HIV Test bogus, says PCR inventor

Great Debates
201

True. However, say you tested positive for smallpox antibodies. Does that mean you’re ill from smallpox, or have had it in the past? Obviously your overall state of health would have to be considered. You may be perfectly healthy.

However, as I understand it, with HIV, the latter possibility is not even considered; one you’ve tested +ve, you “never” officially “recover” from HIV/AIDS, even though you’re otherwise healthy. I think this is the heart of his question.

I don’t think anyone has tried to rebut any of the papers discussing why the HIV tests are bogus and don’t test for virus anyway, so I won’t bring them up again.

Oh, why not. EVERYBODY REACTS POSITIVE ON THE ELISA TEST FOR HIV By Roberto Giraldo: "For the last 6 years I have been working at the laboratory of clinical immunology in one of the most prestigious University Hospitals in the City of New York. Here I have had the opportunity to personally run and get to know in detail the current tests used for the diagnosis of HIV status, namely, the ELISA, Western Blott and Viral Load tests.

“…The following are three possible explanations for why undiluted specimens of blood always react positive at the ELISA test:…”

I guess HIV research has made these complaints obsolete:

"It has already been mentioned that the etiologic roles of the HIVs in AIDS **must remain conjectural **as long as at least two issues remain unresolved. The first concerns the possibility that the association of HIV seropositivity with AIDS is without significance regarding the etiologic role of HIV. The second is that proposals concerning indirect mechanisms accounting for HIV-induced loss of helper T lymphocytes remain without support from observations made in vivo.

"…It had always been dogmatically asserted by AIDS experts that sufficient viral replication follows infection with HIV so that enough viral protein is made to induce an antibody response. Thus, we have been told that after a three month “window” of seronegativity following infection, seroconversion ensues and the infected individual becomes reactive on the HIV antibody test. There is a frequently reproduced graphic representation showing this hypothetical course of events - an initial burst of viral replication after infection followed by the appearance of antibody three months later. However, in the absence of models of human retrovirus infections, there is absolutely no basis to justify this authoritative depiction of the course of infection. It is yet another example of speculation being presented as fact that has typified presentations on AIDS.

"…it is now known that **insufficient numbers of helper T Lymphocytes are actively infected **to account for their loss by a direct cell-killing effect of the virus. Therefore, the predilection of HIV for helper T Lymphocytes is of questionable significance with respect to the depletion of this lymphocyte subset.

“There is now **a desperate search for indirect mechanisms **whereby HIV could still, even at a distance, be responsible for the death of helper T lymphocytes …”

But then again:

"What’s the significance of all the non-infectious HIV? I asked. I had no idea how he could work himself out of this corner, but even I was stunned by his response:“The non-infectious particles [HIV] are pathogenic.”

"Now here was a first. I don’t think that anybody’s ever gone on record before proposing that non-infectious virus could cause disease.

"I sat there flabbergasted, noticing the murmur that had broken out. In my astonished state I realized there was nothing else to be said.

"My God, I thought. Talk about a rich source of research opportunity. The pathogenicity of non-infectious viruses. …

"My sense is that the audience did, given the intense murmuring, which continued even after the lecture had been dismissed. On the way out of the room an Indian scientist grabbed my arm and asked, “Did you hear that?”

The parallels are just too rich to resist:

"With more than ten times the funding of the old 1964 commission, the SMON Research Commission became the largest Japanese research program ever devoted to a single disease. Its first meeting was held in the heavily affected Okayama province in early September. The consensus view among Japanese scientists had completely focused on some unknown virus as the probable cause of the disease. The naming of Kono, Japan’s most respected virologist, as chairman symbolically established the new commission’s priorities.

"[Gajdusek] had **never actually isolated a virus [according to some here, an unnecessary trifle – ts] **but instead had ground up the diseased brains of dead kuru victims and injected these unpurified mixtures into the brains of living monkeys. … Gajdusek published his findings in the world’s oldest scientific journal, Nature, and was lauded by his fellow virologists. … It was … the first known human virus thought to have an incubation time between infection and disease measured in years, rather than days or weeks.

