Hi:

There's a lot of anecdotes of hiv+ people going 10+ years, not in risk
groups, and not taking aids meds. Sorry I can't provide links, but
two examples - the Duesberg Romanian adoptee (last heard doing fine as
a young teen) and the SF artist with the hiv+ blood sample from the
70's.

Three questions/comments:

It's strange that google has no recent news about any of these types
of people. Why not? Are they dead, alive, indifferent?

There seems to be enough of these people to warrant some sort ot
study. Where's the literature?

What does this mean? Particularly the guy with the 70's tainted blood
- that means about 30 years with hiv and no problem (not to mention
existance of hiv long before the early 80's). If someone wants to
respond but has to have a reference I can probably find it.

Me? I'm a programmer but have a scientific background. I just
recently became interested in the subject and am, to say the least, a
bit disturbed at the 'middle ages' style of science with regard to
aids.

TIA,
HC

good question! i hear also alot about it! maybe it isnt in the interest
of hiv causing aids theory! late say that if they do those clinical
studies and the outcome is that there are looking in the wrong direction!

duesburg would " say told you so".

"tsip29" <nnormen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dacf87a054f812e625807ed60b230217@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Well as usual your wrong, there have been dozens upon dozens of studies on
the so called long term non-progressers. It has taken over a decade to get
enough data on this group of people to truly understand what is going on
with them. Sadly what has been found is that they are not non-progressers at
all but in stead are slow-progressers for the most part.

When scientists took a second look at the patients who were studied in the
early 1990's and called long term non-progressers they found that they had
indeed progressed and could not be labeled in that way any longer.

If you do a search in Pub-Med on "long term non-progresser" you will find
page after page of studies going back to the earliest days of the epidemic
right up to the present and you will see how the understanding has
progressed over the years.

Gary Stein

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 19:07:56 GMT, "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net>
wrote:

Thanks, Gary.

I'm not really finding anything useful, maybe because I'm not used to
searching pub-med.

There seems to be a group of hiv+ people, not taking aids meds, who
are long term non-progressers. When I run across such an anecdote, I
often try to check up on these people (via google, newspaper archives,
etc) and always come up with nothing - current, anyway. It struck me
that there must be a study involving a group of these sort of people.
That is what I'm looking for. If someone posted a relevant link or
two to a study I'd appreciate it.

TIA

LINK TO DISCUSSION THREAD ON THE NEW VIRUS MYTH FORUM RE: LTNPs AND WHO THE
AIDS INDUSTRY COUNTS AS SOCALLED "LONG TERM NON-PROGRESSORS"
http://forums.delphiforums.com/innoc...ages?msg=180.1

PLEASE READ THROUGH ALL THE MESSAGES IN THE DISCUSSION THREAD LINKED ABOVE
FOR A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE STUDIES TO DATE OF SOCALLED
'LTNP's

In article <4216c8ac.49579731@dfw.news.speakeasy.net>,
HankC <hankc@nospam.com> wrote:
"non-progresser" is spelled wrong. Try "long term non-progressor".
Also try the plural, "long term non-progressors", in a separate search.

Google scholar searches (http://scholar.google.com/) detect possible
spelling errors and suggest alternative spellings.

--
David Canzi