Most of the following posts are in the thread 'AIDS: have we been misled?' (14-Mar-1999).

22-Mar-1999

Hello Ken Kox!

The problem is not a missing article, but the missing evidence!

Look at the predictions made 10 or 15 years ago. The predictions
of the AIDS establishment have been even much worse than the
predictions of the Malthusian demographers.

That HIV cannot be the cause of at least many so-called AIDS
deaths you can see if you study carefully Harris's _Skeptic_ magazine
article on this subject:
http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html

Here some quotations of Harris' article:

*** Redefining AIDS ***

"Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is the name
historically chosen for a new medical syndrome which is
essentially 100% fatal"

"In the early days of AIDS, before HIV was discovered,
the syndrome was indeed defined using such opportunistic
diseases, and people with these infections are still included
in the federal Centers for Disease Control (C.D.C.) clinical
surveillance definition of AIDS (but now only if they are
also HIV infected). We will not be able to use this C.D.C.
definition. Not only does it assume HIV infection, but for
historical, political, and technical reasons, it also is
constructed in a way which does not assess current
immune status in the best way."

"CD4+ lymphocyte blood counts tell much of the story in
AIDS and other immunodeficiencies involving the
T-lymphocyte immune system. A healthy adult might have
a CD4+ lymphocyte count of 800 to 1000, with a CD8+
count half of this. These are normal values. Under physical
stress, injury, or chronic infection, CD4+ lymphocyte count
might drop to 500 (to even less than the CD8+ count), and
mild, non-fatal opportunistic infections might be the result.
A CD4+ count less than the CD8+ count was once used
as a crude marker for AIDS, but today with progress we
know that this immune state is non-specific."

The important point: "Under physical stress, injury, chronic
infections ... "

"Thus, we must also exclude from our AIDS definition all
those people who have one of the classic reasons for a
very low T-lymphocyte count--reasons which were well-known
before the AIDS era (cancer, malnutrition, tuberculosis,
radiation, chemotherapy, etc)."

The important point: cancer, malnutrition, tuberculosis,
radiation, chemotherapy can lead to "a very low T-lymphocyte
count".

AZT, which had been invented in an attempt to find a
chemotherapy against cancer because it can prevent DNA
replicatation, turned out to be so toxic that it could not even be
used as a temporary treatment against cancer. In the end,
however, it has been prescribed for thousands of healthy
(HIV antibody positive) people!

*** HIV-Free AIDS ***

"This syndrome was named 'ICL' (idiopathic CD4+
lymphocytopenia), meaning 'people with low CD4+
lymphocyte counts without a medically-defined disease.' "

"Why was ICL not simply called 'HIV-free AIDS?' Critics have
darkly suggested that the reason is politics, but in fact there
were problems with considering these people as AIDS cases
which had nothing to do with AIDS politics or the HIV theory.
One difficulty was that people labeled as having "ICL" were
found not to come from the AIDS risk groups."

But poverty related diseases in Africa or elsewhere have been
called 'AIDS' despite the fact, that the patients "were found not
to come from the AIDS risk groups" !!!

*** The Origins of AIDS ***

"In addition, the American homosexual-male community was
apparently many times re-infected by many world-traveling
disease "vectors" from other countries in the 1970s, including
an airline steward named Dugas (described in Shilts as the
C.D.C. 'patient zero') who traveled widely in Europe, Canada,
and the U.S., died of AIDS, and is known to have had sex
with no less than 40 of the first 248 Americans to be
diagnosed with AIDS by April, 1982."

Now we know how difficult it is to transmit HIV (see below).
Hundreds of sexual acts are necessary to transmit the virus
with a high probability from one person to another!

"The rise in total mortality risk in people with hemophilia was
sudden: total mortality in this population, which had been
stable in 1982 and 1983, suddenly increased by a factor of
approximately 900% in the first quarter of 1984. Such an
increase in raw numbers of deaths was consistent with an
epidemic, or ..."

What is the real explanation of this sudden increase "by a factor
of approximately 900%" in mortality in one quarter of a year?
Panic and antiviral drugs !!!

The effects of stress and depression on the immune system
are studied nowadays by psycho-neuro-immunology.

"In the 1980s, total mortality for hemophilia increased in all
age groups above nine years of age, and age at death
shifted markedly to lower ages, decreasing from 57 years
of age in 1979-1981 to 40 years of age in 1987-1989."

The only sound explanation:
The introduction of AZT (see above: chemotherapy).

"About 50% of people with hemophilia in the U.S. had
been HIV infected by early 1986, when screening and
treatment of the clotting factor concentrate stopped HIV
spread. Still, the long latency of the virus (as long as 15
years for 50% progression to AIDS in this group) caused
death rates to rise for long after the window of new HIV
infection closed."

On the one hand a sudden increase "by a factor of
approximately 900%" in one quarter and on the other hand
a latency of the virus as long as 15 years !!! !!! !!!

*** Attacks on Straw Men ***

"It is an unfortunate fact that a great deal of the debate
over AIDS and HIV has been over what rhetoricians call
'straw men'. A straw man is an argument or viewpoint
set up in a debate only for the purpose of being knocked
down, and one which the opposite side never really
defended or held; or one which is not very important to
the central issue of the debate, even if it has been held."

"It is also asserted in a related argument by Root-
Bernstein that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis does not explain
the generally-low measured levels of HIV virus in semen,
the low (but not zero) rate of HIV infection in mates of
HIV-positive men with hemophilia, or the nearly zero rate
of infection in U.S. heterosexual prostitutes (unless they
are drug users). If AIDS is an infectious disease, ask the
skeptics, then why does HIV not infect very well?"

Is this actually "not very important to the central issue of the debate"?

Wolfgang

More quotes from Harris' article:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/aids.html#definition
Further information on Aids (in German):
http://members.lol.li/twostone/dialog.html
Critical links about Aids:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html

23-Mar-1999

Hello Todd A. Farmerie!

>> The problem is not a missing article, but the missing evidence!
>>
>> Look at the predictions made 10 or 15 years ago. The predictions
>> of the AIDS establishment have been even much worse than the
>> predictions of the Malthusian demographers.

> Predictions of this type are always grave, being worst case estimates,
> and intended to mobilize resources toward treatment and prevention.
> They are always based on extrapolation of present trends, and thus never
> take into account potential progress in treatment and prevention.
> Likewise, there is no magic wand with which we can see what would have
> happened without this intervention, so this statement of yours has no
> probative value.

We can judge a scientific hypothesis only by its verifiable consequences
and predictions. And the predictions based on the HIV-AIDS-hypothesis are
refuted by reality the more the better the data is. The worst data comes
from Africa, therefore the best agreement with this hypothesis.

In addition to that, African hospitals often get more money for
AIDS patients than for patients with the same indicator deseases
not declared as AIDS cases. The reason is simple: because AIDS
is viewed as a big threat to mankind, more money is spent for it.
HIV tests are not usual in Africa, because they are too expensive.

One really should test the HIV status of randomly selected persons
of all age groups in African regions with very high HIV antibody
prevalence. If old people have the same prevalence as the young
and the children, then the HIV-AIDS-hypothesis must be discarded.

Several years ago, when HIV positivity remained constant instead of
increasing (for instance in the U.S. army), it was said that high risk
groups would avoid HIV antibody tests. A high number of unreported
cases was assumed. Because of a mean incubation time of about
10 or 15 years, these persons should have become AIDS patients
in the meanwhile, but they have not.

The numbers have been corrected several times and the figures
became lower and lower, but to the media the impression was
given that the numbers were getting higher and higher. Is this
honest?

>> That HIV cannot be the cause of at least many so-called AIDS
>> deaths you can see if you study carefully Harris's _Skeptic_ magazine
>> article on this subject:

> Your faulty conclusion is either the result of failing to carefully
> study the Harris article, or else a lack of scholarly ethics. How else
> can your you explain taking his quotes out of context, as you do, to
> support the exact opposite conclusion from that which Harris reaches?

My conclusions are highly probably correct, I have studied several
articles and papers on AIDS, not only the one of Harris. I really tried
to find out who is right. Now I know it, it is Peter Duesberg, a great
logician and scientist. (Those who claim the inexistence of HIV
commit the biggest error.)

My scholarly ethics are certainly higher than yours. But also you
probably don't lack scholarly ethics, for you defend what you believe
in. Many of those who know or fear that the HIV AIDS thesis could
be wrong are not courageous enough to defend it.

>> http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html

> This is a good read, and I recommend anyone interested in this issue go
> through the whole thing, rather than limit your reading to the out of
> context Harris quotes in this post.

I am interested in facts, not in the conclusions which can be drawn
from the facts under the presupposition that HIV causes AIDS. What
would you say if I cited the same facts from papers of Duesberg?

We can take for instance the following quote:

"Thus, we must also exclude from our AIDS definition all
those people who have one of the classic reasons for a
very low T-lymphocyte count--reasons which were well-known
before the AIDS era (cancer, malnutrition, tuberculosis,
radiation, chemotherapy, etc)."

Almost all quotes result in out of context quotes. It is deceptive
only in the case the meaning in the context is different from the
meaning out of context, but that's not the case with my quotes!

> Here some quotations of Harris' article:

> and I have tried to place them back in the context Harris expressed
> them, but don't trust me - read the article.

A question: do you really think that two (fatal) viruses as different
as HIV-1and HIV-2 (a close relative of SIV) began to spread in
mankind exactly at the time when the technology to detect such
viruses was developed?

How probable is this? Mankind has existed for many many thousands
of years.

And do you know how old the technology of counting blood cells is?

Continuation will follow.

Cheers
Wolfgang

24-Mar-1999

Hello TRacy P. Hamilton!

> You may be interested in knowing that the origin of HIV-1 is now known.
> It is traced to chimpanzees in West Africa. Check Feb 4 Nature, Hahn et
> al..
> You ask in a post that has not shown up on Dejanews yet:
>
> "A question: do you really think that two (fatal) viruses as different
> as HIV-1and HIV-2 (a close relative of SIV) began to spread in
> mankind exactly at the time when the technology to detect such
> viruses was developed? How probable is this? Mankind has existed
> for many many thousands of years."

> The tribe in Africa that ate chimp meat was rather isolated until
> recently. And actually, it was slowly spreading *before* we could
> detect them.

Do you really believe in such a story? Similar horror stories may have
been told in medieval times to explain the existence of witches.
Antibodies against an incapable virus correspond nowadays to the
devil (birth)marks. Normally antibodies are a sign of immunity against
a virus.

