77 replies to this topic

[bobdrake12]

Limitless,


The article below discusses a lawsuit that was being brought against GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of AZT.

bob

http://www.aras.ab.c...-courtcase.html

AZT: Life Saving or Death Dealing?

Alive magazine, December 2001


A South African court case might answer the question of whether AZT, the foremost AIDS pharmaceutical is life saving or death dealing. The lawsuit only claims damages for one man believed killed by AZT, but if successful, the precedent could send shock waves around the world.

AZT is the foundation stone of the AIDS drug construction for several reasons. It was the first drug approved (in 1987), and it is still one of the biggest sellers, although usually used in two or three drug ‘cocktails’, rather than alone. It is also the main drug used to prevent HIV transmission from mothers to their babies, and is the drug most often used instead of a placebo in clinical trials of new AIDS drugs. This lawsuit could be the trumpet call that brings the walls of AIDS Inc. tumbling down.

AZT has a well documented, deep, dark side, with numerous debilitating or fatal side effects. One of the most common advertisements in AIDS journals is for a substance that is designed to combat anemia caused by AZT, anemia so severe that without transfusions of blood or substitutes patients will die. Much of the damage to blood, bone marrow, nerves and muscle is believed to arise from effects on mitochondria, the essential energy regulating organelles inside every cell.

The lawsuit was brought against GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of AZT, by the wife of James Hayman, who died less than a year after starting a course of AZT. In July 1997 Hayman was prescribed one month’s supply of AZT, along with the similar drug 3TC, based on a positive HIV test and low CD4 immune cell counts. There were no visible signs of illness at this time. Immediately, he became very sick, experiencing continual diarrhea, vomiting, headaches, tiredness, anemia, muscle weakness, cramps, pain and weight loss. Because of this, he stretched his prescription of AZT and 3TC over two months, and refused to take renew it. However, even after stopping his diarrhea, vomiting, tiredness, muscle weakness and weight loss continued. He died in June 1998, having lost about one-third of his total body weight.

The lawsuit is unique, and of such great importance, because it does not claim that an unexpected side effect of AZT caused death, but that activation of the drug in the human body has been proven impossible, and that the only effect of the drug can be toxicity. The implication is that the billions of dollars worth of AZT that have been sold have only hastened the deaths of AIDS victims, exposing GlaxoSmithKline to a potentially fatal onslaught of lawsuits. ]

AZT is supposed to work by interfering with the most basic mechanism of life - cell division. DNA is a chain of molecular beads known as nucleotides. One of these is Thymidine, of which AZT is a defective analog, a bead that can be threaded on to the chain, but that stops further growth through the addition of natural nucleotides. This mechanism is believed to stop HIV from inserting itself into human DNA, but it also has the potential to stop normal cell division as well as replication of mitochondria.

AZT can only be incorporated into DNA after it has three phosphate molecules added to it (as is true for normal nucleotides as well), a process known as triphosphorylation. This is because it is prescribed as a nucleoside (without any phosphates) rather than a nucleotide. The phosphates must be added by natural mechanisms within the cell, a process that the drug label specifically claims does occur.

The problem is that most of the available scientific evidence shows that only a tiny fraction of AZT is ever triphosphorylated. Sixteen studies are quoted in the lawsuit that each show that only a tiny fraction (1/100th or 1/1000th) is triphosphorylated. A scientific review paper published in 1999 provided a great deal of ammunition for this argument. Not surprisingly, this research has been widely ignored by an AIDS research community dependent on funding from pharmaceutical companies, staffed by researchers determined to get rich by inventing the next new ‘AZT’.

It is rare for lawyers to be highly educated in such technical issues, but in this case Anthony Brink, the plaintiff’s counsel, had a reason to devote hundreds of hours of his personal time to the necessary research. He was a close friend of Mr. and Mrs. Hayman. He became suspicious of these drugs because of his friend’s rapid decline, and later became shocked and horrified when he discovered evidence that AZT simply cannot work. He is now determined to do what he could to ensure that AZT and related AIDS drugs are removed from the market.

If this lawsuit is successful it could destroy the entire pharmaceutical approach to AIDS. What good is a clinical trial that compared another AIDS drug against AZT, if AZT is determined to be useless and highly toxic? This could result in lawsuits not only from people who took AZT, but also from AIDS victims who were persuaded to take drugs that were ‘proven’ to work by comparison with AZT.

Success would radically change the current environment, where people diagnosed as HIV-positive or with AIDS must fight pressure from doctors and social service agencies to comply with their prescriptions. Many have discovered that avoiding exposure to chemicals (including illicit and prescription drugs), detoxification and reliance on a diet of whole, organic foods and carefully selected dietary supplements resolves many symptoms called ‘AIDS’.



Copyright © Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society, Friday, December 21, 2001.

[bobdrake12]

Note: Those who find this topic interesting, might also find the topics related to the FDA initiatied by topic started, The First Immortal, also of worth.

These can be found by clicking on the following URL:

http://www.imminst.o...ef8&act=SF&f=56

bob

[bobdrake12]

http://perso.wanadoo...e/azt/nhazt.htm


Aids by Prescription.

Extract from "AIDS: The failure of contemporary science" by Neville Hodgkinson


As a central part of his drug-Aids theory, Duesberg also took up and developed a critique of the anti-HIV drug AZT. He argued that the mode of action of this drug was such that it must eventually cause Aids when given to people who had tested HIV-positive, but were otherwise healthy.

Because it blocked DNA synthesis, it killed dividing cells anywhere in the body, causing ulceration, haemorrhaging, damage to hair and skin, wasting away of muscles, and destruction of the immune system and other blood cells. Uncritical acceptance of the HIV story had in any case been a disaster for those who tested antibody-positive. They had been given to understand that they were the doomed victims of a freak biological event, and that there was nothing they could do to alter their fate - a prophecy that could so easily become self-fulfilling. Giving them AZT amounted to 'Aids by prescription'; yet belief in AZT had also become a part of Aids ideology.

Much groundwork on AZT had been covered by John Lauritsen, who in a long series of articles published in the Native, and in Poison by Prescription: The AZT Story, had analysed the studies that allegedly demonstrated the drug's effectiveness, and concluded that there was no scientifically credible evidence that it had benefits of any kind. Although individual doctors insisted the drug did appear capable of producing short-term relief in patients whose immune systems had collapsed, those benefits - if indeed attributable to the drug itself, as opposed to a 'placebo' effect arising from the patient's hope in the drug - were rapidly outweighed by AZT's toxicity. There was no scientific case whatsoever for taking such an unquestionably toxic substance for such paltry returns, in fact every reason not to do so. According to some doctors, at least the same level of relief, without the devastating ill-effects, could be achieved by using well-established anti-microbial drugs to counter the specific diseases affiicting patients.

Documents obtained from the Food and Drug Administration through the Freedom of Information Act showed that the main trial of AZT, on the basis of which the drug received its licence, was invalid, because many of the rules for the conduct of such studies had been broken. It became apparent at an early stage, to both patients and doctors, who was receiving active drug and who was on the placebo (the dummy pill). The death rate among the placebo patients was far higher during the few weeks of the trial than ever seen before or since among Aids patients, suggesting either that a disproportionate number were at death's door before the trial began, or that their deaths were acceleratod because of their being deprived of conventional treatment for their infections during the course of the trial. Nearly half the patients on AZT, by contrast, were kept alive with blood transfusions, needed to overcome the anaemia caused by the treatment. Deaths in the AZT group accelerated after the trial was prematurely ended.

Most of these shortcomings had become apparent before the drug was given its licence, and they were the subject of extensive discussions. But the concerns were put on one side after intervention by a senior official of the FDA, which was under immense public and political pressure to fast-track an Aids drug on to the market.

Although taken off the shelf (as a failed anti-cancer drug) and investigated for its anti-viral potential by Burroughs Wellcome, the American arm of the British-based drug company Wellcome, AZT was hugely important to the two key US government institutions involved in the Aids fight, the NCI and the NIAID. Both were intimately involved in its testing and promotion, and key officials, particularly Dr Sam Broder, the NCI's clinical director, had worked extremely hard to get it to market. Burroughs Wellcome acknowledged this with a $55,000 donation, in 1985, in support of work on Aids at Broder's laboratory, and a further $25,000 the following year. That did not prevent Broder (later to become director of the NCI) from becoming furious with David Barry, the company's vicepresident of research, for making out at a 1987 inquiry into AZT's $10,000-a-year price tag that the drug was developed within the company with hardly any help from others. 'I view AZT as the battle of E1 Alamein,' Broder was to declare later. 'It is symbolic that we can do something against the virus that causes Aids; that we can make progress; that those who preached that it was inherently untreatable were wrong.'

In effect, AZT became an official government drug, a kind of talisman for HIV. Despite Lauritsen's dismissiveness of all the research surrounding it, some severely ill Aids patients did improve in the short term, and there were laboratory indications of potential benefit. Nevertheless there has been a totalitarianism about its marketing - not just in the US, but in the UK and elsewhere - that has been truly shameful and frightening. The hundreds of millions of dollars that it earned, along with the fact that it held a flagship role in the fight against HIV, helped generate a climate of opinion in scientific, medical and political circles that was fiercely intolerant of any alternative approaches to Aids. Left-wing author Martin WaIker performed a monumental rescarch effort in docomenting these abuses of power, which included putting enormous pressure on Aids patients to take the drug, in his 1993 book Dirty Medicine.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which had launched HIV to the world in 1984, did the same with a press conference for AZT in September 1986. It also issued press releases in August 1989, again on the basis of a prematurely terminated study, claiming that AZT 'delays progression of disease in certain HIV-infected persons who have not yet developed symptoms'. DHHS secretary Dr Louis Sullivan said the finding was a milestone in the battle to change Aids from a fatal discase to a treatable one. 'These results provide real hope for the millions of people worldwide who are infected with HIV.'

The announcement sent sales of AZT soaring over the next few years, with 'early treatment' becoming the new hope for effectiveness, until a much longer, more carefully conducted study involving Britain's Medical Rescarch Council and French government scientists (the 'Concorde' trial) demonstrated that the drug proved worse than useless in the HIV-positive people who took part. Side-effects were considerable, though not as devastating - in the controlled circumstances of a major trial - as some of AZT's opponents had feared. Over the three years of the trial there were seventy-nine Aids-related deaths in the AZT group, compared with sixty-seven in the 'deferred treatment' group, a difference which, although declared statistically insignificant, was certainly pointing in the wrong direction. Further, there were nearly twice as many 'non-HIV-related' deaths in the AZT group over the period of the study - sixteen, compared with nine. So in all, ninety-five of the patients on 'early treatment' died, compared with seventy-six whose treatment was deferred. The gap might have been even larger if those 'deferred treatment' patients had been spared AZT completely. Findings pointing in a similar direction had been made public in 1991 from a US study headed by Dr John Hamilton, but largely ignored.

