Damned Heretics

Condemned by the established, but very often right

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Belief)

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

NAR nominates Dr Anthony Fauci for Nobel – he has found the solution to AIDS

Fauci leads Gallo in suggesting that HIV may be the antidote to itself


We hope to find an opportunity to shake Dr Anthony Fauci’s hand when he appears tonight at the New School, for he is truly a hero of AIDS. (Apologies for the horizontal photo, which is an artefact of inadequate Apple software, which we will correct later).

Not only has he fought for expanding federal spending on this vexed socio-political-medical conundrum for two decades, and achieved the splendid result of funding it more lavishly than cancer or heart disease, but recently, we have discovered, has actually provided the long sought solution to AIDS, which looks to save many billions in future spending, not to mention all kinds of suffering in deaths and twisted lives.

Why Dr Fauci has seen fit to confine his breakthrough finding to the pages of a textbook read almost exclusively by medical students late at night and by our eagle-eyed consultant Bob Houston, it is hard to imagine. Possibly it is his innate modesty, which we have always admired.

Should HIV be used to combat AIDS?

Or possibly it is the shocking originality of his conception, which is likely to strike the orthodoxy much as the conception of Copernicus struck the Papal community a number of centuries ago: a novel and possibly valid idea best kept for the Cardinals to consider and not for immediate dissemination to the congregation

For Dr Fauci has remarkably suggested that the best antidote to AIDS may be HIV itself.

But this great man deserves to speak in his own words, as found in his review paper in 2003 in the definitive textbook “Fundamental Immunology” which was edited by William E. Paul MD and published by Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins (p. 1295):

“Several investigators have demonstrated that there is an increase in CD4+ T cell proliferation in both HIV and SIV infection. In certain studies, the enhanced T cell proliferation that was observed during active disease was significantly decreased following the initiation of anti-retroviral therapy, and proliferation increased again in parallel with plasma viremia following the cessation of treatment in these individuals.”

In other words, adding HIV to the bloodstream increases T cell count, ARV drug therapy decreases it, and the withdrawal of ARVs increases it again.

At one stroke, this kind of intervention – Fauci’s brilliant implied suggestion here to replace antiretroviral drugs with a dose of HIV – will restore 61% of AIDS patients in this country to health overnight.

For ever since the 1993 emendation of the list of AIDS symptoms to cover more people, a low T-cell count has been one of the AIDS defining conditions in itself. Now 61% of AIDS patients are in that category, and have no other symptom at all, other than copious HIV antibodies, when diagnosed.

So Fauci’s unique proposal to shoot them up with HIV will instantly restore their count to normal.

Will Robert Gallo try to claim credit too?

Of course, now that Fauci has made his suggestion, many others will be claiming it as an idea they already thought of.

One of them is bound to be the noted Dr. Robert Gallo, who will remind the world that after all he included HTLV-III (as he then labeled the virus subsequently known as HIV) in the category of human leukemia viruses, like its forebear HTLV-I, for which the heroic Gallo has retained the ropyalties for a blood test since.

Leukemia viruses are supposed to cause cell proliferation, of course, that being a characteristic of cancer, so it will be no surprise to Dr Gallo to find that Dr. Fauci has located studies which show that HIV works in the same manner – boosts the number of CD4+ T-cells in the blood of AIDS patients.

Gallo will also point to his original 1984 papers, of course, since these as we have already noted indicated that not only did HIV not cause AIDS immune deficiency, but actually served as a prophylactic against the development of AIDS.

That is to say, Gallo originally showed that the category of patients he called “pre-AIDS” (people with a cold or similar) twice as often had the virus present as AIDS patients. The proportion was four out of five, compared to one third of the AIDS patients proper.

Not only was Gallo, as we have pointed out, well ahead of Peter Duesberg in demonstrating that HIV almost certainly did not cause AIDS (it occurred only in one third of his AIDS patients’ blood samples) but also he anticipated Dr Fauci in suggesting that HIV was probably a defense against AIDS, since it occurred in more (4/5) of pre-AIDS patients than in (1/3) AIDS patients proper. Apparently only when HIV was overcome did AIDS symptoms appear in many people.

