PDA

View Full Version : Defining AIDS



Gos
August 2nd, 2010, 07:28 PM
AIDS is not a "panoply of ailments". It's a single disease of the immune system.


Is it now?

One of our members recently hit his head on a car door and subsequenly developed Bell's Palsy. His doctor called it "AIDS". I can't seem to find a single reference anywhere which lists BP as an AIDS-defining condition.

I myself have had a mold allergy that progressed to "AIDS-related pneumonia." At the time, my CD4 count was >1400.

I also had a flu in the record-breaking flu season of 2003 that was also called "AIDS" in my case, but not for anyone else.

Interesting side note: When I got this flu, I had recently broken up with my ex-girlfriend, who had been having an affair with another man for 6 years. They both also got this flu, but while I made a complete recovery in a matter of days, they both spent several weeks in and out of the hospital. It was as though their immune systems simply weren't fighting off this flu. They were both terrified that they had AIDS (due to the fact that she'd been having unprotected sex with both of us for 6 years,) so they got tested. When the tests came back negative, they both made a speedy recovery. (Still think that stress won't shut down your immune system?)

Because they were HIV-negative, their flu was called "flu" and their recurrent pneumonia was called "recurrent pneumonia", but mine was still called "AIDS", even though I actually recovered a lot faster than they did, and even though my pneumonia wasn't recurrent, and even though my CD4 count was about 1,000 at the time.

Eliza Jane Scovill died of "AIDS-related pneumonia" despite the fact that her lung slides (http://justiceforej.com/MaB-Averial.pdf) clearly showed that she didn't have pneumonia, and despite the fact that her lymphocyte count was actually elevated and there was no evidence of CD4+ suppression or CD4/CD8 inversion.

Another of our members, Kelly Jon Landis, died of Hodgkin's Lymphoma. That's not listed as an AIDS-defining condition, and yet the official story is that he died of AIDS and his name appears on the "Dead Deniers" list at AIDSTruth. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodgkin's_Lymphoma#Epidemiology), HL is more common in HIV-positives, however it occurs most commonly in HIV patients with high CD4 counts rather than low CD4 counts.

Yet another of our members whose name appears on the "Dead Deniers" list is our former co-moderator, Ken Anderlini. He died of a mysterious neurological disease that his own doctors couldn't diagnose, and yet he is counted as having died of "AIDS".

As I've pointed out earlier, the definition of AIDS is not the definition of a single disease of the immune system. In order for that to be true, the definition should require CD4+ suppression AND opportunistic disease. However, the CDC definition only requires CD4+ suppression AND/OR any of 29 different diseases. This means that AIDS is routinely diagnosed in people like myself who are sick but not immunosuppressed.

Furthermore, I've seen far too many cases of people (myself included) being diagnosed with "AIDS" based on having diseases that aren't on the list of AIDS-indicator diseases. It's as though anything is called "AIDS" if you're HIV-positive. If one didn't know better, one might be tempted to think that "AIDS" is a panoply of ailments.

You yourself have already admitted that "AIDS death" is defined as death with AIDS; not death from AIDS, with no consideration for what role if any immunosuppression might or might not have played in the death.

It is also true that because AIDS is routinely diagnosed in people who aren't immunosuppressed, it naturally follows that "AIDS death" also occurs in people who aren't immunosuppressed (not to mention that they may not have died of any infectious disease at all, since by your own admission once they've been diagnosed as having AIDS, their death will be listed as "with AIDS" if they get hit by a bus.)

CBE, you can keep repeating over and over again that AIDS is a single disease until you're blue in the face, but it won't alter the fact that AIDS is a disease of definition -- a construct fabricated from a panoply of ailments, not a single one of which is exclusive to HIV-positives.

In order to maintain a belief that AIDS is a single disease, you either have to be in denial or extremely ignorant of diagnostic standards for AIDS.

You have proven to me time and time again that you are not ignorant by any stretch of the imagination. As to the question of denial, I leave that for you as food for thought.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 2nd, 2010, 07:41 PM
This demonstrates how little CBE appears to know. Either that, or he has decided to focus on one particular statement, made by one particular "expert," at one particular time. Is Fauci correct in saying that there is not enough of an initial immune response to "HIV," or was Ho correct in saying that there is a massive response that leads to a kind of "death struggle" between the immune system and "HIV?" Or does he think that they are both correct? And if he thinks it is so specific, why has he yet to state a specific hypothesis, despite my repeated requests for him to do so? Seems like someone who thinks he is so clever that he will just come here and toy with those poor, deluded dissidents. And as usual, when someone does this, they just show us how little they know and how little evidence there is for various biomedical claims, if any.

Gos
August 2nd, 2010, 08:08 PM
This demonstrates how little CBE appears to know.


I would disagree with that assessment. CBE is clearly more knowledgeable than the average joe on the subject of AIDS.

Nonetheless, he does appear to pursue rationalization to the point of losing sight of objective facts, such as his claim that AIDS is a single disease of the immune system (clearly refuted by the official definitions of AIDS, since CD4+ cell-mediated immunosuppression is not required for a diagnosis of AIDS) and his recent claims that the majority of adults have toxoplasmosis, and that toxoplasmosis isn't considered an AIDS indicator even in HIV-positives unless it's cerebral toxoplasmosis.

whereistheproof
August 2nd, 2010, 08:36 PM
CBE knows very well what he is talking about and his presence on this board does not need further explanation for obvious reasons.

Still - tolerating his comments are much better than the censorship one encounters on sites that more closely match CBE's views. And it allows visitors to this site to disect CBE's posts accordingly.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 2nd, 2010, 10:16 PM
I don't approve of censorship and there is one individual who writes up a bunch of posts on my site that I consider to be nonsense, but I posted my response, and now he just keeps making himself look foolish (denying evolutionary theory in general). In the case of "HIV/AIDS," however, it's important to not let these people come here and spout idiocy or try to muddle the issue. I wish the moderators would send a message to CBE and tell him that before he can post any more he must explain what the "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis is, exactly. Otherwise, he wastes everyone's time and energy, which I fear may be his purpose.

As to: "AIDS is not a "panoply of ailments". It's a single disease of the immune system."

This statement is basically a denial of fact, unless CBE views himself as an "AIDS denialist," and has his own ideas about the phenomena that he has yet to articulate on this forum. Once again, for some reason, he is not being as clear as he needs to be in order for a reasonable discussion to proceed. It seems to me that he is trying to create an argument that is impervious to criticism, because it has no specificity. I've asked him for citations, but so far he has only mentioned the word Tuskegee (in the "syphilis" context), which doesn't demonstrate anything like what he apparently thinks it does.

CBE: Cite a study that, in your opinion, provides ample demonstration of your conception of "HIV/AIDS." If you cannot do this, why would you want someone to listen to you? Do you really want people to listen to the opinions of anonymous people who make statements on sites like this, without supplying any actual scientific evidence nor explaining what their positions are in the context of their explicitly-stated hypotheses?

jonathan barnett
August 2nd, 2010, 11:09 PM
Everyone:

You can put CBE (or any other member) on your ignore list if he bothers you so much. I just posted the instructions here (http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=6564).

If all or most of the membership feels as you do and stop responding to CBE, he'll probably go away on his own for lack of playmates.



I wish the moderators would send a message to CBE and tell him that before he can post any more he must explain what the "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis is, exactly. Otherwise, he wastes everyone's time and energy, which I fear may be his purpose.

CBE
August 3rd, 2010, 05:18 AM
As to: "AIDS is not a "panoply of ailments". It's a single disease of the immune system."
This statement is basically a denial of fact...

Well, you'd better tell the editors of the Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aids)dictionary, because they define AIDS as:

“…a disease (that’s singular) of the human immune system that is characterized…”
And you'd also better also let the Oxford (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0014830#m_en_gb0014830) people know:

"...a disease (singular again) in which there is a severe loss of the body's cellular immunity, greatly lowering the resistance to infection and malignancy..."
And Cambridge (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=1770&dict=CALD):

“…a serious disease (singular) caused by a virus which destroys the body's natural protection from infection…”
And even the Free Dictionary (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/AIDS):

“…a disease (singular) of the immune system characterized by increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections…”


While you're at it you'd better put the Encyclopaedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/10414/AIDS)straight:

“…transmissible disease (singular again) of the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)...”
And the New England Journal of Medicine (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/344/23/1764):

“The disease (singular) now known as the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS, was first reported 20 years ago this week…” AIDS- the first 20 years

Of course I know you guys think Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS)is a lost cause.

Gos
August 3rd, 2010, 06:20 AM
But wait a minute -- Are those dictionaries peer-reviewed? In another thread you were just claiming that the CDC's definition is the only definition that matters.

Let's check that link again: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm


Hmmm...sounds an awful lot like a panopoly of ailments to me.

(BTW, you might want to check that other thread, 'cause you just got your ass handed to you.)

CBE
August 3rd, 2010, 06:47 AM
Hmmm...sounds an awful lot like a panopoly of ailments to me.

Gos, do you understand the semantic difference between a signified and its signifiers?

This is not some postmodern wankery. It's actually quite important here.

HIV/AIDS is a disease of the immune system (as per the dictionary and encyclopaedia definitons I have provided.)

PCP, for example, is not a disease of the immune system - it's a disease of the lungs.
KS is not a disease of the immune system - it's a tumor of the lymphatic or vascular endothelium.
Cerebral toxoplasmosis is not a disease of the immune system - it's a space occupying infection of the central nervous system.
etc.

