question about HIV

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
In misc.health.aids fred <frod...@pacbell.net> wrote in
<de2jisspf56oubkgm...@4ax.com>:

: On Sat, 20 May 2000 16:31:09 -0500, in
: <6oDV4.1299$oO1....@newsfeed.slurp.net> "Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net>
: in misc.health.aids wrote:

:> ... Now the latest treatments are extending lifespans
:>by at least another 5 years, perhaps 10 or even 20 years.

: Incorrect. The Tricontentinental Seroconverter Studies published
: in 1994 and 1998 CLEARLY demonstrates that those WHO USE
: the antiviral cocktail drugs have experienced a HUGE REDUCTION
: in the time from HIV infection to the diagnosis of AIDS
: (about 5 years are LOST to those who use these drug treaments
: -- which was the makeup of the TSS research by doctors who
: have proclaimed it "unethical" to study people who were NOT
: on these dangerously immunosuppressive and disease-accelerating
: drugs!)

Dear Fred,

I've read some of your posts in MHA newsgroup, and you seem like a well
informed individual on the dissident side of the AIDS paradigm. And
seeing, as the quote above indicates, that you apparently accept that
HIV exists, and that "HIV infection" can be passed from one individual
to the next, I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

Have you ever considered the possibility that HIV may not exist, and
that the terrible disease called AIDS (or rather the collections of such
diseases) can be explained adequately without the HIV concept?

What is the single most persuasive argument that persuades you, a
dissident, that HIV exists?

With best wishes,

Yuri.

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

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

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

These professional scientists do not believe HIV exists,

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

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


Unknown

unread,
May 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/23/00
to
On 23 May 2000 16:12:48 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
wrote:

As a former dissident/denialist (who now has full blown AIDS) I'd
like to respond to your questions.

>Have you ever considered the possibility that HIV may not exist, and
>that the terrible disease called AIDS (or rather the collections of such
>diseases) can be explained adequately without the HIV concept?

Yes, I have considered the possibility and while I never believed HIV
did not exist, I did not believe it was responsible for the syndrome
known as AIDS. The denialist movement has had nearly 20 years to
explain the cause of AIDS and not one of them has come up with
anything close to an explanation why otherwise healthy people in the
prime of their lives are suddenly struck down by a handful of
relatively uncommon illnesses with the only common factor being the
exchange of bodily fluids such as blood and semen. I tested positive
for HIV about 14 years ago and was in good health until this year,
with no risk factors, no other condition, and did not even see a
doctor until this year. It can't be explained by anything else.
Environmental factors are out...I have lived in 3 different parts of
the country doing different types of work none of which are associated
with any increased risk of illness. I have had 2 monogamous
relationships since testing positive and have had no sexually
transmitted diseases at all. I don't drink very often at all, I
didn't overwork, I exercise, eat well and have no history of drug
abuse. I was completely antiviral naive until after my health began
to fail this year. The first person I had sex with died of AIDS in
1990. I tested positive for HIV in 1986, approximately one year from
having unprotected sex with that person during the course of our short
relationship of about 6 months or so. It is difficult to imagine that
as a person that comes from a family that has no history of illnesses
of the type I am experiencing and have generally lived long lives
(paternal grandparents lived into their late 80's, maternal
grandparents late 70's, and one parent who died in a car accident at
52 and my other parent who is still alive in his mid 60's) have
inherited any kind of genetic disorder.

So I am still waiting for an adequate explanation.

>What is the single most persuasive argument that persuades you, a
>dissident, that HIV exists?

After pulling my head out of the sand and looking at the entire
history of AIDS, I find that the most compelling argument that
persuades me that HIV exists (and is a major factor in AIDS) is this:

In order to believe that HIV is a complete hoax, you have to convince
yourself that a worldwide conspiracy exists involving doctors,
pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and governments to perpetuate a
myth and silence anyone who might have any other plausible
explanation. In order to buy that, you have to believe that the
overwhelming majority of these people who belong to the groups named
above are just plain evil.

I won't go so far as to say it couldn't happen, but its highly
unlikely given that many of the same people who belong those groups
have died of AIDS themselves.

10 years ago, it seemed plausible to me. Now, having been sorely let
down by the denialist movement and facing my own failing health at the
age 34, I have no reason to doubt that the medical establishment is
correct about HIV and AIDS. There are far, far too many good people
in the field of medicine and AIDS support services to believe that in
all this time, a hoax of the magnitude you are describing could be
perpetuated with the only dissent coming from an incredibly small and
incredibly vocal minority whose explanations for AIDS have yet to pan
out.

mikedoug


Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
mikedoug <> wrote:
: On 23 May 2000 16:12:48 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
: wrote:

: As a former dissident/denialist (who now has full blown AIDS) I'd
: like to respond to your questions.

:>Have you ever considered the possibility that HIV may not exist, and
:>that the terrible disease called AIDS (or rather the collections of such
:>diseases) can be explained adequately without the HIV concept?

: Yes, I have considered the possibility and while I never believed HIV
: did not exist,

Well, my dear mikedoug, I guess this answers my first question...

: I did not believe it was responsible for the syndrome


: known as AIDS. The denialist movement has had nearly 20 years to
: explain the cause of AIDS and not one of them has come up with
: anything close to an explanation why otherwise healthy people in the
: prime of their lives are suddenly struck down by a handful of
: relatively uncommon illnesses with the only common factor being the
: exchange of bodily fluids such as blood and semen.

My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much
dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...

Try the Perth Group. They explain everything quite well. See the link at
the end of the post.

: I tested positive


: for HIV about 14 years ago and was in good health until this year,
: with no risk factors, no other condition, and did not even see a
: doctor until this year. It can't be explained by anything else.
: Environmental factors are out...I have lived in 3 different parts of
: the country doing different types of work none of which are associated
: with any increased risk of illness. I have had 2 monogamous
: relationships since testing positive and have had no sexually
: transmitted diseases at all. I don't drink very often at all, I
: didn't overwork, I exercise, eat well and have no history of drug
: abuse. I was completely antiviral naive until after my health began
: to fail this year. The first person I had sex with died of AIDS in
: 1990. I tested positive for HIV in 1986, approximately one year from
: having unprotected sex with that person during the course of our short
: relationship of about 6 months or so. It is difficult to imagine that
: as a person that comes from a family that has no history of illnesses
: of the type I am experiencing and have generally lived long lives
: (paternal grandparents lived into their late 80's, maternal
: grandparents late 70's, and one parent who died in a car accident at
: 52 and my other parent who is still alive in his mid 60's) have
: inherited any kind of genetic disorder.

: So I am still waiting for an adequate explanation.

My poor unlucky friend! I guess you're the living witness that even the
dissidents cannot explain everything. Perhaps you just happened to have
drawn that Unlucky Ticket From Hell on the day you were born... Because,
statistically, the story such as your must be 1 in 1,000,000, or even
more rare? But you must go on with fortitude and perhaps embrace
religion now.

But still, you should not go down too hard on Duesberg et al. Because as
the following study seems to indicate, your chances of a longer life are
actually much improved because you did not go to see the doctors
earlier. Because this is what this study indicates:

AZT prophylaxis and/or prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii
pneumonia reduced survival from 3 to 2 years, and caused "wasting
syndrome, cryptosporidiosis, and cytomegalovirus infection ... almost
exclusively" in this group of AIDS patients. (Poznansky et al; HIV
positive patients first presenting with an AIDS defining illness:
characteristics and survival. British Medical Journal 1995; 311:
156-158.)

Here's the complete text,

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/6998/156?view=full&pmid=7613426

Because you don't seem like you know much about science, let me explain
this study for you briefly. You see, patients showing first symptoms of
AIDS were divided in two groups or cohorts. And the ones who did not go
to the doctor early, were doing much better. That's the basic meaning of
it.

:>What is the single most persuasive argument that persuades you, a
:>dissident, that HIV exists?

: After pulling my head out of the sand and looking at the entire
: history of AIDS, I find that the most compelling argument that
: persuades me that HIV exists (and is a major factor in AIDS) is this:

: In order to believe that HIV is a complete hoax, you have to convince
: yourself that a worldwide conspiracy exists

Well, all this is speculation only. Some conspiracies may exist, others
may not exist, how do we know for sure? Thinking about such things will
not help you one bit in your sad plight. Think about Buddha instead.

I'm not interested in speculations now, but in valid scientific
arguments, but I guess you can't help me on this.

: involving doctors,


: pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and governments to perpetuate a
: myth and silence anyone who might have any other plausible
: explanation. In order to buy that, you have to believe that the
: overwhelming majority of these people who belong to the groups named
: above are just plain evil.

: I won't go so far as to say it couldn't happen, but its highly
: unlikely given that many of the same people who belong those groups
: have died of AIDS themselves.

: 10 years ago, it seemed plausible to me. Now, having been sorely let
: down by the denialist movement

Not at all, my poor misfortunate friend. The dissidents actually
_helped_ you, as I've explained!

: and facing my own failing health at the


: age 34, I have no reason to doubt that the medical establishment is
: correct about HIV and AIDS. There are far, far too many good people
: in the field of medicine and AIDS support services to believe that in
: all this time, a hoax of the magnitude you are describing could be
: perpetuated with the only dissent coming from an incredibly small and
: incredibly vocal minority whose explanations for AIDS have yet to pan
: out.

: mikedoug

Blessings,

Yuri.

-o- Yuri Kuchinsky -o-

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

Myths and Mysteries of HIV and AIDS,

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

These professional scientists do not believe HIV exists (the Perth
Group),

Ken Cox

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much
> dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...

Either that, or he's read it, and also read what the scientific
community has been putting out, and made a decision.

When for every one researcher who says that HIV doesn't exist, you
have several thousand others who say that it does, that alone tells
you something. When the several thousand others can also provide
you with:

* electron micrographs showing the virus attaching to and budding
from human cells'

* the sequence of the virus genome, along with variations in that
sequence that correlate both with the known infection tree of
the virus and with the virulence of it;

* a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for surface
proteins that bind to certain human cell surface proteins, said
human cells being (not coincidentally) the same ones that are
infected in the above-mentioned electron micrograph images;

* a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for a reverse
transcriptase enzyme, that inserts a transcription of the virus'
RNA into DNA strands in vitro; and

* a demonstration that the cells of people who are HIV-positive
have such reverse-transcripted virus sequences in their genomes,

well, you just *might* suspect that the majority is actually right
on this one.

By the way, the epidemiological data showing that HIV is the cause
of AIDS is, if anything, more impressive in amount and thoroughness
than that which shows that HIV exists.

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


Matt Silberstein

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to

Yuri, Joe, Peter. What is it about these people?


--
Matt Silberstein

Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order

Pierre Joseph Proudhon


howard hershey

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> mikedoug <> wrote:
> : On 23 May 2000 16:12:48 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
> : wrote:
>
> : As a former dissident/denialist (who now has full blown AIDS) I'd
> : like to respond to your questions.
>
> :>Have you ever considered the possibility that HIV may not exist, and
> :>that the terrible disease called AIDS (or rather the collections of such
> :>diseases) can be explained adequately without the HIV concept?
>
> : Yes, I have considered the possibility and while I never believed HIV
> : did not exist,
>
> Well, my dear mikedoug, I guess this answers my first question...
>
> : I did not believe it was responsible for the syndrome
> : known as AIDS. The denialist movement has had nearly 20 years to
> : explain the cause of AIDS and not one of them has come up with
> : anything close to an explanation why otherwise healthy people in the
> : prime of their lives are suddenly struck down by a handful of
> : relatively uncommon illnesses with the only common factor being the
> : exchange of bodily fluids such as blood and semen.
>
> My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much
> dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...
>
> Try the Perth Group. They explain everything quite well. See the link at
> the end of the post.

The Perth Group explains nothing. They simply *assert* that the virus
does not exist because it has not been purified to the standards that
they arbitrarily set. It apparently does not dawn on them that the
virus might actually exist even if it were not purified at all.

And the conclusions *they* make are the *opposite* of the one that you
make. First, they point out that HIV is associated with AIDS in both
groups. Second, the group diagnosed early does indeed have a
significantly more rapid decline once those treatments no longer work
(this was before protease inhibitors) and they finally came in with the
opportunistic disease symptoms of AIDS. This is consistent with other
evidence. But that is not the same as time since first infection with
HIV.

