Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on December 26, 2015, 05:28:36 PM
-
A report by Patricia Goodson http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00154/full. Why is she bringing this up when this debate was won when the orthodoxy simply outshouted the detractors of HIV/AIDS?
I am fully expecting her to be fired, ostracized, character assassinated or otherwise persecuted. I do not harbor any illusions that any of the points she raises will be acknowledged, let alone addressed by the orthodoxy.
I thought that would interest you some.
-
Termie,
This is not a research article. It is a personal opinion. In scientific world , personal opinion is the weakest form of evidence. I began reading it religiously before i got tired. She does not provide any evidence to back her arguments. Her references are dominated with news magazine articles and other opinion makers.
We have seen similar folks before in the name of evangelists.
Bottom line : HIV causes AIDS . HAART saves lives.
-
Termie,
This is not a research article. It is a personal opinion. In scientific world , personal opinion is the weakest form of evidence. I began reading it religiously before i got tired. She does not provide any evidence to back her arguments. Her references are dominated with news magazine articles and other opinion makers.
We have seen similar folks before in the name of evangelists.
Bottom line : HIV causes AIDS . HAART saves lives.
It is not a personal opinion. Can you counter any of claims she makes? The article was only changed from a research article to opinion after pressure from the orthodoxy.
Why did you get tired? What is your evidence for the bottom line? Is mere recitation enough?
-
Termie , if you call her article a research paper , please define what type of research it is.
I have underlined two un referenced statements from her article on HIV testing which are factually wrong. The prescence of an antibodies implies immunological response to an external or internal ( auto immune ) stimulant / factor - current ( on going) or in the past ( resolved ). Immune system has a memory component.
The precence of Hepatitis B or C antibodies there has been an exposure to these viruses that triggered immune response. Some people clear the circulating virus and become immune. Some people become chronic carriers- identified by prescence of actively and quantifiable circulating viral particles.
HIV diagnosis ( confirmatory test ) involves a positive antibody and antigen ( virus particle ) test.
I don't know where to begin when countering un substantiated personal opinions.
We have ben through similar this with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People make up outrageous un substantiated allegations and leave it to the mainstream to prove them wrong.
HIV antibodies
The first available tests to screen blood banks for HIV detected HIV antibodies (10). Physicians still use these tests when screening blood for infection and, since 2004, direct-to-consumer home tests have become available for identifying antibodies to HIV using only a saliva sample (e.g., OraQuick) (11). Yet, from the time the first tests appeared, scientists in both orthodox and unorthodox camps reiterated that, according to established immunology principles, antibodies to a virus indicate the immune system has acted to control the invading virus. Antibodies point to previously occurring infection and do not signal active infection. :-[In 1984, CDC scientists (mainstream) wrote:
A positive test for most individuals in populations at greater risk of acquiring AIDS will probably mean that the individual has been infected at some time with HTLV-III/LAV [the names originally used for HIV]. Whether the person is currently infected or immune is not known, based on the serologic test alone [(12), p. 378].
It is not only this simple argument – antibodies suggest the immune system has controlled the invading agents – that unorthodox scientists have debated. The tests themselves remain the target of critic’s intense scrutiny. For instance, in 1996 Johnson reported 60-plus factors capable of causing a false-positive result on tests for HIV antibodies [either an ELISA or a western blot (WB) test] (13). Because they react to these factors, the tests may not be detecting HIV at all. Worthy of notice, among the list, are elements ubiquitous among all populations such as the flu, flu vaccinations, pregnancy in women who have had more than one child, tetanus vaccination, and malaria (an important element to consider in the case of the AIDS epidemic in Africa). Supporting each factor, Johnson provides scientifically valid evidence – published in reputable peer-reviewed journals such as AIDS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, The Lancet, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (13).
Celia Farber’s book, Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS (14) – an exposé of the epidemic’s ethically questionable history – contains an interesting appendix authored by Rodney Richards. Richards – who helped to develop the first ELISA test for HIV – outlines the “evolution” of CDC’s stances regarding the role of antibodies, infection, and HIV tests. First, the CDC aligned itself with the traditional view of antibodies signaling past/prior infection (as evidenced in the quote above, from 1984). In 1986, the CDC moved toward a qualified claim, stating:
… patients with repeatedly reactive screening tests for HTLV-III/LAV antibody … in whom antibody is also identified by the use of supplemental tests (e.g., WB, immunofluorescence assay) should be considered both infected and infective [(15), p. 334].
Finally, in 1987, CDC adopted a non-qualified claim that antibodies signify active infection and/or illness: “The presence of antibody indicates current infection, though many infected persons may have minimal or no clinical evidence of disease for years” [(16, 17), p. 509].
