Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

Qualified outsiders and maverick insiders are often right about the need to replace received wisdom in science and society, as the history of the Nobel prize shows. This blog exists to back the best of them in their uphill assault on the massively entrenched edifice of resistance to and prejudice against reviewing, let alone revising, ruling ideas. In support of such qualified dissenters and courageous heretics we search for scientific paradigms and other established beliefs which may be maintained only by the power and politics of the status quo, comparing them with academic research and the published experimental and investigative record.

We especially defend and support the funding of honest, accomplished, independent minded and often heroic scientists, inventors and other original thinkers and their right to free speech and publication against the censorship, mudslinging, false arguments, ad hominem propaganda, overwhelming crowd prejudice and internal science politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, health and medicine, diet and nutrition.


Henry Bauer, Peter Breggin , Harvey Bialy, Giordano Bruno, Erwin Chargaff, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw, Freeman Dyson, Peter Duesberg, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, John Fewster, Galileo Galilei, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Edward Jenner, Benjamin Jesty, Michio Kaku, Adrian Kent, Ernst Krebs, Thomas Kuhn, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling, Eric Penrose, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick, Sherwood Rowland, Carl Sagan, Otto Rossler, Fred Singer, Thomas Szasz, Alfred Wegener, Edward O. Wilson, James Watson.

Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

Skepticism is dangerous. That’s exactly its function, in my view. It is the business of skepticism to be dangerous. And that’s why there is a great reluctance to teach it in schools. That’s why you don’t find a general fluency in skepticism in the media. On the other hand, how will we negotiate a very perilous future if we don’t have the elementary intellectual tools to ask searching questions of those nominally in charge, especially in a democracy? – Carl Sagan (The Burden of Skepticism, keynote address to CSICOP Annual Conference, Pasadena, April 3/4, 1982).

It is really important to underscore that everything we’re talking about tonight could be utter nonsense. – Brian Greene (NYU panel on Hidden Dimensions June 5 2010, World Science Festival)

I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing ever interfered with my learning was my education. My name as you already perceive without a doubt is George Bernard Shaw, and I certainly approve of this blog, in that its guiding spirit appears to be blasphemous in regard to the High Church doctrines of science, and it flouts the censorship of the powers that be, and as I have famously remarked, all great truths begin as blasphemy, and the first duty of the truthteller is to fight censorship, and while I notice that its seriousness of purpose is often alleviated by a satirical irony which sometimes borders on the facetious, this is all to the good, for as I have also famously remarked, if you wish to be a dissenter, make certain that you frame your ideas in jest, otherwise they will seek to kill you.  My own method was always to take the utmost trouble to find the right thing to say, and then to say it with the utmost levity. (Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life magazine) One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways. – Bertrand Russell, Conquest of Happiness (1930) ch. 9

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

Expanded GUIDE TO SITE PURPOSE AND LAYOUT is in the lower blue section at the bottom of every home page.

*Causes and cures for “AIDS” now clear in literature

Secrets in plain view, once HIV is dismissed as Gallo and Duesberg have indicated it should be

Yet another confirming paper in JAIDS this week

We note with interest a paper to be published in the Journal of AIDS this week (Vol 42, Number 5, August 15 2006). The full title is too long to reproduce in plain sight here (click ‘show’)


Micronutrient Supplementation Increases CD4 Count in HIV-Infected Individuals on Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial by Jon D. Kaiser, Adriana M. Campa, Joseph P. Ondercin, Gifford S. Leoung, Richard F. Pless, and Marinanna K. Baum, from the UCSF, Florida International University, Miami, Jonathan Lax Treatment Center, Philadelphia, Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, SF, and Ovation Research Group, Highland Park, Il.,

but it emerges from the prestigious University of California at San Franscisco Medical School, and its message is plain. Restoring AIDS patients’ bust immune systems with nutrient supplements works wonders, compared with dosing them with HAART, which may do them no good whatsoever, by the favorite measure of HIV advocates, CD4 count.

In the study, a bunch of patients on HAART (Highly Active (originally Aggressive) AntiRetroviral Therapy) were given micronutrients to see what happened. “The absolute CD4 count increased by an average of 24 per cent in the micronutrient group versus a 0% change in the placebo group.” (The latter were on HAART alone.)

Let’s repeat that. Over 12 weeks ARVs did precisely nothing to improve their T cell count, whereas it recovered 24 per cent with the addition of a full range of vitamins, beta carotene, calcium, magnesium, selenium, zinc and other healthy substances, none of which are patentable.

Lead author is Jon Kaiser MD, who has apparently already written Healing HIV: How To Rebuild Your Immune System, a helpful little book on boosting your immune system with micronutrients, in which he straddles the two stools of ARVs and Micronutrients, presumably to avoid exciting the natives. No doubt the drug companies will greet his work as welcome supplementation to the drug regime, and no one will mention the fact that drugs alone showed zero benefit.

But in fact his result matches many other studies which have shown this is the path to recovery for AIDS patients, rather than toxic and misdirected drugs. Definitive in its design (double-blinded, placebo-controlled) this is a flagship study for the nutrition approach, the first such clinical trial in America to show a very marked benefit for nutrient supplementation in AIDS, against none for HAART.

It follows in the footsteps of the Harvard Tanzania study by Wafaie Fawzi where extra B-complex, Vitamin C and Vitamin E boosted CD4 and CD8 counts markedly in women with HIV/AIDS (none of them taking ARVs), reducing deaths and warding off disease without antiretroviral drugs. Sadly, Fawzi has similarly been vociferous in advocating ARVs and denying his study justified supplementation alone. The card he and others play is that his supplementation “slows progression to HIV disease” but ARVs are vital too.

Multivitamins aren’t meant to replace ART, the researchers stress. “ART is the gold standard for treating HIV/AIDS,” explains Wafaie Fawzi, an associate professor of nutrition and epidemiology at HSPH and lead author of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) study. “But at relatively low cost, multivitamins can prolong the time people can live and work before they require drugs–which for millions are not yet affordable, or even accessible.

Well, one doesn’t get to Harvard without learning tact.


Fawzi WW, Msamanga GI, Spiegelman D, et al. Randomized trial of vitamin supplements on pregnancy outcomes and T cell counts in HIV=1 infected women in Tanzania. Lancet 1998;351:1477-1482 and Fawzi WW, Msamanga GI, Spiegelman D, et al. Randomized trial of multivitamin supplements and HIV disease progression and mortality. NEJM 2004; 351;23-32

In Jiamton’s study in Thailand, also a prospective, randomized trial that did not involve antiretroviral drugs, deaths of HIV-infected men and women were lowered fifty per cent – halved! – by micronutrient supplements.


Jiamton S, Pepin J, Suttent R. et al. A randomized trial of the impact of multiple micronutrient supplementation on mortality among HIV-infected individuals living in Bangkok. AIDS. 2003;17:2461-2469

Confusion about the source of AIDS

While waiting to see what the drug companies make of that one – it was supported by the public spirited Bristol-Myers Squibb – we thought we would salute its appearance by announcing what, if for the sake of argument HIV is ruled out as the cause of AIDS, are the causes and cures for AIDS which then appear in the mainstream literature.

After all, no one at the Times reads the scientific literature any more, it seems clear, so it is our public duty to take up the fallen torch and illuminate this dark corner of scientific activity.

This is especially so since, with the media censorship imposed by Dr Fauci for twenty years on any mention of literature that points in some other direction than HIV, we have noticed some confusion recently as to what the mainstream literature says is the cause and cure of “AIDS”.

For example, some people appear to think that the mainstream literature still tells us that the retrovirus HIV is the cause of immune deficiency. This is not the case, of course. In fact the mainstream literature has rejected this idea from the very first papers of Robert Gallo in 1984, which were the first to demonstrate that HIV was not the cause (it was found in only one third of patients). Top level review critiques by Peter Duesberg and others have repeatedly confirmed this conclusion over two decades.

Reasons for denial in HIV?AIDS

There seem to be various reasons for this continuing “We love HIV too much” denial of credit to Gallo and his friend and colleague Peter Duesberg for their two decades of efforts to make their negative result known, a denial which prevents otherwise reasonable people from accepting their obvious and repeatedly confirmed conclusion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

One is that HIV scientists are suffering from a brain dysfunction common to all of us, and now confirmed by brain science fMRI experiments, where any new idea which doesn’t fit with what we believe on a fundamental level is simply rendered invisible or even flipped upside down by the left prefrontal cortex as it enters the brain. This phenomenon is so ubiquitous in the HIV debate it deserves special attention in a later post.

Another possibility is that no one reads the scientific and medical literature, including even the officials at NIAID, which is confirmed by the fact that nearly a year after we at NAR pointed it out, Dr Anthony Fauci, the leader of NIAID, is evidently unaware that studies tell us that bird flu would be easily medicated with Vitamin A, which counters tumor necrosis factor (TNF) production, the reason why H5N1 bird flu is fatal.

Some suggest that the large amount of money, political power, high positions, and other perks such as television appearances and international conferences in faraway places are influencing the minds of the scientists in the field, but of course that is impossible.