"These claims were made by very large and respected research establishments; therefore, Kono could not afford to ignore them. …

"Fortunately for the Japanese people, several researchers on the commission were not virus hunters, and these scientists actually rediscovered the evidence for a toxin-SMON hypothesis.

And what of my speculation regarding the objectivity of those on the HIV-AIDS dole?

"Referring here to the tentative fingering of clioquinol by the Maekawa group, Kono observed that too many medical doctors refused to recognize the possibility of an iatrogenic disease (one caused by the doctor’s treatment). They understandably disliked the idea that a drug might cause some of the very symptoms for which it was prescribed in the first place. …

“The epidemic’s toll had officially ended in 1973 with 11,007 victims, including thousands of fatalities. **Angered upon learning of Ciba-Geigy’s disregard of previously reported clioquinol toxicity, many of these patients filed a lawsuit **in May of 197I against the Japanese government, Ciba-Geigy of Japan, fifteen other distributors of the drug, and twenty-three doctors and hospitals…”

Ouch.

202

edwino,

First let me say I appreciate the time and serious discussion you bring to what you of course consider a lunatic convention. That you don’t often lapse into the mindless and pointless blubbering too often seen here (perhaps myself included sometimes ;)) is laudable.

And now, my blubbering continues.

OK, bear with me some more. If the big three haven’t been answered, how do you know what you’re isolating is a retro/virus? Your answer:

But

"Whenever and wherever reverse transcriptase activity was detected it was rashly assumed that retroviruses were at work. This turned out to be a grave error, because it was later found that the enzyme occurred **in all living matter, **proving that reverse transcriptase activity had nothing to do with retroviruses per se.(15)

"Further research showed that at least 10% of mammalian DNA was composed of repetitive sequences which were referred to as “nonsense genes”, parts of which, nonetheless, were described as “retroviral genes”. They exist in their hundreds if not thousands. Some of them can even replicate independently and jump within and between chromosomes, and for this reason became known as retrotransposons.

"In the laboratory they can be made to migrate, and when this happens reverse transcriptase is invariably detected,…

Lanka [seems to think some of the big three may be easy in cases other than HIV. Could be wrong, of course:

"Because all this was already well known in 1983 it is incomprehensible that Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a member of Montagnier’s group, as well as Gallo’s group itself in 1984, claimed to have discovered a new virus, when all they did was to demonstrate reverse transcriptase activity, and to publish photographs of cellular particles without proof that they were viruses. They could neither isolate them nor show that they were responsible for creating the observed reverse transcriptase activity nor the tissue abnormalities from which they were obtained.(17) They concluded: “the role of the virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined”.(18)

"The isolation and purification of a real virus is a straightforward matter, because unlike cells, viruses of one species are always of the same size and shape, and can be readily separated from other cell components by standard techniques. A control experiment is to try an isolation with putative non- infected material in exactly the same way as the supposedly infected material. Nothing should be isolated in this case.

“To identify a virus definitively, a first and simple step is to photograph isolated particles of it in an electron microscope, and they must look like the viral particles observed in cells, body fluids or cell cultures to distinguish them from other cellular particles which look like viruses, but are not. Proteins making up the viral coat must then be separated from each other and photographed. This produces a pattern which is characteristic of the species of virus. A similar separation and identification procedure must be gone through for the DNA or RNA of the virus. Only after the viral proteins and nucleic acid components have been properly identified, is it legitimate to speak of a new virus.”

Is he just pulling our chain, or what?

Sorry, I thought I filtered out most of them.

BTW, how did the SMON debacle play in most journals here?

"Writing in the journal Cancer Research, Strandstrom and colleagues reported that 72/144 **(50%) of dog blood samples “obtained from the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, University of California, Davis” tested in commercial Western blot assays, “reacted with one or more HIV recombinant proteins **[gp120–21.5%, gp41–23%, p31–22%, p24-- 43%]” [4]. Assuming Californian dogs are not infected with HIV (as did the authors) one must conclude these data are further proof of antibody cross reactivity to many of the “HIV” proteins.

