Questioning AIDS http://forums.questioningaids.com/ A discussion forum for those interested in alternative views on AIDS en Sat, 19 May 2012 04:06:43 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.questioningaids.com/images/misc/rss.jpg Questioning AIDS http://forums.questioningaids.com/ Gilead Sciences Pushes Truvada http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8066&goto=newpost Sat, 12 May 2012 03:34:54 GMT Latest scam alert - Donald Rumsfeld's old corporation is up their tricks again.

(REUTERS) FDA panel backs Gilead's Truvada to prevent HIV
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON | Fri May 11, 2012 1:07am BST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel of outside experts recommended Gilead Sciences Inc's Truvada as a treatment for preventing HIV infection among people at risk for contracting AIDS, including homosexual and bisexual men.

In a move that could lead to a new milestone for treatment in the evolution of the worldwide AIDS epidemic, the FDA advisory committee voted 19-3 to endorse the drug's use for controlling HIV infection among the highest risk group - men who have sex with men.

The panel also approved Truvada's use for the domestic partners of HIV-infected people and others at risk for sexual transmission, but several members said there should be more data on the drug's efficacy to justify its use in the wider population.

Dr. Lauren Wood of the National Cancer Institute said she voted against all preventive applications because clinical studies did not measure the dangers of drug-related renal problems among black people, who are among the hardest impacted by HIV infection and the most susceptible to kidney problems linked to AIDS drugs.

"I don't think that is adequate when you're talking about the population that is most at risk," she said.

The recommendation will be forwarded to FDA regulators, who must decide whether to give Truvada final approval as the first drug for use as a preventive treatment for HIV in the United States.

Shares in Gilead Sciences closed 1.2 percent higher at $51.25 before the panel voted. The drug combines Gilead's HIV drugs Emtriva, also known as emtricitabine, with Viread, or tenofovir. It already has FDA approval to treat people infected with the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS.

Nearly 1.2 million Americans are infected with HIV. But clinical research, which shows Truvada to be effective at preventing the spread of HIV among people who take the pill daily, has raised hopes that the United States could stem the growth of a national HIV epidemic that has stubbornly generated 50,000 new infection cases a year for the past two decades.

Studies showed Truvada to be more than 90 percent effective at preventing HIV infection among test subjects who took the drug as prescribed, but only 44 percent effective among test populations that included intermittent use.

STUPENDOUS HARM

"If taken, it works," Dr. John Mellors, chief of the infections diseases division at the University of Pittsburgh, who spoke as part of Gilead's presentation.

"Existing interventions have not reduced the number of new infections annually and new measures are needed," he said.

But panel members expressed concern about prospective FDA guidelines that call for education and training for prescribing physicians but avoid basic restrictions on the availability of the treatment.

Some said drug recipients should be required to undergo regular HIV screening to them from becoming HIV positive while taking the treatment and unknowingly passing drug-resistant HIV strains to their sexual partners.

"The potential for harm here is stupendous. If we were not to pay attention to that, we would have the potential as an advisory committee to do more harm than good," said panel chairwoman, Dr. Judith Feinberg of the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine.

The committee voted after hearing from nearly three-dozen public witnesses from HIV community activists, who warned that the drug's promise could backfire by discouraging the use of condoms and offering false hope to healthy people unlikely put up with side-effects in order to maintain the daily dosage.

Some witnesses expressed concern that Truvada's $14,000 a year price tag could encourage the healthy to treat it as "a party drug" for weekend use, raising the danger of increasing HIV drug resistance and making the treatment harder to obtain for people who are infected with HIV.

"They'll take the drug when they think they need it," said Dr. Catherine Chien, who like many of the meeting's 38 public witnesses works with the nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a global organization that says it helps nearly 170,000 HIV and AIDS sufferers.

"This will lead to higher rates of HIV infection and higher rates of HIV drug resistance," she said.

Half a dozen public witnesses endorsed Truvada for preventive use, some saying it would protect people in high-risk groups whose sexual partners are unwilling to use condoms.

"Today is an exciting day for HIV prevention," Dr. Kenneth Mayer of the nonprofit Fenway Institute said after the committee voted.

"Although (Truvada) is not a panacea, this approach can prevent many new infections and could dramatically impact HIV transmission worldwide," he said.

Some panel members, concerned about the danger of drug resistance, urged the FDA to restrict the availability of Truvada as a preventive measures by requiring prescribing physicians to certify through results that their patients are not infected by HIV when they start taking the drug.

Other panel members replied that the practice would be recommended but that requiring such a restriction could pose a burden and prevent HIV patients who need Truvada to manage their infections from getting the drug.

FDA officials also said restrictions could be easily circumvented because the drug is also sold to HIV infected patients.

(Reporting By David Morgan; Editing by Gary Hill, Carol Bishopric and Richard Chang) ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS EdMurphy http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8066 <![CDATA[What's going on with Perth group website?]]> http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8065&goto=newpost Fri, 11 May 2012 06:10:23 GMT Doesn't exist anymore?
http://www.theperthgroup.com/ ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS kanu http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8065 hello world! -pinoy ako http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8064&goto=newpost Thu, 10 May 2012 15:31:17 GMT Hi everyone, Im from the Philippines, and maybe very far from all of you. So forgive me if sometimes you will not understand my English. I... Hi everyone,

Im from the Philippines, and maybe very far from all of you. So forgive me if sometimes you will not understand my English.

