While reading the latest post from the Perth Group on the BMJ debate
website, I found myself just laugh and laughing. It would seem the AID$
industry has now topped itself. It would seem that if you get or die from
a given disease BEFORE you go on HAART, you die from AIDS.

However, N-O-W, if you develop the EXACT same disease AFTER going on
HAART, you are now said to have IMMUNE RESTORATION DISEASE (IRD)!!!

I DID NOT MAKE THIS UP! If anyone from the orthodox standpoint is
following along this forum, lurking behind the scenes to see what we
'dissidents' are discussing, YOU'RE NUTS!

I'll quote the exact section of the reply from the Perth Group below. This
is good stuff. This came up in a discussion of T-cell counts and their
meaning, or rather lack thereof, in 'HIV' and AIDS. Here is their post:
By definition T4 cells helps B cells to produce immunoglobulin, hence
their name, T helper cells.

According to the "HIV" experts, "HIV" kills the T4 cells, the helper
cells. If the T4 cells have a helper function, then all AIDS patients must
have hypogammaglobulinaemia (low antibody levels). However, one of the
main laboratory findings in AIDS patients is hypergammaglobulinaemia.
According to the "HIV" experts the diseases which constitute the acquired
immune deficiency syndrome, the S in AIDS, are the consequence of the low
T4 cell number, (AID), induced by "HIV".

However, according to the same experts these diseases continue to appear
even after HAART induces "immune restoration" and decreases of the "viral
load" even to non-detectable levels.

Since the AIDS indicator diseases appear after HAART "suppression of HIV
viraemia" and "immune reconstitution", the only conclusion one can draw is
that neither "HIV" nor the T4 cells are causally related to these
diseases. Instead of coming to these obvious conclusions, the AIDS/"HIV"
experts simply gave these diseases a new name: "Immune Restoration Disease
(IRD)".9 This means that one and the same disease in the same individual
before HAART treatment in the presence of low T4 cells and high "viral
load" is an AIDS disease. After "Suppression of HIV viraemia" and "immune
reconstitution" by HAART, the disease is IRD and the patient dies from
"immune restoration disease", not AIDS.

According to the AIDS/"HIV" experts: "Differentiation of IRD from an
opportunistic infection is important because IRD indicates a successful,
albeit undesirable, effect of HAART".9

The question is, what does "successful" mean and what is its clinical
relevance?
Reference #9: 9. French MA, Price P, Stone SF. Immune restoration disease
after antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2004;18:1615-27.

DYING FROM HIV OR AIDS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER, I DO NOT FIND THIS AMUSING WHATSOEVER!

http://Death.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com
http://Dying.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com
http://Bereavement.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com
http://Vigil.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com
http://Coping.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com
http://Religion.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com
http://Religious.HIV-AIDS-POZ.com

Thanks, http://hivdate.com/DaveyBoy/ (DaveyBoy)

http://www.HIVdate.com
http://www.HIVforum.com
http://www.HIVsearch.com

Sorry Dave!
King is not laughing AT the death of those unhappy victims of
HAART—AIDS Aggravating Toxics.
One must not confound VICTIMS with those Doctors that neither had they
cure ONE SINGLE AIDS CASE until today; neither had they let that other
alternative solutions might be publicized.
King might talk for himself but he is surely laughing from the
unashamed pseudo scientists producing unceasing miscarriages like the
so recently called IRD — one more ‘déjà vus' in AIDS myth
bureaucratism.
King as all the incorrupt people are laughing at the Establishment's
easy-going skill in changing, with all the indecency and impunity, the
goal posts of HIV = AIDS game LIE, at least since ICL "Schizoidism
Parade" in Amsterdam 4th AIDS Congress till the artfulness of the
famous *Expansion of the AIDS definition in 1993* just to disguise the
downward trend in AIDS epidemic with obvious repercussions in AIDS
budgets…
However, the more the Devil tries to hide himself the more he shows
his tail, and so, only because of that definition change in AIDS it
was mathematically possible to prove, with no buts, that AIDS-
specific medications were increasing mortality in that syndrome.
Don't miss the genial work from Vladimir Koliadin based on the CDC's
AIDS surveys: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm

Karl


dave@poz.ca (http://www.HIVsearch.com) wrote in message news:<b8d83a5.0409081739.19c2eea7@posting.google.c om>...

"Karl" <carlos.boni@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:90a1daf0.0409101714.375b46df@posting.google.c om...
(snip)

Why would anyone with even a mildly critical ability to read English take
anything posted on the virusmyth site to be anything other then lies, half
truths, misrepresentations, and irrelevancies that they are? If your talking
about myths the virusmyth site is total mythology if it wasn't so dangerous
it would be laughable.

Gary Stein

THE MYTH'S DANGER OR THE DANGER'S MYTH?

Gary Please...
Virusmyth is far from being my Bible.
I must half agree with you just on the base that not everything there
is peer reviewed.
BUT, in the work that we are talking about [see the link again--> (
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm )--, its author,
Vladimir Koliadin, is a mathematician that does nothing there but a
mathematical demonstration merely based on official data. There are no
such things as polemical concepts or theories in there; JUST NUMBERS.
So, a mathematical demonstration of this kind doesn't need to be peer
reviewed. You are only supposed to criticize those numbers if you find
them exaggerated or false; but you didn't because they deserve to be
trusted or else it will be the complete chaos in CDC.
So, in this work, either you have a Mathematical sensibility or you
don't understand what is really happening there, no matter if it's
written in English or Chinese.
The fact that this work is very poorly known doesn't prove that it
might be just fiction.
I always recall the fact that the most famous work from Albert
Einstein — The Theory of Restrict Relativity — have never been taken
seriously until he won his SECOND Nobel Price in Physics, never being
him an academic as everybody knows.

