Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below My personal belief is that HIV affects each victim differently and that contracting the virus usually but not always leads to the recipient displaying AIDS symptoms-but it IS always present in full-blown AIDS cases.If you are putting forward a conspiracy theory that falsely blames HIV for the AIDS epidemic, then you must have some identity of the real culprit causing AIDS in millions around the world. The most popular seems to be government bio-chemical testing gone bad.And rather than slathering us with another ream of documents, just simply state your theory scenario.
the aids controversy
- Thread starter asteroth
- Start date
Champ...
"Aids"is a collective name for nearlly 30 different diseases that are immune deficiency related... of which some,agreeably induced or caused by malnutrition and poor sanitary conditions...
With the discovery of hiv,and in the presence of hiv antibodies,all previous diseases that were previously and correctly attributed to the causes above are now blamed on a harmless virus..for the purpose of satiating the greed and ever growing and expanding pockets of the money hungry pharmaceutical companies...
All retroviruses are harmless...why should hiv be any different
I can't stress enough the importance of reading the articles mentioned in my earlier posts...and if you find anything there that is worth joking about,I'll laugh along with you...
Be well
"Aids"is a collective name for nearlly 30 different diseases that are immune deficiency related... of which some,agreeably induced or caused by malnutrition and poor sanitary conditions...
With the discovery of hiv,and in the presence of hiv antibodies,all previous diseases that were previously and correctly attributed to the causes above are now blamed on a harmless virus..for the purpose of satiating the greed and ever growing and expanding pockets of the money hungry pharmaceutical companies...
All retroviruses are harmless...why should hiv be any different
I can't stress enough the importance of reading the articles mentioned in my earlier posts...and if you find anything there that is worth joking about,I'll laugh along with you...
Be well
Proviron
Wrong again...
HIV can hardly be detected in full blown aids patients due to the fact that their blood already contain the hiv antibodies that elimante its presence to a virtual zero.
your statement therefore that:"HIV IS always present in full-blown AIDS cases".is scientifically in error....
I wrote it before and I'll copy it for you again:
"There is very little direct evidence for the presence of the HIV virus in persons with aids.There is not a single report of virus titer from an aids patient.Indeed,virus can only be isolated from 50% of symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers;and then O N LY by techniques originally designed to activate latent viruses..viral genomes have only been detected in about 15% of persons who test positive for HIV antibody.In these persons about 1 proviral genome is found in 100-1000 suceptible lymphocytes.In other words,85% of antibody positive persons carry either less provirus than this or NONE at all...even in those patients who are HIV infected the virus is usually totally dormant,once immune defciency is aquired and Aids appear...The active,infectious form of the virus CANNOT be issolated from the blood or other tissues of most HIV positive aids patients.Even the dormant form of HIV,resting quietly inside infected cells,can be found in only one of every 1000 T cells in the patient"
If you have any scientific data that contradicts the above quotation,please enlighten us all and post here..
No one is claiming "a conspiracy theory that falsely blames HIV for the AIDS epidemic"..there is no conspiracy here ,governmental,or otherwise,just a false
diagnosis of the cause,and a failure of an hypothesis to provide biochemical proof for the havoc hiv is being accused of...
The dissidents' hypothesis suggests prolong usage of drugs as the culprit for aids.
See:
1.The role of drugs in the origin of Aids"(www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pdbiopharm.htm)
2.Is the Aids virus a science fiction/immunosuppressive behaviour,not HIV ,may be the cause of Aids(www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pdpolicy.htm)
Do yourself a favour...
read the articles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong again...
HIV can hardly be detected in full blown aids patients due to the fact that their blood already contain the hiv antibodies that elimante its presence to a virtual zero.
your statement therefore that:"HIV IS always present in full-blown AIDS cases".is scientifically in error....
I wrote it before and I'll copy it for you again:
"There is very little direct evidence for the presence of the HIV virus in persons with aids.There is not a single report of virus titer from an aids patient.Indeed,virus can only be isolated from 50% of symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers;and then O N LY by techniques originally designed to activate latent viruses..viral genomes have only been detected in about 15% of persons who test positive for HIV antibody.In these persons about 1 proviral genome is found in 100-1000 suceptible lymphocytes.In other words,85% of antibody positive persons carry either less provirus than this or NONE at all...even in those patients who are HIV infected the virus is usually totally dormant,once immune defciency is aquired and Aids appear...The active,infectious form of the virus CANNOT be issolated from the blood or other tissues of most HIV positive aids patients.Even the dormant form of HIV,resting quietly inside infected cells,can be found in only one of every 1000 T cells in the patient"
If you have any scientific data that contradicts the above quotation,please enlighten us all and post here..
No one is claiming "a conspiracy theory that falsely blames HIV for the AIDS epidemic"..there is no conspiracy here ,governmental,or otherwise,just a false
diagnosis of the cause,and a failure of an hypothesis to provide biochemical proof for the havoc hiv is being accused of...
The dissidents' hypothesis suggests prolong usage of drugs as the culprit for aids.
See:
1.The role of drugs in the origin of Aids"(www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pdbiopharm.htm)
2.Is the Aids virus a science fiction/immunosuppressive behaviour,not HIV ,may be the cause of Aids(www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/pdpolicy.htm)
Do yourself a favour...
read the articles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
asteroth ..knows what hes talking about and I mentioned this along time ago as well...HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AND HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO CAUSE AIDS...THIS IS FACT , AS WELL AS AIDS NOW IS A 8 BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR INDUSTRY FOR THE MDS....HIV WAS A ROUND LONG BEFORE FORMALLY KNOW AS HLTV3...ROBERT GALLO CHANGED THE NAME IN THE EARLY 80S.....THIS WAS A LOW LIFE RETROVIROLOGIST WHO TRIED TO BLAME CANCER ON A VIRUS IN THE 60S, AZT WAS ADMINISTERED TO THJESE PATIENTS WHO LATER DIED OF GRANULOCYTOPENIA..ECT..AIDS AS YOU CALL IT TODAY....AIDS IS A COMBINATION OR 1 OF MANY ALREADY KNOW DISEASES....QUESTION FOR THE IGNORANTS???????
PATIENT 1)..DRUG USER , HOMELESS, POOR NUTRITION..IS HIV -, WHAT DID HE DIE FROM? TB
PATIENT 2).. DRUG USER, HOMELESS, POOR NUTRITION,..IS HIV +...WHAT DID HE DIE FROM???AIDS
THEY DIED OF THE SAME THING TB..BUT LEAVE IT TO THE MDS TO CREATE THEN DESTROY..
AIDS....WHAT CAUSES YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM TO BREAKDOWN
1)DRUGS
2)POOR NUTRITION
3)CHEMOTHERPY(AZT)
4 ) RADITION
5)NEGATIVE ATTITIUDE
MDS ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THE ABOVE...
BRO YOU 100% RIGHT..i COULD GO ON....i SPOKE WITH ROBERT WILNER BEFORE HE DIED..HE WAS ON THE VERGE OF THE SECRET, BUT WAS MURDERED BY THE PHARMACUETICAL COMPANIES...FACT
PATIENT 1)..DRUG USER , HOMELESS, POOR NUTRITION..IS HIV -, WHAT DID HE DIE FROM? TB
PATIENT 2).. DRUG USER, HOMELESS, POOR NUTRITION,..IS HIV +...WHAT DID HE DIE FROM???AIDS
THEY DIED OF THE SAME THING TB..BUT LEAVE IT TO THE MDS TO CREATE THEN DESTROY..
AIDS....WHAT CAUSES YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM TO BREAKDOWN
1)DRUGS
2)POOR NUTRITION
3)CHEMOTHERPY(AZT)
4 ) RADITION
5)NEGATIVE ATTITIUDE
MDS ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THE ABOVE...
BRO YOU 100% RIGHT..i COULD GO ON....i SPOKE WITH ROBERT WILNER BEFORE HE DIED..HE WAS ON THE VERGE OF THE SECRET, BUT WAS MURDERED BY THE PHARMACUETICAL COMPANIES...FACT
OK I read the articles and I totally disagree with them. Duesberg was proven wrong by Blattner. And Duesberg didnt post Blattners response to his last response to save face...i mean it is his website.
The only good point that Duesberg makes
"I wonder whether there is truly any disease that, in the presence of antibody to HIV, would not be called AIDS."
this was in his response to blattner after blattner totally proved him wrong.
I mean listen to this guys idiotic response to blattner
"They claim that "interruption of HIV infection almost completely prevented the further appearance of blood-transfusion-associated AIDS." However, according to the CDC, transfusion-associated AIDS cases in adults have doubled to 752 cases and pediatric cases tripled to 68 in the year ending May 1988 compared to the previous year (1). This happened 3 years after antibody-positive transfusions were reduced 40-fold with the AIDS test (9). The steep increase in transfusion AIDS cases despite the great reduction of HIV-contaminated transfusions argues directly against HIV as the cause of AIDS."
Is this guy really a doctor.....the AIDS stats increased beucase it takes years to develop AIDS from HIV...3 years after...what is that...You will have to wait about 10 years (with current medicine) before the rate begins to decline.