I believe this is my 3rd posting here after registering in this forum. Its not that I'm not interested in exchanging my thoughts, It's only because I have nothing to say so i just read threads here when I have the time.

Thank you all for the information that you post here, It helped me alot.

Before, when the doctor gave me positive result to my hiv test, i felt really sad. I felt so much pain in my heart but never did i tell anyone about it except my partner and a friend doctor.

reading RTB and some of the posts here lifted the pain i felt before.

Right now, I rarely think of HIV, of course i still have to be cautious. Health comes first as always.

I only pray that I wont get sick. But when I do get sick, I wish to find a doctor here in Philippines that believe the same way we do.

Thanks again everyone!

All the best.

from the sunny islands of the Philippines,
theplussign ]]> Greetings and Salutations theplussign http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8064 FDA favors first drug for HIV prevention http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8063&goto=newpost Thu, 10 May 2012 10:15:09 GMT http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9UKKLDO0.htm Looks like Truvada is going to be the first HIV prevention drug... Gems from the article :... http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9UKKLDO0.htm

Looks like Truvada is going to be the first HIV prevention drug...

Gems from the article :

"We know that if the person doesn't take the medication every day they will not be protected"

"Researchers also worry about Truvada's mixed success rate in preventing infection among women. Last year a study in women was stopped early after researchers found that women taking the drug were more likely to become infected than those taking placebo. Researchers speculated that women may need a higher dose of the drug to prevent infection. They also said the disappointing results may have resulted from women not taking the pills consistently."

"Side effects with Truvada include diarrhea, dizziness, nausea and vomiting. More serious problems can include liver toxicity, kidney problems and bone thinning."

And my personal favorite :

"Last month, AIDS United and more than a dozen other advocacy groups sent a letter to the FDA, urging approval of Truvada."

Because pushing drugs on people you know nothing about worked oh so well with AZT monotherapy. ]]> In the News - Published HIV/AIDS Stories Aion http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8063 <![CDATA[CFS & Non-HIV AIDS: letter published]]> http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8061&goto=newpost Wed, 09 May 2012 01:34:51 GMT Environmental Illness Resource (UK) agreed to publish one of my letters: ... Environmental Illness Resource (UK) agreed to publish one of my letters:

http://www.ei-resource.org/articles/...on%11hiv-aids/

I wrote this letter in 2007...nothing has changed ...except now I am bedbound. None of it really matters much to me anymore, but I'm glad that its gotten approval for publication in 4 venues, recently.

http://www.laprogressive.com/aids-negative-hiv/
http://bestgaynewsmagazine.com/2012/...hat-is-it.aspx
http://www.fusemagazine.com.au/index...-negative-aids

It would truly be a Godsend if I could get a major media outlet to at the very least talk about the severity of CFS/ME. Doubtful Corporate-media (regulated by the government and funded by Big Pharma via their commercials) ever will...but I keep trying all the same.

Take your antioxidants!
;)

Join me on Facebook: HIV NEGATIVE AIDS?

Sign my petition to halt HIV spending: http://www.change.org/petitions/hiv-negative-aids ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS CFSBOSTON http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8061 <![CDATA[An alternative to the 'HIV/AIDS' claim.]]> http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8060&goto=newpost Tue, 08 May 2012 02:40:47 GMT The following may appear a bit "choppy" due to the fact that I was reconsidering various ideas while composing it. The postscript sections makes this quite obvious. However, rather than putting off "getting the word out," my decision is to post this as is. Most readers will likely have to read this more than once in order to fully understand the case I'm making anyway. I'd also like to point out here that while it may be that various "pathogens" were involved in what afflicted those said to have had "AIDS," I do not think this should have led to more than a very small number of deaths, and in those cases it would have likely been preceded by a very unhealthy, "immunosuppressive" lifestyle. I welcome comments and suggestions, and as I've shown in the past, have no issues with reconsidering evidence.

My latest investigation has been into how "HIV infected" people died before AZT came to be prescribed to large numbers of those said to be "infected with HIV." The early 1980s cases, which one can read about in "When AIDS Began," suggest that those patients shared similar lifestyles, ones which were particularly "immunosuppressive." However, one can read books like "One Boy At War" (Sergios) and "Borrowed Time" (Monette) to get a sense of how those who weren't living a non-"extreme" lifestyle died during the 1980s (supposedly of "AIDS"). And what one finds is that Kaposi's Sarcoma (KS) and pneumocystis carinii pneumonian or just pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP), were often said to be the actual "killers." It was less common for these people to be afflicted by both, but of course we don't have medical records so this all has to be "pieced together" by what is available. Up to the 1980s, the "rule" had been that one died with KS rather than of KS.

I won't address KS here, as it is now said to be due to a specific herpes virus and it is no longer common among "HIV infected" people. Thus, the number of cases in the 1980s, relative to the number of people said to have "AIDS," relative to now, demonstrates that there was a KS epidemic at the time. And while it may have been exacerbated by activities such as the use of certain "recreational drugs," today we have a few studies that seem to suggest this and little else (beyond anecdotal evidence) . "HIV/AIDS" needs to be reconsidered in light of this, because so many early "AIDS patients" died of KS, and once KS is "subtracted" from "HIV/AIDS," what remains? Mostly a large number of PCP deaths, presumably, followed by what appear to be a huge number of what might be best called "AZT deaths," though I think it's more complicated than this.