To people like Lauritsen, who knew the data and its deficiencies inside out, and DuesLerg, whose conviction that HIV was harmless rendered the entire AZT exercise a cruel deception from the start, the persistence with which Burroughs Wellcome, the NIH and the medical profession promoted AZT was unforgivable. Lauritsen, who first used the phrase 'iatrogenic genocide' for the mass prescription of the drug to gay men, wrote in the Native in January 1991:

Those who have eyes to see are witnessing genocide - the genocide of gay men. Millions of dollars are now being spent on an international advertising campaign, 'Living With HIV', in which gay men and other members of 'risk groups' are being told: Get testod for antibodies to HIV - if you 'test positive' you nced 'medical intervention' which could 'put time on your side'. The 'medical intervention' is AZT (also known as Retrovir and zidovudine), and the campaign is paid for, directly and indirectly, by Burroughs Wellcome, the manufacturer of AZT.

The campaign consists of a phoney diagnosis followed by a lethal treatment. Already tens of thousands of objectively healthy gay men have been scared and bullied and bamboozled into taking AZT, allegedly in order to 'slow the progression to Aids'. Optimism regarding their prognosis would be foolish. Except for the lucky few who stop 'treatment' in time, they will die. Death is the inevitable biochemical consequence of taking AZT, for the fundamental action of the drug is to terminate DNA synthesis, the very life process itself.

The only explanations Lauritsen could find for such behaviour were homophobia, and profit. Bruce Nussbaum, in Good Intentions, a remarkable account of the mishandling of Aids research during the 1980s, offered a more sophisticated but no less chilling description of what he found during hundreds of hours of interviews with the leading players. Despite his twenty years as a journalist, he wrote, much of it covering business and finance for Business Week, he was not prepared for the behind-the-scenes realities of big-time medical research.

On Wall Street, the financial crooks, the insider traders, knew for the most part that they were cheating, breaking the law. The games they played were new . . . but the corruption itself was as old-fashioned as embezzlement.

Nothing of the sort exists in medical science. In that arena, people have good intentions. They believe they are doing good works for the general health of the nation. Indeed, personal corruption is still rare, although faking experimental data appears to be on the rise. The corruption in medical science goes much deeper. It derives from the very way the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the dozen or so elite academic biomedical research centres work with private drug companies. An old-boy network of powerful medical researchers dominates in every disease field, from Aids to Alzheimer's. They control the major comrnittees, they run the most important trials, they determine what gets published and who gets promoted. They are accountable to no one. Despite the billions of taxpayer dollars that go to them every year, there is no public oversight. Medical scientists have convinced society that only they can police themselves. Yet behind the closed doors of 'peer review', conflicts of interest abound. These are not perceived as conflicts of interest by the scientists themselves. The researchers are convinced that they have only good intentions.

AZT, Nussbaum found, had been taken up by the NIH, and its network of well-funded trial investigators at major medical institutions around the country, to the exclusion of almost all other therapeutic approaches to Aids. Inquiries by the Aids activist group ACT UP had shown that by early 1988, practically 80 per cent of the patient slots in the NIAID's Aids clinical trials group were for AZT trials. 'ACT UP basically discovered that the entire government clinical testing system was testing one drug - AZT,' Nussbaum wrote.

Within science, AZT joined the Aids virus in a medical mantra that was repeated over and over again: 'There is one cause of Aids: the Aids virus, or Human Immunodeficiency Virus - HIV. There is one treatment for Aids: AZT.'

AZT both reflected and reinforced the basic paradigm within which almost all Aids research was to take place. The hot fields in virology in the eighties were molecular biology and protein biochemistry. The biggest players were in those fields. Molecular biology focuses on nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, hence the focus on nucleoside compounds such as AZT.

It was simple, it was elegant. That's where the grant money flowed, that's where the articles being published in the best journals originated, that's where the awards for brilliance were. The HIV-AZT litany became dogma. As one scientist prominent in Aids put it: 'If you don't swallow the dogma and repeat it word for word, to everybody around you, in your hospital, in your institution, you get cut off. It's very, very difficult to continue doing research unless you have private funds.'

In a foreword to Jad Adams's 1989 book, Duesberg said he was often asked why it was just himself and a handful of others who questioned the virus-Aids hypothesis. Why didn't a young, ambitious scientist make a name for himself by questioning it? The answer lay in the strong conformist pressures on scientists, particularly young, untenured scientists, in the age of biotechnology. 'Their conceptual obedience to the establishment is maintained by controlled access to research grants, journals and positions, and rewarded by conference engagements, personal prizes, consultantships, stocks and co-ownership in companies.' A dissenter would have to be truly independent and prepared for a variety of sanctions. 'I, for instance, was sarcastically called a "brilliant chemist", but labelled a bigot for considering daily administration of psychoactive and immunosuppressive chemicals more likely to be the cause of Aids than a chronically dormant and chemically almost undetectable retrovirus. Invitations were issued only on the condition that I did not debate the "control" of Aids with the Aids test or the DNA-inhibitor AZT, both of which are based exclusively on the virus-Aids hypothesis.'

[bobdrake12]

http://www.777-healt...ls.htm#rational


AZT

"The Terminator"

(excerpts)

AZT is what we call a chain terminator of DNA synthesis developed 30 years ago for one purpose only - to kill human cancer cells (Horwitz, 1964; Cohen, 1987; Yarchoan and Broder, 1987a; Yarchoan, et al., 1991). That means that cells that are busily making DNA, that is, rapidly dividing cells, are most likely to be killed by AZT (Cretton, et al., 1991; Chernov, 1986; Elwell, et al., 1987; Yarchoan and Broder, 1987b; Smothers, 1991; Yarchoan, et al., 1991).

Thus, if you believe in toxic chemotherapy, there is a rationality to using chemicals like AZT for treating cancer. Cancer cells are among the most persistently growing cells in the body, once acclimated. By giving a cancer patient toxic chemicals, there is a chance that killing everything that's growing for a while may kill the cancer before the patient is killed.

But here we are applying AZT and other toxic chemicals to people where roughly one in a thousand cells at the most is infected by HIV. Since AZT cannot tell an infected from an uninfected cell, for every infected cell that AZT is going to kill in the body, it will have to kill 999 uninfected cells. That is what you call a very unfavorable kill ratio. That's what is happening with AZT; it is really the equivalent of chasing bunnies with atomic bombs. You kill the bunny, but the forest isn't quite the same when you're finished.

Look at the people who took AZT, ddI, and/or ddC: Arthur Ashe, Rudolph Nureyev, Kimberly Bergalis, Randy Shilts, Elisabeth Glaser (Champkin, 1994), the list goes on... They ended up emaciated with muscle atrophy-in wheelchairs. They looked like they came from Auschwitz. One or two years of AZT is doing exactly that; it's killing the muscle cells, it's killing the bone marrow, it's killing the epithelial cells, and it's killing the gut. All the fast growing cells are going first, so these people need wheelchairs, blood transfusions, and intravenous feedings until they finally die from these chemicals. From a biochemical point of view, all this is extremely predictable because there is no life without DNA,at least none that we have ever heard of.

Outrageous? Yes! Yet, since 1987, AZT has been prescribed as an anti-HIV drug to AIDS patients (Kolata, 1987); Fishl, et al., 1987; Richman, et al., 1987; Yarchoan and Broder, 1987b) and since 1990 to asymptomatic carriers of HIV (Volberding, et al., 1990; Yarchoan, et al., 1991). In two recent cases in San Francisco and Miami, patients diagnosed with AIDS were 'presumed' to be HIV-positive and were treated with AZT. Follow-up tests showed that both were HIV-negative and malpractice suits have since been filed (Oakland Tribune, December 1, 1992; New York Native, p. 10-11, Dec. 14, 1992; Miami Herald, Sept., 1994; The Daily Business Review, Nov. 18, 1994, p. A14).

In 1993, about 200,000 HIV-positive individuals world wide received AZT (which is produced by Burroughs Wellcome, the company that also produces nitrite inhalants1 for the treatment of angina). AZT is the most toxic drug that has ever been licensed for long-term consumption (Kolata, 1987, 1992). About 75% of all users are Americans.

The consumption of AZT by HIV-positive individuals will, over time, destroy their immune system and produce AIDS. This is even acknowledged by Burroughs Wellcome, the producer of AZT in the Physicians' Desk Reference: "It was often difficult to distinguish adverse effects possibly associated with Zidovudine [AZT] administration from underlying signs of HIV disease..."

Administration of AZT to HIV-positive individuals will definitely fulfill the prophecy of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis: HIV-positive individuals who get AZT will get AIDS. The AIDS epidemic will continue as long as we continue to prescribe AZT or similar drugs such as ddC, ddI, and hydroxyurea for asymptomatic HIV-positive individuals.

Here's how it works: DNA is a long string composed of four building blocks. (In the following diagram, we represent these four building blocks as purple, green, red, blue-hope it's not going too fast for you-hey, that rhymes.) Thymidine is one of these four building blocks (and is represented in the diagram as the green rungs). AZT is an analog of thymidine, that is, its chemical structure is almost identical to that of thymidine.





normal DNA synthesis





DNA synthesis terminated by AZT


All the normal building blocks of DNA have two arms: a right arm and a left arm-or an upper and lower rung in this case. With AZT (as well as ddC and ddI), there is no left arm (AZT is represented in the diagram as the upper section of the DNA on the right {note: at the bottom in this presentation} with a missing green rung.) In the cell, AZT looks like thymidine to the enzymes that line up thymidine to it ready for assembly into more DNA, and to the enzymes which finally assemble it into DNA. But because it has a missing rung (missing left arm), it cannot be joined to additional building blocks of DNA.

When AZT is incorporated into the DNA instead of thymidine, AZT ends the DNA chain prematurely and the cell dies. Or, in rare cases, the cell mutates and you could get cancer. Those are the two options. That's all AZT can do and proponents of AZT always talk about side-effects. There are no side-effects. This drug has clearly no side-effects. All it ever does is kill cells or occasionally make a cell become cancerous.