I would love to pick apart everything but i must be going
The only good point that Duesberg makes
"I wonder whether there is truly any disease that, in the presence of antibody to HIV, would not be called AIDS."
this was in his response to blattner after blattner totally proved him wrong.
I mean listen to this guys idiotic response to blattner
"They claim that "interruption of HIV infection almost completely prevented the further appearance of blood-transfusion-associated AIDS." However, according to the CDC, transfusion-associated AIDS cases in adults have doubled to 752 cases and pediatric cases tripled to 68 in the year ending May 1988 compared to the previous year (1). This happened 3 years after antibody-positive transfusions were reduced 40-fold with the AIDS test (9). The steep increase in transfusion AIDS cases despite the great reduction of HIV-contaminated transfusions argues directly against HIV as the cause of AIDS."
Is this guy really a doctor.....the AIDS stats increased beucase it takes years to develop AIDS from HIV...3 years after...what is that...You will have to wait about 10 years (with current medicine) before the rate begins to decline.
I would love to pick apart everything but i must be going
Wow...someone is finally reading Duesberg's articles...hopefully the trend will continue...
Anyway, to claim,as Champ does, that"Duesberg didnt post Blattners response to his last response to save face"...is an outright lie!!!
Not that Champ is deliberately lying...but if he is not misinformed,he is certainly blessed with selective reading...
Unless Champs is reffering to some hidden from sight,yet to be published article that he his the sole person that knows of its existence...and somehow
simply forgot to inform us where he saw it....
For his , and anybody else's convenience I have copied the articles ,including the "accidentally ommited,or missing"
"Duesberg's Response to Blattner and Colleagues"
It is Duesberg's response to Blattner that remained unanswered and not the other way around...
Note the pompous arrogance with which Duesberg's articles are being reffered to...
"listen to this guys idiotic response"..." Is this guy really a doctor....."
almost reminicent of the Catholic church approach to Gallileo and Copernicus for suggesting that the earth circles the sun,and not the other way around...
Ridicule,and mockery ,instead of point by point refutation of the dissenting hypothesis,are a clear reflection of the hiv camps' frastration for their inability to produce a shred,and iota, of a biochemical evidence,which will demonstrate unequivocally that hiv causes the immunodeficiency effects,attributed to it,or their utter failure to produce a cure inspite of the billions of dollars in research money at its disposal...
Duesberg was never proven wrong by Blattner or by anyone else, for that matter...even blattner admits that"Knowledge of the cause of a disease (etiology) is important for control of that disease and gives a basis for understanding the pathology of the disease. However, knowing the cause of a disease does not mean that there is complete understanding of its pathology. Discovering the pathogenetic mechanisms of HIV in AIDS is a major focus for research. ..."
In any event when champs writes:"this was his response to blattner after blattner totally proved him wrong"he expresses his own arbitrary ,opinion...nothing more..the dissenting hypothesis by Duesberg and others lives on cause it was never scientifically disproven
and tha is an undisputable fact...
The response that Champs is quoting, makes perfect sense,but one has to know and understand what their reading...
Let me rephrase that particular quotation:
"since the CDC took measures to control through HIV testing the nations blood supply so as to prevent further hiv infection (by blood transfusion)...How is it possible than that inspite of those measures"transfusion-associated AIDS cases in adults have doubled to 752 cases and pediatric cases tripled to 68 in the year ending May 1988 compared to the previous year (1). This happened 3 years after antibody-positive transfusions were reduced 40-fold with the AIDS test (9). The steep increase in transfusion AIDS cases despite the great reduction of HIV-contaminated transfusions argues directly against HIV as the cause of AIDS."
To this Champs responds:"Is this guy really a doctor.....the AIDS stats increased beucase it takes years to develop AIDS from HIV...3 years after...what is that...
Champ is wrong...wrong on all counts...
Aids doesn't necessarily take "years" to develop...
Here is a quote from:"Aids the Facts"by John Langone Page 11:
"But while the time that elapses between infection and presence of antibodies may be charted,the lenght of time that an infected individual will remain free of symptoms seems to v a r y w i l d l y from DAYS,or WEEKS, to many years DEPENDING on how the infection WAS AQCUIRED"
Note that the above reference by Duesberg, is to transfusion assosiated contraction of Aids, and not to other ways of infection,and bearing in mind that the time of appearance of Aids symptoms seems to vary it is,odd,how inspite of the cautionary measures the cdc takes with our blood supply....t r a n s f u s i o n related Aids is still up..
Obviously Duesberg knows exactly what is talking about
He makes perfect sense...
Blattner has evaded and avoided Duesberg sharp tongue for quite some time...Let him come out of the closet!!!!!!
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
Blattner and Colleagues Respond to Duesberg
Biology is an experimental science, and new biological phenomena are continually being discovered. For example, recently some RNA molecules were shown to act as enzymes, ribozymes, even though biochemistry text books state that all enzymes are proteins. Thus, one cannot conclude that HIV-1 does or does not cause AIDS from Duesberg's "cardinal rules" of virology. In fact, the Henle-Koch postulates of 1840 and 1890 were formulated before the discovery of viruses. They are a useful historical reference point, but were not regarded as rigid criteria by Koch himself and should not be so regarded today (1). Duesberg's description of the properties of viruses is in error and provides no distinction between knowing the cause of a disease, that is, its etiology, and understanding the pathogenesis of this disease. Duesberg is noted for his discoveries about the viral oncogene src. There is no question that the expression of this gene in chicken fibroblasts results in sarcomas. However, no one can yet explain how the expression by the src oncogene of an altered tyrosine protein kinase results in a cell becoming neoplastic. Similarly, there are many unanswered questions about the pathogenesis of AIDS, but they are not relevant to the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg presents six (or nine) cardinal rules for viruses. Most are not relevant to the question of etiology and are misleading or wrong about viruses in general and HIV in particular. 1-2) It was formerly true that evidence for the presence of HIV-1 could not be found in all AIDS patients. But the overwhelming seroepidemiologic evidence pointing toward HIV as the cause of AIDS spurred research to improve the sensitivity of the detection methods. Better methods of virus isolation now show that HIV infection is present in essentially all AIDS patients (2). The CDC definition of AIDS has been revised several times as new knowledge has become available and will undoubtedly be revised again. The 1981 CDC definition of AIDS did not mention HIV, since no strain of HIV was known until 1983. Many cases of AIDS are diagnosed on clinical grounds alone because of the lack of availability or expense of HIV-1 antibody testing or because HIV testing is discouraged in some communities. Thus, rates of confirmation of AIDS cases by HIV testing in the United States vary geographically as reflected in CDC surveillance statistics. 3) It is true that HIV does not cause AIDS in chimpanzees. Most viruses are species-specific in host range and in capacity to produce disease. For example, herpes B virus, yellow fever virus, and dengue virus cause serious diseases in humans, but produce no disease symptoms during infection in many species of monkeys (3). Moreover, a virus closely related to HIV, simian immunodeficiency disease virus or SIV, causes an AIDS-like disease in rhesus macaques, but seldom, if ever, causes immunodeficiency in African Green monkeys (4, 5). HIV-1 does indeed cause AIDS when inoculated into humans with no underlying medical condition. Accidental needlestick injuries with HIV-contaminated needles have resulted in HIV seroconversion and then clinical AIDS (6). 4) It is true that HIV infects only a small fraction of T cells. However, about 15% of the macrophage and monocyte cells from AIDS patients are positive for a viral protein, p24 (7), and the high concentration of this protein in the blood of AIDS patients indicates virus activity (8). The exact mechanism of CD4 cell depletion in AIDS patients is not known, but several indirect mechanisms are known by which HIV can cause CD4 cell depletion in laboratory studies and could operate in vivo. 5-6) Many viruses are highly pathogenic after evidence of immunity appears. For example, reactivated herpes zoster virus causes shingles, and reactivated herpes simplex virus causes local lesions as well as lethal necrotizing encephalitis; moreover, hepatitis B virus causes chronic active hepatitis, equine infectious anemia virus causes anemia, and visna virus causes central nervous system degeneration after the appearance of specific neutralizing antibodies (3, 9). (The last two viruses are lentiretroviruses as is HIV.) These diseases also can have long and variable latent periods. 7) It is true that some retroviruses, in particular, the highly oncogenic retroviruses of the kind that Duesberg has worked with, are not cytocidal and promote cell growth. Most retroviruses have no effect on cell growth (9, 10). However, Rous-associated virus-2, spleen necrosis virus, visna virus, and HIV kill infected cells in culture and can establish a chronic stage of infection in which surviving infected cells continue to divide (11). 8) It was apparently "paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology." The properties of HIV resolved this paradox because the distribution of AIDS was found to mirror the distribution of HIV. The nature of the spread of the virus and the type of the AIDS-related clinical syndrome depend on social and environmental factors. Sexually active gay men and parenteral drug abusers were the first conduit for spread of HIV in the United States, whereas in some developing countries of Africa, young heterosexually active men and women were the major focus of spread. It is common for life-style to be a major determinant for the spread of an infectious agent. For example, until a vaccine became available, hepatitis B virus was clustered among the same U.S. populations that are now infected by HIV. The underlying pathology in AIDS is immune deficiency. The nature of the opportunistic agents that invade the susceptible host is a function of which agents are most prominent in a particular population. For example, in the United States Pneumocystis is most prominent in affluent gay men, while human mycobacterial infections and toxoplasmosis are more frequent in socially disadvantaged Caribbean immigrants. Other agents, such as Cryptococcus, are more prominent in developing countries. 