PDA

View Full Version : European AIDS study



PaulKing
06-04-2003, 07:18 PM
If AIDS is really sexually transmitted how can one explain these figures?: -

AIDS CASES IN 2001

http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm


Holland (legal prostitution) 45

Sweden (legal prostitution/very sexually liberated) 42

Denmark (as above) 74

These current statistics hardly suggest a link between AIDS and sexual activity.

ONLY 161 'AIDS' cases in an entire year in the three most sexually liberated countries in the World, combined!

Strange but true.

PaulKing
06-04-2003, 08:50 PM
So does that mean that people in France are less likely to use condoms than in Holland, Denmark and Sweden?

Actually the EXACT REVERSE IS TRUE.

Durex study: -

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/10198/96961

"The number 2 country in the Durex survey (amount of sexual activity) is the Netherlands, where people say they have sex 158 times a year, followed by Denmark at 152. The average among all the countries is 139, with the USA falling just short at 138.

While people are still underprotecting themselves from sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unwanted pregnancies, according to the Durex Global Sex Survey, the French are the least likely to have had unprotected sex. Just 22 percent said they have not used protection, compared to 61 percent in Sweden who did not take precautions."

___



France had over 1528 AIDS cases in 2001 (http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm) compared to 74 in Denmark BUT uses condoms almost 300% more of the time than people in Denmark. Sweden with the lowest condom usage rate also has the lowest AIDS rate.

Confused? The lower the condom usage the lower the AIDS. Not exactly what you have been taught?

Roxysbayou
06-04-2003, 11:07 PM
How could there possibly be a correlation? A condom would give you at least some barrier compared to nothing at all. I think there must be another factor involved here.

PaulKing
06-04-2003, 11:25 PM
I am not saying that condoms cause AIDS but clearly don't play ANY role in preventing it.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, a link between immune supression and condoms is not completely without foundation. Benzene used in rubber production is known to cause immune suppression.

A first rate article on the subject is reprinted below.


What the above statistics do prove is that at the very least NO LINK WHATSOEVER can be established between so called 'safe sex' and reduced 'AIDS' infection. The opposite case could, however, be supported by strong statistical data.

So much for condoms as 'safe sex'.


Best wishes,


Paul


-----

"The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, released the report compiled by the panel of 28 experts, who analyzed about 138 published studies on the use of condoms during penile-vaginal intercourse.

"There was a lack of evidence to help us make a definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of condoms," said panel member Dr. Timothy Schacker, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota"

PaulKing
06-04-2003, 11:27 PM
BENZENE, LUBRICANTS AND AIDS

By Stephen Byrnes

Explore! January 1997


In the search for the causes of AIDS in the Western world (1) many agents have been proposed: HIV, a retrovirus, chronic consumption of drugs such as cocaine, amyl nitrates (poppers), and AZT, as well as other immunosuppressive drugs prophylactically prescribed for HIV "infection," (2) multiple, repeated venereal diseases, leading to immune collapse (3), and radiation exposure (4). Syphillis (5), other viral pathogens such as HHV6 (6), a herpes virus, parasitic infections (7), and contaminated Factor VIII (8), a clotting agent added to the transfused blood given to hemophiliacs, have also been proposed.

Some of these theories have been discarded as more research was done on them, e.g., the syphillis theory (9). As for the others, the "drug-AIDS" hypothesis, fervently espoused and documented by such notables as Peter Duesberg provides a succinct explanation of many cases of AIDS, especially in light of the known toxicity of recreational drugs and DNA chain-terminating nucleosides like AZT and ddI (10) , and contaminated Factor VIII can certainly explain "AIDS," or severe immune suppression, in hemophiliacs (11). As for the others, they suffer from a lack of hard or convincing evidence. Certainly, however, repeated bouts of V.D. don't help the immune system remain stable or strong and antiparasitic herbal protocols have appeared to dramatically help some immune compromised individuals.(12)

The problem with AIDS causation is that it is not only one thing all of the time: many factors can contribute to immunosuppression. Finding out which ones are in play for a particular individual depends on the individual and recovery for that individual depends on the individual's condition.

The majority of the medical and scientific community, of course, denies all of this in favor of a single cause: the HIV retrovirus. This tunnelvision with regards to AIDS causation and "treatment" has left the world with a lot of dead people. Announced to be the "probable cause of AIDS" by Robert Gallo at a government press conference in 1984, HIV has been the one and only thing put forward by the bulk of scientists and, despite its propagation by them and the media, falls woefully short as a satisfactory explanation:

1. Almost 15 years after its discovery, no scientist has been able to explain how HIV causes AIDS. The latest theory put forward, the so-called "Viral Load" hypothesis, has been shown to be a fantasy by several authorities (13).
2. Why is it that thousands of people have AIDS without HIV? (14)
3. If HIV is transmitted sexually and is highly contagious, why hasn't AIDS spread into the heterosexual population? (15)
4. If HIV is a pathogenic virus, why does it not produce the same diseases in the people who are infected by it? (16)
5. If HIV is a disease causing retrovirus, why does it fail all the criteria of a pathogenic agent as defined by Koch's Postulates, the historical "acid test" for proving whether or not a bacteria or virus directly causes a given disease? (17) This is not meant to be a complete analysis of the flawed HIV hypothesis, just the main points.

There is another cause, however, that is proposed here. This cause appeared just months before the first cases of Kaposi's sarcoma and pneumocystis pneumonia, two of the "banner" AIDS diseases, appeared in some gay men in the major U.S. metropolitan areas in the late '70's. This cause is a chemical toxin, is still with us today, and contributes to the plight of many: it is benzene (and its chemical derivatives) and it was, and is, found in sexual lubricants, a product almost exclusively used by the gay community.

What is Benzene?

Benzene is a chemical solvent that was developed by chemist Michael Faraday in the early 1800's (18). Since it is cheap to manufacture, and since it is such an effective solvent, it was, and is, routinely used in manufacturing, being added to glues, latex, paint thinners, rubber cement, varnish and shellac removers, various petroleum products, and gasoline.

The chemical structure of benzene is C6H6 and early on it was identified as being an incredibly toxic substance. Workers in the various industries where benzene was used were, over time due to repeated, chronic exposure, severely anemic and many developed leukemia as well as permanent bone marrow damage (19). Because of its known dangers, worker exposure to benzene is now strictly regulated by the E.P.A. (20) However, since benzene is such a useful solvent, and because it is so inexpensive, it is still widely in use despite the hazards.

The effects of benzene on the human system are as follows: "Confirmed human carcinogen producing myeloid leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, and lymphomas by inhalation. A human poison by inhalation . . .skin contact, intraperitoneal, intravenous, and possibly other routes. A severe eye and moderate skin irritant. . . blood changes, increased body temperature. . .Mutation data reported. . . .The bone marrow may be [damaged], . . .the changes reflected in the peripheral blood. Anemia, leucopenia, macrocytosis, . . .thrombocytopenia may be present. . . Benzene has a definite cumulative action . . . . In chronic poisoning the onset is slow, with the symptoms vague: fatigue, headache, dizziness, nausea and loss of appetite, loss of weight, and weakness are common complaints [emphasis mine]. There is great individual variation in the signs and symptoms of chronic benzene poisoning." (21)

Benzene belongs to the chemical family known as aromatic hydrocarbons, the other members, and their uses, are:

NAPTHALENE: The main constituent in mothballs and employed in the production of dyes and synthetic resins. It is also used for industrial lubricants, explosives, fungicides, and as a solvent and preservative.
ANILINE: Related to both benzene and ammonia, it is used to make a wide variety of organic chemical compounds including pharmaceuticals, photographic chemicals, and dye intermediates.
PHENOL: Chiefly manufactured from benzene, its chief uses are in the manufacturing of plastics, dyes, and disinfectants.
HYDROQUINONE: Manufactured by oxidizing aniline, it is used extensively as a photographic developer and as a food antioxidant.

The other aromatic hydrocarbons are xylene and toluene. The effects of the hydrocarbons are similar: they accumulate in, and damage, the bone marrow causing anemia and depressed immune function. A related compound, though not a hydrocarbon, is benzoic acid, a.k.a., sodium benzoate, methylparaben, and propylparaben (22). We will return to this compound a bit later in the paper.

Cases of Benzene Contamination

There have been several instances in recent history where benzene, or one of its derivatives, has contaminated a food or has been an ingredient in a pharmaceutical product. All of these conditions were, at first, thought to have been infectious and either virally or bacterially caused. These instances are: (1) American pellagra, (2) Toxic Oil Syndrome, (3) Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, (4) SMON, and (5) EMS (eosinophilia myalgia syndrome). Intravenous drug use (IVDU) also figures into the benzene picture. Let us now look at these occurrences, paying specific attention to the physical conditions these contaminations brought about.

American pellagra was a disease that hit the southern United States during 1900-1950 and claimed tens of thousands of lives, as well as affected about 250,000 people. Outbreaks of pellagra had occured before in other countries but American pellagra was slightly different: while all had niacin deficiency at the heart of the condition, the American problem was exacerbated by the use of new bleaching and degerminating procedures for corn and wheat which not only stripped the grain of its nutrients but also added into it various chemical residues, including pesticides, like hexachlorobenzene, to keep the flour free from bug infestation. It is for this reason that pellagra continued to occur after the niacin deficiency was addressed (23).

Pellagra was thought to have been an infectious condition, despite overwhelming proof against that notion. It produced a wide range of effects such as dementia, fevers, rashes, skin lesions, opportunistic infections, fatigue, lymphadenopathy, pneumonia, retinitis, night sweats, and diarrhea, among others (24).

Toxic Oil Syndrome (TOS) occured in Madrid, Spain in 1981 where there was a localized outbreak of immune suppression among thousands of people. At first, health authorities suspected a viral cause since the affected were family members, friends, or acquantances. On closer inspection, however, the source of the trouble was a particular brand of olive oil, sold only in Madrid, that had been "cut" with canola oil. The canola oil had been "denatured" (i.e., had its fatty content removed or reduced) and had been contaminated in the denaturing process with 2% aniline that resulted in fatty acid anilides (e.g., oleylanilide) and structural contaminants (e.g. p-benzoquinoline) (25). In short, the victims of TOS became ill from ingesting benzene-contaminated olive oil.