Now, back to the link, my question is:
What is the wrong thing is Koliadin's demonstration work, according to
your sensibility?
I'm sorry but you have to answer that in order to keep everybody off
all the dangers you refer, mainly when anti retroviral therapy seams
to be checkmated with this work...

Karl


"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<1Gs0d.883$MS1.255@trnddc02>...

THE MYTH'S DANGER OR THE DANGER'S MYTH.

Gary Please…
Virusmyth is far from being my Bible.
I must half agree with you just on the base that not everything there
is peer reviewed.
BUT, in the work that we are talking about [see the link again--> (
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm )--, its author,
Vladimir Koliadin, is a mathematician that does nothing there but a
mathematical demonstration merely based on official data. There are no
such things as polemical concepts or theories in there; JUST NUMBERS.
So a mathematical demonstration of this kind doesn't need to be peer
reviewed. You are only supposed to criticize those numbers if you find
them exaggerated or false; but you didn't because they deserve to be
trusted or else it will be the complete chaos in CDC.
So, in this work, either you have a Mathematical sensibility or you
don't understand what is really happening there, no matter if it's
written in English or Chinese.
The fact that this work is very poorly known doesn't prove that it
might be just fiction.
I always recall the fact that the most famous work from Einstein— The
Theory of Restrict Relativity—have never been taken seriously until he
won his second Nobel Price in Physics, never being him an academic as
everybody knows.

So, my question is:
What is the wrong thing is Koliadin's demonstration work, according to
your sensibility?
I'm sorry but you have to answer that in order to keep everybody off
all the dangers you refer mainly when it seams that anti retro viral
therapies are completely checkmated with this work…

Karl


"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<1Gs0d.883$MS1.255@trnddc02>...

"Karl" <carlos.boni@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:90a1daf0.0409112117.351090e9@posting.google.c om...
Koliadin's work. First off I did not take the time to verify my problems
with his work if you feel that needs to be done I will be glad to do so. So
of the top I find his mortality rates troubling in that he paints an
entirely better picture of the 2 year survival rates of post 93 diagnosis
patients, if one is assuming that he meant there suriviability from 1993 to
1995. He shows a 11% chance of death in a two year period for those who meet
the new defination only. I would challenge that number at least between 1993
and 1996 I would put the chances of death much higher.

There were real clincal reasons to change the defination in that new
treatments were coming online DDI in 1991 and DDC in 1992 to help the largly
failed AZT monothreapy. In 1989 the first effective treatment for PCP
pneumonia was found so that also was added as an AIDS defining illness. It
was apparent due to the many retrospective studies that had been done by
1993 on the case histories of AIDS patients that the >200 CD4 count
represents a turning point in AIDS progression. At this point the patient is
at significantly higher risk for PCP, Thrush, MAC, Kaposis Sarcoma,
Menigitus and so on and so on. In 1993 if my memory is correct the likely
hood of surival once you had a >200 CD4 count was less then two years for
the vast majority of patients rather then the 11% Koliadin states above. If
you insist I am sure I can find a study or CDC document that will give us
the real number and I am postive it will be closer to mine then it is to
Koliadin's.

Second what does anything Koliadin says in that paper have to do with your
premise that HIV does not equal AIDS?

Bellow I post a brief chronology of HIV and AIDS it might help you
understand were I am coming from;


1930 Some time between 1910 and 1950 with 1930 being the most likely date
HIV-1 M appears as a unique new retrovirus (1) There is still much debate as
to how HIV first appeared in human hosts. (1)

1959 The oldest confirmed case of HIV is discovered when a blood sample
from a Bantu male who died in 1959 is found to be positive for HIV-1 through
immunoassay, immunoflourescence, Western blotting, and
radioimmunoprecipitation methods. (2) In the 1985 retesting, Emory and
Harvard University scientists used four different procedures on the samples
and found one that was positive for HIV. The specimen, which came to be
known as ZR59, had been taken from an unidentified African male from the
area near Leopoldville (present-day Kinshasa) in 1959.

1978 Gay men in the US and Sweden begin to show symptoms of what will
latter be identified as HIV/AIDS. The first signs of heterosexual HIV/AIDS
appear in Haiti and Tanzania. (3)

1981 Gay cancer (Kaposi's Sarcoma) latter to be called GRID is noticed in
New York and San Francisco. 181 die in the US from what is letter determined
to be HIV/AIDS

1982 The CDC's Doctor Donald Francis and his team determine that GRID is
a blood borne disease agent. 1,201 cases of AIDS and 463 deaths due to AIDS
in the US.

1983 The CDC warns blood banks of a potential problem with the nations
blood supply. The Pasteur Institute in France isolates the HIV retrovirus.
3,145 cases of AIDS and 1,508 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1984 Dr. Robert Gallo claims he discovered the virus that causes AIDS;
however, this is about a year after the French discovery. (4) 9,035 cases of
AIDS and 3,502 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1985 The US FDA approves an HIV antibody test. Blood products begin to be
tested in the US and Japan. Atlanta hosts the first International Conference
on AIDS. 11,990 cases of AIDS and 6,972 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1986 C. Everett Koop US Surgeon General issues a report calling for sex
education to include information on HIV/AIDS. Europe begins to test blood
supplies for HIV antibodies. 19,319 cases of AIDS and 12,110 deaths due to
AIDS in the US.

