Did a vaccine cause AIDS?
Roger Schlafly
production of a polio vaccine in Africa.
THE RIVER: A JOURNEY BACK TO THE SOURCE OF HIV AND AIDS.
By Edward Hooper.
Little, Brown; 1,104 pages; $34
From a review this week:
"In sum, this book offers a scientifically plausible story, a testable
hypothesis and a challenge. The plausible story is that AIDS viruses jumped
from African animals to humans. The testable hypothesis is that this
happened on occasion when CHAT polio vaccines were grown on chimpanzee
kidneys."
http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_bk1108.html
Lon Morgan
wrote:
>A new book discusses the possibility that AIDS was caused by
>production of a polio vaccine in Africa...
>"In sum, this book offers a scientifically plausible story, a testable
>hypothesis and a challenge. The plausible story is that AIDS viruses jumped
>from African animals to humans. The testable hypothesis is that this
>happened on occasion when CHAT polio vaccines were grown on chimpanzee
>kidneys."
Outside of being hopelessly antiquated this theory has already been
tested - endlessly. Most obvious: polio vaccines were produced
initially using rhesus monkeys - NOT chimpanzees. The process was
later switched to African green monkeys, again NOT chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees have NEVER been used in the manufacture of polio vaccines.
The only thing sillier is the notion of a 'gay hep b vaccine' causing
AIDS!
Some references on the issue:
http://www.ama-assn.org/special/hiv/library/scan/feb99/feb99d.htm
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00392.html
http://fp1.cyberhighway.net/~lmorgan/safety/did_aids_originiate_from_polio_v.htm
"Issues in Immunization: the Evidence"
http://fp1.cyberhighway.net/~lmorgan/
Lon Morgan
email: lmorgan AT cyberhighway DOT net
Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
Roger Schlafly
news:wdYwOHztShhUyR...@4ax.com...
> Outside of being hopelessly antiquated this theory has already been
> tested - endlessly. Most obvious: polio vaccines were produced
> initially using rhesus monkeys - NOT chimpanzees. The process was
> later switched to African green monkeys, again NOT chimpanzees.
> Chimpanzees have NEVER been used in the manufacture of polio vaccines.
> The only thing sillier is the notion of a 'gay hep b vaccine' causing
> AIDS!
This point is addressed in the book and in the review.
"Most batches of CHAT were grown on tissue taken from monkeys. But the links
between vaccine workers and a chimpanzee-research station in the Belgian
Congo are close enough for it to have been at least a possibility that
chimpanzee kidneys were used as well. There is no documentary evidence that
chimpanzee kidneys were used. But the written records of which primate
species were used for which vaccine batches are far from perfect, as are the
memories of those who took part in the experiments."
http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_bk1108.html
This theory might sound farfetched, but most of the competing theories
about the origin of AIDS have been shot down.
Bennett
>
>This theory might sound farfetched, but most of the competing theories
>about the origin of AIDS have been shot down.
What about the most likely - transmission from the central chimp for HIV-1,
and green monkey for HIV-2? (The latter being worked out some time ago, the
former more conclusively in the last year).
Cheers
Bennett
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, "Roger Schlafly" <re...@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
> AIDS!
It's even sillier when more people die from a visit to the hospital
than from AIDS because the health professionals don't wash their hands.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
baj...@my-deja.com
"Roger Schlafly" <re...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote in message
> news:wdYwOHztShhUyR...@4ax.com...
> This theory might sound farfetched, but most of the competing theories
> about the origin of AIDS have been shot down.
A growing group of scientists think the AIDS virus is harmless and AIDS
is not contagious.
Dr. Walter Gilbert, Professor in Molecular Biology, 1980 Nobel prize
for chemistry:
"I would not be surprised if there were another cause of AIDS and even
that HIV is not involved." (Omni June 1993)
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry:
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific
documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at
least with a high probability. There is no such document." (Sunday
Times (London) 28 nov. 1993)
Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of
California at Berkeley:
"It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it
proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (Sunday Times
(London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the
University of California at Berkeley:
"In the old days it was required that a scientist address the
possibilities of proving his hypothesis wrong as well as right. Now
there's none of that in standard HIV-AIDS program with all its billions
of dollars." (Penthouse April 1994)
Dr. Roger Cunningham, Immunologist, Microbiologist and Director of the
Centre for Immunology at the State University of New York at Buffalo:
"Unfortunately, an AIDS 'establishment' seems to have formed that
intends to discourage challenges to the dogma on one side and often
insists on following discredited ideas on the other." (Sunday Times
(London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, discoverer of HIV, Institute Pasteur
Paris:
"There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all
signs of AIDS" (Miami Herald 23 Dec. 1990)
Dr. Steven Jonas, Professor of Preventive Medicine, Suny Stony Brook,
NY:
"Evidence is rapidly accumulating that the original theory of HIV is
not correct." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Harvey Bialy, Molecular Biologist, editor of Bio/Technology:
"HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that
is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in
other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very
small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these
elaborate things they say it does." (Spin June 1992)
Dr. Gordon Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Public Health, University of
Glasgow:
"AIDS is a behavioural disease. It is multifactorial, brought on by
several simultaneous strains on the immune system - drugs,
pharmaceutical and recreational, sexually transmitted diseases,
multiple viral infections." (Spin June 1992)
Dr. Alfred Hässig, Emeritus Professor of Immunology at the University
of Bern, former director Swiss Red Cross blood banks:
"The sentence of death accompanying the medical diagnosis of AIDS
should be abolished." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Charles Thomas, former Professor of Biochemistry, Harvard and John
Hopkins Universities:
"The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most
morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men
and women of the Western world." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, New York Physician, founder of the American
Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR):
"The marketing of HIV, through press releases and statements, as a
killer virus causing AIDS without the need for any other factors, has
so distorted research and treatment that it may have caused thousands
of people to suffer and die." (Sunday times (London) 17 May 1992)
Dr. Bernard Forscher, former editor of the U.S. Proceeding of the
National Academy of Sciences:
"The HIV hypothesis ranks with the 'bad air' theory for malaria and
the 'bacterial infection' theory of beriberi and pellagra [caused by
nutritional deficiencies]. It is a hoax that became a scam." (Sunday
Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Charles Thomas, Molecular Biologist and former Harvard and Johns
Hopkins Professor:
"The HIV-causes-AIDS dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most
morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men
and women of the Western world," (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
"AIDS has been a disease of definition. If we said that it didn't exist
and didn't pay for it with taxpayers' money, it would disappear in the
background of normal mortality." (Penthouse April 1994)
"I feel that for scientists to remain silent in the face of all this
doubt is tantamount to criminal negligence." (Spin June 1992)
Dr. Roger Cunningham, Immunologist, Microbiologist and Director of the
Centre for Immunology at the State University of New York at Buffalo:
"Unfortunately, an AIDS 'establishment' seems to have formed that
intends to discourage challenges to the dogma on one side and often
insists on following discredited ideas on the other." (Sunday Times
(London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Richard Strohman, a biologist for 35 years and Professor Emeritus
of Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley:
"In the old days it was required that a scientist address the
possibilities of proving his hypothesis wrong as well as right. Now
there's none of that in standard HIV-AIDS program with all its billions
of dollars." (Penthouse April 1994)
"We need research into possible causes such as drug use and behaviour,
not a bankrupt hypothesis." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Alfred Hässig, Emeritus Professor in Immunology at the University
of Bern, former Director Swiss Red Cross blood banks:
"The sentence of death accompanying the medical diagnosis of AIDS
should be abolished." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
"In the virological research, so much money is invested, and the
research people want to stay in that area because if you deviate to
research in other directions probably other people come in and must be
funded." (Meditel 1992)
"Virologist have nothing new to offer. They keep coming up with
excuses, they find constant growth and change in the virus structure,
it evades, attacks, strange things, but none of them has the courage to
explain properly how these things could possibly be so." (Continuum
Jan/Feb 1996)
Dr. Walter Gilbert, Professor in Molecular Biology, 1980 Nobel prize
for chemistry:
"I would not be surprised if there were another cause of AIDS and even
that HIV is not involved."(Omni June 1993)
"[Duesberg] is absolutely correct in saying that no one has proven that
AIDS is caused by the AIDS virus. And he is absolutely correct that the
virus cultured in the laboratory may not be the cause of AIDS."
(Hippocrates Sept./Oct. 1988)
"The community as a whole doesn't listen patiently to critics who adopt
alternative viewpoints. Although the great lesson of history is that
knowledge develops through the conflict of viewpoints." (Meditel 1990)
Dr. Albert Sabin, Virologist:
"I think the views of a person like Dr. Duesberg are terribly, terribly
important, and we must pay attention to them." (Oakland Tribune 31 Jan.
1988)
Michael Ellner, Medical Hypnotherapist, President of HEAL New York:
"I have seen the constant terror, and programming to get sick and die,
that people at risk for developing AIDS face. I am certain that the
hypothesis that long-term drug use is primary cause of what is now
called AIDS is far more likely to prove true than the failed notion
that AIDS is caused by a germ." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Steven Jonas, Professor of Preventive Medicine, Suny Stony Brook,
NY:
"Evidence is rapidly accumulating that the original theory of HIV is
not correct." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Lawrence Bradford, Biology Professor in Atchinson, Kansas:
"The cause of AIDS is multifactorial. HIV is neither necessary nor
sufficient." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Beverly Griffin, Director of the Department of Virology, Royal
Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital London:
"It will surely lead to a scientifically healthier society if the
burden of proof for HIV as a deadly pathogen is returned to where it
belongs - to those who maintain that HIV causes AIDS - and others are
allowed to pursue alternative approaches in the battle for eradiction
of the disease." (Nature 20 April 1989)
Dr. Hiram Caton, Ethicist, Head of the School of Applied Ethics at
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia:
"The orthodoxy will collapse because it flunks the practical test. The
AIDS epidemic was a mirage manufactured by scientists who believed that
integrity could be maintained amidst the diverting influences of big
money, prestige and politics." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Phillip Johnson, Senior Professor of Law, University of California
at Berkeley:
"That establishment continue to doctor statistics and misrepresent the
situation to keep the public convinced that a major viral pandemic is
under way when the facts are otherwise." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April
1994)
Dr. Henk Loman, Professor of Biophysical Chemistry at the Free
University in Amsterdam:
"There are many people with AIDS but without HIV, and a great many
people with HIV but without AIDS. These two facets mean that HIV = AIDS
is much to simple. Plausible, alternative, testable causes of
impairment of the immune system which may ultimately lead to AIDS
should become part of regular AIDS research." (Sunday Times (London) 3
April 1994)
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, winner of 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry:
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific
documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at
least with a high probability. There is no such document... The HIV
theory, the way it is being applied, is unfalsifiable and therefor
useless as a medical hypothesis". (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993)
Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of
California at Berkeley:
"It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it
proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (Sunday Times
(London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, discoverer of HIV, Institute Pasteur
Paris:
"There are too many shortcomings in the theory that HIV causes all
signs of AIDS" (Miami Herald 23 Dec. 1990)
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, New York Physician:
"The marketing of HIV, through press releases and statements, as a
killer virus causing AIDS without the need for any other factors, has
so distorted research and treatment that it may have caused thousands
of people to suffer and die." (Sunday times (London) 17 May 1992)
Dr. Fabio Franci, Specialist in Preventive Medicine and Infectious
Diseases, Trieste, Italy:
"I am not an agnostic; I am well convinced HIV is harmless." (Sunday
Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Bernard Forscher, former Managing Editor of the Proceeding of the
National Academy of Sciences:
"The HIV hypothesis ranks with the 'bad air' theory for malaria and
the 'bacterial infection' theory of beriberi and pellagra [caused by
nutritional deficiencies]. It is a hoax that became a scam." (Sunday
Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Paul Rabinow, Professor of Anthropology, University of California
at Berkeley:
"In particular I have pursued the situation of haemophiliacs and HIV
because it was the arena least charged with moralism. Systematic
attempts to be allowed to look at the data or to find rigorous
controlled studies have failed." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Paul Lineback, Counselling Psychologist, Eastern Oregon State College:
"Protecting and promoting the unproven HIV hypothesis as fact is
inducing unnecessary stress, probable emotional harm, and maybe even
psychological murder." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994)
Dr. Arthur Gottlieb, Chairperson of the Department of Microbiology and
Immunology at the Tulane University School of Medicine:
"The viewpoint has been so firm that HIV is the only cause and will
result in disease in every patient, that anyone who challenges that is
regarded as 'politically incorrect.' I don't think - as a matter of
public policy - we gain by that, because it limits debate and
discussion and focuses drug development on attacking the virus rather
than attempting to correct the disorder of the immune system, which is
central to the disease." (Penthouse April 1994)
Dr. Casper Schmidt, M.D. New York Psychiatrist:
"There is no way that AIDS can be an infectious disease. Something else
must be going on. The more likely interpretation is that HIV and immune
dysfunction - rather than HIV being a cause and immune dysfunction
being a consequence - are both consequences of something else."
(Penthouse April 1994)
Dr. Gordon Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology University of
Glasgow:
"Nobody wants to look at the facts about this disease. It's the most
extraordinary thing I've ever seen. I've sent countless letters to
medical journals pointing out the epidemiological discrepancies and
they simply ignore them. The fact is, this whole heterosexual AIDS
thing is a hoax." (Spin June 1992)
"AIDS is a behavioural disease. It is multifactorial, brought on by
several simultaneous strains on the immune system - drugs,
pharmaceutical and recreational, sexually transmitted diseases,
multiple viral infections." (Spin June 1992)
Dr. Harvey Bialy, Editor of the science journal Bio/Technology:
"HIV is an ordinary retrovirus. There is nothing about this virus that
is unique. Everything that is discovered about HIV has an analogue in
other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. HIV only contains a very
small piece of genetic information. There's no way it can do all these
elaborate things they say it does." (Spin June 1992)
"From both my literature review and my personal experience over most of
the AIDS - so called AIDS centres in Africa, I can find absolutely no
believable persuasive evidence that Africa is in the midst of a new
epidemic of infectious immunodeficiency." (Meditel 1992)
Dr. Peter Duesberg, Professor of Molecular Biology University of
Berkely:
"There are no slow retroviruses, only slow retrovirologists." (Spin
June 1992)
"They have hyped up HIV into this super-rapist but in reality the damn
thing can hardly get an erection." (Times of London 11 May 1992)
"Epidemiology is like a bikini: what is revealed is interesting; what
is concealed is crucial." (PNAS Feb. 1991)
Nick Siano, author of No Time to Wait:
"The things that we're feeding people emotionally about this disease
are much more deadly than HIV itself. The emotional content of HIV
infection is 75 percent of the battle." (Penthouse Dec. 1995)
Dr. Frank Buianouckas: Professor of Mathmatics, Bronx New York.
"I am suspect about everything involved in this AIDS epidemic, because
if HIV causes anything, it certainly causes fund-raisers. It sells
stocks. It supports dances. It sells condoms. And it keeps the AIDS
establishment going." (Penthouse Dec. 1995)
Dr. Michael Lange: Head of AIDS Programme St. Lukes Hospital, New York:
"What I would strongly support is a more open discussion. We do not
know the pathogenesis of this disease. And we were very early forced
into a very dogmatic view: namely that somehow HIV kills the T-cells."
