Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Validation V/S Speculation...

On this topic firstly I have to ask myself... has something truly been validated when absolutely no one is allowed to question or even verify that validation? When simply the process used for that validation has been questioned. Whats so wrong to call for a better form of validation than one that seemingly has flaws? What's most disconcerting is when those who are capable of validating that validation (that is in question) they are unwilling despite being offered payment for such a thing. Since when does a scientist deny payment for doing a procedure... simply because someone else already did it and only one person at that? I don't know about you... but that all seems very questionable.

Now don't get me wrong. I am in no position to question the existence or non-existence of HIV. Though there is much evidence and science that has called into question what HIV actually is, which I believe is hard to deny. Even though some of those theories contradict one another they are still valid representations of the fact that the current theory is flawed. Also its pretty well known that being diagnosed with HIV does not always lead to being diagnosed with AIDS and does not always lead to death by the standards currently defined to us upon that diagnosis.

One thing I have personally calculated from talking to a myriad of so called AIDS patients is that one does not get to the status of AIDS defined illness and death without a certain amount of historical/underlying factors many of which are deadly on their own and known to lead to a compromised immunity and death without the presence of HIV status. Toxoplasmosis is a prime example, Epstein Barr, T-Cell Lymphoma, and the list goes on. Those are all things that automatically lead to an AIDS diagnosis, are cross reactive on HIV tests, are not treated with ARVS, and are totally unrelated to an STD. So I will say there is enough valid information to call into question the current HIV/AIDS Hypothesis without a doubt.

As someone who spent years being employed by a corporation to essentially explore what our clients could be hiding or things that could stand in the way of multi-million dollar deals, or represent failure of those deals... if I were heading an investigation of this sort I would have some questions like: Why aren't other scientists allowed to simply validate such a thing? Why are those capable unwilling? Why does everyone blindly accept one scientists word? Isn't the whole point of science to question theories and expand on them in the hopes of furthering the research closer to a solution? Why when scientists do such a thing are they blacklisted? These are truly logical questions that I believe should be answered. They are questions that might cause me to deny funding simply because there are too many holes and unanswered questions in regards to something that is the supposed foundation of that funding.

It has also recently been pointed out to me that Gallo admitted that the standard for causation he used was not suffecient enough to prove HIV causation of AIDS. This admission was made on the stand and is in the court transcripts of the Parenzee trial of Australia. It is something that leaves me unsettled as that admittance was not pursued on the stand and is something that most definitely needs to be addressed in a more in depth manner. If 36% percent does not prove causation why are we lead to believe in this case that causation for some reason it is acceptable?

So truly how fool proof is the current HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. When will they decide to make it fool proof? How come no one has collected the 50,000 dollar reward that shows that the isolation of HIV has been suffeciently peer reviewed and published?

All logical questions I believe.

So despite those of equal experience who may speculate on alternative theories is there still not enough evidence to call for an open debate on the current HIV/AIDS Hypothesis? What are they affraid of? Why aren't those who have alternative theories that also have the credentials that back up those theories allowed funding to explore things that could essentialy lead to a better definition and a better outcome for those impacted.

These scientists are labelled Psuedo Sceintists when in reality without the exploration of these things truly I feel they are exposing that the mainstream is a medium of censorship, denialism, and psuedo science for impeding the ability for advancement... for implying that science itself is static and unchanging, and for trying to portray the belief that such mistakes have not happened in the past, and sadly this is not questionable it is proven... and on many more platforms than HIV/AIDS.

My thoughts for the day...
Oh and one last question... Why doesnt the HIV test have a gold standard?
Posted by at 4:24 PM

21 comments:

  1. Trying to help, if the question isn't rhetoricalOct 1, 2009 01:37 AM
    Well, first of all you need to explain exactly what you mean by a "gold standard". Different people mean different things by the term.

    If you are able to articulate that, then you then need to think about why, precisely, this particular "gold standard" of yours is necessary for HIV tests to be valid.

    Someone has tried to claim the reward for demonstrating that HIV has been isolated "by the most rigorous method science has to offer". His name is Peter Duesberg.

    http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pdreplyep.htm

    You could ask him what he thinks about these kinds of "rewards", but my guess is that he realises they are fake publicity stunts, along the lines of "Dr Dino's" reward for "proving" evolution to his satisfaction. No self respecting scientist takes them seriously.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow thanks for that.

