"An AIDS Vaccine Can End Epidemic"
Wall Street Journal (03/20/97) P. A17; Shepherd, H.R.
An AIDS vaccine is necessary to prevent the further spread
of HIV and end the AIDS epidemic, contends H.R. Shepherd of the
Albert B. Sabin Vaccine Foundation in a letter to the editor of
the New York Times. Shepherd points out that while AIDS deaths
have decreased, HIV infection rates are holding steady, and even
increasing among some groups. An AIDS vaccine is the only way to
end the epidemic, Shepherd claims; it would save the costs of
caring for the HIV-infected as well.
27
Mar
"An AIDS Vaccine Can End Epidemic"
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (35)
35 Responses to “"An AIDS Vaccine Can End Epidemic"”
Place your comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In article <19970328162400.LAA01…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, getw…@aol.com (Get Well) writes:
>Shepherd points out that while AIDS deaths
>have decreased, HIV infection rates are holding steady, and even
>increasing among some groups.
Shepherd should learn to do arithmetic.
CDC Estimates for the number of Americans infected with HIV
Year Number of HIV+s
1984 1,500,000
1985 1,000,000
1986 1,000,000
1987 1,000,000
thru
1995 1,000,000
1996 <700,000
Perhaps Shepherd is on some new math that the rest of us haven’t learned yet.
I was a math major, a long time ago maybe, and scored in the top 1% on the
math SATs. I can’t imagine mathematics have changed that much in the past
30 years. Then again, when you’re dealing with AIDSpeak anything is possible.
George Orwell, where are you now?
Edward Lieb
HelthBo…@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
Dave Thomson wrote:
[edit]
> The fastest-growing group of infected Americans in 1992 was
> that of people infected through heterosexual contact. That group more
> than tripled in size from 1986 to 1992, from about 4.5 percent of all
> HIV cases in 1986 to 15 percent in 1992.
[edit]
> Blacks and Hispanics still get a disproportionate share of
> infections, among both men and women.
[edit]
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Close to three-fourths of those infected have not yet been
> diagnosed with AIDS, which means we’re going to have a very
> substantial medical and public health problem for years to come," he
> said.
> Alfred Saah, associate professor of epidemiology at Johns
> Hopkins School of Public Health, said he is concerned that
> declarations that the number of HIV infections has stabilized would
> slow prevention efforts.
> Dr. Thomas Coates, director of the Center for AIDS Prevention
> Studies at the University of California at San Francisco, said he
> found the increase in HIV infections among young men and black men
> most alarming.
> And he said he thought the study should have called for more
> preventive efforts, like sex education for teen-agers and needle
> exchange programs.
> "This is a totally unnecessary situation. We should not have
> stable prevalence," Coates said.
Ignorance and septic skeptics made it unavoidable.
However, God loves us more than we are want to imagine.
There is hope.
The sick, the dying, and the dead have taught us much.
Let it not be in vain.
P.
helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
>In article <19970328162400.LAA01…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, getw…@aol.com (Get Well) writes:
>>Shepherd points out that while AIDS deaths
>>have decreased, HIV infection rates are holding steady, and even
>>increasing among some groups.
>Shepherd should learn to do arithmetic.
And you should learn that rates and absolute numbers are two different
things (you quoted absolute numbers of early estimates – not HIV
infection rates).
Improvements in the chronoligical estimates were made by "back-
calculation" and these were published in JAMA back in June/July last
year. The uncertainty in the early estimates you quoted were mostly
due to selection bias during stratification of a relatively small AIDS
population. For example, in 1986, only 21,517 cases of AIDS had
been reported – a large uncertaintly resulted when these
data were used to infer infection rates in the risk subgroups.
However, seroprevalence studies back in 1989 suggested
0.27% of all males and 0.07% of all females were seropositive
(Dondero, St. Louis and Peterson 1989).
Based on the retrospective analyses, along with the facts:
-over 580,000 Americans have been diagnosed with AIDS in approximately
10years,
-the rates of new infections and progression to AIDS seem to have
reached a constant of about 70,000 per year, and
-more than 350,000 people have already died.
…we can now pretty accurately say that 1 in 300 Americans are
infected with HIV –
(AP) Study Estimates One in 300 Americans Infected with HIV
6/6/96
CHICAGO (AP) – The number of people infected with the AIDS virus
appears to have leveled off at about one of every 300 Americans age 13
and older, with new infections keeping pace with deaths, federal
researchers say.
"We’re running in place, but it’s a deadly place to run," said the
new study’s lead author, Dr. John M. Karon of the Division of HIV/AIDS
Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC’s findings were being published in this week’s
HIV-theme issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association and
presented Saturday in Vancouver, British Columbia, in preparation for
the 11th International Conference on AIDS.
The number of people infected with HIV in the United States in
1992 ranged from 650,000 to 900,000, the researchers estimated.
Figures from 1992 are the latest available.
In 1986, the number of infected people was estimated as 550,000
to 650,000. And in 1984, it was believed to be 400,000 to 450,000.
The new figures were derived from AIDS case reports, a national
survey of childbearing women and a national household survey of
current health status.
The study also found that half of all HIV-infected people in
1992 were men who had sex with men, and that about 25 percent were
injection drug users. In 1984, men who had sex with men represented 62
percent of all HIV-infected people, with injection drug users
accounting for 20 percent. In 1986, those numbers were 64 percent and
25 percent.
The fastest-growing group of infected Americans in 1992 was
that of people infected through heterosexual contact. That group more
than tripled in size from 1986 to 1992, from about 4.5 percent of all
HIV cases in 1986 to 15 percent in 1992.
A much greater share of U.S. men carry the AIDS virus than
women. One in every 160 men was infected in 1992, compared with one in
1,000 women, researchers said.