That is why we predict that Dr. Fauci will be joined post-haste in his race for credit, and perhaps even the Nobel, by Robert Gallo, much in the same manner of David Baltimore racing to join Howard Temin in his candidacy for the Nobel prize for reverse transcriptase those many years ago.

That is why NAR intercedes in honor of Dr Anthony Fauci today to emphasize his priority in making this astounding conceptual breakthrough.

Well done, Dr. Fauci, may the call from Stockholm come through soon.

21 Responses to “NAR nominates Dr Anthony Fauci for Nobel – he has found the solution to AIDS”

  1. Martin Kessler Says:

    Is this serious? If not, it’s great humor.

  2. noreen martin Says:

    Sounds like a wash and while we’re at it let’s test everyone for HIV and pass out anti-virals for preventive measures for a phantom virus. Is this the best that science has to offer to immune deficient individuals?

  3. Claus Says:

    PRICELESS! Only in AIDSland. . .

  4. truthseeker Says:

    “Is this serious? If not, it’s great humor”

    Martin, thank you for a most perceptive and encouraging comment. Not quite sure what you mean though – are you suggesting Dr Facui NOT get the Nobel for noticing this key finding, and giving it his blessing?

    The idea of this blog, such as it is, is to encourage the emergence of the true facts and scientific evidence into daylight, and for ideas in HIV?AIDS to be based on this, rather than on the unfounded claims which currently rule the field. We have some vague idea that people who are counted as HIV positive might prefer to have their treatment based on facts rather than fantasy, although we admit that every day there is some evidence that many or even most of them prefer fantasy for some reason.

    Well, to be honest, we are pretty sure that the reason has much to do with fitting in with the ideas of the medical community, and in particular following the leadership of Dr Fauci, who is a Hero of AIDS, without doubt, having raised a heroic amount of public money for its amelioration and now conducts the army of drug trial researchers and everyone else involved under the banner of HIV-the-Virus with a military efficiency that would be the envy of Napoleon.

    Therefore we are very excited at this effort of Dr. Fauci to introduce into the discourse what may well be the ultimate cure for HIV?AIDS, for it seems to us that nothing could be more significant than a new line proposed by the man who rules HIV?AIDS research ideology.

    After all, Peter Duesberg has in his twenty plus years of trying to reintroduce traditional scientific logic and conventional medicine into HIV?AIDS never proposed such a radical step. His condemnation of the idea of a vaccine as “irrational” in light of the fact that HIV positive people are already stuffed with HIV antibodies and not in need of any more of them came close.

    But still, it has taken Anthony Fauci, along with Robert Gallo the chief heroic promulgator of novel and fantastic notions in HIV?AIDS which have so often turned upside down the dull conventional thinking of lesser scientists to suggest that for example a Virus not even present can induce T cells to commit suicide, as he told us on Monday night.

    That is why we nominate Anthony Fauci for the Nobel Peace Prize or equivalent. Not only is he always well dressed (nice pale blue button down shirt, polka dot dark blue tie and subtly color threaded suit again last night) but also he poses well in a chair, and flashes a very large and straight grin when teased by Larry Kramer about what he might or might not have told George W.

    This is a man who may well be hailed as a Napoleon of his time, his battlefields the various countries involved in HIV?AIDS, which conquests at the moment include every country but South Africa, and possibly India and China, though those seem likely to fall soon enough.

    Now he offers the idea of injecting everyone who is found to be HIV positive with HIV to raise their T-cell count. For sheer brave originality it is hard to think of his equal.

    The only limitation he shows is that he didn’t yet think of the idea of simply injecting everyone in the world with HIV to raise their T cell count, just to make sure that they never get AIDS proper. But we have no doubt that he will, he will.

    The Nobel is simply not big enough for this man.

  5. Richard Jefferys Says:

    You clearly do not even understand the type of CD4 T cell proliferation Fauci is referring to. Which is quite remarkable given that the whole purpose of this blog is for you to share your supposed insights about AIDS, which is a viral disease of the T cell immune system. When you have the flu, and your CD4 and CD8 T cells are proliferating in response to flu antigens, do you think your peripheral blood CD4 T cell increases?

  6. Gene Semon Says:

    Richard has a point. HTLV stands for leukemia retrovirus. Whatever happened to leukemia anyway?

  7. Rebecca Says:

    Ummmm… I think truthseeker was being satirical?