9) It is true that there are two viruses that cause human AIDS, HIV-1 and HIV-2. The origin of these HIVs is an interesting scientific question that is not relevant to whether or not HIV causes AIDS. Since a primate lentiretrovirus also causes an AIDS-like disease in rhesus monkeys, just as a cat lentiretrovirus, feline immunodeficiency virus, causes an AIDS-like disease in cats (12), one can suggest either that there is strong selection among retroviruses for this kind of pathology (13) or that the virus ancestor to HIV already had this property. In favor of the first hypothesis is the existence of feline, murine, and primate AIDS caused by retroviruses in a different subfamily from the lentiretroviruses (14). In summary, although many questions remain about HIV and AIDS, a huge and continuously growing body of scientific evidence shows that HIV causes AIDS. References and Notes: A.S. Evans, Yale J. Biol. Med. 49, 175 (1976). References 1 and 2 from Duesberg report isolation of HIV-1 from 100% of AIDS patients; I.S.Y. Chen (UCLA) reports isolation of HIV-1 from 100% of AIDS patients (personal communication); R.C. Gallo, M. Popovic, S. Z. Salahuddin, S. Gardner, and co-workers now isolate HIV-1 from more than 90% of AIDS patients. Duesberg's references 5 and 7 do not report on AIDS patients at all. B.N. Fields et al., Eds. Virology (Raven, New York, 1985); F. Fenner, B.R. McAuslan, C.A. Mims, J. Sambrook, D.O. White, The Biology of Animal Viruses (Academic Press, New York, ed. 2, 1974). N.L. Letvin et al., Science 230, 71 (1985). Duesberg's reference 13 deals only with HIV-1 transmission, not disease occurrence. AIDS Program, Hospital Infections Branch, CDC, Morbid. Mortal. Weekly Rep. 37, 229 (1988). This pattern of AIDS development following HIV-1 seroconversion is the same as that seen for pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases and mother-to-child transmission, and in a multitude of prospective studies of gay men, hemophiliacs, and other populations in developed and developing countries. S. Crowe, J. Mills, I. Kirihara, P. Lakas, M. McGrath, Abstracts of the Fourth International Conference on AIDS, Stockholm (1988). G.G. Jackson et al., Ann. Int. Med. 108, 175 (1988). Macrophages and monocytes and not T cells appear to be the major reservoir of HIV infection in humans. N. Teich, I. Wyke, T. Mak, A. Bernstein, W. Hardy, in RNA Tumor Viruses, Molecular Biology of Tumor Viruses, R. Weiss, N. Teich, H. Varmus, J. Coffin, Eds. (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, ed. 2, 1982), pp. 785-998. H.M. Temin, Rev. Infect. Dis. 10, 399 (1988). --. and V.K. Kassner, J. Virol. 13, 291 (1974); J. Gen. Virol. 27, 267 (1975). N.C. Pedersen et al., Science 235, 790 (1987). H.M. Temin, in Concepts in Viral Pathogenesis, A.L. Notkins, M.B.A. Oldstone, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988), vol. 3. D.M. Mosier, Immunol. Invest. 15, 233 (1986). HIV Causes AIDS W. Blattner, R. C. Gallo, H. M. Temin AIDS, a new disease, was first recognized in 1981, clustered in male homosexuals, intravenous drug abusers, and hemophiliacs in the United States and among sexually active heterosexuals in some countries of equatorial Africa. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was first discovered in 1983 and was definitively linked in 1984 to AIDS patients and to groups whose members were at high risk for developing AIDS. The serological test for antibodies to HIV was developed at this same time and showed that HIV infection in the United States was concentrated in those populations at highest risk for AIDS, namely, male homosexuals, intravenous drug abusers, and hemophiliacs (1). The strongest evidence that HIV causes AIDS comes from prospective epidemiological studies that document the absolute requirement for HIV infection for the development of AIDS. It has been shown for every population group studied in the United States and elsewhere that, in the years following the introduction of HIV and subsequent seroconversion of members of that population, the features characteristic of progressive immunodeficiency emerge in a predictable sequence resulting in clinical AIDS (2-4). Furthermore, other epidemiological data show that AIDS and HIV infection are clustered in the same population groups and in specific geographic locations and in time. Numerous studies have shown that in countries with no persons with HIV antibodies there is no AIDS and in countries with many persons with HIV antibodies there is much AIDS (3). Additionally, the time of occurrence of AIDS in each country is correlated with the time of introduction of HIV into that country; first HIV is introduced, then AIDS appears. It is also noteworthy that HIV infection, and not infection with any other infectious agent, is linked to blood transfusion-associated AIDS (5). Similarly, in HIV-infected pregnant women, mother-to-child perinatal transmission of HIV occurs approximately 50% of the time, and over 95% of HIV-infected infants develop AIDS by 6 years, while their uninfected siblings never develop AIDS (3, 6). Support for the linkage of HIV infection and AIDS comes as well from the results of public health interventions where interruption of HIV infection almost completely prevented the further appearance of AIDS in blood transfusion recipients (4). After the introduction of the HIV antibody screening test in the United States, the transmission of HIV in the blood supply in the United States was reduced from as high as 1 in 1,000 infected units in some high risk areas to less than an estimated 1 in 40,000 units countrywide (7). (The recently recognized cases of virus transmission by blood transfusion are due to donors being missed by current antibody screening tests during the window of seroconversion. There is a period of about 4 to 8 weeks in which newly HIV-infected persons are capable of transmitting HIV, but have not yet developed antibodies.) As a result of the decrease in blood transfusion-associated transmission of HIV, the incidence of blood transfusion-associated AIDS among U.S. newborns showed a decline (4). Thirteen of the cases of blood transfusion-associated seroconversion identified since the start of blood bank screening were recently investigated (7). In one of these cases, the recipient of one unit of blood was one of a pair of fraternal twins. This baby seroconverted and developed AIDS without any other risk factor. Her twin and her mother received no blood products, developed no HIV antibodies, and remained healthy. The blood donor became HIV seropositive and developed AIDS. Scientists conclude that a virus causes a disease if the virus is consistently associated with the disease and if disruption of transmission of the virus prevents occurrence of the disease. HIV can be detected by culture in most AIDS patients and by culture or polymerase chain reaction in most HIV seropositive individuals (8, 9). Epidemiological data show that transmission of HIV results in AIDS and blocking HIV transmission prevents the occurrence of AIDS. Thus, we conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Knowledge of the cause of a disease (etiology) is important for control of that disease and gives a basis for understanding the pathology of the disease. However, knowing the cause of a disease does not mean that there is complete understanding of its pathology. Discovering the pathogenetic mechanisms of HIV in AIDS is a major focus for research. Duesberg's Response to Blattner and Colleagues
Blattner, Gallo, and Temin defend the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS only with epidemiology and anecdotal clinical cases in which AIDS is correlated with antibody to HIV, but not with active virus. I submit that this is insufficient because such evidence cannot distinguish between HIV and other causes, unless there is also evidence for biochemical activity of HIV in AIDS. 1 ) My opponents say that "following introduction of HIV in a population ... immunodeficiency emerges in a predictable sequence." Instead, epidemiological surveys show that the annual incidence of AIDS among persons with antibody to HIV varies from almost 0 to over 10%, depending on factors defined by lifestyle, health, gender, and country of residence (see point 8 of my preceding statement). Among antibody-positive Americans the avenge conversion rate is 1% [10,000 to 20,000 (1) of 1 to 2 million (2, 3)] but that of certain hemophiliacs (4) or male homosexuals (5) is 10% or higher. These discrepancies between the epidemiologies of HIV antibody and AIDS indicate that neither HIV nor antibody to it is sufficient to cause AIDS. 2 ) The argument that HIV, "not ... any other infectious agent," is linked to AIDS in blood transfusion recipients and in congenitally infected children is presumptuous for several reasons. Blood transfusion does not distinguish between HIV and "any other infectious agent" or blood-borne toxin. Further, it is presumed that the recipient had no risk factors other than HIV during the average of 8 years between HIV transfusion and AIDS symptoms. The transfusion evidence would be more convincing if AIDS appeared soon after a singular transfusion in generally healthy recipients. Transfusion AIDS cases, however, only occur very late after infection and mostly in persons with health risks, such as hemophilia, that are not representative of healthy individuals. Likewise, it is presumptuous to assume that HIV was the cause of AIDS in antibody-positive children, of whom 96% had other health risks, such as mothers who are prostitutes or addicted to intravenously administered drugs or blood transfusions for the treatment of hemophilia or other diseases (1, 6). The references to these cases would have been more convincing if antibody-negative controls had been included, having none of "the broad range of clinical diseases ... and the diversity of signs and symptoms of patients infected with HIV" (6). 3) According to authoritative sources, the primary defect of AIDS is a T cell deficiency induced by HIV infection (3, 7, 8). Therefore, it comes as a surprise that the primary clinical symptom of the children with AIDS was a B cell, not a T cell, deficiency (6). In fact, one of these same sources reports that "to fit observations from children into definitions for adult patients is unwise" (3). I wonder whether there is truly any disease that, in the presence of antibody to HIV, would not be called AIDS. 4) They claim that "interruption of HIV infection almost completely prevented the further appearance of blood-transfusion-associated AIDS." However, according to the CDC, transfusion-associated AIDS cases in adults have doubled to 752 cases and pediatric cases tripled to 68 in the year ending May 1988 compared to the previous year (1). This happened 3 years after antibody-positive transfusions were reduced 40-fold with the AIDS test (9). The steep increase in transfusion AIDS cases despite the great reduction of HIV-contaminated transfusions argues directly against HIV as the cause of AIDS. 5) In addition to the correlation that "in countries with many persons with HIV antibodies there is much AIDS," it is necessary to demonstrate some HIV-specific biochemical activity at the onset of AIDS to prove that HIV causes AIDS. All other viruses and microbes are very active when they cause fatal, degenerative diseases similar to AIDS. There is also abundant generic evidence that this activity is necessary for pathogenicity. Antibodies are evidence for the absence of an active virus, not a prognosis for future disease or death. Prior claims for etiology without genetic or molecular evidence for activity proved to be some of the most spectacular misdiagnoses in virology: (i) Based on epidemiological evidence, "scientists concluded" that Epstein-Barr virus was the cause of Burkitt's lymphoma-until the first virus-free lymphomas were found (10). (ii) On epidemiological grounds, human and bovine retroviruses were believed to cause leukemia after bizarre latent periods of up to 40 years in humans (11)-but finding these viruses in billions of normal cells of millions of asymptomatic carriers has cast doubt on this view (12). It is scarcely surprising that these leukemias arose from virus-infected cells. Consistent with this view, these "viral" leukemias are clonal and not contagious, behaving like virus-negative leukemias, and the associated "leukemia" viruses are not biochemically active (12). (iii) "Slow viruses" were accepted as causes of Alzheimer's, kuru, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (13) on the basis of the same kind of epidemiology and transmission evidence used here for HIV-but these viruses have never materialized. These examples illustrate that correlations without evidence for biochemical activity are not sufficient to prove "etiology." 6) I fully support the view that "knowledge of the cause of a disease (etiology) is important for control." Since the cause of AIDS is debatable, the control of AIDS may not be achieved by controlling HIV. This is particularly true for the highly toxic "control" (preventive or therapeutic) of AIDS with azidothymidine (AZT)-AZT is designed to inhibit viral DNA synthesis in persons who have antibodies to a virus that is not synthesizing DNA (14
Anyway, to claim,as Champ does, that"Duesberg didnt post Blattners response to his last response to save face"...is an outright lie!!!
