AIDS Patients Face Downside of Living Longer (effects of AIDS drugs "worse than having AIDS")

New York Times ^ | January 6, 2008 | JANE GROSS

[GodGunsGuts]

Those explanations do not satisfy Larry Kramer, founder of several AIDS advocacy groups. Mr. Kramer, 73 and a long-term survivor, said he had always suspected “it was only a matter of time before stuff like this happened” given the potency of the antiretroviral drugs. “How long will the human body be able to tolerate that constant bombardment?” he asked. “Well, we are now seeing that many bodies can’t. Once again, just as we thought we were out of the woods, sort of, we have good reason again to be really scared.”

[jas3]

You must be new to FR. Vitamin C is a hot topic among the science deniers. Some of GGG's buds are bound to step up to the plate on that one.

I've been here a looong time, so I presume you are joking, right?

jas3

[jas3]

Come on, ggg, you can let us in on your secret...

On the pulled thread, it took about 405 posts, but GodsGunsGuts finally revealed his bias when he wrote:

You won’t debate Duesberg because for some reason you have an unnatural need to defend the fast-track, drug-induced, gay lifestyle.

In his mind, he's confused the question of how AIDS is transmitted with approval of "the fast-track, drug-induced, gay lifestyle." He went on and on about bathhouse gays.

Approval of the lifestyle of gays has nothing at all to do with transmission of HIV. For some reason he's got a mental block on that.

So instead of trying to learn a little about HIV/AIDS, all he does is repost the same loooooong disproven theories again and again. He seems like he has a decent work ethic. He might consider using it in the library of his nearest medical school instead of accepting the word of one discredited scientist as gospel.

jas3

[GodGunsGuts]

Why would’t this issue pop up in publications that span the entire political spectrum? The point is, each political group decides how to apply the facts in their own way, just as they do on any other issue. For instance, liberals try to convince the public that global warming is human caused, whereas conservatives point to the data that suggests that it is caused by solar cycles. Which one are we to believe? In order to make an informed decision you have to look into the matter yourself and make up YOUR OWN MIND. In the case of Duesberg et al’s alternative theory about what causes AIDS, well respected conservative publications and publishers have taken up this issue and presented it to their readers. If this was really just some crackpot “conspiracy theory” do you really think Policy Review (respected conservative think-tank), National Review (conservative), American Spectator (conservative), Reason Magazine (libertarian), or Regnery publishing (conservative) would allow this issue to besmirch their hard-earned reputations? Obviously, they looked into the story for themselves and recognized the need to get it out to their repective readerships. So you can ignore this issue if you like, but you would do well to refrain from mocking conservative issues that you have yet to fully consider and appreciate. If you would like to look into the issue, I suggest you read the introductory articles I posted. They are a bit dated, but they are the best layman’s articles I know of. If you are still interested, I will send more articles and papers that take the issue all the way up to the present.

All the best—GGG

[Hildy]

No.

[jas3]

Why would’t this issue pop up in publications that span the entire political spectrum?

Not anymore. It's like Cold Fusion. It "pops up" only in fringe publications because it turned out (at least in the form claimed by Pons and Fleischman) to be a fiction. Respectable magazines like the American Spectator, the National Review, and Policy Review wrote about the controversy in the late 80s/early 90s.

When the rather limited controversy and highly unlikely alternative theory was resolved by overwhelming and irrefutable evidence, there was nothing for them to report on or write about.

The point is, each political group decides how to apply the facts in their own way, just as they do on any other issue. For instance, liberals try to convince the public that global warming is human caused, whereas conservatives point to the data that suggests that it is caused by solar cycles. Which one are we to believe? In

This confuses facts with opinions. The fact that HIV causes AIDS is a fact. How it is applied is not relevant to me. I know some posters here seem to think that it is a nasty fact that HIV causes AIDS because it implies endorsement of the gay lifestyle. But it does not imply anything one way or the other. It is just a simple fact.

If you are still interested, I will send more articles and papers that take the issue all the way up to the present.

Thanks, but there is no new "evidence" that AIDS is caused by drugs. If you new articles are as poorly researched as your old articles, you'll have no luck convincing anyone in the scientific community or medical research communities that your Conspiracy Theory is anything other than just that: A kooky Conspiracy Theory.

jas3

[rusty millet]

The only thing I can figure is that ggg is either Duesberg himself (no citation of anyone else’s work, but constantly pimping Duesberg), or he has a hatred of homosexuality and is attempting to accelerate the death of sinners by any subversive means possible.

Come on ggg, you can let us in on your secret....

[GodGunsGuts]

No secret here. I’m not Peter Duesberg. If “fast-lane” homosexuals would simply stop doing massive amounts of toxic drugs to facilitate their wildly promiscuous lifestyles, and stay off cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs, they would have a decent chance at living into old age. But they are not my primary concern. What I’m really concerned about are all the otherwise innocent and healthy HIV+ heterosexual men, women, children, and yes, even children in the womb, who are put on extremely toxic chemotherapy drugs, all in the name of fighting the wrong cause of AIDS.

[rusty millet]

Sorry Dues... uh, ggg.

You are way too emotionally invested in this to not have a conflict of interest.

Come on, you would feel better if you got it off your chest....

[jas3]

What I’m really concerned about are all the otherwise innocent and healthy HIV+ heterosexual men, women, children, and yes, even children in the womb, who are put on extremely toxic chemotherapy drugs, all in the name of fighting the wrong cause of AIDS.

Free Republic hardly seems like an effective place to save all thes innocent "children, and yes, even children in the womb..."

Incidentally AZT was never a chemotherapy drug. It was created by a researcher in chemotherapy, but proved entirely non-toxic (i.e. it killed zero cells) to cancer.