"…[url=http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vttests.htm]Yes, I know that we have all been shown pictures](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slartefact.htm) of something called HIV but that should come as no surprise because, in the extensive retrovirology literature, retrovirus-like particles are commonplace. For a start try insects, reptiles, fish and tapeworms. They are also found in the majority of healthy human placentas and while it is true that electron microscopy reveals retroviral-like particles in 90% of enlarged lymph nodes from AIDS patients, the identical particles can also be found in 90% of enlarged lymph nodes from patients who do not have AIDS and who are not at risk for developing AIDS [6]. …

“…And in 1992, in the only study of its type, French researchers found the HIV PCR non-reproducible and the agreement between the PCR and the HIV Western blot was found to vary between 40-100% and was especially poor when fragments of more than one gene were sought [7]. In this study there were several PCR negative/HIV positive as well as several PCR positive/HIV negative samples. In other words, the two tests don’t fit. As far as which test proves HIV infection, you pay your money and you take your pick.”

203

More than you wanted to know about AIDS:
http://www.healthgap.org/

Speaking as someone who works at a clinic, there’s only two comments I really have to make. Firstly, if HIV has no relationship with aids, it’s a darn lucky concidence that all the medication that we give people makes them live longer and more healthily.

Second, and this is good news, in October, South Africa should finally cover antiretrovirals in their medical practices, the president finally having given in as deaths rose and doctors committed civil disobedience.

204

[sorry, can’t edit formatting in prev post - contd from goof point]
Lanka seems to think some of the big three may be easy in cases other than HIV. Could be wrong, of course:

"Because all this was already well known in 1983 it is incomprehensible that Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, a member of Montagnier’s group, as well as Gallo’s group itself in 1984, claimed to have discovered a new virus, when all they did was to demonstrate reverse transcriptase activity, and to publish photographs of cellular particles without proof that they were viruses. They could neither isolate them nor show that they were responsible for creating the observed reverse transcriptase activity nor the tissue abnormalities from which they were obtained.(17) They concluded: “the role of the virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined”.(18)

"The isolation and purification of a real virus is a straightforward matter, because unlike cells, viruses of one species are always of the same size and shape, and can be readily separated from other cell components by standard techniques. A control experiment is to try an isolation with putative non- infected material in exactly the same way as the supposedly infected material. Nothing should be isolated in this case.

“To identify a virus definitively, a first and simple step is to photograph isolated particles of it in an electron microscope, and they must look like the viral particles observed in cells, body fluids or cell cultures to distinguish them from other cellular particles which look like viruses, but are not. Proteins making up the viral coat must then be separated from each other and photographed. This produces a pattern which is characteristic of the species of virus. A similar separation and identification procedure must be gone through for the DNA or RNA of the virus. Only after the viral proteins and nucleic acid components have been properly identified, is it legitimate to speak of a new virus.”

Is he just pulling our chain, or what?

Sorry, I thought I filtered out most of them.

BTW, how did the SMON debacle play in most journals here?

"Writing in the journal Cancer Research, Strandstrom and colleagues reported that 72/144 **(50%) of dog blood samples “obtained from the Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, University of California, Davis” tested in commercial Western blot assays, “reacted with one or more HIV recombinant proteins **[gp120–21.5%, gp41–23%, p31–22%, p24-- 43%]” [4]. Assuming Californian dogs are not infected with HIV (as did the authors) one must conclude these data are further proof of antibody cross reactivity to many of the “HIV” proteins.

"…Yes, I know that we have all been shown pictures of something called HIV but that should come as no surprise because, in the extensive retrovirology literature, retrovirus-like particles are commonplace. For a start try insects, reptiles, fish and tapeworms. They are also found in the majority of healthy human placentas and while it is true that electron microscopy reveals retroviral-like particles in 90% of enlarged lymph nodes from AIDS patients, the identical particles can also be found in 90% of enlarged lymph nodes from patients who do not have AIDS and who are not at risk for developing AIDS [6]. …

“…And in 1992, in the only study of its type, French researchers found the HIV PCR non-reproducible and the agreement between the PCR and the HIV Western blot was found to vary between 40-100% and was especially poor when fragments of more than one gene were sought [7]. In this study there were several PCR negative/HIV positive as well as several PCR positive/HIV negative samples. In other words, the two tests don’t fit. As far as which test proves HIV infection, you pay your money and you take your pick.”