As a scientist you can order AZT for research from biochemical companies like Sigma, in St. Louis. Normally, when they send AZT it comes in small bottles containing 25 milligrams which is 1/20th of the dose that is given to anybody who is antibody positive in this country -- every single day... To laboratory researchers, Sigma sends a bottle of AZT with a



skull-and-cross-bones on it with instructions not to ingest it or get in contact with it or get splashed with it! This skull-and-cross-bones warning is accorded only to substances with the highest level of toxicity.

When Burroughs wellcome advertises a bottle of AZT you will see a nice girl or boy on a mountain bike drinking Perrier and there's a caption on the picture "Putting time on your side". When scientists buy one-twentieth (1/20th) of the daily prescription dose of 500 milligrams they get a warning with a skull-and-cross-bones. But Sigma Biochemicals, which is recognized as the leading manufacturer of biochemicals in the world, seems to have the idea that AZT may not put all that much time on your side after all.


© Copyright 1998 - 2002 Secret Education Exchange

[bobdrake12]

http://aliveandwell-...sgate/text9.htm

AIDSGate

by ex-Senator Stephen Davis

Text 9


Meanwhile, we have gone about trying to "cure" AIDS based on Robert Gallo's 1984 press-conference announcement that it is caused by the virus called HIV.

Drug companies around the world spend millions of dollars each year developing new drugs. Sometimes these new drugs are purely speculative -- their chemical compound works, but they have no specific disease that they cure. These "discoveries" are then relegated to the back shelf of a closet somewhere, waiting for the right disease to show up for which they are the miracle cure. The whole process is a big waste of time and money for the drug company unless a new disease appears somewhere in the world and this new drug can be proven to be effective against it.

In 1964, in an attempt to find a cure for cancer, an English drug company called Burroughs Wellcome invented a chemical compound called azidothymidine, commonly known as AZT. Cancer, remember, is the abnormal and uncontrolled multiplication of cells, which often group together in tumors. The theory was that if we could find a drug that would stop cells from multiplying, we could stop cancer.

Ironically, the easiest way to stop cells from multiplying is to stop them from dividing -- from creating new cells. Burroughs Wellcome discovered a way to interfere with the normal DNA reproduction of a cell, called a DNA-inhibitor -- AZT. Unfortunately, there is no way for a DNA-inhibitor to tell the difference between a useful, healthy cell and a diseased cell. It simply interferes with them all. A cell will die trying to reproduce itself (as virtually all cells want to do), stopped by the DNA-inhibitor.

(This is how most chemotherapy works for cancer patients today. The drugs stop cells from dividing, and the cells die. All the cells. The death of those cells that normally divide most frequently -- like hair cells -- is noticed first; therefore, hair loss. What isn't so noticeable are the normal, healthy cells that are killed in the process, including the T-cells of the immune system. Most cancer patients die of the opportunistic diseases that result from immune suppression rather than from the cancer tumors themselves.)

However, Burroughs Wellcome didn't even try to get AZT approved for manufacture or use. Standard testing of the drug found that it was so powerful in destroying cells -- so toxic -- that it would kill the patient faster than the disease would. When Jerome Horwitz, head of a lab at the Detroit Cancer Foundation in 1964, tested AZT on cancer-ridden mice, it failed to cure the cancer. The mice died all right, but from the extreme toxicity of the drug itself and not from the cancer. AZT was quickly put on the shelf.

Twenty years later, along comes Robert Gallo, announcing to the world that his Human T-cell Leukemia Virus Type III causes AIDS (even though in AIDS, the T-cells are diminished rather than multiplying uncontrollably). Well, if a virus that causes cancer is causing AIDS, then a drug that cures cancer should cure AIDS. Burroughs Wellcome pulled AZT off the shelf in 1985 and submitted it to the Food and Drug Administration of the United States (the FDA) for approval, claiming it would specifically kill only HIV-infected T-cells.

Normally, for a drug to be approved by the FDA, it takes about a year of research and testing -- including carefully monitored double-blind studies -- and then another year of FDA red tape. And while waiting for an FDA approval, the pharmaceutical company usually cannot manufacture or sell the drug. But AZT was a very special drug for a very special disease, backed by very special people. So it got very special attention. (It also helped to have Burroughs Wellcome paying $10,000 per study patient to each clinic involved.)

The short story is that the double-blind studies broke down within weeks. "A move to stop the trial began immediately. The toxicity of AZT was proving to be extremely high," says Bruce Nussbaum in his 1990 book, Good Intentions. "The FDA inspector found multiple deviations from standard protocol procedure," an official later commented. Another FDA official admitted, "Whatever the 'real' data may be, clearly patients in this study...reported many disease symptoms from possible adverse drug experiences." Martin Delaney, founder of Project Inform, added, "The multi-center trials of AZT are perhaps the sloppiest and most poorly conducted trials ever to serve as the basis for an FDA drug licensing approval."

No matter. Burroughs Wellcome responded by requesting special permission to go ahead and sell AZT while the FDA decided whether or not to approve it. Five days later, thanks to some highly-placed political pressure, that permission was granted. The FDA also dropped the normal requirements that AZT be tested on mice. Six months later, AZT had full approval by the FDA. It could now be sold as a treatment for AIDS.

(Later, AZT was also tested as a cure for psoriasis. As one English reporter put it, "Burroughs Wellcome must be commended for creative marketing, producing [AZT] that can kill any rapidly replicating cells in one lot of patients [psoriasis sufferers] and selectively kill only HIV-infected cells in another lot of patients [AIDS]."

Want to know how all this could happen? Listen to Jerry McGuire: SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Of course, Burroughs Wellcome (and other manufacturers, like Sigma) still have to put the correct warnings on the drug labels. Here's what it says for AZT....





TOXIC

Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin,
and if swallowed.
Target organ(s): Blood Bone Marrow....
Wear suitable protective clothing.


Yes, be careful. Be sure to wear suitable protective clothing while swallowing AZT that is toxic when swallowed.

The skull and crossbones signify an unusual chemical hazard. This label must appear on bottles containing 25 milligrams of AZT -- a small fraction of a patient's recommended daily dose.

What does AZT do that makes it so dangerous? AZT kills dividing cells anywhere in the body, but especially (as the warning label says) in the bone marrow where new red blood cells and white blood cells are made. (Remember that T-cells are white blood cells that form the backbone of the body's immune system.) And it does the best job at killing these cells than any other drug discovered to date.

Apparently at Burroughs Wellcome, the thinking was that AZT would kill HIV-infected T-cells and thus be a cure for AIDS. It does do that. It kills T-cells extremely well, but all T-cells, whether or not they are HIV-infected -- healthy cells as well as sick cells. Repeat: AZT is dramatically effective in killing virus-infected and uninfected T-cells alike. And since only 1 in about 1000 T-cells of an HIV Positive person is ever "infected", AZT must kill 999 good T-cells in the process.

Let's think about this for a moment. We've got a patient with AIDS -- a patient with a T-cell deficiency, suffering from an opportunistic disease. The immune system is already shot. So we're going to cure them by giving them a drug (AZT) that kills all their remaining T-cells faster than anything else in the world. Are we nuts?

Giving AZT to an AIDS patient is the kiss of death. If they don't die from the opportunistic disease they started with, they'll surely die from the other diseases that appear as their immune system is destroyed even further by the drug.

[bobdrake12]

"Someone had a bright idea -- if these DNA-inhibitors are so bad, let's start hiding them in a drink with a "fun" name and call them "new." So as of 1996, HIV Positives are now being given "cocktails" made from an elaborate combination of DNA-inhibitors and protease-inhibitors -- although the long-term consumption of protease-inhibitors alone, or in combination with DNA-inhibitors, has yet to be determined in animals or in humans."


http://aliveandwell-...gate/text10.htm

AIDSGate

by ex-Senator Stephen Davis

Text 10


By 1987, AZT was being given routinely to patients diagnosed with AIDS. Over the next few years, other DNA-inhibitors were similarly approved by the FDA for the treatment of AIDS, like "ddI" and "ddC." (Anthony Fauci, director for AIDS research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, admitted in 1995 that "ddI has never been compared with a placebo in a large study.")

What happens to these patients on AZT? Does AZT actually cure AIDS, or prolong the life of the patient, or increase the quality of the patient's life?

Not according to all the studies. Instead, the patients experience all the usual side-effects of immunosuppressive chemotherapy: hair loss, muscle degeneration, anemia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, impotence, leukopenia, hepatitis, Pneumocystis pneumonia, and cancers such as lymphoma.

The fact is that AZT recipients develop lymphoma 50 times more often, and 25% more patients die if they are taking AZT -- and they die 33% faster -- than non-AZT patients. Want proof?

In a French study on hundreds of AIDS patients taking AZT, one-third experienced a worsening of their AIDS conditions, and others developed new AIDS opportunistic diseases. On AZT, one out of every five patients died within nine months.

In England, on a study of thirteen AIDS patients taking AZT, all thirteen developed severe anemia.

In Australia, more than half the patients taking AZT developed a new AIDS opportunistic disease during the first year. Half needed blood transfusions to survive. One-third died within eighteen months.

A Dutch study found that three-quarters of the patients on AZT died within fourteen months.

In the United States, a 1994 study found twice as much dementia in AZT-treated patients. Also in 1994, HIV Positive hemophiliacs taking AZT had a 2.4 times higher mortality rate and a 4.5 times higher AIDS risk rate than HIV Positive hemophiliacs not taking AZT. In 1995, a study found that HIV Positive male homosexuals on AZT treatment had anywhere from two to four times the risk to develop Pneumocystis pneumonia.

Usually, only three percent (3%) of AIDS patients get lymphoma (cancer). But 50% of those patients taking AZT in the original (Phase I) FDA approval trials developed lymphoma three years later.

Even one of the biggest proponents of AZT, Paul Volberding, wrote a report in 1994 that the T-cells of a placebo group in an AZT study had increased gradually over two years, while the T-cells of those taking AZT had decreased. Volberding finally admitted in 1995 that "AZT does not significantly prolong either AIDS-free or overall survival."

In short, we're giving a drug to AIDS patients that not only does them no good, but actually worsens their condition and shortens their life. Why in God's name would we continue to do this?