(Spin April 1991)
Dr. Ralph Moss: Author of The Cancer Industry:
"The paradigm that was laid down for how to milk the cancer problem is
basically the same paradigm which is being followed in milking the AIDS
problem. (Penthouse Dec. 1995)
Michael Callen: AIDS Activist, died in 1994, 13 years after AIDS
diagnosis.
"The HIV paradigm has produced nothing of value for my life and I
actually believe that treatments based on the arrogant belief that HIV
has proven to be the sole and sufficient cause of AIDS has hastened the
deaths of many of my friends" (Meditel 1992)
Dr. Stefan Lanka: Virologist, Germany.
"No particle of HIV has ever been obtained pure, free of contaminants;
nor has a complete piece of HIV RNA (or the transcribed DNA) ever been
proved to exist." (Continuum Sept./Oct. 1996)
Anthony Liversidge: Science journalist, New York
"The editors of the Proceedings [of the U.S. National Academy of
Science] enlisted a phalanx of special reviewers - 26 at last count -
to criticize his [Duesberg's] three submissions. None could identify a
single uncorrectable flaw in fact or logic, as the editors
acknowledged, only a difference of opinion."(Omni June 1993)
Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University:
"I do not regard the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as
settled. I have seen considerable evidence that highly improper
statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off as science, and
that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if
not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about
the nature of AIDS."(Yale Scientific, Fall 1994)
Mark Probert
>> tested - endlessly. Most obvious: polio vaccines were produced
>> initially using rhesus monkeys - NOT chimpanzees. The process was
>> later switched to African green monkeys, again NOT chimpanzees.
>> Chimpanzees have NEVER been used in the manufacture of polio vaccines.
>> AIDS!
>
>
>"Most batches of CHAT were grown on tissue taken from monkeys. But the links
>between vaccine workers and a chimpanzee-research station in the Belgian
>Congo are close enough for it to have been at least a possibility that
>chimpanzee kidneys were used as well. There is no documentary evidence that
>chimpanzee kidneys were used. But the written records of which primate
>species were used for which vaccine batches are far from perfect, as are the
>memories of those who took part in the experiments."
>http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_bk1108.html
IOW, there is no evidence to support the theory, but, hey, why not toss it
around a bit beccause they can sell a book. Excellent.
>This theory might sound farfetched, but most of the competing theories
>about the origin of AIDS have been shot down.
Calling it 'farfetched' is a joke. Try **idle speculation*.
The authors are the epitome of the old Zulu saying, an empty mind is a terrible
thing to use.
Mark Probert
A vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for America's First Fuhrer!
Lon Morgan
>A growing group of scientists think the AIDS virus is harmless and AIDS
>is not contagious.
Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support your
contention that the AIDS virus is harmless and not contagious. I note
that you do not provide even -ONE- current scientific reference to
support your claim.
If you go to the actual data the evidence is incontrovertible. Not
only is it a -mountain- of evidence, it is universally acknowledged.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/hiv_aids/pubs/facts/hivrepfs.htm
Besides, if HIV is harmless, then the controversy over it supposedly
being present in early polio vaccines is largely irrelevant. Wouldn't
matter.
Can't have it both ways.
Roger Schlafly
> Besides, if HIV is harmless, then the controversy over it supposedly
> being present in early polio vaccines is largely irrelevant. Wouldn't
> matter.
Oh that's reassuring. <g> Just put that on the warning pamphlet
and no one will worry a bit!
Mark Probert
<NoS...@cyberhighway.net> writes:
>
>On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:57:12 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>A growing group of scientists think the AIDS virus is harmless and AIDS
>>is not contagious.
>
>Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support your
>contention that the AIDS virus is harmless and not contagious. I note
>that you do not provide even -ONE- current scientific reference to
>support your claim.
One of the members of my Temple is an AIDS researcher of medium note. We
discussed this, and the AZT/fedications causes AIDS fantasies several years ago
in the context of discussing the principal promotor of the latter theory.(
amsolutely cannot recall the name of that promotor, and have been trying to do
so for several days.)
My neighbor pointed out that this individual was actually getting AIDS patients
to stop taking medications to cure themselves. A few months later, we visited
this side-show in New York CIty where he was promoting the no-medication
approach.
This charlatan paraded several of the patients that he has "cured." Some
demonstrated the deep muscle wasting and lack of body fat in end-stage AIDS.
Others had obvious skin lesions.
I consider this murder.
>If you go to the actual data the evidence is incontrovertible. Not
>only is it a -mountain- of evidence, it is universally acknowledged.
>
>http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/hiv_aids/pubs/facts/hivrepfs.htm
The pro-death/anti-medication conspiracy whackos will find a way to controvert
it.
>Besides, if HIV is harmless, then the controversy over it supposedly
>being present in early polio vaccines is largely irrelevant. Wouldn't
>matter.
>Can't have it both ways.
Wanna bet?
Lon Morgan
> Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support your
>> contention that the AIDS virus is harmless and not contagious.
>Dated if it has changed. How many of these experts have recanted their
>statements made in 94',95',96? Not many I'm sure. I don't think it is
>essential to provide scientific references in every post to this NG. I
>am not an expert and this is not a tech. NG. My point was to show that
>not all the experts out there agree with the party line.
I notice that - all - of your 'references' from '95 are from
Penthouse magazine!
Many or your other 'references' are from the Sunday Times.
I suggest what is essential is that if you are going to make technical
claims of a very serious nature, i.e., that the AIDS virus is harmless
and not contagious, then you are going to have to do -MUCH- better
than the tabloid/girlie magazine/paranoia genre of literature.
- IF - (and a very big if it is) so many 'experts' are claiming
what you claim then they should be publishing a huge number of studies
and articles in * credible publications * that demonstrate what you
purport. Your inability to cite even - ONE - pretty much says it all.
However, you could drop over to medline and start going through the
14,000+ studies that have been done on HIV in just the past two years
and see if you can find even - ONE - that supports your hypothesis.
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:57:12 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
AIDS
> >is not contagious.
>
> that you do not provide even -ONE- current scientific reference to
> support your claim.
Dated if it has changed. How many of these experts have recanted their
statements made in 94',95',96? Not many I'm sure. I don't think it is
essential to provide scientific references in every post to this NG. I
am not an expert and this is not a tech. NG. My point was to show that
not all the experts out there agree with the party line.
> If you go to the actual data the evidence is incontrovertible. Not
> only is it a -mountain- of evidence, it is universally acknowledged.
The actual data is controversial and not universally acknowledged.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/hiv_aids/pubs/facts/hivrepfs.htm
>
> Besides, if HIV is harmless, then the controversy over it supposedly
> being present in early polio vaccines is largely irrelevant. Wouldn't
> matter.
> Can't have it both ways.
If a vaccine is involved the evidence is buried so deep in cover-up it
will never see the light of day.
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:43:09 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support your
Anyone interested in this controversy should check out the Rethinking
AID$ Website:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm
An interesting article taken from this website:
THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE
In science, as in life, truth is not always value-free
A case study in careerist politics
By Anthony Liversidge
The Cultural Studies Times, Fall 1995
Which brings us to the latest and greatest example of paradigm
protectionism, the sputtering, almost suppressed challenge to the
ruling notion in the science of AIDS: the hypothesis that the syndrome
is an infectious disease caused by the notorious retrovirus, HIV. What
is still not widely enough appreciated is that there is substantial
doubt among some well-informed scientists and commentators that this
simple retrovirus is the right answer to the puzzle of AIDS, that is,
the severe immune collapse and its many attendant diseases, which are
called AIDS if HIV is present. But over the past decade this doubt has
been largely stifled, and prevented from attaining a full airing in the
science journals and in the media.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the ruling paradigm is that the
evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS remains purely epidemiological,
an association of HIV with AIDS that doesn't prove it is the cause,
because correlation does not prove causation. This sole exhibit of the
prosecution is vitiated by a circularity; according to the CDC (Centers
for Disease Control), if HIV is present, the disease symptom (for
example tuberculosis) must be AIDS, and if it isn't, then it's not. To
add to the illogic, critics count more than 4000 references in the
scientific literature to patients whose symptoms were classified AIDS
although HIV was absent, and the CDC acknowledges that a positive test
for HIV has not been documented in over 43,000 of the 253,000 cases
registered in the US by 1992. (Genetica, Vol. 95, Nos. 13. March 95, p.
84).
Blatant, even admitted censorship has also been seen in the coverage of
the dispute by the most widely read general news journals in science,
Science and Nature. Science early on published a four page exchange
between Duesberg and his opponents, but then cut off the debate and,
apart from a sprinkling of letters, has published only tendentious news
articles since, casting Duesberg and his ideas in an unfavorable light,
quoting his critics liberally and limiting his replies. Nature has
three times published unreviewed 'correspondence' claiming to refute
Duesberg's ideas, and remarkably, has then explicitly declined to allow
Duesberg to respond in full. Indeed, editor John Maddox advertised the
censorship in a full page editorial entitled "Has Duesberg a Right of
Reply?" (The answer was no).
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/allimits.htm
Andrew Sanders
of references:
http://homepages.go.com/~frann55/hiv.html
What you don't seem to realise is that it is nigh on impossible to
publish or receive funding to openly address the issues surrounding HIV-
AIDS. All the money is directed at HIV, HIV, and more HIV. That's why
there are thousands of articles published on HIV that wouldn't dare doubt
its involvement in this disease (not that they usually even consider this
minor matter) - if they did their funding and careers would disappear
overnight. And that explains why you and many others are so defensive on
this matter.
So Joe Public is led to believe that Gallo had it spot on from the word
go when he declared he had found HIV, the 'cause' of AIDS and, by the
way, had patented a ropey test the day before which would make him a
millionaire. Reagan immediately sanctioned hundreds of millions of
dollars to find a cure for this virus without a cent towards the
confimation of Gallo's hypothesis. Politics, drug companies, accountants
and some rash science have since dug a hole so deep that it is impossible
to escape from - unless it is filled in along with its occupants.
Sad really...
Andrew.
In article <OoYzOL4vTwZ6kUXrj+OPBmt=+B...@4ax.com>,
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:43:09 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support your
> >> contention that the AIDS virus is harmless and not contagious.
>
> >Dated if it has changed. How many of these experts have recanted their
> >statements made in 94',95',96? Not many I'm sure. I don't think it is
> >essential to provide scientific references in every post to this NG. I
> >am not an expert and this is not a tech. NG. My point was to show that
> >not all the experts out there agree with the party line.
>
> I notice that - all - of your 'references' from '95 are from
> Penthouse magazine!
> Many or your other 'references' are from the Sunday Times.
>
> I suggest what is essential is that if you are going to make technical
> claims of a very serious nature, i.e., that the AIDS virus is harmless
> and not contagious, then you are going to have to do -MUCH- better
> than the tabloid/girlie magazine/paranoia genre of literature.
>
> - IF - (and a very big if it is) so many 'experts' are claiming
> what you claim then they should be publishing a huge number of studies
> and articles in * credible publications * that demonstrate what you
> purport. Your inability to cite even - ONE - pretty much says it all.
>
> However, you could drop over to medline and start going through the
> 14,000+ studies that have been done on HIV in just the past two years
> and see if you can find even - ONE - that supports your hypothesis.
>
> "Issues in Immunization: the Evidence"
> http://fp1.cyberhighway.net/~lmorgan/
>
> Lon Morgan
> email: lmorgan AT cyberhighway DOT net
> Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
>
Andrew Sanders
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:43:09 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support your
Here's another article I'm sure you'll enjoy reading Lon:
COMING TO GRIPS WITH HEALTH FASCISM
By Hiram Caton, April 1999
The rules of war are that when critical dissent challenges orthodoxy,
the sacred doctrine is invoked to cast blame. Thus, Dr Paul F. Lewis, a
senior Oregon health officer, said in rebuttal to the Tysons, 'There is
currently no reasonable doubt that AIDS is caused by HIV. It is a
disservice to men, women and children to say otherwise'. And listen to
Professor June E. Osborn, who had a significant hand in framing AIDS
policy: 'This book [by Professor Peter Duesberg] is destructive of
personal morale, prevention efforts and public understanding both of
H.I.V./AIDS and of biomedical science in general. It has the potential
to wreak serious harm at a crucial point in the AIDS epidemic, which
has been judged by many to be one of the greatest public health
challenges of our time'.
Look closely, gentle reader! There, staring you straight in the face,
is infallible authority chastising an erring scientist. If there are no
reasonable grounds to doubt that HIV causes AIDS, then there are no
grounds for testing the hypothesis and criticism of the accepted
evidence lies beyond the pale. That, plain and simple, is fascist
science. This corruption is defended by vilifying critics and assigning
them pariah status. They are stigmatized not merely as mischief-makers,
they are wreckers, enemies of public health. It follows as night
follows day that they should be crushed as you would crush a cockroach.
The first casualty of the 'war on AIDS' was the integrity of science.
The exact moment of the crime can be pinpointed: it was the April 1984
press conference where the then Health Secretary Margaret Heckler
declared that government scientist Robert C. Gallo had discovered the
viral cause of AIDS. The Reagan administration was then under heavy
pressure to put runs on the board. So Heckler hailed the discovery
as 'yet another miracle for American medicine and science' and
a 'victory over a dreaded disease'. If smoke and mirror tricks are
miracles, then miracle it was. The so-called discovery was in reality a
theft. The virus had been reported a year previous by the Pasteur
Institute in Paris. The Institute furnished Gallo a culture of their
virus and that's where he 'discovered' it. But by shamming independent
discovery, AIDS 'science' commenced with TWO viral causes of the same
disease! (An international panel of experts needed years to sort out
this knavery and decide that the two viruses were actually the same).
Neither Gallo nor the Institute proved that the virus was pathogenic.
Indeed, they did not even isolate it, as the Pasteur Institute chief
later admitted. But the spin-doctors at the National Institutes of
Health had organized leading journals to endorse Secretary
Heckler's 'miracle' with the seal of Science. From that moment, all
AIDS research and policy were based on a speculation converted to dogma
by bureaucratic power.
This initial public execution of scientific integrity unleashed a
propaganda machine that expands Heckler's initial obvious whopper
('victory over a dreaded disease') into a never-ending sickness saga
that extorts money and grinds millions into the muck of bad medicine.
Scientific integrity was murdered by a brutal health fascism. The next
victim was the gold standard of clinical evaluation, the double blind
trial. With a perversity that spin doctors must admire, the methodology
was abandoned in the name of ethics! In reality, the double blind trial
had to be murdered because it placed the treatment and causality dogmas
of AIDS science at grave risk of falsification. The next victim was the
integrity of independent clinical judgment. Any doctor who bucked the
official line placed himself at risk of retaliation. And now, in the
Tyson and Emerson cases, we see that the fundamental right of informed
consent and right to refuse treatment were also murdered.
Full text: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/hcfascism.htm
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:43:09 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support your
REMARKS ON METHODS FOR RETROVIRAL ISOLATION
By Etienne de Harven
Continuum Spring 1998
Dr. Etienne de Harven is emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of
Toronto. He worked in electron microscopy (EM) primarily on the
ultrastructure of retroviruses throughout his professional career of 25
years at the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York and 13 years at the
University of Toronto. In 1956 he was the first to report on the EM of
the Friend virus in murine (mouse) leukemia, and in 1960, to coin the
word "budding" to describe steps of virus assembly on cell surfaces. He
will deliver a speech at the 12th World AIDS Conference in Geneva (June
28-July 3) at the session "HIV-testing: Open Questions about
Specificity".