'Nature' and 'Science' have responsibility for the AIDS disaster.
Common sense would have been enough to understand why the
immune system of the first so called AIDS patients broke down.
But there was also a competition between the two leading scientific
journals.

The peer review system has certainly some advantages, but it is
also a modern variant of censorship. In some respect 'Nature' and
'Science' play the role which was played in former times by the
official publications of the Vatican.

> Also, I have NEVER seen anyone address why if HIV does not cause
> AIDS that protease inhibitors that target HIV prolong the life of AIDS
> patients..

In the beginning of AIDS it was assumed that HIV leads rapidly to death.
So when people taking AZT died after three years, it was assumed that
they would have died much earlier without AZT. But in the meanwhile
the mean 'official' incubation time had to be increased to 10, 15, or even
more years.

If HIV is harmless, then people with HIV anitbodies would recover in
the same way from opportunistic infections or AIDS indicator diseases
as people without such antibodies do (apart from the psychological
component: the AIDS horror).

The cocktails have so many side effects that finally the immune system
breaks down. According to the dogma the indicator disease indicates
the beginning of AIDS and AIDS rapidly leads to death. Only based on
this hypothesis it can be concluded that very toxic cocktails prolong the
life of AIDS patients.

>> The important point: cancer, malnutrition, tuberculosis,
>> radiation, chemotherapy can lead to "a very low T-lymphocyte
>> count".

> And so can a virus even if none of these are present! And now a great
> deal is known about *HOW* HIV causes AIDS.

At first it was assumed HIV kills blood cells directly. This hypothesis
was refuted. So there have been proposed many mutually inconsistent
and even absurd mechanisms by which inactive HIV could destroy the
immune system. But as far as I know, there is no generally accepted
theory of *HOW* HIV causes AIDS.

Without Kary Mullis' polymerase chain reaction not even in all HIV
antibody positive AIDS patients the virus could be detected!

I'll deal with the other points in a further answer to Todd A. Farmerie.

Regards
Wolfgang

25-Mar-1999

Hello Ken Kox!

>> Common sense would have been enough to understand why the
>> immune system of the first so called AIDS patients broke down.

> Yes, they were infected with HIV.

See for instance the CDC report upon the first 5 AIDS-cases
in L.A.:
http://members.aol.com/mleiwissen/cdc81.htm

"Two of the patients died. All 5 patients had laboratory-confirmed
previous or current cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection and candidal
mucosal infection."

"The diagnosis of Pneumocystis pneumonia was confirmed for all
5 patients antemortem by closed or open lung biopsy. The patients
did not know each other and had no known common contacts or
knowledge of sexual partners who had had similar illnesses. The 5
did not have comparable histories of sexually transmitted disease.
Four had serological evidence of past hepatitis B infection but had
no evidence of current hepatitis B surface antigen. Two of the 5
reported having frequent homosexual contacts with various
partners. All 5 reported using inhalant drugs, and 1 reported
parenteral drug abuse."

All 5 had a very unhealthy lifestyle and used inhalant drugs. Which
organ is mostly affected by inhalant drugs?

The 5 patients are representative for high risk groups.

"In addition, the American homosexual-male community was
apparently many times re-infected by many world-traveling
disease "vectors" from other countries in the 1970s, ..."
(from Harris' article)

> This is the same thing that
> has caused immune-system breakdowns in several tens of millions
> of people spanning a huge variety of ages, nations, cultures,
> religions, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, socioeconomic
> groupings, dietary habits, exercise regimens, drug-usage status,
> treatment regimens, and so on.
> The only thing all these people have in common is infection with
> HIV.

You are completely right.

There are many different reasons which can lead to a breakdown
of the immune system. For instance the immune system of animals
not allowed to sleep breaks down. Extreme stress, malnutrition and
too many opportunistic or chronic infections also can lead to a
breakdown of the immune system.

And there are many very different diseases resulting from a broken
down immune system. But if HIV antibodies can be found or their
existence is assumed, then all the many resulting combinations (of
reasons for immune system breakdown and resulting diseases) are
treated as a single syndrom. Why?

> We also have cases where previously-healthy individuals
> developed AIDS after exposure to HIV. For something like, say,
> chicken pox or measles this is considered sufficiently strong
> evidence that the virus does indeed cause the disease. Why do
> you have a problem with applying the same criteria here?

The AIDS horror can be enough for a person to become ill and the
following treatment will do the rest.

There are many persons who have HIV antibodies since 15 years
or more, but they are very healthy.

And what's about "the low (but not zero) rate of HIV infection in
mates of HIV-positive men with hemophilia, or the nearly zero rate
of infection in U.S. heterosexual prostitutes (unless they are drug
users)"?

Because of a mean incubation time of 10 or 15 years there should
be now many AIDS cases which were infected before AIDS
prevention started.

Cheers
Wolfgang

25-Mar-1999

Hello mcoon!

> I've resisted posting responses to your claims mostly because I simply
> cannot parse your sentences. I am reluctant to criticize your posts
> because often I cannot tell if mistatements by you are the result of
> an unfamiliarity with English (it is clear that English is not your first
> language) or if you are misunderstanding the great body of work that
> has established HIV as the cause of the AIDS pandemic.

I understand English better than I write it. I try to write as simple as
I'm able to, so you should always choose the simplest interpretation of
my posts. I would be very grateful to you if you sent me an email with my
main errors of English and examples of sentences you don't understand,
that really would help me.

However, I'm not "misunderstanding the great body of work that has
established HIV as the cause of the AIDS *pandemic* ". The essential
principles I understand quite well.

> For example; you wrote; "Normally antibodies are a sign of immunity
> against a virus." This is NOT true. Antibodies to a virus (or indeed to
> anything at all) are an indication that the person has been *exposed*
> to the virus (actually, exposure to a viral *antigen*). It DOES NOT
> mean that person has immunity.

Do you understand the principle of active immunization and
vaccination? I think, you do not. Read about it!

> I cannot tell if you don't know this, or if your English skills leave the
> wrong impression.
>
> Later you write in what, to me, is perfectly clear English;
>
>> At first it was assumed HIV kills blood cells directly. This hypothesis
>> was refuted. So there have been proposed many mutually inconsistent
>> and even absurd mechanisms by which inactive HIV could destroy the
>> immune system.
>
> This is incorrect. HIV destroys lymphocytes by host mechanisms such
> as HIV-antigen specific CD8+ (CTL) killing, and by fas-mediated and
> fas-independent apoptosis mechanisms. Lymphocytes are also
> destroyed by the viral mechanism of direct killing of CD4+ T cells. Not
> only that, we now know WHY the lymphocytes are not replaced. If you
> want I can give you a great many citations that have demonstrated
> these phenomena.

One simple virus with less than 2500 byte genetic information, and
so many different mechanisms by which the virus destroys the
immune system (after e.g. 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, or more years)!

I'm sorry, I cannot take seriously these theories. It is assumed that
after infection, HIV and blood cells live together for maybe 20 years,
but finally blood cells begin to commit mass suicide because of
HIV. Far the most t-cells are never infected by HIV.

Please give one reference to an online article explaining these
theories in detail. I'll try to refute them.

But you should study the following article, because it contains
very much information on the whole issue:

http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/howei.html

I'm really interested in what you think is wrong. Here an excerpt:

"In 1984 it was proposed that the retrovirus HIV can cause
such diametrically different diseases as Kaposi's sarcoma,
pneumonia, dementia, diarrhea, and weight loss [4,5]. All of
these diseases and over two dozen more are now collectively
called acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) [6], if
antibody to HIV is present. But many of these diseases,
including Kaposi's sarcoma, lymphoma, dementia and weight
loss, are neither consequences of, nor consistently associated
with, immunodeficiency [7,8]. For example, Kaposi's sarcoma
and dementia have been diagnosed in male homosexuals
whose immune systems were normal [9-13]. As a cause of
these diseases HIV was proposed to follow an entirely
unprecedented course of action:

1) HIV was proposed to cause immunodeficiency by killing
T-cells. But retroviruses do not kill cells [14,15].

2) Within weeks after infection, HIV would reach moderate to
high titers of 10 -10^4 infectious units per ml blood [16], sufficient
to induce antiviral immunity and antibodies (a positive "AIDS-test").
According to Shaw, Ho and their collaborators, HIV activity is
"rapidly and effectively limited" by this antiviral activity [17,18].
Prior to antiviral immunity, HIV would neither kill T-cells nor
cause AIDS [16,19]. But all other viruses are primarily pathogenic
prior to immunity; the reason vaccination protects against
disease. Not one virus exists that causes damage only after
it is neutralized by antiviral immunity [20,21].

3) On average 10 years after HIV is neutralized, the virus is
postulated to cause AIDS diseases [5,22]. But all other viruses
typically cause disease within days or weeks after infection,
because they replicate exponentially with generation times of 8
to 48 hours [20,23,24].

4) As a consequence of antiviral immunity, the virus titer is
undetectably low prior to and even during AIDS [25-29]. Only in
rare cases HIV titers are as high as in asymptomatic, primary
infection [16,30]. But in all other viral diseases the virus titer is
maximally high when viruses cause disease [20,21].

5) Antiviral immunity would typically restrict HIV-infected
lymphocytes to less than 1 in 500 -- prior to and even during
AIDS [14,26,27,30-32]. But all other viruses infect more cells
than the host can spare or regenerate when they cause
disease [20,21]."

> Your posts tend to have both varieties of sentences; those whose
> meaning and intent are clear and those whose meaning I simply
> cannot figure out. Please don't take that as a criticism. I know all
> too well how hard it is to make oneself clear in a foreign tongue.
> But if you want substantive responses please make an attempt to
> state your position more clearly.

I'm grateful for any criticism. But I should know examples of sentences
whose meaning and intent you simply cannot figure out. It is probable
that also other readers have problems with such sentences.


Cheers
Wolfgang

28-Mar-1999

Hello Todd A. Farmerie

>>>> Look at the predictions made 10 or 15 years ago. The predictions
>>>> of the AIDS establishment have been even much worse than the
>>>> predictions of the Malthusian demographers.
. . .
>> We can judge a scientific hypothesis only by its verifiable
>> consequences and predictions.
>
> Yes, but the unstated assumptions behind the predictions must be kept
> in mind. In this case, the caveats are "if there is no change in the
> epidemiology of the disease's spread" (as in lifestyle changes which
> significantly alter the rate and demographics of spread) and "if no
> treatments are developed". Since both of these have occurred, the
> conditions which the prediction addressed do not exist. . . .

