Boy Scouts & Homosexuals

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Diablo

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
Steve H wrote in message ...

>Most people today would be justifiably outraged if the Boyscouts were to
>adopt racist policies like the KKK and exclude racial minorities from their
>membership and leadership, even though they are a private organization. How
>then is it acceptable for them to exclude sexual minorities, especially when
>the reasons for their dislike of the sexual minority is just as irrational
>and immoral a belief as is a broad-brush hatred for people of certain races?

Why do leftists keep trying to compare dislike of certain sexual behaviors
with racial discrimination? A person has no choice as to which ethnic
group they belong but they do have a choice on whether to fuck someone of
the same gender in the ass. Furthermore, dislike of this practice is not
necessarily irrational as you claim. Have you ever considered why this
practice is taboo in so many cultures throughout human history? Perhaps
it is because whenever ancient people experimented with it deadly diseases
started to break out among the population much like AIDS is doing today.

Cannibalism is also traditionally taboo in most cultures and where it
exists today we see outbreaks of Creutzfeld-Jacob (mad cow) disease. The
actual cause is still unknown, but something about consuming tissues of
the same or very similar species leads to the onset of this disorder.
I'm sure that cannibals think there is nothing wrong with their behavior
and consider it just another lifestyle option that should be protected
from discrimination. But the truth is that it is an extremely unsanitary
and destructive practice and that is why almost all cultures on earth
currently forbid it.

I realize that AIDS is no longer confined just to homosexuals, but they
seem to be at the center of the vortex. There is something about gay
sex that is very conducive to the spread of virii and bacteria and that
is why the gay community suffers from so many exotic diseases that most
heterosexuals have never even heard of. So even if homosexual behavior
can't be condemned as "immoral" in the cosmic scheme of things, it is
a very undesirable practice when it comes to public health.

Diablo

Carlos

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
On Sat, 1 Jul 2000 15:32:22 -0500, "Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net>
wrote:

>A person has no choice as to which ethnic
>group they belong but they do have a choice on whether to fuck someone of
>the same gender in the ass.

The former is true.

The latter is not true.

Can you honestly tell everyone on this message board that you can
change between being a homosexual and a heterosexual on demand ?

I know I can't. I was born a heterosexual and there is no way I could
become a homosexual.

You're just a whacked out friggin bigot, no more no less.

Diablo

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
Carlos wrote in message <67islsgd0gda19uo9...@4ax.com>...

I may be whacked out but you missed my point. Just maybe a person is
born with a certain sexual orientation. But the person has a choice
on whether to act on those impulses. It is very difficult, but
heterosexuals can choose to abstain from sexual activity. Most choose
not to abstain because nothing terrible usually happens from regular
heterosexual sex other than pregnancy, and that is part of life, humans
would go extinct otherwise. But regardless of a person's preferences,
anuses were NOT designed for sexual intercourse. This is why anal
sex is SO conducive to disease transmission as opposed to vaginal sex.

There seems to be a concerted effort by the leftist homosexual community
to convince the world's population that their practices are no different
from others and carry no more risk of disease than others. But this is
not true, it is just a fantasy designed to justify their abnormal
behavior. If I were a cannibal I would do my best to justify my activity.
I would argue that eating human flesh is no different than eating a
hamburger or fried chicken. When you pointed to all my friends who were
dying of Creutzfeld-Jacob disease, I would tell you that it didn't prove
anything, that people die from E. coli or salmonella. But the fact
remains that the population of the United States is not dropping dead
from E. coli or salmonella while the remaining cannibal population of
New Guinea is dying from Creutzfeld-Jacob disease.

You can call be a bigot for pointing this out, but then you also have
to call the Red Cross and United Blood Services bigots because they
refuse to accept blood donations from PRACTICING homosexuals.

Diablo

Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD

unread,
Jul 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/1/00
to
"Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net> wrote

> I may be whacked out but you missed my point. Just maybe a person is
> born with a certain sexual orientation. But the person has a choice
> on whether to act on those impulses.

Why shouldn't they?

>It is very difficult, but
> heterosexuals can choose to abstain from sexual activity.

Why should they?

>Most choose
> not to abstain because nothing terrible usually happens from regular
> heterosexual sex other than pregnancy, and that is part of life,
humans
> would go extinct otherwise. But regardless of a person's
preferences,
> anuses were NOT designed for sexual intercourse. This is why anal
> sex is SO conducive to disease transmission as opposed to vaginal
sex.

So are you condoning oral sex for homosexuals?

> There seems to be a concerted effort by the leftist homosexual
community
> to convince the world's population that their practices are no
different
> from others and carry no more risk of disease than others.

Are gays the only practitioners or oral and anal sex?

--
Rev. Dr. Tim, BsD, McC
Skepticultist
Official Elk
Intellectual Slut
Have you offered a heart to Tezcat today?
Godless Liberal Socialist
political/media/usenet Conspirator
Supreme Being and Reigning Monarch of AFA-B
Worshipper of the one true Duct Tape
I, too, am no Axel Heist.
Poly was a cracker
I Am My Dogs Best Friend
There is one God and His name is Tezcat
42
"Changing Rooms" and "Antiques Roadshow" are damned good shows I don't
care what you think.
Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!
Charter Member Pack-0-Jackyls
Sockpuppet
Bureaucrat
He who makes fish tremble
Feminazi
Econazi

Diablo

unread,
Jul 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/2/00
to

Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD wrote in message <8jlsp...@enews1.newsguy.com>...

>So are you condoning oral sex for homosexuals?

Even oral sex has been shown to transmit the HIV virus. But I think
the main problem is homosexuals who practice anal and oral sex. For
whatever reason, there is not an HIV epidemic among heterosexual men
and women who practice oral sex. I would lighten up a little if the
homosexual community would act more responsibly, but they are nothing
more than a self-destructive death cult right now. They want to die
and take the rest of humanity with them.

Diablo

David Marc Nieporent

unread,
Jul 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/2/00
to
In <vss75.2530$JZ4....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
Diablo <dia...@rio.bravo.net> claimed:

>Steve H wrote in message ...

>>Most people today would be justifiably outraged if the Boyscouts were to
>>adopt racist policies like the KKK and exclude racial minorities from their
>>membership and leadership, even though they are a private organization. How
>>then is it acceptable for them to exclude sexual minorities, especially when
>>the reasons for their dislike of the sexual minority is just as irrational
>>and immoral a belief as is a broad-brush hatred for people of certain races?

>Why do leftists keep trying to compare dislike of certain sexual behaviors
>with racial discrimination?

I don't know. Do "leftists" do that? It doesn't seem to have much to do
with "leftism." Perhaps that's just a mistaken belief you have.

>A person has no choice as to which ethnic
>group they belong but they do have a choice on whether to fuck someone of
>the same gender in the ass.

That's true, but then, discrimination against homosexuals is not limited
to those who are sexually active, now is it?

>Furthermore, dislike of this practice is not
>necessarily irrational as you claim. Have you ever considered why this
>practice is taboo in so many cultures throughout human history? Perhaps
>it is because whenever ancient people experimented with it deadly diseases
>started to break out among the population much like AIDS is doing today.

Uh, yeah. What diseases would those be? And except, of course, that
lesbians have the lowest rates of AIDS. So that really wouldn't explain
it. A much more logical explanation is that ancient cultures were focused
on reproduction to propagate the tribe, and homosexuality was a nonuseful
trait for that purpose.

>Cannibalism is also traditionally taboo in most cultures and where it
>exists today we see outbreaks of Creutzfeld-Jacob (mad cow) disease. The
>actual cause is still unknown, but something about consuming tissues of
>the same or very similar species leads to the onset of this disorder.

The actual cause is unknown, but you'll pretend it is known, right?
Well, here's a hint: it appears to be caused by consuming the brains of
infected animals. Not "tissues of the same or very similar species."
Creutzfeld-Jakob, btw, is not mad cow disease. BSE (Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy) is mad cow disease. New variant Creutzfeld-Jakob is the
human analog.

>I realize that AIDS is no longer confined just to homosexuals, but they
>seem to be at the center of the vortex. There is something about gay
>sex that is very conducive to the spread of virii and bacteria and that
>is why the gay community suffers from so many exotic diseases that most
>heterosexuals have never even heard of.

Really? What exotic diseases are those?

>So even if homosexual behavior
>can't be condemned as "immoral" in the cosmic scheme of things, it is
>a very undesirable practice when it comes to public health.

So don't have sex with one.


--
David M. Nieporent Roberto Petagine for the
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu Hall of Fame

Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/2/00
to

"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:8jmpdb$c2k$1...@shell.monmouth.com...

That's the problem poor little confused Diablo wants to have sex with
men so bad that it's driving him crazy becuase he's bought into the
anti-gay religous right argument so completly that he can't seem to
break away from it. Poor little twerp running from gay bar to gay bar
clucking his tounge and grumbling about how nasty it all is all the
while sporting a woody.
--
Gary Stein
ges...@starpower.net
http://www.mischealthaids.org

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

Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/2/00
to
"Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net> wrote in message
news:vss75.2530$JZ4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...

> Steve H wrote in message ...
>
<snip>

>
> I realize that AIDS is no longer confined just to homosexuals, but
they
> seem to be at the center of the vortex.

No if you look at world wide HIV/AIDS statistics hetrosexuals are the
vast majority of infected people.

stev...@pond.com

unread,
Jul 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/2/00
to
In article <fWA75.3366$JZ4....@newsfeed.slurp.net>,

"Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net> wrote:
>
> I would lighten up a little if the
> homosexual community would act more responsibly, but they are nothing
> more than a self-destructive death cult right now. They want to die
> and take the rest of humanity with them.

Sweeping generalizations and name-calling don't make your argument look
very convincing.

There's a problem when you start generalizing about what gay people as a
group do or believe. It doesn't work any better than generalizing about
what heterosexuals do: there's a wide range of religious beliefs,
political views and lifestyles among gay people, just as there are
among straight folk. It's just that the more unconventional trends are
the ones that catch your eye.

When I first got out of college and didn't have much money, I lived in a
low-rent neighborhood near a heterosexual strip club and not far from an
area where heterosexual prostitution was common. Of course, I had many
neighbors who were straight married couples, but the most *visible*
forms of heterosexuality in that neighborhood were ones that I suspect
you would consider unsavory.

Still it would have been downright ridiculous for me to make general
assumptions about straight people based on what I saw in that
neighborhood. Your generalizations about gay people are based on a
similarly faulty set of generalizations.

-- Steven Capsuto
http://www.pond.com/~stevecap


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

Steve

unread,
Jul 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/2/00
to
> anuses were NOT designed for sexual intercourse.

"designed"? By whom, God, I presume?

So how the hell do YOU know that God did not design
them for that? Do you work in God's engineering
department? And if what you say is true, then why
is the prostate so close by and able to be pleasurably
stimulated by anal sex? Why, according to your
<ahem> "logic", that feature MUST also be "by design".

So your "theory" is blown away already.

Also, anal sex is performed by some animals, including some
species of chimpanzees. Yes, male-to-male. Yes,
apparently for pleasure alone.

Now, I would guess that you would agree with the other
religious jackasses that humans are capable of morally
right or wrong choices, but that animals simply do what
God "designed" them to do, and are NOT capable of sin or
morals or "going against" the "will of God."

So this then implies that chimp assholes, at least,
ARE in your view "designed" for anal sex. But for some
reason, human ones are not.

Strange theory. Of course, I suppose that you, being
a flaming asshole yourself, would know more about the
subject than even God himself.

Krueger Family

unread,
Jul 2, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/2/00
to

Gary Stein wrote:

> "Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net> wrote in message
> news:vss75.2530$JZ4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > Steve H wrote in message ...
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > I realize that AIDS is no longer confined just to homosexuals, but
> they
> > seem to be at the center of the vortex.
>
> No if you look at world wide HIV/AIDS statistics hetrosexuals are the
> vast majority of infected people.

How about the US?

People get bogged down with all this "AIDS is the primary cause of death
in Africa" stuff and ignore the overall death rate.

The number one cause of death on this planet is still disentary. Any
excercise in decreasing deaths by other causes is at least moderately a
waste of time.

Ted the Cruel

Steve H

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

"Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net> wrote in message
news:vss75.2530$JZ4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Steve H wrote in message ...
>
> >Most people today would be justifiably outraged if the Boyscouts were to
> >adopt racist policies like the KKK and exclude racial minorities from
their
> >membership and leadership, even though they are a private organization.
How
> >then is it acceptable for them to exclude sexual minorities, especially
when
> >the reasons for their dislike of the sexual minority is just as
irrational
> >and immoral a belief as is a broad-brush hatred for people of certain
races?
>
> Why do leftists keep trying to compare dislike of certain sexual behaviors
> with racial discrimination? A person has no choice as to which ethnic

> group they belong but they do have a choice on whether to fuck someone of
> the same gender in the ass. Furthermore, dislike of this practice is not

> necessarily irrational as you claim.

>snip<
>
> Diablo
>
>

Whether someone has a choice to be gay or not versus not having a choice
about one's race is not the issue - whether one should dislike them for
their sexuality is. If someone strikes me in the face I can rationally say
that I dislike them - I have reason to by virtue of the pain they have
caused me. But if they do something or are some sort of person that has no
effect on me whatsoever, and I dislike them for it, well that is irrational.
If Billy and Bobby next door share orgasms together, it has no effect on me,
and so to dislike them for what they like to do with each other is
irrational.

IMO, heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal in every way. One could
argue that homosexuality is a "perversion" of Nature's intent because it is
non-procreative, but so are almost all heterosexual encounters. Indeed, the
procreative aspects of the human sex drive is so insignifigant that it could
almost be relegated to the level of side effect, sometimes beneficial,
sometimes not. Even the most prolific of families the number of acts of
intercourse that actually result in a child versus the total number of
sexual encounters they share is miniscule. People of all persuasions engage
in sexual behavior for a huge number of reasons - consciously trying to
"make a baby" is a very small part of those encounters. And all those
motivations for having sex EXCEPT trying to make a baby are identical for
both homosexual and heterosexual desires. Are you suggesting that it would
thus be fair game for one to discriminate as being "perverts" against those
who choose to practice non-procreative heterosexual sex - sex with birth
control, masturbation, non-procreative-possible activities such as oral or
anal sex, etc - should it somehow become known publically that they are
doing it?