A more specific measure than the ELISA test, the WB detects antibodies by identifying proteins believed to be associated with HIV, and only with HIV. A person undergoes a confirmatory WB after a prior ELISA screening test reacts positively (but it is important to remember: over 60 conditions can yield a false-positive ELISA) (13, 18).
Critics of the orthodox view decry the lack of standardized criteria for a positive result in a WB, across countries, world-wide (19). Bauer (Table 1), in a 2010 article titled “HIV tests are not HIV tests” claims, “no fewer than five different criteria have been used by different groups in the United States” [(18), p.7]. Moreover – adds Bauer – included in the contemporary criteria for a positive WB are p41 and p24, protein–antigens “found in blood platelets of healthy individuals.” This means some of the biological markers being used to “flag” the presence of HIV are not “specific to HIV or AIDS patients [and] p24 and p41 are not even specific to illness.” In other words, healthy persons may test positive on a WB but not carry HIV at all [(18), p. 6].
TABLE 1
www.frontiersin.org
Table 1. Credentials and professional experience of select critics of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.
An example may clarify: if tested in Africa, a WB showing reactivity to any two of the proteins p160, p120, or p41, would be considered positive for HIV. In Britain, the test would be positive only if it showed reactivity to one of these three proteins, together with reactions to two other proteins, p32 and p24 (see mention of p24, above, as occurring in healthy individuals). Therefore, someone whose test reacts to p160 and p120 would be considered HIV-positive in Africa, but not in Britain. A test reaction to p41, p32, and p24 would be considered positive in Britain, but negative in Africa, leading author Celia Farber to comment: “… a person could revert to being HIV-negative simply by buying a plane ticket from Uganda to Australia [or in our example, from Uganda to London” (14), p. 163].
According to critics, a definitive answer regarding which protein–antigens are specific to HIV and HIV alone can only come from successful virus isolation and purification. Isolating and purifying “would be required to verify that all of these proteins actually originate from HIV particles” [(7), p. 70]. Attempts at purifying have been made (20, 21), but have been criticized for their ambiguous findings (22), or for their use of cultured samples (see discussion below on EM images). To date, the issue of HIV isolation in purified samples has not been addressed to critics’ satisfaction (23).
-
Termie , if you call her article a research paper , please define what type of research it is.
I have underlined two un referenced statements from her article on HIV testing which are factually wrong. The prescence of an antibodies implies immunological response to an external or internal ( auto immune ) stimulant / factor - current ( on going) or in the past ( resolved ). Immune system has a memory component.
The precence of Hepatitis B or C antibodies there has been an exposure to these viruses that triggered immune response. Some people clear the circulating virus and become immune. Some people become chronic carriers- identified by prescence of actively and quantifiable circulating viral particles.
HIV diagnosis ( confirmatory test ) involves a positive antibody and antigen ( virus particle ) test.
I don't know where to begin when countering un substantiated personal opinions.
We have ben through similar this with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. People make up outrageous un substantiated allegations and leave it to the mainstream to prove them wrong.
HIV antibodies
The first available tests to screen blood banks for HIV detected HIV antibodies (10). Physicians still use these tests when screening blood for infection and, since 2004, direct-to-consumer home tests have become available for identifying antibodies to HIV using only a saliva sample (e.g., OraQuick) (11). Yet, from the time the first tests appeared, scientists in both orthodox and unorthodox camps reiterated that, according to established immunology principles, antibodies to a virus indicate the immune system has acted to control the invading virus. Antibodies point to previously occurring infection and do not signal active infection. :-[In 1984, CDC scientists (mainstream) wrote:
A positive test for most individuals in populations at greater risk of acquiring AIDS will probably mean that the individual has been infected at some time with HTLV-III/LAV [the names originally used for HIV]. Whether the person is currently infected or immune is not known, based on the serologic test alone [(12), p. 378].
It is not only this simple argument – antibodies suggest the immune system has controlled the invading agents – that unorthodox scientists have debated. The tests themselves remain the target of critic’s intense scrutiny. For instance, in 1996 Johnson reported 60-plus factors capable of causing a false-positive result on tests for HIV antibodies [either an ELISA or a western blot (WB) test] (13). Because they react to these factors, the tests may not be detecting HIV at all. Worthy of notice, among the list, are elements ubiquitous among all populations such as the flu, flu vaccinations, pregnancy in women who have had more than one child, tetanus vaccination, and malaria (an important element to consider in the case of the AIDS epidemic in Africa). Supporting each factor, Johnson provides scientifically valid evidence – published in reputable peer-reviewed journals such as AIDS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, The Lancet, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (13).
