hellio R. Montagnier L. Hovanessian AG.
Institution
Institut Pasteur, 25, rue du Dr. Roux 75724 Paris Cedex 15, France
Title
Different forms of p25 are associated with infectious and non
infectious viral particles produced by HIV-1 infected cells.
Source
Int Conf AIDS. 6(2):316 (abstract no. 1008), 1990 Jun 20-23.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Four subspecies of p25, a, b, c and d, with related PI
values, are produced by HIV-1 infected cells. The two forms a and b
are in part incorporated into the HIV-1 virion, whereas species c and
d along with a proportion of species a and b are expressed at the
cell surface and also excreted. The characterization of these
different forms is described here.
METHODS: Cell culture supernatants of HIV-1 infected cells were
fractionated by isopycnic centrifugation along a sucrose gradient,
and the different fractions containing viral proteins were analyzed.
RESULTS:
Three major peaks containing the different subspecies of p25 were
recovered: peak A at a sucrose density of 1.150 containing p25a,
p25b, gp120, p68 and p55, peak B at a sucrose density of 1.080
containing the same proteins as peak A; peak C at a sucrose density
of 1.050 containing p25 a, b, c, d and p40. Only peak A was
infectious. Negative staining electron microscopy of the different
fractions indicated the presence of particles of different sizes: 120
nm in peak A containing infectious virus; 20-50 nm in peaks B and C.
CONCLUSION: Infectious and non infectious particles are produced by
HIV-1 infected cells. The four species of p25 can be used as
convenient markers to identify these particles.
>As far as the PCR test, contact Kary Mullis and let him tell you what
>the PCR does. He will teach you that it is not a predictor.
You may want to pass the June 15th issue of Annals of Internal
Medicine on to Kary then ...
Ann Intern Med 1997;1997;126:929-953,983-985.
Three separate studies appeared in the June 15 issue of the Annals of
Internal Medicine to reinforce and provide irrefutable proof of the
prognostic value of HIV-1 plasma RNA "viral load" measurements.
Dr. Michael Hughes of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine in the UK (along with members of the ACTG 241 Protocol
Virology Substudy Team) reported results which prove the relationship
between viral load and disease progression in the first paper.
They noted that "...risk for disease progression was reduced
by 56%...for every 10-fold lower HIV-1 RNA level at baseline...by
52%...for every 10-fold reduction in HIV-1 RNA level at 8 weeks
after treatment initiation, and by 67%...for every 2-fold higher
CD4+ count at baseline."
The paper concludes that "...prediction of a decline in CD4+
lymphocyte counts and disease progression during 1 year of
antiretroviral therapy can be optimized with currently available
assays." They suggested that if viral load is reduced by less than
2.5-fold from baseline after 8 weeks of antiretroviral treatment,
alternative treatment may be appropriate.
This study also suggested that a 2.5-fold difference in plasma RNA
levels "is a significant change" and not one which can be attributed
to sample to sample variations ('intrapatient' variability). (davet1
comments: studies such as this one along with the improvements in
the sensitivity of these tests have improved our definition of a
significant change in viral load - only a few years ago, it was felt
that viral load would have to change by as much as 1 log (10-fold) for
it to be considered significant)
A second paper in the same issue considered the use of changes in HIV
RNA levels and CD4+ lymphocyte counts to predict response to
antiretroviral treatment. This study was conducted by Dr. William A.
O'Brien of the University of Texas in Galveston and members of the
Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on AIDS.
When looking at short-term changes, they found that if
treated subjects have a 3-fold reduction in plasma HIV RNA,
this decreases their risk of progression to AIDS by 33%.
Whilst assessing long-term outcome, they observed that a
return to baseline HIV RNA levels within 6 months (during
continuous treatment) "strongly correlated with disease
progression," according to Dr. O'Brien.
Dr. O'Brien also stressed the importance of repeating plasma HIV
RNA tests. Treatment decisions should not be made based on the
results of only one test. He said that, if an increase in viral
load is detected, the test should be repeated within 2 or 3 weeks
to establish its validity.
In the third study in this issue of the Annals of
Internal Medicine, Dr. John Mellors of the University of Pittsburgh in
Pennsylvania et al confirmed the prognostic significance of plasma HIV
RNA. When they examined virologic markers associated with disease
progression over a 10-year period, they confirmed viral load as
"...the single best predictor of clinical outcome." The second most
important predictor was CD4+ lymphocyte count, followed by
"...neopterin levels, beta-2-microglobulin levels and thrush or
fever."
Dr. Mellor's group also "...observed a strong association between
viral load and the subsequent rate of decline in CD4+ lymphocyte
counts." Furthermore, "...this relation has not been shown
previously."
This study is also in agreement with the results of Hughes et al., -
"...incorporation of both markers into a regression tree provided more
prognostic information than did either marker alone." For example,
risk of progression to AIDS within 6 years is 2% for a patient with a
CD4 count over 750 and viral load of 500 or less, and increases to 98%
for a patient with a CD4 count of 200 or less and a viral load over
30,000.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Michael Saag of the University
of Alabama in Birmingham points out that these papers "...underscore
the value of routinely using both viral load and CD4+ cell counts
in the clinical care of HIV-infected patients." Dr. Saag adds
that the additional cost of the viral load assay, at approximately
$100, is "well-justified." This information can tell the physician
if a treatment regimen is failing, which is important because
antiretroviral regimens can cost as much as $1,000 per month,
he said. The measurements can also enable physicians to intervene
before clinical symptoms develop--and clinical complications
can be very expensive to treat.
Ann Intern Med 1997;1997;126:929-953,983-985.
Alex Damien
George M. Carter wrote:
>
> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Proper scientific research to determine whether or not a drug is
> >effective demands placebo.
>
> No it doesn't. "Gold" standards, or treatments extant, are frequently
> considered ethically superior to providing a placebo or non-care.
The tests for AIDS do not have Gold Standards.
I
> have not ever felt AZT monotherapy was a good choice period. It's
> effects are about as long lasting as a placebo plus the bonus of
> toxicity. But AZT does not cause AIDS or anything like it.
AZT side effects are the symptoms attributed to AIDS. So after taking
AZT one gets sick with the diseases that can now be looked at and
declared AIDS. This is one sad aspect of the whole lie and now campaign
of murder.
> More importantly, consider: who would enroll in a placebo-controlled
> study? People usually join them to access drugs. Not to get a sugar
> pill. People who do not believe in the drugs will not be interested in
> a study. So enrollment in this day and age with combination therapy
> will be very unlikely.
You make many assumptions that are not the path people take. When
people are told the are HIV+ they look for help to kill and rid
themselves of the virus. But, there is not Gold Standard for the tests
since there is no isolation of the virus. They are also not told about
the treatments that they are then told and forced to take by the
allopath.
The largest controlled study done in France and England demonstrated the
effects of AZT. It killed people on it faster.
> Alex, you've proven once again you're either very young and naive,
> stupid or worse, that you have some other agenda that is less savory.
>
> George M. Carter
Would you please watch your personal attacks. Using the words you do
against me and not the opinions I express only demonstrates your sad
position. My agendum is help people see the scientific truth and not
blind faith as worshiped at new conferences. HIV does not cause AIDS.
There is no peer reviewed journal article that has been published
proving this. HIV has also never been isolated as required. AZT and
the other anti-virals are the FINAL SOLUTION. The lie has now turned to
murder and genocide whether or not a particular physician is aware of
the facts.
--
Alex Damien
The below have been brought up before in other forums. I repeat HIV has
not been isolated. Having electron microscope photos of cellular
garbage and pointing an arrow at a particular particle is not
isolation. The budding photos are also nonsense. The budding can be
produced in cells that have not been exposed. The buds and other
particles that were not isolated as other viruses have been did not have
the characteristics HIV should have according to the cartoons drawn of
them. People should realize that the cartoons they see are theoretical
constructs.
In addition, viral load tests are not proper for HIV. Kary Mullis,
Ph.D., the guy that received the Nobel Prize for PCR, has stated that
his invention is qualitative not quantitative analysis. Further, he has
recently stated that if you need his test to check for HIV it is not
there. Please give a greater authority in PCR since have not.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
> In addition, viral load tests are not proper for HIV. Kary Mullis,
> Ph.D., the guy that received the Nobel Prize for PCR, has stated that
> his invention is qualitative not quantitative analysis. Further, he has
> recently stated that if you need his test to check for HIV it is not
> there. Please give a greater authority in PCR since have not.
IN the middle ages monks argued from authority. in the 20th century we argue
from data. Quantitative PCR can be shown to be quantitive by adding known
amounts of material to the test. It is, therefore, quantitative. it is not
what mullis invented but an adaptation of it. Mullis is not necessarily an
authority on quantitative PCR just because he invented qualitative PCR.
Wally Boulton
> >AZT one gets sick with the diseases that can now be looked at and
> >declared AIDS. This is one sad aspect of the whole lie and now campaign
> >of murder.
>
> support it. AZT definitely has a toxicity profile. No question
> whatsoever. But it is NOT the same as the clinical condition of AIDS.
> Besides, a lot of people develop and have developed AIDS without
> having taken AZT or any antiretroviral therapy. Or done recretational
> drugs.
Exactly what happened to my lover Frank. He died from PCP (possibly
complicated with progressed TB). He took AZT for about a week several
years earlier and couldn't deal with what it did to his stomach (he
always had a delicate stomach). Neither of us used recreational drugs
to any significant extent, and none since around 1985-6. He was taking
no regular medications of any kind (other than trying - short term - a
few different things to control the diarrhea that is part and parcel
with PCP), and certainly no antivirals. He lived a healthy lifestyle,
worked out, rollerbladed regularly -- even during the summer months just
before his death.
Explain his death to me, Alex. Tell me how this could happen. But be
careful - it's thin ice. And I doubt very much that you'll have any
more success than any of the other frustrated dissidents in this
newsgroup.
Through denial of AIDS and the resulting lack of proper medical care
(that might have saved or extended his life long enough for PIs to be
available), and his determination that he would not be one of those who
spent their last years sick with one thing after another, he achieved
his death. And you would like people to just "act like nothing's wrong"
and expect it all to go away. This is why I despise dissidents like
you. You prey on people who want to be in denial. You are talking out
your ass -- you have no real life experience.
Wally Boulton
Tim Williams
>Ph.D., the guy that received the Nobel Prize for PCR, has stated that
>his invention is qualitative not quantitative analysis. Further, he has
>recently stated that if you need his test to check for HIV it is not
>there. Please give a greater authority in PCR since have not.
>
>
'invented' by Mullis. It is like suggesting that if The Wright brothers
were alive today they would be complete authorities on all possible
aircraft. (In a article - possibly in Scientific American- on
development of PCR by Mullis he states that he was amazed that nobody
had patented it before as all the componants were already available.
this is not to denegrate either the man or his technique.)
--
Tim Williams
George M. Carter
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The tests for AIDS do not have Gold Standards.
What are you talking about? What substantiation is there for this
statement? (Please don't bother mentioning the discredited Perth team
papers published in Continuum.)
>AZT side effects are the symptoms attributed to AIDS. So after taking
>AZT one gets sick with the diseases that can now be looked at and
>declared AIDS. This is one sad aspect of the whole lie and now campaign
>of murder.
Except that this statement is completely wrong. Provide evidence to
support it. AZT definitely has a toxicity profile. No question
whatsoever. But it is NOT the same as the clinical condition of AIDS.
Besides, a lot of people develop and have developed AIDS without
having taken AZT or any antiretroviral therapy. Or done recretational
drugs.
>You make many assumptions that are not the path people take. When
>people are told the are HIV+ they look for help to kill and rid
>themselves of the virus. But, there is not Gold Standard for the tests
>since there is no isolation of the virus. They are also not told about
>the treatments that they are then told and forced to take by the
>allopath.
What the hell was that last dithering statement? You're babbling.
>The largest controlled study done in France and England demonstrated the
>effects of AZT. It killed people on it faster.
Bullshit. Provide the data to support this erroneous statement.
Concorde's results showed no statiscally significant difference in
mortality.
>Would you From: gm...@ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter)
Newsgroups: gay-net.aids,misc.health.aids,hiv.aids.weekly,hiv.aids.issues
Subject: Re: Viral load nonsense
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 01:10:00 GMT
Organization: Free Radical Enterprises
Reply-To: gm...@ix.netcom.com
References: <33BD8A...@ix.netcom.com> <33bf065f...@news.earthlink.net> <33BFDA...@ix.netcom.com> <5ppfaq$h...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> <33C111...@ix.netcom.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The tests for AIDS do not have Gold Standards.
What are you talking about? What substantiation is there for this
statement? (Please don't bother mentioning the discredited Perth team
papers published in Continuum.)
>AZT side effects are the symptoms attributed to AIDS. So after taking
>AZT one gets sick with the diseases that can now be looked at and
>declared AIDS. This is one sad aspect of the whole lie and now campaign
>of murder.
Except that this statement is completely wrong. Provide evidence to
support it. AZT definitely has a toxicity profile. No question
whatsoever. But it is NOT the same as the clinical condition of AIDS.
Besides, a lot of people develop and have developed AIDS without
having taken AZT or any antiretroviral therapy. Or done recretational
drugs.
>You make many assumptions that are not the path people take. When
>people are told the are HIV+ they look for help to kill and rid
>themselves of the virus. But, there is not Gold Standard for the tests
>since there is no isolation of the virus. They are also not told about
>the treatments that they are then told and forced to take by the
>allopath.
What the hell was that last dithering statement? You're babbling.
>The largest controlled study done in France and England demonstrated the
>effects of AZT. It killed people on it faster.
Bullshit. Provide the data to support this erroneous statement.
Concorde's results showed no statiscally significant difference in
mortality.
>Would you please watch your personal attacks. Using the words you do
>against me and not the opinions I express only demonstrates your sad
>position. My agendum is help people see the scientific truth and not
>blind faith as worshiped at new conferences.
Well then, Blanche, start reading. Cause everything you have said so
far clearly articulates the party line of the dissident gestapo and
reveals a vast ignorance.
>HIV does not cause AIDS.
Bzzzt. Wrong again.