However, the presence of these conditions can indicate an underlying immune system disease, in the same way a particular Xray finding can indicate pneumonia, even to the point of being diagnostic.

They are not HIV/AIDS itself. They are (under certain circumstances) AIDS-indicating. Or AIDS-defining.

I have yet to meet a dissident who has been able to grasp this. I am hoping you might be the first. This is one of the main reasons every discussion by dissidents on what AIDS is goes round and round in circles.

It's semiotics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics) 101.

Gos
August 3rd, 2010, 07:45 AM
The reason that these discussions go round and round is that the CDC definition of AIDS is purely circular and does not require immunosuppression to begin with. Circular definitions result in circular arguments, which in turn result in circular discussions.

If the CDC definition weren't circular and immunodeficiency were necessary to a diagnosis of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but then again if the CDC definition weren't circular and immondeficiency were necessary to a diagnosis of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, I have serious doubts that there'd be any such concept as "HIV/AIDS" to begin with.

And I don't care how many dictionary definitions you cite -- no doctor diagnoses disease according to a dictionary definition, nor are CDC statistics generated according to dictionary definitions. The last time I checked, dictionaries weren't even peer-reviewed, so your citation of dictionaries is unscientific and obfuscatory. (Look that word up in your dictionary.)

OK -- now that's really it. I've got a whole string of sarcastic and/or profane posts under my belt by this point. By now, I'm running out of borrowed patience.

Gossamer has left the building....

jonathan barnett
August 3rd, 2010, 12:19 PM
Gos,

Your point about circular reasoning reminds me of the last time I experience the "HIV" testing machine, about six months ago. My partner took the test before getting the hepatitis vaccine required for EMT certification.

The "fact sheet" he was given as part of his "informed consent" started with the following QAs. The formatting here is for purposes of improved clarity only:


http://resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/circular-AIDS-argument.jpg (http://resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/2010/02/08/circular-reasoning-aids-tests/)

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 3rd, 2010, 09:02 PM
Here is another way of thinking of this "circular logic," as I posted on another thread:

The problem is that the logic is clearly flawed. If you find markers that you think are unique to a "retrovirus," because you can't imagine any other possibility, then right there you have decided to abandon the scientific method. You then make up a name for the retrovirus you assume must be present, and then you look for correlations. Of course, when it becomes clear that the markers you assumed were unique to "HIV" or even just "retroviruses" in general, are not, what are you to do at that point? If you are truly a scientist, you do controlled experiments, such as the kind I have suggested. If you are hailed as a great discoverer and are making plenty of money, perhaps you decide to defend you initial claims and hope for the best.

"AIDS" (or "GRID") seemed to be spreading quickly at the time, which led to various predictions that failed to occur, but also helped convince those who were "on the fence" that the "disease" was contagious. However, in light of the failure of the predictions alone, there is an obvious need to reconsider whether or not alternative possibilities are accurate. For example, does the "HIV" antibody test simply determine how much antigenic exposure one's body has endured? And does the PCR test simply detect certain kinds of cellular level stress? Incredibly, despite how inexpensive and easy it would be to do this kind of direct refutation experiment, as the scientific method demands, "dissidents" who suggest such possibilities are called things like "crackpots," if not worse. At the very least, people like CBE should be telling us how much they would like to see such experiments conducted, unless they have no confidence in their notions about "HIV/AIDS," which I suspect is the case.

What would have stopped someone from claiming that a particular ghost had caused "AIDS?" A unique biomarker could have been found, because there are plenty of things that have yet to be discovered (I remember a few years back a report which pointed out that many of the molecules in chocolate had yet to be identified, for example). Then they would have looked for correlations, and if you initially just look at the body fluids of people who are ill (though they are young and there is no known reason for them to be ill), then of course in the future they are more likely to have health problems, so the correlations will be there.

In any case, I find it rather disturbing that someone like CBE, who has clearly put a lot of thought into this issue, doesn't seem to care about all the obvious problems with "HIV/AIDS," such as whether or not "HIV" attacks specific cells and causes continual damage, or whether it goes into "latency." If it goes into latency, why does it come out of latency? And also, why can't the body adapt and simply make more of these cells? And why can't our great "experts," who have been given billions of dollars over the course of more than a quarter century, determine such basic things? For example, shouldn't it be the case that one could use PCR, find a person with a "high viral load," and then take samples so that "HIV" itself would be abundant when the sample was viewed with an EM?

Instead, all kinds of assumptions are never questioned, and "dissidents" could just as well be confronted with "experts" claiming that ghosts cause "AIDS." After all, where is the evidence that any "retrovirus" is dangerous in any context outside a laboratory? On the other hand, there is evidence that such phenomena is best understood as an attempt by cells to rid themselves of toxins. See Janine Roberts' "Fear of the Invisible" book, for example (she cites and discusses relevant studies there). So, a concept that sounded frightening, the way the ghost notion used to for most people, was assumed to be the cause of phenomena that has yet to be studied systematically (and in accordance with the scientific method). This is what passes for a scientific hypothesis by people like CBE, apparently. And the difference between "retroviruses" and ghosts? Well, our "top scientists" were getting a lot of funding for years to find a link between cancer and this retrovirus notion, whereas the money for "ghostbusting" went into making a Hollywood film, which at least was harmless and entertaining.

helpinghand1
August 3rd, 2010, 10:16 PM
Oh, poor me! Have I been banned again? heheeeee


[Moderator note: Nope.]

CBE
August 4th, 2010, 09:50 PM
@Jonathan (quoting an information leaflet):
What is AIDS?
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is caused by a virus (HIV) that destroys the body's ability to fight infection.

Yes, I agree that the the excerpt you have given appears circular. And the reason is that the answer given is not to the question "what is AIDS" but to "what causes AIDS".

And you cannot answer "what causes AIDS" until you have established "what is AIDS".

My answer to that starts with "it's a disease of the immune system" and would go on to discuss the features and characteristics of that disease of the immune system. Now you may disagree - you may think the word "AIDS" refers to something different. Perhaps it's a disease of the great toe. Or it's totally fictional.

But my point is that you cannot even begin to discuss what causes this thing called AIDS until you have established what it is that is being caused. You will simply go round in circles, as in the previous thread that tried to do this.

It's a bit like trying to discuss the details of the care and feeding of cats with people who don't even agree that a cat is a type of animal.

John Bleau
August 4th, 2010, 10:18 PM
Make that Cheshire cats.

CBE
August 4th, 2010, 10:23 PM
That's fine, John. But if you think that what is called AIDS does not exist, then there is no point discussing its possible causes.

John Bleau
August 4th, 2010, 10:32 PM
Insofar as HIV is included as part of the definition of AIDS, it's a Cheshire cat to me.

jonathan barnett
August 4th, 2010, 10:41 PM
"Appears" circular?! LMAO!

The QAs I posted are verbatim from the "informed consent" forms given to my partner by his doctor at the time of testing.

This is what is being presented to American patients by educated medical providers, CBE.

Don't argue with me... argue with the arcane system of AIDS information and knowledge you are trying to defend.

The definitions I presented are among the best examples of circular logic one can find. I didn't even need to tell PowerPoint how to graph present them. I just clicked "auto-arrange", "circular logic" and it did it for me! :D

BTW, I think you are being a bit circular in your answer for that matter.


Yes, I agree that the the excerpt you have given appears circular. And the reason is that the answer given is not to the question "what is AIDS" but to "what causes AIDS".

CBE
August 4th, 2010, 10:48 PM
Circular in what way?

John Bleau
August 4th, 2010, 10:54 PM
CBE, a thousand of whom Big Pharma could hire with back pocket change, is a master of evasion.

Consider: "That's fine, John. But if you think that what is called AIDS does not exist, then there is no point discussing its possible causes."

What, is he only discussing with me? Well, everyone, John Bleau thinks AIDS does not exist [sic CBE, who imputes a belief to me for the second time in less than a week] so there's no point discussing its possible causes.

It's easy to begin with the CDC definition that includes all HIV positive people with a CD4+ T cell count below 200 per µL of blood or 14% of all lymphocytes. This may be clumsy wording from Wikipedia, as I believe it's exclusive to HIV positive people. My take on this whole charade is that the so-called HIV positivity is actually a manifestation of hypergammaglobulinemia. But I have no time to waste on sophists.

jonathan barnett
August 4th, 2010, 10:59 PM
CBE: I modified the original graphic to incorporate your explanation.

PowerPoint still allowed me to format it using circular logic.
63

(Not sure why the graphic is only displaying as a thumbnail. Click on it to view full size.)

CBE
August 4th, 2010, 11:16 PM
Jonathan, to state that AIDS is a disease and that HIV is a virus that causes that disease is not circular, even if you disagree with one or both statements.

John, I took your "Cheshire cat" simile to indicate that you believe that AIDS is a fictional entity.


My take on this whole charade is that the so-called HIV positivity is actually a manifestation of hypergammaglobulinemia.

But we are not talking about "so-called HIV positivity" per se, we are talking about AIDS.

jonathan barnett
August 4th, 2010, 11:20 PM
There's really no way to know who or what motivates CBE and other defenders of the faith to be so persistent... dare I say dogmatic... in their views.

I appreciated Tony Lance's question in another thread about what would make someone change their mind about AIDS dissidence. It made me stop and think. The answers were varied, but there was at least some willingness on the part of most dissidents to admit we might accept the Orthodox point of view were certain conditions met.

