Deny the HIV to AIDS connection and you'll be attacked, crushed, and ruined

Modern Conservative ^ | July 22, 2008 | Clark Baker

[thinkingIsPresuppositional]

By Clark Baker

Last June, I posted this report about US hospitals and how many rely on fraud, preventable injuries and infections to patients to compensate for losses due to our government’s insistence that private hospitals treat and care for uninsured and underinsured citizens, indigents, and illegal aliens.

[Photo: Dr. Robert Gallo]

I learned how hospitals destroy good physicians and how predatory hospital chains like Tenet, Kaiser Permanente, and Adventist pressure local physicians already in successful private practice to join their groups. Those who refuse are targeted for sham peer review by corporate administrators and MDs who accuse non-compliant physicians as dangerous, incompetent, or disruptive. While a few tenacious victims expend their life savings to preserve their clinical privileges, others aren’t so lucky. Faced with the malicious and devastating loss of their medical careers, many take their own lives; which is what the health care corporations prefer anyway. To them, it’s only business – nothing personal.

I was never impressed by concerns about “the evils of big pharma.” I assumed that drugs are expensive because of the R & D that goes into finding cures for disease. Until now, I never imagined that some of those same drug companies would support junk science to fund researchers who would then produce expensive drugs that cause illness and disease around the world...

[Citizen Blade]

There's no real way to respond to this data dump. But a few selected comments:

Despite all assurances to the contrary, the AIDS establishment continues to fund only research on HIV. Peter Duesberg inadvertently proved this blackout on all alternative research when he recently submitted a grant proposal to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Institute’s clinical director of AIDS research had personally invited the proposal, which outlined a plan to test the long-term effects of nitrite inhalants, or “poppers,” on the immune systems of mice. The answer came back in December: The anonymous referees had not only turned it down, but had refused even to review the proposal.

Where is the evidence that refusing his grant proposal has anything to do with some conspiracy? This is so lacking in details as to be meaningless. Grant requests are rejected for many reasons. And how does he know his request was not reviewed? Maybe it was reviewed and it just sucked?

In contrast to the predicted spread of AIDS in the United States, the epidemic has remained strictly confined to risk groups; nine of every ten AIDS cases have been male, and ninety percent of all AIDS victims have been linked to heavy drug use, whether intravenously or as “fast track” homosexuals.

Not terribly surprising. The easiest way to get infected with HIV is through anal sex between men and sharing needles. Is anyone surprised that gay needle-sharers are going to be an incredibly high-risk group?

And some thirty-nine percent of AIDS diseases in America have nothing at all to do with immune deficiency — witness Kaposi’s sarcoma, various lymphomas, wasting disease, and dementia, for example.

This is misleading. At base, virtually every disease is a result of a failure of the immune system (other than genetic disorders).

The report then identified one of the major targets of change — Judaeo-Christian moral values.

Um, what? If anything, AIDS shows why being a straight, married, monogomous non drug-user is a good idea.

Most chillingly of all, Francis saw the possibilities in harnessing other epidemics to advance similar agendas. As he put it, “if we establish new mechanisms to handle the HIV epidemic, [these] can serve as models for other diseases.”

Why is this chilling? Learning from AIDS and applying to that to future outbreaks of infectious diseases is bad why, exactly?

Signs of imminent change are appearing. The CDC’s public health measures — condoms, sterile needles, contact tracing, and the like — have failed to prevent the steady growth of AIDS. As this bad advice is recognized for what it is, more voices are joining the chorus of dissent against the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. The CDC may soon have to hold HIV research meetings all by itself.

Note that this article is from 1994. Over the past 14 years, we have gotten the AIDS epidemic more or less under control in this country. This article is so outdated as to be laughable.

[Citizen Blade]

If what Duesberg et al are saying is true, then a control group of long-term intravenous drug users who are HIV-negative should exhibit the same kinds AIDS defining diseases as HIV-positive intravenous drug users.