>There is no peer reviewed journal article that has been published
>proving this.
This is the dumbest thing--and you keep repeating it. There are LOTS
of diseases for which no single peer reviewed journal article exists
"proving" the underlying etiologic agent.
> HIV has also never been isolated as required.
By whom? And are you so sure? It has been cultured, sequenced and
identified in a variety of specific ways.
>AZT and
>the other anti-virals are the FINAL SOLUTION. The lie has now turned to
>murder and genocide whether or not a particular physician is aware of
>the facts.
Oh, bullshit. If you want to see what the FINAL SOLUTION is, you don't
need to look at AZT or ddI or ddC. You only need to look at the
complete indifference with which AIDS was met by the establishment
until people started raising hell. There are PLENTY of real, genuine
and evidence-based reasons to indict various governments around the
world. Blood supply scandals, indifference, lack of care for the poor,
crappy trials, wasted money, refusal to evaluate
"alternative/complementary" approaches. Honey, if you want to be an
activist and make a difference in people's lives, get out of the
stupid dissident closet you find yourself trapped in and READ.
George M. Carter
dav...@home.com
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The below have been brought up before in other forums. I repeat HIV has
>not been isolated. Having electron microscope photos of cellular
you can repeat it all you want - the references PROVE it has !
>garbage and pointing an arrow at a particular particle is not
>isolation. The budding photos are also nonsense. The budding can be
>produced in cells that have not been exposed. The buds and other
budding of HIV? I'd be extremely interested in the reference which
says that particles which match the crystallographic and NMR
fingerprints of HIV have been observed to bud from unexposed cells !
>particles that were not isolated as other viruses have been did not have
>the characteristics HIV should have according to the cartoons drawn of
>them. People should realize that the cartoons they see are theoretical
>constructs.
I think you've been looking at too many cartoons! ...
Alex Damien
George M. Carter wrote:
>
> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >The tests for AIDS do not have Gold Standards.
>
> What are you talking about? What substantiation is there for this
> statement? (Please don't bother mentioning the discredited Perth team
> papers published in Continuum.)
Call the companies that produce the tests. They do not have Gold
Standards. Sorry I know that this hurts your wanting people to believe
in the HIV theory.
> >AZT side effects are the symptoms attributed to AIDS. So after taking
> >AZT one gets sick with the diseases that can now be looked at and
> >declared AIDS. This is one sad aspect of the whole lie and now campaign
> >of murder.
>
> Except that this statement is completely wrong. Provide evidence to
> support it. AZT definitely has a toxicity profile. No question
> whatsoever. But it is NOT the same as the clinical condition of AIDS.
> Besides, a lot of people develop and have developed AIDS without
> having taken AZT or any antiretroviral therapy. Or done recretational
> drugs.
This is true. The above is true for Gay males and others taking drugs,
recreational or prescribed. Hemophiliacs have gotten their immune
problems from blood products containing foreign proteins. Each group
has their own set of diseases caused by toxic substances. Please read
"Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg for more information. Also
get the full list of side effects of AZT (the PDR does not have a full
listing) and then look at the list of symptoms for AIDS. You will learn
but not before many have been killed by taking AZT and other
anti-virals.
> >The largest controlled study done in France and England demonstrated the
> >effects of AZT. It killed people on it faster.
>
> Bullshit. Provide the data to support this erroneous statement.
> Concorde's results showed no statiscally significant difference in
> mortality.
I think your statement is either based on ignorance or an effort to
mislead. The Concord study demonstrated that those taking AZT died at
an increased rate. AZT is a DNA chain terminator that is non-specific.
This means body cells are going to be stopped in their development.
This means death. AZT and all other DNA terminators are the FINAL
SOLUTION.
> >HIV does not cause AIDS.
>
> Bzzzt. Wrong again.
Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that was published
proving HIV is the cause of AIDS.
> >There is no peer reviewed journal article that has been published
> >proving this.
>
> This is the dumbest thing--and you keep repeating it. There are LOTS
> of diseases for which no single peer reviewed journal article exists
> "proving" the underlying etiologic agent.
This is not true for disease of the last few decades. Kary Mullis has
written about this.
> > HIV has also never been isolated as required.
>
> By whom? And are you so sure? It has been cultured, sequenced and
> identified in a variety of specific ways.
Please provide the evidence of isolation.
Alex Damien
> > >AZT one gets sick with the diseases that can now be looked at and
> > >declared AIDS. This is one sad aspect of the whole lie and now campaign
> > >of murder.
> >
> > Except that this statement is completely wrong. Provide evidence to
> > support it. AZT definitely has a toxicity profile. No question
> > whatsoever. But it is NOT the same as the clinical condition of AIDS.
> > Besides, a lot of people develop and have developed AIDS without
> > having taken AZT or any antiretroviral therapy. Or done recretational
> > drugs.
>
> complicated with progressed TB). He took AZT for about a week several
> years earlier and couldn't deal with what it did to his stomach (he
> always had a delicate stomach). Neither of us used recreational drugs
> to any significant extent, and none since around 1985-6. He was taking
> no regular medications of any kind (other than trying - short term - a
> few different things to control the diarrhea that is part and parcel
> with PCP), and certainly no antivirals. He lived a healthy lifestyle,
> worked out, rollerbladed regularly -- even during the summer months just
> before his death.
Due to you writings to me in the past, I can not believe this story. It
does appear that drugs had been taken. Also people do get TB withour
HIV. Remember disease from toxic substances take factors such as
amount, time and individual constitutional factors.
> Explain his death to me, Alex. Tell me how this could happen. But be
> careful - it's thin ice. And I doubt very much that you'll have any
> more success than any of the other frustrated dissidents in this
> newsgroup.
I will state that Gay men that have AIDS due to drugs. Every person I
have known and others that I have questioned always demonstrate drug
use. Often they are not willing to admit to the drugs used until the
moral and legal issues are dealt with. By this I mean they must get
over the mistakes which they have guilt about.
>
> Through denial of AIDS and the resulting lack of proper medical care
> (that might have saved or extended his life long enough for PIs to be
> available), and his determination that he would not be one of those who
> spent their last years sick with one thing after another, he achieved
> his death. And you would like people to just "act like nothing's wrong"
> and expect it all to go away.
I have never said this but you and others have. Something is wrong but
it is not from HIV whether or not is exists. The person must seek ways
to improve their health. Improving health includes many techniques and
not minimal doses of vitamins or a couple of herbs. A full and
comprehensive program will get the body back into shape.
This is why I despise dissidents like
> you. You prey on people who want to be in denial. You are talking out
> your ass -- you have no real life experience.
>
> Wally Boulton
Again with you insults you hurt yourself. Denial is from those that
want to believe in those that seek the unproven infectious virus
hypothesis. Facts based on science point to toxic substances. This is
the place to start to learn and help people get better.
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> In article <33C114...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> > In addition, viral load tests are not proper for HIV. Kary Mullis,
> > Ph.D., the guy that received the Nobel Prize for PCR, has stated that
> > his invention is qualitative not quantitative analysis. Further, he has
> > recently stated that if you need his test to check for HIV it is not
> > there. Please give a greater authority in PCR since have not.
>
> from data. Quantitative PCR can be shown to be quantitive by adding known
> amounts of material to the test. It is, therefore, quantitative. it is not
> what mullis invented but an adaptation of it. Mullis is not necessarily an
> authority on quantitative PCR just because he invented qualitative PCR.
This is very interesting. Please give me someone more of an authority
than Kary Mullis. I would be interested to see how they feel about your
comments. Again, PCR is being misused.
--
Wally Boulton
Alex Damien wrote:
> Due to you writings to me in the past, I can not believe this story. It
> does appear that drugs had been taken. Also people do get TB withour
> HIV. Remember disease from toxic substances take factors such as
> amount, time and individual constitutional factors.
The typical dissident dodge -- when faced with something your precious
beliefs cannot explain, call it lies. Pitiful.
Now, what makes it appear that drugs had been taken? Yes, people get TB
without HIV. And people with progressed HIV infection are much more
susceptible to TB. And exactly what toxic substances do you suggest
were at play here? You act so omniscient about someone you never met,
tell me. Put up or shut up.
> > Explain his death to me, Alex. Tell me how this could happen. But be
> > careful - it's thin ice. And I doubt very much that you'll have any
> > more success than any of the other frustrated dissidents in this
> > newsgroup.
>
> I will state that Gay men that have AIDS due to drugs. Every person I
> have known and others that I have questioned always demonstrate drug
> use. Often they are not willing to admit to the drugs used until the
> moral and legal issues are dealt with. By this I mean they must get
> over the mistakes which they have guilt about.
How many have you known? Two? Three? What guilt?
You are as pathetic as Johndog and Ed Lieb, who have both been reduced,
when faced with this same question, to tell me that the person I lived
with and knew inside and out for 16 years must have been hiding some
risk factor -- drug use -- from me. Truly pathetic.
You have yet again totally discredited yourself in this newsgroup. But
keep it up. We're all getting a good laugh out of it.
Wally
Alex Damien
George M. Carter wrote:
>
> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Due to you writings to me in the past, I can not believe this story. It
> >does appear that drugs had been taken. Also people do get TB withour
> >HIV. Remember disease from toxic substances take factors such as
> >amount, time and individual constitutional factors.
>
> distinction between TB and PCP. The PCP came first. The TB may have
> complicated it.
>
> How old are you? 13?
>
> George M. Carter
Georgie, I do understand the difference. But, remember Georgie many
people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
themselves at risk for PCP. HIV does not cause AIDS.
himself
gm...@ix.netcom.com "George M. Carter" writes:
> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >The tests for AIDS do not have Gold Standards.
>
> What are you talking about? What substantiation is there for this
> statement? (Please don't bother mentioning the discredited Perth team
> papers published in Continuum.)
Why not? Because you can't understand them? I shall repost Val
Turner's excellent article on antibody testing, for you to read.
If we have to listen to your ignorant abusive rants, at least we
can try to educate you.
John
--
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, New York physician, founder of the American
Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR):
"This is not evidence-based medicine. This is just a disgusting
manipulation of people's fears and desperation, all for the sake
of selling drugs"
himself
> Explain his death to me, Alex. Tell me how this could happen. But be
> careful - it's thin ice. And I doubt very much that you'll have any
> more success than any of the other frustrated dissidents in this
> newsgroup.
What's to explain? IF what you say is true, he died of
pneumonia, compounded by inappropriate medical treatment as
a result of being labelled "HIV positive". How is this hard
to understand?
And what on earth makes you think that disastrous "Aids
drugs" could have done anything but hasten his end, as they
have for so many others?
John
--
"They have not proven that they have actually detected a unique
exogenous retrovirus. The critical data to support that idea have
not been presented."
Prof. J Papadimitriou, Univ of W.Australia
himself
t...@microbes.demon.co.uk "Tim Williams" writes:
> [...] PCR has been widely developed since it was
> 'invented' by Mullis. It is like suggesting that if The Wright brothers
> were alive today they would be complete authorities on all possible
> aircraft.
They would know that aircraft are for flying, not deep-sea diving.
Mullis is pointing out an abuse of his method. He is perfectly
well qualified to do so. Others have made even more devastating
criticisms of the misuse of PCR to shore up long-defunct "Aids"
dogma.
John
--
"They seem to have learned like the mad hatter to believe six impossible
things before breakfast and so one more makes no difference. One gets a
remarkable sense of being disassociated from the real world when entering
the realm of Aids research."
Dr Mark Craddock, mathematician, on QC-PCR use by Ho & Shaw.
David
Alex Damien wrote:
>
> George M. Carter wrote:
> >
> >
> > >The tests for AIDS do not have Gold Standards.
> >
> > What are you talking about? What substantiation is there for this
> > statement? (Please don't bother mentioning the discredited Perth team
> > papers published in Continuum.)
>
> Standards. Sorry I know that this hurts your wanting people to believe
> in the HIV theory.
>
>
> > >AZT one gets sick with the diseases that can now be looked at and
> > >declared AIDS. This is one sad aspect of the whole lie and now campaign
> > >of murder.
> >
> > Except that this statement is completely wrong. Provide evidence to
> > support it. AZT definitely has a toxicity profile. No question
> > whatsoever. But it is NOT the same as the clinical condition of AIDS.
> > Besides, a lot of people develop and have developed AIDS without
> > having taken AZT or any antiretroviral therapy. Or done recretational
> > drugs.
>
> recreational or prescribed. Hemophiliacs have gotten their immune
> problems from blood products containing foreign proteins. Each group
> has their own set of diseases caused by toxic substances. Please read
> "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg for more information. Also
> get the full list of side effects of AZT (the PDR does not have a full
> listing) and then look at the list of symptoms for AIDS. You will learn
> but not before many have been killed by taking AZT and other
> anti-virals.
>
>
> > >effects of AZT. It killed people on it faster.
> >
> > Bullshit. Provide the data to support this erroneous statement.
> > Concorde's results showed no statiscally significant difference in
> > mortality.
>
> mislead. The Concord study demonstrated that those taking AZT died at
> an increased rate. AZT is a DNA chain terminator that is non-specific.
> This means body cells are going to be stopped in their development.
> This means death. AZT and all other DNA terminators are the FINAL
> SOLUTION.
>
>
> >
> > Bzzzt. Wrong again.
>
> proving HIV is the cause of AIDS.
>
> > >proving this.
> >
> > This is the dumbest thing--and you keep repeating it. There are LOTS
> > of diseases for which no single peer reviewed journal article exists
> > "proving" the underlying etiologic agent.
>
> written about this.
>
> >
> > By whom? And are you so sure? It has been cultured, sequenced and
> > identified in a variety of specific ways.
>
>
> ALEX DAMIEN:::::::::Visit Web site under continual construction @
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~alexdn/male.html
> YOUR comments and suggestions are necessary.
>
> Ale...@ix.netcom.com Thank
> you.
>
> Yes, the public is wonderfully tolerant.
> It forgives everything except genius.
>
> The Critic As Artist,
> Oscar Wilde
> -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
been posted before - but I do feel it is indirectly
rel.
