This is a strange way to start a new thread. But I suspect it's answer to
my post in another thread.
So, assuming your remark is about Charlie Parker: No, he didn't have AIDS,
because it had not been invented yet. Had he lived in the present times,
the newspapers would certainly have written that he died of AIDS, just as
that other famous jazz musician, Fats Navarro.

Ah! Now I understand why a new thread was started, instead of answering my
last post. Methinks the professor has an ego that's easily bruised.

In article <c74620e64552cb6606af6167b9af8de0@localhost.talkab outhealthnetwork.com>,
Iconoclaster <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Talkabout erroneously shows it as the start of a new thread. Other
news software and other web sites don't.

--
David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber

There is ample evidence and frankly very simple logic that makes that
statement self evident. You have yet to explain the simple fact that
prior

to the use of 2 drug ARV the number of deaths due to AIDS in the US was
high
and rising each and every year. Yet once 2 drug ARV and then 3 drug ARV
came
into use those numbers declined rapidly and only in 2003- 2004 did a very

small increase occur. Even though the numbers of people living with HIV
in

the US has grown each and every year since they have been tracked by the
CDC.

Gary you know these dates better than I do. Let’s look at a couple
known changes to the AIDS diagnoses and treatment over time.
Going from high dose AZT mono therapy to lower dose combination therapy
= effects the numbers because more people die on high dose AZT, also PI’s
most likely have positive short term effects on OI’s.
Changing the definition of AIDS from the appearance of an OI and immune
suppression to only needing immune suppression (200 or less T-Cells) =
effects numbers again.
There are other examples as well but I have to hit the sack.
I listed these examples just to point out why it may be more than my
inability to see simple logic going on here

G'night Gary

P.S. I recently seen some data on ARV toxicity but I will have to get
back to you on that.

Fondoo wrote:
It is that simple.

There are many papers showing just this.

Here is one example.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...92&query_hl=11

A molecular clone of HTLV-III with biological activity. Fisher AG,
Collalti E, Ratner L, Gallo RC, Wong-Staal F. Nature. 1985 Jul
18-24;316(6025):262-5.

I choose this paper intentionally because Duesberg cites it as evidence
that HIV exists.

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/continu1.html

"In conclusion: HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method
science has to offer. An infectious DNA of 9.15 kilo bases (kb) has
been cloned from the cells of HIV-antibody-positive persons, that -upon
transfection- induces the synthesis of an unique retrovirus. This DNA
"isolates" HIV from all cellular molecules, even from viral proteins
and RNA. Having cloned infectious DNA of HIV is as much isolation of
HIV as one can possibly get, it is like isolating the fifth symphony
from an orchestra hall by recording it on a CD. The retrovirus encoded
by this infectious DNA reacts with the same antibodies that crossreact
with Montagnier"s global HIV standard, produced by immortal cell lines
in many labs and companies around the world for the HIV-test. This
confirms the existence of the retrovirus HIV."

What Duesberg does not mention is that this molecular clone was
cytopathic.

Add it to T-cells and they are infected and die

And they used controls!

Chris Noble

What Duesberg does not mention is that this molecular clone was
cytopathic.

Add it to T-cells and they are infected and die

And they used controls!

Thank you Chris,
Could you tell me Duesberg's reason for not believing the cytopathic
evidence was not valid? Or am I to believe Duesberg just ignores proofs
because he enjoys being the underdog? I mean no disrespect but I feel you
are leaving something out and you sharing it would save me allot of time
looking it up.
My guess would be since he supports the papers evidence of HIV he has
reason not to support the cytopathic evidence and not that he just chooses
to ignore it.

Fondoo wrote:
I have no idea. I have not found an explanation of why Duesberg does
not mention the cytopathic effects.

Duesberg does frequently mention the immortal cell lines that are used
to culture HIV. Duesberg and others frequently cite this as evidence
that HIV is not cytopathic. However, Gallo and his coworkers spent a
great deal of time finding an immortal cell line and tweaking the
conditions so that it could support HIV replication without killing
*ALL* of the cells. There are many cell lines which cannot be used for
culturing HIV for extended periods because it kills the cells. If you
put HIV in ordinary donor T-cells it kills them.


There is nothing that I can find in the paper that would suggest a
plausible reason for accepting this paper as evidence for the existence
of HIV but at the same time not accepting it as direct evidence for the
cytopathic properties.


My kindest guess would be that it was carelessness. Duesberg might have
read the paper at one stage and acknowledged the evidence for the
existence of HIV.