    I have been exploring Duesburgs aspects on isolation and others. Which is why I do have some trouble with the statements that HIV has or has not been isolated as of yet. And I truly feel that I am in no place to say whether HIV does or does not exist. As I have stated before in this forum when I stand by something it is because I have highly validated that in the mainstream.

    Thus far it does seem there is more validation to isolation (of something though possibly harmless which is my personal experience) and more speculation as to existance. Though both theories have the potential to be correct, paticularly if the patient you happen to choose to isolate from is a product of a highly cross reactive test and is misdiagnosed in the first place.

    Particularly when those who claim it has not been isolated are speculating based on the method and have not attempted to actually prove there theory yet. I would love Peters input on if there is a better way to isolate that could make the theory of isolation fool proof.

    As truly sometimes in this mess it is rather hard to know what to believe. Which I also think is a major piece of evidence as to the failings of the current hypothesis. I suppose that is one of my greatest frustrations is that so much is left open to speculation and even moreso that so much evidence that contradicts can be found not only in dissident science but blatently in the mainstream. (which is where I tend to apply my research skills)

    Though it still leaves one to wonder why an electron microscopist refused to attempt to photograph it upon being offered payment.

    And yes at the end of the day the real question is "What is HIV?" and does it irrefutably lead to AIDS... (which has been proven more than once to be unlikely for many) Also you could ask "What really causes AIDS" and that theory is the one truly with the most holes. That theory is one that has not been suffeciently validated. (even by Gallos own admittance) Both in science and particularly when speaking with the myriad of patients who are never affected in the same way and often have other issues to contend with that more than explain their issues in a much more rational way than the HIV/AIDS hypothesis as it stands does.

    As for Gold Standard well of course that would be a test that is actually based on testing your blood, the virus in your blood, against actual virus seperately.

    Currently the HIV test had no gold standard. You are tested for antibodies which my own personal research has found are often not specific and some are highly cross reactive and sadly with common things at times.

    Also how despite a positive antibody test when no virus is found in your blood for years you are still considered positive. I mean really shouldn't we be using virus to measure infection and antibodies to measure immunity?

    I still try to grasp why when having an antibody to anything else you are considered immune... but the current HIV/AIDS hypothesis seems to have so many acceptions to the rules that have been known and accepted for decades.

    Truly interesting. Thanks for your input I was unaware that Duesburg himself tried to claim that reward I will have to look into that further. Sadly as I have expressed earlier I tend to distance myself from gathering information from dissident science... though I have found them incredibly helpful and informative in leading me to the proper mainstream research and that is not because I question their information... but largely because people wish to write that information off as suspect... so I work to validate that science in the mainstream where it is more difficult for people to question, ridicule, or ignore.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Also I must add that when asking a researcher why there is no gold standard for the HIV test... or why they test for antibodies and not HIV itself. I was told: "because it is very difficult to isolate." Ah the irony.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Which is much like when I asked "Why don't you spend time boosting peoples immunity prior to illness" I was told... "Because we still no so little about the immune system." and those statements both from qualified professionals in the mainstream... and some wonder why at times I really have to ask myself if these people know what they are talking about, much less doing... when the feed us the standard line.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Trying to helpOct 1, 2009 05:33 PM
    HIAM, HIV/AIDS science is complex and has unfolded over more than a quarter of a century in literally hundreds of thousands of scientific studies. No one can hope to be an expert about every aspect of it, but it seems you are being deliberately misinformed about some of the basics, and this is making you confused. Here are three examples from you comment above:

    1. The story about the electron microscopist who refused to photograph EMs of HIV is bizarre. There are literally hundreds of transmission and scanning EMs of HIV you can view over the net with a mouse click or two, and hundreds of others in textbooks and scientific papers you can find in the library. Here are a few:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HIV-1_Transmission_electron_micrograph_AIDS02bbb_lores.jpg

    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS001.html

    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS002.html

    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS003.html

    For more, try http://phil.cdc.gov/phil/home.asp and do a PHIL Quicksearch for "HIV electron micrograph".

    2. The story about having antibodies meaning that you are "immune" and the infectious agent is gone is also nonsense: there are plenty of counter examples other than HIV, like HSV, hep C (usually) hep B (sometimes) syphilis, EBV, CMV, &c.