Not that Champ is deliberately lying...but if he is not misinformed,he is certainly blessed with selective reading...
Unless Champs is reffering to some hidden from sight,yet to be published article that he his the sole person that knows of its existence...and somehow
simply forgot to inform us where he saw it....
For his , and anybody else's convenience I have copied the articles ,including the "accidentally ommited,or missing"
"Duesberg's Response to Blattner and Colleagues"
It is Duesberg's response to Blattner that remained unanswered and not the other way around...
Note the pompous arrogance with which Duesberg's articles are being reffered to...
"listen to this guys idiotic response"..." Is this guy really a doctor....."
almost reminicent of the Catholic church approach to Gallileo and Copernicus for suggesting that the earth circles the sun,and not the other way around...
Ridicule,and mockery ,instead of point by point refutation of the dissenting hypothesis,are a clear reflection of the hiv camps' frastration for their inability to produce a shred,and iota, of a biochemical evidence,which will demonstrate unequivocally that hiv causes the immunodeficiency effects,attributed to it,or their utter failure to produce a cure inspite of the billions of dollars in research money at its disposal...
Duesberg was never proven wrong by Blattner or by anyone else, for that matter...even blattner admits that"Knowledge of the cause of a disease (etiology) is important for control of that disease and gives a basis for understanding the pathology of the disease. However, knowing the cause of a disease does not mean that there is complete understanding of its pathology. Discovering the pathogenetic mechanisms of HIV in AIDS is a major focus for research. ..."
In any event when champs writes:"this was his response to blattner after blattner totally proved him wrong"he expresses his own arbitrary ,opinion...nothing more..the dissenting hypothesis by Duesberg and others lives on cause it was never scientifically disproven
and tha is an undisputable fact...
The response that Champs is quoting, makes perfect sense,but one has to know and understand what their reading...
Let me rephrase that particular quotation:
"since the CDC took measures to control through HIV testing the nations blood supply so as to prevent further hiv infection (by blood transfusion)...How is it possible than that inspite of those measures"transfusion-associated AIDS cases in adults have doubled to 752 cases and pediatric cases tripled to 68 in the year ending May 1988 compared to the previous year (1). This happened 3 years after antibody-positive transfusions were reduced 40-fold with the AIDS test (9). The steep increase in transfusion AIDS cases despite the great reduction of HIV-contaminated transfusions argues directly against HIV as the cause of AIDS."
To this Champs responds:"Is this guy really a doctor.....the AIDS stats increased beucase it takes years to develop AIDS from HIV...3 years after...what is that...
Champ is wrong...wrong on all counts...
Aids doesn't necessarily take "years" to develop...
Here is a quote from:"Aids the Facts"by John Langone Page 11:
"But while the time that elapses between infection and presence of antibodies may be charted,the lenght of time that an infected individual will remain free of symptoms seems to v a r y w i l d l y from DAYS,or WEEKS, to many years DEPENDING on how the infection WAS AQCUIRED"
Note that the above reference by Duesberg, is to transfusion assosiated contraction of Aids, and not to other ways of infection,and bearing in mind that the time of appearance of Aids symptoms seems to vary it is,odd,how inspite of the cautionary measures the cdc takes with our blood supply....t r a n s f u s i o n related Aids is still up..
Obviously Duesberg knows exactly what is talking about
He makes perfect sense...
Blattner has evaded and avoided Duesberg sharp tongue for quite some time...Let him come out of the closet!!!!!!
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
Blattner and Colleagues Respond to Duesberg
Biology is an experimental science, and new biological phenomena are continually being discovered. For example, recently some RNA molecules were shown to act as enzymes, ribozymes, even though biochemistry text books state that all enzymes are proteins. Thus, one cannot conclude that HIV-1 does or does not cause AIDS from Duesberg's "cardinal rules" of virology. In fact, the Henle-Koch postulates of 1840 and 1890 were formulated before the discovery of viruses. They are a useful historical reference point, but were not regarded as rigid criteria by Koch himself and should not be so regarded today (1). Duesberg's description of the properties of viruses is in error and provides no distinction between knowing the cause of a disease, that is, its etiology, and understanding the pathogenesis of this disease. Duesberg is noted for his discoveries about the viral oncogene src. There is no question that the expression of this gene in chicken fibroblasts results in sarcomas. However, no one can yet explain how the expression by the src oncogene of an altered tyrosine protein kinase results in a cell becoming neoplastic. Similarly, there are many unanswered questions about the pathogenesis of AIDS, but they are not relevant to the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS. Duesberg presents six (or nine) cardinal rules for viruses. Most are not relevant to the question of etiology and are misleading or wrong about viruses in general and HIV in particular. 1-2) It was formerly true that evidence for the presence of HIV-1 could not be found in all AIDS patients. But the overwhelming seroepidemiologic evidence pointing toward HIV as the cause of AIDS spurred research to improve the sensitivity of the detection methods. Better methods of virus isolation now show that HIV infection is present in essentially all AIDS patients (2). The CDC definition of AIDS has been revised several times as new knowledge has become available and will undoubtedly be revised again. The 1981 CDC definition of AIDS did not mention HIV, since no strain of HIV was known until 1983. Many cases of AIDS are diagnosed on clinical grounds alone because of the lack of availability or expense of HIV-1 antibody testing or because HIV testing is discouraged in some communities. Thus, rates of confirmation of AIDS cases by HIV testing in the United States vary geographically as reflected in CDC surveillance statistics. 3) It is true that HIV does not cause AIDS in chimpanzees. Most viruses are species-specific in host range and in capacity to produce disease. For example, herpes B virus, yellow fever virus, and dengue virus cause serious diseases in humans, but produce no disease symptoms during infection in many species of monkeys (3). Moreover, a virus closely related to HIV, simian immunodeficiency disease virus or SIV, causes an AIDS-like disease in rhesus macaques, but seldom, if ever, causes immunodeficiency in African Green monkeys (4, 5). HIV-1 does indeed cause AIDS when inoculated into humans with no underlying medical condition. Accidental needlestick injuries with HIV-contaminated needles have resulted in HIV seroconversion and then clinical AIDS (6). 4) It is true that HIV infects only a small fraction of T cells. However, about 15% of the macrophage and monocyte cells from AIDS patients are positive for a viral protein, p24 (7), and the high concentration of this protein in the blood of AIDS patients indicates virus activity (8). The exact mechanism of CD4 cell depletion in AIDS patients is not known, but several indirect mechanisms are known by which HIV can cause CD4 cell depletion in laboratory studies and could operate in vivo. 5-6) Many viruses are highly pathogenic after evidence of immunity appears. For example, reactivated herpes zoster virus causes shingles, and reactivated herpes simplex virus causes local lesions as well as lethal necrotizing encephalitis; moreover, hepatitis B virus causes chronic active hepatitis, equine infectious anemia virus causes anemia, and visna virus causes central nervous system degeneration after the appearance of specific neutralizing antibodies (3, 9). (The last two viruses are lentiretroviruses as is HIV.) These diseases also can have long and variable latent periods. 7) It is true that some retroviruses, in particular, the highly oncogenic retroviruses of the kind that Duesberg has worked with, are not cytocidal and promote cell growth. Most retroviruses have no effect on cell growth (9, 10). However, Rous-associated virus-2, spleen necrosis virus, visna virus, and HIV kill infected cells in culture and can establish a chronic stage of infection in which surviving infected cells continue to divide (11). 8) It was apparently "paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology." The properties of HIV resolved this paradox because the distribution of AIDS was found to mirror the distribution of HIV. The nature of the spread of the virus and the type of the AIDS-related clinical syndrome depend on social and environmental factors. Sexually active gay men and parenteral drug abusers were the first conduit for spread of HIV in the United States, whereas in some developing countries of Africa, young heterosexually active men and women were the major focus of spread. It is common for life-style to be a major determinant for the spread of an infectious agent. For example, until a vaccine became available, hepatitis B virus was clustered among the same U.S. populations that are now infected by HIV. The underlying pathology in AIDS is immune deficiency. The nature of the opportunistic agents that invade the susceptible host is a function of which agents are most prominent in a particular population. For example, in the United States Pneumocystis is most prominent in affluent gay men, while human mycobacterial infections and toxoplasmosis are more frequent in socially disadvantaged Caribbean immigrants. Other agents, such as Cryptococcus, are more prominent in developing countries. 