These studies add to the mountain of evidence against AZT and certainly
contradicts those who do not accept the well-established fact that AZT is
immunosuppressive, which in a disease of immune suppression, actually
worsens the disease process or even causes it. In the study by Mintz et al,
anti-virals (AZT specifically) actually CAUSE carnitine deficiency which,
in turn, "may impact on energy and lipid metabolism, causing mitochondrial
and immune dysfunction". The studies by Semino-Mora et al and De Simone et al
do not use the speculative language of Mintz but assign blame directly
where it belongs — on AZT. One can safely assume that Mintz’s use of the term
"immune dysfunction" is synonymous with "immune suppression". Researchers like
Mintz avoid straightforward terms and language that gets them into big trouble
with the HIV Anti-Viral Drug Thought Police. Semino-Mora and De Simone obviously
don’t worry about that because they are likely to be: (1) foreign researchers
beyond the reach of the HIV Drug Thought Gestapo and/or (2) researchers of
competence and integrity and/or (3) scientists who don’t give a rat’s ass
about politics, conflicts of interest or the NIH. None of these studies
state with certainty that carnitine supplementation is the answer for AZT-caused
immune suppression and nutritional deficiency.
De Simone illustrates AZT immune suppression in the cellular carnitine cycle
by stating "The increase in cellular carnitine content strongly improved
lymphocyte proliferative responsiveness to mitogens." This, of course means
that AZT induces the defective lymphocyte proliferative response as a result
of the AZT-induced carnitine deficiency (in other words, one can safely conclude
that pure immune suppression by AZT is no different than that of AIDS).
It is interesting that one of the drug activists recommends carnitine
supplements as a standard therapy for PWHIVs. Typically, the anti-viral
drug activist simply ignores the anti-viral cause of any "problem" and
follows the politically correct Thought Police party line (the chant of
the anti-viral cave dweller: "HIV bad, anti-virals good"). Naturally, this
demands a political redefinition of any "anti-viral challenge" (drug
side-effect) to be a generic "HIV challenge" (it now becomes the fault
of the virus rather than the anti-viral).
Typically, the advocates of the anti-viral "cures" persist in adding "fixes"
in a futile attempt to patch the damage caused by the anti-virals in the
first place — that is, fixes like carnitine and the pantheon of other
drugs/supplements/herbs to cover up the "symptoms" caused by anti-virals
(in other words, add more "treatment" rather than subtract the causative
problem).
W. Fred Shaw
(these studies are only a small sample of a large body of research that
appears to be unanimous regarding the damage and immune suppression
caused by AZT at the cellular level).
===========================================================
Mintz M. Carnitine in human immunodeficiency virus type 1
infection/acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
Journal of Child Neurology, 1995 Nov, 10 Suppl 2:S40-4.
Abstract: There is an increasing body of evidence that subgroups of patients
infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 possess carnitine
deficiency. Secondary carnitine deficiencies in these individuals may
result from nutritional deficiencies, gastrointestinal disturbances, renal
losses, or shifts in metabolic pathways. However, tissue depletion
precipitated by drug toxicities, particularly zidovudine, is a major
etiology and concern. Carnitine deficiency may impact on energy and lipid
metabolism, causing mitochondrial and immune dysfunction. There are
convincing laboratory data showing the in vitro ameliorative effects of
L-carnitine supplementation of zidovudine-induced myopathies and lymphocyte
function. Studies measuring the impact of L-carnitine supplementation on
clinical characteristics are ongoing.
===========================================================
Semino-Mora MC; Leon-Monzon ME; Dalakas MC.
The effect of L-carnitine on the AZT-induced destruction of human
myotubes. Part II: Treatment with L-carnitine improves the AZT-induced
changes and prevents further destruction. Laboratory Investigation,
1994 Nov, 71(5):773-81.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Zidovudine (AZT) as used in the treatment of AIDS causes
a mitochondrial myopathy characterized by enzymatic defects in the
respiratory chain system, accumulation of lipid droplets, and carnitine
deficiency. Human myotubes treated with AZT demonstrate abnormal
mitochondria, accumulation of lipid, and increased lysosomes. Because
L-carnitine plays a major role in the transport of long chain fatty acids
across the inner mitochondrial membrane and facilitates the beta-oxidation
of fatty acids, we examined whether L-carnitine can enhance the recovery of
the affected myotubes after withdrawal of AZT and can improve the
structural changes of the myotubes while AZT treatment continues.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Myotubes, prepared from human muscle biopsies, were
exposed to 250 microM of AZT for 3 to 6 weeks. After 3 weeks of AZT
treatment, the cultures were treated with L-carnitine or medium for 3
weeks, while AZT treatment was either withdrawn or continued for 3 more
weeks. The cultures were evaluated with: (a) light microscopy; (b)
immunocytochemistry, to count the number of myotubes stained with
antibodies to Leu-19; (c) oil red O stain, to assess the lipid droplet
accumulation; and (d) electron microscopy, to count all the organelles
within representative sections of the myotubes, at x24,000, and to
calculate the volumetric density (Vvi) of each organelle per unit volume of
tissue. RESULTS: In the post-AZT-treated cultures, L-carnitine increased
the number of Leu-19-positive myotubes from 3.83 +/- 1.23 to 23 +/- 1.5 per
field, normalized their mitochondria, decreased the lipid droplets, and
increased the Vvi of the myofibrils. In the cultures treated with 3 weeks
of L-carnitine while AZT treatment continued for 3 more weeks, the number
of myotubes increased from 3.3 +/- 0.74 to 6.87 +/- 1.35; the absolute
number of the mitochondria increased from 1.65 +/- 0.35 to 9.02 +/- 1.11
and their Vvi from 3.67 +/- 0.83 to 6.57 +/- 0.78 (p < 0.05); the Vvi of
the myofibrils increased from 2.50 +/- 0.52 to 5.37 +/- 0.76 (p < 0.05);
and the Vvi of the lipid droplets decreased from 5.06 +/- 1.44 to 2.72 +/-
0.72 (p < 0.05). In the AZT-treated cultures that did not receive
L-carnitine, the mitochondria demonstrated extensive vacuolation, abnormal
cristae, and paracrystalline inclusions; in contrast, in the
L-carnitine-treated cultures, the mitochondria had substantially improved
in spite of continuation of AZT. CONCLUSIONS: L-carnitine enhances the pace
and degree of recovery of the AZT-associated destruction of human myotubes,
restores and preserves the structure of mitochondria, mobilizes the
endomyotubular fat, and allows the regeneration of myofibrils, even if AZT
treatment continues. The findings may have potential clinical implications
in improving the myotoxicity of AZT in patients with AIDS when the
administration of AZT treatment must continue.