    3. There are numerous techniques for isolating the virus itself from people who have antibodies: such as culture and nucleic acid amplification. Gallo might have only found it in 30% of AIDS patients in 1984, but that was extremely early days and they were still trying to work out the techniques. Within a couple of years nearly everyone was getting close to isolating virus in 100% of antibody-positive samples. See, for example:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2298875

    It is not difficult to isolate - it is routine and done thousands of times a day in virology labs. These days, even most blood banks use nucleic acid tests for the virus itself as a final check after screening blood donations for antibodies: the reason being that antibodies take a few weeks to develop after and the testers are trying to find recent infections that might be missed by antibody screening.

    HIAM, I realise that you are trying to sort out a mess of contradictory opinions, but if you are trying to sort out what is going you need to start by understanding the basics of the science as understood by virtually all actual reasearchers and clinicians before you start to try to criticise it. A good place to start is this excellent website, which is geared to the intelligent non-scientist:

    http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm
    ReplyDelete
  6. I will dig into the info you provide on electron microscopy...

    BUT... I am sorry even with all that info there are still a myriad of contradictions and quite a bit of science I have explored. My true confusion is from the lack of logic in the mainstream science for example:

    The slowing down of the mitochondria being the telling sign of all degenerative disease. Yet AIDS drugs slow down the mitochondria.

    Mitochondrial DNA damage being blamed on HIV when now studies show that the drugs are the actual cause of Mitochondrial DNA damage.

    CMV being looked at as the cause of HIV. Which wasn't suffecient because of the number of people positive for CMV who had no effects from it. (A majority of the population in fact so much so they never test for it accept in pregnant women and ill people) CMV gp150 being cross reactive with HIV's p24 (the most specific) and p17. CMV being a common factor in many diagnosed HIV positive yet healthy.

    Along with that the fact that I have never met an AIDS patient who was actually ill that did not have factors that looked the same as our AIDS definition in the absence of HIV. Not to mention the number of AIDS defining illnesses that are not related to Virus nor sexual transmission. Some being the only presentation and not treated with ARVS yet ignored in the face of HIV positivity.

    I may be at a loss on isolation versus non existence... but I am not ignorant to the science... and truly what is confusing is all the science that contradicts that is right there and the NIH. Circumcision lowers transmission, oh well circumcision doesn't really lower transmission. Breast feeding spreads HIV, no actually breastfeeding in Africa actually brings better outcomes and is safer and more effecient. There are study after study in the mainstream that work like this. ARVS are dangerous to unborn babies, but we are not saying they should stop using them. Ask and I will provide the two studies from Johns Hopkins, and the many studies of mitochondrial dysfunction in children exposed to ARVS in the womb and beyond. (google it if you like)

    You mention Hep C... Can you explain why some people clear Hep C on their own and test negative for it after time with no intervention and simply healthy lifestyle... yes it does happen...

    Did you know that drug induced hepatitis is the highest form of Hepatits?

    Also you mention CMV... when ironically 80% of pre-school children have been exposed to it and nearly 50 to 80% of the population have it yet only some people present with actual issues from it.

    Also funny that Psyphillis is AIDS defining yet identicle to AIDS on its own when left untreated for long periods of time.

    As for HSV once again you can test positive for HSV 1 and then later test negative for it.

    Please help me with those curiosities if you might since you are essentially trying to help.
    ReplyDelete
  7. I must also add... most viruses seemingly have a trademark that is the same though to varying extremes from patient to patient. HIV does not have that. It affects no one the same. Many are perfectly healthy others get sick. The outcome is always different. Though sometimes the only thing linking people that are sick are common denominators like drug abuse, alledged co-infections, (many aids like on their own like EB which is also cross reactive) and underlying issues that get overlooked or are not diagnosed because of their difficulty to diagnose like many autoimmune disorders.

    I do think that is one of the most difficult things to grasp... If HIV = AIDS = DEATH... Why isn't that able to be proven in every patient. As life often leads to illness that can lead to death too ya know.
    ReplyDelete
  8. As for isolating HIV from those who have antibodies being so simple... then why doesn't the HIV test simply do that? And you still did not respond regarding those who have antibodies yet no virus is found in their bodies being considered positive.

