PDA

View Full Version : Scientists Study Three Proteins in LTNP? (ame-g157)



msn_DissidentSaint
September 28th, 2002, 03:14 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=2>This press release is making the rounds, and creating a buz of sorts, <BR>getting questions about it already, so any background and as detailed a <BR>commentary from Dissidents would be most appreciated. I ve noticed a few <BR> red lanterns with Dr. Ho s attempt to save face though not intimately <BR>familiar with "alpha-defensins -1, -2, -3" and "beta-chemotines." <BR><BR>Kelly <BR><BR>== <BR><BR>The Star 27 September 2002 [South Africa] <BR>Protein could boost war against Aids <BR>SAPA-AFP Washington <BR><BR>"Researchers in the US say they have identified a group of proteins that <BR>naturally block HIV from developing into Aids. <BR><BR>The discovery could revolutionise treatment of HIV. <BR><BR>A joint team of US and Chinese scientists at the Aaron Diamond Aids Research <BR>Centre succeeded in identifying a group of proteins, called <BR>alpha-defensins -1, -2, -3, found in a small percentage of HIV-positive <BR>people known as long-term non-progressors. <BR><BR>This group, which makes up about 1% to 2% of all HIV-positive people in the <BR>US, live with HIV without developing Aids despite prolonged infection. This <BR>discovery is a major step forward in our understanding of how the body <BR>fights HIV, Linqi Zhang, the head of the team said yesterday. <BR><BR>By understanding how some people s immune systems are able to control HIV <BR>infection, we may be able to develop new treatments that take advantage of <BR>this phenomenon. <BR><BR>The discovery details of which appear in today s edition of Science <BR>Magazine, followed a discovery first made in 1986. Scientists then <BR>discovered that the human body s CD8 T cells produced some unidentifiable <BR>factors that inhibited HIV replication. <BR><BR>Then, in 1995, researchers found a family of proteins called beta-chemotines <BR>that accounted for some of the HIV suppression but were not effective <BR>against all strain of the virus, and couldn t fully explain the <BR>non-progressor phenomenon. <BR><BR>The team compared the CD8 T cells in long-term non-progressors with the same <BR>cells in HIV patients whose immune system had begun to fail. <BR><BR>They found the prescence of alpha-defensins -1, -2, -3 in people who <BR>remained healthy, and a lack of these same proteins in those who immune <BR>systems had failed and who had developed Aids. <BR><BR>These proteins suppressed all strands of HIV the study found, and might be <BR>developed to suppress HIV in the greater infected population. Alpha-defensis <BR>are promising as a future addition to the HIV treatment arsenal, said study <BR>co-author David Ho, ADARC director in New York. Researchers are already <BR>pursuing new therapeutic approaches based on the data published today, he <BR>added. <BR><BR>To confirm that these three proteins were responsible for controlling the <BR>virus, the team artificially stripped the alpha-defensins from the proteins <BR>produced by CD8 T cells taken from long-term non-progressors, and found that <BR>their HIV-blocking capability had been terminated. <BR><BR>To better judge the potency of the alpha-defensins, researchers compared <BR>synthesised versions of the proteins made in laboratories with a purified <BR>version derived from human cells. <BR><BR>The natural form was at least 10 to 20 times stronger than the synthetic <BR>version. <BR><BR>ADARC researchers are currently working to improve the potency of the <BR>synthetic form." <BR><BR><BR>== <BR><BR>CNN reported today that scientists have discovered why some HIV-infected <BR>people never develop AIDS... <BR><BR>AIDS researchers study 3 proteins <BR>Possibly a new avenue of research <BR><BR>From Dr. Sanjay Gupta (CNN Medical Correspondent) <BR>Thursday, September 26, 2002 <BR>Posted: 2:50 PM EDT (1850 GMT) <BR><BR>NEW YORK (CNN) -- The long-standing mystery of why nearly 2 percent of <BR>people infected with the virus that causes AIDS never get sick or require <BR>treatment appears to have been cleared up, a team of researchers said <BR>Wednesday. <BR><BR>For nearly 20 years, scientists have been trying to figure out what makes <BR>such people -- called "long-term non-progressors" -- different from the rest <BR>of the HIV positive population. <BR><BR>Using a protein chip analysis system, researchers at the Aaron Diamond AIDS <BR>Research Center in New York said they found that non-progressors have three <BR>elusive proteins -- called alpha-defensin 1, 2, 3 -- that inhibit the <BR>replication of the HIV virus. <BR><BR>The proteins may explain why some people infected with the HIV virus live <BR>significantly longer without ever developing AIDS, the scientists said. <BR><BR>"This is a major step forward in our understanding of how the body fights <BR>HIV," said Dr. Linqui Zhang, the lead author of the paper in the journal <BR>Science. "This question has been in the field bothering people for the last <BR>16 years." <BR><BR>"The game plan now is to figure out whether we could take this discovery and <BR>work on it and translate it into something that would be practically useful <BR>for patients," said Dr. David Ho, director and CEO of the Aaron Diamond <BR>center. <BR><BR>The team already has made a synthetic version of the proteins which turned <BR>out to be too weak to be useful. And there s hope that the proteins could be <BR>taken from non-progressors and somehow given to others. <BR><BR>Whether that will be feasible is unclear at the moment. <BR><BR>"It is too preliminary to even speculate that this will even have any impact <BR>on treatment." Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for <BR>Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN. <BR><BR>First, the research must be verified and those efforts are already underway. <BR>It s only then that researchers can determine if these tiny proteins can <BR>lead to better treatments. Zhang says hopes the discovery can "open up a new <BR>avenue of research," at least. <BR><BR>Indeed although this is a huge advance for researchers, a cure for patients <BR>is still not within reach. <BR><BR>"The odds are against us and the obstacles are huge," Ho said when asked <BR>about the possibility of finding a cure. <BR><BR>"In order to cure, you have to shut HIV down completely and we have pretty <BR>good drugs that are saving lives but we don t have drugs that will <BR>completely block HIV 100 percent. Until we do so, a cure is not in sight." </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Verdana size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">REPOSTED FROM AIDS RETHINKING LIST: </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Of course, what would be rational is a thorough, unbiased study of lifestyle factors, (including drug/AZT use, that might explain why some HIV+ people get sick and others don t... </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Phillip Johnson </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Newsday (New York, NY) September 27, 2002 Friday </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A47 </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">LENGTH: 579 words </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">HEADLINE: Study: Proteins That Stop HIV Found; Critics skeptical, saying same experiment attempted without reaching same result </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">BYLINE: By Laurie Garrett. STAFF WRITER </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">BODY: Scientists at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in Manhattan may have found a long-sought, mysterious factor secreted by HIV-infected individuals who survive, disease-free, for more than 20 years. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">In today s Science magazine, Dr. David Ho and his colleagues announce they have used a new technology to solve the mystery - a finding that has the potential to develop treatments. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">But the Ho announcement was greeted with skepticism by some key players in HIV research, one of whom said he tried the same experiments without getting the same results. For 16 years AIDS researchers have known that some elusive protein - or group of proteins - produced by white blood cells could suppress HIV. In 1986 Dr. Jay Levy of the University of California in San Francisco discovered that HIV-infected patients who remained healthy for more than a decade had unique immune responses. Most people who become infected mount what is called a CD4 T-cell response, producing millions of the virus-eating cells. But HIV adapts to latch on to a marker on the outside of those cells, ultimately turning them into HIV-production factories. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">The immune systems in long-surviving patients, Levy found, were attacking HIV using other immune cells, known as CD8 cells. He demonstrated that CD8 cells secrete a fluid that prevents HIV from manufacturing copies of itself. The exact chemical in the fluid defied attempts to be removed, and Levy dubbed the fluid itself CAF, for "CD8 antiviral factor." </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Ho s researchers have studied the CAF from three men who have been HIV positive for more than 24 years and who have yet to develop signs of the disease. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">They used a new chip system developed by Ciphergen Biosystems of Fremont, Calif., to find protein needles in proverbial haystacks by vaporizing a liquid sample and ionizing the individual components. A computer reads the ionized samples as they pass spectrographic detectors, comparing them instantly to known proteins. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Three proteins jumped out of the system analysis, Ho said: alpha-defensins 1, 2 and 3, normally found in neutrophil cells, whose task is to gobble up bacteria. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Ho s group used the three defensins against HIV in test tube studies and, he said, the virus was stopped dead in its tracks. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">But Levy begs to differ. He said he has tried the technology without the same results. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">"CD8 cells are not supposed to make defensins," Levy insisted. " ... Defensins have never come up as made by CD8 cells." </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Dr. Bruce Walker of Harvard Medical School said he also is skeptical, though he applauded the Ho experiment. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">"The data look reasonable for this. The protein data are elegant, and it appears that small amounts are made by CD8 cells," Walker said. But he characterized the antiviral effect as modest. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">"I think there is a worry that the results in larger numbers of patients might be different," he said. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Walker questioned whether CAF will prove as effective as responses that involve so-called acquired immunity - the kind that is "learned" by exposure to disease agents either through vaccination or previous infection. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Ho insisted his critics have not given the results sufficient scrutiny. "The next step is to figure out the mechanism" of how defensins block HIV, he said. "And for us going forward, it s about how do you improve on the potency of the compounds. Looking forward beyond that, we want to see if there is any clinical utility to defensins, as a therapeutic tool to have in our arsenal." <BR clear=left></FONT></P></DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_MrChristopher
September 28th, 2002, 06:14 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Good god, I can t begin to wonder what new Wonder drugs they re going to come out with next. Like the other comment, they completely left out vital information about those non-pregressors vs progressors such as drug use, AZT use and HAART use. I wonder if they have even looked into the fact that perhaps these drugs are the ones destroying the progressors immune systems.</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_aidsmythexposed-dot-com