QUOTE: “In 1994, (HIV co-discoverer) Robert Gallo quietly admitted that Kaposi’s Sarcoma (KS) — the major AIDS defining illness in gay men — could not be caused by HIV. But this was never reported in the mainstream press. Gallo told the audience of scientists and activists at the ‘94 NIDA meeting that HIV couldn’t cause KS and that he’d never even found it in T-cells, which HIV is supposed to kill. He said, ‘I don’t know if I made this point clear, but I think that everybody here knows — we never found HIV DNA in the tumor cells of KS. And, in fact, we’ve never found HIV DNA in T-cells. So in other words, we’ve never seen the role of HIV as transforming [cancer-causing] in any way.’”

“This was in complete opposition to everything Gallo had ever said about HIV or AIDS. But very few people paid attention to his retraction. The CDC ignored it, and continues to tell people KS is an AIDS disease. When Gallo was asked what, if not HIV, caused KS, he said, ‘The nitrites [poppers] could be the primary factor’ because ‘mutagenesis is the most important thing.’ It’s a very embarrassing situation for the AIDS establishment, and they’ve kept it quiet. One of the two hallmark diseases of AIDS is now clearly understood to be totally unrelated to AIDS or HIV.” UNQUOTE.

Source: http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm

In Gallo's book, "Virus Hunting," he criticizes Root-Bernstein's claim that the correlation between "HIV" and "AIDS" is nearly as good as the correlation between CMV, EBV, HSV, and hepatitis B by saying that nearly as good just isn't good enough. This is an assessment to be made by an epidemiologist, and Gallo is not an epidemiologist (page 288). On the very next page, he points out that while Duesberg is a molecular biologist and chemist, he is not an epidemiologist. It is unacceptable for a scholar, IMO, to bring up the issue of epidemiology, criticize the claims of others on this point, but then not cite an "on point" paper on this topic authored by an epidemiologist. I think this is worth mentioning because there is no way an epidemiologist could assess the possible role of these "diseases"/viruses (or some combination of them) in the causation of "AIDS" (assuming other possible factors, such as diet an sexual acts, played no role) because the mechanism was and is still said to be unknown/unclear. "HIV" could be effect rather than cause (such as exosomal generation due to particular amounts or kinds of stressors), but until properly controlled studies are done it's not possible to gain much insight into this notion.

Fortunately, there is some historical evidence to examine, which appears to explain the "non-extreme" PCP deaths without any need for the "HIV/AIDS" claim. The first question is, were there PCP deaths prior to the 1970s, for example? Apparently, PCP first came to the attention of the Western medical establishment in the 1920s, and was mostly a European phenomenon (Germany, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, and Austria). Moreover, it usually struck infants between 2 and 4 months of age, and usually after they had been in the hospital for an extended stay (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...023717/?page=1).. This paper mentions cyanosis, which also was observed in some of the early "AIDS" cases (see "When AIDS Began").

The wikipedia.org artice on PCP has this statement: "The causative organism of PCP is distributed worldwide and Pneumocystis pneumonia has been described in all continents except Antarctica. Greater than 75% of children are seropositive by the age of 4, which suggest a high background exposure to the organism. A post-mortem study conducted in Chile of 96 persons who died of unrelated causes (suicide, traffic accidents, and so forth) found that 65 (68%) of them had pneumocystis in their lungs, which suggests that asymptomatic pneumocystis infection is extremely common."

But was this always the case? The evidence suggests there may have been a spread of PCP out of central Europe perhaps beginning in the 1950s. Between 1941 and 1949 there were 707 cases in Switzerland alone, but the first case in the USA was reported in 1953. The mortality rate seems to have been around 20% (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...823539/?page=2 for this information). In a 1954 paper, it is stated that clinical symptoms and radiological findings are used to diagnose PCP, and that Pamaquine (plasmochin) and quinacrine (atebrin) are most effective against it, if used simultaneously (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...023717/?page=6).

Along with this view of PCP among the non-extreme, pre-AZT gay men (PCPanepAZT) who died of "AIDS," I need to bring up cytomegalovirus (CMV), for reasons that will become clear soon. Well before the 1970s, scientists claimed that a large percentage of the population had been exposed to CMV. On the other hand, early "HIV/AIDS" researcher Michael Gottlieb suggested CMV should be considered as a possible cause of "AIDS," and Robert Gallo himself said that the correlation between "HIV" and "AIDS" was almost as good as the correlation between CMV and "AIDS." Gottlieb pointed out that at one clinic, 94% of gay men were infected with CMV versus 54% of heterosexuals (page 274 of "AIDS: The Burdens of History"). In fact, it was argued by "experts" at the time CMV could cause conditions that led to PCP (page 274 of "AIDS: The Burdens of History").

Of course, this notion was soon abandoned in favor of "HIV," but in light of the failures of that notion, should the CMV idea be reconsidered? By June 1982, the MMWR reported that 22% of people who would later be classified as "AIDS patients" (they had KS and/or PCP) were heterosexuals (mostly IV drug users). About a third of these heterosexuals were women. This seems consistent with a CMV hypothesis, and obviously is evidence against "HIV," because there was no heterosexual epidemic in the USA, which various experts predicted and which would have had have occurred unless there was a major change in behavior. Nobody has claimed that there was such a change, and STD statistics bear this out, since STD incidence would have had to have declined sharply if that was the case.