Have you considered the racist view implied in your statement that it is ok
to discriminate against gays because they have a choice to be what you
consider to be inferior but it's not ok to discriminate against
racial/ethnic minorities because it's not their choice to be part of that
group. Doesn't that imply a view that all minorities are really inferior
but we're going to be big minded and not disciminate against those who had
no choice in the matter but since gays choose to join their minority they
are fair game? How about let's also discriminate against those perverts who
like symphonic music or sushi or use computers since they to have chosen to
join a minority in numbers compared to the traits/desires of the population
as a whole.

Diablo

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/4/00
to
Eve DuJardin wrote...

>Hmmmmm. Let's see. Homosexuals no more than 10% of the population, some say
>even less. Heterosexuals are rabid about not having anything to do with
>homosexuals. Doesn't seem like the "rest of humanity" is going to die.
>Sounds to me like what you're really complaining about is possibly having to
>pay in some way for treatment of AIDS victims. If you are as adamant as you
>appear, it doesn't compute that you are afraid for yourself. I don't think
>you can catch HIV from a toilet seat.
> Your faithful serpent,
> Eve

It's funny that you should mention toilet seats. When my relative was
diagnosed with AIDS he started taking a dozen or so medications. These
medications caused serious side effects, one of which was explosive
diarrhea. We lived in the same house and had to share the same bathroom
and everytime I went to use the toilet the seat was covered with multi-
colored shit. I don't know if there was blood mixed in with it but it
was totally disgusting. I got a couple of spray bottles and filled one
with a bleach solution and the other with a mixture of ammonia and alcohol.
I would spray the toilet with one or the other (not at the same time cuz
of toxic fumes) to remove the shit and sterilize it. This caused a HUGE
argument with my family. They kept bitching about the smell of bleach
and ammonia and chanted communist propaganda at me telling me that I
couldn't catch AIDS from a toilet seat. I showed them the multi-colored
shit all over the place and said that I was NOT going to sit on it unless
it was sterilized. They kept bitching at me and told me I was crazy, but
not once did they volunteer to sit on that toilet seat. I finally decided
to use the tiny guest bathroom whenever I had to take a shit, but one day
I came home and found THAT toilet seat covered with multi-colored shit.
That infuriated me beyond belief. Then one night I got up to take a piss
in the other bathroom and my foot stepped in something moist. I turned on
the light and discovered that I had stepped in one of my AIDS-infected
relative's used surgical bandages that he had left on the floor. It was
covered with blood and scabs and all sorts of gross things and it was
all over my bare foot. I screamed. I immediately rinsed my feet in the
tub with cold water, then I poured Clorox bleach all over them and rinsed
them again with scalding hot water. I was cussing and ranting and raving
and woke everybody up except AIDSboy who was zonked out on painkillers.
My family was less than sympathetic. They chanted more communist propaganda
at me telling me that it was "impossible" to catch AIDS through skin contact.
They kept bitching at me and told me I was crazy but not once did they
volunteer to step in those used surgical bandages. My family doesn't even
know what DNA stands for and AIDSboy can't even spell it, but they act
like they are Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologists when they babble
communist propaganda at me about viral transmission. This incident was
EXTREMELY traumatizing for me. I don't think it is irrational to be afraid
of catching a deadly contagious virus. I've told this story many times and
each reply I get tells me how "low" the risk of contagion is. But I have
yet to hear a number telling me exactly how low the risk is. And none of
them have volunteered to step in HIV-infected bloody surgical bandages to
prove how minimal the risk is. Therefore, what they are saying is nothing
but COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA because it seems to have no basis in facts.

Diablo

"Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original
version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the
time you were expected to make them up out of your head.
For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had esti-
mated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million
pairs. The actual output was given as 62 million. Winston,
however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down
to 57 million, so as to allow for the usual claim that the
quota had been overfilled. In any case, 62 million was no
nearer the truth than 57 million, or than 145 million. Very
likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still,
nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared.
All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of
boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the
population of Oceania went barefoot."

-- George Orwell, "1984"

"When someone approves of the purpose for which propaganda is
being used in a given case, he generally calls it 'education'
or applies to it some similar euphemism. But propaganda is
propaganda regardless of the purpose for which it is used."

-- The Unabomber Manifesto

Control3

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/4/00
to

Diablo wrote:

How old were you when all of this happened?

Diablo

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/4/00
to
Control3 wrote in message <39620000...@rcnnoway.com>...

>How old were you when all of this happened?

My age is irrelevant, but this was about 4 or 5 years ago. The incubation
period for the HIV virus is extremely variable, people have been known to
come down with AIDS symptoms as soon as 2 years after exposure or as long
as 10 years or more. How would you like to have something like this happen
to you and not know if you contracted the virus?!? I seem to be in good
health but every time I catch a cold or get a pimple I don't know if it
that is all it is or if it is one of the first symptoms of AIDS that I
am seeing. How would you like to live 5-10 years worrying about this all
the time? Everyone lectures me about how I should go get an HIV test so
I can stop worrying but why should I? I don't want to know that I am
doomed to die a horrible painful death. I have lived the last 20 years
with this epidemic raging around me and I've been intelligent enough to
avoid the behaviors that would put me at risk and then I wind up being
exposed to this virus through the extremely negligent behavior of my
retarted relative!!! You can't even begin to imagine how much this
infuriates me. And then my family treats me as if I were the one with
a problem!!! My stupid relative doesn't have a problem just because he
buttfucked every piece of trash he found in every gay bar in the Western
Hemisphere and caught AIDS. No, I am the one who has the problem because
I dared to object to being exposed to a deadly contagious virus! This
is a scenario straight out of George Orwell's book "1984".

How do all you commies KNOW that HIV is not transmissable through skin
contract or in ways other than sexual intercourse or blood transfusion?
Is there a laboratory somewhere where they expose human beings to HIV
virus in different ways and see if they contract it? No there isn't.
That would be extremely unethical. So the truth is that science doesn't
really know if HIV can be contracted through skin contact because they
haven't tested it on humans. I do know that these scientist and medical
professionals strongly SUSPECT that HIV can be transmitted in this way
because they ALWAYS wear latex glove when dealing with HIV-infected
blood! But perhaps they are just being as irrational as I am. Perhaps
they need to be re-educated at the communist brainwashing center so
they can see the error in their thinking.

Diablo

"An individual whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict
with the system is up against a force that is too powerful for him
to conquer or escape from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress,
frustration, defeat. His path will be much easier if he thinks and
behaves as the system requires. In that sense the system is acting
for the benefit of the individual when it brainwashes him into
conformity."

-- The Unabomber Manifesto

Control3

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/4/00
to

Diablo wrote:

I sympathize with the apparent mental anguish you're going through but I'm not
sure why you're calling me a communist. If you don't want to tell your age,
that's fine but it was not an irrelevant question. If you were 12 yo then you were
stuck in a situation that you had no control over and I sympathize even more.
However, if you were 30, I wonder why you didn't simply leave the unbearable
environment.

Diablo

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/4/00
to
Shadrach wrote in message ...
>I don't doubt that this was an unpleasant experience, and I genuinely
>sympathise, but I don't think that I understand your point. It's certainly
>not impossible to become infected with the virus through contact with
>HIV-positive blood, as you might have had a tiny cut on your feet that you
>hadn't noticed, but it's unlikely. What, exactly, is it that angers you?
>
>Your refusal to take a blood test is unfortunate. If, as is probable, you
>don't have the virus, it will put your mind at rest. If you have contracted
>the virus you're missing the opportunity to slow its progression. Either
>way, how can it possibly be better not to know?
>
>And on an unrelated note, I'm not sure how this relates to communism...

I realize that a negative HIV test result would put my mind at ease but
it could also be positive which would infuriate the hell out of me and
depress me because I would be doomed to a horrible disgusting death. If
I were to have the virus I would refuse the medical treatment. I would
want my death to be on my retarded relative's concience (if he has one).
I certainly don't want to live the rest of my life as a drugged-out zombie
popping dozens of pills every day for the next 10-20 years and suffering
from explosive technicolor diarrhea and having icky AIDS blotches and
boils breaking out all over my skin. In my opinion, the only acceptable
treatment for HIV infection should be treating the patient in a 1000F
gas oven for several hours. That would solve the problem quite nicely!

As for the relation of this subject to communism, the main characteristic
of a totalitarian communist society is the Lie. They take a Lie, phrase
it in many different ways and repeat it from many different sources and
it becomes the Truth. To question this Truth is heresy and a symptom
of severe psychiatric illness so that whoever questions the official Truth
is declared insane and locked up in a mental hospital/re-education resort
so they can receive the proper "treatment" for their "problem". This is
exactly what I am experiencing because I dare to question the Lies that
are being fed to be about HIV/AIDS.

Diablo

"Soft-hearted liberals may decide to play the role of good shepherds
to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone's
physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under
psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome
hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied
undergoes "treatment" to cure his "problem."

-- The Unabomber Manifesto

Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD

unread,
Jul 4, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/4/00
to
I'm getting very tired of the misuse of the words "communist" and
"socialist". Please tell us exactly how communist propagandists have
addressed AIDS.

Shadrach

unread,
Jul 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/5/00
to
I don't doubt that this was an unpleasant experience, and I genuinely
sympathise, but I don't think that I understand your point. It's certainly
not impossible to become infected with the virus through contact with
HIV-positive blood, as you might have had a tiny cut on your feet that you
hadn't noticed, but it's unlikely. What, exactly, is it that angers you?

Your refusal to take a blood test is unfortunate. If, as is probable, you
don't have the virus, it will put your mind at rest. If you have contracted
the virus you're missing the opportunity to slow its progression. Either
way, how can it possibly be better not to know?

And on an unrelated note, I'm not sure how this relates to communism...

Regards
Alex

Diablo wrote in message ...

Diablo

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00
to
Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD wrote in message <8jugm...@enews1.newsguy.com>...

>I'm getting very tired of the misuse of the words "communist" and
>"socialist". Please tell us exactly how communist propagandists have
>addressed AIDS.

Perhaps you are a classic Marxist communist and are misinterpreting
my use of the term "communism". I am not referring to the ideas
of economics and class struggle that Marx described in his manifesto,
rather I use the term to refer to any collection of Lies being
presented as Truth by any sort of activist or advocacy groups. It
seems that real truth is irrelevant to these types, rather it is
the misguided goals of their twisted political agendas that have to
be presented to the public as truth. The classic style of propaganda
used by the Communists (or Nazis, etc.) is to make up a Lie that
suits their political agenda, rephrase it in different ways, and
repeat it from different sources constantly. In this way the people
are brainwashed into believing this Truth/Lie. This is the technique
being used by the homosexual/AIDS/HIV activists.

Since I first heard of the disease around 1981, I have heard so many
conflicting stories about it. The first victims were mainly homosexual
men and the activists screamed about it being a plot by Ronald Reagan
and the CIA to eliminate gays. Then they demanded countless billions
of dollars to research the disease and accused Ronnie of withholding
funds because the victims were mainly homosexuals and blacks. Then
they began a campaign to increase their funding by producing PROPAGANDA
that told the public that everyone was EQUALLY at risk for AIDS. They
have even admitted to doing this to get more money. The actual result
was that the money was then spent EQUALLY on these groups so then the
activists started whining about how not ENOUGH money was being focused
on the homosexual community which was at greatest risk. Now it is
almost 20 years later and homosexuals still make up roughly half of
all new infections (bisexuals make up a significal fraction, also).
But if you have been reading the responses to my recent threads you will
see that there is a huge conspiracy to convince me that homosexuals are
not a high-risk group. Even though they are not DYING of AIDS because
of the new drugs, they still are contracting HIV as much as ever. But
I have been accused of Thought Crime for pointing this out. But I
guarantee that when next year's fiscal budget is being debated in
Congress, homosexuals will once again be dropping like flies according
to the activist groups and billions of dollars must be spent accordingly.

I think I have begun ranting and raving, but surely you must see my point
by now! There is no real truth when it comes to AIDS because it is such
a political hot topic. Therefore, everything I hear about it is nothing
more than communist propaganda because it seems to have no basis in
verifiable facts. I will end this with a quote from "1984".

Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00
to
"Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net> wrote in message
news:ANV85.3909$%J6.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...

<snip ramblings of a bigot>

For your education Diablo;

TITLE: Heterosexual anal intercourse: prevalence, cultural factors,
and HIV infection and other health risks, Part I.
AUTHORS: Halperin DT
AUTHOR AFFILIATION: International Center for HIV/AIDS Research and
Clinical Training in Nursing, University of California, San Francisco,
USA. dh...@itsa.ucsf.edu
SOURCE: AIDS Patient Care STDS. 1999 Dec;13(12):717-30.
SECONDARY SOURCE ID: MED/20207938
ABSTRACT: Studies of heterosexual HIV transmission have consistently
found anal intercourse to be a highly predictive risk factor for
seroconversion. Yet most AIDS prevention messages targeted at
heterosexuals, presumably influenced by cultural taboos against
acknowledging this sexual practice, continue to emphasize vaginal and,
increasingly, oral sex transmission. The health risks of anal sex
appear to be severely underestimated by a substantial proportion of
sexually active women and men in North and Latin America as well as
parts of South Asia, Africa, and other regions. Among heterosexuals
reported rates of condom use are nearly universally lower for anal
than for vaginal intercourse. This review examines anal sex among the
general population, including its prevalence in various world regions,
related sociocultural factors, and other associated health problems
including anorectal STDs, Hepatitis B infection, and HPV-related anal
cancer in women. U.S. survey and other data suggest that, in terms of
absolute numbers,
approximately seven times more women than homosexual men engage in
unprotected receptive anal intercourse.
Research among higher risk subpopulations, including bisexual men,
injecting drug users, female sex workers, inner-city adolescents, and
serodiscordant heterosexual couples, indicates that persons
particularly at risk of being infected by or transmitting HIV are also
more likely to practice anal sex. Considering this finding, along with
the much greater efficiency for HIV infection as well as lower rates
of condom usage, a significant proportion of heterosexual transmission
in some populations is due to anal intercourse. This typically
stigmatized and hidden sexual practice must be given greater emphasis
in AIDS/STD prevention, women's care, and other health promotion
programs.