However, it is extremely difficult to say for sure, since there is a
consistent conflict in this paper between which group is the undiagnosed
and which the diagnosed group when you look at the text and the table
legends. If the same problem is present in the figure, it would be hard
to say what is going on..
>
[snip]


Ken Cox

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> Yuri, Joe, Peter. What is it about these people?

Potato chip syndrome. Once you've denied one datum because you
don't like it, it's hard to stop.

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


Unknown

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
On 26 May 2000 15:38:54 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
wrote:

>


>My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much
>dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...
>
>Try the Perth Group. They explain everything quite well. See the link at
>the end of the post.


The explanations are found wanting. Just out of curiosity, what
would it take to convince you that HIV is real and is a major factor
in the development of immune deficiency?


>
>My poor unlucky friend! I guess you're the living witness that even the
>dissidents cannot explain everything. Perhaps you just happened to have
>drawn that Unlucky Ticket From Hell on the day you were born... Because,
>statistically, the story such as your must be 1 in 1,000,000, or even
>more rare? But you must go on with fortitude and perhaps embrace
>religion now.

I don't consider myself out of the ordinary. I am hardly the only
HIV+ person who rejected treatment (or in quite a number of cases, did
not know they were infected so did not get treatment), lived a fairly
healthy lifestyle and found out my immune system had been badly
compromised when I got sick.

>But still, you should not go down too hard on Duesberg et al. Because as
>the following study seems to indicate, your chances of a longer life are
>actually much improved because you did not go to see the doctors
>earlier. Because this is what this study indicates:

Strange that you would reference a study that assumes HIV is the cause
the cause of AIDS.

>AZT prophylaxis and/or prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii
>pneumonia reduced survival from 3 to 2 years, and caused "wasting
>syndrome, cryptosporidiosis, and cytomegalovirus infection ... almost
>exclusively" in this group of AIDS patients. (Poznansky et al; HIV
>positive patients first presenting with an AIDS defining illness:
>characteristics and survival. British Medical Journal 1995; 311:
>156-158.)

Having read the complete text a couple of times now, I must say you
read a great deal into that study. I really did not see anywhere
where the conclusion was reached that AZT and prophylaxis caused any
of the infections above. Near as I can tell, by definition,
cytomegalovirus infection and cryptosporidiosis have known causitive
agents that they are named after (ie, cytomegalovirus infection is
caused by....gasp....cytomegalovirus!).


>Because you don't seem like you know much about science, let me explain
>this study for you briefly. You see, patients showing first symptoms of
>AIDS were divided in two groups or cohorts. And the ones who did not go
>to the doctor early, were doing much better. That's the basic meaning of
>it.

I don't refute the data of a what is actually a fairly small study
(436 people altogether). I do think its interesting that you cite a
study that references time from an HIV seropositive test to AIDS. Of
course, I also noticed that PCP phrophylaxis and AZT are the only two
treatments listed in the study (probably a factor of the time the
study was initiated). It has already been proven AZT monotherapy is
woefully inadequate (one might also note that dosages of AZT in the
days of monotherapy were significantly higher than those taken today
in combination therapy). So lets see, we have a person who puports
that HIV is a hoax citing a fairly old study where HIV is the assumed
cause of AIDS and at a point when very little in the way of treatment
was available. You'll pardon my confusion in how this study proves
your case.

>In order to believe that HIV is a complete hoax, you have to convince
>: yourself that a worldwide conspiracy exists
>
>Well, all this is speculation only. Some conspiracies may exist, others
>may not exist, how do we know for sure? Thinking about such things will
>not help you one bit in your sad plight. Think about Buddha instead.
>
>I'm not interested in speculations now, but in valid scientific
>arguments, but I guess you can't help me on this.

Nope. Do your own homework. I know all too well how easy it is to
dismiss scientific data that does not support your particular theory
and if your logic is as faulty as you have shown in the conclusions
you reached from the very study you cited, I daresay that you need to
learn a thing or two about science yourself.

>: involving doctors,
>: pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and governments to perpetuate a
>: myth and silence anyone who might have any other plausible
>: explanation. In order to buy that, you have to believe that the
>: overwhelming majority of these people who belong to the groups named
>: above are just plain evil.
>
>: I won't go so far as to say it couldn't happen, but its highly
>: unlikely given that many of the same people who belong those groups
>: have died of AIDS themselves.
>
>: 10 years ago, it seemed plausible to me. Now, having been sorely let
>: down by the denialist movement
>
>Not at all, my poor misfortunate friend. The dissidents actually
>_helped_ you, as I've explained!


Ah, but there are two sides to that story as well. I will concede
that being a denialist prevented me from seeking treatment at a time
when nothing much could be done anyway, but by the same token that
belief system also kept me from seeking treatment until I was very
sick and my immune system severly compromised. Checking up on my
tcell counts and viral load would have been much more prudent in
retrospect. As it stands now, I find the denialists are becoming
more shrill and irresponsible with every year. Whether or not you
believe that HIV exists or is the cause of AIDS, is irrelevent to me.
Certainly you are not helping your case any by citing old monotherapy
studies and making wild claims like AZT and prophylaxis cause wasting,
CMV, and cryptosporidiosis. At the same time, you seem to be blind
to fact that the study also leans in the direction of PCP prophylaxis
being successful

Either way you look at it, you have presented a very weak case for
yourself.

Good luck trying to sell your snake oil to someone else. You are not
going to convince me. I know better now.

mikedoug


Jonathan Stone

unread,
May 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/26/00
to
In article <392EE7C4...@research.bell-labs.com>,

Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> Yuri, Joe, Peter. What is it about these people?
>
>Potato chip syndrome. Once you've denied one datum because you
>don't like it, it's hard to stop.

You mean Yuri has denied as few as one datums[*] per post? Amazing.


([*] in case of pedants: yes, I *know*, second declension neuter, from
_dare_. But in English, (and even late Classical latin) 'data' is a collective noun).


Matt Silberstein

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In talk.origins I read <8gn1gc$6ju$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> from
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):

Ok, now find a way to use "datas".

Brian M. Scott

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <t3juiso6j2m5utu7u...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> In talk.origins I read <8gn1gc$6ju$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> from
> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):

> |In article <392EE7C4...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> |Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:

> |>Matt Silberstein wrote:

> |>> Yuri, Joe, Peter. What is it about these people?

> |>Potato chip syndrome. Once you've denied one datum because you
> |>don't like it, it's hard to stop.

> |You mean Yuri has denied as few as one datums[*] per post? Amazing.

> |([*] in case of pedants: yes, I *know*, second declension neuter,
> |from _dare_. But in English, (and even late Classical latin)
> |'data' is a collective noun).

But also a perfectly good plural. Some of us
do still use it so.

> Ok, now find a way to use "datas".

Datas a good problem.

Brian M. Scott


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


Jonathan Stone

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <t3juiso6j2m5utu7u...@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read <8gn1gc$6ju$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> from
>jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):

[...]


>|([*] in case of pedants: yes, I *know*, second declension neuter, from
>|_dare_. But in English, (and even late Classical latin) 'data' is a collective noun).
>

>Ok, now find a way to use "datas".

_Star Drek_: The two Datas. But that's "Data" as a proper noun,
which is, not to put too fine a point on it, cheating.

I was dead serious about "datums", though. Turns out its use is
well-established. In geomensuration, where one talks of a
"datum" measurement, and multiple measurements are "datums".

And it was Ben Johnson who said something scathing about a bad
Latinist who objected to "data" as a singular.

Anyway, must get back to proving flaws in TCP stacks...


Jonathan Stone

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <8gnpqo$f2i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

Brian M. Scott <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
>In article <t3juiso6j2m5utu7u...@4ax.com>,
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> In talk.origins I read <8gn1gc$6ju$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> from
>> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):

[...]


>> |([*] in case of pedants: yes, I *know*, second declension neuter,
>> |from _dare_. But in English, (and even late Classical latin)
>> |'data' is a collective noun).
>

>But also a perfectly good plural. Some of us
>do still use it so.

Itaque. Second declension neuter. How blunt do I have to get?

[...]


Jonathan Stone

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <8gnpqo$f2i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Brian M. Scott <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
>In article <t3juiso6j2m5utu7u...@4ax.com>,
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[...]

>> |([*] in case of pedants: yes, I *know*, second declension neuter,

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> |from _dare_. But in English, (and even late Classical latin)
>> |'data' is a collective noun).
>
>But also a perfectly good plural. Some of us
>do still use it so.


Itaque "[indeed so]". I thought I couldn't be more blunt than
giving you second declension neuter. Looks like I was wrong.

[... datas... ]

*Sigh*. it was _A Fistful of Datas_, so much for memory.
I dont suppose you'd accept Portuguese? My Portuguese room-mate
(worked with Gilbert and Roughgarden) talked about "the datas".


z@z

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
Ken Cox wrote:

| When for every one researcher who says that HIV doesn't exist, you
| have several thousand others who say that it does, that alone tells
| you something. When the several thousand others can also provide
| you with:
|
| * electron micrographs showing the virus attaching to and budding
| from human cells'
|
| * the sequence of the virus genome, along with variations in that
| sequence that correlate both with the known infection tree of
| the virus and with the virulence of it;
|
| * a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for surface
| proteins that bind to certain human cell surface proteins, said
| human cells being (not coincidentally) the same ones that are
| infected in the above-mentioned electron micrograph images;
|
| * a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for a reverse
| transcriptase enzyme, that inserts a transcription of the virus'
| RNA into DNA strands in vitro; and
|
| * a demonstration that the cells of people who are HIV-positive
| have such reverse-transcripted virus sequences in their genomes,
|
| well, you just *might* suspect that the majority is actually right
| on this one.

I agree with you that the evidence in favour of the retrovirus which
is called HIV is so overwhelming that its denial must be either the
result of scientific naivity or dishonesty.

So I'm really astonished at the high proportion of critics who
subscribe to this absurdity. One plausible explanation seems to
me that these groups are subtly cultivated and even infiltrated
by persons whose objective is to protect AIDS orthodoxy and
weaken the critics.

In this respect it is also revealing that the Perth group was allowed
to take part at 12th World AIDS conference in Geneva and to present
there their irrelevant objections to Montaigner's (and Gallo's)
original work on the virus isolation.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/perthgroup/geneva/index.htm

It is actually very efficient to bring into discredit the "AIDS
denialists" in the eyes of scientists working themselves with HIV, by
presenting naive HIV denialists as representative of them.

: By the way, the epidemiological data showing that HIV is the cause


: of AIDS is, if anything, more impressive in amount and thoroughness
: than that which shows that HIV exists.

I ask you, Ken, are you one of the naive believers or are you one of
the intelligent liars?


Wolfgang Gottfried G.
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3a.html


Extracts from http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=627442784

' By Michael P. Wright

' As a former AIDS research grant recipient, I wish to praise South African
' President Thabo Mbeki for his courage in having publicly declared his
' willingness to listen to scientists who challenge AIDS orthodoxy.

' For nine years beginning in 1987, I was involved professionally in
' AIDS/HIV research. During the 1990s, I was awarded two federal grants for this
' work by the Small Business Innovation Research program of the U.S. National
' Cancer Institute. By the end of this period, I had become skeptical about
' official beliefs concerning AIDS.

' Although numerous studies have demonstrated the enormously low possibility of a
' heterosexual HIV epidemic, the Centers for Disease Control chose to ignore them
' and launched a fraudulent campaign of fear to convince the majority of the
' American public that sexually active people are at significant risk of
' contracting HIV.
'
' The scare campaign was initiated in the late 1980s, and was nothing more than a
' political strategy to stir up popular support for elevated government spending
' for various AIDS programs, including pursuit of the elusive dream of miracle
' cures. Pharmaceutical companies have enjoyed handsome benefits from this
' endeavor, and now seek to expand their enterprises in South Africa and other
' Third World nations.

' --In a 1988 publication, researchers demonstrated that the odds were 5 million
' to 1 against a new HIV infection taking place in a single act of unprotected
' vaginal sex between members of that population which the CDC had earlier
' recognized and labeled as "heterosexuals without specific identified risk"

' Interestingly, as shown by the CDC's own published numbers, the HIV prevalence
' within the vast population they were intending to frighten was actually
' declining as the scare propaganda was escalated.