The symptoms of this condition were virtually identical to American pellagra: immunosuppression, fever, chills, sweats, rashes, eosinophilia, muscle wasting, cough, dyspnea, muscle cramps, dry eyes and mouth, skin lesions, dementia, peripheral neuropathy, pneumonia, chronic hepatitis, lymph swelling, and opportunistic infections (26). Additionally, cellular and immunological abnormalities occurred: an inversion of CD4/CD8 cell ratios, production of autoantibodies to collagen DNA, and reduced T and B cellular responses to mitogens. (27) It was proposed that the autoantibody production was the result of an increase in the CD4/CD8 T cell ratios. (28)

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a relatively new condition that appeared in America and Europe at about the same time as AIDS. Dubbed the "Yuppie Flu" for its tendency to strike only young urbanites, it is characterized by the same symptoms as pellagra and TOS. For several years the American Centers for Disease Control tried, unsuccessfully, to blame the condition on various pathogens, most notably the Epstein-Barr virus. When CFS showed up, however, in many people with no trace of this virus, the theory had to be abandoned. At present, the CDC asserts that CFS has no known, definite cause and that it is not infectious.

The majority of CFS sufferers are women (29) and the source of the condition most probably lies in the yuppie liking for certain "denatured" foods which were introduced to the marketplace in the 80's: decaffeinated and sugar free drinks, "lite", fat free, and salt free foods, for example. Benzoic acid figures largely in the syndrome, being added as a preservative into diet colas and many of the altered foods. Benzene also figured directly as it had contaminated the popular yuppie drink, Perrier (30).

Our next occurence is Japan where an outbreak of immune suppression occured between 1955 to 1978 called SMON (subacute myelo optico neuropathy). Like our preceeding examples, SMON was thought to have been caused by a virus but, after 20 years and many deaths, was traced to a prescription drug called clioquinol, a medication for stomach upset. Clioquinol contained 8-hydroxy-quinoline, a benzene derivative. This drug was prescribed for stomach upset but actually caused it, requiring higher and higher doses, thus insuring more eposure to the toxin. The symptoms were: abdominal pain, fever, rash, diarrhea, neuropathy, weight loss, skin lesions, retinitis leading to blindness, fatigue, paralysis, and pneumonia. (31) These symptoms are, of course, almost the same as the other conditions looked at.

It just so happens that clioquinol was given to emigrating Hatians arriving in the U.S.A. in the early 80's for parasitic infections and, currently, is heavily marketed in Zaire and Angola (32). As some readers may remember, Haitians were singled out by the CDC as being one of the original "AIDS risk groups" in the early 80's. It is quite reasonable to conclude, however, that the "AIDS" suffered by some Haitians was nothing more than benzene poisoning caused by clioquinol ingestion.

EMS was the result of benzene derivatives contaminating tryptophan supplements which many people in the USA, Italy, Germany, and the UK took. The episode in the late 80's led to the immediate recall and subsequent ban on all tryptophan supplements in the USA. It was finally determiend that the source of the problem was a bad batch of tryptophan that was manufactured in Japan. The bacterial strain used to produce the amino acid was tainted and instead produced toxins related to the benzene ring (C6H6). This is further borne out by the fact that various studies indicated that the symptoms of EMS were identical to those of CFS (33).

Chronic, intravenous drug use (IVDU) produces almost the same sicknesses defined as "AIDS" which match the other conditions just discussed (33a). While many drugs have not been studied for their chemical contents and effects on the body, it is known that the three most implicated in immune suppression, cocaine, heroin, and crystal methamphetamine, are manufactured with coal tar derivatives like kerosene which has a high amount of benzene in it. (34)

Illicit drugs are also routinely prepared with acetone (35), a toxic substance which produces the following side effects: changes in carbohydrate metabolism, nasal effects, conjunctiva irritation, nausea, vomiting, muscle weakness, kidney damage, and various metabolic and biochemical changes (36).

The other recreational drug historically implicated in AIDS due to its high use among some parts of the gay community, "poppers", or amyl and butyl nitrates, may contain trace amounts of benzene in them (37). Regardless, they are potent oxidizing agents and carcinogenic. It is interesting to note that Kaposi's sarcoma seems only to affect gay men and the KS that some gay men get is quite different from classical KS. In classic KS, the skin lesions appear on the lower parts of the body and the tumors are pretty benign and permanent. In gay men who have the condition, the lesions show up all over the body, appear and disappear, and, when present in the lungs, are lethal. It should be obvious that the "KS" some gay men suffer from is not the KS documented in the earlier medical literature. The "gay KS" is, it appears, toxin induced just as the skin lesions of the other conditions just discussed were. In keeping with the cumulative effect of benzene and its derivatives, it takes a few years of nitrite use for "KS" to develop (38).

Proof that benzene is causing the "KS" lesions is seen in their successful treatment with a substance called DNCB, a photographic developing agent which contains small amounts of benzene. In demonstration of the homeopathic Law of Similars, the minute amounts of benzene in DNCB stimulate an immune response against the toxin within the body, normalize and increase CD4/ CD8 counts (39), and resolve the lesions. The other successful treatment for the skin lesions is estrogen therapy, developed and discovered by Project AIDS International in Los Angeles. For some unknown reason, estrogen helps to inhibit and protect the body from benzene and its effects (40).

And what of benzoic acid (C7H6O2)? Way back in 1906 Harvey Wiley, the founder of the FDA, conducted experiments on people (with permission) trying to determine the harmful effects, if any, of this compound on humans. At the time, a major food company wanted to add the chemical to various canned products to insure food color and freshness and Dr. Wiley was concerned about possible adverse effects. Upon repeated introduction of small, concentrated amounts of benzoate into his test subjects several adverse side effects were noted after three weeks: night sweats, fever, muscle loss, anorexia, lymph swelling, etc.. The same symtoms of AIDS, TOS, SMON, CFS, illicit drug use, and other benzene-induced conditions.

Dr. Wiley testified before congress that the use of benzoic acid, boric acid, salicylates, and cinnamic aldehyde (found in "hot" lubricants) would be disastrous and even succeeded in banning them for a few years. Unfortunately, due to economic and political pressures from food and petrochemical companies, Dr. Wiley was overruled and expelled from the very organization he founded (41).

Of particular interest here is Dr. Wiley's ominous prediction in his book that serious epidemics arising from the use of these chemicals would occur in the future. Today, we have benzoic acid (or sodium benzoate, benzoate of soda, methylparaben, propylparaben, or paraben) added to all sorts of foods and drinks as a preservative. It is also found in another product almost exclusively used by the gay community: lubricants.

The Beginning of the End

While it is true that the first cases of AIDS, called GRID back then, were reported to the CDC in 1981 by Dr. Michael Gottlieb, the first cases of KS and AIDS were seen in the gay community beginning in 1978 (42) and the mysterious new disease seemed to only strike two groups of people: bottoms (passive in anal intercourse), and "fistees" (those who liked to be fisted, or have someone's fist and arm anally inserted into them) (43). Exclusive tops were not affected, unless they were heavy drug users. Those with a preference for oral sex, giving or receiving, may have gotten other venereal ailments, but they did not catch the new disease. What was it that bottoms and fistees had in common, besides poppers to relax the smooth muscles of the anus? Lubricant and lots of it if they were promiscuous.

Were new lubricants introduced to the gay community in 1978? Previously, gay men had used KY jelly, Crisco, or baby oil for anal sex but in 1978 there were new lubricants introduced and heavily marketed to the gay community, viz., Lube and Performance, as advertisements in back issues of gay periodicals show. As a matter of fact, 1978 marked the dawn of "special" lubricants, both "hot" and regular, formulated for and used by gay men. They were all oil-based and contained very high amounts of acetone and benzoic acid in them (44). The oils were, like the bad olive oil in Madrid, "denatured." Curiously, as these lubricants became available to gay men in other countries, via mail order, AIDS began to appear in those places. There were a few instances where gay men from other countries developed AIDS-like symptoms before the lubricants went overseas, but in each of these instances, the victims had spent time in the United States just before returning to their native ascountries, suggesting exposure to the toxin while in the U.S.A. (45)

Effects of Benzene on the Body

CHART OF SYMPTOM COMPARISON

SYMPTOMS AIDS TOS CFS EMS SMON PELLAGRA

Prolonged fever yes yes yes yes yes yes
Fatigue yes yes yes yes yes yes
Rash yes yes yes yes yes yes
Cough/flu-like symptoms yes yes yes yes yes yes
Intestinal disorders yes yes yes yes yes yes
Lymphadenopathy yes yes yes ? yes yes
Pneumonias yes yes yes ? yes yes
Neuropathy yes yes yes yes yes yes
Scleroderma yes yes yes yes yes yes
Hepatitis yes yes yes yes yes yes
Diarrhea yes yes yes yes yes yes
Thrush/candida infection yes yes yes yes yes yes
Sweats yes yes yes yes yes yes
Wasting yes yes yes yes yes yes
T-cell abnormalities yes yes yes yes yes yes
Retinitis yes yes yes ? yes yes
Cutaneous skin lesions yes yes yes ? yes yes
Fibrosis yes yes yes yes yes yes
Inflammation yes yes yes yes yes yes
Insomnia yes yes yes yes yes yes
Headaches yes yes yes yes yes yes
CD4/CD8 inverted ratio yes yes yes yes yes ?
Internal lesions yes yes yes ? yes yes
Nerve degeneration yes yes yes ? yes yes
Dementia/memory loss yes yes yes yes yes yes
Myalgia yes yes yes yes yes yes
Secondary Infections yes yes yes yes yes yes

How did these dangerous chemicals find their way into the first AIDS patients? Rectal absorption is estimated at being eight times more efficient and direct than oral for rectally absorbed items bypass the digestive tract and are directly absorbed via the mucous membranes into the bloodstream.