September 30th, 2002, 06:50 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Gang:<BR><BR>I have unfortunately not been able to see the complete report by David Ho and colleagues about this latest "development", but I HAVE seen the abstract. I quote: "By means of a protein-chip technology, we identified a cluster of proteins that were secreted<BR> when CD8 T cells from long-term non-progressors with HIV-1 infection were STIMULATED" (emphasis mine). Some questions I have (which may or may not be answered in the full report):<BR><BR>1. Why did the cells need to be STIMULATED in order for the proteins to be detected in them?<BR><BR>2. Given Dr. Ho s and others <a target=_top href="http://www.healtoronto.com/survivors.html#wells">TERRIBLE TRACK RECORDS</a> of ignoring or suppressing data on use of so-called "anti-viral" drugs in their patients, what, if any efforts were made to adequately control for use of drugs-both prescription AND illicit-by the "HIV-infected" patients examined?<BR><BR>3. What, if any, efforts were undertaken to control for the <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epresimmun.htm">UNDENIABLE EFFECT</a> that methods of cell stimulation have on the appearance of "retroviral-like" phenomena in vitro?<BR><BR>4. What methods were used to determine the "anti-HIV" effect of the three proteins? This is a critical point in light of the fact that all of the methods currently used to "detect" so-called "HIV" are <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplypd.htm">LACKING A GOLD STANDARD!</a><BR><BR>These are just some questions that ANYONE should be asking who has the opportunity to view the full report. Also, it is crucial to remember that there are good reasons to question the very existence of "distinct" subsets of T-cells, such as "CD4" and "CD8". Please see <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ept4cells.htm">THIS REPORT</a> which I often cite.<BR><BR>Lastly, it seems as though some of the co-authors of this study work for the biotech corporation that may be marketing the "protein-chip technology" used in the study. As always, we should not be afraid to entertain the possibility of <a target=_top href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4351264,00.html">CORPORATE CORRUPTION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH</a>.<BR><BR>I hope this was helpful. If anyone would like to comment or ask more questions, please do so.<BR><BR>All the best,<BR>Rod Knoll<BR>Founder<BR><a target=_top href="http://www.aidsrc.org">AIDS REALITY CHECK</a>Y</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_DissidentSaint
October 1st, 2002, 12:22 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV>Thanks Rod for getting this discussion going. These were comments made on ViruMyth...</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>They found the prescence of alpha-defensins -1, -2, -3 in people who remained healthy, and a lack of these same proteins in those who immune systems had failed and who had developed Aids. (from above)<BR><BR>Ho said that apparently a kind of white blood cells called CD8 T cells, and another kind of immune system cells, called neutrophils, make alpha-defensins 1,2 and 3 in most people, but for unknown reasons only some are protected against the progression of HIV.<BR>(September 27,2002 Wisconsin State Journal)<BR><BR>In other words HIV is being inhibited by a set of protiens that only are useful for inhibiting in non-progressors. There is probably more to it but to me this looks like a publicity stunt. I ll have to read the writeup of the study.<BR><BR>Kevin C&nbsp; </DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>How does this effect translate into A or THE cause? And how does the putative HIV figure as the cause of this phenonemon? Correlation is not causation.<BR><BR>Kelly</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV> <DIV>So far, the whole thing is just a publicity stunt. There s a claim, nothing more. And in mass media coverage, qualifiers like "may have been found", "preliminary" and "needs to be confirmed" always get lost.<BR><BR>Besides, we know David Ho s track record on extraordinary claims. Remember "erradication within two years" and "hit hard hit early"?&nbsp; </DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Richie</DIV> <DIV> <HR> </DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_DissidentSaint
October 9th, 2002, 09:32 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=640 border=0> <TBODY> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top align=right><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>From:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><B>Robert Johnston &lt;rob@healtoronto.com&gt;</B></FONT></TD></TR> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Reply To:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>reappraising-aids@binhost.com</FONT></TD></TR> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top align=right><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>To:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Reappraising AIDS &lt;reappraising-aids@binhost.com&gt;</FONT></TD></TR> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top align=right><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Subject:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2><B>Percentage of "nonprogressors"?</B></FONT></TD></TR> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top align=right><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Date:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>Wed, 09 Oct 2002 00:16:17 -0400</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=640 border=0> <TBODY> <TR bgColor=#ffffff> <TD><FONT face="courier new,courier,tahoma,sans-serif" size=2>William, a journalist friend of mine, who also happens to be a <BR>"long-term nonprogressor", called me the other day and drew my attention <BR>to a news article that reads in part: <BR><BR>"It s one of the great mysteries in medicine: Despite being <BR>infected with HIV, some individuals haven t developed the deadly <BR>disease. <BR><BR>"Discovering how 1 percent or 2 percent of infected people keep the <BR>powerful virus at bay has inspired a race by some of the biggest names <BR>in AIDS research. Now, in a finding that could open up new fields of <BR>inquiry into fighting HIV, a team of scientists claims to have found the <BR>answer. <BR><BR>"The scientists say they have discovered that three proteins -- <BR>alpha-defensins 1, 2 and 3 -- have an anti-HIV role. The proteins are <BR>secreted by two types of white blood cells in the immune system, known <BR>as CD8 T-cells and neutrophils, the scientists say. And it is these <BR>proteins, they say, that play a primary role in suppressing AIDS in the <BR>HIV survivors, who are technically called long-term nonprogressors, <BR>and who have shown no sign of suppressed immunity after as many as 20 <BR>years of infection." <BR><A target=_top href="http://www.mail2web.com/cgi-bin/redir.asp?lid=0&amp;newsite=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/09/27/financial1120EDT0073.DTL&amp;type=printable">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/09/27/financial1120EDT0073.DTL&amp;type=printable</A> <BR><BR>He was not so interested in the technobabble about alpha-defensins as in <BR>how to challenge the often repeated claim that "long-term <BR>nonprogressors" represent only 1-2% of the all those who test HIV <BR>positive. <BR><BR>I would be interested in any of your thoughts on the following: <BR><BR>a) How do HIV researchers come up with their 1-2% figure? <BR><BR>b) Assuming they have their heads in the sand, what might be some good <BR>evidence or arguments that, in fact, "long-term nonprogressors" are a <BR>far bigger fraction than 1-2% of the HIV positive population? <BR><BR>William has had his AIDS stories published in some major publications. <BR>So if we can provide him with a compelling angle on this issue it might <BR>get some significant media coverage. <BR><BR>Rob <BR><BR>PS: Here is an example of one of William s articles: <BR><A target=_top href="http://www.mail2web.com/cgi-bin/redir.asp?lid=0&amp;newsite=http://healtoronto.com/Macleans_Gilpin.html">http://healtoronto.com/Macleans_Gilpin.html</A> <BR></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_MrChristopher