The main reason is that is was assumed that HIV can easily be
transmitted. In the meanwhile it is an open secret that many
hundred sexual contacts with an infected person are needed to
transmit the virus. Therefore hundred of thousands sexual
contracts with random U.S. American or European partners
would be necessary for a healthy person to become infected
with a high probability.

>> And the predictions based on the HIV-AIDS-hypothesis are
>> refuted by reality the more the better the data is.
>
> The central prediction of the HIV/AIDS theory is that HIV causes AIDS -
> that without treatment, those infected with the HIV-1 virus will develop
> AIDS within 15 or so years. Show me "better" data that refutes this.

For instance a quote from Harris' article:
"The rise in total mortality risk in people with hemophilia was
sudden: total mortality in this population, which had been
stable in 1982 and 1983, suddenly increased by a factor of
approximately 900% in the first quarter of 1984."

At least the majority of these deaths cannot be explained by a virus
with a supposed mean latency period of 10, 12, or 15 years !!!


>> But also you
>> probably don't lack scholarly ethics, for you defend what you believe
>> in. Many of those who know or fear that the HIV AIDS thesis could
>> be wrong are not courageous enough to defend it.
>
> You want courage. Here is what you do. Infect yourself with HIV, and
> take no drugs, engage in no sex, and do not accept any blood products.
> See what happens. But since nothing will happen, right, it takes no
> courage whatsoever (except maybe for the no-sex part).

Already some months ago, after having dealt intensively with
HIV and AIDS, I decided to infect myself with HIV, as soon as
this can have a positive effect. It would make sense to infect
many respected persons (e.g. scientists, showmen, politicians,
sportsmen and so on) with HIV in order to remove the social
stigma 'HIV positive'.

I would be very happy if this happened this year because I think
that the next millennium should not start with such a tragic error
as HIV-AIDS.

I have absolutely no fear of HIV, but I never would take such
toxic substances as AZT or other AIDS cocktails, even if I had
antibodies to HIV. Have you studied how AZT and similar DNA
chain terminators work?

Also the protease inhibitors have a lot of side effects:
"While protease inhibitors are highly effective, long term treatment
has resulted in unexpected side effects such as lipodystrophy
and hyperlipidaemia, as well as the common side effects of highly
active antiretroviral therapy, which lead to intolerance in up to 40%
of patients (gastrointestinal intolerance, headaches, asthenia,
peripheral neuropathy, rash, pancreatitis, and bone marrow
suppression)." [1]


If you are interested in what is meant by "highly effective", I
strongly recommend you this online article:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drconf.htm

You quoted in a post in this tread Goodman and Gilman, The
Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics: "The antiviral selectivity
of zidovudine (AZT) is due to its greater affinity for HIV reverse
transcriptase than for human DNA polymerases, . . . ."

So it has also an affinity to human DNA polymerases.

"AZT was designed 30 years ago to kill growing human cells
for cancer chemotherapy. In view of its inevitable toxicity, AZT
was approved as an anti-HIV drug only tentatively in 1987.
See the warnings of a non-medical manufacturer, Sigma, on
the label of an AZT bottle (Fig. 2). The label points out, with
skull and cross bones, AZTs toxicity to the bone marrow, the
source of T-cells." [2]

"AZT, at the currently prescribed high doses of 0.5 to 1.5 grams
per person per day, causes many of the above described AZT-
specific diseases faster than recreational drugs, i.e. within weeks
or months after administration." [2]

The doses of modern combination therapies are not much lower. [3]

"For example, although 10^10 HIV virions are produced per day, a
minority of CD4 T lymphocytes from patients infected with HIV
contain the virus and some lymphocytes are resistant to infection."
[4]

10^10 virions sounds a lot, but is it really? The volume of
10^10 virions is 0.01 cubic millimeters and its weight about 0.01
milligramme. And this percent of a milligramme is fought
by many hundreds of milligrammes of the most toxic substances
ever invented !!! In addition to that, a substantial part of the viral
material is either taken from the host cell or cannot be toxic for
other reasons.

And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).

The following quote is quite representative:

"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]

20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre

Todd, you have put in question my scholarly ethics. So I ask you:
have you really studied the arguments of all sides? I have, even
the arguments of those who claim that HIV doesn't exist.

> Find for me any statement in the Harris article that points to
> many AIDS deaths not caused by HIV.

I know very well that Harris believes in the AIDS orthodoxy and
explains away the facts I have cited from him in my posts.


[1] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7168/1297
[2] http://www.duesberg.com/ch13.html
[3] http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
[4] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7131/600

Regards
Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html
We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as possible!

28-Mar-1999

Hello Ian!

z>> A question: do you really think that two (fatal) viruses as different
z>> as HIV-1and HIV-2 (a close relative of SIV) began to spread in
z>> mankind exactly at the time when the technology to detect such
z>> viruses was developed?
>>
t> yes
>>
t> (as *different* as HIV 1 & 2?)

They are so different that they cannot have had a common
ancestor in the recent past.

>>
z>> How probable is this? Mankind has existed for many many thousands
z>> of years.
>>
t> ebola, small pox, rabies, cholera, yellow fever, malaria, plague, flu,
t> diptheria, typhoid, typhus, measles, polio, dengue, lyme, scarlet fever,
t> chicken pox, kuru, Marburg, syphilis, HTLV-II, tuberculosis, . . . .
i
i The better examples are ebola, lyme disease, the outbreak of hanta
i virus and the recent outbreak of a killer viral disease in Hong Kong
i that "jumped" from birds to humans.

All your examples are strong evidence for what I'm claiming: the 'new'
viruses and other 'new' pathogens have always existed, only the
techniques to detect them are new.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that mankind was saved from extinction
by Ebola virus. The orchestration of the whole story was too obvious.

i These are all examples of diseases that have developed in quite recent
i times and reqiured modern technology to detect (especially Hanta virus
i and the Hong Kong virus).
i
i With thing like Ebola, Lyme disease and Hanta virus, human occupation
i of habitats which were previously isolated resulted in being exposed
i to viruses that were potentially infective, but until then did not
i come into contact with humans.

Humans have always occupated new habitats. And don't forget how
difficult it is to transmit retroviruses such as HIV-1 or HIV-2.

One really should test the HIV status of randomly selected persons
of all age groups in African regions with very high HIV antibody
prevalence. If old people have the same prevalence as the young
and the children, then the HIV-AIDS-hypothesis must be discarded.

z>> And do you know how old the technology of counting blood cells is?
>>
t> relevance?
i
i I think he's confusing the ability to count things like red and white
i blood cells (over a century) with the ability to count T lympocytes
i (since the 70's), the ability to distinguish between T lympocyte
i subtypes (a couple of decades) and the ability to count CD4+
i lympocytes (less than a decade).
i
i With the techniques available in the 70's, the fall in T- lympocyte
i populations would be impossible to detect outside of specialist
i research laboratories.

I'm not confusing anything, but what you write here is exactly the
important point: the techniques to count 'AIDS-relevant' blood
cells was developed in the times of AIDS.

"A CD4+ count less than the CD8+ count was once used as a
crude marker for AIDS, but today with progress we know that
this immune state is non-specific." [Harris]

Then, a low CD4+ count was assumed as a crude marker for AIDS.
If these techniques had existed before AIDS, then a low CD4+
count would probably not have been attributed to HIV, because of
the following facts: extreme stress (a consequence of the AIDS
horror), injuries, strong infections, cancer, malnutrition, tuberculosis,
radiation or chemotherapy (nucleoside analoga as AZT) also result
in a low C4+count.

When all these facts became known, the opinion that HIV is the
essential cause of a low CD4+count had already turned to dogma.

Cheers
Wolfgang

Critical links on AIDS:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html

28-Mar-1999

Hello Todd A. Farmerie

>> The peer review system has certainly some advantages, but it is
>> also a modern variant of censorship. In some respect 'Nature' and
>> 'Science' play the role which was played in former times by the
>> official publications of the Vatican.
>
> Do the words 'water memory' mean anything to you? How about
> 'cold fusion'? I get the feeling you would have them be the Weekly
> World News (or it's broadcast equivalent, the Art Bell Show).

I don't see the relevance. Only the future will show how much
nonsense has been accepted by peer reviewed journals and how
much sound articles have been rejected.

>>> Also, I have NEVER seen anyone address why if HIV does not cause
>>> AIDS that protease inhibitors that target HIV prolong the life of AIDS
>>> patients.
>>
>> In the beginning of AIDS it was assumed that HIV leads rapidly to death.
>> So when people taking AZT died after three years, it was assumed that
>> they would have died much earlier without AZT.
>
> You don't know how a clinical trial is performed, do you? Half of the
> people enrolled DON'T GET THE DRUG! Then they compare the two
> groups. They don't assume squat.

Yes, therefore I'm very skeptical about the results. Here an example:

"ACTG-320 was a phase III clinical trial involving almost 1200
people, roughly half taking two AZT-style drugs, and the rest
taking a cocktail consisting of those same two nucleoside analogs
plus a protease inhibitor. The trial was stopped early for reasons
that are unclear.
When the records were unblinded, the data showed that only 8
patients had died in the cocktail group, versus 18 in the group not
taking the protease inhibitor. Based on these figures, Mellors and
the rest of the medical establishment are saying that cocktail
therapy reduces mortality 50% compared to treatment without
protease inhibitors."
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drconf.htm

And there is also the famous Concorde study, where the most
comprehensive data on AZT comes from. The trial found a 25%
higher mortality in AZT recipients than in untreated controls.

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

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

Cheers
Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html

29-Mar-1999

Hello mcoon!

>>> For example; you wrote; "Normally antibodies are a sign of immunity
>>> against a virus." This is NOT true. Antibodies to a virus (or indeed to
>>> anything at all) are an indication that the person has been *exposed*
>>> to the virus (actually, exposure to a viral *antigen*). It DOES NOT
>>> mean that person has immunity.
>>
>> Do you understand the principle of active immunization and
>> vaccination? I think, you do not. Read about it!
>
> I understand the concepts quite well, indeed. I've spent a number of
> years reading about it (and conducting experiments that are germaine
> to the topic, and teaching the subject in University).
>
> More importantly, I am quite sure that the presense of antibodies in a
> persons' sera DOES NOT mean that they are immune. It merely means
> that they have been exposed to the immunogen. They may, in fact, not
> be infected by the virus or even that they MAY be immune. But the
> presence of antibodies does NOT indicate immunity.