As readers of this paper may know, lubricants are quite popular with the gay community and are not, in general, used by heterosexuals. Certainly the first "gay" lubricants were not used by straight people, hence the "gayness" and "maleness" of AIDS. While there has been a trend away from oil based lubricants, the water based ones have benzoic acid in them, albeit in much smaller amounts than their oil-based cousins. Benzoic acid goes under the names of methylparaben and propylparaben and is just as toxic now as it was when Dr. Wiley experimented on it almost 100 years ago.

Constituents of Lubricants

Lubricants are, in fact, chock full of toxic chemicals. The following is a brief listing of ingredients commonly found in sexual lubricants and the data on them are from two basic toxicological guides, The Hazardous Chemicals Desk Reference (HC) and The Handbook of Poisoning (HOP). When reading the following, the reader is urged to remember that rectal absorption is eight times more efficient than oral.

Chemical & its Toxicity Profile/Bodily Reactions

Nonoxynol 9: Poison by intraperitoneal route. Mutation data reported. When heated to decomposition, it emits acrid smoke and fumes (HC, p. 958).
Parrafin: Possible carcinogen with experimental tumorigenic data by implant route. (HC, p. 982; HOP, p. 212).
Chlorhexidine: Mildly toxic by ingestion. Skin irritant. Mutation data reported (HC, p. 167).
Lidocaine: Poison by ingestion and subcutaneous routes. Excitement, hallucinations, distorted perceptions, changes in heart rate, and dyspnea. Anaesthetic rapidly absorbed by mucous membranes. Excessive doses may cause methemoglobinemia (HC, p. 439; HOP, p.341.)
Mineral oil/petrolatum: A human teratogen that causes testicular tumors in the fetus. Inhalation of vapor or particles can cause pneumonia. Possibly produces gastrointestinal tumors. Deposits accumulate in the lymphnodes and dissolves and prevents the absorption of vitamin A from the intestines (HC, p. 885; HOP. p. 206, 410.)
Polyethylene glycol: Moderately toxic. Eye irritant. Possible carcinogen and flammable. Many glycols produce severe acidosis, central nervous system damage, and congestion (HC, p. 1053; HOP, pp. 193-195.)
Sodium borate: A.K.A. borax. Toxic to all cells. Prolonged absorption casues anorexia, vomiting, diarrhea, and anemia (HOP, p. 396).
Propylene glycol: Slightly toxic. Causes convulsions, mutations, and surface EEG changes (HC, p. 1086).
Carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxymethylcellulose, polyscorbate 60: The first of these compounds has been shown to cause cancer in animals. Used in cosmetics, inhalation of these products could cause chemical pneumonitis. Bodily implantation of these substances will cause foreign body [antibody] reaction (HOP, p. 308).
Triethanolamine: Moderately toxic by ingestion. Liver and kidney damage has been demonstrated in animals from chronic exposure. Possible carcinogen (HC, p. 1273).
Methylparaben, propylparaben: Close chemical cousins of benzoic acid. Poisonous and moderately toxic. An allergen. Causes dyspnea and allergic dermatitis (HC. pp. 132, 695, 702).

Granted, high doses may be required to produce the effects listed for some of these compounds but some, like mineral oil and petrolatum, are used in high doses in lubricants already. Beyond that, what are the effects of chronic, but low, exposure over time? How much overtime does the immune system have to work to remove these unnatural substances from the body, if they can be removed at all?

Their Excuse?

Project AIDS International, a medical research organization located in Los Angeles, California, contacted some of the lubricant companies with this information, and also lodged a complaint with the FDA, and were rebuffed. Apparently, the excuse is that NO lubricant is labelled in such a way as to imply rectal or anal placement; all the labels say something like "For external use only." This is done to avoid extensive testing of the product as a food substance by the FDA and to, effectively, circumvent the law. Since no insertion is implied or stated, the companies cannot be held responsible or liable for someone going ahead and doing so. You can't be responsible if someone uses your product in a way you didn't tell them to. (46)

Until they change, vegetable glycerine mixed with water makes a safe, natural lubricant. One can also make a natural lubricant by heating 4 teaspoons of corn starch with 1 cup of water. Keep stirring. Eventually, a slick gel will form. Refrigerate the mixture until ready for use. The only lubricant on the market that appears to be safe for use is called Probe, which contains few ingredients, no benzoates, and uses citrus seed extract as a preservative.

Suggested Guidelines

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: don't use lubricants or lubricated condoms. The oil based ones have a much higher content of toxins in them than the water based ones. Additionally, as studies done by Project AIDS International show, lubricated condoms are routinely coated with talc and silicon, both carcinogenic and immunosuppressive substances when introduced into the body.

Denatured oils oxidize in the body and produce free radicals which are known to harm the cellular systems of the body. (47) Further, benzene appears to kill by decimating the blood bone marrow and by burning out the endocrine system by causing hyperproduction of various hormones, especially cortisone and cortisol (48). The hormonal blowout occurs as a result of the severe inflammatory response that benzene generates from the body. It is almost as if the entire aging process is speeded up a hundred-fold and a person lives a lifetime in a few years. As most clinicians who dealt with early persons with AIDS know, those that died died horrible deaths due to immune system destruction caused by anemia and leukocytopenia and looked like shriveled old men when they passed.

As for dietary guidelines, avoid any food product that says the following: diet, fat free, salt free, decaffinated, defatted, "lite," polyunsaturated, or imitation as these "foods" are denatured foods. Avoid cooking foods over charcoal as this produces benzopyrenes. Food is supposed to have fat in it and solvents must be used to extract fat from these foods by the manufacturers.

In terms of treatment, it is difficult to make blanket recommendations since each person is different but, in general, if it can be determined that the person's "AIDS" is caused by benzene poisoning (the Caffeine Enzyme Saliva test should be employed here), treatment should mimic successful protocols for the other bezene-induced conditions discussed before. Toxic Oil Syndrome, EMS, and SMON, for example, were successfully resolved with a purification diet, along with vitamin and mineral supplementation (49) provided, of course, that the damage wrought by the benzene was not so extensive as to have completely shut down the body's endocrine and bone marrow systems. While it is always possible to halt benzene's march of destruction in the body, it is quite difficult to reverse what damage has already occured.

Natural therapies should focus on detoxifying the body and building up the blood bone marrow, glandular, hepatic, and digestive systems, which will have a beneficial effect on the immune system. Garlic, yellow dock, and alfalfa supplements are recommended, for example, as well as ginseng, for their alterative qualities and tonic effects on these systems (50). High doses of vitamins C, E, and A , as well as the mineral selenium, are recommended for their antioxidant effects (51), as well as a solid antioxidant formula like New Life from Sophista-Care. In severe cases, Project AIDS International recommends chelation therapy with vitamin/mineral supplementation (52).

Systemic candidiasis, if present, must be dealt with quickly due to its ability to exhaust the immune and adrenal systems with allergic reactions, increased tendency to other infections, and interference with the digestive function resulting in nutrient starvation.

Of course, immediately stop the ingestion of illicit drugs, if any, and immediately halt the consumption of AZT, sulfa compounds, or any other toxic "antiviral" HIV drug. These drugs, which do nothing but kill living cells, have been rightly termed "AIDS by prescription" by Peter Duesberg and other "AIDS dissidents."

Of equal importance is the treatment of the mind of the person who either has "AIDS" or who has been diagnosed "HIV antibody positive," and the psychological death sentence such a diagnosis engenders. It must be made clear to these individuals that (a) they can recover, and (b) HIV is irrelevant to AIDS and, in all probability, does not even exist (53). If a person believes in their heart that there is no hope, then there is none. Effective mental imaging techniques like neurolinguistic programming would be of immense help here.

Stephen C. Byrnes Ph.D., D.N.T. is a Natural Therapist and Nutritionist in Honolulu, HI. He is the author of Overcoming AIDS with Natural Medicine, available from http://naturalhawaii.com/centaur.htm or www.1stbooks.com, as well as several articles and papers which have appeared in Health Freedom News, Vitality, Natural Health Reader, and Common Ground. See also http://www.naturalhawaii.com/byrnes.htm

This paper is indebted to original research done by Project AIDS International, 8033 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 2640, Los Angeles, CA. 90046. Questions on this paper can be directed to them at (213) 660-3381 or to the author.