1987 Glaxo Wellcome's drug Zidovudine (AZT) becomes first drug approved
by the FDA for treatment of HIV/AIDS. Canada begins testing blood supply.
FDA approved the first Western blot blood test kit - a more specific test.
FDA Published regulations which require screening all blood and plasma
collected in the U.S. for HIV antibodies. The US issues rules denying
entrance visa's to travelers and closes immigration for HIV infected people.
After six years of deadly silence US President Ronald Reagan mentions the
word AIDS in a public speech for the first time. Vice President George Bush
calls for mandatory HIV testing. 28,999 cases of AIDS and 16,412 deaths due
to AIDS in the US.

1988 Surgeon General C. Everett Koop pushes forward the printing and
distribution of 107 million copies of a booklet entitled "Understanding
AIDS". Trimetrexate was the first AIDS drug to be granted pre-approval
distribution status under the FDA's new Treatment IND regulations. 35,957
cases of AIDS and 21,119 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1989 First treatment for PCP (pentamidine mist) is approved for use by
the FDA. FDA approved Cytovene (ganciclovir) infusion for use in the
treatment of cytomegalovirus retinal infections in persons with AIDS. FDA
Licensed the first diagnostic kit to detect the presence of HIV-1 by
directly detecting the proteins, or antigens, of the virus. 43,168 cases of
AIDS and 27,791 deaths due to AIDS in the US
1990Ex-President Ronald Reagan apologizes for his neglect of the deadly
HIV/AIDS epidemic during his presidency. FDA approved Diflucan (fluconazole)
tablets to treat two serious AIDS-related fungal infections (Cryptococcal
meningitis and candidiasis). 49,069 cases of AIDS and 31,538 deaths due to
AIDS in the US.

1991 Bristol Myers Squibb's anti-retroviral medication Videx (ddI,
didanosine) is approved for use in the US. The World Health Organization
estimates that there may be as many as 10 million people infected with HIV
world wide. A coalition of gay and HIV/AIDS activists campaign for
accelerated approval of medications used in the treatment of AIDS and AIDS
related illnesses in the US. The CDC estimates that there may be as many as
1 million HIV infected US citizens. 60,124 cases of AIDS and 36,616 deaths
due to AIDS in the US.

1992 Roche Labs gains FDA approval for Hivid (ddc, zalcitabine). Combo
drug treatment regimens undergo first clinical trials in the US. The US
government starts interim licensing (accelerated approval) for medications
used to treat AIDS and AIDS related illnesses. 79,054 cases of AIDS and
41,270 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1993 The definition of AIDS used for reporting purposes by the CDC is
modified to include new opportunistic infections. The controversial
British-French Concorde study is released to the public, indicating that
early use of AZT monotherapy does not delay the onset of AIDS. 79,034 cases
of AIDS and 44,896 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1994 Bristol Myers Squibb's Zerit (d4t) is approved for us in the US. FDA
approved Bactrim and Septra (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) for a new
indication for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in
individuals who are immunosuppressed and considered to be at an increased
risk of developing Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. 71,209 cases of AIDS and
49,311 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1995 For the first time there is a reduction in new AIDS cases compared
to the previous year in the US. As a result of combo therapy the rate of
growth in deaths due to AIDS also slows for the first time in 1995. In
December the first Protease inhibitor class drug Roiche's Saquinavir
(invirase) is approved for use in the US. Glaxo Wellcome gains approval for
Epivir (3TC, lamivudine). The US government admits that the discovery of HIV
was first accomplished by the Pasteur Institute not Robert Gallo. 66,233
cases of AIDS and 49,897 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1996 With the first full year of widespread use of HAART deaths due to
AIDS and new AIDS cases both are less then the previous year in the US.
Crixivan, Norvir, and Viramune approved for use in the US. Researchers show
that Kaposi's sarcoma is most likely caused by the combination of diminished
immune function and herpes virus. Dr. David Ho is the name in the news at
the Vancouver BC International AIDS conference. 54,656 cases of AIDS and
37,359 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1997 FDA granted accelerated approval for Viracept (nelfinavir) the first
protease inhibitor labeled for use in children, as well as adults. FDA
approved Fortovase, a new formulation of Invirase (saquinavir) for the
treatment of HIV-1. New cases of AIDS and deaths due to AIDS continue to
decline in the US. The WHO estimates that the total worldwide death count
due to AIDS may be 6,400,000. The approximate number of HIV-positive people
worldwide is said to be 22,000,000. There are 31,153 new AIDS cases and
21,437 deaths due to AIDS in the US.

1998 FDA approved Sustiva (efavirenz), DuPont Pharmaceuticals, to treat
HIV and AIDS. Ziagen (abacavir) is approved for use in the US. New AIDS
cases begin to rise in the US deaths due to AIDS continue to decline. There
are 48,269 new AIDS cases and 17,171 deaths due to AIDS in the US.
1999Amprenavir is approved for use in the US. Genotype and Phenotype testing
see increased use by US physicians in planning treatment for AIDS patients
who have shown signs of failure on HAART. The CDC has not released the year
end figures for 1999 as of this date.