October 10th, 2002, 10:44 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>It would seem that another important aspect of this is to bring up the point that many long-termers either stay away from the meds or, if they were on them, went off them before long term damage was done.<BR><BR>I also wonder if Christine Maggiore would have any info on these long termers. I ve often thought it would be an interesting proposition to come up with some sort of petition, whereby the longer termers sign or otherwise acknowledge themselves in a more visible way.<BR><BR>Chris</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_aidsmythexposed-dot-com
October 11th, 2002, 12:11 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Yes, Christopher, this is a very important point which I tried to make, although perhaps a little too surreptitiously, earlier in this discussion thread. <BR><BR>I know Christine has info. on "long-termers", as you call them, but, ironically, the medical literature also has some <a target=_top href="http://healtoronto.com/survivors.html#wells">EYE-OPENING DATA</a> on long-termers that the "AIDS" industry would probably rather have us IGNORE!<BR><BR>Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this crucial point :-)<BR><BR>Rod Knoll,<BR>Founder,<BR><a target=_top href="http://www.aidsrc.org">AIDS REALITY CHECK</a></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_DissidentSaint
October 29th, 2002, 12:50 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV><FONT color=#0066cc>Kelly s note re: Percentage of "LTNPs" of those thought to have HIV/AIDS affected [including those never officially HIV tested or AIDS diagnosed]</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0066cc>&nbsp;</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0066cc>How many are on the meds and not on the meds? The&nbsp;figures I have heard bandied about&nbsp;are an estimated 50-80% are NOT on the meds-- this includes those estimated&nbsp;infected with HIV or&nbsp;who have&nbsp; AIDS yet&nbsp;have&nbsp;not been tested/diagnosed.&nbsp;Even if they don t know their status shouldn t these progress generally&nbsp;more rapidly&nbsp;or just as rapidly as those who know their status AND are treating it with conventional drug-cocktails? We are told that proper monitering and treatment&nbsp;is one of the most important reasons for "knowing your status." Wouldn t we expect see much more of these unknowing individuals showing up to hospitals with AIDS defining conditions after so many years? <BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0066cc>And are those on meds or those&nbsp;not on&nbsp;meds the ones getting sick, ie: developing[progressing] or dying from AIDS redefining&nbsp;conditions-- this is what remains unclear. AIDS Apologists respond that those who are sick need the meds, so ofcourse they are taking them, but how many were sick before the meds and how sick were they-- ie: AIDS redefining conditions and what other socalled "co-factors" or co-causes really, were not controlled for in these studies. Also important to remember is&nbsp;how they define LTNPs? It is again based on the socalled "surrogate markers" of T-Cell count or PCR "viral load" tests,&nbsp;which are not licensed for diagnostic purposes, and which have not been correlated to&nbsp; either illness&nbsp;or wellness-- so that those who have "low numbers" and yet have lived in health without meds for most of the 10-12-15 year period since testing HIV non-specific antibody positive are excluded as "LTNPs" thus deflating actual percentages of "LTNPs."&nbsp;Alternative Medicine has long questioned the snap-shot lab marker as a valid methodologic endpoint in clinical trials&nbsp;over quality of life indicators and life extension. Unfortunately, this is part of the drug model, one-cause, one-course mindset. They are looking for a patentable chemical substance, and lab tests have been developed and marketed&nbsp;under the same pharmaceutical industry influence peddling.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0066cc></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0066cc>Unfortunately, the questions raised have not been answered and the&nbsp;data has not been collected, made available and/or studied controlling for the o-factors/co-causes after 21+ years and billions spent with the assumption that HIV is the direct and primary cause of generalized immune compromise or the indirect and primary cause of a growing list of 26-31[depending on how you count them]&nbsp;previously known and unrelated conditions. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0066cc></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:30:27 -0700<BR>To: reappraising-aids@binhost.com<BR>From: David Crowe &lt;David.Crowe@aras.ab.ca&gt; <BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>Subject: Re: Percentage of "long-term non-progressors"?</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>&nbsp;</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>William s article is pretty amazing for Macleans. It was clever to put in a couple of paragraphs quoting the benefits of therapy ... before proceeding to devote the rest of the essay to trashing them. I m sure without that it would never have been published</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>This is what I have on LTNP s that s interesting (and some related topics). I think the message is that nobody knows. Perhaps that s the shocking thing. What if this is 20%? Surely, given the choice of side effects of toxic drugs with even a 20% chance that nothing would happen to you, most people would choose to wait until they got AIDS (however that is defined) before taking pills?