I'm posting this URL out to encourage folks to read
the contents and to post other URL's for us to check
out - there's not much being said (not enough anyway)
about the culture of living with HIV and the new
treatments - at least in Sydney the PRIDE centre is
doing some things about it - I'm sure there are other
things happening elsewhere and I'm hoping to get
info. on them and see if there are models that are
worth adapting for further use:-)
URL:
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5244/P
Phomepage.htm
David
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------20FA270022C0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David wrote:
>
> Alex Damien wrote:
> >
> > George M. Carter wrote:
> > >
> > > Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >The tests for AIDS do not have Gold Standards.
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? What substantiation is there for this
> > > statement? (Please don't bother mentioning the discredited Perth team
> > > papers published in Continuum.)
> >
> > Call the companies that produce the tests. They do not have Gold
> > Standards. Sorry I know that this hurts your wanting people to believe
> > in the HIV theory.
> >
> >
> > > >AZT side effects are the symptoms attributed to AIDS. So after taking
> > > >AZT one gets sick with the diseases that can now be looked at and
> > > >declared AIDS. This is one sad aspect of the whole lie and now campaign
> > > >of murder.
> > >
> > > Except that this statement is completely wrong. Provide evidence to
> > > support it. AZT definitely has a toxicity profile. No question
> > > whatsoever. But it is NOT the same as the clinical condition of AIDS.
> > > Besides, a lot of people develop and have developed AIDS without
> > > having taken AZT or any antiretroviral therapy. Or done recretational
> > > drugs.
> >
> > This is true. The above is true for Gay males and others taking drugs,
> > recreational or prescribed. Hemophiliacs have gotten their immune
> > problems from blood products containing foreign proteins. Each group
> > has their own set of diseases caused by toxic substances. Please read
> > "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg for more information. Also
> > get the full list of side effects of AZT (the PDR does not have a full
> > listing) and then look at the list of symptoms for AIDS. You will learn
> > but not before many have been killed by taking AZT and other
> > anti-virals.
> >
> >
> > > >The largest controlled study done in France and England demonstrated the
> > > >effects of AZT. It killed people on it faster.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Provide the data to support this erroneous statement.
> > > Concorde's results showed no statiscally significant difference in
> > > mortality.
> >
> > I think your statement is either based on ignorance or an effort to
> > mislead. The Concord study demonstrated that those taking AZT died at
> > an increased rate. AZT is a DNA chain terminator that is non-specific.
> > This means body cells are going to be stopped in their development.
> > This means death. AZT and all other DNA terminators are the FINAL
> > SOLUTION.
> >
> >
> > > >HIV does not cause AIDS.
> > >
> > > Bzzzt. Wrong again.
> >
> > Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that was published
> > proving HIV is the cause of AIDS.
> >
> > > >There is no peer reviewed journal article that has been published
> > > >proving this.
> > >
> > > This is the dumbest thing--and you keep repeating it. There are LOTS
> > > of diseases for which no single peer reviewed journal article exists
> > > "proving" the underlying etiologic agent.
> >
> > This is not true for disease of the last few decades. Kary Mullis has
> > written about this.
> >
> > > > HIV has also never been isolated as required.
> > >
> > > By whom? And are you so sure? It has been cultured, sequenced and
> > > identified in a variety of specific ways.
> >
> > Please provide the evidence of isolation.
> >
> > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> > ALEX DAMIEN:::::::::Visit Web site under continual construction @
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~alexdn/male.html
> > YOUR comments and suggestions are necessary.
> >
> > Ale...@ix.netcom.com Thank
> > you.
> >
> > Yes, the public is wonderfully tolerant.
> > It forgives everything except genius.
> >
> > The Critic As Artist,
> > Oscar Wilde
> > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
> Look I know this is not directly relevent to what has
> been posted before - but I do feel it is indirectly
> rel.
> I'm posting this URL out to encourage folks to read
> the contents and to post other URL's for us to check
> out - there's not much being said (not enough anyway)
> about the culture of living with HIV and the new
> treatments - at least in Sydney the PRIDE centre is
> doing some things about it - I'm sure there are other
> things happening elsewhere and I'm hoping to get
> info. on them and see if there are models that are
> worth adapting for further use:-)
>
--------------20FA270022C0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="PPhomepage.htm"
<BASE HREF="http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5244/PPhomepage.htm">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Performance Positive HOME</TITLE>
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="Paul Canning">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="Mozilla/3.01Gold (Win95; I) [Netscape]">
<META NAME="KeyWords" CONTENT="Performance Positive PRIDE Sydney Australia HIV/AIDS Theatre Gay Lesbian Sex drugs">
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#F0F0F0" BGCOLOR="#808080" LINK="#393939" VLINK="#1D1D1D" ALINK="#2B2B2B" BACKGROUND="bg_grey_wide.jpg">
<UL>
<UL>
<UL>
<CENTER><P><A NAME="Top"></A><IMG SRC="PPlogo-rev2.jpg" HEIGHT=100 WIDTH=500></P></CENTER>
<P><BR>
<B><TT><FONT SIZE=+3>Welcome to the <I>Performance Positive</I> homepage!</FONT></TT></B></P>
<P><IMG SRC="proudman-neg.jpg" HEIGHT=80 WIDTH=115></P>
<P><B><TT><FONT COLOR="#F0F0F0"><FONT SIZE=+3>An article from <I>Talkabout</I>
Magazine about the <I>Performance Positive</I> series can be found <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/5243/talkabout.htm">HERE</A></FONT></FONT></TT></B></P>
<P><B><TT><FONT COLOR="#F0F0F0"><FONT SIZE=+3>Feedback to <I>Performance
Positive</I>'s can be found <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5244/feedback.htm">HERE</A></FONT></FONT></TT></B></P>
<P><B><TT><FONT COLOR="#F0F0F0"><FONT SIZE=+3><I>Performance Positive V:
Fear</I> Media Release <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/5243/fear.htm">HERE</A></FONT></FONT></TT></B></P>
<P><B><TT><FONT COLOR="#F0F0F0"><FONT SIZE=+3><I>Performance Positive V:
Fear</I> Program notes <A HREF="http://members.tripod.com/~pridesydney/PPV_program.htm">HERE</A></FONT></FONT></TT></B></P>
<P><B><TT><FONT COLOR="#F0F0F0"><FONT SIZE=+3>Performance Positive II:
Unsafe Sex Media Release <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5244/PPIIPR.htm">HERE</A></FONT></FONT></TT></B></P>
<P><B><TT><FONT COLOR="#F0F0F0"><FONT SIZE=+3>'Using Peer-Performance<BR>
-In-Education'<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=+2>(David Jobling) </FONT><FONT SIZE=+3><A HREF="http://members.tripod.com/~pridesydney/peereducation.htm">HERE</A></FONT></FONT></TT></B></P>
<P><B><TT><FONT COLOR="#F0F0F0"><FONT SIZE=+3>'An Actor's Perspective'<BR>
from <I>Talkabout </I>Magazine<BR>
</FONT><FONT SIZE=+2>(David Jobling) </FONT><FONT SIZE=+3><A HREF="http://members.tripod.com/~pridesydney/an-actors-perspective.htm">HERE</A></FONT></FONT></TT></B></P>
<P>
<HR WIDTH="100%"><B><I><A HREF="#Top">to top of page</A></I></B></P>
<P><IMG SRC="pride.gif" HEIGHT=50 WIDTH=50 ALIGN=LEFT><B><TT><FONT SIZE=+1> <A HREF="http://ann-nt.altnews.com.au/gay/">Index</A>
of PRIDE E|Newsletter & other releases<BR>
<A HREF="mailto:pr...@geko.net.au">HERE</A> to be updated with PRIDE's
E|Newsletter</FONT></TT></B></P>
<P>
<HR WIDTH="100%">
<HR WIDTH="100%"></P>
<P><B><FONT SIZE=+1><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/5243/pridecharter.htm">THE
PRIDE CHARTER </A></FONT></B></P>
<P><B>PRIDE <FONT SIZE=+2>-</FONT> Sydney Gay & Lesbian Community Centre
Limited <BR>
<IMG SRC="pinktriangle.gif" HEIGHT=75 WIDTH=90 ALIGN=LEFT>e-mail: <A HREF="mailto:pr...@geko.net.au">pr...@geko.net.au</A>
<BR>
fax: (+61 2) 9331 1199 <BR>
ph: (+61 2) 9331 1333 <BR>
post: PO Box 7, Darlinghurst NSW 2010 </B></P>
</UL>
</UL>
</UL>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------20FA270022C0--
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C326...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> Georgie, I do understand the difference. But, remember Georgie many
> people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
>
Can you provide any evidence (not a general request to read dissident
literature but a specific study or citation) that drug use (that means illicit
drugs, not medications recognized as predisposing to PCP prior to 1980 such as
corticosteroids) predispose to PCP in the absence of HIV infection???
Wally Boulton
himself wrote:
> What's to explain? IF what you say is true, he died of
> pneumonia, compounded by inappropriate medical treatment as
> a result of being labelled "HIV positive". How is this hard
> to understand?
Exactly what inappropriate medical treatment?
Wally
Wally Boulton
himself wrote:
> Why not? Because you can't understand them? I shall repost Val
> Turner's excellent article on antibody testing, for you to read.
Don't waste your time.
Wally
Wally Boulton
Alex Damien wrote:
> Georgie, I do understand the difference. But, remember Georgie many
> people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
> themselves at risk for PCP. HIV does not cause AIDS.
What has this to do with the question asked?
Wally
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> In article <33C326...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> > people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
> >
>
> Can you provide any evidence (not a general request to read dissident
> literature but a specific study or citation)
Sorry, the literature that you insult is based on science not the
mythology of HIV announced at a press conference.
that drug use (that means illicit
> drugs, not medications recognized as predisposing to PCP prior to 1980 such as
> corticosteroids) predispose to PCP in the absence of HIV infection???
Sorry, drug use whether recreational or by prescription if the cause of
the diseases that are taking place in those with the AIDS label. For a
history on AIDS and the diseases associated with it please read
"Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg.
George M. Carter
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C3A6...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>>
>> In article <33C326...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> > Georgie, I do understand the difference. But, remember Georgie many
>> > people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
>> > themselves at risk for PCP. HIV does not cause AIDS.
>> >
>>
>> Can you provide any evidence (not a general request to read dissident
>> literature but a specific study or citation)
>
> Sorry, the literature that you insult is based on science not the
> mythology of HIV announced at a press conference.
>
Don't get confused, I didn't insult the literature, I am insulting you for not
being able to back up your claim. I will insult the literature you cite when
it is appropriate. I notice you still haven't come up with any group-specific
aids defining illnesses.
B4Uask
(ROBERT S. HOLZMAN) writes of Alex :
>I notice you still haven't come up with any group-specific
>aids defining illnesses.
That's because he hasn't got the first clue what you are talking about and
can't find it written in the kook web archives he quotes. He regurgitates
with recalcitrant outrage the same shit the other kooks have been spewing
for years.
It's old hat Alex. You're way behind, and your message is irrelevant,
moot. As for your constant whining about being mistreated: If someone
offers you a life, take it.
**********
Cameron Snyder
George M. Carter
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Georgie, I do understand the difference. But, remember Georgie many
>people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
>themselves at risk for PCP.
Little boy, provide a cite for this claim. What toxic substances cause
PCP?
Did you know that people with AIDS are not only more susceptible to
TB, as Wally pointed out, but that the course is also more rapid and
dangerous.
HIV far too often causes AIDS.
Another guess: you're 12! Precocious little fella...
Georgie M. Carter
George M. Carter
jo...@blackdog.demon.co.uk.snip (himself) wrote:
>gm...@ix.netcom.com "George M. Carter" writes:
>> What are you talking about? What substantiation is there for this
>> statement? (Please don't bother mentioning the discredited Perth team
>> papers published in Continuum.)
>Why not? Because you can't understand them? I shall repost Val
>Turner's excellent article on antibody testing, for you to read.
>If we have to listen to your ignorant abusive rants, at least we
>can try to educate you.
But you see, you stupid schmoo, I HAVE read it. I understood most of
it. And it mostly seemed like deflective crap, plain ignorance and a
smattering of good questions which have been duly answered. Some of
their questions remain.
What depresses me is that these guys kvetch and kvetch. They are NOT
scientists. Why don't they do some of the simpler experiments and
report their results?
But this is a general question and not directed to itself. Who is too
much of a coward to reveal his name and too stupid to have any
intelligent answers to the questions raised.
George M. Carter
himself
holz...@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> > Georgie, I do understand the difference. But, remember Georgie many
> > people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
> > themselves at risk for PCP. HIV does not cause AIDS.
>
> Can you provide any evidence (not a general request to read dissident
> literature but a specific study or citation) that drug use (that means
> illicit drugs, not medications recognized as predisposing to PCP prior
> to 1980 such as corticosteroids) predispose to PCP in the absence of
> HIV infection???
Obscurantist gibber.
In fact the alleged presence of "HIV" makes no difference to the
outcome of TB cases, as a long thread here (thanks to Todd Miller)
exposed some time ago. All the resident "Aids" belief promoters
are well aware of it. They are hoping you are not. This is their
standard mode of evasion. In fact, every element of "HIV" dogma
has been refuted, in detail, for several years. There is no
scientific case for belief in the superstition. They are very well
aware of that too.
John
--
"Predictions that "HIV" would put at risk all sexually active people
have proved completely ill-conceived. Even female prostitutes do not
get Aids unless they are also heavy drug users."
from _AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science_,
by Neville Hodgkinson
Wally Boulton
himself wrote:
>
> "wal...@earthlink.net"@mail.earthlink.net "Wally Boulton" writes:
>
> > Explain his death to me, Alex. Tell me how this could happen. But be
> > careful - it's thin ice. And I doubt very much that you'll have any
> > more success than any of the other frustrated dissidents in this
> > newsgroup.
>
Exactly what inappropriate medical treatment do you refer to, oh great
knowing one? Were you there at his bedside? All of the treatment he
received was for PCP. Only. PCP, by the way, a pneumonia that does not
kill people with normally functioning immune systems. Remember?
Wally
Alex Damien
Being at someone's beside does not mean you know what they dies from.