My notion goes beyond simply arguing that PCPanepAZT were more likely to have a bout of CMV but also that they soon came to be treated differently, generally-speaking of course, than heterosexual patients who may have had the same symptoms. Moreover, many heterosexuals likely didn't go to a doctor with such symptoms whereas PCPanepAZT, fearful of being infected with the new "gay virus," rushed off to their doctors when they experienced any symptom that was thought to be associated with it (and sometimes with symptoms inconsistent with it). The books I mentioned by Sergios and Monette demonstrate this point, and as a non-gay male, I'll mention that I have often ignored many such symptoms and not gone to doctors (and I was an adult in the early 1980s).

The next question which asserts itself here is, what were earliest documented CMV cases like and how were those patients treated? Using pubmed.com, one can find several early papers on this subject. One, from 1968, discusses 11 cases (one 13 year old girl; the others were between 19 and 34):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1991822

The author describes a pattern of illness, including fever for two to three weeks. They were "markedly ill" and had "liver involvement," with jaundice in only one patient. Sore throat was common. Antibiotics (penicillin, in most cases) were not effective. Five had lymphadenopathy. Two had tonsillitis and four had pharyngitis. Four had bronchopneumonia and "cloudy bilateral infiltrations" were often present on X-rays for pulmonary involvement. And there were other issues, such as gastrointestinal problems, chills, upper or lower respiratory tract infections, anemia, and rash. The author notes that these cases may have all involved "marked" illness because those with mild symptoms have not been studied, and he believes mild cases are not uncommon. There were some relapses. However, all apparently recovered (it seems as though there was no long-term followup, however).

In this recent research, I encountered a description of "cytomegalovirus pneumonia," which I had never read about previously in any disease context that I've studied before. The common symptoms for this are now said to be: "...anorexia, dry cough, fever, muscle aches, shortness of breath, excessive sweating, and fatigue."

http://www.freemd.com/cytomegaloviru...a/overview.htm

These symptoms were very common among PCPanepAZT who did not develop KS, it seems. Now let us turn to the case of Roger Horwitz, which is chronicled in "Borrowed Time." Monette was surprised that either he or his lover had been infected with "HIV," because they had been monogamous for several years. The two had contracted some kind of intestinal disorder, and amoebiasis was diagnosed. They were prescribed highly toxic medication which made them very ill. Not long after this, Roger began to have symptoms consistent with cytomegalovirus pneumonia. These kinds of symptoms persisted, and he decided to go along with his doctor's suggestion to have a chest X-ray, which seemed to be fine. The doctor said there was a small spot that was likely a blood vessel, but that a bronchoscopy should be done to be sure.

This test revealed PCP, and he was started on Bactrim. Though he seemed to tolerate it well at first, he eventually had an adverse reaction and was put on Pentamidine. He was in the hospital for several days but seemed to recover well (it was nineteen months from diagnosis to death in his case), but he was not "100%," feeling weak and having lost weight. After that, and before recovering fully, apparently, he went into a suramin trial (receiving an IV dose once a week for 20 weeks). This powerful drug had side effects (for Roger and apparently many others who took it); thus at this point, clearly, one can no longer compare the 1960s CMV patients. Rather, it is time to contrast them. Before I do that, I want to quote a couple of papers that suggest CMV can lead to problems with fungal infections:

In 1997, a study concluded with the following: "CMV disease or being a CMV-seronegative recipient of a CMV-seropositive donor organ is an important predictor for invasive fungal disease following orthotopic liver transplantation."

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9274893

And in 1996 another study found: "Cytomegalovirus pneumonia was diagnosed in 13 of 141 (9.2%) OLT recipients during the first year posttransplant and was associated with a higher 1-year mortality compared with those recipients without CMV pneumonia (84.6 vs. 17.2%, P=0.0001). Univariate analysis demonstrated that CMV viremia (P=0.001), invasive fungal disease (P=0.0001), donor(+)/pretransplant recipient(-) CMV serologic status (P=0.013), abdominal operation (excluding retransplantation) after liver transplantation (P=0.0027), bacteremia (P=0.0105), and advanced United Network of Organ Sharing status (P=0.023) were associated with CMV pneumonia."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8685949

The point here is simple: due to the excessive and "toxic" treatments/medications taken by PCPanepAZT, a situation similar to that which many organ transplant recipients encounter often developed. Instead of "backing off,"' however, and trying to convalesce naturally (as we saw in the 1968 paper), so to speak, PCPanepAZT and their doctors became more aggressive about trying to "kill the retrovirus," leading to high mortality. Roger went on Pentamidine again, had another bronchoscopy (which involves "general" anesthesia), and eventually went on AZT. He was taking a "heap of medications" and apparently various "supplements." Aside from what was mentioned above he also had a spinal tap and bone marrow biopsy (see pages 242-243). If my count and recollection is correct, within a period of several months he at least: two bronchoscopies (with general anesthesia), two blood gas tests, a CAT scan, two bone marrow biopsies, a spinal tap, many blood transfusions, a chest catheter (which became infected) and penis catheter soon before he died, and several X-rays. Aside from the medications and experimental drugs he ingested, he was also prescribed Aciclovir, Xanax, Tylenol, and aspirin (though it certainly sounds like all kinds of others were ingested, even if they were common OTC cold remedies).