In conclusion, and after extensive reviewing of the current AIDS
research literature, the following statement appears inescapable:
neither electron microscopy nor molecular markers have so far permitted
a scientifically sound demonstration of retrovirus isolation directly
from AIDS patients. This conclusion fully confiens the recent reports
published in Continuum by E. Papadopulos and by S. Lanka.
Harvey Bialy, editor of the journal Bio/Technology has stated that
(14) "A powerful hypothesis has to explain and predict. What kind of
scientist continues to support a hypothesis that fails to explain and
fails to predict?" The HIV/AIDS hypothesis fails to explain the
considerable drop of T4 circulating lymphocytes in AIDS patients. It
predicted a dramatic AIDS epidemic which was never observed (unless we
accent the CDC's most surprising redefinition of AIDS as including some
31 "AIDS defining illnesses"!).
Obviously, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has to be scientifically reappraised.
(15) And, most urgently, the funding for AIDS research should no longer
be restricted to laboratories working on an hypothesis which has never
been proven. *
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/ehremarks.htm
David Wright
>In article <OoYzOL4vTwZ6kUXrj+OPBmt=+B...@4ax.com>,
> Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:43:09 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>> >> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support your
>> >> contention that the AIDS virus is harmless and not contagious.
>
>AID$ Website:
>http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm
The HIV "controversy" exists in the minds of people who, for some
reason, are bitterly opposed to the idea that AIDS is caused by a
virus.
Why they think this is hard to say. Some of them deny that HIV
exists, other say that it does exist, but doesn't cause AIDS, and some
say that it does cause AIDS, but only in the presence of an as-yet
unknown cofactor (or cofactors). The last group might be right; the
first two are simply being perverse, especially the "HIV does not
exist" crowd.
They don't seem to have trouble with the idea that FIV causes a
disease in cats, or that SIV causes it in monkeys and apes, but
somehow when you move over to humans, all of a sudden "no it's not a
viral disease, it's caused by drug use" or some other silly notion.
Or they attack the serological tests. Or they say that because AIDS
didn't reach the levels predicted years ago, it must not be an
infectious condition.
It's still the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society, and it doesn't
have to be taken seriously.
-- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"What would Brian Boitano do?" -- Kyle, Stan, and Cartman
Lon Morgan
>> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>> >> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support your
>> >> contention that the AIDS virus is harmless and not contagious.
>
>REMARKS ON METHODS FOR RETROVIRAL ISOLATION
>Dr. Etienne de Harven is emeritus Professor of Pathology,.. "HIV-testing: Open Questions about
>Specificity".
No where does Dr. Harven state HIV is harmless and not contagious.
The concern is about the specificity of the HIV testing, i.e., the
possiblility of a certain level of false positives. A legitimate
concern in all laboratory testing. Nonetheless the combination of
ELISA, with Western Blot and RT-PCR followup makes for a very
sensitive and specific testing process.
>Harvey Bialy, editor of the journal Bio/Technology has stated that
>(14)The HIV/AIDS hypothesis fails to explain the
>considerable drop of T4 circulating lymphocytes in AIDS patients.
This quote - from Spin magazine, no less - does not address the issue
of whether HIV is harmless or contagious.
Bialy has a sympathetic association with Duesberg. Bialy seems to
acknowledge the T4 cells drop, which they most certainly do: after
Tcells take up HIV by binding of the viral glycoprotein gp120. Herpes
and measles viruses also infect T cells. T cell depletion can vary
considerably between indiviuals and seems to to related to the level
of HIV RNA in the plasma.
> It
>predicted a dramatic AIDS epidemic which was never observed (unless we
>accent the CDC's most surprising redefinition of AIDS as including some
>31 "AIDS defining illnesses"!).
Perhaps the author just can't handle the massive evidence of millions
of infected people, esp. in Africa, S. America and SE Asia. Numbers
that are rapidly increasing. To claim that these cases are 'never
observed' is an astonishing example of 'head in the sand' denial.
Your assertion that HIV is harmless and non-infectious remains
unconfirmed, mainly because you lack a balanced, credible and original
referential source for your claims.
"Issues in Immunization: the Evidence"
http://fp1.cyberhighway.net/~lmorgan/
Lon Morgan
email: lmorgan AT cyberhighway DOT net
Quantum mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of.
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:43:38 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> >> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support
your
> >> >> contention that the AIDS virus is harmless and not contagious.
> >
> >REMARKS ON METHODS FOR RETROVIRAL ISOLATION
> >Dr. Etienne de Harven is emeritus Professor of Pathology,.. "HIV-
testing: Open Questions about
> >Specificity".
>
> No where does Dr. Harven state HIV is harmless and not contagious.
> The concern is about the specificity of the HIV testing, i.e., the
> possiblility of a certain level of false positives. A legitimate
> concern in all laboratory testing. Nonetheless the combination of
> ELISA, with Western Blot and RT-PCR followup makes for a very
> sensitive and specific testing process.
>
developed (at sizable financial profit eagerly split between the
Pasteur Institute and the US). "Seropositivity" became synonymous with
the disease itself, plunging an entire generation into behavioral
panic, and exposing hundreds of thousands of people to 'preventive'
antiviral AZT therapy which actually hastened the appearance of severe
or lethal immunodeficiency syndrome. Appropriate controls were
apparently never carried out or were never published. Still, back in
1993 it became clear that the so-called HIV antibody tests badly lacked
specificity, (9) cross-reactivity being observed with patients
suffering from a long list of pathological conditions including
malaria, leprosy, auto-immune diseases and many more.
Secondly, 'viral proteins'. Several proteins have been identified
as 'HIV markers', most frequently because they were identified in a
variety of 1.16 bands. The case of the p24 "viral" antigen is a
significant example and its lack of viral specificity has been well
documented.(10)
Third, reverse transcription. If reverse transcriptase activity were a
unique feature of retroviruses, it could have been an interesting
molecular marker. Unfortunately, it has been shown that reverse
transcriptase is found in the uninfected cells of yeasts, insects and
mammals (11) and "has nothing to do with retroviruses as such" as well
referenced in a recent report from S. Lanka. Moreover, K. Mullis
himself does not support the use - to amplify and quantify the "HIV
genome" - which is being made of the PCR methodology he developed,
which is the current method of "measuring the viral load" in AIDS
patients.
More disturbing is the fact that some 'markers' are searched for in the
1.16 gradient sedimenting material which is the density where intact
virions are expected to be found, but not their molecular fragments. If
lysed retrovirus particles released molecular markers, the 1.16 samples
should at least initially allow investigators to demonstrate virus
particles by EM. They don't. however after 15 years of most intensive
HIV research, two independent groups finally decided to explore by
electron microscopy the ultrastructural features of the material
sedimenting at the 1.16 density. Working on "HIV-1 infected T-cell"
cultures supernatants, both groups found that it contains primarily
cellular debris and cell membrane vesicles which could definitely not
be identified with HIV particles and rare "virus-like" particles.(12,
13) Still, this is the type of sample in which "viral markers" are
currently identified and used to measure the effects of anti-viral
drugs in current clinical trials.
baj...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <8115kj$rib$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:43:09 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> >> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support
your
> >> >> contention that the AIDS virus is harmless and not contagious.
> >
> >AID$ Website:
> >http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/index.htm
>
> The HIV "controversy" exists in the minds of people who, for some
> reason, are bitterly opposed to the idea that AIDS is caused by a
> virus.
>
came into existence as a group of signatories of an open letter to the
scientific community. The letter (dated June 6, 1991) has been
submitted to the editors of Nature, Science, The Lancet and The New
England Journal of Medicine. All have refused to publish it. In 1996
The Group was able to get a letter published in Science. A copy can be
found here.
To the editor:
It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called
HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists
now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of
the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a
suitable independent group. We further propose that critical
epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.
Signatories:
Charles A. Thomas, Jr. Ph.D. (Mol. Biologist, Pres. Helicon Fnd., San
Diego, CA)
Harvey Bialy, Ph.D. (Editor Bio/Technology, New York, NY)
Harry Rubin, D.V.M. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Richard C. Strohman, Ph.D. (Prof. Cell Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley,
CA)
Phillip E. Johnson (Prof. Law, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Gordon J. Edlin, Ph.D. (Prof. Biochem. & Physics, Univ. Hawaii, HI)
Beverly E. Griffin, Ph.D. (Dir. Dept. Virology, Royal Postgrad. Med.
School, London, UK)
Robert S. Root-Bernstein (Prof. Physiology, Michigan State Univ., East
Lansing, MI)
Gordon Stewart, M.D. (Emeritus Prof. Public Health, Epidemiologist,
Isle of Wight, UK)
Carlos Sonnenschein, M.D. (Tufts Univ., Medicine, Boston, MA)
Richard L. Pitter, Ph.D. (Dessert Research Inst., Univ. Nevada System,
Reno NV)
Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. (Psychiatrist, Roslyn, NY)
John Lauritsen (Author 'Poison by Prescription', New York, NY)
William Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
Claudia Holub, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Live Sciences Inst. New York, NY)
Frank R. Buianouckas Ph.D. (Prof. Mathematics, Cuny, Bronx, NY)
Philip Rosen, Ph.D. (Prof. Physics, Univ. Mass. Amherst, MA)
Steven Jonas, M.D. (Prof. Preventive Medicine, Suny Stony Brook, NY)
Bernard K. Forscher, Ph.D (Ret. Editor Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Santa Fe,
NM)
Kary B. Mullis, Ph.D. (Biochemist, PCR inventor, Consultant, La Jolla,
CA.)
Jeffrey A. Fisher, M.D. (Pathologist, Mendham, NJ)
Hansueli Albonico, M.D. (General Practitioner, Langnau, Switzerland)
Robert Hoffman, Ph.D. (Prof. Dept. Pediatrics Univ. Cal. Med. School,
San Diego, CA)
Timothy H. Hand, Ph.D. (Dept. Psychology, Oglethorpe Univ. Atlanta, GA)
Eleni Eleopulos, M.D. (Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, West Australia)
Robert W. Maver, F.S.A., M.A.A. (Dir. Research, Mutual Benefit Life,
Kansas City, MO)
Ken N. Matsumura, M.D. (Chairman Alin Foundation & Research Inst.,
Berkeley, CA.)
David T. Berner, M.D. (Condon, MT)
Theodor Wieland, Ph.D. (Max Planck Institut, Heidelberg, Germany)
Joan Shenton, M.A. (Meditel, London, UK)
John Anthony Morris, Ph.D. (Biochemist, Bell of Atari College Park, MD)
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. (Prof. Pharmacology & Toxicology, Rutgers Univ.,
Piscataway, NJ)
In addition there were 14 others who have added their signatures in
July 1991.
By March 1993 the following persons had added their signatories:
Vahagn Agbabian, D.O. (Pontiac, MI)
Barry R. Alexavich (Cell Biologist, Bristol, CT)
David T. Berner, M.D. (Condon, MT)
Shelly B. Blam, Ph.D. (Alameda, CA)
Lawrence Bradford, Ph.D. (Benedictine College, Atchison, KS)
Carl Bradford, J.D. (San Diego, CA)
Michael Callen (Author 'Surviving AIDS', Hollywood, CA)
Melinda Calleira (Pres. Amer. Ass. Science & Public Policy, Los
Angeles, CA)
Hiram Caton, Ph.D. (Prof. App. Ethics, Griffith Univ., Brisbane,
Australia)
Dennis Chaney, Ph.D. (Chaney Scientific Inc. Burlingame, CA)
Michelle Cochrane (Emeryville, CA)
Hywel Davies, M.D. (Cardiologist, Pueblo West, CO)
Marlowe Dittlebrandt, M.D. (Portland, OR)
Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. (Prof. Mol. Biology, Univ. Cal. Berkeley, CA)
Bryan J. Ellison (Author, Berkeley, CA)
Michael Ellner (HEAL, New York, NY)
Fabio Franchi, M.D. (Trieste, Italy)
Trish Fahey (New York, NY)
Celia Farber (Writer, New York, NY)
Lawrence A. Falk, Jr., Ph.D. (Virologist Abott Labs, Consultant NCI,
Chicago, IL)
James A. Fimea, Ph.D. (Laguna Beach, CA)
Harry Flynn, (Author, Hollywood, CA)
William L. Gardner, Ph.D. (Wellesley, MA)
Arnold W. Giddens (Shingle Springs, CA)
Robert Grabowski (Birminghan, MI)
Martin Haas, Ph.D. (Dept. Biology Cancer Center, Univ. Cal., San Diego,
CA)
Alfred Haessig, M.D. (Emeritus Prof. Immunolgy Univ. Bern, Switzerland)
Urs Haldimann (Editor, Swiss Ass. Science Writers, Arisdorf,
Switzerland)
Neville Hodgkinson (Science Correspondent The Sunday Times, London, UK)
John Holmdahl, Ph.D. (Los Angeles, CA)
Ross Horne (Montville, Queensland, Austalia)
Heinrich Kremer, M.D. (Mueckenburg, Germany)
Hans J. Kugler, Ph.D. (Editor Prev. Med. Update, Redondo Beach, CA)
Robert Laarhoven (S.A.A.O., Hilversum, The Netherlands)
Paul Lineback, M.S. (Eastern Oregon State College)
Henk Loman, Ph.D. (Prof. Biophysics, Free Univ. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands)
Judith Lopez (San Francisco, CA)
Maurizio Luca-Moretti, Ph.D. (InterAmerican Medical Health Ass., Boca
Raton, FL)
William H. McIlhany, I.R.F. (Beverly Hills, CA)
Peter McKeever, L.L.B. (London, UK)
Michael D. Mellgard (Los Angeles, CA)
David Mertz (Dept. Philosophy, Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst)
Richard Mitchell, Ph.D. (Assoc. Prof. Sociology, Oregon State Univ,
Corvalus, OR)
Joseph E. Morrow, Ph.D. (Cal. State Univ. Sacramento, CA)
Cindy Orser (Ast. Prof. Bacteriology, Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID)
Hannes G. Pauli, M.D. (Former Director Bern Univ. Med. Faculty, Bern,
Switzerland)
Paul Rabinow, Ph.D. (Prof. Dept. Anthropology Univ. Cal., Berkeley, CA)
Jon Rappoport (Author 'AIDS Inc.')
Dennis D. Rathman (Staff Member Lincoln Labs, Lexington, MA)
Rodney M. Richards, Ph.D. (Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA)
Judith Riesman, Ph.D. (Author, Arlington, VA)
Michael Ristow, Ph.D. (Bochum, Germany)
Mel T. Roach (Avatar Research, Tuscon, AZ)
Gary Robertson (Broadbeach Waters, Queensland, Australia)
Frank Rothschild (Project Dir., Berkeley Project on Bioscience &
Society, CA)
David F. Salehi, Ph.D. (Lake Dallas, TX)
Caspar Schmidt, M.D. (Psychiatrist, New York)
Russell Schoch (Editor California Monthly, Berkeley, CA)
Frederic I. Scott, Jr. (Editor American Clinical Laboratory, Baltimore,
MD)
Udo Schuklenk (Dept. Ethics, Monash Univ., Melbourne, Australia)
Jeremy F. Selvey (Los Angeles, CA)
David Shugar, Ph.D. (Prof. Biophysics, Univ. Warsaw, Editor Pharmacol.