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    “Which is quite remarkable given that the whole purpose of this blog is for you to share your supposed insights about AIDS, which is a viral disease of the T cell immune system.”

    Richard, you have not been paying attention if you can still make statements as in the second half of your sentence above. Anyone who still thinks that “AIDS is a viral disease of the T=cell immune system” needs to wake up and smell the coffee, if only to avoid being thought of as a dunce. Or is your statement only for public consumption, and you secretly realize what has happened, but are bound through a natural discretion in the service of your drug company sponsors to be a little circumspect? If so, we entirely understand.

    “Richard has a point. HTLV stands for leukemia retrovirus. Whatever happened to leukemia anyway?”

    Gene, you certainly HAVE been paying attention! With too many alert people like you around, Robert Gallo would have to modify his more blatant maneuvers, such as expecting everyone to overlook that he originally counted HIV as HTLV-II I – HL LEUKEMIA V-III – among his new collection of leukemia viruses, which began with HTLV-I which didn’t cause any leukemia in the large population of Japanese it inhabited but somehow did in the population of the United States, or would do so except for Bob’s newly patented test, for which he has received a tidy sum – $100,000 a year if we understand correctly – ever since.

    Well, now Fauci has made the conceptual breakthrough of realizing that HIV stimulates the immune system, rather than ravaging it by murdering T-cells, pace Richard, we are returned to a state of mind where Bob’s original conception is vindicated and he and Anthony can move forward hand in hand to Stockholm.

    Since Bob has actually recently contributed another proposed reinforcement of this new approach to HIV?AIDS, we will post on all this again to clear up the impression in Richard’s mind that somewhow we might have misled him. Since the great Anthony Fauci has flipped the entire world of AIDS on its head overnight with his courageous initiative, we can understand why the faithful might be baffled, since they though for twenty years that the cliff was behind them, an now they find it has been ahead of them all the time.

    A hard adjustment to make, even when the news is wrapped in soft tissue satire.

  9. Richard Jefferys Says:

    You’re just revealing your ignorance, which is ironic considering your purported interest in “facts.” The role of immune activation in HIV infection was first posited in a Barre-Sinoussi paper from the late 80s, was confirmed by excellent work from the late Janis Giorgi in the early 90s and recently has been revealed in detail by Marc Hellerstein using new techniques like the deuterated water and glucose to evaluate T cell turnover (these studies consigned David Ho’s tap and drain model to the garbage dump of history in the late 90s; some denialists seem angry that they were not alerted to this development – perhaps they should have been following the literature?).

    Concomitantly, assays have emerged that allow detailed evaluation of the CD4 and CD8 T cell response to infections, and when you compare the generation and evolution of T cell responses to HIV with other viruses there are more commonalitlies than differences, and these data very much jibe with the basic science work done with viruses like LCMV in murine systems. The informative exception in the case of HIV is the compromised function of the HIV-specific CD4 T cell response in all but long term non progressors.

    If you think the kind of T cell proliferation that occurs in the setting of antigen-specific immune activation has any connection to increasing peripheral blood T cell counts, I have several large buildings I would like to sell you.

  10. Celia Farber Says:

    Mr. Jefferys, I don’t mean to change the subject but would you be willing to tell me whether you think that a “total lymphocyte count” is one valid way to measure a person’s immune status? If one cannot get CD4/CD8 ratio testing done, does a total lymphocyte count tell you anything about the person’s immune system? The WHO says yes; I wonder if you concur.

  11. Richard Jefferys Says:

    I don’t think TLC is an ideal way to try and measure immunological status. Any given method (including peripheral blood CD4 T cell count) is obviously just a surrogate marker for the more complex underlying changes that occur in HIV infection: depletion of naive CD4 and CD8 T cells, increases in the numbers of short-lived activated, proliferating CD4 and CD8 T cells, increasing numbers of dysfunctional memory CD4 and CD8 T cells and decreasing numbers of functional central memory CD4 and CD8 T cells. It would be ideal to be able to do routine measurements of specific memory T cell responses to opportunistic pathogens, but that isn’t easily available outside of research settings unfortunately.

  12. Richard Jefferys Says:

    Out of curiosity, Celia, have you ever encountered any working T cell immunologists who don’t believe HIV causes AIDS? Although there may well be some, I haven’t met any, and I’d be interested in their perspective.