When I have debates with friends and acquaintances who are definitely not Dissidents, they also seem willing and able to acknowledge that there are things about the prevalent AIDS theory that don't make sense and are inconsistent. I, in return, find myself often answering their questions with: "I don't know."

I'm always suspicious of anyone who is not able to admit they might be wrong, or that they don't have all the answers.

I guess my question to CBE would be: why did you post sixteen times in that thread, yet never really answer Tony's question: What would it take for you change your mind?

No need to hijack this thread too, you can answer it over there (http://forums.questioningaids.com/search.php?searchid=55672&pp=25&page=2).


CBE, a thousand of whom Big Pharma could hire with back pocket change, is a master of evasion.

CBE
August 4th, 2010, 11:26 PM
I guess my question to CBE would be: why did you post sixteen times in that thread, yet never really answer Tony's question: What would it take for you change your mind?

Did you read the second part of post #16 (http://forums.questioningaids.com/showpost.php?p=42723&postcount=16) on that thread?

I thought I answered it very clearly the first time.


No need to hijack this thread...

Given that the starting point for this thread was a quote from me I thought it relevant to explain the reasoning behind the statement. If explaining why dissident discussions on this topic always end up so hopelessly tangled, and how to find a logical starting point to avoid that confusion is "hijacking", then I'll leave you to it. I can see I've worn out my welcome.

Cheers!

jonathan barnett
August 4th, 2010, 11:36 PM
Nope, you got me. I missed it when scanning your responses.

mea culpa.

I see I also wasn't the first to point out the "circularity in the current AIDS definition."


Did you read the second part of post #16 (http://forums.questioningaids.com/showpost.php?p=42723&postcount=16) on that thread?

I thought I answered it very clearly.

CBE
August 5th, 2010, 12:16 AM
That's fine, Jonathan - I added it in later, so you might have missed it on the first reading.

Okay, one more try.

The central dissident position (as far as I can see) is that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

But before you can answer the question, "does HIV cause AIDS?", you need to be clear about what AIDS is.

The issue dissidents have is that the current (since 2008) CDC surveillance definition of AIDS requires laboratory evidence of HIV in all cases, and even as far back as 1987 in some cases. So it is not much use in answering the question "does HIV cause AIDS?" because it assumes the answer.

The solution to the problem is to find another way of answering "what is AIDS?" without using the 2008 CDC surveillance definition and leaving HIV out of it for now.

I contend that you can do this, and get answers that are good enough to be useful, although they will not be quite as precise - you will miss some cases of what you are trying to find, and you will also capture some cases that don't belong.

But for our purposes, you can define AIDS without including the HIV bit well enough to establish whether or not there is a strong correlation between the two. And go from there. But until you do that, you can't address the question of whether HIV causes AIDS.

And my starting point for answering "what is AIDS?" is "It's a disease of the immune system." Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but there's no point in going into it in any more detail until we can at least establish that.

jonathan barnett
August 5th, 2010, 01:41 AM
The central dissident position (as far as I can see) is that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

But before you can answer the question, "does HIV cause AIDS?", you need to be clear about what AIDS is.


I don't think that's entirely right, and you are trying to frame the debate by presuming the questions. For sake of argument we can agree that AIDS is a disease of the immune system, if you want. So, before you can answer the question "does HIV cause AIDS?", you might want to be clear about what HIV—not AIDS—is.

Now we're veering into the dreaded "existential question", but as a lay dissident, I don't doubt that there is a "something" that may have been detected in the early cases of AIDS and in other people with existing immune and autoimmune illnesses (including pregnancy). It may even be what you call HIV.

The question then becomes what is HIV, or what are retroviruses in general?

I currently lean towards the understanding that Janine Roberts outlines in her book Fear of the Invisible (http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/why-our-cells-make-retroviruses), and I really hate to try paraphrasing it for fear of butchering her work. Suffice to say that this invisible thing you want to call HIV may be a cellular messenger or a marker of disease as easily as the causation.



I had earlier learnt that viruses invade cells in order to reproduce, and that cells are the victims of this process. I also learnt that HIV was a retrovirus that hijacked' cells. But I now realised there was an entirely different way to see this process. Biology, a science that unlike virology has no focus on illness, has taught me that no virus exists that is not made by a cell, that these are produced by all healthy cells, whether of plants, fungi, birds, fish or animals, and that cells apparently consider retroviruses so harmless that they will trustingly incorporate codes brought by them into their very genomes, into the protected centres of their being.

Why do we presume that viruses take the initiative when they enter a cell, when viruses are universally recognised to be inert? What if it is the other way around? What if cells actively attract the passing retrovirus because they need the information they carry? They reportedly carry markers that enable cells to recognize them.
(Janine Roberts, Fear of the Invisible) Much of what you have stated in your last few posts would still make sense in that scenario, in particular the correlation of "HIV" positivity with illness.

As a plausible working theory, it also avoids so many of the pratfalls and logic pretzels that the existing orthodox AIDS theory has to endure.

(Hoo boy, I just re-read that and realize you will now probably respond that I am indeed arguing the "central dissident position" that HIV does not cause AIDS. Oh well, sobeit.)





And my starting point for answering "what is AIDS?" is "It's a disease of the immune system." Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but there's no point in going into it in any more detail until we can at least establish that.



Yes, but who wants to get back on that treadmill?

Others may want to pick this up and debate it with you, but I do not. Why? Because it doesn't matter.

There is more than one path that leads to AIDS dissidence. I am an AIDS dissident primarily because the only conventionally acceptable course of treatment for illness in people with HIV positive tests is a lifetime of potent drugs with known and unknown interactions and undesirable effects, ultimately leading to multiple organ failure and death. I assert this based on personal observations and anecdotal evidence, so you may not want to respond.

I am a Questioner because I know I have personally lived almost ten years without these drugs and am a happier and healthier (by my definition) person than I ever was when I was on them. I know of others who have done likewise. I can only wonder how many thousands of other people are undergoing the consequences of AIDS chemotherapy who do not need it. People like me are summarily dismissed as outliers and exceptions without any scientific evidence that we are any such thing. Any AIDS scientist or researcher with a shred of humanity should be trolling these forums to identify and recruit us for a major study.

Where others cite humanitarian aid, I see the madness and inhumanity of the promotion of ARV treatment over health education, nutrition, clean water, lifestyle changes and responsibility for self.

I cannot out-argue you, and I won't bother trying further. It is futile, imo. You will want to have the last word, even if it means restarting the tape, as you are trying to do here.

If you want to change my mind, convince me, my partner, my family and my friends that I would be better off today if I had stayed on HAART and the consequent 24 other prescription drugs to manage the "side effects" since 2003, instead of radically changing my own life three years ago and taking responsibility for my own health.

CBE
August 5th, 2010, 02:50 AM
I don't think that's entirely right, and you are trying to frame the debate by presuming the questions.

If you don't establish the question(s) then what you are doing is not debate - it's something else.


So, before you can answer the question "does HIV cause AIDS?", you might want to be clear about what HIV—not AIDS—is.

Yes, that's something you also need to establish, although it is not the topic at the head of this thread. We can discuss why I don't think Roberts' hypothesis stacks up (leaving aside fact it reads simply as the pathetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy) reversed) but that's another topic altogether. The main problem I see with it is that it begs the question of where the "information" in these "passing retroviruses" (encoded in the RNA) comes from. And how they came to be just "passing".


Where others cite humanitarian aid, I see the madness and inhumanity of the promotion of ARV treatment over health education, nutrition, clean water, lifestyle changes and responsibility for self.

It's not either/or.


If you want to change my mind, convince me, my partner, my family and my friends that I would be better off today if I had stayed on HAART and the consequent 24 other prescription drugs to manage the "side effects" since 2003, instead of radically changing my own life three years ago and taking responsibility for my own health.

I'm not here to try to convince anyone that HAART the right thing for them personally. I'm certainly not here to convince anyone they should be using 27 different pharmaceuticals.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 5th, 2010, 03:12 AM
CBE: In order to study a phenomenon of the physical world, the investigation must be specific. However, once you call what you think is a single phenomenon a syndrome (and if you don't know what a medical syndrome is supposed to be, look it up), you have created a kind of "circular logic." This is why I asked you to explain what your "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis is, and you just provided some sort of freshman textbook response that is not scientific.

Now let's get specific about science and facts, rather than about statistical correlations that one or more "experts" (with what I would call serious conflicts of interest) claimed were significant enough to "close to book" on the issue, and never open it again, despite the fact that all their predictions have failed, over the course of about a quarter century (and despite the demands of the scientific method).

As discussed in the "When AIDS Began" book, many of the early "AIDS" (or "GRID") deaths were due to KS or things like heart attacks, "recreational" drug overdoses, etc. KS seems to have been the biggest killer among these people (and most if not the overwhelming majority of PCP deaths were not confirmed but presumptive, apparently), which leads to an obvious problem: if KS is not related to "HIV/AIDS" then there really wasn't a phenomenon that could reasonably called a single disease, syndrome or otherwise. This is because the doctors of the time themselves said that the medications they were prescribing could be causing the apparent PCP deaths. Some were also given things like blood transfusions and chemotherapy, which can be quite immunosuppressive as well. KS researcher Donald Ganem has stated that he does not think KS is related to "HIV/AIDS" at all. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv2CFG_pjYY

Since you won't answer the question about what "HIV" is and how it functions in this "disease," then perhaps you can explain why it is unreasonable to understand the phenomena in Cochrane's book (what you call "AIDS") in the context of a non-"HIV" explanation. After all, there is no evidence that such notions are inaccurate, as opposed to all the "HIV/AIDS" predictions that failed to materialize since the early 1980s. In fact, medical textbooks written before 1980 point out that what these men were subjected to can be highly immunosuppressive. And there has been nothing to date that suggests otherwise, to my knowledge.

positivenegative
August 5th, 2010, 03:23 AM
Honestly I cannot get what CBE is saying. I really want to understand. Whatever AIDS "is", sure causes making AIDS hard to understand?