===========================================================
De Simone C; Famularo G; Tzantzoglou S; Trinchieri V; Moretti S; Sorice F.
Carnitine depletion in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients
with AIDS: effect of oral L-carnitine.
Aids, 1994 May, 8(5):655-60.
Pub type: Clinical Trial; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Reduced levels of serum carnitines
(3-hydroxy-4-N-trimethyl-ammonio-butanoate) are found in most patients
treated with zidovudine. However, since serum carnitines do not strictly
reflect cellular concentrations we examined whether a carnitine depletion
could be found in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from AIDS
patients with normal serum carnitine levels. In addition, we explored
whether it was possible to relate the host’s immunoreactivity to the
content of carnitine in PBMC and whether carnitine levels can be corrected
by oral supplementation of L-carnitine. DESIGN: Immunopharmacologic study.
METHODS: Twenty male patients with advanced AIDS (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention stage IVCI) and normal serum levels of carnitines
were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either
L-carnitine (6 g/day) or placebo for 2 weeks. At baseline and at the end of
the trial, we measured carnitines in both sera and PBMC, serum
triglycerides, CD4 cell counts, and the frequency of cells entering the S
and G2-M phases of cell cycle following mitogen stimulation. RESULTS:
Concentrations of total carnitine in PBMC from AIDS patients was lower than
in healthy controls. A significant trend towards the restoration of
appropriate intracellular carnitine levels was found in patients treated
with high-dose L-carnitine and was associated with an increased frequency
of S and G2-M cells following mitogen stimulation. Furthermore, at the end
of the trial we found a strong reduction in serum triglycerides in the
L-carnitine group compared with baseline levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our data
indicate that carnitine deficiency occurs in PBMC from patients with
advanced AIDS, despite normal serum concentrations. The increase in
cellular carnitine content strongly improved lymphocyte proliferative
responsiveness to mitogens. Because carnitine status is an important
contributing factor to immune function in patients with advanced AIDS, we
therefore believe that L-carnitine supplementation could have a role as a
complementary therapy for HIV-infected individuals.
rajd…@wilde.oit.umass.edu (Rajdeep S Kalgutkar) wrote:
>I was wondering about the figures on HIV transmission related to oral sex?
>Does anyone have numbers on issues such as cunnilingus? I keep hearing
>that some cases have been reported. What does "some" mean? Please reply
>if you have any info
The Latest Oral Sex Scare
Just another blow-job
Good summary by Edward King, a gay advocate:
HERE WE GO AGAIN: Another headline-grabbing scare story about HIV
transmission through oral sex. And this one’s all the more remarkable and
bizarre, because the panic has been prompted by a laboratory experiment that
involved neither oral sex nor HIV.
Researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston published the
results of their research in the 7th June issue of Science. They showed that
you can infect macaque monkeys with a particular strain of the monkey
immunodeficiency virus, SIV, by placing the virus on the monkey’s tongues.
Bad news for macaques A but it’s a considerable leap of faith to suggest
that this has any relevance whatsoever to humans.
Other aspects of the study strongly suggest that it definitely isn’t
relevant to humans. For example, it took 6000 times as much SIV to infect
the monkeys through the rectal route, mimicking anal sex, than the oral
route. Yet every study of HIV transmission suggests that it’s much more
easily passed on through anal sex than oral sex.
Given that sucking without condoms has remained one of the most common gay
sexual practices throughout the AIDS epidemic, most gay men in the world
would be HlV-positive by now if HIV could really be passed on as easily as
SIV in this study.
Let’s be clear safer sex guidelines on oral sex are based on studies of how
HIV is transmitted between humans. Those studies consistently show that
virtually every case of HIV transmission can be traced back to unprotected
anal sex. People who suck without condoms, but always use condoms for
fucking, are extremely unlikely to become infected with HIV during sex. I
reviewed this evidence in detail in my book Safety in Numbers.
The more time passes, the more convincing this epidemiological evidence
becomes. Even the health chiefs in San Francisco, who have always been
particularly wary about the safety of oral sex, are reported to be on the
verge of abandoning advice to use condoms for sucking, after a new study
showed that oral sex ranked as equal bottom in a league table of gay men’s
risk factors for HIV infection.