Someone had a bright idea -- if these DNA-inhibitors are so bad, let's start hiding them in a drink with a "fun" name and call them "new." So as of 1996, HIV Positives are now being given "cocktails" made from an elaborate combination of DNA-inhibitors and protease-inhibitors -- although the long-term consumption of protease-inhibitors alone, or in combination with DNA-inhibitors, has yet to be determined in animals or in humans. (The HIV/AIDS establishment has been unusually silent on the current status of the first group of test patients to try protease-inhibitors in 1995.)

[Limitless]

Thanks for the article on the lawsuit, Bob! I agree, wholeheartedly, that it is very, very difficult to sue any governing body, organization connected to a governing body, or a company with huge financial resources. However, I believe it can be done, and that someone has to set a precedent -making it easier for the next people to sue. The cigarette industry is a great source of examples & statistics, as it is once again. You may recall how two relatively unknown, small-town Mississippi lawyers helped former Brown & Williamson employee, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, release information protected by a supposed "Confidentiality agreement" in a Mississippi court room, exposing even more of the industry's practices, and exposing the industry to sweeping new waves of litigation. B & W's 30+ lawyers couldn't stop 2 lawyers & a well-meaning former tobacco employee pursue justice. They also helped bring about that 200+ billion Tobacco Settlement among the US states, and got RJ Reynolds to agree to dump "Joe Camel", a marketing ploy I know influenced many people, even where I live, in Toronto, Ontario Canada. I remember one guy I went to school with, start smoking around 1994 or so, -Joe Camel ads having made a big impression on him. (One factor, anyways) They entered Canada so-easily through American magazines. (Clearly, many countries around the world are troubled by this) This guy, in particular, was 10 years-old at most.

The moral of my elongated (as usual) story, is that 2 little-known lawyers were able to inflict much financial & public harm on the tobacco industry, simply because they had the nerve & will to persevere. If more people did this, perhaps we would no longer be as troubled by corrupt industries -many of which are with the law, in their respective countries. Then again, perhaps efforts are required, in different areas. Surely the fate of everything from the many AIDS medications, to the tobacco industry, will not be decided in a court-room alone.

I believe that, as juries continue to get younger, there will be be more decisions in favour of parties attacking traditionally stable industries, organizations, & companies, simply because they grew up at a different time, and view the world more clearly than most older-adults. (Excepting the many enlightened adults & youth on this site, of course. ) Unfortunatley, sometimes attitudes change gradually, and through efforts of no person in particular. This is basically what is happening in court decisions. (What are the odds that a judge in a tobacco litigation case is A-a smoker who's agnostic, B-a smoker & industry sympathizer or C-a non-smoking industry sympathizer. The odds are not great, anymore. The older generations are quitting faster than the younger generation. To relate this to aging research -I just hope that the field of life-extension will evolve quickly & effectively, not on a line, but exponentially, resisting the many attempts by such fools as George W. Tush to wipe out research & ideas he clearly wasn't capable of ever understanding. Bush is a devout Christian. God bless him-now GET OUT OF OUR WAY or we'll find some way to roll over you, you incompetent boob.

I'm rambling again. Take a breath. There-that's better! lol

[Saille Willow]

While controversy rage about HIV/AIDS and it's treatment people are dying. At grass root level, where rumour is still the main source of information due to high level of illiteracy, there is very little understanding of the debates held in 'airconditioned' conferance rooms.

People are desperate. There is a belief that the 'cure' is being witheld , simply because they can not afford it. Desperate people do desperate deeds. For a chance to live, all cures are grasped at, including the 'virgin cure' and many dubious ones.

I was happy to see that a new campaign has been launched on the National television informing the public of the nutritional needs of AIDS sufferes. I have seen many people I know die of AIDS, those not eating a healthy diet goes first. It is amazing what a differance just vitamin supplements makes, to the quility of life of sufferers. But for the majority who do not even have the basic dailly requirements, things are grim.

Although the South African government previously rejected the use of anti-viral drugs, which it said were 'poisen', it appears that they are softening their stance. In April, amid stauch criticism of its Aids policies, and a Constitional Court Judgement that compelled the goverment to roll out drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmision of HIV beyond specified test sites. The TAC [Treatment Action Comitee] asked the government to commit to a december deadline to implement a national treatment plan. Though this will not be possible according to the deputy president Zuma, the government said it was studying the possibility of providing anti-retroviral drugs in the public health sector to improve the quality of life of people with HIV/AIDS.[Star,17 October]

The government could face more pressure to accelerate Aids treatment programmes. This is because a deal was finalised this week to manufacture the anti-retroviral drug Nevirapine in South Africa. The agreement was announced by Boehringer Ingelheim and Aspen Pharmacare.

President Thabo Mbeki associated himself publicaly with the provision of anti-Aids drugs for the first time yesterday by visiting the Levai Mbatha Community Health Center in Evaton during the East Rand leg of the presidential imbizo [public forum] [Sunday Times Oct 20]

[bobdrake12]

Thanks for the article on the lawsuit, Bob! I agree, wholeheartedly, that it is very, very difficult to sue any governing body, organization connected to a governing body, or a company with huge financial resources. However, I believe it can be done, and that someone has to set a precedent -making it easier for the next people to sue. The cigarette industry is a great source of examples & statistics, as it is once again. You may recall how two relatively unknown, small-town Mississippi lawyers helped former Brown & Williamson employee, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, release information protected by a supposed "Confidentiality agreement" in a Mississippi court room, exposing even more of the industry's practices, and exposing the industry to sweeping new waves of litigation. B & W's 30+ lawyers couldn't stop 2 lawyers & a well-meaning former tobacco employee pursue justice. They also helped bring about that 200+ billion Tobacco Settlement among the US states, and got RJ Reynolds to agree to dump "Joe Camel", a marketing ploy I know influenced many people, even where I live, in Toronto, Ontario Canada. I remember one guy I went to school with, start smoking around 1994 or so, -Joe Camel ads having made a big impression on him. (One factor, anyways) They entered Canada so-easily through American magazines. (Clearly, many countries around the world are troubled by this) This guy, in particular, was 10 years-old at most.

Limitless,

Thanks for the kind words!

The wealthy drug companies appear to have learned a lesson from what happened to the tobacco companies. It looks like their lawyers have crafted a warning label that will make it very difficult for them to get sued for AZT. [ph34r]

bob


Source: AIDSGate - Text 9 by ex-Senator Stephen Davis:

Of course, Burroughs Wellcome (and other manufacturers, like Sigma) still have to put the correct warnings on the drug labels. Here's what it says for AZT....





TOXIC

Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin,
and if swallowed.
Target organ(s): Blood Bone Marrow....
Wear suitable protective clothing.


Yes, be careful. Be sure to wear suitable protective clothing while swallowing AZT that is toxic when swallowed.

The skull and crossbones signify an unusual chemical hazard. This label must appear on bottles containing 25 milligrams of AZT -- a small fraction of a patient's recommended daily dose.

[bobdrake12]

I was happy to see that a new campaign has been launched on the National television informing the public of the nutritional needs of AIDS sufferes. I have seen many people I know die of AIDS, those not eating a healthy diet goes first. It is amazing what a differance just vitamin supplements makes, to the quility of life of sufferers. But for the majority who do not even have the basic dailly requirements, things are grim.

Saille Willow,

I am also very happy to hear about the campaign in Sourth Africa that has been launched on National television informing the public of the nutritional needs of AIDS sufferes.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of a similar campaign in the US.

As an aside, I read today that Botswana (located in southern Africa) has 39% its adult population infected with H.I.V.

In an unrelated story, I read that AIDS drugs supplied to Africa at cut rates have been illegally resold in Europe.

bob

[bobdrake12]

http://story.news.ya...frica_aids_dc_1

Health - Reuters

S. Africa Asks for More Time on AIDS Drug Policy
Fri Oct 18, 1:20 PM ET


JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - The South African government has asked for more time to possibly reconsider its controversial opposition to key antiretroviral agents, AIDS (news - web sites) activists said Thursday.

South Africa has more people living with HIV (news - web sites)/AIDS than any other country, but President Thabo Mbeki's government has consistently refused to supply antiretroviral drugs through state hospitals, saying they were unproven, toxic and expensive.

The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions have given the government until December 1 to change its stance and announce details of a national treatment plan for the 4.7 million HIV-infected people.

"It seems there is a genuine attempt by the government to solve the AIDS crisis. They've asked to delay the deadline and we're considering that request," TAC chairman Zackie Achmat said. He declined to give details.

Health Ministry officials were not available for comment, but sources said the government had asked for the deadline to be extended to February next year.

The first sign that the government may have changed its stance on antiretroviral drugs came last week in the form of a statement that acknowledged that such drugs could improve the lives of people living with HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, the statement did not repeat the safety concerns that the government has often voiced.

AIDS activists had threatened to take the government to court, saying about 2.8 million AIDS-related deaths could be prevented by 2015 through a combination of prevention, antiretroviral therapy, counseling and testing.

President Thabo Mbeki enraged the global AIDS community in 2000 when he publicly questioned the widely accepted link between HIV and AIDS.

Achmat is HIV-positive but refuses to take antiretroviral drugs until the government makes them available to everyone through state hospitals. He has the support of former president Nelson Mandela.

Achmat's group led and won a bitter legal battle with the government this year to make nevirapine, a drug that can reduce mother-to-child HIV transmission, more widely available.


Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.people.vi...h9u/imresp.html


Immune Response System





1) Made up of two cellular systems
o humoral or circulating antiBody system - B cells
o cell mediaTed immunity - T cells

2) Both work by identifying antigens (foreign proteins or polysaccharides) either as part of a virus or bacterium or as a partially degraded byproduct

3) Also recognizes human antigens not made by the individual resulting in graft rejection

4) The humoral antiBody system produces secreted antibodies (proteins) which bind to antigens and identify the antigen complex for destruction. Antibodies act on antigens in the serum and lymph. B-cell produced antibodies may either be attached to B-cell membranes or free in the serum and lymph.

5)The cell mediaTed system acts on antigens appearing on the surface of individual cells. T-cells produce T-cell receptors which recognize specific antigens bound to the antigen presenting structures on the surface of the presenting cell.