I must be in the middle of a long drawn out conversation because I'm not getting it. There must be something in the unsaid I'm missing. I'm sorry. I want to understand very much. I'm even thinking that perhaps I'm losing it mentally though I patiently go through it one word at a time.

Personally I want to understand the conversation here because personally I'm still in the state of just hoping that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. It's not a sealed deal with me. I'm just not inclined to go the mainstream because of too much controversy to just surrender and believe. I want my head wrapped around what's true but yet the conventional wisdom is always lacking for me.

It makes sense that gays living in the fast lane partying and fucking get sick (but what about straights living in the fast lane?). Of course there are other co-factors too. That's easy to understand and seems more plausible than creating crafty language that in the final analysis is too confusing.

Yet, I similarly define AIDS as a breakdown or dis-ease of the immune system that in turn is more likely caused by lifestyle behaviors and habits. Therefore I'm siding with proper diet, healthy lifestyle and sexual health practices will keep me safe from getting sick that could only come from lifestyle behaviors or stress or poor health or pre-existing health and/or genetic issues.

I'm tired right now. I'm gonna go for swim and catch up later. Peace out!


That's fine, Jonathan - I added it in later, so you might have missed it on the first reading

Okay, one more try.

The central dissident position (as far as I can see) is that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

But before you can answer the question, "does HIV cause AIDS?", you need to be clear about what AIDS is.

The issue dissidents have is that the current (since 2008) CDC surveillance definition of AIDS requires laboratory evidence of HIV in all cases, and even as far back as 1987 in some cases. So it is not much use in answering the question "does HIV cause AIDS?" because it assumes the answer.

The solution to the problem is to find another way of answering "what is AIDS?" without using the 2008 CDC surveillance definition and leaving HIV out of it for now.

I contend that you can do this, and get answers that are good enough to be useful, although they will not be quite as precise - you will miss some cases of what you are trying to find, and you will also capture some cases that don't belong.

But for our purposes, you can define AIDS without including the HIV bit well enough to establish whether or not there is a strong correlation between the two. And go from there. But until you do that, you can't address the question of whether HIV causes AIDS.

And my starting point for answering "what is AIDS?" is "It's a disease of the immune system." Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but there's no point in going into it in any more detail until we can at least establish that.

Expansive Mind
August 5th, 2010, 03:47 AM
Let's try this. Without the use of "hiv tests" at all, and without clinical, sexual, and drug history, how would "aids" be diagnosed? In other words, what are the symptoms and signs of aids without hiv tests and without patient profiling (http://expansivesmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/revelations-of-reveal-rapid-hiv.html).

positivenegative
August 5th, 2010, 05:56 AM
That link! :eek: Whoa!

That was awesome! Thanks Expansive Mind. That was amazing. However, don't all pharmaceuticals claim and deny and suggest all sorts of scalawagary?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yLR2OKesTw0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yLR2OKesTw0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>




Let's try this. Without the use of "hiv tests" at all, and without clinical, sexual, and drug history, how would "aids" be diagnosed? In other words, what are the symptoms and signs of aids without hiv tests and without patient profiling (http://expansivesmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/revelations-of-reveal-rapid-hiv.html).

CBE
August 5th, 2010, 06:22 AM
Let's try this. Without the use of "hiv tests" at all, and without clinical, sexual, and drug history, how would "aids" be diagnosed? In other words, what are the symptoms and signs of aids without hiv tests and without patient profiling.


The underlying pathology of AIDS is progressive CD4+ immunosuppression, so you look for conditions characteristic of that. Some, such as PCP, cerebral toxoplasma, CMV retinitis, and cryptococcal meningitis are by themselves extremely predictive of that severe CD4+ deficit, provided they are definitively diagnosed. So you can wait and see if those conditions develop and use them as your diagnostic criteria. Others, such as pulmonary TB or recurrent pneumonia of most other kinds are less predictive of this kind of immunosuppression, so you wouldn't accept those as diagnostic criteria for AIDS in the absence of other data. KS is probably somewhere in between, and you might include it with some caveats such as age and severity of disease to exclude the more benign classical KS.

You can also directly measure CD4 counts. These tend to fluctuate somewhat over time, so if you were using them as your sole defining criterion for AIDS you would need to set your cutoff relatively low, and preferably use serial measures to determine that the trend was of progressive depletion.

These criteria wouldn't distinguish AIDS from ICL. However, ICL of sufficient severity to cause these opportunistic diseases is very rare (http://journals.lww.com/infectdis/Fulltext/2008/07000/Opportunistic_Infections_in_Persons_With.4.aspx) in comparison to AIDS, so the degree of error would be fairly small.

These criteria are much narrower than those in current use: so many people who are just as immunosuppressed and would fit current criteria for AIDS would not be included in your "AIDS" population.

But you would still have a sufficiently large sample to test whether HIV is strongly correlated with AIDS as we are defining it here.

Expansive Mind
August 5th, 2010, 07:32 AM
CBE, you are just chasing proverbial hiv tail.

Google cd4, cd4 counts etc, and all you get is cd4 as it relates to hiv. What this means is that hiv validates cd4 and cd4 validates hiv. Circular.

But if we can agree to dismiss both hiv and cd4 for now, I guess we have to work on this portion of what you said:


Some, such as PCP, cerebral toxoplasma, CMV retinitis, and cryptococcal meningitis are by themselves extremely predictive of that severe CD4+ deficit, provided they are definitively diagnosed. So you can wait and see if those conditions develop and use them as your diagnostic criteria. Others, such as pulmonary TB or recurrent pneumonia of most other kinds are less predictive of this kind of immunosuppression, so you wouldn't accept those as diagnostic criteria for AIDS in the absence of other data. KS is probably somewhere in between, and you might include it with some caveats such as age and severity of disease to exclude the more benign classical KS.

What may be interesting to some dissidents, possibly Tony Lance and BramainAtlanta and some others, is that you are giving specific disease criterion. One thing you and I will agree on, CBE, is that aids has to be something specific in order to be aids.

I am curious what Tony Lance and BramainAtlanta and those who have, in the past, suggested that Aids is a generalized immune issue have to say to persuade you that aids is/should cover more than pcp, and this "short list" of conditions. I think Tony suggests that interrupted gut flora itself is an aids condition and is enough of a cause for other aids conditions.

whereistheproof
August 5th, 2010, 07:38 AM
CD4 counts are not a relevant measure for AIDS as the PG already pointed out. Just google them. Karrie Stokely is doing very well on very low counts for years now and so are many others.

CBE is merely repeating orthodox rhetoric here for very obvious reasons.

Gos
August 5th, 2010, 06:20 PM
These criteria wouldn't distinguish AIDS from ICL.


Hmmmm...and what, specifically, does distinguish AIDS from ICL, by definition, hmmmm...?

Can you say "HIV test", boys and girls? I knew you could.

Which is sort of like saying that gray hair causes cancer, and "proving" it by calling it "Idiopathic Hypercytogenesis" when it happens in people who don't have gray hair.


...the literature includes more than 4,621 clinically diagnosed AIDS cases that are all HIV-free (see Duesberg, The HIV Gap in National AIDS Statistics, Bio/Technology 1993 (http://duesberg.com/papers/the%20hiv%20gap.pdf)). To cover up this discrepancy with the overwhelming correlation, HIV-free AIDS cases were renamed in 1992 as idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia (ICL) cases by the CDC and Anthony Fauci ... Thus, the "overwhelming correlation" between [HIV antibodies] and AIDS is a mere consequence of risk behavior and the definition of AIDS.


Because the existence of HIV-free AIDS is the most direct threat to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, only a few such cases have been published in professional journals after the HIV hypothesis had become national dogma in 1984. However for offering an alternative AIDS virus some AIDS researchers have been allowed to report [KS] cases free of HIV. For example, a CDC researcher was quoted in the San Francisco Examiner for the discovery of "20-30 men who have [KS] but no HIV." [Hmmm...who was it that was just saying that AIDS-indicator diseases are exceedingly rare in HIV-negatives? ....And yet this one researcher was able to round up dozens of them. Things that make you go "Hmmmm..." -- G] Asked for comment, Professor Marcus Conant, one of the University of San Fransisco's many AIDS specialists, admitted to the ... Examiner: "At that point you have to say: Well, maybe it could be something else -- what could that something else be?"

Indeed such concessions proved to set dangerous precedents for the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, because numberous AIDS researchers now felt free to follow the CDC example in reporting their HIV-free AIDS cases at the International AIDS conference in Amsterdam in 1992. Realizing the imminent danger, the HIV establishment quickly found a new term for such cases, idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia, a term that even docile AIDS scientists and reporters had difficulty spelling....

...In 1993 two health care workers, one working at the Public Health office in San Fransisco, the other at Stanford University, told Duesberg, under the condition of anonymity, that they were directed not to report HIV-free AIDS cases as AIDS. Even though the respective patients were from AIDS risk groups and were clinically just like HIV-positive AIDS patients, their diseases were recorded by their old names, i.e., pneumonia, Kaposi's sarcoma, tuberculosis, rather than as AIDS.