There are sporadic cases in which HlV-positive people say that sucking was
their only risk factor. But studies suggest that if questioned, a
significant proportion of these people will admit that in fact they did fuck
without condoms, but were embarrassed or ashamed to own up to it.
Still, I’m sure that some of the cases of HIV infection through oral sex are
genuine; no-one should claim that sucking is 100% risk-free. But lots of the
things we count as safer sex’ aren’t 100% risk-free; that’s why it’s called
safer, not safe.
For example, condoms aren’t foolproof; among straight couples who use
condoms properly and consistently for contraception, about 2% still become
pregnant each year. So there’s bound to be a very tiny risk of becoming
infected even if you use condoms for fucking. The point is that the risk is
so very small that it’s reasonable to count fucking with condoms as a form
of safer sex. The same goes for sucking.
The SIV study says nothing that should affect guidelines about oral sex. But
it speaks volumes about the gulf between some researchers and journalists,
and the reality of gay men’s sex lives and our safer sex choices.
Here are earlier additional articles:
Is Oral Sex Safe?
Highlights of article by Chuck Polisher
Note this article has been posted in the alt.sex.wizards newsgroup by
someone saying "we have the permission of the publisher and author of the
following article to reprint this article without restrictions." The article
was originally published in PREFERRED STOCK, a bi-weekly newspaper published
in Denver, CO August 12, 1993. I have e-mailed the author for permission
but message was returned "address unknown."
The article:
It is not surprising that people are confused about the degree of risk
afforded by oral sex. There is lots of believable but conflicting advise
being given out. Knowing the right answer is literally a life or death item
for many gay men, and may be just as important to lesbians, bisexuals, and
even straights. But most people don’t know enough about oral sex and
transmission of AIDS to feel they’re making informed choices in their sexual
lives.
A wide survey of AIDS information hotlines posed the question ‘Is oral sex
safe?’ (See sidebar for a sample of responses). The range of answers was
astounding, with much misinformation given out. One organization even
warning about kissing, something that most agree is an extremely low risk
activity.
Text book answers and comprehensive search of medical literature for studies
of transmission of AIDS turns up hundreds of published articles. Of those,
there are about twenty that have some hard data on oral sex. Not
surprisingly, the published research doesn’t all come to the same
conclusions. Two different kinds of reports on oral transmission of HIV
emerges from the medical literature. The first kind consists of individual
case reports. These are cases where HIV infection is reported where the
presumed cause of infection was oral sex. Case reports of oral
transmission of HIV are rare.
The second kind of research study begins by recruiting a large group of
participants, called a cohort, and studying them over a long period of time.
Members of a cohort are called in at least once a year to take an HIV
antibody test and are interviewed in detail about their sexual activities.
Over time, researchers use the data to associate specific sexual behaviors
with their relative risk of HIV transmission. It was this method that
established, early on in the AIDS epidemic, the extreme danger of anal
intercourse for HIV transmission. Large cohorts yield more reliable
statistics than case reports.
First cohort
The Vancouver AIDS-Lymph-adenopathy Study, a federally funded Canadian
study, is an attempt to document the natural history of HIV. The study is a
longitudinal (cohort) study, and is unusual because it started very early
(1982, prior to the first diagnosed case of AIDS in the study area) and
because the recruiting was through general practitioners, not STD clinics,
bath houses or gay practices. A total of 746 homosexual men were studied
every six months. These factors are considered to give a very accurate and
unbiased picture of the epidemic compared to any other study of AIDS that
has been attempted.
The study group was looking for evidence of oral transmission of HIV but
didn’t find any. Investigators found 21 HIV-negative cohort members who had
no receptive anal sex or fisting. After almost two years of following this
subgroup, only one man had become HIV-positive. (That man practised
insertive anal intercourse in about 80% of his sexual encounters.)
Contrast this with 99 members of the cohort who reported receptive anal
intercourse over the same period of time: 36% became HIV-positive. The
principle investigator, Dr. Martin Schechter stated "…no risk associated
with oral sexual contact was detected." Dr. Schechter also stated that "HIV
is not transmitted orally. Perhaps, after millions of people have been
studied, one case of oral transmission will be brought to light."
Largest cohort
Dr. Larry Kingsley is an investigator with the Pitt Men’s Study which is
part of the Multi Area Cohort Study (MACS). This is a cooperative study that
includes investigators at the University of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh),
UCLA, Howard Brown (Chicago), North Western University and John Hopkins.
There are over 5,000 men who are being tested at 6 month intervals. Dr.
Kingsley feels that if oral sex was a mode of transmission for HIV, then the
MACS study would definitely have detected it. Still, he feels that oral sex
poses an unwarranted risk: "Its like working in a parachute factory — one
bad parachute in 10 million…. You can’t put a stamp of approval on oral
sex." But he feels that the real risk of oral sex is for other
transmissible agents, such as syphilis and Hepatitis B., both of which are
known to be transmitted by oral sex. Dr. Kingsley was quick to point out
that gay men must stop engaging in unprotected anal sex, saying that it
probably is the reason for "virtually all new HIV infections."
Dr. Detels is the investigator for the Los Angeles part of the cohort. His
opinion, based on research, is that if oral transmission occurs at all, it
is rare.
First Case Report
The first reference to a case of HIV oral transmission in the body of
medical literature was reported in a letter to the editors of The Lancet.