Sometime later Duesberg is exasperated by the claims by some dissidents
that HIV does not exist. Duesberg thinks that this is a stupid claim
and that it will sidetrack his own aims. He responds to the Continuum
challenge to try to resolve the issue. He then looks up these
referneces but does not read them fully again.

My only problem with this guess is that Duesberg does the same thing
several times. He cites papers and accepts part of its conclusions when
it suits him but ignores other conclusions. In some cases he ignores
the original data but accepts the conclusions that were derived from
the data.


You could try emailing him and asking him.

Duesberg appears to have more time for his supporters than for his
critics. He is more likely to give you an answer than myself.

http://www.duesberg.com/contact.html

Chris Noble

From what I gather here http://www.duesberg.com/articles/ept4cells.html
is he supports the theory that cell death is the result of the oxidizing
agents the cultures are exposed to and not to the HIV that is also
present
Again thank you for the input Chris


Cut-n-Paste
The conclusion that HIV has an "intrinsic effect" on PCD can be questioned
on several grounds:
1. The "slight acceleration of the first signs of apoptosis" in the
stimulated HIV infected cultures, as compared to the non-HIV infected
stimulated cultures, may not be due to HIV but to the many non-HIV factors
present in "HIV" inocula, including:
(a) Mycoplasmas and other infectious agents;
(b) The many cellular proteins present in the "HIV preparation" (Henderson
et al., 1987);
(c ) PHA, present in the cultures from which the "HIV preparation" was
derived;
2. That HIV is not the cause of apoptosis is also indicated by the fact
that in chronically infected cell lines in which virus is continuously
produced, apoptosis is not detected;
3. That HIV may play no role in apoptosis is also suggested by the
presently accepted mechanism of apoptosis. Apoptosis occurs both in
healthy and in pathological conditions, is frequently prominent amongst
the proliferating cells of lymphoid germinal centres, and can be enhanced
by numerous agents including radiation, cytotoxic drugs, corticosteroids
and the calcium ionophore A23187 (Kerr & Searle, 1972; Don et al., 1977;
Wyllie et al., 1980; Wyllie et al., 1984). Apoptosis is cellular death
characterised by morphological criteria: cellular condensation, DNA
fragmentation, and plasma membrane "blebbing" leading to the release of
"apoptic bodies" which vary widely in size and some of which contain
pyknotic chromatin surrounded by intact membranes (Kerr & Searle, 1972;
Don et al., 1977; Wyllie et al., 1980; Wyllie et al., 1984). These changes
are thought to be induced by increased concentration of Ca++ which in its
turn induces contraction of the cytoskeleton whose main components are
known to be the ubiquitous proteins, actin and myosin (Jewell et al.,
1982; Cohen & Duke, 1984; McConkey et al., 1988; McConkey et al., 1989;
Reed, 1990).
However, evidence exists indicating that intracellular Ca++ concentration
and contraction of the actin-myosin system (cellular condensation), are
induced by perturbances in the cellular redox state (Papadopulos-Eleopulos
et al., 1985; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1989b). In fact, for more than
a decade, evidence has existed showing that oxidising agents, including
all mitogenic (activating) agents, can induce: reversible cellular
changes; cellular activation; malignant transformation; mitogen
unresponsive cells; or cellular death, including death by apoptosis. The
ultimate outcome depends on the concentration of the agent, its rate of
application, the initial state of the cells and the cellular milieu (See
reference (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1982)).
More recent data confirm the fact that the intracellular free Ca++
concentration is regulated by the cellular redox state. Oxidation leads to
an increased, and reduction to a decreased, Ca++ concentration (Trimm et
al., 1986). Cellular surface blebbing (Jewell et al., 1982; Lemasters et
al., 1987; Reed, 1990), chromatin condensation (Pellicciari et al., 1983),
and apoptosis (Morris et al., 1984) are the direct result of cellular
oxidation in general and of cellular sulphydryl groups in particular. This
is supported by Montagnier's group's recent finding that apoptosis can be
inhibited by reducing agents (Ren» et al., 1992). (In fact, at present,
Montagnier (Gougeon & Montagnier, 1993) agrees with our view that
anti-oxidants should be used for treatment of HIV/AIDS patients
(Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1988; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1989a; Turner,
1990; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992a; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al.,
1992b)). At present it is also known that:
(a) for the expression of HIV phenomena (RT, virus-like particles,
antigen/antibody reactions), activation (mitogenic stimulation) is a
necessary requirement (Klatzmann & Montagnier, 1986; Ameisen & Capron,
1991; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b);
(b) activation (stimulation) is induced by oxidation
(Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1982; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b);
Since both AIDS cultures and AIDS patients are exposed to mitogens
(activating agents), all of which are oxidising agents
(Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1988), both apoptosis and the phenomena upon which
the presence of HIV is based (viral-like particles, RT, antigen/antibody
reactions (WB), "HIV-PCR- hybridisation"), may all be the direct result of
oxidative stress and therefore their specificity questionable
(Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1988; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992a;
Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b).
As far back as January 1985 Montagnier wrote, "....replication and
cytopathic effect of LAV can only be observed in activated T4 cells.
Indeed, LAV infection of resting T4 cells does not lead to viral
replication or to expression of viral antigen on the cell surface, while
stimulation by lectins or antigens of the same cells results in the
production of viral particles, antigenic expression and the cytopathic
effect" (Klatzmann & Montagnier, 1986). One year later Gallo and his
colleagues wrote: "the expression of HTLV-III was always preceded by the
initiation of interleukin-2 secretion, both of which occurred only when
T-cells were immunologically [PHA] activated. Thus, the immunological
stimulation that was required for IL-2 secretion also induced viral
expression, which led to cell death" (Zagury et al., 1986). Thus,
relatively early after the appearance of AIDS it was known that HIV is not
sufficient for the appearance of the cytopathic effects. For some unknown
reason, up till 1991 very little (or no) data was presented regarding the
effects of the activating agents themselves on cell survival. However, in
the above discussed 1991 Virology paper, Montagnier and his colleagues
showed that activation, in the absence of HIV, can induce the same
cytopathic effects. In other words, Montagnier and his colleagues have
shown that HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient for the induction of
the cytopathic effects observed in HIV infected cultures. Thus, the
presently available evidence from the in vitro studies does not prove that
HIV has direct cytopathic effects on any T-cells, T4 or T8. The cytopathic
effects observed in the cultures are most likely caused by the many
activating (oxidising) agents to which the cultures are exposed.
Even if HIV were shown to have cytopathic effects, since it is accepted
that "The hallmark of AIDS is a selective depletion of CD4-bearing
helper/inducer" lymphocytes