References

1. Korber B, Muldoon M, Theiler J, et al. Timing the origin of the HIV-1
pandemic. Programs and abstracts of the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and
Opportunistic Infections, January 30-February 2, 2000; San Francisco, Calif.
Abstract L5.

2. An African HIV-1 Sequence from 1959 and Implications for the Origin of
the Epidemic. Nature (02/05/98) Vol. 391, No. 6667, P. 594 Zhu, Tuofu;
Korber, Bette T.; Nahinias, Andre J.; et al.

3. The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in a cohort of homosexual men. A
six-year follow-up study.Ann Intern Med. 1985 Aug;103(2):210-4. Unique
Identifier : AIDSLINE MED/85249669 Jaffe HW; Darrow WW; Echenberg DF;
O'Malley PM; Getchell JP; Kalyanaraman VS; Byers RH; Drennan DP; Braff EH;
Curran JW; et al

4. "Gallo Admits French had Sent AIDS Virus" Chicago Tribune (05/30/91), P.
1-4 Crewdson, John Abstract: Dr. Robert C. Gallo will admit, in a written
letter to the British scientific journal, Nature, that the AIDS virus he
claimed to discover actually was sent to him by scientists in France. In the
published version of the letter, Gallo writes that a viral culture in his
laboratory "became contaminated" with some French virus that was shipped
from the Pasteur Institute in 1983. Since 1983, Gallo has attempted to
persuade the scientific community that his lab derived HIV from an American
patient. The Pasteur Institute insisted that the virus was from a sample it
sent to the National Institutes of Health, and therefore, the AIDS blood
test Gallo's lab developed had been made with the French virus. Currently,
NIH investigators are attempting to determine whether Gallo's cultures
became contaminated with the French virus by accident or on purpose. Related
Stories:Philadelphia Inquirer (05/31) P. 10C; New York Times (05/31) P. A12;
Washington Post (05/31) P. A3

Gary, I much appreciate your concern about the discussed paper signed
by Koliadin in what that concern of yours reveals a rare attitude
among ARV therapies' defenders.
I've considered your observation and I agree it would be indeed very
interesting to search for more updated conclusions (before 1995) on
the base of this conceptual AIDS' Group of Control that has
spontaneously emerged in the 1992 AIDS' definition switch.
BTW a couple of years ago I made myself that question and I decided to
email it among several other questions to Vladimir Koliadin.
Unfortunately my email has been returned back apparently because I got
his wrong address.
As I told you before I don't comment data as I presume CDC is an
unsuspected source.
As to the formal demonstration with Koliadin's signature everyone even
slightly knowledgeable about Mathematics or at least with a necessary
and sufficient sensibility understands all the exposition without
requiring supplementary investigation.

You said:

« Second what does anything Koliadin says in that paper have to do
with your premise that HIV does not equal AIDS? »

There must be a terrible mistake of yours as there are no such words
as AIDS or HIV in that posting and in all the thread, as you can watch
by yourself.

However, the fact that AIDS does not equal HIV-seropositivity is
another story and if you feel like it, I will bite the hook:

That fact must be divided into two independent demonstrations D1 and
D2, symbolized by:
D1) AIDSHIV IS FALSE and D2) HIVAIDS IS FALSE.

To prove [D1] we only need to find one single person HIV seronegative
meeting the CDC criteria towards AIDS. In fact there are not only one
but thousands of samples to illustrate it—-the euphemistic ICL that
stands for the acronym of *Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia* as you
certainly know.
However, the effort to set apart HIV-positive from HIV-negative AIDS
cases (ICL) is not based on any clinical or convincing epidemiological
criteria and even Fauci have said: "Given the heterogeneity of the ICL
syndrome, it is highly likely that there is no common cause" [cf.:
Fauci, A.S.: CD+ T-lymphocytopenia without HIV infection-No lights, no
camera, just facts. New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 328:
429-431. ]
Yet, paradoxically, at the same time, the proponents of the HIV
hypothesis, including Fauci himself, insist that HIV must be the
common cause of the 29 heterogeneous AIDS diseases. Where is the
coherence? How do these two positions assumed by the same "orthodoxy"
in AIDS stick together?
To prove [D2] we better prove first that seropositivity means always
HIV infection. At this point, everybody knows that a gold standard is
required to confirm this. That gold standard must be the HIV isolation
from every person tested which is never done. BTW, In it's turn, and
using, in its due context, Roberto Giraldo's point of view, nobody
knows, with any precision, the percentage of false positives among
PWA.
Contrarily to what happens in other disease proceedings where the
microbe isolation is the only way to ascertain about any positive
result, God knows why gold standards are so neglectable while scanning
HIV when everybody is aware of the absolute incertitude in finding
antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood using trivial tests.
To prove [D2] we also need to implement the test beyond the classical
risk groups invented just to match AIDS with infectious disease. Until
that happens, we are condemned to walk on circles and AIDS' mainstream
point of view is nothing else but a mere TAUTOLOGY. To keep on
insisting in tautologies it might be enough lucrative for half a dozen
Godfathers in the Big Pharma business but it is Scientifically insane
and a inherited shame for the future generations.
However, even in that tautological official scenario, it happens that
there are thousands of HIV antibody-positives that are still alive
twenty years before being tested. However it is rather difficult to
assume that they will never die not only because nobody lives forever
but mainly because AID Syndrome's spectrum is sufficiently large to
allow any contestant criteria.
In [D2] I'm going to be backed up by another work of V. Koliadin where
in between four main hypothesis about AIDS and HIV correlation he
chooses by mathematical enforcement the only one that states that
seropositivity is not contagious being "HIV" just a marker of
deteriorated health, which contradicts the official paradigm that
HIV-seropositivity causes opportunistic AIDS-defining diseases.