' As I observed the growing credibility gap between the perception manufactured
' by the scare campaigners and the reality described in the scientific press, I
' became open to arguments attacking other elements in the officially promoted
' belief system about AIDS. In plain terms, one might ask: If they would lie as
' shamelessly as they have about heterosexual risk, could they be trusted to be
' honest about other aspects of AIDS?

' I suggest that the very hypothesis that HIV
' causes "AIDS" is scientifically nonsensical. It makes no sense to attempt to
' explain something which has not been adequately defined for scientific
' discourse.
'
' The official definition of "AIDS" has been an evolving political drama whose
' script has been written by bureaucratic operatives scheming on maximizing
' advantage for their agencies. In the United States, there have been four
' official AIDS definitions since 1983. Duesberg says, "Every time the CDC needs
' higher rates of new AIDS cases, it expands that definition once again, and more
' diseases are reclassified into the syndrome."
'
' In Africa, an altogether different definition is used. Created by the World
' Health Organization, it does not even require that presence of HIV be detected
' in order to diagnose an "AIDS" case.
'
' Given this state of affairs, a more plausible statement of a tenable scientific
' hypothesis would be: what factors explain serious illness and mortality in
' those who have been labeled "AIDS" patients? Are there, on published record,
' any cases of such patients for whom all proposed causes of immunosuppression,
' other than HIV infection, have been contradicted by evidence?

Brian M. Scott

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <8gnshs$evn$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,

jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
> In article <8gnpqo$f2i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Brian M. Scott <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:

> >In article <t3juiso6j2m5utu7u...@4ax.com>,
> > Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> >> In talk.origins I read <8gn1gc$6ju$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> from
> >> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):

> [...]

> >> |([*] in case of pedants: yes, I *know*, second declension neuter,

> >> |from _dare_. But in English, (and even late Classical latin)
> >> |'data' is a collective noun).

> >But also a perfectly good plural. Some of us
> >do still use it so.

> Itaque. Second declension neuter. How blunt do I have to get?

Sorry, but it sounded like 'Yes, I know the historical
facts, but only an unreconstructed pedant would actually
use <data> as a plural' -- a sentiment that I've heard
often enough to be a little touchy about it.

sarah clark

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to

"z@z" wrote:

> Ken Cox wrote:
>

<snip>

> : By the way, the epidemiological data showing that HIV is the cause
> : of AIDS is, if anything, more impressive in amount and thoroughness
> : than that which shows that HIV exists.
>
> I ask you, Ken, are you one of the naive believers or are you one of
> the intelligent liars?

you must be from another planet. cox is neither a liar nor
is he naive. the question may quite as easily be asked of
you.

this was just dealt with in depth on this ng.

wade hines and mike coon in particular wrote
very lengthy replies to just these sorts of
assertions.

"aids news from south africa"
"joe potter, virusmyth and hubris"


Jonathan Stone

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
In article <8gpakt$eid$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

Brian M. Scott <BMS...@stratos.net> wrote:
>In article <8gnshs$evn$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,

>> Itaque. Second declension neuter. How blunt do I have to get?
>
>Sorry, but it sounded like 'Yes, I know the historical
>facts, but only an unreconstructed pedant would actually
>use <data> as a plural' -- a sentiment that I've heard
>often enough to be a little touchy about it.

Sorry myself. I was thinking of a much earlier generation of pedants,
those who objected to using "data" as a collective singular. I had
that emigre from soc.history.medieval who seems fond of Latin in mind
as one potential candiate.


Ken Cox

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
"z@z" wrote:
> So I'm really astonished at the high proportion of critics who
> subscribe to this absurdity. One plausible explanation seems to
> me that these groups are subtly cultivated and even infiltrated
> by persons whose objective is to protect AIDS orthodoxy and
> weaken the critics.

Someone's been watching the X-Files too much. Denying the existence
of HIV is no different than denying the link between HIV and AIDS.
As I said recently, ignoring the evidence is like peanuts -- hard
to stop with just one.

> I ask you, Ken, are you one of the naive believers or are you one of
> the intelligent liars?

I'm one of the intelligent believers. What's your motive for
ignoring reality?

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


Ken Cox

unread,
May 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/27/00
to
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):

> |([*] in case of pedants: yes, I *know*, second declension neuter, from
> |_dare_. But in English, (and even late Classical latin) 'data' is a collective noun).

> Ok, now find a way to use "datas".

Remember that 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' episode where the transporter
malfunctioned, and the two Datas were fighting one another?

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


Brian M. Scott

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
In article <8gpct3$qsa$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:

> >In article <8gnshs$evn$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,

Heh. There have been some very funny posts
in s.h.m. and alt.usage.english mercilessly
exposing his ignorance of Latin. But you're
right: it would be exactly in character.

Mike

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
z@z wrote:
>
> Ken Cox wrote:
>
> | When for every one researcher who says that HIV doesn't exist, you
> | have several thousand others who say that it does, that alone tells
> | you something.

logical fallacy called "argumentum ad numerum". You should consider who
has been funding the research with commercial targets in mind.

> | When the several thousand others can also provide
> | you with:
> |
> | * electron micrographs showing the virus attaching to and budding
> | from human cells'

Transport cell particles also "bud" like viruses. The micrographs show
"particles" budding from human cells. There's no proof that those particles
are:

1. a virus, 2. a new species, 3. HIV.

> | * the sequence of the virus genome, along with variations in that
> | sequence that correlate both with the known infection tree of
> | the virus and with the virulence of it;

no genetic HIV material can be claimed since pure HIV has never been isolated.
Only genetic chains matching the length of what HIV is SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE are
being worked upon. Since those chains are being obtained from pseudo-isolates
containing 99.9% cell debris those chains have 99.9% chance of being human in
origin. No wonder about the sheer variability of those chain fragments. The
virulence of a virus can not be claimed from its genome, but from the Koch
postulates which have failed for HIV.

> | * a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for surface
> | proteins that bind to certain human cell surface proteins, said
> | human cells being (not coincidentally) the same ones that are
> | infected in the above-mentioned electron micrograph images;

No coincidence of course, since the claimed HIV genome are just fragments of
human genome.

> |
> | * a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for a reverse
> | transcriptase enzyme, that inserts a transcription of the virus'
> | RNA into DNA strands in vitro; and

Conveniently all AIDS pushers forget that reverse transcriptase is
produced by cells as part of a genetic self-repair process. It has been
proved during the 70's.

> | * a demonstration that the cells of people who are HIV-positive
> | have such reverse-transcripted virus sequences in their genomes,

As I said before. Human reverse transcriptase in a human genome. Oh what
a find!

> | well, you just *might* suspect that the majority is actually right
> | on this one.

that's not a logical argument but a logical fallacy called
"argumentum ad numerum"

> I agree with you that the evidence in favour of the retrovirus which
> is called HIV is so overwhelming that its denial must be either the
> result of scientific naivity or dishonesty.

or a consequence of lack of scientific evidence damped by billionaire
funding, lobbying and media buying.

> So I'm really astonished at the high proportion of critics who
> subscribe to this absurdity.

Oh well, didn't you say they were a minority? Get ready to see the numbers
grow.

> It is actually very efficient to bring into discredit the "AIDS
> denialists"

your choice of language says much pal, there are no "denialists" in science,
as there are no absolute truths. Yours is manipulative political-religious
language used by those who try to force their private truths upon others.

Mike

----------------
Web-based anonymous mailer
http://209.67.19.98/lark2k/anonymail.html

howard hershey

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
Mike wrote:

>
> z@z wrote:
> >
> > Ken Cox wrote:
> >
> > | When for every one researcher who says that HIV doesn't exist, you
> > | have several thousand others who say that it does, that alone tells
> > | you something.
>
> logical fallacy called "argumentum ad numerum". You should consider who
> has been funding the research with commercial targets in mind.
>
> > | When the several thousand others can also provide
> > | you with:
> > |
> > | * electron micrographs showing the virus attaching to and budding
> > | from human cells'
>
> Transport cell particles

What are "transport cell particles"? Transport vesicles do fuse with
the cell membrane to release their products.

> also "bud" like viruses.

There is a process similar to the reverse of budding involving vesicle
formation around some outside agent. The fusion of transport vesicles
does not look like this. Besides, the particles seen budding are doing
so only in cells that have been infected with a cell-free extract from
HIV-infected cells (and not in identical cell cultures without HIV), the
viral budding mechanism is identical to that of other retroviruses, the
coat proteins that accumulate to surround the core have HIV antigens,
the inner core has HIV antigens and RNA. To deny that a retrovirus has
been transmitted from the HIV culture is to engage in denial of reality.

> The micrographs show
> "particles" budding from human cells. There's no proof that those particles
> are:
>
> 1. a virus,

It only occurs in cultures that have been infected with a cell-free
extract from HIV+ material. It can be transmitted to virus-free
cultures that, when exposed to the material become both HIV+ in the
sense of having antigens that they did not previously have, a retroviral
genome that they did not previously have, and the production of viral
particles they did no previously have. This can be further transmitted
to new uninfected cells from cell-free extracts. This could not happen
if all the particles were were transport vesicles.

> 2. a new species,

Previously unknown properties, different antigens, different genome
sequence.

3. HIV.

The only argument that can even semi-rationally be made is that the
retrovirus that is called HIV is merely a fortuitous marker virus and
that the real biological agent that causes AIDS is a yet unidentified,
invisible virus that co-migrates with HIV.


>
> > | * the sequence of the virus genome, along with variations in that
> > | sequence that correlate both with the known infection tree of
> > | the virus and with the virulence of it;
>

> no genetic HIV material can be claimed since pure HIV has never been isolated.

Purity is not necessary to identify a unique sequence that consistently
appears with the HIV virus.

> Only genetic chains matching the length of what HIV is SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE are
> being worked upon. Since those chains are being obtained from pseudo-isolates
> containing 99.9% cell debris those chains have 99.9% chance of being human in
> origin.

You mean RNA. The genome of HIV in viral particles is RNA. The genome
of HIV in cells is DNA integrated into the human genome. That is the way
that retroviruses work. So, in a technical sense, the RNA of HIV is
from DNA that has been integrated into the human genome. But both
genomes are only found in previously uninfected cells after they are
exposed to HIV-containing cell-free extracts. There are controls run in
these cases.

> No wonder about the sheer variability of those chain fragments. The
> virulence of a virus can not be claimed from its genome, but from the Koch
> postulates which have failed for HIV.

There is no problem correlating exposure to the HIV virus and the
consequent problems with the immune deficiencies that lead to the
opportunistic infections.

Similar events in SIV (introduction of the purified DNA genome of this
closely related virus) can be shown that meet all the Koch requirements,
thus demonstrating that closely related viruses can cause the same type
of syndrome attributed to HIV. But that means it is either HIV or the
invisible other virus that HIV is acting as a marker for.


>
> > | * a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for surface
> > | proteins that bind to certain human cell surface proteins, said
> > | human cells being (not coincidentally) the same ones that are
> > | infected in the above-mentioned electron micrograph images;
>

> No coincidence of course, since the claimed HIV genome are just fragments of
> human genome.

Well, duh. So are all retroviruses.


>
> > |
> > | * a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for a reverse
> > | transcriptase enzyme, that inserts a transcription of the virus'
> > | RNA into DNA strands in vitro; and
>

> Conveniently all AIDS pushers forget that reverse transcriptase is
> produced by cells as part of a genetic self-repair process. It has been
> proved during the 70's.

But uninfected tissue culture cells do not produce the HIV-specific
reverse transcriptase since they do not have the gene for it.


>
> > | * a demonstration that the cells of people who are HIV-positive
> > | have such reverse-transcripted virus sequences in their genomes,
>

> As I said before. Human reverse transcriptase in a human genome. Oh what
> a find!

HIV reverse transcriptase is only found in HIV infected individuals.


>
> > | well, you just *might* suspect that the majority is actually right
> > | on this one.
>

> that's not a logical argument but a logical fallacy called
> "argumentum ad numerum"

And your argument is "argumentum ad ignorantia". You obviously do not
know the literature but prefer to believe a bunch of crackpots. Your
choice.