Your objections are correct in principle, but they don't affect my
statement:
"NORMALLY antibodies are a SIGN of immunity". And with the following
quotes from Duesberg I made quite clear what I meant by 'normally'.

> I don't know what *your* background is, but I have come across this
> basic misunderstanding in the past from the general public (I mean
> non-immunologists/doctors). ...

I see myself as a scientist in the tradition of Johannes Kepler. My
background is philosophy (especially linguistics and epistemology)
and science in general (especially physics and evolution theory).
I studied computer science (1982 - 1987). For me sound logical
reasoning and an unprejudiced attitude are by far the most import
things in science.

> Indeed, sterilizing immunity has *never*, to my knowledge, been
> documented in humans. That is immunity that eliminates all
> traces of the immunogen at every exposure. ...

Therefore 'immunity' is not necessarily the same as 'sterilizing
immunity'.


"Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
asymptomatic carriers."
http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html

> ... It was for this reason (among others, including safety concerns)
> that the first HIV vaccine trials were halted before they began in
> 1995.

There is, I suppose, a more important problem: there would be two
sorts of antibodies to HIV, the first sort indicating that a person must
die of AIDS and the second, probably very similar to first, would
indicate the contrary.

But vaccination is totally superfluous, because antiviral immunity
reduces HIV to such low levels that even PCR is needed to detect
its presence.

"As a consequence of antiviral immunity, the virus titer is
undetectably low prior to and even during AIDS [25-29]. Only in
rare cases HIV titers are as high as in asymptomatic, primary
infection [16,30]. But in all other viral diseases the virus titer is
maximally high when viruses cause disease [20,21]."
http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/howei.html

Only 10^10 virions (0.01 milligrams) normally are produced a day, but
hundreds of milligrams of very toxic drugs are given to HIV antibody
positive persons. Do you really think that 0.01 milligrams HIV have
more negative effects on a person than 1000 milligrams of AZT?

If yes, then I must doubt your common sense.

>> One simple virus with less than 2500 byte genetic information, and
>> so many different mechanisms by which the virus destroys the
>> immune system (after e.g. 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, or more years)!
>
> It is a well understood property of immune defense that it is, for the
> most part, HOST immunity that eliminates infected cells; in this case
> those cells are T lymphocytes. What I mean here is that it is the
> infected persons OWN immune system and own cellular responses
> that kill the T cells. The host is provoked to do so by the virus.
> Nevertheless, HIV DOES directly kill T cells.

Even if HOST immunity eliminated all infected cells, that would not
be enough, because only a very small fraction is ever infected.

"Antiviral immunity would typically restrict HIV-infected
lymphocytes to less than 1 in 500 -- prior to and even during
AIDS [14,26,27,30-32]. But all other viruses infect more cells
than the host can spare or regenerate when they cause
disease [20,21]."
http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/howei.html

Here some mecanisms by which HIV supposedly destroys
the immune system:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/howhiv.htm

Direct cell killing.
Syncytia formation.
Apoptosis of infected cells
Apoptosis of uninfected
Innocent bystanders.
Anergy.
Superantigens.
Damage to Precursor Cells.

Here an excerpt:
"Killer T cells also may mistakenly destroy uninfected cells that have
consumed HIV particles and that display HIV fragments on their
surfaces. Alternatively, because HIV envelope proteins bear some
resemblance to certain molecules that may appear on CD4+ T cells,
the body's immune responses may mistakenly damage such cells
as well."

Here two quotes from John Maddox, "News and Views", Nature 373,
189, 19 January 1995 ( http://www.duesberg.com/ch12.html ) :

"So the scarcity of T cells from which virus can be recovered in test-tube
experiments is consistent with the assertion that the immune system is
in overdrive from the onset of infection by HIV."

"Meanwhile, one important question stands out like a sore thumb:
why, after more than a decade of research, has it only now emerged
that the response of the immune system to infection by HIV is
hyperactivity rather than the opposite?"

> ... Let me ask you this question; what evidence that you are aware of
> that exists in the literature about HIV that contradicts the HIV/AIDS
> causality?
>
> (Here's a hint; NONE of the evidence addressed at the web site you
> provided contradicts the HIV/AIDS causality).

Are you serious? Could you tell me, what kind of evidence, if existent,
would have the power to contradict the HIV/AIDS causality, according
to you?

Cheers
Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as possible!

29-Mar-1999

> Here's a poser for you HIV-does-not-cause-AIDS people out
> there; how do you explain the observation (in a great many
> studies....I can really blow out the bandwidth with the citations
> if you want)that patients undergoing antiretroviral therapy show
> a marked and sustained increase in the production of both CD4+
> and CD8+ T cells? Remember; the therapy was *antiretroviral*.

According to Harvey Bialy (http://www.duesberg.com/ch12.html)
such an increase in T cells after treatment with the protease
inhibitor is also a well known phenomenon called lymphocyte
trafficking, which occurs in response to many chemical insults.

One could say that the immune system is in overdrive from the
onset of the antiviral therapy.

That's easy to understand: if a work animal doesn't work any
more because of exhaustion, you can make it to continue to
work by several means (e.g. whip), but the risk increases that
the animal collapses from exhaustion. Similar situations are
conceivable with an exhausted police force, an exhausted fire
brigade or an exhausted army.

There is a second aspect:

"These studies involved moderately to profoundly immunodeficient
patients with HIV infection who had received PRIOR therapy with
NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES."
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html

"ACTG-320 was a phase III clinical trial involving almost 1200
people, roughly half taking two AZT-style drugs, and the rest
taking a cocktail consisting of those same two nucleoside analogs
plus a protease inhibitor. The trial was stopped early for reasons
that are unclear.
When the records were unblinded, the data showed that only 8
patients had died in the cocktail group, versus 18 in the group not
taking the protease inhibitor. Based on these figures, Mellors and
the rest of the medical establishment are saying that cocktail
therapy reduces mortality 50% compared to treatment without
protease inhibitors."
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drconf.htm

My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.

Cheers
Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html

30-Mar-1999

Hello Todd A. Farmerie!

>> The main reason is that is was assumed that HIV can easily be
>> transmitted. In the meanwhile it is an open secret that many
>> hundred sexual contacts with an infected person are needed to
>> transmit the virus.
>
> This is false. There are conditions in which a single sexual contact is
> sufficient. (And since turn about is fair play, please cite for me a
> report of an epidemiological study in which no subject was shown to have
> contracted the virus with less than several hundred contacts - such a
> citation would be needed to support your 'open secret', which instead
> you simply made up, or copied from someone who did.)

My paragraph continues in this way: "Therefore hundred of
thousands sexual contracts with random U.S. American or
European partners would be necessary for a healthy person
to become infected with a high probability."

I did not want to repeat two times the expression "with a high
probability". Now I know that I should have!

Here a quote from our Harris article.

"It is also asserted in a related argument by Root-
Bernstein that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis does not explain
the generally-low measured levels of HIV virus in semen,
the low (but not zero) rate of HIV infection in mates of
HIV-positive men with hemophilia, or the nearly zero rate
of infection in U.S. heterosexual prostitutes (unless they
are drug users). If AIDS is an infectious disease, ask the
skeptics, then why does HIV not infect very well?"

And it is easier to transmit the virus from men to women than
in the inverse direction!

I don't know the latest official figures on the proportion of
persons with HIV antibodies in Europe and in the U.S., but
its order of magnitute is 0.1%.


>>> The central prediction of the HIV/AIDS theory is that HIV causes AIDS -
>>> that without treatment, those infected with the HIV-1 virus will develop
>>> AIDS within 15 or so years. Show me "better" data that refutes this.
>>
>> For instance a quote from Harris' article:
>> "The rise in total mortality risk in people with hemophilia was
>> sudden: total mortality in this population, which had been
>> stable in 1982 and 1983, suddenly increased by a factor of
>> approximately 900% in the first quarter of 1984."
>>
>> At least the majority of these deaths cannot be explained by a virus
>> with a supposed mean latency period of 10, 12, or 15 years !!!
>
> The key word is 'within', that means 'in any period of time shorter than
> . . .'. That these people died faster than 15 years in no way negates
> the prediction that they would die within 15 years, it confirms it.

According to you, all persons infected before 1984 should be dead now!

But unfortunately for the HIV AIDS dogma, many of them (maybe even
the majority) are still alive. According to David Rasnick (June 1997) 75 %
of the 20,000 hemophiliacs in the U.S. test positive for HIV.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drblinded.htm

Why are exact figures on hemophiliacs not published? If they were in
agreement with orthodoxy, they certainly would be published. If now
the last surviving hemophiliacs, infected before blood-screening was
introduced, died of AIDS, this probably would be a big media circus.

>> You quoted in a post in this thread Goodman and Gilman, The
>> Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics: "The antiviral selectivity
>> of zidovudine (AZT) is due to its greater affinity for HIV reverse
>> transcriptase than for human DNA polymerases, . . . ."
>>
>> So it has also an affinity to human DNA polymerases.
>
> Virtually every compound has some measurable affinity for a
> particular molecule. It is the relative measure of that affinity that
> is important. If there are similar affinities for the two polymerases,
> then there is no selectivity. If there is a 10 fold difference
> (modest), then you can bind to half of the HIV polymerases at a
> dose that will leave the human polymerases virtually untouched.

If AZT kills 90% of replicating HIV, then a 10 fold difference could
result in the killing of 9% of replicating body cells and in an even
higher percentage of killing cell organelles such as mitochondria,
and bacteria carrying out essential tasks in the human body.

In any case, AZT and similar drugs constitute an important stress
factor for at least replicating cells.


>> "AZT, at the currently prescribed high doses of 0.5 to 1.5 grams
>> per person per day, causes many of the above described AZT-
>> specific diseases faster than recreational drugs, i.e. within weeks
>> or months after administration." [2]
>>
>> The doses of modern combination therapies are not much lower. [3]
>>
>> "For example, although 10^10 HIV virions are produced per day, a
>> minority of CD4 T lymphocytes from patients infected with HIV
>> contain the virus and some lymphocytes are resistant to infection."
>> [4]
>>
>> 10^10 virions sounds a lot, but is it really? The volume of
>> 10^10 virions is 0.01 cubic millimeters and its weight about 0.01
>> milligramme.
>
> Do you know how many micrograms of cholera toxin will kill you? The
> weight is really not relevant. Does the number 10 trillion (10 million
> billion for those across the pond) sound small to you? Per day? It is
> enough to kill as many as 10 trillion cells.