Before anything else, I must ask you:

Have you ever thought about the fact that
the so called HIV never came to USA or Europe during Colonization
Age(as it is a institutionalized Faith), but
exactly before the last colons move out Africa definitively in 1975
(the Portuguese ones living Guinea, Angola and Mozambique)?
Don't you find that a little strange under the stubborn AIDS
mainstream assumption
Consisting in the association of seropositivity to an infectious
vector? It's obvious that Africans
were already seropositives before 1974, before 1964, 1954 and so on.
Seropositivity always existed, at least in Uganda (a randomized
African Country in our African study). Do you know why the last
statement is so evident?

Now, it's here that really enters the announced work signed by
Koliadin:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vkafrica.html

I'm going to try to summarize this superb and "Sherlock Holmesian"
work deciding at first to round off some numbers without them loosing
significance so you the better reach what is essential (mine excuses
to Koliadin and Sherlock Holmes)
Using the historical of CDC surveys, Koliadin
decided to study the 9000 seronegatives among 10000 Ugandian natives
aged
between 13 and 44 with an obvious remainder of 1000 seropositives; and
do
you know what did he find? He found that mortality taxes among
seronegtives
in Uganda are almost the same as in USA seronegatives in the same age
interval . Do you know what this means? I believe you can find
the
answer by yourself because it is very obvious. That means that
seropositivity cannot be a new health condition among Ugandans,
otherwise
ignoring the 1000 seropositives, the remainder 9000 were just as
"healthy" as USA
homologous. But how can this be possible as Uganda and all other
African
countries showed always such high mortality taxes in those age
intervals
comparing to USA? So we must conclude that seropositivity always
existed in
Uganda and other African countries, never being transmitted to the
foreign
colonists during almost six centuries just because it is, obviously,
NOT
CONTAGIOUS. Quod erat demonstrandum (q.e.d.).


Facing this example, I hope you start reappraising your main positions
towards AIDS.


Karl


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------The
Newton's binomial theory is as beautiful as the Venus de Milo.
However, precious few people notice that. ohohoh —
ohohohohohohohohohoh — ohohohohohohooooooooo. ...
Fernando Pessoa (a Portuguese Poet)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<w4G1d.4980$xH1.467@trnddc03>...

Gary I'm sorry but I didn't watch the preview of this message.
In the line 26 of that posting, when I wrote:
« That fact must be divided into two independent demonstrations D1 and
D2, symbolized by:
D1) AIDSHIV IS FALSE and D2) HIVAIDS IS FALSE. »

I should have said, instead:

*That fact must be divided into two independent demonstrations D1 and
D2, symbolized by:
D1) AIDS ==> HIV IS FALSE and D2) HIV ==> AIDS IS FALSE. *

Karl



carlos.boni@netcabo.pt (Karl) wrote in message news:<90a1daf0.0409191719.7dc1961a@posting.google. com>...

"Karl" <carlos.boni@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:90a1daf0.0409200239.5e08e3a3@posting.google.c om...
True however you are using the work to further your argument that HIV does
not equal AIDS.
Yes I am aware of ICL, however when a close look is given via retrospective
studies of ICL patients they DO NOT follow the same disease progression as
do AIDS patients and thus are not useful in showing anything about the
HIV=AIDS discussion.

Just so, see above which is one of the reasons Fauci makes the above
statement.

No where will you find a mainstream HIV researcher or medical doctor making
the claim that HIV is the cause of the opportunistic infections that effect
AIDS patients. That you say this is so shows your wish to muddle the waters
of this discussion with strawman arguments. HIV disease cause the bodies
immune function to decline to the point were it becomes susceptible to
opportunistic infections that are only seen in people with very badly
damaged immune responses.

The only ones who seem to know that the so called "Gold Standard" of
isolation is required to diagnosis and characterize a viral infection is the
dissident movement. There are any number of viral diseases that are commonly
diagnosed, treated, and accepted by such luminaries as the Perth Group as
being viral diseases that have never been isolated using the Perth Groups
Gold Standard. You need only use Google to read any of the 1000 or more
posts to this news group made by Doctor Nick Bennett PhD or Doctor Holtzman
of NYU School of Medicine to see that what I say is so.

Isolating a microbe and isolating a virus are not in any way comparable and
that you use the term microbe is again a sign that you have not done your
homework. PCR is not a 'trivial' test by any standard it is highly accurate
and the other issue with both PCR and CD4 testing that dissidents want to
ignore are the tens of thousands of case histories that have been studied
retrospectively that show a extremely strong consistent correlation between
those markers and disease progression and patient health thus showing beyond
doubt that what they are measuring is in fact important data as regards HIV
disease and the progression to AIDS.

There have been several recent studies that went back and took at look at
those patients labeled long term non-progressors during the mid 1990's and
they found that the estimate made during those studies that up to 10% of
AIDS patients might fall under that heading to be overly optimistic and the
revised number is 5% or less. So while yes there are some people who's
immune system is able to fight HIV with out medication that is so for every
disease known to mankind and should not be a surprise to anyone. The fact
that they are such a small percentage shows just how deadly HIV is when
comparing it to other diseases.