Those that disagree with the HIV hypothesis, that has never been proven,
have not stated that people are not sick. The immune system is damaged
from drugs use.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <868528...@blackdog.demon.co.uk.snip>,
> holz...@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
>
>> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> > Georgie, I do understand the difference. But, remember Georgie many
>> > people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
>> > themselves at risk for PCP. HIV does not cause AIDS.
>>
>> Can you provide any evidence (not a general request to read dissident
>> literature but a specific study or citation) that drug use (that means
>> illicit drugs, not medications recognized as predisposing to PCP prior
>> to 1980 such as corticosteroids) predispose to PCP in the absence of
>> HIV infection???
>
> Obscurantist gibber.
>
Rubbish. Take out the parenthetical qualifiers and the sentence is is a
simple one. I will ask you too.. Can you provide any evidence that drug use
predisposes to PCP in the absence of HIV infection? I doubt it.
> In fact the alleged presence of "HIV" makes no difference to the
> outcome of TB cases, as a long thread here (thanks to Todd Miller)...
Obscurantist gibber. the outcome of TB cases *with treatment* is irrelevant
to the question under discussion which was drug use and PCP! Reread Alex'
comments. Nevertheless, If this information is thanks to todd miller it is
also thanks to me because that is a finding of my own published research, as
well as that of other investigators.
Alex Damien
> >people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
> >themselves at risk for PCP. HIV does not cause AIDS.
>
> I know ever had PCP without being HIV positive. It is possible, but
> highly rare, not showing nearly the frequency of occurance as among
> HIV+ persons.
>
> email to: rgi...@ix.netcom.com
This is very interesting since their are addicts with AIDS defining
diseases but not HIV+ test. In addition, even if the people you claim
to have met have the above does not prove cause. Please provide the
peer reviewed journal article that proves HIV is the cause of AIDS. The
tests also do not have a Gold Standard and therefore they are useless.
Please provide the electron micrograph of the material which is present
at a sucrose density gradient of 1.16 gm/ml. This will either
demonstrate isolation of the theoretical virus or garbage.
Alex Damien
George M. Carter wrote:
>
> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Georgie, I do understand the difference. But, remember Georgie many
> >people get TB and people that take toxic substances such as drugs put
> >themselves at risk for PCP.
>
> PCP?
Drugs. Please read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg.
> Did you know that people with AIDS are not only more susceptible to
> TB, as Wally pointed out, but that the course is also more rapid and
> dangerous.
They are more susceptible due to their drug use.
> HIV far too often causes AIDS.
HIV never causes AIDS.
> Georgie M. Carter
Alex Damien
> All my friends who are positive have begun the treatments now, all are
> doing better than previously.
They may appear to be getting better due to other factors such as
improving the health by changing their toxic behaviors. But, if the
continue with conventional treatments death will follow.
Some of my friends who have rejected
> treatments are also doing OK too, to be fair. Some of those friends are
> also dead.
Not everyone is following a proper program to bring back their health.
In addition, for some there are points of no return due to the
tremendous damage they may have inflicted upon the body.
I guess only time will tell if we have extracted any more years
> of life using the combinations. From anecdotal evidence around me I would
> say it is beneficial. The clinical trials are reporting the same results.
> Must be a coincidence.
>
> AC Kirk
These people will get sicker and die fighting a harmless virus with
toxic and deadly drugs.
Wally Boulton
Alex Damien wrote:
> Being at someone's beside does not mean you know what they dies from.
> Those that disagree with the HIV hypothesis, that has never been proven,
> have not stated that people are not sick. The immune system is damaged
> from drugs use.
Thank you. I was waiting for you to take this opportunity to make a
total ass of yourself.
When Frank was admitted, he was admitted to NYU Medical Center's Co-op
Care facility. This facility requires the patient and caregiver to
reside on the premises. It is intended for longer term patients who are
somewhat ambulatory. Many of the patients are AIDS or cancer patients
who have been admitted for a relatively (1-3 weeks) long period to
receive therapies. I'm sure the amount of time one is there could be
longer, according to the therapy involved. The patients' rooms are
private and are like small hotel rooms -- two single beds, a full
bathroom, a sink, TV, a small refrigerator. The rooms are private --
only the maids come during the day to clean. For all therapies, the
patient and caregiver go to the 14th Floor. Dinner is served cafeteria
style on the 15th floor, but can be brought down to the room if the
patient prefers or is weakened or groggy from therapy. Clothing is
casual - whatever makes you comfortable. Additionally, the caregiver is
free to go to work and carry on a normal life (unless the medical
situation requires his/her presence). The ONLY time any medical
personnel come to the rooms are for emergencies. One of the
philosophies behind this facility is to provide a more relaxed and
healthier environment for the patient, to promote active involvement and
to help train a loved one in the care needed both during the time in the
facility and when the patient is released. And it's cheaper than a
hospital room -- even a semi-private one. If you think I'm lying about
this facility (there is, to my knowledge, only one other in the country
- somewhere in Florida, I believe), ask Dr. Holtzman. I'm sure he may
have some familiarity with it. Other New Yorkers, especially those who
have received care at NYU Medical Center, are probably aware of it as
well.
One of the requirements of the caregiver is that he/she participate
actively in the patient's treatments. The caregiver receives the same
information about the specific condition, treatments, any side effects,
etc. as the patient.
Listen, you asshole, how dare you say to me "Being at someone's bedside
does not mean you know what they dies [sic] from." The day the doctor
moved him to intensive care and called me back from work, I stood at his
bedside watching him gasp for every breath, until I was finally escorted
to the waiting area so they could intubate him -- which they would not
allow me to watch (since I represented a "wild card" whose reaction to
such a procedure was unpredictable). The doctor finally came to me
after they were unable to keep him alive after the lack of oxygen to his
heart caused cardiac arrest.
He died from the immediate, drastic and final effects of PCP. Don't
fucking tell me I don't know what he died from. I almost went there
five weeks later.
And how dare you come so close to calling me a liar about his drug use.
I told you precisely what medications he had used that summer. During
the 9 days -- count 'em, Alex, 9 DAYS -- that he was in Co-op Care, NOT
ONE SINGLE ANTI-VIRAL MEDICATION was administered for HIV infection.
Everything he received was for PCP.
I said it before and I'll say it again. You're talking out your ass.
You have NO real-world experience with any of this. None of you idiot
dissidents do. You're all living in a dream world. Well, one day when
you, George, Ed Lieb, and various others reach the end of your
non-progressor status, the dream is going to shatter into a nightmare,
and it will be as much too late for you as it was for Frank. At least
he has the comfort of knowing he didn't court people into this
unnecessary death.
Wally Boulton
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C57F...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>>
>> simple one. I will ask you too.. Can you provide any evidence that drug use
>> predisposes to PCP in the absence of HIV infection? I doubt it.
>
> out about the thousands of people with AIDS defining diseases but no
> positive test result to the theoretical HIV.
As I stated, I read the papers, checked the facts, and found out that
Duesberg's assertions (and yours) are incorrect. The original papers did not
contain the reports he said they did, and he lumped non-aids defining
conditions, called the immune deficiency, and added them in for good measure.
That is how he got his thousands. Again, you need not take my word for this,
you can go to the library and look up the papers.
>
> I have one scenario that is interesting and shows problems with your HIV
> nonsense. Suppose that someone if exposed to TB one week then they are
> exposed to the theoretical HIV another afterwards. They then come down
> with TB since their immune system could not respond properly and are
> given an HIV test. They are then called an AIDS victim. But the TB
> came before the theoretical HIV. How would the doctor know this? I
> suppose they don't care since the definition form AIDS contains HIV and
> that makes everyone happy. They can now proceed to give the new victim
> drugs that will kill them.
>
In the large majority of cases this is in fact what happens. When a skin test
for TB is postive it indicates the presence of TB germs (unless BCG vaccine
has been given). Studies that follow patients who are containing the
infection with TB show that they will fail to keep it contained more often
during subsequent years if they are HIV positive than if they are HIV
negative. What HIV does is impair the body's ability to fight off TB. That
is what the scientific evidence says and no more. AIDS is simply a name for a
landmark in the course of HIV infection. HIV does not cause the TB. No one
ever said it did.
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> Rubbish. Take out the parenthetical qualifiers and the sentence is is a
> simple one. I will ask you too.. Can you provide any evidence that drug use
> predisposes to PCP in the absence of HIV infection? I doubt it.
Yes, read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. You will find
out about the thousands of people with AIDS defining diseases but no
positive test result to the theoretical HIV. Drugs are the reasons for
people getting sick with the diseases attributed to AIDS. Drugs are
dangerous and cause disease due to their toxic effects on the body. You
seem to want people to believe that drugs are healthy and simply having
clean needles for some will make everything OK. This is nonsense.
Drugs are killing people and giving more drugs such as AZT, ddI, ddC,
etc. will only speed the process and kill those not yet sick.
> > In fact the alleged presence of "HIV" makes no difference to the
> > outcome of TB cases, as a long thread here (thanks to Todd Miller)...
>
> Obscurantist gibber. the outcome of TB cases *with treatment* is irrelevant
> to the question under discussion which was drug use and PCP! Reread Alex'
> comments. Nevertheless, If this information is thanks to todd miller it is
> also thanks to me because that is a finding of my own published research, as
> well as that of other investigators.
I have one scenario that is interesting and shows problems with your HIV
nonsense. Suppose that someone if exposed to TB one week then they are
exposed to the theoretical HIV another afterwards. They then come down
with TB since their immune system could not respond properly and are
given an HIV test. They are then called an AIDS victim. But the TB
came before the theoretical HIV. How would the doctor know this? I
suppose they don't care since the definition form AIDS contains HIV and
that makes everyone happy. They can now proceed to give the new victim
drugs that will kill them.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Wally Boulton
Alex Damien wrote:
> Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that proves HIV is
> the cause of AIDS. The tests also do not have a Gold Standard and
> therefore they are useless. Please provide the electron micrograph
> of the material which is present at a sucrose density gradient of
> 1.16 gm/ml. This will either demonstrate isolation of the
> theoretical virus or garbage.
Alex, why don't you just put this broken record in your signature? It
would save us all so much time. Yourself included.
Wally
Brian Foley
Alex Damien wrote:
> Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that
> proves HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Curr Opin Immunol 8 (5): 613-618 (Oct 1996)
HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled
O'Brien SJ, Goedert JJ
Here are some from medical journals. You should also
look for books, such as Jay Levy's "HIV and the Pathogenesis
of AIDS" ASM Press Washington, DC 1994 ISBN 1-55581-076-4
DewyDecimal QR201.A37L48
Sci Total Environ 191 (3): 245-269 (Nov 22 1996)
The HIV/AIDS epidemic: its evolutionary implications for
human ecology with special reference to the immune system.
Caldararo N
Aust Dent J 42 (1): 30-37 (Feb 1997)
Human immunodeficiency virus infection: a review of the mode of
infection, pathogenesis,
disease course, and the general and clinical manifestations.
McCullough MJ, Firth NA, Reade PC
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 13 (2): 117-120 (Jan 20 1997)
Highlights from the University of California San Diego Center for AIDS
Research.
Wong-Staal F
Clin Infect Dis 24 (1): 64-74 (Jan 1997)
Redefining AIDS: towards a modification of the current AIDS case
definition.
Albrecht H
Med Clin North Am 80 (6): 1239-1261 (Nov 1996)
The human immunodeficiency virus.
Hardy WD Jr
Med Clin North Am 80 (6): 1223-1238 (Nov 1996)
The epidemiology of HIV and AIDS. Current trends.
Gourevitch MN
Infect Agents Dis 5 (4): 231-239 (Oct 1996)
The pathogenesis of AIDS: lessons learned from other medical
conditions.
Griffiths PD, Whitley RD
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 12 (16): 1499-1502 (Nov 1 1996)
Perspective: research highlights at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Center for AIDS
Research (CFAR).
Sodroski J
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 12 (15): 1393-1395 (Oct 10 1996)
Perspective: research highlights at the Medical College of Wisconsin's
Center for AIDS
Intervention Research. Advances in HIV primary and secondary
prevention.
Kelly JA
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 14 Suppl 2: S22-S29 (1997)
Science, politics, and AIDS prevention policy.
Bayer R
Med J Aust 165 (9): 494-498 (Nov 4 1996)
Epidemiology of HIV and AIDS in the Asia-Pacific region.
Dore GJ, Kaldor JM, Ungchusak K, Mertens TE
Sante 6 (6): 371-376 (Nov 1996)
Epidemiological portrait of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and its
implications in Benin
[Translated from French]
Fourn L, Ducic S
AIDS 10 Suppl 3: S53-S59 (Dec 1996)
Molecular biology and the development of AIDS therapeutics.
Trono D
J Am Coll Surg 184 (4): 403-412 (Apr 1997)
The surgeon's database for AIDS: a collective review.
Flum DR, Wallack MK
Schweiz Med Wochenschr 127 (11): 436-443 (Mar 15 1997)
Antiretroviral therapy: a guide to the most important trials.
Rutschmann O, Hirschel B
Rev Panam Salud Publica 1 (3): 220-229 (Mar 1997)
HIV and AIDS: where is the epidemic going?
[Translated from Spanish]
Mertens TE, Low-Beer D
Curr Biol 7 (3): R136-R140 (Mar 1 1997)
AIDS: decline and fall of immune surveillance?
Feinberg MB, McLean AR
Keio J Med 45 (4): 306-312 (Dec 1996)
Pathology of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in children.
Joshi VV
Am Fam Physician 55 (4): 1227-1237 (Mar 1997)
Behavioral and psychiatric aspects of HIV infection.
Searight HR, McLaren AL
Med Clin North Am 81 (2): 555-575 (Mar 1997)
Risks and issues for the health care worker in the human
immunodeficiency virus era.
Weiss SH
IMA J Math Appl Med Biol 14 (1): 11-38 (Mar 1997)
Mathematical modelling of the spread of HIV/AIDS amongst injecting
drug users.
Greenhalgh D, Hay G
Soc Sci Med 44 (5): 609-621 (Mar 1997)
Refocusing the lens: epidemiologic transition theory, mortality
differentials, and the AIDS pandemic.
