Re: Why doesn't bum-f%&king act like a vaccine against AIDS

From: GMCarter (fiar_at_verizon.net)
Date: 10/08/04 

Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:07:58 GMT

On 7 Oct 2004 19:36:11 -0700, nazztrader@lycos.com (montygram) wrote:

The following post expresses my opinions, unless otherwise noted:
>
>I want to see the data from the experiment that demonstrated HIV
>activity in asymptomatic patients, causing the CD4T+ cell depletion
>directly, and leading to "AIDS." That experiment was
>never done, and guess what? Now the "mainstream" agrees
>(at least those who don't have their heads all the way up their
>you-know-whats, like Ho). For example:

Again, I do not know how you could ethically design such an
experiment.

>"Researchers affiliated with the Gladstone Institute and the
>University of California at Berkeley suggest that the previous theory,
> with its presumed flurry of T-cell output, was an illusion of faulty
>assumptions and poor measurement techniques. The Bay Area scientists
>used a newly developed molecular tag to track the ebb and flow of
>helper T cells. They spent more than a year studying immune systems in
>healthy people and in 21 AIDS patients being treated at San Francisco
>General Hospital. This produced what the authors described as the
>first direct clinical measurements of immune-system activity both in
>AIDS patients and an uninfected control group.

I think this is a gross misinterpretation of their data. I presume you
mean TRECs. First, these are not entirely clearly the best marker and
some dispute exists about them. However, essentially what these
experiments were designed to do was to understand the dynamics of T
cell disruption. Is it the production of new T cells that is impaired
(e.g., impaired thymus production)? Is it clonal proliferation that is
impaired?

>Results found no T-cell speed-up-and-collapse pattern in the infected
>people.

In their hands. Others have suggested that there is. However, I'm
inclined to think that this is likely to be a valid description of
what is at least not happening. And, indeed, it is somewhat hopeful to
the extent that de novo production of CD4+ cells is not necessarily
100% abrogated. That is, people can recover some immune function with
suppression of HIV. That doesn't mean starting therapy too early in
the disease progression but it suggests that starting really late is
going to be problematic (e.g., CD4 < 150 or maybe 100).

> What researchers found instead was that, along with reduced
>cell longevity, the virus caused slower cell production -- the
>opposite of what had been assumed to occur during this critical stage
>of the disease. Just how the AIDS virus might damage T-cell production
>has yet to be unraveled. [so you are assuming that because the people
>are HIV-antibody positive, any problems they have are the result of
>having neutralized HIV ; this is in contradiction to all
>knowledge of viruses, and retroviruses in particular]

What? This sounds like Duesberg's idiotic notion that antibody
production means neutralization of infection in its entirety. This is
incredibly stupid. Many viruses induce antibody responses that are not
entirely effective in eliminating the pathogen.

>And there are
>as yet no proven therapies to address the new view of the disease,
>which would call for treatments that defend the immune system,
>insulating it from HIV or making it robust enough to withstand the
>virus. By comparison, today's therapies take direct aim at stopping
>the virus from reproducing.

Ah, not entirely true. Some botanical agents modulate immune
functions. Nutritional intervention can help. And others have used
things like low dose interleukin-2 to manage immunological disruption.
Or, for example, in later disease when increases in tumor necrosis
factor (TNF) are noted, agents such as carnitine can help modulate
this aspect.

Otherwise, the main focus has indeed been on reducing viral load
through the use of nucleoside analogs, NNRTIs and protease inhibitors.
Fusion inhibitors are also available. (Newer ones that interfere with
co-receptor activity do not seem so smart to me, but that is another
post.)

>An editorial in Nature Medicine portrayed the UCSF-Berkeley study as
>definitive evidence, but Ho indicated through a spokeswoman at the
>Aaron Diamond AIDS research center in New York that he is not yet
>convinced. Greene, by contrast, called the new study a "paradigm
>shift." "This completely alters the way we think about the
>pathogenesis of AIDS," he said. By all accounts, the AIDS virus
>infects and kills T cells. The argument is whether that's the main
>cause of fatal illness or if something else is at play.

Oh, I don't buy the direct cytopathic model that HIV infects cells,
replicates, kills them. That is simplistic and we have known for years
that the majority of dying T cells are not infected. That doesn't mean
that HIV isn't the proximate cause of this deterioration--it sets up a
series of events that result in lymph node architecture damage,
oxidative stress, signalling interference and so forth.

>"This study tells us HIV does two things," said UCSF researcher Joseph
>McCune. "It does destroy cells, but its main affect appears to be on
>the systems of cell production. What that tells us is that we have to
>get rid of the virus, no question about that, but we really need to
>focus our attention on the systems of cell production."

I agree with McCune.

>.Old view: 1. Multiplying HIV particles infect T cells. 2. Immune
>system responds by cranking up production of new T cells in an effort
>to keep pace with the virus. 3. In the end stage of disease, the
>immune system collapses from exhaustion.
>New view: 1. HIV infects mature T cells, but not in sufficient
>numbers to explain how the disease progresses.
>2. Researchers suspect that the virus may attack the immune system's
>cell-making capacity. 3. Final stage of disease caused primarily by
>collapse of immune system and reduced lifespan of T cells. HIV virus
>attacks T cell production system, probably in bone marrow and
>thymus."