    Perhaps you will disagree with me, but my impression of the field of T cell immunology is that it is not exactly awash with Big Pharma money. With a few notable exceptions, vaccines and immune-based therapies do not seem particularly popular with the big pharmaceutical companies, and I am not aware of a lot of ICAAC-like conferences of Pharma-sponsored junkets for immunologists. Do you think the T cell immunology research that has been carried out in HIV infection is corrupted? If so, in what ways?

    Marc Hellerstein’s recent excellent JCI paper on T cell turnover in HIV infection was funded by NIH, as was his 1999 study that delivered the coup-de-grace to David Ho’s dismally flawed – but well-promoted (the Corkery Group clearly knows their business) – “tap and drain” theory of pathogenesis. As I have been belaboring on the Aetiology blog, I find it hard to reconcile this with the frequent references to an “AIDS orthodoxy” that are bandied about by people that deny HIV causes AIDS. Hellerstein’s paper, along with many other excellent immunology papers, is actually cited by the Rethinking AIDS group in their defence of your Harper’s article (which, for the sake of honesty, I think I referred to as a screed). Zvi Grossman is also cited, and he convened a workshop last year about T cell homeostasis and HIV infection at which Hellerstein spoke. The workshop was sponsored by NIAID (with whom Zvi Grossman is affiliated) and none of the reseachers there entertain Ho’s theory any longer (few ever did). Where does this fit into the construct of othordox vs. unorthodox?

    Marc Hellerstein’s JCI paper is available free here:


    It’s great paper, but I’d also highlight this quote:

    “T cell homeostasis has been extensively studied in murine systems, but there have been few if any studies evaluating the range and pattern of T cell life spans in humans.”

    Given this fact, do you think your repeated complaints about the lack of a full understanding of HIV pathogenesis are justified? You repeatedly highlight this lack of understanding in your Harper’s article, as if it is a great scientific failing. If it is, you need to expand your target from just AIDS researchers to immunologists in general – if we don’t yet good data on the homeostasis of the various T cell pools in humans, how is it horrifying that we don’t have a full explanation of how HIV impacts them?

  13. Gene Semon Says:

    Very constructive, excellent Richard, no poverty of imagination here.

    The whole discussion needs to be expanded in more than a few directions and reframing “HIV phenomena” is one of them. Also Polly Matzinger’s network immunology model; hormesis, dose-response relationshpis and oxidising agents; inducible retroelements and the eukaryotic SOS response; etc.

  14. truthseeker Says:

    You’re just revealing your ignorance, which is ironic considering your purported interest in “facts.”

    Richard, as we have said before, this is a polite blog where comments are welcome if they advance the discussion and throw light upon the unexamined foundation of your fond belief that you have been correctly informed of the cause of AIDS. The use of the word “ignorance” is not only uncivil but detracts from your own credibility, since those who have mastered a field do not waste time calling anyone else “ignorant”. Would you kindly use more diplomatic language, as in “underinformed”, “confused”, “mistaken” or perhaps best, “underresearched”.

    As far as what you say goes, we were not aware that we were particularly interested in “facts”, especially of the kind you liberally provide, which we believe should indeed be put in quotes, as you do, so aptly.

    What we are most interested in doing on this blog is to apply critical thinking to these and other “facts” which you and other faithful apologists for the current regime like to treat as scripture, but which so often prove utterly hollow when intelligently examined, which may explain why close examination is so much evaded, or even officially vetoed by the director of NIAID.

    Reviewing what you say we are forced to complain, Richard, that you give far too much credit to stuff which we suspect is not beyond your intelligent understanding, of course, but is beyond your critical understanding, assuming that is still in operation in these matters. For if it wasn’t, it is certain that you would not give it so much credit in this fervent and boyishly credulous style and try to pass it on as if you were trying to snow others here. Would you mind very much confining such activities to Aetiology? We feel the newer readers of this blog should be protected from this kind of false impression of good authority, which your intelligence and skilful writing style attach to this information, without us being forced to laboriously deconstruct it for your and their benefit.