</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>- Dave</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"we estimate that between 21 and 40% (95% confidence interval) [of healthy, HIV+ people not using antiretroviral drugs] will be free from clinical AIDS 12 years from seroconversion and between 10 and 17%...20 years from seroconversion." <BLOCKQUOTE>Mu?oz A et al. The incubation period of AIDS. AIDS. 1997; Vol 11 (suppl A): S69-76.</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>[This paper implies that they don t know what the percentage is...]</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"In a small percentage of persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), there is no progression of disease and CD4+ T-cell counts remain stable for many years...We studied 15 subjects with long-term nonprogressive HIV infection and 18 subjects with progressive HIV disease. Nonprogressive infection was defined as seven or more years of documented HIV infection, with more than 600 CD4+ T cells per cubic millimeter, no antiretroviral therapy, and no HIV-related disease." <BLOCKQUOTE>Pantaleo G et al. Studies in subjects with long-term nonprogressive Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. NEJM. 1995; 332(4): 209-16.</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"It appears that in the absence of treatment, most infected persons will progress to AIDS, with a median time to progression of 7-10 years from infection [but Table 1 shows only one study that has followed HIV+ people for 10 years since seroconversion with a rate of progression to AIDS of only 48%, and this group was one of the fastest progressing groups that they studied]" <BLOCKQUOTE>Moss AR et al. Natural history of HIV infection. AIDS. 1989; 3: 55-61.</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>[I would have to read this one again. The first sentence doesn t make total sense to me]<BR>"By 10 years after seroconversion 7.3% of the haemophilic men had died without AIDS and 38.2% had developed AIDS. These figures were 20.2% and 30.5% for injecting drug users, and 8% and 55% for homosexual men." <BLOCKQUOTE>Prins M et al. Pre-AIDS mortality and its association with HIV disease progression in haemophilic men, injecting drug users and homosexual men. AIDS. 2000; 14: 1829-37.</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>[15 deaths in 900 people over 10 years]</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"A large number of people from within the general population, that is, those not part of the "high-risk group" enjoy good health despite testing "HIV positive" a decade ago. In Mumbai, the "AIDS capital of India," counseling groups such as Salvation Army and CASA (Counseling and Allied Services), who attend to HIV-positive people from this segment of the population say there is strong evidence to show that the damage caused to the immune system can be reversed. "This happens when people change their habits of substance abuse, eat nutritious food, involve themselves in community service, practice discipline and hygiene, receive regular counseling, family and social support. Such persons emerge stronger and healthy," says Arun Meitram, a counselor at the Salvation Army clinic. Incidentally, Salvation Army counselors recall only 15 deaths have occurred among the 900 patients they have been following over the past decade. In most cases the cause of death is related to malnutrition or TB. Says Nagesh Shirgoppikar, a medical consultant to Salvation Army, "Our experience in treating HIV positive persons over the past decade shows that all the components of comprehensive psychological, emotional, physical and conventional medical treatment are very important. If a person is treated wholly, he is fine. Our patients have remained asymptomatic for upto ten years, and enjoy perfect health without anti-retroviral drugs."" <BLOCKQUOTE>Chinai R. AIDS cocktail. Times of India. 2001 May 29.</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>[This is another whole area, people who remain HIV-negative despite repeated sexual exposure to someone who is HIV+. In fact, there are suggestions that this might immunize some people. So much for safe sex ! I can get you more quotes in this area if you d like]</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"The study cohort consisted of 17 women who remained uninfected, despite a history of heavy exposure to HIV through repeated, unprotected sexual contact with an infected partner, and 12 of their regular, male HIV-positive partners. Criteria for inclusion were longstanding sexual partnership up to the time of the male partner s first positive HIV test and/or continued unprotected intercourse after the male partner was infected and no other identified risk for HIV infection for the women. The HIV-negative status of the women was determined by HIV-1 antibody status, qualitative plasma DNA polymerase chain reaction, and cocultivation. HIV antibody-positive status was confirmed by repeat ELISA and Western blot tests...At enrollment, CD4 cell counts for the 12 HIV-positive male partners were 9-1903 cells/mm-cubedIn men, these high values were relatively stable during the observation period, as illustrated by the medians over time...In all, 13 women exhibited an immune response that could at least partly explain their persistent seronegativity...The lack of transmission cannot be ascribed to reduction in CD4 cell infectivity. The CD4 cells of 9 women all were readily infected, 5 by their partner s virus. None of the women was homozygous for CCR5D32 or CCR2 promoter region mutations that disable receptors for HIV." <BLOCKQUOTE>Skurnick JH et al. Correlates of Nontransmission in US Women at High Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection through Sexual Exposure. JID. 2002 Jan 17; 185.</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>[Another different area ... evidence that drugs make you sicker]</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"children who had received combination therapy were estimated to have a non-[statistically-]significantly increased rate of clinical progression"</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"Survival estimates of the progression to CDC class C disease [AIDS] or death indicate that 6% (2-11%) of infected children in this group would have progressed by the age of 1 year, 17% (10-24%) by the age of 5 years, and 22% (13-31%) by 10 years of age [note that it is normally expected that 50% of HIV-infected people will progress to AIDS in 10 years]...children who had received combination therapy were estimated to have a non-[statistically-]significantly increased rate of clinical progression" <BLOCKQUOTE>European Collaborative Study. Level and pattern of HIV-1-RNA viral load over age: differences betweens girls and boys? AIDS. 2002 Jan 4; 16(1): 97-104.