References

1. This paper will not touch on "African AIDS" which is an epidemic of malnutrition and draught.
2. Duesberg, Peter. "Can Epidemiology determine whether drugs or HIV cause AIDS?" AIDS Forschung 12:627-635.
3. Root-Bernstein, Robert. "Do we know the cause of AIDS?" Perspect. Biol. Med. 33:480-500.
4. Jeremy Selvey, Project AIDS International, personal communication.
5. Coulter, Harrison. AIDS and Syphilis: The Hidden Link. Berkley; 1987.
6. The publishers of the gay newspaper The New York Native.
7. Clark, Hulda. The Cure for HIV and AIDS. San Diego; 1993.
8. Duesberg, Peter and Yiamouannis, John. AIDS. Health Action Press; 1995. Ch. 15.
9. It was found that the symptoms of tertiary syphillis, most similar to AIDS, were caused by long term arsenic treatments and not by the syphilis bacteria.
10. Duesberg. AIDS. Pp. 92-114.
11. Pollach, S., et. al.."Impaired immune function in hemophilia patients treated exclusively with cyproprecipitate: relation to duration of treatment." Am. J. Hematol. 20:1-6.
12. Byrnes, S.C. "Overcoming AIDS With Herbs, Vitamins, and Hope" Common Ground; Toronto; Spring 1996.
13. Duesberg, AIDS., p. 48; Duesberg & Bialy, Genetica June 1995; Craddock, Mark. "HIV: Science by Press Conference," Genetica June 1995; Eleopuls, Turner, Papadimitriou, "Is HIV Really Hiding in the Lymph Nodes?" Reappraising AIDS, Spring 1994; Wolthers, KC, et. al., "Telomere Length in HIV-1 Infection," Science vol 724, no. 5292, pp. 1543-1547.
14. These cases of HIV-free AIDS are called ICL by the Centers for Disease Control. See also Farber, C., "The Gray Zone: AIDS Without HIV," Spin, 10/96.
15. Selvey, Jeremy. The Secrets Behind HIV & AIDS. Los Angeles; CA. 1996. p. 64.
16. For example, gay men typically get Kaposi's sarcoma, wasting, and pneumocystis pneumonia; drug addicts typically get TB and pneumonia, and hemophiliacs typically get pneumonia and candidiasis.
17. Duesberg, AIDS. Pp. 11-12
18. Graham, John. In Search of Safety. Harvard University Press; 1988. p. 102.
19. Ibid, pp. 115-130.
20. Ibid, pp. 148.
21. Lewis, Richard. Hazardous Chemicals Desk Reference. 1993; Van Nostrand Reinhold. Pp. 123-124.
22. Dreisbach, Robert. Handbook of Poisoning. Los Altos; 1983. P. 615, 603, 410.
23. Selvey, op. cit., p. 65; C6H6: The Common Link, Project AIDS International, 1996.
24. Ibid
25. Ibid, p. 65.
26. Wood, G.M., et. al. J. Agric. Food Chem.. 1994; 42: 2525-2530; Silver, M.L. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 66:1947.
27. Yoshida, S.H., et. al. Regulatory Toxico. and Pharm.. 1994; 19: 60-79.
28. Selvey, op. cit., p. 65.
29. "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome," Alternative Medicine. (1993; Future Medicine Publishing)
30. Miller, A. "Perrier Loses Its Fizz: Benzene Contamination," Newsweek, 2/26/90, pp. 115,153.
31. Neelam, B. Pharmacol. and Toxicol.. March, 1994; 59-65.
32. Smith, R.. Annals of NY Acad. of Sci.; 1984; 437:595.
33. A- Priori, R., Euro. J. Pediat., vol. 153, #5; 1994, pp. 344-346; Leslie, A.. et. al., Jnl. Amer. Med. Assoc., 10/3/90, vol. 264, no. 13.

B- See Duesberg's Inventing the AIDS Virus (Regnery; 1996) for a thorough discussion, with full references, of the immunosuppressive effects of chronic drug consumption.
34. Selvey, op. cit. p. 70
35. Lewis, op. cit. p. 11.
36. Ibid.
37. Clark, op. cit., p. 35.
38. Duesberg, P. "How Much Longer Can We Afford the AIDS Virus Monopoly?" Genetica;June 1995; Haverkos, H. & Drotman, P. Nitrite Inhalants: NIDA Technical Review; 1995.
39. Knight, Gareth. "DNCB", Continuum, Sept./Oct. 1996.
40. Selvey, op. cit., p. 71 & personal communication.
41. Wiley, Harvey. A History of a Crime Against the Food Law. Self published; 1929. See also The Legacy of Dr. Wiley by Maurice Natenberg; 1957. These books are on display in the offices of the FDA.
42. Selvey, op. cit. pp. 10, 62-63.
43. Ibid
44. Ibid, p. 70
45. Ibid, pp. 63-64. See also J. Gerstoft, et. al. Antibiot. Chemother. 1984; 32:127-137.
46. Selvey, personal communication.
47. Burton Goldberg Group. Alternative Medicine. Washington; 1994. P. 182.
48. Parillo, J.E., et. al.. Amer. Rev. of Pharm. and Toxic.; 1979; 19:279-301; Haynes, F.C., et. al.. Jnl. Clin. Invest.; 1978; 61:125-135.
49. Selvey, op. cit. p. 72; see also previous studies cited on EMS, TOS, and SMON.
50. Jackson, M. and Teague, T. The Handbook of Alternatives to Chemical Medicine. Berkley; 1989. p. 13.
51. The Burton Goldberg Group. Alternative Medicine. 1994; WA.. P. 182.
52. Selvey, op. cit. p. 72.
53. Eleopulos, E., Turner, V., Papdimitriou, J., Causer, D.. "The Isolation of HIV: Has It Really Been Achieved? The Case Against," Continuum vol. 4, #3, 1996, Supplemental Insert; Lanka, Stefan. "HIV: Reality or Artifact?" Continuum, Jan/Feb. 1996; "Collective Fallacy: Rethinking HIV," Continuum, vol. 4, #3, 1996, pp. 19-21.

PaulKing
06-04-2003, 11:45 PM
Condom promotion campaigns are part of the so-called prevention campaigns. Analysing the number of condoms sold in Germany can give some information as to the success of changing the sexual behaviour of a population.

The number of condoms sold per capita was two condoms in 1980. Fifteen years later it has been 2,3 after numerous campaigns. Apparently most people in Germany don't like condoms and cannot be convinced to use them. A similar situation occurred in Austria, where the number of condoms did not move even during the last campaign in 1994. This has been one of the arguments to stop these campaigns.

We know from Family Planning Programs that it is possible to change the contraceptive behaviour to a small extend. But this needs a message that is not only credible but also applicable. Whereas messages of the condom campaigns in the HIV-area did not correspond with the experiences of the people and proved to be wrong anyway (the epidemic did not happen). But more important the request of using a condom in all circumstances outside a mutually faithful relation, were perceived as being unrealisable and incompatible with a spontaneous sexual life.

It is noteworthy that there has been no HIV-epidemic in Germany although condom use remained very low.

PaulKing
06-04-2003, 11:55 PM
FOFOCUS ON HIV NO.2
THE DANGERS OF BENZENE
(used in many condom lubricants and even latex manufacture)

http://www.health-truth.com/articles/hiv02.asp

By Michael Biamonte, C.C.N.

Benzene is a common solvent used in the processing of foods such as cold cereals,artificially flavored foods,frozen desserts,commercial salad oils or vegetable oils, soft drinks and others. Benzene is also found in hand cremes, body lotions, personal lubricants to name a few. It is actually a very commonly used substance, used not as a additive but used in processing of foods and personal care items.

It is primarily used to break down or liquify fats.It can make cream creamer,or something smooth smoother.It can be used to breakdown fats in order to extract them. As an example, if one wanted to extract the oil out of nuts, one would need only to mix the nuts with benzene and the benzene would draw the oil out of the nuts.

Due to the fact that benzene is not used as an additive, the FDA does not require that foods processed with benzene have it listed as on the product.

DEPRESSES T-CELLS

Benzene has been found to be very detrimental to those with immune THdeficiency. Dr. Hulga Clark Ph.D, N.D., a private researcher, has implicated benzene as a tremendous risk factor in immune suppression.Dr. Clark has found that a person's T-cells will drop when they are exposed to benzene and then rise back up when they discontinue their exposure to the benzene source. I have found that vitamin B2 will aid the body in detoxification of benzene. If one completely avoids all exposure to benzene, enough benzene can leave the body on its own to accomplish an increase in T-cell levels to where the immune system can again become functional.

PaulKing
06-07-2003, 06:52 AM
This post simply allow objective evaluation of the above figures by adjusting them to account for the population of the countries iinvolved. Comparing apples and apples!!!



If AIDS is sexually transmitted how can one explain these figures: -

AIDS CASES IN 2001

http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm

France 1528

Holland (legal prostitution) 45

Sweden (legal prostitution/very sexually liberated) 42

Denmark (as above) 74

These current statistics hardly suggest a link between AIDS and sexual activity.

....so does that mean that people in France are less likely to use condoms than in Holland, Denmark and Sweden?

Actually the EXACT REVERSE IS TRUE.

Durex study: -

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/10198/96961

"The number 2 country in the Durex survey (amount of sexual activity) is the Netherlands, where people say they have sex 158 times a year, followed by Denmark at 152. The average among all the countries is 139, with the USA falling just short at 138.

While people are still underprotecting themselves from sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unwanted pregnancies, according to the Durex Global Sex Survey, the French are the least likely to have had unprotected sex. Just 22 percent said they have not used protection, compared to 61 percent in Sweden who did not take precautions."

___



France had over 1528 AIDS cases in 2001 (http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm) compared to 42 in Sweden BUT uses condoms almost 300% more than people in Sweden.

Confused? The lower the condom usage the lower the AIDS. Not exactly what you have been taught?





HERE ARE THE ORIGINAL FIGURES ADJUSTED FOR THE POPULATION'S OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES INVOLVED.

AIDS CASES (RATE PER THOUSAND POPULATION).

Sweden .047
Denmark .139
Holland .028
France .268

CONDOM USE (as percentage of population)
FRANCE 78%
DENMARK 39% (EXACTLY HALF OF FRANCE)

and yet the rate of French AIDS cases is 1.93 (nearly twice as high*) compared to Denmark. In other words half the condom use creates twice the AIDS (cases not death) rate.


When you adjust for the higher number of sex acts per year in Denmark (152 v. 143) shown in the Durex study (compared to France) the figure shows that DOUBLE THE CONDOM USAGE RESULTS IN (OVER) DOUBLE THE AIDS CASES. This is fairly consistent in ALL European countries and so cannot be dismissed as a anomaly.


Clearly it seems that 'Safe Sex' is natural sex after all.

PaulKing
06-11-2003, 06:31 PM
VERY RARE

Average syphilis rates 2.5 cases per 100,000

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Fact_Sheets/Syphilis_Facts.htm

Brit_Pair
06-12-2003, 05:21 AM
Paul, you evidently have a great deal to say on this subject. Have you ever considered creating your *own* website?

Incidentally, on the UK TV news yesterday, a government Minister stated that the National Health Service's Sexual Disease Treatment facilities were under 'intolerable pressure' due to the massive increase in cases of STD's amongst younger people.

Are these people abandoning condoms because people like you and the statistical evidence you present have persuaded them such barrier contraceptives are not required, and may even be doing them harm?

