Why doesn't bum-fucking act like a vaccine against AIDS

[Piezzo Gur]

Isn't gradual exposure to a viral infection on a
continuing basis the same type of exposure used by the
vaccine hoax artists?

Why do gays get AIDS then?

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:16:43 -0400, "Piezzo Guru"
<gabusey@hotnmail.com> wrote:

>Isn't gradual exposure to a viral infection on a
>continuing basis the same type of exposure used by the
>vaccine hoax artists?
>
>Why do gays get AIDS then?

wow. What a mix of bigotry, ignorance and an insightful
question.

So many things wrong with this.
1) Anal sex happens between men and men, men and women and,
with accoutrements, two women.

2) Gay men are disproportionately affected by HIV disease in
the west, but globally, the AIDS pandemic is mostly
heterosexually driven, with a relatively large subset among
IV drug users from needle sharing.

HIV doesn't give a damn about sexual orientation.

As to your rather snide vaccine question, you are sort of
correct. I reject the notion that asserts all vaccines are bad
or more dangerous than the disease they are intended to
prevent. Polio and smallpox vaccines are incredibly important
additions to our arsenal to help humans be healthy. But
pathogens are all different and our bodies respond
differently, so the first point is that blanket statements
about vaccines are inappropriate.

SOME vaccines for SOME infections work because they provide a
small amount of active organism or whole-killed organism to
alert the immune system in advance of an infection. Thus, when
a person encounters an infection through exposure (whether
polio or whooping cough), they are better primed to fight it
off. Other vaccines operate on different principles, or simply
use small amounts of a portion of the infecting agent.

As with any intervention, there may be risks. Some vaccines
are prepared with mercury compounds. Some may cause
autoimmune responses
(e.g., possibly a lot of "Gulf War Syndrome" may be related to
experimental anthrax vaccines).

HIV vaccines have been tested--and most have failed dismally.
That's a whole nother story. Part of the reason is that they
have looked at "subunit" vaccines that take a part of the
outer protein envelope. Unfortunately, this is a part that
changes rapidly--so say they use a "yellow" vaccine
coat--well, HIV can change to orange or mauve and the immune
system misses it.

Generally, a productive infection needs certain conditions to
take hold. One is how much of the infectious agent one is
exposed to -- the "innoculum." Sexual activity can result in a
higher innoculum of virus, particularly if the infecting
partner has a high viral load in the seminal compartment and
no condoms are used. Anal sex also tends to lead to higher
risk than vaginal sex due to the availability of blood vessels
closer to the epidermal surface than in the vagina. however,
clearly HIV can transmit vaginally pretty easily...and indeed,
the penis itself is susceptible to infection (particularly if
there are sores) in the situation where the penetrated partner
is HIV+ and the "top" is not. Lower but not no risk.

Now, interestingly, SOME people appear to have some resistance
to an infection establishing itself. Different cohorts,
including gay men in San Francisco, people with hemophilia in
Scotland and a group of sex workers in Kenya (and I think
Nigeria) have been followed who have been repeatedly exposed
to HIV but remain uninfected. Elucidating the reasons why has
been ongoing but yielded few useful results in terms of
clinical or vaccine relevance so far. One interesting--if
depressing--observation was that when a few of the sex workers
stopped their trade and returned to it, they then DID become
infected. Suggesting that a chronic exposure permitted a
defense which however was not sustained.

I hope there will one day be an effective preventive AND
therapeutic vaccine. Meantime, condoms, good sense, treatment
and compassion are the order of the day.

George M. Carter

[Gregory To]

GMCarter wrote:

> Now, interestingly, SOME people appear to have some
> resistance to an infection establishing itself. Different
> cohorts, including gay men in San Francisco, people with
> hemophilia in Scotland and a group of sex workers in Kenya
> (and I think Nigeria) have been followed who have been
> repeatedly exposed to HIV but remain uninfected.

I thought they became infected but remain asymptomatic.

gtoomey

[Robert]

"Gregory Toomey" <nospam@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:2rqihkF1d0fe6U2@uni-berlin.de...
> GMCarter wrote:
>
>
> > Now, interestingly, SOME people appear to have some
> > resistance to an infection establishing itself. Different
> > cohorts, including gay men in San Francisco, people with
> > hemophilia in Scotland and a group of sex workers in Kenya
> > (and I think Nigeria) have been followed who have been
> > repeatedly exposed to HIV but remain uninfected.
>
> I thought they became infected but remain asymptomatic.
>
> gtoomey

Some individuals are immune to HIV and the plaque. The
receptor on the CD4 cell is lacking in these individuals and
it is inherited. They lack the P24 antigen so they can never
be infected. They are rare but they do exist. The question of
immune tolerance or virus load is a different question that is
also being studied.

[Say Not Th]

Really great question, inquiring minds want to know!!
j.

Piezzo Guru wrote:
> Isn't gradual exposure to a viral infection on a continuing
> basis the same type of exposure used by the vaccine hoax
> artists?
>
> Why do gays get AIDS then?

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:22:58 +1000, Gregory Toomey
<nospam@bigpond.com> wrote:

>GMCarter wrote:
>
>
>> Now, interestingly, SOME people appear to have some
>> resistance to an infection establishing itself. Different
>> cohorts, including gay men in San Francisco, people with
>> hemophilia in Scotland and a group of sex workers in Kenya
>> (and I think Nigeria) have been followed who have been
>> repeatedly exposed to HIV but remain uninfected.
>
>I thought they became infected but remain asymptomatic.

That is a separate group of individuals. Approximately 8-10%
of HIV-infected individuals remain asymptomatic for periods
that can exceed 20 years (so far). They are known as long-term
non- or very slow progressors.

Distinct from those who are repeatedly exposed but remain
uninfected.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:56:11 -0700, "Robert"
<RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Some individuals are immune to HIV and the plaque. The
>receptor on the CD4 cell is lacking in these individuals and
>it is inherited. They lack the P24 antigen so they can never
>be infected. They are rare but they do exist. The question of
>immune tolerance or virus load is a different question that
>is also being studied.

Ah...this is actually mostly inaccurate. First, p24 is a
protein of the inner core of HIV. p24 expression is an
indication of active infection.

HIV binds to CD4+ receptors on the cell surface, fuses and
introduces its RNA into the newly infected cell. "T cells"
generally refer to CD4+ T lymphocytes.

However, part of that infection process is to utilize a
"co-receptor" on the cell surface that come in several
varieties. One of the most common is called CCR5.

A TINY portion of people who are infected but remain
asymptomatic have a mutation in their CCR5 gene that results
in lower expression of this CCR5 co-receptor (heterozygous) or
complete absence (homozygous). These people may either be able
to resist infection or, if infected (because HIV uses other
co-receptors, like CXCR4 or galactosyl ceramide), they may
have a slower progression.

But as I say, this allele's mutation is found in only a tiny
fraction of individuals and thus does not explain, from an
immunological standpoint, the majority of individuals who are
either resistant to infection or are slow progressors.

Which, again, these populations are rare overall. Most
individuals who are exposed to HIV, through unprotected sex or
needle sharing, who receive a sufficient innoculum, become
productively infected and eventually, AIDS develops.

George M. Carter

[Tcomeau]

"Piezzo Guru" <gabusey@hotnmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1096251190.ckAsB0eV592Bmbd4eeKS/Q@teranews>...
> Isn't gradual exposure to a viral infection on a continuing
> basis the same type of exposure used by the vaccine hoax
> artists?
>
> Why do gays get AIDS then?

Interesting point, in spite of the mind-bogglingly crude
terminology used.

AIDS is another one of those "paradoxes" that seem to plague
todays medical science. And it is one whopper of a paradox.
Possibly the Mother of All Paradoxes. When HIV was first
"discovered" as the "cause" of AIDS, it was predicted (rightly
so) that we would have a vaccine within 18 months. Almost 30
years later, nada. And your question is yet another in a long
line of un-answered questions about the HIV/AIDS connection.

Such a simple scenario, a specific pathogen causes a specific
illness, yet we have not been able to come up with a simple
vaccine. Something is most definitely wrong here.

Hundreds of billions (not just millions, billions) of dollars
has been spent in research, treatments, testing, international
aid and medical care and we are no closer to understanding
HIV/AIDS than when the first press conference was held
announcing the HIV/AIDS causality.

Many, many people are getting rich and *no-one* is being
cured.

Thousands of HIV positive people with no symptoms are taking
very expensive and destructive drugs like AZT and developing
AIDS-like symptoms after the fact.??? The only ones who
benefit are the pharmaceutical companies and the medical
personnel who specialize in treating AIDS patients.

Furthermore, the HIV virus has never been isolated! The
HIV/AIDS connection has NEVER met *Koch's Postulates*. I
challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

We need to re-visit the scientific basis of what we believe
causes AIDS and start looking at other possible causal
scenarios.

People are dying while many more get rich. Welcome to the new
world order.

TC

[Whoknows]

tcomeau wrote:
> "Piezzo Guru" <gabusey@hotnmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<1096251190.ckAsB0eV592Bmbd4eeKS/Q@teranews>...
>
>>Isn't gradual exposure to a viral infection on a continuing
>>basis the same type of exposure used by the vaccine hoax
>>artists?
>>
>>Why do gays get AIDS then?
>
>
> Interesting point, in spite of the mind-bogglingly crude
> terminology used.
>
> AIDS is another one of those "paradoxes" that seem to plague
> todays medical science. And it is one whopper of a paradox.
> Possibly the Mother of All Paradoxes. When HIV was first
> "discovered" as the "cause" of AIDS, it was predicted
> (rightly so) that we would have a vaccine within 18 months.
> Almost 30 years later, nada. And your question is yet
> another in a long line of un-answered questions about the
> HIV/AIDS connection.
>
> Such a simple scenario, a specific pathogen causes a
> specific illness, yet we have not been able to come up with
> a simple vaccine. Something is most definitely wrong here.
>
> Hundreds of billions (not just millions, billions) of
> dollars has been spent in research, treatments, testing,
> international aid and medical care and we are no closer to
> understanding HIV/AIDS than when the first press conference
> was held announcing the HIV/AIDS causality.
>
> Many, many people are getting rich and *no-one* is
> being cured.
>
> Thousands of HIV positive people with no symptoms are taking
> very expensive and destructive drugs like AZT and developing
> AIDS-like symptoms after the fact.??? The only ones who
> benefit are the pharmaceutical companies and the medical
> personnel who specialize in treating AIDS patients.
>
> Furthermore, the HIV virus has never been isolated! The
> HIV/AIDS connection has NEVER met *Koch's Postulates*. I
> challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
>
> We need to re-visit the scientific basis of what we believe
> causes AIDS and start looking at other possible causal
> scenarios.
>
> People are dying while many more get rich. Welcome to the
> new world order.
>
> TC

From the wording of the OP I took it he or she assumed that
aids was caused by anal sex, and repeated sessions should
build up a "resistance". Unless I'm wrong, I thought that
anal sex was just spread (pardon the pun) by anal sex, and
you had to have the HIV infection or participate in anal sex
with someone that had it before you could actually contract
it this way.

So if two monogamous people, gay or otherwise were HIV/AIDS
free, no amount of anal sex would cause or build up a
resistance to HIV/AIDS.

correct?

[Robert]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vg7il0pbt0dh8liltjtnpvc1e3epj7v4rh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:56:11 -0700, "Robert"
> <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Some individuals are immune to HIV and the plaque. The
> >receptor on the
CD4
> >cell is lacking in these individuals and it is inherited.
> >They lack the
P24
> >antigen so they can never be infected. They are rare but
> >they do exist. The question of immune tolerance or virus
> >load is a different question
that
> >is also being studied.
>
> Ah...this is actually mostly inaccurate. First, p24 is a
> protein of the inner core of HIV. p24 expression is an
> indication of active infection.

OK, poorly said. It was supposed to read as "they lack the
receptor for the P24 antigen of the virus. They lack the
receptor for the antigen P24 and can never be infected".
>
> HIV binds to CD4+ receptors on the cell surface, fuses and
> introduces its RNA into the newly infected cell. "T cells"
> generally refer to CD4+ T lymphocytes.
>
> However, part of that infection process is to utilize a
> "co-receptor" on the cell surface that come in several
> varieties. One of the most common is called CCR5.
>
> A TINY portion of people who are infected but remain
> asymptomatic have a mutation in their CCR5 gene that results
> in lower expression of this CCR5 co-receptor (heterozygous)
> or complete absence (homozygous).

Complete lack of receptor or homozygous lacking of the gene
results in no infection. Proven in vitro many times over.

> These people may either be able to resist infection or, if
> infected (because HIV uses other co-receptors, like CXCR4 or
> galactosyl ceramide), they may have a slower progression.

http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/hugenet/factsheets/FS_CCR5.htm
>
> But as I say, this allele's mutation is found in only a tiny
> fraction of individuals and thus does not explain, from an
> immunological standpoint, the majority of individuals who
> are either resistant to infection or are slow progressors.
>
> Which, again, these populations are rare overall. Most
> individuals who are exposed to HIV, through unprotected sex
> or needle sharing, who receive a sufficient innoculum,
> become productively infected and eventually, AIDS develops.
>
> George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On 28 Sep 2004 07:37:06 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

snip...
>
>Furthermore, the HIV virus has never been isolated! The
>HIV/AIDS connection has NEVER met *Koch's Postulates*. I
>challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

Not that these postulates are the be-all and end-all, but HIV
has been isolated and does meet Koch's postulates.

See, for one lengthy discussion:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:03:35 GMT, whoknows
<whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote:

snip...
>So if two monogamous people, gay or otherwise were HIV/AIDS
>free, no amount of anal sex would cause or build up a
>resistance to HIV/AIDS.
>
>correct?

LOL....sorta, yes. Buggery is a human tradition throughout
time. Anal sex does not cause AIDS.

Lots of anal sex may increase susceptibility should the
monogamy end and the person has anal sex with an HIV+
individual. Particularly likely if no condoms are used!

George M. Carter

[Tcomeau]

whoknows <whoknows@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:<Hkk6d.654$Du2.274@edtnps89>...
> tcomeau wrote:
> > "Piezzo Guru" <gabusey@hotnmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<1096251190.ckAsB0eV592Bmbd4eeKS/Q@teranews>...
> >
> >>Isn't gradual exposure to a viral infection on a
> >>continuing basis the same type of exposure used by the
> >>vaccine hoax artists?
> >>
> >>Why do gays get AIDS then?
> >
> >
> > Interesting point, in spite of the mind-bogglingly crude
> > terminology used.
> >
> > AIDS is another one of those "paradoxes" that seem to
> > plague todays medical science. And it is one whopper of a
> > paradox. Possibly the Mother of All Paradoxes. When HIV
> > was first "discovered" as the "cause" of AIDS, it was
> > predicted (rightly so) that we would have a vaccine within
> > 18 months. Almost 30 years later, nada. And your question
> > is yet another in a long line of un-answered questions
> > about the HIV/AIDS connection.
> >
> > Such a simple scenario, a specific pathogen causes a
> > specific illness, yet we have not been able to come up
> > with a simple vaccine. Something is most definitely
> > wrong here.
> >
> > Hundreds of billions (not just millions, billions) of
> > dollars has been spent in research, treatments, testing,
> > international aid and medical care and we are no closer to
> > understanding HIV/AIDS than when the first press
> > conference was held announcing the HIV/AIDS causality.
> >
> > Many, many people are getting rich and *no-one* is being
> > cured.
> >
> > Thousands of HIV positive people with no symptoms are
> > taking very expensive and destructive drugs like AZT and
> > developing AIDS-like symptoms after the fact.??? The only
> > ones who benefit are the pharmaceutical companies and the
> > medical personnel who specialize in treating AIDS
> > patients.
> >
> > Furthermore, the HIV virus has never been isolated! The
> > HIV/AIDS connection has NEVER met *Koch's Postulates*. I
> > challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
> >
> > We need to re-visit the scientific basis of what we
> > believe causes AIDS and start looking at other possible
> > causal scenarios.
> >
> > People are dying while many more get rich. Welcome to the
> > new world order.
> >
> > TC
>
> From the wording of the OP I took it he or she assumed that
> aids was caused by anal sex, and repeated sessions should
> build up a "resistance". Unless I'm wrong, I thought that
> anal sex was just spread (pardon the pun) by anal sex, and
> you had to have the HIV infection or participate in anal
> sex with someone that had it before you could actually
> contract it this way.
>
> So if two monogamous people, gay or otherwise were HIV/AIDS
> free, no amount of anal sex would cause or build up a
> resistance to HIV/AIDS.
>
> correct?

If you believe that HIV causes AIDS, correct.

TC

[Tcomeau]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<hh8ll011ii19i381hn9rmjogj2rfgkvvt8@4ax.com>...
> On 28 Sep 2004 07:37:06 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) wrote:
>
> snip...
> >
> >Furthermore, the HIV virus has never been isolated! The
> >HIV/AIDS connection has NEVER met *Koch's Postulates*. I
> >challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
>
> Not that these postulates are the be-all and end-all, but
> HIV has been isolated and does meet Koch's postulates.
>
> See, for one lengthy discussion:
> http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm
>
> George M. Carter

The discussion refers to events taking place at different
places and different times involving different subjects and
different incidences to piece together "proof" that HIV/AIDS
has met Koch's Postulates.

Koch's Postulates are not meant to be used (or abused) in
this ridiculous manner. Koch's Postulates require that HIV
be isolated from one individual, then that isolated HIV must
be introduced to another (healthy) individual who then
develops the condition (AIDS), then the HIV is to be
isolated from the second person. It involves two specific
subjects and HIV would have to be specidically isolated from
the both of them. This has never been done with HIV/AIDS.
Show me one report that describes this specific process,
involving HIV/AIDS, in detail.

The one instance where it was claimed that HIV was isolated,
the researcher published a photograph (or micrograph) showing
not a purified strain of HIV but a mix of various other
micro-organisms and a few virii purported to be HIV. That is
not isolating a virus. It is barely detecting it. Show me a
micrograph of pure, isolated HIV.

Up until the HIV/AIDS era, Koch's Postulates were one of the
main tools used in virology to ascertain which pathogen cause
which condition(s). It is still valid for real instances of
virological research and development.

TC

[Gmcarter]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:22:53 -0700, "Robert"
<RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
>> Ah...this is actually mostly inaccurate. First, p24 is a
>> protein of the inner core of HIV. p24 expression is an
>> indication of active infection.
>
>OK, poorly said. It was supposed to read as "they lack the
>receptor for the P24 antigen of the virus. They lack the
>receptor for the antigen P24 and can never be infected".

still this is inaccurate. I am not familiar with any cell
surface receptor that binds to p24.