Even Roger and Paul realized the AZT would lead to a dangerous lowering of WBCs (page 228), there was no thought about the wisdom of taking AZT. How many non-gay people, up to that time, who had CMV symptoms (with pneumonia) were given bronchoscopies? This reminds me of a report about "appendicitis" from a few years back. A doctor or researcher claimed that it seemed to be much more common among youth than was thought to be the case. The reason he thought this was that more testing was being done on young athletes, revealing inflammation of the appendix. Apparently, this person couldn't imagine that this could have been the case for thousands of years, and his observation could only occur now, because of the kinds and/or amounts of testing being done on this demographic. Overall, it seems a clear case for "over medicalization" or "iatrogenic" can be made for "AIDS" among PCPanepAZT, especially considering how such people tended to seek out "experimental" substances of unknown toxicity in order to destroy "HIV" ("One Boy At War" demonstrates this phenomenon even better than "Borrowed Time," because AZT is not mentioned in that book).

Moreover, there are many passages in "Borrowed Time" when we read that Roger was looking and feeling great, and decided to swim many laps in the pool at their house, among other things. In particular, after he began to take AZT, he would feel better, but then an infection of some kind led to the doctor telling him to refrain from taking it until after the infection was cleared, and during that time he took antibiotics. He died of meningitis that his doctor told him was not due to "HIV" and that would likely be treated effectively with IV antibiotics. He also had gone blind in one eye and had very little use of the other, which his doctor told him was due to an infection (and he had surgery done to reattach a detached retina). And he was rushed to the hospital for dehydration at one point. Monette at one point states that Roger was woken up at times when he wanted to sleep; there was a clear sense among everyone (doctors included)that "exercise" and that keeping physically active was very important. There also seemed to be extreme anxiety and, at times, panic, which also can be quite immunosuppressive (though at the time this was not known).

What has come to be known as my "yo-yo" hypothesis involves the observation that early "AIDS patients" often "rebounded" and felt great for periods of time, often after taking powerful medications or having blood transfusions, which is inconsistent with the idea that "HIV" is killing off certain kinds of cells in a progressive manner. It is also inconsistent with how other and real deadly viruses have killed people. My idea is an attempt to support the claims about "immunological chaos," which were advanced by researchers in the late 1970s, if not earlier. What seems to happen is that the "immune system" begins to "swing wildly" back and forth, eventually leading to a deadly infection of some kind. AZT may have played a major role in this phenomenon when it was being prescribed in very high doses, but considering the "AIDS" deaths not apparently due primarily to KS before AZT was prescribed for "AIDS patients," it does not appear to have been necessary. Instead, early "AIDS" cases may have been due to the spread of PCP and/or CMV, along with an "immunosuppressive" lifestyle, along with excessive "medicalization," but the "yo-yo" effect certainly may be possible with any infection that does not get resolved reasonably quickly. The excessive "medicalization" may turn this situation deadly in many cases.

Postscript:

Long before I had the thought, others said things like, "AIDS is what chronic fatigue syndrome is called when it happens to gay men, IV drug users, and hemophiliacs." However, I never thought this notion was likely accurate, because it didn't fit the evidence (just as "HIV/AIDS" is inconsistent with what has actually occurred). To be sure, the evidence that exists is quite limited, mainly because nobody has access to all the medical records of 99% of the people said to have died of "AIDS" (to my knowledge). I certainly do not. Therefore, I could only base my conclusions upon the evidence that is available. And while Roger Horwitz' case is one, it is a very good one, because it touches upon several key points. One is the claim that most of the early 1980s "AIDS" cases were among "well-to-do" gay men. This was debunked convincingly in "When AIDS Began," in my opinion, and thus when one is confronted with Roger's case, it is possible to begin to "connect the dots."

In particular, Paul Monette believed that he must have "infected" Horwitz, yet he outlived Horwitz by about a decade. He is a bit vague, but I interpret his words (see page 5) to mean they became monogamous in early 1982. Horwitz was diagnosed as having "AIDS" in early 1985, though it's not clear why. He had a minor, dry cough, which then went away, but then he had flu symptoms: "...Roger spent three days in bed, then tried one day at the office, only to wilt and crash with another fever" (page 63). This sounds like some of the "chronic fatigue syndrome" cases described in "Osler's Web," for example. "He would seem to get stronger if he laid low for a day or two - he wasn't getting worse, just not getting better" (page 64). My question, if I had been a friend of them at the time and know what I do now, would have been, "why in the world don't you let him rest for a least a couple weeks - get someone to take care of him, since you can afford it?" Instead, the opposite was done: "...we were very skilled at getting him up and going so that he didn't sleep the day away" (pages 306-307). It is also mentioned that during this period of more than a year and a half, Roger would swim laps in the pool whenever he had enough energy to do so.

But now we get into "the AIDS zone" it seems, and what that means is that these gay men were not treated the way the heterosexual people with CFS mentioned in "Osler's Web" were, who were usually told to rest a few days. Medications were rarely prescribed in those early days for CFS, other than perhaps aspirin for a headache. Let's compare this to how Roger was treated: "Roger's blood was drawn fifteen different ways... none of the numbers led anywhere... there was no perceptible cough, and the general malaise and zigzag fever weren't in themselves conclusive, could still be... flu." They then were able to find a "brilliant" doctor, who: "said we had to keep probing these tentative symptoms [the exact opposite of which was done with CFS patients, other than the few doctors mentioned in "Osler's Web"], but no, it didn't present like AIDS at all... Roger wasn't sick enough... [and] didn't exhibit the requisite pair of pre signs [meaning "pre-AIDS," which was a phrase that was used at the time]..." (page 66).

