Long-term survival of HIV

0 views
Skip to first unread message

z@z

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to
David Canzi wrote:

: The following paragraph may be found at http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html
:
: Most, if not all, of these adolescents must have acquired HIV from
: perinatal infection for the following reasons: sexual transmission
: of HIV depends on an average of 1000 sexual contacts, and only 1 in
: 250 Americans carries HIV (Table 1). THUS, ALL POSITIVE TEENAGERS
: WOULD HAVE HAD TO ACHIEVE AN ABSURD 1000 CONTACTS WITH A POSITIVE
: PARTNER, OR AN EVEN MORE ABSURD 250,000 SEXUAL CONTACTS WITH RANDOM
: AMERICANS TO ACQUIRE HIV BY SEXUAL TRANSMISSION. It follows that
: probably all of the healthy adolescent HIV carriers were
: perinatally infected, as for example the 22-year-old Kimberly
: Bergalis (Section 3.5.16).
:
: Please explain how I have misinterpreted the sentence in upper case.
:
: I wonder, should I call blunders like this found in Duesberg's papers
: "duesbugs" or "duesies"?

What you quote here is not simply an often cited error of Duesberg but
the biggest logical mistake of Duesberg I'm aware of.

Everybody makes errors. Duesberg is no exception in this respect. What
is important however is the ratio of correct statements and predictions
to incorrect ones.

Two quotes from http://www.duesberg.com/ch4.html (a very concise paper):

"Epidemiological evidence indicates that HIV is a long-established,
perinatally transmitted retrovirus. HIV acts as a marker for American
AIDS risks, because it is rare and not transmissible by horizontal
contacts other than frequent transfusions, intravenous drugs, and
repeated or promiscuous sex."

"Since perinatal transmission of HIV is at least 50% efficient, and
sexual transmission is <0.2% efficient, it appears that HIV, like
other retroviruses, depends on perinatal transmission for survival.
Therefore, it cannot be fatally pathogenic in most infections within
2-10 years, as postulated by the virus-AIDS hypothesis. This provides
the only plausible explanation for the random distribution of HIV in
even as few as 0.03% of 17- to 19-year-old healthy Americans and in
about 10% of Africans of all ages. This explains why no more than
2456 AIDS cases have been recorded among about 75 million Americans
under the age of 19 in the last 9 years, although at least 0.03%, or
25,000, can be estimated to be perinatally infected. It appears that
>90% of perinatally infected Americans are asymptomatic for at least
19 years."

It is extremely improbable that HIV-1 and HIV-2 began to spread in
mankind (especially in some of the least developed countries) extactly
when the technology to detect such viruses was being developed. A
decade is only moment in human (and retroviral) evolution. So I
essentially agree with Duesberg that both HIV-1 and HIV-2 must be
long-established viruses.

However, if HIV depended exclusively on perinatal transmission, then
the transmission rate from mother to child (or at least to daughters)
should be (almost) 100% for the virus being able to survive in the
long term.

If perinatal transmission were the only transmission of HIV and if its
efficiency were 40% and mortality completely independent of infection,
then every new generation would have an infection rate of only 40%
of the previous generation. For the proportion of infected persons in
a given region to remain constant, the missing perinatal infections
(60% = 100% - 40%) would have to occur horizontally, and the ratio of
perinatal (vertical) to horizontal transmissing would be 2 to 3. That
means that two perinatally infected persons must on average be
responsible for the horizontal infection of three persons.


Wolfgang Gottfried G.

Gary Stein

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to

"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote in message
news:8hkrm4$60u$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net...

Why then is in not detected in more children?

I would think that the converse is a much more likely explanation in
that HIV is not detect in children with any where near the same
frequency as it is detected in gay males, and 2) this statement
completely ignores the epidemiological evidence of sexual transmission
that at this point in time is incredibly extensive. (one simple test
for this theory is that there are cases of individuals who due to
their being part of medical studies unrelated to HIV had blood samples
taken for in some cases decades and those blood samples were stored as
part of the original studies. In these individuals HIV infection can
be tracked very accurately due to retrospective analysis of the stored
sera)
--
Gary Stein
ges...@starpower.net
http://www.mischealthaids.org

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

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to

"z@z" wrote:

> David Canzi wrote:
> Everybody makes errors. Duesberg is no exception in this respect. What
> is important however is the ratio of correct statements and predictions
> to incorrect ones.
>
> Two quotes from http://www.duesberg.com/ch4.html (a very concise paper):
>
>

> "Since perinatal transmission of HIV is at least 50% efficient,

Indeed the evidence from such studies as actg076 is that the virus is
substantially less than 50% efficient at perinatal transmission. The
transmission rate in the control group was 23%.

In addition, direct observation of perinatally infected children indicates
that they don't survive long enough to be a factor in transmission.