I can not imagine any mathmatical method that could show such to be the
case.

No please enlighten me, I can not imagine what you are referring to here.

The above logic is so completely flawed that I don't even no were to begin
explaining the errors in the assumptions you are making. Suffice it to say
that no matter how many oranges you study you will learn nothing about
onions.

That in essence is what you are doing in the above statement somehow you
draw a conclusion about seropositives based on comparing the mortality rates
of seronegitives in Uganda and the US, that is completely nonsensical you
can make no assumptions about seropositives or the presence of HIV in any
population by studying the mortality of seroneagitives, hope that helps.

Gary Stein

You said:

«Yes I am aware of ICL, however when a close look is given via
retrospective
studies of ICL patients they DO NOT follow the same disease
progression as
do AIDS patients and thus are not useful in showing anything about the
HIV=AIDS discussion.»



But Gary, how can HIVnegative/ICL patients follow the same disease
progression as the homologues HIVpositive/AIDS patients since both
groups follow such different therapies?
You cannot dissociate therapies from disease progression otherwise
your statement is obviously flawed.
The 8th AIDS Congress in Amsterdam was the stage of the making up
resurgence of one more mystification which consisted at that time in
calling ICL to AIDS without HIV, and doing that, an artificial change
in the evolution of the syndrome was obviously promoted.
This is one more ‘déjà vus' where simple implementations of new
definitions in AIDS can artificially alter its progression as we both
have seen yet possible in a study signed by Koliadin you have promised
to study.
( http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vknewdef.htm )
The relevance of ICL in HIV/AIDS discussion entangle with the fact
that quite a few laureate scientists believe that HIV might not be
involved in the AID Syndrome. Be it the case, all PWA/HIV+ must know,
for instance, the mortality taxes in between ICL comparing with
PWA/HIV+ either using Anti Retro Virals or not, in order to choose
alternatives to the irreversible dangers of ARV. All PWA/HIV+ must
also be acquainted with the therapies applied to AIDS in between
seronegatives (ICL), unless it might be another taboo.



You said:
«The only ones who seem to know that the so called "Gold Standard" of
isolation is required to diagnosis and characterize a viral infection
is the
dissident movement. There are any number of viral diseases that are
commonly
diagnosed, treated, and accepted by such luminaries as the Perth Group
as
being viral diseases that have never been isolated using the Perth
Groups
Gold Standard. You need only use Google to read any of the 1000 or
more
posts to this news group made by Doctor Nick Bennett PhD or Doctor
Holtzman
of NYU School of Medicine to see that what I say is so.»


But Gary, you are about to be true, BUT the fact is that there is no
other illness or syndrome that has determined such a loud controversy
among the wiser Medical scientists dealing with the HIV. Besides the
Perth Group others have followed, at least, Robert Giraldo in this
extent. In fact there are 60 identified cross reactions that may
produce seroconvertions.
The truth about any medical discovery can be taken seriously if and
only if there might not be so many obvious money interests around. In
fact, the stato quo has too much overestimated HIV either with
alarmist positions or with fudged arguments.



You said:
«Isolating a microbe and isolating a virus are not in any way
comparable and
that you use the term microbe is again a sign that you have not done
your
homework. PCR is not a 'trivial' test by any standard it is highly
accurate
and the other issue with both PCR and CD4 testing that dissidents want
to
ignore are the tens of thousands of case histories that have been
studied
retrospectively that show a extremely strong consistent correlation
between
those markers and disease progression and patient health thus showing
beyond
doubt that what they are measuring is in fact important data as
regards HIV
disease and the progression to AIDS.»




I don't make such primary confusion between a virus and a microbe; but
apparently many doctors do, when prescribing antibiotics to treat
common colds and flu. I used the term microbe in a rather slang
connotation as others would have chosen ‘Bug', much simply.
I never said that PCR is a 'trivial' test. When I referred ‘trivial'
it's implicit that I meant Elisa and WB tests.
*Consistent correlation* is by no means the same as *Unequivocal
causation*, and this seems to be the outworn ‘leit motif' of this
thread without any consistent reply of yours.
It's World known that CD4 counts can be dramatically lowered owing to
many different conjugated causes that even might not have to do with
such HIV retroviruses, such as: Psychological and Physical stress,
depression, social isolation, mal nutrition, systemic failures of
several organs, traumatisms, etc. Those entire events link directly
with meaningful rises of CORTISOL in the blood, 'a fortiori' when
those factors act synergistically altogether.



You said:

«There have been several recent studies that went back and took at
look at
those patients labeled long term non-progressors during the mid 1990's
and
they found that the estimate made during those studies that up to 10%
of
AIDS patients might fall under that heading to be overly optimistic
and the
revised number is 5% or less. So while yes there are some people who's
immune system is able to fight HIV with out medication that is so for
every
disease known to mankind and should not be a surprise to anyone. The
fact
that they are such a small percentage shows just how deadly HIV is
when
comparing it to other diseases.»