GMCarter

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00
to
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 01:43:42 -0500, "Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net>
wrote:

snip...

>Perhaps you are a classic Marxist communist and are misinterpreting
>my use of the term "communism". I am not referring to the ideas
>of economics and class struggle that Marx described in his manifesto,
>rather I use the term to refer to any collection of Lies being
>presented as Truth by any sort of activist or advocacy groups.

Thank you Senator McCarthy!

Funny thing. One of the lies that get told are things like "Jews are
like rats." Der Ewige Jude. Or that homosexuality is evil and bad.
Teen suicides. These "truths" are not self-evident. They are rather
lies that cause great and profound harm for no other reason than hate.

George M. Carter


Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with
homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996 Aug;105(3):440-5.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively
heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual
individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men
(n=35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned
to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W.
W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually
explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual,
and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were
monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss
& M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile
circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only
the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male
homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the
homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.


Jim Gray

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00
to

Diablo wrote:


>
> Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD wrote:
> >I'm getting very tired of the misuse of the words "communist" and
> >"socialist". Please tell us exactly how communist propagandists have
> >addressed AIDS.
>

> Perhaps you are a classic Marxist communist and are misinterpreting
> my use of the term "communism". I am not referring to the ideas
> of economics and class struggle that Marx described in his manifesto,
> rather I use the term to refer to any collection of Lies being
> presented as Truth by any sort of activist or advocacy groups.

`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
-Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

Jim (misdirecting the king's horses and men) Gray

--
"Sin is cruelty and injustice, all else is pecadillo.
Oh, a sense of sin comes from violating the customs
of your tribe. But breaking customs is not sin even
when it feels so; sin is wronging another person."
-Robert A. Heinlein, "Glory Road"

Homepage! Homepage!
http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/PennTeddy/pttoybox.html

Screw the Corporations! Join the Alliance for Democracy!
http://afd-online.org/

gemini...@ink.net

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00
to
Diablo wrote:

-----snipped to indicate what i am responding to-----

> Is there a laboratory somewhere where they expose human beings to HIV
> virus in different ways and see if they contract it? No there isn't.
> That would be extremely unethical.

> Diablo

This is funny. There is no laboratory somewhere where they expose human
beings to "HIV" because that would be extremely unethical??? And you
don't think science is extremeley unethical??? OF COURSE SCIENCE IS
EXTREMELY UNETHICAL...or this newsgroup wouldn't need to exist!

Did you have open wounds on your foot? If you did not, (if you can
believe what the AIDS establishment says) you are probably not at risk
anyway. However, you are more likely to die from the stress of the test
and diagnosis combined with any unethical "treatment" you would get than
you would die from anything else. So calm down, chill out...and count
your blessings. Your relative WAS an unethical experiment...you don't
need to be one too.

...geminiwalker


--
To learn more about me, go to:
http://home.earthlink.net/~chuard
updated 5/20/2000
ICQ# 27240345

gemini...@ink.net

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00
to
Diablo wrote:

> I realize that a negative HIV test result would put my mind at ease

How could a negative HIV test put your mind at ease, if you believe the
claptrap about the incredibly growing latency period?

Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD

unread,
Jul 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/6/00
to
"Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net> wrote in message
news:ANV85.3909$%J6.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Rev. Dr Tim, McC, BsD wrote in message
<8jugm...@enews1.newsguy.com>...

> >I'm getting very tired of the misuse of the words "communist" and
> >"socialist". Please tell us exactly how communist propagandists have
> >addressed AIDS.
>
> Perhaps you are a classic Marxist communist and are misinterpreting
> my use of the term "communism". I am not referring to the ideas
> of economics and class struggle that Marx described in his manifesto,
> rather I use the term to refer to any collection of Lies being
> presented as Truth by any sort of activist or advocacy groups.

I don't think I've ever heard of that school of communism.

BTW, I'm not a Marxist, classic or otherwise.

Brian Mailman

unread,
Jul 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/7/00
to
gemini...@ink.net wrote:
>
> Diablo wrote:
>
> > I realize that a negative HIV test result would put my mind at ease
>
> How could a negative HIV test put your mind at ease, if you believe the
> claptrap about the incredibly growing latency period?

Because it's possible he could obtain a PCR and see whether or not he
actually has the virus, not whether his body has produced antibodies to
it. My two-bit diagnosis is his anger comes not so much from his cousin
but he's angry at himself for not doing what he knows he should.

While I definitely have some opinions about what he's expressed so far,
I'd like to see if there's some kind of sea change if he finds some
peace.

B/
Moderator, soc.support.aids-hiv+

Diablo

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to

Brian Mailman wrote in message <396646C5...@sfo.com>...

>Because it's possible he could obtain a PCR and see whether or not he
>actually has the virus, not whether his body has produced antibodies to
>it. My two-bit diagnosis is his anger comes not so much from his cousin
>but he's angry at himself for not doing what he knows he should.

I wouldn't even know where to obtain an anonymous PCR test, and even
if I could, why would I want to know that I am doomed to die a horrible,
painful, and incredibly disgusting death?!? I DON'T WANT the so-called
"treatment" for this virus! Life with HIV is not life, it is simply
being an animated corpse like a zombie. As I've said before, the ONLY
treatment that HIV+ people deserve is incineration in a gas oven! The
world would be so much better off if they could be exterminated or at
least thoroughly confined to maximum-security quarantine camps. If you
were to propose this to the world's uninfected population and tell them
that they could finally be free of this plague, I think they would
accept the idea of quarantine, no matter how expensive and difficult it
would be.

Why SHOULD I get a HIV test? No one else seems to bother, they just
keep buttfucking hundreds or more people per year, knowing full well
about the extent of the epidemic and that they are 99.999% likely to
already be infected. They don't give a shit about anyone else if they
don't even care about themselves! I have done everything I know to
avoid contracting this virus and that also means that I am not putting
anyone else at risk if what you are saying is really true about
ease of transmission. The only way I will ever submit to a HIV test
is if it is made mandatory and forced upon EVERYONE. Then I will
accept my fate and resign myself to the ovens or quarantine camp.

One final note, my relative has good reason for me to NOT be tested
and come out HIV+ ...

Diablo

Diablo

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
k wrote in message <#tqTufj6$GA.77@cpmsnbbsa08>...

>"Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net> wrote in message

>> I wouldn't even know where to obtain an anonymous PCR test, and even


>> if I could, why would I want to know that I am doomed to die a horrible,
>> painful, and incredibly disgusting death?!? I DON'T WANT the so-called
>> "treatment" for this virus! Life with HIV is not life, it is simply
>> being an animated corpse like a zombie.
>

>What a fucking lie.

Is it a lie? Why don't you infect yourself with HIV and see how great
your life becomes!

>> As I've said before, the ONLY treatment that HIV+ people deserve is
>> incineration in a gas oven!

>As the mom of an AIDS infected son, I find the above statement truly
>horrible and wish I believed in hell, so I could doom you to burn there.

I'm truly sorry to hear about your son. I know I make some extreme
statements at times, but as the Devil I have to stir up a bit of
trouble to get people to think! Whoever infected your son also infected
countless others. It may be horrifying to think about, but your son
most likely infected many others who are currently spreading this plague
like a wildfire. What would you suggest for someone with Ebola? Most
people think this is far worse than HIV, but it isn't. At least people
with Ebola die within a week or two, not long enough to infect many
others, especially since the symptoms appear so quickly and obviously.
The reason HIV has become a worldwide epidemic while Ebola has not is
because HIV is so silent and takes so long for symptoms to appear. An
average victim has at least 3-5 years to infect others, not 2 weeks!
And even after treatment begins, it is unlikely that their behavior will
change in the slightest. My HIV-infected relative was close to death
5 years ago shortly after the symptoms appeared. He had probably had
it for 4-5 years until then and I can't even count how many men he brought
home for sex in that time! He is now "alive" (or at least animated) 5
years later. He no longer lives with me so I don't know about his
sexual activities for certain, but I do know he visits the same gay bar
frequently. I have no reason to believe that he has changed his behavior
one bit, as far as I'm concerned the AIDS drugs have doubled the number
of people he has infected since 1990. He might "live" another 10 or 20
years, how many people will he infect before he dies?!?

Another topic I like to rant about is the assasination of the fashion
designer Versace by Andrew Cunanan a few years ago. Everyone condemned it
as a horrible "hate crime" until it was revealed that both killer and
victim were gay. At first it was believed that Cunanan had tested HIV+
and that was what set off his rampage. Then it was speculated that Versace
was the one who infected him. But in the end it was discovered that while
Versace was HIV+, Cunanan was really HIV-. But regardless of Cunanan's
HIV status, the fact remains that Versace was notorious for wild orgies
with hundreds of young men. By killing Versace, Cunanan stopped the chain
of infection. 3 years later countless young men are HIV-, or if they were
absolutely determined to contract HIV, they didn't get it from Versace!

There really is a Hell, and this is it!

Hail Satan!
Diablo el Devil


B.Dick Black

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
In article <rUca5.3611$B92....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "Diablo" says...

>
>
>Brian Mailman wrote in message <396646C5...@sfo.com>...
>
>>Because it's possible he could obtain a PCR and see whether or not he
>>actually has the virus, not whether his body has produced antibodies to
>>it. My two-bit diagnosis is his anger comes not so much from his cousin
>>but he's angry at himself for not doing what he knows he should.
>
>I wouldn't even know where to obtain an anonymous PCR test, and even
>if I could, why would I want to know that I am doomed to die a horrible,
>painful, and incredibly disgusting death?!? I DON'T WANT the so-called
>"treatment" for this virus! Life with HIV is not life, it is simply
>being an animated corpse like a zombie. As I've said before, the ONLY
>treatment that HIV+ people deserve is incineration in a gas oven! The
>world would be so much better off if they could be exterminated or at
>least thoroughly confined to maximum-security quarantine camps. If you
>were to propose this to the world's uninfected population and tell them
>that they could finally be free of this plague, I think they would
>accept the idea of quarantine, no matter how expensive and difficult it
>would be.

Why don't you try reading a book about it? Try reading "Inventing the AIDS
Virus" , by Peter Duesberg. Or check out his Website ,I find it at
WWW.Duesberg.com. Find out what got President Mbeki in an uproar, it might give
you pause.

>
>Why SHOULD I get a HIV test? No one else seems to bother, they just
>keep buttfucking hundreds or more people per year, knowing full well
>about the extent of the epidemic and that they are 99.999% likely to
>already be infected. They don't give a shit about anyone else if they
>don't even care about themselves! I have done everything I know to
>avoid contracting this virus and that also means that I am not putting
>anyone else at risk if what you are saying is really true about
>ease of transmission. The only way I will ever submit to a HIV test
>is if it is made mandatory and forced upon EVERYONE. Then I will
>accept my fate and resign myself to the ovens or quarantine camp.
>
>One final note, my relative has good reason for me to NOT be tested
>and come out HIV+ ...
>
>Diablo
>

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Whenever I see a picture of the General Assembly of the United Nations, I
wonder how many of the delegates are whacked on drugs." George Carlin


Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to

"Diablo" <dia...@rio.bravo.net> wrote in message
news:rUca5.3611$B92....@newsfeed.slurp.net...

>
> Brian Mailman wrote in message <396646C5...@sfo.com>...
>
> >Because it's possible he could obtain a PCR and see whether or not
he
> >actually has the virus, not whether his body has produced
antibodies to
> >it. My two-bit diagnosis is his anger comes not so much from his
cousin
> >but he's angry at himself for not doing what he knows he should.
>
> I wouldn't even know where to obtain an anonymous PCR test, and even
> if I could, why would I want to know that I am doomed to die a
horrible,
> painful, and incredibly disgusting death?!? I DON'T WANT the
so-called
> "treatment" for this virus! Life with HIV is not life, it is simply
> being an animated corpse like a zombie. As I've said before, the
ONLY
> treatment that HIV+ people deserve is incineration in a gas oven!

Ah so that's why you don't want to get tested because you would then
have to walk yourself into the ovens is that it? You need counseling
man, your so conflicted by this issue that you would rather die a much
more horrible death from untreated AIDS then put up with some side
effects and be able to live an almost normal life for years, HAART
works and it works well, your single experience with a cousin who
sounds to be as messed up mentally as your are is not what you should
be basing your opinion on anti-retroviral treatment on.

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

> The


> world would be so much better off if they could be exterminated or
at
> least thoroughly confined to maximum-security quarantine camps. If
you
> were to propose this to the world's uninfected population and tell
them
> that they could finally be free of this plague, I think they would
> accept the idea of quarantine, no matter how expensive and difficult
it
> would be.
>

Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to

"B.Dick Black" <B.Dick...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:8kc15p$2q...@drn.newsguy.com...

> In article <rUca5.3611$B92....@newsfeed.slurp.net>, "Diablo"
says...
> >
> >
> >Brian Mailman wrote in message <396646C5...@sfo.com>...
> >
> >>Because it's possible he could obtain a PCR and see whether or not
he
> >>actually has the virus, not whether his body has produced
antibodies to
> >>it. My two-bit diagnosis is his anger comes not so much from his
cousin
> >>but he's angry at himself for not doing what he knows he should.
> >
> >I wouldn't even know where to obtain an anonymous PCR test, and
even
> >if I could, why would I want to know that I am doomed to die a
horrible,
> >painful, and incredibly disgusting death?!? I DON'T WANT the
so-called
> >"treatment" for this virus! Life with HIV is not life, it is
simply
> >being an animated corpse like a zombie. As I've said before, the
ONLY
> >treatment that HIV+ people deserve is incineration in a gas oven!
The
> >world would be so much better off if they could be exterminated or
at
> >least thoroughly confined to maximum-security quarantine camps. If
you
> >were to propose this to the world's uninfected population and tell
them
> >that they could finally be free of this plague, I think they would
> >accept the idea of quarantine, no matter how expensive and
difficult it
> >would be.
>
> Why don't you try reading a book about it? Try reading "Inventing
the AIDS
> Virus" , by Peter Duesberg. Or check out his Website ,I find it at
> WWW.Duesberg.com. Find out what got President Mbeki in an uproar,
it might give
> you pause.