Celia Farber’s book, Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS (14) – an exposé of the epidemic’s ethically questionable history – contains an interesting appendix authored by Rodney Richards. Richards – who helped to develop the first ELISA test for HIV – outlines the “evolution” of CDC’s stances regarding the role of antibodies, infection, and HIV tests. First, the CDC aligned itself with the traditional view of antibodies signaling past/prior infection (as evidenced in the quote above, from 1984). In 1986, the CDC moved toward a qualified claim, stating:
… patients with repeatedly reactive screening tests for HTLV-III/LAV antibody … in whom antibody is also identified by the use of supplemental tests (e.g., WB, immunofluorescence assay) should be considered both infected and infective [(15), p. 334].
Finally, in 1987, CDC adopted a non-qualified claim that antibodies signify active infection and/or illness: “The presence of antibody indicates current infection, though many infected persons may have minimal or no clinical evidence of disease for years” [(16, 17), p. 509].
A more specific measure than the ELISA test, the WB detects antibodies by identifying proteins believed to be associated with HIV, and only with HIV. A person undergoes a confirmatory WB after a prior ELISA screening test reacts positively (but it is important to remember: over 60 conditions can yield a false-positive ELISA) (13, 18).
Critics of the orthodox view decry the lack of standardized criteria for a positive result in a WB, across countries, world-wide (19). Bauer (Table 1), in a 2010 article titled “HIV tests are not HIV tests” claims, “no fewer than five different criteria have been used by different groups in the United States” [(18), p.7]. Moreover – adds Bauer – included in the contemporary criteria for a positive WB are p41 and p24, protein–antigens “found in blood platelets of healthy individuals.” This means some of the biological markers being used to “flag” the presence of HIV are not “specific to HIV or AIDS patients [and] p24 and p41 are not even specific to illness.” In other words, healthy persons may test positive on a WB but not carry HIV at all [(18), p. 6].
TABLE 1
www.frontiersin.org (http://www.frontiersin.org)
Table 1. Credentials and professional experience of select critics of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis.
An example may clarify: if tested in Africa, a WB showing reactivity to any two of the proteins p160, p120, or p41, would be considered positive for HIV. In Britain, the test would be positive only if it showed reactivity to one of these three proteins, together with reactions to two other proteins, p32 and p24 (see mention of p24, above, as occurring in healthy individuals). Therefore, someone whose test reacts to p160 and p120 would be considered HIV-positive in Africa, but not in Britain. A test reaction to p41, p32, and p24 would be considered positive in Britain, but negative in Africa, leading author Celia Farber to comment: “… a person could revert to being HIV-negative simply by buying a plane ticket from Uganda to Australia [or in our example, from Uganda to London” (14), p. 163].
According to critics, a definitive answer regarding which protein–antigens are specific to HIV and HIV alone can only come from successful virus isolation and purification. Isolating and purifying “would be required to verify that all of these proteins actually originate from HIV particles” [(7), p. 70]. Attempts at purifying have been made (20, 21), but have been criticized for their ambiguous findings (22), or for their use of cultured samples (see discussion below on EM images). To date, the issue of HIV isolation in purified samples has not been addressed to critics’ satisfaction (23).
A nice place to begin would probably be with countering her criticism of viral load. Making a general dismissal of her article without reading it is not any better than Henry Rotich and Eurobond. To be fair, I expect you to insist on the correctness of the mainstream dogma. Don't feel any new pressure to defend something you've probably subscribed to, maybe made a living from for the better part of your life.
-
Another un referenced comment.
Despite this host of problems, orthodox scientists and practitioners still claim HAART has changed the face of the AIDS epidemic: once considered a lethal syndrome, testing positive for HIV does not equate to a death sentence any longer; merely to a lifetime of managing a chronic infection (56, 57). Critics, on the other hand, assert: because the drugs are anti-viral and anti-bacterial in nature, they give a false impression of being effective for treating HIV infection. What appears a miraculous recovery in many patients is, in fact, the drugs’ effects upon the opportunistic infectious agents the person may harbor at the time, other than HIV. Contrary to the reigning enthusiasm for ARVs’ effectiveness for prevention and treatment, critics will argue the risks associated with ARVs appear to outweigh the benefits, especially if these drugs are consumed over long periods of time. In short, unorthodox scholars believe the appearance of effectiveness of ARVs does not represent strong evidence for the role of HIV in AIDS and, in a paradoxical manner; ARVs may actually be the cause of AIDS-defining illnesses and non-AIDS-defining ones.
-
Focus on the highlighted sections. If there is no reference to substantiate her comment , it is hog wash.
It is the same as Raila screaming all over EUROBOND has been stolen , yet he cannot table the evidence.
A nice place to begin would probably be with countering her criticism of viral load. Making a general dismissal of her article without reading it is not any better than Henry Rotich and Eurobond. To be fair, I expect you to insist on the correctness of the mainstream dogma. Don't feel any new pressure to defend something you've probably subscribed to, maybe made a living from for the better part of your life.