But infections have made much faster inroads among women in
recent years. The number of women infected in 1992 was at least three
times greater than the number infected in 1984, compared with about a
doubling of infections among men.
Blacks and Hispanics still get a disproportionate share of
infections, among both men and women. One in 50 black men and one in
100 Hispanic men were infected in 1992, compared with one in 250 white
men, researchers estimated.
And one in 160 black women was infected, along with one in 400
Hispanic women, compared with one in 3,000 white women, they said.
Karon said that although the study and other national HIV
studies indicate HIV prevalence has stabilized, the health emergency
isn’t over.
"Close to three-fourths of those infected have not yet been
diagnosed with AIDS, which means we’re going to have a very
substantial medical and public health problem for years to come," he
said.
Alfred Saah, associate professor of epidemiology at Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health, said he is concerned that
declarations that the number of HIV infections has stabilized would
slow prevention efforts.
Dr. Thomas Coates, director of the Center for AIDS Prevention
Studies at the University of California at San Francisco, said he
found the increase in HIV infections among young men and black men
most alarming.
And he said he thought the study should have called for more
preventive efforts, like sex education for teen-agers and needle
exchange programs.
"This is a totally unnecessary situation. We should not have
stable prevalence," Coates said.
In article <5hq98c$h…@ha2.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, dav…@home.com (Dave Thomson) writes:
>helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
>>In article <19970328162400.LAA01…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, getw…@aol.com
>(Get Well) writes:
>>>Shepherd points out that while AIDS deaths
>>>have decreased, HIV infection rates are holding steady, and even
>>>increasing among some groups.
>>Shepherd should learn to do arithmetic.
>And you should learn that rates and absolute numbers are two different
>things (you quoted absolute numbers of early estimates – not HIV
>infection rates).
Yes, absolute numbers (of HIV+s) going down in a growing population
(the U.S.) the rate should be falling even faster than the numbers!
> Improvements in the chronoligical estimates were made by "back-
>calculation" and these were published in JAMA back in June/July last
>year. The uncertainty in the early estimates you quoted were mostly
>due to selection bias during stratification of a relatively small AIDS
"Back calculation" is a convenient way of rewriting history in a feeble
attempt to explain the holes in the HIV=AIDS theory. The estimates were
based on testing some 15-20 million donated pints of blood. That is a
significantly large sample size. How do the back calculations explain
a difference of 300%! May people who’ve never studied (or understood)
statistics will buy that, but I won’t!
>population. For example, in 1986, only 21,517 cases of AIDS had
>been reported – a large uncertaintly resulted when these
>data were used to infer infection rates in the risk subgroups.
This is nonsense. We’re talking about HIV as reported from testing the
U.S. blood supply. I gave no figures for AIDS.
>…we can now pretty accurately say that 1 in 300 Americans are
>infected with HIV –
And it used to be 1 in 250. What is spreading? Other than lies and
misinformation?
>"We’re running in place, but it’s a deadly place to run," said the
>n
It certainly ain’t no epidemic.
The increased rates in certain groups of "undesirables" you so nobly parroted
are reflections of increased testing with a test that does not work. The greatest
risk for developing AIDS today is not from having unprotected sex or sharing
needles. Your greatest risk for developing AIDS comes from taking the AIDS test.
Want to see the epidemic end in less than 3 months? Demand that the
bogus HIV testing be outlawed. And stop giving blood until it is!
Edward Lieb
HelthBo…@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
Dave Thomson reprinted:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>>[...]
>> And he said he thought the study should have called for more
>> preventive efforts, like sex education for teen-agers and needle
>> exchange programs.
>> "This is a totally unnecessary situation. We should not have
>> stable prevalence," Coates said.
In article <3340B7D0.7…@ix.netcom.com> pan…@ix.netcom.com writes:
>Ignorance and septic skeptics made it unavoidable.
>However, God loves us more than we are want to imagine.
>There is hope.
>The sick, the dying, and the dead have taught us much.
>Let it not be in vain.
>P.
Pres. Bill Clinton could lift the ban on federal funding for needle
exchange programs with the stroke of a pen. DHHS Donna Shalala could
acknowledge the scientific research that says that these programs, when
properly run, slow the spread of infectious disease without promoting drug
use. Instead, these two public officials seem to consider the polls more
important than human life and offer nothing but excuses for failing to
make sound decisions. If, forbid, Chelsea Clinton acquired a harmful
microbe from an IV drug using friend, and was hit early and hard with
drugs, because of Bill’s incompetence, Hillary could scream all she wanted
to, but it would be in vain.
-Giacomo
Giacomo’s Cabaret, http://www.panix.com/~jscutero
"Not my child!" – Billary
James Scutero wrote:
[edit]
> Pres. Bill Clinton could lift the ban on federal funding for needle
> exchange programs with the stroke of a pen. DHHS Donna Shalala could
> acknowledge the scientific research that says that these programs, when
> properly run, slow the spread of infectious disease without promoting drug
> use. Instead, these two public officials seem to consider the polls more
> important than human life and offer nothing but excuses for failing to
> make sound decisions. If, forbid, Chelsea Clinton acquired a harmful
> microbe from an IV drug using friend, and was hit early and hard with
> drugs, because of Bill’s incompetence, Hillary could scream all she wanted
> to, but it would be in vain.
James sounds like some whinning old broad hanging over the back
fence screaming at the neighbor, while her own kids are drowning
in the toilet.
Its Bill and Donna’s fault… yadda, yadda, yadda.
Let’s assume Bill, Donna, and Hillary are all sucking the
devil’s dick. The literature seems to support this pretty well.