If you want to read a poorly written work of fiction go ahead and read
Peter's book if you want the truth, read The Pathology of Aids, By
Edward C. Klatt, Department of Pathology University of Utah. You can
read this online at
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/AIDS2000.PDF or Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome , by Scientific American available at
http://www.samed.com/sam/chapters/07/0711.htm.

B.Dick Black

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
>>
>> Why don't you try reading a book about it? Try reading "Inventing
>the AIDS
>> Virus" , by Peter Duesberg. Or check out his Website ,I find it at
>> WWW.Duesberg.com. Find out what got President Mbeki in an uproar,
>it might give
>> you pause.
>
>If you want to read a poorly written work of fiction go ahead and read
>Peter's book if you want the truth, read The Pathology of Aids, By
>Edward C. Klatt, Department of Pathology University of Utah. You can
>read this online at
>http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/AIDS2000.PDF or Acquired
>Immunodeficiency Syndrome , by Scientific American available at
>http://www.samed.com/sam/chapters/07/0711.htm.
>--
>Gary Stein
>ges...@starpower.net
>http://www.mischealthaids.org
>

Okay maybe I'll check it out, but do you want to explain to me why you think
Duesberg's book is a piece of fiction?

Gary Stein

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to

"B.Dick Black" <B.Dick...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:8kck03$p...@drn.newsguy.com...

Duesburg has not done any meaningful research on HIV/AIDS, most of the
citations he lists as supporting his case end up not doing so if you
take the time to look them up and read the papers that he cites, his
claims that clotting factor use caused HIV/AIDS in the hemophiliac
community is pure hogwash and no evidence exists that supports that
hypotheses. His claims that KS is caused by popper use is also not
backed up by any scientifically valid evidence.

His claim that AZT causes AIDS is completely ridiculous, in that it
completely ignores the thousands who died of AIDS in the US prior to
AZT's availability and the fact that it is still one of the most
commonly used anti-retroviral medications. He grossly misrepresents
the numbers of people who are immune suppressed yet HIV- (Peter claims
tens of thousands, the CDC did an exhaustive search in the US and
found less the 300 most of which did not suffer from anywhere near as
profound a suppression of the immune system as that seen in AIDS
patients), His claims that there is no evidence that anti-retroviral
treatment is effective is a complete lie.

It is my opinion that Doctor Duesburg is a bigot who wants to find
reasons to blame HIV/AIDS on gays and drug users and who completely
ignores evidence that contradicts his theories on the subject of
HIV/AIDS. His mind seems to be stuck in the early to mid 80's and the
data that was available then, completely ignoring all the advancements
made in the last 5 years or so.

If you want to read some other critics of his work take a look at;
http://www.mischealthaids.org/HIV-Exist.htm
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/all.htm
http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol3Issue1/editorial.html
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/MACS+WIHS.htm
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/default.htm
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/23.htm
http://www.harmsen.net/heal/annex/haartlancet.html
http://hiv.medscape.com/SCP/DBT/1999/v11.n12/d5248.slom/d5248.slom-01.
html

The following was written my Carlton Hogan when faced with a similar
question to yours and to save time I repost it here. Duesburg claims
that HIV can not cause disease yet makes no effort to explain away
that fact that viral load clearly and incredibly accurately predicts
health and mortality in HIV/AIDS patients. The fact is PCR results DO
predict mortality and morbidity to make that clear take a look at the
following studies;

1. Mellors, O'Brien, and other authors have clearly shown that in
large cohorts, patient's HIV RNA levels are the single greatest
predictor of opportunistic infection and death, followed closely by
CD4 count. These results have been replicated at least a hundred times
in different populations, treated and untreated. Hammer and others
have shown that
HIV RNA decline upon initiating treatment is a good measure of reduced
risk

2) Cameron et al showed that adding Ritonavir to antiviral regimens
(and _not_ exclusing the nucleosides, as some misinformed "dissidents"
claim) reduced OI and death by 50%. In three separate, but virtually
identical studies by Hammer, Saravolitz, and the Delta Coordinnating
Commitee, a substantial clinical benefit (reduction in OI and death)
was seen when ddI or ddC was added to AZT. Similarly, the CAESAR trial
showed a dramatic decrease in OI and death when 3tc was added to AZT.

I am very curious as to any alternative explanations you might have
for this data in that Duesburg has never addressed any of these
issues. Bear in mind that all the antiviral studies I have cited are
randomized, controlled clinical trials, non-industry-funded, and
monitored by independent data and safety monitoring boards. (with the
exception of Cameron, which was done in an independent academic
setting, but funded by Abbott)

In regards to the Mellors et al edata: In other words, if you divided
people up by their HIV-RNA at some point in the past,
the ones with the highest HIV RNA will have the most, and the quickest
infections and death today. Those with the second highest will do
next to worst, and so on. And it doesn't matter how you divide people
up or how many groups you form (subject to reasonable limits). This
has NOTHING to do with whether HIV has been isolated, the relevant
virology,
etc. This is a pure phenomena. Your HIV RNA today tells you what your
risk tomorrow is. And it gets better. People starting antiretroviral
treatment have their HIV RNA drop. The degree to which their HIV-RNA
drops predicts
how much their risk of infection and death.

So my question to you is, if HIV-RNA isn't measuring virus, what then
is it measuring, and why does it predict later health so well? And,
all due consideration to Mullis' claims about PCR, in fact there are
several different ways of measuring HIV levels, including PCR, bDNA,
NASBA, and quantitative co-culture. And all these tests agree
remarkably well. If HIV doesn't existm then why do these very
different tests coincidentally manage to measure the same thing, which
is
clearly tied to later health?

TITLE:
Prognosis in HIV-1 infection predicted by the quantity of virus
in plasma [see comments] [published erratum appears in Science 1997
Jan
3;275(5296):14]
AUTHORS:
Mellors JW; Rinaldo CR Jr; Gupta P; White RM;
Todd JA; Kingsley LA
AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
Department of Medicine, School
of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh 15213, USA.
SOURCE:
Science. 1996
May 24;272(5265):1167-70.

TITLE:
Serum HIV-1 RNA levels and time to development of AIDS in the
Multicenter Hemophilia Cohort Study [see comments]
AUTHORS:
O'Brien TR;
Blattner WA; Waters D; Eyster E; Hilgartner MW; Cohen AR; Luban N;
Hatzakis A; Aledort LM; Rosenberg PS; Miley WJ; Kroner BL; Goedert JJ
AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
Viral Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer
Institute, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
SOURCE:
JAMA. 1996 Jul
10;276(2):105-10.

TITLE:
Changes in plasma HIV RNA levels and CD4+ lymphocyte counts
predict both response to antiretroviral therapy and therapeutic
failure.
VA Cooperative Study Group on AIDS [see comments]
AUTHORS:
O'Brien WA;
Hartigan PM; Daar ES; Simberkoff MS; Hamilton JD
AUTHOR AFFILIATION:

West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, California, USA.

SOURCE:
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Jun 15;126(12):939-45.

TITLE:
Plasma viral load and CD4+ lymphocytes as prognostic markers of
HIV-1 infection [see comments]
AUTHORS:
Mellors JW; Munoz A; Giorgi JV;
Margolick JB; Tassoni CJ; Gupta P; Kingsley LA; Todd JA; Saah AJ;
Detels
R; Phair JP; Rinaldo CR Jr
AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
School of Public Health,
University of Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA.
SOURCE:
Ann Intern Med. 1997
Jun 15;126(12):946-54.

TITLE:
Delta: a randomised double-blind controlled trial comparing
combinations of zidovudine plus didanosine or zalcitabine with
zidovudine alone in HIV-infected individuals. Delta Coordinating
Committee [see comments] [published erratum appears in Lancet 1996 Sep
21;348(9030):834]
SOURCE:
Lancet. 1996 Aug 3;348(9023):283-91.

TITLE:
Longitudinal HIV-1 RNA levels in a cohort of homosexual men.

AUTHORS:
O'Brien TR; Rosenberg PS; Yellin F; Goedert JJ AUTHOR
AFFILIATION: Viral Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute,
Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Rockville, Maryland 20852, USA.
SOURCE:
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum
Retrovirol. 1998 Jun 1;18(2):155-61.

TITLE:
Randomised placebo-controlled trial of ritonavir in advanced
HIV-1 disease. The Advanced HIV Disease Ritonavir Study Group [see
comments]
AUTHORS:
Cameron DW; Heath-Chiozzi M; Danner S; Cohen C;
Kravcik S; Maurath C; Sun E; Henry D; Rode R; Potthoff A; Leonard J

AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
General Hospital, Canada.
SOURCE:
Lancet. 1998 Feb 21;351(9102):543-9.

TITLE:
A trial comparing nucleoside monotherapy with combination therapy
in HIV-infected adults with CD4 cell counts from 200 to 500 per cubic
millimeter. AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study 175 Study Team [see
comments]
AUTHORS:
Hammer SM; Katzenstein DA; Hughes MD; Gundacker H;
Schooley RT; Haubrich RH; Henry WK; Lederman MM; Phair JP; Niu M;
Hirsch
MS; Merigan TC
AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
02215, USA.
SOURCE:
N Engl J Med. 1996 Oct 10;335(15):1081-90.

TITLE:
A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in
persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and CD4 cell
counts
of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320
Study Team [see comments]
AUTHORS:
Hammer SM; Squires KE; Hughes MD;
Grimes JM; Demeter LM; Currier JS; Eron JJ Jr; Feinberg JE; Balfour HH
Jr; Deyton LR; Chodakewitz JA; Fischl MA
AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
Harvard
Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
SOURCE:
N Engl J Med. 1997 Sep
11;337(11):725-33.

TITLE:
The relation of virologic and immunologic markers to clinical
outcomes after nucleoside therapy in HIV-infected adults with 200 to
500
CD4 cells per cubic millimeter. AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study 175
Virology Study Team [see comments] [published erratum appears in N
Engl
J Med 1997 Oct 9;337(15):1097]
AUTHORS:
Katzenstein DA; Hammer SM;
Hughes MD; Gundacker H; Jackson JB; Fiscus S; Rasheed S; Elbeik T;
Reichman R; Japour A; Merigan TC; Hirsch MS
AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
Stanford
University Medical Center, CA 94305, USA.
SOURCE:
N Engl J Med. 1996 Oct
10;335(15):1091-8.

TITLE:
A randomized, comparative trial of ZDV versus ZDV plus ddI versus
ZDV plus ddC in persons with CD4 cell counts of less than 200/mm3.

AUTHORS:
Saravolatz LD; Collins G; Hodges D; Winslow D; Pettinelli C

AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
Infectious Diseases Division, Henry Ford Hospital,
Detroit, MI. Fax: (313) 876-2993.
SOURCE:
Int Conf AIDS. 1996 Jul
7-12;11(1):21 (abstract no. Mo.B.291).

TITLE:
A randomized, comparative trial of ZDV versus ZDV plus ddI versus
ZDV plus ddC in persons with CD4 cell counts of less than 200/mm3.

AUTHORS:
Saravolatz L; Collins G; Hodges J; Winslow D AUTHOR
AFFILIATION: NIAID, Bethesda, Maryland.
SOURCE:
Conf Retroviruses
Opportunistic Infect. 1996 Jan 28-Feb 1;3rd:161.

TITLE:
Prognostic value of viral load determinations.
AUTHORS:
Mellors JW
AUTHOR AFFILIATION:
University of Pittsburgh and the Veterans
Administration Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
SOURCE:
Conf Retroviruses Opportunistic Infect. 1996 Jan 28-Feb 1;3rd:174

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea

Nick Bennett

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to

On 10 Jul 2000, Ron Gibson wrote:

>
> ..Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level
> and then beat you with experience.


LOL

Good one.

Bennett :o)


Delucaicmj

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
Oh Diablo---whenever I feel that things are bad I look for one of your postings
to remind me they could be worse. You are like the Jerry Springer Show of the
newsgroup! You truly are a dumbass. I am a lesbian, which would put me into
your category of the immoral AIDS spreading 10% of the population. I for one
don't take it up the shitter, just a preference I guess. My girlfriend and I
are also wondering why anyone would defacate all over a bathroom and leave
bloody rags laying about whether there was disease present or not. What kind of
a household were you raised in that such basic sanitary conditions were not
maintained? Its no wonder you are such a whacko! I feel more pity for you now
than I did before. And if you get tested or not doesn't mean that you will or
won't live like a walking zombie. I hope if you are sexually active, god help
the poor creature that would consent to such activity with you, that you
practice safe sex, because idiots like you are more likely to pass STDs to
women than immoral homosexuals like myself are likely to! You never cease to
remind me how stupid people can be.

Brian Mailman

unread,
Jul 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/10/00
to
Diablo wrote:
>
> Brian Mailman wrote in message <396646C5...@sfo.com>...
>
> >Because it's possible he could obtain a PCR and see whether or not he
> >actually has the virus, not whether his body has produced antibodies to
> >it.

> I wouldn't even know where to obtain an anonymous PCR test, and even


> if I could, why would I want to know that I am doomed to die a horrible,
> painful, and incredibly disgusting death?!?

Think of it this way--if you have a grand piano falling on you from the
25th floor, you're going to get squashed whether you know about it or
not. Do you want it to hit you without notice, or do you want to look
up and maybe even be able to take some preventive measures?

> I DON'T WANT the so-called "treatment" for this virus!

Your choice. Should you test postive you're in control of what you do.
Treatment or no treatment, western or complementary/alternative. Nobody
would force you to do anything you didn't want to do. But I would think
the first step in making an informed choice is to become informed.

B/

B.Dick black

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
In article <8kcp5s$sh5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Gary says...

Duesburg is a Professor of Molecular Biology at the U.C Berkeley,Calif. And was
a prominant scientist before he came out with his views against the HIV/AIDS
establishment in this Country. He's indicated in his book that since then his
been ignored and Blackballed in the scientific community. He's indicated that
he's loss funding for research about AIDS. It's no wonder he hasn't done any
meaningful research..WHO's giving out the money for Grants for this type of
research? I think its mostly Pharmaceuticals.