    And also there are plenty of things far more than the few you stated which having an antibody proves immunity. So why are those others so different.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Also in the instance that a patient has no viral load and only antibodies there is not suffecient evidence to prove transmission from those people so truly how can someone say they are not immune?

    You use Herpes to compare but people with Herpes actually have outbreaks which physically show infection and there is actually an outlet for transmission. Whereas HIV is not anywhere closely related in that respect.

    AS with Hepatitis there is jaundice and swollen liver and things seen in the bloodwork. Though truly I cannot say that Hep C is actually not a lifestyle condition either and more likely attributed to drug abuse and alchohol abuse moreso than viral transmission. Considering the number I have spoke to and investigated that cleaned up their lifestyles and cleared the illness.

    And what about the many exposed to HIV that do not acquire it?

    My god there are so many holes, so much evidence, and logical questions that contradict the mainstream theory it is just impossible to not accept that the current HIV/AIDS hypothesis itself and the many things that do not add up are the culprit of my confusion.

    When does the industry plan to have a theory that can answer all those questions simply and logically without someone wondering if these people even know what the hell they are saying when the feed the masses the standard line.
    ReplyDelete
  10. Trying to helpOct 1, 2009 08:08 PM
    HIAM, it would be easier if we simply dealt with one or two points at a time, rather than a whole barrage of claims. I'd also reiterate my earlier suggestion to start with the basics and move on from there: without a thorough grasp of the fundamentals then the more complex details are simply confusing and incomprehensible.

    Some of your assertions are simply incorrect.

    Some of your claims seem confused, and I am having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say, let alone address where the confusion lies.

    Others of your points seem to be seeking simple answers about complex phenomena.

    If you are having trouble finding answers that "add up", then then you need to be prepared to (a) recognise when the assertion is incorrect, (b) spend the effort to articulate your concern clearly (and this is impossible to do if such points are buried in an avalanche of claims), and (c) recognise that answers in science are often more complex than you would like, and take some time to tease out.

    An example of the first problem: syphilis is not and never has been an AIDS defining illness, and untreated syphilis and untreated HIV infection look nothing like each other. HIV/AIDS is an immune system disease: tertiary syphilis is a disease producing foci of spirochetes in various organ systems - the nervous and cardiovascular systems especially.

    An example of the second: I gave CMV, hep C and other microbes as examples where a mature antibody response co-exists with chronic infection. This was a counter example to your claim that antibodies mean immunity. The fact that a small number of HCV infected people clear it without treatment, and that chronic CMV infection rarely causes serious symptoms (except in the immunocompromised) is of no consquence to the point I was refuting.

    An example of the third: male circumcision reduces female to male transmission during vaginal sex. Obviously this will make no difference where the primary mode of transmission for males is receptive anal sex or injecting drug use as it is in various parts of the world.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Alright... i will try not to bombard you with too many questions at once. I am doing some investigating on isolation and will get back to you on that one...

    And obviously there is much confusion... There are certain topics that I definitely need to explore more... and I will. Understanding the science is not the problem as much as exposing myself to more of it.

    Regarding receptive anal sex... yes there is a much easier spread of bacteria in that manner... but there are also numerous other factors contributing to immunosupression in that situation... particularly exposing your body to that foreign bacteria and possibly STD's and who knows what else.

    Hmm... regarding psyphillis tell me these are not symptoms that could be considered as Signs of the current theory of HIV/AIDS... Particularly in the situation of HIV positivity.

    Symptoms of secondary syphilis may include fever, swollen lymph glands, sore throat, patchy hair loss, headaches, weight loss, muscle aches, and fatigue.

    Late and Latent Stages
    The latent (hidden) stage of syphilis begins when primary and secondary symptoms disappear. Without treatment, the infected person will continue to have syphilis even though there are no signs or symptoms; infection remains in the body. This latent stage can last for years. The late stages of syphilis can develop in about 15% of people who have not been treated for syphilis, and can appear 10 – 20 years after infection was first acquired. In the late stages of syphilis, the disease may subsequently damage the internal organs, including the brain, nerves, eyes, heart, blood vessels, liver, bones, and joints. Signs and symptoms of the late stage of syphilis include difficulty coordinating muscle movements, paralysis, numbness, gradual blindness, and dementia. This damage may be serious enough to cause death.