[/quote]
-
There is nothing controversial here. Diagnostic and monitoring tests are continuosly evolving ( improving). We scientist will never use the Viral Load alone as a diagnostic test for HIV. It is a very delicate , sensitive test and can occasionally give false reading. Hence the reason why different platforms ( testing techniques ) are used to ensure reproducibility. For HIV diagnosis - gold standard is combined HIV antibody and Antigen test. In young children - it is even more complex.
Nobody denies the fact that some medical conditions can trigger false positive HIV results.
Viral load
The expression “viral load” refers to the quantity of virus found in HIV-infected blood. According to the mainstream perspective, information on viral load helps monitor the infection’s progress, “decide when to start treatment, and determine whether or not … HIV medications are working” (24).
The technique for measuring viral load is known as RNA PCR – ribonucleic acid polymerase chain reaction (25). Mainstream scientists regard this test as the most specific documentation of HIV’s presence in a person’s body. It is often used when the ELISA and WB tests are negative, because PCR can detect the virus’ genetic material (or its RNA/DNA fragments), before the human body has had a chance to recognize the virus, produce antibodies in defense, and react positively in an antibodies-only test (26).
Despite its enhanced specificity, many mainstream scientists and practitioners recommend caution when using PCR for screening or diagnosing infection (27). For instance, authors of a study published in JAMA in 2006, in which PCR was used with a sample of almost 3,000 people, concluded: “The PCR assay is not sufficiently accurate to be used for the diagnosis of HIV infection without confirmation” [(28), p. 803].
PCR technology evolved quickly since it was introduced in 1983 (25). Although being employed, mostly, for assessing viral load (less for screening and diagnosis), it should give us pause to learn, however, that Dr. Kary Mullis – the scientist who won the 1993 Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR test and whose quote introduced this article (Table 1) – has strongly opposed using the technique for determining the amount of virus circulating in plasma. Lauritsen explains:
Kary Mullis … is thoroughly convinced that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. With regard to the viral-load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.” PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves [(29), p. 3].
If to this picture we add human endogenous retroviruses (or HERVs) (30) as potential confounders, the genetic sequences detected in a PCR test may not be those from an exogenous virus, at all, and may explain the test’s substantial false-positive rates (18, 27). HERVs consist of retrovirus-like particles produced by host cells that are stressed or dying. In other words, when various infections assail the body, and certain cells experience stress or die in large numbers, they can manufacture by-products similar to retroviruses. These by-products can be reactive when testing for HIV antibodies, protein antigens, and viral loads (31). Culshaw summarizes it well:
A retrovirus is nothing more than RNA with an outer protein shell. The shell enables it to bind to cells of the type it infects, and once it gains entry, the outer coating disappears and the RNA is transcribed to DNA and incorporated as provirus into the host cell’s own genome. It is for this reason that retroviruses are called enveloped viruses, and it is also the reason that it is very difficult to distinguish between exogenous retroviruses (those that originate outside the body from a foreign invader) and endogenous retroviruses (those that are manufactured from our own retroviral-like genetic sequences under conditions of cellular stress, including diseases) … Much of the genetic material attributed to HIV is in fact DNA or RNA from [these] decaying cells (…) Human beings are filled with such endogenous retroviruses [(32), pp. 53, 55–56].
-
A report by Patricia Goodson http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00154/full. Why is she bringing this up when this debate was won when the orthodoxy simply outshouted the detractors of HIV/AIDS?
I am fully expecting her to be fired, ostracized, character assassinated or otherwise persecuted. I do not harbor any illusions that any of the points she raises will be acknowledged, let alone addressed by the orthodoxy.
I thought that would interest you some.
They don't seem to fire people in the acadamia no matter how opinionated or misinformed they are. Firing is feasible when academics engage in sexual misconduct or talk about gender like Tim Hunt.
-
@jakoyo,
I forgot to answer your other question about what the research is about. It is about HIV and dissenting views to it. I found it quite remarkable that she would bring it up, given the history of the subject.
-
Just highlighted some of the junk references to support this outrageous article.
References
1. Duesberg PH. Inventing the AIDS Virus. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc (1996). 722 p.
2. Delborne JA. Transgene and transgressions: scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Soc Stud Sci (2008) 38(4):509–41. doi: 10.1177/0306312708089716
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
3. Goodson P. Theory in Health Promotion Research and Practice: Thinking Outside the Box. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers (2010). 245 p.