The University of Virginia
Charlottesville VA 22908 USA

_________________________________________________________________________



http://aliveandwell-...gate/text11.htm


AIDSGate

by ex-Senator Stephen Davis

Text 11


But the tragedy doesn't stop there. With all their "success" with AZT, the HIV/AIDS establishment decided in 1990 to start giving AZT to people who tested positive for the HIV antibody, but had no signs of illness. You read that correctly....in 1990, we started giving a highly toxic drug that destroys the immune system to healthy people because they had the antibodies to the virus called HIV. Repeat: not an active HIV virus running wild in their body, but the antibodies to the virus called HIV. It was called "AIDS Prevention!"

And what happened to these people? The same thing that happens to AIDS patients: hair loss, muscle degeneration, anemia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, impotence, leukopenia, hepatitis, Pneumocystis pneumonia, dementia, and lymphoma. In short, these people develop AIDS!

And rightfully so.

AZT kills the body's T-cells. It destroys the immune system. It ruins any chance the body has of fighting off opportunistic diseases. AZT causes AIDS!

Even Burroughs Wellcome agrees. They state in the Physicians' Desk Reference (the drug encyclopedia for doctors): "It was often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with AZT administration from the underlying signs of HIV disease [AIDS]."

What we've done is to take a large number of people -- friends of ours -- who were perfectly healthy, give them AIDS by giving them AZT, and watch them die.

Only the bravest, the most contrary, the ones who can stand up to the pressure from their doctor and so-called friends -- the ones who have refused to take AZT when told they were HIV Positive -- have survived.

How many have we killed with AZT? It's very difficult to say. The CDC has recorded 220,000 deaths from AIDS (listed as Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection) from 1987 to 1994, with some 40,000 in 1994 itself. If we count on at least another 40,000 again in 1995 and 1996, we're over 300,000 total AIDS deaths since 1987.

Burroughs Wellcome says its total income from the sale of AZT since 1987 is 2.5 Billion dollars -- about $400 million this year alone. The average wholesale cost for one year for one patient is $2,000 ($10,000-12,000 retail). That works out to 1.25 million patient-years of AZT prescription since 1987.

The average patient only takes AZT for about one year -- which is explained by the fact that within one to two years, the average AZT recipient either dies from the toxicity of the drug or their opportunistic disease(s), or stops taking AZT after only a few months because of the unbearable side effects.

This works out to a guess that somewhere around a million people worldwide have taken AZT. Since the United States and Europe are the only places of AIDS concentrations that can afford the drug, and since the U.S. has about twice as many HIV Positives as Europe, the bottom line is....

Probably around 600,000 people in the U.S. have taken AZT since 1987, many of whom had no symptoms of AIDS when they started.

Half of them have died.

The rest have suffered -- are suffering --needlessly.

Not a very good track record for a drug.

In fact, the rise in the number of deaths from AIDS since 1987 directly corresponds to the rise in the use of AZT. And the pressure to take AZT or other DNA-inhibitor/protease-inhibitor cocktails if you are diagnosed with AIDS or found to be HIV Positive (even without symptoms) is virtually overwhelming.

So of the 300,000 deaths attributed to AIDS by the CDC since 1987, the vast majority probably died from taking AZT -- from the extreme toxicity of the drug itself, or from an opportunistic disease that resulted from the destruction of the immune system by AZT, or from developing AIDS by taking AZT,...

...especially since the recovery rate of HIV Positives and AIDS patients is so high when they stop taking AZT and other recreational drugs.

"In researching his 1990 book Surviving AIDS, [Michael] Callen interviewed nearly fifty people who had lived for many years not just after being pronounced HIV-positive, but after an AIDS diagnosis. He found that only four had ever used AZT; three of those had since died, and one was dying of AZT-induced lymphoma. But the overwhelming majority of the long-term survivors had somehow managed to resist the enourmous pressure to take AZT."

We can't do much for the hundreds of thousands that have already died from AZT, but we can certainly do something for the others that are currently taking this deadly drug and those who have escaped its consequences thus far, simply because they don't know they're HIV Positive.

What can we do? Easy. STOP AZT !

[bobdrake12]

The following information on the immune system is posted to help those interested in what is being discussed in the various articles.

bob


http://www.medimager...y/immunity.html


T-Cell Versus B-Cell Immune response





T-cell Response -

Invading bacteria are phagocytosed (taken into the body of the macrophage). The macrophage then removes the specifics identifying markers, or antigens, of the invading bacteria. It places these antigens on its own surface. Helper T-call lymphocytes which are specially designed to fight this invading bacteria have on their own surface a complementary antigen marker, much like a puzzle piece. When these specialty T-cell lymphocytes notice a macrophage presenting the complement antigen they initiate a response which results in B-cell proliferation.

T-cell Caption summary:

When a virus invades the body it is engulfed by a macrophage cell. The macrophage then signals T-cells to cause B-cells to multiply.







B-cell (antibody) Response -


Through a process called phagocytosis, immune cells called macrophages will engulf invading bacteria. The macrophage will then remove the identifying markers, or antigens, from the invading bacteria and present them on its own surface. B-cell lymphocytes will notice that the antigens have been presented on the macrophage and will begin to secrete large quantities of antibodies. These antibodies bind to the invading bacteria, which will then become ineffective and more easily destroyed by macrophages.

B-cell caption summary:

When a virus invades the body it is engulfed by a macrophage cell. Markers on the surface of the macrophage signal the B-cell to produce antibodies which disable the invading bacteria.

© Laura Maaske, 2000

[bobdrake12]

http://aliveandwell-...sgate/text1.htm

AIDSGate

by ex-Senator Stephen Davis

Text 1


To understand AIDS -- Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome -- we must first know a little about the immune system of a human body. Unfortunately, we really don't know exactly how the immune system works; but here's the best guess so far....

The body's second line of defense against disease (the first being the skin) is white blood cells, called lymphocytes. They're produced in the bone marrow and circulate along with the blood and in the lymphatic system. Some of these white blood cells are called "B" cells. Other lymphocytes pass through the Thymus (an endocrine gland located near the heart) and become "T" cells.

There are several different kinds of T-cells, each with its own function. Research has been able to identify these different T-cells with special tests, and then the T-cells have been individually named by the number of the test that finds them. For example, "T4" cells are also known as "helper" T-cells. They're the watchdogs for the body. They continually scan the body, looking for anything foreign they don't recognize. and then notify the body about the invader. For instance, if you get a splinter in your finger, the T4 cells will sound the alarm against a possible infection. Or if you come in contact with a strange bacterium or virus, or if you receive a new kidney or liver through a transplant, the T4 cells will activate the body's immune system.

What happens next is that the "B" cells immediately go to work to produce "antibodies" -- new "special agents" specifically designed to fight any future invasion by this same intruder. This is the theory behind the smallpox (or any other) vaccine. A very small amount of the disease organism is introduced in the body intentionally; the T4 cells alert the immune system; the B cells create the antibody against the smallpox bacteria; and the body is now ready to defend against any future smallpox invasion.

In the meantime, while the antibody is being produced for future use, Killer T-cells are also released by the immune system to destroy cells in the body which are presently infected by the outside organism. The only problem with Killer T-cells is that they have to be calmed down at some point or the powerful immune system might damage its own body (called "autoimmune disease"). So there is another kind of T-cell -- the T8 "suppressor" cells -- whose job it is to stop the immune response and call off the Killers. In a normal, healthy body, there are about 1,000 T4 cells per microliter of blood, and the ratio of T4 ("helper") cells to T8 ("suppressor") cells is 2:1.

Immune Deficiency Syndrome is a breakdown of this system. Again, not a lot is known for certain about the different kinds of immune deficiency diseases. There are cases where the total number of T cells is so reduced (less than 200 T-cells per microliter of blood) that there are simply not enough to do their job. Or sometimes the ratio of T4 to T8 cells is thrown out of balance so much that the major message getting to the body is to "suppress" the immune system rather than activate it. Or perhaps the T4 "helper" cells remain high enough in numbers, but stop performing their function for some unknown reason. Or something interferes with the orders to send out the Killers.

Immune Deficiency Syndrome is not a new disease. It has been recognized by the medical profession for many years; and its three main causes are also well-known: malnutrition, sleep deprivation, and intentional interference with the immune system through the use of drugs -- for instance, in organ transplants (to force the body to accept a foreign substance), and in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. This intentional interference is known as "iatrogenic," meaning "caused by the doctor."

What happens to a human body when the immune system can no longer function properly is quite clear: disease results, either from an outside invader the body can no longer fight off, or from one of the millions of bacteria, viruses, protozoan parasites, or fungi we all carry with us every day of our lives. These are called "opportunistic diseases," since they would not occur unless the opportunity arose due to the malfunction of the normal immune response. Some examples of the most common opportunistic diseases are: Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, Cryptosporidium, herpes simplex, Candida albicans, cytomegalovirus, Toxoplasma gondii, Aspergillus, Cryptococcus neoformans, Nocardia, Strongyloides, atypical Mycobacterium, and papovavirus.

These are all infections by organisms which would normally not cause serious illness in a healthy body. But no doctor would be surprised to see any of these diseases in a patient who was malnourished, deprived of sleep for extended periods, or already suffering and being treated for another disease with drugs that were known to be "immunosuppressive." The fungus that causes Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, for example, is known to inhabit the lungs of almost every human on planet Earth, but rarely has the disease been seen in anyone but cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

What happened in 1981, then, was truly a surprise to one immunologist by the name of Michael Gottlieb.....

[bobdrake12]

"Immune Deficiency Syndrome is not a new disease. It has been recognized by the medical profession for many years; and its three main causes are also well-known: malnutrition, sleep deprivation, and intentional interference with the immune system through the use of drugs -- for instance, in organ transplants (to force the body to accept a foreign substance), and in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. This intentional interference is known as "iatrogenic," meaning "caused by the doctor."

~ AIDSGate - Text 1 by ex-Senator Stephen Davis

____________________________________________________________

Would anyone dispute the following statement?

"Malnutrition, sleep deprivation, and intentional interference with the immune system through the use of drugs all significantly suppress the immune system."

Malnutrion would not just be defined as lack of sufficient calories but rather lack of proper nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, proteins and enzymes.

bob


____________________________________________________________

Could the components of this statement be made in a positive manner?:






1. Sufficient nutrition




2. Adequate sleep




3. Avoiding or at least minimizing the use of drugs that significantly interfere with the immune system

[bobdrake12]

http://aliveandwell-...sgate/text2.htm

AIDSGate

by ex-Senator Stephen Davis

Text 2


In 1981, in Los Angeles, California, immunologist Michael Gottlieb tested the blood of a patient being treated by a colleague and found a very low number of T4 "helper" cells. An open lung biopsy then performed on the patient disclosed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. The patient soon died.