    This is a blog for informing readers who wish to be informed without invoking the poor and overimaginative scientific modeling which has encrusted the area, and for you to repeat it here with such misplaced admiration interferes with this purpose. For some reason you seem reluctant to understand the obvious, which is that all this stuff is an attempt to justify HIV as a threat which it plainly is not, since the immune response to it is no different from any other antigen, and is highly successful to boot.

    Our satirical guying of Anthony Fauci is not purely arbitrary, for it is pretty clear that HIV does ironically have some positive effect. The one thing you can be sure of is that it has no cytopathic effect whatsoever. Richard, you apparently see through the David Ho stuff easily enough. Cannot you apply the same thoughtful mind to this absurd effort to make something out of a virus which is to all intents and purposes AWOL for the duration?!

    Or are we to conclude that given the source of the funding of your operation, your career, and your current lifestyle, it is like asking a Vatican Cardinal if he would admit the possibility of God being a mistake?

    Excuse us not answering your objection more specifically here but it is part of a planned post which we shall write when life stops intervening.

  15. Gene Semon Says:

    Revisiting Hellerstein

    Let’s go back to what is, after all, fundamental in this debate.

    Three mechanisms are proposed for why HAART works based on a discrediting of David Ho’s speculative dynamics, (the indirect cause of how much unnecessary liver disease, BTW?), and direct, but incomplete, measurements of T-cell dynamics. One of these, HIV cell-killing is eliminated by Duesberg (“mediated” or not, whatever THAT means).

    Here are the two distinctly stated mechanisms of Hellerstein to explain “the increase in fractional replacement and absolute production rate of blood T cells in the HAART group”: 1) “reduced adherence of dividing T cells to lymphoid tissues, allowing redistribution of these dividing cells into the circulating pool;” 2)”disinhibition of T-cell profileration in tissues (the leukemic effect)*, allowing greater release of dividing cells into the circulating pool.” *(parens added)

    Now, clearly, considering Duesberg’s refutation, as confirmed by nondenialists Strohman and Urnovitz plus leaving the two remaining mechanisms; the syllogism HAART works, therefore HIV causes AIDS, collapses.

    And Richard, take heed of truthseekers admonition on throwing around the word ignorance. It can bounce back. (There are, in fact, CD3- lymphocytes.)

  16. Richard Jefferys Says:

    Well, I look forward to the clarification of the statement: “it is pretty clear that HIV does ironically have some positive effect.” The type of proliferation being referred to is a consequence of HIV-induced persistent immune activation, which depletes the naive T cell pool and leads to increasing numbers of dysfunctional memory T cells. How exactly is this a “positive effect.”? More than 95% of the T cells that initiate proliferation in response to antigen die within a matter of days, and when an ag-specific T cell immune response is occuring peripheral blood CD4 T cell counts typically decline (that’s why things like the flu are associated with transient peripheral blood lymphopenia ).

    Gene, as I’ve pointed out before your interpretation of the Hellerstein data is woeful and completely off-base. People should just read the paper for themselves, both the Nature Medicine and JCI papers are well worth the time. As for your exciting discovery regarding CD3- T cells, see the Aetiology thread.

  17. Celia Farber Says:

    1. T Cell immunologists who don’t think HIV causes AIDS?

    But for HIV/AIDS theory there would be no “T cell immunologists,” would there? Was this a specialty prior to the early 1980s?

    This is a tautaological question.

    2. I published on the erroneousness of Ho’s pathogenesis model in 2000:


    I was flogged for that by ACT UP, (Maia Slalovitz,) Aegis, The Body, and all the usual suspects on your side of the Berlin Wall. Larry Kramer flogged me for publishing it in a magazine that was NOT TIME or Newsweek.

    My point is, I can’t win. I can’t see why I should engage with you when your position is to attack and “discredit” me at every turn. That is what you people are best at.

  18. Richard Jefferys Says:

    You’re joking, right? T cells are central to the functioning of the adaptive immune system and the field took off in the 50s. Perhaps “cellular immunology” is the more familiar term? If I recall correctly, the NIH-funded researchers Don Mosier and Jonathan Sprent published on the erroneousness of Ho’s model in the letters pages of Nature in 1995.