PaulKing
06-12-2003, 05:37 PM
"Are these people abandoning condoms because people like you and the statistical evidence you present have persuaded them such barrier contraceptives are not required, and may even be doing them harm?"

I do hope so as that is the truth. Clearly, from the figures I published above, condoms DO NOTHING TO REDUCE AIDS and may actually increase immune suppression.

Repeating myths does not change facts.

Best wishes,


Paul

teknurse
06-12-2003, 06:19 PM
[PaulKing]I do hope so as that is the truth. Clearly, from the figures I published above, condoms DO NOTHING TO REDUCE AIDS and may actually increase immune suppression. [/QUOTE]

So if you believe this is true does that mean that you would have no probem having unprotected sex with a HIV positive person?


If you do good luck and I hope you do well on the daily medication regime.

M&B
06-12-2003, 06:49 PM
The pictures?

Wait, just remembered something. I may have some in a book. You keep looking, too.

PaulKing
06-12-2003, 06:54 PM
Yes it does. First it is impossible to know if someone is 'HIV positive'. The so called AIDS tests only test for harmless antibodies.

Second, there is no real evidence that HIV causes immune suppression.

Third, and most important, a condom would not make the slightest bit of difference but could itself compromise my immune system.

Finally, heterosexual non drug users simply don't get immune suppressed or AIDS.

Condoms are just an illusion of protection and in reality pose a MAJOR HEALTH HAZARD!

Best wishes,


Paul

PaulKing
06-12-2003, 07:21 PM
Dear M & B,

You are so right. A picture of a latex lattice will end this issue for once and for all. I will see what I have.

Keep looking too.

Best wishes,


Paul

teknurse
06-12-2003, 08:50 PM
The only health hazard a latex condom poses is if you have an allergy to latex, lubricant or spermacide. Not using a condom exposes you and your future partners to several STD's including HIV.

The harmless antibodies detected with the Elisa and Western Blot are proteins produced by your bodies immune system in response to the presence of a specific antigen the HIV virus.

HIV also does prevent your body from producing t-lymphocytes which directly affect cellular immunity.

Also as for these non-existent heterosexual, non IV drug users that dont contract the disease I spoke with two of them today. A woman who contracted it from her cheating husband and a middle class businessman with no reported history of IV drug use or homosexual activity. You may want to spend a little more time in a HIV clinic and a little less time reading studies. Not every study reflects every patient and no-one can ever be certain when they contracted this disease or who they contracted it from.

I will admit that the disease is more prevalent among homosexuals and IV drug users but dont think you are protected from this disease by sheer will power.

If you have a latex allergy there are polyurethane condoms which also prevent STD transmission.

If you choose to engage in sexual relations without protection then I hope you are very selective about your partners.

Personally we refuse to have intercourse with anyone without a condom and we have not met any couples who dont share this same rule. Good luck with your future swinging.

PaulKing
06-12-2003, 10:08 PM
You wrote: -

"The only health hazard a latex condom poses is if you have an allergy to latex, lubricant or spspermicide Not using a condom exposes you and your future partners to several STD's including HIV."

You keep repeating this as if that will make it true. I have presented you with the results of over 138 studies, a sea of statistical data, hazard reports from OSHA, the FDA and many other sources, but you ignore them all.

If you must blindly believe this then feel free to do so but please don't try to pass off your convictions as fact. I am not being rude but I cannot repeat, again and again, the same data only to have you completely ignore it in your response. If you believe, you believe. This, however, is not the basis of science.


On the subject of 'AIDS'. HIV has never been isolated nor has it been found in semen.

A link between antigen and viral infection is mere hypothesis and blood that reacts negative for HIV at 1:400 ratio to diluent (other similar non hiv tests use none) always turn positive when run at 1:1.

Without the diluent (0,1% triton X-100, Bovine and Goat Sera -minimum concentration of 5%- and Human T-Lymphocyte Lysate -minimum titer 1:7500. Preservative: 0.1% Sodium Azide) EVERYONE tests positive. EVERYONE!

No 'Gold Standard' has ever been established for the diluent, as the Abbott Test label clearly states.

Heterosexual AIDS is very rare and in my opinion probably the result of false statements to doctors. The AIDS tests are so prone to false positives (57 known causes) that these cases could also be as a result of this.

HIV has been with us for Centuries and I fail to see why it would suddenly cause immune problems. HIV/AIDS in a multi billion dollar business clouded in hysteria, exaggerations and plain old lies.

Best wishes,

Paul

teknurse
06-12-2003, 10:59 PM
How can you state that HIV has been around for centuries when you just said no virus has been isolated, you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph;
and how would you explain those people who test positive with the diluent?

If you want studies, according to the CDC and the American Society for Clinical Pathology your wrong. You cant just accept the studies that agree with your point and ignore the rest. Or I should say you shouldn't.


Three fluids exit the body through the penis: urine, semen (sperm), and pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum). Semen is a thick cloudy fluid that contains sperm and is ejaculated from the penis as a male reaches climax. Semen is one of the body fluids necessary f or HIV to survive. Pre-seminal fluid is a natural lubricant secreted through the penis during sexual arousal. Generally, pre-seminal fluid is clearn but traces of semen can be present. Because of the presence of semen, pre-seminal fluid can contain HIV
http://www.ashastd.org/nah/tty/ttyfaq.html

How effective are latex condoms in preventing HIV?

Several studies have demonstrated that latex condoms are highly effective in preventing HIV transmission when used correctly and consistently. These studies looked at uninfected people considered to be at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected persons. The studies found that even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100% of those people who used latex condoms consistently and correctly remained uninfected. For more on these studies, including free written information, call the CDC National AIDS Hotline at 1-800-342-2437 (English), 1-800-344-7432 (Spanish), or 1-800-243-7889 (TTY).

Can a woman give HIV to a man during vaginal intercourse?

Yes. If the woman is infected, HIV is present in vaginal and cervical secretions (the wetness in a woman's vagina) and can enter the penis through the urethra (the hole at the tip) or through cuts or abrasions on the skin of the penis. The presence of other STDs can increase the risk of transmission. The correct and consistent use of a latex condom or female condom can reduce the risk of transmitting HIV during vaginal intercourse. For more information, call the CDC National AIDS Hotline at 1-800-342-2437 (English), 1-800-344-7432 (Spanish), or 1-800-243-7889 (TTY).


How is HIV Spread?
HIV is passed by an infected person in body fluids - particularly semen, vaginal secretions, and blood. Most people become infected through sexual activity or intravenous (IV) drug use. However, a few people have become infected by being given blood, body tissues, or an organ transplant donated by someone infected with HIV. Now that tests for HIV are available, this rarely occurs. If a pregnant woman has an HIV infection, her baby can become infected through her blood before or during birth or through her breast milk after birth.
Although some people worry about getting infected by dentists, doctors, nurses, and other health care workers, the risk is extremely low. Very few cases of HIV transmission have occurred in the US health care work environment, and the use of protective gloves and other routine safety precautions helps keep health care workers and patients from infecting each other.

http://www.ascp.org/general/pub_resources/aids/spread.asp

Nice talking with you.

PaulKing
06-12-2003, 11:51 PM
"Several studies have demonstrated that latex condoms are highly effective in preventing HIV transmission when used correctly and consistently."

I challenge you or the CDC to produce just one. I have asked the CDC, on several occasions, to submit references but they have declined.

This is the reason why so many doctors have accused the CDC of outright lies.

I will answer your other points later.

Best wishes,
Paul

PaulKing
06-12-2003, 11:55 PM
Isolation 101.

ISOLATION 101: THE BASICS

By Paul Philpott

June, July, Aug. 1997


Isolating a virus

To isolate a virus, scientists take a heterogeneous sample (fluid from a patient or a culture) and add it to a graduated density gel, which they spin in a centrifuge. The contents of the sample settle into separate piles, or bands , at different depths according to their characteristic densities. These bands are called density-purified samples .

Because all microbiological entities have characteristic densities, scientists can obtain density-purified samples that contain only certain viruses, and no other material. There is only one way to confirm this: a photograph with an electron microscope that contains nothing but identical virus-looking objects.

If the micrograph reveals contaminating entities, that means the sample contained some material that had the same density as the virus-looking objects. In that case, scientists would have to add additional steps to the isolation process, ones that purify based on other characteristics--like size, or electrical affinity--until they could produce a sample that contained only the virus-looking objects. However, this usually is not necessary. Density purification typically produces true isolates of virus-looking objects.

If the density, appearance, and size of these objects match those of a previously characterized virus, scientists can label the sample a virus isolate. If not, scientists must subject the sample (actually, a fresh sample, since electron microscopy destroys whatever it photographs) to a battery of tests to prove that the virus-looking objects are viruses.

Proving an isolate consists of viruses

Looking like a virus is just one feature of a virus. To be a virus, virus-looking objects must behave like a virus, and their constituents must relate to each other in special ways. Scientists demonstrate these criteria by adding an isolate of virus-looking objects to a culture of suitable cells. If the isolate consists of viruses, they will infect the cells and multiply to numbers much greater than those present in the original isolate.

Scientists confirm this by attempting to re-isolate the virus-looking objects from the culture after enough time has passed for substantial viral replication to have taken place. The new isolate should form at the same density as the original, and contain objects that look the same as those in the original sample. But the new isolate should consist of a much thicker band, indicating a larger number of viruses.

Scientists also have to examine the constituent molecules of the isolate. Among other things, they have to confirm that the DNA or RNA codes for all the proteins.

This being the case, scientists declare that the objects are indeed viruses, and that these viruses are characterized by a certain size, shape, and appearance, and consisting of a particular number of proteins and genetic molecules of certain molecular weights or base pair lengths.

Isolating viral constituents

To isolate the contents of a virus, scientists must dismantle the viruses into their constituent molecular parts. They do this by adding a special detergent, SDS, to a viral isolate. The isolate will then consist of the individual molecules that compose the viruses. These molecules include proteins that decorate and line the outer membrane envelope, the globs that form the hollow inner core, and the contents of the inner core: enzymes and DNA or RNA.