By May of that year, Gottlieb and his colleagues had treated five similar patients and reported their work in the June 5, 1981, issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the Centers for Disease Control (the "CDC"). All of them had Immune Deficiency Syndrome and active opportunistic diseases. The only problem was that there was no known cause for the immune deficiency. None of them was suffering from malnutrition or sleep deprivation, and none was being treated with immunosuppressive drugs prior to coming down with an opportunistic disease. In short, they were suffering from Immune Deficiency Syndrome that had been "acquired" from some unknown cause.

Soon other cases were being reported of opportunistic infections from suppressed immune systems with no known cause. In fact, 87 cases of AIDS were reported in the first six months of 1981; 365 cases in the first six months of 1982; and 1215 cases in the same period in 1983. It was now clear that we had a new phenomenon affecting human beings: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome -- AIDS.

(Some people had died of AIDS before 1981, as proven by reviewing their medical records later. Their deaths had been attributed to other causes, since AIDS had not yet been recognized. It took Michael Gottlieb to put the first pieces of the puzzle together and alert the medical community to a potentially new epidemic.)

SITUATION ALERT: Something unknown is affecting the human immune system by destroying or interfering with the normal T-cell activity, giving rise to various opportunistic diseases, which in turn kill the patient.

QUESTION: What is it?

The search was on. Virtually every research scientist in every field started looking for the cause of AIDS. Bacteriologists sought a bacterial agent (as in Tuberculosis). Virologists looked for a virus (as in Polio). Public health officials searched for an environmental cause (as in Salmonella or Scurvy). And they all had a set of rules to determine whether or not the theories they proposed could be the actual cause of AIDS. These rules had been in effect and accepted by medical/science researchers for over 100 years. They're called Koch's Postulates, after Robert Koch, who first put them in writing.

Koch's Postulate Number One says that the suspected cause of any disease must be found in every case of that disease. For example, the tubercle bacillus can be found in the lung tissue of every case of TB.

Koch's Postulate Number Two says that the causal agent (bacteria, virus, parasite, fungus, etc.) must be able to be isolated from all other microbes and grown independently in a laboratory culture -- proving that it is alive and active, reproducible, and acting independently from anything else.

And Koch's Postulate Number Three says that this microbe must create the same disease when introduced into an otherwise healthy body (usually a test animal).

Research and testing such as this takes time and money and equipment and support. In the early 1980's, the virologists commanded most of the money and attention. The apparent success of Jonas Salk and the polio virus/vaccine in the 1950's and '60's had given the virus hunters the edge over the others in terms of standing in the profession, credence for their theories, and money and laboratory space. Their most recent efforts had been to find a viral cause for cancer, which resulted in the discovery of "retroviruses." (The virus later called "HIV" is a retrovirus.)

In late 1982, a Frenchman was diagnosed with cytomegalovirus -- one of the opportunistic diseases. He had other symptoms of general debility, fatigue, and enlarged lymph nodes, and was almost certainly an AIDS case. Tissues from his body were sent to The Pasteur Institute, where Luc Montagnier began searching for signs of a retrovirus. On January 23, 1983, he found one, and called it LAV (Lymphadenopathy-Associated Virus). But this was just one retrovirus found in the tissues of just one patient, and it had not been tested to find out if it met Koch's Postulates. So Luc Montagnier was not prepared to call it the cause of AIDS. It was only a possibility.

Montagnier published his findings in May of 1983 so that other researchers could test and duplicate and corroborate his results, as is the standard procedure in any medical and scientific research. In July of 1983, the Pasteur Institute also sent a sample of the LAV virus to Robert Gallo, head of the prestigious National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States.

Skipping Koch's Postulate Number One for the moment, Gallo tried to grow the LAV virus in his own lab (Koch's Postulate Number Two), but was originally not able to do so. Another sample had to be sent from France in September; and by December, Gallo's lab was successfully cultivating LAV.

But Gallo was already immersed in his own theory of what caused AIDS. A few years earlier, in his search for the cause of cancer, Gallo had discovered two retroviruses that looked similar, which he called HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus). In December of 1983, he submitted a paper for publication proposing the theory that an HTLV retrovirus was the cause of AIDS.

The logic here is a little hard to follow. Leukemia is a form of cancer. Cancer is widely known and accepted to be an abnormal and uncontrollable multiplication of cells, which then form tumors. This means that a Leukemia virus, such as HTLV-1 or -2, should cause the T-cells to multiply, not decrease, as found in AIDS. However, in his quest to be the new Jonas Salk, Gallo was apparently able to overlook this "minor" inconsistency. And since no one else was coming up with anything better....

Sometime between December 1983 and April 1984, Robert Gallo claims he made another new discovery -- a third retrovirus in the HTLV family, which he called HTLV-3. But rather than submitting and publishing his research for others to verify, he chose another venue.

On April 23, 1984, Margaret Heckler (Secretary of Health and Human Services -- a cabinet member in Ronald Reagan's administration) called a press conference in Washington, D.C. and introduced Robert Gallo, who announced to the world that he had found the cause of AIDS: his new retrovirus, HTLV-3. He even showed pictures of HTLV-1, -2, and -3 to those in attendance. Unfortunately, HTLV-3 didn't look anything like HTLV-1 or HTLV-2, and it was hard to see how they could be of the same family. As it turned out, the picture of HTLV-3 was actually a picture of the LAV virus sent to Gallo by Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute.

But, thank goodness, the cause of AIDS had been discovered. Granted, it was a Leukemia virus that should send the T-cell count out the roof instead of plummeting toward zero. Granted, HTLV-3 had not been found in every AIDS patient -- or even one AIDS patient (Koch's Postulate Number One). Granted, no one else had had the opportunity to isolate and grow it in their own labs (Koch's Postulate Number Two). And granted, no animal testing had been done to see if HTLV-3 would cause AIDS if introduced into a healthy body (Koch's Postulate Number Three).

But the search was over. The cause of AIDS had been found. It was discovered by Robert Gallo. Or was it? The French didn't think so. The picture of Gallo's HTLV-3 was indisputably a picture of Montagnier's LAV virus. And so began a three-year, ultra-high-level, diplomatic negotiation between the U.S. and France that ended in 1987 with an agreement that the cause of AIDS had been jointly discovered by both countries.

Who cares? It should only be important that the cause of AIDS had been found, and now lives could be saved. But that wasn't the issue. You see, on the very same day that Gallo announced at his press conference that he had found the cause of AIDS, he filed a U.S. patent application for the blood test that would detect the HTLV-3 virus. This patent would be worth about $100 million a year in sales and $100,000 personally to Gallo. The French had also filed a patent request in 1983 for the blood test for their LAV virus, but it had never been approved in the U.S. The issue, as usual, was money.

And there was another problem. In Gallo's patent documentation, he stated under oath -- as is required -- that the virus could be massed produced for the tests within indefinitely growing, "immortal" T-cells. But isn't the cause of AIDS supposed to kill T-cells?

Despite these glaring inconsistencies, and the lack of any scientific or research evidence, and the absence of any conformity to Koch's Postulates, and the inability of any of his peers to make independent verification of his claims, Robert Gallo was a hero. He had discovered the cause of AIDS -- the HTLV-3 virus, as he called it....or the LAV virus, as the French called it. To settle this dispute, in early 1987 an international committee came up with a new name for the virus: Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The name itself solidified the relationship of this new retrovirus to the disease called AIDS, although no scientific evidence had yet been presented that there was any relationship at all -- much less a causal one.

[Lazarus Long]

Good job Bob. I see more of the science and less of the politics, I still suggest that to enhance the focus this be divided into three separate categories. The Socioeconomic Politics, The Efficacy and Appropriateness of Treatment, and the Causitive Arguments and Issues.

I believe this is important in order to stay focused and clear on the specifics and not get lost in the morass of various important but conflicting aspects. And the same challenge to you holds as you have set forth for others. Define the cure.

Your argument I am afraid, is insufficient in regard to the causitive aspects, and the implication that they simply have to be ameliorated and the condition will alleviate itself is not born out by experience. It is another example of a little bit of the truth biut not the whole story.

I agree however that the "Wasting Syndrome" has long been identified and said as much previously. But what if there are more causitive aspects that you are missing by only seeing what you connect and not what you refuse too? I suggest that there is also a genetic population limiter at work but this is as controversial an issue as HIV. But as a corrolary, what if we are weakening general resistence by treating too much in general?

I have read in various places that there is an across the board reduction in immunity to a number of common microbes due to the fact that we are sterizing our childhoods and personal environments thus not developing sufficient exposure to pathogens in order to strengthen the immune system and this is allowing weaker humans to survive into adulthood but then there is a breakdown in our ability to handle exposures of almost any kind later if the environmental and individual conditions coincide to cause an opportunistic breakdown.

It is also allowing the genes for these weaker immune systems to be disseminated further and further into the general population and as long as they live in the sterile bubles they survive but STD's can bring them down by exposing their genetic weakness that a Darwinian Natural Selection environment would have eliminated in previous ages. Of coursr the child mortality rate is one of the rgeat success stories of modern medicine. And STD's long predate modern medical techniques Bob, think of it as reverse eugenics. Eugenic practices that have a consequence of making the general populace weaker and weaker. Not a popular point of view by any side.

I am just floating an alternative and equally plausible hypothesis but remarkably there is evidence of this in the asthma studies, antibiotic resistence, food poisonings, and many other areas. Call it the Dark Side of the Success Story of Modern Medicine and a clear example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[bobdrake12]

Good job Bob. I see more of the science and less of the politics, I still suggest that to enhance the focus this be divided into three separate categories. The Socioeconomic Politics, The Efficacy and Appropriateness of Treatment, and the Causitive Arguments and Issues.

Your argument I am afraid is insufficient in regrad to the causitive aspects, and the implicaton that they simply have to be ameliorated and the condition will alleviate itself.

Lazarus Long,

Thanks for the kind words!

Go ahead and start other categories. Unfortunately, there appears to be an overlap. I wish things were not that way.

Please note: I am just posting articles which I may agree with and may not agree with. I have no argument, but I am simply looking for scientific evidence to either back these points of view or to counter them.