>
> > I agree with you that the evidence in favour of the retrovirus which
> > is called HIV is so overwhelming that its denial must be either the
> > result of scientific naivity or dishonesty.
>

> or a consequence of lack of scientific evidence damped by billionaire
> funding, lobbying and media buying.

The old conspriacy theory rears its desperate head.


>
> > So I'm really astonished at the high proportion of critics who
> > subscribe to this absurdity.
>

> Oh well, didn't you say they were a minority? Get ready to see the numbers
> grow.
>

> > It is actually very efficient to bring into discredit the "AIDS
> > denialists"
>

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to

Mike wrote:


>
> z@z wrote:
> >
> > Ken Cox wrote:
> >
> > | When for every one researcher who says that HIV doesn't exist, you
> > | have several thousand others who say that it does, that alone tells
> > | you something.
>

> logical fallacy called "argumentum ad numerum". You should consider who
> has been funding the research with commercial targets in mind.
>

> > | When the several thousand others can also provide
> > | you with:
> > |
> > | * electron micrographs showing the virus attaching to and budding
> > | from human cells'
>

> Transport cell particles also "bud" like viruses. The micrographs show


> "particles" budding from human cells. There's no proof that those particles
> are:
>

> 1. a virus, 2. a new species, 3. HIV.
>

Says you. However the facts that they can be shown to be coated
with proteins encoded by the HIV genome and the genome can be
transmitted to uninfected cells yielding the same particles says
you are wrong.


> > | * the sequence of the virus genome, along with variations in that
> > | sequence that correlate both with the known infection tree of
> > | the virus and with the virulence of it;
>

> no genetic HIV material can be claimed since pure HIV has never been isolated.

> Only genetic chains matching the length of what HIV is SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE are


> being worked upon. Since those chains are being obtained from pseudo-isolates
> containing 99.9% cell debris those chains have 99.9% chance of being human in
> origin.

Human genes don't reproduce themselves in viral particles. All
you are displaying here is ignorance of molecular biology.


George Acton

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
Mike wrote:

>
> z@z wrote:
> >
> > Ken Cox wrote:
> >
> > | When for every one researcher who says that HIV doesn't exist, you
> > | have several thousand others who say that it does, that alone tells
> > | you something.
>
> logical fallacy called "argumentum ad numerum".

Not always a fallacy. In this case the AIDS/HIV-deniers have had
ample opportunity to present their views.

> You should consider who
> has been funding the research with commercial targets in mind.

The funding has been been administratively separate from
corporatione efforts at diagnistic tests and therapy. Indeed, the
procedure followed has been no different from that used in other
medical situations, and in NSF funding for research in chemistry
and physics. And much of the research has been carried out or
confirmed in countries whose corporations have nothing to gain.



> > | When the several thousand others can also provide
> > | you with:
> > |
> > | * electron micrographs showing the virus attaching to and budding
> > | from human cells'
>

> Transport cell particles also "bud" like viruses. The micrographs show
> "particles" budding from human cells. There's no proof that those particles
> are:
>
> 1. a virus, 2. a new species, 3. HIV.

"Transport cell particles" is gibberish. If you mean vesicles that
transport materials out of cells, they don't bud in the way that
emerging viruses do. There's ample proof that they have the
morphology of viruses, that they occur only in cells infected by
HIV and that HIV is a new virus, in the sense that it occurred
only sporadically before the beginning of the epidemic.

> > | * the sequence of the virus genome, along with variations in that
> > | sequence that correlate both with the known infection tree of
> > | the virus and with the virulence of it;
>

> no genetic HIV material can be claimed since pure HIV has never been isolated.

This is false.

> Only genetic chains matching the length of what HIV is SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE are
> being worked upon. Since those chains are being obtained from pseudo-isolates
> containing 99.9% cell debris those chains have 99.9% chance of being human in

> origin. No wonder about the sheer variability of those chain fragments. The


> virulence of a virus can not be claimed from its genome, but from the Koch
> postulates which have failed for HIV.

The viral genome has been obtained in pure form and sequenced. Koch's
postulates are traditional guidelines that have no official status.
And they have been satisfied by the work of Ho in the last few years
showing active viral replication and large amounts of circulating
virus during the "latent period" of the disease.

> > | * a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for surface
> > | proteins that bind to certain human cell surface proteins, said
> > | human cells being (not coincidentally) the same ones that are
> > | infected in the above-mentioned electron micrograph images;
>

> No coincidence of course, since the claimed HIV genome are just fragments of
> human genome.

This is false. It is easy to demonstrate with PCR that HIV contains
unique sequences that do not occur in the genome of an uninfected
person.

> > |
> > | * a demonstration that a part of the genome codes for a reverse
> > | transcriptase enzyme, that inserts a transcription of the virus'
> > | RNA into DNA strands in vitro; and
>

> Conveniently all AIDS pushers forget that reverse transcriptase is
> produced by cells as part of a genetic self-repair process. It has been
> proved during the 70's.

The HIV reverse transcriptase is unique to HIV, and it's the one that
is active in HIV infection. I'm not aware of physiologic reverse
transcription in humans, and based on the large number of erroneous
statements in your post, I'n not inclined to accept it without
attribution.

> > | * a demonstration that the cells of people who are HIV-positive
> > | have such reverse-transcripted virus sequences in their genomes,
>

> As I said before. Human reverse transcriptase in a human genome. Oh what
> a find!

Like I said, the gene is unique to the virus. Uninfected people
don't have it.

>
> > I agree with you that the evidence in favour of the retrovirus which
> > is called HIV is so overwhelming that its denial must be either the
> > result of scientific naivity or dishonesty.
>

> or a consequence of lack of scientific evidence damped by billionaire
> funding, lobbying and media buying.

You're still accusing all the scientists and physicians involved of
being corrupt in accepting money to push a theory they know isn't
true.

> > So I'm really astonished at the high proportion of critics who
> > subscribe to this absurdity.
>

> Oh well, didn't you say they were a minority? Get ready to see the numbers
> grow.

One can only hope this prediction is as off base as your beliefs.

> > It is actually very efficient to bring into discredit the "AIDS
> > denialists"
>

> your choice of language says much pal, there are no "denialists" in science,
> as there are no absolute truths. Yours is manipulative political-religious
> language used by those who try to force their private truths upon others.

There are truths so well established that no reasonable person
disagrees with them. It isn't amiss to call flat earthers denialists
of heliocentrism. And the political/religious influence seems to
be on our side. The political and religious interest of Philip
Johnson is well known.
And what is your theory of what causes AIDS? Do you agree with
Dueserg's drug theories.
--George Acton


Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

:> My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much


:> dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...

: Either that, or he's read it, and also read what the scientific


: community has been putting out, and made a decision.

: When for every one researcher who says that HIV doesn't exist, you


: have several thousand others who say that it does, that alone tells
: you something.

That's what they said to Galileo, Ken.

: When the several thousand others can also provide
: you with:

: * electron micrographs showing the virus attaching to and budding
: from human cells'

Many questions have been raised about those. I have not yet seen a good
photo of an isolated HIV virus. Can you post a URL?

I've been given

http://www.mcl.tulane.edu/departments/pathology/fermin/HIVFIGSTable.html

as the best photos on the net, but there are considerable problems with
those. And have they been published in a peer-reviewed publication? If
not, why not?

And when were they photographed?

: * the sequence of the virus genome, along with variations in that


: sequence that correlate both with the known infection tree of
: the virus and with the virulence of it;

The problem, my dear friend, is not that the sequence of the virus
genome has not been published. The problem is that so many of them have
been published!

You see, in the real world there should be only one. But in the
Wonderful World of AIDS Science, at least 10 sequences have been
published, and all different... and the number is growing!

Let me give you a hint. 10 instead of 1 will not make your argument 10
times stronger. In fact it will make it 100 times weaker!

Say hello to reality, Ken!

All your other arguments are conditional on the above two, so there's no
need to deal with them until you deal with the above questions.

Yours,

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
In tor.general howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
:>
:> mikedoug <> wrote:
:> : On 23 May 2000 16:12:48 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
:> : wrote:
:>
:> : As a former dissident/denialist (who now has full blown AIDS) I'd
:> : like to respond to your questions.
:>
:> :>Have you ever considered the possibility that HIV may not exist, and
:> :>that the terrible disease called AIDS (or rather the collections of such
:> :>diseases) can be explained adequately without the HIV concept?
:>
:> : Yes, I have considered the possibility and while I never believed HIV
:> : did not exist,
:>
:> Well, my dear mikedoug, I guess this answers my first question...
:>
:> : I did not believe it was responsible for the syndrome
:> : known as AIDS. The denialist movement has had nearly 20 years to
:> : explain the cause of AIDS and not one of them has come up with
:> : anything close to an explanation why otherwise healthy people in the
:> : prime of their lives are suddenly struck down by a handful of
:> : relatively uncommon illnesses with the only common factor being the
:> : exchange of bodily fluids such as blood and semen.
:>
:> My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much
:> dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...
:>
:> Try the Perth Group. They explain everything quite well. See the link at
:> the end of the post.

: The Perth Group explains nothing.

Well, that means you haven't read them, Howard!

: They simply *assert* that the virus


: does not exist because it has not been purified to the standards that
: they arbitrarily set.

Incorrect. They have no arbitrarily set standards.

: It apparently does not dawn on them that the


: virus might actually exist even if it were not purified at all.

Do you want them to prove the negative or something?

They simply show that all the existing proofs of HIV existence are not
valid. That's all they can do. They cannot prove that it doesn't exist.

:> My poor unlucky friend! I guess you're the living witness that even the


:> dissidents cannot explain everything. Perhaps you just happened to have
:> drawn that Unlucky Ticket From Hell on the day you were born... Because,
:> statistically, the story such as your must be 1 in 1,000,000, or even
:> more rare? But you must go on with fortitude and perhaps embrace
:> religion now.
:>
:> But still, you should not go down too hard on Duesberg et al. Because as
:> the following study seems to indicate, your chances of a longer life are
:> actually much improved because you did not go to see the doctors
:> earlier. Because this is what this study indicates:
:>
:> AZT prophylaxis and/or prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii
:> pneumonia reduced survival from 3 to 2 years, and caused "wasting
:> syndrome, cryptosporidiosis, and cytomegalovirus infection ... almost
:> exclusively" in this group of AIDS patients. (Poznansky et al; HIV
:> positive patients first presenting with an AIDS defining illness:
:> characteristics and survival. British Medical Journal 1995; 311:
:> 156-158.)
:>
:> Here's the complete text,
:>
:> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/6998/156?view=full&pmid=7613426

: And the conclusions *they* make are the *opposite* of the one that you
: make.

False.

: First, they point out that HIV is associated with AIDS in both
: groups.

Are you so naive that you expect them to do otherwise?

: Second, the group diagnosed early does indeed have a


: significantly more rapid decline once those treatments no longer work
: (this was before protease inhibitors) and they finally came in with the
: opportunistic disease symptoms of AIDS. This is consistent with other
: evidence. But that is not the same as time since first infection with
: HIV.

I don't see how what you say contradicts what I said.

: However, it is extremely difficult to say for sure, since there is a


: consistent conflict in this paper between which group is the undiagnosed
: and which the diagnosed group when you look at the text and the table
: legends. If the same problem is present in the figure, it would be hard
: to say what is going on..

This does not contradict what I said.

The facts of the matter speak for themselves. Our poor misfortunate
friend "mikedoug" has benefited considerably from listening to the
dissidents, but he's not competent enough to realise this! So that's why
I tried to explain the study to him in simple language.

Yours,

Yuri.

-o- Yuri Kuchinsky -o-

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

Alternative AIDS Information,

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


howard hershey

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> :> My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much

> :> dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...
>
> : Either that, or he's read it, and also read what the scientific
> : community has been putting out, and made a decision.
>
> : When for every one researcher who says that HIV doesn't exist, you
> : have several thousand others who say that it does, that alone tells
> : you something.
>
> That's what they said to Galileo, Ken.

They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Einstein. They also laughed
at Bozo the Clown. (Not to mention Lysenko and a whole host of
scientific frauds.) I am afraid that Duesberg is regarded in the same
light as Lysenko, and the Perth group in the same light as Bozo the
Clown for good reason. The chance that they will be regarded in the
same light as the first two is nil. Based on evidence and not wishful
thinking.