>Source: http://www.bonusround.com/dickie/research1.html

Thanks for the reference.

>Note that they say: "Just how the AIDS [meaning HIV, of course,
>though they do like to be confusing whenever possible, it seems] virus
>might damage T-cell production has yet to be unraveled." My
>point is that there is no known mechanism that could exist in this
>universe that could do such damage! So we're either dealing
>something that will render the know "laws" of biochemistry
>and virology worthless, or we are dealing with a simple, human rush to
>judgment by people who had everything to gain by doing so, and
>everything to lose by not doing so. Also notice that we hear things
>like "suspect" and "no question about it"

Ah, I wonder where or if you ever studied virology or immunology? What
"laws" of biochemistry are you alluding to? This is a vague comment
even more so than the terminology that you question.

>(then there's "devious," "paradoxical,"
>"puzzling," etc. ; you've heard these words
>used to describe HIV if you've kept up with the literature, and
>they are words used by scientists who are wrong about their
>"theory"). A scientist quotes an experiment, he/she
>doesn't say there's no question about it, because science
>is simply where the evidence points at a given time. The problem
>occurs when the "experts" who decide for those who
>aren't scientists where the evidence seems to point are
>conflicted, corrupt, fearful, or not particularly competent. There
>are countless examples of assumptions with no solid evidence to
>support them in the biological sciences today, such as the
>"lipid bilayer," which is supposed to withstand tremendous
>shearing forces, but without any chemical bonds (see Gilbert
>Ling's works for definitive refutation). Then there's the
>notion of "essential fatty acids," which turn out to be
>the most dangerous "food" people are consuming in large
>amounts in the "advanced" nations. Cholesterol, salt,
>fat, etc.

What data support the notion that EFAs are the most dangerous food?
This is a bit ridiculous. As to disputes within science, well, of
course there are. One thing I do NOT see within the specific context
of disputes in the HIV field is whether HIV is irrelevant to the
process. Thousands of researchers working on different aspects of HIV
pathogenesis have looked at many different facets of this disease. HIV
exists and, though it is not fully understood how, it causes AIDS.
Which, by the way, I have long defined as the Acquired Immune
Dysregulation Syndrome rather than simply deficiency as there is much
activity that relates to excessive activation, inflammatory cytokine
production, etc.

>Back to the main point here, which is that they (Gladstone)
>are saying that they know the immune system is declining in many
>"AIDS" patients, but they can't make the direct
>connection with HIV.

LOL. That is a skewed interpretation of their results.

>If a scientist wants to make an extraordinary
>claim, such as this, he/she had better have extraordinary evidence.
>All Duesberg is saying is that if you've got a claim that
>violates everything that's know about biochemistry, virology,
>etc., then you better have more than anecdotal evidence and flawed
>clinical trials before you abandon other possibilities and subject
>people to dangerous prescription drugs.

Ah--in what way? Duesberg has made some remarkable statements that are
just flat out stupid (e.g., that infections resulting in antibody
generation are necessarily eliminated). At least he realizes that HIV
exists, unlike the other faction of the denialist movement, the
so-called "Perth group" that can't even manage to recognize that
simple fact.

>For that he's been
>called a madman (or worse).

Nah. He's just an ***.

>The reason is that those whose
>reputations rest on such shaky foundations try and get the masses to
>allow emotion to cloud their judgment. Asking me if I'd be
>willing to become HIV infected is just such an example. If I'm
>alive 30 years from now, what would you say? What would the
>establishment people say? "Oh, he must have strong
>genes." I may have strong jeans, but the strong genes argument
>can always be used when a scientist errs badly. It's like a
>general saying that things could have been worse, even though his men
>got slaughtered due to his mistakes. Here's my proposal.
>I'll be glad to become HIV antibody positive (but without any
>other substances ; just the virus itself), but you've got
>to take all the retroviral medication that is being given to those
>with full insurance coverage in the USA ; until you die, which
>will likely not take very long. I get the retail cost of these drugs
>at today's prices to "treat" myself, for as long as
>I live. So if the drugs cost $35,000 a year retail price, I get that
>every year from now on, for the remainder of my life, guaranteed.

LOL. Don't ask me. You're the one who wants to make this experiment.
Obviously, you're setting it up in a way that you'll remain safe from
becoming infected. I hope you practice safer sex in the meantime,
unless monogamously coupled and both seronegative.
 
>Also, asking about friends is not scientific. It's none of your
>business who my friends are. You just don't have the goods, and
>this is the best you've got, that is, an emotional appeal with
>no scientific grounding. I'll take your money if you'd
>like, but it's sad. However, you won't get me to bite on
>name calling, because I'm only interested in it scientifically
>(and economically, if I can get someone to pay me that $35,000 a year
>or so).