Okay, fair enough- if that's his hypothesis, where is the proof?

[CodeToad]

The only people trying to claim HIV does not cause AIDS are homos looking to play down their disgusting sexual practices.

[allmendream]

Or perhaps those who are HIV positive and don't think that their “harmless passenger virus” should be a topic of concern to any potential sexual partners they have.

Or the nutball who let her children die of AIDS because she denied that her and their HIV could ever cause any problems and thought it was all anti-retrovirals that make AIDS patients sick.

[dervish]

“I can’t imagine many people in middle age having heterosexual intercourse with known homosexuals “

Therein lies the problem, in part. How are they “known?”

Was Mrs. McGreevey having sex with Gov. McGreevey? They have children.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Before the development of AIDS drugs, beig infected with HIV usually meant you would be dead within months or a few years. Today, these drugs have essentially turned AIDS into just another chronic disease.

Actually, it’s just the opposite. Duesberg predicted that there would be no cure for AIDS and that the toxic side effects of antiviral chemotherapies would actually increase mortality. As it turns out, the Lancet published a study in 2006 (the largest of its kind, with hundreds of investigators listed) on the effectiveness of AIDS cocktail/HAART drugs. In the discussion section of the study the Lancet investigators admit the following with respect to AIDS cocktail/HAART drugs. Again, Duesberg’s chemical-AIDS theory predicted this outcome all along:

“However, there was no corresponding decrease in the rates of AIDS, or death, up to 1 year of follow-up. Conversely, there was some evidence for an increase in the rate of AIDS in the most recent period.”

http://www.duesberg.com/articles/2006,%20Lancet,%20HIV%20treatment%20resp..pdf

[GodGunsGuts]

==Grant requests are rejected for many reasons. And how does he know his request was not reviewed? Maybe it was reviewed and it just sucked?

Apparently, you missed the point. The main point is that the “AIDS establishment continues to fund ONLY research on HIV.” All research grants into other potential causes of AIDS have been banned by the AIDS establishment right from the beginning. If you doubt this, I challenge you to find one research grant that was approved to challenge HIV-AIDS or otherwise investigate non-viral causes of AIDS from the time of Gallo’s 1984 science-by-press-conference until now.

For more on the political machinations behind the denial of Duesberg’s amyl nitrite/poppers grant proposal, read the following:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/slfund.htm

==Where is the evidence that refusing his grant proposal has anything to do with some conspiracy?

The AIDS establishment was intent on silencing Duesberg the moment his first paper challenging HIV “inexplicably” appeared in the journal Cancer Research. For their first official response, see the following links:

(For instance, what on earth could the Dept. of HHS mean when they say Duesberg’s paper should have been “flagged” by NIH during the prepublication process?...then look at the concluding paragraph...it’s obvious these guys were behaving like politicians with something to hide, rather than scientists interested in a dispassionate pursuit of the truth):

Link #1:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/hhsalert.htm

Link #2:

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/hhsmemo.htm

More later—GGG

[neverdem]

More on your remaining questions later.

OK, it's later. I'm still waiting for more explanations of the statements towards the end of comment# 48. I forgot another one.

What is Clinton's Arkansas blood scandal?

There were three threads posted under the keyword clintonbloodscandal.

Many people became HIV positive and then died of AIDS after it. The only reasonable explanation was HIV positive blood products.

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m still waiting for your detailed responses to the questions I have already answered. Go back through the thread, you still have a lot to respond to—GGG

[GodGunsGuts]

==What is Clinton’s Arkansas blood scandal?...Many people became HIV positive and then died of AIDS after it. The only reasonable explanation was HIV positive blood products.

Just checked the links you provided re: the “Clinton blood scandal.”

According to the article you posted, “More than 1,000 Canadians were infected with HIV and as many as 20,000 contracted hepatitis C after receiving the blood.” And yet the very same article claims that 3,000 people died. That’s 2,000 more than were supposedly infected with HIV.