Dr. Bruce Voeller cited a single case of HIV transmission where oral sex
was the presumed mode of transmission. It was a single oddball case, Dr.
Voeller stated privately: "I guess the odds (of oral transmission) are low.
Oral sex is one of the lower risks. Don’t let anyone come in your mouth."
Another example of a case report came from Andrew Gans at the San Jose State
University which said, "This case finding study interviewed twelve gay or
bisexual men who believed they were infected with HIV through oral sex."
Gans goes on to explain that "Participants were categorized as cases of oral
sex transmission if they could rule out alternative routes of HIV
transmission."
Other case reports surface from time to time, but these reports can never
have the same standing as carefully administered cohort studies. But they
serve as a warning: while the risk of oral sex is very low, it isn’t zero.
"The overwhelming weight of evidence is that HIV is not transmitted by
kissing or oral-genital contact. But you have to be prudent when making
public health
…
read more »
In article <325ee24e.4940503@news>, Dave in Phoenix
<dave…@primenet.com> writes
>The Latest Oral Sex Scare
>Just another blow-job
>Good summary by Edward King, a gay advocate:
Huge amount of valuable information snipped out.>
>What do the hotlines say?
>"You are not at risk with passive oral sex. The active partner is at some
>risk. It is more risky to swallow semen. As far as we know, saliva does
>not transmit AIDS." — U S Centers for Disease Control, AIDS information
>hotline
>"As the [insertive] participant, there is no risk at all. As the
>[receptive] partner, there is a very low risk, but don’t let anyone come in
>your mouth." — Nat’l Gay & Lesbian Task Force, New York
As a matter of interest, has anyone ever tried to sort out the
terminology here? Words like "active" and "passive" are really
confusing when talking about oral sex. In so far as they mean anything
at all, it is the opposite of how they are used for anal or vaginal sex.
Would CDC like to consider a switch to the more helpful "insertive" and
"receptive"?
—
Hilary Curtis
Executive Director, BMA Foundation for AIDS
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP, UK
http://www.bmaids.demon.co.uk
Tel: 0171 383 6315 Fax: 0171 388 2544
In article <844892289…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:
> hil…@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
>> Would CDC like to consider a switch to the more helpful "insertive" and
>> "receptive"?
> There is, of course, no evidence that sex of any kind is involved
> in "Aids" diagnoses.
Literally true, but still rubbish. HIV is sexually transmitted and AIDS is a
consequence of HIV infection.
holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> In article <844892289…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk
> (himself) writes:
> > hil…@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
> >> Would CDC like to consider a switch to the more helpful "insertive" and
> >> "receptive"?
> > There is, of course, no evidence that sex of any kind is involved
> > in "Aids" diagnoses.
> Literally true, but still rubbish. HIV is sexually transmitted and AIDS
> is a consequence of HIV infection.
And there’s no evidence of that either. How sad that these failed
ideas should still be (apparently) seriously proposed.
The only really heartening aspect of all this is that intelligent
people, once exposed to realist dissident research about "Aids",
have no difficulty in seeing where the truth lies. Only obvious
vested interests continue to cling to discredited "HIV" theory.
This rule seems to apply whether the judgement is made by a
healthy person newly hit with a meaningless "HIV positive" label,
as several recent posts here have shown, or a health professional
studying Prof. Duesberg’s research, as the review of his book in
Nutritional Therapy Today confirms. From all sides, the rational
judgement on the "HIV" hypothesis of "Aids" is returned; that
this idiotic superstition has long overstayed its welcome.
John
—
"I think truth can be suspended, re-routed, rejected, for seemingly
astonishingly long periods of time. But I think it is kind of like
energy. I don’t think it can be destroyed.
It is rather like an airplane in a holding pattern and it does have
to land somewhere eventually." Celia Farber, Reappraising AIDS
Hi!
Thanks to everyone who replied to my previous post regarding the risk
levels involved in cunninlingus. My limited reading has led me to
believe that there are atleast a few credible reports of transmission
thru cunnilingus. These reports seem to indicate that there is a
possibilty of transmission. What is also important is that the number of
cases cannot be determined exactly. The number of men (and women to
a smaller extent) engaging in unprotected cunnilingus may be quite
significantly greater compared to the number of cases of transmission that
may be attributed to cunnilingus. Again this is an asssumption that may
never be evaluated fully. I believe that the New York Public Health
Department has a publication where it reports atleast 4 credible cases
taken from the scientific journals. At the same time it reports of a
study of 18 lesbians couples in Italy where one partner was HIV+. The
group was studied for 3 months. During these months the couples engaged
in cunnilingus (some during menstruation) however none of the HIV-
partners became HIV+. Tests were carried out during each of the 3 months.
Whether this means anything (the study lasted only 3 months) is not very
certain. Any words or thoughts on this are welcome!
Regards
Rajdeep Kalgutkar
In article <845227528…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>,
j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
>> In article <844892289…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk
>> (himself) writes:
>> > hil…@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
>> >> Would CDC like to consider a switch to the more helpful "insertive" and
>> >> "receptive"?
>> > There is, of course, no evidence that sex of any kind is involved
>> > in "Aids" diagnoses.
>> Literally true, but still rubbish. HIV is sexually transmitted and AIDS
>> is a consequence of HIV infection.
> And there’s no evidence of that either. How sad that these failed
> ideas should still be (apparently) seriously proposed.
Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.
I just posted a study of heterosexual transmission. There are lots of others.
