Replies

Are you getting frustrated because you are starting to sense that you might be on the losing side of the debate???

No, I'm frustrated with people like you spreading nonsense. And you never answered these questions from comment# 48 from this thread:

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

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?

As far as I'm concerned, Peter Duesberg has only one valid question - the diagnostic accuracy in Africa, but he ignores all of the good outcomes from using antiretroviral drugs there. He's fixated on homosexuals using amyl nitrate "poppers." Other than being a mind altering substance and less inhibited about being promiscuous, I don't see an explanation from Duesberg for why homosexuals get AIDS.

The same goes for intravenous drug abusers. They don't get AIDS if they use clean needles and don't share.(PERIOD!) And yes, they do exist. Not everyone is your typical junkie. Chronic alcoholics are more readily recognized for being immunocompromised.

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

I already answered you in that same thread, but here it is again. Notice the exact opposite occured. During the time that they were screening blood for HIV, and the number of HIV positive blood donors began it precipitous decline, the number of AIDS cases continued to rise:

==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?

Not "just" before birth, they are put on this drug for a full six months of their pregnancy. Should it come as any surprise that a DNA chain-terminator that randomly destroys rapidly dividing cells would reduce HIV transmission from mother to child? But as Duesberg notes, while AZT lowers transmission of HIV from mother to child by 17%, it comes at the cost of putting 100% of those same mothers on AZT CHEMOTHERAPY. And what of the side effects of the HIV-negative babies who are born from mothers who were put on prophylactic AZT? These babies suffer from "fevers, pneumonia, anemia, and mitochondrial dysfunction." And the reason should come as no surpise, given the exteme toxicity of AZT.

Label on AZT bottle:

Label reads: "TOXIC. Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing." Note that the bottle only contains 100mg. Pregant mothers are given 500mg.

Finally, take a look at the chart (I recreated it the best I could) from Duesberg's 2003 paper, complete with references. This would be bad enough if HIV was the cause of AIDS, but if Duesberg et al are correct, they are subjecting pregnant mothers/unborn babies to extremely toxic chemotherapy drugs, all in the name of preventing tranmission of a harmless retrovirus (HIV).

Table 7. Diseases and mortality in HIV-free human babies, and in HIV-free animals treated with anti-HIV drugs before and after birth (BB, AB).

Species

AIDS-defining

Other disease

References

Human Babies (AB)

Animals (AB): Mice, rats, dogs, monkeys

Animals (BB)

Fever, Pneumonia

Lymphopenia, Weight loss, Leukemia, T-cell depletion, Thymic atrophy, Death of 25/30 mice

Death

Anemia, Mitochondrial dysfunction

Anemia, neutropenia, Thrombocytopenia, Bone marrow depletion, Lymphotoxicity, Myelodysplasia, Muscle atrophy, Nephrotoxicity Hepatotoxicity

Lung, liver, vaginal cancer Retarded development, Abortion

(Blanche et al 1999), (Heresi et al 1997)

(Ayers 1988; Cronkite and Bullis 1990; Thompson et al 1991; McKallip et al 1995; Omar et al 1996; Grossman et al 1997; Inoue et al 1997; Gerschenson et al 2000)

(Toltzis et al 1993; Olivero et al 1997)

(Thought the rest of you might be interested in this exchange...also see replies immediately above. All the best—GGG)

Almost forgot your last question:

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

You couldn’t be more wrong about HAART chemotherapy. As it turns out, in 2006 the Lancet published a study of European and North American AIDS patients on HAART drugs (the largest of its kind, with hundreds of investigators listed). In the discussion section of the study the Lancet investigators admit the following with respect to AIDS cocktail/HAART drugs:

“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

Now READ THIS. This study on HAART/(ART) therapy in Tanzania is nothing short of devestating to those in the AIDS establishment pushing these drugs on hapless Africans. The study is attached, but here are a few of its key points:

The cohort was 320 “treatment naive” patients placed on Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) between October 2003 and November 2006. Most (223) were women, some were as young as 15, the majority were between 25 and 34 years of age. Most were severely malnourished, had thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count) and varying degrees of anemia.

Overall, 95 patients died, 59 of them within 3 months of starting the regimens.

From the paper:

“Conclusion: Mortality was found to be high, with the majority of deaths occurring within 3 months of starting ART. Anemia, thrombocytopenia and severe malnutrition were strong independent predictors of mortality. A prognostic model based on hemoglobin level appears to be a useful tool for initial risk assessment in resource-limited settings.”

...

One year mortality was estimated as high as 46.8% in those who were severely malnourished. This study states that other studies have confirmed the finding that severe malnutrition is correlated with death in HIV positive African patients “even after the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy...”

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/8/52

The study goes on to say “There are some weaknesses of our study. First, mortality might be underestimated, since patients lost to follow-up probably include individuals dying at home without being reported.”

Needless to say, this study precisely matches what Duesberg has been saying all along re: African AIDS. African AIDS patients are primarily dying of malnutrition brought on by lack of food, not HIV. The HAART/ART drugs are simply killing them faster (and this will only intensify if the House version of Barack Obama’s global AIDS bill passes). The response to African AIDS should not be to put more Africans on chemotherapy. As Duesberg et al have always maintained, the surest and fastest way to cure African AIDS is to find a way to bypass their corrupt governments and FEED STARVING AFRICANS!