Advertisement
The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource
Follow Us Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Download Our App
Professionals >> Visit The Body PROThe Body en Espanol

HIV Life >> Living With HIV

Pages: 1
Anonymous
Unregistered

Questioning AIDS
      #9273 - 09/06/00 01:27 PM

Having no personal interest in AIDS, I never had any particular position on it either until relatively recently. Just about everything I had read on the subject was from the orthodox, mainstream perspective, but that abruptly stopped making sense to me. That was a few years ago, about the time I read in an article (I forget where) this sentence: "Oddly, HIV is capable of killing cells that it doesn't infect." I had gotten the sense that HIV researchers were growing almost desperate trying to defend an increasingly complex model of HIV's alleged cytocidal ability, a model whose complexity Nobel laureate Dr. Kary Mullis had referred to as "the classic sign of a deteriorating paradigm", but now, clearly, AIDS "science"
had passed through the looking glass and devolved into pure fantasy. It's not surprising, therefore, that your technically accurate definition of AIDS would be logically consistent with that fantasy. For instance, you
pointed out that AIDS is actually a condition of immune supression, or at least a depleted level of T4 lymphocytes, in the presence of antibodies to HIV and needn't involve the presentation of any of the numerous AIDS-defining
diseases or conditions, KS, PCP, TB, whatever. Indeed, many of the people who meet those criteria for an AIDS diagnosis are in good health, the first time in medical history, to my knowledge, that "good health" (especially in the presence of antibodies, usually an indication of a healthy immune system) has been interpreted as the harbinger of a fatal disease. When we begin to examine what is meant by "HIV antibodies", however, the surrealism truly begins to escalate. HIV "seropositivity" as determined by a reactive
ELISA or Western Blot test only indicates the presence of antibodies that are assumed to be specific (but probably aren't, because most antibodies are non-specific anyway, and in AIDS patients they have in all likelihood been conditioned to a state of hyper-that is, non-specific-reactivity by the stress of multiple viral, bacterial, and fungal infections) to certain proteins (your "viral components" presumably) that are assumed to be, but almost certainly aren't, specific to a retrovirus, HIV. There is no way of knowing if these proteins are specific to or even associated with HIV, or for that matter that there even is a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus HIV, for the simple reason that it has never been isolated in accordance
with the internationally accepted procedures for retroviral isolation established at the Pasteur Institute in 1973. These procedures entail the the culturing of cells believed to be infected with a virus, then placing a small amount
of the culture fluid on the surface of a sucrose solution of varying density, subjecting it to high-speed centrifugation, extracting the material that "bands" at the density of 1.16 gm./ml. (the buoyant density of retroviruses, and some other things as well), photographing the material using an electron microscope, characterizing its constiuent particles, propagating the (virus) particles by introducing them into an uninfected cell culture, and, ideally, repeating the steps. These steps have never been followed with respect to isolating and characterizing HIV, and I base that assertion primarily on the published and peer-reviewed research of the "Perth Group" of HIV-dissidents (or as you would say, crackpots) comprised of Drs. Eleni Papadopulos-Eliopulos, Valendar Turner, and John Papadimitriou, departments of Medical Physics and Emergency Medicine respectively, at the Royal Perth Hospital in Australia.

They have rigorously and masterfully deconstructed the completely erroneous assumption that HIV was isolated in 1983 either at the Pasteur Institute by the team led by Dr. Luc Montagnier or at Robert Gallo's NIH laboratory by pointing out, for example, that neither group published EM's of material that banded at 1.16gm./ ml., a process that is absolutely necessary for establishing the identity of retroviruses, and relied instead on such indirect markers as the detection of the enzyme reverse transcriptase to infer the presence of retroviral activity (the detection of RT is also non-specific since many, if not most, microorganisms reverse transcribe genetic information).