>> HIV binds to CD4+ receptors on the cell surface, fuses and
>> introduces its RNA into the newly infected cell. "T cells"
>> generally refer to CD4+ T lymphocytes.
>>
>> However, part of that infection process is to utilize a
>> "co-receptor" on the cell surface that come in several
>> varieties. One of the most common is called CCR5.
>>
>> A TINY portion of people who are infected but remain
>> asymptomatic have a mutation in their CCR5 gene that
>> results in lower expression of this CCR5 co-receptor
>> (heterozygous) or complete absence (homozygous).
>
>Complete lack of receptor or homozygous lacking of the gene
>results in no infection. Proven in vitro many times over.

Where? Cites. Clinical relevance to humans is suspect.
Homozygous expression of the delta-32 R5 deletion does not
guarantee a person cannot be infected since HIV utilizes other
co-receptors. And it doesn't explain all cases of exposure
without infection.

George M. Carter

[Robert]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:tb8ll0t5jpjmlk54a2fdbj9v2dqr20rjkc@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:22:53 -0700, "Robert"
> <RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
> >> Ah...this is actually mostly inaccurate. First, p24 is a
> >> protein of the inner core of HIV. p24 expression is an
> >> indication of active infection.
> >
> >OK, poorly said. It was supposed to read as "they lack the
> >receptor for
the
> >P24 antigen of the virus. They lack the receptor for the
> >antigen P24 and
can
> >never be infected".
>
> still this is inaccurate. I am not familiar with any cell
> surface receptor that binds to p24.
>
> >> HIV binds to CD4+ receptors on the cell surface, fuses
> >> and introduces its RNA into the newly infected cell. "T
> >> cells" generally refer to CD4+ T lymphocytes.
> >>
> >> However, part of that infection process is to utilize a
> >> "co-receptor" on the cell surface that come in several
> >> varieties. One of the most common is called CCR5.
> >>
> >> A TINY portion of people who are infected but remain
> >> asymptomatic have a mutation in their CCR5 gene that
> >> results in lower expression of this CCR5 co-receptor
> >> (heterozygous) or complete absence (homozygous).
> >
> >Complete lack of receptor or homozygous lacking of the gene
> >results in no infection. Proven in vitro many times over.
>
> Where? Cites. Clinical relevance to humans is suspect.
> Homozygous expression of the delta-32 R5 deletion does not
> guarantee a person cannot be infected since HIV utilizes
> other co-receptors. And it doesn't explain all cases of
> exposure without infection.
>
> George M. Carter
>
>

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Dec 9;100(25):15276-9. Epub
2003 Nov 25. Related Articles, Links

Evaluating plague and smallpox as historical selective
pressures for the CCR5-Delta 32 HIV-resistance allele.

Galvani AP, Slatkin M.

Department of Integrative Biology, University of California,
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. agalvani@nature.berkeley.edu

The high frequency, recent origin, and geographic distribution
of the CCR5-Delta 32 deletion allele together indicate that it
has been intensely selected in Europe. Although the allele
confers resistance against HIV-1, HIV has not existed in the
human population long enough to account for this selective
pressure. The prevailing hypothesis is that the selective rise
of CCR5-Delta 32 to its current frequency can be attributed to
bubonic plague. By using a population genetic framework that
takes into account the temporal pattern and age-dependent
nature of specific diseases, we find that smallpox is more
consistent with this historical role.

PMID: 14645720 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Gmcarter]

On 29 Sep 2004 06:35:39 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

snip
>If you believe that HIV causes AIDS, correct.

I do for lots of reasons. First because of the myriad friends
and acquaintances I have had. Those with HIV have almost all
developed AIDS. Second because of the science from around the
world. (No, not just Gallo.) Third because all the HIV+
denialists I know died of AIDS. Fourth because the denialists
have NEVER come up with a reasonable explanation: recreational
drugs, for example, do not cause AIDS. They can certainly fuck
you up and even kill you, but they don't cause AIDS.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On 29 Sep 2004 13:58:08 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

>>
>> See, for one lengthy discussion:
>> http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm
>>
>> George M. Carter
>
>The discussion refers to events taking place at different
>places and different times involving different subjects and
>different incidences to piece together "proof" that HIV/AIDS
>has met Koch's Postulates.

So what?

>Koch's Postulates are not meant to be used (or abused) in
>this ridiculous manner. Koch's Postulates require that HIV be
>isolated from one individual, then that isolated HIV must be
>introduced to another (healthy) individual who then develops
>the condition (AIDS),

LOL. And I am sure you have the fearlessness to volunteer for
this highly unethical study, yes?

> then the HIV is to be isolated from the second person. It
> involves two specific subjects and HIV would have to be
> specidically isolated from the both of them. This has never
> been done with HIV/AIDS. Show me one report that describes
> this specific process, involving HIV/AIDS, in detail.

Honey, you are MORE than welcome to conduct this little
experiment. Most sensible humans I know would call such a
Mengele-esque experiment unethical, insane and pretty
fucking stupid.

As it is, I have known enough people who were HIV-negative
who subsequently became HIV+ and, believe me, there lives did
not change for the marvelous or immortal. HIV exists. It
causes AIDS.

>The one instance where it was claimed that HIV was isolated,
>the researcher published a photograph (or micrograph) showing
>not a purified strain of HIV but a mix of various other
>micro-organisms and a few virii purported to be HIV. That is
>not isolating a virus. It is barely detecting it. Show me a
>micrograph of pure, isolated HIV.

Ah--isolation of HIV has been achieved. Indeed, the "Perth
group" (so-called) cites as a "gold standard" a method
developed in the 1970s for viral isolation. Now, it's
sufficient to point out that technologies have improved since
then. But guess who is one of the authoros of that paper?
Francoise Barre-Sinoussi. And do you know who she is?

There is a split in the denialist movement: even Duesberg says
that HIV exists.

>Up until the HIV/AIDS era, Koch's Postulates were one of the
>main tools used in virology to ascertain which pathogen cause
>which condition(s). It is still valid for real instances of
>virological research and development.

Koch lived in the 19th century. And your little experiment is
one I do not recommend. But feel free to go for it! It's your
one precious life, dear. Don't waste it buying this bullshit.

If you want a conspiracy or a reason to indict, all you have
to do is look at
1) the Red Cross scandals of tainted blood;
2) the indifference to the pandemic by governments globally
since its onset;
3) stigma and discrimination;
4) the genocidal activities of PHRMA in preventing access to
generic mecications (and the US government's active
collaboration in that genocide). (I know that's
inflammatory, but all you need to do is look at trade
agreements and activities of pharma in Africa to see that
they know they are blocking access to treatment that could
save millions--know that it will result in massive
suffering and death, going on to this day.)

Honey. It goes on. But the honest to god truth is that HIV
exists and caues AIDS.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:23:55 -0700, "Robert"
<RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip

>> >Complete lack of receptor or homozygous lacking of the
>> >gene results in no infection. Proven in vitro many
>> >times over.
>>
>> Where? Cites. Clinical relevance to humans is suspect.
>> Homozygous expression of the delta-32 R5 deletion does not
>> guarantee a person cannot be infected since HIV utilizes
>> other co-receptors. And it doesn't explain all cases of
>> exposure without infection.

Thanks for the citation, but this paper does not mean that
delta-32 results in no infection. The abstract notes
"resistance" to infection. Further, the allele is found only
in tiny percentages of Europeans, with higher numbers in
Iceland and northern countries. Therefore, it does not
explain other cohorts of Africans, etc., who are exposed but
not infected.

One abstract of many, below, clarify the issue. See also:
http://www.bentham.org/cmm/cmm2-8.htm

Also, the role of gamma/delta CD4+ lymphocytes may present
another opportunity for deeper understanding of the correlates
of immunity.

So you're on the right track, just a bit off with the "no
infection." It is fascinating stuff and I hope will lead us to
a better understanding of HIV and other diseases--and
ultimately to more effective treatments.

George M. Carter

** Wang F, Jin L, Lei Z, Shi H, Hong W, Xu D, Jiang J, Wang Y,
Zhang B, Liu M, Li Y. Genotypes and polymorphisms of mutant
CCR5-delta 32, CCR2-64I and SDF1-3' a HIV-1 resistance alleles
in indigenous Han Chinese. Chin Med J (Engl). 2001
Nov;114(11):1162-1166.

Division of Biological Engineering, Beijing Institute of
Infectious Diseases, 302 PLA Hospital, Beijing 100039, China.
fswang@public.bta.net.cn

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequencies and polymorphisms of
CCR5-delta 32, CCR2-64I and SDF1-3' A alleles conferring
resistance to HIV-1 infection in Chinese population from Han
ethnic origin. METHODS: This cohort was comprised of 1251
subjects (915 men and 336 women) aged 15-80 years and none was
HIV-1 positive. Genotyping of allelic CCR5-delta 32, CCR2-64I
and SDF1-3' A variants was performed using PCR or PCR/RFLP
assay, and further confirmed by direct DNA sequencing.
RESULTS: Our finding shows that the delta 32 deletion mutation
in the CCR5 gene does occur in this population and can be
inherited in a Mendelian fashion in indigenous Han Chinese at
a very low frequency of .00119 (n = 1254). The frequencies of
mutant CCR2-64I and SDF1-3' A alleles were 0.20023 (n = 1251)
and 0.2873 (n = 893), in this population, which are higher
than those found in American Caucasians. Furthermore the
polymorphisms of CCR2-64I and SDF1-3' A alleles in the Han
Chinese population were different from those in American
Caucasians. Statistical analysis showed that the genotype
distribution of CCR5-delta 32, CCR2-64I and SDF1-3' A alleles
was in equilibrium according to the Hardy-Weinberg equation.
CONCLUSION: The CCR5-delta 32 mutation may not be a major
resistant factor against HIV-1 infection in indigenous Han
Chinese. The significance of higher frequencies of CCR2-641
and SDF1-3' A alleles (0.20023 and 0.2791) in the Han
population remains to be clarified in HIV-1-positive carriers
and AIDS patients.

**

>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Dec 9;100(25):15276-9. Epub
>2003 Nov 25. Related Articles, Links
>
>
>Evaluating plague and smallpox as historical selective
>pressures for the CCR5-Delta 32 HIV-resistance allele.
>
>Galvani AP, Slatkin M.
>
>Department of Integrative Biology, University of California,
>Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. agalvani@nature.berkeley.edu
>
>The high frequency, recent origin, and geographic
>distribution of the CCR5-Delta 32 deletion allele together
>indicate that it has been intensely selected in Europe.
>Although the allele confers resistance against HIV-1, HIV has
>not existed in the human population long enough to account
>for this selective pressure. The prevailing hypothesis is
>that the selective rise of CCR5-Delta 32 to its current
>frequency can be attributed to bubonic plague. By using a
>population genetic framework that takes into account the
>temporal pattern and age-dependent nature of specific
>diseases, we find that smallpox is more consistent with this
>historical role.
>
>PMID: 14645720 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Tcomeau]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<vbhnl0lhcj285pphoc74r7umeeho0is65m@4ax.com>...
> On 29 Sep 2004 06:35:39 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) wrote:
>
> snip
> >If you believe that HIV causes AIDS, correct.
>
> I do for lots of reasons. First because of the myriad
> friends and acquaintances I have had. Those with HIV have
> almost all developed AIDS. Second because of the science
> from around the world. (No, not just Gallo.) Third because
> all the HIV+ denialists I know died of AIDS. Fourth because
> the denialists have NEVER come up with a reasonable
> explanation: recreational drugs, for example, do not cause
> AIDS. They can certainly fuck you up and even kill you, but
> they don't cause AIDS.
>
> George M. Carter

All those with HIV *must* develop aids. That is the equation,
HIV = AIDS. Yet you said that they have *almost* all developed
AIDS. Why have they not *all* developed AIDS? Some mysterious
immunity to the virus? Why have we not translated this
mysterious immunity into a vaccine? Why did the researchers
have to come up with new terminology to describe these "non
progressors" or "slow progressors"? That only occurs with HIV.
It doesn't occur with any other viral pathogens. Yep, HIV is
unique alright.

And why do some people who develop all the symptoms and
conditions associated with AIDS show up as HIV negative? And
there has been quite a few. How can you develop AIDS without
HIV? HIV is not even part of the definition of AIDS in Africa.
Why is that?

If AIDS was caused by a simple retro-virus, we would all be at
risk and it would have gone thru the general population and
not just the initially identified high-risk groups. But it
hasn't gone much beyond the high-risk groups has it? Why not?

The "denialists" have come up with several very plausible
scenarios that explain the development of the complex of
conditions that is described in the definition of Aquired
Immune Deficient Syndrome. They need to be studied before we
can definitively say whether they are plausible or not. They
are not being studied at all. Why? Because we supposedly know
what causes AIDS. But we still have no cure yet.

Thirty-some years and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars
later, the non-HIV scenarios are more convincing than the
scenario of a simple retrovirus that somehow mutates into this
monster that causes a complex series of symptoms and
conditions that results in AIDS. A simple virus that we cannot
develop a simple vaccine for. A virus that has not been
isolated. A virus that takes anywhere from a few months to
half a lifetime to cause the disease?????? A virus that cannot
be found in a good percentage of those with AIDS symptoms.

HIV is nothing more than a hit and miss marker for the risk of
STDs. It is time we look elsewhere for a cause.

TC

[Gmcarter]

On 30 Sep 2004 14:19:36 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

snip
>
>All those with HIV *must* develop aids. That is the equation,
>HIV = AIDS.

Where does it say that? No disease is like that. Never has
been, never will be. People exposed to flu, TB, etc., don't
necessarily develop a clinically relevant, symptomatic
infection.

The horror of HIV is that about 90% of people DO develop AIDS.

>Yet you said that they have *almost* all developed AIDS. Why
>have they not *all* developed AIDS? Some mysterious immunity
>to the virus? Why have we not translated this mysterious
>immunity into a vaccine? Why did the researchers have to
>come up with new terminology to describe these "non
>progressors" or "slow progressors"? That only occurs with
>HIV. It doesn't occur with any other viral pathogens. Yep,
>HIV is unique alright.

Ah, you've raised EXCELLENT questions to which answers have
not yet been developed. You make an error in claiming no other
viral pathogens do not have variable courses of disease
progression. Some people have greater resistance; some are
extremely susceptible. Hell, just look at the flu virus
(whichever is currently extant). People have varying courses
of disease. Some progress rapidly, some don't. Hepatitis
C--same story.

The answers lie in part in the variable ways people's immune
systems respond to pathogens. HIV, not unlike other types of
viruses, also mutates and so there can be an effect of the
strain of virus to which one is exposed.

>And why do some people who develop all the symptoms and
>conditions associated with AIDS show up as HIV negative? And
>there has been quite a few. How can you develop AIDS without
>HIV? HIV is not even part of the definition of AIDS in
>Africa. Why is that?

This is just semantic nonsense. HIV infection is part of the
definition of AIDS. There have been some few cases of people
with chronic declines of CD4+ cells, a hallmark feature of HIV
disease. This is not a surprise! Of course it can happen.
Those conditions are not well defined in terms of
understanding what is happening (they called it ICL some years
ago) -- and I have not followed the more recent data on it.

But it doesn't mean that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Your liver
can develop cirrhosis and/or have a higher risk of liver
cancer as a result of a chronic infection with hepatitis B or
C. Both can cause this, they are completely different viruses
but because one can cause it doesn't mean the other can't ro
doesn't exist. That's not an argument.

>If AIDS was caused by a simple retro-virus, we would all
>be at risk and it would have gone thru the general
>population and not just the initially identified high-risk
>groups. But it hasn't gone much beyond the high-risk
>groups has it? Why not?

What in the world are you talking about? The pandemic is
somewhat more slowly evolving. Partly because humans became
aware of it and in some caes, people defend against it by
having less sex, safer sex, etc.

However, the notion that it has remained static is utterly
unsupported by the facts. In the US, for example, the rates
among women and people of color have climbed alarmingly.

A sexually transmitted or blood-borne pathogen like HIV
doesn't disseminate the same way as an airborne one does.

>The "denialists" have come up with several very plausible
>scenarios that explain the development of the complex of
>conditions that is described in the definition of Aquired
>Immune Deficient Syndrome.

Really? Please elaborate.

>They need to be studied before we can definitively say
>whether they are plausible or not. They are not being studied
>at all. Why? Because we supposedly know what causes AIDS. But
>we still have no cure yet.

Many have been studied. And found lacking even the remotest
shred of credibility. The data refute their weak ideas about
AIDS. Quixotically, denialists squeal for higher and higher
bars of "proof" for everything while glibly embracing the
weakest notions.

>Thirty-some years and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars
>later, the non-HIV scenarios are more convincing than the
>scenario of a simple retrovirus that somehow mutates into
>this monster that causes a complex series of symptoms and
>conditions that results in AIDS.

Really? Elaborate.

> A simple virus that we cannot develop a simple vaccine for.
> A virus that has not been isolated. A virus that takes
> anywhere from a few months to half a lifetime to cause the
> disease?????? A virus that cannot be found in a good
> percentage of those with AIDS symptoms.

These comments are unsupported by any data whatsoever and
underscore your utter ignorance of HIV disease. Not all
diseases readily lend themselves to vaccine development. And
HIV has proven tricky--but here, indeed, is an area where a
good deal of money HAS been wasted. I agree that some of the
billions spent were poorly spent. But MUCH of the money spent
has vastly increased our knowledge of many diseases,
immunology, virology, genetics and so forth. These have ripple
effects throughout the medical world....

But there are INDEED many ways that stone in the pond has sent
tsunamis of suffering upon the shores of the world's poorest
as they are neglected and denied care that could and should
cost so little for so great a return. But big industry would
rather commit genocide than lose a dime of profit.

>HIV is nothing more than a hit and miss marker for the risk
>of STDs. It is time we look elsewhere for a cause.

By all means--I'll ask the third time--do tell. Where?