An even more spectacular example briefly stunned the world in July of 1992. HIV dissidents had for some time pointed to the existence of people with AIDS diseases but no HIV infection as the definitive argument against the HIV hypothesis. Then, just before the Eighth International AIDS Conference in Amsterdam, Newsweek suddenly published an article by reporter Geoffrey Cowley on several HIV-negative AIDS cases. The article mentioned unpublished research by two laboratories suggesting the discovery of a new retrovirus; rumor had it that the scientists had leaked the story to Newsweek so they could blame HIV-free AIDS cases on a new virus. In any case one of them had already submitted a paper reporting a new retrovirus to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which would not be published for several weeks. Anthony Fauci jumped on the potential bandwagon, calling up the editor of the Proceedings to pressure him into publishing the paper immediately.

Researchers at the AIDS conference interpreted the Newsweek article as a green light and began unveiling dozens of previously unmentioned HIV-free AIDS cases in the United States and Europe. The situation began reeling out of control. Rather than merely promoting the idea of two AIDS viruses, the media fallout unintentionally started re-opening the question of whether HIV caused AIDS. James Curran of the CDC and Anthony Fauci of the NIH raced to Amsterdam on Air Force Two to take charge of the situation. The best they could do was to listen to all the reports of such cases and promise to resolve the situation. In reality, they had decided to drop the whole matter.

Three weeks later, the CDC sponsored a special meeting [in Atlanta]. The scientists reporting HIV-free AIDS cases were invited, as was Cowley, the Newsweek reporter who first broke the story. The unexplained AIDS cases were relabeled with a highly forgettable name -- idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia, or ICL -- so as to break any connection between these cases and AIDS. The ICL cases were then dismissed as insignificant, and Cowley was apparently persuaded to cooperate more closely with the CDC in the future. His next AIDS article toed the official line perfectly, containing little news, and he never again followed up on the growing list of HIV-free AIDS cases.

In February of 1993, a group of papers was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, accompanied by an article by Fauci with the title "CD4 T-Lymphocytopenia Without HIV Infection -- No Lights, No Cameras, Just Facts." Ironically imitating arguments straight from Duesberg's critique of AIDS, he concluded ICL must not be infectious at all. Fauci argued that the number of AIDS-defining diseases now called "ICL" was far too large and the diseases were too heterogenous to be caused by a single virus. Fauci also insisted that the epidemiology of ICL cases set ICL apart from AIDS, as about a third of all ICL cases were women, compared to only 10 percent of cases in AIDS. However, Fauci seemed to have forgotten some of his very own "facts": that HIV is said to cause all thirty AIDS diseases by itself, and that HIV is said to cause an epidemic in Africa in which 50 percent of the patients are female. After Fauci's article the issue had died, and so did the media coverage. Roma locuta, causa finita. (Rome has spoken, the case is closed.)

Lawrence Altman, the EIS alumnus who had become the head medical writer for the New York Times, meanwhile admitted "he knew of cases for several months but did not break the story because he didn't think it was his paper's place to announce something the CDC was not confident enough of to publish." No one bothered asking why a top reporter would feel obligated to follow the CDC line.

Duesberg has personally been informed by at least two scientists in the San Fransisco Bay area who work with dozens of HIV-negative AIDS patients who, because of local and national pressures, have been intimidated into concealing these cases. This may well be a nationwide problem, with untold numbers of HIV-free AIDS victims remaining unreported.

According to the British magazine Continuum, fear of the AIDS establishment is not restricted to the [US]: "A doctor at Charing Cross Hospital in London ... just admitted ... that he has a case of [KS] in a 'HIV-negative' gay man. The doctor, who wishes to remain anonymous because he fears the consequences of speaking out, has said that many doctors are aware of major problems with the HIV=AIDS hypothesis but 'no one wants to put their head above the parapet.'"


So what we can determine from this information is that ICL is underreported specifically because scientists and journalists are pressured not to report cases, that ICL patients suffer from the same AIDS-defining conditions (KS, PCP, etc.) that are seen in AIDS patients (but that they're called by their true names rather than being called "AIDS"), and that (most disturbingly) the scientific community seems to have zero interest in finding the cause (indeed, if the cause were found, we could no longer call it idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia, and if it were no longer idiopathic, that would re-open the whole can of worms about AIDS causation, and that's why no one wants to find the cause of ICL to begin with).

How do we know that HIV causes AIDS? Because we only call it "AIDS" if the victim is HIV-positive.

That logic is just as circular as a bullseye painted over a bullet hole.

Of course, there's the matter of the article you linked. However, since this post is already running long, I'm going to tackle that subject in a separate post.

Gos
August 5th, 2010, 06:47 PM
...However, ICL of sufficient severity to cause these opportunistic diseases is very rare (http://journals.lww.com/infectdis/Fulltext/2008/07000/Opportunistic_Infections_in_Persons_With.4.aspx) in comparison to AIDS...


Is it now?

Interestingly, Jagadeesh et al only went back to 1989 to find 51 cases of ICL with OIs in the medical literature. Duesberg (Bio/Technology 1993) found more than 4,500 cases in the medical literature, but he went back a lot further, and noted that after 1984 reporting on ICL was sparse specifically because "HIV=AIDS" had become a national dogma in that year. He also noted that after 1992, public health authorities began pressuring scientists not to report cases of HIV-free AIDS.

Now, just because something is rarely reported, that doesn't make it rare. What it does mean, however, is that we can't possibly know how rare or common it is relative to comparable cases of AIDS, specifically because nobody's pressuring scientists not to report on AIDS (indeed, if anything the opposite is true.)

Indeed, in Gallo's seminal papers on HIV, we find that he was unable to find anything resembling culturable HIV in 2/3rds of the AIDS patients he studied.

We also know that prior to 1985, AIDS was regularly diagnosed on the basis of arbitrary criteria unrelated to actual evidence of HIV infection, and many of those cases later turned out to be HIV-negative. In addition, it remained the practice until 1993 to diagnose AIDS presumptively in "high-risk" patients, and many of these patients also turned out later to be HIV-negative, when the new CDC definition required them to be tested.

And considering how many of the patients diagnosed with AIDS were dead by 1993 (as often as not from high-dose AZT monotherapy and/or from experimental and aggressive treatments administered back when doctors simply didn't know what to do for these patients) and were therefore never tested, one naturally has to wonder how many of these so-called "AIDS deaths" from the '80s and early '90s were actually ICL cases that were never diagnosed as such.

At any rate, you could say that cockroaches were extremely rare if you only looked for them in places regularly visited by an exterminator. Likewise, in proving severe ICL to be rare, it is hardly relevant to cite a study of ICL that only looked for cases in the medical literature that were published after a policy of suppression had taken effect.

Tony Lance
August 6th, 2010, 12:28 PM
John Lauritsen has recently posted one of his past articles, The Incidence Quagmire (http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/QUAGMIRE.HTM), to his web site. Though I don't agree with everything he says, I think he makes some good points, several of which are germane to this thread.

Gos
August 6th, 2010, 05:31 PM
John Lauritsen has recently posted one of his past articles, The Incidence Quagmire (http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/QUAGMIRE.HTM), to his web site. Though I don't agree with everything he says, I think he makes some good points, several of which are germane to this thread.


That's extremely interesting. Lauritsen has changed his views quite a bit since he wrote Science Fictions (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Fictions-Scientific-Mystery-Cover-up/dp/0316090042/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1281115908&sr=8-1-fkmr0).

In that book (which I highly recommend, particularly for people like CBE who might benefit from a critique of Gallo from the perspective of an author who believes that HIV causes AIDS,) Lauritsen's position was that Gallo's machinations had tragically resulted in the needless infection of innocent transfusion recipients who'd contracted HIV as a result of Gallo's faulty test.

And yet now, we see a Lauritsen who has completely rejected the "phoney construct" of AIDS altogether, and has repudiated many of his former positions on AIDS.

But at the same time he repudiates his former positions, he leaves them accessible to the public, in order to give a sense of historical context.

I admired John Lauritsen even where I disagreed with him before, for the thoroughness of his research and his intellectual honesty. Now, I admire him even more, and not because his opinions are closer to my own; but once again because of his intellectual honesty. It takes a great deal of integrity to say, "I was wrong before, but I'm going to leave my wrong-headed former opinions available to the public, so that others will be able to re-trace my steps if they should wish to walk that particular mile in my shoes and see the world as I saw it from that perspective."

Tony Lance
August 6th, 2010, 06:52 PM
Hey Gos,

I believe you're mixing up two different Johns. Crewdson is the author of Science Fictions; Lauritsen is the author of the essay I linked to.

T.

Gos
August 6th, 2010, 08:33 PM
Hey Gos,

I believe you're mixing up two different Johns. Crewdson is the author of Science Fictions; Lauritsen is the author of the essay I linked to.

T.


~(_8(|) DOH!

You're right -- my mistake. No wonder the views expressed are so different.

I still highly recommend Crewsdon's book to dissidents and non-dissidents alike.

----

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 6th, 2010, 09:09 PM
If one wants to call Lauritsen an "AIDS denialist," my ideas too may fit that description, at least for most people. For me, the evidence suggests these major categorizations:

1. KS deaths, which KS researchers like Donald Ganem do not believe are related to "HIV," and of course that knocks out a large number of the "AIDS deaths" before AZT.