You go, girl!

>Another proposal: you get Gallo, Montagnier, the head of the NIH or
>CDC, Ho, etc. (any one will be fine) to agree to a debate with
>Duesberg in public, with full press coverage, moderated by a
>journalist or scientist who has never professed personal views on
>HIV/AIDS (at least in public), using typical high school debate team
>rules. If you can do that, I'll get Duesberg for you
>(he'll be licking his chops over the opportunity).

Oh horse***. He's had lots of opportunities. There is a space in the
British Medical Journal website. Misc.health.aids is a forum. He's
written his articles and they have been refuted and dissected to
shreds.

> A debate was
>already arranged by a journal to have Duesberg debate Montagnier via
>fax machine. After Montagnier read what Duesberg wrote (Duesberg was
>first to make a statement), Montagnier made some ridiculous excuse not
>to continue, and then not long after unveiled his mycoplasma co-factor
>claim, which may be more pathetic than the original HIV/AIDS claims.

That was over 10 years ago. He's dropped the mycoplasma as co-factor
theory which was an interesting one but didn't pan out upon closer
scrutiny. That's science. By contrast, the data that support
Duesberg's whack idea that "drugs cause AIDS" simply don't exist.
Recreational drugs, some, may be fatal if misused but they don't cause
AIDS.

>What is the treatment I will give myself if you accept my proposal?
>Fresh coconut products, dark chocolate, organic butter, raw goat milk
>cheese, organic eggs, organic fresh and dried fruit, some organic
>broccoli florets, organic white tea, and absolutely no polyunsaturated
>fatty acids, except for the small amounts found in the foods listed
>above. Also, digestive aids, including stomach acid (betaine HCl),
>and pepsin, and at least 9 hours of sleep a night.

Hmmm....so you would treat yourself though you have a harmless
pathogen?

I have no trouble with any of that except your unnatural fear of
PUFAs. What's that about?

>As for the arachidonic acid/HIV connection, see below:

Oh, now HERE we have something...but it also shows you know little
about lipid biology. The use of SOME PUFAs is probably good because it
slows the arachidonic acid cascade and subsequent production of PGE2.
So you might want to add a bit of good, clean, dolphin-safe fish. (I
know that sounds like I may be being sarcastic, but I'm not.)

>"Free Radic Biol Med. 1997;22(1-2):195-9.
>
>Activation of human immunodeficiency virus long terminal repeat by
>arachidonic acid.
>
>Carini R, Leonarduzzi G, Camandola S, Musso T, Varesio L, Baeuerle PA,
>Poli G.
Snipped....and interesting--this is predicated on AA activating a
supposedly harmless virus...so it doesn't support your contention that
HIV doesn't cause AIDS. That's a bit of cognitive dissonance, dear.

>"J Neurochem. 2000 Jul;75(1):196-203.
>
>HIV-1 coat glycoprotein gp120 induces apoptosis in rat brain neocortex
>by deranging the arachidonate cascade in favor of prostanoids.

Yep. Good study. Thanks!

snip
>"Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1994 Dec 15;747:205-24.
>AIDS-related dementia and calcium homeostasis.
>Lipton SA.
snip...Right. Another study that shows that, like other retroviruses,
HIV on its own can cause neurological diseases (as well as wasting).

>
>I can't say that HIV is totally harmless, only because if your
>body is severely immunocompromised you'll have all kinds of
>viral reactivations, and who knows what the interactions will be.

People with immunocomprised situations may have faster progression,
but I've known way too many very healthy people who were fine til HIV
hit them. And way too often killed them.

>People don't realize how rudimentary science is when it comes to
>biology, and that's the reason to stick to the simple realities,
>one of which is if there's no discernable biochemical activity,
>then don't worry about it. However, when you're full of
>polyunsaturates, you're in trouble, HIV antibody positive or
>not.

Again, incorrect view of lipid metabolism.

OK...more on this later. You've shared some interesting and important
studies. But NOTHING that suggests that HIV is harmless. Nothing. To
the contrary, EVERY study you report on shows that it IS harmful.

As to antiretroviral therapy, I have no argument with the fact that it
has serious toxicities and dangers. Friends of mine have died from
complications related to ARV therapy. But FAR fewer than were dying
with untreated HIV disease before ARV became available.

We DEFINITELY need better treatments. And I know FULL well that there
are many interventions that can help that get virtually NO clinical
research, including supplements, botanicals, etc. These may well help
slow disease progression and/or offset ARV toxicities. I started an
organization that is dedicated to such clinical evaluation.
http://aidsinfonyc.org/fiar

Indeed, a recent Tanzanian study showed that the use of a simple
multivitamin can slow HIV disease progression 30%. Not a cure, but one
hell of an important therapy and inexpensive--one that could be made
available to every HIV+ person on the planet but for lack of political
will and an apparent desire to spend resources on lies, murder and
oppression. Humans. Sometimes wonder if its a species worth bothering
with, as it seems so many seem bent on collective suicide.

                George M. Carter

Quantcast