What is jim doing? -besides baking bread and telling
people garlic is groovy. We all pretty much appreciate
the wonders of nature, and eating right, and yes, even bounding
till we’re out of breath. However, safe sex, safe shooting up, and
safe masturbating on the internet all remind me of… yea, buyer
beware, and seize the day, and go get up off your ass and do
something for a living besides occupy space. You might lead a
man to chlorox, but you can’t make him dip his syringe…
I believe we should all make our own syringes at home from
leftover PVC.
Try not to inhale…
"Life is but a breathe away from death. The secret is to try
and keep your mouth shut unless you’re giving mouth-to-mouth."
Pandoc
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <19970401172700.MAA01…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, helthbo…@aol.com writes:
> In article <5hq98c$h…@ha2.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, dav…@home.com (Dave Thomson) writes:
>>helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
>>>In article <19970328162400.LAA01…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, getw…@aol.com
>>(Get Well) writes:
>>>>Shepherd points out that while AIDS deaths
>>>>have decreased, HIV infection rates are holding steady, and even
>>>>increasing among some groups.
>>>Shepherd should learn to do arithmetic.
>>And you should learn that rates and absolute numbers are two different
>>things (you quoted absolute numbers of early estimates – not HIV
>>infection rates).
> Yes, absolute numbers (of HIV+s) going down in a growing population
> (the U.S.) the rate should be falling even faster than the numbers!
the absolute number alive at any point in time is a function of rate of new
cases, time, and death rate. There is no necessary relation
between rate of new cases and number alive at any point in time. When one
goes down, the other may not and vice versa.
>> Improvements in the chronoligical estimates were made by "back-
>>calculation" and these were published in JAMA back in June/July last
>>year. The uncertainty in the early estimates you quoted were mostly
>>due to selection bias during stratification of a relatively small AIDS
> "Back calculation" is a convenient way of rewriting history in a feeble
> attempt to explain the holes in the HIV=AIDS theory.
No, back calculation is a way of estimating something you can’t estimate by
looking at the numbers you choose to look at.
The estimates were
> based on testing some 15-20 million donated pints of blood. That is a
> significantly large sample size. How do the back calculations explain
> a difference of 300%! May people who’ve never studied (or understood)
> statistics will buy that, but I won’t!
Some who have studied them will buy it too. It is clear that you don’t
understand the issues or you would not link new case rates with number of live
infected people.
>>…we can now pretty accurately say that 1 in 300 Americans are
>>infected with HIV –
> And it used to be 1 in 250. What is spreading? Other than lies and
> misinformation?
Nothing. The misinformation is that there is a difference
when two estimates come as close as 1 in
250 and 1 in 300 based on the types of methods we are taling about.
> Want to see the epidemic end in less than 3 months? Demand that the
> bogus HIV testing be outlawed. And stop giving blood until it is!
Why didn’t the epidemic end in 1983, two years before testing started in
earnest?
In <19970401172700.MAA01…@ladder01.news.aol.com> helthbo…@aol.com
writes:
>"Back calculation" is a convenient way of rewriting history in a
feeble
>attempt to explain the holes in the HIV=AIDS theory. The estimates
were
>based on testing some 15-20 million donated pints of blood. That is a
>significantly large sample size.
It sure is. But hardly representative of the population of the
country, for reasons that should be obvious even to somebody with
Early Adult Shaken Baby Syndrome (EAd’S BS— look, Hillary, almost an
acronym), such as yourself.
Any figure extrapolating from positivity figures from blood
donations would have given a far smaller HIV prevalence estimate than
the one which is offered by the CDC today. But CDC never used blood
donation figures only to estimate for the whole population, because
they know very well that blood donors are a highly select group.
Steve Harris, M.D.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <33418490.2…@ix.netcom.com> pan…@ix.netcom.com writes:
>James Scutero wrote:
>[edit]
>> Pres. Bill Clinton could lift the ban on federal funding for needle
>> exchange programs with the stroke of a pen. DHHS Donna Shalala could
>> acknowledge the scientific research that says that these programs, when
>> properly run, slow the spread of infectious disease without promoting drug
>> use. Instead, these two public officials seem to consider the polls more
>> important than human life and offer nothing but excuses for failing to
>> make sound decisions. If, forbid, Chelsea Clinton acquired a harmful
>> microbe from an IV drug using friend, and was hit early and hard with
>> drugs, because of Bill’s incompetence, Hillary could scream all she wanted
>> to, but it would be in vain.
>James sounds like some whinning old broad hanging over the back
>fence screaming at the neighbor, while her own kids are drowning
>in the toilet.
>Its Bill and Donna’s fault… yadda, yadda, yadda.
>[...]
That Bill Clinton had no problem signing "The Defense of Marriage
Act" or instituting his "Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy for the military,
the creep…yadda, yadda, yadda. Hey, Brenda, I gotta go; Panocchio fell
in the toilet again. What’s that? Nah, don’t worry, that puppet can float
for months before his head becomes waterlogged. You should see him bob for
apples. I think I’ll buy him a woodpecker to play with so he stays out of
trouble.
-Giacomo
Giacomo’s Cabaret, http://www.panix.com/~jscutero
In article <1997Apr1.183539@mcrcr6>, holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S. HOLZMAN) writes:
>Nothing. The misinformation is that there is a difference
>when two estimates come as close as 1 in
>250 and 1 in 300 based on the types of methods we are taling about.
1 in 300 has HIV. About 1 in 20 of the these can be expected to develop
AIDS. THis is a real epidemic.
>> Want to see the epidemic end in less than 3 months? Demand that the
>> bogus HIV testing be outlawed. And stop giving blood until it is!
>Why didn’t the epidemic end in 1983, two years before testing started in
>earnest?
There never was an epidemic. One in 300 is hardly pandemic. There was a
real epidemic in the country in the teens. It was blamed on influenza. It killed
something like 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 6 of the U.S. population. That is an epidemic.
Edward Lieb
HelthBo…@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
[edit]
> 1 in 300 has HIV. About 1 in 20 of the these can be expected to develop
> AIDS. THis is a real epidemic.
