HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS
A Summary of Current Research Findings
by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
The HIV hypothesis of AIDS is rooted in the general viral theory of diseases. However, historically, viral theories of disease have generally failed to bring forth either cures or advancements in treatments. This is particularly true for cancer and other degenerative, immunologically-related disorders.
Funding for virus research had precipitously declined over the years. But AIDS changed all that. HIV was announced, not at a scientific meeting, but rather at a Washington D.C. press conference.
In April 1984, Margaret Heckler, then Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced "The probable cause of AIDS has been found", and then introduced Dr. Robert Gallo, who presented his "discovery of the AIDS virus" to a story-hungry press.
This political event was eventually overshadowed by the fact that Gallo had misrepresented "his" discovery of HIV -- in fact, he had acquired his samples of HIV on loan from the real discoverer, Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. A prolonged legal battle ensued regarding who would retain lucrative international patent rights to HIV-antibody testing, the so-called "AIDS Tests" which cost from $15 to $50 each.
Both the French and American governments got into the legal dispute, backing their respective scientists. Later, in an out-of-court settlement, both Gallo and Montagnier agreed to split the royalties, and a new "official history of the discovery of HIV" was written and distributed, expunged of all unpleasant references to the unethical stealing of ideas, or the legal dispute.
Fortunately, Gallo was later exposed and no credible individuals in the scientific community supported the "official history". However, Gallo has never been censured for his unethical conduct; he collects new awards and medals nearly every month, and his laboratory is very-well funded by tax dollars.
By contrast, Peter Duesberg, the major vocal critic of the entire shabby affair, has been censored and isolated for his criticisms, his research funding terminated.
As hundreds of millions of public dollars are being shoveled into the research laboratories of the HIV=AIDS researchers, and into generally ineffective and counter-productive "safe sex" educational programs, no advancements in the treatment or prevention of AIDS has taken place.
The HIV Hypothesis of AIDS has produced no public health benefits, and is a total failure, but it is quite a gravy train for a lot of special interests.
continued...
.
- Mr. Bill
- 02-21-2012, 01:56 AM
- Mr. Bill
- 02-21-2012, 02:01 AM
HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS
A Summary of Current Research Findings
by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Epidemiology of AIDS
There is no epidemiological evidence demonstrating an "AIDS epidemic" is taking place outside of recognized high-risk groups.
The high risk groups are certainly suffering badly from very serious disease symptoms, but the questions remain: Are the disease symptoms displayed by these groups a product of exposure to HIV infection? Or are they the product of more commonly known infectious diseases, overlapping and opportunistically flourishing within individuals whose behavior, lifestyles, malnutrition and medications have badly weakened them, leaving them exceptionally vulnerable and wasted?
Homosexuals and bisexuals engaged in promiscuous "party-swinger" lifestyles remain the largest at-risk group for the AIDS syndrome.
Here, one can speak of a group with a collective pool of shared body fluids, suffering from chronic, multiple low-grade infections. Minor epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), including syphilis, gonorrhea, and herpes, as well as hepatitis have occurred within the gay communities in the USA.
Bowel, bladder and urinary infections related to contamination are common (eg, the "gay bowel syndrome", the "drips", etc.). Chronic exposures to both infectious materials and organisms, and correspondingly high rates of exposure to antibiotic medications, may become an integral part of the gay man's lifestyle, with a great toll upon health and immune system functioning.
Even before the discovery of HIV and identification of "AIDS", the bath-house, anonymous-sex lifestyles of gay men, who were increasingly coming "out of the closet" in the larger cities, became a public-health nightmare. And this "lifestyle" includes the concurrent widespread and abundant use of various immune-depleting drugs, both legal and illegal.
Interviews with gay men and symptomatic AIDS patients demonstrate the widespread use of cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, alcohol, sexual stimulants, aphrodisiacs, and amyl or butyl nitrites ("poppers"), often taken in various mixtures.
From all of these factors combined, one can readily see how a severely damaged immune system could result. Again, it is an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. In particular, Kaposi's sarcoma has been identified as a by-product of nitrite exposure ("poppers"), even before the era of AIDS, and has specifically been linked to the use of the over-the-counter "poppers" -- this particular drug is a sphincter dilator, allowing the individual to tolerate the insertion of a fully erect penis, or even another man's fist ("fisting" techniques) into the anus.
These vigorous assaults to the passive-receptive homosexual are correlated with tearing of rectal tissue, or even fistulas, all of which further breaks down protective barriers to infection.
continued...
.
A Summary of Current Research Findings
by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Epidemiology of AIDS
There is no epidemiological evidence demonstrating an "AIDS epidemic" is taking place outside of recognized high-risk groups.
The high risk groups are certainly suffering badly from very serious disease symptoms, but the questions remain: Are the disease symptoms displayed by these groups a product of exposure to HIV infection? Or are they the product of more commonly known infectious diseases, overlapping and opportunistically flourishing within individuals whose behavior, lifestyles, malnutrition and medications have badly weakened them, leaving them exceptionally vulnerable and wasted?
Homosexuals and bisexuals engaged in promiscuous "party-swinger" lifestyles remain the largest at-risk group for the AIDS syndrome.
Here, one can speak of a group with a collective pool of shared body fluids, suffering from chronic, multiple low-grade infections. Minor epidemics of sexually transmitted diseases (STD's), including syphilis, gonorrhea, and herpes, as well as hepatitis have occurred within the gay communities in the USA.
Bowel, bladder and urinary infections related to contamination are common (eg, the "gay bowel syndrome", the "drips", etc.). Chronic exposures to both infectious materials and organisms, and correspondingly high rates of exposure to antibiotic medications, may become an integral part of the gay man's lifestyle, with a great toll upon health and immune system functioning.
Even before the discovery of HIV and identification of "AIDS", the bath-house, anonymous-sex lifestyles of gay men, who were increasingly coming "out of the closet" in the larger cities, became a public-health nightmare. And this "lifestyle" includes the concurrent widespread and abundant use of various immune-depleting drugs, both legal and illegal.
Interviews with gay men and symptomatic AIDS patients demonstrate the widespread use of cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, alcohol, sexual stimulants, aphrodisiacs, and amyl or butyl nitrites ("poppers"), often taken in various mixtures.
From all of these factors combined, one can readily see how a severely damaged immune system could result. Again, it is an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. In particular, Kaposi's sarcoma has been identified as a by-product of nitrite exposure ("poppers"), even before the era of AIDS, and has specifically been linked to the use of the over-the-counter "poppers" -- this particular drug is a sphincter dilator, allowing the individual to tolerate the insertion of a fully erect penis, or even another man's fist ("fisting" techniques) into the anus.
These vigorous assaults to the passive-receptive homosexual are correlated with tearing of rectal tissue, or even fistulas, all of which further breaks down protective barriers to infection.
continued...
.
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:01 AM
Who doubts that HIV causes AIDS?
By far the most significant scientist to question the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS is Professor Peter Duesberg, a virologist at the University of California at Berkeley, who first wrote about this topic in 1987. Throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium, as HIV and AIDS researchers announced many new discoveries and amassed huge volumes of data, Dr Duesberg remained unconvinced. He admits that HIV exists, but he maintains that it is harmless, and that AIDS is caused by non-contagious factors including drug abuse, malnutrition, and even the very drugs used to combat HIV.2
Other dissidents (often called "denialists" by their opponents) include the Perth Group of medical scientists and physicians from Australia. The Perth Group (led by Eleni Papadopulos) claims that nobody has conclusively proven the existence of HIV, so any proof that HIV causes AIDS has no foundation.3 Dissident arguments have received attention from the popular media, as well as from scientific journals. And with the rise of the Internet, alternative views have found a much wider audience.
Some of their followers are intrigued by conspiracy theories involving sinister drug companies or government persecution of minority groups. But alternative explanations can also appeal to those diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, who read that their condition might not be fatal, that they shouldn't take toxic drugs, and that unprotected sex poses no risks. Even a few AIDS service organisations have adopted non-HIV viewpoints.4
However, the proportion of scientists who doubt that HIV causes AIDS is tiny, and shows no sign of increasing. Interest in dissident views appears to have dwindled after the excitement surrounding Thabo Mbeki's AIDS panel and the Durban Declaration in 2000. It seems likely that new and better evidence, including the obvious benefits of modern drug treatments, has caused many former dissidents to change their minds.