It is one thing to say you don’t believe the evidence. To say there is NO
evidence is massive denial and pure rubbish.
> —
> "I think truth can be suspended, re-routed, rejected, for seemingly
> astonishingly long periods of time. But I think it is kind of like
> energy. I don’t think it can be destroyed.
Surely the lady is talking about you.
holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> [...]
> I just posted a study of heterosexual transmission. There are lots of others.
> It is one thing to say you don’t believe the evidence. To say there is NO
> evidence is massive denial and pure rubbish.
Unfortunately for this fine and principled stand, the evidence from
here (UK) clearly reveals that there is NO "heterosexual Aids" at
all.
There is absolutely no evidence for infectious or sexually induced
"Aids". This is a myth that has failed. (By not happening, to be
explicit.)
So I can’t believe the evidence you quote, and while there is
stronger and more obvious evidence against it I shall continue
not to. Pity you can’t do the same.
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.
In article <845808815…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:
> holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
>> [...]
>> I just posted a study of heterosexual transmission. There are lots of others.
>> It is one thing to say you don’t believe the evidence. To say there is NO
>> evidence is massive denial and pure rubbish.
> Unfortunately for this fine and principled stand, the evidence from
> here (UK) clearly reveals that there is NO "heterosexual Aids" at
> all.
NONE????? Not one?
Rubbish. However would you know? Surely you mean to imply that there is no
*epidemic* of heterosexual aids in UK.
That is rubbish too, but at least is a defensible postion to be in.
> There is absolutely no evidence for infectious or sexually induced
> "Aids". This is a myth that has failed. (By not happening, to be
> explicit.)
> So I can’t believe the evidence you quote, and while there is
> stronger and more obvious evidence against it I shall continue
> not to. Pity you can’t do the same.
Don’t expect you to believe anything, John, my responses are now totally
addressed to newbies.
In article <1996Oct20.170004@mcrcr6>, "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN"
<holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu> writes
>In article <845808815…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk
>(himself) writes:
>> holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
>> Unfortunately for this fine and principled stand, the evidence from
>> here (UK) clearly reveals that there is NO "heterosexual Aids" at
>> all.
>NONE????? Not one?
No, not one. Four hundred and eighteen, actually.
418 heterosexual AIDS cases reported up to the end of September 1996,
_NOT_ including cases where HIV infection was acquired outside the UK.
The reason this figure is relatively low compared to other countries is
probably because the UK has been quite successful in controlling the
transmission of HIV through sharing injecting equipment, so we don’t
have a large pool of infected (ex)drug users able to transmit HIV to
their heterosexual partners.
–
Hilary Curtis
Executive Director, BMA Foundation for AIDS
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP, UK
http://www.bmaids.demon.co.uk
Tel: 0171 383 6315 Fax: 0171 388 2544
holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> john@blackdog:
> > Unfortunately for this fine and principled stand, the evidence from
> > here (UK) clearly reveals that there is NO "heterosexual Aids" at
> > all.
> NONE????? Not one?
> Rubbish. However would you know? Surely you mean to imply that there
> is no *epidemic* of heterosexual aids in UK.
It is the position of Edward King and the BBC "Fine Cut"
documentary team who made "The End of Innocence". The figures on
which that analysis is based were presented during the programme.
They make sense. There is obviously no "epidemic" of anything
like "Aids" in the UK, in any group or people. It is an obviously
artificial definition.
As heterosexuals are not theorised to be in a "risk group" (provided
they don’t admit to their gay affairs or drug habits) there is no
reason for a positive "HIV" test result to be returned for them, in
orthodox "Aids" thinking. Only the target groups get the diagnosis,
by methods that are becoming clearer all the time.
> > There is absolutely no evidence for infectious or sexually induced
> > "Aids". This is a myth that has failed. (By not happening, to be
> > explicit.)
> > So I can’t believe the evidence you quote, and while there is
> > stronger and more obvious evidence against it I shall continue
> > not to. Pity you can’t do the same.
> Don’t expect you to believe anything, John, my responses are now
> totally addressed to newbies.
I shall transcribe and post a short article on "HIV tests" from the
latest issue of Continuum. At least one of us should be engaged in
something useful here. You might find within it an explanation for
the alleged "lower incidence of HIV" you like to quote as a reason
why "Aids" never happened here in the UK. (Hint: think "cookery".)
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 -
In article <845970187…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:
> holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
>> john@blackdog:
>> > Unfortunately for this fine and principled stand, the evidence from
>> > here (UK) clearly reveals that there is NO "heterosexual Aids" at
>> > all.
>> NONE????? Not one?
>> Rubbish. However would you know? Surely you mean to imply that there
>> is no *epidemic* of heterosexual aids in UK.
> It is the position of Edward King and the BBC "Fine Cut"
> documentary team who made "The End of Innocence". The figures on
> which that analysis is based were presented during the programme.
> They make sense. There is obviously no "epidemic" of anything
> like "Aids" in the UK, in any group or people. It is an obviously
> artificial definition.
So you didn’t mean it when you said there was *no* heterosexual aids in UK,
only that there was no epidemic?
> As heterosexuals are not theorised to be in a "risk group" (provided
> they don’t admit to their gay affairs or drug habits) there is no
> reason for a positive "HIV" test result to be returned for them, in
> orthodox "Aids" thinking. Only the target groups get the diagnosis,
> by methods that are becoming clearer all the time.