>
> : When the several thousand others can also provide
> : you with:
>
> : * electron micrographs showing the virus attaching to and budding
> : from human cells'
>
> Many questions have been raised about those. I have not yet seen a good
> photo of an isolated HIV virus. Can you post a URL?
>
> I've been given
>
> http://www.mcl.tulane.edu/departments/pathology/fermin/HIVFIGSTable.html

I have, in the past, posted pictures that both show the retroviral
spikes and the retroviral size that the Perth group denies exist. The
pictures of the budding mechanism is exactly like that of other
retroviruses. There are a *lot* of pictures on the net. I suggest you
start with a site that goes by the name "Picture Book of Viruses" or
something similar.


>
> as the best photos on the net, but there are considerable problems with
> those. And have they been published in a peer-reviewed publication? If
> not, why not?
>
> And when were they photographed?

Most of them are old enough to have been seen by the Perth group of
deniers.


>
> : * the sequence of the virus genome, along with variations in that
> : sequence that correlate both with the known infection tree of
> : the virus and with the virulence of it;
>
> The problem, my dear friend, is not that the sequence of the virus
> genome has not been published. The problem is that so many of them have
> been published!
>
> You see, in the real world there should be only one. But in the
> Wonderful World of AIDS Science, at least 10 sequences have been
> published, and all different... and the number is growing!

There are sequence differences that matter and those that don't. These
are all clearly different variants of the same virus, encoding minor
(but sometimes functionally relevant -- e.g., AZT resistant) variants of
the same genes. And the genome of HIV is clearly distinguishable from
other retroviruses (much less random human genome sequences). Your
argument is basically the same as saying that because you contain
sequence variants of genes that I have, you are not human.


>
> Let me give you a hint. 10 instead of 1 will not make your argument 10
> times stronger. In fact it will make it 100 times weaker!

What utter nonsense.


>
> Say hello to reality, Ken!

Reading you is like the wonderful (and probably apochryful) story of the
death Bishop Sam "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce by striking his head on a stone
after a carriage accident. The story goes that Huxley said something
like, "Poor Bishop Wilberforce. The first time his head comes into
contact with reality and it kills him."


>
> All your other arguments are conditional on the above two, so there's no
> need to deal with them until you deal with the above questions.
>
> Yours,
>

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
In misc.health.aids z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote in reply to Ken Cox:

: I agree with you that the evidence in favour of the retrovirus which


: is called HIV is so overwhelming that its denial must be either the
: result of scientific naivity or dishonesty.

Fine, Wolfgang, so you think that the evidence in favour of HIV is
overwhelming? But which HIV? Is this the one with 8 genes, or with 10?
Please clarify.

: So I'm really astonished at the high proportion of critics who


: subscribe to this absurdity. One plausible explanation seems to
: me that these groups are subtly cultivated and even infiltrated
: by persons whose objective is to protect AIDS orthodoxy and
: weaken the critics.

It does seem to me that you're a believer in conspiracy theories. But do
we really need those to explain AIDS? Perhaps not. Don't forget that
stupidity and incompetence and greed can often explain things better
than a conspiratorial picture of the world.

Certainly this is what Valendar Turner thinks.

[quote]

It is all too easy, and all too human, to get carried away with a host
of non-scientific speculation as to why the HIV theory of AIDS is
seriously adrift. Thus we have the Russians, the CIA, Africans eating
dead monkeys, nepotism at the Centers for Disease Control, the AIDS
industry, the seductiveness of the germ theory of disease, self seeking,
self aggrandising government and non-government individuals and
organisations and profit motives for avaricious biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies, perhaps incorporated into a flavour of the
month conspiracy theory. Some of these make exciting reading but in my
experience, given the choice of a conspiracy theory or human foibles, it
is a far better bet to opt for the latter every time. ... There is no
need to invoke these kind of agencies in order to point a stolid finger
at the problems with the HIV theory. -- Valendar Turner, "Where have we
gone wrong?", (CONTINUUM; Spring 1998)

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

[unquote]

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=-

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain


howard hershey

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> In tor.general howard hershey <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> :>
> :> mikedoug <> wrote:
> :> : On 23 May 2000 16:12:48 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
> :> : wrote:
> :>
> :> : As a former dissident/denialist (who now has full blown AIDS) I'd
> :> : like to respond to your questions.
> :>
> :> :>Have you ever considered the possibility that HIV may not exist, and
> :> :>that the terrible disease called AIDS (or rather the collections of such
> :> :>diseases) can be explained adequately without the HIV concept?
> :>
[snip]

> :>
> :> Try the Perth Group. They explain everything quite well. See the link at
> :> the end of the post.
>
> : The Perth Group explains nothing.
>
> Well, that means you haven't read them, Howard!

I most certainly have read them. I was decidedly unimpressed. I was
especially unimpressed by the complete lack of research that they have
themselves done.


>
> : They simply *assert* that the virus
> : does not exist because it has not been purified to the standards that
> : they arbitrarily set.
>
> Incorrect. They have no arbitrarily set standards.

They set arbitrary standards and then simply repeat that no one has met
*all* of the standards.


>
> : It apparently does not dawn on them that the
> : virus might actually exist even if it were not purified at all.
>
> Do you want them to prove the negative or something?

It would be nice if they had an alternative explanation for all the
evidence that rather convincingly shows that a virus does indeed exist
rather than merely saying that the evidence does not meet the standards
that they require.


>
> They simply show that all the existing proofs of HIV existence are not
> valid. That's all they can do. They cannot prove that it doesn't exist.

What they *could* do is come up with an alternative explanation (other
than a virus) that is consistent with all the evidence that seems to
show that there is a virus -- things like chains of infection,
observation of viruses by electron microscopy and various other methods
(cDNA PCR and immunological methods) that show that there is a virus
that consistently exists in AIDS patients and in those who will become
AIDS patients (barring being run over by a bus) and does not exist in
comparable groups who are not at risk for coming down with AIDS.

[snip]


> :>
> :> AZT prophylaxis and/or prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii
> :> pneumonia reduced survival from 3 to 2 years, and caused "wasting
> :> syndrome, cryptosporidiosis, and cytomegalovirus infection ... almost
> :> exclusively" in this group of AIDS patients. (Poznansky et al; HIV
> :> positive patients first presenting with an AIDS defining illness:
> :> characteristics and survival. British Medical Journal 1995; 311:
> :> 156-158.)
> :>
> :> Here's the complete text,
> :>
> :> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/6998/156?view=full&pmid=7613426
>
> : And the conclusions *they* make are the *opposite* of the one that you
> : make.
>
> False.

Read it.


>
> : First, they point out that HIV is associated with AIDS in both
> : groups.
>
> Are you so naive that you expect them to do otherwise?

Why would they do so if there were no connection? More of the supposed
"conspiracy"?


>
> : Second, the group diagnosed early does indeed have a
> : significantly more rapid decline once those treatments no longer work
> : (this was before protease inhibitors) and they finally came in with the
> : opportunistic disease symptoms of AIDS. This is consistent with other
> : evidence. But that is not the same as time since first infection with
> : HIV.
>
> I don't see how what you say contradicts what I said.

You ignore time since first infection with HIV. The authors do not.


>
> : However, it is extremely difficult to say for sure, since there is a
> : consistent conflict in this paper between which group is the undiagnosed
> : and which the diagnosed group when you look at the text and the table
> : legends. If the same problem is present in the figure, it would be hard
> : to say what is going on..
>
> This does not contradict what I said.

It certainly means that the data are hard to interpret, given the
contradictory attributions making it hard to say which the authors
meant. When a paper is internally inconsistent, it does make it hard to
interpret and not a particularly reliable source.


>
> The facts of the matter speak for themselves. Our poor misfortunate
> friend "mikedoug" has benefited considerably from listening to the
> dissidents, but he's not competent enough to realise this! So that's why
> I tried to explain the study to him in simple language.

You *assert* (without any evidence) that he has benefited. Where are
the controlled double-blind experiments that show that he has
benefited? I can answer that. There are none. All you have is
notoriously unreliable and highly selective anecdotal evidence given by
true believers. That evidence is worth *less* than nothing.

Yuri Kuchinsky

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
mikedoug <> wrote:
: On 26 May 2000 15:38:54 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
: wrote:

:>
:>My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much
:>dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...
:>
:>Try the Perth Group. They explain everything quite well. See the link at
:>the end of the post.

: The explanations are found wanting. Just out of curiosity, what
: would it take to convince you that HIV is real and is a major factor
: in the development of immune deficiency?

HIV isolation done to the same standards as for all other viruses will
convince me.

...

:>Not at all, my poor misfortunate friend. The dissidents actually


:>_helped_ you, as I've explained!

: Ah, but there are two sides to that story as well. I will concede
: that being a denialist prevented me from seeking treatment at a time
: when nothing much could be done anyway,

Well, that's putting it way too mildly...

In actual fact, being a "denialist" prevented you from seeking treatment
at a time when treatment is generally agreed to have been doing a lot
more harm than good.

Of course the question is still open if the current treatments are any
better...

Yuri.

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

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

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

These professional scientists do not believe HIV exists,

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

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

Unknown

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
On 28 May 2000 17:50:28 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
wrote:

>In misc.health.aids Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:


>: Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
>:> My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much
>:> dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...
>

>: Either that, or he's read it, and also read what the scientific
>: community has been putting out, and made a decision.
>
>: When for every one researcher who says that HIV doesn't exist, you
>: have several thousand others who say that it does, that alone tells
>: you something.
>
>That's what they said to Galileo, Ken.
>

The real defining difference here is that Galileo was up against the
church, not his peers, who would have been fellow astronomers. If the
Pope was trying scientists for saying HIV is not the cause of AIDS,
your analogy might hold some merit.

mikedoug

Mike

unread,
May 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/28/00
to
George Acton wrote:

> And what is your theory of what causes AIDS? Do you agree with
> Dueserg's drug theories.

Certainly, they match observed epidemic DATA better with elegance.
Ever heard of Occam's razor?

By the way, you are just driving the whole thing away from my initial
simple request: show us all EM micrographs of isolated HIV, not human cell
please.

If the only material come up with are cartoon arits' impressions then just
admit your shame instead of trying to cover up your FAILURE with free-lance
interpretations of biochemical gibberish.

Before you resort to PCR ask advice from its inventor, Kary Mullis. He
has a few words to say about your "viral load" scam.

Ward Stewart

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
On 28 May 2000 22:46:06 GMT, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
wrote:

>mikedoug <> wrote:
>: On 26 May 2000 15:38:54 -0400, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
>: wrote:
>
>:>


>:>My poor friend, judging by the above, I doubt you have ever read much
>:>dissident literature. But that's OK, nobody is perfect...
>:>

>:>Try the Perth Group. They explain everything quite well. See the link at
>:>the end of the post.
>
>: The explanations are found wanting. Just out of curiosity, what
>: would it take to convince you that HIV is real and is a major factor
>: in the development of immune deficiency?
>
>HIV isolation done to the same standards as for all other viruses will
>convince me.

Sounds good but you would seem to be unaware that HIV is a RETRO-VIRUS
with a silent period of from weeks to decades.

Perhaps you have a plan in mind for finding and "isolation" of the HIV
positive population -- if you do, please be so good as to share it
with us. Be reminded that Fidel Castro, with the power to place Cuban
citizens in concentration camps at will, tried it and failed.

ward


-------------------------------------------------------------
The 1964 Civil Rights Act is "the single most dangerous piece
of legislation ever introduced in the Congress"

He later opposed a national holiday for that
"pervert" Martin Luther King Jr.
Who but? Jesse Helms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy used to be a good thing, but now it
has gotten into the wrong hands.
Senator Jesse Helms (R.-North Carolina)
----------------------------------------------------

Mike

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
Ward Stewart wrote:
>
> >
> >HIV isolation done to the same standards as for all other viruses will
> >convince me.
>
> Sounds good but you would seem to be unaware that HIV is a RETRO-VIRUS
> with a silent period of from weeks to decades.

And so is the virus of "naturla death". it can stay dormant for up to 100
years or more.