George M. Carter

[Mattlb]

tcomeau wrote:
>
> GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<vbhnl0lhcj285pphoc74r7umeeho0is65m@4ax.com>...
> > On 29 Sep 2004 06:35:39 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> > (tcomeau) wrote:
> >
> > snip
> > >If you believe that HIV causes AIDS, correct.
> >
> > I do for lots of reasons. First because of the myriad
> > friends and acquaintances I have had. Those with HIV have
> > almost all developed AIDS. Second because of the science
> > from around the world. (No, not just Gallo.) Third because
> > all the HIV+ denialists I know died of AIDS. Fourth
> > because the denialists have NEVER come up with a
> > reasonable explanation: recreational drugs, for example,
> > do not cause AIDS. They can certainly fuck you up and even
> > kill you, but they don't cause AIDS.
> >
> > George M. Carter
>
> All those with HIV *must* develop aids. That is the
> equation, HIV = AIDS. Yet you said that they have *almost*
> all developed AIDS. Why have they not *all* developed AIDS?

Maybe they died before it was clinically diagnosed or maybe
they were only recently infected with HIV.

> Some mysterious immunity to the virus? Why have we not
> translated this mysterious immunity into a vaccine?

There's a difference between immunity and non-susceptibility
(or lowered susceptibility). As far as I know most of the
people who seem to be "immune" actually have genetic
differences in the proteins that HIV relies on to infect
cells. Their immune system isn't fighting it off, HIV just
can't get established in the first place.

> Why did the researchers have to come up with new terminology
> to describe these "non progressors" or "slow progressors"?
> That only occurs with HIV. It doesn't occur with any other
> viral pathogens. Yep, HIV is unique alright.

Of course it happens with other viral pathogens. Think of cold
sores, or chicken pox turning into shingles in later life.

> And why do some people who develop all the symptoms and
> conditions associated with AIDS show up as HIV negative?
> And there has been quite a few. How can you develop AIDS
> without HIV?

AIDS is just a decription of a end condition. Obesity is also
a description of an end condition, but there are several
routes to it.

> HIV is not even part of the definition of AIDS in Africa.
> Why is that?

Political denial I think.

> If AIDS was caused by a simple retro-virus, we would all
> be at risk and it would have gone thru the general
> population and not just the initially identified high-risk
> groups. But it hasn't gone much beyond the high-risk
> groups has it? Why not?

Because it's a specialised virus that's only efficiently
transmitted through injection or unprotected sexual contact.
If everyone walked around with personal air supplies no-one
would ever get flu.

> The "denialists" have come up with several very plausible
> scenarios that explain the development of the complex of
> conditions that is described in the definition of Aquired
> Immune Deficient Syndrome.They need to be studied before we
> can definitively say whether they are plausible or not. They
> are not being studied at all. Why? Because we supposedly
> know what causes AIDS. But we still have no cure yet.
>
> Thirty-some years and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars
> later, the non-HIV scenarios are more convincing than the
> scenario of a simple retrovirus that somehow mutates into
> this monster that causes a complex series of symptoms and
> conditions that results in AIDS.

How HIV causes AIDS isn't complex in principle: it infects the
helper cells that stimulate the rest of the immune system. No
helper cells and you can't fight infection. The theory is that
AIDS occurs when the destruction rate of helper cells is so
great that your body can't replenish them.

MattLB

[Tcomeau]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<sveql0hlfr6fgdpijt7ao3bsruoh1d7vr2@4ax.com>...

<snip>

>
> >HIV is nothing more than a hit and miss marker for the risk
> >of STDs. It is time we look elsewhere for a cause.
>
> By all means--I'll ask the third time--do tell. Where?
>
> George M. Carter

The common link of the high risk groups seems to be the
physical internal introduction of foreign body fluids thru a
direct or near direct route.

Hemophiliacs - blood transfusions, gays - semen thru anal sex,
intravenous drug users - blood passed thru sharing of needles.

Add to the mix behaviors and/or circumstances that add to the
suppression of the immune system such as drug use itself,
deficient diet, exposure to other and numerous pathogens, etc.

TC

[Montygram]

I came to the HIV/AIDS scene because of studies I found
implicating arachidonic acid in viral reactivation. I had no
horse in the race. The sheer ludicrousness of the HIV
infection equals horrible death from "AIDS" within several
years was apparent very soon. No one will debate Duesberg,
mainly because they know they will be torn to shred by this
scientist who did his homework instead of just jumping on the
popular bandwagon. The idea that a dormant, pathetic excuse
for a dangerous virus they call HIV could do anything harmful
is beyond laughable. It's not biochemically active most of the
time, and at the end of an "AIDS patient's" life, when he/she
is in horrible shape, the virus might be active, and that's to
be expected, but to call it the "cause" demonstrated no
understanding of biochemistry. Read Duesberg's book, and
Lauriten's "The AIDS War" too, though there are other good
ones. Many of the "studies" were flawed or fraudulent.
Lauritsen, a journalist, tried to just get a blank survey from
from one "investigator" of a widely quoted study arguing for
the HIV/AIDS connection, and they refused. Without open access
(not to the actual patient's names, of course, but to all
else), it's the same nonsense that has led to the top selling
prescription drugs being pulled in recent days.

Drugs and/or massive foreign protein exposure, in combination
with a body loaded with arachidonic acid is the most likely
cause of the "immune system collapse," though keep in mind
that if a woman gets cervical cancer and is HIV antibody
postive, she gets written up as an AIDS death. That's just
moronic, and if I need to comment on that, you need to go back
to grammar school. Interestingly, even those who support the
HIV/AIDS hypothesis have written up reports of drugs causing
what should be called "AIDS." If you gave a person who engaged
in the same behaviors, but was HIV antibody negative, the same
nasty retroviral "therapy," the same thing would happen to
them. "AIDS" is not new. People used to drop dead at young
ages occassionally, but there was no AIDS label back then. The
high dietary polyunsaturate intake and lower dietary
antioxidant intake has likely led to more such cases (along
with a lot more people on the planet). Now there's too much
big pharma money and prestige/careers at stake to change
things any time soon. However, biochemistry is biochemistry,
and blaming a total dud of a virus for all kinds of things
that it couldn't possibly cause by any physiological mechanism
(even if it was pathogenic) just shows that the lunatics are
running the asylum - the hopeless are leading the helpless.
You can read the abstracts of studies at www.pubmed.com and
see that the Emperor's strutting around like a nude idiot.
They are loaded with assumptions, double talk, mistakes, etc.

Here are some of the "studies" I alluded to above, regarding
the drugs designed to cure "AIDS" actually causing it:

Autoimmun Rev. 2004 Jun;3(4):243-9.

Adverse events of desirable gain in immunocompetence: the
Immune Restoration Inflammatory Syndromes.

Stoll M, Schmidt RE.

Department of Clinical Immunology, Medical School Hannover,
Carl Neuberg Str. 1, D-30625 Hannover, Federal Republic of
Germany. stoll.matthias@mh-hannover.de

Augmentation of inflammation may occur during immune
reconstitution in a immunocompromised host. This phenomenon is
able to cause atypical inflammatory disorders, synonymously
summarized as 'Immune Reconstitution Syndrome', 'Immune
Restoration Disease' and 'Immune Restoration Inflammatory
Syndrome' (IRIS). Immune reconstitution occurs, if temporarily
use of immunosuppressive agents was terminated or if highly
active antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus
positive individuals with secondary immunodeficiency was
initiated. Unexpected deterioration of inflammatory disease
and atypical clinical features, resembling symptoms of
autoimmune disease may arise. They have to be distinguished
from intercurrent infection and rheumatic disease,
respectively. Treatment of IRIS would consist of both
potential differential diagnoses: use of anti-inflammatory and
immunosuppressive drugs like in autoimmune disorders as well
as antimicrobial chemotherapy to decrease the burden of
pathogen like in infectious disease. Therefore, awareness for
IRIS is of increasing importance from a clinical point of
view. However, diagnostic criteria and standards of treatment
still have to be defined.

Internist (Berl). 2004 Aug;45(8):893-903.

[Immune restoration inflammatory syndromes]

[Article in German]

Stoll M, Heiken H, Behrens GM, Schmidt RE.

Abteilung Klinische Immunologie, Medizinische Hochschule
Hannover. stoll.matthias@mh-hannover.de

Increase of prevalence of certain immunodeficiencies is caused
by more frequent use of immunosuppresive treatment, by
advances in supportive care of immunodeficient individuals and
by the pandemic spread of HIV-infection respectively. Highly
active antiretroviral treatment (HAART) is able to
reconstitute the impaired immunity in the HIV-infected
individual and therefore to reduce morbidity and mortality. On
the other hand paradoxical exacerbation of inflammatory or
opportunistic diseases may develop during
immunoreconstitution. By their distinct pathophysiological,
clinical and therapeutic particularities these disease have
been summarized as Immune Restoration Inflammatory Syndromes
(IRIS). This review summarizes the variety of
immunoreconstitution disorders and describes possible
diagnostic pitfalls. Potential therapeutic options and an
algorithm for the classification of the syndrome are proposed.

If you want to hear the "alternative" view, the newsgroup you
should go to is:

http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/general.msnw

And Duesberg has his own site, then there's virusmyth.net,
which has many good links.

Say not the Struggle nought Availeth <nospam@nospam.net> wrote
in message
news:<IzL5d.854$5b1.299@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
> Really great question, inquiring minds want to know!!
> j.
>
>
> Piezzo Guru wrote:
> > Isn't gradual exposure to a viral infection on a
> > continuing basis the same type of exposure used by the
> > vaccine hoax artists?
> >
> > Why do gays get AIDS then?
> >

[Gmcarter]

On 1 Oct 2004 20:07:23 -0700, nazztrader@lycos.com
(montygram) wrote:

>I came to the HIV/AIDS scene because of studies I found
>implicating arachidonic acid in viral reactivation. I had no
>horse in the race.

What studies?

>The sheer ludicrousness of the HIV infection equals
>horrible death from "AIDS" within several years was
>apparent very soon.

Really? Ever know anyone with HIV?

Now, I agree that HIV=Death is a pretty horrific message. The
reality is in that case Life = Death. We all wind up dead
eventually. HIV almost always leads to the development of
AIDS--but there are ways to slow that process down.

> No one will debate Duesberg, mainly because they know they
> will be torn to shred by this scientist who did his homework
> instead of just jumping on the popular bandwagon.

Utter bullshit! lol...that's ridiculous. Duesberg has been
debated in PLENTY of places and his idiot theories shot down.
Duesberg at least recognizes HIV exists whereas another
faction of denialists says it doesn't. For those debates, see
particularly the British Medical Journal. Also see past
postings on misc.health.aids where Peter has never shown up.

Hey, I talked to the guy back in 1993. I debated him.

>The idea that a dormant, pathetic excuse for a dangerous
>virus they call HIV could do anything harmful is beyond
>laughable.

Well, laugh yourself in line to prove it! Or ask denialist
supreme David Pasquarelli! Course you can't because he
died of AIDS.

>It's not biochemically active most of the time, and at the
>end of an "AIDS patient's" life, when he/she is in horrible
>shape, the virus might be active, and that's to be expected,
>but to call it the "cause" demonstrated no understanding of
>biochemistry.

What in the world do you mean? HIV is replicating at a regular
rate in infected individuals. Indeed, it results in lymph node
architecture deterioration which is hardly benign.

Now, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are a lot of CD4+ cells
depleting that are not infected. But the reason they're going
is because a person has HIV. Recreational drugs or Factor VIII
just do NOT cause that--and many people with HIV/AIDS do not
do either.

What is ludicrous is that people perpetuate these lame
theories despite decades of data refuting them utterly.

>Read Duesberg's book, and Lauriten's "The AIDS War" too,
>though there are other good ones.

I know John Lauritsen. Knew him in the early 90s. Their books
are seductive appearing and inaccurate in the extreme. If you
want historical treatments, perhaps the best of the lot was
Robert Root-Bernstein's book, Rethinking AIDS. I believe he
recognizes at this point that HIV exists and causes AIDS--but
he had a more thoughtful treatment of the issues.

>Many of the "studies" were flawed or fraudulent.

What studies?

>Lauritsen, a journalist, tried to just get a blank survey
>from from one "investigator" of a widely quoted study arguing
>for the HIV/AIDS connection, and they refused. Without open
>access (not to the actual patient's names, of course, but to
>all else), it's the same nonsense that has led to the top
>selling prescription drugs being pulled in recent days.

That was 13 years or more ago. Lots of studies are fucked up.
But since that time, I have watched MANY friends all over the
world. People who have access to ARV live MUCH longer--albeit
there can be terrible side effects. And I've lost friends.
AIDS is not over and the drugs, while a good advance that blow
Lauritsen's hysterical tirades out of the water -- are
inadequate.

>Drugs and/or massive foreign protein exposure, in combination
>with a body loaded with arachidonic acid is the most likely
>cause of the "immune system collapse," though keep in mind
>that if a woman gets cervical cancer and is HIV antibody
>postive, she gets written up as an AIDS death.

No data show that drugs (recreational??) cause T cells to
deplete to zero. It's ridiculous.

Where is all this arachidonic acid coming from? AA plays a
role in LOTS of inflammatory diseases, as it does in HIV
diseases. Limiting the production of prostaglandin E2 can
indeed be a helpful aspect of HIV disease management.

>That's just moronic, and if I need to comment on that, you
>need to go back to grammar school. Interestingly, even those
>who support the HIV/AIDS hypothesis have written up reports
>of drugs causing what should be called "AIDS." If you gave a
>person who engaged in the same behaviors, but was HIV
>antibody negative, the same nasty retroviral "therapy," the
>same thing would happen to them.

LOL. No, it wouldn't. Thanks for all the cites (snipped for
bandwidth but well worth reviewing) on immune reconstitution
syndrome. HIV-negative people's immune systems are intact
and wouldn't thereafter reconstitute so such a syndrome
would not arise.

>"AIDS" is not new. People used to drop dead at young ages
>occassionally, but there was no AIDS label back then.

People have ALWAYS dropped dead at young ages. Irrelevant.
Young people do NOT routinely die of pneumocystis carrini or
mycobacteria avium complex. Let alone wasting, neuropathy
and dementia.

>The high dietary polyunsaturate intake and lower dietary
>antioxidant intake has likely led to more such cases (along
>with a lot more people on the planet).

And what data have you to support this theory?

>Now there's too much big pharma money and prestige/careers at
>stake to change things any time soon. However, biochemistry
>is biochemistry, and blaming a total dud of a virus for all
>kinds of things that it couldn't possibly cause by any
>physiological mechanism (even if it was pathogenic) just
>shows that the lunatics are running the asylum - the hopeless
>are leading the helpless.

Love to see what happens if you take the HIV challenge.
Would you?

snip...first line of first abstract:

>Augmentation of inflammation may occur during immune
>reconstitution in a immunocompromised host.

I'm more than open to hearing your theories about why people
develop AIDS. But I'm not holding my breath given what you
have offered so far.

George M. Carter

[Piezzo Gur]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:qe6tl0debf773jqh8ote4ufomtc49ffcpv@4ax.com...
> On 1 Oct 2004 20:07:23 -0700, nazztrader@lycos.com
> (montygram) wrote:
>
> >I came to the HIV/AIDS scene because of studies I found
> >implicating arachidonic acid in viral reactivation. I had
> >no horse in the race.
>
> What studies?
>
> >The sheer ludicrousness of the HIV infection equals
> >horrible death from "AIDS" within several years was
> >apparent very soon.
>
> Really? Ever know anyone with HIV?
>
> Now, I agree that HIV=Death is a pretty horrific message.
> The reality is in that case Life = Death. We all wind up
> dead eventually. HIV almost always leads to the development
> of AIDS--but there are ways to slow that process down.
>
>
> > No one will debate Duesberg, mainly because they know they
> > will be torn to shred by this scientist who did his
> > homework instead of just jumping on the popular bandwagon.
>
> Utter bullshit! lol...that's ridiculous. Duesberg has been
> debated in PLENTY of places and his idiot theories shot
> down. Duesberg at least recognizes HIV exists whereas
> another faction of denialists says it doesn't. For those
> debates, see particularly the British Medical Journal. Also
> see past postings on misc.health.aids where Peter has never
> shown up.
>
> Hey, I talked to the guy back in 1993. I debated him.
>
> >The idea that a dormant, pathetic excuse for a dangerous
> >virus they call HIV could do anything harmful is beyond
> >laughable.
>
> Well, laugh yourself in line to prove it! Or ask denialist
> supreme David Pasquarelli! Course you can't because he died
> of AIDS.
>
> >It's not biochemically active most of the time, and at the
> >end of an "AIDS patient's" life, when he/she is in horrible
> >shape, the virus might be active, and that's to be
> >expected, but to call it the "cause" demonstrated no
> >understanding of biochemistry.
>
> What in the world do you mean? HIV is replicating at a
> regular rate in infected individuals. Indeed, it
> results in lymph node architecture deterioration which
> is hardly benign.
>
> Now, as I mentioned elsewhere, there are a lot of CD4+ cells
> depleting that are not infected. But the reason they're
> going is because a person has HIV. Recreational drugs or
> Factor VIII just do NOT cause that--and many people with
> HIV/AIDS do not do either.
>
> What is ludicrous is that people perpetuate these lame
> theories despite decades of data refuting them utterly.
>
> >Read Duesberg's book, and Lauriten's "The AIDS War" too,
> >though there are other good ones.
>
> I know John Lauritsen. Knew him in the early 90s. Their
> books are seductive appearing and inaccurate in the
> extreme. If you want historical treatments, perhaps the
> best of the lot was Robert Root-Bernstein's book,
> Rethinking AIDS. I believe he recognizes at this point that
> HIV exists and causes AIDS--but he had a more thoughtful
> treatment of the issues.
>
> >Many of the "studies" were flawed or fraudulent.
>
> What studies?
>
> >Lauritsen, a journalist, tried to just get a blank survey
> >from from one "investigator" of a widely quoted study
> >arguing for the HIV/AIDS connection, and they refused.
> >Without open access (not to the actual patient's names, of
> >course, but to all else), it's the same nonsense that has
> >led to the top selling prescription drugs being pulled in
> >recent days.
>
> That was 13 years or more ago. Lots of studies are fucked
> up. But since that time, I have watched MANY friends all
> over the world. People who have access to ARV live MUCH
> longer--albeit there can be terrible side effects. And I've
> lost friends. AIDS is not over and the drugs, while a good
> advance that blow Lauritsen's hysterical tirades out of the
> water -- are inadequate.
>
> >Drugs and/or massive foreign protein exposure, in
> >combination with a body loaded with arachidonic acid is the
> >most likely cause of the "immune system collapse," though
> >keep in mind that if a woman gets cervical cancer and is
> >HIV antibody postive, she gets written up as an AIDS death.
>
> No data show that drugs (recreational??) cause T cells to
> deplete to zero. It's ridiculous.
>
> Where is all this arachidonic acid coming from? AA plays a
> role in LOTS of inflammatory diseases, as it does in HIV
> diseases. Limiting the production of prostaglandin E2 can
> indeed be a helpful aspect of HIV disease management.
>
> >That's just moronic, and if I need to comment on that, you
> >need to go back to grammar school. Interestingly, even
> >those who support the HIV/AIDS hypothesis have written up
> >reports of drugs causing what should be called "AIDS." If
> >you gave a person who engaged in the same behaviors, but
> >was HIV antibody negative, the same nasty retroviral
> >"therapy," the same thing would happen to them.
>
> LOL. No, it wouldn't. Thanks for all the cites (snipped for
> bandwidth but well worth reviewing) on immune reconstitution
> syndrome. HIV-negative people's immune systems are intact
> and wouldn't thereafter reconstitute so such a syndrome
> would not arise.
>
> >"AIDS" is not new. People used to drop dead at young ages
> >occassionally, but there was no AIDS label back then.
>
> People have ALWAYS dropped dead at young ages. Irrelevant.
> Young people do NOT routinely die of pneumocystis carrini or
> mycobacteria avium complex. Let alone wasting, neuropathy
> and dementia.
>
> >The high dietary polyunsaturate intake and lower dietary
> >antioxidant intake has likely led to more such cases (along
> >with a lot more people on the planet).
>
> And what data have you to support this theory?
>
> >Now there's too much big pharma money and prestige/careers
> >at stake to change things any time soon. However,
> >biochemistry is biochemistry, and blaming a total dud of a
> >virus for all kinds of things that it couldn't possibly
> >cause by any physiological mechanism (even if it was
> >pathogenic) just shows that the lunatics are running the
> >asylum - the hopeless are leading the helpless.
>
> Love to see what happens if you take the HIV challenge.
> Would you?
>
> snip...first line of first abstract:
>
> >Augmentation of inflammation may occur during immune
> >reconstitution in a immunocompromised host.
>
> I'm more than open to hearing your theories about why people
> develop AIDS. But I'm not holding my breath given what you
> have offered so far.
>
> George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:50:17 +0100, MattLB
<mattlb@FAKEBITangelfire.com> wrote:

snip
>There's a difference between immunity and non-susceptibility
>(or lowered susceptibility). As far as I know most of the
>people who seem to be "immune" actually have genetic
>differences in the proteins that HIV relies on to infect
>cells. Their immune system isn't fighting it off, HIV just
>can't get established in the first place.