9) It is true that there are two viruses that cause human AIDS, HIV-1 and HIV-2. The origin of these HIVs is an interesting scientific question that is not relevant to whether or not HIV causes AIDS. Since a primate lentiretrovirus also causes an AIDS-like disease in rhesus monkeys, just as a cat lentiretrovirus, feline immunodeficiency virus, causes an AIDS-like disease in cats (12), one can suggest either that there is strong selection among retroviruses for this kind of pathology (13) or that the virus ancestor to HIV already had this property. In favor of the first hypothesis is the existence of feline, murine, and primate AIDS caused by retroviruses in a different subfamily from the lentiretroviruses (14). In summary, although many questions remain about HIV and AIDS, a huge and continuously growing body of scientific evidence shows that HIV causes AIDS. References and Notes: A.S. Evans, Yale J. Biol. Med. 49, 175 (1976). References 1 and 2 from Duesberg report isolation of HIV-1 from 100% of AIDS patients; I.S.Y. Chen (UCLA) reports isolation of HIV-1 from 100% of AIDS patients (personal communication); R.C. Gallo, M. Popovic, S. Z. Salahuddin, S. Gardner, and co-workers now isolate HIV-1 from more than 90% of AIDS patients. Duesberg's references 5 and 7 do not report on AIDS patients at all. B.N. Fields et al., Eds. Virology (Raven, New York, 1985); F. Fenner, B.R. McAuslan, C.A. Mims, J. Sambrook, D.O. White, The Biology of Animal Viruses (Academic Press, New York, ed. 2, 1974). N.L. Letvin et al., Science 230, 71 (1985). Duesberg's reference 13 deals only with HIV-1 transmission, not disease occurrence. AIDS Program, Hospital Infections Branch, CDC, Morbid. Mortal. Weekly Rep. 37, 229 (1988). This pattern of AIDS development following HIV-1 seroconversion is the same as that seen for pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases and mother-to-child transmission, and in a multitude of prospective studies of gay men, hemophiliacs, and other populations in developed and developing countries. S. Crowe, J. Mills, I. Kirihara, P. Lakas, M. McGrath, Abstracts of the Fourth International Conference on AIDS, Stockholm (1988). G.G. Jackson et al., Ann. Int. Med. 108, 175 (1988). Macrophages and monocytes and not T cells appear to be the major reservoir of HIV infection in humans. N. Teich, I. Wyke, T. Mak, A. Bernstein, W. Hardy, in RNA Tumor Viruses, Molecular Biology of Tumor Viruses, R. Weiss, N. Teich, H. Varmus, J. Coffin, Eds. (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, ed. 2, 1982), pp. 785-998. H.M. Temin, Rev. Infect. Dis. 10, 399 (1988). --. and V.K. Kassner, J. Virol. 13, 291 (1974); J. Gen. Virol. 27, 267 (1975). N.C. Pedersen et al., Science 235, 790 (1987). H.M. Temin, in Concepts in Viral Pathogenesis, A.L. Notkins, M.B.A. Oldstone, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988), vol. 3. D.M. Mosier, Immunol. Invest. 15, 233 (1986). HIV Causes AIDS W. Blattner, R. C. Gallo, H. M. Temin AIDS, a new disease, was first recognized in 1981, clustered in male homosexuals, intravenous drug abusers, and hemophiliacs in the United States and among sexually active heterosexuals in some countries of equatorial Africa. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was first discovered in 1983 and was definitively linked in 1984 to AIDS patients and to groups whose members were at high risk for developing AIDS. The serological test for antibodies to HIV was developed at this same time and showed that HIV infection in the United States was concentrated in those populations at highest risk for AIDS, namely, male homosexuals, intravenous drug abusers, and hemophiliacs (1). The strongest evidence that HIV causes AIDS comes from prospective epidemiological studies that document the absolute requirement for HIV infection for the development of AIDS. It has been shown for every population group studied in the United States and elsewhere that, in the years following the introduction of HIV and subsequent seroconversion of members of that population, the features characteristic of progressive immunodeficiency emerge in a predictable sequence resulting in clinical AIDS (2-4). Furthermore, other epidemiological data show that AIDS and HIV infection are clustered in the same population groups and in specific geographic locations and in time. Numerous studies have shown that in countries with no persons with HIV antibodies there is no AIDS and in countries with many persons with HIV antibodies there is much AIDS (3). Additionally, the time of occurrence of AIDS in each country is correlated with the time of introduction of HIV into that country; first HIV is introduced, then AIDS appears. It is also noteworthy that HIV infection, and not infection with any other infectious agent, is linked to blood transfusion-associated AIDS (5). Similarly, in HIV-infected pregnant women, mother-to-child perinatal transmission of HIV occurs approximately 50% of the time, and over 95% of HIV-infected infants develop AIDS by 6 years, while their uninfected siblings never develop AIDS (3, 6). Support for the linkage of HIV infection and AIDS comes as well from the results of public health interventions where interruption of HIV infection almost completely prevented the further appearance of AIDS in blood transfusion recipients (4). After the introduction of the HIV antibody screening test in the United States, the transmission of HIV in the blood supply in the United States was reduced from as high as 1 in 1,000 infected units in some high risk areas to less than an estimated 1 in 40,000 units countrywide (7). (The recently recognized cases of virus transmission by blood transfusion are due to donors being missed by current antibody screening tests during the window of seroconversion. There is a period of about 4 to 8 weeks in which newly HIV-infected persons are capable of transmitting HIV, but have not yet developed antibodies.) As a result of the decrease in blood transfusion-associated transmission of HIV, the incidence of blood transfusion-associated AIDS among U.S. newborns showed a decline (4). Thirteen of the cases of blood transfusion-associated seroconversion identified since the start of blood bank screening were recently investigated (7). In one of these cases, the recipient of one unit of blood was one of a pair of fraternal twins. This baby seroconverted and developed AIDS without any other risk factor. Her twin and her mother received no blood products, developed no HIV antibodies, and remained healthy. The blood donor became HIV seropositive and developed AIDS. Scientists conclude that a virus causes a disease if the virus is consistently associated with the disease and if disruption of transmission of the virus prevents occurrence of the disease. HIV can be detected by culture in most AIDS patients and by culture or polymerase chain reaction in most HIV seropositive individuals (8, 9). Epidemiological data show that transmission of HIV results in AIDS and blocking HIV transmission prevents the occurrence of AIDS. Thus, we conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Knowledge of the cause of a disease (etiology) is important for control of that disease and gives a basis for understanding the pathology of the disease. However, knowing the cause of a disease does not mean that there is complete understanding of its pathology. Discovering the pathogenetic mechanisms of HIV in AIDS is a major focus for research. Duesberg's Response to Blattner and Colleagues
Blattner, Gallo, and Temin defend the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS only with epidemiology and anecdotal clinical cases in which AIDS is correlated with antibody to HIV, but not with active virus. I submit that this is insufficient because such evidence cannot distinguish between HIV and other causes, unless there is also evidence for biochemical activity of HIV in AIDS. 1 ) My opponents say that "following introduction of HIV in a population ... immunodeficiency emerges in a predictable sequence." Instead, epidemiological surveys show that the annual incidence of AIDS among persons with antibody to HIV varies from almost 0 to over 10%, depending on factors defined by lifestyle, health, gender, and country of residence (see point 8 of my preceding statement). Among antibody-positive Americans the avenge conversion rate is 1% [10,000 to 20,000 (1) of 1 to 2 million (2, 3)] but that of certain hemophiliacs (4) or male homosexuals (5) is 10% or higher. These discrepancies between the epidemiologies of HIV antibody and AIDS indicate that neither HIV nor antibody to it is sufficient to cause AIDS. 2 ) The argument that HIV, "not ... any other infectious agent," is linked to AIDS in blood transfusion recipients and in congenitally infected children is presumptuous for several reasons. Blood transfusion does not distinguish between HIV and "any other infectious agent" or blood-borne toxin. Further, it is presumed that the recipient had no risk factors other than HIV during the average of 8 years between HIV transfusion and AIDS symptoms. The transfusion evidence would be more convincing if AIDS appeared soon after a singular transfusion in generally healthy recipients. Transfusion AIDS cases, however, only occur very late after infection and mostly in persons with health risks, such as hemophilia, that are not representative of healthy individuals. Likewise, it is presumptuous to assume that HIV was the cause of AIDS in antibody-positive children, of whom 96% had other health risks, such as mothers who are prostitutes or addicted to intravenously administered drugs or blood transfusions for the treatment of hemophilia or other diseases (1, 6). The references to these cases would have been more convincing if antibody-negative controls had been included, having none of "the broad range of clinical diseases ... and the diversity of signs and symptoms of patients infected with HIV" (6). 