Why in hell the do AIDS pushers claim lymph nodes in patients are festering
with HIV and the you claim thet PCR is able to count them in the millions?

But then again in AIDS pseudo science's dictionary the word contradiction
just doesn't show up.

> Perhaps you have a plan in mind for finding and "isolation" of the HIV
> positive population -- if you do, please be so good as to share it
> with us. Be reminded that Fidel Castro, with the power to place Cuban
> citizens in concentration camps at will, tried it and failed.

Sorry pal, I didn't realize you were a brick-head. Listen up: it is isolation
of the HIV virus from patients' blood that is required NOT isolation of
HIV people.

Isolation and extermination by poisoning of otherwise healthy HIV positive
individuals has been more than successfully achieved by AIDS inquisitors.

DGiunti

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
In article <8gs6ug$g17$1...@news.tht.net>, Yuri Kuchinsky <yu...@clio.trends.ca>
writes:

>
>In misc.health.aids z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote in reply to Ken Cox:
>
>: I agree with you that the evidence in favour of the retrovirus which
>: is called HIV is so overwhelming that its denial must be either the
>: result of scientific naivity or dishonesty.
>
>Fine, Wolfgang, so you think that the evidence in favour of HIV is
>overwhelming? But which HIV? Is this the one with 8 genes, or with 10?
>Please clarify.

http://www.mischealthaids.org/images/Hivmap.jpg

I've only heard references to 9 genes, but I am told that that the start and
end points for tat and rev are sometimes swapped and a hybrid 10th gene can be
considered. You could classify each of the ultimately liberated proteins of
gag pol and env and say that you have actually more genes. These reading
frames for the genome are known and their products studied with a great deal of
interest.

David Giunti email: DGi...@aol.community
What is the question? Gertrude Stein's last words
No one mouth is big enough to utter the whole thing. Alan Watts

On Display in the UK http://www.web-gallery.co.uk

Mike

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
DGiunti wrote:
>
> >
> >Fine, Wolfgang, so you think that the evidence in favour of HIV is
> >overwhelming? But which HIV? Is this the one with 8 genes, or with 10?
> >Please clarify.
>
> http://www.mischealthaids.org/images/Hivmap.jpg
>
> I've only heard references to 9 genes, but I am told that that the start and
> end points for tat and rev are sometimes swapped and a hybrid 10th gene can be
> considered...

Funny that AIDS puhers call such politically correct genome constructs
as evidence of HIV, yet they deny the world the simple inexpensive evidence of an
EM micrograph from HIV isolation.

This simple piece of low-tech $100 evidence has proved harder to get than the
allegedly complete 50 billion dollar genome of the beastie.

The reasons for that are straightforward.

A $100 viral isolation apart from being extremely low-tech and cheap it would also
be hard to fake and highly repeatable. An experiment that's affordable even to 3rd
world labs. That is of course, if such a beast would exist.

A genome project on the contrary requires long years of high-tech experiments
and agreement upon teams of scientists on a way to interpret all the biochemistry
they are going to find, in a way that does not risk the interests of the investor
companies or the lucrative project itself. A lot of politics involved.

It all remains in a high theoretical ground, protected from public scrutiny by the
jargon of the trade and damn difficult to be proven wrong by an outsider.

This artificial political constructs are then forced as "evidence of the HIV".

No money in the world can produce isolation of a non-existing virus. Now give a
team of AIDS scientists a few thousands of ADN strands, 50 billion dollars and
tell them you need the genome of Jesus Christ. For sure you won't be dissapointed.


Mike

sarah clark

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to

Mike wrote:

> George Acton wrote:
>
> > And what is your theory of what causes AIDS? Do you agree with
> > Dueserg's drug theories.
>

> Certainly, they match observed epidemic DATA better with elegance.
> Ever heard of Occam's razor?

duesberg selectively carves populations from the mortality
and morbidity reports to support a predetermined conclusion.
that you believe his work kinda displays your critical thinking
skills in front of all these ng. how embarrassing for you.

>
>
> By the way, you are just driving the whole thing away from my initial
> simple request: show us all EM micrographs of isolated HIV, not human cell
> please.
>
> If the only material come up with are cartoon arits' impressions then just
> admit your shame instead of trying to cover up your FAILURE with free-lance
> interpretations of biochemical gibberish.
>
> Before you resort to PCR ask advice from its inventor, Kary Mullis. He
> has a few words to say about your "viral load" scam.
>

George Acton

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
Mike wrote:
>
> George Acton wrote:
>
> > And what is your theory of what causes AIDS? Do you agree with
> > Dueserg's drug theories.
>
> Certainly, they match observed epidemic DATA better with elegance.
> Ever heard of Occam's razor?
>
> By the way, you are just driving the whole thing away from my initial
> simple request: show us all EM micrographs of isolated HIV, not human cell
> please.
>
> If the only material come up with are cartoon arits' impressions then just
> admit your shame instead of trying to cover up your FAILURE with free-lance
> interpretations of biochemical gibberish.
>
> Before you resort to PCR ask advice from its inventor, Kary Mullis. He
> has a few words to say about your "viral load" scam.

These issues have been dealth with dispositively in a recent
thread involving Joseph Potter's advocacy of AIDS denial. Some
of the best documentation is in postings by Mike Coon, Ken Cox
and Howard Hershey. The thread is readily available on Deja News.
If anyone has reason for shame, it is the people who espouse
your wrong-headed and destructive cause.
--George Acton


don lucas

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
namaste,

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> HIV isolation done to the same standards as for all other viruses will
> convince me.

here you are, yuri, from one of the sources you quote, dr. peter
duesberg:

Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV: Article 1 of 2 for
Continuum

-adapted from Continuum, vol 4 (2) pages 8-9, July/August 1996

In 1983, Montagnier et al. have isolated a retrovirus, now termed Human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), from a patient with lymphadenopathy and
proposed that HIV may cause AIDS. Antibody against this virus has since
been found in many, but not all AIDS patients (Duesberg, 1993) and in 17
million healthy people (World Health Organization, 1995).

Eleni Papadopulos, Val Turner, John Papadimitriou, David Causer, Bruce
Hedland-Thomas & Barry Page (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1995) and
Stefan Lanka (Lanka, 1995) maintain that the very existence of HIV is
dubious because (i) HIV has not been properly isolated and thus could
not have been properly identified. According to Papadopulos et al. "HIV
has never been isolated as an independent particle separate from
everything else." (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1995) ; and (ii)
because antibodies against HIV are not specific (Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
Turner and Papadimitriou, 1993). They submit that the following evidence
is not "specific" for HIV: identifying in the growth medium of infected
human cell cultures either the existence of virus-like particles with
the electron microscope, or of reverse transcriptase associated with
such particles, or of certain HIV antigens or proteins associated with
particles, because each of these could be cellular materials or could be
from cell-borne (endogenous) retroviruses other than HIV. Indeed, each
of these criteria could reflect another retrovirus, and some of theses
criteria, eg. particels and proteins, could reflect non-viral material
altogether.

However, the Papadopulos-Lanka challenge, that HIV does not exist, fails
to explain (i) why virtually all people who contain HIV DNA also contain
antibodies against Montagnier"s HIV strain -the global standard of all
"HIV tests"- and (ii) why most, but certainly not all people who lack
HIV DNA contain no such antibodies. The presence of HIV-reactive
antibodies in some uninfected people reflects an inherent limitation of
tests for antibodies against viruses and other microbes. Since even the
simplest microbes display thousands of antibody docking sites, termed
epitopes, antibodies against a given microbe may cross-react with an
otherwise unrelated microbe if the two share some epitopes.

In view of the current controversy about the identification of HIV, the
British AIDS magazine Continuum has offered in its Jan./Feb. issue a
"Missing virus! £1000 Reward" for prove of the isolation of HIV, and the
reward was reposted "105 days later ... we're still waiting" in the
March/April, 1996 issue (Christie, 1996a; Christie, 1996b; Continuum,
1996) . The stakes have since been raised considerably by a private
reward of £10,000 from Alex Russell from The DMS Watson Library,
University College London (letter from Alex Russell to Peter Duesberg,
2/28/96), and have now been raised even further by a £25,000 reward from
James Whitehead from The International AIDS Freedom Network (IAFN),
London (letter from Fred Cline, San Francisco Representative of the
IAFN, April 2, 1996; and letter from Alex Russell to Fred Cline,
undated, April 1996).

Here I take up these challenges. I will argue that HIV exists, and has
been properly identified as a unique retrovirus on the grounds that (i)
it has been isolated - even from its own virion structure - in the form
of an infectious, molecularly cloned HIV DNA that is able to induce the
synthesis of a reverse transcriptase containing virion, and (ii) that
HIV-specific, viral DNA can be identified only in infected, but not in
uninfected human cells. I will base my case for the isolation of HIV on
the most rigorous method available to date, ie. molecular cloning of
infectious HIV DNA, rather than only on the much less stringent,
traditional "rules for isolation of a retrovirus ... discussed at the
Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973" that were stated criteria of
isolation in the Continuum"s Missing virus reward (Continuum, 1996).
Indeed I will show that molecular cloning of infectious HIV DNA exceeds
the criteria of the old "Pasteur rules".

(i) Isolation of HIV: The existence of the retrovirus HIV predicts
that HIV DNA can be isolated from the chromosomal DNA of
infected cells. This prediction has been confirmed as follows:
Full-length HIV-1 and HIV-2 DNAs have been prepared from
virus-infected cells and cloned in bacterial plasmids (Fisher
et al., 1985; Levy et al., 1986; Barnett et al., 1993) . Such
clones are totally free of all viral and cellular proteins, and
cellular contaminants that copurify with virus banded in
sucrose gradients at a density of 1.16 g/ml according to the
"Pasteur rules". Indeed, these clones are even free of genomic
HIV RNA. Infectious HIV-1 and HIV-2 DNA clones productively
infect human cells to initiate HIV replication (Fisher et al.,
1985; Levy et al., 1986; Barnett et al., 1993) . Such infected
("transfected") cells contain HIV-specific DNA, and produce
particles that contain reverse transcriptase, HIV-specific
antigens (Fisher et al., 1985; Levy et al., 1986) , have
diameters of 100 nm under the elctron microscope (Fisher et
al., 1985) , as expected for retroviruses, and produce
infectious virus that is neutralized by antisera from certain
AIDS patients (Fisher et al., 1985; Levy et al., 1986; Barnett
et al., 1993) . Since infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from
infected human cells that is free of HIV"s own proteins and
RNA as well as from all cellular macromolecules, HIV isolation
has passed the most vigorous standards available today. In
other words these infectious DNA clones meet and exceed the
isolation standards of the traditional "Pasteur rules".
Isolation of infectious HIV DNAs is theoretically the most
absolute form of isolation - it is the equivalent of isolating
the virus" soul, its genetic code, from the virus" body, the
virus particle. Thus HIV isolation based on molecular cloning
exceeds the old standards defined as "Pasteur rules" by
Continuum.

(ii) Identification of HIV. The existence of HIV predicts that
infected cells contain a unique, virus-specific DNA of 9150
nucleotides that cannot be detected in DNA of uninfected human
cells. The probabilities that cellular DNA and other viral DNAs
would contain the same sequence of 9150 nucleotides is 1 in
49150, or 1 in 104500 - extremly close to zero!

Because of the outrageous interest in HIV as the hypothetical cause of
AIDS, many investigators have sought specific HIV DNA in humans with and
without AIDS in an effort to confirm the rather unreliable HIV
antibody-test (Duesberg, 1993; Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Turner and
Papadimitriou, 1993).

Because only 1 in 100 T-cells are ever infected in humans, virtually all
such studies use Kary Mullis" polymerase chain reaction, a technique
that is designed to amplify a DNA-needle into an DNA-haystack. Such
efforts have confirmed the existence of HIV-specific DNA in most (not
all) antibody-positive persons with and without AIDS - but not in the
DNA of antibody-negative people. For example Jackson et al. have tested
blood cells of 409 antibody-positives including 144 AIDS patients and
265 healthy people. In addition 131 antibody-negatives were tested.
HIV-specific DNA subsets -defined in size and sequence by HIV-specific
primers (start signals for the selective amplification) - were found in
403 of the 409 antibody-positives, but in none of the 131
antibody-negative people (Jackson et al., 1990).