Ah--it's a 2-way street. People exposed to virus may receive a
low innoculum or their partner may have a weakened virus? Hard
to say. However, what we DO know is that some people are
somewhat resistant to infection because of immune system
differences. That's what Robert and I were discussing in
regard to the so-called delta-32 mutation which occurs in a
human cell surface receptor called CCR5. HIV uses this as an
"assistant" co-receptor along with CD4 to infect a T cell.

snip

>How HIV causes AIDS isn't complex in principle: it infects
>the helper cells that stimulate the rest of the immune
>system. No helper cells and you can't fight infection. The
>theory is that AIDS occurs when the destruction rate of
>helper cells is so great that your body can't replenish them.

Correct and thanks for the rest of the post. Now, here is
something that REALLY annoys me. While the denialists prance
about and draw attention to their wacko conspiracy theories,
GENUINE questions are ignored. These range from the
pathogenesis of HIV disease to access to medicines.

With regard to the former, there is an interesting aspect
to HIV disease, to wit: most of the CD4+ lymphocytes that
die aren't infected. Now, a denialist might leap on this
and squeal "see?" but they'd be dead cold wrong. Just as
they would in the case of hepatitis C, which also results
in liver damage cirrhosis not through direct cytopathic
effects but rather through immunological hyperactivity
causing liver damage.

HIV is the proximate cause of the inflammatory processes that
arise that result in this chronic depletion of T cells. But
the mechanisms describing exactly how this develops is not yet
clearly known. Things like oxidative stress and glutathione
production clearly play a role (and this leads to a
therapeutic implication like the use of a multivitamin or
N-acetylcysteine, whey, alpha lipoic acid). Other mechanisms
are also at play--but these questions get subsumed in the haze
of psycho denialist rantings.

And in South Africa, when a leader like Mbeki embraces this
crap, hundreds of thousands suffer and die needlessly. It's
a seductive and seemingly intelligent array of arguments
that denialists make, but deconstruction yields a naked
emperor-- and more dead. I keep asking folks to go check
with denialist supreme and mean, David Pasquarelli. Can't
tho. He died of AIDS.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On 1 Oct 2004 13:01:58 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

>GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:<sveql0hlfr6fgdpijt7ao3bsruoh1d7vr2@4ax.com>...
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> >HIV is nothing more than a hit and miss marker for the
>> >risk of STDs. It is time we look elsewhere for a cause.
>>
>> By all means--I'll ask the third time--do tell. Where?
>>
>> George M. Carter
>
>The common link of the high risk groups seems to be the
>physical internal introduction of foreign body fluids thru a
>direct or near direct route.
>
>Hemophiliacs - blood transfusions, gays - semen thru anal
>sex, intravenous drug users - blood passed thru sharing
>of needles.

Interesting theory that's been around for over 20 years.
Little problem with it. All these activities have existed for
millenia and do not cause AIDS. You'd have to add
vaginal-penile sex in that little list since most AIDS
globally is heterosexually transmitted.

And indeed, there are many cohorts of people in these
different groups. Hemophilia is a good example: the people
that developed AIDS have HIV. Those that don't are not
infected. Etc.

Same with IVDU. I used to be one. It's not just the epi data
that convinces me that this is horseshit but my own
experience. By some fluke, I am not infected. I have not
developed AIDS. And to boot, I'm queer as a $3 bill. Among
my friends and acquaintances -- hundreds -- I have watched.
The ones that developed AIDS had HIV. The ones that did not
are not HIV+.

And among my many, many friends that have died of AIDS, many
had very little sexual activity, many did not use any
recreational drugs. No, there are NO data supporting these
theories and, again, ample data refuting them. Yet denialists,
screaming to have the bar raised on the role of HIV seem
capable of the cognitive dissonance of embracing such theories
of these that are just demonstrably false.

>
>Add to the mix behaviors and/or circumstances that add to
>the suppression of the immune system such as drug use
>itself, deficient diet, exposure to other and numerous
>pathogens, etc.

Oh horseshit. Get a grip, Tom. You're a good, smart guy I
think, judging from other posts.

Now--one thing I WILL say--and here again, it pisses me off
that denialists confuse the issue with claims that
malnutrition causes AIDS
--

well, nutrition IS a VERY IMPORTANT piece of HIV disease
management. Recent studies, notably one in Tanzania, large and
well-controlled, show that use of a simple multiple vitamin
can slow HIV disease progression some 30%. This makes sense.
HIV disease causes wasting and damage to the villi that line
the gut. Micronutrient deficiencies are common and documented
in HIV disease (and here, we're talking about people that get
plenty to eat).

George M. Carter

[Tcomeau]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<uc5tl0dv2ue7k2dabmun5v042o9vc8vsm8@4ax.com>...
> On 1 Oct 2004 13:01:58 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) wrote:
>
> >GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:<sveql0hlfr6fgdpijt7ao3bsruoh1d7vr2@4ax.com>...
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>
> >> >HIV is nothing more than a hit and miss marker for the
> >> >risk of STDs. It is time we look elsewhere for a cause.
> >>
> >> By all means--I'll ask the third time--do tell. Where?
> >>
> >> George M. Carter
> >
> >The common link of the high risk groups seems to be the
> >physical internal introduction of foreign body fluids thru
> >a direct or near direct route.
> >
> >Hemophiliacs - blood transfusions, gays - semen thru anal
> >sex, intravenous drug users - blood passed thru sharing of
> >needles.
>
> Interesting theory that's been around for over 20 years.
> Little problem with it. All these activities have existed
> for millenia and do not cause AIDS. You'd have to add
> vaginal-penile sex in that little list since most AIDS
> globally is heterosexually transmitted.
>
> And indeed, there are many cohorts of people in these
> different groups. Hemophilia is a good example: the people
> that developed AIDS have HIV. Those that don't are not
> infected. Etc.
>
> Same with IVDU. I used to be one. It's not just the epi data
> that convinces me that this is horseshit but my own
> experience. By some fluke, I am not infected. I have not
> developed AIDS. And to boot, I'm queer as a $3 bill. Among
> my friends and acquaintances -- hundreds -- I have watched.
> The ones that developed AIDS had HIV. The ones that did not
> are not HIV+.
>
> And among my many, many friends that have died of AIDS, many
> had very little sexual activity, many did not use any
> recreational drugs. No, there are NO data supporting these
> theories and, again, ample data refuting them. Yet
> denialists, screaming to have the bar raised on the role of
> HIV seem capable of the cognitive dissonance of embracing
> such theories of these that are just demonstrably false.
>
>
> >
> >Add to the mix behaviors and/or circumstances that add to
> >the suppression of the immune system such as drug use
> >itself, deficient diet, exposure to other and numerous
> >pathogens, etc.
>
> Oh horseshit. Get a grip, Tom. You're a good, smart guy I
> think, judging from other posts.
>
> Now--one thing I WILL say--and here again, it pisses me off
> that denialists confuse the issue with claims that
> malnutrition causes AIDS
> --
>
> well, nutrition IS a VERY IMPORTANT piece of HIV disease
> management. Recent studies, notably one in Tanzania, large
> and well-controlled, show that use of a simple multiple
> vitamin can slow HIV disease progression some 30%. This
> makes sense. HIV disease causes wasting and damage to the
> villi that line the gut. Micronutrient deficiencies are
> common and documented in HIV disease (and here, we're
> talking about people that get plenty to eat).
>
> George M. Carter

I am not going to argue this to death. Not in this group
anyways. You sound like a nice guy and I sympathize with you
and your friends and acquaintances and the suffering from the
social and direct effects AIDS. But I certainly do not believe
that some quaint little retrovirus is so devastating to our
immune systems. And I firmly believe that we have wasted
billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives
pursuing a dead end (definitely no pun intended).

AIDS-like conditions existed a long time before the media
picked up on it in the 70's. It did not just appear out of
nowhere. I've seen nothing that shows that vaginal-penile
contact spreads AIDS. Not all people who develop AIDS has HIV,
although most do. As I said it is a hit-and-miss marker for
STDs and will show in blood taken from a large blood-pool.

As far as you not having contracted HIV or AIDS. It may be
that it requires repetitive receptive anal sex in combination
with other factors that suppresses the immune system. Other
factors may be poor diet, use of certain recreational or
non-recreational drugs, or it may be the blood types of the
sperm "donor" in relation to the sperm receiver that makes the
difference. It may even be physical and/or emotional stress
that causes the immune system to be suppressed just enough to
allow multiple infections to set in which starts the downward
spiral into the destruction of the entire immune system. Maybe
you've been lucky enough to not have run into the right, or I
should say the wrong, combinations of circumstances.

If these aren't plausible enough, fine, I can accept that. But
the HIV/AIDS debacle has led to nothing but death and many
many researchers getting rich. How many more years do we watch
this unfolding ever-increasing tragedy before we re-visit our
assumptions about HIV? Do we have any choice, given that not a
single AIDS case has been cured after 30 years and billions of
$$ in research? There is something seriously wrong with the
HIV/AIDS concept. Where is the vaccine?

TC

[N-H-P]

GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

> Now--one thing I WILL say--and here again, it pisses me off
> that denialists confuse the issue with claims that
> malnutrition causes AIDS

Yes, kindly stick to subjects that you know something about:
bum-fucking!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde

[Gmcarter]

On 2 Oct 2004 12:53:31 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

snip
>I am not going to argue this to death. Not in this group
>anyways. You sound like a nice guy and I sympathize with you
>and your friends and acquaintances and the suffering from the
>social and direct effects AIDS. But I certainly do not
>believe that some quaint little retrovirus is so devastating
>to our immune systems. And I firmly believe that we have
>wasted billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of
>lives pursuing a dead end (definitely no pun intended).

Well, now you're just talking some bizarre, twisted faith and
not about science, let alone reality. That's too bad.

There are many retroviruses that cause disease -- and many in
the animal world too. It is not unusual in the slightest.
Visna-Maedi, EIAV, FIV, etc.

>AIDS-like conditions existed a long time before the media
>picked up on it in the 70's. It did not just appear out of
>nowhere. I've seen nothing that shows that vaginal-penile
>contact spreads AIDS. Not all people who develop AIDS has
>HIV, although most do. As I said it is a hit-and-miss marker
>for STDs and will show in blood taken from a large
>blood-pool.

Vaginal-penile sex readily transmits HIV.

When you use a loose, vague handwaving phrase like "AIDS-like
conditions" you've descended into gibberish.

>As far as you not having contracted HIV or AIDS. It may be
>that it requires repetitive receptive anal sex in combination
>with other factors that suppresses the immune system.

bullshit. Anal sex doesn't cause AIDS. It simply makes it
easier to transmit HIV. Anal sex has existed forever. It
doesn't cause people's immune systems to crash. There is
utterly no evidence whatsoever for that--or if you have any,
by all means share it.

>Other factors may be poor diet, use of certain recreational
>or non-recreational drugs, or it may be the blood types of
>the sperm "donor" in relation to the sperm receiver that
>makes the difference.

Nonsense based on nothing. Like I say, I have straight
friends, gay friends, bisexual friends who have been HIV+ from
New York City to Kathmandu. Some use recreational drugs, some
had lots of sex, some had little. The only thing that makes
their CD4+ count drop (T cells) is the fact they have HIV.
Others who have done LOTS of sex, anal sex, whatever, rec.
drugs, etc. -- nope. No AIDS.

>It may even be physical and/or emotional stress that causes
>the immune system to be suppressed just enough to allow
>multiple infections to set in which starts the downward
>spiral into the destruction of the entire immune system.
>Maybe you've been lucky enough to not have run into the
>right, or I should say the wrong, combinations of
>circumstances.

Oh bullshit. You know nothing about me. More handwaving
speculation.

>If these aren't plausible enough, fine, I can accept that.

They're not even in the ballpark.

>But the HIV/AIDS debacle has led to nothing but death and
>many many researchers getting rich.

I know lots of researchers who earn very modest livings.
Others are pigs. There are THOUSANDS of researchers all over
the world. Some small few have made a literal killing on
overpriced medicines, but mostly that's the CEOs and other
scum that run Pharmaceutical companies.

>How many more years do we watch this unfolding
>ever-increasing tragedy before we re-visit our assumptions
>about HIV? Do we have any choice, given that not a single
>AIDS case has been cured after 30 years and billions of $$ in
>research? There is something seriously wrong with the
>HIV/AIDS concept. Where is the vaccine?

Last question--good one. The rest--the questions HAVE been
raised. The alternative scenarios discussed, researched,
investigated. The data are out there. The denialists are just
too fucking pigheaded to accept it, and like George Bush,
contrary data just slides off their brain and they run over to
the next non-point in their webwork of nonsense theorizing.
It's ludicrous.

Take the HIV challenge, Tom. Get some infected blood and
inject it. A little sample. Couldn't hurt, now, could it?

But since I believe HIV causes AIDS, I recommend you NOT
do this or you'll wind up dead sooner than, one hopes,
much later.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On 2 Oct 2004 14:48:50 -0700,
johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:

>GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Now--one thing I WILL say--and here again, it pisses me off
>> that denialists confuse the issue with claims that
>> malnutrition causes AIDS
>
>Yes, kindly stick to subjects that you know something about:
>bum-fucking!
>
>Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

A clever comment from a homophobe. Gosh. What a surprise!

George M. Carter

** Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated
with homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996
Aug;105(3):440-445.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens
30602-3013, USA.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in
exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect
toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a
group of homophobic men (n =
35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were
assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the
Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980).
The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli
consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian
videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were
monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire
(A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited
increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and
female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed
an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli.
The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is
apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the
homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 01:24:00 -0700, "Robert"
<RobertJ@hotmail.com> wrote:

>That's an interesting study as I believe there is something
>to it. Sometimes the most vocal homophobs are guilt ridden in
>having those unwanted feelings. There anger is a defensive
>mechanism in which to distance themselves from their inner
>feelings.
>
>HIV is not a gay disease but a disease impacting many people
>and families and when the vaccine does come out it will be a
>day we can all celebrate.

Robert, I am delighted to see a post with which I agree 100%
in every respect!

From such common ground may better understanding grow to make
our differences a matter of learning from each other than
merely conflict.

George M. Carter

[Robert]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:os9ul0p4gng2cki212ehma9otldm2p7cj1@4ax.com...
> On 2 Oct 2004 14:48:50 -0700,
> johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com (N-H-P) wrote:
>
> >GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Now--one thing I WILL say--and here again, it pisses me
> >> off that denialists confuse the issue with claims that
> >> malnutrition causes AIDS
> >
> >Yes, kindly stick to subjects that you know something
> >about: bum-fucking!
> >
> >Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> A clever comment from a homophobe. Gosh. What a surprise!
>
> George M. Carter

That's an interesting study as I believe there is something
to it. Sometimes the most vocal homophobs are guilt ridden
in having those unwanted feelings. There anger is a
defensive mechanism in which to distance themselves from
their inner feelings.

HIV is not a gay disease but a disease impacting many people
and families and when the vaccine does come out it will be a
day we can all celebrate.

>
> ** Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated
> with homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996
> Aug;105(3):440-445.
>
> Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens
> 30602-3013, USA.
>
> The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in
> exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect
> toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a
> group of homophobic men (n =
> 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were
> assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the
> Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts,
> 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic
> stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and
> lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference
> were monitored. They also completed an Aggression
> Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups
> exhibited increases in penile circumference to the
> heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the
> homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to
> male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in
> aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with
> homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is
> either unaware of or denies.

[Gmcarter]

On 7 Oct 2004 19:36:11 -0700, nazztrader@lycos.com
(montygram) wrote:

>The following post expresses my opinions, unless
>otherwise noted:
>
>I want to see the data from the experiment that demonstrated
>HIV activity in asymptomatic patients, causing the CD4T+ cell
>depletion directly, and leading to “AIDS.” That
>experiment was never done, and guess what? Now the
>“mainstream” agrees (at least those who
>don’t have their heads all the way up their
>you-know-whats, like Ho). For example:

By all means, you can round up some folks to do this study.
You'll probably have difficulty getting it past an
institutional review board since infecting people with HIV
would be considered unethical, golly gee.