Its been a long time since I argued about Hemophilia and HIV, I'm not a medical
person, I'm just a hack. But I argued about that topic with the Dr. Harris and
Dr. Holtzman years ago and I forget the particulars. But it was something like..
....hemophiliacs without HIV get a form immunodeciency disease ( this had to do
with something called "factor VIII") And Harris would say that...yeah they got
a disease but it wasn't AIDS.... Meantime since I last talked about this there
was a big scandal in Japan concerning this topic, and now there seems to be a
lively debate about it here.

I think Duesberg was "on-the-Mark" about his correlating KS/AIDS in the Gay
community with the use of Amyl Nitrate and other "Poppers". When the Use of
poppers when down, so did the incidence of KS=AIDS. Nowdays you don't here much
about KS/ AIDS these days, neither do you hear much about the use of Poppers.
The last time I heard about this issue ..Karposi's Sarcoma had been taken off
the CDC's list of AIDS related illnesses.

The truth of this fact is one good mark against the case of HIV has the sole
cause of AIDS. Duesberg makes many sush cases like this in his book.

>
>His claim that AZT causes AIDS is completely ridiculous, in that it
>completely ignores the thousands who died of AIDS in the US prior to
>AZT's availability and the fact that it is still one of the most
>commonly used anti-retroviral medications.

Well I don't think he claims AZT causes AIDS, I think he says that AZT may have
largely contributed for death in individuals with the HIV.
There have been studies done to confirm this.

Saying AZT is an anti-retroviral drug, is like saying "Arsenic" is a
Pain-Killer.I mean Arsenic might work as a painkiller if you take it in small
doses over a period of time. But aspirin might work also.

AZT was originally prescribed has a chemo-therapy drug, because it stops cell
growth! The ultimate anti-biotic, because it stops the multiplication of
retro-viruses by halting host cell division in the human body.

Anyway I'm sure everyone in this forum will attest to the fact that AZT is a
very toxic drug, Duesberg makes the point that if you take enough of this drug
over a period of time it will kill you. AIDS patients on AZT will simply weaken
and die, becoming vunerable to the very syndrome they are trying to cure.


He grossly misrepresents
>the numbers of people who are immune suppressed yet HIV- (Peter claims
>tens of thousands, the CDC did an exhaustive search in the US and
>found less the 300 most of which did not suffer from anywhere near as
>profound a suppression of the immune system as that seen in AIDS
>patients)

A number he also mentions was about 430 or 464. the number of people infected
with AIDS without HIV.


, His claims that there is no evidence that anti-retroviral
>treatment is effective is a complete lie.

Well, if their are using drugs like AZT to stop AIDS, I would think that
Duesberg is probably not too far from the truth.

>
>It is my opinion that Doctor Duesburg is a bigot who wants to find
>reasons to blame HIV/AIDS on gays and drug users and who completely
>ignores evidence that contradicts his theories on the subject of
>HIV/AIDS. His mind seems to be stuck in the early to mid 80's and the
>data that was available then, completely ignoring all the advancements
>made in the last 5 years or so.

I don't think Duesberg is a bigot who hates gays, if you read his book you'd
know that. But Like you I'm waiting to hear more from Duesberg, his book is a
little outdated now, but many of the ideas in it are not. And still have yet to
be addressed.

I'm not gay, but I had a family relative die of "AIDS" a while back. She wasn't
homosexual either, she was basically a good person up until, she got in a bad
way, and started Smoking COCAINE and whoring, and god knows what else.

I'm basically homophobic, and I still believe that if god intend man to be with
man , he would have created Adam and Steve. But I have and had alittle probelm
believing that AIDS is a plague from God. The universe is a big place, and I 'm
sure God is a busy being, why would he invest in the suffering of man. And what
did my Aunt do to deserve his wrath? Surely god is interested in the well-being
of all his creatures, and wants them to prosper.

So what was AIDS about?..Was it all for Pat Roberterson, so he could declare
that AIDS was God wrath to humanity for being disobedient is that a reason to
kill gays?

One day I happened to pick up a book about AIDS. "Inventing the AIDS Virus". It
was a good read, intriguing. I was so intrigued I even went up to U.C Berkeley
to meet Mr. Duesberg. It answered some questions for me, like Does God create a
plague like AIDS to torment man.

And I think the answer is mostly no, I think god has better things to do, and
its mostly US that's causing most of the suffering here on Earth.

Duesberg puts alot of holes in HIV/AIDS theories, and points out alot of
political, personal intrigues to make you realize.. that there is some room for
doubt on account of man in the HIV/AIDS question. How much of HIV/AIDS theory
is conjecture, and speculation?

You say Peter's book is mostly fiction...I hope you are wrong.

Snipped for sanity...

I rather play chess....

Nick Bennett

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

On 11 Jul 2000, B.Dick black wrote:

Okay - a few points here and there that need addressing.

>
> I think Duesberg was "on-the-Mark" about his correlating KS/AIDS in
> the Gay community with the use of Amyl Nitrate and other "Poppers".

He was "on the mark" in that he found a correlation, which was later found
to be due to confounding, between poppers and sex (poppers being used as
an aphrodiasiac and relaxant). He was half-right, and for some reason
refused to accept that it could have been a confounder.

> When the Use of poppers when down, so did the incidence of KS=AIDS.
> Nowdays you don't here much about KS/ AIDS these days, neither do you
> hear much about the use of Poppers. The last time I heard about this
> issue ..Karposi's Sarcoma had been taken off the CDC's list of AIDS
> related illnesses.
>

Nope - not true at all.

> The truth of this fact is one good mark against the case of HIV has the sole
> cause of AIDS. Duesberg makes many sush cases like this in his book.
>

None of which really bear up to scrutiny, or even a vague knowledge of the
facts in some cases. He argues well, but using either faulty of
incomplete facts.

>
> Well I don't think he claims AZT causes AIDS,

Hmmm...that's now how I read his work.

I think he says that AZT
> may have largely contributed for death in individuals with the HIV.
> There have been studies done to confirm this.
>

LOL! Not at all. AZT has been shown time and again to be helpful as
either monotherapy (temporarally) or as combination therapy (for much
longer periods of usefullness) with other related drugs and protease
inhibitors.

> Saying AZT is an anti-retroviral drug, is like saying "Arsenic" is a
> Pain-Killer.I mean Arsenic might work as a painkiller if you take it
> in small doses over a period of time. But aspirin might work also.

????

>
> AZT was originally prescribed has a chemo-therapy drug, because it
> stops cell growth!

ARRGGHHH!!!!

NONONONONONONONO! Duesberg THINKS it stops cells growth. He _argues_
that because it's a chain terminator is should do this. IT DOES NOT! The
in-vitro testing of AZT prior to ANY KIND OF PRESCRIBING showed it to be
INACTIVE as an anticancer drug. Duesberg interprets the halting of the
trials to be due to toxicity, but this is NOT mentioned in the articles he
cites to support his case, rather it says that the drug was simple
ineffective. There have been several posts in the past here, once of
which included a letter from one of the original testers of AZT stating
that it was ineffective in vitro and in vivo as an anticancer agent.


The ultimate anti-biotic, because it stops the
> multiplication of retro-viruses by halting host cell division in the
> human body.
>

You have been very seriously misinformed.

> Anyway I'm sure everyone in this forum will attest to the fact that
> AZT is a very toxic drug,

But not as toxic as some, and not toxic in the way that it is said to be.

Duesberg makes the point that if you take
> enough of this drug over a period of time it will kill you. AIDS
> patients on AZT will simply weaken and die, becoming vunerable to the
> very syndrome they are trying to cure.
>

Then why can this happen without AZT? Why are people STILL presenting to
doctors with AIDS who have not taken AZT ever? Why when they are put on
AZT do they improve their immune responses and overall health?

> Well, if their are using drugs like AZT to stop AIDS, I would think that
> Duesberg is probably not too far from the truth.

Not at all - the fact that these drugs actually help people (and that's a
fact, not some theoretical hand-waving like the AZT-kills-cells idea) is
in direct opposition to Duesberg's theory.

> I don't think Duesberg is a bigot who hates gays, if you read his book
> you'd know that. But Like you I'm waiting to hear more from Duesberg,
> his book is a little outdated now, but many of the ideas in it are
> not. And still have yet to be addressed.

They have been, or were non-issues in the first place.

<snip other issues>
> I rather play chess....

Hmmm...now there's an idea :o)

Bennett


B.Dick Black

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000711...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, Nick
says...

>
>
>
>On 11 Jul 2000, B.Dick black wrote:
>
>Okay - a few points here and there that need addressing.
>
>>
>> I think Duesberg was "on-the-Mark" about his correlating KS/AIDS in
>> the Gay community with the use of Amyl Nitrate and other "Poppers".
>
>He was "on the mark" in that he found a correlation, which was later found
>to be due to confounding, between poppers and sex (poppers being used as
>an aphrodiasiac and relaxant). He was half-right, and for some reason
>refused to accept that it could have been a confounder.


You mean Co-factor right....So you are admitting there might be another factors
at work for AIDS besides HIV?

>
>> When the Use of poppers when down, so did the incidence of KS=AIDS.
>> Nowdays you don't here much about KS/ AIDS these days, neither do you
>> hear much about the use of Poppers. The last time I heard about this
>> issue ..Karposi's Sarcoma had been taken off the CDC's list of AIDS
>> related illnesses.
>>
>

>Nope - not true at all.

Well the last I talked about it ,others said that was true. I think Duesberg
says this. I may be mistaken, Perhaps someone else could attest to this fact.
Anyway KS isn't seen much any more in relation to HIV/AIDS.

>
>> The truth of this fact is one good mark against the case of HIV has the sole
>> cause of AIDS. Duesberg makes many sush cases like this in his book.
>>
>

>None of which really bear up to scrutiny, or even a vague knowledge of the
>facts in some cases. He argues well, but using either faulty of
>incomplete facts.

In his book, Peter Duesberg, talks about some very sound principles, time tested
in Medicine...He talks about Koch's Postulates for infectious diseases, He talks
about how some cancer research is being done, he talks about how research is
funded.

Somestimes I think it is modern science that is trying to re-invent the wheel
to much, possibly missing the obvious answers.

>
>>
>> Well I don't think he claims AZT causes AIDS,
>

>Hmmm...that's now how I read his work.

Well Peter's arguement there does get pretty close to being circular.


>
>I think he says that AZT
>> may have largely contributed for death in individuals with the HIV.
>> There have been studies done to confirm this.
>>
>

>LOL! Not at all. AZT has been shown time and again to be helpful as
>either monotherapy (temporarally) or as combination therapy (for much
>longer periods of usefullness) with other related drugs and protease
>inhibitors.

But AZT is also a toxic drug ,and may have been responsible for alot of deaths
at least in the early days of the "epidemic". The was a study talked about often
here, called the "Concorde study"..that showed a higher correlation of AIDS
deaths ,when patients where treated with just AZT, as compared to other
therapies.

>
>> Saying AZT is an anti-retroviral drug, is like saying "Arsenic" is a
>> Pain-Killer.I mean Arsenic might work as a painkiller if you take it
>> in small doses over a period of time. But aspirin might work also.
>

>????

>
>>
>> AZT was originally prescribed has a chemo-therapy drug, because it
>> stops cell growth!
>

>ARRGGHHH!!!!
>
>NONONONONONONONO! Duesberg THINKS it stops cells growth. He _argues_
>that because it's a chain terminator is should do this. IT DOES NOT! The
>in-vitro testing of AZT prior to ANY KIND OF PRESCRIBING showed it to be
>INACTIVE as an anticancer drug. Duesberg interprets the halting of the
>trials to be due to toxicity, but this is NOT mentioned in the articles he
>cites to support his case, rather it says that the drug was simple
>ineffective. There have been several posts in the past here, once of
>which included a letter from one of the original testers of AZT stating
>that it was ineffective in vitro and in vivo as an anticancer agent.

Let me just ask you.

Was AZT prescribed primarily has a Anti-Cancer drug?

How do Anti-Cancer drugs work, are they Anti-viral in nature?

IS AZT a DNA chain terminator?


Well look if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck its a duck. here I will
agree correlation does equal caussation.

>
>
>The ultimate anti-biotic, because it stops the
>> multiplication of retro-viruses by halting host cell division in the
>> human body.
>>
>

>You have been very seriously misinformed.

No sir I think you are.

>
>> Anyway I'm sure everyone in this forum will attest to the fact that
>> AZT is a very toxic drug,
>

>But not as toxic as some, and not toxic in the way that it is said to be.

As far popular prescribed drugs for AIDS go, AZT seems to be the most toxic. The
chief differance is the Anemia that is associated with AZT.

My guess has to why AIDS patient used to have so many probelms with anemia in
regards to AZT therapy..is that the AZT was interferring in their bodies
production of Red blood cells.



>
> Duesberg makes the point that if you take
>> enough of this drug over a period of time it will kill you. AIDS
>> patients on AZT will simply weaken and die, becoming vunerable to the
>> very syndrome they are trying to cure.
>>
>

>Then why can this happen without AZT? Why are people STILL presenting to
>doctors with AIDS who have not taken AZT ever? Why when they are put on
>AZT do they improve their immune responses and overall health?

No one said AZT causes AIDS. But it seems that the general idea of using of
using a DNA Chain Terminator; a Drug used in chemo-therapy albeit anti-viral
drug; AZT, wouldn't be very useful in a patient suffering in the throes of a
immune deficiency disease. Because of the nature AZT, in regular doses the drug
would just weaken the patient further, making him/her more suceptable to the
very diseases the doctors are trying to cure. I think that was the main point
Duesberg was trying to make.

A Study much quoted "here, the "Concorde Study" here seems to confirm that fact.


>
>> Well, if their are using drugs like AZT to stop AIDS, I would think that
>> Duesberg is probably not too far from the truth.
>

>Not at all - the fact that these drugs actually help people (and that's a
>fact, not some theoretical hand-waving like the AZT-kills-cells idea) is
>in direct opposition to Duesberg's theory.

Well I suppose if you give AZT in small doses, you could kill the cells HIV
inhabits, there-by slowing the advancement of the disease, (AIDS).