3) According to authoritative sources, the primary defect of AIDS is a T cell deficiency induced by HIV infection (3, 7, 8). Therefore, it comes as a surprise that the primary clinical symptom of the children with AIDS was a B cell, not a T cell, deficiency (6). In fact, one of these same sources reports that "to fit observations from children into definitions for adult patients is unwise" (3). I wonder whether there is truly any disease that, in the presence of antibody to HIV, would not be called AIDS. 4) They claim that "interruption of HIV infection almost completely prevented the further appearance of blood-transfusion-associated AIDS." However, according to the CDC, transfusion-associated AIDS cases in adults have doubled to 752 cases and pediatric cases tripled to 68 in the year ending May 1988 compared to the previous year (1). This happened 3 years after antibody-positive transfusions were reduced 40-fold with the AIDS test (9). The steep increase in transfusion AIDS cases despite the great reduction of HIV-contaminated transfusions argues directly against HIV as the cause of AIDS. 5) In addition to the correlation that "in countries with many persons with HIV antibodies there is much AIDS," it is necessary to demonstrate some HIV-specific biochemical activity at the onset of AIDS to prove that HIV causes AIDS. All other viruses and microbes are very active when they cause fatal, degenerative diseases similar to AIDS. There is also abundant generic evidence that this activity is necessary for pathogenicity. Antibodies are evidence for the absence of an active virus, not a prognosis for future disease or death. Prior claims for etiology without genetic or molecular evidence for activity proved to be some of the most spectacular misdiagnoses in virology: (i) Based on epidemiological evidence, "scientists concluded" that Epstein-Barr virus was the cause of Burkitt's lymphoma-until the first virus-free lymphomas were found (10). (ii) On epidemiological grounds, human and bovine retroviruses were believed to cause leukemia after bizarre latent periods of up to 40 years in humans (11)-but finding these viruses in billions of normal cells of millions of asymptomatic carriers has cast doubt on this view (12). It is scarcely surprising that these leukemias arose from virus-infected cells. Consistent with this view, these "viral" leukemias are clonal and not contagious, behaving like virus-negative leukemias, and the associated "leukemia" viruses are not biochemically active (12). (iii) "Slow viruses" were accepted as causes of Alzheimer's, kuru, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (13) on the basis of the same kind of epidemiology and transmission evidence used here for HIV-but these viruses have never materialized. These examples illustrate that correlations without evidence for biochemical activity are not sufficient to prove "etiology." 6) I fully support the view that "knowledge of the cause of a disease (etiology) is important for control." Since the cause of AIDS is debatable, the control of AIDS may not be achieved by controlling HIV. This is particularly true for the highly toxic "control" (preventive or therapeutic) of AIDS with azidothymidine (AZT)-AZT is designed to inhibit viral DNA synthesis in persons who have antibodies to a virus that is not synthesizing DNA (14
From the mouth of a Nobel prize winner
Who will stand up to the challenge?!
Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
The following was written by Kary Mullis for the introduction to the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter H. Duesberg (Regnery Publishing, INC; Washington DC, 1996):
In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me.
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.
Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.
I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.
I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.
Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, DL Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "
I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"
"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.
"I read that too, DL Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.
This time, DL Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.
Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.
I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.
We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.
We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.
We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.
I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time.
Top of Page
Who will stand up to the challenge?!
Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
The following was written by Kary Mullis for the introduction to the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter H. Duesberg (Regnery Publishing, INC; Washington DC, 1996):
In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me.
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.
Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.
I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.
I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.
Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, DL Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "
I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"
"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.
"I read that too, DL Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.
This time, DL Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.
Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.
I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.
We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.
We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.
We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.
I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time.
Top of Page
I just figured that there was another response becuase It was written in 1988. Sorry for the speculative assumption. I do not however still pompously and arrogantly disagree
Duesberg points to cases of "AIDS" in which the HIV virus is not present. Where HIV is present, he argues that it is merely a "marker" of other factors(drug abuse or "foreign proteins.")
This is becuase Duesberg defines AIDS himself as the presence of one of 30 "opportunistic" diseases in combination with an at least slightly suppressed immune system.
The CDC disagrees becuase they say HIV is necessary for AIDS. However there are a group that shows "one of thirty oppurtunistic diseases" and also have "a depressed immune system". The disease that causes this is called "ICL," for idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia. People who degenerate from this disease would "according to Duesberg" have AIDS. But the CDC doesnt consider them as AIDS patients becuase they are not infected with HIV.
Duesberg "thinks" that some retroviruses causes disease. Only thoses with the onc-genes have the capacity to cause disease.
"Firstly, there are lots of retroviruses without oncogenes that are generally thought to cause disease: Moloney murine leukemia virus, feline leukemia virus, equine infectious anemis virus, visna, bovine leukemia virus, caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus, etc, just to name a few, and secondly, alot of the molecular biology of how some of these viruses cause disease has been determined. "http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/microbiology/jon/cause."
It must be asked what Duesberg is really saying by suggesting that the statement
HIV causes AIDS is wrong.
It can be read
"HIV always causes AIDS"; or
"AIDS is always caused by HIV"; or
"HIV sometimes causes AIDS".
Duesberg is using philosophy, not science to prove the "HIV causes Aids" theory wrong
If he was using science he would show
".. that a substantial proportion of African AIDS sufferers do not have 'evidence of HIV infection' ". Such refutation would be a severe blow to our hypothesis.
".. that prevention of 'transmission of HIV', for example perinatal prevention, does not prevents AIDS in children". By demonstrating this, our virusmyth scientists will have a convincing argument, not only against the importance of HIV, but also against perinatal use of anti-retrovirals!
".. that markers of immune suppression, evidence of opportunistic infections, and mortality rates are not changed in patients who are compliant with state-of-the-art anti-retroviral therapy and have evidence of substantial suppression of 'HIV replication' " (using, for example, Dr Mullis' PCR technology to document suppression of 'viral load' in blood). By demonstrating this, Duesberg et. al. would destroy the rationale for anti-retroviral therapy"
from 1985-88 or now. It would take at least half the average "life left" to start to show a decline(if no improvements in medicine). And I wont even account for the fact that new medications have decreased the amount of people disgnosed with AIDS in proportion to the hiv population so you must be talking about 12 years ago.
By the way, before I read this I knew nothing about HIV/AIDS ,but even I knew that Hiv leads to AIDS. I was curious to find out if I had mis informed, but I dont believe i have been mislead.
Duesberg points to cases of "AIDS" in which the HIV virus is not present. Where HIV is present, he argues that it is merely a "marker" of other factors(drug abuse or "foreign proteins.")
This is becuase Duesberg defines AIDS himself as the presence of one of 30 "opportunistic" diseases in combination with an at least slightly suppressed immune system.
The CDC disagrees becuase they say HIV is necessary for AIDS. However there are a group that shows "one of thirty oppurtunistic diseases" and also have "a depressed immune system". The disease that causes this is called "ICL," for idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia. People who degenerate from this disease would "according to Duesberg" have AIDS. But the CDC doesnt consider them as AIDS patients becuase they are not infected with HIV.
Duesberg "thinks" that some retroviruses causes disease. Only thoses with the onc-genes have the capacity to cause disease.
"Firstly, there are lots of retroviruses without oncogenes that are generally thought to cause disease: Moloney murine leukemia virus, feline leukemia virus, equine infectious anemis virus, visna, bovine leukemia virus, caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus, etc, just to name a few, and secondly, alot of the molecular biology of how some of these viruses cause disease has been determined. "http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/microbiology/jon/cause."
It must be asked what Duesberg is really saying by suggesting that the statement
HIV causes AIDS is wrong.
It can be read
"HIV always causes AIDS"; or
"AIDS is always caused by HIV"; or
"HIV sometimes causes AIDS".