I'll bet you thought Tuskegee was a nifty experiment too.

Meantime, by all means. Do your own study. Take a year of CD4
tests after an HIV test. If you're HIV negative after the
year, get yourself infected. See what happens. Voila! Magical
mystery CD4 cell depletion, you'll get sick and probably die,
like most HIV+ denialists. Like David Pasquarelli.

Well, there's more to your post. I'll see if I can get
ot it later.

George M. Carter

[Gmcarter]

On 7 Oct 2004 19:36:11 -0700, nazztrader@lycos.com
(montygram) wrote:

The following post expresses my opinions, unless
otherwise noted:
>
>I want to see the data from the experiment that demonstrated
>HIV activity in asymptomatic patients, causing the CD4T+ cell
>depletion directly, and leading to "AIDS." That experiment
>was never done, and guess what? Now the "mainstream" agrees
>(at least those who don't have their heads all the way up
>their you-know-whats, like Ho). For example:

Again, I do not know how you could ethically design such an
experiment.

>"Researchers affiliated with the Gladstone Institute and the
>University of California at Berkeley suggest that the
>previous theory, with its presumed flurry of T-cell output,
>was an illusion of faulty assumptions and poor measurement
>techniques. The Bay Area scientists used a newly developed
>molecular tag to track the ebb and flow of helper T cells.
>They spent more than a year studying immune systems in
>healthy people and in 21 AIDS patients being treated at San
>Francisco General Hospital. This produced what the authors
>described as the first direct clinical measurements of
>immune-system activity both in AIDS patients and an
>uninfected control group.

I think this is a gross misinterpretation of their data. I
presume you mean TRECs. First, these are not entirely clearly
the best marker and some dispute exists about them. However,
essentially what these experiments were designed to do was to
understand the dynamics of T cell disruption. Is it the
production of new T cells that is impaired
(e.g., impaired thymus production)? Is it clonal proliferation
that is impaired?

>Results found no T-cell speed-up-and-collapse pattern in the
>infected people.

In their hands. Others have suggested that there is. However,
I'm inclined to think that this is likely to be a valid
description of what is at least not happening. And, indeed, it
is somewhat hopeful to the extent that de novo production of
CD4+ cells is not necessarily 100% abrogated. That is, people
can recover some immune function with suppression of HIV. That
doesn't mean starting therapy too early in the disease
progression but it suggests that starting really late is going
to be problematic (e.g., CD4 < 150 or maybe 100).

> What researchers found instead was that, along with reduced
> cell longevity, the virus caused slower cell production --
> the opposite of what had been assumed to occur during this
> critical stage of the disease. Just how the AIDS virus might
> damage T-cell production has yet to be unraveled. [so you
> are assuming that because the people are HIV-antibody
> positive, any problems they have are the result of having
> neutralized HIV ; this is in contradiction to all knowledge
> of viruses, and retroviruses in particular]

What? This sounds like Duesberg's idiotic notion that
antibody production means neutralization of infection in its
entirety. This is incredibly stupid. Many viruses induce
antibody responses that are not entirely effective in
eliminating the pathogen.

>And there are as yet no proven therapies to address the new
>view of the disease, which would call for treatments that
>defend the immune system, insulating it from HIV or making it
>robust enough to withstand the virus. By comparison, today's
>therapies take direct aim at stopping the virus from
>reproducing.

Ah, not entirely true. Some botanical agents modulate immune
functions. Nutritional intervention can help. And others have
used things like low dose interleukin-2 to manage
immunological disruption. Or, for example, in later disease
when increases in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) are noted,
agents such as carnitine can help modulate this aspect.

Otherwise, the main focus has indeed been on reducing viral
load through the use of nucleoside analogs, NNRTIs and
protease inhibitors. Fusion inhibitors are also available.
(Newer ones that interfere with co-receptor activity do not
seem so smart to me, but that is another post.)

>An editorial in Nature Medicine portrayed the UCSF-Berkeley
>study as definitive evidence, but Ho indicated through a
>spokeswoman at the Aaron Diamond AIDS research center in New
>York that he is not yet convinced. Greene, by contrast,
>called the new study a "paradigm shift." "This completely
>alters the way we think about the pathogenesis of AIDS," he
>said. By all accounts, the AIDS virus infects and kills T
>cells. The argument is whether that's the main cause of fatal
>illness or if something else is at play.

Oh, I don't buy the direct cytopathic model that HIV infects
cells, replicates, kills them. That is simplistic and we have
known for years that the majority of dying T cells are not
infected. That doesn't mean that HIV isn't the proximate cause
of this deterioration--it sets up a series of events that
result in lymph node architecture damage, oxidative stress,
signalling interference and so forth.

>"This study tells us HIV does two things," said UCSF
>researcher Joseph McCune. "It does destroy cells, but its
>main affect appears to be on the systems of cell production.
>What that tells us is that we have to get rid of the virus,
>no question about that, but we really need to focus our
>attention on the systems of cell production."

I agree with McCune.

>.Old view: 1. Multiplying HIV particles infect T cells. 2.
>Immune system responds by cranking up production of new T
>cells in an effort to keep pace with the virus. 3. In the end
>stage of disease, the immune system collapses from
>exhaustion. New view: 1. HIV infects mature T cells, but not
>in sufficient numbers to explain how the disease progresses.
>2. Researchers suspect that the virus may attack the immune
> system's cell-making capacity. 3. Final stage of disease
> caused primarily by collapse of immune system and reduced
> lifespan of T cells. HIV virus attacks T cell production
> system, probably in bone marrow and thymus."

>Source: http://www.bonusround.com/dickie/research1.html

Thanks for the reference.

>Note that they say: "Just how the AIDS [meaning HIV, of
>course, though they do like to be confusing whenever
>possible, it seems] virus might damage T-cell production has
>yet to be unraveled." My point is that there is no known
>mechanism that could exist in this universe that could do
>such damage! So we're either dealing something that will
>render the know "laws" of biochemistry and virology
>worthless, or we are dealing with a simple, human rush to
>judgment by people who had everything to gain by doing so,
>and everything to lose by not doing so. Also notice that we
>hear things like "suspect" and "no question about it"

Ah, I wonder where or if you ever studied virology or
immunology? What "laws" of biochemistry are you alluding to?
This is a vague comment even more so than the terminology that
you question.

>(then there's "devious," "paradoxical," "puzzling," etc. ;
>you've heard these words used to describe HIV if you've kept
>up with the literature, and they are words used by scientists
>who are wrong about their "theory"). A scientist quotes an
>experiment, he/she doesn't say there's no question about it,
>because science is simply where the evidence points at a
>given time. The problem occurs when the "experts" who decide
>for those who aren't scientists where the evidence seems to
>point are conflicted, corrupt, fearful, or not particularly
>competent. There are countless examples of assumptions with
>no solid evidence to support them in the biological sciences
>today, such as the "lipid bilayer," which is supposed to
>withstand tremendous shearing forces, but without any
>chemical bonds (see Gilbert Ling's works for definitive
>refutation). Then there's the notion of "essential fatty
>acids," which turn out to be the most dangerous "food" people
>are consuming in large amounts in the "advanced" nations.
>Cholesterol, salt, fat, etc.

What data support the notion that EFAs are the most dangerous
food? This is a bit ridiculous. As to disputes within science,
well, of course there are. One thing I do NOT see within the
specific context of disputes in the HIV field is whether HIV
is irrelevant to the process. Thousands of researchers working
on different aspects of HIV pathogenesis have looked at many
different facets of this disease. HIV exists and, though it is
not fully understood how, it causes AIDS. Which, by the way, I
have long defined as the Acquired Immune Dysregulation
Syndrome rather than simply deficiency as there is much
activity that relates to excessive activation, inflammatory
cytokine production, etc.

>Back to the main point here, which is that they (Gladstone)
>are saying that they know the immune system is declining in
>many "AIDS" patients, but they can't make the direct
>connection with HIV.

LOL. That is a skewed interpretation of their results.

>If a scientist wants to make an extraordinary claim, such as
>this, he/she had better have extraordinary evidence. All
>Duesberg is saying is that if you've got a claim that
>violates everything that's know about biochemistry, virology,
>etc., then you better have more than anecdotal evidence and
>flawed clinical trials before you abandon other possibilities
>and subject people to dangerous prescription drugs.

Ah--in what way? Duesberg has made some remarkable statements
that are just flat out stupid (e.g., that infections resulting
in antibody generation are necessarily eliminated). At least
he realizes that HIV exists, unlike the other faction of the
denialist movement, the so-called "Perth group" that can't
even manage to recognize that simple fact.

>For that he's been called a madman (or worse).

Nah. He's just an asshole.

>The reason is that those whose reputations rest on such shaky
>foundations try and get the masses to allow emotion to cloud
>their judgment. Asking me if I'd be willing to become HIV
>infected is just such an example. If I'm alive 30 years from
>now, what would you say? What would the establishment people
>say? "Oh, he must have strong genes." I may have strong
>jeans, but the strong genes argument can always be used when
>a scientist errs badly. It's like a general saying that
>things could have been worse, even though his men got
>slaughtered due to his mistakes. Here's my proposal. I'll be
>glad to become HIV antibody positive (but without any other
>substances ; just the virus itself), but you've got to take
>all the retroviral medication that is being given to those
>with full insurance coverage in the USA ; until you die,
>which will likely not take very long. I get the retail cost
>of these drugs at today's prices to "treat" myself, for as
>long as I live. So if the drugs cost $35,000 a year retail
>price, I get that every year from now on, for the remainder
>of my life, guaranteed.

LOL. Don't ask me. You're the one who wants to make this
experiment. Obviously, you're setting it up in a way that
you'll remain safe from becoming infected. I hope you practice
safer sex in the meantime, unless monogamously coupled and
both seronegative.

>Also, asking about friends is not scientific. It's none of
>your business who my friends are. You just don't have the
>goods, and this is the best you've got, that is, an emotional
>appeal with no scientific grounding. I'll take your money if
>you'd like, but it's sad. However, you won't get me to bite
>on name calling, because I'm only interested in it
>scientifically (and economically, if I can get someone to pay
>me that $35,000 a year or so).

You go, girl!

>Another proposal: you get Gallo, Montagnier, the head of the
>NIH or CDC, Ho, etc. (any one will be fine) to agree to a
>debate with Duesberg in public, with full press coverage,
>moderated by a journalist or scientist who has never
>professed personal views on HIV/AIDS (at least in public),
>using typical high school debate team rules. If you can do
>that, I'll get Duesberg for you (he'll be licking his chops
>over the opportunity).

Oh horseshit. He's had lots of opportunities. There is a space
in the British Medical Journal website. Misc.health.aids is a
forum. He's written his articles and they have been refuted
and dissected to shreds.

> A debate was already arranged by a journal to have Duesberg
> debate Montagnier via fax machine. After Montagnier read
> what Duesberg wrote (Duesberg was first to make a
> statement), Montagnier made some ridiculous excuse not to
> continue, and then not long after unveiled his mycoplasma
> co-factor claim, which may be more pathetic than the
> original HIV/AIDS claims.

That was over 10 years ago. He's dropped the mycoplasma as
co-factor theory which was an interesting one but didn't pan
out upon closer scrutiny. That's science. By contrast, the
data that support Duesberg's whack idea that "drugs cause
AIDS" simply don't exist. Recreational drugs, some, may be
fatal if misused but they don't cause AIDS.

>What is the treatment I will give myself if you accept my
>proposal? Fresh coconut products, dark chocolate, organic
>butter, raw goat milk cheese, organic eggs, organic fresh and
>dried fruit, some organic broccoli florets, organic white
>tea, and absolutely no polyunsaturated fatty acids, except
>for the small amounts found in the foods listed above. Also,
>digestive aids, including stomach acid (betaine HCl), and
>pepsin, and at least 9 hours of sleep a night.

Hmmm....so you would treat yourself though you have a
harmless pathogen?

I have no trouble with any of that except your unnatural fear
of PUFAs. What's that about?

>As for the arachidonic acid/HIV connection, see below:

Oh, now HERE we have something...but it also shows you know
little about lipid biology. The use of SOME PUFAs is probably
good because it slows the arachidonic acid cascade and
subsequent production of PGE2. So you might want to add a bit
of good, clean, dolphin-safe fish. (I know that sounds like I
may be being sarcastic, but I'm not.)

>"Free Radic Biol Med. 1997;22(1-2):195-9.
>
>Activation of human immunodeficiency virus long terminal
>repeat by arachidonic acid.
>
>Carini R, Leonarduzzi G, Camandola S, Musso T, Varesio L,
>Baeuerle PA, Poli G.
Snipped....and interesting--this is predicated on AA
activating a supposedly harmless virus...so it doesn't support
your contention that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. That's a bit of
cognitive dissonance, dear.

>"J Neurochem. 2000 Jul;75(1):196-203.
>
>HIV-1 coat glycoprotein gp120 induces apoptosis in rat brain
>neocortex by deranging the arachidonate cascade in favor of
>prostanoids.

Yep. Good study. Thanks!

snip
>"Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1994 Dec 15;747:205-24. AIDS-related
>dementia and calcium homeostasis. Lipton SA.
snip...Right. Another study that shows that, like other
retroviruses, HIV on its own can cause neurological diseases
(as well as wasting).

>
>I can't say that HIV is totally harmless, only because if
>your body is severely immunocompromised you'll have all
>kinds of viral reactivations, and who knows what the
>interactions will be.

People with immunocomprised situations may have faster
progression, but I've known way too many very healthy people
who were fine til HIV hit them. And way too often killed them.

>People don't realize how rudimentary science is when it comes
>to biology, and that's the reason to stick to the simple
>realities, one of which is if there's no discernable
>biochemical activity, then don't worry about it. However,
>when you're full of polyunsaturates, you're in trouble, HIV
>antibody positive or not.

Again, incorrect view of lipid metabolism.

OK...more on this later. You've shared some interesting and
important studies. But NOTHING that suggests that HIV is
harmless. Nothing. To the contrary, EVERY study you report on
shows that it IS harmful.

As to antiretroviral therapy, I have no argument with the fact
that it has serious toxicities and dangers. Friends of mine
have died from complications related to ARV therapy. But FAR
fewer than were dying with untreated HIV disease before ARV
became available.

We DEFINITELY need better treatments. And I know FULL well
that there are many interventions that can help that get
virtually NO clinical research, including supplements,
botanicals, etc. These may well help slow disease progression
and/or offset ARV toxicities. I started an organization that
is dedicated to such clinical evaluation.
http://aidsinfonyc.org/fiar

Indeed, a recent Tanzanian study showed that the use of a
simple multivitamin can slow HIV disease progression 30%.
Not a cure, but one hell of an important therapy and
inexpensive--one that could be made available to every
HIV+ person on the planet but for lack of political will
and an apparent desire to spend resources on lies, murder
and oppression. Humans. Sometimes wonder if its a species
worth bothering with, as it seems so many seem bent on
collective suicide.

George M. Carter

[Robert]

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0brcm0lntt6l4as77lrmtenlvg862apfdt@4ax.com...
> On 7 Oct 2004 19:36:11 -0700, nazztrader@lycos.com
> (montygram) wrote:
>
> The following post expresses my opinions, unless
> otherwise noted:
> >
> >I want to see the data from the experiment that
> >demonstrated HIV activity in asymptomatic patients, causing
> >the CD4T+ cell depletion directly, and leading to "AIDS."
> >That experiment was never done, and guess what? Now the
> >"mainstream" agrees (at least those who don't have their
> >heads all the way up their you-know-whats, like Ho). For
> >example:
>
> Again, I do not know how you could ethically design such an
> experiment.
>
> >"Researchers affiliated with the Gladstone Institute and
> >the University of California at Berkeley suggest that the
> >previous theory, with its presumed flurry of T-cell output,
> >was an illusion of faulty assumptions and poor measurement
> >techniques. The Bay Area scientists used a newly developed
> >molecular tag to track the ebb and flow of helper T cells.
> >They spent more than a year studying immune systems in
> >healthy people and in 21 AIDS patients being treated at San
> >Francisco General Hospital. This produced what the authors
> >described as the first direct clinical measurements of
> >immune-system activity both in AIDS patients and an
> >uninfected control group.
>
> I think this is a gross misinterpretation of their data. I
> presume you mean TRECs. First, these are not entirely
> clearly the best marker and some dispute exists about them.
> However, essentially what these experiments were designed to
> do was to understand the dynamics of T cell disruption. Is
> it the production of new T cells that is impaired
> (e.g., impaired thymus production)? Is it clonal
> proliferation that is impaired?
>
> >Results found no T-cell speed-up-and-collapse pattern in
> >the infected people.

Studies now are still being done so no one is setting
statements in stone. HTLV I a cousin of the HIV indeed causes
malignant proliferation after many years of infection, Adult T
cell leukemia/lymphoma. You see hypercalcemia in most cases
with osteoclast activation. Why some viruses cause
proliferation and some depletion is indeed up for debate.
>
> In their hands. Others have suggested that there is.
> However, I'm inclined to think that this is likely to be a
> valid description of what is at least not happening. And,
> indeed, it is somewhat hopeful to the extent that de novo
> production of CD4+ cells is not necessarily 100% abrogated.
> That is, people can recover some immune function with
> suppression of HIV. That doesn't mean starting therapy too
> early in the disease progression but it suggests that
> starting really late is going to be problematic (e.g., CD4 <
> 150 or maybe 100).
>
> > What researchers found instead was that, along with
> > reduced cell longevity, the virus caused slower cell
> > production -- the opposite of what had been assumed to
> > occur during this critical stage of the disease. Just how
> > the AIDS virus might damage T-cell production has yet to
> > be unraveled. [so you are assuming that because the people
> > are HIV-antibody positive, any problems they have are the
> > result of having neutralized HIV ; this is in
> > contradiction to all knowledge of viruses, and
> > retroviruses in particular]

Agree with you there. Keep in mind that at bone marrow
suppresion of other cell lines also takes place. It is not
clear to what degree cytotoxic drugs vs the disease itself.
>
> What? This sounds like Duesberg's idiotic notion that
> antibody production means neutralization of infection in its
> entirety. This is incredibly stupid. Many viruses induce
> antibody responses that are not entirely effective in
> eliminating the pathogen.

Many specific antibodies to a particular virus are not
protective against the virus. HIV is not only associated with
viral antibodes but can result in a polyclonal production of
many antibodies some of which can be destructive to the red
cell (autoimmune hemolysis), to the platelets (Evans syndrome)
and other autoimmune diseases.