205

The toxicity of the meds have been reduced, so that’s not surprising. Fear of death also has an effect on overall health practices of the “infected”. Not all are so lucky, however (apparently I have to repeat this):

"Over my 20-year career as a pharmaceutical drug designer, I’ve attended about nine Gordon Conferences, where I have presented papers. Usually those conferences related to my specialty: proteases and the drugs that inhibit them.

"But did eliminating viral load make the patients healthier? Markowitz had nothing to say about this during his lecture. Surely if the patients had gotten better when their HIV viral load went down, Markowitz would have bragged about it. But the subject didn’t come up until I raised it in the question period.

How are we doing? I asked. “Some are healthy enough to work,” he said happily. The implication was that were it not for the cocktails, these patients would not be healthy enough to work, but I suspected this was not the case.

Markowitz’s smile vanished when I asked, During the 11 months on therapy, when their viral loads were undetectable, did your patients do better, stay the same, or do worse? He didn’t say a word. It was an embarrassing moment for the audience.

I interrupted the uncomfortable silence by restating the question. Your patients should be doing better, right? Again Markowitz was speechless. He either didn’t know how his patients had done over the course of therapy (which is very unlikely) or they were not doing well-despite having HIV “viral loads” of zero. During this revealing silence the lecture was ended by the announcement of a coffee break.

I left with one of my curiosities satisfied: the press accounts of miracles attributed to cocktail therapy-the fabled “Lazarus effect”-weren’t showing up in scientific studies."

Of course, since he’s an evil dissenter, Rasnick could be making all this up.

206

You’re confusing AIDS-science with real science:

"In 1984, when Gallo announced at that historic press conference that the cause of AIDS had been found in HIV, all speculations about causation came to a screeching halt. At first, I was exuberant. This retrovirus provided the clarity we all needed. I now had an object upon which to apply my art as an organic chemist. I began to explore the possibilities of making inhibitors for the protease (a class of enzymes) produced by HIV. But when I recalled that a friend at Abbott Laboratories had been working for years on just such protease inhibitors, I pulled out of the race.

"I’m glad I did, because before long I was having serious doubts about the viral hypothesis of AIDS.** I spent countless hours, as did many scientists, devising ingenious explanations **for how HIV could destroy the immune systems of its victims. But by the end of 1985, I was convinced that **something was fundamentally wrong with the basic assumptions **that had become entrenched in the mega-institutions of science and medicine. The more I examined HIV, the less it made sense that this largely inactive, barely detectable virus could cause such devastation …

"With that announcement, Gallo had publicly leapfrogged straight across the scientific process - across peer-review and analysis, across the very checks and balances of science. He made no attempt to demonstrate his claim - in fact, only 50 percent of his sample patients had any trace of HIV - but fed it straight to the global media, which broadcast it without hesitation. … Now a new standard of **brash, unscientific science was set, **and all others took their lead from it. Since then, the media have painted a false picture to suggest that virtually every scientist and doctor in the world supports the HIV hypothesis of AIDS, with the lone dissenting voice of Peter Duesberg, who is now defunded and all but exiled from American science. **In truth, there are thousands of dissenting voices **throughout the world, who have been trying for years to get our opinions heard, counted, factored in. The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV Hypothesis was founded by former Harvard professor Charles Thomas in 1991. Today more than 500 scientists, health-care workers, and other professionals have signed on.

"What distinguishes this group? By and large, its members are not dependent on grants from the National Institutes of Health for their livelihood. The signatories who are Nobel laureates are immune from bureaucratic intimidation. Many of the academic members of the group who publicly support Duesberg are emeritus professors, whose careers can’t be terminated. Younger academics, on the other hand, who have seen the establishment mercilessly punish and excommunicate someone of Duesberg’s stature have clearly gotten the message: They keep their mouths shut and bow down before the golden calf of HIV.

"**Serge Lang, the legendary Yale mathematician **and member of the National Academy of Sciences, has had so many letters to editors concerning the HIV scandal refused publication that he started sending checks along with his letters - the equivalent of buying space in which to speak. (Some editors were sufficiently embarrassed by this tactic that they published Lang’s letters and returned his checks.)

