AIDS: have we been misled?

My contributions to discussions on AIDS

Last update: 2000-11-02

22-Mar-1999

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"?

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

>> 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:

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-1 and 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?

24-Mar-1999

> 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-1 and 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!

25-Mar-1999

>> 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 Los
Angeles: 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)" [from Harris' Article]?

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.

25-Mar-1999

> 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.

28-Mar-1999 (corrections)

>>>> 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

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

28-Mar-1999

>>> A question: do you really think that two (fatal) viruses as different
>>> as HIV-1 and 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?

:: yes

:: (as *different* as HIV 1 & 2?)

They [HIV-1 and HIV-2] are so different that they cannot have had a
common ancestor in the recent past.

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

:: ebola, small pox, rabies, cholera, yellow fever, malaria, plague, flu,
:: diptheria, typhoid, typhus, measles, polio, dengue, lyme, scarlet fever,
:: chicken pox, kuru, Marburg, syphilis, HTLV-II, tuberculosis, . . . .

> The better examples are ebola, lyme disease, the outbreak of hanta
> virus and the recent outbreak of a killer viral disease in Hong Kong
> 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.

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

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

:: relevance?

> I think he's confusing the ability to count things like red and white
> blood cells (over a century) with the ability to count T lympocytes
> (since the 70's), the ability to distinguish between T lympocyte
> subtypes (a couple of decades) and the ability to count CD4+
> lympocytes (less than a decade).
>
> With the techniques available in the 70's, the fall in T- lympocyte
> populations would be impossible to detect outside of specialist
> 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 were 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]

At that time, 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.

28-Mar-1999

>> 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."

29-Mar-1999

>>> 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?

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.

30-Mar-1999

>> 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.

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 magnitude 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
[Kaposi's sarcoma] 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.

Comment 2000/10/01:
The alleged increase in death rate actually never happened. So
my conclusion that there must have been panic among hemophiliacs
in 1984 is probably invalid.
See Who is misrepresenting? and Is Steven B. Harris honest?

00/05/21 Modern science comparable with medieval theology
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=629574710 ***

00/05/25 Re: dangers of AZT
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=627316163

00/05/27 AIDS critics cultivated by the establishment?
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=628042998 ***

00/05/30 Re: Concept formation and logic (was: AIDS critics ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=629110205

00/06/02 The crucial question (was: HIV/AIDS correlation)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=635033619

00/06/04 Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=630865165 ***

00/06/06 Long-term survival of HIV
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=632058405

00/06/07 Re: Long-term survival of HIV
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=632311091

00/06/10 Re: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=633494694 ***

00/06/11 Viral load figures (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=640042986

00/06/12 Re: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=633632137

00/06/13 Re: Viral load figures (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=634093546 ***

00/06/14 Incubation of HIV (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=634553959 ***

00/06/16 Re: The crucial question (was: HIV/AIDS correlation)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=635382365

00/06/17 Re: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=635786016 ***

00/06/19 Re: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=636147685 ***

00/06/20 Re: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=636953778

00/06/22 patient zero myth (AIDS paradoxes ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=637558477

00/06/23 Who is misrepresenting? (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=638098987

00/06/23 Re: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=638160945

00/06/24 Re: AIDS research in Africa featured in special issue of Science
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=638530073 ***

00/06/25 KS and common sense (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=638850786

00/06/26 Re: Who is misrepresenting? (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=639185860

00/06/27 Re: Who is misrepresenting? (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=639614193

00/06/28 Excellent summary of dissident arguments (from sci.med.aids FAQ)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=640128538

00/06/30 Re: Who is misrepresenting? (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=640975951 ***

00/07/02 General incidence of AIDS defining diseases
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=641536694

00/07/03 Sabin et al, BMJ, 1996 (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=641937218

00/07/04 Re: Sabin et al, BMJ, 1996 (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=642240010

00/07/05 Re: Sabin et al, BMJ, 1996 (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=642790187