    Wow finding some interesting stuff about non syphillis spirochetes in AIDS patients... Will have to come back to that one...

    --------

    RESULTS: AIDS and syphilis have similar epidemiology, immunology and pathologies. In addition, the current methods of detecting and treating syphilis are inadequate.

    CONCLUSIONS: The similarities between syphilis and AIDS support the need for further research into their relationships, including the role Treponema pallidum may play in AIDS etiology.

    -----------------------

    It is rather late I will leave you with that for now and we can discuss the relationship of syphillis to AIDS first. Particularly when this was a common co-factor in many of the original AIDS patients. I will return with full links to what I find and we will tackle this topic first. I know they seem like claims on the surface as I have not provided links to everything I say... but there is research to back my claimes... LOL... I'll be back.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Here is something to keep you busy in the meantime particularly regarding that Syphillis and AIDS are not alike:

    ABSTRACT
    BACKGROUND: This study addresses AIDS etiology, suggesting Treponema pallidum as the etiologic agent.

    METHODS: The argument is based upon literature survey.

    RESULTS: AIDS and syphilis have similar epidemiology, immunology and pathologies. In addition, the current methods of detecting and treating syphilis are inadequate.

    CONCLUSIONS: The similarities between syphilis and AIDS support the need for further research into their relationships, including the role Treponema pallidum may play in AIDS etiology.
    PAPER
    Most people currently believe that acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is caused by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). However, as outlined by several authors (1-3), there is medical data to support the conclusion that Treponema pallidum (TP), the etiologic agent of syphilis, may be the cause of AIDS:

    1. Microbial etiology is determined according to Koch's postulates: 1) the microbe in question must be regularly detected in patients with the disease, 2) the microbe can be isolated in pure cultures from patients 3) the pure cultures when inoculated into susceptible animals will produce the disease, and 4) the microbe can again be isolated in pure cultures from the inoculated animals. These postulates have never been fulfilled for HIV-induced AIDS (4-7). Dr. Robert Gallo's 1984 assertion that HIV is the primary cause of AIDS was only based upon a 40% incidence of HIV in patients with AIDS (though a higher correlation rate was found in asymptomatic patients) (8). By contrast, TP was found in 73% of the AIDS patients in a study by researchers at the University of Miami (Florida) (9). Though HIV's strong correlation with AIDS has made it a part of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) syndrome definition, if the virus does not cause AIDS, then aiming treatments at HIV will not cure AIDS.

    2. AIDS and TP are both transmitted via blood products (transfusion, sharing needles), congenital infection (transplacental), and sexual practices (10). This epidemiologic similarity is not conclusive, as many other diseases share these common modes of transmission with AIDS. However, syphilis also has striking immunologic and pathologic similarities with AIDS.

    3. Immunosuppression, a hallmark of AIDS, is also recognized as being characteristic of syphilis (11-13). One study has shown a 30% reduction of T-lymphocyte populations in syphilitic patients (14). During the sexual and drug revolutions of the 1960's and 1970's, sexually promiscuous homosexuals commonly suffered multiple, and often concurrent, infections of TP. Furthermore, syphilis was known to be epidemic in both the United States homosexual and African heterosexual populations at the onset of the AIDS era (15). Taken together, these factors could have exacerbated the 30% immunodepletion from TP infection into a pernicious state of complete immunosuppression.

    4. The pathologies of AIDS and syphilis are strikingly similar, with virtually any organ a candidate for infection (10). Patients with either disease may manifest alopecia, anorexia, aphasia, ataxia, bladder disturbances, cranial nerve involvement including facial paralysis, dementia, encephalitis, epilepsy, fever, glomerulonephritis, hemiplegia, hyperactive reflexes, Kaposi's sarcoma, laryngitis, lymphadenopathy, nephrotic syndrome, optic atrophy, paraplegia, pharyngitis, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, seizures, strokes, and thrush (16-24). In addition, it is now acknowledged that neurosyphilis may occur in any stage of TP infection (25).
    ReplyDelete
  13. 5. Though quick and inexpensive (26), the standard blood tests used to diagnose syphilis are not reliable. The most common diagnostic tools used, the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) and Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR), do not detect the actual presence of the treponeme itself. They assess immune system reactions commonly associated with TP infection (27). In syphilis, as in AIDS, the immune system is compromised and these tests produce a significant number of false negatives (10, 27-29).