An example of the scientific evidence I am looking for was discussed on one my prior posts which states:

What I am looking for is scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

What I personally believe on this issue is not significant. What is significant is reality. Reality is not based upon blind faith or a paradigm based upon popular opinion that has been sold to the general public, but rather reality is based upon scientific evidence.

There is a Site which is offering a reward for finding the missing virus. Those of you who believe a virus causes AIDS have an opportunity to collect some money if you can provide scientific evidence for that claim.

A cash prize of £ 1000 is offered to the first person finding one scientific paper establishing actual isolation of HIV.

Just think about it, all they are asking for is "finding one scientific paper establishing actual isolation of HIV".

Are there any takers?

The URL and the article is shown below.

Bob

http://www.virusmyth.../aids/award.htm

T h e J o d y W e l l s M e m o r i a l P r i z e


MISSING VIRUS!
£ 1000 Reward


Blind romantics still believe HIV causes AIDS. But if 'HIV' has never been isolated, what is AIDS?


Never isolated? You bet! A cash prize of £ 1000 is offered to the first person finding one scientific paper establishing actual isolation of HIV.


If you or a friendly 'AIDS expert' can prove isolation, £ 1000 is yours. In cash. In public.


Interested? Pledge the money to your favourite AIDS charity, why not?


We bet you'll be surprised to discover the truth.


c o n t i n u u m
CHANGING THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT AIDS


The Rules of Isolation

The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were thoroughly discussed at the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the logical minimum requirements for establishing the independent existence of HIV. They are:

1.Culture of putatively infected tissue.

2. Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.

3. Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morfological characteristics and dimensions (100-120 nm) of retroviral particles at the sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.

4. Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.

5. Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are unique.

6. Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and can not be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that is, tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected with a retrovirus.

7. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles are introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle is obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5.

Now someone might interpreted what I posted as meaning that I do not believe that there is a correlation between HIV and AIDS. The fact is all I am doing is asking for the scientific evidence to back up the claim.

While I have no predetermined Ideas on this subject, I am very interested that scientific papers and evidence be posted on this subject.

In the old BJKlien Forum, one of our members took some ad hominem hits rather than having the substance of the issue standing on its own. That was the reason I initially entered this discussion. The use of ad hominems and non sequiturs are a huge turn off to me.


I have found some interesting quotes from AIDSGate by ex-Senator Stephen Davis such as:


Text 10

The fact is that AZT recipients develop lymphoma 50 times more often, and 25% more patients die if they are taking AZT -- and they die 33% faster -- than non-AZT patients. Want proof?

In a French study on hundreds of AIDS patients taking AZT, one-third experienced a worsening of their AIDS conditions, and others developed new AIDS opportunistic diseases. On AZT, one out of every five patients died within nine months.

In England, on a study of thirteen AIDS patients taking AZT, all thirteen developed severe anemia.

In Australia, more than half the patients taking AZT developed a new AIDS opportunistic disease during the first year. Half needed blood transfusions to survive. One-third died within eighteen months.

A Dutch study found that three-quarters of the patients on AZT died within fourteen months.

In the United States, a 1994 study found twice as much dementia in AZT-treated patients. Also in 1994, HIV Positive hemophiliacs taking AZT had a 2.4 times higher mortality rate and a 4.5 times higher AIDS risk rate than HIV Positive hemophiliacs not taking AZT. In 1995, a study found that HIV Positive male homosexuals on AZT treatment had anywhere from two to four times the risk to develop Pneumocystis pneumonia.

Usually, only three percent (3%) of AIDS patients get lymphoma (cancer). But 50% of those patients taking AZT in the original (Phase I) FDA approval trials developed lymphoma three years later.

Even one of the biggest proponents of AZT, Paul Volberding, wrote a report in 1994 that the T-cells of a placebo group in an AZT study had increased gradually over two years, while the T-cells of those taking AZT had decreased. Volberding finally admitted in 1995 that "AZT does not significantly prolong either AIDS-free or overall survival."

Text 11:

....in 1990, we started giving a highly toxic drug that destroys the immune system to healthy people because they had the antibodies to the virus called HIV. Repeat: not an active HIV virus running wild in their body, but the antibodies to the virus called HIV. It was called "AIDS Prevention!"

And what happened to these people? The same thing that happens to AIDS patients: hair loss, muscle degeneration, anemia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss, impotence, leukopenia, hepatitis, Pneumocystis pneumonia, dementia, and lymphoma. In short, these people develop AIDS!

And rightfully so.

AZT kills the body's T-cells. It destroys the immune system. It ruins any chance the body has of fighting off opportunistic diseases. AZT causes AIDS!

Even Burroughs Wellcome agrees. They state in the Physicians' Desk Reference (the drug encyclopedia for doctors): "It was often difficult to distinguish adverse events possibly associated with AZT administration from the underlying signs of HIV disease [AIDS]."

Text 1:

To understand AIDS -- Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome -- we must first know a little about the immune system of a human body. Unfortunately, we really don't know exactly how the immune system works...

Text 2:

All of them had Immune Deficiency Syndrome and active opportunistic diseases. The only problem was that there was no known cause for the immune deficiency. None of them was suffering from malnutrition or sleep deprivation, and none was being treated with immunosuppressive drugs prior to coming down with an opportunistic disease. In short, they were suffering from Immune Deficiency Syndrome that had been "acquired" from some unknown cause.

Again, any scientific study that counters what has been written in any of these articles is sought. In fact, I would greatly appreciate valid scientific evidence that would link HIV with AIDS. I would think that the cash prize of £ 1000 offered to the first person finding one scientific paper establishing actual isolation of HIV would be sufficient motivation.

I believe that knowing the cause of AIDS is vital to determining its cure, and that determining the validity of that cause be based upon scientific evidence sufficient to collect the cash prize of £ 1000 offered. I have no personal problems with theories being proclaimed as long as they are stated as such.

I also believe a cure (or permanent remission) for AIDS needs to be sought, and that should be the goal. As Saille Willow stated:

While controversy rage about HIV/AIDS and it's treatment people are dying.

Best regards,

bob

[bobdrake12]

http://aliveandwell-...sgate/text3.htm

AIDSGate

by ex-Senator Stephen Davis

Text 3


By means of press releases to the public media, it was purported that AIDS was caused by HIV, even though HIV had not been found in every case of AIDS and had not been proven to cause AIDS in test animals. It had also not been proven to have any effect on the T-cells or human immune system, even though AIDS was supposed to be an immune deficient disease. And to add insult to injury, AIDS was declared to be highly contagious (infectious) and transmitted by sexual contact.

In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary. Let's look again at Koch's Postulates....

POSTULATE #1. THE CAUSE OF ANY DISEASE MUST BE FOUND IN EVERY CASE OF THE DISEASE. In all the research that has been done, no particle of the virus called HIV can be found anywhere in the tissues of most AIDS patients. What has been found in a percentage of AIDS patients is the antibody against the virus called HIV. In fact, the famous HIV blood test does not test for the virus itself, but for the HIV antibody. In simple terms, someone who has tested HIV Positive has not been found to have the HIV virus, but to have the antibodies against HIV.

Having the antibody against a virus means that the body's immune system -- at some point in the past -- detected the presence of the virus called HIV by means of its T4 "helper" cells, sent out the Killer T-cells to destroy all traces of the active virus itself (which is why no active HIV virus can be found in most HIV Positive AIDS patients), and developed special agents (antibodies) to combat any future harm from this particular invader. In short, being HIV Positive means that the body's immune system was functioning perfectly at the time, and all threats from whatever the virus called HIV might do had been neutralized within weeks after "infection."

In addition, there have been over 4000 reported cases of AIDS where the patient was HIV Negative -- meaning that not only did they not have the virus called HIV, but they also didn't have the HIV antibodies.

And there may be many more HIV Negative AIDS patients. It's difficult to give exact figures or percentages because only a small portion of diagnosed AIDS cases are tested for HIV. For instance, from 1985 to 1989, only seven percent (7%) of all AIDS cases in New York and San Francisco were tested for HIV, even though these two cities contributed over one-third of all AIDS cases in the U.S. that year.

But the question of how many AIDS cases might have tested HIV Negative is moot. If there is even one case of AIDS without active HIV, then HIV fails Koch's Postulate Number One and cannot be the cause of AIDS.

KOCH'S POSTULATE #2. THE CAUSAL AGENT MUST BE ABLE TO BE ISOLATED FROM ALL OTHER MICROBES AND GROWN INDEPENDENTLY IN A LABORATORY CULTURE. Robert Gallo claims to have done this, along with others. Let's give him this one, although it appears that growing the virus called HIV is not a simple matter and requires very advanced technology. (There is evidence to suggest that Robert Gallo also had to steal the special T-cell culture "HUT78" required to grow HIV in his own lab.)

KOCH'S POSTULATE #3. THE MICROBE MUST CREATE THE SAME DISEASE WHEN INTRODUCED INTO AN OTHERWISE HEALTHY BODY. Many attempts have been made to make the virus called HIV meet this criterion, and all have failed. For example, out of 150 lab chimpanzees who have been injected with purified HIV since 1984, none has yet developed AIDS. Out of 5,000,000 medical professionals and AIDS researchers working with and treating more than 400,000 AIDS patients in the last ten years, there is not one case (other than anecdotal) in the scientific literature of a health care worker who contracted AIDS from a patient. Out of 15,000 hemophiliacs in the U.S. infected with the virus called HIV prior to blood testing in 1984, fewer than two percent (2%) develop AIDS each year, and their wives have not developed AIDS.

But if the virus called HIV doesn't cause AIDS in animals or in whole human bodies, what about in individual human cells? Robert Gallo, in his patent application, claimed he was growing HIV in healthy T-cells. In fact, the HIV antibody blood test is made from virus that is mass-produced in T-cells which continue to grow, rather than die. According to Gallo himself, the virus called HIV does not kill the very T-cells it must kill in order to cause immune deficiency. Rather, T-cells and HIV seem to grow happily side-by-side.

HIV clearly fails at least Koch's Postulates #1 and #3. To be deemed the cause of a disease, a microbe must meet all three. To solve this little problem, Robert Gallo and his HIV/AIDS team simply respond that Koch's Postulates are out of date and should be ignored. Very convenient.

[bobdrake12]

http://aliveandwell-...sgate/text4.htm


AIDSGate

by ex-Senator Stephen Davis

Text 4

Following in the footsteps of Robert Gallo, let's ignore all the facts and speculate for a minute that the virus called HIV actually does cause AIDS. Is it contagious?