And this is when the "over medicalization" began to get dangerous. First, a chest X-ray was done: "he told us the chest x-ray looked clear, except for a shadow that was probably the pulmonary artery but he was playing safe and ordering a CAT scan to make sure it wasn't a lymph node" (page 66-67). A couple of days later they received a phone call and were told it could be tuberculosis. An arterial blood-gas test was then done, which was normal. Then a "battery of x-rays" was done, which "seemed to indicate no interstitial involvement" (page 70). However, Roger was the same (not worse; again, similar to CFS cases of the time). The doctor then ordered a bronchoscopy, which the doctor interpreted as showing "evidence of pneumocystis in the lungs" (page 77). And so the highly immunosuppressive march towards death (my view) began: "We'll begin treatment immediately with Bactrim. You'll need to be here in the hospital for fourteen to twenty-one days..." (page 77).

Apparently, Roger died of cryptococal meningitis. He was given amphotericin B by IV with Benadryl in order to "fight the infection." The Benadryl was required to "avoid convulsions" (page 336). Of course, at the time, this kind of information was not known: QUOTE: Having a CT scan of the heart to check for heart disease? You may want to ask how your hospital plans to conduct the test. A new study suggests that people who get the common heart test can get a dramatic range of radiation exposures.

In the study of 1,965 patients undergoing the CT scans (also known as cardiac CT angiography), the median exposure was roughly equivalent to 600 chest X-rays... UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/03...on.heart.test/

Could the CAT scan have caused the "evidence of pneumocystis?" Or was it common at the time, especially with those who had this kind of fatigue syndrome, perhaps due to chronic viral reactivation (of common viruses like CMV and EBV)? Because few CFS patients had bronchoscopies or CAT scans of their lungs, we will never know (especially if the reason there were these "epidemics" involved a large portion of the population being exposed to some of these viruses for the first time in human history). Or was it a combination of these and other factors? In any case, once the notion that a "gay plague" was under way, panic set in and gay men like Roger appear to have been "over medicalized." The "treatments" (blood transfusions especially, it seems) and many of the "medicines" were highly immunosuppressive (especially in the amounts that were prescribed), perhaps leading to a kind of "self-fulfilling prophecy" situation.

Postscript 2:

An interesting nutritional development is worth noting here as well. As fatty acid researcher and nutritionist Mary Enig has stated: "When it comes to our lungs, the very important phospholipid class called lung surfactant is a special phospholipid with 100 percent saturated fatty acids. It is called dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine and there are two saturated palmitic acid molecules attached to it. When people consume a lot of partially hydrogenated fats and oils, the trans fatty acids are put into the phospholipids where the body normally wants to have saturated fatty acids and the lungs may not work effectively."

http://www.westonaprice.org/know-you...-and-the-lungs

The point here is that something may have been at work to make the lungs of at least most "Westerners" of a certain age or younger more susceptible to pneumonia (perhaps of all types), and dietary changes certainly could have been involved. On a CNN TV special several years ago, a graph was shown documenting the rise of dietary soybean oil. There was a steep rise beginning in the early 1960s. I won't discuss the "technicalities" here of fatty acids in the human body (my web site contains this information), but it would be inexpensive and easy to at least attempt to establish an animal model demonstrating how much more susceptible to pneumonias a diet could make a mammal's lungs. And once doctors began looking for "rare pneumonias" among their panicked gay patients, they usually found it, and then came the "death by doctor," so to speak, with all kinds of invasive and stressful procedures, highly toxic "medicines," and blood transfusions (something that I refused when I was wasting away and very susceptible to GI tract infections, more than 10 years ago).

NOTE: Another non-fictional work on this subject is the film, "Silverlake Life: The View from Here," which shows the "AIDS" death of Tom Joslin (in 1990). In this film, there is no sense of a "rebound," but rather a gradual decline into an emaciated, demented state. My guess is that it was edited for "dramatic effect," and in fact there is mention in the film that Tom's health deteriorated rapidly after he "caught something" while visiting his family in Maine. In this film we do see a great deal of medications and "supplements" being ingested. ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS HansSelyeWasCorrect http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8060 <![CDATA[I'm taking the ARVs again]]> http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8059&goto=newpost Mon, 07 May 2012 18:55:54 GMT I just published a post on my blog (http://www.resistanceisfruitful.com/blog/2012/05/07/97/), announcing that I will be re-starting ARVs later this... I just published a post on my blog, announcing that I will be re-starting ARVs later this month. It seemed appropriate to acknowledge that news on these forums as well. I won't repeat everything that I discussed in that post, but:

Quote:
To those who might be disappointed in my decision to restart ARVs: trust me, no one is more disappointed than I am. I might even be a bit discouraged… for about 5 minutes. Then I remind myself that when I first quit these drugs 13 years ago, I didn’t know how long I could go without them… Weeks? Months? I had 2 1/2 years free from them then. The second time I quit the drugs in 2003, I didn’t know how long I could go without them. I never imagined I would have more than nine years of freedom, and I don’t regret a day of it. In fact, I am very, very grateful.
The issue of ARVs is a controversial one, to put it mildly, and there is no consensus among AIDS dissidents about when, if ever, it is appropriate to take them.