Therap., Poland)
Sonja Silva (Los Lunas, NM)
Ernest G. Silver, Ph.D. (Radiation Biologist, Oak Ridge, TN)
Lockie M. Swengel (Del Mar, CA)
Frederick Tobin, Ph.D. (Gorke, Australia)
Jack True (Clayton, GA)
La Trombetta (Burzynski Research Inst., Houston, TX)
Friedrich Ulmer, Ph.D. (Prof. Math. & Stat., Bergische Univ.,
Wuppertal, Germany)
Michael Verney-Elliot (Meditel, London, UK)
Darrell G. Wells, Ph.D. (Emeritus Prof. Plant Sciences, Brookings, SD)
Wai Yeung, M.D. (Orinda, CA)
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:43:38 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> >> Your dated, out-of-context newspaper clippings do not support
your
> >
> >REMARKS ON METHODS FOR RETROVIRAL ISOLATION
> >Dr. Etienne de Harven is emeritus Professor of Pathology,.. "HIV-
testing: Open Questions about
> >Specificity".
>
> No where does Dr. Harven state HIV is harmless and not contagious.
> The concern is about the specificity of the HIV testing, i.e., the
> possiblility of a certain level of false positives. A legitimate
> concern in all laboratory testing. Nonetheless the combination of
> ELISA, with Western Blot and RT-PCR followup makes for a very
> sensitive and specific testing process.
>
The difference between thinking you will live and thinking you will die
often depends on an HIV antibody test that is shockingly unreliable.
Whether you are an HIV believer or an HIV skeptic, you can't possibly
argue that the HIV antibody test is not wracked with problems. It is
the gateway to the Kafkaesque nightmare known as AIDS, which manifests
itself physically, emotionally, sexually and socially. For the entire
global superstructure of AIDS -- in all its multifarious forms of
abuse -- to be teetering atop a diagnostic test so unreliable is a
terrifying specter.
http://www.impressionmag.com/archives/1999/060799/aids.shtml
David Wright
It's been seen before, many times. I'm curious about whether all the
people who signed it in 1991 still believe it. (With some of them,
like Kary Mullis, who cares? He's a chemist. Or good old Philip
Johnson. He's a lawyer. He doesn't believe in evolution, either.)
And, as for the number of signatures, well, "if a million people say a
foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
David Wright
>In article <LcY4OOjCOX9X1VH=c0KsIY...@4ax.com>,
>Positively Flawed
>The difference between thinking you will live and thinking you will die
>often depends on an HIV antibody test that is shockingly unreliable.
>
>Whether you are an HIV believer or an HIV skeptic, you can't possibly
>argue that the HIV antibody test is not wracked with problems. It is
>the gateway to the Kafkaesque nightmare known as AIDS, which manifests
>itself physically, emotionally, sexually and socially. For the entire
>global superstructure of AIDS -- in all its multifarious forms of
>abuse -- to be teetering atop a diagnostic test so unreliable is a
>terrifying specter.
Bajabum, you certainly believe everything you read -- if it's
sufficiently alarmist. I don't think you really understand it, or can
evaluate it, but you believe it anyway.
The idea that the AIDS tests are highly unreliable is a myth. Nobody
is diagnosed HIV+ on the basis of just one test. Not these days.
Lon Morgan
> First the antibody. Elisa, then Western Blot tests were hastily
>developed (at sizable financial profit eagerly split between the
>Pasteur Institute and the US).
These types of tests have been around for a long time. Where is the
actual evidence ( as opposed to vacuous and unfounded accusations )
supporting the above?
And will you -ever- do more than 'cut and paste' off of fringe
websites?
For current research on HIV testing you can check out:
Assays for HIV with improved sensitivity and specificity [Reviews &
Updates]
Susan J Best & Elizabeth M Dax
Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs 1997, 6 : 965–983.
For infectivity on T cells by HIV:
HIV-2 and T cell recognition [Review article]
Hilton C Whittle, Koya Ariyoshi, Sarah Rowland-Jones
Current Opinion in Immunology 1998, 10:382-387.
On the ways HIV enters T cells:
Co-receptors for HIV-1 entry [Review article]
John P Moore, Alexandra Trkola, Tatjana Dragic
Current Opinion in Immunology 1997, 9:551-562.
For ways in which HIV is influenced by host genetics:
Host genetic influences on HIV-1 pathogenesis [Review article]
Nelson L Michael
Current Opinion in Immunology 1999, 11:466-474.
For HIV disease progression:
HIV pathogenesis: mechanisms of susceptibility and disease progression
[Review article]
J Neil Simonsen, Keith R Fowke, Kelly S MacDonald, Francis A Plummer
Current Opinion in Microbiology 1998, 1:423-429.
More on T cells and HIV:
T lymphocyte responses in HIV-1 infection: implications for vaccine
development [Review article]
Christian Brander, Bruce D Walker
Current Opinion in Immunology 1999, 11:451-459.
Is HIV harmless? It certainly affects the nervous system:
HIV interactions with cells of the nervous system [Review article]
Monique Dubois-Dalcq, Ralf Altmeyer, Marielle Chiron, Susan Wilt
Current Opinion in Neurobiology 1995, 5:647-655.
see also:
HIV-1 encephalopathy in children [Review article]
Harris A. Gelbard, MD, PhD, Leon G. Epstein, MD
Current Opinion in Pediatrics 1995, 7:655-662.
Is HIV harmless? It certainly affects the digestive system:
Mucosal HIV Infection
Reiner Ullrich,
Pathobiology 1998, 66:3–4:145-150.
Is HIV harmless? It certainly increases incidence of other diseases
such as TB:
Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium complex disease in
patients with HIV infection. [Review article]
Constance A. Benson
Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases 1994, 7:95-107.
I'm * STILL WAITING * for you to provide -credible- current
references, i.e., something more than tabloids, girlie magazines and
fringe web sites.!
Bennett
>
>It's been seen before, many times. I'm curious about whether all the
>people who signed it in 1991 still believe it. (With some of them,
>like Kary Mullis, who cares? He's a chemist. Or good old Philip
>Johnson. He's a lawyer. He doesn't believe in evolution, either.)
>
>And, as for the number of signatures, well, "if a million people say a
>foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
>
I know at least one who doesn't - Udo Schuklenk - who recanted when Mellors
posted his evidence that HIV steady state viral load predicted time to AIDS.
He reviewed a short article I wrote on the dangers of reading the dissident
views on the Internet for people with HIV and AIDS.
Cheers
Bennett
baj...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <81bmnu$27k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <LcY4OOjCOX9X1VH=c0KsIY...@4ax.com>,
>
> Bajabum, you certainly believe everything you read -- if it's
> sufficiently alarmist. I don't think you really understand it, or can
> evaluate it, but you believe it anyway.
>
> The idea that the AIDS tests are highly unreliable is a myth. Nobody
> is diagnosed HIV+ on the basis of just one test. Not these days.
>
Rarely, if ever, has a single diagnostic test had such an enormous
impact on the lives of the millions of people who rely on it. Since
1985, the U.S. government and various civilian institutions have
performed more than 20 million HIV tests every year. Responses to
positive tests have been melodramatic. People have been known to commit
suicide or murder, lapse into depression, have abortions, become
divorced, and take toxic medications. (2) Tragically, these dramatic
actions were triggered by a test that is far from foolproof.
In 1993, a group of Australian researchers published what would be the
first substantial critique of the HIV antibody test. The article,
entitled "Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?" was
published in the journal Bio/Technology, a respected scientific
publication affiliated with the British magazine Nature. The Australian
researchers stated that the HIV test is seriously flawed on several
counts: it is not standardized, so different labs will interpret the
same results differently; it is not reproducible (the test fails when
tested against itself); it cross-reacts with other, non-HIV proteins;
and it lacks a true "gold standard." Every diagnostic test must have a
gold standard, which in this case would be HIV itself, but the authors
argue this is impossible since the HIV virus has never been isolated in
pure form. (3)
The scientists scrutinized the two most widely used HIV antibody tests -
- the "ELISA," which is used to screen blood, and the "Western Blot"
(WB), which is used to confirm a positive result on the ELISA. The
problems apply to both tests.
The ELISA test, first developed in 1985, is highly sensitive and also
extremely nonspecific, which means it gives a positive result even when
there is no HIV present. As many as four out of five ELISA tests cannot
be confirmed by Western Blot, (4) and yet it remains the most widely
used test in the Third World, most notably Africa, where HIV is said to
be rampant.
Citing the data from a mass HIV testing program undertaken by the U.S.
military, the Australian researchers revealed some startling findings.
There were, for instance, 4,000 people who had two positive ELISAs
followed by a negative WB. Perhaps worse, there were 80 cases of people
who had two positive ELISAs, a positive WB, followed by a negative
follow-up WB.
In other words, those 80 people, outside the context of this study,
would have gone home believing they were HIV positive, since a single
positive WB qualifies a person as positive. But in fact they were
negative.
Another problem with the test is that it is nonspecific. The test looks
for patterns of proteins thought to be specific to HIV. One protein in
particular, p24, is "currently believed to be synonymous with HIV
isolation and viremia," the study says. But the Australian researchers
detected p24 antibodies in a number of people who were completely free
of HIV, including one out of every 150 healthy people, about 13 percent
of all people with generalized warts, and more than 40 percent of those
with multiple sclerosis. On the other hand, they point out, p24 is not
found in all AIDS patients.
But perhaps most troubling, the tests tend to cross-react with other
microbes. The Bio/Technology articles describes a tribe of Amazonian
Indians who have never had contact outside their tribe and who have no
AIDS. And yet, 3.3 to 13.3 percent were HIV- positive by Western
Blot. "The above data," they speculated in their final report, means
either that HIV is not in fact causing AIDS, "or, that the HIV antibody
tests are non-specific."
The test's greatest failing in the eyes of those who've had to rely on
it, however, is that it is not standardized. In the Australian study,
one particular blood sample was sent 89 times to three different labs.
It was reported to be positive 64 times, indeterminate 23 times, and
negative once. There is such a broad, gray, "indeterminate" zone, in
fact, that it's often merely chance whether a given lab reads the
result as positive or negative.
By Celia Farber
Mothering Sept./Oct. 1998
baj...@my-deja.com
"Roger Schlafly" <re...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote in message
> news:wdYwOHztShhUyR...@4ax.com...
> This point is addressed in the book and in the review.
>
> "Most batches of CHAT were grown on tissue taken from monkeys. But
the links
> between vaccine workers and a chimpanzee-research station in the
Belgian
> Congo are close enough for it to have been at least a possibility that
> chimpanzee kidneys were used as well. There is no documentary
evidence that
> chimpanzee kidneys were used. But the written records of which primate
> species were used for which vaccine batches are far from perfect, as
are the
> memories of those who took part in the experiments."
THE FAUCI FILES: "The River" -- An Affirmative Review in the journal
Science (Nov 12, 1999)
Science, November 12, 1999; Volume 286, Number 5443, pp. 1305 - 1306
HISTORY OF MEDICINE:
Is AIDS Man-Made?
A review by Robin A. Weiss*
Were chimpanzee kidneys used in the production of oral polio vaccines?
This is the nub of Hooper's case. He points to the Wistar Institute or
to Belgian laboratories using Wistar strains. Numerous chimps and
bonobos (pygmy chimps) were kept at Camp Lindi, outside Stanleyville
(Belgian Congo). Some were used there for testing the safety of
vaccines, but what happened to the majority of the animals? Although
Hooper reveals that some chimp kidneys were sent to Philadelphia for
tissue culture, there is no record of vaccine production in them. If
chimpanzee kidneys were used, however, it seems odd that the one pool
of OPV (CHAT 10A-11) that, according to Hooper, might have been
contaminated found its way back to the Congo--and not to Sweden,
Poland, or the United States, where other Koprowski trials took place.
Hooper wonders if Ghislain Courtois, the director at Lindi, might have
amplified the pools of CHAT vaccine in Stanleyville. The author reveals
that the veterinarian Alexandre Jezierski independently grew attenuated
poliovirus in chimpanzee kidney cultures in the Congo. Because the
Pasteur Institute's Pierre Lepine used local baboon kidneys, could the
French also have used chimp cells? In addition, Hooper suspects that
French and Portuguese activities led to the West African origin of HIV-
2 from sooty mangabeys. To me, the possible use of small batches of
experimental OPV made locally seems a more plausible source of
contamination than the Wistar preparations. As one of the investigators
of that time, Abel Prinzie, told Hooper: "We were acting in full
innocence, not understanding what sort of Pandora's box we were
opening."
Bennett
>In article <80qva...@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>
>THE FAUCI FILES: "The River" -- An Affirmative Review in the journal
>Science (Nov 12, 1999)
Oh dear, reposting tripe from Fred Shaw does even less to your credibility
than your other posts. If you really want to argue the issue, crosspost to
misc.health.aids and I and others will happily tear it to shreds :o)
Cheers
Bennett
Lon Morgan
Lmorgan wrote:
>> Nonetheless the combination of
>> ELISA, with Western Blot and RT-PCR followup makes for a very
>> sensitive and specific testing process.
>Whether you are an HIV believer or an HIV skeptic, you can't possibly
>argue that the HIV antibody test is not wracked with problems.
Ah, but I can argue, especially in light of the fact that you remain
incapable of getting past the 'Scudamore Mediocrity' level of
'references.' And it is questionable whether you would comprehend
it anyhow. But just in case, here's current *legitimate evidence* on
AIDS/HIV testing:
"Accurate determination of plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1
(HIV-1) RNA levels is critical for the effective management of HIV-1
disease. ..We describe here the AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test, version
1.5, ... version of the 1.5 test yielded equivalent quantification of
HIV-1 RNA regardless of the subtype. " (1)
"A new immunochromatographic rapid test, Determine HIV-1/2, for the
detection of antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)
and HIV-2 in human whole blood, serum, and plasma was evaluated.
..This evaluation demonstrated the excellent performance of this
immunochromatographic test with EDTA-anticoagulated whole-blood,
serum, and plasma samples. We conclude that this test is suitable for
use in emerging countries and is an excellent alternative to HIV
antibody testing at remote sites, as well as in traditional
laboratories. " (2)
"In order to reduce the window phase between time of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and laboratory diagnosis, new
fourth generation screening assays which permit a simultaneous
detection of HIV antigen and antibody have been developed. ..The
specificity for unselected blood donors was 99.6%. The Enzymun-Test
HIV Combi permits an earlier diagnosis of HIV infection than third
generation assays through the detection of p24 antigen, which may be
present in serum samples from individuals with recent HIV infection
prior to seroconversion and it shows an excellent sensitivity for
antibodies to all known HIV-1 subtypes and HIV-2. The specificity in
blood donors and hospitalized patients is comparable to that of other
assays. " (3)
-MANY- more references are available.
Reality can be a bummer for the alarmist mentality.