“There are countless more stories of censorship, intimidation, and financial and professional manipulation. But the discordant data still sits there, indestructible and unresolved.”

Oh, goody. I assume you do know. Please educate us.

207

That would be because they don’t show that they are bogus, but merely that the ELISA is very rough, which isn’t really an important issue, regardless how much you insist on it.

Once again, your cites ignore the extensive molecular data available.

I assume the same person would have been totally flabbergasted by the suggestion that a single type of proteins could be pathogenic. Too bad that prions are accepted by now, debunking any and all claims that a scientific establishment would repress dissenters successfully.
The bottom line, Truesceptic, is that you cite material that is a)outdated and b)patently false or c)without any relevancy for the discussion at hand, although you lack the expertise to see so.

208

1992 You DARE post a reference to 1992 as THE ONLY STUDY OF THIS TYPE???

Look, I warned you before, but this beats it. Despite the fact that I have already pointed you at papers sequencing the entire HIV genome, you DARE CLAIM that the HIV PCR is non-reproducible?

I would suggest you finally come up with some CURRENT literature, rather than citing antiquated data. Presenting a publication that is older than 10 years as the status quo of testing accuracy is propaganda at its worst.

209

Interesting how you keep focusing on ELISA, when Western Blot and PCR are included in the trash heap - and in the critique.

Namely …?

You seem to have missed the words “non-infectious virus”, or are unable to process said words correctly.

210

No. You are confusing claims raised by someone with the state of things. And your cite is a particular bad example that proves how unreliable and biased your sources are.

Says a chemist, who has no idea whatsoever of how a living organism works.

This, my friend, is a piece of ultranationalistic drivel of the worst kind. It is so ridiculous that only someone without any idea about the scientific community would dare cite it.

For your information: The National Institutes of Health are the US National Institutes of Health. Their relevancy is ZERO for a researcher outside the US.

The claim of the establishment excommunicating a scientist is hogwash. Stanley Prusiner would not have received a Nobel Prize if such were possible.

What, precisely, do you find unusual about letters on a biological issue by a MATHEMATICIAN are rejected? Should we next hear the plumber around the block for his expertise?

The fact that he is a legendary Yale mathematician gives him no expertise whatsoever for the issue at hand.

Sorry, Truesceptic, but you pretty much disqualified yourself with this one. It is a propaganda pamphlet of the worst kind that does not even bother to try and make sense in and of itself. You, apparently, aren’t bothered by that.

211

If you looked carefully, the claim was made in 1997. The implication (stop me if I’m going too fast) is that in 1997, at least as of the time the article was written, no other studies of that type had been done. Since you were apparently unable to counter this factually, I have to assume it holds true. You are of course still welcome to prove your claim.

A colleague of mine takes a similarly hostile tone when arguing. Last thing he argued was that Saddam got NOTHING from Iraq’s oil-for-food program. After the UN acknowledged that in fact Saddam was skimming quite a bit off the top, he simply resorted to little snide remarks. Not sure why that came to mind.

Did you miss my reply? Do you have one of your own?

  1. If you dispute the 1992 study, please explain.
  2. If a more recent test has been done, a) please advise, and b) please explain why you prefer THAT scientific study to the OTHER scientific study.
  3. Lighten up, Francis. It’ll be a decade at least before HIV-AIDS is recognized as another SMON.
  4. When’s the last time Einstein published anything about his theories? I’m sorry you had to reject General Relativity because it’s so old. Still waiting for that paper that confirms the earth is round? — Do authors have to publish the same papers over and over just to be considered “valid” by your ilk?
212

I had no idea you knew him personally.

Your innocence in such matters is touching.

So is your bigotry. Gee, what could a mere mathematician dare to write about AIDS? Oh, wait, that’s right, you wouldn’t even bother to find out: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/slang.htm

There are many kinds of religions in many garbs. The unfortunate scientists of SMON - and the patients they killed - know that now.