[edit]
> There never was an epidemic. One in 300 is hardly pandemic. There was a
> real epidemic in the country in the teens. It was blamed on influenza. It killed
> something like 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 6 of the U.S. population. That is an epidemic.
> Edward Lieb
[edit]
Epidemic comes from the Greek- literally: upon the people.
In medical terminology an epidemic is simply a disease whose
frequency of occurrence is in excess of the expected frequency
in a population during a given time interval.
A pandemic simple denotes a disease affecting or attacking the
population of an extensive region.
Worldwide HIV infection constitutes both an epidemic and a
pandemic.
Edward Lieb, on the other hand, constitutes one of the endemically
stupid who populate many regions of our planet. Quite possibly
brought here on an asteroid from some distant dead planet,
which had only evolved to the nematode stage before an
interspacial collision took place.
The strange mechanical fetish to assist
his body movements is clear evidence
of the defective genetics of a
wayward worm.
PANDOC
"I took a rebouncer out for a trial spin once.
It was like getting an enema in outer space."
-more evidence from an innocent consumer
James Scutero wrote:
> In article <33418490.2…@ix.netcom.com> pan…@ix.netcom.com writes:
> >James Scutero wrote:
> >[edit]
> >> Pres. Bill Clinton
[edit]
> That Bill Clinton
What about James Scutero?
"What about the boy?"
Tommy -the Who
"What about the boy?"
Jimmy -the WHO
"Shit doesn’t just happen. Look for the mechanism."
Pandoc 1997
In article <19970402220101.RAA02…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, helthbo…@aol.com writes:
> In article <1997Apr1.183539@mcrcr6>, holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S. HOLZMAN) writes:
>>Nothing. The misinformation is that there is a difference
>>when two estimates come as close as 1 in
>>250 and 1 in 300 based on the types of methods we are taling about.
> 1 in 300 has HIV. About 1 in 20 of the these can be expected to develop
> AIDS. THis is a real epidemic.
1 in 300 of whom? And what is the source of the 1 in 20 estimate. The
actual facts are pretty well known. regardless of the prevalence of HIV, the
expectation that a new case will progress to AIDS is about 50 percent at 10
years after infection and 85% after 15 years of infection. These estimates re
modified by a variety of factors including age at infection.
You have not commented on my point that there is unlikely to be a meaningful
difference in estimates of 1:250 and 1:300.
>> >>> Want to see the epidemic end in less than 3 months? Demand that the
>>> bogus HIV testing be outlawed. And stop giving blood until it is! >>>
>> >>Why didn’t the epidemic end in 1983, two years before testing started in
>>earnest? >> >> > > There never was an epidemic. One in 300 is hardly
pandemic. There was a > real epidemic in the country in the teens. It was
blamed on influenza. > It killed > something like 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 6
of the U.S. population. > That is an epidemic. > >
That was a pandemic not an epidemic. In any event There was an epidemic of
aids and it caused considerable havoc. I notice, by the way, that you don’t
agree that influenza caused the epidemic of "spanish flu", even though my most
recent issue of science contains a report of the genetics of the virus
identified from one of the victims by PCR. I forgot you deny the germ
"theory".
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
>In article <5hq98c$h…@ha2.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, dav…@home.com (Dave Thomson) writes:
>>helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
>>>In article <19970328162400.LAA01…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, getw…@aol.com
>>(Get Well) writes:
>>>>Shepherd points out that while AIDS deaths
>>>>have decreased, HIV infection rates are holding steady, and even
>>>>increasing among some groups.
>>>Shepherd should learn to do arithmetic.
>>And you should learn that rates and absolute numbers are two different
>>things (you quoted absolute numbers of early estimates – not HIV
>>infection rates).
>Yes, absolute numbers (of HIV+s) going down in a growing population
>(the U.S.) the rate should be falling even faster than the numbers!
Except your absolute numbers were historical estimates which were
subsequently revised as new data became available and backcalculation
could be applied. In fact, if you look at the first page of the
96 surveillance report, you’ll see quite a nice indication of what
in-fact is happening – increasing prevalence, no sign of levelling-off
and constant slope !
>> Improvements in the chronoligical estimates were made by "back-
>>calculation" and these were published in JAMA back in June/July last
>>year. The uncertainty in the early estimates you quoted were mostly
>>due to selection bias during stratification of a relatively small AIDS
>"Back calculation" is a convenient way of rewriting history in a feeble
>attempt to explain the holes in the HIV=AIDS theory. The estimates were
>based on testing some 15-20 million donated pints of blood. That is a
>significantly large sample size. How do the back calculations explain
>a difference of 300%! May people who’ve never studied (or understood)
>statistics will buy that, but I won’t!
No, the 1986 estimate, for example, was calculated using estimates
of the rates of prevalence in the identified risk groups. Estimates of
prevalence from blood screening could not be relied on since in
1983 (prior to screening) the US Public Health Service delivered the
first recommendations that members of an identified risk group should
not donate blood. Any estimates from blood screening would have been
an UNDER estimate when compulsory screening was instituted in Spring,
1985.
Instead, the early numbers of people infected were based on estimates
of the US population of IVDUs, estimates of EXCLUSIVELTY homosexual
men, persons with hemophilia etc. (source: table 13, CDC 1987b).
Also, estimates of the prevalence of HIV infection in these groups was
made from the only 21,517 cases of AIDS reported at that time. Also,
there was hardly any information about prevalence or existance in
other risk groups. The calculations also relied on all subpopulations
being mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
Estimates of prevalence are not facts. They are just that – estimates
based on the presently available data. Because we have new
information, back-calculation (as distinct from the revisionism which
you teach) can be used to improve those estimates. They’re still
estimates, however. Read the study I cited. Even then I guess you
won’t be able to understand why new information can result in
improvements of the estimates of prevalence.