By far the most significant scientist to question the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS is Professor Peter Duesberg, a virologist at the University of California at Berkeley, who first wrote about this topic in 1987. Throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium, as HIV and AIDS researchers announced many new discoveries and amassed huge volumes of data, Dr Duesberg remained unconvinced. He admits that HIV exists, but he maintains that it is harmless, and that AIDS is caused by non-contagious factors including drug abuse, malnutrition, and even the very drugs used to combat HIV.2
Other dissidents (often called "denialists" by their opponents) include the Perth Group of medical scientists and physicians from Australia. The Perth Group (led by Eleni Papadopulos) claims that nobody has conclusively proven the existence of HIV, so any proof that HIV causes AIDS has no foundation.3 Dissident arguments have received attention from the popular media, as well as from scientific journals. And with the rise of the Internet, alternative views have found a much wider audience.
Some of their followers are intrigued by conspiracy theories involving sinister drug companies or government persecution of minority groups. But alternative explanations can also appeal to those diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, who read that their condition might not be fatal, that they shouldn't take toxic drugs, and that unprotected sex poses no risks. Even a few AIDS service organisations have adopted non-HIV viewpoints.4
However, the proportion of scientists who doubt that HIV causes AIDS is tiny, and shows no sign of increasing. Interest in dissident views appears to have dwindled after the excitement surrounding Thabo Mbeki's AIDS panel and the Durban Declaration in 2000. It seems likely that new and better evidence, including the obvious benefits of modern drug treatments, has caused many former dissidents to change their minds.
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:03 AM
How can we prove that HIV causes AIDS?
Koch's Postulates
In the nineteenth century, the German scientist Robert Koch developed a set of four "postulates" to guide people trying to prove that a germ causes a disease. Scientists agree that if HIV satisfies all of these conditions with regard to AIDS then it must be the cause of AIDS:15
Koch 1: The germ must be found in every person with the disease
Koch 2: The germ must be isolated from someone who has the disease and grown in pure culture
Koch 3: The germ must cause the disease when introduced into a healthy person
Koch 4: The germ must be re-isolated from the infected person
Other evidence
Even Koch recognized that in some cases not all of his conditions could be met, so other evidence should also be considered. This is particularly true when the germ is a virus rather than a bacterium.16 Modern scientists are willing to consider a wide range of evidence. In particular, we can ask five key questions:
Do surveillance statistics show a relationship between HIV and AIDS?
How well does HIV infection predict illness and death?
Do drugs designed to combat HIV benefit people with AIDS?
Are there any credible causes besides HIV?
What can we learn from Africa?
We'll address these questions after looking at Koch's Postulates.
Koch 1: The germ must be found in every person with the disease
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines a condition called idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL for short. Someone is diagnosed with ICL if they have a CD4+ cell count below 300 cells per cubic millimeter, or 20% of all T lymphocytes, on at least two occasions, but have no detectable HIV infection, nor any other known cause of immune deficiency (such as cancer therapy). As many dissidents have pointed out, this is essentially a definition of HIV-free AIDS. So just how common is this condition?
In 1993, a CDC task force published the results of an exhaustive survey of ICL in the USA. They had reviewed 230,179 AIDS-like cases reported since 1983 and identified 47 patients with ICL (plus 127 uncertain cases). All of the other people with AIDS who had received an HIV test produced a positive result. What's more, the team closely investigated the ICL cases and discovered that they didn't fit the usual AIDS profile. There were 29 male and 18 female patients, and 39 of them were white (4 others were of Asian descent). In 29 cases, the researchers couldn't fit the people into conventional risk groups for AIDS (homosexual men, haemophiliacs, injecting drug users, and the sexual partners of such groups). Whatever these 47 cases represent, they don't seem to be typical of the massive epidemic that we're interested in.17
The findings of the ICL survey are backed up by large-scale monitoring studies, including the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). During the MACS, scientists monitored the health of 2,713 gay and bisexual men who tested negative for HIV antibodies. Over several years, only one of these men had persistently low CD4+ cell counts, and he was undergoing cancer therapy designed to weaken his immune system. Similar results have been found among blood donors, recipients of blood and blood products, injecting drug users and other groups: severe immune deficiency is virtually non-existent among those who test HIV-negative.18
As Dr Duesberg has pointed out, quite a lot of people (mostly in the early 1980s) have been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA despite never taking an HIV test, and nobody knows whether these people were HIV-positive or not. However, based on the much larger sample of people who have been tested, Koch's first postulate has certainly been satisfied. The only way by which dissidents have been able to come up with significant numbers of HIV-free "AIDS" cases is by using much looser definitions of AIDS. Such definitions include many people with milder immune deficiency, which is generally not fatal.19 20
What about false positive test results?
Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the best-established concepts in medicine. The World Health Organisation and the US National Institutes of Health agree that modern HIV tests are extremely reliable, and are even more accurate than most other infectious disease tests.21 22
Nevertheless, some dissidents have tried to dismiss the association between AIDS and HIV by claiming that many of those who test positive are not really infected with HIV. In particular, Christine Johnson has listed dozens of conditions reported to have produced false positive reactions on at least one occasion (under particular circumstances, using particular test kits).23
It is true that no test is perfect. However, what the dissidents usually don't mention is how rare the reports of false positive results have been, especially in recent years. Nor do they mention that every person who uses a test kit is trained to spot the telltale signs of a suspicious result, and to keep testing by various methods until no doubt remains. The conditions that cause false positive results are not only very uncommon, but are also typically short-lived, whereas HIV infection does not go away.24 25
The dissident theory cannot satisfactorily explain why scientists have been able to use various techniques to detect the virus itself in virtually everyone with AIDS, as well as in most people with positive antibody test results, as explained in the next section. These methods (including DNA PCR, RNA PCR and viral culture) are not affected by any of the factors said to produce false positive results in antibody testing.
Nor can the alternative theory fully explain why the association between AIDS and antibody test results is so exceptionally strong: virtually everyone with AIDS tests positive, while more than 99% of the US public tests negative. And it cannot explain why the proportion of people testing HIV positive should have increased so dramatically over time. For example, the proportion of South African women testing HIV positive in annual antenatal surveys rose from 0.8% in 1990 to 10.4% in 1995, 24.5% in 2000 and 29.5% in 2004. The age distribution of these data is similar to that of other sexually transmitted infections.26
Koch's Postulates
In the nineteenth century, the German scientist Robert Koch developed a set of four "postulates" to guide people trying to prove that a germ causes a disease. Scientists agree that if HIV satisfies all of these conditions with regard to AIDS then it must be the cause of AIDS:15
Koch 1: The germ must be found in every person with the disease
Koch 2: The germ must be isolated from someone who has the disease and grown in pure culture
Koch 3: The germ must cause the disease when introduced into a healthy person
Koch 4: The germ must be re-isolated from the infected person
Other evidence
Even Koch recognized that in some cases not all of his conditions could be met, so other evidence should also be considered. This is particularly true when the germ is a virus rather than a bacterium.16 Modern scientists are willing to consider a wide range of evidence. In particular, we can ask five key questions:
Do surveillance statistics show a relationship between HIV and AIDS?
How well does HIV infection predict illness and death?
Do drugs designed to combat HIV benefit people with AIDS?
Are there any credible causes besides HIV?
What can we learn from Africa?
We'll address these questions after looking at Koch's Postulates.
Koch 1: The germ must be found in every person with the disease
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines a condition called idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL for short. Someone is diagnosed with ICL if they have a CD4+ cell count below 300 cells per cubic millimeter, or 20% of all T lymphocytes, on at least two occasions, but have no detectable HIV infection, nor any other known cause of immune deficiency (such as cancer therapy). As many dissidents have pointed out, this is essentially a definition of HIV-free AIDS. So just how common is this condition?
In 1993, a CDC task force published the results of an exhaustive survey of ICL in the USA. They had reviewed 230,179 AIDS-like cases reported since 1983 and identified 47 patients with ICL (plus 127 uncertain cases). All of the other people with AIDS who had received an HIV test produced a positive result. What's more, the team closely investigated the ICL cases and discovered that they didn't fit the usual AIDS profile. There were 29 male and 18 female patients, and 39 of them were white (4 others were of Asian descent). In 29 cases, the researchers couldn't fit the people into conventional risk groups for AIDS (homosexual men, haemophiliacs, injecting drug users, and the sexual partners of such groups). Whatever these 47 cases represent, they don't seem to be typical of the massive epidemic that we're interested in.17
The findings of the ICL survey are backed up by large-scale monitoring studies, including the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). During the MACS, scientists monitored the health of 2,713 gay and bisexual men who tested negative for HIV antibodies. Over several years, only one of these men had persistently low CD4+ cell counts, and he was undergoing cancer therapy designed to weaken his immune system. Similar results have been found among blood donors, recipients of blood and blood products, injecting drug users and other groups: severe immune deficiency is virtually non-existent among those who test HIV-negative.18
As Dr Duesberg has pointed out, quite a lot of people (mostly in the early 1980s) have been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA despite never taking an HIV test, and nobody knows whether these people were HIV-positive or not. However, based on the much larger sample of people who have been tested, Koch's first postulate has certainly been satisfied. The only way by which dissidents have been able to come up with significant numbers of HIV-free "AIDS" cases is by using much looser definitions of AIDS. Such definitions include many people with milder immune deficiency, which is generally not fatal.19 20
What about false positive test results?