2. Pneumonia deaths (PCP or otherwise; mostly PCP has been presumed if the person "tested positive"). Doctors in the early 80s pointed out that this could result from the drugs they prescribed, and that puts aside things like blood transfusions, certain "recreational drugs," and chemotherapy, all of which can be highly immunosuppressive as well. Note how many "HIV negative" people die of pneumonia who were young and seemed healthy up to that point, including several notable "celebrities."

3. AZT and HAART deaths.

4. Terrible lifestyle deaths (IV drug users, homeless alcoholics, etc.), which are very difficult to study. Again, consider the deaths of several "celebrities" here.

Things like invasive cervical cancer are beyond ludicrous (that is, the idea it's caused by "HIV") and I have no interest in talking about them in the "HIV/AIDS" context.

As to CBE's notions about CD4+ counts, the problems there are:

1. There need to be properly controlled experiments using not only "HIV negative" volunteers, but also one must control for "lifestyle."

2. The major alternative notion is that testing "HIV positive" is related to stress or antigenic exposure; thus controlled experiments need to be done to determine if these factors can lead to lower CD4+ counts.

Otherwise, calling it "circular logic" is generous. I view such a claim as a blatant attempt to circumvent the scientific method.

CBE
August 7th, 2010, 10:57 AM
...KS deaths, which KS researchers like Donald Ganem do not believe are related to "HIV,"...

Did you even bother to listen to Ganem's lecture?

Claiming that Ganem does not believe that KS is related to HIV when most of his lecture is about "AIDS-related KS" is either stupid or dishonest.

CBE
August 7th, 2010, 11:07 AM
Duesberg ... noted that after 1984 reporting on ICL was sparse specifically because "HIV=AIDS" had become a national dogma in that year. He also noted that after 1992, public health authorities began pressuring scientists not to report cases of HIV-free AIDS.

Gos, what was a pre-1984 ICL notification?

Come on, Gos, you are smarter than this. Think about it, don't just accept unsubstantiated conspiracy claims like "public health authorities began pressuring scientists not to report cases of HIV-free AIDS".

(Not that case reports ever come from "scientists" - they come from clinicians).

Sheesh!

Gos
August 7th, 2010, 11:49 AM
Gos, what was a pre-1984 ICL notification?


Seriously?!? Is the best you can do an argument over semantics?

OK, then -- allow me to be a bit more specific:



Duesberg ... noted that after 1984 reporting on HIV-free AIDS (what we *today* would refer to as ICL) was sparse specifically because "HIV=AIDS" had become a national dogma in that year. He also noted that after 1992, public health authorities began pressuring scientists not to report cases of HIV-free AIDS.

Is that better?

Sheesh!

----

CBE
August 7th, 2010, 12:32 PM
What were the pre-1984 reports of "HIV-free AIDS" what we *today* would refer to as ICL)", Gos?

Gos
August 7th, 2010, 03:29 PM
Think about it, don't just accept unsubstantiated conspiracy claims like "public health authorities began pressuring scientists not to report cases of HIV-free AIDS".


I'd hardly call Duesberg's assertions "unsubstantiated", and that "conspiracy claim" crack teeters dangerously on the line of an ad hominem attack. Having read much of Duesberg's work and investigated many of his claims for myself, I'd hardly accuse him of wearing the tinfoil hat.

But let's stick to Duesberg's substantiation, by including his citations:


Because the existence of HIV-free AIDS is the most direct threat to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis(1), only a few such cases have been published in professional journals after the HIV hypothesis had become national dogma in 1984(2). However for offering an alternative AIDS virus some AIDS researchers have been allowed to report [KS] cases free of HIV. For example, a CDC researcher was quoted in the San Francisco Examiner for the discovery of "20-30 men who have [KS] but no HIV." Asked for comment, Professor Marcus Conant, one of the University of San Fransisco's many AIDS specialists, admitted to the ... Examiner: "At that point you have to say: Well, maybe it could be something else -- what could that something else be?"(3)



Lawrence Altman, the EIS alumnus who had become the head medical writer for the New York Times, meanwhile admitted "he knew of cases for several months but did not break the story because he didn't think it was his paper's place to announce something the CDC was not confident enough of to publish."(4) No one bothered asking why a top reporter would feel obligated to follow the CDC line.

Duesberg has personally been informed by at least two scientists in the San Fransisco Bay area who work with dozens of HIV-negative AIDS patients who, because of local and national pressures, have been intimidated into concealing these cases(5). This may well be a nationwide problem, with untold numbers of HIV-free AIDS victims remaining unreported.

According to the British magazine Continuum, fear of the AIDS establishment is not restricted to the [US]: "A doctor at Charing Cross Hospital in London ... just admitted ... that he has a case of [KS] in a 'HIV-negative' gay man. The doctor, who wishes to remain anonymous because he fears the consequences of speaking out, has said that many doctors are aware of major problems with the HIV=AIDS hypothesis but 'no one wants to put their head above the parapet.'"(6)


Out of all of Duesberg's references on the cover-up of HIV-free AIDS, I recommend in particular that you check out #4, the Jon Cohen article in Science. Cohen is well-known for "debunking" Duesberg (and thus is surely no Duesberg sympathizer), and "Doing Science in the Spotlight's Glare" actually gives a bit more detail than Duesberg on the suppression of the publication of evidence for HIV-free AIDS.

But let's deal with your thinly-veiled accusation that anyone who thinks that the medical and scientific communities ever conspire amongst themselves to suppress competing hypotheses in the service of their own common financial interests is a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Now, you can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want, and I would even agree with you to a certain extent. It's a lot harder to make the case that Duesberg is a conspiracy theorist to anyone who has actually researched his work. He manages to come off as a pretty level-headed guy, even to many of his biggest critics, and many of his critics who are actually his contemporaries say that he's wrong, and many of them go so far as to say that "his theories are killing people" (quoted from House of Numbers), but you never hear them call him a conspiracy theorist -- the only people you hear actually making that particular allegation are blowhards like Jeanne Bergman, J. Todd DeShong, Tara Smith, and Seth Kalichman.

However, I would openly dare you to accuse Judge Susan Getzendanner of wearing a tinfoil hat. Judges generally tend to be pretty level-headed, and they typically don't take the charge of consipracy lightly.

And yet, Her Honor's 101-page ruling in the landmark antitrust case of Wilk vs the American Medical Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilk_v._American_Medical_Association) (Sep 25 1987) was liberally peppered with the word "conspiracy" to describe the actions of the AMA and its co-defendants.

And this conspiracy went far beyond the AMA's physician members, but to the scientific research and publication communities as well, including both defendants and non-defendants alike. Getzendanner found that the AMA had conspired with hospitals, clinics, universities, laboratories, and medical publications to suppress scientific evidence concerning the safety and effectiveness of chiropractic care for musculoskeletal ailments.

Getzendanner stopped short of saying that the AMA had acted purely for financial interest, saying that they had borne their burden of proof that there was no published scientific evidence concerning chiropractics, but noted that this was specifically because the AMA had sought to suppress chiropractic research at several levels, causing them to be locked out of hospitals, clinics, and universities where such research might have been conducted, as well as being locked out of the peer-review system, while simultaneously doing maximum economic damage to the chiropractic profession so that the chiropractic community could not fund any research. The result of what Getzendanner described as an attempt "to destroy a competitor," was that chiropractic professionals could not fund laboratory studies, and if they could somehow scrape up the funding, they wouldn't have had access to clinics, hospitals, or schools where the research could be conducted, and in the lottery-odds chance that they could get both funding and a venue, they might as well have attempted to publish an article about a Bigfoot autopsy, because no peer-reviewed publication would touch a chiropractic paper with a rented ten-foot pole, any more than they would have published the articles of any group whom the AMA had labeled an "unscientific cult".

So do researchers, academics, and practitioners in the medical/scientific community conspire within their common community to suppress competing ideas that threaten their bottom line? Well, at the very least neither one of us can say that they don't, unless you're willing to call a whole string of judges a bunch of conspiracy theorists (the case was appealed several times, but eventually Getzendanner's ruling was upheld by the appelate courts, after which the AMA petitioned the SCOTUS three times to review the case, but their petitions were all declined, and the rest is history.)

And I'd like to clarify my earlier use of the term "scientist" as being inclusive of medical/scientific practitioners, researchers, and academics, since apparently you're so anti-semantic. It might have been more appropriate for me to use the term "doctors", considering that most of them hold doctorates, but then you'd have (intentionally?) mis-interpreted that to mean practitioners only, so I can't win.

(And could you please refrain from doing that? If you and I both know WTF I mean, I shouldn't have to waste anywhere from a whole paragraph to half a post to clarify a single word -- especially considering how severely I suffer from verborrhea as it is. Or is it your purpose to waste both of our time?)



References:

(The following references have been hyperlinked where possible.)

(1) Duesberg, The HIV Gap in National AIDS Statistics, Bio/Technology 1993 (http://duesberg.com/papers/the%20hiv%20gap.pdf)

(2) Friedman-Kien, A.E., B.R. Saltzman, Y. Cao, M.S Nestor, M. Mirabile, J.J. Li, and T.A. Peterman. Kaposi's Sarcoma in HIV-Negative Homosexual Men. Lancet 335 (1990) 168-169 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1967458)

(3) Krieger L., Kaposi's Sarcoma, AIDS Link Questioned. San Francisco Examiner June 5 1992 pA-1,A-17

(4) J. Cohen, Doing Science in the Spotlight's Glare. Science, 257 (1992): 1033 (https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/pdf_extract/257/5073/1033)

(5) S. Lang (Yale University) and M. Cochrane (University of California at Berkeley), personal communication

(6) "Doctor Afraid to Speak Out on KS", Continuum, 3 (Nov/Dec 1995): 3

Gos
August 7th, 2010, 03:35 PM
What were the pre-1984 reports of "HIV-free AIDS" what we *today* would refer to as ICL)", Gos?