>>population. For example, in 1986, only 21,517 cases of AIDS had
>>been reported – a large uncertaintly resulted when these
>>data were used to infer infection rates in the risk subgroups.
>This is nonsense. We’re talking about HIV as reported from testing the
>U.S. blood supply. I gave no figures for AIDS.
Again, testing of the blood supply could not be used to accurately
estimate prevalence – that would have resulted in an UNDERestimate
of prevalence since members of the risk groups had been actively
discouraged from donating blood a couple of years PRIOR to screening
becoming widespread. See above.
>>…we can now pretty accurately say that 1 in 300 Americans are
>>infected with HIV –
>And it used to be 1 in 250. What is spreading? Other than lies and
>misinformation?
1 in 250 is probably within the uncertainty of the estimate. I don’t
think there’s a big difference there.
>The increased rates in certain groups of "undesirables" you so nobly parroted
>are reflections of increased testing with a test that does not work. The greatest
>risk for developing AIDS today is not from having unprotected sex or sharing
>needles. Your greatest risk for developing AIDS comes from taking the AIDS test.
>Want to see the epidemic end in less than 3 months? Demand that the
>bogus HIV testing be outlawed. And stop giving blood until it is!
Would you volunteer for us to be injected with HIV-infected blood for
us to prove your theory? That would be a great service to mankind and
think of the many lives you could save. Even your buddy Dooshbag never
lived up to that promise !
>Edward Lieb
>HelthBo…@aol.com
>Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
>"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
…and your pseudo-healthrider is the answer? The number one thing YOU
can do for MY health is go play in the traffic.
In article <5hv417$h94…@ha2.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, dav…@home.com (Dave Thomson) writes:
>Except your absolute numbers were historical estimates which were
>subsequently revised as new data became available and backcalculation
>could be applied. In fact, if you look at the first page of the
>96 surveillance report, you’ll see quite a nice indication of what
>in-fact is happening – increasing prevalence, no sign of levelling-off
>and constant slope !
Increasing prevalence is a sign of increased testing.
I don’t care how much you try to confuse the issues by playing word games,
changing definitions, whatever. The truth remains the same. When we first
began monitoring HIV we were told that over a million Americans were infected and
it was spreading rampantly. (Remember, that million plus had evolved from one
Canadian airline steward in, what, ten years?) Consersative projections were that figure would be over 20 million by now and nearly wipe out the world by the year 2000.
Even if the rewritten backdated "estimates" are correct and there were only half a million HIV+s in 1985 and 700,000 today. Where’s the epidemic? They claimed there was over a million infected and
it was going to spread. Twelve years later, there still aren’t the million they claimed back then!
The truth is there probably were about 1 million HIV+ Amerikans in 1985. Since approximately 300,000 of them have been iatrogenically exterminated, there are only 700,000 left. No matter how you
look at it — this ain’t no epidemic. Genocide maybe, but not an epidemic.
Dave, are you paid by the word to obfuscate these boards to confuse people looking for real working alternatives to the mediquack nonsense you babble?
Edward Lieb
HelthBo…@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
In article <1997Apr2.223751@mcrcr6>, holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S. HOLZMAN) writes:
>1 in 300 of whom? And what is the source of the 1 in 20 estimate. The
1 in 300 Americans. That is what the CDC claims, isn’t it? Based on the numbers we’ve been given in the past for the U.S. (as well as worldwide) less than 5% of the HIV positives claimed for any
one year developed AIDS. The 1 in 20 is being generous. It’s actually <1 in twenty.
>actual facts are pretty well known. regardless of the prevalence of HIV, the
>expectation that a new case will progress to AIDS is about 50 percent at 10
>years after infection and 85% after 15 years of infection. These estimates
This is only true for people seeing medical doctors for their "condition."
>re
>modified by a variety of factors including age at infection.
>You have not commented on my point that there is unlikely to be a meaningful
>difference in estimates of 1:250 and 1:300.
I most certainly did. Either figure is not an epidemic. And those estimates are close, and since the infection rate hasn’t gone up in 12 years it just validates my point. So, if there’s no
meaningful difference in these estimates, how could the estimate for 1984-1985 have been off by 300%?
>>> >>> Want to see the epidemic end in less than 3 months? Demand that the
>>>> bogus HIV testing be outlawed. And stop giving blood until it is! >>>
>>> >>Why didn’t the epidemic end in 1983, two years before testing started in
>>>earnest? >> >> > > There never was an epidemic. One in 300 is hardly
>pandemic. There was a > real epidemic in the country in the teens. It was
>blamed on influenza. > It killed > something like 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 6
>of the U.S. population. > That is an epidemic. > >
>>That was a pandemic not an epidemic. In any event There was an epidemic of
>aids and it caused considerable havoc. I notice, by the way, that you don’t
>agree that influenza caused the epidemic of "spanish flu", even though my
>most
>recent issue of science contains a report of the genetics of the virus
>identified from one of the victims by PCR. I forgot you deny the germ
>"theory".
I don’t deny the theory, but I agree with the scientists who say it’s never been scientifically proven. So you found a virus. You’ll also find flies on dog shit. Were the flies the cause of the
dog shit?
It’s not just AIDS, but probably 80% or more of what goes on in the name of medicine that is a total scam and doing more harm than good.
Edward Lieb
HelthBo…@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
>In article <1997Apr1.183539@mcrcr6>, holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S. HOLZMAN) writes:
>>Nothing. The misinformation is that there is a difference
>>when two estimates come as close as 1 in
>>250 and 1 in 300 based on the types of methods we are taling about.
>1 in 300 has HIV. About 1 in 20 of the these can be expected to develop
>AIDS. THis is a real epidemic.