Diagnosis of infection using antibody testing is one of the best-established concepts in medicine. The World Health Organisation and the US National Institutes of Health agree that modern HIV tests are extremely reliable, and are even more accurate than most other infectious disease tests.21 22
Nevertheless, some dissidents have tried to dismiss the association between AIDS and HIV by claiming that many of those who test positive are not really infected with HIV. In particular, Christine Johnson has listed dozens of conditions reported to have produced false positive reactions on at least one occasion (under particular circumstances, using particular test kits).23
It is true that no test is perfect. However, what the dissidents usually don't mention is how rare the reports of false positive results have been, especially in recent years. Nor do they mention that every person who uses a test kit is trained to spot the telltale signs of a suspicious result, and to keep testing by various methods until no doubt remains. The conditions that cause false positive results are not only very uncommon, but are also typically short-lived, whereas HIV infection does not go away.24 25
The dissident theory cannot satisfactorily explain why scientists have been able to use various techniques to detect the virus itself in virtually everyone with AIDS, as well as in most people with positive antibody test results, as explained in the next section. These methods (including DNA PCR, RNA PCR and viral culture) are not affected by any of the factors said to produce false positive results in antibody testing.
Nor can the alternative theory fully explain why the association between AIDS and antibody test results is so exceptionally strong: virtually everyone with AIDS tests positive, while more than 99% of the US public tests negative. And it cannot explain why the proportion of people testing HIV positive should have increased so dramatically over time. For example, the proportion of South African women testing HIV positive in annual antenatal surveys rose from 0.8% in 1990 to 10.4% in 1995, 24.5% in 2000 and 29.5% in 2004. The age distribution of these data is similar to that of other sexually transmitted infections.26
- Mr. Bill
- 02-21-2012, 02:04 AM
HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS
A Summary of Current Research Findings
by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Illegal injection drug users whose social condition and lifestyle includes frequent bouts with addiction, malnutrition, and the introduction of foreign substances into the bloodstream, are also at risk for immune system depletion.
Generally, the life experiences of such addicted people are those of poverty and neglect of personal health and hygiene, and the introduction of foreign substances into the blood stream by injection as a commonplace, every-day affair.
Over the years, these groups also suffer and decline immunologically.
Peter Duesberg properly points out the incredible naivete of the so-called "clean needle" propaganda programs, which provide antiseptic needles by which unsanitary immune-depleting substances can be injected into the bloodstream.
The cocaine, amphetamine or heroin which an addict injects might be harvested by hand in Asia or South America, be packaged and processed in dirt-shacks, thick with insects and soil, and likewise handled in unsanitary conditions by dozens of possibly sick people en-route to the USA, where it is purposefully cut with additional unsanitary materials of various sorts, in back-room or basement laboratories, etc. -- but for some reason, we are told that AIDS will be prevented if these people only inject such "junk" with a clean needle!
Clearly, there is no science behind such politically-motivated assertions. There are good arguments for assisting drug addicts and decriminalizing illegal drugs, but "combatting HIV infection" is not one of them.
continued...
.
A Summary of Current Research Findings
by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Illegal injection drug users whose social condition and lifestyle includes frequent bouts with addiction, malnutrition, and the introduction of foreign substances into the bloodstream, are also at risk for immune system depletion.
Generally, the life experiences of such addicted people are those of poverty and neglect of personal health and hygiene, and the introduction of foreign substances into the blood stream by injection as a commonplace, every-day affair.
Over the years, these groups also suffer and decline immunologically.
Peter Duesberg properly points out the incredible naivete of the so-called "clean needle" propaganda programs, which provide antiseptic needles by which unsanitary immune-depleting substances can be injected into the bloodstream.
The cocaine, amphetamine or heroin which an addict injects might be harvested by hand in Asia or South America, be packaged and processed in dirt-shacks, thick with insects and soil, and likewise handled in unsanitary conditions by dozens of possibly sick people en-route to the USA, where it is purposefully cut with additional unsanitary materials of various sorts, in back-room or basement laboratories, etc. -- but for some reason, we are told that AIDS will be prevented if these people only inject such "junk" with a clean needle!
Clearly, there is no science behind such politically-motivated assertions. There are good arguments for assisting drug addicts and decriminalizing illegal drugs, but "combatting HIV infection" is not one of them.
continued...
.
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:04 AM
Koch 2: The germ must be isolated from someone who has the disease and grown in pure culture
Koch required that the germ be isolated from all other material that could possibly cause disease, so that his third and fourth postulates could be properly tested.
In May 1983, Luc Montagnier and his colleagues in France reported the isolation of a virus they named LAV, which infected and killed CD4+ cells. A year later, the American Robert Gallo announced he had isolated a virus called HTLV-III and found a way to grow it in culture. It was later discovered that the two viruses were genetically indistinguishable, and they were renamed HIV.27
Researchers have been able to isolate and culture HIV from most AIDS patients whom they have examined (as well as from many other people with HIV antibodies).28 They have isolated the virus from blood cells, blood plasma, lymph nodes, semen, vaginal fluids, amniotic fluids, bone marrow, brain, cerebrospinal fluid, intestines, breast milk, saliva and urine, and cultured it in various cell types.29 Images taken using electron microscopy and other techniques have shown virus-like particles that have the size, shape, structure, density, proteins and behaviour expected of retroviruses.30 31 32
Techniques developed in the mid-1990s have made it much easier to extract and sequence the complete genetic material (genome) of an isolated virus.33 34 The Los Alamos database now contains hundreds of full-length HIV genomes from around the world, each containing the same nine genes.35 Based on genetic similarities and differences, these sequences have been used to define family trees of HIV types, groups and subtypes as well as hybrids called recombinant forms.36
Whole or partial HIV genomes have been detected in numerous AIDS patients, using a technique called PCR (the same technology is used to find DNA evidence with which to convict murderers or to settle paternity suits, as well as to detect the germs that cause hepatitis, tuberculosis and other diseases). Almost everyone who tests positive for HIV genetic material also tests positive for HIV antibodies, and vice versa, while those who test negative for one thing also lack the other.37 People who have been exposed to the same source of infection contain genetically very similar HIV strains – similar enough for court convictions.38
Scientists have used a standard technique of genetic science called molecular cloning to obtain highly purified HIV. Genetic material extracted using PCR or other techniques has been introduced into bacteria or other cells (usually using phages or plasmids), which then produce many exact copies (clones) of the viral genes. If cloned viral genomes are inserted (transfected) into human cells then they produce a new generation of infectious HIV particles, which are free from contamination.39
Virtually all experts agree that HIV has been isolated according to the most rigorous standards of modern virology, meaning that Koch's second postulate has without doubt been satisfied.
What about the Perth Group?
A small band of Australian scientists and physicians claims that HIV has never been properly isolated. The Perth Group has never said that HIV doesn't exist; rather they say that HIV has never been conclusively proven to exist. They don't trust any HIV tests, because they have not been verified using their "gold standard" of isolated virus. The Group uses the isolation argument to dismiss just about every type of evidence that HIV causes AIDS.40
Virtually all virologists believe that the Perth Group's conditions are unnecessary. They say nobody has ever used such rules to isolate any type of virus, and that other techniques are much more effective. According to the Perth Group's rules, nobody has isolated or proven the existence of the viruses said to cause small pox, influenza, measles, mumps and yellow fever.
Experts argue that the Group's rules are unreasonably demanding and impossible to satisfy fully, even though their main requirements have already been met.41 42 Dr Duesberg is among those who have tried in vain to persuade the Perth Group that HIV definitely exists and has been isolated using the most rigorous methods available.43 44 45
The Perth Group appears to have only two active members: a medical physicist called Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and an emergency physician called Valendar Turner. In late 2006, Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Turner testified in the appeal trial of Andre Chad Parenzee, an HIV-positive man convicted of endangering life by having sex with three women without informing them of his infection. The two witnesses intended to demonstrate that HIV had not been proven to exist; that HIV tests were unreliable; and that there was no evidence of HIV transmission through sex.