Also ruled out as an influence is the fact that Dr Anthony Fauci has seen fit to repress all media coverage of the conclusions of the mainstream literature in rejecting HIV, as a danger to the community which might weaken the authority of mainstream medicine and even encourage people not to worry as much as they do about making love without being tested and rubbered.

But it is improbable that the producers of TV network news shows and the editors of grand print institutions such as the New York Times would be influenced by the threats of a NIH bureaucrat to cut off any reporter from NIH sources who steps out of line. Reporters in science are well equipped to write their stories without any special help from NIH scientists.


As long as this denial (of the conclusion that “HIV is not the cause of AIDS”) continues without being fully explained, however, we at NAR think it appropriate and useful to provide a simple guide to the true causes and cures of “AIDS”, as revealed by the mainstream literature, which now clearly shows that rejecting HIV as the cause of AIDS simplifies the analysis, provides clear cut explanations for the causes of AIDS, and suggests its simple cure.


The valid causes of AIDS are

1) Drugs both recreational and medicinal which weaken the immune system.

2) Malnutrition and its weakening impact on the immune system (the most neglected key factor).

3) Infections and parasites which attack weakened immune systems.

4) “Witchcraft” effects of beliefs induced by health workers and other authorities.

1 a) Recreational drugs can have a direct immunotoxic effect on the immune system. In addition, some (such as poppers, which are amyl nitrite and butyl nitrite) also bind with trace elements needed for the proper functioning of the immune system, such as zinc and selenium, which are antioxidants, and remove them from the bloodstream. This chelation leads to oxidative stress and a decline in T cells. More mainstream research on this area would elucidate mechanisms further, but the effects are clear: drug abusers are deficient in key trace elements.

AIDS patients are shown to develop deficiencies of antioxidants and oxidative stress and immune deficiencies when they use poppers and other recreational drugs. Studies have long shown AIDS patients are seriously deficient in zinc and selenium, known to be essential for proper immune function (babies with genetic inability to absorb zinc – AE, or acrodermatitis enteropathica – die within the year without supplementation, which in 1970 was discovered to return them to normal). There is also very little active thymulin, the hormone from the thymus gland, in AIDS patients, because of the lack of zinc. Thymulin is required for the production and differentiation of T cells.

All this nutritional data has been relatively ignored since HIV was fastened on as the cause of AIDS, when all funding for research on drug effects on the immune system and nutrients was curtailed here in the US, since the accepted solution was already published. Yet the research above was published in JAMA and similar journals by prestigious authors. One problem may be that nutritional elements such as zinc and selenium, like vitamins, cannot be patented.

1 b) Medicinal drugs are useful for the specific conditions of AIDS such as TB, where they are proven treatments. But the medicinal drugs prescribed when HIV antibodies are detected, against the supposed effects of HIV, cause immune deficiency through loss of T cells.

There is an initial increase in white cells or leukocytes, an effect called white cell trafficking. This is a standard response to toxins and pathogens. But the anti-HIV medications such as AZT and DDI (not the Protease Inhibitors) are DNA chain terminators which block DNA synthesis and prevent production of new white blood cells. This is clearly stated in the PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) where the effect is listed as leukopenia, a reduction in white blood cells. They also can also cause pancytopenia, the loss of all blood cells, white and red.

HAART (DNA chain terminators and protease inhibitors) can make patients initially feel much better, and this is currently the biggest reason why many health care workers and scientists believe they are aimed at the right target, HIV. If HIV is the wrong target, they ask, why the feeling of improved well being?

One explanation is that HAART increases the levels of key trace elements. Studies show selenium and zinc levels are dramatically increased by HAART, which explains much of the beneficial effect felt by patients. There is also the initial toxic effects of combination drugs which may be knocking out parasites and other infections, acting as broad spectrum antibiotics. So to some extent they substitute for a weak immune system, or act as boosters. At the same time, the side effects include lipodystrophy (appalling misplaced lumps of fat), diabetes, heart disease, liver and kidney problems. More AIDS patients die of such symptoms now than of the list of AIDS symptoms.

1 c) Corticosteroids. Mohammed Al-Bayati has supplemented the work of Peter Duesberg by showing that corticosteroids can reduce the number of T cells in the blood by as much as 2/3rd in ten days. All AIDS risk groups are exposed to corticosteroids. Gays use corticosteroids in creams as anti inflammatory agents while pursuing their recreational practices. Even hemophiliacs are prescribed corticosteroids to prevent rejection of Factor 8, the blood clotting factor. Drub abusers use them too, according to Al-Bayati. Yet corticosteroids are fully recognized by mainstream medicine as producing immune suppression, being used for that purpose in transplant operations, and to treat auto immune diseases.

2 a) Malnutrition. People who take recreational drugs tend not to eat well and lose weight. Thus the most popular diet in Hollywood, the “Coke diet.” It is known that the level of the body’s endogenous corticosteriod, cortisol, rises with malnutrition in Africa, producing an immune suppressive effect by inducing oxidative stress and T cell decline. The specific type of immune deficiency seen in AIDS – marked reduction in helper T cell, CD4 count – occurs in specific types of nutritional deficiency, including zinc, selenium and PCM (protein calorie malnutrition) as seen in Africa.

2 b) A lack of the trace elements which are essential to the operation of the immune system – zinc, selenium, and copper. Zinc and copper must be maintained in a ratio of 10:1 zinc:copper, a requirement that has been ignored in some studies. Megadosing with zinc will not benefit patients who are zinc-deficient unless the balance is maintained with copper.

2 c) Vitamin deficiencies, such as Vitamin A deficiency. Vitamin A is especially useful for lowering TNF (Tumor Necrosis Factor) levels, and these tend to be high in AIDS patients. Vitamin A also decreases the apoptosis (the suicide of surplus cells) due to multiple infections. Any infection results in immune activation, followed by apoptosis, due to TNF. This is an essential process, since if there was no apoptosis it would lead to leukemia, with the blood overcrowded with cells. But Vitamin A deficiency leads to excessive TNF and excessive cell death via apoptosis.

Other nutrient deficiencies shown to lead to apoptosis are those of Vitamin E, and zinc.

3) Diseases and parasites overload immune systems weakened by malnutrition in Africa. This obvious result has been well known for decades.

4) Threatening beliefs inculcated by doctors, health authorities and other advisors are clearly implicit in the adverse effects of HIV testing and medication. Stress in response to such scare tactics has been shown to correlate with a rise in cortisol levels.

Those, then are the causes of AIDS according to the mainstream literature, once HIV is removed from the equation. On the other hand, the mainstream literature now also contains a copious number of papers telling us what the best cure for these attacks on the immune system are.


THE CURES for AIDS are thus unimpressively simple:

1) Remove “witchcraft” of paradigm propaganda from mind and rely on mainstream scientific literature.

2) Stop taking recreational and anti-HIV drugs,

3) Take in full vitamin and trace element supplements (preferably as food) and

4) possibly, dare we say this, but according to the data in a recent review paper by Dr Anthony Fauci himself, be glad if you become infected with HIV.

1) Paradigm supporters claim overwhelming, but not specific evidence for HIV causing AIDS. Claims of temporary benefit from the HAART regimen have better, non paradigm explanations, and deaths from HIV have not declined under HAART.


Antiviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration report, The Lancet, Aug. 5, 2006; vol 368: pp. 451-458.

HIV Meds Improve, Death Rate Doesn’t

Study Shows No Decline In HIV Deaths Despite Better Treatments

Aug. 3, 2006



“Twenty years ago AIDS was a disease of middle class, white, gay men, but it is increasingly a disease of poverty.”

Carlos del Rio, MD

co-director, Emory Center for AIDS Research

(WebMD) Ten years after the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), HIV treatment continues to improve, with today’s drug regimens eliciting better viral control than those of the past with far fewer serious side effects.

Yet despite the steady evolution of HIV therapy, a newly released study shows no corresponding decline in death rates or progression to AIDS among patients from North America and Europe who were followed for up to a year.

Just over 22,000 patients starting therapy for the first time were included in the study, which appears tomorrow in the journal The Lancet.

The findings do not mean that HAART is not saving lives or keeping HIV-infected people from developing AIDS.

All agree that today’s drug regimens are remarkably effective. So effective, in fact, that one study found the nine out of 10 patients who stay on the treatment can expect to live for more than a decade.

Rather, the findings seem to reflect the changing face of HIV infection in Europe and North America, experts say.

Changing Demographics

Researchers found that in 2003, patients tended to be sicker when they started treatment than those beginning treatment in 1995. And that the number of AIDS cases seen in recent years is related to an increase in cases of tuberculosis.

Compared with patients starting HAART for the first time in 1995, those starting therapy in 2003 were far more likely to be female and infected with HIV through heterosexual rather than homosexual contact.


# The percentage of female patients starting therapy increased from 16 percent in 1995-1996 to 32 percent by 2002-2003.

# During the same period, the percentage of men who became infected through sexual contact with men declined from 56 percent to 34 percent.

# The percentage of patients presumed to have become infected via heterosexual contact increased from 20 percent in 1995-1996 to 47 percent in 2002-2003.

# The percentage of patients infected via injected drug use declined from 20 percent in 1997 to 9 percent in 2002-2003.

The study suggests that homosexual men have benefited the most from HAART. The best viral responses to therapy have been seen among this group, while women and men infected via heterosexual contact have not benefited as much.

‘Disease of Poverty’

HAART has transformed HIV infection from a sure killer to a largely manageable disease among patients who begin treatment early and stay on it.

But many patients in the U.S. have not benefited, says Carlos del Rio, MD, because AIDS is increasingly a disease of the poor and medically underserved.

Del Rio is a professor of medicine and infectious disease at Emory University in Atlanta and co-director of the Emory Center for AIDS Research.

“Twenty years ago AIDS was a disease of middle class, white, gay men, but it is increasingly a disease of poverty,” he tells WebMD. “Patients today are less likely to have access to good medical care, so it is not surprising that they are sicker when we first see them.”

He says many of the HIV-infected patients he now treats also have mental health and substance abuse issues.

“For these patients, HIV is just one more problem in an already problem-filled life,” he says. “They may be dealing with schizophrenia, drug abuse, or any number of other issues. Many refuse therapy or don’t stay on it.”

The fact that mortality has not improved — even though treatments for AIDS have improved — underscores the need to focus more on preventing HIV infection, del Rio says.

“HAART has made a big difference, but we can’t rely on therapy alone in this population,” he says.

SOURCES: Antiviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration report, The Lancet, Aug. 5, 2006; vol 368: pp. 451-458. Margaret May, research fellow, department of social medicine, University of Bristol, U.K. Carlos del Rio, MD, professor of medicine and infectious diseases, Emory University School of Medicine; co-director, Emory Center for AIDS Research. WebMD Medical News: “HAART Adds Years for People with HIV.”

By Salynn Boyles

Reviewed by Louise Chang, M.D.

© 2006, WebMD Inc. All rights reserved.

There is not a single known paper supporting the current paradigm with any convincing evidence, and a large number of papers pointing out a score of fatal flaws in the evidence for HIV as the cause of immmune deficiency. Refer to mainstream literature for many studies with results which defeat the paradigm, or replace it with better explanations of results, even though the authors are nominally pro-paradigm.

2 a) Stop all recreational and anti HIV drugs. Take drugs only if aimed at specific ailments for which they are standard medication.

2 b) Stop using corticosteroids as aerosols, anti inflammatory creams or in any other form.

3) Proper diet and clean water.

3a) Trace element and vitamin supplements (preferably in fruits and vegetables, or at least powder, rather than pills, according to the literature)

3 a) Zinc. It is necessary to add zinc in small amounts to avoid copper deficiency. But added in the right amounts, zinc has a spectacular effect on the decrepit immune systems of AIDS patients. In 1995, for example, the Italians got very good results using moderate amounts of zinc for a limited period without using any copper to ensure the correct balance. They got 1/13 the level of opportunistic infection than the control group, with both groups on AZT. This spectacular 92% reduction continued for a year, even with the deleterious effect of AZT! (Take the AZT away, and the patients would no doubt have done even better. Unfortunately most studies are now with patients who are obliged to take AZT. This obscures the results aimed at by nutritional advocates, since it is like running up a down escalator. As noted above, AZT is a toxic poison, as indicated by the label or the Physicians Desk Reference.)

3 b) Selenium supplementation consistently shows b eneficial, even spectacular effects – a 10-20 fold lower death rate was reported in a 1997 study -, in studies at the two main centers of this research, the University of Miami Medical Center, and the Harvard School of Public Health.

3 c) Vitamin B: No, don’t add massive amounts of Vitamin B complex as vitamin promoter Mathias Rath may have done in his South African trials, or of B1 amd B2. This only produces imbalance ie relative deficiencies of the other B vitamins that are needed, which is then a new problem. Just add moderate amounts; B12 is especially useful in production of T cells.

3 d) Vitamin C: megadoses of this water soluble anti-oxidant Vitamin C are valid. AIDS patients have recorded improvement, and those still wary of HIV should know that in the lab, Vitamin C inactivates HIV.

3 e) The Robert Gallo cure: Vitamin E is more effective that ARV’s in curbing HIV replication and excess cell suicide (apoptosis).

Vitamin E doses are useful, even or especially if you still believe in the HIV=AIDS theory. Cell suicide (apoptosis), a normal part of the immune system’s operations, is not only promoted by oxidative stress and lack of anti oxidants, but also is exaggerated by HIV, according to HIV?AIDS theorists who otherwise lack any suggestion as to how HIV kills T cells. If you give that credence, you should know that Vitamin E blocks excessive apoptosis, according to research by none other than Robert Gallo’s lab at the University of Maryland, and also by German researchers at the University of Heidelberg.


Vitamin E inhibits CD95 ligand expression and protects T ells from activation-induced cell death. Min Li-Weber, Markus A. Weigand, Marco Giaisi, Dorothee Suss, Monika K. Treiber, Sven Baumann, Elena Ritsou, Raoul Breitkreutz and Peter H. Krammer. German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. Journal of Clinical Investigation September 2002 Vol 110 Number 5; p61 “Natural free radical scavenger vitamin E suppresses the activity of the transcription factors NF-kB and AP-1, thus blocking expression of CD95L and preventing T cell AICD (activation induced cell death)…Administration of vitamin E suppresses CD95L mRNA expression and protects T cells of HIV-1 infected individuals from CD95-mediated apoptosis. This evidence that vitamin E can affect T cell survival may merit further clinical investigation.

Bonus: Vitamin E also inhibits HIV production to such an extent that it can substitute for HAART, according to a study also from the Institute of Virology of the University of Maryland directed by Robert Gallo.


In Vitro suppression of latent HIV-1 activation by vitamin E: potential clinical implications (Reearch Letters) Heredia, Alonso; Davis, Charles; Amorose, Anthony; Taylor, Greg; Le, Nhut; Bamba, Douty; Redfield, Robert R. Division of Clinical Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Martyland Biotechnology Institute, Baltimor, MD, JAIDS Vol 19(8), 20 May 2005, p836-837. “The addition of Vitamin E to patents’ cultures resulted in significantly reduced levels of p24 virus production. These results suggest that vitamin E supplementaion may interfere with the emergence of drug resistant HIV-1 variants archived in the resting cell reservoir and delay or limit virus rebound uponm treatment interruptions.”

5) The ‘Dr Fauci cure’ – try to become infected with HIV.

It is not entirely facetious to point out a remarkable suggestion provoked by a recent review of HIV?AIDS research by Anthony Fauci of NIAIDS, which is that a weak immune system might be boosted by HIV infection. The arrival of HIV increases the T cell count noticeably, Dr Fauci has pointed out.

HIV infection from its early to intermediate stage results in a significant increase in the overall T-cell count. With a 56 fold increase of the viral load, the CD4 T-cell count remains almost the same, down 6%, whereas the CD8 count increases 20%, resulting in an overall increase of 11% in the combined T cell count. (The 56 fold increase in the viral load involves very little actual virus – there is only one virus particle per 60,000 particles counted in the viral load). With the addition of antioxidants known to inhibit apoptosis, the proliferative effect of HIV on T-cells could prove clinically useful.

Don’t blame us, that’s what science says

That’s it, according to the mainstream scientific literature in the top mainstream journals, where the studies on which we draw are published by prestigious institutions, such as Harvard or UCSF.

Disappointingly simple, perhaps, but if you trust the mainstream scientific literature, that’s all you need to know to deal with AIDS, once the chimera of HIV is dispensed with, as the mainstream literature has indicated it should be since 1984, a finding for which Robert Gallo has priority, but for political reasons has been unable to gain credit for it.

We suggest that perhaps his early Lasker prize for discovering HTLV-1, as the cause of leukemia in “1 in 100 persons infected over 50 years”, might be fairly reallocated from that now discredited claim to honoring his early breakthrough in ruling out HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Perhaps this will accord Dr Gallo’s 1984 “HIV is not the cause of AIDS” discovery the attention which it deserves, instead of the long neglect which this fine scientist has had to endure for political reasons throughout the AIDS era.

44 Responses to “*Causes and cures for “AIDS” now clear in literature”

  1. noreen martin Says:

    Great Article Truthseeker! Most of the time the obvious or the simple solutions are overlooked in life. The cause and cure in this case is a prime example. I would only add a few more causes to the list of Aids such as, high stress levels, chemical exposure and past medical treatments, ex. radiation.If they have misdiagnosed the cause, then how can the present treatment be correct? You are 100% correct in the supplements that you recommended. I would add more such as gluthione and natural products such as olive leaf, neem, colloidal silver and many more. At the height of my sickness, I started taking about 50 supplements a day. One might think that this is obsessive. However, when has full, blown AIDS, the body is basically destroyed and deficient in everything. It worked, in a 3 month period of time of taking supplements, proper diet, anti-virals, I regained my health. It is a building process as the immune system was not brought down in a time, it takes time to restore it, but it can be done. I no longer take anti-virals.The tide seems to be turning now on the causes of AIDS thanks to this website and to many other Rethinker sites and blogs. Thanks from many of us and keep up the excellent work!

  2. Glider Says:

    Truthseeker,Thanks for putting up this long-awaited post. I agree with much of what you’ve written, though I would elevate malnutrition to the No. 1 spot on your list. While drug use, both recreational and pharmaceutical, undoubtedly contributes to ill health and becoming undernourished, I think, as I’ve indicated in other recent posts, that there is a simpler, more basic and broadly applicable reason why those who are “HIV+,” or have AIDS might become deficient in various nutrients: Leaky Gut Syndrome (or intestinal permeability).I believe antibiotic overuse is the main culprit. Broad-spectrum antibiotics destroy the beneficial flora in the gut and reduce the intestine’s ability to absorb nutrients. This is not an easy situation to reverse and, untreated, it tends to become gradually worse. So one might be consuming a perfectly balanced diet containing 100% of the recommended daily requirement of vitamins and minerals, but if your intestines are operating at 50% efficiency you will, nonetheless, become malnourished. What’s more, vitamin K, vitamins B6 and B12—you made specific reference in your post to the importance of B12 in the manufacture of T-cells—folic acid, and assorted amino acids are actually produced by the beneficial bacteria that live in the mucosal lining of your intestines.I think people who are HIV+ or are actually suffering from AIDS should pay special attention to the health of their gut.(I also think, as I’ve proposed elsewhere on this site, that in addition to accounting for malnutrition, LGS: predisposes sufferers to consistently generate false-positive results on the “HIV tests;” accounts for the illusion of declining T-cells; and gives the appearance of a latency period.)Here’s a bit of my personal history. I’ve been HIV+ for at least 12 years and my health has never been better than it is now. For most of my adult life I’ve been thin and have had difficulty gaining weight. In 2000 I was 6’, 150 lbs. After beginning an aggressive program to improve the health of my gut I began to put on weight—and muscle—for the first time ever. In one year I gained 20 lbs and beefed up considerably. Also, for what it’s worth, I used to have herpes outbreaks almost monthly. Now I have maybe, maybe, one a year. Finally, you wrote: “Gays use corticosteroids in creams as anti inflammatory agents while pursuing their recreational practices.” I have no idea what creams you might be referring to.Glider

  3. SA Says:

    I’m assuming both groups in this study were on ARVs, Truthseeker (as that would be the appropriate experimental control), so the question is not whether or not nutritional supplments raise CD4 counts, the quesiton they investigated is whether nutritional supplements raise CD4 counts in the presence of ARVs. Thus, your speculations on a cure either need to include ARVs, or this study does not support your claims. I hate when I see science twisted this way. Please, no one bother to respond to this — you’re wasting your time and the time of others. This is the last straw for me. Consider me gone.

  4. Michael David Says:


    You misSed one very new, and possibly pandemically relevant cause of AIDS. I am shocked (even more than SA if that is possible, but like that general, “I shall return”, and probably so will SA if past promises are anything to go on, although perhaps using a different net-nom).

    See the comment here by Dr. Maniotis to understand to what I refer. :)

    [The poster is referring to Barnesworld coverage of mythic African AIDS, a factor which we mentioned twice under the head malnutrition and other diseases but which mention MD apparently did not notice. – Ed.]

  5. noreen martin Says:

    Glider, you make an important point. Daily consumption of acidophilus or products containing it, is a must. Also, I would highly recommend that one watch gluten and yeast related products and consume them at a minimum to prevent yeast infections as they can be very destructive and quite difficult to eliminate.I have to laugh at the bickering that goes on these sites. As my husband would say, can’t we all just *******get along!

  6. Glider Says:

    Noreen,Yes, I think you’re exactly right. Adding probiotic foods to your diet is important. I drink kefir daily, and I eat hard cheese, unpasteurized sauerkraut, and kim-chee regularly.My theory about all of this may be completely wrong. I am, after all, neither a scientist nor any kind of highfalutin intellectual; I’m just an average guy who’s gotten caught up in this crazy mess. But so far nobody’s given me any reason to think I’m wrong (or deluded). And at the very least I FEEL as if I’m doing something beneficial for my health.Noreen, I also second your request for everybody to just get along here. SA, I ask with a concerned smile on my face: Do you have to be such a drama queen? I value your input and participation, but I don’t care for the high emotions you bring along. Besides, I can’t imagine that it does your health any good.Hugs all around,Glider

  7. noreen martin Says:

    Glider, sounds like you have good judgement and great control of your health. These sites are extremely important because many do not know who to turn too and need help yesterday. I would highly recommend that anyone with immune deficiency diseases, to go to the Keep Hope Alive website and purchase the Immune Restoration Handbook by Mark Konlee. Dr. Kaiser in the above named study also has books about Aids nutrition and supplements.Yours in health,Noreen

  8. Michael David Says:


    I thought there was something odd about this post, and while not the big imaginary bone of SA, it does reflect on the reality of ever receiving an answer to your question of how Bristol-Squibb will respond. Because when I registered where the paper was published I recalled reading something about that “journal” in Dr. B.’s (not D.’s) testament to the truth. Indeed on page 164, he writes:

    “JAIDS was the latest in a series of for-profit publications from Bio/Technology’s fierce competitor for the biotech advertising dollar, Mary Ann Liebert, who launched new journals at every opportunity. By 1987, the numbers of AIDS papers had multiplied so mightily there were hardly enough outlets to accommodate them all, and a new journal for the new disease seemed a money-maker. I have no idea what its bottom line looks like today, but given the general intellectual quality of the papers it has published since, reflected in its impact factor, (ref.28) the brief, inconclusive exchange between professors Evans and Duesberg may represent a high-water mark for the journal.

    28. Nature, Science and the PNAS, the top three journals in ISI’s category of Multidisciplinary Science, which ranks 62 journals, had 1998 impact factors of 28.88, 24.39, and 9.82, respectively. Bio/Technology’s (Nature Biotechnology) 1998 impact factor was 8.05. JAIDS’ 2.67 brought it in at 26 out of 120 journals in Immunology, and not to put too fine a point on it, the old Bioslash, wrapped two years before in the new Nature label, came in that year numero uno of the 118 primary research journals in the category of Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology, a position it continues to maintain, through 2003.”

    Thus I don’t think there is much chance of a Bristol-Squibb rep. or anyone else feeling the need to make anything of it, since nobody ever has with anything else published there.

  9. Michael David Says:

    Let me say one other thing as a caution. Remember everybody, always, that AIDS without HIV does not exist as a definable medical syndrome. It is very misleading to refer to “AIDS-like” conditions (like LGS etc) as “AIDS”, and makes for much confusions all around.I say again what we all know, but appear to forget all the time. Dissociate HIV from AIDS and neither has either scientific reality or semantic content.

  10. Glider Says:

    Michael David,I guess I’m dense but I don’t quite get what you’re saying. Will you explain further? I feel as if the meaning we assign to our words are different or something and I’m just not making the right connection.Glider

  11. Pontiac Says:

    Hey Harvey, what’s the impact factor for J Biosciences? Genetica?

  12. Michael David Says:


    1. Who are you to address Dr. Bialy as “Hey Harvey”?

    2. What is your point?

    3.Have you read Bialy’s book? If you had you would have discovered that he never claimed either of those journals had high impact factors. In fact, quite the opposite was his point in that both of those review articles should have been published in PNAS. However the journal of the academy to which Duesberg had as a member unfetttered access, refused their publication for reasons that are unfathomable to any thinking scientist.


    I must be the dense one because I cannot understand what it is that confuses you. Maybe it is my point in action. Namely that disentangling HIV/AIDS as a pseudo-scientific, semantic construction is not easy even for those who have done it. It speaks to the Orwellian pervasivness of the mind game. Farber is the master at dissecting this conundrum and making it intelligible. Please read her essays on this point again, and again, as I do.

  13. pat Says:

    I will dare to emerge from the silent depths of the net to voice my disappointment over SA’s farewells. First off I will introduce myself as an avid reader of this blog and have been closely following the debate on this and many other blogs. I truly believe SA’s sudden rupture with newaidsreview will only be temporary as for most other blogs consist of nothing more than the standard accusations of “cherry-picking” and misrepresenting the data” slurs. He will miss the civility.
    I hope I can offer my impression of the study examples SA is taking issue with.

    SA, I know you’re reading, It is obvious that both control goups had HAART (‘unethical to withhold toxic chemical experiments from patients who demand it from them(hypocratic oath?). What this study tells me is that those on micronutrients DID have a remarkable increase in there CD4 count as opposed to those in the placebo group who had NONE. Although true that this study does not prove anything other than micronutrients and HAART in combination increase CD4 counts but it also proves that HAART alone does zilch. Based on these studies it would be safe to predict an increase in CD4 cells in a study involving non-medicated controls. Thus perhaps rendering HAART at least redundant if not outright useless. This I don’t consider twisting science, I consider it gaining insight from it. I for one hope to see SA back.

  14. Truthseeker Says:

    I no longer take anti-virals.

    Noreen, thank you for hailing the post. Your refusal of ARVs seems a very good policy to follow, although it will frustrate your doctor, who if he is typical is unaware of any alternative.

    The problem is that he never reads the literature, your typical doctor/nurse/healthy worker/activist/even scientist in this field, so he/she has no idea what he is talking about, since he is informed only by drug company salesmen, mainstream conference speakers, the popular media, and a few titles of papers skimmed in JAMA and NEJ.

    But not with any attention the rest of the mainstream literature, which shows quite clearly now that HIV does not cause any problem, so that ARVs are misdirected, and they cause a remarkable array of extremely unpleasant and potentially fatal side-effects, even if they do manage to give a misleading impression of benefit on initial use. Assuming the mainstream literature is correct – and what better source is there? – you are wise to decline ARVs.

    Those such as us who have read the literature are not licensed to give you personal medical advice, of course, so all we can do is report the literature and its overwhelming data against the paradigm that most doctors go by.

    I believe antibiotic overuse is the main culprit. Broad-spectrum antibiotics destroy the beneficial flora in the gut and reduce the intestine’s ability to absorb nutrients. This is not an easy situation to reverse and, untreated, it tends to become gradually worse.

    Glider, since many people will be reading this blog and eating at the same time, is it possible to go easy on this theory of yours, which seems worthy if rather appalling? We completely accept your hypothesis that overuse of antibiotics may ruin the intestines is worth considering and since it fits perfectly well into the drugs category, we can count it there if you would first care to choose your best reference in the mainstream literature.

    As far as corticosteroids creams go, we were relying on an informant, and if you know better how they are used, feel free to correct it (without going into detail, preferably). The literature tells us that corticosteroids aerosols were invented and used in 1975, as we recall, and were blamed for immune problems then and since.

    your speculations on a cure either need to include ARVs, or this study does not support your claims. I hate when I see science twisted this way. Please, no one bother to respond to this. True enough, SA. But the preceding Harvard Fawzi Tanzania study was not on subjects who were taking ARVs, nor was the Jiamton study in Thailand, as we recall. Sorry these were not in the original post, but we have added them now, as we are adding other studies where appropriate. We hope eventually to meet your standards.

    I don’t think there is much chance of a Bristol-Squibb rep. or anyone else feeling the need to make anything of it,

    We don’t think the drug companies would make anything of it if it was featured in the front page of the New York Times. But they may be forced to respond to suspicious patients alert to what is happening.

    Dissociate HIV from AIDS and neither has either scientific reality or semantic content.

    “AIDS” without HIV is simply whatever ills have to be explained in some other way, but the topic for us remains “AIDS” until people catch up with the new framing.

  15. Michael Says:

    You wrote in the above article:

    Some suggest that the large amount of money, political power, high positions, and other perks such as television appearances and international conferences in faraway places are influencing the minds of the scientists in the field, but of course that is impossible.

    Well now, I and many others that follow all of this are sure you were just being facetious in this statement, but for anyone reading this as a first time article on NAR, I think it needs to be said that David Willman, ace Washington reporter of the Los Angeles Times, did an amazing series last year that ended up causing a ruckus in congress and the National Institute of Health, and exposed 530 top scientists and directors at the National Institute of Health, whom were accepting stock and cash from pharmaceutical companies, and were not even bothering to report it as required. Even the former Director of the Office of Aids Research, Dr. William E. Paul, was found to be accepting $930,000.00 in stock and cash. I would love to get my hands on this list, which even included Tony Fauci, and see how many other snakes in NIAID were involved. From what I understand, the worst offenses happened in Tony’s departments.

    LA Times article on 530 scientists taking payola!

    LA Times article starring Dr. Paul William

    For even more juicy morsels on our boys at the NIH from Pulitzer prize winner David Willman just do a google search of the words: David Willman LA Times NIH

    A funny little story about this, is that Martin Delaney from San Francisco’s HIV drug advocating “Project Inform” (or is it deform), did a little public forum here in San Diego, about a week after the information about Dr. William Paul came out in the LA Times. Delaney was here to do a talk about the retroviral conference last year and he is always followed around by a half a dozen HIV drug company reps wherever he goes. At the end of his talk, he asked the audience if there were any questions, so I quickly popped up holding the LA Times and asked him “Mr. Delaney, what do you think about Dr. William Paul, who used to be the director of clinical AIDS drug trials, getting caught taking $930 thousand from drug companies in just the last couple of years?”

    Well, old Martin Delaney just broke into a cold sweat, turned beet red, almost knocked over the microphone, and he started yelling. “LIES LIES, I know Dr. William Paul personally and he drives an old beat up car! He’s a sweet little old man! The LA Times is out to get him! All lies! None of it is true, NONE of it!” Needless to say, he was so wrecked that he couldn’t answer any more questions, he wiped off the sweat, and quickly shuffled off of the stage, as I stood there and just broke out laughing out loud!

  16. Truthseeker Says:

    You scored a direct hit on Martin Delaney? We can only take our hats off to you.This is the man who defends the reputation of the much maligned Doctor Robert Gallo in the letters column of Harper’s in the issue out now, August.Could it be that he is indebted to the drug companies also?

  17. Robert Houston Says:

    Investigations have revealed that Mr. Delaney and his Project Misinform have in fact received hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks from companies making the antiretroviral drugs that he touts.

    Thanks, Truthseeker, for the very important, little-known information regarding causes and cures of AIDS which was presented in this post. It’s absurd that some temperamental know-it-all stormed off when confronted with such a wealth of excellent and well-founded information.

    Although the original wording at the beginning of the post could have been tighter, it was apparent that both groups in the new study were on HAART and that those given the micronutrients had a significant, marked improvement in their average T-cell count. Was this dependent on antiretroviral drugs? Not likely, since the group that got only such drugs showed no improvement at all. It should be noted that the two other studies that Truthseeker mentioned as showing remarkable benefits from micronutrients in HIV/AIDS – the Harvard study in Tanzania and the Jiampton study from Thailand – were both prospective, randomized trials in which antiretroviral drugs were not used.

    The new American study by Kaiser et al. deserves serious respect because it’s the gold standard: a prospective, double-blinded, placebo controlled trial. Two of the authors, Drs. Adriana Campa and Marianna Baum, are leading authorities on nutrition in AIDS. The introduction points out that “numerous studies have reported a high prevalence of nutrient deficiencies early in the course of HIV infection. These deficiencies have been shown to be associated with more frequent opportunistic infections, faster disease progression, and a greater incidence of HIV-related mortality” (J.D. Kaiser et al. JAIDS 42:523-28, Aug. 15, 2006).

  18. SA Says:

    I’m not disputing the importance of micronutrients. In fact, I bought Jon Kaiser’s book when it came out, and I’ve been on his plan ever since. To conclude what everyone here is so desperate to conclude would have required a different research design, in which an additional “micronutrient-only” group existed. This could have been easily accomplished, as many people these days elect not to take ARVs. There was no such group in this study. Here is how the establishment is going to interpret this study, and this interpretation is well within the bounds of the study design:ARVs are great (as they believe they’ve shown in previous reserach), but ARVs + micronutrients are even better. That is a valid interpretation of these results, due to the missing “micronutrient-only” group. There will also be a question as to longer-term follow-up. Will the ARV + micronutrient group maintain their gains, or will the groups equalize over time (called regression to the mean, and the most likely possibility). This is all Research Methods 101. I could have had 25 undergrads tear the postings on this study to shreds. It’s really not that complex. To call this the cure and cause for AIDS is offensive to me, I make no secret about it. Now I’ve stated why I think it’s offensive. It’s offensive because the research design employed here could never, in a million years, answer the question as to what causes or cures AIDS. It never set out to do so. Everyone is free to think whatever they want to think. I’ll think within the confines of science for now. And thanks, Pat, but there really isn’t much of a point to me being here if I have to keep going over stuff I have taught to undergrads in the first several weeks of a research methods course.

  19. Glider Says:

    TS,You wrote: “Glider, since many people will be reading this blog and eating at the same time, is it possible to go easy on this theory of yours, which seems worthy if rather appalling? We completely accept your hypothesis that overuse of antibiotics may ruin the intestines is worth considering and since it fits perfectly well into the drugs category, we can count it there if you would first care to choose your best reference in the mainstream literature.”Sure, I’ll go easy on my theory if you like. I had no idea you and your readers had such delicate constitutions, and I certainly never intended to disrupt the enjoyment of anyone’s meal. I’m deeply sorry if I came between you and your foie gras, particularly with prices being what they are at the moment.You asked for a study. The first link is not to a study, but to a page that contains a summary better than anything I’ve offered. The second link, which I’ve previously supplied, is to a study mentioned in the first. It’s the one that sent me down the path I’m on. It doesn’t address the cause(s) of the unmentionable malady, but those are readily found in other sources.And in keeping with the spirit of your request, I’ll leave it at that.Glider

  20. Michael Says:

    SA: You are absolutely correct that it would have been quite easy to do a 3rd Nutrients only group, but this would have brought down the curtain on AIDS Incorporated. But Aids Inc. would not allow such a study to be done and published in their JAIDS journal to begin with. They also would not allow Jon Kaiser in their party if he did try such an act of mutiny. Actually, it is quite phenomenal that Kaiser even got to do what he has done. For some of the ethically bankrupt, they were probably afraid they were losing too many cash cow ARV takers if they did not do something to keep them alive. For others, whom I consider bankrupt of spirit and conscience, it becomes a way to keep the otherwise slowly poisoned and dying patient alive another day as proof of ARVs keeping them alive. Not that I think that Lucy’s, I mean Jon Kaiser’s vitameatavegamins are so special and terrific, as I consider them to simply be ridiculously overpriced standard supplements that can be had for a fraction of what he peddles them for. And, he gets the taxpayers to foot the bill for almost all of his medicine show as well as the taxpayers footing the bill for the purchase of his outrageously overpriced vitamin sales. This shows me a bit of who he really is, and what he is in the game for. I obviously consider him to be bit morally bankrupt, although at least he is promoting something that is beneficial instead of deadly toxic. Furthermore, Truthseekers following statement in the article as to causes of AIDS: 4) “Witchcraft” effects of beliefs induced by health workers and other authorities. should have been Number ONE at the top of the list. This belief factor in the witchcraft and everything that follows emotionally and physically afterwards, is absolutely the most difficult thing to break free of. One feels damned by fear if they do, and damned by fear if they don’t listen to the mainstream, until they have established a new belief system, which for the most part seems to take either a lot of time to educate oneself, or spiritual epiphanies of even greater emotional impact than the witchcraft. And as far as I know, such epiphanies are very far and few between. The “Witchcraft effects”, are in my opinion, the number one factor in death and illness of those whom have been diagnosed as HIV positive. The mindf**K of HIV and AIDS and its deleterious effects on physical and emotional health, has been talked about over and over and over since the very first rethinker doubted HIV was at the core of AIDS as he noticed the self fulfilling beliefs of the believers as their bodies manifested exactly what the doctors and scientists told them. When doctors said HIV was 99% fatal within a year. It was. When doctors told them they could live longer, the patients did. Now that the doctors tell patients they can live with it as long as they take ARVs, they do. The entire thing is founded in fear filled witchcraft like spells cast by doctors and scientists, and the willing patients whom live out their declarations. The witchcraft is based on fear of losing one’s life. And for some that even actually want their life to be over, it is a subconscious suicide. It causes stress. It causes one to run to a doctor for HIV drugs. It paralyzes the immune system. It causes the paranoid patient to run back to the doctor every 3 months to get a blood panel run for a viral load and cd4 count. Oftentimes, this is often followed by sex and illicit drug addiction by patients trapped in shame, guilt, or apathy. It is indeed witchcraft. Its name is FEAR. Its method is PARANOIA. And we all remember the little ditty of “Paranoia will destroya”.

  21. pat Says:


    I’m glad you came back for more. Repeating oneself over and over can indeed become a frustrating experience. I have learnt in my humble 37 years that there are very few people that actually agree with my points of view and even fewer that I have ever “convinced” but I keep at it because no one has the nerve to shoot me dead, character assassinations notwithstanding.

    However, I agree with you that this study was designed solely to keep the paradigm firmly in place. That people like you and I can see through the smoke and mirrors is indeed a small miracle and I don’t even have a degree let alone one even remotely associated with “science”. It surely wasn’t the the official goal of these studies to show that ARVs are not worth the cardboard boxes they come in but some forward thinking few have seen beyond it with some even claiming victory (even if the attempt may sound desperate). To me all these new HIV/AIDS research “breakthroughs” such as “weakening HIV strains” or “micronutrient+ARVs improve CD4” etc, etc, etc are simply more signs of the writing being up on the wall for HIV. As long as people like TS and the many others like you continue their relentless attacks the better the chances are of getting “AIDS Inc.” into a corner where they simply will have no choice but to declare victory over HIV and then go home in some face saving manner.

    Also I think that TS agrees with you that “witchcraft” is the number ONE killer:

    “THE CURES for AIDS are thus unimpressively simple:

    1) Remove “witchcraft” of paradigm propaganda from mind and rely on mainstream scientific literature.

    2) Stop taking recreational and anti-HIV drugs,

    3) Take full vitamin and trace element supplements and

    4) Possibly, dare we say this, according to the data in a recent review paper by Dr Anthony Fauci himself, be glad if you become infected with HIV.

    PS: Now my selfish request: please stick around so I can profit from your views; I did not and never will have the opportunity to be an undergraduate of yours :)

  22. Michael David Says:

    I am pleased to see my prediction of the return of SA was a correct one, although his new rant about undergraduates tearing anything to shreds is per usual a bit over the top. And lest anyone misunderstand (as a Pontiac did, probably deliberately) my humorous point about JAIDS let me add two other observations that I thought unnecessary to make explicit previously. Warning: They are apparently contradictory, and therefore potentially destabilizing to many states of mind. 1. If JAIDS was a better journal than it is, the obvious and additional control group would have been included. 2. The authors may indeed have done an (otherwise) excellent job in the study they did present and the major journals they sent it to at first did a Duesberg on them and they were forced to publish in JAIDS.Glider,I think (perhaps by divine-type accident you and TS have come upon a fine post-modern term for “AIDS without HIV”, namely “the unmentionable malady”.

  23. Truthseeker Says:

    This is all Research Methods 101. I could have had 25 undergrads tear the postings on this study to shreds. It’s really not that complex. To call this the cure and cause for AIDS is offensive to me, I make no secret about it.

    Distinguished commentators are begged to read posts and other comments thoroughly before applying their undergraduate tutoring logic to the material, since this is intended to be a reference blog where, despite the occasional lapse into humorous treatment of the claims of the establishment, the information and analysis is we hope enduringly relevant, accurate, and helpful to those who are trying to establish the truth about the science and its politics, to protect themselves and others from extremely dangerous and possibly fatal consequences.

    Instant resignations from participation, and other irrelevant manifestations of personal crisis are preferably best kept for venting in email and/or on other blogs, even though we recognize that they reflect the invisible consequences of the mindgames perpetrated by the unjustifiably elevated miscreants running this field peddling an (un)scientific fantasy show which brings wholesale pain and death to those foolish enough to buy tickets, which by definition surely does not include those with a truly scientific outlook.

    We stand by the study as worthwhile, and indeed the whole trend of the post: the interplay of nutritional aspects with the immune system compounds the havoc wrought by other influences, and is a key to restoring them to health.

  24. pat Says:

    I’m sorry,I must make a correction. Apparently I have managed to confuse SA with Michael. The second part of my post should be to Michael”Also I think that TS agrees with you that “witchcraft” is the number ONE killer: “THE CURES for AIDS are thus unimpressively simple: 1) Remove “witchcraft” of paradigm propaganda from mind and rely on mainstream scientific literature. 2) Stop taking recreational and anti-HIV drugs, 3) Take full vitamin and trace element supplements and 4) possibly, dare we say this, according to the data in a recent review paper by Dr Anthony Fauci himself, be glad if you become infected with HIV”.The list you refer to, I now see, is the “Causes of AIDS” which perhaps contributed to my confusion. Can we get them listed in order of Importance?If:”The valid causes of AIDS are 1) Drugs both recreational and medicinal which weaken the immune systemetcThen:”THE CURES for AIDS are thus unimpressively simple: 1) Stop taking recreational and anti-HIV drugsetcor inverselyIf:THE CURES for AIDS are thus unimpressively simple: 1) Remove “witchcraft” of paradigm propaganda from mind and rely on mainstream scientific literature”.etcThen:”The valid causes of AIDS are 1) “Witchcraft” effects of beliefs induced by health workers and other authorities.etcI think it is simply a question of reshuffling the numbers. Aaargh…this reminds me of a desease I know. If only I could remember what this desease did, perhaps I could remember what it is called. It appears to be contagious though. ;)Note to self: refill prescriptions.

  25. Truthseeker Says:

    1. If JAIDS was a better journal than it is, the obvious and additional control group would have been included.

    Like SA, you have overlooked the fact that it is not possible to gain review board approval for an HIV?AIDS study of this kind in the US without including ARV’s for both test and control groups. The same situation obtains in cancer and chemotherapy, where conventional treatment has to be included in all trials. This makes it hard for those advocating nutrients as palliatives and cures to prove their point in trials, since they have to run up down escalators, as it were. Drug company executives no doubt fully support this requirement in HIV?AIDS, and who is JAIDS to argue, as you correctly imply.

  26. Michael David Says:

    TS, You missed the comment above in which it was pointed out there are many antibody positives who voluntarily decline ARV therapy and a group could have been (indeed should have been) recruited into the study with no review board problems.

  27. Truthseeker Says:

    Alright, Dr. D, we will remove all non reference material in the few posts above since 2.40 pm, as you have requested in a Comment now also deleted, but will you state what it is that we are mistaken about, so that we know what point needs to be preserved and discussed. Is it that you think SA made a fine, important point by pointing out the obvious, that ARVs were used by all in the US study? Is it that you think this vitiates the study as unscientific? Is it that you think the African studies are not relevant? Is it that you think that it is not important to point out that nutritional factors governing the immune system are demonstrated by these and other studies to be highly relevant?

    Or is it simply that you wish to emphasize that JAIDS is a journal of no importance relative to Nature Biotechnology? On that we bow to your judgement, as will anyone aware of the history of the two journals.