==============================================
1. Development of calibrated viral load standards for group M
subtypes of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and performance of an
improved AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test with isolates of diverse
subtypes. Michael NL; J Clin Microbiol, 1999 Aug, 37:8, 2557-63
2. Evaluation of a rapid immunochromatographic test for detection of
antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus.
Arai H; J Clin Microbiol, 1999 Feb, 37:2, 367-70
3. Reduction of the diagnostic window with a new combined p24 antigen
and human immunodeficiency virus antibody screening assay.
Gürtler L. J Virol Methods, 1998 Nov, 75:1, 27-38
Lon Morgan
Prior post:
>> Bajabum, you certainly believe everything you read -- if it's
>> sufficiently alarmist. I don't think you really understand it, or can
>> evaluate it, but you believe it anyway.
>Rarely, if ever, has a single diagnostic test had such an enormous
>impact on the lives of the millions of people who rely on it...
Hmmm, so your 'reference' is now Mothering magazine.
My my Baja, at least it's not a girlie magazine, so I suppose that's
an improvement. :-|
Just can't clue into the necessity of actually consulting the current
scientific literature, can you?!
The diagnosis of AIDS is certainly traumatic, as is a dx of cancer,
but not nearly as melodramatic as you would claim. Magic Johnson and
a few zillion other HIV positive individuals continue to lead
productive lives - in spite of your alarmist and unfounded 'moronismus
on parade' attempts to tell them otherwise.
And having a postive HIV test leading to a later AIDS diagnosis does
not seem to affect survival time:
"OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of the time period from first
positive HIV test to AIDS diagnosis and other variables on survival
after AIDS diagnosis...
CONCLUSION: No association was found between survival time and the
time interval between first positive HIV test and AIDS diagnosis. "
(1)
==========================================
1. Knowledge of HIV-positivity had no impact on AIDS survival time
among Danish AIDS patients 1980-95.
Jensen L Scand J Infect Dis, 1998, 30:3, 231-6
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
>
> Here's an article disputing the official line on HIV / AIDS with a number
> of references:
>
> http://homepages.go.com/~frann55/hiv.html
>
> What you don't seem to realise is that it is nigh on impossible to
> publish or receive funding to openly address the issues surrounding HIV-
> AIDS. All the money is directed at HIV, HIV, and more HIV. That's why
> there are thousands of articles published on HIV that wouldn't dare doubt
> its involvement in this disease (not that they usually even consider this
> minor matter) - if they did their funding and careers would disappear
> overnight. And that explains why you and many others are so defensive on
> this matter.
It is nigh on impossible to publish or receive funding to openly address
the issues surrounding the Flat Earth Hypothesis, too.
--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a tooth fairy, but whois toothfairy.com works. |
+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
baj...@my-deja.com
> This theory might sound farfetched, but most of the competing theories
> about the origin of AIDS have been shot down.
Hilary Koprowski was the first scientist in the world to successfully
test a live, attenuated vaccine in a human being. He trialled his
vaccines first on mentally retarded children in New York State, then on
an experimental group in Northern Ireland – where the vaccine
encountered difficulties – and subsequently on almost a third of a
million children and adults in the cities and rural areas of the
Belgian Congo between 1957-59.
In March 1959, Sabin reported in the British Medical Journal that he
had found an unknown virus contaminating a sample of Koprowski’s
vaccine – a claim Koprowski vehemently challenged.
The nature of any virus contaminating the Congo vaccine has never been
determined. The only official inquiry ever held into the issue
concluded that on every scientific ground, it was possible for a monkey
immunodeficiency virus (or SIV) to grow in culture, be administered to
humans in a vaccine and to cause infection -- though it rated the
chances of this as low.
Pascal's theory that AIDS might accidentally have started as an
iatrogenic disease was shunned by the international medical research
community. Though carefully researched and documented, his attempts to
publish it in the world scientific press met with rejection.
But Pascal was not the only one with suspicions about how humans came
to catch AIDS. In South Africa, virologists Professor Mike Lecatsas
(left) and Professor Jennifer Alexander, published a warning in the
South African Medical Journal. They had found at least one monkey which
tested positive for HIV-like antigens. Such animals could,
unknowingly, have been used for making vaccine on many occasions in the
past, they pointed out.
The South Africans were condemned by other scientists for daring to
propose such a thing. “We were vilified in the extreme,” Alexander
said. “No reasoned consideration was given to our points. Instead we,
and not our ideas, were attacked.”
After reading Pascal's theory, one of the world's most distinguished
evolutionary biologists, Professor William Hamilton of Oxford
University, concluded that it deserved the most serious scientific
attention. Hamilton promptly wrote to the leading journals, Science
and Nature, urging that the theory be subjected to scientific
scrutiny. If AIDS was shown to have been transmitted in this way,
other plagues could enter humans by similar means and millions more
human lives would be placed at risk, he argued.
Both journals rejected his letters.
Opinion in the research community was sharply divided. US AIDS
researcher, Dr Robert Gallo, who had originally told journalist Tom
Curtis a contaminated vaccine was theoretically possible, came out with
a blunt assertion that the theory was false.
Eminent polio researcher Professor Joseph Melnick, on the other hand,
stated in a court affidavit: “I find this theory plausible, and one of
several possible explanations for the still-unsolved mystery of how the
modern AIDS epidemic originated.”
His views have since been echoed by Dr David Ho, regarded by many as
America’s premier AIDS researcher and 1997 TIME Magazine Man of the
Year. Dr Ho stated "I found the hypothesis to be an intriguing,
scientifically plausible theory" and went on to express concern that
the mere exposition of a scientific hypothesis should become the
subject of litigation.
At least one new monkey virus has been discovered since the first
animal organ transplants began, and it is now considered by some
scientists that the stealth viruses associated with chronic fatigue
syndrome also entered humans from monkeys in polio vaccine.
What nobody knows is how many such agents remain to be discovered – or
how lethal to humans they may prove.
After a US AIDS patient was implanted with baboon marrow, a leading
epidemiologist with the US Centers for Disease Control, Dr Louise
Chapman, told the media, “You can't dismiss out of hand that using
animal tissues may be a very effective way to introduce another
equivalent infection." Yet experiments in the transfer of animal
tissues continue.
(Julian Cribb is a science writer and author of “The White Death”, a
book on the origins of HIV, published by HarperCollins (Australia)
under their Angus & Robertson imprint.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/1671/origin.htm
Andrew Sanders
"D. C. & M. V. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> Andrew Sanders wrote:
> >
> > Here's an article disputing the official line on HIV / AIDS with a number
> > of references:
> >
> > http://homepages.go.com/~frann55/hiv.html
> >
> > What you don't seem to realise is that it is nigh on impossible to
> > publish or receive funding to openly address the issues surrounding HIV-
> > AIDS. All the money is directed at HIV, HIV, and more HIV. That's why
> > there are thousands of articles published on HIV that wouldn't dare doubt
> > its involvement in this disease (not that they usually even consider this
> > minor matter) - if they did their funding and careers would disappear
> > overnight. And that explains why you and many others are so defensive on
> > this matter.
>
> It is nigh on impossible to publish or receive funding to openly address
> the issues surrounding the Flat Earth Hypothesis, too.
You've all got it the wrong way around here. For centuries everyone
believed the earth was flat, in spite of plenty of commonsense evidence
to the contrary (planets appearing round, ships masts being visible at a
distance before the hull, etc) until someone was 'stupid' enough to put
it to the ultimate test. The analogy here can only be that conventional
HIV-AIDS thinking is, in fact, the flat earth hypothesis.
Andrew.
baj...@my-deja.com
> This theory might sound farfetched, but most of the competing theories
> about the origin of AIDS have been shot down.
THE MARBURG MONKEY VIRUS
In mid-August 1967, six years after the SV40 problem came to light, a
mysterious, dangerous, infectious disease broke out simultaneously in
German and Yugoslavian research institutes. Thirty-one people,
including technicians making polio vaccines, suddenly became ill - and
seven died. All those infected had direct contact with monkeys or their
blood, organs or tissue cultures. Other people later got the disease,
too, including hospital personnel who had contact with these patients.
In one case, a woman contracted the disease from the semen of her
husband, who had been infected three months earlier. Though millions of
monkeys had been used as experimental animals and as raw material to
provide kidneys to make vaccines, no such disease had ever been seen
before. Eventually the "Marburg virus" was isolated, and its source was
traced to monkeys shipped from Uganda.
THE CONGO VACCINE
As it happens, equatorial Africa was the site of the world's first mass
trials of an oral polio vaccine - a vaccine cultured in monkey kidneys
but different in at least one important respect from the Sabin vaccine
ultimately adopted worldwide. This footnote in medical history took
place from 1957 to 1960 right in the middle of what was then the
Belgian Congo, Rwanda and Burundi - the epicenter of the future African
AIDS epidemic. It was developed by a naturalized American polio
researcher named Hilary Koprowski - the same Dr. Koprowski who four
years later would warn congressmen of the dangers of an almost infinite
number of monkey viruses contaminating polio vaccines.
Almost immediately, Koprowski arranged to have his weakened polio
viruses tested in a colony of 150 chimpanzees in Camp Lindi at
Stanleyville, in the Belgian Congo (now Kisangani, Zaire). To protect
the animals' caretakers, these humans, too, were fed the weakened
virus. The successful immunization of the keepers then became the
justification for mass vaccination trials in the Congo itself- the
first mass trials in the history of an oral polio vaccine.
In 1957, when the Congo trials began, most researchers were using
rhesus macaques from India. It would be another four years before
scientists fully appreciated the danger that macaques, the natural
hosts for SV40, were passing along the virus to humans. Once that
troubling discovery was made, in 1961, vaccine producers shifted to
kidneys from African green monkeys, which in the wild were free of SV40.
Unfortunately, green monkeys were infected with something else. More
than two decades later, in 1982 and 1983, veterinarians at the
California Primate Research Center and at Harvard's New England Primate
Center observed that large numbers of their macaques were dying
periodically of AIDS-like illnesses. These disorders had been killing
animals since 1969, but suddenly, the researchers were struck by the
similarity to the new disease afflicting American homosexual men. The
monkeys' illnesses, the researchers discovered, were triggered by a
previously unrecognized retrovirus called simian immunodeficiency virus
(SIV).
Among the natural hosts for this virus were none other than African
green monkeys, but in that species, typically, SIV didn't cause serious
disease. SIV turned out to be related to HIV, though it was only about
forty percent similar in genetic structure to the chief AIDS-causing
human retrovirus, known as HIV-1. Robert Gallo says some versions of
this monkey virus are virtually indistinguishable from some human
variants of HIV-2, the second virus that causes AIDS in human beings
and mainly afflicts western Africa.
No one who was involved with Koprowski's Congo project and is alive
today remembers what kind of monkey kidneys were used in 1957-60.
Koprowski is still vigorous and remains at the Wistar Institute, in
Philadelphia - now as an institute professor and until 1991 as the
director of the facility, which is housed in a stolid Victorian
structure on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania.
Koprowski insists that his associates used kidneys from African green
monkeys to make the Congo vaccines. When I express surprise and mention
that Salk and Sabin were using rhesus monkeys at that point, he agrees
to check. When we speak next, he admits he can't find a single paper
describing which species was used to make his vaccine. "But I have a
suspicion the virus was grown in the rhesus monkey at the original
beginning," he tells me in his thick Polish accent. "Now when we
switched to green monkeys, I have no idea." Thomas Norton, his
associate who grew the virus for the vaccine, is now dead, Koprowski
says - as are those who worked with Norton to prepare the vaccine.
Significantly, the large lots of the vaccine used in the Congo
apparently were prepared at the laboratories of the Wistar Institute,
he says. Wyeth Laboratories made subsequent preparations, including
those used in Poland.
According to no less an authority than Albert Sabin himself, at least
one other virus did contaminate Koprowski's vaccine used in the Congo.
In 1959, Sabin reported in the British Medical Journal that a special
test he had devised revealed the presence of an "unidentified" cell-
killing virus in "Koprowski's type 1 'Chat' vaccine used in the Belgian
Congo trials." More than three decades later, Sabin says he never
figured out exactly what the virus was.
Writing in the British Medical Journal on July 26th, 1958, Koprowski
and his colleagues offered a preliminary report on their mass
vaccination campaign. They included in the paper a detailed map showing
where nearly a quarter million inoculations had taken place in the
northeastern part of the Belgian Congo. The area outlined corresponds
roughly to another map in a report published thirty years later in the
Reviews of Infectious Diseases - this one identifying the regions of
highest HIV infection in equatorial Africa.
Of course, many of the viruses contaminating the monkey kidneys went
unrecognized in the Fifties and early Sixties. Koprowski and his
colleagues in the mass-vaccine campaigns found some monkey viruses and
eliminated them from their preparations. But many others weren't known,
and no test to identify their presence had been developed. "That's the
problem," Koprowski says. "The viruses which you know, there's a test -
there's no problem; the viruses which lurk, for which there is no test,
obviously you can't do anything about."
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/Curtis92.h
tml
David Wright
It's nice to see that you're as ignorant about history as you are
about medicine. Any educated person in Europe over the last 2000
years or so knew the earth was spherical. The ancient Greeks knew
it, for pity's sake! They even computed how large it was (and
pretty accurately, too).
The reason people laughed at Columbus, dillweed, was that he was
using a bogus figure for the size of the earth and they figured he'd
never make it to Asia. He wouldn't have, either. Finding the
Americas was a lucky accident.
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, "Roger Schlafly" <re...@ieee.org>
> wrote:
> Outside of being hopelessly antiquated this theory has already been
> tested - endlessly. Most obvious: polio vaccines were produced
> initially using rhesus monkeys - NOT chimpanzees. The process was
> later switched to African green monkeys, again NOT chimpanzees.
> Chimpanzees have NEVER been used in the manufacture of polio vaccines.
> The only thing sillier is the notion of a 'gay hep b vaccine' causing
> AIDS!
A NEW THEORY ON THE IATROGENIC ORIGIN OF AIDS
by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD; Walter Kyle, JD; and Alan R Cantwell, Jr.,
MD
We propose a new theory regarding the origin of human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV-1). The simian immunodeficiency virus from the chimpanzee
(SIVcpz) is generally considered the closest nonhuman primate virus
related to HIV-1. We believe this virus, or a closely related simian
virus, most likely contaminated the experimental hepatitis B vaccines
that were administered to gay men in New York City and to blacks in
Central Africa during the 1970s. The introduction of a monkey virus
into the human species via contaminated vaccine programs could have
given rise to a new and unprecedented human immunodeficiency disease,
now commonly known as AIDS.
Robert Gallo, the foremost authority on AIDS, has theorized
that HIV-1 evolved from a virus in African green monkeys that "jumped
species" to infect the black African population. Based on our extensive
review of the scientific literature, we conclude that HIV-1 most likely
evolved and jumped species due to iatrogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.
In the late 1970s the simultaneous emergence of the earliest
cases of AIDS in Central Africa and in New York City closely followed
a period of major scientific advances in molecular recombinant biology
and retrovirology. By the early 1970s researchers had already isolated
RNA-dependent DNA polymerase. Synthetic RNA and cat leukemia retrovirus
templates were added to human type-C viruses associated with lymphatic
cancer. Experimental infection with these genetically engineered hybrid
viruses were reported to cause leukemia, lymphoma and sarcoma.