The presiding judge concluded that the Perth Group members had no qualifications or practical experience in virology, immunology or epidemiology, and were not qualified to express opinions about the existence of HIV, or whether it had been shown to cause AIDS. The judge found that the pair relied entirely on the work of others, which they often took out of context and misrepresented. Their arguments were found to lack plausibility and cogency, and to have "minimal" probative value. "I am satisfied that no jury would conclude that there is any doubt that the virus HIV exists," said Justice Sulan. "I consider no jury would be left in any doubt that HIV is the cause of AIDS or that it is sexually transmissible."46
Koch required that the germ be isolated from all other material that could possibly cause disease, so that his third and fourth postulates could be properly tested.
In May 1983, Luc Montagnier and his colleagues in France reported the isolation of a virus they named LAV, which infected and killed CD4+ cells. A year later, the American Robert Gallo announced he had isolated a virus called HTLV-III and found a way to grow it in culture. It was later discovered that the two viruses were genetically indistinguishable, and they were renamed HIV.27
Researchers have been able to isolate and culture HIV from most AIDS patients whom they have examined (as well as from many other people with HIV antibodies).28 They have isolated the virus from blood cells, blood plasma, lymph nodes, semen, vaginal fluids, amniotic fluids, bone marrow, brain, cerebrospinal fluid, intestines, breast milk, saliva and urine, and cultured it in various cell types.29 Images taken using electron microscopy and other techniques have shown virus-like particles that have the size, shape, structure, density, proteins and behaviour expected of retroviruses.30 31 32
Techniques developed in the mid-1990s have made it much easier to extract and sequence the complete genetic material (genome) of an isolated virus.33 34 The Los Alamos database now contains hundreds of full-length HIV genomes from around the world, each containing the same nine genes.35 Based on genetic similarities and differences, these sequences have been used to define family trees of HIV types, groups and subtypes as well as hybrids called recombinant forms.36
Whole or partial HIV genomes have been detected in numerous AIDS patients, using a technique called PCR (the same technology is used to find DNA evidence with which to convict murderers or to settle paternity suits, as well as to detect the germs that cause hepatitis, tuberculosis and other diseases). Almost everyone who tests positive for HIV genetic material also tests positive for HIV antibodies, and vice versa, while those who test negative for one thing also lack the other.37 People who have been exposed to the same source of infection contain genetically very similar HIV strains – similar enough for court convictions.38
Scientists have used a standard technique of genetic science called molecular cloning to obtain highly purified HIV. Genetic material extracted using PCR or other techniques has been introduced into bacteria or other cells (usually using phages or plasmids), which then produce many exact copies (clones) of the viral genes. If cloned viral genomes are inserted (transfected) into human cells then they produce a new generation of infectious HIV particles, which are free from contamination.39
Virtually all experts agree that HIV has been isolated according to the most rigorous standards of modern virology, meaning that Koch's second postulate has without doubt been satisfied.
What about the Perth Group?
A small band of Australian scientists and physicians claims that HIV has never been properly isolated. The Perth Group has never said that HIV doesn't exist; rather they say that HIV has never been conclusively proven to exist. They don't trust any HIV tests, because they have not been verified using their "gold standard" of isolated virus. The Group uses the isolation argument to dismiss just about every type of evidence that HIV causes AIDS.40
Virtually all virologists believe that the Perth Group's conditions are unnecessary. They say nobody has ever used such rules to isolate any type of virus, and that other techniques are much more effective. According to the Perth Group's rules, nobody has isolated or proven the existence of the viruses said to cause small pox, influenza, measles, mumps and yellow fever.
Experts argue that the Group's rules are unreasonably demanding and impossible to satisfy fully, even though their main requirements have already been met.41 42 Dr Duesberg is among those who have tried in vain to persuade the Perth Group that HIV definitely exists and has been isolated using the most rigorous methods available.43 44 45
The Perth Group appears to have only two active members: a medical physicist called Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and an emergency physician called Valendar Turner. In late 2006, Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Turner testified in the appeal trial of Andre Chad Parenzee, an HIV-positive man convicted of endangering life by having sex with three women without informing them of his infection. The two witnesses intended to demonstrate that HIV had not been proven to exist; that HIV tests were unreliable; and that there was no evidence of HIV transmission through sex.
The presiding judge concluded that the Perth Group members had no qualifications or practical experience in virology, immunology or epidemiology, and were not qualified to express opinions about the existence of HIV, or whether it had been shown to cause AIDS. The judge found that the pair relied entirely on the work of others, which they often took out of context and misrepresented. Their arguments were found to lack plausibility and cogency, and to have "minimal" probative value. "I am satisfied that no jury would conclude that there is any doubt that the virus HIV exists," said Justice Sulan. "I consider no jury would be left in any doubt that HIV is the cause of AIDS or that it is sexually transmissible."46
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:05 AM
Koch 3 and 4: The germ must cause the disease when introduced into a healthy person, and the germ must be re-isolated from the infected person
The third and fourth postulates are much harder to prove. It's considered unethical to deliberately infect someone with pure HIV, so such an experiment has never taken place. However, there is no reason why the transmission has to be deliberate.
There have been three reports of lab workers developing immune deficiency after accidentally exposing themselves to purified, cloned HIV. As mentioned above, such cloned virus is free of all contamination from the original source. None of these people fitted conventional risk groups for the disease. In each case, HIV was isolated from the individual and, by genetic sequencing, was found to be the strain to which they'd been exposed. One of these workers developed PCP and had a CD4+ cell count below 50 cells before starting antiretroviral treatment.47
Still, three examples don't make a totally conclusive proof, so it's worth looking for more evidence.
One line of argument can be based on animal experiments.48 In some studies, chimpanzees deliberately infected with HIV-1 have gone on to develop AIDS-like conditions (though this appears to be rare),49 while HIV-2 has had the same effect on baboons.50 Macaque monkeys have developed AIDS after being infected with a hybrid virus called SHIV, which contains genes taken from HIV.51 And in mice engineered to have a human immune system, HIV produces the same patterns of disease as in humans.52
If we're prepared to bend the rules a bit further, we can look at people who've been infected with non-purified HIV. Such cases at least suggest that AIDS is infectious, though they don't rule out the possibility that more than one germ is involved.
Scientists have documented numerous cases of people developing AIDS after becoming infected with HIV as a result of blood transfusions, drug use, mother-to-child transmission, occupational exposure and sexual transmission. In such cases, they have recorded the development of HIV antibodies (seroconversion) using a series of blood tests, before progression to AIDS. Seroconversion is often accompanied by a mild flu-like illness or swollen glands.53
Until the mid-1990s, nobody claimed that HIV had fulfilled Koch's last two postulates. Even today, the proof is not quite perfect. But most scientists believe the evidence is now strong enough to put the case beyond all reasonable doubt.54
The third and fourth postulates are much harder to prove. It's considered unethical to deliberately infect someone with pure HIV, so such an experiment has never taken place. However, there is no reason why the transmission has to be deliberate.
There have been three reports of lab workers developing immune deficiency after accidentally exposing themselves to purified, cloned HIV. As mentioned above, such cloned virus is free of all contamination from the original source. None of these people fitted conventional risk groups for the disease. In each case, HIV was isolated from the individual and, by genetic sequencing, was found to be the strain to which they'd been exposed. One of these workers developed PCP and had a CD4+ cell count below 50 cells before starting antiretroviral treatment.47
Still, three examples don't make a totally conclusive proof, so it's worth looking for more evidence.
One line of argument can be based on animal experiments.48 In some studies, chimpanzees deliberately infected with HIV-1 have gone on to develop AIDS-like conditions (though this appears to be rare),49 while HIV-2 has had the same effect on baboons.50 Macaque monkeys have developed AIDS after being infected with a hybrid virus called SHIV, which contains genes taken from HIV.51 And in mice engineered to have a human immune system, HIV produces the same patterns of disease as in humans.52
If we're prepared to bend the rules a bit further, we can look at people who've been infected with non-purified HIV. Such cases at least suggest that AIDS is infectious, though they don't rule out the possibility that more than one germ is involved.
Scientists have documented numerous cases of people developing AIDS after becoming infected with HIV as a result of blood transfusions, drug use, mother-to-child transmission, occupational exposure and sexual transmission. In such cases, they have recorded the development of HIV antibodies (seroconversion) using a series of blood tests, before progression to AIDS. Seroconversion is often accompanied by a mild flu-like illness or swollen glands.53
Until the mid-1990s, nobody claimed that HIV had fulfilled Koch's last two postulates. Even today, the proof is not quite perfect. But most scientists believe the evidence is now strong enough to put the case beyond all reasonable doubt.54
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:06 AM
How well does HIV infection predict illness and death?