They published only EM's of what they claimed was HIV in unpurified whole cell cultures, and like most of the photographs of "HIV" published since then (primarily by Hans Gelderblom of the Koch Institute in Berlin), they
show a galaxy of undefined particles, some RV-like, some not, and some arbitrarily designated as HIV. But, again, there is no way that the identity of a retrovirus can be ascertained without first isolating and characterizing
it, and so there is no way of knowing what relationship, whether causal, coincidental, or consequential these particles have to the development of AIDS, especially since as Dr. Turner noted these identical particles appear in EM's of cell cultures from patients who don't have AIDS and are not at risk of AIDS. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that the EM's that have been taken of banded material from HIV-infected cultures reveal particles that have none of the characteristics of retroviruses:

they differ radically in diameter, volume, and morphology, and few ,if any, posess the spike or knob-like projections that are considered essential for the virus to bind to cell surface receptors. AIDS expert Dr. Robin Weiss has explained this by saying that HIV, being rather delicate, loses its infectivity during centrifugation (we are nevertheless expected to believe that it somehow retains its infectivity in clotting Factor VIII, the production of which involves not only centrifugation, but also filtration,
freezing, thawing, and dessication, and has infected three-quarters of the hemophiliacs in the US), but it probably doesn't have much infectivity to begin with. Robert Gallo, in a rare moment of candor, obsereved that in the process of "budding" from a cells outer membrane, HIV's viral envelope "tends to come off."

No envelope, no infectivity, and this observation may inadvertently reinforce the Perth Group's theory that HIV is actually endogenous in nature, a region of the "infected" cells DNA that is expressed under conditions of extreme oxidative stress, such as those produced by long-trem drug abuse or malnutrition, and similar to the artificial stimulation to which lymphocyte cultures are subjected in order to induce the cells to produce HIV particles in vitro, a process that is never observed under
natural conditions in vivo. This region of DNA existing in the human genome and expressing itself as RNA (and perhaps banding at 1.16 gm./ ml. along with enveloped proteins, "mock viruses" and other cellular debris) is the "HIV" that the AIDS orthodoxy, and even dissident scientist Peter Duesberg, insists has been isolated, sequenced, its own simple genome defined. But putting aside momentarily this very dubious evidence for HIV's isolation, which in my opinion doesn't even come close to establishing it as an
exogenously acquired virus, its apparent lack of infectivity still poses a problem for the HIV=AIDS model.
Once again, however, AIDSSCIENCE with its remarable
facility for realizing the fantastic and the impossible, comes riding to the rescue, this time in the person of John Mellors of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Graduate School of Public Health. At the 1997 Gordon Conference on AIDS Chemotherapy, Mellors responded to a question regarding the relevance (or irrelevance) of so-called "viral load" assays (it had been pointed out to him that even TIME 1996 Man of the Year Dr. David Ho had conceded that 99.8% of circulating HIV thus detected was
non-infectious) with the statement, "non-infectious HIV is pathogenic." I don't know what you would call this line of reasoning other than "magical thinking", but it is the same kind of reasoning that permits doctors to conclude that
because some antibodies react to some proteins in cell cultures from patients who may or may not be sick, they are nevertheless infected with a "new" retrovirus, despite the fact that its very existence, much less its pathogenicity
or even infectivity has never come close to being proven, and in complete and direct contravention of every long-established rule of virology, retrovirology, immunology, and epidemiology is destroying their immune systems and decimating Third World populations. To arrive at these conclusions on the basis of the "evidence" of ELISA or WB tests would therefore seem to require a leap of logic that only an authentic fool would make.

Of course this is just my opinion, and given the truly voluminous nature of the AIDS literature it's quite possible I may have missed something, but also given my propensity for, as you say, believing everything I read, it's still possible I may yet be convinced of HIV's deadly nature. Until that happens, though, I'm reasonably confident that using only the tools of common sense and
open-mindedness I have isolated and characterized the HIV=AIDS hypothesis for exactly what
it is:

pure bull######.

Liam C.

http://www.questionaids.com




Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #9310 - 09/07/00 01:14 AM

Bravo!
Why don't you tell that to the dying hundreds world wide, some of whom I care for at work....
Tell them they don't have AIDS and the myriad of OI's that consime them. Tell them it's bullshit.
Or better yet, explain to them what is really killing them....



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #9311 - 09/07/00 03:48 AM

Your points are maybe of interest to a scientific audience, but as you have mentioned in your message, you are not directly involved in that.
Unfortunately I am.
What at the end counts for me is that, maybe on the basis of wrong scientific evidence, there is now something (drugs) that works and can keep me in good health longer and longer.
Sorry, try to address your thoughts to an other audience, this is like (in Italy we have this say) "discussing about the sex of the angels": nothing worth for me!