You've got the citations, and where possible, you've got hyperlinks. I cannot investigate Duesberg's citations for you -- I can only do it for myself.

----

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 7th, 2010, 09:12 PM
You have demonstrated here that you are simply not worth talking to, CBE, and again you have been "checkmated." To "get specific," around the 49:10 mark, Ganem states that there are two schools of thought, and that he aligns with the one that believes that: "...it's all just immunosuppression" but that the other school thinks "HIV" is involved, "even though HIV is not present in KS itself" (approximately 50:18).

At about 50:38 he points out that the supposed "HIV" connection to KS is based upon in vitro experiments that "sadly are difficult to tie to the real biology of KS." According to Ganem, the Gallo view is that soluble tat is a growth factor for KS spindle cells, which even if it were true, does not preclude a non-"HIV" hypothesis, because one would have to control for tat expression in those said to be "HIV negative" but who experience certain stressors (this seems to be the crux of the Perth Group's argument, for example).

CBE
August 7th, 2010, 10:54 PM
To "get specific," around the 49:10 mark, Ganem states that there are two schools of thought, and that he aligns with the one that believes that: "...it's all just immunosuppression" but that the other school thinks "HIV" is involved, "even though HIV is not present in KS itself" (approximately 50:18).


You can't be serious.

Are you suggesting that Ganem believes that the immunosuppression of people with AIDS KS is unrelated to HIV?

Gos
August 7th, 2010, 11:16 PM
Claiming that Ganem does not believe that KS is related to HIV when most of his lecture is about "AIDS-related KS" is either stupid or dishonest.


But wait -- who is confusing terms now?

"HIV" and "AIDS" aren't the same thing, now are they?

CBE
August 7th, 2010, 11:59 PM
No, I'm not confusing terms.

HIV (virus) causes AIDS (immune system disease).

AIDS can result in KS (tumor).

The two schools of thought are debating whether one of the virus's gene products (soluble tat) can act directly as a growth factor or whether HIV's sole contribution to KS is via its effects on immune function.

HSWC has tried to make out that Ganem (who thinks that it's via immunosuppression alone, and not also by a gene product acting as a growth factor) is actually saying that HIV is not involved in the immune system disease which leads to KS. That's utter nonsense.

Gos
August 8th, 2010, 04:38 AM
HSWC has tried to make out that Ganem (who thinks that it's via immunosuppression alone, and not also by a gene product acting as a growth factor) is actually saying that HIV is not involved in the immune system disease which leads to KS. That's utter nonsense.


Ummm...would you mind copy/pasting HSWC's statement(s) to that effect, along with a link to the post where he says it? I'm reading the same posts you are, and I'm not inferring at all that that's what HSWC is trying to say.

From what I understand of HSWC's posts, he's merely saying that Ganem believes that immunosuppression is the necessary ingredient to proliferation of KSHV, rather than HIV being that necessary ingredient. Nowhere does Ganem claim that HIV doesn't cause immunosuppression, nor has HSWC (to the best of my understanding of his posts) made any such claim about Ganem's position.

If I've missed anything in HSWC's posts, feel free to correct me on this, but until such time, I have to consider that once again you are obfuscating to distract the conversation from the fact that HSWC has you by the short ones, because he has demonstrated once again that HIV is not necessary to an AIDS-indicator disease (KS in this case), and rather than attack his arguments, you'd rather try to twist his words to make him appear foolish (as you've done with me on several occasions).

The bad news (for you) is that you're not fooling anyone, and the only one who is coming off as foolish is you.

----

helpinghand1
August 8th, 2010, 04:47 AM
[Moderator note: Abusive personal attack deleted. Strike 2]

CBE
August 8th, 2010, 05:16 AM
If one wants to call Lauritsen an "AIDS denialist," my ideas too may fit that description, at least for most people. For me, the evidence suggests these major categorizations:

1. KS deaths, which KS researchers like Donald Ganem do not believe are related to "HIV." and of course that knocks out a large number of the "AIDS deaths" before AZT.


Post number 42 on this thread.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 8th, 2010, 05:18 AM
CBE: You need to "get up to date." Yes, Ganem does not think "HIV" causes KS. It is clear in that video that he thinks it is caused by a specific Herpes virus and that immunosuppression can cause it to progress quickly so that it might be deadly. Towards the beginning, he says that the classic cases of KS are diseases one dies with rather than from, for example. Here is a passage from wikipedia:

"It [KSHV] was first found by Yuan Chang and Patrick S. Moore, a wife and husband team at Columbia University in 1994,[1][4] by isolating DNA fragments of a herpesvirus from a Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) tumor in an AIDS patient. As early as 1984, scientists had reported seeing herpesvirus-like structures in KS tumors by electron microscopy. Scientists by then had been searching for the agent causing Kaposi's sarcoma and over 20 agents had been described as the possible cause of KS, including cytomegalovirus and HIV itself. Chang and Moore used representational difference analysis, or RDA, to find KSHV by comparing KS tumor tissue from an AIDS patient to his own unaffected tissue. The idea behind this experiment was that if a virus causes KS, the genomic DNA in the two samples should be precisely identical except for DNA belonging to the virus. In their initial RDA experiment, they isolated two small DNA fragments that represented less than 1% of the actual viral genome. These fragments were similar to but distinct from known herpevirus sequences indicating the presence of a new virus. Starting from these fragments, this research team was then able to sequence the entire genome of the virus less than two years later.

The discovery of this herpesvirus sparked considerable controversy and scientific in-fighting until sufficient data had been collected to show that indeed KSHV was the causative agent of Kaposi's sarcoma..."

My research into KS has led me to believe that physical stressors were usually the cause of classic KS, and that the cases among early "AIDS patients" were due to chemical stressors ("poppers"). It's not clear that HHV-8 is even real; this could be another case of lab artifacts. There is an early stage that is called plaque, before the lesion(s) becomes dark and purplish. It may be that a herpes virus gets involved to cause this change, but my guess here is that the stressor leads to such damage to the excess vascularization that the body can't "clean it up" efficiently, leading to a situation similar to that which occurs in atherosclerosis with dysfunctional macrophages. Unfortunately, just as with "HIV/AIDS," there is much more research into things other than how it first occurs, then how it changes over time. Instead, there was a "great discovery" (again, a "virus" assumed to exist, based upon a tiny piece of genetic material) that was accepted, and confirmatory experiments using proper controls have never been conducted.

Gos
August 8th, 2010, 06:25 AM
Post number 42 on this thread.


Hmmm...I suppose HSWC might have chosen his words more carefully -- sounds to me like he intended only that Ganem doesn't believe that HIV is necessary nor is it a direct cause of KS, but in the context of other things that HSWC has said, it still seems pretty plain to me that HSWC knows that Ganem believes that immunosuppression is what allows the proliferation of KSHV, and that HIV may or may not be the cause of that immunosuppression in any given case. I certainly didn't get the impression that HSWC was trying to represent that Ganem has ever claimed that HIV doesn't cause any immune disease which might lead to KS.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 8th, 2010, 06:48 AM
Gos:

That wikipedia passage (which contains citations), along with the video of Ganem's lecture, is about as definitive as anything. We are at the level of 2+2=4 here!

The immunosuppression that is supposed to come from "HIV/AIDS," people like Ganem think, can lead to KS becoming dangerous, just as it might in a person who got an organ transplant and is on immunosuppressive medication for life. However, they think you need to be infected with "KSHV" in order to get KS in the first place (which I don't think the evidence supports). Some of the early researchers (early 20th century) speculated that physical trauma was the cause (many had jobs that required them to stand up all day), and this is my view (I think the reason it's common in some ethnic populations has to do with genetic susceptibility). Gallo thinks (or recently thought) that there is a direct connection with "HIV," but this is clearly not the "orthodoxy" at this point. Isn't it nice that he can be a "dissident" in the KS field and not be treated the way Duesberg and others have?

What's of crucial importance in the "HIV/AIDS" context is that this alone destroys it if you study it historically. That is, as you find in the "When AIDS Began" book, the early "AIDS patients" were immunosuppressed due to the the medications and "treatments," which certainly could have been compounded by "recreational drugs," bath house activities, etc. Some of the doctors of the time realized this, pointing it out with respect to the Bactrim/Septra they were prescribing, and it was (and still is) in the medical literature. There is no need for any "virus" to cause any of what occurred, in light of known history and the claims the "orthodoxy" now makes about KS (with a few exceptions, which, no surprise, includes Gallo).

CBE
August 9th, 2010, 01:51 AM
KS deaths, which KS researchers like Donald Ganem do not believe are related to "HIV"...

The immunosuppression that is supposed to come from "HIV/AIDS," people like Ganem think, can lead to KS becoming dangerous...

You are now attributing two diametrically opposed views to Donald Ganem.

Immunosuppression from HIV, or from conditions that produce similar immunosuppression (such as transplant anti-rejection drugs) do indeed increase the likely severity of KS and the chances of it causing death. Vaguely alluded-to "medications and treatments", "recreational drugs", cotrimoxazole and "bathhouse activities" do not in themselves produce this level of immunosuppression in HIV negative people.

However - and this is the part you are leaving out - the immunosuppression associated with HIV/AIDS not only increases the severity of the disease, but also dramatically increases its frequency.