Yes, there certainly seems to be a real epidemic… of stupidity going
around.
50% of people infected with HIV-1 get AIDS within 10 years. 85% within
15 years. (from prospective studies of homosexual men in which dates
of seroconversion are known (Lemp et al., 1990; Hessol et al., 1994).
Similar estimates of asymptomatic periods have been made for
HIV-infected blood-transfusion recipients, injection drug users and
adult hemophiliacs (reviewed in Alcabes et al., 1993a).
Idiot.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <19970404021100.VAA05…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, helthbo…@aol.com writes:
> In article <5hv417$h94…@ha2.rdc1.sfba.home.com>, dav…@home.com (Dave Thomson) writes:
>>Except your absolute numbers were historical estimates which were
>>subsequently revised as new data became available and backcalculation
>>could be applied. In fact, if you look at the first page of the
>>96 surveillance report, you’ll see quite a nice indication of what
>>in-fact is happening – increasing prevalence, no sign of levelling-off
>>and constant slope !
> Increasing prevalence is a sign of increased testing.
> I don’t care how much you try to confuse the issues by playing word games,
> changing definitions, whatever. The truth remains the same. When we first
> began monitoring HIV we were told that over a million Americans were infected and
> it was spreading rampantly. (Remember, that million plus had evolved from one
> Canadian airline steward in, what, ten years?) Consersative projections
> were that figure would be over 20 million by now and nearly wipe out
> the world by the year 2000.
In as much as my and your recollection differ considerably on this, perhaps
you could produce the publications in which these predictions were made?
In article <19970404021100.VAA05…@ladder01.news.aol.com>, helthbo…@aol.com writes:
> In article <1997Apr2.223751@mcrcr6>, holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu (ROBERT S. HOLZMAN) writes:
>>1 in 300 of whom? And what is the source of the 1 in 20 estimate. The
> 1 in 300 Americans. That is what the CDC claims, isn’t it? Based on the numbers we’ve been given in the past for the U.S. (as well as worldwide) less than 5% of the HIV positives claimed for any
> one year developed AIDS. The 1 in 20 is being generous. It’s actually
<1 in twenty.
The prevalence of HIV is estimated to be about 800,000 plus or minus 400,000
or so (from my recollection and subject to correction).
800,000 x 300 = 240,000,000 so the cdc estimate is as you state it to be.
>>actual facts are pretty well known. regardless of the prevalence of HIV, the
>>expectation that a new case will progress to AIDS is about 50 percent at 10
>>years after infection and 85% after 15 years of infection. These estimates
> This is only true for people seeing medical doctors for their "condition."
No, it was true for the group of people participating in the MACS study,
regardless of what care they did or did not get. If you have *data* that is
is different for any other group of people produce it. Stop telling us
stories that are unbelievable.
>>re
>>modified by a variety of factors including age at infection.
>>You have not commented on my point that there is unlikely to be a meaningful
>>difference in estimates of 1:250 and 1:300.
> I most certainly did. Either figure is not an epidemic.
A statement of disease prevalence is never an epidemic. Epidemics are defined
by incidence (new case rates) not prevalence (proportion of the population
infected at any given time) or death rate. This has been explained to you
and other posters (especially john@blackdog) endlessly but you persist in your
incorrect use of technical terms. You think we made them up just for aids?
Go get a 1960′s epidemiology text and read it.
Please produce your definition of an epidemic. Who agrees with you regarding
its validity? By what criterion does AIDS not meet it? Stop using vague
concepts like.. it isn’t an epidemic because not as many people have hiv as
had influenza in 1918.
> And those estimates are close, and since the infection rate hasn’t gone up
> in 12 years it just validates my point.
Actually I lost track of any point other that "there is no epidemic!" There
is indeed an epidemic by the definition that was previously posted and which
was coined long before HIV/AIDS came on the seen. Your statement that
infection rates have not gone up is incorrect, based on the best
interpretation of the data (back calculation). The rate may also have gone
down (as epidemic rates tend to do over time) and the disease has become endemic
in the population. You continue to make incredible, undocmented claims of
therapeutic efficacy for your own program.
So, if there’s no
> meaningful difference in these estimates, how could the estimate for 1984-1985
have been off by 300%?
Which estimate? The estimate of disease prevalence that I remember from that
time was about 1.2 million give or take 600,000. Rather approximate and some
what overlapping with the present one.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>>>> >>> Want to see the epidemic end in less than 3 months? Demand that the
>>>>> bogus HIV testing be outlawed. And stop giving blood until it is! >>>
>>>> >>Why didn’t the epidemic end in 1983, two years before testing started in
>>>>earnest? >> >> > > There never was an epidemic. One in 300 is hardly
>>pandemic. There was a > real epidemic in the country in the teens. It was
>>blamed on influenza. > It killed > something like 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 6
>>of the U.S. population. > That is an epidemic. > >
>>>That was a pandemic not an epidemic. In any event There was an epidemic of
>>aids and it caused considerable havoc. I notice, by the way, that you don’t
>>agree that influenza caused the epidemic of "spanish flu", even though my
>>most
>>recent issue of science contains a report of the genetics of the virus
>>identified from one of the victims by PCR. I forgot you deny the germ
>>"theory".
> I don’t deny the theory, but I agree with the scientists who say it’s never been
> scientifically proven. So you found a virus. You’ll also find flies on dog
> shit. Were the flies the cause of the
> dog shit?
If you put the flies on cats do they produce dogshit? Well no. If you put
the germs on other people do they produce disease? Well yes. End of stupid
analogy.
holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> Why didn’t the epidemic end in 1983, two years before testing started
> in earnest?
There never was any "epidemic" outside the US, and the US cases at
that time are now known to be drug-related.
The only real US "epidemic" started with the use of AZT. We never
went in for it much, so we had no "epidemic".