A mountain of evidence shows that much can be predicted from a positive test result. For example:
Around half of people develop AIDS-defining conditions within 10 years of HIV infection, if they don't take antiretroviral drugs. Only a few do not develop AIDS within 20 years.60 61
Time from HIV-1 seroconversion to AIDS and death before widespread use of highly-active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative re-analysis. Collaborative Group on AIDS Incubation and HIV Survival including the CASCADE EU Concerted Action. Concerted Action on SeroConversion to AIDS and Death in Europe.
[No authors listed]
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
We used data from Europe, North America, and Australia to assess the effect of exposure category on the AIDS incubation period and HIV-1 survival and whether the effect of age at seroconversion varies with exposure category and with time since seroconversion.
METHODS:
38 studies of HIV-1-infected individuals whose dates of seroconversion could be reliably estimated were included in the analysis. Individual data on 13030 HIV-1-infected individuals from 15 countries were collated, checked, and analysed centrally. We calculated estimates of mortality and AIDS incidence rates and estimated the proportions of individuals surviving and developing AIDS at each year after seroconversion from the numbers of observed deaths or cases of AIDS and the corresponding person-years at risk. Analyses were adjusted for age at seroconversion, time since seroconversion, and other factors as appropriate.
FINDINGS:
Mortality and AIDS incidence increased strongly with time since seroconversion and age at seroconversion. Median survival varied from 12.5 years (95% CI 12.1-12.9) for those aged 15-24 years at seroconversion to 7.9 years (7.4-8.5) for those aged 45-54 years at seroconversion, whereas for development of AIDS the corresponding values were 11.0 years (10.7-11.7) and 7.7 years (7.1-8.6). There was no appreciable effect of exposure category on survival. For AIDS incidence, the exposure category effect that we noted was explained by the high incidence of Kaposi's sarcoma in those infected through sex between men. We estimated that among people aged 25-29 years at seroconversion 90% (89-91) and 60% (57-62) survived to 5 years and 10 years, respectively, after seroconversion, whereas 13% (12-15) and 46% (44-49), respectively, developed AIDS (excluding Kaposi's sarcoma).
INTERPRETATION:
Before widespread use of highly-active antiretroviral therapy (before 1996), time since seroconversion and age at seroconversion were the major determinants of survival and development of AIDS in Europe, North America, and Australia.
A mountain of evidence shows that much can be predicted from a positive test result. For example:
Around half of people develop AIDS-defining conditions within 10 years of HIV infection, if they don't take antiretroviral drugs. Only a few do not develop AIDS within 20 years.60 61
Time from HIV-1 seroconversion to AIDS and death before widespread use of highly-active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative re-analysis. Collaborative Group on AIDS Incubation and HIV Survival including the CASCADE EU Concerted Action. Concerted Action on SeroConversion to AIDS and Death in Europe.
[No authors listed]
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
We used data from Europe, North America, and Australia to assess the effect of exposure category on the AIDS incubation period and HIV-1 survival and whether the effect of age at seroconversion varies with exposure category and with time since seroconversion.
METHODS:
38 studies of HIV-1-infected individuals whose dates of seroconversion could be reliably estimated were included in the analysis. Individual data on 13030 HIV-1-infected individuals from 15 countries were collated, checked, and analysed centrally. We calculated estimates of mortality and AIDS incidence rates and estimated the proportions of individuals surviving and developing AIDS at each year after seroconversion from the numbers of observed deaths or cases of AIDS and the corresponding person-years at risk. Analyses were adjusted for age at seroconversion, time since seroconversion, and other factors as appropriate.
FINDINGS:
Mortality and AIDS incidence increased strongly with time since seroconversion and age at seroconversion. Median survival varied from 12.5 years (95% CI 12.1-12.9) for those aged 15-24 years at seroconversion to 7.9 years (7.4-8.5) for those aged 45-54 years at seroconversion, whereas for development of AIDS the corresponding values were 11.0 years (10.7-11.7) and 7.7 years (7.1-8.6). There was no appreciable effect of exposure category on survival. For AIDS incidence, the exposure category effect that we noted was explained by the high incidence of Kaposi's sarcoma in those infected through sex between men. We estimated that among people aged 25-29 years at seroconversion 90% (89-91) and 60% (57-62) survived to 5 years and 10 years, respectively, after seroconversion, whereas 13% (12-15) and 46% (44-49), respectively, developed AIDS (excluding Kaposi's sarcoma).
INTERPRETATION:
Before widespread use of highly-active antiretroviral therapy (before 1996), time since seroconversion and age at seroconversion were the major determinants of survival and development of AIDS in Europe, North America, and Australia.
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:07 AM
HIV-positive Americans and Canadians are over 1,000 times more likely to develop AIDS-defining diseases (such as PCP and Kaposi's sarcoma) than those who test negative.62 63
A study in Uganda found that HIV-positive people were 16 times more likely to die over five years than those who tested negative. For those aged 25-34 years old, HIV infection raised the death rate by a factor of 27.64 Numerous other studies have found similar results in Tanzania, Malawi, Rwanda and other parts of Africa.65 66 67 68
A study of female sex workers in Thailand found the death rate to be over 50 times greater among those who tested positive. All of the positive women died of conditions associated with immune deficiency, compared with none of the negative women.69
During a 16-year, large-scale monitoring study of homosexual and bisexual men in the US, 60% of HIV-positives died compared with 2.3% of HIV-negatives.70
In the UK between 1979 and 1992, death rates increased massively among HIV-positive haemophiliacs, but remained unchanged among the rest.71 Similar research in the USA found that HIV-positive haemophiliacs were 11 times more likely to die over a ten-year period, compared with those who tested negative.72
In a European study of babies born to HIV-positive women, none of those who tested negative developed AIDS, compared to 30% of those who tested positive. By their first birthday, 17% of the HIV-positive babies had died.73 A similar study in Uganda found that more than half of HIV-positive babies died before their second birthdays, compared to one sixth of those who were HIV-negative.74
Alternative theories cannot explain why HIV tests should be so effective at predicting illness and death in so many diverse groups of people from all parts of the world.
It is even possible to predict the likelihood that someone will soon develop AIDS by measuring the amount of HIV in their blood, which is known as "viral load". Such measurements can be made using PCR, branched-DNA signal-amplification (bDNA) or quantitative microculture techniques. For example, the table below - based on a long term study of 1,604 patients - illustrates just how useful bDNA forecasts can be:75
Viral load (RNA copies per millilitre of blood plasma) Proportion of patients developing AIDS within six years
less than 500 5.4%
501-3,000 16.6%
3,001-10,000 31.7%
10,001-30,000 55.2%
more than 30,000 80.0%
Dr Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR process, has questioned its ability to measure viral load. However, his arguments have been theoretical, and are not backed up by large-scale surveys, which have repeatedly shown a clear association between viral load and progression to AIDS (in all parts of the world).76 77 Dr Mullis' objections do not apply to the unrelated bDNA and quantitative microculture techniques. Modern bDNA tests produce very similar viral load counts to modern PCR tests (though this was less true of some earlier models).78 79 As with antibody tests, there is no convincing alternative explanation for why viral load counts should be such useful indicators.
A study in Uganda found that HIV-positive people were 16 times more likely to die over five years than those who tested negative. For those aged 25-34 years old, HIV infection raised the death rate by a factor of 27.64 Numerous other studies have found similar results in Tanzania, Malawi, Rwanda and other parts of Africa.65 66 67 68
A study of female sex workers in Thailand found the death rate to be over 50 times greater among those who tested positive. All of the positive women died of conditions associated with immune deficiency, compared with none of the negative women.69
During a 16-year, large-scale monitoring study of homosexual and bisexual men in the US, 60% of HIV-positives died compared with 2.3% of HIV-negatives.70
In the UK between 1979 and 1992, death rates increased massively among HIV-positive haemophiliacs, but remained unchanged among the rest.71 Similar research in the USA found that HIV-positive haemophiliacs were 11 times more likely to die over a ten-year period, compared with those who tested negative.72
In a European study of babies born to HIV-positive women, none of those who tested negative developed AIDS, compared to 30% of those who tested positive. By their first birthday, 17% of the HIV-positive babies had died.73 A similar study in Uganda found that more than half of HIV-positive babies died before their second birthdays, compared to one sixth of those who were HIV-negative.74
Alternative theories cannot explain why HIV tests should be so effective at predicting illness and death in so many diverse groups of people from all parts of the world.