Gaylin DS, Kates J
____________________________________________________________________
|Brian T. Foley b...@t10.lanl.gov |
|HIV Database (505) 665-1970 |
|Los Alamos National Lab http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/index.html |
|Los Alamos, NM 87544 U.S.A. http://www.t10.lanl.gov/~btf/home.html |
|____________________________________________________________________|
AC Kirk
In article <33C111...@ix.netcom.com>, Ale...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Would you please watch your personal attacks. Using the words you do
> against me and not the opinions I express only demonstrates your sad
> position. My agendum is help people see the scientific truth and not
> blind faith as worshiped at new conferences. HIV does not cause AIDS.
> There is no peer reviewed journal article that has been published
> proving this. HIV has also never been isolated as required. AZT and
> the other anti-virals are the FINAL SOLUTION. The lie has now turned to
> murder and genocide whether or not a particular physician is aware of
> the facts.
Oh I just love it when the Nazis get all thingy about the FINAL SOLUTION
to the HIV question.
Your agenda has nothing at all to do with scientific truth. You wouldn't
know an experiment or a clinical trial if it hit you in the face. You
should get into the real world and see the change in people's lives from
the combination therapies. I do every day.
All my friends who are positive have begun the treatments now, all are
doing better than previously. Some of my friends who have rejected
treatments are also doing OK too, to be fair. Some of those friends are
also dead. I guess only time will tell if we have extracted any more years
George M. Carter
I wrote...
>> Can you provide any evidence (not a general request to read dissident
>> literature but a specific study or citation) that drug use (that means
>> illicit drugs, not medications recognized as predisposing to PCP prior
>> HIV infection???
Itself the Cowardly JohnDog babbled...
>Obscurantist gibber.
Only to you! Because you are too stupid to understand the question.
And by the time you do understand, you'll realize you have no answer.
So you'll continue your pathetic psychofundy dithering!
George M. Carter
"Is Death Inevitable With Multiresistant TB Plus HIV Infection?"
Lancet (01/11/97) Vol. 349, No. 9045, P. 71; Drobniewski, Francis
Patients infected with both HIV and multidrug-resistant
tuberculosis (MDRTB) are more likely to survive if TB is
diagnosed quickly and drug resistance is detected early, says
Francis Drobniewski of King's College School of Medicine in a
commentary in the Lancet. MDRTB is on the rise, due to poor
patient compliance and inadequately supervised treatment, which
usually includes isoniazid and rifampicin. Rapid progression
from Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection to TB disease is more
likely in HIV-positive individuals, as is the development of
extrapulmonary disease. As evidence, Drobniewski cites a
retrospective study of TB patients at a New York hospital. The
research found that, of 38 patients with MDRTB, all but four were
HIV-positive. Half of the patients responded to treatment, with
an average survival time of 315 days. A second study showed
improved survival when MDRTB was detected early and therapy was
used. Response and survival in both studies were more likely if
at least two treatments to which the isolate was susceptible in
in vitro testing were used. In conclusion, Drobniewski urges the
use of rapid tests for all major anti-TB drugs, the
identification of new drug targets, and the development of new
treatment strategies. She also notes the importance of advanced
planning, close surveillance for nosocomial TB, and a high
suspicion for the disease.
"Active Tuberculosis Boosts HIV Replication"
Lancet (08/10/96) Vol. 348, No. 9024, P. 393; McCarthy, Michael
Active Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in HIV-positive
individuals can increase plasma HIV levels by as much as 160
times, researchers report in the August issue of the Journal of
Immunology. Studies of seven HIV-infected patients with active
M. tuberculosis (TB) infection revealed that the plasma HIV load
rose from 5 times to 160 times. The viral load declined after
the patients' TB infection was treated successfully, but elevated
viral loads remained in those patients for whom treatment failed.
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Disease, says the findings may explain why HIV
progresses more quickly in areas with high rates of M.
tuberculosis infection and why HIV is transmitted more easily in
these populations.
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE John Bowersox
Tuesday, July 9, 1996 (301) 402-1663
11:30 a.m. Pacific Time Bowe...@nih.gov
(2:30 p.m. Eastern Time)
NIAID Study Finds Initial Intermittent Treatment Effective
for HIV-Related TB
Combination antibiotic therapy given intermittently (less than
daily) is an effective initial treatment for persons with HIV-related
tuberculosis (TB), according to an ongoing study funded by the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
"This preliminary finding should help guide clinicians who treat
people co-infected with HIV and TB," says Steven M. Schnittman,
M.D., assistant director for clinical research in NIAID's Division of
AIDS. "The adoption of earlier intermittent regimens could facilitate
the treatment of these patients in directly observed TB therapy, with
a
clinic or outreach worker watching participants taking their study
medication."
Although initial intermittent TB therapy is known to be effective
in non-HIV-infected patients, its efficacy has not been proven in
patients with HIV-related TB. Many clinicians, therefore, continue to
prescribe daily multidrug therapy for several months for these
patients, before switching to intermittent therapy for the remainder
of
a typical nine-month course of treatment.
In the NIAID multicenter clinical trial, 114 patients with
HIV-related
TB received directly observed, multidrug antibiotic therapy
during an eight-week induction, or treatment initiation, phase.
Patients in each of two groups received four standard anti-TB drugs:
isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide and ethambutol. One group also
received levofloxacin, an experimental anti-TB drug. The drugs were
given daily for only the first two weeks, then three times a week for
the six weeks remaining in the induction period. The four-drug and
five-drug regimens were equally effective -- at the end of eight
weeks,
sputum specimens from more than 95 percent of patients in each
group tested negative for the presence of TB bacteria.
"This is perhaps the first strong evidence that a largely
intermittent induction schedule of directly observed, multidrug
therapy
is a very effective treatment for HIV-related TB, as measured by
sputum culture response," says Wafaa El-Sadr, M.D., of the Harlem
Hospital Center in New York. Dr. El-Sadr will present the interim
results of the ongoing study today at the XIth International
Conference on AIDS in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Dr. El-Sadr notes that a large part of the recent global
increase in TB cases is due to the growing number of persons who
are infected with both HIV and TB. HIV infection increases the
chance that dormant TB infection will become activated. The
progression of TB disease also is accelerated in persons with HIV
infection. The greater convenience of intermittent TB therapy could
have a major impact on the management of TB worldwide, she says.
"An effective intermittent regimen should increase rates of
compliance with therapy, particularly for patients receiving directly
observed therapy, because they will not have to come to the clinic as
frequently to receive their medication," says Dr. El-Sadr. "Increased
compliance with therapy would result in a better cure rate, less TB
transmission and fewer opportunities for the TB organism to develop
drug resistance."
In a continuation of the study, Dr. El-Sadr and her
collaborators in the NIAID-funded Terry Beirn Community Programs
for Clinical Research on AIDS (CPCRA) and AIDS Clinical Trials
Group (ACTG), will assess the effectiveness of various combinations
of anti-TB agents administered for different durations following the
two-month induction phase.
The CPCRA is a network of primary care physicians and
nurses who work with NIAID staff to design and conduct community-
based clinical trials in patients with HIV disease and AIDS. NIAID
currently funds 16 CPCRA units in 15 cities throughout the United
States. The ACTG is a nationwide clinical trials network that
conducts studies to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of new
drugs, drug combinations and vaccines in adults and children at
various stages of HIV disease. The ACTG includes 30 Adult and 22
Pediatric Units at academic institutions and medical centers in 20
states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
NIAID is a component of the National Institutes of Health(NIH).
NIAID conducts and supports research to prevent, diagnose and treat
illnesses such as AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases,
tuberculosis, asthma and allergies. NIH is an agency of the U.S.
Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
###
NIAID press releases, fact sheets and other materials are
available on the internet via the NIAID home page. The address
is http://www.niaid.nih.gov.
George M. Carter
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Provide a cite for this claim. What toxic substances cause
>> PCP?
>Drugs. Please read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg.
What drugs? What evidence? Duesberg has none.
>
>> Did you know that people with AIDS are not only more susceptible to
>> TB, as Wally pointed out, but that the course is also more rapid and
>> dangerous.
>They are more susceptible due to their drug use.
Except people that don't do drugs get sick too, silly.
>> HIV far too often causes AIDS.
>HIV never causes AIDS.
Science by fiat! I'm revising again. 12 reflects your IQ.
I looked at your website. I'm sorry your adult lover appears to be a
teacher? I hope he's not as simple minded as you.
George M. Carter
George M. Carter
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yes, read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. You will find
>out about the thousands of people with AIDS defining diseases but no
>positive test result to the theoretical HIV. Drugs are the reasons for
>people getting sick with the diseases attributed to AIDS. Drugs are
>dangerous and cause disease due to their toxic effects on the body.
Bzzt! Faulty logic!!
A) Drugs can be bad for you. What a brilliant idea!! Who knew? I'll
tell Sweden to get the Nobel ready for YOU next.
B) Drugs don't cause CD4+ T cell lymphopenia.
C) Drugs don't cause AIDS.
D) Alex has the mind of a cephalopod. Or maybe just an anencephalic.
George M. Carter
A team of California researchers has disproved a theory claiming that
recreational drug use, and not HIV, is the cause of AIDS. The
scientists reported in a commentary published today in Nature that
their research shows no relationship between recreational drug use,
excluding IV-drugs, and the development of AIDS. The research team was
led by Dr. Michael S. Ascher, an immunologist at the California
Department of Health Services, and Dr. Warren Winklestein Jr., an
epidemiologist at the University of California--Berkeley. Dr. Ascher
and colleagues wrote their paper in response to a challenge by Tom
Bethell, a media fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University, to compare people who used drugs with those who didn't and
to determine whether those who took drugs had a higher incidence of
AIDS. Bethell wrote in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle of
the theory proposed six years ago by Dr. Peter H. Duesberg, a
molecular biologist at the University of California--Berkeley.
Duesberg argues that HIV is not the cause of AIDS and that the drug
AZT speeds, rather than slows, the depletion of the immune system.
Bethell asked why no research had been done on this hypothesis.
Therefore, Dr. Ascher et al. retested their hypothesis of the analysis
of the San Francisco Men's Study, a group of 1,034 randomly selected
single men who lived in San Francisco and were 25-54 years old in
1984, when the study began. The researchers found that homosexuals and
heterosexuals in the study were equally likely to use drugs. However,
26 percent of homosexuals developed AIDS, whereas none of the
heterosexuals did. All of the men were infected with HIV, but there
was no link between drug use and AIDS. Related Story: Wall Street
Journal (03/11) P. B5 Ascher, M.S. et al., Does Drug Use Cause AIDS?,
Nature (03/11/93) Vol. 362, No. 6416, P. 103. Although Peter
Duesberg, a professor of molecular biology at the University of
California--Berkeley, believes that AIDS and drug use are related,
they are not, writes M.S. Ascher et al. of the California Department
of Health Services in Berkeley, Calif. Duesberg has maintained since
1987 that HIV is not the infectious aetiological agent for AIDS and
has recently stated that either drug consumption or conventional
clinical deficiencies and their treatments cause AIDS-related
illnesses. However, the researchers found this untrue. They analyzed
data from a unique population-based cohort study, the San Francisco
Men's Health Study (SFMHS). It is based on a randomly selected cohort
of 1,027 single men 25-54 years old. The researchers examined the
cohort at 6-month intervals for 96 months, and obtained drug-use data
and determined HIV serostatus at each examination. The researchers
compared heavy drug use for the 25-months period before entry into the
study among 215 heterosexual and 812 homosexual/bisexual cohort
members. Except for amyl nitrate, with 18 percent heavy use in
homosexuals versus no heavy use among heterosexuals, the percentage of
subjects reporting heavy use of each drug was similar in both sexual
preference groups: 36 versus 39 percent for marijuana; 7 versus 4
percent for cocaine; and 1 versus 5 percent for amphetamines,
respectively. During the 96 months of follow-up, 215 cases of AIDS
occurred among the homosexual/bisexual men compared with none among
the heterosexuals. It was found that if heavy use of marijuana,
cocaine or amphetamines is casually linked to AIDS, a cumulative
incidence of 56 cases among the heterosexual subjects would be
expected. Duesberg, Peter, HIV and the Aetiology of AIDS, Lancet
(04/10/93) Vol. 341, No. 8850, P. 957. Because there is no proof that
HIV is the cause of AIDS, the hypothesis that drug use leads to AIDS
will hopefully become a hindrance to the physiologically (AZT) and
psychologically (positive AIDS test) toxic public health initiatives,
writes Peter Duesberg of the University of California--Berkeley. In
the Lancet's March 13 issue, Schechter et al. call Duesberg's
hypothesis that injected and orally used recreational drugs and AZT
lead to AIDS, "a hindrance to public health initiatives." However,
their hypothesis that HIV is the cause of AIDS has not attained any
public health benefits. The U.S. government spends $4 billion
annually, but no vaccine, no therapy, no prevention, and no AIDS
control have resulted from work on this hypothesis. Schechter et al.
conclude that HIV has a key role in CD4 depletion and AIDS based on
epidemiological correlations with antibodies against HIV and with self
reported recreational drug use among homosexuals from Vancouver.
However, their survey neglects to disprove Duesberg's drug-AIDS
hypothesis, because it does not provide controls--i.e., confirmed
drug-free AIDS cases--and because it does not quantify drug use and
ignores AZT use altogether. To refute Duesberg's hypothesis Schechter
would have to produce a controlled study demonstrating that over a
period of up to 10 years HIV-positive patients who use recreational
drugs or AZT or both have the same AIDS risks as positives who do not
do so. The 10 year period is claimed by proponents of the HIV
hypothesis to be the time needed for HIV to cause AIDS. Alternatively,
they could show that HIV-free individuals who have used drugs for 10
years never get AIDS-defining illnesses, concludes Duesberg. Clayton,
Julie, Duesberg's Anti-AZT Campaign Continues, Nature (06/24/93) Vol.