    6. Syphilis cannot be cured with penicillin G. First, penicillin G is unable to go everywhere that TP goes in the body. TP invades three distinct compartments: the blood and lymph circulatory systems soon after infection (10), the intracellular environment of various cells (30-31) within 30 minutes of infection (32), and the central nervous system as early as two weeks from infection (10). While penicillin G can effectively eradicate the circulatory infections, this antibiotic does not readily enter cells (33-34), and benzathine penicillin G, the most commonly used penicillin, cannot cross the blood-brain-barrier to establish treponemicidal levels in the central nervous system (35-38).
    Second, penicillin cannot cure syphilis because it only kills TP when the bacterium is actively dividing. The current CDC protocols for treating syphilis are based upon a doubling time of 30 to 33 hours (39-40). It has been suggested that the dividing time of TP may be elongated to months in advanced syphilis (41-42), leaving virulent treponema present in vivo long after antibiotic serum levels have dissipated.
    Finally, evidence of recurring syphilis in patients treated with penicillin G supports the conclusion that this drug does not eradicate TP infection (43-51). Research into other known treponemacidal compounds (52) such as doxycycline, which better permeates the blood-brain-barrier than benzathine penicillin G (53), and erythromycin, which easily permeates cell membranes (33-34), might yield syphilis treatment protocols of longer duration and greater efficacy.




    In conclusion, given that AIDS and syphilis have similar epidemiology, immunology and pathology, the question remains: can Treponema pallidum cause AIDS? The literature suggests that syphilis, which is often undetected or ineffectively treated when diagnosed, may become clinically indistinguishable from AIDS (54-55). Surely, the data presented warrants further research.
    ReplyDelete
  14. REFERENCES
    1. Coulter HL. AIDS and syphilis: the hidden link. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, 1987.

    2. Caiazza SS. AIDS: one doctor's personal struggle. (self published, ISBN: 0-9624101-0-1), 1988.

    3. Mitchell RB. Syphilis as AIDS. Austin: Banned Books, 1990.

    4. Duesberg PH. Retro viruses as carcinogens and pathogens: expectations and reality. Cancer Research 1987; 47:1199- 1220.

    5. Duesberg PH. Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 1989; 86:755-764.

    6. Root-Bernstein RS. Do we know the cause(s) of AIDS? Perspect Biol Med 1990; 33:480-500.

    7. Duesberg PH. AIDS epidemiology: inconsistencies with Human immunodeficiency virus and with infectious disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88:1575-1579.

    8. Markham PD, Sarngadharan MG, Salahuddin SZ, Popovic M, Gallo RC. Correlation between exposure to human T-cell leukemia lymphoma virus-III and the development of AIDS. Ann NY Acad Sci 1984; 437: 106-109.

    9. Pitchenik ARE, Fischl MA, Dickinson GM, et al. Opportunistic infections and Kaposi's sarcoma among Haitians: evidence of a new acquired immunodeficiency state. Ann Int Med 1983; 93:277-284.

    10. Tramont EC. Treponema Pallidum. In: Mandell GL, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds. Principles and practices of infectious diseases. New York: John Wiley 1979: 1820-1837.

    11. Musher DM, Schell RF, Knox JM. In vitro lymphocyte response to Treponema refrigens in human syphilis. Infect Immun 1974; 9:654-657.

    12. Jensen JR, rom E. Alterations in T-lymphocytes and T- lymphocyte subpopulations in patients with syphilis. Br J Vener Dis 1982; 58:18-22.

    13. Jensen JR, Jorgensen AS, Thestrup-Pedersen K. Depression of natural killer cell activity by syphilitic serum and immune complexes. Br J VENER Dis 1982; 58:298-301.

    14. Jorgensen AS, El'Ramley MAS, Jensen JR, From E, Thestrup- Pedersen K. Immunosuppression in syphilis. Eur J Sex Trans Dis 1984; 2:5-9.

    15. Mckenna JJ, Miles R, Lemen D, Dunford SA, Renirie R. Unmasking AIDS: chemical immunosuppression and seronegative syphilis. Med Hypoth 1986; 21:421-430.
    ReplyDelete
  15. 16. Bell B. Treatise on gonorrhoea and lues venerea, Part 2. Albany: EF Backus, 1814: 84.