About 1 microgram of the strongest purified bacterial toxins is
needed to kill a person. Also some micrograms of arsenic can be
lethal, but persons can become accustomed to doses up to
around 1 gram.

Antiviral immunity reduces HIV to levels from less than 1 to 100 HIV
particles per microlitre of blood (Reinhard Kurth, Bild der Wissenschaft,
Dec. 1998, p.12, http://members.lol.li/twostone/dialog.html). If we
assume 10 litres of blood, we result in less than 10^7 (0.01 micrograms)
up to 10^9 virus particles (1 microgram).


>> And this percent of a milligramme is fought by many
>> hundreds of milligrammes of the most toxic substances
>> ever invented !!!
>
> First of all, AZT is nowhere near the most toxic substances ever
> invented. It makes for good rhetoric, but that is about it. There are
> isotopes of plutonium that make AZT look like a picnic. Likewise,
> comparing the number of milligrams of a drug being administered is
> meaningless without taking into account such things as its volume
> of distribution, clearance, and site of action.

You are right. Much smaller quantities of other substances can be
lethal. In this respect AZT must be compared rather with radioactivity
and carcinogenic substances, because they do not destroy an
organism in the short term.


>> In addition to that, a substantial part of the viral
>> material is either taken from the host cell or cannot be toxic for
>> other reasons.
>
> Define substantial. Anyhow, material taken from a host cell can be
> 'toxic' (like, for example, an oncogene). This brings up another point
> though. Infectious and toxic are not the same thing. Some of the
> products of the virus are in fact 'toxic' (this, in my opinion, is the
> best explanation of the role of the virus in initiating KS), but this
> sets up a false impression of what is going on. Please tell me exactly
> what part of the HIV virion is taken from the 'host cell'.

The viral envelope with embedded proteins is taken from the host cell.
There are certainly many other molecules such as water which are
taken from the host cell. It is very improbable that the HIV RNA is
toxic. If some of the well studied viral proteins were toxic, this fact
would have been proved in the meanwhile. Furthermore, if HIV
proteins were toxic, it should be obvious in the beginning of an
infection, before antiviral immunity reduces the virus to such a low
level that PCR is needed to detect it.

Inhalant drugs seem to me a much more reasonable explanation
for KS in gay men than some toxic material from HIV. If you were right,
KS should appear in all HIV antibody positive groups, but it is limited
primarily to the group using inhalant drugs. In addition to that,
KS also appears often in HIV negative persons.


>> And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
>> molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
>> blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
>
> Dishonesty? What is dishonest about that?

The fact that it can be used in such a way:
"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited."
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html

> Let me guess, some member of the scientific conspiracy sat back
> and said, if we say there are only 10 thousand virus particles for
> every thousand CD4 cells in a cubic millimeter, then the number
> would look too small, so we will use different units and get a really
> big number.

You are a victim of this (intentional?) confusion yourself: there are
rather 10 virus particles (less than 1 to 100) for every thousand CD4
cells, and not 10 thousand. And remember: in one single CD4 cell,
there would be space for more than 10^6 HIV particles!


> You remember, in your initial post, you claimed:
>
>> That HIV cannot be the cause of at least many so-called AIDS
>> deaths you can see if you study carefully Harris's _Skeptic_ magazine
>> article on this subject:
>> http://www.skeptic.com/03.2.harris-aids.html
>
> Since the discussion that followed provided no examples where the
> Harris article suggested that many 'so-called' AIDS deaths were not
> caused by HIV (and in fact, he argues just the opposite) then I am
> asking you for the statement in his article that led you to this
> conclusion. His bias is not relevant, you made a specific claim,
> and I am asking for you to support it, or retract it.

An increase in death rate of approximately 900% in three month
is totally inconsistent with a virus with a mean incubation time
substantially higher than three months. Don't you think so? And
take into consideration the fact that in second half of 1983, Gallo
and others became more and more convinced of the existence of
the AIDS virus, Gallo already supposed that it would be a variant
of HTLV.

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


Cheers
Wolfgang

1-Apr-1999

Hi Todd A. Farmerie

>>>> The main reason is that is was assumed that HIV can easily be
>>>> transmitted. In the meanwhile it is an open secret that many
>>>> hundred sexual contacts with an infected person are needed to
>>>> transmit the virus.
>>>
>>> This is false. There are conditions in which a single sexual contact is
>>> sufficient. (And since turn about is fair play, please cite for me a
>>> report of an epidemiological study in which no subject was shown to have
>>> contracted the virus with less than several hundred contacts - such a
>>> citation would be needed to support your 'open secret', which instead
>>> you simply made up, or copied from someone who did.)
>>
>> My paragraph continues in this way: "Therefore hundred of
>> thousands sexual contracts with random U.S. American or
>> European partners would be necessary for a healthy person
>> to become infected with a high probability."
>>
>> I did not want to repeat two times the expression "with a high
>> probability". Now I know that I should have!
>
> Handy dodge isn't it? Make a bold and wrong statement, and then claim
> ambiguity when called to defend it. You (or someone) made the whole
> thing up anyhow.

I did not make a wrong statement. In my first post I have written:

"Now we know how difficult it is to transmit HIV (see below).
Hundreds of sexual acts are necessary to transmit the virus
with a high probability from one person to another!"
(See my posts: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html )

So there is nothing wrong with this paragraph, unless the
first two sentences are separated from the following.

"The main reason is that is was assumed that HIV can easily be
transmitted. In the meanwhile it is an open secret that many
hundred sexual contacts with an infected person are needed to
transmit the virus. Therefore hundred of thousands sexual
contracts with random U.S. American or European partners
would be necessary for a healthy person to become infected
with a high probability."

>> Here a quote from our Harris article.
>>
>> "It is also asserted in a related argument by Root-
>> Bernstein that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis does not explain
>> the generally-low measured levels of HIV virus in semen,
>> the low (but not zero) rate of HIV infection in mates of
>> HIV-positive men with hemophilia, or the nearly zero rate
>> of infection in U.S. heterosexual prostitutes (unless they
>> are drug users). If AIDS is an infectious disease, ask the
>> skeptics, then why does HIV not infect very well?"
>
> Again with your deceptive quoting. He is summarizing the arguments of
> others, not expressing either facts or his opinion. He then continues
> to describe the similar epidemiology for HepB, and indicate that this is
> what would be expected for a virus with this mode of transmission, and
> having infected these initial populations. If you want to quote such
> material, quote it from its source, and not the introduction of the
> refutation, while leaving out the refutation.

Why should it be deceptive quoting? Harries does not deny
"the generally-low measured levels of HIV virus in semen,
the low (but not zero) rate of HIV infection in mates of
HIV-positive men with hemophilia, or the nearly zero rate
of infection in U.S. heterosexual prostitutes (unless they
are drug users)."

Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)

1-Apr-1999

Hi Ian!

Congratulations on your baby!

I'm sorry that I must attack you in this moment, but truth is more
important. If you are not able to reply now, maybe others (e.g. mcoon
who argues in a very similar way as you do) are able to do it for you.

z>>> And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
z>>> molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
z>>> blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
>>>
t>> Dishonesty? What is dishonest about that?
>>
z>The fact that it can be used in such a way:
z>"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
z>experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
z>and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited."
z>http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
i
i Note that they are using the _SAME_ units here (both are given per
i _milli_ litre.

You show once again that you do not really understand what
you write about. You certainly know that normally CD4 cells
are counted per cubic millimeter (microliter). You wrote in a
post to me (29-Mar-99):
"However, the confounding feature here is that people were
swapped onto AZT with a CD4 count of 500, before the deveof
AIDS, which was probably too early (most people thought that
200 was the appropriate figure), so it is not supprising that the
early and late data give the same results."

50-400 CD4 cells per milliliter correspond to a CD4 count
between 0.05 and 0.4. Do you really think that it would be possible
find enough persons with such a CD4 count to perform a trial.

20'000 copies/mL blood results in 10^8 viruses, that's about
0.1 microgram, almost nothing! (see my posts to Todd A. Farmerie:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html)

t>> Let me guess, some member of the scientific conspiracy sat back
t>> and said, if we say there are only 10 thousand virus particles for
t>> every thousand CD4 cells in a cubic millimeter, then the number
t>> would look too small, so we will use different units and get a really
t>> big number.
>>
z>You are a victim of this (intentional?) confusion yourself: there are
z>rather 10 virus particles (less than 1 to 100) for every thousand CD4
z>cells, and not 10 thousand. And remember: in one single CD4 cell,
z>there would be space for more than 10^6 HIV particles!
i
i No, you've missed the fact that they are in the _same_ units, there
i are actually around 40 thousand to 400 thousand copies of virus per
i thousand CD4 cells (or 40-400 copies of virus per each cell).

No, there are 0.001 - 1 copies of virus per each CD4 cell. One copy
per each thousand CD4 cells is the normal case after the onset of
antiviral immunity. One HIV copy per one CD4 cell is very exceptional.
And the volume of a CD4 cell is around 10^6 or 10^7 times the
volume of HIV.

i And as viruses replicate, it doesn't matter f the copy number were
i much smaller, you just need _one_ virus to infect a cell, and make
i LOTS of copies of itself.

That's irrelevant because we are dealing with constant virus levels
after the onset of antiviral immunity.

The role you play on the internet reminds me in some respect
of the Inquisition. The duty of many members of this official
organization was to defend orthodoxy and to detect and fight
heresy. However, it was not their duty to find truth.

Truth is based on verifiable facts and logical reasoning. Orthodoxy,
however, is based on infallible scriptures such as your beloved
(orthodox) references.

Cheers
Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)

We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as possible!

3-Apr-1999

Hello Louann!

j> Are there any cases of an individual having AIDS who did
j> NOT have HIV?
j>
j> I've never heard of one.
>
> I've heard that there are a few cases of complete immune collapse
> like AIDS, acquired during life rather than inborn (not The Boy in the
> Plastic Bubble) but that they do not themselves form any kind of
> pattern.

What kind of pattern do the 30 AIDS-defining diseases form, apart
from the real or supposed presence of HIV?

Duesberg has documented in 1993 more than 4'600 cases which
at first were clinically diagnosed as AIDS, but without HIV.

see: http://www.duesberg.com/ch9.html

Here some quotes:

"As a result, proponents of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis bias HIV-AIDS
correlations in several ways:

(1) They cite HIV-AIDS correlations from selected, individual studies
which are frequently based on non-standardized and unconfirmed
HIV antibody tests [11, 14].