By the mid 1970s the role of T-lymphocytes in immunosuppression
was clarified. Specific enzymes and other biochemical processes needed
to induce immune system collapse were also identified. In 1971 Fujioka
and Gallo designed experiments in which tumor specific cell tRNA was
added directly to "normal" human white blood cells. To achieve this,
simian monkey virus 40 (SV-40) and mouse parotid tumor (polyoma) virus
were routinely employed to deliver foreign cancer-causing tRNA into
these "normal" human white blood cells. In other experiments the DNA in
SV-40 was commonly replaced with RNA from various animals, including
RNA associated with cat leukemia and chicken sarcoma. Gallo and other
researchers commonly modified monkey viruses enabling these viruses to
induce AIDS-like immunosuppression, cancer, and wasting and death in
primates and lower animals.
It is widely believed that HIV-2 (which purportedly preceded
the evolution of HIV-1) and HIV-1 both share a common viral ancestor,
the so-called simian immunodeficiency virus from the African green
monkey (SIVagm). In addition, SIVmac, a macaque monkey virus
laboratory contaminant, has also been found to be identical to HIV-2.
Because HIV-2 has never been found in macaques in the wild, humans who
are now infected with HIV-2 were most likely infected via contaminated
vaccines.
Narayan et al. have produced an experimental AIDS-like illness
in monkeys by using a hybrid of HIV-1 which contains a core of the
monkey virus and an outer coat of the human AIDS virus. Primate cancer
virus researchers used a similar process (albeit in reverse) to develop
AIDS-like viruses that could infect human cells. (See Fig.1). Recent
research suggests that some HIV-positive individuals may maintain the
envelop of the AIDS virus in their cells as a "normal" gene. A gene
like this could have recombined with one of more vaccine-induced simian
virus particles to produce an iatrogenic monkey/human hybrid virus like
HIV-2. Or evolved further into HIV-1.
The experimental hepatitis B vaccines and polio vaccines have
been implicated by some investigators as possible sources of HIV virus
contamination and intercontinental transmission. Although one report
exonerated the experimental hepatitis B vaccine used in gay men in 1980
in Denver and San Francisco, no analysis was performed on possibly
contaminated hepatitis B vaccines that were administered in New York
City and in Africa, as early as 1972.
Between 1972 and 1974 hepatitis B vaccine producers, under
contract with the U.S. Army and the National Cancer Institute (where
Gallo worked), used chimpanzees to grow hepatitis B virus that could
not be grown in human or monkey cell cultures. This MS-2 strain of the
hepatitis B virus was subsequently used to develop four subtypes of
experimental hepatitis B vaccine that were used in different parts of
the world. Some vaccine researchers have expressed concern that "more
than 70%" of their experimental animals had been cross-contaminated
with hepatitis B and other viruses.
Up to the present time the U.S. government and pharmaceutical
industry disregard simian virus contaminants below 100 particles per
dose. Thus, contamination of live polio and other vaccines by SV-40,
simian foamy retroviruses, and SIVagm, can occur. Due to their highly
unstable nature, simian foamy viruses contaminants can give rise to
viral recombinants and cross the species barrier. We hypothesize that
the use of live viral vaccines in New York and Africa during the 1970s
could have generated AIDS-virus progenitors, such as HIV-2 and SIVcpz.
In addition, the possibility that HIV-1 evolved iatrogenically
in human subjects (specifically Willowbrook State School mentally
retarded children and/or gay volunteers for the hepatitis B vaccine
experiments) as a result of polio vaccination in the late 1950s or
early 1960s cannot be ruled out. One experimental hepatitis B vaccine
manufactured in the mid-1970s was made from the blood serum of gay men.
Some of these young men likely received polio vaccines as children,
which could have been contaminated with SV-40, SIVagm, simian foamy
virus, or other HIV-1 progenitor viruses. Since certain hepatitis B
vaccine experiments took place simultaneously in Africa and New York
City in the late 1970s, this could explain the initial AIDS outbreak on
both continents in the early 1980s.
To prevent possible conflict of interests, PCR (polymerase
chain reaction) genetic analysis of these suspected vaccines should be
undertaken by independent laboratories. The original vaccines are
allegedly in safe keeping at the FDA. However, our inquiries to the
FDA's Bureau of Biologics have failed to elicit a response because
details of these vaccines and their manufacture remain "classified" for
reasons of national security. Independent epidemiologic studies to
ascertain the actual number of deaths from AIDS in groups exposed to
these early experimental hepatitis B vaccines should also be
undertaken.
As part of the hepatitis B vaccine experiments undertaken in
the 1970s, the Bureau, along with the CDC, the NIAID, Merck
pharmaceutical company, and other industry contractors, developed
certain "pools of hepatitis B virus of known infectivity" from the
blood of gay men that also contained "subtypes of HBsAg," (i.e.
hepatitis B surface antigen). This product was also adminstered to
chimpanzees in hepatitis B experiments.
Most people believe AIDS originated as a quirk of nature in
which a monkey virus "jumped species" to infect the African population.
In our view, the widely-accepted green monkey theory is weak in
comparison with our research which supports a man-made, vaccine-
induced origin of AIDS.
HIV and its progenitors more likely evolved from simian (i.e.
monkey) viruses altered by the deliberate or inadvertant insertion of
cancer-causing viral particles from other animal species. We
hypothesize these man-made mutants crossed over to infect the human
population via contaminated vaccine experiments and vaccine programs.
Such experiments and outcomes were commonplace in cancer virus research
laboratories during the 1970s, at a time when collaborative vaccine
developmental programs were ongoing, and before the initial outbreak
of AIDS.
The transmission of hybrid viruses from contaminated animals
and laboratories involved in vaccine production might also best explain
the simultaneous outbreak of the first cases of AIDS in Africa and in
New York in the late 1970s, as well as the peculiar epidemiology of
AIDS which initially affected white homosexual men in the U.S. and
black heterosexual Africans. Additional confirmatory studies are
required to provide the scientific and health professional communities,
as well as the general public, with all the facts.
ftp://ftp.win.net/winnet/tetra/pub/Origin_of_AIDS.txt
David Wright
>In article <81bp2d$57m$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
> wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
>> In article <81bmnu$27k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> >In article <LcY4OOjCOX9X1VH=c0KsIY...@4ax.com>,
>
>> sufficiently alarmist. I don't think you really understand it, or can
>> evaluate it, but you believe it anyway.
>>
>> is diagnosed HIV+ on the basis of just one test. Not these days.
>>
>
long quoted article snipped. bajabum, you also have the bad habit of
posting stuff in a way that makes it look as though you wrote it, at
least until the very end. Even the odious Scudamore just posts
URLs to the tripe he believes. You should do likewise, since you also
snip out the references, assuming there are any.
In any case, your dopey, out-of-date, unrefereed article has already
been soundly thrashed by other posters. It looks terribly ominous,
but it's not, for several reasons. One, nobody gets a positive
diagnosis of HIV+ on the basis of a single WB test, and in fact, the
WB is seldom the first test. ELISA is, because it's more accurate and
cheaper. Your article is a blatant misuse of statistics; actually,
it doesn't really even contain any useful statistics, but you have to
look at it carefully to realize that.
The "Perth Group" is the only group that thinks it's on to anything.
Nobody else takes them seriously.
David Wright
>In article <wdYwOHztShhUyR...@4ax.com>,
> Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, "Roger Schlafly" <re...@ieee.org>
>> wrote:
>
>> Outside of being hopelessly antiquated this theory has already been
>> tested - endlessly. Most obvious: polio vaccines were produced
>> initially using rhesus monkeys - NOT chimpanzees. The process was
>> later switched to African green monkeys, again NOT chimpanzees.
>> Chimpanzees have NEVER been used in the manufacture of polio vaccines.
>> The only thing sillier is the notion of a 'gay hep b vaccine' causing
>> AIDS!
>
>A NEW THEORY ON THE IATROGENIC ORIGIN OF AIDS
>
>by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD; Walter Kyle, JD; and Alan R Cantwell, Jr.,
>MD
The main trouble with this dopey "theory" is that it ignores some
inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample that
is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early
1970s.
Bennett
>
>In any case, your dopey, out-of-date, unrefereed article has already
>been soundly thrashed by other posters. It looks terribly ominous,
>but it's not, for several reasons. One, nobody gets a positive
>diagnosis of HIV+ on the basis of a single WB test, and in fact, the
>WB is seldom the first test. ELISA is, because it's more accurate and
>cheaper.
ELISA in fact is probably not as "accurate" in the strict sense, simply
because it can give too many false positives. However, WB is about the
opposite, sorting out the true negatives that "passed" the ELISA screen.
It's for this reason that ELISA is the first screening test, often used
twice in series, and then followed up with a WB or "LINE assay" (based on
the same principle) to confirm and type the infection (HIV-1/HIV-2).
Your article is a blatant misuse of statistics; actually,
>it doesn't really even contain any useful statistics, but you have to
>look at it carefully to realize that.
>
>The "Perth Group" is the only group that thinks it's on to anything.
>Nobody else takes them seriously.
The Perth group write, and get published, some dangerously incorrect
statements. For example, I showed very simply that their article arguing
that 'AZT was useless', was in fact showing just the opposite, but that by
making an assumption (and possibly ignoring published work) they were able
to make their case. I spoke publically to one of the authors on that paper,
and he tried to argue his case to me using a paper that contradicted their
work in the _abstract_. I despaired.
http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=479750643
http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=481930246
http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=483394966
I suspect (but have yet to formally show) that their assertations on the
validity of the WB are equally unfounded, but based on their track record I
hold their views in very low regard.
Cheers
Bennett
Lon Morgan
>A NEW THEORY ON THE IATROGENIC ORIGIN OF AIDS
>by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD
>We propose a new theory ...experimental hepatitis B vaccines
>that were administered to gay men in New York City
Ah yes, Baja contines the confused, conflicted 'Scudamorish'
befuddlement.
Is AIDS from:
a - a 'contaminated polio vaccine', or is it
b - a 'gay hep b vaccine', or is it
c - AIDS is really just syphilis and HIV is irrelevant, or maybe
d - Moon-Rays!
Baja can't seem to decide which conspiracy theory to go with either.
Baja further cannot comprehend that the theories are so mutually
exclusive: if one of them is 'true', then the others couldn't
possibly be. But this kind of rudimentary common sense is irrelevant.
As long as there's a venue of conspiratorial theories to pick from
Baja ( and John) will just alternate each day between them. And
neither one of them can commit to whether HIV is bad or not.
Horowitz is a dentist. Fine. He's not a virologist. He has ZERO
training or research experience in virology.
Horowitz claims to have written over 80 publications, but a medline
search does not produce even one. Apparently his material is so
mediocre it can't get by peer review anywhere. Which is undoubtedly
just one more chapter in his conspiracy delusions. Instead of doing
an accountable reassessment of his crackpot ideas, he just keeps
selling books to the paranoid and gullible.
Sad.
In 1993, the same year Horowitz produced his comic-book, an excellent
title by the same name -"Emerging Viruses" -, edited by Stephen S.
Morse, (Oxford Press) was published. Contributions were made by well
over 40 experts in virology from all over the country. Those addicted
to endless rounds of paranoia will be disappointed by the outcome.
What Morse makes clear is that in addition to HIV and Ebola numerous
other viruses have emerged, including: Junin, Hantaan, Oropouche,
Omsk, Kyasanur Forest, Crimean-Congo, Lassa, Rift Vally, Nile Valley,
to name only a few.
One other recent publication noted the emergence of over 50 new
viruses in the past 10 years. The emergence of these viruses has much
to do with human activity: changes in agriculture, increased
populations, dams, irrigation, sexual activity, etc.
No shred of a 'vaccine connection' in any of them.
As Winston Churchill noted:
"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may
resent it; ignorance my deride it; malice
may distort it; but there it is."
The possibility exists that one or more of these viruses will take on
increased importance as a threat to human health. If/when that
happens I wonder which vaccine the anti-vac-wacs will blame?
Chicken pox, no doubt!
"Issues in Immunization: the Evidence"
http://fp1.cyberhighway.net/~lmorgan/
Lon Morgan
email: lmorgan AT cyberhighway DOT net
"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may
resent it; ignorance my deride it; malice
may distort it; but there it is."
- Winston Churchill -
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:31:35 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD
> >that were administered to gay men in New York City
>
> training or research experience in virology.
> Horowitz claims to have written over 80 publications, but a medline
> search does not produce even one. Apparently his material is so
> mediocre it can't get by peer review anywhere. Which is undoubtedly
> just one more chapter in his conspiracy delusions. Instead of doing
> an accountable reassessment of his crackpot ideas, he just keeps
> selling books to the paranoid and gullible.
Congress Explores Vaccine and Biological Weapons Links:
Leading Expert Submits Stunning Suppressed NCI Reports
Date Mailed: Oct. 12, 1999
Contact: Jackie Lindenbach<208/265-2575; 800/336-9266
Sandpoint, ID < As a congressional investigating committee meets today
in Washington, D.C. to discuss contractual links between vaccine
makers, defense contractors, and the biological weapons industry, the
nation's leading authority on the subject will not be there. He simply
wasn't invited. Dr. Leonard Horowitz, leading a massive grassroots
crusade to expose certain vaccine makers' links to biological weapons
producers, defense department (DoD) contractors, and a plethora of
emerging diseases affecting millions of Americans, was merely asked to
submit his documentation for future consideration by the U.S.
Government Reforms Committee (GRC) that is chaired by Congressman Dan
Burton (R-IN). The doctor零 submission includes stunning National
Cancer Institute (NCI) reports tying several cancer epidemics and
autoimmune diseases to contaminated vaccines and possible biological
weapons experiments.
These documents, he believes, will unlikely make it to the floor for
discussion. According to Beth Clay, a GRC staff member in Dan Burton's
office, the committee is unaware of "The Special Virus Cancer Program
(SVCP)" that Dr. Horowitz's materials document. The SVCP was a largely
funded, mostly secret, NCI sponsored program. During the 1960s and
early 1970s, contractors engineered numerous genetically altered
viruses and disease triggers, some descriptively and functionally
identical to even the AIDS virus (HIV) and Ebola. After they were
developed, isolated, and cultured, they were tested according to
contract reports. This was done illegally under the guise of "cancer
research" according to Dr. Horowitz.
Included in his submission is the SVCP pharmaceutical company contract
under which a 1974 experimental hepatitis B vaccine was prepared in
chimpanzees for human use, then given to gay men in New York City and
Blacks in Central Africa. This, according to Dr. Horowitz, and even
some scientists connected to the study, most likely triggered the
international AIDS pandemic. "In my estimation, Dr. Horowitz has
unearthed a covert operation, run amok, that is bigger than any secret
operation in U.S. history," reported retired Colonel Jack Kingston,
Chairman of the National Security Advisory Board in Washington.
Previously on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, Mr. Kingston
called Dr. Horowitz's revelations "more momentous in it's implications
to humanity than the atomic weapons OManhattan Project' of World War
II." His letter accompanied a proposal submitted to HBO by National
Geographic film producer Ron Quarachi. Mr. Quarachi has contracted for
the film rights to Dr. Horowitz's work. A documentary based on Dr.