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #9317 - 09/07/00 10:17 AM

> Having no personal interest in AIDS

If there is a devil in hell you will someday.




Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #9330 - 09/07/00 12:28 PM

Don't believe in devils or magick viruses.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #9331 - 09/07/00 12:31 PM

The Lancet 352 (1998): 982-983.

"The clinical state (if the person is without symptoms) is not a major determinant [to administering anti-HIV drugs]: it is the [viral load] numbers that appear to decide the therapeutic course. I take issue with that approach."

"[T]hese drugs can be toxic and can be directly detrimental to a natural immune response to HIV. This effective antiviral immune response is characteristic of long-term survivors who have not been on any therapy. [T]he current antiviral therapies do not bring about the results achieved by a natural host anti-HIV response. This immune response, observed in long-term survivors, maintains control of HIV replication without the need for antiviral treatment."
-------------------------

A. N. Phillips and G. D. Smith, The New England Journal of Medicine 336, no. 13 (1997): 958-959.

"No randomized trials in asymptomatic patients have established that those treated early survive any longer than those for whom treatment is deferred. Extended follow-up of patients in one trial, the Concorde study, has shown a significantly increased risk of death among the patients treated early. The suggestion is that the situation is different for combination therapy. But where is the evidence?"

"There is no more hard evidence now of the benefits of early therapy than there was in 1990. We need new randomized trials to determine whether the notion that was probably not true in the era of [AZT] monotherapy-that early therapy prolongs survival as compared with deferred therapy-is now true."
----------------------------

Don Abrams, SF General Hospital

Tanaka, M. Abrams cautious on use of new AIDS drugs, Synapse vol 4, pages 1 & 5 (1996)

"In contrast with many of my colleagues, I am not necessarily a cheerleader for anti-retroviral therapy. I have been one of the people who's questioned, from the beginning, whether or not we're really making an impact with HIV drugs and, if we are making an impact, if it's going in the right direction."

"I have a large population of people who have chosen not to take any antiretrovirals They've watched all of their friends go on the antiviral bandwagon and die, so they've chose to remain naïve [to therapy]. More and more, however, are now succumbing to pressure that protease inhibitors are 'it' We are in the middle of the honeymoon period, and whether or not this is going to be an enduring marriage is unclear to me at this time"
-----------------------

The Italian Register for HIV Infection in Children

"Rapid disease progression in HIV-1 perinatally infected children born to mothers receiving zidovudine monotherapy during pregnancy" AIDS 13: 927-933 (1999).

"The probability of developing severe disease at 3 years of life was significantly higher in children born to [AZT+] mothers...than in those born to [AZT-] mothers... . The same pattern was observed for severe immune suppression: the probability of developing severe immune suppression was significantly higher in the children born to [AZT+] mothers... than born to [AZT-] mothers... . Finally, survival probability was lower in children born to [AZT+] mothers...compared with children born to [AZT-] mothers..."

In short, if a mother takes AZT during pregnancy, her newborn is much more likely to get severely sick and die by age 3 than a newborn whose mother did not take AZT during pregnancy.
---------------------

Amanda Mocroft et al.

"Anaemia is an independent predictive marker for clinical prognosis of HIV-infected patients from across Europe" AIDS 13: 943-950 (1999).

These authors looked at 6725 patients from EuroSIDA, a prospective study in 52 centers across Europe.

They "found a strong relationship between haemoglobin, CD4 lymphocyte count and risk of death."

Their results showed that patients with severe anemia had from 30 to 90 times the risk of death compared to patients with a normal hemoglobin level.

There is no mystery to this extraordinarily high risk of mortality since the authors provide the answer themselves:

"Patients with mild or severe anaemia were significantly more likely to have taken zidovudine [AZT] at some stage... . In addition, patients with anaemia, mild or severe, were much more likely to have been diagnosed with AIDS..."

"We found that 78.2% of the patients with mild or severe anaemia at baseline had received zidovudine [AZT]..."
--------------------------

O. A. Olivero et al.

"Incorporation of zidovudine into leukocyte DNA from HIV-1-positive adults and pregnant women, and cord blood from infants exposed in utero" (1999) AIDS 13: 919-925.