(2) They present antibodies against HIV, instead of activities and
titers of HIV, as a rational cause of AIDS.

(3) They exclude clinically diagnosed, HIV-free AIDS defining
diseases from their statistics, e.g., the 4,621 cases cited below [11],
because the HIV-AIDS hypothesis postulates that HIV causes
AIDS. Therefore HIV-free AIDS cases are either diagnosed by
their old names, e.g. Kaposi sarcoma, pneumonia, etc., or renamed
"idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia," or ICL [15].

But the effort to set apart HIV-positive from HIV-negative AIDS
cases is not based on any clinical or convincing epidemiological
criteria [11, 16]. According to an editorial by Fauci: "Given the
heterogeneity of the [ICL] syndrome, it is highly likely that there is
no common cause" [15]. Yet at the same time the proponents of
the HIV hypothesis, including Fauci, insist that HIV must be the
common cause of the 30 heterogenous AIDS diseases."

Cheers
Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)

Re: Dawkins admits Duesberg probably right
2-Apr-1999 00:43 (Central European Summer Time)

Hello!

>> Adam Noel Harris wrote:
>>
>>> ... but basically Dawkins said that while he has criticized
>>> Duesberg in the past, he now believes that Duesberg
>>> is on to something.
>>
z> In a post ('AIDS: have we been misled?') some days ago, I wrote:
z>
z>> Already some months ago, after having dealt intensively with
z>> HIV and AIDS, I decided to infect myself with HIV, as soon as
z>> this can have a positive effect. It would make sense to infect
z>> many respected persons (e.g. scientists, showmen, politicians,
z>> sportsmen and so on) with HIV in order to remove the social
z>> stigma 'HIV positive'.
z>
z>> I would be very happy if this happened this year because I think
z>> that the next millennium should not start with such a tragic error
z>> as HIV-AIDS.
>
> WHAAAT? Wolfgang; PLEASE don't do this. I beg of you; don't be
> a fool. It's one thing to criticise the HIV/AIDS research community,
> it's quite another to do something so monumentally stupid.

I garantee you that I'll do it as soon as possible. I do not believe
in devils nor in the devil-like properties attributed to the totally
incapable HIV. The less evidence that a supposedly fatal virus has
any measurable effects, the more astonishing and insidious get
the properties which must be attributed to the virus.

z> It would be great if Richard Dawkins participated in such a
z> self-infection compaign in order to get rid of the social stigma
z> 'HIV positive'.
>
> er....Wolfgang....in America we have a rather quaint tradition
> called April Fool's Day........

We have the same tradition. Now I have become aware that
at least one story I have read today in our local newspaper must
have been invented.

So it seems that I have strongly overestimated Richard Dawkins
in assuming that he could have recognized that Peter Duesberg
is right.

In any case, I would welcome Richard Dawkins participating in
such a self-infection compain. Maybe the destruction of the AIDS
horror, anxiety and fear would be even more important than the
destruction of a stigma.

A further quote from my favorite contemporary scientist:

"PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE. According to the HIV-AIDS
establishment, nearly all HIV-infected, healthy persons are
claimed to die from AIDS on average 10 years after infection
by HIV. In view of this, one million HIV-positive but healthy
Americans, and 17 million HIV-positive but healthy humans
on this planet, are subjected to a multiplicity of psychological
and sociological pressures.

They are given a death sentence by the medical establishment
for being HIV-positive; they are denied coverage by health
insurance companies; they lose their jobs and social status;
they are denied entrance visas to many countries including
the U.S.; they are denied employment by the US Army; and
worst of all they are pressured to accept the toxic AZT therapy-all
of this, only because they have made antibodies against a virus
that is presumed to cause AIDS. If they refuse to submit to
these pressures, they are charged with denial (of the HIV-AIDS
hypothesis) by the AIDS establishment."
http://www.duesberg.com/ch13.html


Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)

We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as possible!

Re: Dawkins admits Duesberg probably right
3-Apr-1999

Hello Keith Littleton!

z>>>Already some months ago, after having dealt intensively
z>>>with HIV and AIDS, I decided to infect myself with HIV,
z>>>as soon as this can have a positive effect. It would
z>>>make sense to infect many respected persons (e.g.
z>>>scientists, showmen, politicians, sportsmen and so on)
z>>>with HIV in order to remove the social stigma 'HIV
z>>>positive'.

> What Wolfgang advocates above is essentially mass murder
> based on his misconceptions of AIDS-HIV. Even if HIV was
> harmless, what he advocates is completely unethical and
> would legally constitute assault. I wonder if he should
> be reported to the proper authorities by someone.

'Mass murder' is rather what is happening for about 15 years.

Why should I or anybody else fear antibodies against such an
incapable virus as HIV? After the onset of antiviral immunitity
the virus is reduced to less than 0.1 micrograms, almost nothing.
PCR, developed by the great Nobel laureate and opponent of the
HIV ADIS dogma Kary Mullis, is needed to detect its presence.

I ask you again, why should I fear such a virus? I would only
fear antiviral therapies, because they have so many side effects
that finally my immune system would become exhausted.

Think about it: 0.1 microgram of HIV is fought by hundreds
of thousands micrograms of very toxic substances. Look at the
many side effects. No wonder that the result is a self-fulfilling
prophecy.

Could you tell me, what makes you so sure that HIV itself is
dangerous. You, as all the others believing in the HIV AIDS
dogma, rely only on others.

You cannot imagine that such a big error is possible?

Think of the errors of the past!

Please, study the following quotes from Duesberg, or better the
whole article:
http://www.duesberg.com/ch13.html


"The CDC had "linked by sexual contact" the Kaposi's sarcomas
of some patients to the pneumonias of others and vice versa.
The uncritical acceptance by the scientific community of a
common infectious cause for such diametrically different
diseases as cancer and pneumonia allowed the CDC to
fabricate infectious AIDS. Since cancer, pneumonia, and by
now about 30 different diseases were all said to have the same
cause, they would soon all be called by the same new name,
AIDS."

"A second bizarre element in the CDCs case for infectious AIDS
was the assumption of an average "latency period" from infection
to AIDS of 10 month, now 10 years. The assumption of a microbe
that only causes disease after an average latency period of 10
months was without proven precedent."

"In 1984, the CDC also presented typical hemophilia diseases,
like pneumonia and candidiasis, as AIDS from parenteral infection
via blood transfusions-in support of its claim that AIDS was
infectious. The paradox that none of the CDC's hemophiliacs with
AIDS would have developed Kaposi's sarcoma from an infectious
agent that presumably caused Kaposi's sarcoma in homosexuals
was effectively hidden because all these entirely unrelated
diseases had been named AIDS."

"In 1993, the CDC introduced, once more, a new AIDS definition.
This has shifted the balance of immunodeficiency to non-
immunodeficiency AIDS diseases significantly in favour of
immunodeficiency diseases, i.e. from 61% to 80%. The critical
innovation of this new definition was that a healthy person with
less than 200 T-cells, but with no clinical disease, would now be
registered as an AIDS patient. The new AIDS definition nearly
doubled the new AIDS cases, thus adding new life to the sagging
curves of the American AIDS statistics. However, if one
substracts from the 1993 statistics the new AIDS cases with less
than 200 T-cells, the ratio of the remaining real immunodeficiency
diseases to the non-immunodeficiency diseases is almost the
same as in 1992."

"According to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, the 30 AIDS-defining
diseases are diagnosed as AIDS only when antibody against HIV
is present. In its absence these diseases are called by their old
name and caused by their old causes."

"However, viruses that integrate their genomes with that of the
host, like HIV, cannot kill the host cell. ... Indeed, HIV is mass-
produced for the "HIV test" in immortal T-cell lines in cell culture
at titers of 10^6 infectious units per ml. Luc Montagnier, the
discoverer of HIV, and many other researchers have confirmed
that HIV does not kill T-cells."

"Since the generation time of HIV is two days, HIV will cause
AIDS two weeks after infection. The HIV-hypothesis predicts
AIDS within 2 weeks after infection, because HIV, like all other
retroviruses, replicates within two days. During that time one
infected cell produces at least 100 new viruses. In the absence
of antiviral immunity, these 100 viruses would in turn infect 100
cells producing 100 x 100 viruses, or 10^4 infected cells within
4 days after infection. Within 14 days of such exponential growth,
10^14 cells - the equivalent of a human body - would be infected.
This is the typical latent period of proven pathogenic retroviruses,
like Rous sarcoma virus, and of pathogenic human viruses like flu,
measels, mumps, chicken pox, and herpes, which all have
generation times like HIV."

"However, if dated from the time of HIV infection, AIDS occurs at
totally unpredictable times. The latent period between infection
and AIDS was estimated to average 10 months in 1984 (Auerbach
et al., 1984), 10 years in 1988 (Institute of Medicine, 1988) and over
20 years in HIV-positive hemophiliacs in 1994 (Phillips et al., 1994)."

Cheers
Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)

We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as possible!

Re: HIV and AIDS (was Re: Phillip Johnson interview(Communiqué, String 1999))

13-Apr-1999

Hello Tim Ikeda!

[snip]

> > Why do you not agree with what I have written about AIDS:
> > http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
>
> Actually, Wolfgang, I think the following comments (which you've
> posted previously but never adequately defended except to repeat
> them again), illustrate the problem I see in many of your posts.
>
> > Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
> > of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
> > thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so many
> > side effects that finally the immune system gets exhausted!
> > http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>
> > If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
> > and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
> > HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
> > common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning.
>
>
> Let's take that passage apart to evaluate any claims...
>
> Sentence #1
> "Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
> of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless)"
>
> "Generally" is not the same as never. It is a risky to assume that the
> general case extends to specific cases. If we were to restrict ourselves
> to generalities, we might conclude that viruses, DNA & RNA-based, are
> harmless -- That's because viral specificity limits host range so that
> most (99.99+%) of the viruses you encounter in nature will simply do
> nothing to you (Likewise bacteria). Of course, run across a virus that
> is specific for _you_ and you'll find where generalizations fail. For
> example, feline leukemia viruses (FeLV), influenza viruses, & SIV are
> all retroviruses that are not harmless in many of their hosts. Nor is
> HIV, as far as we can tell. The comment, "retroviruses are generally
> harmless" is irrelvant to particular cases.