It was Luc montainger, the co-discover of HIV who said something like.

" Were still trying to find answers for this disease, and there's alot we don't
know. One shouldn't discount the effect the mind plays in this disease."

Duesberg disputes the idea that HIV is the virus responsible for AIDS, and he
may be well right, that at least in the early days OF AZT therapy.In trying to
halt or slow the progression of AIDS...AZT may have been responsible for most of
the AIDS deaths , than HIV by destroying to many of the host cells.

>
>> I don't think Duesberg is a bigot who hates gays, if you read his book
>> you'd know that. But Like you I'm waiting to hear more from Duesberg,
>> his book is a little outdated now, but many of the ideas in it are
>> not. And still have yet to be addressed.
>

>They have been, or were non-issues in the first place.

Obvisiously its not an non issue to people like President Mbeki, of South
Africa, who should be concerned , lest his people get involved in some large
scale experiments sponsored the the U.S Government.


>
><snip other issues>
>> I rather play chess....
>
>Hmmm...now there's an idea :o)
>
>Bennett
>

________________________________________________________________________________

Gary Stein

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

"B.Dick Black" <B.Dick...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:8kfmlp$13...@drn.newsguy.com...

> In article
<Pine.SOL.4.21.000711...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, Nick
> says...
> >
> >
> >
> >On 11 Jul 2000, B.Dick black wrote:
> >
> >Okay - a few points here and there that need addressing.
> >
> >>
> >> I think Duesberg was "on-the-Mark" about his correlating KS/AIDS
in
> >> the Gay community with the use of Amyl Nitrate and other
"Poppers".
> >
> >He was "on the mark" in that he found a correlation, which was
later found
> >to be due to confounding, between poppers and sex (poppers being
used as
> >an aphrodiasiac and relaxant). He was half-right, and for some
reason
> >refused to accept that it could have been a confounder.
>
>
> You mean Co-factor right....So you are admitting there might be
another factors
> at work for AIDS besides HIV?

No he meant "confounder" a data point that confuses the issue by
showing correlation yet has no effect on causation.


>
> >
> >> When the Use of poppers when down, so did the incidence of
KS=AIDS.
> >> Nowdays you don't here much about KS/ AIDS these days, neither do
you
> >> hear much about the use of Poppers. The last time I heard about
this
> >> issue ..Karposi's Sarcoma had been taken off the CDC's list of
AIDS
> >> related illnesses.
> >>
> >
> >Nope - not true at all.
>
> Well the last I talked about it ,others said that was true. I think
Duesberg
> says this. I may be mistaken, Perhaps someone else could attest to
this fact.
> Anyway KS isn't seen much any more in relation to HIV/AIDS.

It is still listed on the CDC site at
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm as part of
the AIDS defining list.


>
> >
> >> The truth of this fact is one good mark against the case of HIV
has the sole
> >> cause of AIDS. Duesberg makes many sush cases like this in his
book.
> >>
> >
> >None of which really bear up to scrutiny, or even a vague knowledge
of the
> >facts in some cases. He argues well, but using either faulty of
> >incomplete facts.
>
> In his book, Peter Duesberg, talks about some very sound principles,
time tested
> in Medicine...He talks about Koch's Postulates for infectious
diseases, He talks
> about how some cancer research is being done, he talks about how
research is
> funded.

Yes and he incorrectly says that Koch's Postulates have not been met
for HIV, he complains about being denied funding and says that is
because he has unpopular ideas but never admits that he has not
applied for funding for HIV research in years.

Yes and Duesburg misinterpreted the Concorde study completely, the
letter from one of the main investigators to Peter has been published
here on MHA and that letter fully answered all of Peters questions and
showed were he was incorrect in his interpretation of the studies
results. Duesburg also claimed that AZT was an a anti-cancer drug, a
letter from the scientist who first studied AZT has also been
published here on MHA in which he clearly states that AZT was never
used as chemo therapy in fact the very properties that allows AZT to
work as an antiretroviral med prevent it from being useful as an
anticancer drug. Duesburg gets so many things like this wrong it
amazes me that people still think he is a credible source of
information on HIV/AIDS issues.

AZT is to this day still the single most widly used of the available
antivirals if it was as toxic as you seem to think don't you suppose
that would be very apparent by now?


>
> >
> >> Saying AZT is an anti-retroviral drug, is like saying "Arsenic"
is a
> >> Pain-Killer.I mean Arsenic might work as a painkiller if you take
it
> >> in small doses over a period of time. But aspirin might work
also.
> >
> >????
>
> >
> >>
> >> AZT was originally prescribed has a chemo-therapy drug, because
it
> >> stops cell growth!

See above AZT has never been prescribed as chemo-therapy it was tested
to see if it would have any potential as chemo therapy for cancer
years before it was first used as an antiretroviral and the
investigator found that it was totally ineffective as an anti cancer
drug.

> >
> >ARRGGHHH!!!!
> >
> >NONONONONONONONO! Duesberg THINKS it stops cells growth. He
_argues_
> >that because it's a chain terminator is should do this. IT DOES
NOT! The
> >in-vitro testing of AZT prior to ANY KIND OF PRESCRIBING showed it
to be
> >INACTIVE as an anticancer drug. Duesberg interprets the halting of
the
> >trials to be due to toxicity, but this is NOT mentioned in the
articles he
> >cites to support his case, rather it says that the drug was simple
> >ineffective. There have been several posts in the past here, once
of
> >which included a letter from one of the original testers of AZT
stating
> >that it was ineffective in vitro and in vivo as an anticancer
agent.
>
> Let me just ask you.
>
> Was AZT prescribed primarily has a Anti-Cancer drug?

See above no it was not.


>
> How do Anti-Cancer drugs work, are they Anti-viral in nature?

No they are not. Anti-Cancer drugs to be effective need to be able to
attack very specfic cell types only, anti-virals on the other hand
tend to have a much broader range of targets.


>
> IS AZT a DNA chain terminator?

In vitro yes, and your point would be?


>
>
> Well look if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck its a duck.
here I will

> agree correlation does equal causation.

You would be falling into the same quagmire that most dissidents fall
into correlation never equals causation, correlation is just a tool
used by researchers to help identify causations by narrowing the field
of things to look at.


>
> >
> >
> >The ultimate anti-biotic, because it stops the
> >> multiplication of retro-viruses by halting host cell division in
the
> >> human body.
> >>
> >
> >You have been very seriously misinformed.
>
> No sir I think you are.

Nick is correct, you are very seriously misinformed.


>
> >
> >> Anyway I'm sure everyone in this forum will attest to the fact
that
> >> AZT is a very toxic drug,

Not in the way you would think, there are a huge number of commonly
used medications that are a great deal more toxic then is AZT. As I
said before if AZT is as deadly as you have been lead to believe why
then is it still the most widely used of the available antivirals?


> >
> >But not as toxic as some, and not toxic in the way that it is said
to be.
>
> As far popular prescribed drugs for AIDS go, AZT seems to be the
most toxic. The
> chief differance is the Anemia that is associated with AZT.

No Ziagen and Angernase can cause serious life threatening side
effects that can kill in a matter of days in some patients so I would
say they would be considered more toxic then AZT. That said those two
drugs do not cause that reaction in many people and the signs of it
are easily seen thus if the patient stops the drug immediately upon
the presentation of a rash they will be fine.


>
> My guess has to why AIDS patient used to have so many probelms with
anemia in
> regards to AZT therapy..is that the AZT was interferring in their
bodies
> production of Red blood cells.

There are many medications that can cause anemia and yes AZT is one of
them if the patient stops taking AZT the problem resolves quickly and
in many cases the person can again take AZT. The Anemia problem with
AZT was a bigger issue when it was the only antiviral available and
people were unwilling to stop taking it.

No in fact it does not, here is a list of all the major placebo
controlled trials of AZT if you can find one that supports Duesburg's
claim feel free to post it, or if you think these studies are
incorrect post the reasons you feel they are wrong.
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/23.htm please do not
post the crap from the virusmyth website do your own research or at
least work from the source documents which I have provided at the
above URL.

> >
> >> Well, if their are using drugs like AZT to stop AIDS, I would
think that
> >> Duesberg is probably not too far from the truth.
> >
> >Not at all - the fact that these drugs actually help people (and
that's a
> >fact, not some theoretical hand-waving like the AZT-kills-cells
idea) is
> >in direct opposition to Duesberg's theory.
>
> Well I suppose if you give AZT in small doses, you could kill the
cells HIV
> inhabits, there-by slowing the advancement of the disease, (AIDS).
>
> It was Luc montainger, the co-discover of HIV who said something
like.
>
> " Were still trying to find answers for this disease, and there's
alot we don't
> know. One shouldn't discount the effect the mind plays in this
disease."
>
> Duesberg disputes the idea that HIV is the virus responsible for
AIDS, and he
> may be well right, that at least in the early days OF AZT therapy.In
trying to
> halt or slow the progression of AIDS...AZT may have been responsible
for most of
> the AIDS deaths , than HIV by destroying to many of the host cells.

That statement is utterly unsupportable by the facts, all one needs to
know is that 24,736 people died from AIDS in the US before AZT was
given to a single patient.

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea

Ken Cox

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
"B.Dick Black" wrote:
> Nick says...

> >He was "on the mark" in that he found a correlation, which was later found
> >to be due to confounding, between poppers and sex (poppers being used as
> >an aphrodiasiac and relaxant). He was half-right, and for some reason
> >refused to accept that it could have been a confounder.

> You mean Co-factor right....

I'm pretty sure he meant confounder. They're different from
co-factors, you know.

> So you are admitting there might be another factors
> at work for AIDS besides HIV?

Ah. I see that you don't know. In brief, a confounder is
correlated with the statistic under study, but has no causal
connection. A co-factor of a disease has a causal connection.

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

Robert S. Holzman

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

"B.Dick Black" wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000711...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, Nick
> says...
> >
> >
> >
> >On 11 Jul 2000, B.Dick black wrote:
> >
> >Okay - a few points here and there that need addressing.
> >
> >>
> >> I think Duesberg was "on-the-Mark" about his correlating KS/AIDS in
> >> the Gay community with the use of Amyl Nitrate and other "Poppers".
> >
> >He was "on the mark" in that he found a correlation, which was later found
> >to be due to confounding, between poppers and sex (poppers being used as
> >an aphrodiasiac and relaxant). He was half-right, and for some reason
> >refused to accept that it could have been a confounder.
>
> You mean Co-factor right....So you are admitting there might be another factors
> at work for AIDS besides HIV?
>

He meant confounder. Actually there is a technical distinction
between a co-factor
and a confounder.
A cofactor is an effect modifier e.g. age at infection
affects the time from HIV infection to AIDS. stratifying on age
will show a graded change in the relationship indicating the
dependency.
A confounder is a [usually] unmeasured factor that obscures the
true relation, e.g. drug use does not lead to aids but studying a
group of drug users which includes HIV infected and uninfected
people will lead (falsely) to the conclusion that it does.
Stratifying the analysis by the confounder clarifies the
relation. e.g. HIV infection leads to aids, Drug use does not.

axel heyst

unread,
Jul 11, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/11/00
to
In article <8kcp5s$sh5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
"Gary Stein" <ges...@starpower.net> wrote:

>It is my opinion that Doctor Duesburg is a bigot who wants to find
>reasons to blame HIV/AIDS on gays and drug users and who completely
>ignores evidence that contradicts his theories on the subject of
>HIV/AIDS.

Could be, but I didn't get that impression from reading his book. Seemed to
me that he really did believe in his POV, and at the time of its writing
his case was at least compelling enough to give the matter some thought.

>His mind seems to be stuck in the early to mid 80's and the
>data that was available then, completely ignoring all the advancements
>made in the last 5 years or so.

Agreed. It's sad that he seems fated to join the list of otherwise
respectable scientists who will be consigned to the dustheap of ignominy.

Axel

B.Dick Black

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
In article <8kfu3c$jfs$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Gary says...

>
>
>"B.Dick Black" <B.Dick...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:8kfmlp$13...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article
><Pine.SOL.4.21.000711...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, Nick
>> says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 11 Jul 2000, B.Dick black wrote:
>> >
>> >Okay - a few points here and there that need addressing.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I think Duesberg was "on-the-Mark" about his correlating KS/AIDS
>in
>> >> the Gay community with the use of Amyl Nitrate and other
>"Poppers".
>> >
>> >He was "on the mark" in that he found a correlation, which was
>later found
>> >to be due to confounding, between poppers and sex (poppers being
>used as
>> >an aphrodiasiac and relaxant). He was half-right, and for some
>reason
>> >refused to accept that it could have been a confounder.
>>
>>
>> You mean Co-factor right....So you are admitting there might be
>another factors
>> at work for AIDS besides HIV?
>
>No he meant "confounder" a data point that confuses the issue by
>showing correlation yet has no effect on causation.

Yeah, thanks for the clarification.

Negative.

" The final report of the concorde study shattered the hope that "antiviral" DNA
chain terminators such as AZT might at least prevent AIDS. The chilling news was
that instead of preventing AIDS, the drugs helped bring it on. The mortality of
AZT recipients was 25 percent highter than that of those in untreated control
groups. This drug, originally developed for cancer chemotherapy, efficiently
destroys the immune sytem and causes symptoms largely indistinguishable from
AIDS itself. Even Burroughs Wellcome, the manufacturer
of AZT, makes the same assessment, but expresses it in different words: " It was
often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with
Zidovudine administration from underlying signs of HIV disease."

"Inventing the AIDS Virus"..Peter Duesberg

>>
>> But AZT is also a toxic drug ,and may have been responsible for alot
>of deaths
>> at least in the early days of the "epidemic". The was a study talked
>about often
>> here, called the "Concorde study"..that showed a higher correlation
>of AIDS
>> deaths ,when patients where treated with just AZT, as compared to
>other
>> therapies.
>
>Yes and Duesburg misinterpreted the Concorde study completely, the
>letter from one of the main investigators to Peter has been published
>here on MHA and that letter fully answered all of Peters questions and
>showed were he was incorrect in his interpretation of the studies
>results. Duesburg also claimed that AZT was an a anti-cancer drug, a
>letter from the scientist who first studied AZT has also been
>published here on MHA in which he clearly states that AZT was never
>used as chemo therapy in fact the very properties that allows AZT to
>work as an antiretroviral med prevent it from being useful as an
>anticancer drug. Duesburg gets so many things like this wrong it
>amazes me that people still think he is a credible source of
>information on HIV/AIDS issues.