4. Altman L. Federal Official Says He Believes Cause of AIDS has been Found. The New York Times (1984). 1 p.
5. The HJ Kaiser Family Foundation. HIV/AIDS at 30: A Public Opinion Perspective. A report based on the Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2011 Survey of Americans on HIV/AIDS. Menlo Park, CA: The Kaiser Family Foundation (2011). Available from: www.kff.org
6. Altman L. New U.S. Report Names Virus that may Cause AIDS. The New York Times (1984). 1 p.
7. de Harven E. Human endogenous retroviruses and AIDS research: confusion, consensus, or science? J Am Phys Surg (2010) 15(3):69–74.
8. The Durban declaration. Nature (2000) 406:15–6. doi:10.1038/35017662
CrossRef Full Text
9. Martin R, Jankovic D, Goel A, Mulders M, Dabbagh A, Khetsuriani N, et al. Vital signs: HIV prevention through care and treatment – United States. MMWR (2011) 60(47):1618–23.
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text
10. Altman L. Red Cross Evaluates Test to Detect AIDS in Donated Blood. The New York Times (1984). Section C; Page 2, Column 1.
11. OraQuick. What is OraQuick? [Internet]. Available from: http://www.oraquick.com/What-is-OraQuick
12. CDC. Antibodies to a retrovirus etiologically associated with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in populations with increased incidences of the syndrome. MMWR (1984) 33(27):377–9.
13. Johnson C. Whose antibodies are they anyway? Continuum (1996) 4(3):4–5.
14. Farber C. Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS. Hoboken, NJ: Melville House Publishing (2006).
15. Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC. Current trends classification system for human T-lymphotropic virus type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus infections. MMWR (1986) 35(20):334–9.
16. CDC. Perspectives in disease prevention and health promotion public health service guidelines for counseling and antibody testing to prevent HIV infection and AIDS. MMWR (1987) 36(31):509–15.
17. CDC. Revision of the CDC surveillance case definition for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. MMWR (1987) 36(1S):3S–15S.
18. Bauer H. HIV tests are not HIV tests. J Am Phys Surg (2010) 15(1):05–09.
19. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, Papadimitriou J. Is a positive western blot proof of HIV infection? Biotechnology (1993) 11:696–707. doi:10.1038/nbt0693-696
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
20. Gluschankof P, Mondor I, Gelderblom H, Sattentau Q. Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations. Virology (1997) 230:125–33. doi:10.1006/viro.1997.8453
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
21. Helma J, Schmidthals K, Lux V, Nuske S, Scholz A, Krausslich H, et al. Direct and dynamic detection of HIV-1 in living cells. PLoS One (2012) 7(11):e50026. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050026
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
22. Bess J, Gorelick R, Bosche W, Henderson L, Arthur L. Mocrovesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. Virology (1997) 230:134–44. doi:10.1006/viro.1997.8499
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
23. de Harven E. Problems with Isolating HIV. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.altheal.org/isolation/isolhiv.htm
24. AIDS gov. What is Viral Load? [Internet]. Available from: http://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/just-diagnosed-with-hiv-aids/understand-your-test-results/viral-load/
25. Dorak T. Real-Time PCR. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis (2006).
26. Sax P, Cohen C, Kuritzkes D. HIV Essentials. 6th ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning (2013).
27. Owens D, Holodniy M, Garber A, Scott J, Sonnad S, Moses L, et al. Polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of HIV infection in adults: a meta-analysis with recommendations for clinical practice and study design. Ann Intern Med (1996) 124(9):803–15. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-124-9-199605010-00004
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
28. Rodriguez B, Sethi A, Cheruvu V, Mackay W, Bosch R, Kitahata M, et al. Predictive value of plasma HIV RNA level on rate of CD4 T-cell decline in untreated HIV infection. JAMA (2006) 296(12):1498–506. doi:10.1001/jama.296.12.1498
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
29. Lauritsen J. Has Provincetown Become Protease Town? [Internet]. Available from: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jlprotease.html
30. Nelson P, Carnegie P, Martin J, Ejtehadi H, Hooley P, Roden D, et al. Demystified… human endogenous retroviruses. Mol Pathol (2003) 56:11–8. doi:10.1136/mp.56.1.11
CrossRef Full Text
31. Singh SK. Endogenous retroviruses: suspects in the disease world. Future Microbiol (2007) 2(3):269–75. doi:10.2217/17460913.2.3.269
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
32. Culshaw R. Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books (2007).
33. Dictionary.com. Electron-Microscope. [Internet]. Available from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electron-microscope
34. Barre-Sinoussi F, Chermann J, Rey F, Nugeyre M, Chamaret S, Gruest J, et al. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science (1983) 220:20. doi:10.1126/science.6189183
CrossRef Full Text
35. Kremer H. The Silent Revolution in Cancer and AIDS Medicine. Xlibris Corporation (2008).
36. Tahi D. Between the lines: a critical analysis of Luc Montagnier’s interview answers to Djamel Tahi by Eleni Eleopulos and colleagues. Continuum (1997) 5(2):36–46.