Next scientists separate these molecular species from each other, using electrophoresis ,, whereby an electric field pulls the molecules through a gel so that they band according to their weights (instead of densities). Some of the bands will contain proteins, and others contain genetic material, either RNA or DNA.

Scientists call an electrophoresed sample a Western blot if they are considering the bands that contain proteins, a Southern blot if they are considering the bands that contain DNA, and a Northern blot if they are considering the bands that contain RNA. (The unusual names are a salute to E. M. Southern, the scientist who devised this process.)

Protein bands and their constituent molecules are named according to the weight (in daltons) of the molecules. The prefix "p" stands for protein , and "gp" stands for glyco-protein (glyco meaning that the protein has some sugar molecules stuck to it). RNA and DNA bands are named according to the number of nucleic acids or base pairs (in kilobases) that make up the constituent RNA or DNA molecules.

Proving a virus causes a disease

If a virus is hardy and abundant enough to cause a disease, scientists should have no trouble isolating it from the cell-free fluids of affected tissue. This is exactly what scientists must do to convict a virus of causing a disease. They select a group of people who have the disease, and try isolating the virus from the patients' plasma (cell-free blood), or other fluids, depending on the disease. If they fail to isolate the virus from some of the patients, then they must absolve that virus of responsibility for any progressive disease in those individuals, and conclude those people are sick for some other reason.

But what about patients who do present isolatable amounts of the virus? Is that virus responsible for their conditions? Or is the virus an innocent bystander? After all, most viruses cause no disease.

Only microbiological experimentation can establish the culpability or innocence of a virus isolated from the fluid of diseased tissue. To do this, scientists prepare cultures of healthy, uninfected cells of the type damaged or destroyed in the patient. They add viral isolates and watch to see if this effects the culture cells in ways that can explain the disease.

Understanding viral tests

Although isolation is the only direct evidence of a virus, cost and time considerations make it impractical for clinicians. Among other things, for example, it requires confirmation by an electron microscope.

Viral tests, on the other hand, are much simpler. Most require clinicians to just add patient fluids (usually plasma, depending on the virus in question) to the tests and look for reactions to take place.

Scientists construct these tests using components abstracted from viral isolates. Some of the proteins from viral isolates, for example, will react with antibodies secreted into plasma by the immune systems of patients infected by the virus. Antibody tests consist of those proteins. Genetic tests consist of probes made from the DNA or RNA contained in viral isolates. The probes react with viral RNA or DNA in patient fluids.

When constructed and validated properly, and used under the proper circumstances, viral tests can be nearly as accurate and reliable as viral isolation itself. The need for proper test validation and result interpretation stems from the fact that the reactions upon which they depend (antibody-antigen interactions, and genetic probing) are not perfectly specific. Antibodies against one viral protein can react with a similar protein from other microbes, or even some non-microbial proteins. Similar proteins mean similar gene sequences, so genetic tests are less than perfectly specific as well.

Furthermore, even when tests react with their intended viral entities, this doesn't necessarily mean the patient has an active infection, the only sort that can cause disease. Antibodies, for example, can circulate for years—even a lifetime—after the host immune system has suppressed a viral infection to permanent and harmless latency, or even eliminated it entirely. Viral genetic material can also persist in the plasma and other fluids during viral latency.

Therefore, viral tests cannot absolutely and unambiguously identify an actively infected person. Only isolation of objects that possess the appearance and density of the virus in question can do that. So viral tests must not only be constructed from viral isolates, they must also be validated against their ability to predict patients from whom scientists can obtain viral isolates.

Validation studies tend to show that positive test results are highly accurate for patients who express the symptoms that the virus has been proven to cause. On the other hand, positive results are usually very inaccurate for people who have no symptoms. In other words, the virus can be isolated from some very large fraction of positive testing people who express the associated symptoms, but only from a small fraction of positive testing people who express no symptoms. Thus positive tests in healthy people usually don't indicate active infections.

Antigens and antibodies

One measure of the immune system's response to a substantial viral infection is the production by B-cells of proteins called antibodies. Antibodies latch onto and neutralize other proteins.

Proteins that elicit an immune response are called antigens. Viral antigens tend to be those proteins that compose the inner core, and those that decorate or line the outer membrane envelope. These are the proteins that the immune system "sees," whereas proteins inside the core—the viral enzymes—are shielded from immune surveillance. The immune system does not respond to non-protein molecules, like RNA and DNA.

Western blot antibody tests and ELISAs

Scientists construct Western blot antibody tests by transferring to paper some of the protein bands from a Western blot gel. These bands will react when exposed to fluid that contains antibodies against the proteins in the bands.

Another test called the ELISA consists of viral isolates for which the constituent molecules have been broken apart from each other, but have not been separated from each other by electrophoresis. ("ELISA" stands for Enzyme-Linked Immuno-Sorbent Assay, which describes how positive reactions are demonstrated chemically.) This makes ELISAs easier and cheaper to make than Western blot tests.

But ELISAs are not as accurate. People test ELISA-positive if their plasma contains antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, whereas Western blot tests consist of the proteins separated into different bands, so clinicians can see exactly which proteins react with a person's plasma.

ELISAs are usually used as screening tests. Since people who test ELISA-negative have antibodies against none of the viral proteins, negative ELISAs just as accurately identify uninfected people as do Western blot tests showing no reactive bands.

But positive ELISAs are not as good as positive Western blots at identifying people with active infections. This is because there is no such thing as a specific antibody. Antibodies against a certain viral protein may react also with proteins of another virus, or even non-viral proteins. So positivity for antibodies against viral proteins is not unambiguous evidence that a person has been exposed before to a particular virus.

However, people positive for antibodies against all the antigens of a particular virus are much more likely to have been exposed to that virus than someone positive for antibodies against only one or a few of the antigens. Yet each receives the same positive ELISA. Only a Western blot can distinguish these people. Proper validation studies show higher accuracies (fraction of positive subjects from which viral isolates can be obtained) for positive Western blot tests than for positive ELISAs. But since ELISAs are cheaper, Western blot tests are usually reserved for people who first test ELISA-positive.

Northern and Southern blot tests

Southern and Northern blots from viral isolates represent pure samples of viral DNA or RNA. Scientists use the material in these samples to produce viral tests that react with viral RNA or DNA in patient fluids. To do this, they construct small DNA or RNA molecules, called probes, that complement segments of the viral DNA or RNA. To test patients, clinicians make Northern or Southern blots from patient fluid (usually plasma, depending on the virus in question) that has been treated so that any constituent viruses will be broken apart, exposing the genetic material inside.

If there is lots of virus in the plasma, a distinct band will appear in the gel at the location characteristic of the genetic material of the virus in question. Adding the probes will confirm that such a band consists of viral DNA or RNA. If only a small amount of virus exists in the plasma, the genetic material settling at the characteristic location in the gel will become detectable only after the probes are added.

Antigen tests

During the early course of a substantial viral infection, the plasma contains lots of virus, and consequently lots of viral antigens, but very few antibodies against these antigens. This is because the immune response has not yet caught up with the viral activity.

Sometimes there is not even enough antibody to cause a reaction with ELISA or Western blot antibody tests, which contain the antigens. So scientists have developed tests that contain antibodies against viral antigens. These tests react with patient plasma that contains viral proteins. Antigen tests, then, are the inverse of antibody tests.

Viral load tests

Patients rarely ever have enough "HIV RNA" to yield a detectable signal on Northern blots of fresh patient serum. Thus the necessity to invent "viral load" testing, which employs the polymerase chain reaction, PCR. PCR generates millions of RNA or DNA copies out of an original indetectably few molecules.

AIDS reappraisers consider these tests invalid. The concentrations of HIV RNA these assays usually indicate—hundreds of thousands per ml of plasma—would easily show up on Northern blot tests. But it doesn't show up at all.

Active vs. inactive viral infections

Cells with inactive, or dormant, infections have inside them viral DNA molecules, called proviruses, that are asleep. Sleeping proviruses produce no virus, and thus can cause no disease, since viral replication is what destroys or damages cells in the course of a viral disease.

Viral DNA goes to sleep when the host immune system gains the upper hand. Among the anti-viral molecules secreted by immune cells are substances that put viral DNA to sleep. When immunity is suppressed, the plasma levels of these substances diminish, and sleeping viral DNA awakens to start producing new viruses, which show up in the plasma.

Since cell cultures contain no immune systems, they contain none of these anti-viral substances. That makes them ideal nurseries for viruses. When cultures are made from cells containing dormant proviruses, the proviruses have their ideal circumstance to spring back to life and generate a maximum amount of new virus. Some proviruses awaken from dormancy only when stimulated by agents that promote viral activity. These sorts of viruses make very poor candidates for disease causation, for obvious reasons.

The culture skinny

Viruses replicate in two sorts of cells, in vivo (those inside living organisms, such as people), and in vitro (those maintained in laboratory culture dishes). Virus isolation from human plasma demonstrates in vivo viral activity, and isolation from culture fluids demonstrates in vitro viral activity.

However, isolation from the fluids of a culture composed of donor cells can not demonstrate that the donor harbors an active infection. It only demonstrates that the donor cells contain proviruses that are active under culture conditions. Transferring cells from a living organism to a lab dish can permit sleeping proviruses to awaken. Only examination of uncultured tissue fluids can diagnose viral disease.

RNA and DNA viruses

Viruses carry in their core only one sort of genetic material, either RNA or DNA molecules. These molecules are called proviruses when they reside inside a host cell, outside the viral core. Proviruses direct the production of all viral components, even replication of themselves, in the manufacture of new viruses.

Except for retroviruses, viruses that carry RNA are always active, but viruses that carry DNA can be active or inactive.