    17. Keyes EL. The veneral diseases. William Wood and Company, 1880: 174-204,218-230.

    18. Becker SW, Thatcher HW. Multiple idiopathic hemorrhagic sarcoma of Kaposi: historical review, nomenclature, theories relative to nature of disease, with experimental studies of two cases. J Invest Derm 1938; 1:379-398.

    19. Robinson HM. Practical dermatology and syphilis. Philadelphia: P. Blackison's Son and Company, 1939: 321.

    20. Becker SW, Obermayer ME. Modern Dermatology and syphilology. JB Lippincott Company, 1943.

    21. Stokes JH, Beerman H, Ingraham NR. Modern clinical syphilology, 3rd Ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1944.

    22. Nabarro D. Congenital syphilis. Edward Arnold Ltd, 1954: 328.

    23. Chandler FW, McClure HM, Campbell WG, Watts JC. Pulmonary pneumocystosis in nonhuman primates. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1976; 100:163-167.

    24. Sorensen PS, Nordenbo AM. Neurosyphilis in greater Copenhagen Denmark during the five year period 1974-1978. Ugeskrift For Laeger 1981: 2218.

    25. Hook EW III, Marra CM. Medical Progress: acquired syphilis in adults. N Engl J Med 1992; 326:1060-1069.

    26. Sparling PF. Diagnosis and treatment of syphilis. N Engl J Med 1971; 284:642-51.

    27. Felman YM, Nikitas JA. Syphilis serology today. Arch Dermatol 1980; 116:84-89.

    28. Smith JL. Spirochetes in late seronegative syphilis, penicillin not withstanding. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1969: 64.

    29. Diggory P. Role of the Venereal Disease Research Laboratory test in the detection of syphilis. Br J Vener Dis 1983; 59:8-10.

    30. Lauderdle V, Goldman JN. Serial ultrathin sectioning demonstrating the intracellularity of T. pallidum: an electron microscopic study. Br J Vener Dis 1972; 48:87-96.

    31. Sykes JA, Miller JN, Kalan AJ. Treponema pallidum within cells of a primary chancre from a human female. Br J Vener Dis 1974; 50:40-44.

    32. Fitzgerald TJ, Miller JN, Sykes JA. Treponema pallidum (Nichols strain) in tissue cultures: cellular attachment, entry, and survival. Infect Immun 1975; 11:1133-1140.
    ReplyDelete
  16. 33. Hand WL, King-Thompson NL. The entry of antibiotics into human monocytes. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989; 23:681-689.

    34. Hand WL, King-Thompson NL. Uptake of antibiotics by human polymorphonuclear leukocyte cytoplasts. Antimicrob Chemother 1990; 34:1189-1193.

    35. Mohr JA, Griffiths W, Jackson R, Saadah H, Bird P, Riddle J. Neurosyphilis and penicillin levels in cerebrospinal fluid. JAMA 1976; 236:2208-2209.

    36. van Eijk RVW, Wolters EC, Tutuarima JA, et al. Effect of early and late syphilis on central nervous system: cerebrospinal fluid changes and neurological deficit. Genitourin Med 1987; 63:77-82.

    37. Berry CD, Hooton TM, Collier AC, Lukehart SA. Neurologic relapse after benzathine penicillin therapy for secondary syphilis in a patient with HIV infection. N Engl J Med 1987; 316:1587-1589.

    38. Fernandez-Guerrero ML, Miranda C, Cenjor C, Sanabria F. (Letter) The treatment of neurosyphilis in patients with HIV infection. JAMA 1988; 259:1495-1496.

    39. Magnuson HJ, Eagle H, Fleischman R. The minimal infectious inoculum of Spirochaeta pallida (Nichols strain), and a consideration of its rate of multiplication in vivo. Am J Syph Gonor Vener Dis 1948; 32:1-18.

    40. Cumberland MC, Turner TB. The rate of multiplication of Treponema pallidum in normal and immune rabbits. Am J Syph Gonor Vener Dis 1949; 33:201-212.