FeLV is probably a cousin of HTLV. HTLV's are not pathgenic
(at most with a low probability after an incubation time of
some decades, if one believes that). The evidence that SIV
causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
HIV causes AIDS in humans.

Influnza viruses, which are pathogenic, are no retroviruses.
A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.

> Continued:
> "with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
>
> (~ 100's of mg range)
> That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
> For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
> It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
> maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
> antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
> at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
> drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
> HIV is no exception.

In great excess maybe, but not a difference of 6 orders of magnitude!!!

And normal treatments are only temporary. Body (and immune
system) can regenerate after the therapy. AIDS therapy continues
to death.

There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?

> [Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
> efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
> activity & etc.]
>
> The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
> used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
> whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
> be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
> the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
> forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
> and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
> and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
> relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
> drug cocktails should be used.

How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant? What's
about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused by
HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?

HIV is not active at all, therefore so many different mechanisms
have been proposed by which HIV could harm. I do not believe
in devils and therefore I cannot believe in the devil-like properties
attributed such a totally incapable virus. The less evidence that a
supposedly fatal virus has any measurable effects, the more
astonishing and insidious properties must be ascribed to it.

>
> Continued:
> "of very toxic substances having so many side effects that
> finally the immune system gets exhausted!"
>
> Ian Musgrave commented on this previously. I didn't see your reply.
> The antiviral cocktails appear to have effects which are different
> from what you claim. That is, they raise CD4+ counts, reduce viral
> loads and reduce the incidence of the opportunistic infections which
> are clear signs of immune system impairment.

Here quote from a post to Ian Musgrave:

-------------------------------

According to Harvey Bialy (http://www.duesberg.com/ch12.html)
such an increase in T cells after treatment with the protease
inhibitor is also a well known phenomenon called lymphocyte
trafficking, which occurs in response to many chemical insults.

One could say that the immune system is in overdrive from the
onset of the antiviral therapy.

That's easy to understand: if a work animal doesn't work any
more because of exhaustion, you can make it to continue to
work by several means (e.g. whip), but the risk increases that
the animal collapses from exhaustion. Similar situations are
conceivable with an exhausted police force, an exhausted fire
brigade or an exhausted army.

There is a second aspect:

"These studies involved moderately to profoundly immunodeficient
patients with HIV infection who had received PRIOR therapy with
NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES."
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html

"ACTG-320 was a phase III clinical trial involving almost 1200
people, roughly half taking two AZT-style drugs, and the rest
taking a cocktail consisting of those same two nucleoside analogs
plus a protease inhibitor. The trial was stopped early for reasons
that are unclear.
When the records were unblinded, the data showed that only 8
patients had died in the cocktail group, versus 18 in the group not
taking the protease inhibitor. Based on these figures, Mellors and
the rest of the medical establishment are saying that cocktail
therapy reduces mortality 50% compared to treatment without
protease inhibitors."
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drconf.htm

My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.

-------------------------------

> As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
> Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
> anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
> an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
> repeat what others have said before: Your point?

0.1 microgram HIV is ridiculous !

1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
is murderous!

A quote of Duesberg:

"Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
asymptomatic carriers."
http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html

In the case of HIV 0.000'000'1 grams are called viremia.
Even during viremia the virus only can be detected by modern
technologies such as PCR.

> Continued:
> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>
> That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
> "Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
> triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
> therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
> less than 200/mL..."
>
> The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
> in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
> therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
> appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
> causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
> the trials.

The same apparent contradiction is also valid in the case of stress.
In the short term stress can increase the amount of T-cells, but in
the long term persistent stress has a negative effect.

The immune system also gets accustomed to a drug or a cocktail.
The alert phase effect disappears and only different drugs can
provoke a new alert phase. (That's also the reason, why almost
all clinical trials on AIDS drugs where stopped in their initial
phase on a well-known pretext.)

> [Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
> read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
> for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
> -- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
> When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]

-------quote--------------------

And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).

The following quote is quite representative:

"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]

20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre

-------quote--------------------
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html


> Let's review where the comments stand:
> RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.

Your examples show that is more relevant than you admit.

> RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new or unusual.

Six orders of magnitude is very unusual.

> RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.

Side effects of the drugs are much stronger than (supposed)
harm caused by HIV.

> RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
> provided.

Why? Long term survivers are certainly not those taking AZT or
cocktails.

> Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
> HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
> using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
> the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
> individuals.

How can so many educated and intelligent persons be so naive !!!

> Second paragraph:
> "If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
> and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
> HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
> common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning."
>
> That's your claim. You haven't convinced me in any of the threads
> so far. Your references to date (particularly in the rebuttal of
> Steve Harris' article) often suggest the opposite of what you've
> claimed so far. Today's argument about the relative amounts of drug
> to pathogen is clearly missing something.

I know this: nobody can be convinced in this world. The world is
in one's own head and it is almost impossible to change somebody's
head.

> I'm not impervious to evidence. I've seen enough biological
> "dogmas" overturned in my time not to expect to see more.
> I don't work directly in AIDS research and I would be fascinated
> to read about a radical new set of ideas about the cause of AIDS.
> So what's in it for me to support the status quo if I don't think
> the HIV/AIDS connection is really there? Grant support? Not an
> issue. Scientific reputation? Ha! I'd enjoy being first on a
> new wave. Think of the brand new areas of research that would
> open up (There would be lots of new opportunities there...).
> Here's the final "kicker", even if I were afraid of voicing
> my dissent, I could always keep my opinions to myself and
> nobody would ever know...
>
> So what's keeping me among the "HIV has a causal role in AIDS" camp?
> It's just that I've seen your arguments previously, in many
> other forums (try sci.med.aids - I monitored that group in the
> early '90s before Phil Johnson started posting there. Steve Harris
> is still there. Why don't you find him?) Put within the context of
> the papers I've read over the years and the details I happen to
> know, those rebuttals seem extremely weak and poorly thought out
> to me. But that's just the position of this working biochemist...


Cheers
Wolfgang

http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)

We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as possible!

Re: HIV and AIDS (was Re: Phillip Johnson interview(Communiqué, String 1999))

22-Apr-1999

Hello Tim Ikeda!

[no snips]

| Hello Wolfgang,
| I'm cross-posting this to misc-health-aids, where you may get
| the chance to meet Steve Harris and discuss his article
| on HIV/AIDS (which you "analyzed" previously in talk.origins).


I tried to post my last answer also to sci.med.aids, because
you told me that Steve Harris is there. But now I suppose that
the addition of this newsgroup caused some problems so that my
post did appear on no newsgroup at all. (I checked it through
www.dejanews.com). Only after having eliminated the newsgroup
sci.med.aids my post www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=465926708
was accepted by talk.origins:


| >Hello Tim Ikeda!
|
| >[snip]
|
| Wolfgang wrote:
| >>> Why do you not agree with what I have written about AIDS:
| >>> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
|
| I replied:
| >> Actually, Wolfgang, I think the following comments (which you've
| >> posted previously but never adequately defended except to repeat
| >> them again), illustrate the problem I see in many of your posts.
| >>
| >>> Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
| >>> of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
| >>> thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so many
| >>> side effects that finally the immune system gets exhausted!
| >>> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
| >>
| >>> If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
| >>> and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
| >>> HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
| >>> common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning.
| >
| >
| >> Let's take that passage apart to evaluate any claims...
| >
| >> Sentence #1
| >> "Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
| >> of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless)"
| >
| >> "Generally" is not the same as never. It is a risky to assume that
| >> the general case extends to specific cases. If we were to restrict
| >> ourselves to generalities, we might conclude that viruses, DNA & RNA-
| >> based, are harmless -- That's because viral specificity limits host
| >> range so that most (99.99+%) of the viruses you encounter in nature
| >> will simply do nothing to you (Likewise bacteria). Of course, run
| >> across a virus that is specific for _you_ and you'll find where
| >> generalizations fail. For example, feline leukemia viruses (FeLV),
| >> influenza viruses, & SIV are all retroviruses that are not harmless
| >> in many of their hosts. Nor is HIV, as far as we can tell. The
| >> comment, "retroviruses are generally harmless" is irrelvant to
| >> particular cases.
|
| Wolfgang comments...
| > FeLV is probably a cousin of HTLV. HTLV's are not pathgenic
| > (at most with a low probability after an incubation time of
| > some decades, if one believes that). The evidence that SIV
| > causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
| > HIV causes AIDS in humans.
|
| mcoon discussed this in his talk.origins reply...
|
| >Influnza viruses, which are pathogenic, are no retroviruses.
|
| Oops! My mistake. *blush*


How can a person who monitored once an AIDS discussion
group commit such a mistake !?!


| >A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
| >their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
| >it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
|
| Retroviruses can survive as free forms, inside the cell and
| independent of the host genome, or tucked away inside the
| host's genome. There is no good way of predicting whether
| evolution will lead to attenuated forms.
|
| >> Continued:
| >> "with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
| >>
| >> (~ 100's of mg range)
| >> That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
| >> For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
| >> It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
| >> maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
| >> antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
| >> at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
| >> drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
| >> HIV is no exception.
|
| > In great excess maybe, but not a difference of 6 orders of magnitude!!!
|
| Big deal. What matters is the carrying capacity or the tolerance of
| the system to the pathogen.


I'm sorry, but to fight a constant quantity of 0.000'000'1 grams or less
of a retrovirus by around a daily gram of toxic substances is logical
nonsense.

That AIDS drugs are really very toxic you can see if you read for
instance the following site:
http://www.sfaf.org/treatment/positivenews/side.html


| > And normal treatments are only temporary. Body (and immune
| > system) can regenerate after the therapy. AIDS therapy continues
| > to death.
|
| Death occurred before AIDS therapy and happens in areas where AIDS
| therapies cannot be afforded.
|
| > There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
| > at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
| > of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
| > accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
|
| If it didn't infect and induce a failure of the immune system, the
| story might be different. Perhaps you'd only have to worry about
| liver cancer or shingles.


In almost all cases there are much more reasonable causes
explaining a possible failure of the immune system in HIV
positive persons.


| >> [Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
| >> efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
| >> activity & etc.]
| >>
| >> The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
| >> used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
| >> whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
| >> be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
| >> the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
| >> forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
| >> and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
| >> and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
| >> relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
| >> drug cocktails should be used.
|
| > How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
| > onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant?
|
| "Antiviral immunity" has been discussed before. HIV persists
| and is continuously expressed. Drugs may push the expression to
| close to (or less than) detectable levels.