I have presented this matter to the QA Team, prior to posting my announcement and not surprisingly, have received unanimous support from them.

I don't know what else to say right now, except that I still consider myself an AIDS Questioner. ]]> Body and Mind jonathan barnett http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8059 <![CDATA[Open message to "Tony"]]> http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8054&goto=newpost Thu, 03 May 2012 13:59:18 GMT This comment was posted at Seth Kalichman's blog Denying AIDS and Other Oddities a couple of weeks ago. I tried responding there, but Seth will not approve my comment, so I am going to publish it here.

Quote:

TonyApr 20, 2012 02:44 PM
I'm thru with dissidents (at least for a while). Once i posted on QuestioningAids, asking if ANY of them were actually healthy, and for how long, and Barnett was the first to defend his position, saying he's been healthy for 20+ years. After seeing the recent pictures on his blog, i feel absolutely betrayed. JB, i know you are reading this. Those pictures do not, in any way shape or form, represent anyone with anything close to a decently functioning immune system. There is nothing you can say that would explain away what you've gone thru medically, as mere bad luck or chance illness. Yes, you are living, but at what price?

I delayed meds for 2 years longer than i should have due to the dissident movement, and now my baseline viral load is permanently suffered because of it.... My options for treatment holidays are diminished, as well as a 'functional' cure. If i could take it back, i would've started as soon as i found out my status. My baseline would be low, and give me more options in the long run.
I don't know what name "Tony" used on QA, and if anyone here can find the thread this person is referring to, I'd appreciate a link so I can review it.

I'm having trouble imagining I've ever stated that I've "been healthy for 20+ years." If anyone has gotten that message from anything I've written, I want to try to do a better job of explaining my personal situation in the future.

I've also been thinking about his comment regarding my recent blog post about my history of health problems. He seems to be confused about the role of a person's immune system. For one thing, many of the illnesses that I have had occurred not just prior to testing "HIV-positive", but while I tested "HIV-negative". Does that mean my immune system was compromised before I seroconverted?

I might argue that my immune system has cleared many, if not most of the afflictions I reported. Immunity doesn't just keep a person from acquiring disease, does it? It also clears these illnesses when they strike. Based on that, I would say the evidence is pretty strong that if my immune system is stressed and/or depressed, it might be because it's be overly active responding to infections and other maladies I've had to deal with.

To Tony and anyone else reading this: The decision to take or delay taking drugs for any condition is a personal choice and not one to be taken lightly. You take risks either way. This is an issue of personal responsibility and making a decision based on information. If anything, we all need to share our stories and expand the knowledge base available to us.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version Name: tony screen shot.JPG Views: N/A Size: 69.2 KB ID: 168  
]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS jonathan barnett http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8054 AID$ Alarmism In South Africa, 10 Years On http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8053&goto=newpost Wed, 02 May 2012 19:40:48 GMT This is from the US sponsored Pambazuka news website. Back in 2001, the population of South Africa was 44.8 million (StatsSA Census... This is from the US sponsored Pambazuka news website. Back in 2001, the population of South Africa was 44.8 million (StatsSA Census) (up 4 million from the 1996 census), today it is over 50 million (estimated in 2011, there is a new 2011 census that has yet to be published).

AIDS in South Africa: “We have a genocide on our hands”
Kate Prendergast and Firoze Manji
2001-10-18

A devastating report on the impact of AIDS in South Africa has finally been published this week, despite concerted efforts by the South African government to suppress and discredit it. The report, produced by the Medical Research Council of South Africa, makes for alarming reading. It demonstrates that 40% of all deaths in the 15-49 age group in South Africa are now AIDS related, and it predicts that, if left unchecked, the total number of AIDS related deaths in South Africa will rise to between 5-7 million by 2010. By the end of this decade, the authors argue, average life expectancy will drop in South Africa from 54 to 41, and about 780,000 people will be dying each year from Aids, the highest number in any country in the world.

The authors of the report include researchers from the University of Cape Town and The London School of Tropical Hygiene. It has been subject to rigorous review, including approval by Peter Goldblatt, the chief medical statistician for England and Wales. The authors argue it represents the most comprehensive investigation to date of the effects of AIDS in South Africa, and its findings have been widely accepted by a range of organisations, including unions, churches, and even some politicians within the ANC.

Yet, the government itself has persistently tried to prevent its publication, and now seeks to undermine the report’s credibility. While Thabo Mbeki’s views - that AIDS is only responsible for a fraction of deaths, and may not even be related to HIV - are well known, the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, and Essop Pahad have now weighed into the debate. In an attempt to discredit and deride the report, they have described it as a "massive propaganda tool" in the hands of those who argue for wide distribution of anti-retroviral drugs, and have condemned a "sense of hysteria" over the question of deaths from Aids.

If the findings of the report are shocking, the reaction of the South African government is even more so. In the words of anti-apartheid activist and former human rights commissioner, Rhoda Kadalie, who, writing in a Johannesburg newspaper, called on Dr Tshabalala-Msimang to resign:

"We have a genocide on our hands and you and your cohorts have been unwilling to listen to the experts…If the president is making it impossible to do your work effectively, why not resign with dignity in defiance of someone who is taking the country down with him?"