>
>
> >And there are as yet no proven therapies to address the new
> >view of the disease, which would call for treatments that
> >defend the immune system, insulating it from HIV or making
> >it robust enough to withstand the virus. By comparison,
> >today's therapies take direct aim at stopping the virus
> >from reproducing.

You have to start somewhere and historically the antiviral
meds have always taken a stop replication route. Once more is
known then other therapies can be undertaken. One other route
was to saturate the binding sites with competitive binding
proteins. Some autoimmune diseases during periods of
exaccerbations can be treated with IV immune globulins which
actually down regulate ones own's body production of
autoimmune antibodies. The immunology is not well understood
only that it works. They can also do plasmaphoresis where they
exchange the plasma containing autoantibodies and wash or
remove them. Some have suggested an autoimmune source of CD4
depletion.

>
> Ah, not entirely true. Some botanical agents modulate immune
> functions. Nutritional intervention can help. And others
> have used things like low dose interleukin-2 to manage
> immunological disruption. Or, for example, in later disease
> when increases in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) are noted,
> agents such as carnitine can help modulate this aspect.

Cytokine profiles in HIV patients are common yet still not
entirely adequate in long term resolution.

>
> Otherwise, the main focus has indeed been on reducing viral
> load through the use of nucleoside analogs, NNRTIs and
> protease inhibitors. Fusion inhibitors are also available.
> (Newer ones that interfere with co-receptor activity do not
> seem so smart to me, but that is another post.)
>
> >An editorial in Nature Medicine portrayed the UCSF-Berkeley
> >study as definitive evidence, but Ho indicated through a
> >spokeswoman at the Aaron Diamond AIDS research center in
> >New York that he is not yet convinced. Greene, by contrast,
> >called the new study a "paradigm shift." "This completely
> >alters the way we think about the pathogenesis of AIDS," he
> >said. By all accounts, the AIDS virus infects and kills T
> >cells. The argument is whether that's the main cause of
> >fatal illness or if something else is at play.
>
> Oh, I don't buy the direct cytopathic model that HIV infects
> cells, replicates, kills them. That is simplistic and we
> have known for years that the majority of dying T cells are
> not infected. That doesn't mean that HIV isn't the proximate
> cause of this deterioration--it sets up a series of events
> that result in lymph node architecture damage, oxidative
> stress, signalling interference and so forth.

I think most people out there remotely associated with the
disease have understood that for many years and the problem is
that because so much is not known yet it is too tempting for
the sake of saving time by saying that it infects T cells and
kills them. It depends on the audience.
>
> >"This study tells us HIV does two things," said UCSF
> >researcher Joseph McCune. "It does destroy cells, but its
> >main affect appears to be on the systems of cell
> >production. What that tells us is that we have to get rid
> >of the virus, no question about that, but we really need to
> >focus our attention on the systems of cell production."

The system of lymphopoiesis in the microenvironment is poorly
understood and they can not replicate or replace such a
system. TF5 was effective in turning on the immune systems of
a number of children with DiGeorge syndrome and other thymic
dysplasias.
>
> I agree with McCune.
>
> >.Old view: 1. Multiplying HIV particles infect T cells. 2.
> >Immune system responds by cranking up production of new T
> >cells in an effort to keep pace with the virus. 3. In the
> >end stage of disease, the immune system collapses from
> >exhaustion. New view: 1. HIV infects mature T cells, but
> >not in sufficient numbers to explain how the disease
> >progresses.
> >2. Researchers suspect that the virus may attack the immune
> > system's cell-making capacity. 3. Final stage of disease
> > caused primarily by collapse of immune system and
> > reduced lifespan of T cells. HIV virus attacks T cell
> > production system, probably in bone marrow and thymus."
>
> >Source: http://www.bonusround.com/dickie/research1.html
>
> Thanks for the reference.
>
> >Note that they say: "Just how the AIDS [meaning HIV, of
> >course, though they do like to be confusing whenever
> >possible, it seems] virus might damage T-cell production
> >has yet to be unraveled." My point is that there is no
> >known mechanism that could exist in this universe that
> >could do such damage! So we're either dealing something
> >that will render the know "laws" of biochemistry and
> >virology worthless, or we are dealing with a simple, human
> >rush to judgment by people who had everything to gain by
> >doing so, and everything to lose by not doing so. Also
> >notice that we hear things like "suspect" and "no question
> >about it"

Too much hyperbole by that dude. He wants black and white and
no matter what side he takes you are looking at gray. They
just don't know enough right now.

>
> Ah, I wonder where or if you ever studied virology or
> immunology? What "laws" of biochemistry are you alluding to?
> This is a vague comment even more so than the terminology
> that you question.
That's true I find his overstates funny.
>
>
> >(then there's "devious," "paradoxical," "puzzling," etc. ;
> >you've heard these words used to describe HIV if you've
> >kept up with the literature, and they are words used by
> >scientists who are wrong about their "theory"). A scientist
> >quotes an experiment, he/she doesn't say there's no
> >question about it, because science is simply where the
> >evidence points at a given time. The problem occurs when
> >the "experts" who decide for those who aren't scientists
> >where the evidence seems to point are conflicted, corrupt,
> >fearful, or not particularly competent. There are countless
> >examples of assumptions with no solid evidence to support
> >them in the biological sciences today, such as the "lipid
> >bilayer," which is supposed to withstand tremendous
> >shearing forces, but without any chemical bonds (see
> >Gilbert Ling's works for definitive refutation). Then
> >there's the notion of "essential fatty acids," which turn
> >out to be the most dangerous "food" people are consuming in
> >large amounts in the "advanced" nations. Cholesterol, salt,
> >fat, etc.
>
> What data support the notion that EFAs are the most
> dangerous food? This is a bit ridiculous. As to disputes
> within science, well, of course there are. One thing I do
> NOT see within the specific context of disputes in the HIV
> field is whether HIV is irrelevant to the process. Thousands
> of researchers working on different aspects of HIV
> pathogenesis have looked at many different facets of this
> disease. HIV exists and, though it is not fully understood
> how, it causes AIDS. Which, by the way, I have long defined
> as the Acquired Immune Dysregulation Syndrome rather than
> simply deficiency as there is much activity that relates to
> excessive activation, inflammatory cytokine production, etc.

Clinically it reflects a lack of immunity by opportunistic
infections but immunologically it is quite diverse. Disputes
in science are healthy and often needed but to confuse science
in terms of absolutes is ridiculous. In medicine there are
relative truths. Some treatments in medicine work and they
know why while some treatments work and they don't know why.
Then you have the ones that don't work in which studies showed
they should have. There was a researcher who worked in the UC
system who out right make up some numbers in order to publish.
Follow up studies confirmed the beneficial intervention of
treatments but did not validate his studies as to why or how
it worked. He was caught for cheating but the intervention is
still being used.
>
> >Back to the main point here, which is that they (Gladstone)
> >are saying that they know the immune system is declining in
> >many "AIDS" patients, but they can't make the direct
> >connection with HIV.
>
> LOL. That is a skewed interpretation of their results.
>
> >If a scientist wants to make an extraordinary claim, such
> >as this, he/she had better have extraordinary evidence. All
> >Duesberg is saying is that if you've got a claim that
> >violates everything that's know about biochemistry,
> >virology, etc., then you better have more than anecdotal
> >evidence and flawed clinical trials before you abandon
> >other possibilities and subject people to dangerous
> >prescription drugs.
>
> Ah--in what way? Duesberg has made some remarkable
> statements that are just flat out stupid (e.g., that
> infections resulting in antibody generation are necessarily
> eliminated). At least he realizes that HIV exists, unlike
> the other faction of the denialist movement, the so-called
> "Perth group" that can't even manage to recognize that
> simple fact.
>
> >For that he's been called a madman (or worse).
>
> Nah. He's just an asshole.

Well I don't know the guy but science is the equalizer. If all
he does is mouth off with nothing to back it up then he is
simply a philospher.
>
> >The reason is that those whose reputations rest on such
> >shaky foundations try and get the masses to allow emotion
> >to cloud their judgment. Asking me if I'd be willing to
> >become HIV infected is just such an example. If I'm alive
> >30 years from now, what would you say? What would the
> >establishment people say? "Oh, he must have strong genes."
> >I may have strong jeans, but the strong genes argument can
> >always be used when a scientist errs badly. It's like a
> >general saying that things could have been worse, even
> >though his men got slaughtered due to his mistakes. Here's
> >my proposal. I'll be glad to become HIV antibody positive
> >(but without any other substances ; just the virus itself),
> >but you've got to take all the retroviral medication that
> >is being given to those with full insurance coverage in the
> >USA ; until you die, which will likely not take very long.
> >I get the retail cost of these drugs at today's prices to
> >"treat" myself, for as long as I live. So if the drugs cost
> >$35,000 a year retail price, I get that every year from now
> >on, for the remainder of my life, guaranteed.

There have been CDC working who isolated the virus in
culture and have accidentally become infected. They are
receiving workmans comp and one of the first workers through
accidental needle stick has gotten AIDS and died. If you do
not believe HIV is the cause then why take the meds directed
toward the virus?
>
> LOL. Don't ask me. You're the one who wants to make this
> experiment. Obviously, you're setting it up in a way that
> you'll remain safe from becoming infected. I hope you
> practice safer sex in the meantime, unless monogamously
> coupled and both seronegative.
>
> >Also, asking about friends is not scientific. It's none of
> >your business who my friends are. You just don't have the
> >goods, and this is the best you've got, that is, an
> >emotional appeal with no scientific grounding. I'll take
> >your money if you'd like, but it's sad. However, you won't
> >get me to bite on name calling, because I'm only interested
> >in it scientifically (and economically, if I can get
> >someone to pay me that $35,000 a year or so).
>
> You go, girl!
>
> >Another proposal: you get Gallo, Montagnier, the head of
> >the NIH or CDC, Ho, etc. (any one will be fine) to agree to
> >a debate with Duesberg in public, with full press coverage,
> >moderated by a journalist or scientist who has never
> >professed personal views on HIV/AIDS (at least in public),
> >using typical high school debate team rules. If you can do
> >that, I'll get Duesberg for you (he'll be licking his chops
> >over the opportunity).
>
> Oh horseshit. He's had lots of opportunities. There is a
> space in the British Medical Journal website.
> Misc.health.aids is a forum. He's written his articles and
> they have been refuted and dissected to shreds.
>
> > A debate was already arranged by a journal to have
> > Duesberg debate Montagnier via fax machine. After
> > Montagnier read what Duesberg wrote (Duesberg was first to
> > make a statement), Montagnier made some ridiculous excuse
> > not to continue, and then not long after unveiled his
> > mycoplasma co-factor claim, which may be more pathetic
> > than the original HIV/AIDS claims.

I don't see any claim as pathetic only philosophical without
evidence. Mycoplasma can be treated with antibiotics and it
has been mentioned as a link with heart disease. Only studies,
can one progress from a philosophical point of view.

>
> That was over 10 years ago. He's dropped the mycoplasma as
> co-factor theory which was an interesting one but didn't pan
> out upon closer scrutiny. That's science. By contrast, the
> data that support Duesberg's whack idea that "drugs cause
> AIDS" simply don't exist. Recreational drugs, some, may be
> fatal if misused but they don't cause AIDS.

Poor children and people in Africa are not dying from drug
use.

>
> >What is the treatment I will give myself if you accept my
> >proposal? Fresh coconut products, dark chocolate, organic
> >butter, raw goat milk cheese, organic eggs, organic fresh
> >and dried fruit, some organic broccoli florets, organic
> >white tea, and absolutely no polyunsaturated fatty acids,
> >except for the small amounts found in the foods listed
> >above. Also, digestive aids, including stomach acid
> >(betaine HCl), and pepsin, and at least 9 hours of sleep
> >a night.
>
> Hmmm....so you would treat yourself though you have a
> harmless pathogen?
>
> I have no trouble with any of that except your unnatural
> fear of PUFAs. What's that about?
>
> >As for the arachidonic acid/HIV connection, see below:
>
> Oh, now HERE we have something...but it also shows you know
> little about lipid biology. The use of SOME PUFAs is
> probably good because it slows the arachidonic acid cascade
> and subsequent production of PGE2. So you might want to add
> a bit of good, clean, dolphin-safe fish. (I know that sounds
> like I may be being sarcastic, but I'm not.)
>
> >"Free Radic Biol Med. 1997;22(1-2):195-9.
> >
> >Activation of human immunodeficiency virus long terminal
> >repeat by arachidonic acid.
> >
> >Carini R, Leonarduzzi G, Camandola S, Musso T, Varesio L,
> >Baeuerle PA, Poli G.
> Snipped....and interesting--this is predicated on AA
> activating a supposedly harmless virus...so it doesn't
> support your contention that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. That's
> a bit of cognitive dissonance, dear.
>
> >"J Neurochem. 2000 Jul;75(1):196-203.
> >
> >HIV-1 coat glycoprotein gp120 induces apoptosis in rat
> >brain neocortex by deranging the arachidonate cascade in
> >favor of prostanoids.
>
> Yep. Good study. Thanks!
>
> snip
> >"Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1994 Dec 15;747:205-24. AIDS-related
> >dementia and calcium homeostasis. Lipton SA.
> snip...Right. Another study that shows that, like other
> retroviruses, HIV on its own can cause neurological diseases
> (as well as wasting).
>
> >
> >I can't say that HIV is totally harmless, only because if
> >your body is severely immunocompromised you'll have all
> >kinds of viral reactivations, and who knows what the
> >interactions will be.

HIV and or AIDS was very scarse before the eighties. As a
hospital worker for over twenty years I can tell you for sure
that the diseases we saw before AIDs and after AIDS were very
much in contrast to every day operations. Rare medical journal
reports became every day cases. We became experts because we
saw so many cases of cryptococcus and AIDs related disorders.
Now with the drugs in use these are once again on the decline
and they are teaching tools once more.
>
> People with immunocomprised situations may have faster
> progression, but I've known way too many very healthy
> people who were fine til HIV hit them. And way too often
> killed them.
>
> >People don't realize how rudimentary science is when it
> >comes to biology, and that's the reason to stick to the
> >simple realities, one of which is if there's no discernable
> >biochemical activity, then don't worry about it. However,
> >when you're full of polyunsaturates, you're in trouble, HIV
> >antibody positive or not.
>
> Again, incorrect view of lipid metabolism.
>
> OK...more on this later. You've shared some interesting and
> important studies. But NOTHING that suggests that HIV is
> harmless. Nothing. To the contrary, EVERY study you report
> on shows that it IS harmful.
>
> As to antiretroviral therapy, I have no argument with the
> fact that it has serious toxicities and dangers. Friends of
> mine have died from complications related to ARV therapy.
> But FAR fewer than were dying with untreated HIV disease
> before ARV became available.
>
> We DEFINITELY need better treatments. And I know FULL well
> that there are many interventions that can help that get
> virtually NO clinical research, including supplements,
> botanicals, etc. These may well help slow disease
> progression and/or offset ARV toxicities. I started an
> organization that is dedicated to such clinical evaluation.
> http://aidsinfonyc.org/fiar
>
> Indeed, a recent Tanzanian study showed that the use of a
> simple multivitamin can slow HIV disease progression 30%.
> Not a cure, but one hell of an important therapy and
> inexpensive--one that could be made available to every HIV+
> person on the planet but for lack of political will and an
> apparent desire to spend resources on lies, murder and
> oppression. Humans. Sometimes wonder if its a species worth
> bothering with, as it seems so many seem bent on collective
> suicide.
>
> George M. Carter

There was a study of live virus for treating already infected
individuals by Dr Salk. He was given a hard time about his
theories but he was a decent man who believed in helping
people and was a true man of conviction. He will be hard to
replace. Independent thinkers are hard to come by but the
proof is in the pudding.

[Montygram]

First, I can't argue on behalf of the Gladstone people. They
are "establishment" people who are saying that the Ho stuff
makes not sense, which is what the "dissidents" said many
years ago. Second, you’ve made all kinds of
proclamations, but you don’t seem particularly
interested in citing evidence. The one study you cited
supports my claims, because arachidonic acid metabolism can
be attenuated by antioxidants, and such an approach has been
used successfully in many “chronic disease”
conditions, though limiting polyunsaturate consumption to
trace amounts – in addition to consuming an assortment
of naturally-derived antioxidants makes more sense than
taking only supplements and continuing to eat the typical
Western diet.

Moreover, calling Peter Duesberg an “asshole” is a
sure sign that a person such as yourself does not have science
on his/her side, but rather is resorting to adolescent
polemics. If you have evidence that one of the leaders in the
HIV/AIDS establishment has sought out Duesberg for a debate,
but he declined, it is your obligation to present such
evidence. If you can get one of these individuals (Fauci,
Gallo, Ho, et. al.) to agree to a standard debate format in
public and with full media access, I’ll get Duesberg to
sign up for it.

In response to most of your other points:

I’m willing to sign up now for the experiment you say
can’t be done. Give me just HIV, and the money to buy
the retrovirals (which I’ll pocket), and we’re on!

When I talked about how I’d “treat” myself,
that’s the way to avoid “chronic disease” of
any kind, and that’s how I eat now, so I’m not
suggesting that being HIV antibody negative means doing
anything different (at least for me).

The arachidonic studies DO NOT support your point. Arachidonic
acid does all kinds of hellacious things to human bodies, at
least if it’s the dominant stressor-induced fatty acid.
In my case, I got rid of it, and now have the Mead acid
instead, so I couldn’t be less afraid of the puny,
pathetic HIV. However, arachidonic acid is so powerful that it
reactivates viruses, fungi, etc. when it is released, which
occurs when one stresses his/her body, which of course is what
many of the young people who got “AIDS” did to
themselves, willingly or unwillingly. My point is that without
arachidonic acid, you certainly shouldn’t worry about
HIV, though you could still destroy your immune system with
illegal drugs, antibiotics, corticosteriods, blood
transfusions, etc., and if you don’t have enough stomach
acid, you can waste away, even if you are living the life of a
saint. The metabolites of arachidonic acid play a role in
immunosuppression, so the threshold for becoming severely
immunosuppressed while taking corticosteriods, for example,
may be lowered significantly if one consumes a lot of dietary
polyunsaturates.

I have nothing against polyunsaturated fatty acids in theory.
Human bodies produce the polyunsaturated known as Mead acid if
your dietary intake of polyunsaturates is low. If the dietary
intake is high, you get arachidonic acid in your body, ready
to be freed up under any little stress, and metabolized into
dangerous substances. You need Mead acid, but arachidonic is
too dangerous, unless you are a salmon, which in your case,
would not surprise me.