"further study of the biological consequences of [AZT]-induced DNA damage in the human population is warranted."
--------------------

R. van Leeuwen, et al.

"Additive or sequential nucleoside analogue therapy compared with continued zidovudine monotherapy in HIV-infected patients with advanced disease does not prolong survival: an observational study" R. van Leeuwen, et al. (1997) The Journal of Infectious Diseases 175, 1344-1351.

"Additive or sequential treatment was associated with an increased risk of death."
--------------------

S. Lindbäck, et al.

"Long-term prognosis following zidovudine monotherapy in primary HIV type 1 infections" S. Lindbäck, et al., (1999) The Journal of Infectious Diseases 179, 1549-1552.

"Zidovudine treatment initiated during primary HIV (PHIV) infection did not improve long-term outcome after symptomatic PHIV infection."
---------------------

K. Brinkman, et al.

"Mitochondrial toxicity induced by nucleoside-analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitors is a key factor in the pathogenesis of antiretroviral-therapy-related lipodystrophy" K. Brinkman, et al., (1999) The Lancet 354, 1112-1115.

"nearly all side-effects that have been attributed to the use of NRTIs, such as polyneuropathy, myopathy, cardiomyopathy, pancreatitis, bone-marrow suppression, and lactic acidosis, greatly resemble the spectrum of clinical manifestations seen in inherited mitochrondrial diseases."
-------------------

Anthony Fauci

1997 Year of the Crash New York Times, Friday, August 22, 1997, Page 1.

Despite New AIDS Drugs, Many Still Lose the Battle, By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

"'There is an increasing percentage of people in whom, after a period of time, the virus breaks through,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director [NIAID]. 'People do quite well for six months, eight months or a year, and after a while, in a significant proportion, the virus starts to come back.'"

"No one knows the true extent of the problem, but Fauci estimates that when these cases of 'viral breakthrough' are accounted for, the failure rate of the new drug cocktails may eventually run as high as 50 percent."
---------------------

Disclaimer attached to Merck's HIV protease inhibitor

"Crixivan is not a cure for HIV or AIDS. People taking Crixivan may still develop infections or other conditions associated with HIV. Because of this, it is very important for you to remain under the care of a doctor. It is not yet known whether taking Crixivan will extend your life or reduce your chances of getting other illnesses associated with HIV. Information about how well the drug works is available from clinical studies up to 24 weeks."
-----------------------

From the 1997 NIH Guidelines to physicians for the Use of Anti-retroviral Agents in HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents

"The physician and the patient should be fully aware that therapy of primary HIV infection is based on theoretical considerations, and the potential benefits, should be weighed against the potential risks."

"[N]o long term clinical benefit of treatment has yet been demonstrated."

Theoretical rationale is fourfold:

* to suppress viral replication
* to potentially decrease the severity of acute disease
* to potentially alter the initial viral "set point," which may ultimately affect the rate of disease progression
* to possibly reduce the rate of viral mutation due to the suppression of viral replication.

This theoretical rationale is the only basis on which authorities endorse treatment of HIV infection.




Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #9332 - 09/07/00 12:37 PM

What is killing them is the AIDS construct: the death sentence and subsequent "treatment". The paradigm assumes a single cause for a multitude of illnesss, ignoring the true causes of those illnesses in favor of treating a non-pathogenic virus whose infectivity and existence is dubious at best.

But what is referred to as "AIDS" consists of thirty known diseases with known causes. Want to solve the "AIDS" problem? Get rid of the "AIDS" definition. Look at the patient as an individual, and treat the cause of their illness.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #9353 - 09/08/00 01:00 AM

It doesn't work Einstein!
I work with these people, they are my patients,
So don't tell me what works and what doesn't and how to treat them. You've no idea what you're talking about!!!!!!



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #9384 - 09/08/00 01:15 PM

I have a few questions about you and your patients.

Where are you located?
What commonalities do your patients share?
What is the ratio of men to women regarding your patients?
What symptoms do your patients manifest?
What exactly are your qualifications?





Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #9529 - 09/12/00 03:32 PM

No answer. Hmmm. Could it be that you don't want your practice to be scrutinized? Is it possible that you are not having a great deal of success with your patients? Might that have something to do with the fact that the underlying assumption is false?

Questions, questions.