Krasinski K, Borkowsky W, Holzman RS. Prognosis of human immunodeficiency
virus infection in children and adolescents. Pediatric Infectious Disease
Journal 1989;8:216-220.


Nick Bennett

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to

On 7 Jun 2000, Robert S. Holzman wrote:

>
> Indeed the evidence from such studies as actg076 is that the virus is
> substantially less than 50% efficient at perinatal transmission. The
> transmission rate in the control group was 23%.

It's worth pointing out though that ACTG076 was a trial where the women
did NOT breastfeed. I learnt this while researching an answer as to why
the women in the Ugandan NVP trial had a transmission rate of about 25%
DESPITE taking AZT. It was due to breastfeeding - the percentages of
infected babies at birth were comparable to those in ACTG076 but rose over
time - breastfeeding added about a 14% risk of becoming infected (pretty
much in line with previous work).


>
> In addition, direct observation of perinatally infected children indicates
> that they don't survive long enough to be a factor in transmission.
>

Yes, this is the biggest hole in Duesberg's idea of HIV depending on
vertical transmission for spread.

Cheers

Bennett


don lucas

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to
namaste,

z@z wrote:
>
> David Canzi wrote:
>

> : The following paragraph may be found at > : http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html
> :
> : Most, if not all, of these adolescents must have acquired HIV
> : from perinatal infection for the following reasons: sexual
> : transmission of HIV depends on an average of 1000 sexual
> : contacts, and only 1 in 250 Americans carries HIV (Table 1).
> : THUS, ALL POSITIVE TEENAGERS WOULD HAVE HAD TO ACHIEVE AN ABSURD
> : 1000 CONTACTS WITH A POSITIVE PARTNER, OR AN EVEN MORE ABSURD
> : 250,000 SEXUAL CONTACTS WITH RANDOM AMERICANS TO ACQUIRE HIV BY
> : SEXUAL TRANSMISSION. It follows that probably all of the healthy
> : adolescent HIV carriers were perinatally infected, as for
> : example the 22-year-old Kimberly Bergalis (Section 3.5.16).

> : Please explain how I have misinterpreted the sentence in upper case.

> : I wonder, should I call blunders like this found in Duesberg's
> : papers "duesbugs" or "duesies"?
>
> What you quote here is not simply an often cited error of Duesberg but
> the biggest logical mistake of Duesberg I'm aware of.
>

> Everybody makes errors. Duesberg is no exception in this respect. What
> is important however is the ratio of correct statements and
> predictions to incorrect ones.

<snip>

what is the ratio of correct to incorrect statements that is acceptable
for an objective viewpoint?

if new information is presented that makes a formerly correct statement
incorrect, but the previously correct statement is not revised or
retracted, how should one view this objectively?

in the thread "duesberg and hemophilia" that you started, addresssing me
personally, i pointed out four errors in dr. duesberg's introduction to
his paper "foreign-protein-mediated immunodeficiency in hemophiliacs
with and without hiv, 1995". would it be logical to base one's
healthcare decisions on such incorrect information?

since you haven't responded to my post in "duesberg and hemophilia", the
only conclusion i can come to is you have accepted the information as
presented. after i've sent this post, i'll answer the rest of the
concerns you raised in your original post in that thread.

take care, be well.

donpaul lucas
hiv+ 17 years (asymptomatic, stage 2)
12 years anti-viral veteran
(this post sealed with the three-fold law)


Ken Cox

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to
"z@z" wrote:
> However, if HIV depended exclusively on perinatal transmission, then
> the transmission rate from mother to child (or at least to daughters)
> should be (almost) 100% for the virus being able to survive in the
> long term.

I agree, that's another "Duesie". Most of the children who get
HIV perinatally don't live to childbearing age. It would thus
be just a little tricky for this to be the dominant way that HIV
is passed on, at least currently.

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


z@z

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to
don lucas wrote:

: if new information is presented that makes a formerly correct statement


: incorrect, but the previously correct statement is not revised or
: retracted, how should one view this objectively?

It seems that almost all figures on HIV and AIDS of the first years of
the AIDS hysteria were inflated. Isn't it hypocrisy to accuse Duesberg
of dishonesty or of bad science only because his papers are based on
such exagerated figures. Anyway, his conclusions are not as sensitive
to the exact figures as mainstream AIDS researchers try to suggest.

I also suppose that a main objective of many orthodox studies has been
to refute Duesberg.

Duesberg gives four references for his statement "perinatal transmission
of HIV is at least 50% efficient", which was written in 1990. Without
having checked them I assume that these references do support Duesberg's
statement.

Robert S. Holzman commented on "at least 50% efficient":

>> Indeed the evidence from such studies as actg076 is that the virus is
>> substantially less than 50% efficient at perinatal transmission. The
>> transmission rate in the control group was 23%.