Classical KS is a rare disease. Even in Israel, the developed country with probably the highest incidence, the overall age-standardized rate of CKS is only about 17 per million in men. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9814876) And as Ganem points out, CKS is a relatively benign condition predominantly affecting elderly men.

KS by contrast is extremely common in HIV positive men, including younger men (about 3000 times more common than KS in HIV negative people). One study found that the incidence of KS in single young men in San Francisco increased 5000-fold (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910470511/abstract) between 1973 and 1987 (and 1987 was well before the peak incidence of AIDS).

Furthermore, the CD4 cell count is the factor most strongly associated with the incidence of Kaposi sarcoma. (http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/102/11/784)

cbwheel
August 10th, 2010, 07:29 AM
CBE-
Read this study and let me know what you think:

Hersh, Evan M.; Reuben, James M.; Bogerd, Hal; et al. “Effect of the Recreational Agent Isobutyl Nitrite on Human Blood Leukocytes and on in Vitro Interferon Production”. Cancer Research, pp. 1365-71, March 1983.

In addition, here's an article from 2008 about Kaposi Sarcoma in HIV negative gay men. While it states that it is a less agressive form than seen in positive gay men, it is nontheless more agressive than classic ks. I guess the bigger question is this. Why is KS more prevalent in gay men, even HIV negative gay men. http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1430629/

Gos
August 10th, 2010, 07:26 PM
Interesting point raised in the above linked article:


In addition the researchers found a worrying association with other cancers. One in seven of the HIV-negative KS sufferers went on to develop other cancers – in one case, another skin cancer, but in other cases cancers of the lymphatic system. This is the same proportion of patients who go on to develop other cancers as in HIV-positive KS cases.


Food for thought.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 10th, 2010, 07:42 PM
If CBE watched the video, he would have seen the following:

1. Ganem talks of classic KS and points out that people die with it rather than from it.

2. He explicitly made the statements about KSHV being the cause. I quoted them, and anyone who is of sound mind can go watch the video and hear it.

3. If you read the wikipedia entry on it, it's clear that Gallo is the "dissident" here and that the "science" he cites does not work outside the lab, as Ganem pointed out.

4. What CBE may not understand is that KS progresses in stages, again as Ganem points out (though many others have before him). There is an early plaque stage, and it can stay that way for long periods of time, possibly causing minor discomfort but not being a major "health problem." "HIV" has nothing to do with this, according to the KS orthodoxy, but it is still KS. If a person is "infected" with "HIV," the KS may or may not progress to the next stage, and from there possibly become life-threatening.

Again, this seems to be a case of CBE either deliberately trying to "muddy the waters" or else he has reading comprehension issues. Moreover, I have my own views on KS, which I have stated, and thus this is simply a matter of understanding the position of Ganem and those who share his view. Because the video is there for all to view, I am confident those who view it with an open mind will have no problems seeing through CBE's latest disingenuous endeavor here at QA.

herpeseducation
August 18th, 2010, 10:33 PM
well said AIDS is one of the adngeroud desease in this world , in fact most of the STDs are dangerous but AIDS is the biggest threat.


[Moderator: If you had followed these forums for awhile before posting, I doubt that you would have made the statement you just made.

I don't know what adngeroud means, but the site you linked to offers no information about "HIV" or "AIDS", let alone dissidence, and has therefore been removed. There is no information about who sponsors the site or what their background or purpose is.

If you'd like to provide more information, the link can be reconsidered. - JB]

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 19th, 2010, 03:09 AM
I doubt it will be the last point I or someone else makes this point, but here it is:

The alternative explanations for "AIDS," if that can even be defined consistently at this point in history, have strong evidence supporting them and no evidence against them. For those who want to see a great deal of this evidence, a thread on my free site provides it:

http://thescientificdebateforum.aimoo.com/Supposedly-infectious-disease/The-HIV-AIDS-dissident-thread-1-106283.html

By contrast, "HIV/AIDS" is inconsistent in every way imaginable. Predictions that fail, over and over. Promises of vaccines by certain dates that never materialize. Models of how "HIV" causes "AIDS," who knows? Is Ho correct? If so, how can Fauci's claim the other day on CNN be accurate? "Great breakthroughs?" Read sciencedaily.com each day and you'll probably encounter at least one per weak, on average, if not more.

One thing I learned in grad school that is very important in this context is that two or more hypotheses can appear to be correct. It is only by examining the evidence that it may become apparent that one is much more likely to be correct than the other. This is the case with "HIV/AIDS," IMO. In fact, "HIV" appears to be an attempt by "bug hunters" to impose their ideas on basic cellular functioning (out of ignorance, apparently), which is still not completely understood. On that link to my site, I just added a couple of abstracts on exosomes, for example, and the points made support my idea that exosomes are what most "HIV/AIDS experts" view as "retroviruses."

Lastly, it's not just KS but most "diseases" that only become a problem if the person has certain and severe health issues already. I was just watching an episode of "Monsters Inside Me" in which this point was made about "threadworm." Here's a passage from the wikipedia entry on it:

"Strongyloidiasis in immunocompetent individuals is usually an indolent disease. However, in immunocompromised individuals, strongyloidiasis can cause a hyperinfective syndrome (also called disseminated strongyloidiasis) due to the reproductive capacity of the parasite inside the host. This hyperinfective syndrome has a mortality rate of close to 90%.[11]

Immunosuppressive drugs, such as those used for tissue transplantation, (especially corticosteroids) can increase the rate of autoinfection to the point where there is an overwhelming number of larvae migrating through the lungs, and in many cases this can prove fatal."

computergeek
August 19th, 2010, 04:13 PM
well said AIDS is one of the adngeroud desease in this world , in fact most of the STDs are dangerous but AIDS is the biggest threat.


[Moderator: I don't know what adngeroud means]

I read it to be a mis-typed version of the word "dangerous".

Not that I disagree with the point that the post itself (what remains even) is rather out of step with the general purpose of this board.

AIDS is not a disease, it is a syndrome, in this case a collection of diseases that, when combined with an HIV positive diagnosis are defined as "AIDS". In addition, the United States defines a certain CD4 level as being AIDS when combined with an HIV positive diagnosis.

Of course, "HIV positive diagnosis" is normally done based upon a collection of tests that clearly state in their published inserts that they should be combined with clinical evidence. From what I can tell, however, when a reactive test result is achieved there is no consideration of other clinical evidence in making this determination.

Be that as it may, I would note that humanity has lived with STIs for quite a long time without modern medicine and even now many are often asymptomatic. When gonorrhea finally defeats its last remaining antibiotic nemesis we may have to (re)learn how to live with its long term effects. Not pleasant, but it certainly isn't likely to exterminate humanity, either. Herpes is painful and unsightly but in general is quite survivable, so I'd hardly categorize it along with TB or malaria or dengue fever.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 19th, 2010, 08:04 PM
That's correct. It should be called "HIV disease" at this point, because they think they know exactly what is causing the clinical syndrome and they claim there are no co-factors. They can't even get the terminology correct, which shouldn't come as any surprise, should it? Moreover, using various markers and building a huge pile of assumptions, one on top of another, is simply not a substitute for the scientific method, especially when the cost of repeating the original Gallo experiments (this time, with proper controls and with EMs taken) would be relatively minor, compared with how much is spent of "AIDS researcher" in a given year, for instance. Rather than a house of cards, it's more like a pile of manure, because at least the house of cards looks nice and doesn't harm anyone - until a breeze occurs and it gets knocked down. "HIV/AIDS" is the opposite.

Kewlaid
August 20th, 2010, 11:45 PM
Hey Gos,

We've discussed pneumonia diagnosis in another thread (I think it was with you) anyway... were you prescribed an antibiotic as a prophylactic? After recovery in the hospital from pcp (they did the lung lavage and said there was no doubt after the culture came back that it was pcp). I made the expected recovery in a few days and was out in 10.

*My story/background is posted in my thread: Immune Building Nutrition.

I was told that pcp can hide out low in the lungs and can recur so I was prescribed Sufatrim (one every 6 hours for a month) tablets, and a reduction schedule for Prednisone. I was given refils for Sulfatrim to last 3 months. The Dr. wanted me to take them for the rest of my life. All he forgot to add was, "However short that may be." LOL.

Was this the treatment you received for your pneumonia? The Sulfatrim literature warns that long-term use can cause the condition one is taking it to heal.

Anyone reading this is welcome to comment.

cheers to your health

Kewlaid
August 21st, 2010, 12:12 AM
... From Computergeek: Be that as it may, I would note that humanity has lived with STIs for quite a long time without modern medicine and even now many are often asymptomatic. When gonorrhea finally defeats its last remaining antibiotic nemesis we may have to (re)learn how to live with its long term effects.

Hi Hi,

I subscribe to the Science of Mind's (via Louis Hay's book - You Can Heal Your Life) concept of the SUBconscious sexual guilt which opens the door to susceptibility to venereal disease.

After my 30's I've always tested neg. for gonorrhea & syphilis and all Heps, even though I knew I'd been unsafely exposed. I've asked other friends in m age group who are active in "the scene" if they still pick up STI's when they know they've been exposed... all except one said they no longer seemed to get them.

These guys and myself may indulge a lot of guilt about certain aspects of our lives but sex is not one of them.

Just an observation ... not advice by any means. If you've had an STI manifest, take the treatment.

I ponder about guilt and beliefs of the subjects of the Tuskegee Study -a singularly disgusting testament to what can happen when compassion and good sense are overpowered by hate, personal prejudice, and greed.

Cheers to your Health