Horowitz零 bestselling book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola Accident
of Intentional?" (Tetrahedron Press, 1997;1-888-508-4787;
http://www.tetrahedron.org), wherein several potentially explosive NCI
reports are reprinted, is currently in production by Nashville
independent film producer Brent Leung.
"It's unfortunate that legislators won't see these documents early in
their investigation." Dr. Horowitz said. "The longer the connections
between certain military衫edical虹ndustrialists, biological weapons
makers, and vaccine manufacturers is withheld, the greater the rising
tide of cancer, autoimmune diseases, and emerging infections will be.
Without getting into conspiracy theories, it's synchronous and ironic
that Dan Burton's committee won't hear these critical truths at the
exact time the media is advising people regarding their risk of
immanent' biological weapons attacks, and need to reduce world
populations."
http://www.tetrahedron.org/Press_Releases/pr02.htm
David Wright
>In article <ertBOOR3+hfoLw...@4ax.com>,
> Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:31:35 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >by Leonard G Horowitz, DMD
>> >that were administered to gay men in New York City
>>
>> training or research experience in virology.
>> Horowitz claims to have written over 80 publications, but a medline
>> search does not produce even one. Apparently his material is so
>> mediocre it can't get by peer review anywhere. Which is undoubtedly
>> just one more chapter in his conspiracy delusions. Instead of doing
>> an accountable reassessment of his crackpot ideas, he just keeps
>> selling books to the paranoid and gullible.
>
>Congress Explores Vaccine and Biological Weapons Links:
>
>Leading Expert Submits Stunning Suppressed NCI Reports
>Date Mailed: Oct. 12, 1999
>Contact: Jackie Lindenbach<208/265-2575; 800/336-9266
>
>Sandpoint, ID < As a congressional investigating committee meets today
>in Washington, D.C. to discuss contractual links between vaccine
>makers, defense contractors, and the biological weapons industry, the
>nation's leading authority on the subject will not be there. He simply
>wasn't invited. Dr. Leonard Horowitz,
Who says he's "the leading authority?" The article?
Anyway, the biggest question I've got about this so-called "Special
Virus Cancer Program" is: where's the time machine they used to
infect serum samples taken before the program was started?
Roger Schlafly
news:81rn2a$ifr$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> The main trouble with this dopey "theory" is that it ignores some
> inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample that
> is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early
> 1970s.
That 1959 case was from the Congo, a few miles from where
an experimental polio vaccine program was started in 1957.
A article in today's NYTimes discusses the book and the
hypothesis that the polio vaccine is the origin of AIDS.
It treats the idea as a plausible scientific hypothesis that
should be taken seriously.
"With 16 million people dead and 33 million more infected, AIDS is among the
worst epidemics in history. A seriously researched theory about something so
devastating deserves a full scientific investigation even if the theory is
unlikely and chances of proving or disproving it are slim. ..
Yet many scientists say privately that publicizing Hooper's theory would
risk tarnishing public confidence in the safety of vaccines."
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/113099hth-aids-doctor
s.html
(registration required, but it is free)
baj...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <81rhsn$rtr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, "Roger Schlafly"
<re...@ieee.org>
> >> wrote:
> The main trouble with this dopey "theory" is that it ignores some
> inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample
that
> is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early
> 1970s.
Letter to the Editor:
Response to Zhu et al. 1959 Origin of AIDS
By
Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D.,M.A.,M.P.H.
Introduction
The politically correct analysis applied to Zhu et al.'s speculative
findings published in "An African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and
implications for the origin of the epidemic," was unbecoming of Nature
(February 5, 1998). The authors concluded that four genetic fragments
isolated from the blood of an African man in 1959, "authenticate this
case as the oldest known HIV-1 infection." They added that the genetic
sequences suggested that "all major [HIV] group viruses, may have
evolved from a single introduction into the African population not long
before 1959.(1)
Another objectionable conclusion was spun by the Zhu et al. team leader
David Ho in the study's heralding article in The New York Times (3).
His group's findings, Ho claimed, put an end to the theory that the
AIDS virus was engineered in American biological warfare laboratories
by Pentagon contractors--a theory initially advanced by a British
medical scholar, John Seale, though Ho falsely accused Russian spin
doctors for the alleged hoax.(4)
Questionable Background and Methods
Historically, this "case" and blood sample had raised
questions. Nahmias et al. allegedly found HIV-1 in this one of 1,213
Leopoldville blood samples.(6) These samples had been available for
more than a quarter century, that is, from the 1950s when large scale
polio vaccine trials were also underway in Leopoldville. Following
publication of their study, however, the sample was said to have been
lost.(7) Thus, confirmatory studies could not be undertaken.
For Zhu et al. this sample fortuitously reappeared. From it
they extracted viral RNA. "As it turned out," wrote Wain-Hobson, "the
HIV genomic RNA was substantially degraded, meaning that, after much
labour, the authors could obtain only a few 300-nucleotide fragments of
DNA." Then "multiple primers [additional RNA sequences] were used
[i.e., mixed in with the original isolated fragments] in a single RT
[reverse transcriptase initiated] reaction, and all synthesized
complementary DNAs were amplified by PCR [polymerase chain reaction]
using primers designed to amplify HIV-1 sequences from all known
subtypes. . . . This mixture was heated to 70 degrees C for 10 minutes
and used to synthesize HIV-1 cDNA . . . Each PCR product was then
purified, cloned and sequenced.
The "synthesized" sequences of HIV, the authors stated,
allowed "ample [genetic] comparisons" and the construction of family
trees reflecting the evolution of the virus and its relatives.
Certainly such methods and materials should bare scrutiny.
Common sense begs to know how HIV-1, composed of several genes
including the LTR, gag, pol, nef, and env portions, and a few smaller
ones sprinkled in, could be honestly "synthesized" from four degraded
fragments of just two of these, the pol and env, genes? The four
fragments were manipulated, the authors described, then labeled ZR59a,
b,c, and d. They said these compared very closely with the GenBank data
base. There was only a "0-3% divergence. . . . [and] maximum sequence
identity scores of 92% (ZR59a), 96% (ZR59b), and 94% (ZR59c) confirmed
that the ZR59 sequences are indeed unique and unlikely to be the result
of PCR contamination."
Vaccine Contamination: A Politically Incorrect Perspective
A curious association advanced by the authors was that "[f]or most
regions of the HIV-1 genome, subtypes B and D are more closely
associated with each other than are any other subtypes with the major
group." Of the six major AIDS virus subtypes, the B subtype is most
common to North America. The D subtype is most common to Uganda, and
the F subtype is most common in Zaire.(9) The authors' analysis showed
an "unusual B/D/F clustering found in [their] phylogenetic analyses."
Given the administration of contaminated monkey kidney tissue derived
polio vaccines in these areas from the mid 1950s through the 1960s; and
later, the testing of contaminated hepatitis B (HB) vaccines in these
specific areas during the late 1960s through mid-1970s, the B, D and F
subtypes may have closely evolved in experimental subjects, or in the
vaccines given them. Critically relevant is the fact that these early
experimental hepatitis B vaccines were tested in these areas of the
world, and in the populations most plagued by AIDS.(10) These four
subtype HB vaccines were partially processed in live contaminated
chimpanzees housed in New York City where biohazard and containment
problems were reported.(11) After growth in contaminated chimpanzees,
live HB viruses were inoculated into human subjects whose blood serum
was then taken to develop 200,000 doses including four subtypes of the
HB vaccine administered by 1974.(10) The close link between HIV-1 and
chimpanzee SIV is well established, and might be best explained in this
manner.(12)
Read the complete letter here:
ftp://ftp.win.net/winnet/tetra/pub/David_Ho_Paper_Nature_Rebuttal.txt
Andrew Sanders
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <81jb5n$hue$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Andrew Sanders <bluem...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <383BFFC3...@lumbercartel.com>,
> > "D. C. & M. V. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
> >> It is nigh on impossible to publish or receive funding to openly address
> >> the issues surrounding the Flat Earth Hypothesis, too.
> >
> >You've all got it the wrong way around here. For centuries everyone
> >believed the earth was flat, in spite of plenty of commonsense evidence
> >to the contrary (planets appearing round, ships masts being visible at a
> >distance before the hull, etc) until someone was 'stupid' enough to put
> >it to the ultimate test. The analogy here can only be that conventional
> >HIV-AIDS thinking is, in fact, the flat earth hypothesis.
>
> It's nice to see that you're as ignorant about history as you are
> about medicine. Any educated person in Europe over the last 2000
> years or so knew the earth was spherical. The ancient Greeks knew
> it, for pity's sake! They even computed how large it was (and
> pretty accurately, too).
>
> The reason people laughed at Columbus, dillweed, was that he was
> using a bogus figure for the size of the earth and they figured he'd
> never make it to Asia. He wouldn't have, either. Finding the
> Americas was a lucky accident.
Isn't it uncanny that all of you HIV-AIDS hypothesis fundamentalists are
so unbelievably rude and condescending. And you wonder why people don't
autmatically believe what you say is the gospel truth? I'm no historian,
but the point I was making is that people believed the earth was flat
first, before going on to learn the truth; the parallel here is that
people have universally believed the HIV-AIDS hypothesis first with some
dissenting voices being rasied later on - thus making the 'flat earth'
analogy relevant to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis rather than to those who
doubt it.
Please don't bother to reply again, unless you can force yourself to be
civil.
Andrew.
Bennett
>Isn't it uncanny that all of you HIV-AIDS hypothesis fundamentalists are
>so unbelievably rude and condescending. And you wonder why people don't
>autmatically believe what you say is the gospel truth? I'm no historian,
>but the point I was making is that people believed the earth was flat
>first, before going on to learn the truth; the parallel here is that
>people have universally believed the HIV-AIDS hypothesis first with some
>dissenting voices being rasied later on - thus making the 'flat earth'
>analogy relevant to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis rather than to those who
>doubt it.
>
Actually, all of the dissident views were considered as possible reasons for
AIDS, it's just that while most people accepted evidence that showed them to
be untenable, a few marched on regardless. Yes, believe it or not studies
have actually been done "for" dissident science, it's just that it wasn't
dissident at the time. Duesberg's arguments "against" HIV are easily
refuted (done it myself) and his arguments "for" drug abuse/AZT have been
tested in studies.
The analogy is _continuing_ to believe the Earth is flat, when evidence
exists to disprove that. Believing in it in the first place isn't a crime
when you know no better. The condescention creeps in from trying to argue
against people who _ought_ to know better ;-)
Cheers
Bennett
baj...@my-deja.com
"Roger Schlafly" <re...@ieee.org> wrote:
> "With 16 million people dead and 33 million more infected, AIDS is
among the
> worst epidemics in history. A seriously researched theory about
something so
> devastating deserves a full scientific investigation even if the
theory is
> unlikely and chances of proving or disproving it are slim. ..
> Yet many scientists say privately that publicizing Hooper's theory
would
> risk tarnishing public confidence in the safety of vaccines."
Maintaining public confidence in the system is the key element
necessary for voluntary compliance. The general public will blindly co-
operate as long as they perceive the benifits to outweigh the risks.
As far as a full investigation goes the spin doctors parrot "Actually,
all of the dissident views were considered as possible reasons for
AIDS, it's just that while most people accepted evidence that showed
them to be untenable, a few marched on regardless. Yes, believe it or
not studies have actually been done "for" dissident science", there by
placing anyone who continues to question orthodoxy as belonging to
the "flat earth society".
The science behind all this is insignificant compared to the mind
control and propaganda involved in maintaining the belief systems for
control and manipulation of the masses. In fact science has become
nothing more than a side show designed to distract and confuse the
public mind, creating a ruling class of experts who know all and are
beyond reproach.
Those who profit from the system will defend it to the bitter end, at
any cost. They feed at the public trough and their appetite is never
satisfied. They will eat as much as we are willing to feed them.
David Wright
>news:81rn2a$ifr$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
>> inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample that
>> is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early
>> 1970s.
>
>an experimental polio vaccine program was started in 1957.
>
>A article in today's NYTimes discusses the book and the
>hypothesis that the polio vaccine is the origin of AIDS.
>It treats the idea as a plausible scientific hypothesis that
>should be taken seriously.
The question is which theory we're talking about. The idea that
HIV was spread via polio vaccines grown on the kidneys of infected
monkeys or chimps is at least possible, I suppose. I was referring
to the idea that a virus supposedly genetically engineered in the
1970s travelled back in time.
I still have a lot of trouble with the genetic engineering idea,
though. Building HIV to order is beyond the state of the art
even today, as far as I can see. And if, in 1975, you had somehow
managed to tinker with some existing viruses to construct HIV, how
would you know what you had created? If you tried it out in lab
animals, it would have appeared to do nothing. It takes so long to
operate that if you tried it out (HOW?) in humans, it wouldn't seem
to be doing anything either. And even if you somehow knew what you
had, why on earth would you release it into the world? It would be
quite impossible to control and apt to kill just about anyone.
Roger Schlafly
news:820a9m$6mv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Isn't it uncanny that all of you HIV-AIDS hypothesis fundamentalists are
> so unbelievably rude and condescending.
Not. He properly corrected you on a historical fact.
> And you wonder why people don't
> autmatically believe what you say is the gospel truth? I'm no historian,
> but the point I was making is that people believed the earth was flat
> first, before going on to learn the truth; the parallel here is that
> people have universally believed the HIV-AIDS hypothesis first with some
> dissenting voices being rasied later on - thus making the 'flat earth'
> analogy relevant to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis rather than to those who
> doubt it.
Your analogy is completely bogus. You are the one who is
refusing to accept the facts about the flat earth theory.
There are lots of historical examples of scientific controversies,
if you want to make an analogy. But you have to get your facts
right (or at least somewhat similar to the truth) if it is going to
help your case.
Bennett
>
>I still have a lot of trouble with the genetic engineering idea,
>though. Building HIV to order is beyond the state of the art
>even today, as far as I can see. And if, in 1975, you had somehow
>managed to tinker with some existing viruses to construct HIV, how
>would you know what you had created?
This was my concern with the theory. I've been on a randomly created email
list from a certain Ed Boyd (IIRC) who's lobbying the US congress over this
"Special virus program". Hmmm. However I _have_ read literature from the
70's that show that.
a) The recombination of retroviruses was known to occur, and could result in
new strains being produced very easily, in vitro and in vivo, that were
better suited to a certain animal/cell.
b) These mutations could result in viruses better capable of producing
experimental tumours in animals.
c) The formation of tumours was strongly correlated to immune suppression.
As I understood it, scientists could have, in theory, very crudely and
uncontrollably produced a virus that caused tumours in animal X, by means of
immune suppression.
However, HIV is unlike ANY OTHER virus in it's class. It has some genes
that have not been found in ANY OTHER virus, except for one strain of chimp
SIV. The main "special virus" theory proposes that Visna and BLV were used
to make this mutant virus (HIV), when a genetic homology search I performed
on them gave bugger-all matches!! While the crude techniques might have
been in place to create some form of tumour-causing virus that was
_incidentally_ immune suppressing, I've seen no evidence that such a thing
was done, and if so why doesn't HIV or any of its immediate relatives cause
primary tumours in this way? In addition, the molecular genetics and
phylogenetic analysis of HIV and the SIV's argue very strongly against a
man-made origin.