Nick Bennett replied to Holzman:

> It's worth pointing out though that ACTG076 was a trial where the women
> did NOT breastfeed. I learnt this while researching an answer as to why
> the women in the Ugandan NVP trial had a transmission rate of about 25%
> DESPITE taking AZT. It was due to breastfeeding - the percentages of
> infected babies at birth were comparable to those in ACTG076 but rose over
> time - breastfeeding added about a 14% risk of becoming infected (pretty
> much in line with previous work).

25% of mother-to-child transmission DESPITE taking AZT! Breastfeeding
is certainly much more frequent (and better for the child) than any
alternative.

For the argument that HIV "depends on perinatal transmission for survival"
the discrimination between 'perinatal in the literal sense' and 'perinatal
including breastfeeding' is rather irrelevant.

: since you haven't responded to my post in "duesberg and hemophilia", the


: only conclusion i can come to is you have accepted the information as
: presented. after i've sent this post, i'll answer the rest of the
: concerns you raised in your original post in that thread.

Don, at the moment I have not only less energy than normally but also more
work. I try to follow m.h.a. (especially your posts) and to read other
sources. I've not forgotten your reply to "Duesberg and hemophilia" and
will appreciate further comments. I don't want to answer just superficially.
There are yet too many superficial and careless postings.


Cheers, Wolfgang

Robert S. Holzman

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to

"z@z" wrote:
>
> don lucas wrote:
>
> : if new information is presented that makes a formerly correct statement
> : incorrect, but the previously correct statement is not revised or
> : retracted, how should one view this objectively?
>
> It seems that almost all figures on HIV and AIDS of the first years of
> the AIDS hysteria were inflated. Isn't it hypocrisy to accuse Duesberg
> of dishonesty or of bad science only because his papers are based on
> such exagerated figures. Anyway, his conclusions are not as sensitive
> to the exact figures as mainstream AIDS researchers try to suggest.
>

No, because your assertion is not correct. Please cite the
inflated figures you are complaining about.

> I also suppose that a main objective of many orthodox studies has been
> to refute Duesberg.
>
> Duesberg gives four references for his statement "perinatal transmission
> of HIV is at least 50% efficient", which was written in 1990. Without
> having checked them I assume that these references do support Duesberg's
> statement.
>
> Robert S. Holzman commented on "at least 50% efficient":
>
> >> Indeed the evidence from such studies as actg076 is that the virus is
> >> substantially less than 50% efficient at perinatal transmission. The
> >> transmission rate in the control group was 23%.
>
> Nick Bennett replied to Holzman:
>
> > It's worth pointing out though that ACTG076 was a trial where the women
> > did NOT breastfeed. I learnt this while researching an answer as to why
> > the women in the Ugandan NVP trial had a transmission rate of about 25%
> > DESPITE taking AZT. It was due to breastfeeding - the percentages of
> > infected babies at birth were comparable to those in ACTG076 but rose over
> > time - breastfeeding added about a 14% risk of becoming infected (pretty
> > much in line with previous work).
>
> 25% of mother-to-child transmission DESPITE taking AZT! Breastfeeding
> is certainly much more frequent (and better for the child) than any
> alternative.
>
> For the argument that HIV "depends on perinatal transmission for survival"
> the discrimination between 'perinatal in the literal sense' and 'perinatal
> including breastfeeding' is rather irrelevant.

Perhaps if you are talking about mamalian animal tumor viruses it
isn't relevant but it certainly is relevant if you are talking
about humans in the United States in the 20th Century. The
abundent evidence of aquired seroconversion in stored sera from
the Hepatitis B studies is yet another falsification of the idea
that perinatal transmission played a role in the existence of HIV
in the US prior to the AIDS epidemic.


howard hershey

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
z@z wrote:
>
> don lucas wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> Nick Bennett replied to Holzman:
>
> > It's worth pointing out though that ACTG076 was a trial where the women
> > did NOT breastfeed. I learnt this while researching an answer as to why
> > the women in the Ugandan NVP trial had a transmission rate of about 25%
> > DESPITE taking AZT. It was due to breastfeeding - the percentages of
> > infected babies at birth were comparable to those in ACTG076 but rose over
> > time - breastfeeding added about a 14% risk of becoming infected (pretty
> > much in line with previous work).
>
> 25% of mother-to-child transmission DESPITE taking AZT! Breastfeeding
> is certainly much more frequent (and better for the child) than any
> alternative.

While it is generally true that breastfeeding is best, breastfeeding if
you are HIV+ and actively viremic (with the non-existent virus, of
course) is dangerous to your child, as the virus can be found in breast
milk and transmitted by that means. Thus breastfeeding can add produce
about 14% more HIV+ children than otherwise would have occurred.


>
> For the argument that HIV "depends on perinatal transmission for survival"
> the discrimination between 'perinatal in the literal sense' and 'perinatal
> including breastfeeding' is rather irrelevant.

It is quite relevant, as breastfeeding can lead to infection in a child
that has not become infected by perinatal exposure.
>
[snip]


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages