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.

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

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)

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

HIV is HIV vaccine!- Abraham Karpas

Review by Honest Abe, elite Cambridge virologist, of AIDS science in 2004 reveals vaccine to HIV is…HIV!

Text if read by intelligent HIV+ people might cause doubts about need for poison

Backs up Fauci, who said that HIV induces protective T cells to proliferate

Should Karpas share in Duesberg’s Nobel for solving AIDS? Maybe

vaccine.jpgOver at Aetiology, a blog run by epidemiologist Tara Smith, who is convinced that HIV is the culprit in AIDS and that there is no need to review the literature more than she has, the comment section has reached 1072 comments and counting, since her post on Mbeki: still in denial went up on November 6th.

We regret to say we have contributed to this flurry, since we really should have been posting here much of the material we cited, and others familiar with the literature, such as Robert Houston and MacDonald, cited.

This morning, however, it seemed right to post the important sections of Human retroviruses in leukaemia and AIDS: reflections on their discovery, biology and epidemiology, Abraham Karpas’s 2004 review of AIDS science, and we did so. What it shows, as the thread has brought out, against the heavy resistance of paradigm defenders such as Christopher Noble, “franklin”, Roy Hinckley, and “Elk Mountain Man”, is the crucial flaw in HIV-AIDS theory, which is that

HIV vaccinates against HIV!

There is no reason to believe that any person with a healthy immune system will not produce antibodies in short order which will neutralize (kill) HIV in their bloodtsream, and Karpas confirms this without blinking.

“The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected patients remain well for years.”

bigkarpas.jpegThe second important point we wanted to make, after Robert Houston, is that Karpas’s belief at the time was that the virus mutates away from the immune syste’s aim and this is one explanation, though not the whole story, of why HIV is able to make a comeback in the end and defeat the imune system which defeated it in the first place, was already proved false by Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection, the Douglas Richman et al paper of 2003 which found that antibodies not only kept up with mutation, but a quarter of the time actually responded more powerfully to the new versions of HIV-1.

Karpas went to press too early to take this result into account, it appears. But if he had read Richman, perhaps he would have come out with the same kind of idea that NIAID director Anthony Fauci seemed to be suggesting (to those alert enough to read between the lines) in the review we dealt with earrlier here, which is that the imaginative solution to the entire billion dollar problem of finding a vaccine to prevent AIDSis: use HIV itself as a vaccine!

For the only conclusion that reasonable people can come to in reading Karpas’s paper is that the harmless virus HIV vaccinates against the harmless virus HIV, just as Peter Duesberg has long stated in unrefuted and irrefutable papers drawing on the literature of the field.

The only issue now, since this is the final solution to AIDS, and save a considerable expense (vaccine researchers are busy trying to use up more than a billion, and Bush has asked for $30 billion in tax money) and some serious suffering on the part of no account (to HIV researchers, apparently) gays and blacks in Africa and now here, is: Does Karpas deserve to share in the Nobel with Duesberg, who pointed out all this first, in Cancer Research in 1987?

We think he does.

Here for the inspection of readers is what Karpas wrote on key points, which is already posted on Aetiology, and discussed earlier, with some preceding Comments for context (later Aetiology Comment posts will be added here, rather than in the Comment section to Cleaning Out The Stable (6) as hitherto:

(Some preceding Aetiology Comments, already copied into Comments here earlier under Cleaning Out The Stable, can be read if you click this tab, which will expand them for reading as a sort of introduction:

Noble and the rest of you wackjobs, if you are so sure that hiv is the cause of aids, please send us links from pub med for the 3-4 first scientific papers that prove hiv causes AIDS, Koch had orginal expiriments that proved causality, so did shyh ching lo……..so your Idol moores rocket ship analalogy is the biggest joke of them all. Waiting…………………………….

Posted by: cooler | December 2, 2007 9:05 PM

The irony arises from repeatedly referring to it as the Kraft-Dunning Effect, illustrating the overconfidence fueled by ignorance that lies at the heart of the effect.
Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 6:02 PM

In a classic example of the Kruger-Dunning effect, the better irony arises, franklin, from your inability to appreciate wordplay. Perhaps one should call it the Kruger-Ebbing effect, to make it clearer through the fog that obscures your brain, the one that the monkey meme sits on, invisible to you but visible to all who read what you write. But then you would complain that I spelled it wrong…sheez.

Anyhow the corpus of Krafft-Ebing is what one keeps thinking of in observing your behavior, and that of your fellow trio members, here. In fact, there seem to be five influences at work at once: 1) Kruger-Dunning 2) Krafft-Ebing 3) Moore-Noble 4) HIV meme 5) The Duesberg-Bialy litmus test for scientific intelligence, or its absence.

In case you didn’t know the Duesberg-Bialy effect (discovered at New AIDS Review, as it happens by the humble blogger) is the following:

The absence of a sense of humor correlates very highly – 99.9999% – with the inability to percieve the Grand Canyon sized flaws in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

It is not yet known why this is, but the favored theory is that those brilliant fellows such as yourself who lack the wit and mastery of the topic that allows one to see what is really going on are distracted by the monkey meme jumping up and down on their head.

HIV blocked from T cells

By the way, franklin, if you guys are so familiar with the literature that you know our interpretation is wrong when we see Fauci, Karpas and other commentators of irreproachable mainstream authority acknowledge that HIV is a pussy which the immune system chases up a tree and keeps it there, how about this quote (you recognize it, I hope, and who wrote it):

“However, quantitative studies of the frequency of HIV-infected cells in vivo suggest that single cell killing by direct infection with HIV may not be the predominant mechanism of CD4+ T-cell depletion. In this regard, the proportion of HIV-infected, peripheral blood CD4+ T cells in individuals in the early asymptomatic stage of HIV infection is typically in the range of 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10,10,000 (Pantaleo et al) Although this frequency increases with disease progression,the proportion of HIV infected peripheral blood CD4+ T cells rarely exceeds 1 in 100 even in patients with advanced HIV disease….the data illustrate the difficulty in accounting for CD4+ T-cell depletion solely by direct mechanisms.”

Gee. No direct cell killing by HIV. Parade past us all the excuses and imaginative claims offered to fill this Grand Canyon of contradiction of the first mechanism assumed by the HIV brigade, then read Zvi Grossman on how none of them have the slightest data to back them up and how exactly how HIV kills T cells remains a “conundrum”.

Neutralizing antibodies

Meanwhile try contradicting my description of the overcoming of HIV by the healthy immune system as “DEFEAT” again, when Richman’s paper is NAMED Rapid evolution of the neutralizing response to HIV type 1 infection. What do you think neutralizing means?

“We report here that in most patients, potent neutralizing antibody responses are generated early after infection, at first to the autologous infecting HIV variant and then to subsequent variants.”

“During the natural course of early HIV infection, fully functional envelope variants continuously emerge and compete for outgrowth in a RAPIDLY EVOLVING NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODY RESPONSE.”

Gallo himself saluted neutralizing antibodies to HIV in 1985 in Nature (Jul 4-10;316 (6023):72-4,

“Natural antibodies capable of neutralizing HTLV-III infection of H9 cells were detected in most adults AIDS and ARC patients but in no normal heterosexual controls.”

The only way HIV escapes these antibodies is to retreat to some hiding place protected from the antibodies in the bloodstream, folks. It doesn’t make any kind of comeback until the antibodies army is weakened by some other sickness, which HIV doesn’t have a chance to cause.

Karpas explains

Why the established paradigm exploiters insist on maintaining that the defeated HIV is the threat is a scientific mystery, but it may have something to do with money After all, even Abraham Karpas, professor of virology at Cambridge and one of the generals of the campaign to support HIV to the tune of $30 billion even though it doesn’t do anything, has this to say about the credentials of his colleagues:

“The history of AIDS research involves huge rewards, unscrupulous ambition, disregard for common principles of scientific conduct, battles over priority leaving injustice uncorrected, and terrible consequences in the wider world.”

Written about Gallo’s record in the early stage of HIV research, from which the asinine theory emerged, but also applicable to the whole crowd of scientific deceivers and their hangers on such as the trio here in the years since.

A sad reflection on human motivations to peddle murder rather than medicine.

Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 9:27 PM

darin writes YOU REGARD THE PRESENCE OF ANY NUCLEIC ACID WHICH IS DETERMINED BY YOU TO BE “FOREIGN” (whatever that means) AS ORIGINATING IN AN EXOGENOUS VIRUS.

Regardless of whether you can actually SEE such a virus, regardless of whether you have a way of detecting virus particles or even “virus-like particles” (whatever THAT means!!!, I read some papers from just a few years ago on “HCV-virus-like particles” being FINALLY (finally!!!) detected, 20 years on now…)

THE NUCLEIC ACID SEQUENCE IS YOUR GOD-KING, YOUR DEITY, YOUR SOVEREIGN. YOU WORSHIP IT.

Once again you appear to have completely misinterpreted reality. “Any” nucleic acid sequence? Hardly. A nucleic acid sequence contains genetic information. If that information is not consistent with a virus that nucleic acid won’t be labelled viral.

Posted by: Dale | December 2, 2007 10:12 PM

“In a classic example of the Kruger-Dunning effect, the better irony arises, franklin, from your inability to appreciate wordplay.”

Your efforts at argumentation consist entirely of wordplay. You know fully well that Karpas, Richman and Fauci do not support your interpretations and yet you continue to argue about this.

This complete and utter disregard for the truth only demonstrates your dishonesty. It is difficult to tell whether your chosen moniker of “truthseeker” is meant to be an ironic wordplay or youreally are self-deluded.

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 10:20 PM

“Your efforts at argumentation consist entirely of wordplay. You know fully well that Karpas, Richman and Fauci do not support your interpretations and yet you continue to argue about this.”

Don’t be silly, Chris. They agree with what they wrote.

This complete and utter disregard for the truth only demonstrates your dishonesty. It is difficult to tell whether your chosen moniker of “truthseeker” is meant to be an ironic wordplay or you really are self-deluded.
Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 10:20 PM

Is that a machine you crank out this repetition on?

Face up to the simple truth that the bigger men in HIV=AIDS have made clear to us:

HIV+ people have vaccinated themselves.

Repeat:

HIV+ people have vaccinated themselves.

Still can’t get it? Let’s leave you forever with a quote:

It takes two to speak the truth. One to speak, and another to hear. – Henry David Thoreau.

Posted by: Truthseeker | December 2, 2007 10:31 PM

Truthseeker (sic),

Again you demonstrate that you can only support your erroneous conclusions about HIV by misrepresenting the scientific work of others, either because you are lying or because you are unable to understand the science.

You quote from a paper:

…the data illustrate the difficulty in accounting for CD4+ T-cell depletion solely by direct mechanisms.

Then draw the following conclusion:

Gee. No direct cell killing by HIV.

Perhaps you should look up non sequitur.

Posted by: franklin | December 2, 2007 10:37 PM

Don’t be silly, Chris. They agree with what they wrote.

Don’t be disengenous. You know fully well that they do not agree with your interpretations and extrapolations of what they wrote.

I am not disagreeing with what Karpas, Richman and Fauci have written. I am disagreeing with your interpretations such as

…ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it.

You are playing a juvenile game whereby you are pretending that I am disagreeing with Karpas, Richman and Fauci. I am not.

I have stated exactly why you are wrong. You continue to fill this webblog with overly verbose empty rhetoric.

Grow up!

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 11:00 PM

“During the natural course of early HIV infection, fully functional envelope variants continuously emerge and compete for outgrowth in a RAPIDLY EVOLVING NEUTRALIZING ANTIBODY RESPONSE.”

I acn only think of the term cognitive dissonance at this point although I suspect that Truthtwister will simply parrot this criticism back.

Somehow Truthtwister manages to avoid the part of this sentence which states that fully functional envelope variants continuously emerge. An honest person would not equate this to “defeat”. What does “fully functional” mean? What does “continuously emerge” mean?

As another example of cognitive dissonance Truthtwister failes to quote this sentence

The question then arises why such a strong selective pressure fails to appreciably impact levels of virus replication as does chemotherapy.

Richman is saying that ART is better at reducing viral replication than the normal human immune response.

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 11:15 PM

What does “fully functional” mean? What does
“continuously emerge” mean?

Dr. N

What does “early HIV infection” mean? As stated here the quote is a perfect tautology within the HIV belief system. If no “fully fuctional”, envelope variants emerged during “early infection”, it wouldn’t be much of an “infection” would it now?

Karpas then hypothesizes that HIV, AFTER EARLY INFECTION, never becomes completely latent (never fully “defeated”, just resorting to scattered, ineffectual for years, guerilla warfare) because the explanatory lentivirus model demands it or the HIV construct would merge into the “ordinary” opportunistic infection scenario, as Adele in one of her few bright moments has told us it is.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | December 2, 2007 11:54 PM

What does “early HIV infection” mean?

The paper by Richman covered the time period of 0-39 months post infection.

HIV is never latent except perhaps in a small percentage of elite controllers. It is a persistent chronic infection as distinct from viruses such as herpes simplex that form persistent latent infections.

Stop trying to put words into Karpas’ mouth. The only thing you are demonstrating is your dishonesty.

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 12:10 AM

Truthseeker (sic),

Maybe you’re not lying, after all.

At least not on all of the points you argue.

When it comes to Richman et al. (2003) it seems just as likely to me that you simply do not understand the paper, because the passages you quote disprove your thesis that HIV is defeated by the immune response in “any healthy person exposed to HIV” (free full text available here).

As Chris has already pointed out, the second passage you quoted indicates that despite the neutralizing antibodies made by the infected patients, “fully functional envelope variants continuously emerge.”

Even in the patients with the greatest production of neutralizing antibodies, the virus is not defeated, but instead continuously evades the immune response via evolution of resistant mutants.

The question then arises why such a strong selective pressure fails to appreciably impact levels of virus replication as does chemotherapy. During the course of HIV evolution, the envelope protein has acquired the ability to retain function (i.e., bind receptors) while tolerating multiple and repeated changes in several highly variable regions containing numerous glycosylation sites (32). Although drug-resistance mutations confer much greater fitness in the presence of antiretroviral drugs, they typically do not exist as common polymorphisms in untreated patients because they impair the replication of wild-type viruses. In contrast, during the natural course of early HIV infection, fully functional envelope variants continuously emerge and compete for outgrowth in the presence of a rapidly evolving neutralizing antibody response.

The antibody response evolves rapidly, but the authors show that the virus evolves even more rapidly.

They demonstrate the more rapid evolution of the virus by studying virus and antibodies isolated from the same blood sample.

The patients’ antibodies are less effective at neutralization of the virus present in the blood sample from which the antibody was derived than virus present in earlier blood samples from the same patient.

Because the evolution of the antibody response does not keep up with the evolution of the virus, the antibody response “fails to appreciably impact levels of virus replication” and fails to defeat the virus.

I certainly hope that you wouldn’t lie about such an elegant experiment.

Somehow, I would prefer to believe that you simply don’t understand it.

For, in my opinion, to purposely lie about this work is to besmirch a thing of beauty.

Posted by: franklin | December 3, 2007 12:11 AM

The question then arises why such a strong selective pressure fails to appreciably impact levels of virus replication as does chemotherapy.

“Richman is saying that ART is better at reducing viral replication than the normal human immune response” (Dr. N)

What Richman does, Dr. N, is point to one of the many paradoxes raised by an explanatory model which is forced to assume that HIV is mutating furiously as answer to “strong selective pressure”, aka known as a potent antibody response.

The paradox is, as stated, that an antibody response which is so powerful that it forces HIV to perform evolutionary acrobatics which outpace many times over in a single infected person the worldwide evolution of an average influenza strain during the course of an entire year is supposedly still not potent enough to dent the viral load.

That is like carpet bombing an Iraqi village all night only to discover in the morning that all major structures are still intact and Al-Qaeda holding a soccer tournament in the town square.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | December 3, 2007 12:22 AM

Why do HIV enthusiasts pretend that they don’t know the obvious? Antibodies afftect what’s accessible in the blood and may have little effect on virus in the lymph nodes or inside cells, where replication could continue.

This does not mean that an antibody response is without benefit. The low rate of infected T-cells, “1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000” acccording to Dr. Fauci in his chapter from Fundamental Immunology (2003, p. 1294) that Truthseeker quoted above, indicates that the immune response is doing an effective job in curbing the virus in the blood. Or as a Cambridge virology professor put it:

“The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected patients remain well for many years.” – Abraham Karpas

In his review (Biology Reviews 79:911-933, 2004), Karpas mentioned the hypothesis that “mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death…” He quickly noted, however, that “this cannot be the only reason” for AIDS mortality. As D.D. Richman et al. note in their paper, “Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection” (PNAS, April 1, 2003), in a third of the HIV patients they studied the neutralizing antibody response was actrally stronger against the mutant variant than against the original strain of HIV.

Posted by: Robert Houston | December 3, 2007 12:23 AM

Robert Houston:

What Richman does, Dr. N, is point to one of the many paradoxes raised by an explanatory model which is forced to assume that HIV is mutating furiously as answer to “strong selective pressure”, aka known as a potent antibody response.

No Robert. Richman et al. are not forced to assume that “HIV is mutating furiously.”

Richman et al. experimentally demostrate that the antibody response does not neutralize the virus present in the same plasma sample from which the antibodies are derived as effectively as it can neutralize virus isolated from earlier plasma samples from the same patient.

They experimentally demonstrate that the virus evolves in such a way that it escapes from the neutralizing anitbody response of the host.

This is known as the scientific method.

Posted by: franklin | December 3, 2007 12:33 AM

Robodoc N,

I think we’ve all got today’s talking point upload. Words are being put in Karpas’s mouth. Now I may have confused Richman and Karpas at somepoint, though I doubt it, but apart from that show me you pathetic overpaid, whatever you’re paid, spambot where I put words in Karpa’s mouth.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | December 3, 2007 12:39 AM

My apologies Robert.

MEC stated:

What Richman does, Dr. N, is point to one of the many paradoxes raised by an explanatory model which is forced to assume that HIV is mutating furiously as answer to “strong selective pressure”, aka known as a potent antibody response.

No MEC. Richman et al. are not “forced to assume that HIV is mutating furiously.”

Richman et al. experimentally demostrate that the antibody response does not neutralize the virus present in the same plasma sample from which the antibodies are derived as effectively as it can neutralize virus isolated from earlier plasma samples from the same patient.

They experimentally demonstrate that the virus evolves in such a way that it escapes from the neutralizing anitbody response of the host.

This is known as the scientific method.

Somehow, it seems less surprising that MEC would not recognize the scientific method.

Again, my apologies, Robert.

Posted by: franklin | December 3, 2007 12:45 AM

Here’s your scientific method Frankie,

As D.D. Richman et al. note in their paper, “Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection” (PNAS, April 1, 2003), in a third of the HIV patients they studied the neutralizing antibody response was actually stronger against the mutant variant than against the original strain of HIV.

And THAT quote was brought us by the real Robert Houston

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | December 3, 2007 12:46 AM

MEC,

Try bringing your head far enough out from under the sand to look not just at “quotes” but at the actual data:

The patients’ antibodies are less effective at neutralization of the virus present in the blood sample from which the antibody was derived than virus present in earlier blood samples from the same patient.

Posted by: franklin | December 3, 2007 12:50 AM

I have stated exactly why you are wrong. You continue to fill this webblog with overly verbose empty rhetoric. Grow up! Posted by: Chris Noble | December 2, 2007 11:00 PM

You are always ready to stop people enlightening you and other HIV loyalists with your wearying, pedestrian, heavy footed, mechanical, predictable, monkey meme repetitive and insulting responses, Chris, which do certainly convince one you are incapable of seeing beyond your own nose, yes.

OK how’s this for brevity:

HIV+ people have vaccinated themselves.

Period.

Just in case you crank your meme machine again, let’s say it slightly longer, so readers can see it clearly.

After several weeks at most, all HIV+ people have vaccinated themselves against HIV, period, because antibody neutralization is completely effective, reducing virus presence and activity to a vanishing point, where it stays for as many years as you otherwise stay healthy, and even if you fall fatally sick will barely manage a resurgence from negligible reservoirs outside the bloodstream.

Once they are self-vaccinated, HIV will never trouble them in any way that paradigm partners such as yourself can justify from the published literature, even though you read it through paradigm loyalist spectacles with the HIV meme monkey tying your optic nerve into a knot.

Karpas wrote it, I quoted it, your posts have confirmed it, your friends also confirm it, so I bid you Goodbye, since the case is proved.

It would be appreciated if you would now kindly switch off your repetition/red herring/contradiction/contempt/accusation Kruger-Dunning-Moore-Noble-Krafft-Ebing meme machine and not have the monkey crank out yet another “you misinterpret/you lie/you misinterpret/you lie/you misinterpret/you lie/you misinterpret/you lie” post so that we don’t have to deal with your uniform autoreplies again.

We all understand that you three don’t understand, Chris. The only objective is to help readers understand that.

You have been a big help, thanks.

“Antibodies neutralize HIV” – Abraham Karpas, Anthony Fauci, Douglas Richman, Robert Gallo, Margaret Johnson, David Ho, Nancy Padian, John P. Moore, Peter Duesberg, Harvey Bialy, Henry Bauer, Gordon Stewart, Rebecca Culshaw, Darin Brown, Robert Houston, Claus Jensen, in fact every intelligent student of HIV?AIDS except Chris Noble and his acolytes here.

Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 1:19 AM

This does not mean that an antibody response is without benefit.

Nobody is saying otherwise. There is, however, a large gap between that and HIV being “defeated”. You appear to be going to a great deal of effort to confuse the issue. The evidence shows that HIV viral titres rise to a high during the acute infection stage and then fall to a non-zero “set-point”. At no stage is HIV “defeated”. It is never latent.

HIV continues to replicate after the acute infection period and continues to cause CD4+ cell depletion.

A large proportion of the damage is done in the initial acute infection stage.

HIV pathogenesis: the first cut is the deepest

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

Karpas wrote it, I quoted it, your posts have confirmed it, your friends also confirm it, so I bid you Goodbye, since the case is proved.

Karpas most definitely did not write: “ordinary levels of antibodies seen in any healthy person exposed to HIV are sufficient to defeat it” and he most definitely did not write “because antibody neutralization is completely effective”

You know perfectly well that Karpas does not agree with you and yet you continue to claim that he does.

The only things that you have proven are your powers of self-delusion and your inability to admit to a mistake.

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:36 AM

At no stage is HIV “defeated”. It is never latent.

It is “never latent”? A mistyping, Chris?

You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all):

Factual concession:

“This does not mean that an antibody response is without benefit.” Nobody is saying otherwise. There is, however, a large gap between that and HIV being “defeated”. You appear to be going to a great deal of effort to confuse the issue. The evidence shows that HIV viral titres rise to a high during the acute infection stage and then fall to a non-zero “set-point”. – Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

Imaginary claim:

At no stage is HIV “defeated”. It is never latent. HIV continues to replicate after the acute infection period and continues to cause CD4+ cell depletion.

A large proportion of the damage is done in the initial acute infection stage.- Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

Inadvertent factual concession:

HIV pathogenesis: the first cut is the deepest. -Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 1:25 AM

Yes. After the initial multiplication of HIV before the immune system gears up, HIV is quickly put down.and there is no further revival. But there is no “cut” before, during or after.

HIV does nothing except vaccinate you against HIV.

You are vaccinated by harmless HIV. Period.

Chris, you seem to be unaware that the vaccine project is planning to spend billions, and here you are being told that the best vaccination against HIV is HIV itself.

Why don’t you just believe what Karpas tells you, claim some of the money for yourself, take a holiday, and stop annoying everybody with misleading objections to good science?

Just a suggestion.

Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 1:59 AM

Truthseeker (sic):

You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all)

Why do you maintain that the continued replication of HIV in the face of the neutralizing immune response is imaginary, given that Richman has provided experimental verification of the virus eluding even the most potent immune responses that they observed?

Richman demonstrates a neutralizing antibody response and the evolution of the virus to escape the response. Neither is imaginary. Both have been empirically demonstrated.

You simply choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the data that you so helpfully brought to our attention.

Posted by: franklin | December 3, 2007 2:15 AM

It is “never latent”? A mistyping, Chris?

Unlike you I write what I mean and I mean what I type.

At no stage is HIV latent. It seems that at this stage of the conversation you are still not aware of the distinction between latent and chronic infection.

Natural history of acute and persistent human infections

Inadvertent factual concession:

It was neither inadvertent nor a concession. Why do you play these silly word games?

Why don’t you just believe what Karpas tells you, claim some of the money for yourself, take a holiday, and stop annoying everybody with misleading objections to good science?

I am not objecting to anything Karpas has written but rather your persistent misinterpretations.

Your rhetorical attempt to pit me against Karpas is simply pathetic. You know perfectly well that Karpas does not agree with you.

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:52 AM

Why do you maintain that the continued replication of HIV in the face of the neutralizing immune response is imaginary, given that Richman has provided experimental verification of the virus eluding even the most potent immune responses that they observed?

Because my wits have not been frightened out of me by the story of the nightmare Virus, which allows me to see that whatever life the virus might still manage to have coaxed out of it by Richman matters not a jot, because the Virus is so effectively neutralized by antibodies that it couldn’t overcome the healthy immune system which imprisoned it safely away from the bloodstream and which keeps it locked up safely for the duration.

In biology quantity rules. As Moore points out in one of his sadly neglected masterpieces, they chuck 40-500 times as much Virus at cells to prove it is toxic as occurs in vivo. Naturally it proves toxic.

Franklin you underestimately the level of rationalizing BS going on even though you do it yourself!

Franklin, a word in your ear. Here’s a plan. Forget about Chris and John Moore, and repeat five times after me:

Harmless HIV does nothing but vaccinate you against harmless HIV.

See if it fits the scientific literature, which it will, without exception, except that part of the literature which consists of data management, paradigm imposed misinterpretation and so forth.

Then have lunch at Nello’s with Anthony Fauci and David Ho, and tell them that you have a short cut to the HIV vaccine. HIV itself.

Show them Karpas’ paper as evidence you know what you are talking about.

Anthony Fauci will say something like, “Franklin, who have you told about this? Anybody else?” He will look at David Ho meaningfully.

You should reply, “I have put it in a sealed bank box to be opened at my death.”

Fauci will suddenly become very friendly, swear you to secrecy, and give you a check for $500 million.

If you don’t bother to mention this to Chris Noble, no one will blame you. However, it might be as well to give him and Hinckley $100 million just in case they start investigating why Fauci didn’t respond to THEIR phone calls on the same topic.

My commission is merely $10 million, since it is your status as family that will get you the lunch with Fauci and Ho. They probably wouldn’t see me at all.

Good luck!

Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 2:58 AM

You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all):

This sentence highlights the fundamental dishonesty of Denialists. They cherry pick isolated bits of papers that they falsely believe support their position and ignore the rest that refutes that position.

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:59 AM

Because my wits have not been frightened out of me by the story of the nightmare Virus, which allows me to see that whatever life the virus might still manage to have coaxed out of it by Richman matters not a jot, because the Virus is so effectively neutralized by antibodies that it couldn’t overcome the healthy immune system which imprisoned it safely away from the bloodstream and which keeps it locked up safely for the duration.

This is a classic Duesbergian misdirection. The vast majority of CD4+ cells are in lymphoid tissue and not in circulating blood. Not coincidentally this lymphoid tissue is the major reservoir for HIV and it is where it is doing its damage. Far from being locked up safely HIV is continuously replicating in lymphoid tissue at all stages of infection.

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 3:19 AM

At no stage is HIV latent. It seems that at this stage of the conversation you are still not aware of the distinction between latent and chronic infection.- Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:52 AM,/i>

Neither statement is true.

You still are missing the fundamental distinction between the factual concession Karpas makes (HIV is neutralized by antibodies) and the imaginary claim he tries to make (it makes a comeback against a healthy immune system and defeats it after all):

This sentence highlights the fundamental dishonesty of Denialists. They cherry pick isolated bits of papers that they falsely believe support their position and ignore the rest that refutes that position. Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:59 AM

The above statement reflects the foolishness of those who cannot see what part of a paper is based on data and what part based on imaginative argument, which doesn’t refute anything, especially the data in the other part of the paper.

The foolishness arises from the HIV meme which monkeys about with the already strained reasoning powers of those whose only scientific role is teacher’s pet.

Sorry Chris but you are trying to manoever your next roadblock into our path when we are already gone.

There is a limit to which one can carry on dancing with a monkey with a wooden leg, even if it is a meme.

Adieu!

Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 3:19 AM

The above statement reflects the foolishness of those who cannot see what part of a paper is based on data and what part based on imaginative argument, which doesn’t refute anything, especially the data in the other part of the paper.

No, it demonstrates that the sole criterion you use to decide which part of a paper to cite is whether you can spin it to support your position. You are quite happy to cite Karpas as an authority when a sentence can be twisted to mean something that appears to support your claim but you have no trouble dismissing every thing else he says that clearly refutes your position.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. This schizophrenic attitude to the literature is characteristic fro Denialists.

The paper by Richman et al that you cited is a classic example. It details direct experimental evidence that HIV continues to replicate despite the antibody response.

Even the title should give you a few clues: Rapid evolution of the neutralizing antibody response to HIV type 1 infection.

Why would the antibody response continue to evolve over a period of 39 months if HIV has been put out of action?

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 3:34 AM

At no stage is HIV latent. It seems that at this stage of the conversation you are still not aware of the distinction between latent and chronic infection.- Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 2:52 AM,

Neither statement is true.

I can only conclude once again that you are either knowingly lying or are too stupid to have a clue what you are talking about.

The very paper by Richman et al that you yourself cited demonstrates that HIV is never latent.

Posted by: Chris Noble | December 3, 2007 3:55 AM

Baghdad Bob (AKA Truthtwister) said:

“Karpas wrote it, I quoted it, your posts have confirmed it, your friends also confirm it, so I bid you Goodbye, since the case is proved.”

Now TS, if only you would read it:

“90%…deadly…10 years” – A. Karpas

Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 3, 2007 7:44 AM

“Truthseeker” or, more aptly, truthtwister (with props to Hinkley),

Your insistence on calling yourself a seeker of truth is irking me out of my silence of several weeks. You and your fellow “journalist,” Robert Houston, pretend to objectivity. Yet you both keep yourselves as far from facts as you can, and the extent of your “objectivity” is revealed in most of what you write, including Robert Houston’s reference to scientists as “HIV enthusiasts.” Anyone who can call a Joseph Sonnabend or any prominent AIDS doc or researcher an “HIV enthusiast” has never spent enough time with such people to learn of their passion and compassion and hatred of the virus.

Until you have some basic knowledge of biology, chemistry, mathematics, etc., it is pointless to argue with you about science. Nothing lost there, since science is clearly not the sticking point with you. Your objection is to facts or authority in general, it seems.

Is that perhaps why you try to provoke others with your self-consciously un-PC remarks?

Such as calling Tara “delectable” above (i.e. delicious, for cooler’s benefit)?

Or writing that jen is just another “female know-nothing”?

Or questioning Adele’s gender, deciding she must be a (male) “gay activist,” a term you use with the utmost of disgust?

Your apparent problems with society’s acceptance (relatively speaking, of course) of women as more than vacuous eye candy for British “gentlemen” who use the royal “we” and of gay people as worthy of something more than dismissal as “activists” would be a good place for you to start in assessing your unwillingness to be objective re science.

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | December 3, 2007 11:51 AM

Now TS, if only you would read it:
“90%…deadly…10 years” – A. Karpas
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | December 3, 2007 7:44 AM

Why do you truncate this quote till it its absurdity is unrecognisable, Roy? It reads in full:

Sexual intercourse has now spread the virus around the World; and there are probably some 70 million infected. 90% of those infected with HIV develop the deadly disease of AIDS within ten years of infection: the death toll from the disease has been enormous.

You do know the date this was written, and examined, and revised, till Karpas and the peer reviewers and editors of Bio. Rev. were satisfied it was accurate? 2004, in case you overlooked it.

So we have them all agreeing that 90% of those infected with HIV develop AIDS within ten years.

How does this jibe with the current claim that the mean latent period of HIV is ten years or more? That would indicate that 50% or fewer would be showing AIDS symptoms by the ten year mark, wouldn’t it? Indeed that is the case – fewer, in fact, as the predictions fail and fail, kept up only by the medications being applied earlier.

Now the UN has corrected the 70 million guess, which was pessimistic to say the least in 2004, to 33 million today.

Don’t you recognise what is happening? These guys go overboard in pushing the view of AIDS towards the doomsday scenario of maximum sick and dead people, as they make as many claims as they can in that direction to keep the disbursements from the public purse flowing in an era where you have to compete for every penny, especially when you already have more than your fair share.

It is almost childishly transparent in this case.

Yes, Karpas is an honest man when contemplating facts. When trying to keep his fellow Fauci Club members happy, however, having burst their balloon with his observations of how HIV gets stopped and rolled back to a negligible set point by any healthy person’s antibodies (pace the three HIV meme monkeys sharing silently in this thread), he rushes to prove he is a fully paid up loyal member of the HIV=AIDS Maximum Funding Regardless of Absurd Hypothesis Killing Gays and Blacks Club, and talks nonsense about 90% being ill in ten years, and 70 million infected.

Roy, as the only bright and creative and somewhat careful and thoughtful person here defending the absurd paradigm, at least unleash your sophisticated reading of journal review texts and in this case see the blindingly apparent.

Harmless HIV vaccinates against harmless HIV.

That is the only conclusion for which we have any data for this exceptionally rewarding but otherwise overwhelmingly inert retrovirus.

Perhaps you are a physicist who doesn’t understand what is going on in biology as far as funding pressures warping common sense goes, but just as an example from another field, why not skim that Kruger-Dunning paper just for laughs?

Its brilliant topic of study which it proves several different ways is that dim people do not realize how dim they are. The funding is from the NIMH. Yes, the review committee sat around one day contemplating this proposal and funded it. In other words, public money was spent proving that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

This is the pretty pass we have reached in the semi-sciences of psychology and disease study. You may be shocked to hear me label disease study a semi science, and claim that disease is an active arena for such collegial boondoggles. But that is what appears to be the case, from SARS to bird flu. The outstanding example of jobs-for-the-boys peer review is HIV=AIDS, and it has encouraged all kinds of imitation, it appears.

Of course, I am writing this in the fond belief that you are not a player in this sphere who is well aware of what I say, but an unwitting fellow traveler from a cleaner arena such as physics.

Your friend,

Baghdad Bob II

Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 12:06 PM

I must say that this amusing (and quite tedious) thread has showed a few glimmers of solid reasoning. I salute Truthseeker for actually engaging some of these AIDS knuckleheads, who really don’t think about these issues (let alone falsify them), but merely close ranks with their better paid brethren of the orthodoxy to recapitulate standard, scientific-sounding garbage.

HIV develops its own vaccine!

SARS is bullshit, so is avian bird flu, so is west nile, so is the dreaded swine flu of the 70’s, .. the list endless, and in a few years we may just have to add HIV to it.

Posted by: Barney | December 3, 2007 1:27 PM

Barney,
The fact of the matter is HIV is on the list of dead virus campaigns, except that the great protectors and purveyors of the paradigm wish to keep the status quo because God forbid they should loose their funding. Want to stop HIV AIDS? – drop the funding.

Posted by: Carter | December 3, 2007 2:22 PM

“Truthseeker” or, more aptly, truthtwister (with props to Hinkley),…etc etc etc. Posted by: ElkMountainMan | December 3, 2007 11:51 AM

By the mighty Virus you cannot even read the posts properly, Mr Elk, so you really don’t deserve a reply to this series of rank misstatements and misreadings, almost one per sentence. We would sympathise with you if any were true, but none of them are.

One might observe, however, that you fit neatly into the Duesberg-Bialy litmus test of intelligence in this affair, being somewhat humorless in your perceptions of what we wrote. That’s one cause of what “irks” you, it is clear, in this very inaccurate reading of posts you have skimmed on return from your holiday.

The absence of a sense of humor correlates very highly – 99.9999% – with the inability to perceive the Grand Canyon sized flaws in the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.

But just for the record, who said Joseph Sonnabend lacked compassion? The problem is that he loves the Virus nearly as much as all its other scientific husbands, who we observe married to it for its money. He may not be thinking straight because he is a doctor in the midst of dealing with the tortures visited upon the HIV congregation by its priests, but he knew enough to resist until he was threatened with being cut off by the powers that be, when he compromised.

We cannot see into his soul and cannot say why it happened, but it looks suspect to us, since nothing had changed in the data to make HIV any more likely a candidate for causing the effects of drugs, conventional illness and nutritional deficit, which are obviously the real causes of AIDS illness and deaths to anyone who reads the literature with any objectivity.

Oh sorry, are we talking to someone with the HIV meme sitting in his brain? Then you believe that he just grew more enlightened, right, as “overwhelming evidence” accumulated?

OK we’ll have to leave it at that, though referring you to the recent posts recording the rout of Christopher Noble et al trying to maintain that HIV is not powerfully neutralized by the immune system of any healthy person in a manner equivalent to any good vaccine.

But kindly do not babble about how we don’t credit data and good scientific reasoning, that we scorn authority, etc when we don’t. We recognize the authority of good scientists who are not politically influenced to skew their judgement away from what good data and precise reasoning indicate.

Nor accuse us of scorning gays when we only scorn the ignorance and prejudice of gay activists who profit from the monetary disbursement of drug companies into their organisations and then by some remarkable coincidence reliably agitate on behalf of the HIV paradigm and the drugs sold on that rationale which injure and eventually kill them and their friends.

Sorry, but that is the height of non-science to us, since the reasoning and objective data of good science as found in the literature is our touchstone in viewing events in this catastrophically misunderstood plague. You imply this measure is yours also. Then what a pity you don’t feel responsible enough to get yourself together and get a proper grasp on events and what we are saying, instead of firing off objections to statements we didn’t make and attitudes we don’t have. So typical of the masochistic self injury of the gay activists in this field to be so righteous when wrongly informed. Do you really want to mimic them?

And by the way we don’t have any problem whatsoever with society’s acceptance of women as more than eye candy, we support it totally, in fact unlike you we accept it as going without saying. In any circles we have anything to do with there is no mention of color or sex as affecting credentials in any public role, polticial or academic.

Sorry that you still seem to feel this is an issue, so when we delight in Tara’s superattractive image as posted by herself proudly on her site you start worrying about whether we take her mind seriously or not, when it has nothing to do with that. We would take her mind more seriously if it showed a more critical and independent scrutiny of HIV=AIDS, but that has nothing to do with her appearance.

Are you suggesting that attractive people are dumber than plain people? Why would that be? Is that what you think, since it occurs to you and not to us? If anything we imagine that they would be brighter, since they would get more attention and support in life.

While we are repeating quotes, let’s just repeat this one from Houston for the third time:

“The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected patients remain well for many years.” – Abraham Karpas

Let’s see how Chris Noble’s hand cranked autoresponse you liar/you misinterpret/you liar/you misinterpret/you liar Krafft-Dunning-Kruger-Ebing-Moore-Noble-HIV meme machine deals with that one.

Guess it lacks a reverse gear, so we can’t expect much except the same old same old, a pattern which suggests to us he is not even there half the time, he has just set the meme machine to respond automatically to certain posters while he is off somewhere else entirely doing something useful in his life down under..

Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 2:47 PM

Meanwhile back at the ranch…

“Investigators found that Brodie [Scott J. Brodie] falsified data in 15 instances — in published and unpublished journal articles, and grant proposals. The research in question included cellular responses to the HIV virus.”

Kinda make one think what kind of science Tara et al. are really supporting, doesnt it?

Click for Seattle Times article UW: Researcher faked AIDS data, altered images by Nick Perry and Carol M. Ostrom

Posted by: carter | December 3, 2007 3:05 PM

Thanks Carter. From that news story:

“It was a very traumatic investigation to be involved with,” Liggitt said. “We got to look at the underbelly of science.”….

He said medical research and HIV research in particular is highly competitive, with the National Institutes of Health making cutbacks and many researchers competing for limited funding. Getting published can help bolster a researcher’s push to land the next grant, he added.

“It’s ugly out there,” Liggitt said. “There are a lot more desperate people because of the cutbacks.”

Oh dear, it seems that Fauci didn’t manage to keep funding up as high as he promised his faithful at last year’s HIVNET meeting after all.

I dont have any sympathy for these guys working on a false and murderous premise which takes a disproportionate amount of funding anyway, so much of it wasted on examining an innocent retrovirus.

They shouldn’t go into science unless they have something to offer science in genuine passion and talent. Find something else which suits you, for God’s Sake, instead of trying to live off deceit in an area which professes truthseeking.

Once in though, I can see they become trapped, what with wives and children and all.

This HIV=AIDS scam that Gallo launched without knowing it would grow so big can be viewed as a trap for all the people involved, with no one able to come clean now without being ruined. How Science, Nature, the Academy of Sciences, the NIH, the NSF, the New York Times, Harvard, etc etc etc can survive any correction is problematical, to say the least. That is why I posted on Saturday that the dissenters may as well give up.

Posted by: Truthseeker | December 3, 2007 3:45 PM

By the mighty Virus you cannot even read the posts properly, Mr Elk, so you really don’t deserve a reply to this series of rank misstatements and misreadings, almost one per sentence. We would sympathize with you if any were true, but none of them are.

Truthseeker, ElkMountainMan is an old friend, who, like the paper tyger virus, should have remained in the aloof scientific recesses where he is no doubt germinating. However, since by his own words he has been coaxed out of his 6 foot deep chromatin slumber as a reincarnated authority on Political Correctness, moral philosophy, and the satiric genre, maybe he would now like to elaborate, in his own name, on his comments about Christine Maggiore, Al-Bayati and the baby killer connection?

How about it Mr. PC Elk, were your statements concerning those matters just for fun? There’s a free trip to LA and instant fame for you if you can explain to Al-Bayati face to face in a public, non-anonymous venue why you find his work distasteful and his conclusions strange.

Posted by: Molecular Entry Claw | December 3, 2007 4:19 PM

“There are a lot more desperate people because of the cutbacks.”

Um, well Truthseeker, you know as well as I do it ain’ just cutbacks. The whole freakin ordeal with HIV is just plain desperate!

Each and every post by the apologists here has a very strong and distinct smell of desperation!

Posted by: Carter | December 3, 2007 5:01 PM

MEC,

Did you perhaps mean “ruminating,” not “germinating?” Your would-be linguistic master, the twister of truth, would not be pleased. But no matter; whatever I am doing in my “scientific recesses” is of little importance alongside the situation I read about this morning on the blog of Mark and Chris Hoofnagle.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/12/hivaids_denialism_is_deadly_th.php#more

It seems that the Liversidge-emulating “gatekeepers” at the MSN Aids Myth Exposed board are encouraging an HIV-positive mother to avoid any medical care for herself and her infant. Chiming in is one “rebecca veronica,” whom several denialists in the past have identified as Rebecca Veronica Culshaw. (Truthtwister, you may not be familiar with this minor denialist but cooler has vouched for her “hotness,” so you can safely listen to her. To use your words, Culshaw is a real female know-nothing, and not just some gay activist who likes to get a kick out of a female name.)
((On the contrary, Culshaw is a fine mathematician and logician who has written an excellent book, Science Sold Out. – Ed.SG/NAR))

Culshaw and sidekick former academic Darin Brown tell the young mother to continue breastfeeding her baby, since there is nothing healthier and the “orthodoxy” doubt that mother to child transmission ever happens.

Lies, stupidity, and ignorance conspiring against an innocent mother and her child: a sad and lamentable state of affairs. How do these denialists sleep at night?

Posted by: ElkMountainMan | December 3, 2007 7:30 PM

HIV Is Not the Cause of AIDS
By Peter H. Duesberg

Science, Vol. 241, pp. 514-517, July 29, 1988.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
1) HIV is in violation of Koch’s first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
2) In violation of Koch’s second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, “isolation” is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
3) In violation of Koch’s third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive “AIDS test,” because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the “AIDS test” identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi’s sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

References and Notes:

J. Albert et al., J. Med. Virol. 23, 67 (1987).
L.A. Falk, D. Paul, A. Landay, H. Kessler, N. Engl. J. Med. 316, 1547 (1987).
G.M. Shaw et al., Science 226, 1165 (1984).
D. Richman, J. McCutchan, S. Spector, J. Infect Dis. 156, 823 (1987).
C.-Y. Ou et al., Science 239, 295 (1988).
M.E. Harper, L.M. Marselle, R.C. Gallo, F. Wong-Staal, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 83, 772 (1986).
A. Ranki et al., Lancet ii, 589 (1987).
Centers for Disease Control, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 258, 1143 (1987).
P.H. Duesberg, Cancer Res. 47, 1199 (1987).
H. von Briesen et al., J. Med. Virol. 23, 51 (1987).
D. Gallo, J. Kimpton, P. Dailey, J. Clin. Microbiol. 25, 1291 (1987).
J.W. Curran et al., Science 239, 610 (1988).
G.H. Friedland and R.S. Klein, N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 1125 (1987).
J. Coffin et al., Science 232, 697 (1986).
A. Fauci, ibid. 239, 617 (1988).
J. Sprent, in B and T Cells in Immune Recognition, F. Loor and G.E. Roelants, Eds. (Wiley, New York, 1977), pp. 59-82.
H.A. Kessler, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 258, 1196 (1987).
R.C. Gallo, Sci. Am. 256 (No. 1), 47 (1987).
Centers for Disease Control, AIDS Weekly Surveill. Rep., 18 April 1988.
R. Baum, “AIDS: The molecular biology,” Chem. Eng. News (23 November 1987), pp. 14-26.
R.M. Selik, E.T. Starcher, J.W. Curran, AIDS 1, 175 (1987).
R. Colebunders et al., Lancet i, 492 (1987).
K.J. Pallangyo et al., ibid. ii, 972 (1987).
F. Clavel et al., Nature 324, 691 (1986).
J. Sonnabend, in New York Native (9 May 1988), p. 19.

Posted by: cooler | December 3, 2007 7:35 PM

———————————————————–

TS: What did Karpas really say?

The entire quote should be put up at once, before the handcranked Noble meme machine is launched. I believe it is worth going through with an index finger, mumbling the words out loud, to get the full impact of what it reveals:

“The immune response to HIV can be compared to that of a live viral vaccine. It explains why most HIV-infected patients remain well for years. Other viruses that establish lifelong infection, such as herpes viruses, tend to remain latent in the body and the only other exogenous retrovirus known to be capable of infecting humans, the adult T-cell leukaemia HTLV-1, causes disease in less than one in a thousand of infected individuals. In man infection with HIV is probably never latent, because the virus appears to mutate continuously in every infected individual due to its highly error prone reverse transcriptase (RT) which lacks the proof reading capabilities of other RNA polymerases. This has two consequences: 1) In nearly every infected individual, despite a vigorous immune response that is protective for many years, eventually one or more mutants emerge that manage to evade the immune response and lead to disease progression and death; (2) in drug-treated individuals, a drug resistant virus emrges and treatment fails to halt disease progression. The continuous mutations of the replicating virus cannot be the only reason for the very high mortality of HIV infection in man, because the viruses HIV-1 and HIV-2 do not cause disease in their natural hosts, the chimpanzee and the sooty mangabey monkey, respectively. Disease occurs only when the viruses cross species.

In addition to its high mutation rate, HIV can also evade the immune response by direct cell-cell contact through fusion between infected and non-infected cells: the virus can be transferred without being exposed to agents of the immune response, such as neutralising antibodies. This is facilitated by the affinity of viral glycoproteins expressed on the surface of infected cells for CD4 molecules on neighboring uninfected cells. Probably this process is particularly important in the lymph nodes, where presentation of foreign antigen to lymphocytes by cell-cell contact is an essential step in initiating immune responses.

Early after infection with HIV, cell-mediated immune responses can be detected in infected individuals… It is possible that when cytotoxic T-cells are lost a high level of neutralising antibodies can by itself delay disease progress….

Most HIV infection in the world is not confirmed by tests:

Most test methods can give false positive readings, so it is important to check any positive reading by a screening assay with a confirmatory test…..many third world countries are not in a position reuglarly to confirm positive readings obtained by the routine screening methods such as an ELISA. Since nearly 90% of the HIV infected live in third-world countries, this means that the majority of positive reactions are unchecked.

(Karpas developed his own alternative test method in 1985 which “contains its own controlled confirmatory test”):

The cell test showed that most of the healthy HIV-infected individuals have a very high level of anti-HIV antibodies whereas, in contrast, patients who progressed to AIDS had a low level of antibodies that decreased further with disease progression. Studies of such sera with Western Blot correlate with the cell test titration studies… The sera from the AIDS patients are missing numerous antibodies and even the antibodies which are present are at low concentrations…. We have assayed for the presence of neutralising antibodies in over 100 healthy HIV-1 infected individuals and without exception found that the sera contained significant levels of such antibodies….(We carried out) one of the earliest studies trying to explore and explain the differences in the immunological state between healthy HIV-infected individuals and AIDS patients (in 1985). Our studies have demonstrated that healthy HIV-1 infected individuals who were not viraemic had high levels of neutralising antibodies against the virus and a CD4+ T-cell count within the normal range while AIDS patients with very low numbers of CD4+ T-cells and high levels of HIV-1 were devoid of neutralising antibodies and had low levels of other antiviral antibodies (Karpas et al 1988).

Studies from the USA of long-term survivors have also found high levels of neutralising antibodies (Cao et al 1995, Pantaleo et al, 1995). Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays for the presence of HIV-1 RNA in the plasma revealed significant levels of RNA in some individuals, the biological assay for viral infectivity failed to reveal the presence of infectious virus, suggesting that the HIV-1 in the bloodstream had beeen inactivated by the neutralising antibodies. In addition, this indicates that PCR does not distinguish between infectious (live) and neutralised (killed) virus.

Yes, sir, neutralise= kill.

Also helpful are someone else’s antibodies:

We have recorded similar observations with AIDS patients who were treated with passive immunotherapy (PIT). AIDS patients before the infusion of hyperimmune plasma were HIV-1 viraemic as monitored by the isolation of infectious virus from the plasma. After the infusion of hyperimmune plasma, infectious virus could not be isolated but many remained PCR positive.

Translation: Neutralising antibodies reduce HIV to vanishing set point. The pussy is treed by the dogs of the immune system.

Ultimate conclusion, as we said before:

HIV vaccinates you against HIV.

Here’s a bonus. How about AZT? Nasty stuff. Killed thousands, right?

Confirming this, Karpas continues, showing what a mistake AZT, and how beneficial IN AND OF ITSELF it must have been to stop using high doses of the poison – a proven useless poison which reportedly they are still mixing in small amounts into the cocktails:

The first drug that was approved for use in people with HIV disease was azidothymidine (AZT), a chemical developed years earlier as an anti-cancer drug but abandoned because of its high level of toxicity…. Not surprisingly, an early study of bone marrow in patients who had been receiving AZT revealed that all developed anaemia with a varying degree of other white blood cell deficiencies. AZT inhibits HIV replication by blockingg the viral RT and there is no doubt that initially the effect is very dramatic. In the early short-terms trials, AZT appeared to be beneficial. However, within a few weeks to a few months of AZT treatment, replication-competent, AZT resistant HIV strains emerge followed by disease progression, A placebo-controlled trial, lasting two years, revealed that AZT did not imptove survival and was associated with more side-effects. In the British/French Concorde trial which involved 1700 patients and lasted three years, follow-up revealed a statistically significant increase of deaths in the AZT treatment arm as compared to those in the placebo (J. Derbyshire, personal communciation, 1994). The other nucleotide analagues that have been approved for use, such as ddC and ddI, are also highly toxic and of short term benefit….

(With regard to protease inhibitors and HAART) Protease inhibitors are less toxic than AZT but when used alone , the virus quickly develops drug-resistant mutants. However, when a protease inhibitor was used together with two RT inhibitors it marked the first significant progress in anti-HIV treatment, The combination of drugs has been named highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Following the initiation of HAART treatment approximately 80% of AIDS patients improved clinically; and coincidentally their CD4+ T-cell counts increased and the plasma viral load dropped significantly or completely disappeared. (Hogg et al 1997). The length of the beneficial effects of HAART differs between the individual patients and ranges from a few months to several years. For some the toxic side effects are more pronounced than for others. In most individuals who can tolerate the drug combination over prolonged periods, a wide range of pathological conditions develops due to toxicity, many of them, such as lipodystrophy, have never been seen before in AIDS while liver damage and vascular conditions are common. As a result the HAART treatment of AIDS patients has changed from combating opportunistic infections to reducing toxic side effects…

Meanwhile HAART fails to eradicate replication competent HIV-1:

A recent study of a group of patients who have been treated successfully for up to 30 months with triple therapy, replication-competent HIV-1 was routinely isolated despite the fact that even the plasma assay for HIV-1 PCR was negative (Finzi et al, 199; Wong et al 1997).

Some AIDS researchers suggested that drug treatment should be initiated early in the course of HIV infection (Ho, 1995) but so long as the available drugs have only a limited period of effectiveness, and are toxic, that may be misguided. In most HIV-infected individuals, the immune system manages to limit the damage caused by the virus for many years – far longer (on average nine years) than any drug cocktails available that have the added disadvantage of being toxic.

Hey, why not try borrowing antibodies from healthy patients? It worked!

After our early study demonstrated that healthy HIV-infedcted individuals had high levels of neutralising anitbodies, while AIDS patients had none, we investigated the possibilitiy of using passive immunotherapy as a form of treatment in AIDS. This began in 1985, transfusing blood plasma from healthy HIV-1 infected individuals to AIDS patients (Karpas et al, 1985)….(There was ) some evidence of benefit when the patients were treated for two years…(Other studies suggested that PIT is beneficial but) Unfortunately, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have not been able to muster financial support in the UK….

(Meanwhile they have found) an increasing number of plasma donors who have been donating continuously for 3-7 years without a decline in numbers of CD4+ T-cells or antibody level or other signs of disease progression (Abelian et al, 2001). The mechanism of these effects is not understood. Defining it might help us to understand why HIV overcomes the immune system, and could open up new avenues for the development of therapeutic strategies against this deadly virus.

After you read enough of this stuff, you realise that Karpas is a reviewer who is severely handicapped by the HIV meme, which here, for example, prevents him from seeing the obvious – that the simplest explanation of “the effects” is that HIV is not deadly or even harmful at all.

Following all this you can read Richman’s paper, which Karpas didn’t see before going to press, and see that mutation is no answer to the question: How come the virus makes any kind of comeback with antibodies around to neutralise it?

Because Richman showed that the antibodies keep up very well with viral mutation, leading the dogs of the immune system to chase all the new variants of pussy cat virus up a tree just as fast as before, sometimes faster.

What a mess. All any thinking gay has to do is read this paper, I would think, and he wouldn’t cooperate with this latter day pellagra. But Alas! they all will doubtless read it like ElkMan with the monkey meme in their noggin, just like Karpas, and not see where the dividing line comes between evidence and misinterpretation.

Maybe one should borrow that meme machine from Noble and turn it on Karpas: “you liar/you misinterpret/you liar/you misinterpret/you liar/you misinterpet”.

17 Responses to “HIV is HIV vaccine!- Abraham Karpas”

  1. MartinDKessler Says:

    This hypothetical bug called circularly HIV is now claimed to be it’s own vaccine. Well! Who has pure isolated HIV to give as a vaccine – I don’t think blood from hypothetically infected individuals would do. Afterall, everyone claimed to be infected with this bug is only hypothetically infected.

  2. MacDonald Says:

    This is an excellent post.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    This is an excellent post.

    This is exactly the kind of Comment we need around here. But don’t hesitate to make further comment on the science as well, folks since Aetiology seems likely to run out of steam soon enough, since Chris “The Meme” Noble seems to have retired injured the last we looked….

  4. Rezaf Says:

    I don’t get it…

    “We report here that in most patients, potent neutralizing antibody responses are generated early after infection, at first to the autologous infecting HIV variant and then to subsequent variants. The antibody responses to these variants exert a selective pressure that drives continuous evolution of neutralization escape mutants.”

    Yet the guys at Aetiology still say that Richman concludes that the virus evades and overwhelms the immune system. Even when such thing is not explicitly written. And despite “at first to the autologous infecting HIV variant and then to subsequent variants (ALL of them).” they still say that the virus evades and overwhelms the immune system. What do they see that I’m not able to see? Not even the graphs and charts say that.

    That’s it. Posting at Aetiology is starting to drive me nuts! They don’t even answer the questions I pose. They keep parroting the same old same old. At least franklin is somewhat able to argue, but he doesn’t quite answer the questions being put.

  5. Rezaf Says:

    I guess it is true what they say at virusmyth:
    “Be aware that ‘AIDS science’ is 90% mindless repetition and 10% deeply inconsistent findings of no clinical value.” And the consequences of this are scary, to say the least.

  6. MacDonald Says:

    Rezaf,

    You’re not alone, MEC doesn’t receive any answers either. It took me some time and agonizing to get my head around this as well but, in the absence of any other explanation, I think Franklin and Noble basically are saying that:

    Because the titers for neutralizing antibodies are substantially lower for concurrent antibodies and viruses than for, say, current antibodies against 12 months old virus, it follows that the concurrent antibody response is not good enough. In fact, peak titers of neutralizing antibodies should ideally occur in the concurrent virus sample.

    So again, if it is possible at any subsequent time to apply freshly developed antibodies to an old virus sample and achieve an antibody neutralizing titre of, say, 4000 where the inital concurrent titre was only 25, it follows that the concurrent antibodies were at least 4000 – 25 = 3375 short of fully neutralizing the virus.

    Franklin may very well have a point but, like you, I cannot find the basis for this conclusion in the paper. If it were that simple, the immune system would be hopelessly overrun and defeated from day 1 onwards:

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#comment-661632

    Whatever the truth of the matter is, everybody these days agree this is not the case. Franklin’s calculation is at any rate overly simplistic since it recognizes no other factors such as ltechnological limitations, in vitro vs. in vivo distinction, detectability. In the paper, Richman gives this example of a confounding factor:

    The true timing of emerging neutralizing antibody responses may be masked by the extensive levels of virus replication (1010 virions generated daily during chronic infection (20) and 100 times that during acute infection (21). Therefore, much of the neutralizing antibody that is generated early in infection may be bound to virions in lymphoid germinal centers and elsewhere and thus undetectable in plasma.

    Robert Houston has pointed out that, among other things, “Richman et al. provided no data regarding “levels of virus replication.””.

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#comment-661452

    So since we cannot be sure what the figures in the tables are actually telling us – and Franklin has been particular unhelpful in this respect – I think it’s reasonable to turn to the clinical picture, as you have done, and note there are no signs of declining immune response strength – and consequently! NO correlation between antibody titers and the markers of AIDS. Richman:

    The failure of 2 of 14 patients to generate a significant neutralizing antibody response (Table 2) and the varying levels and timing of peak antibody titers among the untreated patients did not seem to correlate with levels of plasma HIV RNA or CD4 lymphocyte counts during the period of follow-up

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#comment-663404

  7. MacDonald Says:

    That’s 4000 – 25 + 3975.

    Ahem…

  8. MacDonald Says:

    %$*^&(&*£$”%^*

    4000 – 25 = 3975

  9. Truthseeker Says:

    LOL

  10. MacDonald Says:

    Franklin has come up with a new way of reading the efficacy of the neutralizing antibody response:

    The number in bold always indicates the titer of an antibody against the virus isolated from the same blood sample as the antibody–the concurrent virus. Starting at the bold value and moving up, we can see how the concurrent virus compares to earlier viruses from the same patient. If the titer against the concurrent virus is a lot lower than the titer against the viruses directly above it in the column, then the antibody has provided a strong enough selective pressure that a variant strain has grown out. If the titer against the concurrent virus is similar to the titer against the virus directly above it in the column, then no selection has taken place.

    http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/11/mbeki_still_in_denial.php#comment-663128

    On this view constant values would show that no variants have escaped the neutralizing antibody response. However, Richman says:

    HIV-1 were reported first by Weiss in 1986 ( 9), and several later studies have suggested that its appearance is slow to develop and of low titer ( 2, 4, 5). Neutralization escape of HIV has been reported in limited cases ( 10–15); however, many studies of autologous neutralizing antibody after primary HIV infection stress the low or absent responses with only infrequent examples of escape ( 5, 16–18). We report here that in most patients, potent neutralizing antibody responses are generated early after infection, at first to the autologous infecting HIV variant and then to subsequent variants. The antibody responses to these variants exert a selective pressure that drives continuous evolution of neutralization escape mutants.

    In other words:

    1. “Low or absent responses with only infrequent examples of escape” = ineffectual antibody response.

    2. “Potent neutralizing antibody responses” with frequent examples of escape variants = ineffectual antibody response.

    3. Potent neutralizing antibody responses with no or infrequent examples of escape are (on Franklin’s interpretation at least) indistinguishable from “1.”, thus translatable into “low or absent antibody responses” = ineffectual antibody response.

    There is hardly a combination imaginable that would not show ineffectual antibody response. Why is this?

    I refer again to Robert Houston:

    To put things in context, the significance of the revelations by Prof. Karpas and by Richman et al. about the neutralizing effect of anti-HIV antibodies is that for 23 years the AIDS extablishment has maintained that the antibodies to HIV are non-neutralizing and ineffectual. Thus when the Richman paper appeared, the HIV loyalists tried to spin its meaning as being that HIV triumphs by mutating. We see Franklin and Chris Noble also exemplifying this interpretation.

    It would seem this spin is inevitable since Richman’s study is designed so that the very figures which demonstrate the potency of the neutralizing antibody response automatically confirm the superior powers of the virus to outmutate them. The paradox is this:

    1. If no escape variants are found the antibodies are not “interfering” with the virus. Thus they are ineffectual.

    2. If escape variants are found, it shows the antibodies are potent – but not potent enough to catch the virus, which will always float like a cork atop the tidal surge of the antibody army.

    This is because the a priori, not so hidden premise is that the supervirus is able to outmutate anything in the universe, even if most of the time it might look to be wearing its Clark Kent disguise.

    Hence, Richman’s conclusion, not surprisingly, is simply an assertion of the basic premise, a tautology:

    The antibody responses to these variants exert a selective pressure that drives continuous evolution of neutralization escape mutants

  11. Rezaf Says:

    I’ve had it with the Aetiology types.

    So even if their results show a potent response from the immune system and there is no decline in that same potency over time, the premise of viral evasion is so entrenched in their minds that regardless of what the results they obtain, the virus must win. Always.
    It is the impression that I get from Dr. N, R. Hinkley and “franklin”.
    I guess one would have to drive a stake through the heart in this theory by doing what TS suggested: Grab a group of “positives” and a group of “negatives” (approx. age and lifestyle), monitor their immune responses and clinical status over a prolonged period of time, while protecting them from any other immune stressor (mainly emotional stress, malnutrition ,pollution and drugs). And then compare. The “negatives” were used as controls or blanks. If the ninja-virus really does its thing, one would see a decline in the response strength by “positives” immune system to the subsequent viral mutants and other pathogens, as well as their clinical degradation over time (with some of the those “AIDS-defining illnesses” eventually appearing). Since both groups would be in contact with other more common pathogens (rhinoviruses and influenza), one could measure the strength of the immune system at fighting these rather common infections, provided that they are all protected from other immune stressors. The idea is to really observe if HIV is THE sole immune destroyer by eliminating as much interfering variables possible from the experiment.

    Has something similar to this ever been done?

  12. Truthseeker Says:

    Rezak, you will find lack of controls is one of the astonishing characteristics of AIDS studies, one which you would think they would never get away with. Even Moore complains about inadequate controls in AIDS vaccine studies, in a paper condemning them as therefore useless.

    In no drug – HAART – study have there been controls of this kind. They have no placebo groups, no random allocation of participants between the treated group and the control group, and so no comparison from which to properly assess the effects of treatment. This has been the case ever since 1987 when they abandoned the first AZT study midstream on the inaccurate grounds that the AZT was already proved efficacious, and it would be morally wrong to withhold it from the people supposedly taking placebo. Actually it was killing people, and the only benefit of treatment came from the transfusions needed to save some.

    It became clear from the transfusions who was getting drug and who was getting placebo, so some of the latter were slipped AZT by their friends in the AZT group. The activist gays successfully pressed for the release of AZT, and hundreds of thousands who took it then paid the consequences of a quicker death than was ever envisaged as a result of HIV=AIDS, ie some two or three years compared to ten or twenty. Similarly it has been counted unethical to withhold HAART from any control group, so there are none. Activists haven’t a clue as to how proper science is conducted and why.

    The only benefit in the AZT study had come from the transfusions. A couple of dozen died. The blinding was lost after four months. Two years later it was clear that survival was worse for the initial AZT group, where half the patients were dead, so they concluded AIDS was a short term phenomenon. Then they lowered AZT doses drastically and introduced HAART in the mid nineties, people started surviving longer, and they now ascribe the result to the magic of HAART. Karpas describes this in his paper, and how the Concorde study done by the British and the French confirmed that AZT accelerated death significantly.

    The antibiotics gays pursuing a fast life style take for their STDs, or to prevent them, destroy the microflora in the digestive system which studies show are important for their immune system, which is actually centered on the gut as much as the bloodstream, it seems clear. That is why Dannon can sell yogurt now in New York supermarkets under the name DanActive which restores the system with lactobacillae casei, shown in studies to be beneficial in restoring activity, as their Web site details.

    The gang at Aetiology scorn Al Bayati but he seems to be correct in pointing out that the immune system can be defeated not just by the drugs that Duesberg points to but also by the ones that may have knocked out Lombardo, the gay who wrote to Duesberg and said he was a healthy sailor who took none of the recreational drugs, who is now said to have died later of AIDS. There are immunosuppressants in all the risk groups. The gays take a great deal of Prednisone for inflammations and gastrointestional problems and that is used in transplant operations to defeat the immune system’s capacity for organ rejection. You can read all about it in his 2006 article in Medical Veritas, as Robert Houston points out: “Examining the Causes of AIDS” (Medical Veritas 3:901-13, 2006) is quite fascinating and can be seen at the Justice for EJ site: Causes of AIDS pdf ((Oops sorry wrong url see next Comment by Houston)).

    The point here is that doctors in one context know very well how to create AIDS using one of the drugs they give people to protect them in another context, pre-AIDS. Cancer chemotherapy similarly is immunosuppressive with the use of a counterpart to AZT, cyclophosphamide, against tumors, which knocks out white blood cells. Radiation is immunosuppressive, too.

  13. Robert Houston Says:

    You’ve made an excellent comment, Truthseeker. Just one correction: the link you gave for Dr. Al-Bayati’s paper on corticosteroids as a cause of AIDS was for a different document. The paper everyone needs to see, which is really a masterpiece of scientific detective work, is Examining the causes of AIDS (Medical Veritas 3:901-913, 2004). This paper constitutes an important supplement to those of Peter Duesberg on AIDS.

    As you point out, the fast-track gay lifestyle involves several major immunosuppressive factors, aside from recreational drugs and antiretrovirals. Peter Duesberg’s papers and books on AIDS were brilliant and solidly based but underplayed these other factors that are also capable of causing immunosuppression and mortality.

    * One of them is the chronic over-use of antibiotics for the treatment and prevention of STDs and other infections. In his book, Rethinking AIDS (Macmillan, 1993) Dr. Robert Root-Bernstein provided considerable documentation of their longterm immunosuppressive effect.

    * Another factor is deficiency of specific nutrients that are essential to the health of the thymus and immune system, such as zinc and selenium which are low in AIDS patients.

    * A third factor is the prominent presence of corticosteroid agents – medically recognized as immunosuppresants – in all the AIDS risk groups. These are the class of drugs (e.g. prednisone) that doctors use when they want to produce AIDS – a state of acquired immune suppression – so as to counteract an autoimmune disease or facilitate a transplant operation. (For details, see more in the 2006 Al-Bayati paper at the above link and his earlier writings at Virusmyth.com and Toxi-Health.com.)

    The risk groups have risky lifestyles featuring at least these three additional potential sources of immunosuppression. Thus, the possibilities in a particular case are not just HIV or recreational drugs or ARVs as a cause of premature demise.

  14. Michael Says:

    In the 1960’s research showed that immature white blood cells would “incubate” for a period inside the thymus gland, and exit transformed into one of the specific types of T-lymphocytes, such as T4 helper cells or T8 suppresser or cytotoxic T cells.

    Since thymus gland hormones are secreted by the very thymus gland cells that “shrivel up” and waste away due to aging, stress, disease, radiation and malnutrition etc., the drop in thymus gland hormone activity with any of the highly stressed populations, particularly with malnutrition, drug abuse, those suffering extreme emotional stress by societal/family rejection due to one’s sexuality, or after a terrifying diagnosis of HIV, should hardly be surprising.

    As the panic levels of those diagnosed as HIV positive dropped, so did the illnesses called AIDS.

    Simply google “stress thymus” for more than 700,000 easily found mentions of this simple fact on the internet.

    SOLID and EXTENSIVE research on stress and the thymus is found all over the net and all through research citations. This is because the thymus gland, in response to acute stress such as an infection, or extreme emotional stress can shrivel to half its size in twenty-four hours.

    Stress can be physical stress due to malnutrition, chemicals, drug abuse, and/or emotional stress or both physical and emotional. Such high degrees of stress are ALWAYS found with AIDS. Why this has been ignored in the always stressed HIV and AIDS cases is criminal.

    Because stress all by itself causes T cell depletion, Stress = AIDS. Extreme stress = Extreme AIDS. Is there anybody out there that actually does not understand this? Even your grandma knew it!

  15. Robert Houston Says:

    You’re right, Michael. According to Dr. Al-Bayati’s 2006 paper (not 2004 as incorrectly cited in my previous comment), a mediating hormone is cortisol, the body’s natural corticosteroid drug, which rises in conditions of stress and malnutrition. Anthony Fauci himself was among those who conducted experimental studies showing that cortisol (hydrocortisone) produced a decline in T cells in the blood and their depletion from the lymph nodes.

  16. Rezaf Says:

    Michael,

    It would seem that back in the 80’s, the proper way of determining the cause of immune impairment in people was to first rule out all other known possible causes (such as those you mentioned) of that same impairment before blaming a virus for everything. Malnutrition and stress are treatable and pretty much curable, I guess. Why wasn’t this done before?
    The fanatical resistance to criticism is a screaming clue of how things are wrong. That clue screams “It is not about science anymore, it is about politics and profit!”.

    And how can one even trust Gallo’s word and work? Wasn’t he the one that tried to steal the virus cultures from Montagnier, so he could keep the glory all to himself? And started all of this?
    If this person can go to those lengths to just be the “discoverer”, then “cheating results to fit the picture” in his dayjob is the least he can do. And if other scientists (unknowingly) start using “cheated” papers as a basis for all of their research, one can only imagine how far the crap has spread. It is possible that some of these scientists found the same flaws as most critics, but no one dared to contradict the “Co-discoverer”, out of fear.

    What I find incredible is how the apologists are so quick to label the critics as murderers, when they can be the first ones to avoid the arv bandwagon. Do they forget that bad luck can strike at their doors? Would they bet their lives on the tests they so fiercely believe to be flawless? Of course not. They are in the “low risk group”, where the infection rate of the virus is of 0,01%, so they are safe in the “low risk bunker”. Tests are not meant for them.
    It is said that our true self emerges in situations of great danger. I guess that very few of the apologists at aetiology ever thought of how things would be if they were in the line of fire of the theory they love and adore.

    Some of the things Mr. Moore suggests that should be done to critics at AIDStruth(iness) are a big no-no where I live. Big enough to at least cost him his job.

  17. Nick Naylor Says:

    It gets better. Now they want to investigate “the potential of a vaccine that attacks Human Endogenous Retroviruses … to kill cells infected by HIV”.

    See http://tinyurl.com/3xuzjj

    Should any of US get royalties if this actually works?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 300 access attempts in the last 7 days.