  28. SA Says:

    The study is plainly scientific, TS, although it is missing an important control group. The point I was making, and that I believe Dr. D is reinforcing, is that this study cannot, because of the faults in its design, say anything about the causes or cures for AIDS — that your interpretation of the study is at fault — not the study itself. And several readers have also now pointed out several other variables that would have been important to include if the study actually sought to investigate the causes and cures for AIDS, which it did not. Again, that was you, over-extending the results of this rather unexciting study. I think that previous research had already made it plain that nutrition was an important factor. There is nothing new here, and certainly, nothing about the causes and cures for AIDS. But the discussion has been a good one, as many other variables of interest have been brought up and discussed regarding the causes and cures for AIDS. In a way, the group put out there today a list of variables that would need to be studied and controlled for, but would make for a fascinating study that actually had something to do with the causes and cures for AIDS, which again, this study, did not.

  29. Truthseeker Says:

    God Bless America.

  30. McKiernan Says:


    Are you sure the Bishop of Cuernavaca will agree to placing his nihil obstat on your last comment ? You could be walking on eggs.

  31. Robert Houston Says:

    Has the distinguished Ph.D. commentator SA read TS’s post too hastily? Has he forgotten the “hierarchy of evidence” which is fundamental in the standard teaching of research methodology? Is he unaware of current requirements in American clinical trials in AIDS? Let’s take these one at a time:

    1) Any problems in the design of the new study on micronutrients in HIV/AIDS are not to be blamed on Truthseeker, as SA seemed intent on doing, but on Kaiser et al., the authors of the study. Truthseeker presented the new study as a newspeg for a wider discussion of suggested causes and cures of AIDS – not as the proof of all these other factors. Those who know the literature which others may wish to explore would be aware that the potential causes and cures discussed by Truthseeker are grounded on an extensive record of supporting medical and scientific studies, and not on the Kaiser study alone as SA erroneously charged.

    2) Ironically, the only research discussed that expressly upsets our Ph.D. commentator is a study that meets the recognized gold standard of evidence! As any textbook or course in basic research methodology would acknowledge, the highest form of evidence in clinical research is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The Kaiser study met that standard, and the advantageous results of the micronutrient group over the control group were statistically significant. While much was made of a lack of a non-ARV control group, he and Dr David stubbornly ignore the two foreign clinical trials of micronutrients that Truthseeker cited: these also met the gold standard in research design and did not involve ARV drugs.

    3) SA and Dr. David may be unaware of the restrictions on clinical trials in HIV/AIDS in America and most of Europe: that all patients must be given antiretroviral therapy, or at least AZT. Thus, nutrients can be studied prospectively in patients only as adjuvants to standard treatment. This is why there have been no placebo-controlled trials of ARVs in AIDS since the original faulty AZT study which was the basis of its 1987 approval. So turn your fire on the real culprits: the FDA, NIH and institutional review boards whose approval are required before a clinical trial can legally proceed, regardless of whether patients would volunteer.

    By the way, Dr. David’s suggestion of using a volunteer group eschewing ARVs might be possible but would be subject to criticism as introducing a volunteer bias and compromising randomization.

  32. SA Says:

    Robert Houston,All I can say in response is:1. You’ve obviously never conducted a clinical trial; most good clinical trials exceed the “gold standard” you discuss, via the use of multiple “control” groups.2. You’re understanding of what the gold standard would look like here is incomplete (you should read about full Latin Squares designs).3. Volunteer groups can, in fact, be randomized. There are also additional ways to handle that bias – like matching on key characteristics across groups (it’s often called “yolking” in research).4. I’d recommend the following text (I use the 3rd edition): Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, by Kirk Behavioral science generally has even more confounds that medical science, and thus, the designs are even more stringent. It’s an excellent primer.When you’ve conducted a clinical trial for the NIH, as I have, then let’s definitely talk.

  33. SA Says:

    I don’t mean to be a jerk about all of this, so let me just put on the table what I’m bringing:

    1. I have a PhD in an experimental science
    2. Obtaining that PhD involved taking 10 advanced courses in Research Methodology, Design, and Analysis
    3. I’ve been doing research since 1988
    4. I have indeed directed a clinical trial for the NIH
    5. I have taught Research Methods to both undergraduate and graduate students.
    6. I act as a reviewer for two scholarly journals in my field
    7. I own my own research consulting firm
    8. Doing research is my livelihood — It’s how I earn my living, and has been since 1996.

    That’s what I’m bringing to these little debates. It’s stupid I have to lay it all out like this, but there you have it.

    Because of this, I’m not going to engage in debate with someone on this site, or any other, who does not have at least a somewhat equivalent knoweldge base on how to do research – and the content of that research is not relevant — the methodological concerns are always the same. I’ve been involved in medical, psychological, social, educational, and market research. It’s just not productive for me to engage in debate regarding research methodology on a site like this. It’s doens’t make sense. It simply it not an area where I have even the slightest doubt about my expertise.

    Now, if the question were about car mechanics, I’d defer immediately. Knowing the boundaries of one’s expertise is really important, and not something that is well-respected around here in my book. It’s strange to me that Robert Houston would think it a good idea to question the conclusions of two methodologists. If our positions were reversed, you certainly wouldn’t see me attacking the expertise of two PhD methodologists.

  34. Dan Says:

    For example, some people appear to think that the mainstream literature still tells us that the retrovirus HIV is the cause of immune deficiency. This is not the case, of course. In fact the mainstream literature has rejected this idea from the very first papers of Robert Gallo in 1984, which were the first to demonstrate that HIV was not the cause (it was found in only one third of patients). Top level review critiques by Peter Duesberg and others have repeatedly confirmed this conclusion over two decades. How much more succintly could this be said?Sorry for not commenting on the rest of the article, but this paragraph is so clear at stating the obvious. Gallo’s work did not show that HIV causes AIDS. By finding HIV in only one third of his AIDS patients, he effectively ruled out HIV as the cause of AIDS. AIDS promoters often accuse myself and others of not looking at the evidence that HIV causes AIDS which is supposedly confirmed by thousands of papers on the subject. Every one of those papers that assumes that HIV causes AIDS is fatally-flawed, as Gallo’s work show us.

  35. Robert Houston Says:

    I appreciate SA’s response to my previous comment. It was kind of him to suggest a useful text and to provide a list of his research credentials, which are certainly very impressive. The opening of my previous comment seemed out-of-line on later reading, so I’ve asked Truthseeker to modify the wording. I’m sorry if my remarks may have seemed disrespectful towards SA or Dr. David, and am aware that both are outstanding scientists.

    I had not meant to question anyone’s expertise but merely to suggest that a too hasty reading of Truthseeker’s article could have given a misimpression. SA accused Truthseeker of using the new Kaiser study on micronutrients in AIDS as proof for all the putative causes and cures of AIDS. In my reading, however, it seemed to be introduced as a news-peg for discussing various factors.

    Since the papers I’ve published in peer-reviewed scientific journals were not clinical trials, my views are irrelevant according to SA. The two MDs and three PhDs who co-authored the Kaiser study, however, have clinical research experience and so, presumably, did the peer reviewers. In any case, SA has acknowledged that “the study is plainly scientific, TS, although it is missing an important control group.” There may be practical and even legal reasons for the lack of a non-ARV group in that study, and indeed, in nearly all AIDS clinical trials in the U.S. The treatment options for patients would no doubt be far more favorable today if the sensible methodological suggestions of SA and Dr. David had been implemented.

    SA wrote that “most good clinical trials exceed the gold standard you discuss..” It would be interesting to find out the proportions today. An older analysis of clinical research studies in three leading medical journals (JAMA, NEJM, and Lancet) found that 44% were cross-sectional studies, 34% were cohort studies, and 21% were clinical trials, of which only 1/4th (5% of the total) were randomized controlled trials (R. H. Fletcher, NEJM 301:180-3). Of the RCTs, few were double-blinded. The Kaiser study was, and thereby exceeded a high “gold standard.”

  36. try_harder Says:

    To TS and SA,It does no one any good when research is interpreted in a biased way. Both the original interpretation that vitamins are an important addition to ARVs and that ARVs do zilch are incorrect. I agree with SA that one would need a no ARVs control group to be able to draw any such conclusion. Humour allowed or not, be sure that this is a part of an important public debate so TS has got not any more right to cut corners than Bob Gallo does in his own research. Sloppiness in interpretation of research does not do the ‘rethinkers’ approach to HIV/AIDS any good. Remember that because of where we are now you have to try twice as hard as the mainstream to change things – this is a huge responsibility. best.

  37. Truthseeker Says:

    TS has got not any more right to cut corners than Bob Gallo does in his own research. Freefloating stricture may be personally satisfying but it is unwelcome here, since it excites curiosity without satisfying it. You apparently conclude that the Kaiser study is not significant. Then enlighten us. Tell us why this double-blind, placebo controlled study is useless as a guide to the value of topping up the minerals and vitamins in AIDS patients, without first removing ARVs from the mix in both groups. Why does it prevent us from drawing conclusion from the results? How about other factors in common to all participating? All drank water, for example. Perhaps ideally we ought to have had a control group which was not allowed to drink water? You also apparently think that ARVs do something useful, and we urge you to say specifically what you believe and demonstrate it. This is one of the most crucial points.It is also important to affix your credentials here so we know how to evaluate your opinion, by the way. You mention Bob Gallo, for example, “cutting corners” in his research. Are you aware of Dr Gallo’s credentials? At one time the most referenced man in the entire scientific literature, recipient of the Lasker and numerous prizes, including one involving six memorable lectures at Columbia, Gallo currently ranks among the top three international biological scientists, according to the University of California’s newly developed h index. Anyone here who questions this distinguished scientist had better be able to quote similar qualifications. This is a general principle in these discussions, as SA has recently reminded us.