37. de Harven E, Friend C. Further electron microscope studies of a mouse leukemia induced by cell-free filtrates. J Cell Biol (1960) 7(4):747–52. doi:10.1083/jcb.7.4.747
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
38. Tahi D. Did Luc Montagnier discover HIV? “I repeat: we did not purify!” Continuum (1997) 5(2):31–5.
39. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, Papadimitriou J, Page B, Causer D. Questions regarding whether the recently reported particles are authentic HIV virions? (2006). Available from: http://www.theperthgroup.com/REJECTED/StructureLetterPG.pdf
40. Esparza J. A brief history of the global effort to develop a preventive HIV vaccine. Vaccine (2013) 31:3502–18. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.05.018
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
41. Cohen M, Chen YQ, McCauley M, Gamble T, Hosseinipour MC, Kumarasamy N, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. New Engl J Med (2011) 365(6):493–505. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1105243
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
42. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Challenges in Designing HIV Vaccines. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/Prevention/Pages/vaccineChalle
43. Lauritsen J. Poison by Prescription: The AZT Story. New York, NY: Asklepios (1990).
44. Engel J. The Epidemic: A Global History of AIDS. New York, NY: Smithsonian Books/Harper Collins (2006).
45. Null G. AIDS. A Second Opinion. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press (2002).
46. Duesberg P, Koehnlein C, Rasnick D. The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. J Biosci (2003) 28(4):383–412. doi:10.1007/BF02705115
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
47. Alberts B. Science breakthroughs. Science (2011) 334:23. doi:10.1126/science.1217831
CrossRef Full Text
48. Cohen J. A powerful and perplexing new HIV prevention tool. Science (2010) 330:3. doi:10.1126/science.330.6009.1298
CrossRef Full Text
49. The Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Cohort Collaboration. HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis. Lancet (2006) 368:451–8. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69152-6
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
50. Moore P, Allen S, Sowell A, Van de Perre P, Huff D, Srufilira A, et al. Role of nutritional status and weight loss in HIV seroconversion among Rwandan women. J Acq Immun Def Synd (1993) 6:611–6.
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text
51. The Perth Group. HIV Infection – the Cause or Effect of Acquired Immune Deficiency? [Internet]. Available from: http://www.theperthgroup.com/REJECTED/AIDScausesHIV3.pdf
52. Payne BAI, Wilson IJ, Hateley CA, Horvath R, Santibanez-Koref M, Samuels DC, et al. Mitochondrial aging is accelerated by anti-retroviral therapy through the clonal expansion of mtDNA mutations. Nat Rev Genet (2011) 43(8):806–10. doi:10.1038/ng.863
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
53. Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society. Concerns about HAART (Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy). [Internet]. Available from: http://aras.ab.ca/haart-ineffective.html
54. Martinez E, Milinkovic A, Buira E, de Lazzari E, Leon A, Larrousse M, et al. Incidence and causes of death in HIV-infected persons receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy compared with estimates for the general population of similar age and from the same geographical area. HIV Med (2007) 8:251–8. doi:10.1111/j.1468-1293.2007.00468.x
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
55. Zaunders JJ, Cunningham PH, Kelleher AD, Kaufman GR, Jaramillo AB, Wright R, et al. Potent antiretroviral therapy of primary human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection: partial normalization of T Lymphocyte subsets and limited reduction of HIV-1 DNA despite clearance of plasma viremia. J Infect Dis (1999) 180:320–9. doi:10.1086/314880
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
56. Valdiserri R. Thirty years of AIDS in America: a story of infinite hope. AIDS Educ Prev (2011) 23(6):479–94. doi:10.1521/aeap.2011.23.6.479
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
57. Torian L, Chen M, Rhodes P, Hall I. HIV. Surveillance – United States, 1981–2008. MMWR (2011) 60(21):689–728.
58. UNAIDS. Fact Sheet – People Living with HIV. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/campaigns/globalreport2013/factsheet/
59. Chin J. The AIDS Pandemic: The Collision of Epidemiology with Political Correctness. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing (2007).
60. Root-Bernstein R. The Evolving Definition of AIDS. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rrbdef.html
61. Craven B, Stewart G. Economic implications of socio-cultural correlates of HIV/AIDS: an analysis of global data. Appl Econ (2013) 45:1789–800. doi:10.1080/00036846.2011.639737
CrossRef Full Text
62. Duesberg PH, Mandrioli D, McCormack A, Nicholson J, Rasnick D, Fiala C, et al. AIDS since 1984: no evidence for a new, viral epidemic – not even in Africa. Ital J Anat Embryo (2011) 116(2):73–92.