No. HIV is not deadly. HIV is harmless, following the main ideas of
Peter Duesberg in this matter.
HIV is just a marker of compromised health. Also, it seems that the
single most important obstacle in finding the explanation for AIDS is
the belief in HIV.
Once again we ought to covenant that we must not confound *positive
correlation* with *causation*, anymore--the very first lesson of any
elemental course of Statistics.
HIV is the allopathic medicine's main alibi to hide its real
incompetence in curing several infections when appearing altogether
owing to namely chronic anti-hygienic life stiles (physical,
psychological or spiritual), in body terrains more and more
debilitated and immune compromised.
In this extent, for our orientation sake, we must not forget that
allopathic medicine still doesn't know how to cure a simple common
cold caused by a virus (!). To imagine what's happening with AIDS it's
enough to multiply that simple common cold's virus by hundreds of
other incurable miscellaneous combinations between several diseases
that can be easily caught insidiously by super anti hygienic life
stiles.
However, it's becoming part of the AIDS mainstream busine$$ not to
mention those deadly cocktails all gathered under the same nickname:
HIV.


You said:

«The above logic is so completely flawed that I don't even no were to
begin
explaining the errors in the assumptions you are making. Suffice it to
say
that no matter how many oranges you study you will learn nothing about
onions.

That in essence is what you are doing in the above statement somehow
you
draw a conclusion about seropositives based on comparing the mortality
rates
of seronegitives in Uganda and the US, that is completely nonsensical
you
can make no assumptions about seropositives or the presence of HIV in
any
population by studying the mortality of seroneagitives, hope that
helps.

Gary Stein »


Gary, you must be more unobtrusive when dealing with a subject that
has been already debated in this forum a couple of years ago.
At least you should have studied the subject before using such rustic
comments, but you didn't. You didn't even read the link I fruitless
tried to put in a language that even a twelve year old kid might
understand. Instead, you tried to depreciate my attempts to make
Koliadin's paper a little bit more popular and "layman's friendly"
with a ‘minimum minimorum' misrepresentation's risks, although my
intention was to catalyze the interest in reading Koliadin's paper
itself. I just did it because I realized that very few people that
use to read MHA postings can be actually at the disposal of trying to
analyze graphics and tables crowded with numbers included in the link:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vkafrica.html
On the other side, all the Biology's students know that in the face of
several theories explaining a biological phenomenon, the more likely
to be THE CAUSE of that phenomenon can be determined by different
techniques from which the more famous is synthesized in the Bayes'
Theorem that reintroduces the concept of Conditional Probability.
However, following Koliadin's paper in reference, the method of
rejecting three theories among four is even much simpler in its task
to find the more likely relationship between HIV and AIDS.
What is really--let us say-- a GENIUS kind of task in Koliadin's work
is precisely the fact that he have studied AIDS causation not from the
mortality in between Seropositives but from the mortality in between
its complementar subset of a Ugandan population where HIV is not to be
found--the Seronegative subset . It's almost unthinkable but
actually it's the remarkable solution however strange it might appear
to you while protesting with yours much familiar oranges and onions...
I know several critics to this paper although none of them is
sufficiently dissuasive towards the essential which is the conclusion
that HIV is just a marker and not the cause of AIDS.
I hope you try to reconsider the merit of Koliadin in this study.

Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------The
Newton's binomial theory is as beautiful as the Venus de Milo.
However, precious few people notice that. ohohoh —
ohohohohohohohohohoh — ohohohohohohooooooooo. ...
Fernando Pessoa (a Portuguese Poet)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<5EG3d.3049$C8.2522@trnddc05>...

"Karl" <carlos.boni@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:90a1daf0.0409271731.7b97d592@posting.google.c om...
Well it's quite simple actually ICL was identified very early on in the late
19880's and at that time there were lots (and there still are lots of
untreated AIDS patients to study) untreated AIDS patients to study and
compare to ICL patients. ICL patients progression was such that no treatment
was ever needed nor have ICL patients needed treatment with the current
anti-virals used for HIV treatment. ICL patients while they do show declines
in CD4 counts those counts do not fall so low that the patients are in
danger from the life threatening opportunistic infections faced by AIDS
patients.

There is no need to do so.

As I have said in the past there were scientifically valid reasons for
changing the definition of AIDS in 1993 that had absolutely nothing to do
with the conspiracy theories of the dissident movement around that topic.

There have been many retrospective studies of untreated AIDS patients that
can be used to compare there disease progression to untreated ICL patients
and the simple fact is that ICL patients have a mortality rate that is not
statistically significantly higher then the general population of there home
country while untreated AIDS patients mortality rates are around 90+% thus
there simply can be no valid comparison between ICL and HIV/AIDS. Hope that
helps.

Gary Stein

Sadly Paul forgot to post my reply which neatly shows where the BS is
in this story....

The Perth Group have not replied to this rebuttal. Clearly they
cannot. The latest debacle is unfolding even now...keep watching and
reading. If the BMJ censors decide my post isn't too libelous it'll
be great reading )

Bennett


***************

"CD3 CD4 and all the more modern names..."

I never questioned that the CD4 receptor expression wouldn't alter,
but I reiterate the fact that it is pivotal in the immune response.
Both the acquired syndrome of AIDS, the rare condition of ICL, and
inborne errors of immunity in humans and other animals have repeatedly
underscored this.

What has happened in the immunological field has been an explosion of
detail, far surpassing anything from even 5 years ago and drastically
refining our understanding (or complicating, depend on how you look at
things) of the immune responses. The commentary quoted is from more
than two full decades ago: the fact that my undergradate lectures in
immunology were outdated three months after the lecturer wrote them
speaks volumes about the rate of change in the field: the Perth Group
would do well to re -acquaint themselves with the current
understanding, as best as can be done. Janeway and Travers is a
particularly well written volume.