The evidence is overwhelming, but obviously, you haven’t
done much in the way of research, and I’m not going to
do it for you. But for those interested, I’ll supply an
example. Recently, those working on Alzheimer’s Disease
claimed that draining the spinal fluid of patients seemed to
be a therapy worth pursuing. The fluid is drained of
isoprostanes, which are metabolites of arachidonic acid. If
you do a google or www.pubmed.com search for lipid
peroxidation, you will see a massive amount of studies
demonstrating how these substances, produced mainly from
dietary polyunsatures, destroy human bodies.

When you claim that I am mistaken about something, you need to
explain why, exactly. I explained exactly how polyunsaturates
can be dangerous, and I discussed the exact biochemical
pathways. You can say someone doesn’t know what he/she
is talking about, but science demands more than that, and from
your post, it’s clear to me that you demonstrated how
“a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

Mr. Carter stated: “Ah--in what way? Duesberg has made
some remarkable statements that are just flat out stupid
(e.g., that infections resulting in antibody generation
are necessarily eliminated).”

“He's [Duesberg’s] had lots of opportunities.
There is a space in the British Medical Journal website.
Misc.health.aids is a forum. He's written his articles and
they have been refuted and dissected to shreds.”

Hello! He’s written more than one book on the subject.
I’m talking about a scholarly debate between eminent
scientists. Such an activity used to be considered standard in
academia. But today, the AIDS establishment scientists run
away as if they are being chased by an avalanche (and they may
be correct about such assessments, metaphorically). You say
“they [his points] have been refuted and
dissected.” I’ve looked at these
“dissections,” and what I’ve seen are
unscientific personal attacks and epidemiology. I’m not
suggesting that HIV in certain populations isn’t at
least a mediocre marker that a certain number of that
population will be afflicted with at least one of 31 or so
disorders within the next dozen years or so. But if you did an
epidemiological study of people who engaged in activities
known to suppress the immune system, but who did not have HIV,
you’d get similar results, so epidemiology is not much
help in this situation. Why don’t you post an example or
two of the best “dissections” you can find.
Failure to do so just demonstrates my point that you are sadly
short on useful evidence.

“LOL. That is a skewed interpretation of their
results.”

There is no other reasonable interpretation! You admit that
the direct connection with HIV can’t be made, so what
exactly are you saying? Explain to everyone here exactly what
you are claiming this group’s results demonstrate.

“Oh, I don't buy the direct cytopathic model that HIV
infects cells, replicates, kills them. That is simplistic and
we have known for years that the majority of dying T cells are
not infected. That doesn't mean that HIV isn't the proximate
cause of this deterioration--it sets up a series of
events…”

But it doesn’t mean that it is, either. Moreover, there
are known reasons for why people deteriorate in the many ways
that get classified as “AIDS” by the CDC. Wasting
has occurred throughout history, and can occur due to
insufficient production of stomach acid, nothing more. This
often occurs in elderly people, but can occur in those who
abuse themselves. A diet very high in seeds, nuts, legumes,
and whole grains can do this!

If HIV is dangerous, I need to see some real evidence, and
considering how billions of dollars and two decades have been
spent attempting this, it’s clear that it’s highly
unlikely to ever be presented. The person making the claim
must present the evidence. The person who says, “this
just doesn’t fit into known science” does not have
any obligation to prove a negative, which is impossible, as I
hope you realize.

Not just Duesberg, but Fauci and many other scientists have
pointed out how immunosuppressive corticosteriods and other
drugs can be. This is clear as day, just take those heavily
tinted glasses off!

Examples abound concerning overexpressed PGE2 and
immunosuppression, for example:

Molecular Cancer 2002, 1:5: “PGE-2 is constitutively
produced by many non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and its
immunosuppressive effects have been linked to altered immune
responses in lung cancer.”

Scientists working at the molecular level generally know
what’s going on, but because they have assumed that
having plenty of arachidonic acid in the body is
“normal,” they are befuddled. For example: "In
cancer we have no real clue why prostaglandins would have a
positive tumor-promotion role." Source: The Scientist
13[8]:14, Apr. 12, 1999.

And yet when you look for Mead acid studies, they show
benefits, not all this horrible stuff with arachidonic acid.
For example:

“Adkisson, H.D., Tranik,T.M., & Wuthier,R.E.
Relationship of cartilage Mead acid levels to aging and
development of osteoarthritis. The authors studies the
relationship of cartilage mead acid levels to aging and
development of osteoarthritis. They looked at the fatty acid
status of weight-bearing and non-weight bearing cartilage from
autopsy specimens, or from surgical procedures, in various
ages and disease states. Young cartilage is characterised by
the presence of high levels of 20:9 w-9, Mead acid, indicating
a relative deficiency of EFA. Skeletal muscle from the same
subjects showed normal EFA levels, and no Mead acid. Age
decreases the Mead acid level and increases the EFA level,
with weight-bearing cartilage having more EFA and less Mead
acid than costal tissues. Cartilage from osteoarthritis
affected joints showed even lower Mead acid levels and even
higher w-6 EFA levels, leading the authors to speculate that
accumulation of w-6 EFAs in cartilage might predispose towards
the development of OA, and that the presence of Mead acid
might somehow be protective. They also speculate that
weight-bearing cartilage might be better vascularised than
costal tissue. Poster Presentation at the Third International
Conference on Essential Fatty Acids and Eicosanoids, Adelaide,
Australia March 1 1992” In terms of evidence, it’s
check and mate against dietary polyunsaturates and all thumbs
up for allowing your body to naturally produce its own
polyunsaturated, the Mead acid, but it might take decades
before our great “experts” can find their own
buttocks with both hands. In the meantime, goodness knows how
much human suffering could have been avoided.

The bottom line is that biochemistry involves thresholds above
or below which certain reactions occur. Because arachidonic
acid is so biochemically active, it aids fungi, viruses, etc.,
whereas the more stable Mead acid does not. Most people
experience a loss of built-in antioxidant protection in their
late 30s or 40s, and “diseases” occur within
several years (depending upon the condition). Young people
with “AIDS” have put such a tremendous strain on
their bodies (for example, being full of arachidonic acid and
doing poppers, etc.) that they knock out key antioxidant
enzyme reserves (and their diets aren’t good enough to
compensate), so their bodies break down sooner, HIV antibody
positive or not.

If you open your mind just a bit, and consider the problem in
a completely different way, you’ll see that arachidonic
acid could very well be the “cause,” and that
avoiding dietary polyunsaturates (except in trace amounts) is
the key to staying healthy. For example:

Infection and Immunity, May 2001, p. 2957-2963, Vol. 69, No. 5
“Enhanced prostaglandin production during fungal
infection could be an important factor in promoting fungal
colonization and chronic infection. …eicosanoids are
produced by pathogenic fungi, are critical for growth of the
fungi, and can modulate host immune functions…
Prostaglandins are potent regulators of host immune responses.
They are produced following the action of a cyclooxygenase on
dihomo--linolenic, arachidonic, or eicosanopentaenoic acid
(20). The activities of prostaglandins on mammalian cells are
numerous. Prostaglandins can inhibit Th1-type immune
responses, chemokine production, phagocytosis, and lymphocyte
proliferation (1, 11, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 27). Prostaglandins
can also promote Th2-type responses and tissue eosinophilia
(4, 16, 20, 24). In the context of anti-fungal immunity,
chronic or disseminating fungal infections will result if the
Th1-Th2 balance of cellular immunity is shifted away from Th1-
toward Th2-type responses (21). The role of prostaglandins in
promoting fungal virulence remains to be determined. However,
elevated prostaglandin levels have been observed in chronic
Candida albicans infections. Thus, enhanced prostaglandin
production during fungal infection could be an important
factor in promoting fungal colonization and chronic
infection…. Given the biological activity of the
purified fungal eicosanoids, they have the potential to
mediate host-pathogen "cross talk," in which the pathogen can
down-regulate (local) host immune responses at the site of
infection and the host can inadvertently augment pathogen
virulence. The result of such interactions could be an
immunological stalemate, i.e., chronic low-grade infection or
parasitism. The most common feature of fungal infections is
their chronic persistence within tissues of otherwise healthy
individuals, ranging in severity from athlete's foot to
chronic vaginitis to pulmonary granulomas (14). Prostaglandins
can also modulate the Th1-Th2 balance of a response and
promote tissue eosinophilia, a feature of some chronic fungal
infections… In conclusion, the discovery that pathogenic
fungi produce and respond to immunomodulatory eicosanoids
reveals a virulence mechanism that has potentially great
implications for understanding the mechanisms of chronic
fungal infection, immune deviation, and fungi as disease
cofactors.”

From a recent study:

Br J Haematol. 2004 Oct;127(2):209-13. “The first
patient responded gradually to immunosuppressive treatment but
eventually developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.”

This is Duesberg’s point! The AIDS diseases are nothing
new, and the causes are known. The only thing missing was a
virus that a scientist could exploit for the prestige of being
the “great genius” and of course the profits that
come from tests and drugs. Immunosuppression kills many people
who were never exposed to HIV.

Also:

“…the COX enzymes enhance the progress of cancer
tumours
by supporting cell division, the growth of blood vessels in
the tumour
and by reducing the rate of cell death… cervical cancer
tissue
has elevated levels of both COX-1 and 2 enzymes and their
synthesized
prostaglandin products.” Helen Theron, University of
Cape Town.
Source:
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/november/aspirin.htm

Those who die from non-Hodgkins lymphoma and cervical cancer
are classified as “AIDS deaths” if they are HIV
antibody positive, but not if they are HIV antibody negative.
And yet the evidence points to excess dietary polyunsaturates,
not to a dormant virus that couldn’t have anything to do
with cervical cancer, for instance, even if it had a will of
its own and decided to attack the cervix at all costs! Stop
eating the polyunsaturates and you cut off the COX and LOX
pathways that do so much damage, especially the arachidonic
acid metabolites PGE2 and LTB4. Nutrition and dietary therapy
are an inside joke to American scientists, so they hardly ever
pay more than token attention to this possibility, but
that’s where the evidence points (I’ve got a hard
drive full of studies in support of this claim, and I
haven’t come across one scientific paper that
contradicts it, though of course researchers sometimes come to
conclusions that are inconsistent with their own evidence).

Instead of praising Duesberg, you have this to say about him:

“This sounds like Duesberg's idiotic notion that
antibody production means neutralization of infection in its
entirety. This is incredibly stupid. Many viruses induce
antibody responses that are not entirely effective in
eliminating the pathogen.”

If you want to make such statements, you need to supply an
example in humans where antibodies are produced in response to
a viral infection, leading to the virus becoming dormant (no
substantial activity) for many years, then all of a sudden it
reactivates for no apparent reason and decimates that
person’s body in a year or so, in ways that are not
connected to its activity (for example, wasting syndrome
– the GI tract should not be affected by a low CD4T+
count. When you make the claim, you must supply the evidence!
Otherwise, scientists have no reason to abandon existing
models, and you become no more than a cult leader, not a
scientist, scholar, or journalist.

For example, I’ve been posting here about how the phrase
“saturated fat” makes no sense, because lard is
39.2% saturated only, whereas even a vegetarian dish (with
some cheese, for example) can have about the same amount of
saturated fat, and yet the establishment tells people that
lard is “bad.” If it’s bad, it’s
because it’s high in unsaturated fat and low in
antioxidants. In fact, lard and pork sausage are used in
experiment (which I’ve posted here) that determine the
antioxidant capacity of herbs and spices. Why? Because it
becomes rancid (oxidizes) so quickly. If you tried the same
experiment with the highly saturated (92%) coconut oil, it
would take months to achieve the results you can achieve
within a couple of days or less with the pork sausage. But
because when epidemiological studies are done, the
epidemiologists classify lard as a “saturated
fat,” all fats that these incompetents declare
“saturated” (which of course includes coconut oil)
get blamed for heart attacks, etc., even though many studies
have been done on populations that eat coconut or palm kernel
oil as dietary staples – and heart disease is nearly
unknown! Notice how I explained every aspect of this
situation? That’s what you and the other deluded
HIV=AIDS people need to do, but anyone with a little gray
matter can see that such a demonstration is highly unlikely at
this point, after incredible resources have been put into the
project already. Indeed, this fact alone is strong evidence
that either the HIV=AIDS model is wrong, or our top scientists
should be fired immediately!

Below is another interesting paper which makes my point
about the polyunsaturated fatty acid connection to AIDS
defining conditions. Keep in mind that no study has been
done on “essential fatty acid deficient” people
who are HIV antibody positive. Such a study, on people who
had this “condition” and who had not stressed
out their bodies on drugs or foreign protein, would
demonstrate if HIV led to AIDS, or if HIV is just an
epidemiological marker of those who had stressed out their
bodies in extreme and particular ways (and whose bodies were
full of arachidonic acid).

“Inhibition of cyclooxygenase 2 blocks human
cytomegalovirus replication Hua Zhu*, Jian-Ping Cong, Deborah
Yu,, Wade A. Bresnahan,§, and Thomas
N. Shenk,

* Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, New
Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07103; and Department of Molecular
Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1014

Contributed by Thomas E. Shenk, December 31, 2001

Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) mRNA, protein, and activity are
transiently induced after infection of human fibroblasts with
human cytomegalovirus. Prostaglandin E2, the product of COX-2
activity, is transiently increased by a factor of >50 in
cultures of virus-infected fibroblasts. Both specific
(BMS-279652, 279654, and 279655) and nonspecific
(indomethacin) COX-2 inhibitors can abrogate the
virus-mediated induction of prostaglandin E2 accumulation.
Levels of COX-2 inhibitors that completely block the induction
of COX-2 activity, but do not compromise cell viability,
reduce the yield of human cytomegalovirus in human fibroblasts
by a factor of >100. Importantly, the yield of infectious
virus can be substantially restored by the addition of
prostaglandin E2 together with the inhibitory drug. This
finding argues that elevated levels of prostaglandin E2 are
required for efficient replication of human cytomegalovirus in
fibroblasts. COX-2 inhibitors block the accumulation of
immediate-early 2 mRNA and protein, but have little effect on
the levels of immediate-early 1 mRNA and protein. Viral DNA
replication and the accumulation of some, but not all, early
and late mRNAs are substantially blocked by COX-2 inhibitors.
Elevated levels of prostaglandin E2 apparently facilitate the
production of immediate-early 2 protein. The failure to
produce normal levels of this critical viral regulatory
protein in the presence of COX-2 inhibitors might block normal
progression beyond the immediate-early phase of human
cytomegalovirus infection.”

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/6/3932

And here’s an early paper about a similar
phenomenon with HIV:

“Kuno, S., R. Ueno, O. Hayaishi, et al. "Prostaglandin
E2, a seminal constituent, facilitates the replication of
acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus in vitro". Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci., USA 83, 3487-3490 (1986)”

The biochemical evidence is clear and unequivocal. No
arachidonic acid in your body, no PGE2. HIV is the least
important of the factors involving “AIDS,” and
there’s no evidence that it does much of anything that
one should worry about, compared to virul reactivation,
fungal/yeast overgrowth, low stomach acid, immune system
problems from drugs or transfusions, etc. But the key point is
to live a “clean” life and get them excessive
polyunsaturates out of your diet. Fresh coconut oil should be
used instead, as it is fairly inexpensive and tasty, unlike
palm kernel oil, which is more expensive in the USA and
doesn’t taste as good, though if you’re rich, why
not try it? According to anthropologists, early humans likely
derived most of their fat from palm tree products, and humans
might be extinct if palm plants did not exist!

I will end with a quotation:

“The world is in need of annoying, troublesome,
Socratic-like thinkers who will keep us from intellectual and
spiritual slumbers brought on by lethargy, hyperstimulation,
self-satisfaction, or simple discouragement over the magnitude
and complexity of challenges that have been set before
us.” Page 136 of Harold J. Morowitz’ (Professor of
Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale)
“Mayonnaise and the Origin of Life: Thoughts of Minds
and Molecules,” (1985).

[Montygram]

First, I can't argue on behalf of the Gladstone people. They
are "establishment" people who are saying that the Ho stuff
makes not sense, which is what the "dissidents" said many
years ago. Second, you’ve made all kinds of
proclamations, but you don’t seem particularly
interested in citing evidence. The one study you cited
supports my claims, because arachidonic acid metabolism can
be attenuated by antioxidants, and such an approach has been
used successfully in many “chronic disease”
conditions, though limiting polyunsaturate consumption to
trace amounts – in addition to consuming an assortment
of naturally-derived antioxidants makes more sense than
taking only supplements and continuing to eat the typical
Western diet.

Moreover, calling Peter Duesberg an “asshole” is a
sure sign that a person such as yourself does not have science
on his/her side, but rather is resorting to adolescent
polemics. If you have evidence that one of the leaders in the
HIV/AIDS establishment has sought out Duesberg for a debate,
but he declined, it is your obligation to present such
evidence. If you can get one of these individuals (Fauci,
Gallo, Ho, et. al.) to agree to a standard debate format in
public and with full media access, I’ll get Duesberg to
sign up for it.

In response to most of your other points:

I’m willing to sign up now for the experiment you say
can’t be done. Give me just HIV, and the money to buy
the retrovirals (which I’ll pocket), and we’re on!

When I talked about how I’d “treat” myself,
that’s the way to avoid “chronic disease” of
any kind, and that’s how I eat now, so I’m not
suggesting that being HIV antibody negative means doing
anything different (at least for me).

The arachidonic studies DO NOT support your point. Arachidonic
acid does all kinds of hellacious things to human bodies, at
least if it’s the dominant stressor-induced fatty acid.
In my case, I got rid of it, and now have the Mead acid
instead, so I couldn’t be less afraid of the puny,
pathetic HIV. However, arachidonic acid is so powerful that it
reactivates viruses, fungi, etc. when it is released, which
occurs when one stresses his/her body, which of course is what
many of the young people who got “AIDS” did to
themselves, willingly or unwillingly. My point is that without
arachidonic acid, you certainly shouldn’t worry about
HIV, though you could still destroy your immune system with
illegal drugs, antibiotics, corticosteriods, blood
transfusions, etc., and if you don’t have enough stomach
acid, you can waste away, even if you are living the life of a
saint. The metabolites of arachidonic acid play a role in
immunosuppression, so the threshold for becoming severely
immunosuppressed while taking corticosteriods, for example,
may be lowered significantly if one consumes a lot of dietary
polyunsaturates.