More confused expression. Surely you mean that because heterosexuals are not
in a "risk group" they are unlikely to have HIV tests. And just as surely
this is not true in as much as the blood donors are all tested, and worried
heterosexuals get tested and (contrary to you thread a few years ago)
heterosexuals getting insurance may be tested. The idea that there are lots of
heterosexuals out there in UK with false positive tests just waiting to happen
is more rubbish.
In article <y0DsujAAB7ayE…@bmaids.demon.co.uk>, Hilary Curtis
<hil…@bmaids.demon.co.uk> writes
>The reason this figure is relatively low compared to other countries is
>probably because the UK has been quite successful in controlling the
>transmission of HIV through sharing injecting equipment, so we don’t
>have a large pool of infected (ex)drug users able to transmit HIV to
>their heterosexual partners.
I’d still like to hear an explanation for why HIV prevalence is so low
in Italy, a country with a large gay population, and where condoms
were/are? difficult to come by.
Jon
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
himself wrote:
> holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> > [...]
> > So you didn’t mean it when you said there was *no* heterosexual
> > aids in UK, only that there was no epidemic?
> How clear do I have to be? Here is a quote from the programme:
> FROM BBC ‘FINE CUT’ DOCUMENTARY "THE END OF INNOCENCE".
> "In Britain, heterosexual Aids has probably never existed," is a
> conclusion of the BBC "Fine Cut" documentary programme "The End of
> Innocence", which was shown as part of the Red Ribbon series marking
> World Aids Day, on the 5th December 1995.
> Notice they don’t say, "an epidemic of hererosexual Aids has probably
> never existed".
What I notice is the qualifier "probably" which is consipicuous by its
absence from your citation.
> > > As heterosexuals are not theorised to be in a "risk group" (provided
> > > they don’t admit to their gay affairs or drug habits) there is no
> > > reason for a positive "HIV" test result to be returned for them, in
> > > orthodox "Aids" thinking. Only the target groups get the diagnosis,
> > > by methods that are becoming clearer all the time.
> > More confused expression. Surely you mean that because heterosexuals
> > are not in a "risk group" they are unlikely to have HIV tests.
> Both. They are unlikely to take tests, and the results are even more
> unlikely to come back positive. Can I be any clearer?
Considerably. If you say they are not likely to have positive tests
returned for them you are speaking only of those who have tests sent.
> I am not sure exactly what happens with blood donors now, but I don’t
> think the situation is anything like as simple as you claim. And of
> course heterosexuals are never required to get tested for HIV for
> insurance in the UK. You seem to be hallucinating well today.
Rest assured that if you need a blood transfusion it will be tested, even
if you insist that it need not be. (You would, of course cheerfully
accept some untested blood, wouldn’t you?)
As to the insurance issue, it was resolved a few years ago. If you want
a sizable policy you get tested. Don’t make us go back to the archives
again for such rubbish.
> The only way they will get false positive tests is if they tell the
> doctors they are gay, and invent some lurid sexual phantasies to
> ensure their blood is good and cooked by the time it is tested,
> and the result assumed to be an under-estmate. You know the method.
You appear to be saying that the tests are interpreted to suit the social
habits of the testee. Rubbish! Rubbish! Rubbish!
holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> [...]
> So you didn’t mean it when you said there was *no* heterosexual
> aids in UK, only that there was no epidemic?
How clear do I have to be? Here is a quote from the programme:
FROM BBC ‘FINE CUT’ DOCUMENTARY "THE END OF INNOCENCE".
"In Britain, heterosexual Aids has probably never existed," is a
conclusion of the BBC "Fine Cut" documentary programme "The End of
Innocence", which was shown as part of the Red Ribbon series marking
World Aids Day, on the 5th December 1995.
Notice they don’t say, "an epidemic of hererosexual Aids has probably
never existed". That is too obvious. They then produce and analyse
figures which lead them to conclude that even the tiny numbers of
otherwise unaccounted for "Aids" cases actually belong in other
groups, and that heterosexual "Aids" has never existed in Britain.
[ Of course, in making that observation, they completely routed the
suggestion that "Aids" is infectious; a far more important deduction.]
> > As heterosexuals are not theorised to be in a "risk group" (provided
> > they don’t admit to their gay affairs or drug habits) there is no
> > reason for a positive "HIV" test result to be returned for them, in
> > orthodox "Aids" thinking. Only the target groups get the diagnosis,
> > by methods that are becoming clearer all the time.
> More confused expression. Surely you mean that because heterosexuals
> are not in a "risk group" they are unlikely to have HIV tests.
Both. They are unlikely to take tests, and the results are even more
unlikely to come back positive. Can I be any clearer?
> And just as surely this is not true in as much as the blood donors are
> all tested, and worried heterosexuals get tested and (contrary to you
> thread a few years ago) heterosexuals getting insurance may be tested.
I am not sure exactly what happens with blood donors now, but I don’t
think the situation is anything like as simple as you claim. And of
course heterosexuals are never required to get tested for HIV for
insurance in the UK. You seem to be hallucinating well today.
Worried heterosexuals are most unlikely to get tested in the UK, so
I don’t know where you got that idea from. Even if they wanted to,
they would most likely be specifically discouraged from doing so by
doctors or other health workers. They are not the group to which
"HIV" and "Aids" diagnoses are attached.
> The idea that there are lots of heterosexuals out there in UK with
> false positive tests just waiting to happen is more rubbish.