Sorry, OliverH, you pretty much disqualified yourself with this one. It is a propaganda pamphlet of the worst kind that does not even bother to try and make sense in and of itself. You, apparently, aren’t bothered by that.

213

Hello? Remember that paper on HIV genome sequence I pointed you to? I already proved it wrong.

Except that you are the one consistently ignoring evidence.

No, I didn’t miss your reply, but you obviously missed my reply to your reply.

PCR is used in sequencing. Given the repeated sequencing of the HIV genome, from numerous clones, and given the continuous use of PCR in HIV tests, it is evident that the method, as used today, is very much reliable.

You made a claim, you prove that it is valid today. I prefer newer studies because the methodology is constantly being refined, and methods available 5 years ago are extremely crude to methods being used today in many fields of molecular biology. As such, unreliability of a method used 5 years ago is a non-argument.

You are obviously unfamiliar with academic publishing in general. The theory of relativity is constantly being tested, and new publications confirming its predictions are constantly being published. I didn’t say older papers were invalid, I said they had to be corroborated by newer data, and as such, your implications, as usual, lack any basis in fact.

What you neglect, on top, is that given the development in the field you are talking about, the larger number of your cites correspond to pre-quantum publications in physics. The development in molecular and cellular biology in the last 15 years has been so rapid that data as young as five years old needs to be carefully checked against newer publications.

214

Unnecessary. I hold a degree in chemistry myself and am aware of what chemists are taught and what they aren’t taught.

My innocence, yeah. That’s the innocence that makes you the layperson and me the scientist I assume?

What makes you think that I didn’t bother to find out? Oh, wait, I assume it’s the fact that I didn’t immediately convert. Look, the fact that you are unaware with academic publication procedures isn’t proof of anything.

Not the least the fact that some of Lang’s claims are, in part, plain and simply wrong -such as the lack of mechanism- or show a lack of understanding of the biology in question -such as his comments on chimps. Lang plain and simply lacks the expertise to write an expert letter on the issue, and as such, his letters don’t get published in academic journals -unless he writes on mathematics. He is not an expert, and as such, his statements aren’t of interest to the community.

Hardly, since I didn’t blindly cite others and SHOWED how your pamphlet doesn’t make sense. But you didn’t even attempt to debunk me on that, completely leaving out any adressing the NIH issue.

But maybe it is your intent to propagate nationalist propaganda?

215

Looks like you need to take Biology 101 and Logic 101. This latest rant of yours is so incoherent, I don’t know where to start.

The HIV virus has never been isolated, so there is no way that Koch’s postulates can be satisfied:

  1. The specific organism should be shown to be present in all cases of animals suffering from a specific disease but shold not be found in healthy
    animals.

  2. The specific microorganism should be ISOLATED from the diseased animal and grown in pure culture on artificial laboratory media.

  3. This freshly isolated microorganism, when inoculated into a healthy laboratory animal, should cause the same disease seen in the original animal.

  4. The microorganism should be reisolated in pure culture from the experimental infection.

What part of ISOLATED do you not understand? The whole HIV-AIDS hypothesis is a house of cards; you pull out the ISOLATION card and the whole house collapses. Without a pure virus, the ELISA assay has no specificity, which is why it cross-reacts with dozens of other diseases, and random proteins in dog sera. How do you know the reverse transcripase activity or “retroviral particles” are not of human origin or contaminants? You don’t, because you have never isolated the virus and satisfied Koch’s postulates. There is as much evidence that “HIV infection” is an effect of AIDS as it is a cause.

All of your claims are debunked in these 2 articles. Read them if you want to know what is going on:

http://healtoronto.com/annex/keyquestions.html

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/HIVnotAIDS1.html

Your last statement is complete nonsense: “There is absolute no excuse for citing data you knew to be unreliable, and it invalidates any and all complaints you raise about an alleged lack of isolation of the virus.” First of all, I did not know any data to be unreliable, you have given no evidence that it is unreliable. Second, what the F**K does that have to do with the failure of AIDS scientists to isolate a virus?

These irrational arguments, and ambushed’s claims that I am somehow “anti-science” when I am in fact applying more rigourous scientific standards than you and him, disqualifies you from any further discussion on this topic.