</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>[And, what is progression anyway. Are healthy people with high viral loads progressing ?]</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"[In this study of 78 HIV-positive people with high CD4 cell counts and no symptoms] there were no differences in viral load with regard to time of HIV-1 infection [i.e. amount of virus does not grow over time]...10 patients fulfilled the criteria for LTNP [Long Term Non-Progressors]. 7 of these 10 patients had viral loads above 10,000 RNA copies/ml and 2 above 30,000 RNA copies/ml. The level of viral load of LTNP was not statistically different compared with the other 68 patients...About 25% of these patients (including some LTNP) can be selected for treatment if a cut-off value of 30,000 RNA copies/ml is used, and around 50% if the cut-off point is 10,000 RNA copies/ml [" <BLOCKQUOTE>Garc?a F et al. Viral load in asymptomatic patients with CD4+ lymphocyte counts above 500 million/l. AIDS. 1997; 11: 53-7.</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"In recent years, increasing interest has been focused on the study of individuals who remain healthy, HIVseronegative and with no evidence of infection despite well-documented sexual exposure to HIV (EU individuals). It has been suggested that in these individuals protection from HIV infection may result from either inheritance of a non-functional CCR5 coreceptor, low or defective virus inoculum or acquired sterilizing host immunity. Whereas a genetic basis for HIV resistance seems to account for a small proportion of EU cases, evidence that the immune system may control HIV-1 entry and/or replication has been reported in different cohorts of EU individuals: these individuals appear to respond to HIV-1 antigens with a wide panel of immune responses, ranging from HIV-specific mucosal antibodies to HIV-specific CD4+ T cells that produce high levels of CC chemokines or to HIV-specific CTL...Sixteen HIV-seropositive individuals and their uninfected heterosexual partners with a history of regular sexual exposure for more than 2 years were enrolled in the study. EU partners were repeatedly tested for HIV-1 infection (anti-HIV-1/2 antibodies, serum p24 antigen and plasma HIV-1 RNA), and genotyped for two protective CCR5 genetic polymorphisms...Only one individual, EU55, was found to be heterozygous for the CCR5-?32 allele, and none was found to carry the CCR5-m303 allele...Unstimulated CD8+ T [immune] cells from all the EU individuals, except one, induced a broad spectrum dose-dependent suppression of HIV-1 infection...[but] the capacity of CD8+ T cells to suppress HIV-1 was also documented in some HIV-seronegative unexposed controls" <BLOCKQUOTE>Furci L et al. Non-cytotoxic inhibition of HIV-1 infection by unstimulated CD8+ T lymphocytes from HIV-exposeduninfected individuals. AIDS. 2002; 16: 1003-8.</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"A significant number of those [hemophiliacs] receiving batches [of Factor VIII clotting compound] known to be infected [with HIV] did not seroconvert [become HIV-positive]" <BLOCKQUOTE>Rowland-Jones SL et al. Immune responses in HIVexposed seronegatives: have they repelled the virus? Curr Opin Immunol. 1995; 7: 448-455.</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>[Again, a small percentage ]</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"during the past three years, it has become evident that: (1) a small percentage of HIV-seropositive individuals maintain a stable CD4+ T-cell count and do not exhibit signs of AIDS, despite having been infected with HIV for more than ten years... and (2) there are individuals who have been exposed to HIV (some on multiple occasions) but do not seroconvert or show signs of HIV infection...our laboratory has studied gay men who have unprotected sex, intravenous drug users, newborns of HIV+ mothers and HCWs [Health Care Workers]...63% of seronegative gay men, 76% of intravenous drug users, 35% of newborns of HIV+ mothers and 75% of HCWs exposed to HIV+ blood responded to two or more peptides [presumed HIV antigens]...Negative controls for these studies included: presumed unexposed adult individuals (controls for the gay men and drug users, respectively) who showed 2.5% and 3.1% positive responses; newborns of HIV- mothers...who showed 0% positive responses; and HCWs accidentally exposed to seronegative blood...who showed 24% positive responses [lending weight to the theory, not considered by these authors, that HIV antibodies might actually be due to autoimmune or alloimmune reactions]...it is extremely important [to the financial health of the AIDS industry?] that the seronegative status of HIV-exposed individuals is not presumed to reflect naturally acquired protection."</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>Shearer G et al. Protective immunity against HIV infection: has nature done the experiment for us? Immunology Today. 1996; 17(1): 21-4.</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR>"investigation of this highly exposed yet HIV-1-uninfected<BR>cohort failed to reveal consistent HIV-1-specific cellular immune<BR>responses...The only well-documented marker of<BR>resistance, homozygosity for the CCR5 mutation delta32, did not account<BR>for the absence of infection, suggesting a multifactorial mechanism." <BLOCKQUOTE>Yang OO et al. Immunologic profile of highly exposed yet HIV type 1-seronegative men. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2002 Sep 14; 18(4): 1051-65.</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>[Again, a subset ]</BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>"Our results identify a subset of HIV-infected individuals in whom control over disease progression is obtained in the absence of therapy. A deterioration of immune functions, CD4 cell reduction, or changes in viraemia [viral load] were not detected in these individuals during the study period. This fortunate condition is associated with: (i) higher CD8 cell counts; (ii) higher HIVspecific- and non-specific-stimulated proliferation as well as IL-2 and IFN-Gamma production; and (iii) a lower concentration of IL-7. Noticeably, this condition is also associated with low but detectable viraemia. "<BR>Clerici M et al. Early and late effects of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a 2 year follow-up of antiviral-treated and antiviral-naive chronically HIV-infected patients. AIDS. 2002 Sep 6; 16(13): 1767-73.</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_trist