Well, it’s your own rubbish. I have never said anything like that.
The only way they will get false positive tests is if they tell the
doctors they are gay, and invent some lurid sexual phantasies to
ensure their blood is good and cooked by the time it is tested,
and the result assumed to be an under-estmate. You know the method.
John
—
"The Western Blot is a non-standardized, expensive, laborious
technique of subjective interpretation which provides an
appreciable number of undetermined results."
V. Soriano, et al. Medicina Clinica, Vol 100, Num 15, 1993.
hil…@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
> 418 heterosexual AIDS cases reported up to the end of September 1996,
> _NOT_ including cases where HIV infection was acquired outside the UK.
But on careful analysis, this figure evaporates completely, as the
BBC Fine Cut documentary film makers found.
> The reason this figure is relatively low compared to other countries is
> probably because the UK has been quite successful in controlling the
> transmission of HIV through sharing injecting equipment, so we don’t
> have a large pool of infected (ex)drug users able to transmit HIV to
> their heterosexual partners.
Total balderdash. The reasons why this is such a silly explanation
have been posted here on too many occasions to need repeating again.
John
—
"`HIV’ is not a virus, but a collection of gene products that can appear
when immune cells are chronically stimulated in the body or drastically
manipulated in the laboratory. No two identical `HIV’s have been isolated,
even from the same individual."
"AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science" by Neville Hodgkinson
In article <vI1q1YAtSVbyE…@peanuts.demon.co.uk>
Peanuts <j…@peanuts.demon.co.uk> writes:
>[...]
>I’d still like to hear an explanation for why HIV prevalence is so low
>in Italy, a country with a large gay population, and where condoms
>were/are? difficult to come by.
>Jon
One of the primary vectors of HIV transmission is through the use of
contaminated drug injecting equipment. Sterile syringes and needles are
readily accessible to injection drug users in Italy. Sterile syringes and
needles can be obtained through pharmacies and needle exchange programs
there. In some Italian cities, there are vending machines which will
exchange a sterile needle and syringe set for a used one when a person
deposits the contaminated equipment into a slot. This can explain why HIV
seroprevalence is low in Italy.
james m. scutero, original proponent of misc.health.aids
the newsgroup of acquired immune deficiency syndromes
o_) *
” _/\
/(
misc.health.aids homepage`- http://www.panix.com/~jscutero
surfin’ with aids. * (hot ascii surfer)
In article <vI1q1YAtSVbyE…@peanuts.demon.co.uk>, Peanuts
<j…@peanuts.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <y0DsujAAB7ayE…@bmaids.demon.co.uk>, Hilary Curtis
><hil…@bmaids.demon.co.uk> writes
>>The reason this figure is relatively low compared to other countries is
>>probably because the UK has been quite successful in controlling the
>>transmission of HIV through sharing injecting equipment, so we don’t
>>have a large pool of infected (ex)drug users able to transmit HIV to
>>their heterosexual partners.
>I’d still like to hear an explanation for why HIV prevalence is so low
>in Italy, a country with a large gay population, and where condoms
>were/are? difficult to come by.
I don’t know what you mean by low. Cumulative reported incidence of
AIDS in Italy is 689 cases per million. That may sound low to most
readers of m.h.a in the USA, but it’s the fourth highest in Europe,
after Spain, France and Switzerland.
Check out http://hiv.net/hiv/epidem/epidem.htm for an analysis of the
HIV/AIDS epidemic in Europe.
—
Hilary Curtis, Executive Director, BMA Foundation for AIDS
http://www.bmaids.demon.co.uk
Tel: 0171 383 6315 Fax: 0171 388 2544
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP, UK
hil…@bmaids.demon.co.uk "Hilary Curtis" writes:
> [..]
> I don’t know what you mean by low. Cumulative reported incidence of
> AIDS in Italy is 689 cases per million. That may sound low to most
> readers of m.h.a in the USA, but it’s the fourth highest in Europe,
> after Spain, France and Switzerland.
"Aids cases" can be as healthy as our own James Scutero, or the
thousands of people associated with Continuum, HEAL groups, etc.
It is a totally meaningless diagnosis. If these people continue
to avoid "HIV medication" there is no reason for their health to
differ in any way from anyone else’s, as they are discovering
everywhere.
"Aids" deaths, which are overwhelmingly the medical poisoning of
healthy people, do differ vastly from place to place. The US, with
its historical gullibility to medical claims, and eagerness to
consume pharmaceuticals, has generated "Aids" deaths at about ten
times the rate of European countries, and continues to encourage
large numbers of unncesssary deaths by this method.
The answer to the poster’s question, why Italy should have so
little "Aids", is of course that the artificial phenomenon known
as "Aids" is not infectious. Condom campaigns, needle exchanges,
disinformation propaganda, etc. are all irrelevant to the "Aids"
phenomenon, except that by misdirecting scarce resources into
preserving and protecting the myth of "Aids", its beneficiaries
keep alive (for the basest of personal reasons), this dangerous
delusion.
(But not for much longer, it seems safe to predict.)
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.
holzm…@mcrcr.med.nyu.edu "Robert S. Holzman" writes:
> himself wrote:
> > Both. They are unlikely to take tests, and the results are even more
> > unlikely to come back positive. Can I be any clearer?
> Considerably. If you say they are not likely to have positive tests
> returned for them you are speaking only of those who have tests sent.
No meaning discernable anywhere in this comment.
> [...]