216

Cite? All the evidence I’ve read suggests there is no increased risk of tissue trauma in anal sex vs. vaginal sex. The only thing I’ve read is that rectal tissue is thinner than vaginal tissue, and that makes it easier to absorb diseased cells. (I’ll find cites if I have the time.)

You’re also overlooking the cultural revolution going on in the late 70’s/early 80’s in the gay community, which has an awful lot to do about gay male sexual attitudes vs. heterosexual sexual attitudes, which in turn impacted why the gay community was hardest hit and not the straight community (unlike many African countries).

I miss Jillgat. :frowning:

Esprix

217

You are right, it is a coincidence:

Two recent papers published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases demonstrate remarkable effects of the anti-proteases used in HAART. The anti-proteases are apparently highly active against Candida albicans (25) as well as against Pneumocystis carinii (26), two micro-organisms responsible for severe opportunistic infections in the majority of progressing AIDS cases. Consequently, the sometimes striking, transient
clinical improvement observed in AIDS patients treated with HAART could possibly have an alternative interpretation, the improvements resulting from the effects of the drugs on
Candida and/or on Pneumocystis, and having nothing to do with possible anti-retroviral effects against the alleged HIV.

25.Cassone A et al. In vitro and in vivo anticandidal activity of human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitors. Jour Infect Diseases 1999; 180 :448-453.

26.Atzori C et al. In vitro activity of human immunodeficiency virus inhibitors against Pneumocystis carinii. Jour Infect Diseases 2000; 181: 1629-1634.

http://healtoronto.com/annex/keyquestions.html

218

I have no cites offhand but I had read it before(yeah I know…around HERE…big whoop right?)…then again cites in THIS thread tend to get dissected thinner than a Paramecium in High School lab class looking for bias or faulty methodology

It stands to reason though…if this was NOT true then there never would of been a question of some claiming AIDS was a “gay” disease in the first place if the risks were just as great with vaginal sex as anal since even in the beginning there would of been no difference between who became infected(gay vs straight)

That along with the fact the anal passage doesn’t produce its’ own lubrication therefore that alone could account for a increased likelihood of tearing

Plus as you mentioned anal tissue is thinner than vaginal tissue…to MY mind anyway three good reasons for supposing what I said earlier was correct even without independent cites

Back to the original OP…for some reason I keep thinking about the researcher who discovered some ulcers were caused by a certain bacteria and everything he went through to PROVE absolutely that he was right and almost everyone else in the scientific community was wrong…he went through hell getting anything published and for a time had his reputation raked over the coals

I’m not saying this situation is identical but you have to admit there is precedent for having our doubts…there ARE very compelling NON-scientific reason$ for some in the scientific community not to want to upset the apple cart

You can’t blame the average Joes for wondering especially since there seems to be alot of unanswered questions for which NEITHER side has the answers

219

It does not stand to reason. The bathhouse culture of anonymous, unprotected sex lead to AIDS spreading quickly in homosexuals(I’m not saying that all gays were visiting bathhouses and Ys for anonymous, unprotected sex. But a large number did.). As has already been posted, AIDS was originally called GRIDS-Gay Related Immune Disorder Syndrome. The culture of unprotected sex with multiple partners was the problem.

220

I’m not as familiar with the gay culture back then but given the relatively small numbers of homosexuals in the population compared to heterosexuals(many of whom had unprotected sex with multiple partners as well) I find it hard to believe THAT and that ALONE was the reason for the numbers to be so skewed

I still think it’s more likely that anal is more of a risky practice gay or straight and since far fewer straights indulged they were less at risk

Just think of the numbers here…I’ve heard there are anywhere from 2-8% of people are gay…a certain percentage of those would be female and presumable some of the males had committed relationships and some used protection…right?

So those left would have to account for most of the remainder of potential cases of “GRIDS-Gay Related Immune Disorder Syndrome”

Now compare that to how many HETEROSEXUALS slept around and had unprotected sex…all it would take is just a few percentage points of the population to equal or even exceed the gays who had gotten infected IF there was no difference between anal VS vaginal sex risk-wise

But we know that never happened back then and not now