"There's no hope for a cure for AIDS with current drugs, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) said at the 13th International AIDS Conference. ''Eradication is not possible,'' Anthony Fauci said.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/news/mshaart.htm



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #99142 - 05/25/04 02:32 PM

ok - a lot of people won't like this.

i've been hiv+ for some 15 years now. this is what happend to me just 4 weeks ago:

got bitten by an insect. after 4 days it was a huge infection. as it was late, went to the kensington and chelsea and westminster emergency room in london, right next to the kobler centre, where i have been a patient for more than 10 years as they are supposed to be hiv specialists. before i revealed my hiv status to the night shift doctor on duty, i was told that bite would need an incision, i'd get some antibiotics and thats that. then i told them about my status.

three hours later the hiv doctor on duty showed up. the infection was quite bad. dead tissue. clearly needed an incision, if not more. the hiv doctor looked at it, and pumped me full of antibiotics. she was convinced that an incision was no longer needed.

the next day i flew out to berlin. had to. work. went straight to the hospital. told them nothing about my status. within 3 hours i was on the operating table, full aneasthetic, big abscess, local aneasthitic useless, antibiotics too can not penetrate dead tissue.

during all this time as a patient at the kobler centre in london i always questioned my treatment options. in the early 90-ties i noticed that most people i knew who participated in trials or adhered to the treatment given, well, they died.

so i did not take azt, nevirapine, ddc, ddc, and what else these things are called.

and i am healthy to date. my ex-wife gets the flu more often than i do. i get it about once a year. and when that happens everyone thinks i am about to snuff it. when my ex-wife gets the flu - weel, who cares!

my advice: make up your own mind. do not believe anything simply because mainstream medicine is telling you so. look around you. read statistics with care. questions science and the people that tell you to take medicine as to what it is exactly they want you to do and why.

and be careful revealing your status. beware of the hiv-aids cult out there. a multi billion dollar industry now exists, thousands of ngo's depend on the existence of hiv and aids.

all of these organisations and people have their own interests in prescribing you substances that are not necessarily good for you - apart from the psycho terror you will go through if you reveal your status and you do not happen to be gay!

thats all i can tell you. good luck!

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

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Questioning AIDS new
      #99143 - 05/25/04 02:34 PM

ok - a lot of people won't like this.

i've been hiv+ for some 15 years now. this is what happend to me just 4 weeks ago:

got bitten by an insect. after 4 days it was a huge infection. as it was late, went to the kensington and chelsea and westminster emergency room in london, right next to the kobler centre, where i have been a patient for more than 10 years as they are supposed to be hiv specialists. before i revealed my hiv status to the night shift doctor on duty, i was told that bite would need an incision, i'd get some antibiotics and thats that. then i told them about my status.

three hours later the hiv doctor on duty showed up. the infection was quite bad. dead tissue. clearly needed an incision, if not more. the hiv doctor looked at it, and pumped me full of antibiotics. she was convinced that an incision was no longer needed.

the next day i flew out to berlin. had to. work. went straight to the hospital. told them nothing about my status. within 3 hours i was on the operating table, full aneasthetic, big abscess, local aneasthitic useless, antibiotics too can not penetrate dead tissue.

during all this time as a patient at the kobler centre in london i always questioned my treatment options. in the early 90-ties i noticed that most people i knew who participated in trials or adhered to the treatment given, well, they died.

so i did not take azt, nevirapine, ddc, ddc, and what else these things are called.

and i am healthy to date. my ex-wife gets the flu more often than i do. i get it about once a year. and when that happens everyone thinks i am about to snuff it. when my ex-wife gets the flu - weel, who cares!

my advice: make up your own mind. do not believe anything simply because mainstream medicine is telling you so. look around you. read statistics with care. questions science and the people that tell you to take medicine as to what it is exactly they want you to do and why.

and be careful revealing your status. beware of the hiv-aids cult out there. a multi billion dollar industry now exists, thousands of ngo's depend on the existence of hiv and aids.

all of these organisations and people have their own interests in prescribing you substances that are not necessarily good for you - apart from the psycho terror you will go through if you reveal your status and you do not happen to be gay!

thats all i can tell you. good luck!



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1


What's New at TheBody.com

Additional Information
0 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  TheBody, bogart, crabman, riverprincess 

Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Thread views: 4823

 
Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy Statement The Body

*
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3