> Rest assured that if you need a blood transfusion it will be tested, even
> if you insist that it need not be. (You would, of course cheerfully
> accept some untested blood, wouldn’t you?)
Untested for "HIV"? Of course. Does that surprise you? I think not,
unless you have developed a Harris-like ability to forget what has
been said and written.
> As to the insurance issue, it was resolved a few years ago. If you want
> a sizable policy you get tested. Don’t make us go back to the archives
> again for such rubbish.
Oh dear, you have indeed developed such a disability! The outcome
of our discussion on insurance (precipitated by the press release
from the Association of British Insurers downgrading the overall
risk of mortality from "Aids" in the face of undeniable proof that
the long-touted "epidemic" is a delusion) was that life assurance
could easily be contracted without the need for an "HIV" test in
the UK. Such tests are not required other than in highly exceptional
circumstances. This was barely a year ago; your memory is
deteriorating alarmingly.
> You appear to be saying that the tests are interpreted to suit the
> social habits of the testee. Rubbish! Rubbish! Rubbish!
Now just calm yourself and think about it. Actually it is not so
much the social habits of the test subject, but what they *say*
about those habits to the doctor or clinician that triggers the
different testing procedures. "Risk group" data is entirely
voluntary. Gays or IVDU who choose not to confide in their doctors
are in NO danger of receiving a positive "HIV" test result, as our
data here confirms. You provided some interesting excuses about
why test results should be interpreted differently acccording to
"risk group" membership (which you like to think of as representing
high or low prevalence populations). Recent information has shown
that target group blood is "cooked" longer than others, resulting
in higher levels of the cellular debris wrongly believed to be
linked with antibodies to "HIV". So if you just put all the pieces
together calmly and sensibly you will see how it all works out.
John
—
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible." Bertrand Russell 1872-1970
In article <846516209…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:
> holzm…@mcrcr.med.nyu.edu "Robert S. Holzman" writes:
>> himself wrote:
>> > Both. They are unlikely to take tests, and the results are even more
>> > unlikely to come back positive. Can I be any clearer?
>> Considerably. If you say they are not likely to have positive tests
>> returned for them you are speaking only of those who have tests sent.
> No meaning discernable anywhere in this comment.
I give up.
>> As to the insurance issue, it was resolved a few years ago.
but not in your favor.
> the UK. Such tests are not required other than in highly exceptional
> circumstances.
such as a request for a policy over 50-60,000 pounds?
> Now just calm yourself and think about it. Actually it is not so
> much the social habits of the test subject, but what they *say*
> about those habits to the doctor or clinician that triggers the
> different testing procedures. "Risk group" data is entirely
> voluntary. Gays or IVDU who choose not to confide in their doctors
> are in NO danger of receiving a positive "HIV" test result, as our
> data here confirms. You provided some interesting excuses about
> why test results should be interpreted differently acccording to
> "risk group" membership (which you like to think of as representing
> high or low prevalence populations). Recent information has shown
> that target group blood is "cooked" longer than others, resulting
> in higher levels of the cellular debris wrongly believed to be
> linked with antibodies to "HIV". So if you just put all the pieces
> together calmly and sensibly you will see how it all works out.
Rubbish. Blood that goes to a clinical laboratory is handled uniformly. In
many cases the handlers are blind to the clinical information. You quote a
recently posted second hand source totally out of context.
holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:
> [...]
> >> As to the insurance issue, it was resolved a few years ago.
> but not in your favor.
Your memory is atrocious.
> > the UK. Such tests are not required other than in highly exceptional
> > circumstances.
> such as a request for a policy over 50-60,000 pounds?
Wherever did you get this idea? Just making it up, I suppose.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > Now just calm yourself and think about it. Actually it is not so
> > much the social habits of the test subject, but what they *say*
> > about those habits to the doctor or clinician that triggers the
> > different testing procedures. "Risk group" data is entirely
> > voluntary. Gays or IVDU who choose not to confide in their doctors
> > are in NO danger of receiving a positive "HIV" test result, as our
> > data here confirms. You provided some interesting excuses about
> > why test results should be interpreted differently acccording to
> > "risk group" membership (which you like to think of as representing
> > high or low prevalence populations). Recent information has shown
> > that target group blood is "cooked" longer than others, resulting
> > in higher levels of the cellular debris wrongly believed to be
> > linked with antibodies to "HIV". So if you just put all the pieces
> > together calmly and sensibly you will see how it all works out.
> Rubbish. Blood that goes to a clinical laboratory is handled uniformly.
> In many cases the handlers are blind to the clinical information. You
> quote a recently posted second hand source totally out of context.
The context is apt. The source is excellent. It contradicts you
on several important points, which you don’t refute.
"HIV tests" are totally meaningless chemical procedures, which
are coerced into providing results conforming to the prevailing
prejudice. If blood is no longer labelled according to whether it
came from an acknowledged homosexual subject or not, and not cooked
to produce more "antibody debris" if it was, the distribution and
extent of alleged positivity is likely to be vastly different.
You might well find your so-called "prevalence of HIV infection"
coming down to our low figures. I think we can now see exactly
how the uniquely huge death toll the US has generated from "Aids"
has come about. The picture is clearer than ever.
John
—
"The Western Blot is a non-standardized, expensive, laborious
technique of subjective interpretation which provides an
appreciable number of undetermined results."
V. Soriano, et al. Medicina Clinica, Vol 100, Num 15, 1993.