It is even possible to predict the likelihood that someone will soon develop AIDS by measuring the amount of HIV in their blood, which is known as "viral load". Such measurements can be made using PCR, branched-DNA signal-amplification (bDNA) or quantitative microculture techniques. For example, the table below - based on a long term study of 1,604 patients - illustrates just how useful bDNA forecasts can be:75
Viral load (RNA copies per millilitre of blood plasma) Proportion of patients developing AIDS within six years
less than 500 5.4%
501-3,000 16.6%
3,001-10,000 31.7%
10,001-30,000 55.2%
more than 30,000 80.0%
Dr Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR process, has questioned its ability to measure viral load. However, his arguments have been theoretical, and are not backed up by large-scale surveys, which have repeatedly shown a clear association between viral load and progression to AIDS (in all parts of the world).76 77 Dr Mullis' objections do not apply to the unrelated bDNA and quantitative microculture techniques. Modern bDNA tests produce very similar viral load counts to modern PCR tests (though this was less true of some earlier models).78 79 As with antibody tests, there is no convincing alternative explanation for why viral load counts should be such useful indicators.
- Mr. Bill
- 02-21-2012, 02:07 AM
HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS
A Summary of Current Research Findings
by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
HIV-antibody positive individuals may also suffer a health risk from AIDS medications routinely administered by physicians uncritical of drug-company propaganda.
There are, for example, large numbers of HIV-antibody positive individuals who have for years remained completely free of any symptoms for AIDS or any other significant disease. When treated with medications like AZT, however, these people are observed to sicken and die from "wasting disease" in short order.
The question is, do they die from HIV-induced AIDS, or from toxic AZT? Regarding AZT, it was an experimental cancer chemotherapy drug, but was withdrawn from testing and never approved for public use because of toxic side effects. Indeed, AZT is a DNA-chain terminator which suppresses immune-system functions and produces many of the same symptoms attributed to HIV!
According to Duesberg and his associates, healthy people who are treated with AZT start developing AIDS-like symptoms within one year, gradually to waste away with mortalitiy rates ranging from 1/3 to 3/4 of all who are treated. No truly controlled studies have ever been performed with AZT, and so nobody knows for certain if the thousands of symptom- free but HIV-antibody positives who took the drug and died, died because of "HIV-induced AIDS" or because of AZT- poisoning.
Many of the young people, and various Hollywood celebrities who were paraded on television talk shows, who preached the "safe-sex" and "sex can kill" propaganda to audiences, and who themselves later died from "AIDS" were treated with AZT from the very beginning, even though they showed no signs, or few signs of ill-health at the start of their program of AZT ingestion.
Some examples: Arthur Ashe, the heterosexual tennis professional, and Kimberly Bergalis, who supposedly "caught AIDS" from her Florida dentist -- Bergalis had only a minor yeast infection at the start of her AZT program.
In typical fashion, the news media focused upon and widely broadcast the details of their gradual degeneration and painful deaths, which exhibited all the classic symptoms of AZT poisoning. Meanwhile, Duesberg and other critics of AZT were routinely censored from media exposure, insuring the public heard only good things about AZT and the "progress in treatment of AIDS".
continued...
.
A Summary of Current Research Findings
by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
HIV-antibody positive individuals may also suffer a health risk from AIDS medications routinely administered by physicians uncritical of drug-company propaganda.
There are, for example, large numbers of HIV-antibody positive individuals who have for years remained completely free of any symptoms for AIDS or any other significant disease. When treated with medications like AZT, however, these people are observed to sicken and die from "wasting disease" in short order.
The question is, do they die from HIV-induced AIDS, or from toxic AZT? Regarding AZT, it was an experimental cancer chemotherapy drug, but was withdrawn from testing and never approved for public use because of toxic side effects. Indeed, AZT is a DNA-chain terminator which suppresses immune-system functions and produces many of the same symptoms attributed to HIV!
According to Duesberg and his associates, healthy people who are treated with AZT start developing AIDS-like symptoms within one year, gradually to waste away with mortalitiy rates ranging from 1/3 to 3/4 of all who are treated. No truly controlled studies have ever been performed with AZT, and so nobody knows for certain if the thousands of symptom- free but HIV-antibody positives who took the drug and died, died because of "HIV-induced AIDS" or because of AZT- poisoning.
Many of the young people, and various Hollywood celebrities who were paraded on television talk shows, who preached the "safe-sex" and "sex can kill" propaganda to audiences, and who themselves later died from "AIDS" were treated with AZT from the very beginning, even though they showed no signs, or few signs of ill-health at the start of their program of AZT ingestion.
Some examples: Arthur Ashe, the heterosexual tennis professional, and Kimberly Bergalis, who supposedly "caught AIDS" from her Florida dentist -- Bergalis had only a minor yeast infection at the start of her AZT program.
In typical fashion, the news media focused upon and widely broadcast the details of their gradual degeneration and painful deaths, which exhibited all the classic symptoms of AZT poisoning. Meanwhile, Duesberg and other critics of AZT were routinely censored from media exposure, insuring the public heard only good things about AZT and the "progress in treatment of AIDS".
continued...
.
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:08 AM
Drug abuse and other factors
Dissidents who claim that HIV does not cause AIDS have felt compelled to come up with alternative causes. These generally include recreational drugs (including heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and nitrite inhalants known as "poppers"), malnutrition, lack of clean drinking water, clotting factors used in blood transfusions, and anti-HIV drugs such as AZT. Some groups also suggest semen, "immune overload", antibiotics, benzene, stress, or lack of sleep.
In the early 1980s, when only a small number of AIDS cases had been reported, the medical establishment gave some of these possible causes very serious consideration. But such theories quickly lost favour as more cases emerged among men, women and children who did not fit the established risk groups, and it was established that affected people had been exposed to the bodily fluids of other affected people.102 Epidemiological data pointed to an infectious cause before HIV was ever isolated.103
Today, most scientists agree that controlled studies of drug users, heterosexuals, homosexuals, haemophiliacs and twin babies have consistently shown that HIV is the only factor that predicts who will develop AIDS. Associations in time and place between trends in drug use or promiscuity and trends in AIDS diagnoses are considered much too weak to prove causation.104 105
Dr Duesberg has claimed that some HIV-negative drug users have developed AIDS-like immune abnormalities and diseases. But his definition of "AIDS-like" is very vague, and none of these cases would merit an AIDS diagnosis.106 107 108
Antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that anti-HIV drugs cause the severe immune deficiency typical of AIDS, and there is abundant evidence that currently recommended courses of antiretroviral therapy can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-positive people.109 110 111 112
Certain AIDS-related diseases are more common among some population groups than among others. This is not surprising, and it does not mean that they cannot all have the same underlying cause.113 114
Severe malnutrition is a known cause of immune deficiency (though not the specific type of immune deficiency that is characteristic of AIDS). That is why all definitions of AIDS specify that there must be no evidence of severe malnutrition. Poor nutrition is also thought to make people with HIV more vulnerable to illness, so improving diet is an essential component of programmes to help HIV-infected people around the world. Still, such actions are not by themselves sufficient, because thousands of Africans who are well fed and cared for continue to die from AIDS. As the next section explains, there is no evidence that deterioration in diet or living standards can explain AIDS in Africa, which appears to be a totally new epidemic disease.
Dissidents who claim that HIV does not cause AIDS have felt compelled to come up with alternative causes. These generally include recreational drugs (including heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and nitrite inhalants known as "poppers"), malnutrition, lack of clean drinking water, clotting factors used in blood transfusions, and anti-HIV drugs such as AZT. Some groups also suggest semen, "immune overload", antibiotics, benzene, stress, or lack of sleep.