Here’s the link to the article you posted:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1573059/posts

[neverdem]

Indeed, massive supplies of illicit recreational drugs such as nitrite (poppers) and ethylchloride inhalants, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, phenylcyclidine, and LSD had reached America and Europe since the Vietnam War and were the only statistically significant new health risks that had affected these countries since World War II (see page 103).

The only drugs positively associated with becoming HIV positive and then acquiring an AIDS defining illness are the ones used intravenously, i.e. cocaine, heroin and amphetamines. Heroin is just diacetylmorphine. Morphine, cocaine and members of the amphetamine class are all used as legitimate medicines. When abused as recreational drugs they don't have to be injected. They can be smoked, snorted or swallowed. They do nothing to the immune system regardless of the method of administration or abuse. Give me something better than Duesberg's accusations and correlations that are refuted by too many other studies.

Regarding nitrites:

Part IV - Sociology and Behavioral Effects

Guthrie in 1859 first described the flushing of the skin of the neck and face that is observed in man following inhalation of amyl nitrite. Therapeutic inhalation of amyl nitrite has been utilized in medicine for the relief of angina pectoris since 1867. Ethyl nitrite was also used in 19th century medicine in the form of "sweet spirits of nitre" (a mixture of 25J% ethyl nitrite with 75% ethanol). This mixture was taken orally in a dosage equal to 1.90 - 3.75 cc mixed with water every three hours as a diaphoretic, diuretic or antispasmodic. Its effects, when inhaled, are described as qualitatively similar to the effects of amyl nitrite, although less intense due to the lower volatility of the mixture (U.S. Dispensatory, 18th Ed., 1899). The therapeutic use of "sweet spirits of nitre" ceased early in the 20th century when it was supplanted by more effective therapeutic agents. Amyl nitrite continues to be used on a therapeutic and diagnostic basis, although it has been largely supplanted by nitroglycerin tablets.

Misuse and Abuse (of nitrites)

Amyl nitrite and other volatile nitrites (“poppers”) have been used illicitly to enhance sexual pleasure. Some initial studies suggested that use of volatile nitrites, including amyl nitrite, may be one of numerous risk factors associated with the development of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and Kaposi’s sarcoma in male homosexuals;100 101 however, more recent epidemiologic studies, while confirming the frequent use of volatile nitrites by homosexual men, have not found nitrite use to be a significant risk factor,102 103 104 and some data suggest that the initial attribution of risk may have been related to an association between nitrite use and certain behaviors and practices associated with enhanced transmission of the human innumodeficiency virus (HIV).104

Misuse and abuse of amyl nitrite and other inhaled volatile nitrites may be associated with potentially life-threatening hypotension and/or hemodynamic compromise when combined with selective phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors, which are used to increase the duration and intensity of erection. (See Drug Interactions: Selective Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors, in the Nitrates and Nitrites General Statement 24:12.08.)

The last quote and link comes from my favorite drug reference book, AHFS/DI - American Hospital Formulary Service - Drug Information. Later for the PDR.

[GodGunsGuts]

==The only drugs positively associated with becoming HIV positive and then acquiring an AIDS defining illness are the ones used intravenously, i.e. cocaine, heroin and amphetamines...They do nothing to the immune system regardless of the method of administration or abuse. Give me something better than Duesberg’s accusations and correlations that are refuted by too many other studies.

Again, nothing could be further from the truth. See next reply.

Key to chart:

N = Nitrites, C = Cocaine, H = Heroine, A = Amphetamines

[GodGunsGuts]

Long-term drug users develop fatal diseases

The first scientific paper on diseases caused by long-term morphine addiction was published in Paris, France, in 1909 (Achard et al., 1909). The paper reported immunodeficiency and several corresponding opportunistic infections as consequences of morphine addiction. Since then at least 63 other studies, summarized in Table 7, have confirmed that recreational drugs, including heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, and nitrite inhalants, cause AIDS-defining and other diseases. As a result of these diseases, and also of overdoses, intravenous drug users typically die at an average age of only 30 years from AIDS-defining, and other diseases - regardless of the presence of HIV (see Tables 4 & 7) (Stoneburner et al., 1988; Duesberg, 1992a; Hayes et al., 1994; Lockemann et al., 1995; Wilson et al., 1996; McEvoy et al., 1998; Baldwin et al., 1997).