363, No. 6431, P. 660. The controversial American molecular biologist
who claims that recreational drug use rather than HIV is the cause of
AIDS has rejected as a "fabrication" the findings of a recent study
designed to disprove his hypothesis. Michael Ascher and colleagues of
the California Department of Health Services used data from the San
Francisco Men's Health Study to demonstrate that men who were heavy
drug users but showed no evidence of HIV infection did not contract
the virus, whereas those in the study who were either light drug
users, or did not use drugs at all, were shown to be infected with
HIV. The study contradicts Peter Duesberg's idea that AIDS is a
clinical development of long-term consumption of recreational drugs
and of treatment with AZT. But Duesberg said at a recent meeting in
London organized by a group known as the Steering Committee Against
AZT Malpractice (SCAM), that he refused to accept the group's
conclusion, and continued to insist that his own interpretations are
sound. He continued to criticize the labeling of one table in the
publication of the California study for not indicating the category of
"no drug use," and that the paper was therefore invalid. He apparently
ignored an explanation in the text that these subjects were
represented in the table's category of "light" drug users. In
addition, he said that he refused to accept the way that the results
of the study were presented in a graph, claiming that "the curve is a
fabrication and the conclusions are flawed." Moreover, Duesberg said
that the research group's findings could be interpreted to support the
opposite conclusion and suggested that there was a 100 percent
correlation between AIDS and drug use. Maddox, John, Where the AIDS
Virus Hides Away, Nature (03/25/93) Vol. 362, No. 6418, P. 287.
Because of the new findings that HIV replicates in the lymph nodes
while in the so-called latent period, Professor Peter Duesberg of the
University of California--Berkeley may want to change his position,
writes John Maddox of Nature. Duesberg has held that drug taking is
responsible for AIDS, and not HIV. Most viruses are DNA viruses, which
ordinarily replicate within cells by hijacking the preexisting
machinery of DNA transcription and translation. But the genomes of
retroviruses, like HIV, by contrast, consist of RNA. Those of the
lentiviruses, of which HIV is one, come equipped with a gene
specifying a reverse transcriptase (for converting RNA into the
complementary DNA). While the RNA genome may be used, as if it were
one of the infected cell's own messenger molecules, to generate the
proteins that would allow an intact virus particle to be regenerated,
by far the more efficient means of replication is that DNA
complementary to the viral RNA should be incorporated in the genome of
the cell, where it will serve as a template for the production of its
own genomic RNA and thus for intact viral particles. Duesberg claims
that it is difficult to recover from helper T lymphocytes, whose
attrition for many patients indicates the onset of overt AIDS, virus
particles that might plausibly infect others. The new findings show
that the virus is alive and well in the lymph nodes, among other
locations, of those infected with HIV. The recent revelations suggest
that, nevertheless, the alternatives for AIDS patients are even less
justifiable than seemed likely a few years ago. Duesberg should now
admit the possibility that he has been mistaken, concludes Maddox.
Alex Damien
Wally Boulton wrote:
>
> Alex Damien wrote:
>
> > Being at someone's beside does not mean you know what they dies from.
> > Those that disagree with the HIV hypothesis, that has never been proven,
> > have not stated that people are not sick. The immune system is damaged
> > from drugs use.
>
> Thank you. I was waiting for you to take this opportunity to make a
> total ass of yourself.
Watch your language. This is no way to prove your point.
> When Frank was admitted, he was admitted to NYU Medical Center's Co-op
> Care facility. This facility requires the patient and caregiver to
> reside on the premises. ...
I cut most of this since it does not prove what the cause of AIDS to be
HIV.
> One of the requirements of the caregiver is that he/she participate
> actively in the patient's treatments. The caregiver receives the same
> information about the specific condition, treatments, any side effects,
> etc. as the patient.
Still no proof.
>
> Listen, you asshole, how dare you say to me "Being at someone's bedside
> does not mean you know what they dies [sic] from." The day the doctor
> moved him to intensive care and called me back from work, I stood at his
> bedside watching him gasp for every breath, until I was finally escorted
> to the waiting area so they could intubate him -- which they would not
> allow me to watch (since I represented a "wild card" whose reaction to
> such a procedure was unpredictable). The doctor finally came to me
> after they were unable to keep him alive after the lack of oxygen to his
> heart caused cardiac arrest.
He could have suffered for weeks but this is not proof that HIV is the
cause of AIDS defining diseases.
> He died from the immediate, drastic and final effects of PCP. Don't
> fucking tell me I don't know what he died from. I almost went there
> five weeks later.
You equate PCP with HIV. The equation does not work. People get PCP
with no HIV positive test result. Remember thousands no have been
classified as having AIDS defining diseases with no HIV.
> And how dare you come so close to calling me a liar about his drug use.
> I told you precisely what medications he had used that summer. During
> the 9 days -- count 'em, Alex, 9 DAYS -- that he was in Co-op Care, NOT
> ONE SINGLE ANTI-VIRAL MEDICATION was administered for HIV infection.
> Everything he received was for PCP.
I do dare considering your rude remarks. It is not just anti-virals
taken a few days before death but drugs over many years. Recreational,
over-the-counter, antibiotics and others that are toxic to the body and
taken over time. Remember time, dose and individual constitutional
factors are important when considering toxins in the cause of disease.
Please read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg to begin you
education.
The HIV/AIDS HYPOTHESIS = AIDS kills.
> I said it before and I'll say it again. You're talking out your ass.
> You have NO real-world experience with any of this.
Sorry, you are wrong again. Every person I have known that has dies
from the AIDS defining diseases had taken drugs withour exception. I do
admit that people may get TB or other diseases and have a positive reult
on the flawed tests. But, just because the AIDS label will be put on
them like a pink triangle in a death camp does not prove HIV causes
AIDS.
None of you idiot
> dissidents do. You're all living in a dream world. Well, one day when
> you, George, Ed Lieb, and various others reach the end of your
> non-progressor status, the dream is going to shatter into a nightmare,
> and it will be as much too late for you as it was for Frank. At least
> he has the comfort of knowing he didn't court people into this
> unnecessary death.
>
> Wally Boulton
The allopathic way is the way to a quick and sad death. I have also
never been tested and encourage other not to be tested for a theoretical
virus that may not exist and has never been proven to cause anything.
Alex Damien
Sorry, what you have provided does not prove HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Also, besides sending the information send it to Duesberg and Kary
Mullis they have trying to locate the peer reviewed journal article that
was published proving HIV is the cause of AIDS. On of them can be
contacted at http://www.duesberg.com
Brian Foley wrote:
>
> Alex Damien wrote:
> > Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that
--
Alex Damien
Ronnie Gibson wrote:
>
> gm...@ix.netcom.com (George M. Carter) wrote:
>
> >Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>Yes, read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. You will find
> >>out about the thousands of people with AIDS defining diseases but no
> >>positive test result to the theoretical HIV. Drugs are the reasons for
> >>people getting sick with the diseases attributed to AIDS. Drugs are
> >>dangerous and cause disease due to their toxic effects on the body.
>
> >Bzzt! Faulty logic!!
>
>
> >A team of California researchers has disproved a theory claiming that
> >recreational drug use, and not HIV, is the cause of AIDS. The
> >scientists reported in a commentary published today in Nature that
> >their research shows no relationship between recreational drug use,
> >excluding IV-drugs, and the development of AIDS. The research team was
>
> even among IV users (that is one needs the serum/serum contact also).
>
> Like I said my work in Twelve Step programs has given me experience
> with hundreds of addicts. No one has progressed to AIDS without being
> HIV positive that I know of.
>
> email to: rgi...@ix.netcom.com
Thousands have AIDS defining diseases without HIV positive test
results. You are wrong again.
Alex Damien
> In the large majority of cases this is in fact what happens. When a skin test
> for TB is postive it indicates the presence of TB germs (unless BCG vaccine
> has been given). Studies that follow patients who are containing the
> infection with TB show that they will fail to keep it contained more often
> during subsequent years if they are HIV positive than if they are HIV
> negative. What HIV does is impair the body's ability to fight off TB. That
> is what the scientific evidence says and no more. AIDS is simply a name for a
> landmark in the course of HIV infection. HIV does not cause the TB. No one
> ever said it did.
Again you are playing word games. HIV is not the cause of AIDS defining
diseases.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Alex Damien
Wally Boulton wrote:
>
> Alex Damien wrote:
>
I will continue to ask since the fantasy is being told that HIV causes
AIDS.
Alex Damien
> >> PCP?
>
> >Drugs. Please read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg.
>
> What drugs? What evidence? Duesberg has none.
You have then not read the book.
> George M. Carter
Wally Boulton
Alex Damien wrote:
> ... It is not just anti-virals
> taken a few days before death but drugs over many years. Recreational,
> over-the-counter, antibiotics and others that are toxic to the body and
> taken over time.
There weren't any. Read my lips: THERE WEREN'T ANY!
And no, I don't confuse HIV infection with AIDS-defining illness or
equate HIV with PCP. Of course they are not the same. As for people
having PCP without HIV, certainly true. (By the way, I see in your
statement "People get PCP with no HIV positive test result" that you
give credence to a test of some unspecified kind for HIV. Thank you.)
And in every case that I've ever heard of or read studies of, there has
been immune suppression for one reason or another. As with AIDS. That
is why those particular diseases, OPPORTUNISTIC diseases, are
AIDS-defining illnesses in the presence of progressed infection with
HIV.
> Every person I have known that has dies
> from the AIDS defining diseases had taken drugs withour exception.
Every person YOU know has nothing to do with Frank.
Wally
W. Fred Shaw
Brian Foley wrote:
>
> Alex Damien wrote:
> > Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that
> > proves HIV is the cause of AIDS.
>
> HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled
> O'Brien SJ, Goedert JJ
Sorry Brian, none of these articles satisfy the requirements
of scientific "proof". Plenty of circumstantial evidence has
always been available, but this does not constitute proof.
I am not disputing HIV as a causative or contributing factor
here -- I am pointing out that the element of proof remains
elusive in the HIV causation theory. As we now know, many
people with HIV do not go on to develop disease (at least
those who did not make the mistake of intervening with toxic
drugs when they were healthy). In these and other "exceptional"
cases that do not fit the current model of disease causation,
the medical establishment cannot expand its theoretical
model to accomodate and explain these anomalies. Since a "proven"
scientific model must be able to accomodate all exceptions,
the current model of HIV disease pathogenesis and treatment
cannot be considered scientific. Unfortunately, once HIV was
"discovered" as the cause of AIDS, ALL theories of pathogenesis
and treatment in AIDS have been reversed engineered to accomodate
the use of immunosuppressive cancer drugs. This isn't science --
this is product development and marketing.
> Here are some from medical journals. You should also
> look for books, such as Jay Levy's "HIV and the Pathogenesis
> of AIDS" ASM Press Washington, DC 1994 ISBN 1-55581-076-4
> DewyDecimal QR201.A37L48
>
Jay Levy has been one of the foremost critics of the medical
establishment in its focus on the wrong target for treating
this disease. Levy has said all along that any effective treatment
must come from the perspective of cellular immunity, not suppressive
and toxic drugs.
The rest of the citations do not constitute proof -- they merely
offer the same theoretical explanations that seem to change
depending on which drug company has an open checkbook.
fred
HelthBound
Do you read what you parrot?
The headlines can say what they want, but there was nothing posted that
disproved Duesberg.
In article <5q40hk$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, gm...@ix.netcom.com
(George M. Carter) writes:
> Except for amyl nitrate, with 18 percent heavy use in
>homosexuals versus no heavy use among heterosexuals, the percentage of
>subjects reporting heavy use of each drug was similar in both sexual
>preference groups: 36 versus 39 percent for marijuana; 7 versus 4
>percent for cocaine; and 1 versus 5 percent for amphetamines,
>respectively. During the 96 months of follow-up, 215 cases of AIDS
>occurred among the homosexual/bisexual men compared with none among
>the heterosexuals. It was found that if heavy use of marijuana,
>cocaine or amphetamines is casually linked to AIDS, a cumulative
>incidence of 56 cases among the heterosexual subjects would be
>expected.
This does not disprove the Drug-AIDS Hypothesis.
You don't think the amyl use is significant? And a five fold difference
in
use of amphetamines? I question who determined what was meant by heavy
usage? Was longterm cumulative exposure considered? And there appears to
be no control for the psychologically toxic effects of being told one had
HIV -- the virus accused of causing AIDS, but never shown to cause any
serious disease. And there is no mention of prescription drugs, which
would invariably be given to anyone unfortunate enough to be diagnosed
HIV+, allegedly to "extend" their lives.
You don't need to be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to see through
the flaws in the AIDS scare, but you do need to be able to read,
understand and think.
You flat-Earthers are really blind. And let's get it straight. The
flat-Earthers were the ones who couldn't let go of the old faulty paradigm
(i.e. The Earth is flat. HIV=AIDS.)
And the Nazis are the people who want to see your papers, your blood and
want to tell you how, where, when and with whom you may make love..
Edward Lieb
Helth...@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all?
Check out my web page:
http://members.aol.com/HelthBound
or write for information by return e-mail.
AC Kirk
> Sorry Brian, none of these articles satisfy the requirements
> of scientific "proof". Plenty of circumstantial evidence has
> always been available, but this does not constitute proof.
Hey, that must be why the jury let O J Simpson off on a double murder charge.
> I am not disputing HIV as a causative or contributing factor
> here -- I am pointing out that the element of proof remains
> elusive in the HIV causation theory. As we now know, many
> people with HIV do not go on to develop disease (at least
> those who did not make the mistake of intervening with toxic
> drugs when they were healthy).
No proof of that either, in fact the evidence from clinical trials is that
the drugs prolong life.
AC Kirk
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C6A5...@ix.netcom.com>,
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> He could have suffered for weeks but this is not proof that HIV is the
> cause of AIDS defining diseases.
>
You keep saying this. No one ever said they were. Instead of telling people
to clean up their language, why don't you clean up your reasoning.
> You equate PCP with HIV. The equation does not work. People get PCP
> with no HIV positive test result. Remember thousands no have been
> classified as having AIDS defining diseases with no HIV.
>
A fine example of muddy reasoning or dishonest reasoning. It is untrue in the
sense that the sufferers had reasons other than HIV for getting the AIDS
defining diseases and therefore they were not aids defining.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C6A1...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Sorry, what you have provided does not prove HIV is the cause of AIDS.