In the early 1980s, when only a small number of AIDS cases had been reported, the medical establishment gave some of these possible causes very serious consideration. But such theories quickly lost favour as more cases emerged among men, women and children who did not fit the established risk groups, and it was established that affected people had been exposed to the bodily fluids of other affected people.102 Epidemiological data pointed to an infectious cause before HIV was ever isolated.103
Today, most scientists agree that controlled studies of drug users, heterosexuals, homosexuals, haemophiliacs and twin babies have consistently shown that HIV is the only factor that predicts who will develop AIDS. Associations in time and place between trends in drug use or promiscuity and trends in AIDS diagnoses are considered much too weak to prove causation.104 105
Dr Duesberg has claimed that some HIV-negative drug users have developed AIDS-like immune abnormalities and diseases. But his definition of "AIDS-like" is very vague, and none of these cases would merit an AIDS diagnosis.106 107 108
Antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that anti-HIV drugs cause the severe immune deficiency typical of AIDS, and there is abundant evidence that currently recommended courses of antiretroviral therapy can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-positive people.109 110 111 112
Certain AIDS-related diseases are more common among some population groups than among others. This is not surprising, and it does not mean that they cannot all have the same underlying cause.113 114
Severe malnutrition is a known cause of immune deficiency (though not the specific type of immune deficiency that is characteristic of AIDS). That is why all definitions of AIDS specify that there must be no evidence of severe malnutrition. Poor nutrition is also thought to make people with HIV more vulnerable to illness, so improving diet is an essential component of programmes to help HIV-infected people around the world. Still, such actions are not by themselves sufficient, because thousands of Africans who are well fed and cared for continue to die from AIDS. As the next section explains, there is no evidence that deterioration in diet or living standards can explain AIDS in Africa, which appears to be a totally new epidemic disease.
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:10 AM
AIDS in Africa
Some dissidents claim there is no great new AIDS epidemic in Africa, just the same old diseases caused by poverty, hunger and poor sanitation. They say that official statistics are misleading because AIDS in Africa may be diagnosed on the basis of various clinical symptoms without an HIV test if none is available.115 We'll challenge these claims using four lines of argument.
Firstly, medical records from a number of African countries show marked increases in a number of AIDS-related diseases during the late 1970s and early 1980s. These records suggest that AIDS was probably rare or non-existent before that time.116
Secondly, as discussed above, numerous studies have found that people who test positive for HIV face a much higher risk of illness and death. Surveillance studies show that HIV prevalence rates have soared across sub-Saharan Africa since the early 1980s, and are now extremely high. It is therefore reasonable to estimate that millions are ill and dying.117 118
Thirdly, since the early 1980s, African countries with high HIV prevalence have suffered increased burdens of disease and death, as measured by censuses and surveys. For example:
Between the 1980s and mid 1990s, adult death rates rose significantly in countries where HIV had been widespread for many years (such as Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe), but not in countries where rates had been lower.119 120
Increases in death and disease have disproportionately affected young and middle-aged adults, especially those living in urban areas. Relatively well-paid professionals including teachers and doctors have been among the worst hit. This pattern is not typical of diseases caused by malnutrition or dirty water, which generally target the poor and the elderly.121 122 123
In several countries with a high HIV prevalence, the number of orphans has risen dramatically. Such changes indicate that sexually active adults are dying while children (and the elderly) are surviving. Household surveys have revealed a strong correlation between rates of orphanhood and adult HIV prevalence.124 125 126
Patterns of disease have changed. For example, rates of Kaposi's sarcoma have soared,127 and tuberculosis - which was once confined to the poor, the weak and the elderly - today kills numerous well-fed Africans in the prime of life.128 129
Not all of sub-Saharan Africa has been equally affected by the recent changes. For example, Southern Africa has suffered much more than Western Africa, even though the regions have experienced similarly high levels of extreme poverty, malaria, food shortages and conflict. The only factor associated with the changes is HIV prevalence.130 131
Fourthly, the number of reported AIDS cases has risen across sub-Saharan Africa. Experts believe these statistics vastly underestimate the scale of the epidemics because the reporting systems are inadequate. This inadequacy is partly due to frequent misdiagnosis (compounded by AIDS-related stigma), but is mostly due to poor infrastructure and lack of access to healthcare. In addition, the quality of the reporting systems varies from one country to another. Nevertheless, it is possible to spot two clear patterns in the data.
The first obvious trend is that the number of reported AIDS cases increased everywhere during the 1980s. As in all other parts of the world, this increase followed a rise in HIV prevalence. The second trend concerns the number of AIDS cases reported per million of population. In general, the highest rates have been recorded by Southern African countries where HIV has been widespread for many years, while the lowest rates tend to come from Western African countries with historically much lower HIV prevalence. The lowest AIDS rate of all is reported by the island nation of Madagascar, where until recently HIV was extremely rare.132
The only major exception to the pattern in AIDS case rates is South Africa, which has reported relatively low figures. However, HIV prevalence did not reach very high levels in South Africa until the mid-1990s, several years later than in nearby countries such as Zambia and Zimbabwe. In addition, South Africa stopped reporting AIDS cases to the World Health Organisation in 1996, before most other African countries, and before the rise in HIV had had a chance to take effect.133
Compelling evidence of the impact of AIDS in South Africa since that time comes from studies of death certificates. These show that the annual number of reported deaths (from all causes) rose by 79% between 1997 and 2004. Among those aged 25-49 years old, the increase was 161%.134 Rates of death from AIDS-related conditions increased according to a distinctive age distribution, which peaked among the age groups 0-4 and 25-49 years. Other conditions showed no such pattern. The estimated number of AIDS deaths based on these data is similar to estimates based on HIV prevalence.135
Some dissidents claim there is no great new AIDS epidemic in Africa, just the same old diseases caused by poverty, hunger and poor sanitation. They say that official statistics are misleading because AIDS in Africa may be diagnosed on the basis of various clinical symptoms without an HIV test if none is available.115 We'll challenge these claims using four lines of argument.
Firstly, medical records from a number of African countries show marked increases in a number of AIDS-related diseases during the late 1970s and early 1980s. These records suggest that AIDS was probably rare or non-existent before that time.116
Secondly, as discussed above, numerous studies have found that people who test positive for HIV face a much higher risk of illness and death. Surveillance studies show that HIV prevalence rates have soared across sub-Saharan Africa since the early 1980s, and are now extremely high. It is therefore reasonable to estimate that millions are ill and dying.117 118
Thirdly, since the early 1980s, African countries with high HIV prevalence have suffered increased burdens of disease and death, as measured by censuses and surveys. For example:
Between the 1980s and mid 1990s, adult death rates rose significantly in countries where HIV had been widespread for many years (such as Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe), but not in countries where rates had been lower.119 120
Increases in death and disease have disproportionately affected young and middle-aged adults, especially those living in urban areas. Relatively well-paid professionals including teachers and doctors have been among the worst hit. This pattern is not typical of diseases caused by malnutrition or dirty water, which generally target the poor and the elderly.121 122 123
In several countries with a high HIV prevalence, the number of orphans has risen dramatically. Such changes indicate that sexually active adults are dying while children (and the elderly) are surviving. Household surveys have revealed a strong correlation between rates of orphanhood and adult HIV prevalence.124 125 126
Patterns of disease have changed. For example, rates of Kaposi's sarcoma have soared,127 and tuberculosis - which was once confined to the poor, the weak and the elderly - today kills numerous well-fed Africans in the prime of life.128 129
Not all of sub-Saharan Africa has been equally affected by the recent changes. For example, Southern Africa has suffered much more than Western Africa, even though the regions have experienced similarly high levels of extreme poverty, malaria, food shortages and conflict. The only factor associated with the changes is HIV prevalence.130 131
Fourthly, the number of reported AIDS cases has risen across sub-Saharan Africa. Experts believe these statistics vastly underestimate the scale of the epidemics because the reporting systems are inadequate. This inadequacy is partly due to frequent misdiagnosis (compounded by AIDS-related stigma), but is mostly due to poor infrastructure and lack of access to healthcare. In addition, the quality of the reporting systems varies from one country to another. Nevertheless, it is possible to spot two clear patterns in the data.
The first obvious trend is that the number of reported AIDS cases increased everywhere during the 1980s. As in all other parts of the world, this increase followed a rise in HIV prevalence. The second trend concerns the number of AIDS cases reported per million of population. In general, the highest rates have been recorded by Southern African countries where HIV has been widespread for many years, while the lowest rates tend to come from Western African countries with historically much lower HIV prevalence. The lowest AIDS rate of all is reported by the island nation of Madagascar, where until recently HIV was extremely rare.132
The only major exception to the pattern in AIDS case rates is South Africa, which has reported relatively low figures. However, HIV prevalence did not reach very high levels in South Africa until the mid-1990s, several years later than in nearby countries such as Zambia and Zimbabwe. In addition, South Africa stopped reporting AIDS cases to the World Health Organisation in 1996, before most other African countries, and before the rise in HIV had had a chance to take effect.133
Compelling evidence of the impact of AIDS in South Africa since that time comes from studies of death certificates. These show that the annual number of reported deaths (from all causes) rose by 79% between 1997 and 2004. Among those aged 25-49 years old, the increase was 161%.134 Rates of death from AIDS-related conditions increased according to a distinctive age distribution, which peaked among the age groups 0-4 and 25-49 years. Other conditions showed no such pattern. The estimated number of AIDS deaths based on these data is similar to estimates based on HIV prevalence.135
- Mr. Bill
- 02-21-2012, 02:11 AM
Hey you fucking prick - why don't you start your own god damned thread?!!!