In conclusion: HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science
has to offer. An infectious DNA of 9.15 kilo bases (kb) has been cloned
from the cells of HIV-antibody-positive persons, that -upon
transfection- induces the synthesis of an unique retrovirus. This DNA
"isolates" HIV from all cellular molecules, even from viral proteins and
RNA. Having cloned infectious DNA of HIV is as much isolation of HIV as
one can possibly get, it is like isolating the fifth symphony from an
orchestra hall by recording it on a CD. The retrovirus encoded by this
infectious DNA reacts with the same antibodies that crossreact with
Montagnier"s global HIV standard, produced by immortal cell lines in
many labs and companies around the world for the HIV-test. This confirms
the existence of the retrovirus HIV.

The uniqueness of HIV is confirmed by the detection of HIV-specific DNA
sequences in the DNA of most antibody-positive people. The same DNA is
not found in uninfected humans, and the probability to find such a
sequence in any DNA sample is 1/49500 - which is much less likely than
to encounter the same water molecule twice by swimming in the Pacific
ocean every day of your life.

The existence of an unique retrovirus HIV provides a plausible
explanation for the good (not perfect) correlation between the
existence of HIV DNA and antibodies against it in thousands of people
that have been subjected to both tests. The Papadopulos-Lanka challenge
fails to explain this correlation.

Ergo: The Papadopulos-Lanka challenge is rejected. HIV exists and has
been isolated. Therefore I gratefully accept the rewards posted for
providing the evidence that HIV exists, and was isolated from Continuum,
Alex Russell and James Whitehead.

References
Barnett, S. W., M. Quiroga, A. Werner, D. Dina and J. A. Levy, 1993.
Distinguishing features of an infectious molecular clone of the highly
divergent and noncytopathic human immunodeficiency virus type 2 UC1
strain. J. Virol. 67: 1006-1014.
Christie, H., 1996a. 105 days ... we're still waiting. Continuum,
March/April, p5.
Christie, H., 1996b. Letter to Peter Duesberg.
Continuum, 1996. The Jody Wells Memorial Prize; Missing Virus! £1,000
Reward. Continuum 3:
Duesberg, P. H., 1993. The HIV gap in national AIDS statistics.
Biotechnology 11: 955-956.
Fisher, A. G., E. Collalti, L. Ratner, R. C. Gallo and F. Wong-Staal,
1985. A molecular clone of HTLV-III with biological activity. Nature
(London) 316: 262-265.
Jackson, J. B., S. Y. Kwok, J. J. Sninsky, J. S. Hopsicker, K. J.
Sannerud, F. S. Rhame, K. Henry, M. Simpson and H. H. Balfour Jr., 1990.
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 detected in all seropositive
symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. J. Clin. Microbiol. 28: 16-19.
Lanka, S., 1995. HIV reality or artefact? Continuum, April/May, p4-9.
Levy, J. A., C. Cheng-Mayer, D. Dina and P. A. Luciw, 1986. AIDS
retrovirus (ARV-2) clone replicates in transfected human and animal
fibroblasts. Science 232: 998-1001.
Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V. F. Turner and J. M. Papadimitriou, 1993.
Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Biotechnology 11:
696-707.
Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., V. F. Turner, J. M. Papadimitriou, D. Causer,
B. Hedland-Thomas and B. A. P. Page, 1995. A critical analysis of the
HIV-T4-cell-AIDS hypothesis. Genetica 95: 5-24.
World Health Organization, 1995. The current Global Situation of the
HIV/AIDS Pandemic. Geneva, Jan.

http://www.duesberg.com/docs_continuum/continu2.html


Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV: Article 2 of 2 for
Continuum

-adapted from Continuum vol 4 (5) page 26, February/March 1997

I am honored by the profound and passionate reactions of Hodgkinson,
Lanka, and Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. to my letter on the existence or
the non-existence of HIV (Hodgkinson, 1996; Lanka, 1996;
Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1996) . However, I cannot surrender to the
HIV-non-existentialists for the following two scientific reasons:

1) The weakest point of the HIV-non-existentialists is their
failure to explain the origin of "19 sequences encompassing the
full-length, 10 kb-HIV-1 genome" (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al.,
1996) and "19 full-length HIV genomes" (Hodgkinson, 1996). Hence
Papadopulos et als unanswered question: "Can one exclude the
possibility that the 19 "full-length HIV genomes" described so
far, even if they all had the same length of 9150 bp and
identical sequences are nothing more than a chance finding among
the many molecular species present in the cultures, or even the
uncultured lymphocytesŠ?"(Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1996) ,
that were "...taken from AIDS patients and AIDS risk groups", as
Hodgkinson points out (Hodgkinson, 1996) . ­­Yes, one can
exclude that. Remember the odds of coming up with even one
nucleotide sequence of 9150 bp by chance are astronomically low,
namely 1 in 49150 which is very very close to 0 (see my letter
in the July/August Continuum, (Duesberg, 1996) ). The chance of
coming up 19-times with the same HIV-DNAs, even "from cultures
treated with chemical or physical oxidants" (Papadopulos-
Eleopulos et al., 1996) are another 19 orders of magnitude
lower than finding it once by chance. Indeed the odds are much
much lower than finding 19 guys on this planet with the same
phone numbers. Science offers but one rational origin for such
sequences appearing "very occasionally" (Hodgkinson, 1996) in
species, namely viruses or other infectious agents. Thus the
virus hypothesis is not a "specious" (Hodgkinson, 1996)
explanation for the origin of 9150 bp DNA that is "very
occasionally" found in AIDS patients.

2) The HIV-non-existentialists also fail to realize that available
isolation efforts have already adequately identified the 9150
bases as the genome of a virus. In order to "isolate" a given
infectious agent, one needs no more than to isolate it from all
other, possibly contaminating, infectious agents ­ this is in
fact Koch"s second postulate. Since viruses have an
extracellular and intracellular existence, viruses can be
isolated from two entirely different sources:

(i) Viruses have been traditionally isolated from extracellular
fluids. Such viruses may be contaminated by extracellular
proteins, nucleic acids and possibly other microbes.
Montagnier's original isolate of HIV from extracellular
fluids is an example. Indeed, Montagnier"s isolate appears
to meet functional standards of isolation adequately,
because two of the world"s leading retrovirologists, Robert
Gallo of the NIH and Robin Weiss of the Chester Beatty have
re-isolated only HIV from Montagnier"s virus stock (Weiss,
1991; Cohen, 1993) . If Montagnier"s virus had been grossly
contaminated by other viruses or microbes, those would have
been found by Gallo and Weiss.

(ii) Since the 1980s viruses can also be isolated as infectious
nucleic acids from infected cells. Such infectious nucleic
acids initiate replication of virus in uninfected cells from
which new virus particles are subsequently released. In this
case viral nucleic acid is contaminated by cellular nucleic
acid, and possible other intracellular viruses. As I pointed
out in my Missing Virus Reward claim in the July/August
Continuum, infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from
infected cells several times by molecular cloning (Duesberg,
1996). This cloned, infectious HIV DNA of 9150 bases
represents an almost theoretical isolation, as it is a
100,000 fold purification from all nucleic acids of the cell
and its possible viruses. This is because the human cell
contains 1 million kilobases of DNA and HIV only 10.
Contrary to Papadopulos et als." slogan ­"No isolation no
cloning." ­ cloning is isolation, and is in fact the most
rigorous isolation science has to offer for retroviruses.

Thus the high standards of virus isolation from extracellular materials
postulated by Papadopulos et al. and Hodgkinson may be relevant for
crystallographers or chemists who want to analyze the structure of a
virus, but are not relevant for functional isolation.

In view of this I hope to liberate the minds of HIV dissidents from HIV
for the cause that unites us all ­ the solution of AIDS. It seems tragic
that over 99% of AIDS researchers study a virus that does not cause AIDS
and that the few who don't are now engaged in a debate over the
existence of a virus that doesn't cause AIDS.

References
Cohen, J., 1993. HHS: Gallo guilty of misconduct. Science 259: 168-170.
Duesberg, P. H., 1996. Duesberg's HIV. Continuum, July/August, p8-9.
Hodgkinson, N., 1996. Origin of the specious. Continuum,
September/October, p17-18.
Lanka, S., 1996. Collective fallacy; Rethinking HIV. Continuum 4: 19-20.
Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., T. V., J. Papadimitriou and D. Causer, 1996.
The isolation of HIV: has it really been achieved? The case against.
Continuum, September/October, pSupplement 1-24.
Weiss, R., 1991. Provenance of HIV strains. Nature (London) 349: 374.

http://www.duesberg.com/docs_continuum/continu2.html

take care, be well.

donpaul lucas
hiv+ 17 years (asymptomatic, stage 2)
12 years anti-viral veteran

(this post sealed with the three-fold law)

don lucas

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
namaste,

Mike wrote:

> z@z wrote:

> > I agree with you that the evidence in favour of the retrovirus which
> > is called HIV is so overwhelming that its denial must be either the
> > result of scientific naivity or dishonesty.
>

> or a consequence of lack of scientific evidence damped by billionaire
> funding, lobbying and media buying.
>

> > So I'm really astonished at the high proportion of critics who
> > subscribe to this absurdity.
>

> Oh well, didn't you say they were a minority? Get ready to see the
> numbers grow.
>

> > It is actually very efficient to bring into discredit the "AIDS
> > denialists"
>
> your choice of language says much pal, there are no "denialists" in
> science, as there are no absolute truths. Yours is manipulative
> political-religious language used by those who try to force their
> private truths upon others.
>

> Mike

i find it amusing how the dissidents will take a person's statement,
(any person's statement - even another dissident) and edit it to fill
their need for argument.

if mike had bothered to follow the link provided by z@z, he would have
found that z@z is also a dissident. the point z@z was trying to make was
that most of the recent crop of "dissidents" present their arguments so
poorly, that they are actually being used by the orthodoxy to "discredit
the "AIDS denialists" in the eyes of scientists working themselves with
HIV, by presenting naive HIV denialists as representative of them."

perhaps, z@z struck a nerve.

> ----------------
> Web-based anonymous mailer
> http://209.67.19.98/lark2k/anonymail.html

i also think it's humorous the lengths some dissidents will go to to
hide their identity - i guess the up-side to this is mike can only post
8 messages from the anonymous mailer he uses.

don lucas

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
namaste,

z@z wrote:

i read your referenced site, and have a question for you. the last line
in "My contributions to discussions on AIDS" reads:

There was indeed panic among hemophiliacs in 1984, and the panic
resulted in preventive taking of antiviral drugs.

could you clarify what antivirals the "panicked hemophiliacs" started to
take in 1984?

take care, be well.

donpaul lucas
hemophiliac, severe factor viii

don lucas

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
namaste,

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>
> In misc.health.aids z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote in reply to Ken Cox:
>

> : I agree with you that the evidence in favour of the retrovirus which


> : is called HIV is so overwhelming that its denial must be either the
> : result of scientific naivity or dishonesty.
>

> Fine, Wolfgang, so you think that the evidence in favour of HIV is
> overwhelming? But which HIV? Is this the one with 8 genes, or with 10?
> Please clarify.
>

> : So I'm really astonished at the high proportion of critics who
> : subscribe to this absurdity. One plausible explanation seems to
> : me that these groups are subtly cultivated and even infiltrated
> : by persons whose objective is to protect AIDS orthodoxy and
> : weaken the critics.
>
> It does seem to me that you're a believer in conspiracy theories.

if you read his referenced site:

http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3a.html

you don't have to assume what his beliefs are. as an example:

I really tried to find out who is right. Now I know it, it is
Peter Duesberg, a great logician and scientist. (Those who
claim the inexistence of HIV commit the biggest error.)

do you think you might be one of the "naive HIV denialists" who is being
used to "discredit the 'AIDS denialists'", yuri?

take care, be well.

donpaul lucas

Mike

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
sarah clark wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> > George Acton wrote:
> >
> > > And what is your theory of what causes AIDS? Do you agree with
> > > Dueserg's drug theories.
> >
> > Certainly, they match observed epidemic DATA better with elegance.
> > Ever heard of Occam's razor?
>
> duesberg selectively carves populations from the mortality
> and morbidity reports to support a predetermined conclusion.