> Also, besides sending the information send it to Duesberg and Kary
> Mullis they have trying to locate the peer reviewed journal article that
> was published proving HIV is the cause of AIDS. On of them can be
> contacted at http://www.duesberg.com
>
by anyone.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C699...@primenet.com>, "W. Fred Shaw" <Fred...@primenet.com> writes:
> Brian Foley wrote:
>>
>> Alex Damien wrote:
>> > Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that
>> > proves HIV is the cause of AIDS.
>>
>> Curr Opin Immunol 8 (5): 613-618 (Oct 1996)
>> HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled
>> O'Brien SJ, Goedert JJ
>
> of scientific "proof". Plenty of circumstantial evidence has
> always been available, but this does not constitute proof.
> here -- I am pointing out that the element of proof remains
> elusive in the HIV causation theory. As we now know, many
> people with HIV do not go on to develop disease (at least
> those who did not make the mistake of intervening with toxic
> drugs when they were healthy).
So far as I know, the only evidence that this is true comes from collecting
cases of long term non-progressors and looking at their medical histories.
This is invalid as the group is selected by virtue of the fact that they have
been well. I know of no evidence from prospective studies that it is true
that people who avoid antivirals are more likely to be non-progressors. Since
you are so finicky about proofs of causation you show be equally finicky about
such statements as this.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C6AC...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> In the large majority of cases this is in fact what happens. When a skin test
>> for TB is postive it indicates the presence of TB germs (unless BCG vaccine
>> has been given). Studies that follow patients who are containing the
>> infection with TB show that they will fail to keep it contained more often
>> during subsequent years if they are HIV positive than if they are HIV
>> negative. What HIV does is impair the body's ability to fight off TB. That
>> is what the scientific evidence says and no more. AIDS is simply a name for a
>> landmark in the course of HIV infection. HIV does not cause the TB. No one
>> ever said it did.
>
> diseases.
>
Speaking plain english and following a chain of logic doesn't constitute a
word game. By repeating that HIV is not the cause of AIDS defining diseases
you continue to imply that I say that they do. If you read the paragraph I
wrote and the two recent postings of mine you can see that I do not say that
HIV causes any of the aids defining diseases, and I do say that no one else
does make this claim. By repeating this false assertion you use an argument
that is, itself , a "word game".
Alex Damien
Wally Boulton wrote:
>
> Alex Damien wrote:
>
> > ... It is not just anti-virals
> > taken a few days before death but drugs over many years. Recreational,
> > over-the-counter, antibiotics and others that are toxic to the body and
> > taken over time.
>
> There weren't any. Read my lips: THERE WEREN'T ANY!
>
> And no, I don't confuse HIV infection with AIDS-defining illness or
> equate HIV with PCP. Of course they are not the same. As for people
> having PCP without HIV, certainly true. (By the way, I see in your
> statement "People get PCP with no HIV positive test result" that you
> give credence to a test of some unspecified kind for HIV. Thank you.)
> And in every case that I've ever heard of or read studies of, there has
> been immune suppression for one reason or another. As with AIDS. That
> is why those particular diseases, OPPORTUNISTIC diseases, are
> AIDS-defining illnesses in the presence of progressed infection with
> HIV.
Not all AIDS defining disease have to do with the a depressed immune
system which is another problem with the hypothesis. Please read
"Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg.
> > Every person I have known that has dies
> > from the AIDS defining diseases had taken drugs withour exception.
>
> Every person YOU know has nothing to do with Frank.
>
> Wally
Sorry, wrong again.
himself
b...@t10.lanl.gov "Brian Foley" writes:
> Alex Damien wrote:
> > Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that
> > proves HIV is the cause of AIDS.
>
> [ reams of fraud pseudo-science snipped ]
None of this junk constitutes science, as has been shown by the
progress of the delusion. If "HIV" ever caused "Aids" there would
have been an epidemic, and "HIV" would have been isolated. "HIV"
has never fulfulled Koch's postulates, for example. Such claims
are just another "Aids" lie.
When someone like Foley, with his own snout grubbing happily in
the "Aids" trough, quotes reams of alleged "science" from other
exploiters of unwary, you can be sure the actual scientific
quotient is nil. Their energies are directed at concealing the
truth, not at advancing knowledge. A bunch of cheap crooks.
John
--
"HIV is a metaphor for a lot of quasi-related phenomena. No one has
ever proved its existence as a virus. We don't believe it exists."
Dr. V. F. Turner, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia
Alex Damien
>
> >> And the relationship is not cause and effect without other factors
> >> even among IV users (that is one needs the serum/serum contact also).
> >>
> >> Like I said my work in Twelve Step programs has given me experience
> >> with hundreds of addicts. No one has progressed to AIDS without being
> >> HIV positive that I know of.
>
> >results. You are wrong again.
>
> more people with PCP that are HIV negative.
>
> Blockhead.
>
> email to: rgi...@ix.netcom.com
I challenge you to call the CDC and ask them about the numbers and types
of diseases that people with AIDS defining disease but no HIV positive
have. I had said to do this before since you will not believe anything
I have to say since you want people to believe the lie that kills.
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> In article <33C6A1...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > Sorry, what you have provided does not prove HIV is the cause of AIDS.
> > Also, besides sending the information send it to Duesberg and Kary
> > Mullis they have trying to locate the peer reviewed journal article that
> > was published proving HIV is the cause of AIDS. On of them can be
> > contacted at http://www.duesberg.com
> >
> by anyone.
The book explains what proof is needed and what your side does not
have. Please present the peer reviewed journal article that was
published proving HIV is the cause of AIDS. Also, present the
isolation.
Alex Damien
> >> is what the scientific evidence says and no more. AIDS is simply a name for a
> >> landmark in the course of HIV infection. HIV does not cause the TB. No one
> >> ever said it did.
>
> >Again you are playing word games. HIV is not the cause of AIDS defining
> >diseases.
>
> particular disease. It impairs the immune system and that impairment
> results in an inability to resist disorders that were previously not a
> problem.
So everyone knows this absurd hypothesis. By my saying that others
believe HIV is the cause of the AIDS defining diseases it is understood
what the absurd hypothesis says. Again, using a disarming remark such
as this to try to skim some type of advantage does not change the
truth. There is no proof or isolation.
> email to: rgi...@ix.netcom.com
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> In article <33C6AC...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >> In the large majority of cases this is in fact what happens. When a skin test
> >> for TB is postive it indicates the presence of TB germs (unless BCG vaccine
> >> has been given). Studies that follow patients who are containing the
> >> infection with TB show that they will fail to keep it contained more often
> >> during subsequent years if they are HIV positive than if they are HIV
> >> is what the scientific evidence says and no more. AIDS is simply a name for a
> >> landmark in the course of HIV infection. HIV does not cause the TB. No one
> >> ever said it did.
> >
> > Again you are playing word games. HIV is not the cause of AIDS defining
> > diseases.
> >
>
> word game. By repeating that HIV is not the cause of AIDS defining diseases
> you continue to imply that I say that they do. If you read the paragraph I
> wrote and the two recent postings of mine you can see that I do not say that
> HIV causes any of the aids defining diseases, and I do say that no one else
> does make this claim. By repeating this false assertion you use an argument
> that is, itself , a "word game".
This clever disarming game has been tried before. HIV is not the cause
of AIDS and therefore the AIDS defining diseases. There is no proof and
isolation. Get these before before you argue again.
himself
holz...@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> Rubbish. Take out the parenthetical qualifiers and the sentence is is a
> simple one. I will ask you too.. Can you provide any evidence that drug
> use predisposes to PCP in the absence of HIV infection? I doubt it.
What a ridiculous question. Why on earth would I want to? The
term "HIV infection" has absolutely no medical or scientific
validity, and I doubt very much that real scientific research
(not "Aids science") has been directed at this important
question.
There is simply no need for dissidents to distort low-grade
"science" to make their points. The only evidence that matters
is right out there, clear as day. "HIV" does NOT cause "Aids",
which anyway evaporates immediately patently damaging
"treatments" or suicidal drug practices are avoided, and does
not occur in their absence.
That's all there is to it. Happily, more and more potential
victims of the corrupt "Aids" business now recognise it. Bad
news for "Aids" promoters, but a return to decent healthcare
practice.
John
--
"They seem to have learned like the mad hatter to believe six impossible
things before breakfast and so one more makes no difference. One gets a
remarkable sense of being disassociated from the real world when entering
the realm of Aids research."
Dr Mark Craddock, mathematician, on QC-PCR use by Ho & Shaw.
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> In article <33C6A5...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> > He could have suffered for weeks but this is not proof that HIV is the
> > cause of AIDS defining diseases.
> >
>
> to clean up their language, why don't you clean up your reasoning.
>
> > You equate PCP with HIV. The equation does not work. People get PCP
> > with no HIV positive test result. Remember thousands no have been
> > classified as having AIDS defining diseases with no HIV.
> >
>
> A fine example of muddy reasoning or dishonest reasoning. It is untrue in the
> sense that the sufferers had reasons other than HIV for getting the AIDS
> defining diseases and therefore they were not aids defining.
Disarming remarks will not prove HIV causes AIDS. There is no proof and
no isolation. Get these before making any statements and contributing
to the lie that only leads people to take deadly drugs.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C7B4...@ix.netcom.com>,
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> Not all AIDS defining disease have to do with the a depressed immune
> system which is another problem with the hypothesis. Please read
> "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg.
>
Actually, prior to the incorporation of HIV in the aids case definition,
which is the only period which is relevant to a consideration of the proof of
HIV's role in causation, all aids -defining diseases did have to do with a
depressed immune system. The case definition, prior to the enumeration of
specific diseases was that a case of aids was defined by the occurence of of a
disease "at least moderately predictive" of cellular immune deficiency in the
abscence of an apparent cause of immune deficiency. Even in the days when I
was in medcical school and in training in the 60s and 70s it was known that
such diseases as tuberculosis and cryptococcal meningitis and the like were
more commonly seen in those with depressed cellular immunity. It was the
occurence of PCP and the other opportunistic infections, in unprecedented
numbers and in people without a predisposing cause, that led to the creation
of the aids case definition.
Duesberg confuses this issue by lumping the original definitions with the
newer ones, drawn up after the role of HIV was identified.
By the way, which of the infections in the current definition are not
substantially more common in those with immune deficiency. I don't think
there are any such.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C7B8...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> >> In the large majority of cases this is in fact what happens. When a skin test
>> >> for TB is postive it indicates the presence of TB germs (unless BCG vaccine
>> >> has been given). Studies that follow patients who are containing the
>> >> infection with TB show that they will fail to keep it contained more often
>> >> during subsequent years if they are HIV positive than if they are HIV
>> >> negative. What HIV does is impair the body's ability to fight off TB. That
>> >> is what the scientific evidence says and no more. AIDS is simply a name for a
>> >> landmark in the course of HIV infection. HIV does not cause the TB. No one
>> >> ever said it did.
>> >
>> > diseases.
>> >
>>
>> word game. By repeating that HIV is not the cause of AIDS defining diseases
>> you continue to imply that I say that they do. If you read the paragraph I
>> wrote and the two recent postings of mine you can see that I do not say that
>> HIV causes any of the aids defining diseases, and I do say that no one else
>> does make this claim. By repeating this false assertion you use an argument
>> that is, itself , a "word game".
>
> This clever disarming game has been tried before.
I have no idea what you mean by "clever disarming game".
HIV is not the cause
> of AIDS and therefore the AIDS defining diseases.
No one said it was. When I outlined the conventional conception of the role
of HIV in aids you said it was "absurd" but didn't say why.
There is no proof and
> isolation. Get these before before you argue again.
>
Proofs of cause include the prospective obsevation of the consequences of
infection in those who aquire HIV regarless of other risk factors. It is
simple and straight forward and as much cause as you will get regardles of how
often you ask for some "proof", the details of which you leave blank but
expect to find in a "single peer reviewed paper."
Isolation of a virus does not require gradient centrifugation or electron
micrography, as you would have learned if you really read what Duesberg
and Lanka say. The proofs of HIV isolation are in the literature.
HIV exists, deal with it.
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> In article <33C7B4...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> > Not all AIDS defining disease have to do with the a depressed immune
> > system which is another problem with the hypothesis. Please read
> > "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg.
> >
>
> Actually, prior to the incorporation of HIV in the aids case definition,
> which is the only period which is relevant to a consideration of the proof of
> HIV's role in causation, all aids -defining diseases did have to do with a
> depressed immune system.
This is wrong. Please read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter
Duesberg. You may purchase a copy at HEAL meetings for $15. They take
place on Wednesday nights at the Gay Community Center on 13th Street at
8 pm. We would all enjoy seeing you there.
The case definition, prior to the enumeration of
> specific diseases was that a case of aids was defined by the occurence of of a
> disease "at least moderately predictive" of cellular immune deficiency in the
> abscence of an apparent cause of immune deficiency. Even in the days when I
> was in medcical school and in training in the 60s and 70s it was known that
> such diseases as tuberculosis and cryptococcal meningitis and the like were
> more commonly seen in those with depressed cellular immunity. It was the
> occurence of PCP and the other opportunistic infections, in unprecedented
> numbers and in people without a predisposing cause, that led to the creation
> of the aids case definition.
The definition assumed a role for HIV when this was never proved. Now
the definition contains HIV so the trap for peoples lives is set. Once
in the trap deadly drugs will cause their slow and painful death.
> Duesberg confuses this issue by lumping the original definitions with the
> newer ones, drawn up after the role of HIV was identified.
The confusion is the changing of the rules on a regular basis for this
one virus.
> By the way, which of the infections in the current definition are not
> substantially more common in those with immune deficiency. I don't think
> there are any such.
You had better speak to your old professors or try Duesberg for a
refresher course.
Alex Damien
> Proofs of cause include the prospective obsevation of the consequences of
> infection in those who aquire HIV regarless of other risk factors. It is
> simple and straight forward and as much cause as you will get regardles of how
> often you ask for some "proof", the details of which you leave blank but
> expect to find in a "single peer reviewed paper."
Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that was published
proving HIV is the cause of AIDS. This is and has been standard
procedure in science. If one does not exist, write one yourself. Good
luck.