(If it was ever infectious, of course, we would have had. But then
so would everywhere else. But only the US has appreciable numbers
of "Aids" cases/deaths. And only the US accepts so many deadly
chemicals disguised as "medication" without a flicker of sceptical
enquiry.)
Is it really so hard to understand?
John
—
"Meanwhile, let us hope that the country is not confronted with a real
epidemic in the near future: after the disinformation the government
has told us about Aids, who would believe it?"
Andrew Neil, editor, The Sunday Times, 23 June 1996.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
br…@ime.net (brent) writes:
>It with with much amusement that I read all the
>"HIV doesn’t cause AIDS" and the "New Drugs DOn’t
>Work" threads here. I am a white 31 year old hetersexual
>male with HIV. I have had it since
>1990, and found out early on that I had it. My first
>T cells test was 780, and by May 1996 I was
>at 86. I had never had any OI’s or signifigant health
>problems. My HIV- identical twin brother
>has maintained a t cell count of approximately 700,
>and, of course, no viral load.
>I never took any anti virals, and still spit on AZT.
>However in May 1996 due to my low T cells I
>started Crixivan, D4T and 3TC. Within 30 days I felt great.
>I had not realized how run down I
>was feeling until I started the cocktail. Sort of like hair
>growing. I was just feeling bad, but
>it had taken years to get that way so I didn’t realize it.
>Once I started the drugs I could see
>how poorly I had been doing. So far, 11 months later I have
>watched my T cells go up to 300, my
>viral load vanish, my sense of well being improve, and no OI’s.
>I hope the professional debunkers here
>don’t prevent anyone from at least trying out the PI’s (and
>NRTI’s). HIV causes AIDS, and AIDS kills people.
>Protease inhibitors are helping. I am living
>proof of that.
Sorry Brent but the "debunkers" are not interested in real life stories.
I too am living proof and tried telling my story several times. I didn’t
start the HIV meds until I had nearly died from AIDS, so it couldn’t have
been the meds that caused AIDS. I also was never a recreational drug
user. Now I have made a remarkable turnaround since going on a triple
combination.
Unfortunately if you try giving a real life account on this newsgroup you
will be attacked and dismissed as being either a liar, a drug addict, a
drug promoter, or a friend of the drug companies. These people do not
want to hear the truth because it contradicts the false dogma that they
like to vomit in our direction.
I have a couple of questions? Were you an IV drug user? How do you think
you "got" it? And if you brother is negative, why are they performing viral load and
t-cell counts on him? Also, who is paying for them?
Do you really feel great? No nausia, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches or numbness?
If so this is really interesting. Would you allow some well-credentialed scientists to examine your records?
Edward Lieb
HelthBo…@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
> I have a couple of questions? Were you an IV drug user? How do you think
> you "got" it? And if you brother is negative, why are they performing viral load and
> t-cell counts on him? Also, who is paying for them?
You have the REQUIRED couple of dissident questions. Always looking for
a way out of your corner, aren’t you, Ed? It doesn’t matter what answer
you get, you’ll either tell him he’s missed something, try to crucify
him for anything he has done, or, if you can’t do that, you’ll then have
to call him a liar.
Why do you think they’re examining a twin brother? It’s not at all
uncommon to study twins who exhibit conditions of significant medical
difference. And what business of yours is it who pays for them? Oh,
right, if it’s a pharmaceutical company, you can then proclaim the whole
thing is corrupt. Sorry, I forgot.
> Do you really feel great? No nausia, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches or numbness?
> If so this is really interesting.
If so, that’s terrific. I have few side effects from my medications.
Doesn’t work that way for everybody. Duh!
> Would you allow some well-credentialed scientists to examine your records?
Sounds like they already are. You couldn’t possibly be suggesting that
you have access to well-credentialed scientists. Not real ones, anyhow.
> Edward Lieb
> HelthBo…@aol.com
> Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
> "The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
Want to really learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Here it is,
you don’t even have to spend 32 cents for the postage: Keep away from
people like Ed Lieb who on the one hand will call you a liar while, on
the other hand, will try to sell you his "disease curing" rebounder.
And throw in a good dose of "you’re poisoning youreslf to death with
those medications. Of course you’ll have AIDS." He’s just another AIDS
scam artist, dressing it up a little more than most of them do. One
wonders whether a direct and obvious scam isn’t more honorable.
Wally Boulton
HelthBo…@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
> HelthBo…@aol.com
> Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
> "The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
What’sa matter, Ed. Cat got your rebounder?
Wally
In article <3342517A.7…@mail.earthlink.net>, Wally Boulton <wal…@mail.earthlink.net> writes:
>What’sa matter, Ed. Cat got your rebounder?
Dunno whah happened??? Maybe it some weird April Fool’s Day virus.
Anyway, if it doesn’t reappear as mysteriously as it disappeared, you’ll never know
what I wrote. But basically, I suspect the character with twin is a total fiction.
Might even be one of the Dr. H’s in disguise.
Edward Lieb
HelthBo…@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
helthbo…@aol.com writes:
> I have a couple of questions? Were you an IV drug user? How do you think
> you "got" it? And if you brother is negative, why are they performing viral
> load and t-cell counts on him? Also, who is paying for them?
I wondered about this, too. Why would his brother co-operate with
these procedures, as he has no "HIV" to worry himself about?
> Do you really feel great? No nausia, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches or
> numbness? If so this is really interesting. Would you allow some
> well-credentialed scientists to examine your records?
He probably won’t. And his claim of being sick with "Aids" seems
to be based only on some transient t-cell count anyway. No illness
of any kind. But despite this he (apparently) has been coerced into
accepting deadly medication. It sounds as thought he might be in for
an ugly surprise before long. (Unless his whole story is invented,
which certainly seems possible.)