October 29th, 2002, 10:30 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>That s the problem isn t it, Kelly?&nbsp; It s amazing how that huge lot of undiagnosed people happen not to be dying.&nbsp; After all, if AIDS is such a horrid, debilitating disease, you would think that doctors would be finding these people left and right.&nbsp; It s like the pandemic in China.&nbsp; If we go by the .3% rule, one billion people in China should test positive for HIV... and yet in the last twenty years, eleven hundred have been diagnosed there.&nbsp; If we look at the US trend, half a billion people in China should be dead of AIDS&nbsp;by now.&nbsp; Apparently, the AIDS industry has an amazing lack of skill when it comes to finding dead people.&nbsp; Or perhaps the ancestors of the Chinese were devastated millions of years ago by a virulent strain of HIV and now they are less susceptible to it, like those amazing chimps.&nbsp; ^__^</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Trist</FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_SeaDoc
October 29th, 2002, 10:56 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>People have created their own &#39;placebo trials&#39; by ignoring their hiv status <br>and are living happy long lives... Those that buy in to the 20 plus year <br>charade are tied into a medical system that will kill them, eventually... <br>Until we have a truly independent scientific double blind trial regarding <br>the alternatives to deadly anti-retroviral treatments we will never move <br>from knowing the truth anecdotally to the real facts that hiv marker<br>status is not a virus nor a contagion nor, in and of itself, an immune <br>depressant... Rather, it is a benign marker released by the body due to <br>enormous stresses placed upon the organism due to disease, foreign proteins, <br>nutritional depravity, etc... Time will bear this out, until then I can not <br>practice medicine knowing that to do so would be to be complicit in this <br>scientific debacle...<br><br>__________________________________________________ _______________<br>Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.? Try MSN! <br>http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp<br><br></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_DissidentSaint
October 30th, 2002, 10:14 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV><FONT color=#0099cc>SeaDoc,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0099cc></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0099cc>I have been researching licensure laws for NDs, licensed in 11 US states as primary care physicians. I have asked state regulators whether an ND&nbsp;or MD can provide AIDS Alternatives resources and information ALONG SIDE of the standard of care paradigm, protocol. I have tried to get a more definitive response, but it seems this would be a legal question. IOW, say to the patient, here is the standard of care, however, hundreds of&nbsp;Dissident Scientists&nbsp;dissent from the dominant, conventional model for the alleged viral pathogenesis and progression of HIV=AIDS, confirming Alternative Medicine s long questioning of the virus/germ&nbsp;mode, one-cause, one-course drug-based model.&nbsp;Therefore, would the doctor be at risk for prosecution or censure-- loss of&nbsp;licensure, etc. if they merely raising critical questions and letting the patient decide? If&nbsp;Dissident Doctors&nbsp;came up with an&nbsp;"informed consent" form and they clearly went over the fact that a majority of MDs, Scientists disagree with dissident scientific/alternative</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0099cc>medicine critique,&nbsp;wouldn t this protect them somewhat? Perhaps they could go before the Medical Review board in their state and ask for pre-authorization on this, then fight it that way. It would make a good story, "YOU RE RIGHT TO A SECOND OPINION."&nbsp;&nbsp;Something we need to challenge. Otherwise, we keep hearing that lame response of AIDS Apologists: Dissidents are not treating AIDS patients or doing AIDS research. Well, duh! Dissident Scientists and Alternative Medicine Physicians and Alternative Thinking MDs are researching the generalized health or socalled immune-related conditions, treating persons given such a misdiagnosis, yet obviously not researching or treating&nbsp;what they do not accept as a valid diagnosis, hypothesis. Nevertheless, they are differentially diagnosing and treating holistically-- multi-factorially. Unfortunelatly, no research is funded by the CDC, NIH outside of the drug model. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0099cc></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0099cc>So, that is a trick question that makes us sound uninterested and uninvolved. We are involved in treating and researching the health issues affecting such persons given an HIV/AIDS misdiagnosis, but are not treating, researching HIV/AIDS except for the few Dissident Scientists who have been able to obtain scarce resources to conduct their own research. And research is not only clinical trials, but includes a review or critique of the scientific/medical literature published as "papers" in journals or unpublished are still "papers" of no lessor&nbsp;value.&nbsp;Peer review is not fail proof and has been found seriously lacking by even major journal editors. Further, indepth scientific investigative journalism&nbsp;articles are not to be dismissed out of hand. Science is not for the scientist only, MD does not stand for Medical Diety, and consumers should be empowered in their&nbsp;own health care decision-making-- especially when their lives and loves are on the line.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0099cc></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0099cc>Kelly&nbsp; </FONT></DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

msn_DissidentSaint