Fondoo wrote:
That is a Perth Group article.

The paper I gave used two different controls with plasmids containing
non-cytopathic HTLV-I DNA and no retroviral DNA respectivley. These
controls were treated exactly the same as the sample containing HIV
DNA. All were activated with PHA. Only activated T-cells support
retroviral production. The Perth Group's definition of an oxidising
agent also seems nebulous. They have been asked to define what exactly
they mean but (at least in my opinion) have not dones so.

So the Perth Group's arguments about PHA and lack of proper controls
does not apply to this paper. I think that the Perth Group would
instead chose to question whether the DNA was really HIV DNA. They
would fall back to their basic argument that HIV has not been properly
isolated. This is despite the fact that Duesberg cites this paper for
the evidence that HIV has been isolated. The Perth Group are not
willing to listen to Duesberg a fellow dissident. I still maintain that
if they had integrity they would be able to settle this difference with
Duesberg. If they are all scientists that are governed by the data then
they should be able to convince each other. I would argue that one or
both of them are ruled by their egos rather than rationality.

Chris Noble

........ This is despite the fact that Duesberg cites this paper for the
evidence that HIV has been isolated.

still he himself cant produce this paper for the evidence that hiv has
been isolated.

if you ask him please isolate the virus yourself. he cant do it!

why is that, that he cant!

anyway thats what i read on the diffrent forums on the net.

tsip29 wrote:
The paper was published in Nature in 1985.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...92&query_hl=11

Anyone can go to their local library and read it.

The evidence is there for people willing to look.

I don't know that anyone has personally asked him to isolate HIV.
Duesberg presented the Continuum people with the evidence that HIV had
been isolated.

Duesberg thinks that HIV is irrelevant. He has never attempted to work
with HIV. His point in claiming the Continuum prize was to move the
dissident debate from the decidely nutty claim that HIV does not exist
to the more plausible stance that HIV does exist but does not cause
AIDS.

Chris Noble

.....Duesberg thinks that HIV is irrelevant. He has never attempted to work
with HIV. His point in claiming the Continuum prize was to move the
dissident debate from the decidely nutty claim that HIV does not exist to
the more plausible stance that HIV does exist but does not cause
AIDS.

why doesnt he isolated it himself now. so the debate between him and other
dissidents that claim hiv doesnt exit can be put aside!

because they dont trust the document that has been publsihed in Nature in
1985 . if hiv is so simple to isolated, he can do it. then bye, bye to
those dissidents.

i think if he wants to prove , then isloted it himself. then he knows for
sure ,then assumming it has been done. he can check if it is right what
they did then.

dissident debate from the decidely nutty claim that HIV does not exist to
the more plausible stance that HIV does exist but does not cause AIDS."