As the recent United Nations Development Report on HIV/AIDS and poverty makes clear, if the devastation of AIDS in developing countries, and sub-Saharan Africa in particular is to be tackled, governments will need to implement a range of far reaching measures, that include adequate treatment as well as an adequate infrastructure to support people through the appalling toll that AIDS will wreak. COSATU, the Treatment Action Campaign and the Catholic Church have also called for such measures in South Africa. It is a matter of urgency that the South African government now takes its head out of the sand and acknowledges the real threat of AIDS before the horrific scenario predicted the MRC’s report becomes a reality.

Rhoda Kadalie’s words raise a critical question: Can a legal case be made to lay a charge of genocide against those individuals responsible? Article 6 of the Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, for example, states: “For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part […] .” Are there other instruments that would allow an appropriate case to be made that the failure to act on HIV/AIDS amounts to an act of genocide? Should not efforts be made to test whether a formal charge of genocide can be made? Would not such an attempt act as a stimulus – perhaps the most effective of all – to get appropriate action taken by the authorities not only in South Africa, but also in other African states?

Aids is Number One Killer in South Africa Says Report
http://allafrica.com/stories/200110160517.html

Aids will kill 700,000 South Africans a year
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story...575363,00.html

The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Adult Mortality in South Africa, Medical Research Council Report
http://www.mrc.ac.za/bod/index.htm

UNDP Report: HIV/AIDS: Implications for Poverty Reduction
http://www.mrc.ac.za/bod/index.htm

COSATU: Joint statement on AIDS
http://www.cosatu.org.za/press/2001/...DS--21816.html ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS EdMurphy http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8053 Anti-oxidants! http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8048&goto=newpost Tue, 01 May 2012 13:13:56 GMT Interesting read about vitamin C. http://www.patrickholford.com/index.php/advice/betterhealtharticle/512/ This paper is proof that Fauci et al... Interesting read about vitamin C.

http://www.patrickholford.com/index....tharticle/512/

This paper is proof that Fauci et al are big walking contradictions.
http://www.pnas.org/content/88/3/986.full.pdf ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS jumpbris http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8048 Food For Thought http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8047&goto=newpost Tue, 01 May 2012 11:40:22 GMT Carl Zimmer's talk on: A Planet of Viruses:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/253022/for...net-of-viruses ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS Hemmy http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8047 Gallo to speak @ UConn commencement http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8046&goto=newpost Mon, 30 Apr 2012 02:08:10 GMT The Announcement:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/entert...ncement/546481

"Dr. Robert Gallo will speak to graduates on May 5 inside Gampel Pavilion. The Waterbury native and colleagues conducted groundbreaking research into HIV ..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please contact UConn and give them your 2 cents:

http://www.uconn.edu/contact.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallo's anti-gay quote:

"Although Gallo is known as the father of human retrovirology, it apparently took a suggestion in 1982 from another scientist, Arthur Levine, according to the Chicago Tribune, before he began to consider that AIDS might be caused by a retrovirus. He soon proposed that AIDS was caused by HTLV-1, the leukemia causing virus to which he had affixed his name. It was an absurd, self-serving idea - a "puerile speculation," according to Joseph Sonnabend, a prominent AIDS researcher, and an idea even Gallo now calls "stupid" - not only because the cancer caused by HTLV-1 (too many T cells) is the opposite of AIDS (too few T cells) but also because there was no detectable AIDS in Japan, where the HTLV-1 virus infected at least a million people. Gallo's reaction to this objection was that, well, maybe the Japanese responded differently to the virus.

Amazingly, the scientific community bought Gallo's line. Though Sonnabend found no HTLV-1 in AIDS patients, in 1983 he could not get a paper published reporting this result. Gallo, meanwhile, claimed that he had defected HTLV-1 in cells from an AIDS patient. Another AIDS researcher who had been working with homosexual patients, had been trying to do the same thing without success, and he wondered whether the discrepancy between his results and Gallo's was due to a difference in the risk group studied.

Was your patient a Haitian? he asked Gallo. A hemophiliac? "It was a fucking fag," said Gallo.

Source: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/srlabrat.htm

Background on Gallo's scientific fraud:
http://www.proactivehealthnet.com/he...hp?t-1251.html ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS CFSBOSTON http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8046 Bargain? http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8045&goto=newpost Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:35:31 GMT So, now its a bargain?... So, now its a bargain?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-rates-emtriva
The horseshit continues....... ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS cbwheel http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8045 HIV/AIDS Books http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8044&goto=newpost Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:31:10 GMT What are some good HIV/AIDS books to read?
I have just finished 'Fear of the invisible' which is mind blowing by the way. I highly recommend.

I've also read 'Goodbye AIDS! Did it ever exist?'.

Any others? :) ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS jumpbris http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8044 <![CDATA[Can "HIV" be cleared?]]> http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8043&goto=newpost Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:52:25 GMT I am not quite sure what to make of this interview. Not coming from the US, I am not sure which side of the fence Bill Lundun plays on. So Kalee... I am not quite sure what to make of this interview.
Not coming from the US, I am not sure which side of the fence Bill Lundun plays on.
So Kalee Garland (the interviewee) is "positive", her mum is, dad isn't, and she's got two brothers (same parents) and both negative. I am sorry but how can a virus behave that way? This is an effing joke!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH2ez42_fCs ]]> General Discussion of HIV/AIDS jumpbris http://forums.questioningaids.com/showthread.php?t=8043