February 22nd, 2004, 09:23 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD height=8><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1></FONT></TD></TR> <TR> <TD class=msgtxt> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=640 border=0> <TBODY> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top align=right><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>From:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1><B>Mike Hersee &lt;mikehersee@crownlight.freeserve.co.uk&gt;</B></FONT></TD></TR> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top noWrap align=right><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>Reply To:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>reappraising-aids@binhost.com</FONT></TD></TR> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top align=right><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>To:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>Reappraising-Aids@Binhost. Com &lt;reappraising-aids@binhost.com&gt;</FONT></TD></TR> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top align=right><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>Subject:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1><B>Genetic resistance against HIV</B></FONT></TD></TR> <TR bgColor=#ffff99> <TD vAlign=top align=right><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>Date:&nbsp;</FONT></TD> <TD><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:37:25 -0000</FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width=640 border=0> <TBODY> <TR bgColor=#ffffff> <TD> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>From UK.gay.com today: <BR><BR>"A tiny number of people are virtually immune from AIDS - they don t get <BR>infected no matter how often they re exposed to the virus. According to new <BR>research, they may have another infamous epidemic to thank for their <BR>protection: smallpox. <BR><BR>In a report issued this week, scientists debunk a theory that links AIDS <BR>immunity to the bubonic plague outbreaks of the Middle Ages, citing smallpox <BR>as the most likely benefactor. <BR><BR>While it doesn t appear likely that the findings will help scientists <BR>develop new treatments for AIDS, they do bring researchers closer to <BR>understanding how events of 700 years ago affect the spread of a disease <BR>that only recently appeared on the scene. <BR><BR>The research, which has received much media attention, might have another <BR>effect: It could cause more people to wonder if they re one of the lucky few <BR>who are immune to AIDS. <BR>... <BR>An estimated 1 percent of people in the US who are descended from Northern <BR>Europeans bear a genetic mutation that makes them virtually immune to AIDS. <BR>Their immune cells lack a "receptor" - a kind of lock - that allows the <BR>virus to break into them. <BR>... <BR>The mutation was passed down through generations. Apparently, it just <BR>happened to provide protection against AIDS when the disease developed <BR>during the last century. <BR><BR>Initially, researchers pointed their fingers at bubonic plague, which caused <BR>the "Black Death" epidemic in Europe in the 14th century. Mosier and <BR>colleagues tested the theory by breeding mice with the genetic mutation and <BR>infecting them with the plague. <BR><BR>The mutation provided no protection, according to a report in the Feb. 12 <BR>issue of the journal Nature. <BR><BR>The next step is for researchers to see if the mutation provides protection <BR>against monkey pox, a relative of smallpox, Mosier said. If it does, one of <BR>the mysteries of AIDS immunity may be solved." <BR><BR>Well, I m sure this will be as solid as all the other orthodox AIDS science <BR>has turned out to be - ie, complete bollocks. But does anyone have links to <BR>a slightly more scientific rendition (in appearance at least) of this report? <BR><BR>Mike Hersee </FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1><BR><BR>**********The Reappraising-AIDS Discussion List********** </FONT></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1></FONT>&nbsp;</P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>KELLY s REPOSTED NOTE: </FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>WHO COUNTS AS SOCALLED "LTNP" [Long-Term Non-Progressor]?</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>RE:&nbsp;Percentage of "LTNPs" of those thought to have HIV/AIDS affected [including those never officially HIV tested or AIDS diagnosed] </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>The 1% figure bandied about in this article&nbsp;is a common regurgitation of science by press conference.&nbsp;They don t&nbsp;even have an even close to accurate&nbsp;statistic for those said to be "HIV&nbsp;infected"&nbsp;to substantiate&nbsp;this claim that only 1% are LTNPs. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>How many are on the meds and not on the meds? The figures I have heard bandied about are an estimated 50-80% are NOT on the meds-- this includes those estimated infected with HIV or who have AIDS yet have not been tested/diagnosed. Even if they don t know their status shouldn t these progress generally more rapidly or just as rapidly as those who know their status AND are treating it with conventional drug-cocktails? We are told that proper monitering and treatment is one of the most important reasons for "knowing your status." Wouldn t we expect see much more of these unknowing individuals showing up to hospitals with AIDS defining conditions after so many years? </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>And are those on meds or those not on meds the ones getting sick, ie: developing[progressing] or dying from AIDS redefining conditions-- this is what remains unclear. AIDS Apologists respond that those who are sick need the meds, so ofcourse they are taking them, but how many were sick before the meds and how sick were they-- ie: AIDS redefining conditions and what other socalled "co-factors" or co-causes really, were not controlled for in these studies. Also important to remember is how they define LTNPs? It is again based on the socalled "surrogate markers" of T-Cell count or PCR "viral load" tests, which are not licensed for diagnostic purposes, and which have not been correlated to either illness or wellness-- so that those who have "low numbers" and yet have lived in health without meds for most of the 10-12-15 year period since testing HIV non-specific antibody positive are excluded as "LTNPs" thus deflating actual percentages of "LTNPs." Alternative Medicine has long questioned the snap-shot lab marker as a valid methodologic endpoint in clinical trials over quality of life indicators and life extension. Unfortunately, this is part of the drug model, one-cause, one-course mindset. They are looking for a patentable chemical substance, and lab tests have been developed and marketed under the same pharmaceutical industry influence peddling. </FONT> </P><P><FONT face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif" size=1>Unfortunately, the questions raised have not been answered and the data has not been collected, made available and/or studied controlling for the co-factors/co-causes after 20+ years and billions spent with the assumption that HIV is the direct and primary cause of generalized immune compromise or the indirect and primary cause of a growing list of 26-31[depending on how you count them] previously known and unrelated conditions. </FONT></P><BR clear=all></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>