Drug abuse and other factors. Originally Posted by Sa_artman
.
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:12 AM
New research finds no evidence of increased risk of all-cause and non-AIDS death with long-term ARV use
18 January 2012
An important study has been published in AIDS that provides further evidence debunking one of the main claims of AIDS denialists, namely that ARVs do more harm than good (or even cause AIDS).
AIDS. 2012 Jan 28;26(3):315-323.
Long-term exposure to combination antiretroviral therapy and risk of death from specific causes: no evidence for any previously unidentified increased risk due to antiretroviral therapy.
Kowalska JD, Reekie J, Mocroft A, Reiss P, Ledergerber B, Gatell J, d'Arminio Monforte A, Phillips A, Lundgren JD, Kirk O; for the EuroSIDA study group.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Despite the known substantial benefits of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), cumulative adverse effects could still limit the overall long-term treatment benefit. Therefore we investigated changes in the rate of death with increasing exposure to cART.
METHODS:
A total of 12 069 patients were followed from baseline, which was defined as the time of starting cART or enrolment into EuroSIDA whichever occurred later, until death or 6 months after last follow-up visit. Incidence rates of death were calculated per 1000 person-years of follow-up (PYFU) and stratified by time of exposure to cART (≥3 antiretrovirals): less than 2, 2-3.99, 4-5.99, 6-7.99 and more than 8 years. Duration of cART exposure was the cumulative time actually receiving cART. Poisson regression models were fitted for each cause of death separately.
RESULTS:
A total of 1297 patients died during 70 613 PYFU [incidence rate 18.3 per 1000 PYFU, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.4-19.4], 413 due to AIDS (5.85, 95% CI 5.28-6.41) and 884 due to non-AIDS-related cause (12.5, 95% CI 11.7-13.3). After adjustment for confounding variables, including baseline CD4 cell count and HIV RNA, there was a significant decrease in the rate of all-cause and AIDS-related death between 2 and 3.99 years and longer exposure time. In the first 2 years on cART the risk of non-AIDS death was significantly lower, but no significant difference in the rate of non-AIDS-related deaths between 2 and 3.99 years and longer exposure to cART was observed.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, we found no evidence of an increased risk of both all-cause and non-AIDS-related deaths with long-term cumulative cART exposure.
18 January 2012
An important study has been published in AIDS that provides further evidence debunking one of the main claims of AIDS denialists, namely that ARVs do more harm than good (or even cause AIDS).
AIDS. 2012 Jan 28;26(3):315-323.
Long-term exposure to combination antiretroviral therapy and risk of death from specific causes: no evidence for any previously unidentified increased risk due to antiretroviral therapy.
Kowalska JD, Reekie J, Mocroft A, Reiss P, Ledergerber B, Gatell J, d'Arminio Monforte A, Phillips A, Lundgren JD, Kirk O; for the EuroSIDA study group.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Despite the known substantial benefits of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), cumulative adverse effects could still limit the overall long-term treatment benefit. Therefore we investigated changes in the rate of death with increasing exposure to cART.
METHODS:
A total of 12 069 patients were followed from baseline, which was defined as the time of starting cART or enrolment into EuroSIDA whichever occurred later, until death or 6 months after last follow-up visit. Incidence rates of death were calculated per 1000 person-years of follow-up (PYFU) and stratified by time of exposure to cART (≥3 antiretrovirals): less than 2, 2-3.99, 4-5.99, 6-7.99 and more than 8 years. Duration of cART exposure was the cumulative time actually receiving cART. Poisson regression models were fitted for each cause of death separately.
RESULTS:
A total of 1297 patients died during 70 613 PYFU [incidence rate 18.3 per 1000 PYFU, 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.4-19.4], 413 due to AIDS (5.85, 95% CI 5.28-6.41) and 884 due to non-AIDS-related cause (12.5, 95% CI 11.7-13.3). After adjustment for confounding variables, including baseline CD4 cell count and HIV RNA, there was a significant decrease in the rate of all-cause and AIDS-related death between 2 and 3.99 years and longer exposure time. In the first 2 years on cART the risk of non-AIDS death was significantly lower, but no significant difference in the rate of non-AIDS-related deaths between 2 and 3.99 years and longer exposure to cART was observed.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, we found no evidence of an increased risk of both all-cause and non-AIDS-related deaths with long-term cumulative cART exposure.
- Sa_artman
- 02-21-2012, 02:13 AM
South African study provides additional evidence that AIDS conspiracy theories are associated with risky sex
27 June 2011
A study by two AIDSTruth contributors, Nicoli Nattrass and Eduard Grebe, has shown that belief in AIDS origin conspiracy theories like those promoted by AIDS denialists are associated with lower rates of condom usage among young adults. In addition, the study showed that young adults who trusted the denialist South African health minister (Manto Tshabalala-Msimang) more than her non-denialist successor were substantially more likely to believe conspiracy theories, while those who were not familiar with the denialiam-fighting activist group the Treatment Action Campaign were more likely to believe conspiracy theories and less likely to use a condom than those who were. This study adds to the evidence that state-supported denialism likely resulted (and continue to result) in unnecessary HIV infections in South Africa. Readers without subscriptions can access a preprint of the article. AIDS Behav. 2011 May 3. [Epub ahead of print]
AIDS Conspiracy Beliefs and Unsafe Sex in Cape Town
Grebe E, Nattrass N.
Abstract
This paper uses multivariate logistic regressions to explore: (1) potential socio-economic, cultural, psychological and political determinants of AIDS conspiracy beliefs among young adults in Cape Town; and (2) whether these beliefs matter for unsafe sex. Membership of a religious organisation reduced the odds of believing AIDS origin conspiracy theories by more than a third, whereas serious psychological distress more than doubled it and belief in witchcraft tripled the odds among Africans. Political factors mattered, but in ways that differed by gender. Tertiary education and relatively high household income reduced the odds of believing AIDS conspiracies for African women (but not men) and trust in President Mbeki's health minister (relative to her successor) increased the odds sevenfold for African men (but not women). Never having heard of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), the pro-science activist group that opposed Mbeki on AIDS, tripled the odds of believing AIDS conspiracies for African women (but not men). Controlling for demographic, attitudinal and relationship variables, the odds of using a condom were halved amongst female African AIDS conspiracy believers, whereas for African men, never having heard of TAC and holding AIDS denialist beliefs were the key determinants of unsafe sex. PMID: 21538083
27 June 2011
A study by two AIDSTruth contributors, Nicoli Nattrass and Eduard Grebe, has shown that belief in AIDS origin conspiracy theories like those promoted by AIDS denialists are associated with lower rates of condom usage among young adults. In addition, the study showed that young adults who trusted the denialist South African health minister (Manto Tshabalala-Msimang) more than her non-denialist successor were substantially more likely to believe conspiracy theories, while those who were not familiar with the denialiam-fighting activist group the Treatment Action Campaign were more likely to believe conspiracy theories and less likely to use a condom than those who were. This study adds to the evidence that state-supported denialism likely resulted (and continue to result) in unnecessary HIV infections in South Africa. Readers without subscriptions can access a preprint of the article. AIDS Behav. 2011 May 3. [Epub ahead of print]
AIDS Conspiracy Beliefs and Unsafe Sex in Cape Town
Grebe E, Nattrass N.
Abstract
This paper uses multivariate logistic regressions to explore: (1) potential socio-economic, cultural, psychological and political determinants of AIDS conspiracy beliefs among young adults in Cape Town; and (2) whether these beliefs matter for unsafe sex. Membership of a religious organisation reduced the odds of believing AIDS origin conspiracy theories by more than a third, whereas serious psychological distress more than doubled it and belief in witchcraft tripled the odds among Africans. Political factors mattered, but in ways that differed by gender. Tertiary education and relatively high household income reduced the odds of believing AIDS conspiracies for African women (but not men) and trust in President Mbeki's health minister (relative to her successor) increased the odds sevenfold for African men (but not women). Never having heard of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), the pro-science activist group that opposed Mbeki on AIDS, tripled the odds of believing AIDS conspiracies for African women (but not men). Controlling for demographic, attitudinal and relationship variables, the odds of using a condom were halved amongst female African AIDS conspiracy believers, whereas for African men, never having heard of TAC and holding AIDS denialist beliefs were the key determinants of unsafe sex. PMID: 21538083