Well apparently Peter Duesberg, isn't the only one who characterized AZT, as a
failed Anti-cancer drug.

"Azt, a failed anti-cancer compound extracted from salmon sperm, was being
rebirthed by the national Institutes of Health and Burroughs Wellcome which was
rushing it toward FDA approval"

BITTER PILLS .Stephen Fried


Also Arthur Ashe, former tennis pro, discoved this bit of information just
before he died. Duesberg quotes Ashe from ashe's book " Days of Grace: A memoir,

"But AZT was controversial in other ways. A gift from heaven to many desparate
people, it was poison to others. Developed for use in cancer chemotherapy to
destroy cells then in the process of actively dividing, AZT was only later
applied to AIDS. Some scientist believe that AZT, which relentlessly kills cells
but cannot distinguish between infected and uninfected cell, is as harmful as
AIDS itself. After all, HIV is present in only 1 of every 10,000 T-cells, which
are vital to the immune sytem; but AZT kills them all.......

"Inventing the Aids Virus" Peter Duesberg.

Arthur was obviously mistaken too....


>
>AZT is to this day still the single most widly used of the available
>antivirals if it was as toxic as you seem to think don't you suppose
>that would be very apparent by now?
>>
>> >
>> >> Saying AZT is an anti-retroviral drug, is like saying "Arsenic"
>is a
>> >> Pain-Killer.I mean Arsenic might work as a painkiller if you take
>it
>> >> in small doses over a period of time. But aspirin might work
>also.
>> >
>> >????
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> AZT was originally prescribed has a chemo-therapy drug, because
>it
>> >> stops cell growth!
>
>See above AZT has never been prescribed as chemo-therapy it was tested
>to see if it would have any potential as chemo therapy for cancer
>years before it was first used as an antiretroviral and the
>investigator found that it was totally ineffective as an anti cancer
>drug.


So you are saying that if was first developed as an anti cancer drug, but then
never prescribed...How do you know this? Surely its listed in the Physician's
desk manual for drugs.

>
>> >
>> >ARRGGHHH!!!!
>> >
>> >NONONONONONONONO! Duesberg THINKS it stops cells growth. He
>_argues_
>> >that because it's a chain terminator is should do this. IT DOES
>NOT! The
>> >in-vitro testing of AZT prior to ANY KIND OF PRESCRIBING showed it
>to be
>> >INACTIVE as an anticancer drug. Duesberg interprets the halting of
>the
>> >trials to be due to toxicity, but this is NOT mentioned in the
>articles he
>> >cites to support his case, rather it says that the drug was simple
>> >ineffective. There have been several posts in the past here, once
>of
>> >which included a letter from one of the original testers of AZT
>stating
>> >that it was ineffective in vitro and in vivo as an anticancer
>agent.

Let me understand what your saying...

AZT doesn't kill cells, because it didn't work as an Anti-Cancer drug. But in
order for and any Anti-cancer drug to work
it has to be able to target specific cells...thats why AZT is used has a
anti-viral drug?



>>
>> Let me just ask you.
>>
>> Was AZT prescribed primarily has a Anti-Cancer drug?
>
>See above no it was not.
>>
>> How do Anti-Cancer drugs work, are they Anti-viral in nature?
>
>No they are not. Anti-Cancer drugs to be effective need to be able to
>attack very specfic cell types only, anti-virals on the other hand
>tend to have a much broader range of targets.
>>
>> IS AZT a DNA chain terminator?
>
>In vitro yes, and your point would be?
>>
>>
>> Well look if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck its a duck.
>here I will
>> agree correlation does equal causation.

>> >


>> >You have been very seriously misinformed.
>>
>> No sir I think you are.
>
>Nick is correct, you are very seriously misinformed.

I don't think so, So far . Duesberg, Ashe, Fried seem to back me up, What I need
to do next is look at an PDR dated around 1992 or earlier about AZT. I wonder
what will it say? Anti-viral Drug or Anti-Cancer drug.

>>
>> >
>> >> Anyway I'm sure everyone in this forum will attest to the fact
>that
>> >> AZT is a very toxic drug,
>
>Not in the way you would think, there are a huge number of commonly
>used medications that are a great deal more toxic then is AZT. As I
>said before if AZT is as deadly as you have been lead to believe why
>then is it still the most widely used of the available antivirals?

Perhaps because no one wants to admit that AZT is too toxic to be used has a
therapy for AIDS, and the drug companies seem to be making alot of money off of
it.

" The final report of the concorde study shattered the hope that "antiviral" DNA
chain terminators such as AZT might at least prevent AIDS. The chilling news was
that instead of preventing AIDS, the drugs helped bring it on. The mortality of
AZT recipients was 25 percent highter than that of those in untreated control
groups. This drug, originally developed for cancer chemotherapy, efficiently
destroys the immune sytem and causes symptoms largely indistinguishable from
AIDS itself. Even Burroughs Wellcome, the manufacturer
of AZT, makes the same assessment, but expresses it in different words: " It was
often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with
Zidovudine administration from underlying signs of HIV disease."

"Inventing the AIDS Virus"..Peter Duesberg

Duesberg cites his source for this statement as follows.

" J. Cohen, ""The Duesberg Phenonenon': Duesberg and other voices," Science, 266
(1994a): 1642-1649; N.Birkett, "The Duesberg Phenomenon'" (letters)Science,267
(1995): 315; M.Seligmann, D.A Warrel, J.P. Aboulker,C. Carbon, J. H. Darbyshire,
J. Dormont, E. Eschwege, D.J. Girling, D.R. James, J.P. levy,P.T.A Peto,D.
Schwarz, A.M. Swart, V.R. Aber, A.G. Babiker, S.Lhoro, A.J. Nunn, and M. Vray,
"Concorde: MRC/ANRS randomized double-blind controlled trial of immediate and
deffered Zidovudine in Symptoms free HIV Infection," Lancet, 343 (1994):
871-878; P.H. Duesberg," How Much longer Can We Afford the AIDS Virus Monopoly?"
in Aids: Virus or drug-Induced? eds. kluwer and Dordrecht ( the
Netherlands:Genetica, in press).


>
>> Duesberg disputes the idea that HIV is the virus responsible for
>AIDS, and he
>> may be well right, that at least in the early days OF AZT therapy.In
>trying to
>> halt or slow the progression of AIDS...AZT may have been responsible
>for most of
>> the AIDS deaths , than HIV by destroying to many of the host cells.
>
>That statement is utterly unsupportable by the facts, all one needs to
>know is that 24,736 people died from AIDS in the US before AZT was
>given to a single patient.
>--
>Gary Stein
>ges...@starpower.net
>http://www.mischealthaids.org
>
>"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea
>massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
>a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
>it."
> (Gene Spafford)

Speak for yourself...

Nick Bennett

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

On 11 Jul 2000, B.Dick Black wrote:

Gary has addressed most of the issues...but to reiterate.

> >He was "on the mark" in that he found a correlation, which was later found
> >to be due to confounding, between poppers and sex (poppers being used as
> >an aphrodiasiac and relaxant). He was half-right, and for some reason
> >refused to accept that it could have been a confounder.
>
>
> You mean Co-factor right....So you are admitting there might be another factors
> at work for AIDS besides HIV?

I said confounder, not cofactor. TV ownership is a confounder for breast
cancer. It is not a co-factor for breast cancer. A brief explaination.

Women who live in households with more than 2 TV's are at a greater risk
of breast cancer than women who don't.

Families who own more than 2 TV's a likely to be better off financially
than families which don't.

Families which are better off tend to have good jobs.

Families which have good jobs tend to have children later in life, and
have fewer of them.

Women who have children later in life and have fewer of them are more
likely to have breast cancer. This is due to hormonal influences that
change during pregnancy. If you "control" for TV usage you can remove it
as a confounder and find the real link.

Similarly:
Homosexuals who use poppers are more likely to get AIDS-KS than men who
don't.
Homosexuals who use poppers are more likely to engage in anal sex,
rimming, and other activities that result in faecal contact.
Faecal contact is an excellent mode of transmission of the viruses HIV and
HHV8, especially so for anal sex.
The transmission of HIV and HHV8 is seen in every case of AIDS-KS.

If you "control" for popper use among men who engage is such activities,
then you find it has no effect on the outcome. The trick in removing
confounders is knowning that they may be confounding, and doing the
analysis to compensate. This is not always done.

> Well the last I talked about it ,others said that was true. I think Duesberg
> says this. I may be mistaken, Perhaps someone else could attest to this fact.
> Anyway KS isn't seen much any more in relation to HIV/AIDS.

See Gary's post. KS isn't seen much any more because not that many
diseases are seen much any more in the days of HAART... ;-)

Seriously, I don't know of KS has actually dropped relative to the other
OI's. Anyone got figures?

>
> In his book, Peter Duesberg, talks about some very sound principles,
> time tested in Medicine...He talks about Koch's Postulates for
> infectious diseases,

Koch's postulates didn't apply to some diseases when they were
created. Viruses weren't even known about. They have to be re-worded and
taken in _spirit_ rather than to the letter, and when you apply more
modern thinking they _have_ been met for HIV.

>
> But AZT is also a toxic drug ,and may have been responsible for alot
> of deaths at least in the early days of the "epidemic". The was a
> study talked about often here, called the "Concorde study"..that
> showed a higher correlation of AIDS deaths ,when patients where
> treated with just AZT, as compared to other therapies.

Err....but the people who were given AZT were those who were sickest to
start with. It's like the UK hospital who were given a 100% mortality
rate for under 16s the other year. They DON'T ACCEPT under 16 yr olds,
but one day they got a RTA victim who they treated. He died. Can you
conclude that the hospital is a lethal place for under 16s, or that
perhaps the fact he was brought in from a car wreck had something to do
with it....?

> Let me just ask you.
>
> Was AZT prescribed primarily has a Anti-Cancer drug?

It was NEVER prescribed until it was reinvestigated as an antiviral and
found to work against HIV in vitro and in vivo.

>
> How do Anti-Cancer drugs work, are they Anti-viral in nature?
>

Anticancer drugs work by damaging the cells so much they commit
suicide. Yes, they don't actually directly kill the cells. Your normal
cells can repair and live on (mostly). Cancer cells have, practically by
definition, lost a fair bit of their DNA repair and error-detection
machinery. You hope that enough is present to detect and respond to
massive DNA damage - and some tumours are in fact resistant to chemo in
the same was as bacteria can be resistant to antibiotics.

> IS AZT a DNA chain terminator?
>

Yes, but it is specifically recognised by the enzyme Reverse
Transcriptase. It is very poorly used by the normal cellular DNA
polymerases (unlike conventional anticancer drugs) but is utilised to some
degree by the seperate mitochondrial DNA polymerase. This seems to be the
explaination for the toxic effects of AZT.

> >You have been very seriously misinformed.
>
> No sir I think you are.

If you read through Deja on this topic I think you'll find an awful lot of
literature that you were unaware of, or which directly contradicts your
sources and is wholely more reliable.

>
> As far popular prescribed drugs for AIDS go, AZT seems to be the most
> toxic.

Actually, ddI is the most toxic - certainly it buggers up mitochondria
more than AZT in invitro studies.

The chief differance is the Anemia that is associated with AZT.
>
> My guess has to why AIDS patient used to have so many probelms with anemia in
> regards to AZT therapy..is that the AZT was interferring in their bodies
> production of Red blood cells.
>

Yup - you're most probably right. But they still were AIDS-free for
longer than people who didn't take it....for a while anyway.

> No one said AZT causes AIDS.

Duesberg certainly has done.

But it seems that the general idea of using of
> using a DNA Chain Terminator;

...which is specific for a viral enzyme...

> a Drug used in chemo-therapy

...which was never prescribed for chemo before it's use against HIV...

albeit anti-viral
> drug; AZT, wouldn't be very useful in a patient suffering in the throes of a
> immune deficiency disease.

Nice, albeit misinformed, reasoning. But it doesn't explain the fact that
AZT has helped some, and in combination therapy has helped a whole lot
more. Was it over-prescribed in both numbers and dose? Yes, it seems so,
but that's changed. Did it kill people? Hard to say, but it certainly
didn't cause more deaths than those due to untreated HIV.

Because of the nature AZT, in regular doses the drug
> would just weaken the patient further, making him/her more suceptable to the
> very diseases the doctors are trying to cure. I think that was the main point
> Duesberg was trying to make.
>

Again, a nice idea, but it doesn't fit the facts.

> A Study much quoted "here, the "Concorde Study" here seems to confirm
> that fact.

Only if you mis-read it, as others have pointed out.

>
> Well I suppose if you give AZT in small doses, you could kill the cells HIV
> inhabits, there-by slowing the advancement of the disease, (AIDS).

Well that ain't how AZT works, but it _is_ how your immune system
works. Yes, it will kill infected cells rather than try to get the virus.

>
> It was Luc montainger, the co-discover of HIV who said something like.
>
> " Were still trying to find answers for this disease, and there's alot
> we don't know. One shouldn't discount the effect the mind plays in
> this disease."

Yeah, too true. But that doesn't say HIV isn't the causal agent.

>
> Duesberg disputes the idea that HIV is the virus responsible for AIDS,
> and he may be well right, that at least in the early days OF AZT
> therapy.In trying to halt or slow the progression of AIDS...AZT may
> have been responsible for most of the AIDS deaths , than HIV by
> destroying to many of the host cells.

But it doesn't work like that.

> Obvisiously its not an non issue to people like President Mbeki, of
> South Africa, who should be concerned , lest his people get involved
> in some large scale experiments sponsored the the U.S Government. >

Mbeki got his info off the web, or so it seems. He's certainly been fed
the same papers that we have dismantled here on the NG over and over
again. Anyone who looks at _all_ the information can only come to one
conclusion, unless they really have a problem appreciating scientific
method(s).