I have nothing against polyunsaturated fatty acids in theory.
Human bodies produce the polyunsaturated known as Mead acid if
your dietary intake of polyunsaturates is low. If the dietary
intake is high, you get arachidonic acid in your body, ready
to be freed up under any little stress, and metabolized into
dangerous substances. You need Mead acid, but arachidonic is
too dangerous, unless you are a salmon, which in your case,
would not surprise me.

The evidence is overwhelming, but obviously, you haven’t
done much in the way of research, and I’m not going to
do it for you. But for those interested, I’ll supply an
example. Recently, those working on Alzheimer’s Disease
claimed that draining the spinal fluid of patients seemed to
be a therapy worth pursuing. The fluid is drained of
isoprostanes, which are metabolites of arachidonic acid. If
you do a google or www.pubmed.com search for lipid
peroxidation, you will see a massive amount of studies
demonstrating how these substances, produced mainly from
dietary polyunsatures, destroy human bodies.

When you claim that I am mistaken about something, you need to
explain why, exactly. I explained exactly how polyunsaturates
can be dangerous, and I discussed the exact biochemical
pathways. You can say someone doesn’t know what he/she
is talking about, but science demands more than that, and from
your post, it’s clear to me that you demonstrated how
“a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

Mr. Carter stated: “Ah--in what way? Duesberg has made
some remarkable statements that are just flat out stupid
(e.g., that infections resulting in antibody generation
are necessarily eliminated).”

“He's [Duesberg’s] had lots of opportunities.
There is a space in the British Medical Journal website.
Misc.health.aids is a forum. He's written his articles and
they have been refuted and dissected to shreds.”

Hello! He’s written more than one book on the subject.
I’m talking about a scholarly debate between eminent
scientists. Such an activity used to be considered standard in
academia. But today, the AIDS establishment scientists run
away as if they are being chased by an avalanche (and they may
be correct about such assessments, metaphorically). You say
“they [his points] have been refuted and
dissected.” I’ve looked at these
“dissections,” and what I’ve seen are
unscientific personal attacks and epidemiology. I’m not
suggesting that HIV in certain populations isn’t at
least a mediocre marker that a certain number of that
population will be afflicted with at least one of 31 or so
disorders within the next dozen years or so. But if you did an
epidemiological study of people who engaged in activities
known to suppress the immune system, but who did not have HIV,
you’d get similar results, so epidemiology is not much
help in this situation. Why don’t you post an example or
two of the best “dissections” you can find.
Failure to do so just demonstrates my point that you are sadly
short on useful evidence.

“LOL. That is a skewed interpretation of their
results.”

There is no other reasonable interpretation! You admit that
the direct connection with HIV can’t be made, so what
exactly are you saying? Explain to everyone here exactly what
you are claiming this group’s results demonstrate.

“Oh, I don't buy the direct cytopathic model that HIV
infects cells, replicates, kills them. That is simplistic and
we have known for years that the majority of dying T cells are
not infected. That doesn't mean that HIV isn't the proximate
cause of this deterioration--it sets up a series of
events…”

But it doesn’t mean that it is, either. Moreover, there
are known reasons for why people deteriorate in the many ways
that get classified as “AIDS” by the CDC. Wasting
has occurred throughout history, and can occur due to
insufficient production of stomach acid, nothing more. This
often occurs in elderly people, but can occur in those who
abuse themselves. A diet very high in seeds, nuts, legumes,
and whole grains can do this!

If HIV is dangerous, I need to see some real evidence, and
considering how billions of dollars and two decades have been
spent attempting this, it’s clear that it’s highly
unlikely to ever be presented. The person making the claim
must present the evidence. The person who says, “this
just doesn’t fit into known science” does not have
any obligation to prove a negative, which is impossible, as I
hope you realize.

Not just Duesberg, but Fauci and many other scientists have
pointed out how immunosuppressive corticosteriods and other
drugs can be. This is clear as day, just take those heavily
tinted glasses off!

Examples abound concerning overexpressed PGE2 and
immunosuppression, for example:

Molecular Cancer 2002, 1:5: “PGE-2 is constitutively
produced by many non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) and its
immunosuppressive effects have been linked to altered immune
responses in lung cancer.”

Scientists working at the molecular level generally know
what’s going on, but because they have assumed that
having plenty of arachidonic acid in the body is
“normal,” they are befuddled. For example: "In
cancer we have no real clue why prostaglandins would have a
positive tumor-promotion role." Source: The Scientist
13[8]:14, Apr. 12, 1999.

And yet when you look for Mead acid studies, they show
benefits, not all this horrible stuff with arachidonic acid.
For example:

“Adkisson, H.D., Tranik,T.M., & Wuthier,R.E.
Relationship of cartilage Mead acid levels to aging and
development of osteoarthritis. The authors studies the
relationship of cartilage mead acid levels to aging and
development of osteoarthritis. They looked at the fatty acid
status of weight-bearing and non-weight bearing cartilage from
autopsy specimens, or from surgical procedures, in various
ages and disease states. Young cartilage is characterised by
the presence of high levels of 20:9 w-9, Mead acid, indicating
a relative deficiency of EFA. Skeletal muscle from the same
subjects showed normal EFA levels, and no Mead acid. Age
decreases the Mead acid level and increases the EFA level,
with weight-bearing cartilage having more EFA and less Mead
acid than costal tissues. Cartilage from osteoarthritis
affected joints showed even lower Mead acid levels and even
higher w-6 EFA levels, leading the authors to speculate that
accumulation of w-6 EFAs in cartilage might predispose towards
the development of OA, and that the presence of Mead acid
might somehow be protective. They also speculate that
weight-bearing cartilage might be better vascularised than
costal tissue. Poster Presentation at the Third International
Conference on Essential Fatty Acids and Eicosanoids, Adelaide,
Australia March 1 1992” In terms of evidence, it’s
check and mate against dietary polyunsaturates and all thumbs
up for allowing your body to naturally produce its own
polyunsaturated, the Mead acid, but it might take decades
before our great “experts” can find their own
buttocks with both hands. In the meantime, goodness knows how
much human suffering could have been avoided.

The bottom line is that biochemistry involves thresholds above
or below which certain reactions occur. Because arachidonic
acid is so biochemically active, it aids fungi, viruses, etc.,
whereas the more stable Mead acid does not. Most people
experience a loss of built-in antioxidant protection in their
late 30s or 40s, and “diseases” occur within
several years (depending upon the condition). Young people
with “AIDS” have put such a tremendous strain on
their bodies (for example, being full of arachidonic acid and
doing poppers, etc.) that they knock out key antioxidant
enzyme reserves (and their diets aren’t good enough to
compensate), so their bodies break down sooner, HIV antibody
positive or not.

If you open your mind just a bit, and consider the problem in
a completely different way, you’ll see that arachidonic
acid could very well be the “cause,” and that
avoiding dietary polyunsaturates (except in trace amounts) is
the key to staying healthy. For example:

Infection and Immunity, May 2001, p. 2957-2963, Vol. 69, No. 5
“Enhanced prostaglandin production during fungal
infection could be an important factor in promoting fungal
colonization and chronic infection. …eicosanoids are
produced by pathogenic fungi, are critical for growth of the
fungi, and can modulate host immune functions…
Prostaglandins are potent regulators of host immune responses.
They are produced following the action of a cyclooxygenase on
dihomo--linolenic, arachidonic, or eicosanopentaenoic acid
(20). The activities of prostaglandins on mammalian cells are
numerous. Prostaglandins can inhibit Th1-type immune
responses, chemokine production, phagocytosis, and lymphocyte
proliferation (1, 11, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 27). Prostaglandins
can also promote Th2-type responses and tissue eosinophilia
(4, 16, 20, 24). In the context of anti-fungal immunity,
chronic or disseminating fungal infections will result if the
Th1-Th2 balance of cellular immunity is shifted away from Th1-
toward Th2-type responses (21). The role of prostaglandins in
promoting fungal virulence remains to be determined. However,
elevated prostaglandin levels have been observed in chronic
Candida albicans infections. Thus, enhanced prostaglandin
production during fungal infection could be an important
factor in promoting fungal colonization and chronic
infection…. Given the biological activity of the
purified fungal eicosanoids, they have the potential to
mediate host-pathogen "cross talk," in which the pathogen can
down-regulate (local) host immune responses at the site of
infection and the host can inadvertently augment pathogen
virulence. The result of such interactions could be an
immunological stalemate, i.e., chronic low-grade infection or
parasitism. The most common feature of fungal infections is
their chronic persistence within tissues of otherwise healthy
individuals, ranging in severity from athlete's foot to
chronic vaginitis to pulmonary granulomas (14). Prostaglandins
can also modulate the Th1-Th2 balance of a response and
promote tissue eosinophilia, a feature of some chronic fungal
infections… In conclusion, the discovery that pathogenic
fungi produce and respond to immunomodulatory eicosanoids
reveals a virulence mechanism that has potentially great
implications for understanding the mechanisms of chronic
fungal infection, immune deviation, and fungi as disease
cofactors.”

From a recent study:

Br J Haematol. 2004 Oct;127(2):209-13. “The first
patient responded gradually to immunosuppressive treatment but
eventually developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.”

This is Duesberg’s point! The AIDS diseases are nothing
new, and the causes are known. The only thing missing was a
virus that a scientist could exploit for the prestige of being
the “great genius” and of course the profits that
come from tests and drugs. Immunosuppression kills many people
who were never exposed to HIV.

Also:

“…the COX enzymes enhance the progress of cancer
tumours
by supporting cell division, the growth of blood vessels in
the tumour
and by reducing the rate of cell death… cervical cancer
tissue
has elevated levels of both COX-1 and 2 enzymes and their
synthesized
prostaglandin products.” Helen Theron, University of
Cape Town.
Source:
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/november/aspirin.htm

Those who die from non-Hodgkins lymphoma and cervical cancer
are classified as “AIDS deaths” if they are HIV
antibody positive, but not if they are HIV antibody negative.
And yet the evidence points to excess dietary polyunsaturates,
not to a dormant virus that couldn’t have anything to do
with cervical cancer, for instance, even if it had a will of
its own and decided to attack the cervix at all costs! Stop
eating the polyunsaturates and you cut off the COX and LOX
pathways that do so much damage, especially the arachidonic
acid metabolites PGE2 and LTB4. Nutrition and dietary therapy
are an inside joke to American scientists, so they hardly ever
pay more than token attention to this possibility, but
that’s where the evidence points (I’ve got a hard
drive full of studies in support of this claim, and I
haven’t come across one scientific paper that
contradicts it, though of course researchers sometimes come to
conclusions that are inconsistent with their own evidence).

Instead of praising Duesberg, you have this to say about him:

“This sounds like Duesberg's idiotic notion that
antibody production means neutralization of infection in its
entirety. This is incredibly stupid. Many viruses induce
antibody responses that are not entirely effective in
eliminating the pathogen.”

If you want to make such statements, you need to supply an
example in humans where antibodies are produced in response to
a viral infection, leading to the virus becoming dormant (no
substantial activity) for many years, then all of a sudden it
reactivates for no apparent reason and decimates that
person’s body in a year or so, in ways that are not
connected to its activity (for example, wasting syndrome
– the GI tract should not be affected by a low CD4T+
count. When you make the claim, you must supply the evidence!
Otherwise, scientists have no reason to abandon existing
models, and you become no more than a cult leader, not a
scientist, scholar, or journalist.

For example, I’ve been posting here about how the phrase
“saturated fat” makes no sense, because lard is
39.2% saturated only, whereas even a vegetarian dish (with
some cheese, for example) can have about the same amount of
saturated fat, and yet the establishment tells people that
lard is “bad.” If it’s bad, it’s
because it’s high in unsaturated fat and low in
antioxidants. In fact, lard and pork sausage are used in
experiment (which I’ve posted here) that determine the
antioxidant capacity of herbs and spices. Why? Because it
becomes rancid (oxidizes) so quickly. If you tried the same
experiment with the highly saturated (92%) coconut oil, it
would take months to achieve the results you can achieve
within a couple of days or less with the pork sausage. But
because when epidemiological studies are done, the
epidemiologists classify lard as a “saturated
fat,” all fats that these incompetents declare
“saturated” (which of course includes coconut oil)
get blamed for heart attacks, etc., even though many studies
have been done on populations that eat coconut or palm kernel
oil as dietary staples – and heart disease is nearly
unknown! Notice how I explained every aspect of this
situation? That’s what you and the other deluded
HIV=AIDS people need to do, but anyone with a little gray
matter can see that such a demonstration is highly unlikely at
this point, after incredible resources have been put into the
project already. Indeed, this fact alone is strong evidence
that either the HIV=AIDS model is wrong, or our top scientists
should be fired immediately!

Below is another interesting paper which makes my point
about the polyunsaturated fatty acid connection to AIDS
defining conditions. Keep in mind that no study has been
done on “essential fatty acid deficient” people
who are HIV antibody positive. Such a study, on people who
had this “condition” and who had not stressed
out their bodies on drugs or foreign protein, would
demonstrate if HIV led to AIDS, or if HIV is just an
epidemiological marker of those who had stressed out their
bodies in extreme and particular ways (and whose bodies were
full of arachidonic acid).

“Inhibition of cyclooxygenase 2 blocks human
cytomegalovirus replication Hua Zhu*, Jian-Ping Cong, Deborah
Yu,, Wade A. Bresnahan,§, and Thomas
N. Shenk,

* Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, New
Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07103; and Department of Molecular
Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1014

Contributed by Thomas E. Shenk, December 31, 2001

Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) mRNA, protein, and activity are
transiently induced after infection of human fibroblasts with
human cytomegalovirus. Prostaglandin E2, the product of COX-2
activity, is transiently increased by a factor of >50 in
cultures of virus-infected fibroblasts. Both specific
(BMS-279652, 279654, and 279655) and nonspecific
(indomethacin) COX-2 inhibitors can abrogate the
virus-mediated induction of prostaglandin E2 accumulation.
Levels of COX-2 inhibitors that completely block the induction
of COX-2 activity, but do not compromise cell viability,
reduce the yield of human cytomegalovirus in human fibroblasts
by a factor of >100. Importantly, the yield of infectious
virus can be substantially restored by the addition of
prostaglandin E2 together with the inhibitory drug. This
finding argues that elevated levels of prostaglandin E2 are
required for efficient replication of human cytomegalovirus in
fibroblasts. COX-2 inhibitors block the accumulation of
immediate-early 2 mRNA and protein, but have little effect on
the levels of immediate-early 1 mRNA and protein. Viral DNA
replication and the accumulation of some, but not all, early
and late mRNAs are substantially blocked by COX-2 inhibitors.
Elevated levels of prostaglandin E2 apparently facilitate the
production of immediate-early 2 protein. The failure to
produce normal levels of this critical viral regulatory
protein in the presence of COX-2 inhibitors might block normal
progression beyond the immediate-early phase of human
cytomegalovirus infection.”

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/6/3932

And here’s an early paper about a similar
phenomenon with HIV:

“Kuno, S., R. Ueno, O. Hayaishi, et al. "Prostaglandin
E2, a seminal constituent, facilitates the replication of
acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus in vitro". Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci., USA 83, 3487-3490 (1986)”

The biochemical evidence is clear and unequivocal. No
arachidonic acid in your body, no PGE2. HIV is the least
important of the factors involving “AIDS,” and
there’s no evidence that it does much of anything that
one should worry about, compared to virul reactivation,
fungal/yeast overgrowth, low stomach acid, immune system
problems from drugs or transfusions, etc. But the key point is
to live a “clean” life and get them excessive
polyunsaturates out of your diet. Fresh coconut oil should be
used instead, as it is fairly inexpensive and tasty, unlike
palm kernel oil, which is more expensive in the USA and
doesn’t taste as good, though if you’re rich, why
not try it? According to anthropologists, early humans likely
derived most of their fat from palm tree products, and humans
might be extinct if palm plants did not exist!

I will end with a quotation:

“The world is in need of annoying, troublesome,
Socratic-like thinkers who will keep us from intellectual and
spiritual slumbers brought on by lethargy, hyperstimulation,
self-satisfaction, or simple discouragement over the magnitude
and complexity of challenges that have been set before
us.” Page 136 of Harold J. Morowitz’ (Professor of
Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale)
“Mayonnaise and the Origin of Life: Thoughts of Minds
and Molecules,” (1985).

[Mattlb]

GMCarter wrote:
>
> On 12 Oct 2004 12:06:31 -0700, nazztrader@lycos.com
> (montygram) wrote:
> >Second, you’ve made all kinds of proclamations, but
> >you don’t seem particularly interested in citing
> >evidence. The one study you cited supports my claims,
> >because arachidonic acid metabolism can be attenuated by
> >antioxidants, and such an approach has been used
> >successfully in many “chronic disease”
>
> As far as that theory goes, I don't have a trouble with the
> notion that arachidonic acid can be a problem. But I
> disagree with you when you say that one should never consume
> PUFAs. It is incumbent upon you to clarify the basis for
> this theory. It is a broad and silly comment; saturated or
> trans-fatty acids are more likely to push down the AA
> pathway toward PGE2 production than omega-3s.

<snip>

I wouldn't waste your time. montygram (formerly 'monty' and
'nick') has shown in the past that he's obsessive about his
view of fatty acids, even in the face of the facts. That he's
added a new contrary obession to his list of beliefs probably
isn't a sign of progress. Quite how he feels he can comment on
the effects of HIV on T-lymphocytes when he doesn't even
believe they have cell membranes for the virus to fuse with, I
don't know.

MattLB

[Gmcarter]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:09:20 +0100, MattLB
<mattlb2@FAKEBITlycos.com> wrote:

snip>
>I wouldn't waste your time. montygram (formerly 'monty' and
>'nick') has shown in the past that he's obsessive about his
>view of fatty acids, even in the face of the facts. That he's
>added a new contrary obession to his list of beliefs probably
>isn't a sign of progress. Quite how he feels he can comment
>on the effects of HIV on T-lymphocytes when he doesn't even
>believe they have cell membranes for the virus to fuse with,
>I don't know.

LOL. Oh, well, it was a marvelous opportunity to revisit
fatty acid metabolism in the context of HIV disease. So I
thank monty for being the catalyst for some interesting
reviews of data.

Say! Who says cells have membranes?? If they did, you can bet
you'd find poison like arachidonic acid in them and so life
couldn't exist as we know it.

Yours in silica-based existence, George M. Carter