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text
63. Kalichman S. Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy. New York, NY: Copernicus Books; Springer (2009).
64. Sarngadharan M, Popovic M, Bruch L, Schupbach J, Gallo R. Antibodies reactive with human T-lymphotropic retroviruses (HTLV-III) in the serum of patients with AIDS. Science (1984) 224:4. doi:10.1126/science.6324345
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
65. Gallo R, Salahuddin S, Popovic M, Shearer G, Kaplan M, Haynes B, et al. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science (1984) 224:4. doi:10.1126/science.6200936
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
66. Popovic M, Sarngadharan M, Read E, Gallo R. Detection, isolation and continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS. Science (1984) 224:4. doi:10.1126/science.6200935
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
67. Schupbach J, Sarngadharan M, Gallo R. Antigens on HTLV-infected cells recognized by leukemia and AIDS sera are related to HTLV viral glycoprotein. Science (1984) 224:4. doi:10.1126/science.6324349
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
68. Duesberg PH. Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens: expectations and reality. J Can Res (1987) 47:1199–220.
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text
69. Duesberg PH. Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (1989) 86:755–64. doi:10.1073/pnas.86.3.755
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
70. CDC. An evaluation of the immunotoxic potential of isobutyl nitrite. MMWR (1983) 64:457–8.
71. Jaffe H, Choi K, Thomas P, Haverkos H, Auerbach D, Guinan M, et al. National case-control study of Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in homosexual men: part 1, epidemiologic results. Ann Intern Med (1983) 99(2):145–51. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-99-2-145
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
72. Duesberg P, Rasnick D. The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica (1998) 104:85–132. doi:10.1023/A:1003405220186
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
73. Bauer H. The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers (2007).
74. Aktan F. iNOS-mediated nitric oxide production and its regulation. Life Sci (2004) 75:639–53. doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2003.10.042
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
75. Lechner M, Lirk P, Rieder J. Inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) in tumor biology: the two sides of the same coin. Semin Cancer Biol (2005) 15:277–89. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2005.04.004
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
76. Watson JD. Type 2 diabetes as a redox disease. Lancet (2014) 383:841–43. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62365-X
CrossRef Full Text
77. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, Papadimitriou J. Oxidative stress, HIV and AIDS. Res Immunol (1992) 143:145–8. doi:10.1016/S0923-2494(92)80156-F
CrossRef Full Text
78. Gougeon M, Montagnier L. Apoptosis in AIDS. Science (1993) 260:28. doi:10.1126/science.8098552
CrossRef Full Text
79. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, Papadimitriou J, Causer D, Hedland-Thomas B, Page B. A critical analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS hypothesis. In: Duesberg P, editor. AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced? Kluwer Academic Publishers (1996). p. 3–22. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1651-7_1
80. Mullis K. A hypothetical disease of the immune system that may bear some relation to the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Genetica (1995) 95:195–7. doi:10.1007/BF01435010
CrossRef Full Text
81. AIDS gov. Overview of HIV Treatments. [Internet]. Available from: http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/just-diagnosed-with-hiv-aids/treatment-options/overview-of-hiv-treatments/index.html
82. Green H, Paul M, Vidal L, Leibovic L. Prophylaxis of Pneumocystis pneumonia in Immunocompromised non-HIV-infected patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. May Clin Proc (2007) 82(9):1052–9. doi:10.4065/82.9.1052
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
83. Giraldo R. “Co-factors” Cause AIDS. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/CoFactorsCauseAIDS.html
84. Sonnabend J. Letter to the editor. Lancet (2000) 355:2163.
85. Duesberg PH, editor. AIDS: Virus- Or Drug Induced? (Vol. Vol 5). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers (1996).
86. Proctor R. Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know About Cancer. New York, NY: Basic Books (1995).
87. Root-Bernstein R. Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus. New York, NY: Free Press (1993).
88. Crewdson J. Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-Up, and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company (2002).
89. Epstein S. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press (1996).
90. Fee E, Brown TM. The past and future of public health practice. Am J Public Health (2000) 90(5):690–1. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.5.690
CrossRef Full Text
91. Branson B, Handsfield H, Lampe M, Janssen R, Taylor A, Lyss S, et al. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR (2006) 55(RR14):1–17.
92. Hirnschall G, Harries A, Easterbrook P, Doherty M, Ball A. The next generation of the World Health Organization’s global antiretroviral guidance. J Int AIDS Soc (2013) 16:1–7. doi:10.7448/IAS.16.1.18757
Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Text
93. The HJ Kaiser Family Foundation. Fact Sheet: State Medicaid Coverage of Routine HIV Screening. [Internet]. Available from: http://kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/state-medicaid-coverage-of-routine-hiv-screening/
94. The White House Office of National AIDS Policy. National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States. [Internet]. Available from: www.whitehouse.gov/onap
95. Buchanan DR. An Ethic for Health Promotion: Rethinking the Sources of Human Well-Being. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (2000).