His only problem seems to have been taking the "HIV test" in the
first place, as with so many others. Why do they fall for it?
John
—
"I have a large population of people who have chosen not to take
any antiretrovirals since I’ve been following them–since the very
beginning… They’ve watched all of their friends go on the antiviral
bandwagon and die, so they’ve chose to remain naive [to therapy]".
Donald I. Abrams, Prof. of Clinical Medicine at UCSF.
j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) wrote:
>I wondered about this, too. Why would his brother co-operate with
>these procedures, as he has no "HIV" to worry himself about?
So your brothers hate you too ?
dav…@home.com (Dave Thomson) wrote:
>j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) wrote:
>>I wondered about this, too. Why would his brother co-operate with
>>these procedures, as he has no "HIV" to worry himself about?
>So your brothers hate you too ?
Those John people have nothing they can argue about….. Cooperation
is none of your business. As a matter of fact, that can prove to YOU
the effect of HIV in the same genetic setting. Well, I think The
Johnians are just diverting our attention. Whatever you wonder, it’s
only the result that counts.
JR
jrei…@aol.com "JReitor" writes:
> dav…@home.com (Dave Thomson) wrote:
> >j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) wrote:
> >> I wondered about this, too. Why would his brother co-operate with
> >> these procedures, as he has no "HIV" to worry himself about?
> > So your brothers hate you too ?
> Those John people have nothing they can argue about….. Cooperation
> is none of your business. As a matter of fact, that can prove to YOU
> the effect of HIV in the same genetic setting.
Strange whacky world you folk inhabit. If I had a car accident,
for example, I couldn’t think of any reason why my brother would
be asked to have a CAT scan, let along any more intrusive medical
hocus-pocus. And if his wife became pregnant, he probably would
not be expected to give birth, either.
Those John people, with nothing to argue about…
—
Dr. Roger Cunningham, immunologist, microbiologist and director of the
centre for immunology at the State University of New York at Buffalo:
"Unfortunately, an AIDS ‘establishment’ seems to have formed that intends
to discourage challenges to the dogma on one side and often insists on
following discredited ideas on the other. (Sunday Times, 3 April 1994)
himself wrote:
> Strange whacky world you folk inhabit. If I had a car accident,
> for example, I couldn’t think of any reason why my brother would
> be asked to have a CAT scan, let along any more intrusive medical
> hocus-pocus. And if his wife became pregnant, he probably would
> not be expected to give birth, either.
Correct. You get an A+ on this one. But now the bonus question: what
does this answer have to do with the topic at hand?
Wally
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) wrote:
>jrei…@aol.com "JReitor" writes:
>> dav…@home.com (Dave Thomson) wrote:
>> >j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) wrote:
>> >> I wondered about this, too. Why would his brother co-operate with
>> >> these procedures, as he has no "HIV" to worry himself about?
>> > So your brothers hate you too ?
>> Those John people have nothing they can argue about….. Cooperation
>> is none of your business. As a matter of fact, that can prove to YOU
>> the effect of HIV in the same genetic setting.
>Strange whacky world you folk inhabit. If I had a car accident,
>for example, I couldn’t think of any reason why my brother would
>be asked to have a CAT scan, let along any more intrusive medical
>hocus-pocus. And if his wife became pregnant, he probably would
>not be expected to give birth, either.
Great analogy dirtdog. I guess bone marrow’s out of the question too?
Blood?
In article <860864802…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:
>> >> I wondered about this, too. Why would his brother co-operate with
>> >> these procedures, as he has no "HIV" to worry himself about?
So, here we are more than two weeks since this thread began and what happened to Brent? I suspect my original suspicions were right. A fictitious case, like Barry, in the CMV ads. He’s been 28 for
longer than anyone I know of.
Edward Lieb
HelthBo…@aol.com
Want to learn the greatest health "secret" of all? Ask for my free report:
"The #1 Thing You Can You Do For Your Health."
helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
>So, here we are more than two weeks since this thread began and what
>happened to Brent? I suspect my original suspicions were right. A
fictitious >case, like Barry, in the CMV ads. He’s been 28 for
>longer than anyone I know of.
Perhaps he is too busy to deal with all this foolishness. Not everyone
has the time to post the twenty messages a day that are needed to answer
the ignoramuses like you.
Actually nothing has happened to me except I had to deal with the various
day to say stuff like April 15 taxes, working, and laughing daily at all
the people who have told you the way it is pretty much as well as I could.
To answer your original questions. I pay for the tests, I have great
insurance, and am well off. It is unfortunate that others are not as
lucky as I in that regard.
As for why my twin woud lend himself to various test, hey man. If you
don’t know why I cound never explain that one to you. You suggested that
you were going to have ‘well credentialed’ people available. I suggest
you are kind of a dork who is on a crusade against something you have few
tangible facts about.
I am more than willing to allow people with the proper credentials access
to my medical records. I don’t hide the fact I have HIV. There are very
few people I know who are not aware I have HIV. Any person with proper
credentials would also be able to use a twin control set for reasonable
research. This is not to be construed as an invitation for dorks with
secret agent X compound to email me.
Later
Brent
Get Well (getw…@aol.com) wrote:
: helthbo…@aol.com wrote:
:
: >So, here we are more than two weeks since this thread began and what
: >happened to Brent? I suspect my original suspicions were right. A
: fictitious >case, like Barry, in the CMV ads. He’s been 28 for
: >longer than anyone I know of.
:
: Perhaps he is too busy to deal with all this foolishness. Not everyone
: has the time to post the twenty messages a day that are needed to answer
: the ignoramuses like you.
:
:
:
–
Brent
———————— Internet Maine ISP ————————–
i…@ime.net 207-780-0416 voice
http://www.ime.net 207-879-1416 fax
———————— Fixed Rate Access ————————–