  38. David Crowe Says:

    Followers of this blog might be interested in my communications with the Globe &Mail newspaper in Canada regarding an article documenting the conviction of a mother for “failing to provide the necessities of life” because she avoided the use of the DNA chain terminator AZT for her baby:Original article, my letter, a rebuttal and a follow up here.Canadian newspapers are full of mainstream AIDS reporting (is there any other kind?) because of the big pharmaceutical marketing conference in Toronto (AIDS 2006). It’s sad that journalists are so unquestioning. Why do they assume that there is something mysterious about HIV-positive people who stay healthy without drugs for years and years, so that they have to go searching for genetic explanations rather than sanity-checking the HIV=AIDS=Death dogma?

  39. Robert Houston Says:

    A great deal of human tragedy and personal anguish is being produced by the credulous assumption that antiretroviral (ARV) drugs are of great benefit. As David Crowe wrote, “It’s sad that journalists are so unquestioning.” Apparently, some readers of NAR, while suggesting they are AIDS skeptics, seem to make every effort to back conventional therapy and to belittle new research on more humane approaches.

    A case in point is “Try Harder,” who writes above that “you have to try twice as hard as the mainstream…” This is the advocacy of an unfair double standard with respect to an adversary with tens of billions of dollars. On the contrary, what’s needed is not only a level playing field with NO double standards, but special support and a nurturing appreciation for promising research on nontoxic natural and nutritional modalities that, being unpatentable, will not gain extensive drug company sponsorship.

    Mr. Harder writes, “Both the original interpretation that vitamins are an important addition to ARVs and that ARVs do zilch are incorrect. I agree with SA that one would need a no ARVs control group to be able to draw any such conclusion.”

    It’s not clear that SA would agree with the first part. (SA, 8/8/06: “…ARVs + micronutrients are even better. That is a valid interpretation of these results…” )Mr. Harder is disputing the actual conclusion of the study – not just Truthseeker’s interpretation. The Kaiser study was similar in design to a wide area of research known as adjuvant studies , in which an agent is added to standard treatment and compared in results to standard treatment alone. Although placebos are used to substitute for the second drug, rarely is there an untreated group. If applied fairly, the Harder/SA demand for an untreated group in order to draw any conclusion of benefit would require rejection of most adjuvant studies in cancer and nearly all clinical studies in AIDS.

    Since the badly flawed study of AZT in 1987, there have been virtually no American clinical trials in AIDS that had an untreated group. There was something like one in Europe in 1993: the Concorde trial in 1993, which compared early versus delayed use of AZT and found that early users had a 25% higher death-rate.

    Mr. Harder says “the interpretation that ARVs do zilch” is “incorrect” because “one would need a no ARV control group.” On that basis, however, there’s no evidence that current ARV therapy (HAART) does any good. HAART has never been tested against a non-ARV group. If Mr. Harder or SA believe there are any AIDS clinical trials in America since 1987 with a non-ARV control group, then cite it. Otherwise, be consistent and reject all studies on ARVs.

    Contrary to the claims of Harder and SA, Truthseeker’s description of the Kaiser study was accurate (see paragraphs 3 and 4 of of his article). If critics are going to charge misinterpretation, they should quote exactly what statement they question. The description by TS matches the actual conclusion of the researchers: ” This study demonstrates that a micronutrient supplement administered to HIV-infected patients taking stable HAART significantly enhances CD4 lymphocyte reconstitution.”

    In recent years, the only agents in HIV/AIDS that have been tested in randomized clinical trials with untreated groups are nutritional supplements. The Harvard study in Tanzania by Fawzi et al. (2004), which TS cited, was a double-blind, placebo controlled trial on 1078 women with HIV/AIDS. It had a six year follow-up and found that those given multivitamins had significant increases in T-cell counts and reduction in death-rate compared to the untreated group given placebos.

    The Jiamton study in Thailand in 2003, which TS also cited, was also a large randomized double-blinded placebo controlled trial, with an untreated group. Its supplement included trace elements as well as vitamins. The result was a huge reduction in the death-rate in the micronutrient group. Among those with AIDS by CDC criteria (CD4 count

    Thus, the studies that SA and Harder demanded have been done for micronutrients – but not for ARVs. It’s to be hoped that most readers will appreciate the valuable and potentially life-saving information that TS has presented instead of reacting like carping ingrates.

  40. McDonald Says:

    The main problem in picking, choosing and putting together different studies is that the groups and circumstances are not compatible. Val. Turner: The Gallo document leaps to the conclusion that if Nevirapine produced better results on a surrogate marker than AZT in one environment, and that if in a totally different environment, AZT produced better results than a placebo, that therefore Nevirapine is better than a placebo. Such logic works well in artificial situations such as mathematics, but not in real biological systems. To take one study from Africa, another from Thailand to patch up holes in a third from the US is just that, patchwork science.

  41. Robert Houston Says:

    Acknowledging relevant studies from elsewhere is not “patchwork science.” It’s what’s normal in any discussion of research. The quotation given by Mr. McDonald was not by Dr. Val Turner as he claims but was from “Correcting Gallo,” item #29, at RethinkAIDS.com. It is criticizing the use of historical comparisons with placebo controls, such as occurred in the HIVNET study of nevirapine in Uganda. In contrast, the clinical trials of micronutrients for HIV/AIDS in Thailand and Tanzania included their own randomly allocated untreated placebo control groups. The studies were mentioned not as extensions of the Kaiser study, but as separate trials addressing the question: are micronutrients per se of benefit in HIV/AIDS? SA claimed that the answer could not be inferred without a non-ARV control group. As mentioned in my last comment, these foreign RCTs, which did not use ARVs, had such untreated groups in their design and thus were able to provide independent, convincing answers that were affirmative.

  42. McDonald Says:

    The name, Valendar Turner, appeared in the title, ‘Valendar Turner, Nevirapine and Placebo’ which confused me. I admit I have no scientifically valid reason to infer he would have authored the response to the attack on himself. Some people, like SA, were apparently led to expect strict science in this post. I myself saw it more as a news peg, and some encouraging bits of information. Which is it? The key words here are ‘compatible groups’ (which I’m sure you’ll recognize from Duesberg’s Biosciences paper) and ‘totally different environments’.Sa’s point: the different studies, African Thai and U.S., ‘indicate’ the revolutionizing fact that, everything else being equal, a careful diet is better than nothing in helping the patient resist an infection.What we don’t know from this is whether dietary supplements would have an impact on supposedly well-fed Americans comparable to the one it seemingly has on supposedly chronically mal-nourished people from very different places and cultures.This makes our micro-nutrients(MN) case somewhat analogous to the AZT-placebo(P) Nevirapine(N)-AZT case mentioned in RA’s ‘Correcting Gallo’ #29.AZT is better than PN is better than AZTErgo N is better than PValid?MN are better than PMN+AZT are better than AZTErgo MN are better than AZTValid?Based on the assumption thatAZT is better than P in one environment/groupErgo AZT is better than P in every environment/group Valid?MN are better than P in one environment/group Ergo MN are better than P in every environment/group.Valid?Asking for the strict science here, exactly what about ‘the causes and cure of AIDS is clear in the literature’ from this?

  43. Robert Houston Says:

    AZT monotherapy is no longer recommended by NIAID, and Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, a founder of AMFAR, contends that the original high doses killed thousands of AIDS patients (see Lederer article in POZ, April 2006). Deaths from AIDS came down with the reduction in AZT dosages, both of which preceded HAART.

    The AZT vs placebo study referred to by Mr. McDonald concerned mother to child transmission (MTCT) of HIV, not therapy of AIDS. The Uganda trial of nevirapine for MTCT used AZT as a surrogate for a placebo, based on its lower rate of MTCT in the earlier trial in the US and France (ACTG 076, 1994). This use of drugs in place of placebos has become standard practice in the testing of antiretroviral drugs and their combinations.

    Thus, in terms of strict science, there is no evidence from fully placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials to support the use of ARV therapy in AIDS, for after 1987 it was deemed unethical to have untreated groups.

    As a result, the only proven treatments for HIV/AIDS are those involving nutritional supplementation. These were demonstrated beneficial by RCTs using untreated control groups in nations such as Tanzania and Thailand where ARVs were generally unavailable. In addition, the new Kaiser study in the “supposedly well-fed” US demonstrates that micronutrients are of benefit even in conjunction with ARVs, despite the lack of benefit of ARVs alone under the same conditions. Hopefully, the dramatic results of the new study will encourage more such research to investigate the extent and conditions of benefit.

    Because many studies have shown that American and European AIDS patients are markedly deficient in key nutrients essential to the health of the T-cell system, they would be expected to benefit from supplementation and have been shown to do so in some nutrient-specific clinical trials in the U.S., Canada and Italy.

  44. McDonald Says:

    McDonald (Ruairidh2@hotmail.com) ():

    Mr. Houston

    I agree with everything the way it’s stated in your last post, and I share your hopes and expectations.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 386 access attempts in the last 7 days.