96. Jones JH. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. New and Expanded Edition. New York: The Free Press (1993).
-
Jakoyo,
What is outrageous about it?
-
You can't even answer a simple question correctly. I did not ask you about the title or heading of the topic. You call it a research paper . Is it an RCT , Systematic review or a review article (not strictly research by definition) ?
What is her research question ?
What is the methodology ?
You will notice that in her references she has included REJECTED papers.
@jakoyo,
I forgot to answer your other question about what the research is about. It is about HIV and dissenting views to it. I found it quite remarkable that she would bring it up, given the history of the subject.
-
You can't even answer a simple question correctly. I did not ask you about the title or heading of the topic. You call it a research paper . Is it an RCT , Systematic review or a review article (not strictly research by definition) ?
What is her research question ?
What is the methodology ?
You will notice that in her references she has included REJECTED papers.
@jakoyo,
I forgot to answer your other question about what the research is about. It is about HIV and dissenting views to it. I found it quite remarkable that she would bring it up, given the history of the subject.
It is research about HIV dissent.
-
Calling it a research does not make it a research. You are a joker. Forward this article to your dear brother and fellow HIV denialist Thabo Mbeki.
You can't even answer a simple question correctly. I did not ask you about the title or heading of the topic. You call it a research paper . Is it an RCT , Systematic review or a review article (not strictly research by definition) ?
What is her research question ?
What is the methodology ?
You will notice that in her references she has included REJECTED papers.
@jakoyo,
I forgot to answer your other question about what the research is about. It is about HIV and dissenting views to it. I found it quite remarkable that she would bring it up, given the history of the subject.
It is research about HIV dissent.
-
A report by Patricia Goodson http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00154/full (http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00154/full). Why is she bringing this up when this debate was won when the orthodoxy simply outshouted the detractors of HIV/AIDS?
I am fully expecting her to be fired, ostracized, character assassinated or otherwise persecuted. I do not harbor any illusions that any of the points she raises will be acknowledged, let alone addressed by the orthodoxy.
I thought that would interest you some.
They don't seem to fire people in the acadamia no matter how opinionated or misinformed they are. Firing is feasible when academics engage in sexual misconduct or talk about gender like Tim Hunt.
Peter Duesberg could not be fired. He is tenured. But he has been heavily marginalized and caricatured by the mainstream since his critique of AIDS science first appeared.
-
Calling it a research does not make it a research. You are a joker. Forward this article to your dear brother and fellow HIV denialist Thabo Mbeki.
You can't even answer a simple question correctly. I did not ask you about the title or heading of the topic. You call it a research paper . Is it an RCT , Systematic review or a review article (not strictly research by definition) ?
What is her research question ?
What is the methodology ?
You will notice that in her references she has included REJECTED papers.
@jakoyo,
I forgot to answer your other question about what the research is about. It is about HIV and dissenting views to it. I found it quite remarkable that she would bring it up, given the history of the subject.
It is research about HIV dissent.
How about reading through the article, or opinion or whatever you want to call it. Then addressing every point she raises. Is that a robust way of addressing it?
Leave the name calling to the jubilant youngster.
-
@TERMI
Viral load
" The expression “viral load” refers to the quantity of virus found in HIV-infected blood. According to the mainstream perspective, information on viral load helps monitor the infection’s progress, “decide when to start treatment, and determine whether or not … HIV medications are working” (24).
If the viral load is being used to determine the progression of HIV and when HAART needs to be started after confirmatory test results from Elisa and Western Blot, why would someone need to use (PCR )it to determine HIV infection?
She then further states
PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers.....they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV.
Believed wrongly by who? the likes of herself, what data does she have to back up the claim. If the test can detect proteins then logic tells me it we can count the proteins in a sample of blood. This article is just going in circles. I haven't finished reading so I will be back.
-
@TERMI
Viral load
" The expression “viral load” refers to the quantity of virus found in HIV-infected blood. According to the mainstream perspective, information on viral load helps monitor the infection’s progress, “decide when to start treatment, and determine whether or not … HIV medications are working” (24).
If the viral load is being used to determine the progression of HIV and when HAART needs to be started after confirmatory test results from Elisa and Western Blot, why would someone need to use (PCR )it to determine HIV infection?
She then further states
PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers.....they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV.
Believed wrongly by who? the likes of herself, what data does she have to back up the claim. If the test can detect proteins then logic tells me it we can count the proteins in a sample of blood. This article is just going in circles. I haven't finished reading so I will be back.
The way I understand her statement. That the proteins detected by PCR are not unique to HIV.