Duesberg is using philosophy, not science to prove the "HIV causes Aids" theory wrong
If he was using science he would show
".. that a substantial proportion of African AIDS sufferers do not have 'evidence of HIV infection' ". Such refutation would be a severe blow to our hypothesis.
".. that prevention of 'transmission of HIV', for example perinatal prevention, does not prevents AIDS in children". By demonstrating this, our virusmyth scientists will have a convincing argument, not only against the importance of HIV, but also against perinatal use of anti-retrovirals!
".. that markers of immune suppression, evidence of opportunistic infections, and mortality rates are not changed in patients who are compliant with state-of-the-art anti-retroviral therapy and have evidence of substantial suppression of 'HIV replication' " (using, for example, Dr Mullis' PCR technology to document suppression of 'viral load' in blood). By demonstrating this, Duesberg et. al. would destroy the rationale for anti-retroviral therapy"
asteroth....that is saying that depending on the how you got HIV, the time it takes to aquire AIDS symptoms varies. Hence, HIV is a cause of AIDS. I am sorry I thought you were defending Deusberg.
from 1985-88 or now. It would take at least half the average "life left" to start to show a decline(if no improvements in medicine). And I wont even account for the fact that new medications have decreased the amount of people disgnosed with AIDS in proportion to the hiv population so you must be talking about 12 years ago.
By the way, before I read this I knew nothing about HIV/AIDS ,but even I knew that Hiv leads to AIDS. I was curious to find out if I had mis informed, but I dont believe i have been mislead.
Last edited:
Response to Champ part 1
While reading Champs last reply to my post,it became quite evidently apparent,that further studying of the dissenting hypothesis is necessary on his behalf...
Duesberg,for example,responds to all of Champs comments and questions,in the articles mentioned earlier,I shall attempt to point out a few,for evryones benefit...
Prior to that I should mention,that I have no accademic medical background,and that my interest in the Aids controversy stems from utmost quiriosity and a befuddled amazement at the face of notable scientists battling each other over what is or is not a "scientific fact".
I thought that such a disputes had no place in a research lab,but rather in the lofty worlds of philosophy and religion...further more,some may get the impression by Champ,or maybe even by myself,that the Aids controversy is a one man crusade(Duesberg)...
It is absolutely not!!
Hundreds of scientists jumped at the dissenting bandwagon,and voiced their disapproval,as soon as it became indisputably clear,that no biochemical evidence is available which would support classification of HIV as "cause" of Aids...
in light of that,and in the presence of Noble prize winners in microbiology,attacking the Aids hypothesis,how is a layman to determine who is right,and who is wrong?!
reviewing Champs repsonse concerning aids contraction through blood transfusion, and other issues raised by him ;I can not help but notice an attempt to try and project ,or force thoughts into an explanation you vehemently disagree with ,thus totally reinventing it,turning it upside down,untill it becomes irecognisable even to its author...
imagine,for the sake of argument,an atheist,quoting biblical verses in order to stress to a bliever,that the bible teaches anything but moral conduct...Is resorting to biblical quotations(by the atheist) to make a point,a right reserved exclusivley to rabbis and monks....Can't an atheist point out biblical discrepancies without being accused of believing in God..Should he be labeled a "believer" just for knowing ,and reciting from his opponents sacred book...
Similarly, knowing what the aids hypothesis claims about the duration of the manifestation of symptoms in aids patients,and quoting it to champ,does not mean I agree with whatever the hypothesis suggests...the quotation only serve to highlight the apparent contradiction,with regards to blood transfusion contraction of Aids...
If,tainted blood transfusion causes Aids ,than how come taking measures to reduce the risk of contaminated blood did not result in less blood transfusion associated aids following those measures,but rather an even higher rate of contraction?
champ's answer was "it takes years to develop AIDS from HIV...3 years after...what is that" ...
in response I quoted "Aids Facts"by John Langone showing that Champs reply stands in contrast to the Hiv/Aids hypothesis he so dearly accepts without question...consequently and in light of that contradiction,another reason,that is not related to HIV contaminated blood must be found to explain the above dilema...Duesberg has always maintained that HIV is not,and has never been the cause of immuno deficiency,in one of his articles he suggests the following concerning transfusion related Aids:"The thesis that Hiv transfusions cause Aids in other patients is also entirely uncontrolled.Indeed,a controlled study might be difficult because 50% of American patients(other than hemophiliacs)die within 1 year,and 60% within three 3 years a f t e r t r a n s f u s i o n-long before the average 10 years HIV is said(by the establishment) to require for pathogenicity have elapsed.the pathogenic conditions that necessitated the transfusions are obviously deadlier than the h y p o t h e t i c a l pathogen HIV"
Champs continuously and forcibly rapes Duesberg's words,insisting on impregnating him with his o w n HIV/aids hypothesis seed...
He asks for example "what Duesberg is really saying by suggesting that the statement HIV causes Aids is Wrong?",and accusing him of "using philosophy"...
amazing and facinating as it may seem,anyone aquainted with the dissenting camp assumption in general,and Duesberg's articles in particular,knows fully well that the A B C of the Drug/Aids hypothesis is that"HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS"(Drugs do!)
No if's or but's...
Following are several quotations:
Human immunodeficiency virus(HIV)is N O T THE CAUSE OF AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle,as well as six cardinals rules of virology....HIV is in violation of Koch's postulate because it is n o t possible to detect f r e e virus,provirus,or viral RNA in ALL cases of Aids....HIV can not be isolated from 20% to 50% of Aids cases,moreover isolation is very indirect...In contrast to A L L pathogenic viruses,that cause degenerative diseases,HIV is N O T biochemically active, in the disease syndrom it is named for...It actively infects only 1 in 104 to >105 T cells.Undr these conditions HIV can not 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,more than enough to compensate for the losses due to HIV.It is p a r a d o x i c a l that HIV is said to cause aids only A F T E R the onset of a n t i viral i m m u n i t y detected by a positive "Aids test",because A L L other viruses are most pathogenic b e f o r e immunity.The immunity against HIV is so effective that free viruses is undetectable,which is why HIV is hard to transmit...HIV remains INACTIVE during Aids,thus the "Aids test"identifies effective natural vaccination,the ULTIMATE PROTECTION against viral disease...
In light of the above it seems that Champ and the HIV/Aids establishment are the ones engaged in "philosophy"instead of responding to the quoted scientific F A C T S(in contrast to an "hypothesis")in a point by point refutation...
To this day Blattner and his associates failed to explain how is it possible that a virus that bearly infects 1 in a 104 T cells, is responsible for any immune deficiency...
The assumption that HIV is a harmless virus,which does not cause Aids,is so unbelievably,startling and disturbing to Champ(in this case),that he even fails to accepts and acknowledge simple written English sentences...he hears the music but refuses to listen to the tunes...he still can not believe that when duesberg's writes that "Hiv does not cause Aids"he really means it!
relentlessly he twists and misquotes :"Duesberg defines Aids Himself"he says "as the presence of of 30 opportunistic diseases ..."But Duesberg makes no such definition what so ever the CDC does,he simply uses their own definition :"Aids is a syndrom of 25 parasitic neoplastic and noninfectious diseases,including in the united states 53% pneumonia,19%wasting disease,13%candidiasis,11%Kaposi sarcoma,6%dementia,3%hlymphoma,and 2% tuberculosis"(Centers for Disease Control(1990)HIV/Aids Surveillance Jan issue)
Duesberg points of the existence of 4621 documented cases of complete immune deficiency with no trace of HIV exposure,and in contrast to Koch's postulate that the virus must be found in affected tissue in ALL CASES OF THE DISEASE;the medical facts,which Blattner has not yet disputed are:that no HIV at all can be isolated from at least 10 to 20 % of Aids patients,no direct trace of HIV could be found in the majority of Aids cases ,and HIV can not be isolated from the cells of in the lesions of Kaposi's sarcoma,nor from nerve cells of patients with Aids dementiaa."
Inspite of the above the CDC "disagrees" because"HIV is necessary for Aids"but yet provides no explanation as to "W H Y "HIV is necessary for Aids particularly in light of the fact that P R I OR CLAIMS for etiology without genetic or mulecular evidence for activity proved to be some of the most spectacular misdiagnoses in virology(based on epidemiological evidence" scientists concluded" that Epstein Barr virus was the cause of Burkitt's lymphoma until the first virus free lymphomas were found...On epidemiological grounds,human and bovine retroviruses were believed to cause leukemia after bizarre latent periods of up to 40 years in humans,but finding these viruses in billions of normal cells,of millions of asymptomatic carriers has cast doubt on this view)...in response to the CDC unscientifically based insistence ' Duesberg responds:"that the HIV/Aids,hypothesis is the ONLY link that hold together the 30 heterogenous Aids diseases.Aids is define as a syndrom that occurs only in the presence of HIV.for example,if tuberculosis occurs in the presence of antibodies to HIV it is Aids.In the absence of those antibodies,it is tuberculosis.Given this definition the link between Aids and HIV is unfalsifiable....however,to date,the HIV Aids hypothesis remains just that an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS.It is supported O N L Y by circumstantial evidence,primarily by the claim that all Aids patients carry antibodies against HIV.But this correlation is biased by the practice of excluding from Aids statistics those patients with AIDS DEFINING diseases in whom no trace of HIV can be found,the disease of such a patient will be diagnosed either by its old name,for example,pnumonia or Kaposi sarcoma,or will be called idiopathic CD-4 Lymphcytopenia"
This kind of scientific verbal arm twisting, and linguistic acrobatics propagated by the CDC, instead of providing hard proof in the form of Biochemical evidence to explain once an for all WHY is HIV necessary for Aids when it is scientifically proven to bearly infect any T cells at all brings to mind Bill clinton's twisting of the word "is"...