Details of how some AIDS era-specific drugs, such as nitrites and amphetamines, cause diseases are briefly summarized:

1. The first five AIDS cases ever reported were male homosexuals with Pneumocystis pneumonia and cytornegalovirus infections who had all consumed nitrite inhalants (Gottlieb et al., 19 8 1 a). The report even cites nitrites as the possible cause of their diseases. HIV was not even a suspect because it was only discovered in 1983 (Baffe-Sinoussi et al., 1983).
2. In 1985, Haverkos et al. from the CDC analyzed the AIDS risks of 87 male homosexual AIDS patients, 47 with Kaposi's sarcoma, 20 with pneumonia, and 20 with Kaposi's sarcoma plus pneumonia (Haverkos et al., 1985; Haverkos, 1988). All the men had used several sexual stimulants; 98% had used nitrites. Those with Kaposi's sarcomas reported two times more sexual partners and 4.4 times more receptive anal intercourse than those with only pneumonia. The median number of sexual partners in the year prior to the illness was 120 for those with Kaposi's and 22 for those with pneumonia only. The Kaposi's cases reported six-times more amyl nitrite and ethylchloride use, four times more barbiturate use, and two times more methaqualone, lysergic acid and cocaine use than those with pneumonia only. The authors concluded that the nitrites and other drugs had caused Kaposi's sarcoma because no statistically significant differences were found for sexually transmitted diseases among the patients.
3. A 4.5 year tracking study of 42 homosexual men with lymphadenopathy, but not AIDS, reported that eight had developed AIDS within 2.5 years (Mathur-Wagh et al., 1984) and 12 within 4.5 years of observation (Mathur-Wagh et al., 1985). All of these men had used nitrite inhalants and other recreational drugs, including amphetamines and cocaine, but they were not tested for HIV The authors concluded that 'a history of heavy or moderate use of nitrite inhalant before study entry was predictive of ultimate progression to AIDS' (Mathur-Wagh et al., 1984).
4. Other studies also investigated the dose-response relationships between nitrites and AIDS: (i) one compared 20 homosexual AIDS patients to 40 AIDS-free controls (Marmor et al., 1982); (ii) another compared 31 patients to 29 controls (Newell et al., 1985b). Each study reported that multiple 'street drugs' were used as sexual stimulants and concluded that drugs were 94% to 100% consistent risk factors for AIDS (Newell et al., 1985b). Newell et al. derived a direct 'dose-response gradient': the higher the nitrite usage, the greater the risk for AIDS. The Kaposi response was estimated to take a dose equivalent of 7 to 10 years of nitrite use (Newell et al., 1985a; Beral et al., 1990; Lifson et al., 1990; Duesberg, 1992a).