00/07/07 The vicious AIDS circle
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=643381000 ***

00/07/08 truths, half-truths and lies (was: NITRITES cause AIDS)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=643898651

00/07/09 Re: Sabin et al, BMJ, 1996 (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=644076813

00/07/09 The basic confusion (was: The vicious AIDS circle)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=644291577 ***

00/07/10 The bloody normal scientific dishonesty
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=644634015

00/07/11 Re: Sabin et al, BMJ, 1996 (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=645078057

00/07/11 Re: Sabin et al, BMJ, 1996 (was: Duesberg and Hemophilia A.I.D.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=645147564

00/07/12 The objective of Yuri's posting (was: AIDS establishment ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=645237713 ***

00/07/12 AZT (was: AIDS & Communist Propaganda)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=645463138

00/07/12 Darby et al, NATURE, 1995
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=645526788

00/07/13 Re: AIDS paradoxes and women
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=645839882

00/07/13 Re: Darby et al, NATURE, 1995
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=645937223 ***

00/07/13 The month of death (was: Sabin et al, BMJ, 1996)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=645694995

00/07/14 AIDS and Africa (was: Nitrites DO cause AIDS)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=646420354 ***

00/07/14 Re: Neville Hodgkinson in South Africa
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=646482417 ***

00/07/15 Re: Darby et al, NATURE, 1995
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=646739961

00/07/16 The spread of disinformation (was: Darby et al, NATURE, 1995)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=647080089 ***

00/07/18 Kimberly Bergalis killed by AZT
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=647699953

00/07/18 HIV-free AIDS and symptom-free HIV-disease
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=647921367

00/07/19 Re: Kimberly Bergalis killed by AZT
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=648264215

00/07/20 Re: The Nutty Professor speaks again
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=648569123

00/07/20 The return of the Inquisition (was: Kimberly Bergalis killed by AZT)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=648705771

00/07/21 Re: The Nutty Professor speaks again
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=649039167

00/07/21 To Howard Hershey (was: The Nutty Professor speaks again)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=649216928

00/07/22 Re: The Nutty Professor speaks again
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=649537261

00/07/23 HIV - an old harmless African virus (was: The Nutty Professor speaks again)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=649729136 ***

00/07/24 Re: To Howard Hershey (was: The Nutty Professor speaks again)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=650184562

00/07/26 HIV in lymph nodes (was: To Howard Hershey)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=651093999

00/07/27 Re: HIV in lymph nodes (was: To Howard Hershey)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=651340221

00/07/28 typical misrepresentation (was: Sabin et al, BMJ, 1996)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=651851932 ***

00/07/28 Re: HIV in lymph nodes (was: To Howard Hershey)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=651900991

00/08/01 Relative and absolute lies (was: To Howard Hershey)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=653312515

00/08/04 Psychoneuroimmunology and AIDS (was: Relative and absolute lies)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=654479872 ***

00/08/09 Duesberg slandered (was: scientists don't know how vaccines work)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=656343773

00/08/09 AIDS related disinformation (was: scientists don't know how ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=656365081

00/08/10 Re: AIDS related disinformation (was: scientists don't know how ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=656847735 ***

00/08/10 Treatment interruption (was: newbie to the ng)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=657181955

00/08/11 Re: Treatment interruption (was: newbie to the ng)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=657278626

00/08/12 pathogen damage VS body damage (was: newbie to the ng)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=657557635 ***

00/08/12 Is 'fred' a fraud? (was: THE FAUCI FILES)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=657607576 ***

00/08/13 Re: pathogen damage VS body damage (was: newbie to the ng)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=657873069 ***

00/08/14 HIV denial (was: UNITE! The "AIDS virus" terror hoax)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=658258077 ***

00/08/16 HIV treatment or AIDS prophylaxis? (was: The Pill Fairy's Story)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=659043797

00/08/18 The danger of prophylactic drugs (was: Need to DECIDE about meds...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=659676633