> Isolation of a virus does not require gradient centrifugation or electron
> micrography, as you would have learned if you really read what Duesberg
> and Lanka say. The proofs of HIV isolation are in the literature.
> HIV exists, deal with it.
Please provide an electron micrograph of the material which is present
at a sucrose density gradient of 1.16 gm/ml. This is essential for
isolation. Let us see the virus for ourselves.
Wally Boulton
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
> In article <33C7B8...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > This clever disarming game has been tried before.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by "clever disarming game".
What he means, Dr. Holzman, is that you have him tight in a corner.
This is equivalent to the usual dissident cry, "It's a lie." He has
used this phrase in MANY different posts that have nailed him to the
wall in a logical argument for which he has no possible other
refutation.
Wally Boulton
Wally Boulton
Alex Damien wrote:
> Please provide the peer reviewed journal article that was published
> proving HIV is the cause of AIDS. This is and has been standard
> procedure in science. If one does not exist, write one yourself. Good
> luck.
Please provide the one, single, peer reviewed journal article that was
published proving that electrons exist.
> Please provide an electron micrograph of the material which is present
> at a sucrose density gradient of 1.16 gm/ml. This is essential for
> isolation. Let us see the virus for ourselves.
Please provide any kind of photograph of a single, isolated electron.
You will never be able to do so. Therefore electrons do not exist.
Best of luck.
Wally Boulton
Wally Boulton
Alex Damien wrote:
> Please read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter
> Duesberg.
How old is the "information" in this book? Is Duesberg going to update
it? Or is he too embarrassed?
> You may purchase a copy at HEAL meetings for $15.
What's your commission, Alex?
Wally
Wally Boulton
>
> complete fucking moron.
Amen.
Wally
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C7B7...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >> is what the scientific evidence says and no more. AIDS is simply a name for a
>> >> landmark in the course of HIV infection. HIV does not cause the TB. No one
>> >> ever said it did.
>>
>> >Again you are playing word games. HIV is not the cause of AIDS defining
>> >diseases.
>>
>> particular disease. It impairs the immune system and that impairment
>> results in an inability to resist disorders that were previously not a
>> problem.
>
> So everyone knows this absurd hypothesis.
Why is the hypothesis absurd? Please say in your own words, don't tell us
to go read Duesberg.
George M. Carter
George M. Carter
helth...@aol.com (HelthBound) wrote:
>This does not disprove the Drug-AIDS Hypothesis.
Provide the peer reviewed paper that proves drugs cause AIDS.
George M. Carter
George M. Carter
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Please provide an electron micrograph of the material which is present
>at a sucrose density gradient of 1.16 gm/ml. This is essential for
>isolation. Let us see the virus for ourselves.
Please provide the peer reviewed paper that shows drugs cause AIDS.
(Mind you, if one case of AIDS occurs without drugs, the hypothesis is
invalidated.)
Thank god New jersey had the sense to fire your worthless brain dead
ass.
George M. Carter
George M. Carter
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Disarming remarks will not prove HIV causes AIDS. There is no proof and
>no isolation. Get these before making any statements and contributing
>to the lie that only leads people to take deadly drugs.
Provide the peer reviewed journal that drugs cause AIDS.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C847...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>>
>> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>> >
>> > Not all AIDS defining disease have to do with the a depressed immune
>> > "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg.
>> >
>>
>> which is the only period which is relevant to a consideration of the proof of
>> HIV's role in causation, all aids -defining diseases did have to do with a
>> depressed immune system.
>
> Duesberg.
Please provide evidence that it is wrong in this forum. I've read duesberg.
I don't believe the evidence exists and I don't think you know of any or you
would simply say so instead of parroting the same "Please read..." statements.
In just which words and on which page does duesberg list the
aids-defining diseases that are not increasesed in frequency by a depressed
immune system?
You may purchase a copy at HEAL meetings for $15. They take
> place on Wednesday nights at the Gay Community Center on 13th Street at
> 8 pm. We would all enjoy seeing you there.
>
> The case definition, prior to the enumeration of
>> specific diseases was that a case of aids was defined by the occurence of of a
>> disease "at least moderately predictive" of cellular immune deficiency in the
>> abscence of an apparent cause of immune deficiency. Even in the days when I
>> was in medcical school and in training in the 60s and 70s it was known that
>> such diseases as tuberculosis and cryptococcal meningitis and the like were
>> more commonly seen in those with depressed cellular immunity. It was the
>> occurence of PCP and the other opportunistic infections, in unprecedented
>> numbers and in people without a predisposing cause, that led to the creation
>> of the aids case definition.
>
> The definition assumed a role for HIV when this was never proved. Now
> the definition contains HIV so the trap for peoples lives is set. Once
> in the trap deadly drugs will cause their slow and painful death.
>
the definition was developed a few years before anyone know of HIV. How could
it assume a role for HIV?
>> Duesberg confuses this issue by lumping the original definitions with the
>> newer ones, drawn up after the role of HIV was identified.
>
> The confusion is the changing of the rules on a regular basis for this
> one virus.
The rules were not changed for "this one virus".
>
>> By the way, which of the infections in the current definition are not
>> substantially more common in those with immune deficiency. I don't think
>> there are any such.
>
> You had better speak to your old professors or try Duesberg for a
> refresher course.
>
In other words, you don't know and are not willing to check because it might
show you that you were wrong.
Alex Damien
Please read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. Also look at
http://www.duesberg.com for more papers. I have listed other sites that
contain other papers and sources.
Alex Damien
You must learn that language such as yours will not convince anyone that
you have anything worth saying.
Alex Damien
> You may purchase a copy at HEAL meetings for $15. They take
> > place on Wednesday nights at the Gay Community Center on 13th Street at
> > 8 pm. We would all enjoy seeing you there.
> >
> > The case definition, prior to the enumeration of
> >> specific diseases was that a case of aids was defined by the occurence of of a
> >> disease "at least moderately predictive" of cellular immune deficiency in the
> >> abscence of an apparent cause of immune deficiency. Even in the days when I
> >> was in medcical school and in training in the 60s and 70s it was known that
> >> such diseases as tuberculosis and cryptococcal meningitis and the like were
> >> more commonly seen in those with depressed cellular immunity. It was the
> >> occurence of PCP and the other opportunistic infections, in unprecedented
> >> numbers and in people without a predisposing cause, that led to the creation
> >> of the aids case definition.
> >
> > The definition assumed a role for HIV when this was never proved. Now
> > the definition contains HIV so the trap for peoples lives is set. Once
> > in the trap deadly drugs will cause their slow and painful death.
> >
>
> the definition was developed a few years before anyone know of HIV. How could
> it assume a role for HIV?
Exactly how could AIDS assume a role for HIV in its own definition when
the virus has never been proven to cause any diseases or process
allowing a disease process to begin.
> >> Duesberg confuses this issue by lumping the original definitions with the
> >> newer ones, drawn up after the role of HIV was identified.
> >
> > The confusion is the changing of the rules on a regular basis for this
> > one virus.
>
> The rules were not changed for "this one virus".
The first rule that was broken was announcement and proof by press
conference. The second procedure was not even making up for it by
publishing the proof.
Wally Boulton
Alex Damien wrote:
> George M. Carter wrote:
> > Thank god New jersey had the sense to fire your worthless brain dead
> > ass.
> You must learn that language such as yours will not convince anyone that
> you have anything worth saying.
Perhaps not, but it will alert them to the fact that you are a
worthless, brain dead ass. Which is VERY worth saying.
Wally
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C8F6...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> George M. Carter wrote:
>>
>> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Please provide an electron micrograph of the material which is present
>> >at a sucrose density gradient of 1.16 gm/ml. This is essential for
>> >isolation. Let us see the virus for ourselves.
>>
>> Please provide the peer reviewed paper that shows drugs cause AIDS.
>> (Mind you, if one case of AIDS occurs without drugs, the hypothesis is
>> invalidated.)
>>
>> ass.
>>
>
> You must learn that language such as yours will not convince anyone that
> you have anything worth saying.
>
Neither will the quality of your logic. It is clear that you are as committed
to HEAL as tightly as Ed. Lieb and as closed minded too. The only benefit of
continued communication is to illustrate it.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C8F5...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[holzman...]
>> >
>>
>> the definition was developed a few years before anyone know of HIV.
>> How could
>> it assume a role for HIV?
>
> Exactly how could AIDS assume a role for HIV in its own definition when
> the virus has never been proven to cause any diseases or process
> allowing a disease process to begin.
>
When the virus was isolated (or identified, or what ever verb you want to use)
enough evidence developed that it had a causal role in producing immune
suppression that the AIDS case definition was modified to accept that the
virus was the cause. your assertion that it has never been proven to cause
any diseases is just flat wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it.
George M. Carter
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>George M. Carter wrote:
>>
>> helth...@aol.com (HelthBound) wrote:
>>
>> >This does not disprove the Drug-AIDS Hypothesis.
>>
>> Provide the peer reviewed paper that proves drugs cause AIDS.
>>
>> George M. Carter
>Please read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. Also look at
>http://www.duesberg.com for more papers. I have listed other sites that
>contain other papers and sources.
Guess what? Duesberg's coffeetable trash is not a peer reviewed
article. Please provide the precise citation of a peer reviewd journal
article that proves drugs cause AIDS.
Please provide the PROOF that an isolated drug causes the AIDS we see
all over the planet these days.
George M. Carter
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> In article <33C8F5...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> [holzman...]
> >> >
> >>
> >> the definition was developed a few years before anyone know of HIV.
> >> How could
> >> it assume a role for HIV?
> >
>
> > Exactly how could AIDS assume a role for HIV in its own definition when
> > the virus has never been proven to cause any diseases or process
> > allowing a disease process to begin.
> >
>
> When the virus was isolated (or identified, or what ever verb you want to use)
The virus has not been isolated and is simply a theoretical construct at
this point. Please provide the electron micrograph of isolated HIV.
> enough evidence developed that it had a causal role in producing immune
> suppression that the AIDS case definition was modified to accept that the
> virus was the cause.
HIV has never been proven to cause any disease or disease process.
Please locate the peer reviewed journal article that was published
proving HIV is the cause of AIDS.
your assertion that it has never been proven to cause
> any diseases is just flat wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Look at the above. You continue to spread the lie that proof exists and
has been isolated.
Alex Damien
Please look at the above cited Website that contains papers for your
journey to knowledge. No one drug causes all the different diseases
that has been attributed to the theoretical virus, HIV. Each of the
diseases has its own origin that has never been proven to originate from
HIV.
Alex Damien
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN wrote:
>
> In article <33C8F6...@ix.netcom.com>, Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > George M. Carter wrote:
> >>
> >> Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >at a sucrose density gradient of 1.16 gm/ml. This is essential for
> >> >isolation. Let us see the virus for ourselves.
> >>
> >> Please provide the peer reviewed paper that shows drugs cause AIDS.
> >> (Mind you, if one case of AIDS occurs without drugs, the hypothesis is
> >> invalidated.)
> >>
> >> Thank god New jersey had the sense to fire your worthless brain dead
> >> ass.
> >>
> >> George M. Carter
> >
> > You must learn that language such as yours will not convince anyone that
> > you have anything worth saying.
> >
>
> Neither will the quality of your logic. It is clear that you are as committed
> to HEAL as tightly as Ed. Lieb and as closed minded too. The only benefit of
> continued communication is to illustrate it.
It is you that appear closed minded from your absolute faith based on a
news conference that declared the holy truth to you. I prefer
scientific fact. HIV has never been proven to cause any disease.
ROBERT S. HOLZMAN
In article <33C9A5...@ix.netcom.com>,
Alex Damien <Ale...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[speaking of me...]
>
> It is you that appear closed minded from your absolute faith based on a
> news conference that declared the holy truth to you. I prefer
> scientific fact. HIV has never been proven to cause any disease.
>
I was not at the news conference, did not hear it, and do not have any faith
in it. I do have faith in the thousands of papers that have been published
and in my own work and that of my coworkers. Not that every paper is correct,
but that they form a coherent body of scientific work, not different from that
supporting the role of Streptococcus pneumoniae as causing most bacterial
pneumonias or influenza virus as the cause of influenza.
If you prefer scientific fact, you will need to give up your assertions such
as "HIV has never been proven to cause any disease". It is untrue.
Marnix L. Bosch
In article <19970714181...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
helth...@aol.com (HelthBound) wrote:
> In article <5qbo9l$b...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, gm...@ix.netcom.com
> (George M. Carter) writes:
>
> >Guess what? Duesberg's coffeetable trash is not a peer reviewed
> >article. Please provide the precise citation of a peer reviewd journal
> >article that proves drugs cause AIDS.
>
> Apparently you haven't even looked at the book. The appendices consist of
> about 200 pages of peer reviewed articles.
>
> But what difference does it make? The papers disclosing the failure of
> the Western Blot test were published over four years ago (BIO/Technology
> June 1993). This has never been debated or disproven. Yet the testing
> and the lies go on.
Has been addressed. Was mostly nonsense.
> Peer reviewed science showed that T-cell counts were not a valid surrogate
> marker. This, too, appears to be ignored by the AIDS industry.
recent post indicated published articles that viral load is a very good
prognostic indicator for disease progression AND that virus load is
closely related to CD4 decline, which is the second best prognostic
indicator.
Marnix Bosch
Wally Boulton
HelthBound wrote:
> The whores that publish this shit do
> not deserve anyone's respect.
LowerESide previously wrote:
>> "All through this epidemic you have been driven like a madman
>> seeking out young boys and fucking with them without protection.
>> I wonder how many lives you have ruined through your idiotic belief
>> that HIV doesn't mean anything, a belief that is more founded in
>> your fear than anything else.
I don't know, Ed. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
Wally
Wally Boulton
George M. Carter wrote:
> Please provde the SINGLE paper cite that proves drugs cause AIDS.
> That's what you demand. You make the claim and set the stupid
> criteria. Suddenly, when challenged in the same vein, you find
> yourself waffling and dithering about "journeys to knowledge."
At least he waffles and dithers well. (But that's about all that can be
said.)
Wally