In a human body many other viruses (and bacteria) are
continuously expressed without doing any harm. And as
far as I suppose, some of them reach a much higher weight
ratio than HIV.


| > What's about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused
| > by HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
| > Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
|
| Certainly. If someone did not have HIV, it would not be wise to
| take the cocktails.


If someone has HIV, antiviral immunity reduces the virus to such
a low level, that it is not wise to fight this remaining rest of
less than 0.1 microgram by drugs with many side effects.


| > HIV is not active at all, therefore so many different mechanisms
| > have been proposed by which HIV could harm.
|
| "HIV is not active"? That is, it has no effects at all on the
| metabolism or function of its host cells?


HIV is not active apart from replicating in some cells. Even
if it has a negative effect on the metabolism or function of
these cells, this is not very important because more than
99% of the T-cells are not infected.


| > I do not believe in devils and therefore I cannot believe in the
| > devil-like properties attributed such a totally incapable virus.
| > The less evidence that a supposedly fatal virus has any measurable
| > effects, the more astonishing and insidious properties must be
| > ascribed to it.
|
| >
| >> Continued:
| >> "of very toxic substances having so many side effects that
| >> finally the immune system gets exhausted!"
| >
| >> Ian Musgrave commented on this previously. I didn't see your reply.
| >> The antiviral cocktails appear to have effects which are different
| >> from what you claim. That is, they raise CD4+ counts, reduce viral
| >> loads and reduce the incidence of the opportunistic infections which
| >> are clear signs of immune system impairment.
| >
| >Here quote from a post to Ian Musgrave:
| >
| >-------------------------------
| >
| > According to Harvey Bialy (http://www.duesberg.com/ch12.html)
| > such an increase in T cells after treatment with the protease
| > inhibitor is also a well known phenomenon called lymphocyte
| > trafficking, which occurs in response to many chemical insults.
| >
| > One could say that the immune system is in overdrive from the
| > onset of the antiviral therapy.
| >
| > That's easy to understand: if a work animal doesn't work any
| > more because of exhaustion, you can make it to continue to
| > work by several means (e.g. whip), but the risk increases that
| > the animal collapses from exhaustion. Similar situations are
| > conceivable with an exhausted police force, an exhausted fire
| > brigade or an exhausted army.
|
| So how come people who go off cocktails encounter increasing viral
| titres and decreasing CD4+ counts?


That's not astonishing at all. If you stop the whip, an exhausted
animal (or an exhausted police force) will stop working. And if the
police force disappears after having been very active for some time,
then it's the right moment for criminals to appear.

Furthermore, nobody denies that it is easier for HIV to replicate
without anti-HIV drugs. It is, however, irrelevant whether there
are 0.000'000'1 or 0.000'000'001 gram of HIV in the body.


| Why would HIV resistance to
| antivirals correlate with higher HIV titres and lower CD4+ counts?


Probably because it needs approximately the same time for HIV
resistance to antivirals to appear as for the immune system to
get exhausted because of the side effects of the therapy.


| By your "drug induced immune failure model", wouldn't you expect many
| cases where HIV remained susceptible to the drugs (and fully repressed)
| but the immune system failed (say, CD4+ counts dropped)?


In theory yes, but HIV does not remain susceptible to the drugs.
The immune system failure, however, is neither influenced by
10^-9 nor by 10^-7 gram of HIV.


| But let's procede with the "whip" analogy. Could that "whip" also
| be a virus which perpetually infects cells of the immune system?


If you refer to HIV, this "whip" would be a whip weighing about
1 gram.


| There is a second aspect:
| [...snip...]
| > My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
|
| Great news!
|
|
| >> As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
| >> Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
| >> anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
| >> an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
| >> repeat what others have said before: Your point?
|
| > 0.1 microgram HIV is ridiculous !
|
| What's mass got to do with it? HIV is not necessarily
| toxic by itself.


In order to have any negative effect, HIV must be biochemically
active. And the less HIV, the less reactions are possible.


| > 1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
| > is murderous!
|
| Apparently it does reduce the likelihood of passing on HIV to
| newborns...


But instead of expressing a harmless retrovirus many of the
newborns suffer from deformities and other health problems.


| > A quote of Duesberg:
| >
| > "Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
| > years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
| > cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
| > become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
| > in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
| > herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
| > toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
| > that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
| > asymptomatic carriers."
| > http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html
|
| I don't think HIV viremia necessarily kills patients directly. I think
| it contributes to the failure of the immune system which in turn
| allows other diseases to occur.


What Duesberg writes above, is very sound and is a simple
consequence of logical reasoning. It is the immune system
which reduces HIV to extremely low quantities. A failure
of the immune system therefore will lead to an increase of
HIV (and of other suppressed viruses).


| > In the case of HIV 0.000'000'1 grams are called viremia.
| > Even during viremia the virus only can be detected by modern
| > technologies such as PCR.
|
| >> Continued:
| >> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
| >
| >> That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
| >> "Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
| >> triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
| >> therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
| >> less than 200/mL..."
| >
| >> The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
| >> in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
| >> therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
| >> appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
| >> causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
| >> the trials.
|
| > The same apparent contradiction is also valid in the case of stress.
| > In the short term stress can increase the amount of T-cells, but in
| > the long term persistent stress has a negative effect.
| >
| > The immune system also gets accustomed to a drug or a cocktail.
| > The alert phase effect disappears and only different drugs can
| > provoke a new alert phase. (That's also the reason, why almost
| > all clinical trials on AIDS drugs where stopped in their initial
| > phase on a well-known pretext.)
|
| Odd that the immune system failure comes at about the same time
| that HIV resistance to drugs is observed. Wouldn't your proposal
| suggest that the resistance of HIV to antivirals would be immaterial
| to falling CD4+ counts?


If really "the immune system failure comes at about the same time
that HIV resistance to drugs is observed" then we must conclude
that it needs approximately the same time for HIV resistance to
antivirals to appear as for the immune system to get exhausted
because of the side effects of the therapy.


| >> [Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
| >> read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
| >> for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
| >> -- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
| >> When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
|
| -------quote--------------------
|
| >And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
| >molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
| >blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
| >
| >The following quote is quite representative:
| >
| >"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
| >experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
| >and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]
| >
| >20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
| >50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre
| >
|
| Ah, here we go again. Wolfgang, it is extremely easy to
| convert factors of a thousand. This uL/mL thing is not a
| conspiracy; it is a matter of using convenient units.
|
| Do you realize that the units in the web pages you quoted were
| "mL" (milliliters), not "uL" (microliters)? You criticized
| Ian for basing calculations on information _you_ presented.
| That was what I talking about.


The dishonesty I criticize is the fact that "20,000 copies/mL"
are actually 20,000 /milliliter whereas "50-400 /mL"
are actually 50-400 /microliter. Is this so difficult to
understand? And this misrepresentation is quite representative
for the whole AIDS research. (You probably are yourself a
victim of such misrepresentations).


| [...snip...]
| >> Let's review where the comments stand:
| >> RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
|
| >Your examples show that is more relevant than you admit.
|
| >> RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new
| >> or unusual.
|
| >Six orders of magnitude is very unusual.
|
| >> RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
|
| >Side effects of the drugs are much stronger than (supposed)
| >harm caused by HIV.
|
| That is the claim of the HIV dissidents.


See once again:
http://www.sfaf.org/treatment/positivenews/side.html

Or:
http://www.nam.org.uk/atu/68part2.htm

This site reduces the HIV AIDS reserch to absurdity as it shows
that even the obviously therapy related side-effects can be
attributed to HIV:

"Dr. Donald Kotler, from the US, presented an overview of
wasting and body composition abnormalities that occur in HIV
infection. He discussed how HIV disrupts the body's energy
and hormonal systems, and put forward his theory of how HIV
itself may be a cause of metabolic disorders currently
attributed to protease inhibitors."


| >> RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
| >> provided.
|
| >Why? Long term survivers are certainly not those taking AZT or
| > cocktails.
|
| >> Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
| >> HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
| >> using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
| >> the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
| >> individuals.
| >
| > How can so many educated and intelligent persons be so naive !!!
|
| Personally, I feel that one of the best indicator of HIV's roles in
| AIDS come from those who carry mutations which appear to prevent
| HIV infection and subsequently do not succumb to AIDS.


The main purpose of this story may have been to associate AIDS
with the medieval pest epidemic.

HIV induced AIDS is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.


| >> Second paragraph:
| >> "If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
| >> and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
| >> HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
| >> common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning."
| >>
| >> That's your claim. You haven't convinced me in any of the threads
| >> so far. Your references to date (particularly in the rebuttal of
| >> Steve Harris' article) often suggest the opposite of what you've
| >> claimed so far. Today's argument about the relative amounts of drug
| >> to pathogen is clearly missing something.
|
| > I know this: nobody can be convinced in this world. The world is
| > in one's own head and it is almost impossible to change somebody's
| > head.
|
| >> I'm not impervious to evidence. I've seen enough biological
| >> "dogmas" overturned in my time not to expect to see more.
| >> I don't work directly in AIDS research and I would be fascinated
| >> to read about a radical new set of ideas about the cause of AIDS.
| >> So what's in it for me to support the status quo if I don't think
| >> the HIV/AIDS connection is really there? Grant support? Not an
| >> issue. Scientific reputation? Ha! I'd enjoy being first on a
| >> new wave. Think of the brand new areas of research that would
| >> open up (There would be lots of new opportunities there...).
| >> Here's the final "kicker", even if I were afraid of voicing
| >> my dissent, I could always keep my opinions to myself and
| >> nobody would ever know...
| >>
| >> So what's keeping me among the "HIV has a causal role in AIDS" camp?
| >> It's just that I've seen your arguments previously, in many
| >> other forums (try sci.med.aids - I monitored that group in the
| >> early '90s before Phil Johnson started posting there. Steve Harris
| >> is still there. Why don't you find him?) Put within the context of
| >> the papers I've read over the years and the details I happen to
| >> know, those rebuttals seem extremely weak and poorly thought out
| >> to me. But that's just the position of this working biochemist...
|
|
| >Cheers
| >Wolfgang
|
| >http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
| >(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)
| >
| >We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as
| >possible!
|
|
| Regards,
| Tim Ikeda
| tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)


Regards
Wolfgang

Further posts to talk.origins:
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments
Phillip E. Johnson now on the WWCW (on probability and abiogenesis)

© No rights reserved, 1999