This is because RNA constantly produces proteins when it is in contact with amino acids (protein building blocks) and ribosomes (enzymes that translate RNA molecules into corresponding protein molecules). In the viral core, viral RNA has no contact with amino acids or ribosomes. But inside a host cell, viral RNA has all the material it needs to produce new viral proteins.

DNA, on the other hand, can not be directly translated into proteins. First it must be transcribed into RNA by an enzyme called transcriptase. But DNA has the ability to regulate its own transcription. So DNA can be active or inactive, whereas RNA can only be active.

Enzymes called reverse transcriptase will reverse transcribe retroviral RNA into corresponding DNA molecules. Consequently, retroviruses share with DNA viruses the ability to be either active or inactive.

Virus counting

How many viruses do infected people have circulating in their blood? There is only one way to answer this question definitively, and it of course involves preparing an isolate from patient plasma, and counting the viruses in the isolate.

Scientists start by obtaining from the patient a fluid sample, which they serial dilute,. Serial dilution results in one undiluted sample, and several others of equal volume diluted by varying amounts. From each sample scientists prepare a viral isolate, which they view on a standard grid using an electron microscope. If the patient has a high viral concentration, the undiluted sample will contain too many to count, since the viruses will be stacked on top of each other, and overlap.

The viruses in one of the diluted isolates will be spread out enough so they can be counted accurately against the grid, which represents some fraction of the area occupied by the sample. By multiplying factors that account for the gridding and diluting of the sample, counting the number of viruses in the grid will yield the number of viruses present in the undiluted sample. Dividing this number by the pre-diluted volume yields the viral concentration (in particles per milliliter) in the patient's plasma.

This of course is too expensive and complicated for the clinical setting. So scientists can calibrate some of the viral tests to approximate viral concentrations. For example, the thickness and staining intensity of Northern and Southern blot bands are directly proportional to viral concentration. So is the staining intensity of antigen tests. So by examining these test results for patients who have had their viral concentrations established, scientists can derive numbers that convert band thickness or staining intensity into viral concentration.

Tissue Culture Infectious Doses (TCID)

One of the ways that clinicians can characterize a viral infection is to approximate the plasma concentrations of Tissue Culture Infectious Doses, or TCIDs. One TCID is the minimum amount of virus required to produce viral activity in a standard culture of stock laboratory cells. Scientist determine viral activity by obtaining viral isolates, or by observing phenomena previously shown in isolation studies to be viral, such as the appearance of certain proteins.

To determine TCID concentrations, scientists take plasma from a patient and serial dilute it. Serial dilution involves producing from an original sample a sequence of samples, each of the same volume, but each one ten times more diluted than the previous. Thus going down the line from the original sample to the last, each will contain in relation to the previous one, a tenth of the plasma—and a tenth of the viruses—contained in the original sample.

Each sample is added to a separate standard culture. If the undiluted sample causes no replication, then neither will any of the diluted samples, and the plasma contains no TCIDs. If the undiluted sample does cause replication, then it contains at least one TCID. If the first diluted sample causes replication, then the undiluted sample contained at least ten TCIDs. If the second diluted sample produces no replication, then the original sample contained at least 10, but fewer than 100, TCIDs. This range can be narrowed down by now using a dilution factor smaller than ten.

Because the usual dilution factor is ten, this process is called titration, and the term TCID can be substituted with the term titer (or titre). In the above example, scientists would say that the original sample had 10 TCIDs, or a viral titer of ten. By dividing this figure by the volume of the original sample, they can calculate the plasma concentration for the patient, in TCIDs per milliliter.

Validation studies can correlate TCID concentrations with actual viral concentration. However, this usually is not done, because TCID values provide more important information than viral concentrations. Remember, only infectious viruses can cause disease, and only if they are present at concentrations great enough to cause a productive infection. So it is more important to know the concentration of TCIDs than the concentration of actual viruses. *

PaulKing
06-12-2003, 11:59 PM
HIV TRANSMISSION BY DONOR SEMEN


SIR -- In September 1985, in the Journal, seven Sydney researchers claimed "convincing evidence for transmission of HTLV-III [HIV]" to four women following in vitro fertilisation using semen donated by a bisexual man.(1) This report still remains the only evidence for HIV transmission by such means and is also considered one of the most important pieces of evidence proving the infectivity of semen. The evidence for transmission of HIV was based on Western blot testing where each individual had the following bands: donor-p24/gp41; first woman-gp41; second woman-p24/gp41; third woman-p24/gp41; fourth woman-p24. However, the present Australian criteria for a positive Western blot are "reactivity to at least one glycoprotein (gp41-5, gp110-120, or gp160) and three other viral proteins of gag (p12, p18, p24, p40, p55) or pol (p34, p53, p68) origin. A negative WB had to show no reactivity to viral proteins; reactivity to viral proteins that did not fulfil positive or negative criteria was considered indeterminate".(2) Thus, by the present criteria for a positive Western blot in Australia none of the four women or even the donor would be considered HIV positive. Neither would any be positive under the criteria set by the FDA and the American Red Cross. In fact, two of the women would not be positive by any criteria anywhere in the world.(3) According to Anthony Fauci, "the least likely explanation for an indeterminate western blot is that the individual is infected with HIV", and "The most likely explanation is that the patient being tested has antibodies that cross react with one of the proteins of HIV. The most common patterns of reactivity are antibodies that react with p24 and/or p55".(4) Thus the above data poses the following questions: (i) have these five individuals been retested and if so, have they all been found positive and by what criteria? (ii) if some or all were not found positive have the authors modified or retracted their claims? (iii) if not retested, why not and are they still considered to be infected with HIV? (iv) have any of these individuals been treated for HIV/AIDS and if so, with what drugs and on the basis of what tests?

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos (1) Valendar F.Turner (2) John M. Papadimitriou (3) David Causer (1)

(1) Department of Medical Physics, (2) Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia; (3) Department of Pathology, University of Western Australia.

References

1. Stewart GJ, Cunningham AL, Driscoll GL, et al. Transmission of human T-cell lymphotropic virus the III (HTLV-III) by artificial insemination by donor. Lancet; ii: 581-584.

2. Healey DS, Maskill WJ, Howard TS, et al. HIV-1 Western blot: development and assessment of testing to resolve indeterminate reactivity. AIDS 1992; 6: 629-633.

3. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection? Bio/Technology 1993; 11: 696-707.

4. Fauci AS, Lane HC. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Disease: AIDS and Related Disorders. In Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 13th edn., ed. Isselbacher, K.J., Braunwald, E., Wilson, J.D., Martin, J.B., Fauci, A.S., Kasper, D.L. pp. 1566-1618. 1994. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

PaulKing
06-13-2003, 12:01 AM
AIDS epidemiology also casts doubt on its status as a sexually transmitted single-cause microbe.

In addition to anecdotal cases such as Marc Christian, Rock Hudson's lover who survived an estimated 600 unprotected sexual encounters with the dying Hudson without contracting either HIV or any illness, there is the simple fact that, despite a decade of activist and right-wing scare tactics, AIDS has never turned into the predicted plague breaking out of the initial risk groups of homosexuals, hemophiliacs and drug abusers.

The official Centers for Disease Control estimate that the prevalence of HIV in the U.S. population has remained steady since 1985; around one million. (And only about 3 percent a year of these on average go on to develop symptoms of AIDS.)

The much-hyped epidemic didn't happen. For a supposedly infectious virus, HIV shows an almost human preference for certain types of people and for males over females. For example, over 90 percent of AIDS cases in the U.S. are male, though in Africa the sexual distribution is almost even. What is in the nature of this microbe to make it sexually selective depending on what continent it is on? According To Root-Bernstein it is not the microbe but the nature of the differing immunosuppressive hazards in the two continents' populations that makes the difference.

The lack of massive heterosexual spread through prostitutes is crucial in showing that AIDS is not a standard sexually transmittable disease. Root-Bernstein cites many studies showing that no significant increase in HIV seropositivity (showing antibodies for HIV) among non-drug abusing prostitutes can be found in any major Western city.

A study in the American Journal of Public Health concluded that "HIV infection in non-drug using prostitutes tends to be low or absent, implying that sexual activity alone does not place them at high risk, while prostitutes who use intravenous drugs are far more likely to be infected with HIV." Prostitutes in this study do evince the normal range of known sexually transmitted diseases.

And for a sexually-transmitted disease, HIV is rarely detectable in semen. "In all studies...less than a third of the infected men had any HIV present in the semen and then generally less than one virus genome per milliliter of semen, or perhaps one or two dozen virus-infected cells per ejaculate, on average. Approximately the same number of viruses are excreted in the saliva of HIV infected individuals and in vaginal secretions. This amount of HIV is considered to be incapable of transmitting disease," Root-Bernstein says (p.34).

PaulKing
06-13-2003, 12:05 AM
"How can you state that HIV has been around for centuries"

Actually that is a CDC statement not mine. The structure which is thought to be HIV has been around for ages but to date has never been isolated or shown to be infectious.

Some experts question it is a virus.

PaulKing
06-13-2003, 12:08 AM
Interesting point. Latest stats show this trend has continued.

"Another blow to the notion of HIV's power to kill is [the fact that] though there are over "6,000 verified cases of health care workers reporting subcutaneous exposure to HIV-infected blood or tissue as a result of needle-stick injuries, surgical cuts, broken glass and so forth...only a few dozen health care workers are known to have become seropositive during the entire decade of the 1980s in the United States" (p.44). Compare this to hepatitis, a typical infectious disease, which causes about 15,000 accidental infections among health care professionals a year. Clearly, the notion of the single infectious killer retrovirus bringing down the healthy is impossible."

Brit_Pair
06-13-2003, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by PaulKing
I do hope so as that is the truth. Clearly, from the figures I published above, condoms DO NOTHING TO REDUCE AIDS and may actually increase immune suppression.

Repeating myths does not change facts.So where does your strategy fit with regards to the prevention of other STDs? Those old traditionals like syphilis and gonorrhoea and herpes? Are condoms just as futile in the prevention of their being spread as they are with AIDS/HIV?