Animals demonstrate that cocaine and nitrites cause AIDS-defining diseases

1. Surprisingly, in view of the official disregard of the nitrite-AIDS hypothesis, the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences reported in 1995 that nitrite inhalants cause immunodeficiency in mice. Based on exposure of the animals to isobutyl nitrites (IBN) for weeks, the Institute concluded that, 'in the absence of impaired pulmonary host defenses, IBN produces significant and partially reversible suppression of systemic humoral immunity' (Ratajczak et al., 1995). This conclusion directly contradicts that reached previously by the CDC in 1983 in exactly the same system, 'None of the animals exposed to IBN showed any evidence of immunotoxic reactions...', although 'thymic atrophy' was acknowledged (see page 101) (Centers for Disease Control, 1983).
2. In 1998, Lee Soderberg reviewed his experiments with mice showing that nitrite inhalants are 'depleting many cells of the immune system'. Going beyond the data of his experiments, Soderberg proposed that nitrites are a 'cofactor' of HIV in causing AIDS, because they 'stimulate HIV replication and can also stimulate the growth of Kaposi's sarcoma cells'' (Soderberg, 1998).
3. Clearly, both the popularity and fundability of investigations on the pathogenicity of nitrites are well served by involving HIV. But, considering that only one in 1000 T-cells that are lost in AIDS patients is latently infected by HIV, the cofactor hypothesis is biochemically unlikely. It may be for this reason that Soderberg did not mention a simple control of the nitrite-HIV cofactor hypothesis: Compare the immune system of a group of HIV-positive nitrite users to those of an otherwise matched HIV-free group.

4. An article entitled 'acute and chronic effects of cocaine on the immune system and the possible link to AIDS' points out in 1998 that 'human and animal studies document that cocaine alters the function of ... T-cells, neutrophils and macrophages.' In view of this, the authors propose a 'wide-ranging capacity for cocaine to suppress the immune system.' Again, cocaine is proposed to be just a 'cofactor' of HIV in the 'pathogenesis of AIDS' without suggesting a control of the cofactor hypothesis by testing the effects of cocaine on HIV-free addicts (Baldwin et al., 1998).
5. Yet another review describes in 1998 the 'in vivo effects of cocaine on immune cell function' (Pellegrino & Bayer, 1998). The article carefully avoids a decision whether cocaine is immunosuppressive on its own, but acknowledges that immune suppression in animals is dose-dependent. It proposes animal studies to investigate 'decreased immune responsiveness in cocaine addicts,' which is thought to be responsible for an increased risk of HIV infection. However, the risk of viral or microbial infection is independent of immune function, but the possible consequences of an infection are not. Again, the question whether the immunodeficiency diseases of cocaine addicts depend on HIV is not asked.

Despite their scientifically uncontrolled loyalty to HIV, each of the last three reviews confirm that nitrites and cocaine are at least 'cofactors' of immune deficiency in animals and man.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pddrdilemma.htm

[GodGunsGuts]

Sorry, text with chart was supposed to contain numbered points. Didn’t come through for some reason. I guess it’s back to the html drawing board for me. All the best—GGG

[Mrs. P]

Around 20 years ago, I met a nurse who had worked with the original AIDS patients. She was an oncology nurse and had been responsible for drawing blood from these patients. She had accidentally poked herself with needles from these patients and several years later was still not testing positive for HIV.

I’ve always wondered what happened to this woman and if she ever did get sick. I don’t remember her name.

Can you add me to your ping list?

[neverdem]

I’m still waiting for your detailed responses to the questions I have already answered. Go back through the thread, you still have a lot to respond to—GGG

From what I have read you just regurgitated prior comments. See comments# 36 & 78. You haven't answered anything that I asked in comment#48. Your assertions of fact find give me no satisfaction. They leave me wanting much more. Answer these please.

How do you explain the drop in new HIV/AIDS cases after blood was screened for HIV before transfusion of blood and blood products?

Why does giving antiretroviral drugs to HIV positive pregnant women just before and around the birth of their children reduce the rate of HIV positive children being born?

Why do HIV negative children breastfeeding from HIV positive mothers get AIDS and die from it?

Why do the highly active antiretroviral therapy(HAART) drugs decrease mortality and increase longevity.

Don't give me accusations of a cabal. Show me some real evidence not correlations.

Global warming doesn't count. There's no evidence, just fear and lame IPCC models.