I have all the references used to argue the case of the "special virus
program" but I've yet to go through them all. Might never get around to it
;-)
Cheers
Bennett
Lon Morgan
>Leading Expert Submits Stunning Suppressed NCI Reports
>Contact: Jackie Lindenbach
Ahh, but it gets even better. Baja's choice of a 'reference' now
relies on one Jackie Lindenbach. Interested readers really -must-
visit Lindenbach's website, listed as "SIGHTINGS"
http://www.sightings.com/health/aidsvaccines.htm
It's a hoot: after the usual conspiratorial, paranoid, alarmist
balderdash on AIDS the best comes at the bottom of the
page - a link to
* UFO's * !!!
From Lindenbach's UFO page you can now learn about:
- Detecting UFO-s and Paranormal Fields, using a
"Trifield Natural EM Meters" - also valuable for 'ghost hunting'
- The UFO/Mafia connection
- Alien Implants
- Alien Sex
- 450 years of strange activity on the moon
- Bigfoot buried in Ohio
- Enough 'sightings' to satisfy the most ardent UFO bug
My ribs are still aching. I haven't had this good a laugh in ages!
Between 'Sightings' and Penthouse Magazine Baja manages to come up
with 'references' that never cease to amaze, amuse, titillate and
astound! Does credibility any meaning at all anymore?
David Wright
>In article <81rn2a$ifr$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
> wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
>> In article <81rhsn$rtr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> >In article <wdYwOHztShhUyR...@4ax.com>,
>> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, "Roger Schlafly"
><re...@ieee.org>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> The main trouble with this dopey "theory" is that it ignores some
>> inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample
>that
>> is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early
>> 1970s.
>
>Letter to the Editor:
>Response to Zhu et al. 1959 Origin of AIDS
>By
>Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D.,M.A.,M.P.H.
A letter that Nature quite reasonably decided not to print. By the
way, how come you didn't reproduce the whole thing? You dropped just
a few sentences. You also didn't include the references.
I am not sure exactly why Horowitz got so exercised about Zhu et al's
paper, perhaps because it flies in the face of his beloved conspiracy
theories. Anyway, his letter is an amazing mishmash of insult and
innuendo, quotation without refutation. A very strange epistle; not
one I'd have bothered printing either.
baj...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <81vi2r$ls4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <81rn2a$ifr$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
> > wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> >> In article <81rhsn$rtr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <wdYwOHztShhUyR...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, "Roger Schlafly"
> ><re...@ieee.org>
> >> >> wrote:
> >
> >> The main trouble with this dopey "theory" is that it ignores some
> >> inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample
> >that
> >> is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early
> >> 1970s.
> >
> >Letter to the Editor:
> >Response to Zhu et al. 1959 Origin of AIDS
> >By
> >Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D.,M.A.,M.P.H.
>
> way, how come you didn't reproduce the whole thing? You dropped just
> a few sentences. You also didn't include the references.
If you want the entire letter with references follow the link at the
end of the post. I dropped more than a few sentences, more like
paragraphs. What's the big deal? I thought only women tried to make
mountains out of mole hills. Now you can add sexist to your list of
labels. What gives you people such a discussting attitude, your
miserable life of slavery to the system? You remind me of nuns and
priest who are miserable with their convictions but lack the fortitude
to change their situation and go out into the real world and make a
living for themselves. One can only pity them.
> I am not sure exactly why Horowitz got so exercised about Zhu et al's
> paper, perhaps because it flies in the face of his beloved conspiracy
> theories. Anyway, his letter is an amazing mishmash of insult and
> innuendo, quotation without refutation. A very strange epistle; not
> one I'd have bothered printing either.
Horowitz letter raises some good questions about this study which you
fail to answer. Your post lacks any helpful or meaningful value to this
discussion.
What other evidence is there supporting the theory of this 1959 origin?
Any unbiased, independent studies support David Ho and Zhu et al.?
Ho claimed, the study put an end to the theory that the AIDS virus was
engineered in American biological warfare laboratories by Pentagon
contractors. Was this his main objective through-out the study? If
these guys want us to believe in them they could at least show some
impartiality in their work don't you think?
I can't believe this study wasn't laughed right out of the scientific
community for its incredible lack of controls and its questionable
background and methods. If this is science how can anyone ridicule the
idea that AIDS may be the result of secret military bioweapons
experimentation? This garbage as well as the Hahn so-called discovery
belong in a trash can.
David Wright
>In article <823r47$2ok$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
> wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
>> In article <81vi2r$ls4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> >In article <81rn2a$ifr$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
>> > wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
>> >> In article <81rhsn$rtr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >In article <wdYwOHztShhUyR...@4ax.com>,
>> >> > Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:06:07 -0800, "Roger Schlafly"
>> ><re...@ieee.org>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The main trouble with this dopey "theory" is that it ignores some
>> >> inconvenient problems, like the earliest known human serum sample
>> >that
>> >> is HIV+ dates from 1959. There are plenty of others from the early
>> >> 1970s.
>> >
>> >Letter to the Editor:
>> >Response to Zhu et al. 1959 Origin of AIDS
>> >By
>> >Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D.,M.A.,M.P.H.
>>
>> way, how come you didn't reproduce the whole thing? You dropped just
>> a few sentences. You also didn't include the references.
>
>If you want the entire letter with references follow the link at the
>end of the post. I dropped more than a few sentences, more like
>paragraphs. What's the big deal? I thought only women tried to make
>mountains out of mole hills. Now you can add sexist to your list of
>labels.
Why not? You seem determined to drive down public opinion of you.
>What gives you people such a discussting attitude, your
>miserable life of slavery to the system? You remind me of nuns and
>priest who are miserable with their convictions but lack the fortitude
>to change their situation and go out into the real world and make a
>living for themselves. One can only pity them.
Nice set of insults there, without a shred of foundation. "Slavery to
the system?" Gee; I'm crushed. And here I could be living an
exciting paranoid existence like yours...
>> I am not sure exactly why Horowitz got so exercised about Zhu et al's
>> paper, perhaps because it flies in the face of his beloved conspiracy
>> theories. Anyway, his letter is an amazing mishmash of insult and
>> innuendo, quotation without refutation. A very strange epistle; not
>> one I'd have bothered printing either.
>
>Horowitz letter raises some good questions about this study which you
>fail to answer. Your post lacks any helpful or meaningful value to this
>discussion. What other evidence is there supporting the theory of
>> this 1959 origin? Any unbiased, independent studies support David
>> Ho and Zhu et al.?
I don't know. Even if there were, I'm sure Horowitz, and thus you by
proxy, would dismiss them, too.
Horowitz's letter, however, doesn't really raise any questions. It
appears to consist of a number of premises with no conclusions. I
don't really know how to respond to it; it's too incoherent.
>Ho claimed, the study put an end to the theory that the AIDS virus was
>engineered in American biological warfare laboratories by Pentagon
>contractors. Was this his main objective through-out the study?
You obviously think it was. Lacking psychic powers, I don't know.
>If these guys want us to believe in them they could at least show
>some impartiality in their work don't you think?
You're assuming that they don't. On what basis are you assuming this?
>I can't believe this study wasn't laughed right out of the scientific
>community for its incredible lack of controls and its questionable
>background and methods.
I can't believe you bother to make such assertions. You've given no
evidence, in ANY of your posts, that you understand the details, or
the implications, of all the material you quote. Are you really John
Scudamore under an alias? That's his usual modus operandi. In any
event, your criticisms of the scientific work of others carry no
weight -- not until you can demonstrate that you understand it.
baj...@my-deja.com
Lon Morgan <NoS...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:51:24 GMT, baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Leading Expert Submits Stunning Suppressed NCI Reports
> >Contact: Jackie Lindenbach
>
> Ahh, but it gets even better. Baja's choice of a 'reference' now
> relies on one Jackie Lindenbach. Interested readers really -must-
> visit Lindenbach's website, listed as "SIGHTINGS"
>
> http://www.sightings.com/health/aidsvaccines.htm
>
> It's a hoot: after the usual conspiratorial, paranoid, alarmist
> balderdash on AIDS the best comes at the bottom of the
> page - a link to
> * UFO's * !!!
I must say your response is pretty lame, but then who would expect
anything more from someone who craves censorship. If it ain't in a
published journal then it must be a hoax, right? The sightings website
contains quite alot of material covering many subjects. UFO's are one
of many and so what. Some folks may believe in them, that's fine with
me as long as they don't force me into it. To me it is harmless. Some
folks may think its entertaining and enjoy the subject for just that
reason. Your narrow minded, control freak attitude suggests we throw
the baby out with the bath water. I suppose we should avoid libraries
because they may contain fringe material too.
I guess the saying applies if you can't refute the message kill the
messenger. So much for Ho and his junk science. Pretty pathetic if you
ask me. I'll take the sightings website over your CDC parrot site any
day.
By the way I thing the nightwork site is pretty good too, check it out
here: http://alienfx.com/nightwork/
The AIDS section at the sightings site:
http://www.sightings.com/aids/aidsdata.htm
baj...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> Who says he's "the leading authority?" The article?
>
> Anyway, the biggest question I've got about this so-called "Special
> Virus Cancer Program" is: where's the time machine they used to
> infect serum samples taken before the program was started?
>
Who says the serum samples were infected? Ho and his study to prove
AIDS was not the result of bioweapons contracts?
David Wright
>In article <81uh5q$b62$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
> wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
>
>> Who says he's "the leading authority?" The article?
>>
>> Anyway, the biggest question I've got about this so-called "Special
>> Virus Cancer Program" is: where's the time machine they used to
>> infect serum samples taken before the program was started?
>>
>Who says the serum samples were infected? Ho and his study to prove
>AIDS was not the result of bioweapons contracts?
OK, so you accuse them of fraud. Fine. I understand. Come back when
you have something more solid.
baj...@my-deja.com
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <827868$8k5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <baj...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <81uh5q$b62$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>,
> > wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> OK, so you accuse them of fraud. Fine. I understand. Come back when
> you have something more solid.
These aren't my words but I think they are appropriate here. To the
best of my knowledge the autor is anonymous and I do not support or
endorce the group in any way.......
It is no more possible to envisage the mysterious apparition of AIDS,
than it is to appreciate the reasons for the scientists' desperate
efforts to obscure its origin, without a grasp of the way in which
value intimately determines knowledge, the strict dictatorship of Money
over Science, the total collusion between Science and Money, the
profound unity between pharmaceutical research and commercial need, the
inextricable link uniting the military domain, the politicians and the
economic world.
It is hardly surprising that, in common with their ancestors, today's
representatives of Science attempt to impose their dogmas and lies upon
us. Anything goes when protecting commerce and the State. Hence AIDS!
To hide the fact that it is yet another monstrosity directly emanating
from their laboratories, the State has not skimped on theories to cloud
the issue of the laboratory origin of the virus.
Amongst the confusion of these demented "truths", counter-truths
imposed upon us, a dominant idea aims to place the origin of the HIV
virus well away from scientific labs, far away from the most well-known
centres. In fact, everything points to the fact that AIDS appeared at a
time when it had become technically possible to create such a virus,
but public opinion, vessel for dominant ideology, vulgarizes the
scientists' stories and turns itself into a shield against dissenters,
making them look like paranoid enemies of Science. It all works out
well for them! The world keeps on turning and goods keep on
circulating! "The origin of AIDS ", the village gossip explains to
me, "can be traced to a mysterious virus found in Green monkeys in
Africa and which, because a negro doubtless buggered a monkey, has been
transformed into a deadly epidemic. Debauchery (prostitution,
homosexuality and drug addiction) then completed the work of these
savages by spreading the virus throughout the planet"!
Since the early seventies, it has been technically, scientifically,
biologically and materially possible to produce laboratory hybrids,
clones, of which HIV is only a variant. There is no sensationalism in
these proposals: it is a recognised fact, practised and commercially
developed by an important section of medical research.
"The technology required to make new retroviruses capable of infecting
man out of those already known to be carcinogenic or liable to cause
immunodeficiencies or brain diseases in other mammals was already well
developed and widely published by the beginning of the 70's. Many of
the scientists now researching into AIDS previously worked in the
oncology laboratories where the techniques were first developed :
Gallo, Essex, Heseltine (U.S); Weiss, Jarret (U.K); Montagnier
(France); Zhdanov, Lapin (USSR); Ddinhardt (Germany); etc."
This statement by John Seale, member of the British Royal College of
Physicians, published in the "New Scientist" of January 1987,
illustrates, along with thousands of other examples, the fact that by
the early 70's molecular biology had the means to invent and produce
retroviruses capable of attacking the human immune system.
Without going into all the new commercial demands of molecular biology
since the blossoming of the genetic jigsaw, it is necessary to mention
the jewel in the crown of research, one of the most important sources
of finance for all these experiments, the real and historical motor of
science: the Army.
The arms market has been interested in molecular electronics right from
the beginning. The research is financed by enormous amounts of capital
and projects are approved one after the other. They obviously remain
secret, but all sorts of applications are tried and tested. The
applications that are most dangerous to us clearly remain the property
of the Army and a law was passed in 1969 to ensure that this monopoly
is maintained without exception.
Delegates from the Pentagon were already announcing the future
direction of their research into viral "collages" by 1969:
"During the coming 5 to 10 years it will probably be possible to
produce a new infective organism which may be considerably different
from all known pathogenic micro-organisms".
They went on, in front of the Congress's credit commission:
"The importance of these germs is that they may be resistant to the
immunological and therapeutic measures upon which we depend to keep
ourselves relatively protected from infectious diseases."
Between 1976 and 1977, parliamentary enquiries took place in the US and
revealed that a biological research programme had started in 1963 in
the Fort Detrick military laboratory, using deadly infectious agents
and neurotoxins. During this period, one molecular biologist, one
electrician and an employee in the monkey section of Fort Detrick
mysteriously died.
It should be clear that the separation between scientist, industrialist
and militarist is an artificial one; research into molecular biology,
more specifically centred on military applications, are inextricably
linked with medical research. Fort Detrick, the military laboratory of
the US army, near Washington in Maryland, is directly attached to and
linked to the National Cancer Institute in Bethseda, a suburb of
Washington D.C.
When, in 1987, a journalist bluntly asked whether "if HIV did not
exist, would it be possible to create it?", Dr.Brun-Vezinet
replied "Yes, we can!". Professor Montagnier answered "Yes, we could".
Dr.Chermann sat on the fence and Dr.Alizon denied the possibility...
although in explaining why not, actually admitted that, if one thought
hard about it, "it would be possible to produce an even more infectious
agent, by preserving the viral envelope capable of recognising
lymphocytes and using it to produce a much more pathogenic virus such
as the 'flu virus; this could cause epidemics spreading like wildfire".
It is thus impossible to deny that Science is capable of producing
similar viruses, but even those who admit this to us put their white
coats back on and ask us solemnly to disregard the poisons they create,
to forget their commercial and military function, to ignore the
innumerable cock-ups made in their labs, to clear our minds of the
collusion between Cancer Research and National Defence Institutes, to
stop thinking about the microbiological demons they continue to
conceive...and to believe in the Holy Crusade of Science!