Is the penny starting to drop?

<http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_22-5-2007-10-16-27?newsid=11714>:

"Scientists have refuted a longstanding theory of how HIV slowly
depletes the body's capacity to fight infection, in new research
published today.

[...]

One popular theory has been the 'runaway' hypothesis, which says that
T cells infected by HIV produce more HIV virus particles, which
activate more T cells, that in turn become infected, leading to an
uncontrolled cycle of T cell activation, infection, HIV production and
cell destruction.

However, today's new study in PLoS Medicine shows that this theory
cannot explain the very slow pace of depletion that occurs in HIV
infection."
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>

On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:38:48 +0100, Martin <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk>
wrote:

It did for Michael Bellefountaine. He followed his friend, David, into
death by AIDS needlessly because he bought your stupid lies.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:38:48 +0100, Martin <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk>
wrote:

Oh--and this merely refutes Ho's "Tap-and-Drain" model which is not
the least bit surprising nor particularly news. It does NOT say
ANYTHING that supports the notion that HIV does not cause AIDS. Quite
to the contrary.

Indeed, I and others rejected Ho's model back in the 90s when it came
out as being inadequate to describe HIV disease pathogenesis.

Further, this supports the point I was making that you knee-jerk
denialists fuck up this FAR more important discussion because you
can't get to square one, living in your delusional la-la land.

How many more people will you murder with this bullshit?

George M. Carter

On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:59:30 GMT, GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
You can't blame that on me. Michael and David were questioning
HIV=AIDS=Death a long time before me.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:01:53 GMT, GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
Ah yes, you have your pet theory that CD4 cells suddenly commit
suicide for no apparent reason. I don't find it very convincing.

What's the more important discussion?
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>

On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:04:26 +0100, Martin <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk>
wrote:

I'm not blaming you for it.....I am warning you that following their
path is extremely dangerous. In their case, denial was deadly.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:10:02 +0100, Martin <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk>
wrote:

Excuse me?? "No apparent reason" is your commentary. There are plenty
of proposed mechanisms for CD4 death.

What brought your CD4 count down so low?

Understanding how and why CD4 counts are depleted, which can have
therapeutic implications. Oxidative stress is probably one of the
mechanisms that cause CD4 count depletion. Other forms of immune
dysregulation are understood. Destruction of neurons is undoubtedly
due to inflammatory cytokines and products released by HIV infected
glial cells. Just a few examples of mechanisms that indeed have
potential therapeutic implications.

George M. Carter

On Tue, 22 May 2007 21:40:48 GMT, GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
I thought your theory was that CD4 sat around ignoring HIV for a few
years, then suddenly committed hara-kiri for bringing shame on the
immune system.

We've already discussed this. You don't like my suggestions and I
don't like yours. Some I put forward included natural decline,
depression, being healthy.

Wikipedia suggests CD4 was discovered in 1985 to support the HIV
theory. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD4>:

"CD4 (cluster of differentiation 4) is a glycoprotein expressed on the
surface of T helper cells, regulatory T cells, monocytes, macrophages,
and dendritic cells. It was discovered by Steven McDougall in 1985,
while he was looking for the binding site of HIV to T-lymphocytes."

Erm, hold on a second. Isn't that the same theory suggested by the
Perth Group 'denialists?'
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>

On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:50:18 +0100, Martin <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk>
wrote:

I've never expressed such an odd theory. Those are your clumsy words
and confused thoughts.

"Being healthy" causes CD4 decline? And on what evidence do you base
and chronic, persistent and severe decline of CD4 counts being caused
by "natural decline" or depression?

What evidence do you have for any of these absurd notions?

Perhaps so.

The Perthies have a dismal grasp of the science. No, it's not the same
because they think they're smarter even than that jackass Duesberg and
claim that HIV doesn't exist.

Oxidative stress on its own does not cause a chronic depletion of CD4
counts--but it may be one of the mechanisms that HIV infection
initiates.

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
this or that or perhaps something else, maybe.

It is certainly true that the Perth Group do not know everything about
what can cause CD4 depletion, but:

1. Nobody does.

2. Low CD4 cells counts are a "marker," and there is no direct
correlation between this marker and "AIDS." In other words, until a
doctor can say, "you have a CD4 count of X, and so you will die within
three to five months" (and have it actually happen all the time), one
can only take this marker with a grain of salt. It is not uncommon
for those who are "HIV negative" to have low CD4 counts, for no
apparent reason! Ask people in the life insurance industry.

3. "Oxidative stress" is contextual, that is, there are factors which
influence how dangerous this is. One factor is the kinds of fatty
acids one has in one's cells that the body uses to make inflammatory
metabolites. "HIV/AIDS" occurred at the exact time the first
generation of young (sexually active, obviously) adults with
arachidonic acid in their cells decided to not only have sex, but to
take drugs, etc. It is likely that the combination of factors in
their lifestyles led to their "AIDS" (the minority who got "AIDS,"
that is). This is easy to demonstrate in an experiment in which gay
young men are exposed to the typical STDs, given large doses of
antibiotics, corticosteriods, "poppers," etc., have passive anal sex
without condoms with each other, etc. Then after a couple of years of
that, you give them AZT for a couple of years, and voila - you have
"AIDS" (in the same proportion to those who died of "AIDS" in the gay
community in the early 1980s).