How long will the CDC and its Money hungry pharmaceutical cronies will be able to mislead the American and world public?!
Duesberg does not "think""that some retro viruses cause disease...but this point will be delt with in the 2nd part of this post
good night
Asteroth
While reading Champs last reply to my post,it became quite evidently apparent,that further studying of the dissenting hypothesis is necessary on his behalf...
Duesberg,for example,responds to all of Champs comments and questions,in the articles mentioned earlier,I shall attempt to point out a few,for evryones benefit...
Prior to that I should mention,that I have no accademic medical background,and that my interest in the Aids controversy stems from utmost quiriosity and a befuddled amazement at the face of notable scientists battling each other over what is or is not a "scientific fact".
I thought that such a disputes had no place in a research lab,but rather in the lofty worlds of philosophy and religion...further more,some may get the impression by Champ,or maybe even by myself,that the Aids controversy is a one man crusade(Duesberg)...
It is absolutely not!!
Hundreds of scientists jumped at the dissenting bandwagon,and voiced their disapproval,as soon as it became indisputably clear,that no biochemical evidence is available which would support classification of HIV as "cause" of Aids...
in light of that,and in the presence of Noble prize winners in microbiology,attacking the Aids hypothesis,how is a layman to determine who is right,and who is wrong?!
reviewing Champs repsonse concerning aids contraction through blood transfusion, and other issues raised by him ;I can not help but notice an attempt to try and project ,or force thoughts into an explanation you vehemently disagree with ,thus totally reinventing it,turning it upside down,untill it becomes irecognisable even to its author...
imagine,for the sake of argument,an atheist,quoting biblical verses in order to stress to a bliever,that the bible teaches anything but moral conduct...Is resorting to biblical quotations(by the atheist) to make a point,a right reserved exclusivley to rabbis and monks....Can't an atheist point out biblical discrepancies without being accused of believing in God..Should he be labeled a "believer" just for knowing ,and reciting from his opponents sacred book...
Similarly, knowing what the aids hypothesis claims about the duration of the manifestation of symptoms in aids patients,and quoting it to champ,does not mean I agree with whatever the hypothesis suggests...the quotation only serve to highlight the apparent contradiction,with regards to blood transfusion contraction of Aids...
If,tainted blood transfusion causes Aids ,than how come taking measures to reduce the risk of contaminated blood did not result in less blood transfusion associated aids following those measures,but rather an even higher rate of contraction?
champ's answer was "it takes years to develop AIDS from HIV...3 years after...what is that" ...
in response I quoted "Aids Facts"by John Langone showing that Champs reply stands in contrast to the Hiv/Aids hypothesis he so dearly accepts without question...consequently and in light of that contradiction,another reason,that is not related to HIV contaminated blood must be found to explain the above dilema...Duesberg has always maintained that HIV is not,and has never been the cause of immuno deficiency,in one of his articles he suggests the following concerning transfusion related Aids:"The thesis that Hiv transfusions cause Aids in other patients is also entirely uncontrolled.Indeed,a controlled study might be difficult because 50% of American patients(other than hemophiliacs)die within 1 year,and 60% within three 3 years a f t e r t r a n s f u s i o n-long before the average 10 years HIV is said(by the establishment) to require for pathogenicity have elapsed.the pathogenic conditions that necessitated the transfusions are obviously deadlier than the h y p o t h e t i c a l pathogen HIV"
Champs continuously and forcibly rapes Duesberg's words,insisting on impregnating him with his o w n HIV/aids hypothesis seed...
He asks for example "what Duesberg is really saying by suggesting that the statement HIV causes Aids is Wrong?",and accusing him of "using philosophy"...
amazing and facinating as it may seem,anyone aquainted with the dissenting camp assumption in general,and Duesberg's articles in particular,knows fully well that the A B C of the Drug/Aids hypothesis is that"HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS"(Drugs do!)
No if's or but's...
Following are several quotations:
Human immunodeficiency virus(HIV)is N O T THE CAUSE OF AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle,as well as six cardinals rules of virology....HIV is in violation of Koch's postulate because it is n o t possible to detect f r e e virus,provirus,or viral RNA in ALL cases of Aids....HIV can not be isolated from 20% to 50% of Aids cases,moreover isolation is very indirect...In contrast to A L L pathogenic viruses,that cause degenerative diseases,HIV is N O T biochemically active, in the disease syndrom it is named for...It actively infects only 1 in 104 to >105 T cells.Undr these conditions HIV can not 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,more than enough to compensate for the losses due to HIV.It is p a r a d o x i c a l that HIV is said to cause aids only A F T E R the onset of a n t i viral i m m u n i t y detected by a positive "Aids test",because A L L other viruses are most pathogenic b e f o r e immunity.The immunity against HIV is so effective that free viruses is undetectable,which is why HIV is hard to transmit...HIV remains INACTIVE during Aids,thus the "Aids test"identifies effective natural vaccination,the ULTIMATE PROTECTION against viral disease...
In light of the above it seems that Champ and the HIV/Aids establishment are the ones engaged in "philosophy"instead of responding to the quoted scientific F A C T S(in contrast to an "hypothesis")in a point by point refutation...
To this day Blattner and his associates failed to explain how is it possible that a virus that bearly infects 1 in a 104 T cells, is responsible for any immune deficiency...
The assumption that HIV is a harmless virus,which does not cause Aids,is so unbelievably,startling and disturbing to Champ(in this case),that he even fails to accepts and acknowledge simple written English sentences...he hears the music but refuses to listen to the tunes...he still can not believe that when duesberg's writes that "Hiv does not cause Aids"he really means it!
relentlessly he twists and misquotes :"Duesberg defines Aids Himself"he says "as the presence of of 30 opportunistic diseases ..."But Duesberg makes no such definition what so ever the CDC does,he simply uses their own definition :"Aids is a syndrom of 25 parasitic neoplastic and noninfectious diseases,including in the united states 53% pneumonia,19%wasting disease,13%candidiasis,11%Kaposi sarcoma,6%dementia,3%hlymphoma,and 2% tuberculosis"(Centers for Disease Control(1990)HIV/Aids Surveillance Jan issue)
Duesberg points of the existence of 4621 documented cases of complete immune deficiency with no trace of HIV exposure,and in contrast to Koch's postulate that the virus must be found in affected tissue in ALL CASES OF THE DISEASE;the medical facts,which Blattner has not yet disputed are:that no HIV at all can be isolated from at least 10 to 20 % of Aids patients,no direct trace of HIV could be found in the majority of Aids cases ,and HIV can not be isolated from the cells of in the lesions of Kaposi's sarcoma,nor from nerve cells of patients with Aids dementiaa."
Inspite of the above the CDC "disagrees" because"HIV is necessary for Aids"but yet provides no explanation as to "W H Y "HIV is necessary for Aids particularly in light of the fact that P R I OR CLAIMS for etiology without genetic or mulecular evidence for activity proved to be some of the most spectacular misdiagnoses in virology(based on epidemiological evidence" scientists concluded" that Epstein Barr virus was the cause of Burkitt's lymphoma until the first virus free lymphomas were found...On epidemiological grounds,human and bovine retroviruses were believed to cause leukemia after bizarre latent periods of up to 40 years in humans,but finding these viruses in billions of normal cells,of millions of asymptomatic carriers has cast doubt on this view)...in response to the CDC unscientifically based insistence ' Duesberg responds:"that the HIV/Aids,hypothesis is the ONLY link that hold together the 30 heterogenous Aids diseases.Aids is define as a syndrom that occurs only in the presence of HIV.for example,if tuberculosis occurs in the presence of antibodies to HIV it is Aids.In the absence of those antibodies,it is tuberculosis.Given this definition the link between Aids and HIV is unfalsifiable....however,to date,the HIV Aids hypothesis remains just that an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS.It is supported O N L Y by circumstantial evidence,primarily by the claim that all Aids patients carry antibodies against HIV.But this correlation is biased by the practice of excluding from Aids statistics those patients with AIDS DEFINING diseases in whom no trace of HIV can be found,the disease of such a patient will be diagnosed either by its old name,for example,pnumonia or Kaposi sarcoma,or will be called idiopathic CD-4 Lymphcytopenia"
This kind of scientific verbal arm twisting, and linguistic acrobatics propagated by the CDC, instead of providing hard proof in the form of Biochemical evidence to explain once an for all WHY is HIV necessary for Aids when it is scientifically proven to bearly infect any T cells at all brings to mind Bill clinton's twisting of the word "is"...
How long will the CDC and its Money hungry pharmaceutical cronies will be able to mislead the American and world public?!
Duesberg does not "think""that some retro viruses cause disease...but this point will be delt with in the 2nd part of this post
good night
Asteroth
Similar threads