If you were what you pretend to be, you'd display at least some amazement
at the fact that a number of "HIV" diseases are neither infectious nor
caused by inmunodeficiency. What's cervical cancer doing on the list?
Kaposi's Sarcoma, once the DEFINING disease of AIDS has been now dropped
from the list. However, the absurd theory that blamed it on sex has been
left unaltered. I guess your throat has seen thicker bricks than that go
down.

There are too many and too heterogeneous diseases in the AIDS grab-bag.
The simplistic view of a single infectious agent as cause of them all is
unsustainable from the theoretical point of view, requiring a constant
spiral of speculation-based-on-speculation. On the practical ground the
theory has failed in giving back their health to the sick and has succeeded
in wiping out otherwise healthy "seropositive" individuals through poisoning.

Your common sense probably is too absorbed in self-delusions of grandeur to
ring any bell at the fact that the chemicals deceivingly called "antivirals"
actuallly cause the same symptoms they are portrayed to prevent.

Facing all these facts any sensible observer would suspect that there's
something very wrong with the theory. That this fruitless "science" has not
yet been disposed of only finds an explanation in a conflict of interests.
The whole scam is held in place by incestuous "AIDS scientists" and
businessmen who, quite understandably, are not so eager to give up their
acquired status.

I don't believe as Duesberg does that HIV is has been demonstrated to be
a real entity. I do however considere well founded and beneficial for patients
to work on the plausible toxic origins of many of the diseases blamed on HIV.

Mike

Mike

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
don lucas wrote:
>
> i also think it's humorous the lengths some dissidents will go to to
> hide their identity - i guess the up-side to this is mike can only post
> 8 messages from the anonymous mailer he uses.

Smile Lucas! You're on candid camera!

Mike

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
George Acton wrote:
>
> If anyone has reason for shame, it is the people who espouse
> your wrong-headed and destructive cause.
> --George Acton

Our cause is not going around wielding toxic chemicals and pushing them
down people's throats. That's what your beloved theory all boils down
to.

Thanks to Mbeki for exposing your sponsors' plots and for keeping your
sludge away from innocent hungry underschooled opressed africans.

Mike

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
sarah clark wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> > George Acton wrote:
> >
> > > And what is your theory of what causes AIDS? Do you agree with
> > > Dueserg's drug theories.
> >
> > Certainly, they match observed epidemic DATA better with elegance.
> > Ever heard of Occam's razor?
>
> duesberg selectively carves populations from the mortality
> and morbidity reports to support a predetermined conclusion.
> that you believe his work kinda displays your critical thinking
> skills in front of all these ng. how embarrassing for you.

On the other hand, you can be proud that your critical skills were left
unaltered by the successive "ad hoc" changes in the CDC definition of
AIDS to make look like epidemic what already was a dwindling number of
cases. I bet that your model of strong critical thinking doesn't stop you
from swallowing whole the CDC statistics. If you examine your own faeces
critically you'll find something like this:

The CDC definition, that the diseases or conditions defining AIDS "are indicative
of severe immunosuppression", is inconsistent with the December 1992 definition
by the CDC, which defines AIDS to be any one of 29 diseases if and only if the
person is also HIV positive. Indeed, one of the defining diseases is a low T-cell
count, but about 40% of the 29 diseases defining AIDS in the 1992-1993 CDC list
DO NOT INVOLVE IMMUNOSUPPRESSION. For instance, Kaposi’s sarcoma and cervical cancer
are not "indicative of severe immunosuppression", but according to the December
1992 definition, they are among the AIDS-defining diseases in the presence of HIV,
INCLUDING CASES WHEN THERE IS NO IMMUNOSUPPRESSION. Therefore under the December
1992 definition, immunosuppression, let alone "severe immunosuppression" is not a
necessary condition for AIDS. SO THE DEFINITION BOXED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE
DECEMBER 1996 SURVEILLANCE REPORT IS STILL A NEW DEFINITION, FURTHER CONTRIBUTING
TO THE CHAOTIC MESS COMING OUT OF THE CDC.

I remind you of at least 5 definitions of AIDS:

(a) the pre-1987 CDC definition
(b) the 1987 CDC definition;
(c) the December 1992 definition
(d) the December 1996 definition quoted above
(e) the African Bangui definition (diarrhea, fever, cough and weight loss
wth no HIV positivity required.)

The definition is also incomplete, since it does not provide a list of the diseases
or conditions in "the group of diseases or conditions". Purported statistics not
taking into account inconsistent and incomplete definitions are worthless and
misleading.

One could of course raise more precise empirical questions, for instance how many
overall cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma or cervical cancer are there in the US in a given
period, with the following additional condition that the person in HIV positive,
(resp. HIV negative), and has (resp. has not) immunosuppression.

The categories used for the CDC statistics at present in connection with AIDS
constitute obstructions to dealing with this more precise question. These statistics
are systematicallty biased in favor of HIV pathogeny.

rich hammett

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
In talk.origins Mike <mi...@hotmail.com> allegedly wrote:
[snip]

> Facing all these facts any sensible observer would suspect that there's
> something very wrong with the theory. That this fruitless "science" has not
> yet been disposed of only finds an explanation in a conflict of interests.
> The whole scam is held in place by incestuous "AIDS scientists" and
> businessmen who, quite understandably, are not so eager to give up their
> acquired status.

This is why this belongs in talk.origins...the scientists are all lying!

I'm glad this thread appeared there--it's given me a chance to talk to my
gay friends and make sure they're not falling for this crap.

> I don't believe as Duesberg does that HIV is has been demonstrated to be
> a real entity. I do however considere well founded and beneficial for patients
> to work on the plausible toxic origins of many of the diseases blamed on HIV.

So you're an even bigger crank than Duesberg? Are you using the anon mailer
to hide your Perth address?

> Mike

> ----------------
> Web-based anonymous mailer
> http://209.67.19.98/lark2k/anonymail.html

I suppose the evil AIDS scientists and Big Business Men In Black have
frightened you into anonymity? But once again, thanks. If not for
you and Joe Potter and a few other nuts posting to t.o, I never would
have heard of AIDS deniers. Thanks to pubMed and some other
references posted in the NG, I've been able to look over the peer-reviewed
research on the issue and draw my own conclusions.

Thanks!

rich

--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan


rich hammett

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
In talk.origins Mike <mi...@hotmail.com> allegedly wrote:
> George Acton wrote:
>>
>> If anyone has reason for shame, it is the people who espouse
>> your wrong-headed and destructive cause.
>> --George Acton

> Our cause is not going around wielding toxic chemicals and pushing them
> down people's throats. That's what your beloved theory all boils down
> to.

You feel the same way about chemotherapy for cancer? I know that stuff if
pretty toxic. I'm sure they're just a plot by Evil Drug Companies to
sell more toxic chemicals to Africa. When the life expectancy in Africa
is high enough to allow for cancer. But of course, you're interfering
with their plot to give them AZT and other AIDS treatments so they'll
live long enough to get cancer. What a noble blow for anarchy, Mr.
Princip!

> Thanks to Mbeki for exposing your sponsors' plots and for keeping your
> sludge away from innocent hungry underschooled opressed africans.

Yes, my check from the Evil Drug Companies should be arriving any
day. Perhaps you should look for my research on pubMed. While you're
there, you might check out the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and
studies about HIV/AIDS, and perhaps realize the number of scientists
that you're tarring with the brush of "incestuous" "lying" researchers.
Amazing that only Duesberg had the strength to challenge the
orthodoxy, and that he continues to hold on as one after another of
his supposed "facts" is proven false.

Stop hiding behind your remailer--I'm pretty sure you're one of our
regulars trying to act as if there's more support for your ideas
than one or two crackpots. But the existence of three crackpots
doesn't really support you, either.

DGiunti

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
In article <393224...@hotmail.com>, Mike <mi...@hotmail.com> writes:

>> >Please clarify.
>>
>> http://www.mischealthaids.org/images/Hivmap.jpg
>>
>> I've only heard references to 9 genes, but I am told that that the start
>and
>> end points for tat and rev are sometimes swapped and a hybrid 10th gene can
>be
>> considered...
>
>Funny that AIDS puhers call such politically correct genome constructs
>as evidence of HIV, yet they deny the world the simple inexpensive evidence
>of an
>EM micrograph from HIV isolation.

You have been supplied more URLs to HIV EMs than I can count. You seem to
want something more. Morphology and differentiation in Isolation are what is
common in the second decade of dealing with this pathogen.

What are you really after, aside from denial?

Mike

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
rich hammett wrote:
>
> This is why this belongs in talk.origins...the scientists are all lying!
>

with honourable exceptions like Robert Gallo. The rest at most can be wrong
sometimes or misled or just relaxing their ethic standards out of loyalty
and gratitude to their employers.

You know what happens to mavericks like Duesberg, so you better learn the
from the example so that it doesn't ever happen tp you. "Flexible" scientific
workforce is what modern corporation economy needs.

> I'm glad this thread appeared there--it's given me a chance to talk to my
> gay friends and make sure they're not falling for this crap.
>

well done boy, well done.

> Thanks to pubMed and some other
> references posted in the NG, I've been able to look over the peer-reviewed
> research on the issue and draw my own conclusions.

Then you must certainly have started from the beginning by reading the five
Science Montagnier and Gallo papers from 1983/84.

That the titles of three of these papers contain the word "isolation" and yet
don't present the evidence, must have represented a blow to your naive trust in
editorial integrity and peer review.

You must surely have drawn your conclussions too from facing the stubborn absence
of a Nobel prize awarded for any of the 100,000+ scientific papers representing
HIV/AIDS research.

While as many as SEVEN respectable colleagues turn thumbs up or down on grant
applications or on articles for publication, herd decisions are virtually
guaranteed. After all, safety and prosperity lie in running with the pack.

>
> Thanks!
>

Every cherry eventually gets popped some time.

My pleasure.

Mike

unread,
May 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM5/29/00
to
DGiunti wrote:
>
> In article <393224...@hotmail.com>, Mike <mi...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> >Funny that AIDS puhers call such politically correct genome constructs
> >as evidence of HIV, yet they deny the world the simple inexpensive evidence
> >of an
> >EM micrograph from HIV isolation.
>
> You have been supplied more URLs to HIV EMs than I can count. You seem to
> want something more. Morphology and differentiation in Isolation are what is
> common in the second decade of dealing with this pathogen.


Now you're playing silly are you?

When I was asking for pictures of isolation Gary Stein tried to shut me up offering
me pics of "HIV's life cycel" instead.

> Gee maybe because it's not that hard any more, and that has been done
> many times if you would like to see EM's of most of HIV's life cycel
> take a look at;
> http://www.mcl.tulane.edu/departments/pathology/fermin/HIVFIGSTable.html
> --
> Gary Stein

now you go take a look at those pictures. All of them have been obtaind from
cell culture preparations. Not a single one shows HIV free of any cell components.

Now, the point is Gallo claimed in his patent for HIV tests that he "purified"
by the traditional, cheap and accepted method of centrifugation on a gradient
of sucrose. Now, a successful isolation using such method would have given this
kind of picture that contains nothing but large amounts virus-looking objects
packed together:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/pics/edhfriendvirus.jpg

Instead, the first ever published micrograph of Gallo's style "isolates"
(in 1997 !!) looked like this:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/pics/microvesicles.jpg

The paper, published in Virology in March '97 said that the electronmicrographs
disclose "major contaminants" in "pure HIV". In the face of self-contradiction,
AIDS "scienctists" again feel no shame. The see whatever they want to see.

Now would you be so kind as to provide us with the ellusive URL of the ellusive
micrograph that shows pure HIV free from anything else? Please, No zoom-ins showing
3 or 4 particles from a picture of a cell culture preparation please.

>
> What are you really after, aside from denial?
>

Looking at the picture published in Virology it is obvious that the scientists are
lying. I'm trying to hear a convincing explanation of:

Why is it that low-tech purification in a gradient of sucrose has invariably failed
for HIV?

Why do AIDS scientists systematically DENY the failure?

Why is it acknowledged that "pure HIV" isolates contain "major contaminants" yet
HIV tests being manufactured from them and claimed to be an accurate diagnosis of
infection?