PaulKing
06-13-2003, 07:11 AM
Syphilis and gonorrhoea are barcteria and thus march larger than a virus. Herpes is a virus even smaller than 'HIV'.

Condoms may be a little protection against bacteria although several studies dispute this.

With infection rates in the 3 to 5 per 100,000 range in America and treatment readily available, these non viral std's do not present a serious risk to health.

Best wishes,


Paul

teknurse
06-13-2003, 09:20 AM
Paul, I admire you for sticking to you position even though it is directly contradicted by every national health organization publication on the prevention of STD's and HIV. I was just worried that some people who read your posting would believe there is no risk from heterosexual contact.
For everyone out there who would like the facts on transmission of HIV/STD's I would recommend visiting the web sites for Center for Disease Control and Prevention or the National Institute of Health so you can get the most recent research on the topic. While I know Paul is very good at locating historical research (>2 yrs old) to back up his claims it is always a good idea to check these facts on your own.

http://www.cdc.gov/

http://www.nih.gov/

Good luck to everyone and Paul it was once again a pleasure.

PaulKing
06-13-2003, 08:41 PM
Dear Teknurse,

You assume that people still trust the CDC after all their false statements, exaggerated statistics, projections that we now know were out by 3000% and so on.

The CDC takes State statistics and then increases them three fold without explination.

I for one would not believe anything they say without independent confirmation.


"The power of such a method to force changes in cultural values is based on careful manipulation of fear. Ideally, health promotion
messages should heighten an individual's perceptions of threat and his or her capacity to respond to that threat, thus modulating the level of
fear...What is not yet known is how to introduce fear in the right way in a particular message intended for a particular audience. Acquiring
that knowledge will require planned variations of AIDS education programs that are carefully executed and then carefully evaluated".

Pages 267-8 and 373.- 1989 National Research Council/CDC Internal Report


Best wishes,


Paul

PaulKing
06-14-2003, 12:30 AM
Robert Gallo of the CDC convicted of malpractice: -

"He sold the cell-line to Abbot Labs, a pharmaceutical company that
makes HIV tests. The French government asked that all patent rights be returned to Montagnier. Gallo refused, claiming it was all his work. In 1987, Gallo and Montagnier were forced by President Reagan and French Prime Minister Chirac to meet in a hotel room to work out the HIV patent rights. In 1992, Gallo was officially convicted of theft by a federal scientific ethics committee."

teknurse
06-14-2003, 07:43 AM
Paul, I'm going to send you a membership to the 'Flat Earth' society. I"m not sure if you've ever heard of them, but they maintain, in the 21st century, that the world is still flat, and that no man or object has yet to enter space. They further maintain that all other indications to the contrary are propaganda, and refuse to believe ANY facts that don't fit their ideology. I have to admire someone that is able to stand firm in his convictions. After all Don Quixote made a wonderful book, didn't it? My wife and I were willing to concede that the whole subject surrounding HIV and AIDS is somewhat blurry, and that no one source has all the answers, but you latch on to any facts that fit your theories, and steadfastly denounce any that don't, while using the SAME SOURCES that we are. Either a source is reliable, or it isn't. I'm a firm believer in trusting my own experiences before anything else, and brother, you can deny the HIV virus all you want, but I've seen the clinics and talked to the victims, and it's real. So unless you try to convince me that the CDC has paid a hell of a lot of actors to sit in these clinics, they aren't making the whole thing up. Heretoforward, I don't plan on picking up this particular guantlet again, I don't believe in beating a dead horse.

Allen&Tami

PaulKing
06-14-2003, 05:57 PM
"Paul, I'm going to send you a membership to the 'Flat Earth' society."

Dear Teknurse,

You must remember that is was the "Establishment' of the time that maintained the Earth was flat and the dissidents who claimed it was not.

For over one hundred years the medical establishment maintained that Scurvy was a sexually transmitted disease. The logic was that as mainly sailors got it (homosexual sex/prostitutes at ports of call) it must be.

A brave doctor proved, in 1853, that it was caused by lack of Vit. C but was called a fool and the std myth persisted until as late as 1920. I have read a medical journal of that time still insisting it was an std.

The fact is that medical history shows that 90% of what is believed at ANY TIME proves to be wrong. The HIV/AIDS hypothesis does not seem to be standing up to scientific method but is fueled by a multi billion dollar industry using fear to sell expensive toxic medications.

Best wishes,

Paul

teknurse
06-15-2003, 10:29 AM
Ok Paul, you missed the boat on this one. The Flat Earth Society is not some turn of the century organization, they are here, NOW. In spite on incontrovertible facts, they maintain their belief that the earth is flat. Sounds preposterous, doesn't it? I see a parallel here though, you AGAIN are using archaic facts to back up your points. Scurvy is a turn of the century malady. They didn't have the facilities we have now, and didn't understand a lot about nutrition. Tell you what, lets just consider any facts or papers older than 2 years 'historical' since the medical community moves so fast with research. Dig me up something from THIS millenium to support the fact that AIDS doesn't exist, and can't be transmitted by oral sex, or through white heterosexuals during normal intercourse, OR the fact that putting on a latex condom will cause more than 1/10 of 1 percent of the population to go into anaphylactic shock, and I'll read it. K?

PaulKing
06-15-2003, 03:15 PM
I did understood your Flat Earth insult. We can debate, based on published facts, or simply exchange childish insults.

Until your last post you had my respect but silly insults like that do nothing to further your argument.

If you choose to believe the CDC position, there is nothing I can say to change that. If you wish to examine the evidence then debate is possible.

Best wishes,


Paul

PaulKing
06-16-2003, 01:08 AM
The following just arrived in my e-mail inbox, courtesy of Billi Goldberg. Hahn and colleagues now seem to be changing their tune (a sure sign that they know what they're doing-NOT!), at least with regard to the so-called "transmission" of "HIV" from chimps to humans through the "SIVcpz" virus. (Bear in mind that some researchers have shown the so-called "transmission " of "HIV" to be even LESS "efficient". See: http://www.healtoronto.com/problems.html#trans for more info.)

"In the 7/1/03 Journal of Virology, researchers provide evidence for the
improbability of an African HIV-1 heterosexual sex-driven epidemic
without iatrogenic amplification (i.e., contaminated poliovaccine, dirty
needles/syringes).


Santiago et al. (Sharp & Hahn are co-authors) state:

'This seeming scarcity of SIVcpz in captive and wild ape populations has
raised questions as to whether chimpanzees represent a true SIVcpz
reservoir or whether a third as yet unidentified primate species might
be a source for both human and chimpanzee infections.'

'These data suggest that transmission of SIVcpz by sexual and/or other
routes is much less efficient than transmission of SIV in smaller monkey
species. Although the reasons for this remain unknown, it is of interest
that heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 in humans is also very
inefficient, ranging from 1 in 250 to 1 in 3,000 per unprotected coital
act. Thus, chimpanzees seem to resemble humans more than monkeys in the
frequency with which they transmit SIV.'"

Journal of Virology, July 1, 2003, p. 7545-7562, Vol. 77, No. 13

fsuguy69
06-16-2003, 10:45 AM
For over one hundred years the medical establishment maintained that Scurvy was a sexually transmitted disease. The logic was that as mainly sailors got it (homosexual sex/prostitutes at ports of call) it must be.

A brave doctor proved, in 1853, that it was caused by lack of Vit. C but was called a fool and the std myth persisted until as late as 1920. I have read a medical journal of that time still insisting it was an std.


I wouldn't go so far as to say it was maintained by the medical establishment that sex/homosexuality was the cause, even if some publish reports state so. While you remain correct in stating it was believed to be caused from sex with unclean women (prostitutes), you must also admit the medical community or even society back in those times outside small circles was very superstitious and churches used examples of disease to scare people off acts the deemed to be wrong or immoral. Most doctors back in those days had very little training, if any, so it is no wonder a lot of their theories of medicine just make no sense at all.

Even so, no one really knew the cause of Scurvy until 1912. Though some believed it to be a type of STD, it was far from the most prevalent or widely accepted belief. Some thought it could be caused by seasonal changes; others the winds. Some thought it could be caused by the sun or waters and others still thought by the nature of men, their manner of living or lack of exercise. Basically...it just wasn't known and when people don't know what is causing something they blame it on everything.

All that being said, it was generally accepted while not proven yet (or accepted as you stated) that diet was the cause of scurvy. It was well known that vegetables and fruits could act as a preventative measure for scurvy even as early as 1795, when it became mandatory to stock lemons (limes when not available) in the Royal Navy.

PaulKing
06-16-2003, 06:09 PM
Thanks for your post.

Here are a few references confirming that scurvy was thought to be sexually transmitted.


Aren't the only people who get scurvy pirates(and sailors)?

Though its true that scurvy is a major problem in the pirating community, men and women of the sea are far from the only people who have had to deal with scurvy. No doubt you have heard people dismiss scurvy as a "Pirate's Disease,"


-----------

Scurvy, referred to as _____________ by your author, was once thought to be a type of venereal disease (sex transmitted disease) because…

http://www.uwgb.edu/markerj/asnm_10_metab_dzII.hdz.htm


______

Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for ... pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (thought to be caused by an ... USA and Europe in men having sex with men ...

www.pridedepot.com/_d09_acti/00000001.htm


Best wishes,

Paul

fsuguy69
06-16-2003, 09:45 PM
Hey Paul,

Sorry, didn't mean to make it sound like I was disputing the fact it was thought to be sexually transmitted. I was just pointing out there were other popular myths at the time thought to induce a bout of scurvy.

Thanks for the references anyways :) BTW - do you think in question #2 from the University of Wisconsin link they meant to say 'naval' instead of 'navel'? I don't know much about Dr. Lind, so I could be wrong, wondering if you knew.

Well, as always, it's been a pleasure!

PaulKing
06-16-2003, 11:27 PM
I think you could be right. I didn't notice that. Good one!

Very best wishes,

Paul