[neverdem]

Surprisingly, in view of the official disregard of the nitrite-AIDS hypothesis, the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences reported in 1995 that nitrite inhalants cause immunodeficiency in mice. Based on exposure of the animals to isobutyl nitrites (IBN) for weeks, the Institute concluded that, 'in the absence of impaired pulmonary host defenses, IBN produces significant and partially reversible suppression of systemic humoral immunity' (Ratajczak et al., 1995). This conclusion directly contradicts that reached previously by the CDC in 1983 in exactly the same system, 'None of the animals exposed to IBN showed any evidence of immunotoxic reactions...', although 'thymic atrophy' was acknowledged (see page 101) (Centers for Disease Control, 1983).

Humoral immunity, i.e. the part of the immune system involved with antibody response and antibody production, is not the part involved with HIV/AIDS with the exception of the antibodies used to confirm exposure and infection by HIV/AIDS.

The HIV/AIDS virus selectively attacks and depletes CD4 positive T lymphocytes which constitute part of the cell mediated immunity system NOT humoral immunity.

[Citizen Blade]

Actually, it’s just the opposite. Duesberg predicted that there would be no cure for AIDS and that the toxic side effects of antiviral chemotherapies would actually increase mortality.

You are seriously claiming that people with AIDS today are worse off than people who got AIDS 20 or so years ago? In the early years of the disease, people with AIDS rarely survived more than a few years. Now, with proper use of AIDs drugs, people with AIDS can live decades. Look at, for example, Magic Johnson versus Arthur Ashe.

In the discussion section of the study the Lancet investigators admit the following with respect to AIDS cocktail/HAART drugs. Again, Duesberg’s chemical-AIDS theory predicted this outcome all along:

“However, there was no corresponding decrease in the rates of AIDS, or death, up to 1 year of follow-up. Conversely, there was some evidence for an increase in the rate of AIDS in the most recent period.”

And in the paragraph right after this section, the Lancet article notes that the changing demographics of people using these drugs- i.e., the huge increase in people in Sub-Saharan Africa who are now getting access to these drugs- makes it impossible to compare apples to apples.

[Citizen Blade]

Apparently, you missed the point. The main point is that the “AIDS establishment continues to fund ONLY research on HIV.” All research grants into other potential causes of AIDS have been banned by the AIDS establishment right from the beginning.

The link between HIV and AIDS was dicovered fairly early in the game, and since then a mountain of evidence has piled up. True, nothing is ever proven in science- AIDS could be caused by little plague demons- but to trained scientists, after the mountain of evidence gets as high as Everest, it's pretty much pointless to keep going down the same road. The HIV-deniers are claiming that AIDS is caused by something other than HIV, but they have not shown any evidence that makes re-opening the issue worthwhile, given that we live in a world of limited research funds.

If you doubt this, I challenge you to find one research grant that was approved to challenge HIV-AIDS or otherwise investigate non-viral causes of AIDS from the time of Gallo’s 1984 science-by-press-conference until now.

If serious medical researchers have no interest in going down a certain research path, that should tell you something- that path is probably not fruitful.

The AIDS establishment was intent on silencing Duesberg the moment his first paper challenging HIV “inexplicably” appeared in the journal Cancer Research.

From what I can tell, there is no conspiracy here- Duesberg has gone far beyond the world of legitimate disagreement into quackery, pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. When every other serious, intelligent and experienced expert in a given field is telling you you're nuts, it's time to re-evaluate your position.

The fact of the matter is, we essentially have AIDS under control, especially in the US. The much-prophesised fear of a global AIDS epidemic hasn't really materialized. New drugs are allowing HIV-infected people to live longer and longer lives.

But people like Duesberg seem to think that all this progress needs to be thrown overboard and that we should focus on his obsession with party drugs and his hysterical fear of AIDS drugs.

Come on.

[Citizen Blade]

According to the article you posted, “More than 1,000 Canadians were infected with HIV and as many as 20,000 contracted hepatitis C after receiving the blood.” And yet the very same article claims that 3,000 people died. That’s 2,000 more than were supposedly infected with HIV.

The article doesn't say that they all died from HIV- people infected with Hep C probably make up the difference.