A case in point is the Perth Group's marvelously simplistic view of
hypergammaglobinaemia. T Helper cells do all manner of things,
basically to induce specific immunity from non-specific. What they
fail to mention is that Th cells come in two sorts, Th1 and Th2 (in
fact three, if we consider the naive Th0 cells). Th1 induces CD8 and
macrophage type responses, Th2 induces antibody responses. The
differentiation between Th1 and Th2 lead to the name "Suppressor T
cells" seen in some journals, since depending on what function you
look at, CD4 T cells will promote or suppress it. Far from CD4 (OTK4)
being irrelevant, CD4 is only the tip of the iceberg! The "helper" is
not so much to promote the immune responses as to prevent
inappropriate activation by providing a second check of antigen
presentation before giving a stimulatory signal. The important role
isn't the stimulatory signal, it's the antigen check: once the B or
CD8 cell is activated it no longer requires confirmatory CD4 T cell
"help", and autoimmune diseases are examples of where this checkpoint
has gone awry.

What is massively clear in AIDS is that along with the decline in CD4
T cells as a whole there is a skewing of Th1 to Th2 responses such
that antibodies are incorrectly promoted compared to cellular
immunity. The same effect can be seen in lieshmaniasis and
schistosomiasis, albeit on a smaller scale. The cytokine profile that
causes this is probably why the thymic replacement of T cells is
decreased in HIV infection, but maybe the Perth Group don't believe
this either. It's a fact, indisputable, and by far the best
explanation is HIV infection (not least because uninfected controls
are, well, normal, and treatment with HAART reverses the problem).
Nothing else from nitrates to the man in the moon is currently offered
as a better explanation of this effect that is so clearly related to
immune deficiency.

CD4+ T cell decline in AIDS is not supposed to be purely cell death,
except in the eyes of those trying to refute it. CD4 is downregulated
by HIV infection through the actions of specific viral genes (vpu,
nef), cell fusion through syncitium-inducing strains will also reduce
functional CD4 "count" (and any argument that these fused cells are
normal will be met with rolled eyes and derision). Since CD4 is
crucial to the actions of Th cells in binding to MHC class 2
molecules, antigen recognition cannot possibly be expected to progress
normally.

In fact, AIDS is one of the great success stories of the CD-surface
antigen field. For once a SPECIFIC subset of T cells does indeed seem
to be affected distinctly from any other! Only specific genetic
disorders such as Bruton's, Job's and Hyper IgM syndrome have shed
similar light on the cascades involved in immunity (but of course the
Perth Group favour cell-wide "oxidative" type effects over things like
enzyme cascades and cytokine profiles).

IRD is a transient phenomenon, not entirely unique to AIDS, as the
Perth Group will well know having read all the available literature.
They will also know from the same literature that not all
AIDS-defining conditions have an associated IRD and in fact HAART is
associated with a significant decline in AIDS-defining conditions in
those treated versus untreated. They ignore this because it doesn't
agree with their world view. In fact IRD is an effect of restored
immune function, since those diseases which tend to flare up are those
with an inflammatory component (e.g. CMV retinitis). I will quote
from the 2004 paper that the Perth Group cite:

"Suppression of HIV replication by highly active antiretroviral
therapy (HAART) often restores protective pathogen-specific immune
responses, but in some patients the restored immune response is
immunopathological"

"[HAART] has resulted in a sharp decline in the
prevalence of opportunistic infections in HIV patients."

"Secondly, a CD4 T-cell count below 50 X 10^6 cells/l is a major risk
factor for IRD"

One has to ask just how the person got a CD4 count of less than 50
per microliter prior to HAART, the normal range being at the lowest
ten
times greater!

Contrary to what the Perth Group suggest, the return of specific anti
-pathogen responses can be documented to explain the IRD, as is
detailed in the very same article they cite.

As far as I am aware people aren't dying from IRD in quite the same
way they died from AIDS in the pre-treatment era. To imply or in fact
state otherwise (the patient dies from "immune restoration disease",
not AIDS) is not just misleading but downright untrue. What is a sad
fact is that those infected with HIV are now living long enough to
suffer from significant chronic side effects of the medications, and
that unlike other conditions, AIDS-lymphoma risk is not affected by
HAART. These reiterate that in this age of infection control we
really have a tenous grasp of the reins, and the only way to prevent
deaths from HIV is to prevent transmission. To that end, promoting it
as a harmless passenger virus and undermining the importance of the
HIV tests and antiviral drugs is extraordinarily reckless.

The Perth Group have done no original research, have clearly little if
any experience in the fields of molecular biology and virology and
have a dubious grasp of basic medical tenets such as epidemiology.
One has to ask the question why the Perth Group think themselves
qualfied to continually question the HIV/AIDS paradigm despite clearly
having their flaws and errors pointed out to them.

I would understand a questioning viewpoint were it not based on a lack
of understanding or knowledge, and if it actually fitted with the
facts of the situation. I ask why the Perth Group refuse to
acknowledge both the facts that have been repeatedly given to them,
and their own errors. Quite simply they are mistaken in their
understanding of medical science. Can the Perth Group refute the
brief explanation I offered a few weeks ago of the mechanism by which
HIV causes AIDS, by fitting their own proposals into the observed
facts?

I note that the corresponding author of French et al is based at the
Royal Perth Hospital: perhaps they could pop in for coffee and a chat
about basic AIDS science.