That's probably the case. Duesberg may be right, but I doubt it. I don't
find the claim that HIV doesn't exist nutty at all. If it exists, *where
is it?*
Look, these "cloning" experiments are nice kindergarten diversions, but
you can put any old piece of DNA in a plasmid and show that it's
infectious. If you introduce DNA in any cell, it will replicate. That's
what DNA does. Insects inject bacterial DNA into plants. As a result,
Crowngall tumors develop on the stem of the plant.
Who is to say that the DNA they put in a plasmid and cloned had anything
to do with an exogenous virus named HIV? Isolate that sucker! Then we'll
believe it exists.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:00:25 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:

Apparently, Duesberg can find it. But we agree. The guy is a whack
job. So he's not the guy to look for to see that HIV exists.

George M. Carter

"Larry Farrell" <farrlarr@isu.edu> wrote in message
news:1129486174.1d18dd0b4241cbac391ed5ec1c7e27d0@t eranews...
A statistical sample of one is meaningless. He did survive over 15 years
taking no drugs. I can point to people who've survived longer never taking
retrovirals but who ARE on wholistic protocols (vitamins, ozone, herbs,
etc). The fact is antivirals ARE toxic; they kill healthy cells as well as
virus-infected cells. I think he was more a non-believer in retrovirals than
HIV but I'm not that familiar with him. Certainly it's foolish to do nothing
if you're HIV+ but it's also foolish to dive into any protocol without being
fully informed.

Natural Light Black and White Photography
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze76ane/
-George-

Iconoclaster wrote:
But it doesn't then go and insert itself into more and more cells
nicely pacakged in a viral proteins.

This is what infectious means.

Chris Noble

No reply... OK, I guess that's an hour or so of life I'll never get back
trying to compose a cogent response.

B/

Brian Mailman wrote:

"GEO" wrote:
itfield_36_author_wrote_about_effect_of_aids_on_am ericas_black_community
/
I did some extensive research into this case and you are right--he did
believe HIV causes AIDS but also believed the ARVs would do more harm
than good. Who's to say if he'd have lived a longer or shorter period
on the drugs? Is there much info out there on how long people who stay
on ARVs for really long periods are doing? What about the fact that
those around him did not support his choices? There seems to be much
evidence that believing you're going to die can indeed make it so.

And what is the possibility that the more you have screwed up your
immune system with drugs and indiscriminate sex with people who have
multiple STDs, the greater your chance of eventually succumbing to AIDS?

Linda

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:01:31 GMT, Linda R <moonchild492000@yahoo.com>
wrote:

snip
None if you don't have HIV.

People taking recreational drugs can die from that, of course.
However, the most lethal ones are probably nicotine (due to the
delivery of being smoked in highly carcinogenic cigarettes or other
forms, like chewed) and alcohol (cirrhosis, etc.)

Many MANY people with HIV are no more promiscuous or drug using than
the "average Jane." Many use no recreational drugs.

If sex and drugs caused AIDS, there'd've been a LOT more straight
folks with AIDS in the 80s, I daresay.

They don't. There's no data to support the theory, some data that
outright refute the notion and just common sense and a little thinking
will show you that.

George M. Carter

Not so fast. You'll find I'm not so easy to dismiss. Now, no one's
talking about your garden-variety (or even more exotic) heterosexual
sex. I'm talking about those gay guys that had dozens of diseases for
which they took a great number of antibiotics both curatively and
prophylactically. Apparently, there is also evidence that semen is
immunosuppressive, especially in places it was not designed by nature to
go. No, I'm not in the least homophobic. Any consenting adults can do
whatever they desire to each other.

I seem to recall that a fair number of early cases tested negative. And
I happen to know people who have AIDS in all but name only. Recently
I've heard some people say that whatever actually tests as HIV could
possibly be something that appears in people who are already
immunosuppressed. I think Duesberg's passenger virus theory could well
be valid.

I am not prepared to comment on the existence of HIV--I have not seen
enough evidence either way yet. I just see a lot of questions that have
not been answered to my or a lot of others' satisfaction. Take, for
instance, the virtual lack of heterosexual transmission among non-drug
users. And the lack of an epidemic among prostitutes. And the
nonexistence o fAIDs (not just HIV) cases among health care workers.

Got explanations for these?

Linda

--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com