To be called "infectious" or "contagious," a disease must meet criteria similar to Koch's Postulates. For example, Farr's Law says that infectious diseases spread exponentially. In other words, the number of cases of a new epidemic will start small, then explode into the population as rapidly as the microbes can be spread from one person to another. The rise and fall of every epidemic can be plotted on a bell curve, increasing drastically in the early stages and decreasing just as rapidly in the later stages.

While the number of cases of AIDS might conform to a Bell curve (depending on which AIDS definition is in vogue at the time), the incidence of the virus called HIV certainly does not. In fact, the number of HIV Positive people in the United States has held steady at approximately 1,000,000 since testing for HIV antibodies first started in 1984. (Medical science normally interprets this kind of statistical behavior to mean that HIV is an old virus, rather than something appearing on the scene in the last couple of decades.) If HIV were contagious, it would have to be multiplying exponentially, which it is not.

In addition, if HIV were contagious, we would see geographical "clusters" of HIV Positives, as the microbe infected those nearby. However, there is no "cluster" pattern for HIV.

If HIV is not contagious, is AIDS? No, it can't be. The first epidemiological law of viral and microbial diseases holds that men and women must be affected equally, because no virus or microbe can discriminate between genders. In the United States and Europe, more than ninety percent (90%) of AIDS cases are male. Granted, the Centers for Disease Control recently added cervical cancer to the list of AIDS diseases (even though it has nothing to do with immune suppression), so the percentages for women may go up a little in the next year or two.

For either HIV or AIDS to be contagious, Farr's Law and epidemiological law must be ignored the same way Koch's Postulates have been ignored to claim HIV as the cause of AIDS.

If AIDS is not contagious, why are the numbers of AIDS cases going up so dramatically, as we're told they are? Contagion is not the only reason for rapidly rising morbidity and mortality statistics. For example, if you took one hundred unprotected people and lay them in the sun on a beach, as time progressed, more and more would develop the same symptoms: excessive body heat, red skin, maybe some blisters, and perhaps even dehydration. Statistics would show that redheads and others with the fairest skin (the highest "risk group") showed the worst symptoms, while those of African-American descent might tolerate the conditions more easily. But no one would suggest that this Sunburn Syndrome ("SS") was the result of an "infectious" or "contagious" agent. True, there was one cause: the sun. However, the statistics only went up and up as each individual responded to the cause directly rather than passing on their "disease" to anyone else.

[bobdrake12]

http://aliveandwell-...sgate/text5.htm


AIDSGate

by ex-Senator Stephen Davis

Text 5


If AIDS is not contagious, it can't be transmitted to anybody by any means. Period.

To understand how AIDS became associated with sex, please contact a member of the Moral Majority or visit the Christian Coalition at

http://cc.org

[bobdrake12]

I believe this is important in order to stay focused and clear on the specifics and not get lost in the morass of various important but conflicting aspects. And the same challenge to you holds as you have set forth for others. Define the cure.

Lazarus Long,

Conflicting aspects are a reality in complex problem solving.

I presume that with the billions of dollars that has been spent on AIDS to-date and with no apparent cure defined, it possibly could be concluded that the treatment and cure for AIDS requires resolving a considerable number of complexities. Sometimes complexities are cause by jumping to conclusions too rapidly without sufficient scientific basis for those conclusions.

Staying focused in a myopic fashion might make sense if one is on the right path.

This might tend to lead to the following question: How can a cure be defined for a disease without the cause being proven?


bob

[Limitless]

This might tend to lead to the following question:  How can a cure be defined for a disease, without the cause being proven? -Bob

Great question, Bob. Wouldn't it follow, logically, that AIDS researchers should be trying to determine exactly what causes AIDS, before developing any "Cures", or at least treatments that can prolong life, while a cure is being sought. If making-money wasn't the main objective, then I believe this would be the case. To a lesser-degree, this has been done in the area of cancer treatments, though chemotherapy apparently can cure some people of the disease. (With, or without any heart cells left.) Maybe it's unrealistic to expect drug-companies to completely avoid the money-first approach, but the current approach clearly isn't working. Perhaps governments need to be more involved in the field of medical research. It is involved now, but corruption is getting in the way. Maybe a global non-profit approach could work, if developed, but I'm not sure how the will to change could be garnered.

[caliban]

there is ample evidence HIV causes ADIS
but if it does not, a cure can still be defined (and used) for a disease without a known cause - most cures used to work that way.

---

but my main concern: applying pure lemon juice to your vagina (or any other mucousal membrane for that matter) might really have certain contraceptive value - most people are not too interested in mating while writhing with pain.

[Limitless]

You're right about the pain aspect of using lemon-juice. When I mentioned this story to people I know, they brought up the same concern. If I were a woman in Africa, I'd rather be a Catholic Nun. I might even get fed better than everyone else. lol

[Lazarus Long]

I believe you have all heard me reference this in relation to this this topic as well, and it certainly overlaps a number of topics under current discussion. The Law of unitended consequences is coming to haunt us.

Panel: Impure Polio Shots May Have Caused Cancer

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A monkey virus that contaminated some batches of polio (news - web sites)) vaccine in the 1950s and 1960s had the potential to cause cancer, but there is not enough evidence to tell whether it actually did, a panel of experts reported on Tuesday.



Studies do not seem to suggest that people who got the vaccine have experienced a higher rate of cancer, but the virus, called SV40, does have the potential to damage cells and turn them cancerous, the Institute of Medicine (news - web sites) panel said.


When the injected polio vaccine was first developed, it was grown on tissue taken from the kidneys of monkeys. In 1960, researchers found that these tissues could be infected with SV40, a previously unknown virus that causes a common and harmless infection in some monkeys.


Scientists moved to take it out, and the polio vaccine has been free of SV40 since 1963.


Polio is a disease that kills or paralyzes. It once left thousands of children living in "iron lungs," unable to breathe. At its peak in the United States in 1952, polio caused more than 20,000 cases of paralysis.


Thanks to the vaccine, polio was eliminated from the Western Hemisphere by 1994. Work is underway to eradicate it from pockets in parts of Africa and Asia.


"Researchers estimate that 10 percent to 30 percent of the polio vaccine given to adults and children in the United States between 1955 and 1963 was contaminated with SV40, potentially exposing between 10 million and 30 million Americans to the virus," the Institute of Medicine, which put together the panel that wrote the report, said in a statement.


"However, as with all viruses, not everyone who comes into contact with SV40 will become infected," it added.


The institute, an independent study group that reports to Congress and the federal government on medical issues, said there is no need to review polio vaccine policy as the vaccine has been free of the virus for decades.


At issue is whether people who claim to have developed cancer because of the vaccine have a legitimate complaint. There is not enough evidence to tell, the panel concluded.


"The vast majority of population studies, which carry the most weight in establishing causal relationships, have found no increased rates of cancer in people who received the vaccine contaminated with simian virus-40," it said in a statement.

"However, a possible link cannot be completely ruled out because of limitations in the available data and in the way the studies were conducted."

The group also noted that the virus does seem to be capable of changing cells, perhaps starting the uncontrolled growth that is the hallmark of cancer.

"While there is a strong body of biological evidence that SV40 is capable of causing cancer, it is not clear that exposure to the virus through the tainted polio vaccine could cause certain cancers suspected of being associated with SV40 -- mesothelioma, osteosarcoma, ependymoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma," it added.

[bobdrake12]

Lazarus Long,

It appears that my brother's death from cancer may have been related to this specific vaccine which is mentioned in the article.

Thanks for posting.

bob

[Mind]

Just to keep you updated on my search for actual HIV virus particles...here is a response from Cell Genesys.

Good morning, Justin--

Thank you for your inquiry.

To answer your question, Cell Genesys obtained our original lentiviral vectors from the Salk Institute.  

Regards,

Susan Ferris
Corporate Communications Specialist

Notice she does not say "HIV vectors". I sent another e-mail asking whether they know if they are using actual HIV particles or if they are just using a "proxy" virus particle to move forward with their research, usuing something they might think is related to HIV (or whatever DNA fragments researhcers are calling HIV nowadays).

[Limitless]

Interesting. It's amazing how this thread has "Snowballed" in the last little while. It seems this topic was on people's minds, all along. It also seems, that all it took was my initial challenge to the original post, to get this thread rolling. I certainly don't know enough, to unequivocally side with anyone, but I'm certainly leaning towards the conspiracy theory angle, at present. People get away with too much-too easily. It's too naive to disbelieve this point of view, given so much evidence to the contrary. I certainly know much more than I did about this subject, previously, and I intend to gain much more knowledge on the subject. This thread could be never-ending. Much credit to Lazarus, for getting us all started, and to those who have presented evidence-adding to our wealth of knowledge. Also: BobDrake, are you a computer? You certainly find a lot of information. Maybe the singularity has already happened. [roll] Okay, I'll shut up now. [wacko]

[Lazarus Long]

Politics doth make strange bedfellows but the ultimate conspirators are ignorance, pride, greed, and denial.

Thank you Limitless. Thisis a painfully personal and political issue for many but our mutual interests are best served if we can stay focused and as accurate as possible while examining the "limits" of parochial understanding.

I earlier raised the issue of the Polio Vaccine program of the World Health Organization of the 1950's as a possible source of the rapid propagation of the disease throughout Africa and subsequently around the world. It is subtlely different in mechanism but entirely a parallel supposition so when I found this report out of today's news I felt it worthy of including in the discussion.

Please understand I do not think this even was intentinal as much as misguided and tragic in scope but the history of Germ Warfare in Africa and elsewhere in these same decades suggests that there is reason to at least exaine the question.

There is a tragic and documented outbreak of smallpox in the Horn of Africa during the Apartheid years that has been traced back to probable weapons tech.

It was purportrated upon the Black communities by rogue military scientists of government of the former Rhodesia. In fact one scientist involved in that event is a prime suspect in the Anthrax attacks here. He migrated to the US over 15 years ago. While he hasn't been linked directly to bioweapons in recent decades here, he has been an outspoken critic of our lack of readiness to them (ironic). He is a suspect among intelligence services because they are aware that he was however involved in these war crimes in Africa 25+ years ago when over 9000 people died as a result of highly a suspect smallpox outbreak.

Still I think that while many conspirators will take advantage of ignorance to exploit the good intentions of the ignorant I think most people are well intended in this. The money trail is a separate matter however.