00/08/18 Re: Africa & AZT & Children & 7/00 Journal of Infectious Diseases
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=659763520

00/08/19 Is Steven B. Harris honest? (was: The danger of prophylactic drugs)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=660120455 ***

00/08/20 Re: stoned Duesberg conspiracy-paranoia? haw!
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=660408353 ***

00/08/21 Re: Africa & AZT & Children & 7/00 Journal of Infectious Diseases
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=660812527 ***

00/08/21 Re: Africa & AZT & Children & 7/00 Journal of Infectious Diseases
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=660878372

00/08/22 pre-1987 and post-1987 AIDS (was: stoned Duesberg conspiracy-paranoia)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=661101541

00/08/22 Re: Africa & AZT & Children & 7/00 Journal of Infectious Diseases
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=661214277

00/08/23 Re: pre-1987 and post-1987 AIDS (was: stoned Duesberg conspiracy-paranoia)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=661627321

00/08/23 Re: Africa & AZT & Children & 7/00 Journal of Infectious Diseases
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=661681675

00/08/24 Re: Africa & AZT & Children & 7/00 Journal of Infectious Diseases
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=661998223

00/08/24 The horror of AIDS trials (was: Africa & AZT & ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=662086505 ***

00/08/25 "a multitude of spurious objections" (was: Africa & AZT & ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=662320163

00/08/25 Re: Africa & AZT & Children & 7/00 Journal of Infectious Diseases
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=662426290

00/08/27 Re: AIDS related disinformation (was: scientists don't know how ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=663235504 ***

00/08/28 Re: AIDS surrealistic science
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=663425258

00/08/29 The Nairobi prostitute paradox (was: Africa & AZT & ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=663980564 ***

00/08/31 Re: "a multitude of spurious objections" (was: Africa & AZT & ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=664884895

00/09/05 Manipulation of public opinion by PR (was: ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=665795007 ***

00/09/05 Re: AIDS surrealistic science
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=666157290

00/09/06 Kaposi's sarcoma (was: AIDS surrealistic science)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=666448953

00/09/07 Duesberg on AIDS, 1992 (was: "a multitude of spurious objections")
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=666983337

00/09/11 Re: Duesberg on AIDS, 1992 (was: "a multitude of spurious objections")
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=668435808

00/09/13 Re: leftists and AIDS
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=669309682

00/09/14 Median latency period (was: Duesberg on AIDS, 1992)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=669768917

00/09/15 Re: Median latency period (was: Duesberg on AIDS, 1992)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=672840848

00/09/16 Why HIV itself cannot cause AIDS (was: leftists and AIDS)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=670552306 ***

00/09/17 HIV survival strategy and prevalence among teenagers (was: ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=670809613

00/09/20 Re: Christine Maggiore !
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=671840300

00/09/21 Late presentation & Long-term Nonprogression
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=672542907 ***

00/09/24 Re: AIDS Treatment News - Special Denialist Issue
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=673526517 ***

00/10/05 Why do "skeptics" believe in disinformation? (was: AIDS Claims 650,000 in Zambia in 1996-1999)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=677923271

00/10/09 Mbeki & HIV denial & subtle manipulation (was: C.I.A.I.D.S.)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=679499599 ***

00/10/12 Inhalant drugs & scientific honesty (was: Alternative Theories)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=680358571

00/10/15 Posters on misc.health.aids - PR products? (was: ... Don Lucas)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=681535863

00/10/17 Re: Inhalant drugs & scientific honesty (was: Alternative Theories)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=682568381

00/10/26 Confusing the orgin of HIV (was: HIV causing AIDS? ...)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=686210184 ***

00/10/27 Simian AIDS (was: Confusing the orgin of HIV)
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=686633219 ***

00/10/29 Evolution of HIV & Half-life time of antibodies
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=687227462

00/11/01 The "AIDS establishment"
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=688388781 ***