AZT is a reverse transcriptase inhibitor.

The bottom line is that next to nobody here on Free Republic is dumb enough to believe Conspiracy Theories on HIV/AIDS.

And the only people who do post silly nonsense on AIDS being caused by drugs (or Loch Ness Monster stuff) have already indicated that they don't read any science journals and have no professional or academic credentials to actually evaluate Duesberg's silly claims

jas3

[GodGunsGuts]

I have already explained that I used to intern for Congressman William Dannemeyer. One of my jobs was to scour the MSM and the scientific literature re: AIDS. Back then we were all convinced that AIDS was going to be the next black plague, and we believed the AIDS establishment which was predicting that tens to hundreds of millions of people would be dead by the turn of the century. Then one of my scientist friends (not Duesberg) called me up and said they got the wrong cause of AIDS. I argued with him for hours and finally agreed to read up on the subject. He sent me a large package full of scientific literature highlighting all the facts that didn’t add up. He also included a couple of scientific papers and articles by and about Peter Duesberg. After reading through all the material, and spending many long hours researching the issue further on my own, I finally concluded that the evidence suggested that the AIDS establishment had got the wrong cause of AIDS, and that Duesberg’s drug/risk-AIDS hypothesis fit the facts perfectly. Some years later, I put together a packet of information for Congressman Dannemeyer and put it directly into his hands when he was running for the senate. A friend of mine, who was his driver, told me that he and his wife discussed it all the way home. Sometime later he obviously changed his mind about AIDS because he wrote an endorsement of Peter Duesberg’s book, Inventing the AIDS Virus. Here is what he wrote:

“The information set forth in this book should be read by anyone interested in the AIDS issue. The government has evolved an enormous scientific bureaucracy which may be premised on chasing the wrong horse. I suggest a full-scale Congressional investigation be conducted to dig out the answers.” —Congressman Bill Dannemeyer

[rusty millet]

There is more than conspiracy theories here. ggg, you express a lot of the same sentiments as a scientist that thinks people don’t understand the importance of their work.

And you are right. Much research is done by anonymous, dedicated people who invest so much of themselves into their work, only to not be appreciated.

How much harder is it to be a media darling at one point, and then fall from grace.

Come on. Everyone else has left the building. Romney won MI last night, you know? It’s only us here. You kept pinging me back. I’ll listen to your story....

[rusty millet]

Nope, you’ve got to do better than that. You are too emotionally involved.

Just us chickens here...

[GodGunsGuts]

That pretty much sums it up. I have been following the Duesberg saga ever since, and I have arranged for him (and some other dissenting scientists) to speak at numerous forums, to include Young Americans For Freedom National Convention (YAF), the CATO institute and the American Enterprise Institute(through a friend), various radio interviews (such as Duffy and Co., Marlon Maddox, Concerned Women for America, and numerous other conservative/religious right radio programs). I also arranged many university speaking engagements, and numerous debates with AIDS establishment scientists, who all issued lame excuses and backed out at the last minute in their turn (except one, but he wasn’t one of Generals in the “War on AIDS” and he was utterly destroyed by Duesberg...which probably explains why all the others backed out...word gets around fast in the scientific community). Too many other things to list.

[rusty millet]

I am an agricultural scientist, and the battle of ideas is alive and well in science, as well as politics. Sometimes we can convince others to ally themselves in our cause, other times the evidence does not support the facts. When support dwindles, there is a reason for it. I have been accused of tilting at windmills in my work, but an increasing alliance of respected professionals speaks otherwise.

Theories of the “Establishment” aside, I also know that there are two ways of getting funding for my work. Convincingly argue that the civilized world as we know it will end unless my research is funded, or simply, have a good idea. Some organization will fund research if it falls into one of those categories.

You, um, I mean Duesberg, is not gaining alliances or funding. It is obvious he is not winning in the war of ideas. Time to come up with a better idea, or definitively demonstrate your belief in the harmlessness of the virus by intentionally infecting yourself with HIV.

Barry Marshall demonstrated that bacteria caused ulcers by ingesting come cultures of the causal agent. I doubt that you will be willing to demonstrate the harmlessness of HIV by this method. Chasers with behavioral disorders may want to be infected for their own bizzare gratification, but if you can cite for me one person who has been courageous enough with their own belief in the harmelessness of HIV to intentionally infect himself, and live, then we can talk further.

You are probably the last of the Mohicans for this cause ggg. Across your multiple posts, you seem to express quite a bit of both pride and hurt over this topic. I hope you can find peace and a ready cause for good that will make a difference in people’s lives.

I must travel early in the morning, so, good night.

[GodGunsGuts]

Good night, Rusty Millet. Duesberg and other AIDS Rethinker scientists are still alive and well, and continue to make progress. New books and articles are being written about him (and them) all the time. It has been a long, tough, and at times, excruciating battle. But I still think they will prevail in the end. It’s only a matter of time.

All the best to you and yours—GGG

[jas3]

Why would a debate in front of Concerned Women for America which describes itself as “the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich 29-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy” be an even slightly appropriate place to hold a scientific debate?

jas3

[GodGunsGuts]

It wasn’t a debate, Rusty. They published an aricle about the controversy, and they invited one of the AIDS rethinkers to come on as a guest on their radio show.

[jas3]

Hey Rusty:

Ask GodsGunsGuts why he’s afraid to post directly to me and has to post all his replies to me to your username.

jas3

[js1138]

I've been here a looong time, so I presume you are joking, right?

I'm not joking. We had quite a flame war over vitamin C and scurvy.

[js1138]

I've been here a looong time, so I presume you are joking, right?

I'm not joking.