Bennett


Nick Bennett

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

On 12 Jul 2000, B.Dick Black wrote:

>
> Well apparently Peter Duesberg, isn't the only one who characterized
> AZT, as a failed Anti-cancer drug.

Oh, it failed alright - it didn't work.

> "But AZT was controversial in other ways. A gift from heaven to many
> desparate people, it was poison to others. Developed for use in cancer
> chemotherapy to destroy cells then in the process of actively
> dividing, AZT was only later applied to AIDS. Some scientist believe
> that AZT, which relentlessly kills cells

LOL! It's used in tissue cultures to inhibit viral replication, with no
effect on the cells.

but cannot distinguish
> between infected and uninfected cell, is as harmful as AIDS itself.
> After all, HIV is present in only 1 of every 10,000 T-cells, which are
> vital to the immune sytem; but AZT kills them all.......
>
> "Inventing the Aids Virus" Peter Duesberg.

Yeah, a really well informed, first-person account of AZT.

>
> Arthur was obviously mistaken too....

Yup.

>
> So you are saying that if was first developed as an anti cancer drug,
> but then never prescribed...

Yup.

>How do you know this? Surely its listed in
> the Physician's desk manual for drugs.
>

It's in my copy of the BNF as an antiviral. (BNF - British National
Formulary, the UK equivalent I presume). We have been given letters from
the people who developed the drug saying that it didn't work in either
cell-culture or animal models, and it was shelved.

>
> Let me understand what your saying...
>
> AZT doesn't kill cells, because it didn't work as an Anti-Cancer drug.

Yup.

> But in order for and any Anti-cancer drug to work it has to be able to
> target specific cells..

...and it does so because the cancerous cells are deficient in certain
mechanisms - mechanisms in fact that _lead_ to the cancer in the first
place.

>....thats why AZT is used has a anti-viral drug?

It is antiviral in specificity because it is used far more by the viral
enzymes than the host enzymes. It's no different to acyclovir, and that
_is_ incorpated into host DNA, but it specifically _activated_ by the
virus. It relies on a local effect to kill the infected cell.

>
> I don't think so, So far . Duesberg, Ashe, Fried seem to back me up,
> What I need to do next is look at an PDR dated around 1992 or earlier
> about AZT. I wonder what will it say? Anti-viral Drug or Anti-Cancer
> drug.

It'll say antiviral. You want something 10 years earlier (maybe that's
what you intended to type). I expect you won't find an entry.

Oh, one thing. There is another drug called AZT, but is it NOT
Azidothymidine. I wonder is that is what's caused the confusion...

> Perhaps because no one wants to admit that AZT is too toxic to be used
> has a therapy for AIDS, and the drug companies seem to be making alot
> of money off of it.

They may a hell of a lot more from protease inhibitors. AZT is old and
relatively cheap.

<snip>

Bennett


relative truth

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
| = Nick Bennett
| > = B.Dick Black

| > But AZT is also a toxic drug ,and may have been responsible for alot
| > of deaths at least in the early days of the "epidemic". The was a
| > study talked about often here, called the "Concorde study"..that
| > showed a higher correlation of AIDS deaths ,when patients where
| > treated with just AZT, as compared to other therapies.
|
| Err....but the people who were given AZT were those who were sickest to
| start with. It's like the UK hospital who were given a 100% mortality
| rate for under 16s the other year. They DON'T ACCEPT under 16 yr olds,
| but one day they got a RTA victim who they treated. He died. Can you
| conclude that the hospital is a lethal place for under 16s, or that
| perhaps the fact he was brought in from a car wreck had something to do
| with it....?

Without AZT, the predictions of AIDS orthdoxy would have been
refuted even more obviously than they have with AZT and similar
drugs.

That AZT was considered an extremely toxic drug before the times
of the AIDS hysteria can easily be shown from the labels of packets
containing AZT.

See: http://pweb.uunet.de/pr-leitner.DO/giftrezept.htm#azt

"100 mg, ..., AZT, ..., TOXIC
Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed.
Target organ(s): Blood, Bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek
medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable
protective clothing."


| > Was AZT prescribed primarily has a Anti-Cancer drug?
|
| It was NEVER prescribed until it was reinvestigated as an antiviral and
| found to work against HIV in vitro and in vivo.

It had however been devoloped as an anti-cancer chemotherapy.

Typical side-effects of anti-cancer chemotherapy are

1) bone mark suppression
2) hair loss

At least bone mark suppression is an obvious side-effect of AZT.

I don't know, but I think that Duesberg is right: The reason
that AZT could not be prescribed as chemotherapy was not its
ineffectiveness but its (cancerogenic) toxicity.

The main (tragic) absurdity consists in the fact that a drug
originally intended as a blood-cell killer was finally used as
a treatment for people whose assumed illness consists in blood
cells dying off.


| > How do Anti-Cancer drugs work, are they Anti-viral in nature?
| >
|
| Anticancer drugs work by damaging the cells so much they commit
| suicide. Yes, they don't actually directly kill the cells.

It seems that the medical industry has learned such a
whitewashed, euphemistic language from public relatation
firms.

In the same way I could say that a daily dose of 1.5 gram AZT
works by damaging patients so much their bodies commit suicide.

Another example of the PR influence on the AIDS industry is
the ubiquitous use of "potent" or "highly effective" in the
context of antiviral therapy.


| > IS AZT a DNA chain terminator?
| >
| Yes, but it is specifically recognised by the enzyme Reverse
| Transcriptase. It is very poorly used by the normal cellular DNA
| polymerases (unlike conventional anticancer drugs) but is utilised to some
| degree by the seperate mitochondrial DNA polymerase. This seems to be the
| explaination for the toxic effects of AZT.

In order to copy a human cell, around 8'000'000'000 nucleotides must
be copied. Even if the corresponding polymerases are 1 million times
less susceptible to AZT than the HIV reverse transcritpase is, the
probability of a fatal error would similar in both cases (HIV has
around 9500 nucleodids).


| > A Study much quoted "here, the "Concorde Study" here seems to confirm
| > that fact.
|
| Only if you mis-read it, as others have pointed out.

The result of the Corcorde study is unambiguous, the death rate is
25% higher in the group immediately treated with AZT.

Here a quote from the 'Duesberg edition' of science (vol. 266,
9-Dec-1994, p.1649):

"The appropriate conclusion, say the authors of the Concorde
study, is that the difference in mortality between Imm and Def
groups is not 25% but 10.9% minus 8.7% - or 2.2%. Subtracting
the deaths of from causes unrelated to AZT or AIDS, the
difference drops to 1.3%. As the Concorde paper notes, neither
difference (2.2% or 1.3%) is statistically significant."

That's an excellent example of how obviously existing
correlations (e.g. between poppers and Kaposi's sarcoma)
can be explained away by simple manipulations.

Z. at Z.

B.Dick Black

unread,
Jul 12, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/12/00
to
In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000712...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, Nick
says...

>
>
>
>On 12 Jul 2000, B.Dick Black wrote:
>
>>
>> Well apparently Peter Duesberg, isn't the only one who characterized
>> AZT, as a failed Anti-cancer drug.
>
>Oh, it failed alright - it didn't work.
>
>> "But AZT was controversial in other ways. A gift from heaven to many
>> desparate people, it was poison to others. Developed for use in cancer
>> chemotherapy to destroy cells then in the process of actively
>> dividing, AZT was only later applied to AIDS. Some scientist believe
>> that AZT, which relentlessly kills cells
>
>LOL! It's used in tissue cultures to inhibit viral replication, with no
>effect on the cells.

LOL.. Arthur Ashe, said the above statement "but AZT was... "
Obviously Doctors thought AZT and its analogs were effective to use as a therapy
obviously it didn't work for Arthur Ashe.


>
> but cannot distinguish
>> between infected and uninfected cell, is as harmful as AIDS itself.
>> After all, HIV is present in only 1 of every 10,000 T-cells, which are
>> vital to the immune sytem; but AZT kills them all.......
>>
>> "Inventing the Aids Virus" Peter Duesberg.
>

>Yeah, a really well informed, first-person account of AZT.
>
>>

>> Arthur was obviously mistaken too....
>

>Yup.


>
>>
>> So you are saying that if was first developed as an anti cancer drug,
>> but then never prescribed...
>

>Yup.


>
>>How do you know this? Surely its listed in
>> the Physician's desk manual for drugs.
>>
>

>It's in my copy of the BNF as an antiviral. (BNF - British National
>Formulary, the UK equivalent I presume). We have been given letters from
>the people who developed the drug saying that it didn't work in either
>cell-culture or animal models, and it was shelved.
>
>>

>> Let me understand what your saying...
>>
>> AZT doesn't kill cells, because it didn't work as an Anti-Cancer drug.
>

>Yup.


>
>> But in order for and any Anti-cancer drug to work it has to be able to

>> target specific cells..
>
>...and it does so because the cancerous cells are deficient in certain
>mechanisms - mechanisms in fact that _lead_ to the cancer in the first
>place.
>
>>....thats why AZT is used has a anti-viral drug?
>
>It is antiviral in specificity because it is used far more by the viral
>enzymes than the host enzymes. It's no different to acyclovir, and that
>_is_ incorpated into host DNA, but it specifically _activated_ by the
>virus. It relies on a local effect to kill the infected cell.

Yeah, but is Acyclovir a DNA chain terminator has well?

See I thought Anti-biotics, and Anti-virals, were useful for human use, because
they destroyed the bacteria, or virus without killing the host cell. AZT
(Zidovudine) is not specfic for just any virus its designed for Retro-viruses I
believe. But if it's a failed Anti-Cancer drug then its a failed Anti-
RetroVirus drug, has AZt will also kill the host cell has well.

Listen was AZT..the generic name for Zidovudine, ever designed has an anti-viral
drug?

>
>>
>> I don't think so, So far . Duesberg, Ashe, Fried seem to back me up,
>> What I need to do next is look at an PDR dated around 1992 or earlier
>> about AZT. I wonder what will it say? Anti-viral Drug or Anti-Cancer
>> drug.
>

>It'll say antiviral. You want something 10 years earlier (maybe that's
>what you intended to type). I expect you won't find an entry.

Yes I think thats what I'll find if I look at the newer entries for
Zidovuodine(AZT). what is happenening they have simply renamed AZT, and
re-classified it... Thanks to the FDA, via drug companies.



>
>Oh, one thing. There is another drug called AZT, but is it NOT
>Azidothymidine. I wonder is that is what's caused the confusion...

Well whats Azidothymidine, I assumed this was the generic form of zidovudine,
the new improved version of it. If AZT (zidovudine) is not azidothymidine what
is it then?



>
>> Perhaps because no one wants to admit that AZT is too toxic to be used
>> has a therapy for AIDS, and the drug companies seem to be making alot
>> of money off of it.
>

>They may a hell of a lot more from protease inhibitors. AZT is old and
>relatively cheap.
>
><snip>
>
>Bennett
>

Nick Bennett

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

On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, relative truth wrote:

> | = Nick Bennett


> | Err....but the people who were given AZT were those who were sickest to
> | start with. It's like the UK hospital who were given a 100% mortality
> | rate for under 16s the other year. They DON'T ACCEPT under 16 yr olds,
> | but one day they got a RTA victim who they treated. He died. Can you
> | conclude that the hospital is a lethal place for under 16s, or that
> | perhaps the fact he was brought in from a car wreck had something to do
> | with it....?
>

> Without AZT, the predictions of AIDS orthdoxy would have been
> refuted even more obviously than they have with AZT and similar
> drugs.

On what premise do you base this? Everything to date _supports_ the
orthodox AIDS view.

>
> That AZT was considered an extremely toxic drug before the times
> of the AIDS hysteria can easily be shown from the labels of packets
> containing AZT.
>

I'm not disputing that AZT_can_ be toxic, I'm disputing that what ppl say
about its history is true.

<snip>


> |
> | It was NEVER prescribed until it was reinvestigated as an antiviral and
> | found to work against HIV in vitro and in vivo.
>

> It had however been devoloped as an anti-cancer chemotherapy.

Yes, so what. Hundreds of drugs are developed every year _for_ a specfic
use, but very few actually make it through to work.

>
> At least bone mark suppression is an obvious side-effect of AZT.

I think you mean "marrow", but yes that is a side effect in some people.

>
> I don't know, but I think that Duesberg is right: The reason
> that AZT could not be prescribed as chemotherapy was not its
> ineffectiveness but its (cancerogenic) toxicity.
>

Check out the letter from Dr Beltz, who tested AZT in his lab.

"Finally, I
>prepared 1 gram of crystalline AZT and sent it to my friend Dr. Alan
>Sartorelli, Professor of Pharmacology at Yale University, for
>testing against animal cancers. It proved to be completely inactive
>in all of the test systems he employed. In my laboratory I found
>AZT incapable of inhibiting the growth of Jensen sarcoma cells in
>vitro at very high concentrations. Thus, AZT showed no activity as
>a potential anticancer drug at that time. "

Even Duesberg's book shows how tragically he misinterpreted things.

***
"The drug must have killed the tumors, which contain dividing cells, but
it so effectively destroyed healthy growing tissues that the mice died of
the extreme toxicity."
***

Nowhere does Duesberg actually _show_ that AZT was proven during
development to kill dividing cells, he ASSUMES that since it was designed
to do that it DID. He was wrong.

> The main (tragic) absurdity consists in the fact that a drug
> originally intended as a blood-cell killer was finally used as
> a treatment for people whose assumed illness consists in blood
> cells dying off.

If it really was this simple don't you think the scientists who actually
developed the drug might have started making some noise...? That the docs
might twig? That some random retrovirologist that thinks (or at least
thought) that HIV was no different genetically to RSV somehow has managed
to see something _everyone_ else has missed?

>
>
> | > How do Anti-Cancer drugs work, are they Anti-viral in nature?
> | >
> |
> | Anticancer drugs work by damaging the cells so much they commit
> | suicide. Yes, they don't actually directly kill the cells.
>

> It seems that the medical industry has learned such a
> whitewashed, euphemistic language from public relatation
> firms.

LOL. No, it's called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. Look through
pubmed for things like ICE like proteases, caspases, Fas and FasL, 200bp
DNA ladders, blebbing... Your cells in your body are, believe it or not,
programmed to die unless told otherwise. This is why setting up