On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:56:36 -0500, " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

LOL...lil death has joined the denialists. You're in good company,
dear.

On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:54:42 GMT, GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
Perhaps you don't like my analogy, but you do support the suicide
theory, don't you? You mentioned it in another thread.

Well, as I said: we've already discussed this. You don't like my
suggestions. What evidence do I have? The very real evidence that I
am alive and well at a time when HIV=AIDS=Death statistics, data, and
believers tell me I should be extremely unwell and planning my
funeral.

It's quite funny the way you share the views of The Perth Group and
Duesberg while condemning them at the same time.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>

On Wed, 23 May 2007 14:36:46 +0100, Martin <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk>
wrote:

Apoptosis is not a theory. There are ample evidence to show that
programmed cell death is a significant feature of HIV pathogenesis.

That's what David P and Michael B used to say. They died of AIDS.

This is pretty thin "evidence" - and you're not well. You have HIV.

HIV induces immune activation. This increases T cell turnover. It
destroys gut function, resulting in increased lipopolysaccharide
secretion, which results in further immune activation. This results in
oxidative stress, as well as chronic depletion of CD4 numbers, along
with other immunological perturbations.

The result? AIDS. I agree with the US definition that includes a CD4
count below 200 as a marker for having developed aquired immune
deficiency--the syndrome part arises with the dramatically increased
risk of opportunistic infections associated with a chronically low CD4
count.

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u9485390bjpnh0edskt5ib4k5m0i8bgeho@4ax.com...
20+ million dead of AIDS patients do my talking for proof of the effects.
I don't get involved in the why aspects of the drugs, just the personal behavior
that led to their death.
Now that the blood banks have been made safe for heterosexuals only
the at risk hets have to worry about the effects of the poisonous drugs.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:27:30 -0500, " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

Here's one without caveats: you're an asshole!
LOL. Poor wittle poopy head.
Wonder what your last thoughts are gonna be?
That you wasted your life wallowing in futile hate?
Yeah...probably.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ksm85396ah3kkd7plj2tdaq31p4mier2mm@4ax.com...
In your perverted opinion.

Childish


That question has been asked.......and answered.
I told you my last thought will be that I am glad
I didn't waste my life as a faggot.

Poor Carter, see the faggot does earn its name every-day.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:05:14 -0500, " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

LOL! And you don't even see how profoundly pathetic that is, do you?

Oh my god, you poor, poor dear.

I do hope you find healing so that some other thought might pass
through that sodden little mind.

How angry are you right now? Check your blood pressure! That last
thought might be coming sooner than you think!!

On Wed, 23 May 2007 14:04:52 GMT, GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:
This HIV=AIDS=Death theory is becoming more and more convoluted.

Don't you ever look at it and think to yourself 'this doesn't make
sense?'

Now you want us to believe that HIV doesn't directly lead to T-cell
depletion. Apparently it all happens by some indirect process.

Perhaps Duesberg is right and HIV is harmless and doesn't deserve the
blame it receives. Or, perhaps, it's simply not there at all.

My doctor and the UK government disagree with you. I've recently had
my application for disability benefit turned down because I am well.

That isn't how HIV is viewed in the UK. Here HIV is considered, *at
worse*, to be a long-term manageable condition. And those diagnosed
with HIV can expect to live a natural life-span.

Some time ago the UK government stopped publicising HIV and AIDS, and
began winding down funding to HIV and AIDS charities.

No doubt you'll say that's the policies of a right-wing administration
who don't understand the situation and wants to save money.

However, AIDS kills a tiny number of people each year here. Last year
AIDS deaths totaled less than 500, from a total population of sixty
million.

You paint a gloomy picture that doesn't represent reality.
--
<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/>

On Wed, 23 May 2007 18:19:28 +0100, Martin <martin@hiv-poz.co.uk>
wrote:

LOL...that's because your construct is faulty.

No--you go ahead and explain to me why it doesn't.

I would ask you the same thing--what makes you think a steadily
declining CD4 count being caused by "stress" makes any sense. Or
"drugs cause AIDS."

There'd be a LOT more cases of AIDS if that were so.

You think disease processes always work just one way??? Are you really
that ignorant? And you're betting your life based on this level of
ignorance?

La-la-la-la....perhaps little fairies will sprinkle magic pixie dust
on your weenie and make your CD4 count jump magically! Oh! Let's buy
some pretty pink balloons to celebrate....

Ah...can you see "intellectually bankrupt response"?

I thought not.

Eh. If you're well, you shouldn't be on disability then, should you?
Why not get a job?

Yeah--if you use ARV. If you refuse the ARV--chances are you'll
develop an OI and die.

This is just wandering away from the issues raised above though.

Perhaps true. But then Tony Blair decided it was better suck George
Bush's nasty floppy cock and throw away lives in Iraq.

Ask Tony.

That's encouraging. I hope it indicates fewer new infections and
better treatment outcomes.

No dear--I paint a gloomy picture for denialists who pretend that all
is well and then fail to take care of themselves. And a gloomier
picture for those who WANT access to ARV but cannot because of the
unmitigated and genocidal greed of the pharmaceutical industry.

George M. Carter