  19. Gene Semon Says:

    Richard, you say, “depletes the naive T cell pool and leads to increasing numbers of dysfunctional memory T cells” as a result of “persistent immune activation”; Hellerstein says, “disinhibition of T-cell profileration in tissues, allowing greater release of dividing cells into the circulating pool” caused by HAART. The point is, if you bother to read all my posts over at Tara’s, the total network dynamics are consistent post-Hellerstein.

    Dr Fauci says, “enhanced T cell proliferation”, (not always a good thing) and I add a twist to truthseeker’s satire by supporting Dr Fauci; HIV as HTLV3, right? The definition of leukemia is consistent with Hellerstein’s “disinhibition”.

    Celia’s point is correct given the statement of a leading immunologist in JAMA (1981): measurements of subpopulations of T-cells have no clinical meaning.

    I trust this is sufficient explanation, but of course you can always attack me again.

  20. Robert Houston Says:

    Once upon a time in a strange little land called Bethesda, the media were assured by government scientists that HIV causes AIDS, and that it did so by directly killing helper T-cells (now called CD4+ T-cells) and thereby lowering their count in the peripheral blood. This had a superficial plausibility, and thus became the ostensible reason for the rapid and widespread acceptance of the HIV hypothesis, even though the virus was detected in only 36% of patients with AIDS and at minuscule levels even in those. Subsequently, several other research teams could not duplicate the original findings of cytopathicity, which were later shown to be due to poor procedures in maintaining T-cells in the government labs of Dr. Robert Gallo. Nevertheless, the dogma had become policy and was determining funding and, therefore, scientific opinion.

    Would this con-job have been so easy had Gallo announced then what is known today? Supposing he had declared in that April 1984 NIH press conference what Fauci says today: that far from killing them, HIV causes the T-cells to proliferate . If on this basis Gallo had proclaimed that it was obviously the cause of AIDS, there would have been many skeptics indeed and he might well have been laughed off the stage. No one is laughing today, because the doctrine has long been set and thus cannot be questioned, except by those annoying “denialists.”

    So, when it was believed HIV killed T-cells, this was said to lower T-cell counts. Now when it’s known to make T-cells proliferate, we are assured that such an effect could have nothing to do with T-cell counts. What’s being forgotton is that the T-cell count is a function of a number of factors, including the rates of production, proliferation, redistribution and cell death. One of these factors is proliferation, but it can be swamped by compensatory mechanisms maintaining homeostasis (equilibrium of processes).

    Studies show, however, that HIV infection from its early to intermediate stage is associated with an increase in the overall T-cell count. The CD4 T-cell count remains virtually the same, whereas the CD8 count increases 20%, resulting in an overall increase of 11% in the combined count (CD4 + CD8).

    This is some of the data that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, communicated to the National Academy of Sciences:

    HIV Level and Average T-Cell Counts
    HIV infection_/_Viral load___/_CD4_/_CD8_/_Combined _______________________________________________________

    Early…………….. 1,480…….. 390….. 716…….. 1106

    Intermediate….. 82,286…….. 367….. 860…….. 1227

    Change…………. 5,560%…… -6%…. +20% ….. +11%
    Source: Lempicki et al. Proc Nat Ac Sci 97:13778-83, 2000

  21. Robert Houston Says:

    Note: The data shown above are extracted from Table 1 of the Lempicki study. There were 34 subjects in the Early group and 24 in the Intermediate group. The comparison shows that a 56-fold increase of the viral load occurs with barely a change in the CD4 T-cell count but is associated with an 11% increase in the combined T-cell count, which is enough to bring it up to a normal level. It should also be noted that an HIV viral load of 60,000 per milliliter of plasma corresponds to only a single infectious virus per milliliter (M. Piatak et al. Science 19:1749-54, 1993).Thus, when Truthseeker stated in his post that “adding HIV to the bloodstream increases the T-cell count,” he was in fact correct, for he did not specify subtypes. With the addition of antioxidants known to inhibit apoptosis, the proliferative effect of HIV on T-cells might well prove clinically useful. In contrast, certain immunosuppressive drugs widely used in AIDS risk groups, such as corticosteroids, can produce rapid and enormous drops in CD4 T-cell counts (e.g., to 1/3rd in 10 days), which would pose far more of an immunological threat than HIV (M. Al-Bayati. Examining the causes of AIDS. Medical Veritas 3:901-913, 2006. Click HERE).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 302 access attempts in the last 7 days.