    41. McDermott W. Microbial persistence. Yale J Biol Med 1958; 30:257-291.

    42. Smith JL. op. cit. 1969: 304.

    43. Smith JL. Spirochetes in late seronegative syphilis, despite penicillin therapy. Med Times 1968; 96:611-623.

    44. Tramont EC. Persistence of Treponema pallidum following penicillin G therapy. JAMA 1976; 236:2206-2207.

    45. Tramont EC. (Letter) Inadequate treatment of neurosyphilis with penicillin. N Engl J Med 1976; 294:1296.

    46. Greene BM, Miller NR, Bynum TE. Failure of penicillin G benzathine in the treatment of neurosyphilis. Arch Intern Med 1980; 140:1117-1118.

    47. Bayne LL, Schmidley JW, Goodin DS. Acute syphilitic meningitis: its occurrence after clinical and serological cure of secondary syphilis with penicillin G. Arch Neurol 1986; 43:137-138.

    48. Jorgensen J, Tikjob G, Kaare W. Neurosyphilis after treatment of latent syphilis with benzathine penicillin. Genitourin Med 1986; 62:129-131.

    49. Markovitz DM, Beutner KR, Maggio RP, Reichman RC. Failure of recommended treatment for secondary syphilis. JAMA 1986; 255:1767-1768.

    50. Fiumara NJ. (Letter) Failure of recommended treatment for secondary syphilis. JAMA 1986; 256:1443.

    51. Guinan ME. (Editorial) Treatment of primary and secondary syphilis: defining failure at three- and six-month follow-up. JAMA 1987; 257:359-360.

    52. MMWR Recommendations and Reports. 1989 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines. Centers for Disease Control 1989; 38(S8):5-15.

    53. Yim CW, Flynn NM, Fitzgerald FT. Penetration of oral doxycycline into the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with latent or neurosyphilis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1985; 28:347-348.

    54. Smego RA Jr, Moreadith RW, Kleist PC, Granger DL. Secondary syphilis masquerading as AIDS in a young gay male. NCMJ 1984; 45:253-254.

    55. Stroh JA. The 'great imitator' keeps up with the times. Hosp Prac 1986; 21(11):33,34,38.
    ReplyDelete
  17. This is an example of what I mean by not having the basics before you start speculating on details.

    The author, Bob Mitchell, is clearly unfamiliar with the pathology of HIV/AIDS at least, and possibly both conditions. What he describes as a "literature search" is nothing of the kind. A literature search involves a comprehensive survey of the studies in a field and an accurate summary of the totality of the evidence to date. What he's done is form a highly speculative hypothesis, and then cherry-pick various pieces of writing going back nearly two centuries to try to find bits to support his speculation. One of his "references" is a Treatise from 1814!

    Syphilis and HIV/AIDS are completely different diseases, each with a quite distinct natural history and pathology.

    One is an immune system disease characterised by progressive loss of CD4+ cell mediated immune function, culminating in a distinctive set of serious opportunistic infections by what are otherwise mostly common pathogens.

    The other is a chronic bacterial infection that produces granulomatous tumors called gummas particularly in the bones and joints, aorta and central nervous system.

    They are not alike at all. The symptoms in common like fever, lymphadenopathy and weight loss that you listed are non-specific features of just about any infectious syndrome, and quite a few non-infectious ones too, like various cancers and inflammatory conditions. The other list of various bodily symptoms is vague and non-specific, and isn't really characteristic of either syndrome.

    The other major problem with the speculative piece you copy-pasted from David Crowe's site is that there is not even a basic independent correlation between Treponema pallidum and the disease we know as HIV/AIDS.

    People with T. pallidum do not develop AIDS or anything that looks remotely like it to a trained eye unless they also have HIV. People with HIV develop AIDS (50% within a decade and 75% within 15 years), irrespective of whether they also have T. pallidum or not.

    In other words, the correlation between HIV and AIDS is high, independent of other known factors. The independent correlation between T. pallidum and AIDS is nil.

    The syphilis-AIDS hypothesis originated with a young New York physician called Steve Caiazza in the 1980s. This was a horrible time for a young gay doctor faced with a cruel and relentless disease that was cutting mostly young people down in their prime, and which medical science seemed powerless to stop. People were desperately searching for answers - any answers, no matter how "out there" or lacking in evidence. Like every other "alternative" approach, treating AIDS as if it were syphilis didn't work and had no evidence to support it. Caiazza himself died of AIDS in 1990, aged 46.

    I'm old enough to remember those awful times before there was effective (if imperfect) treatment for HIV/AIDS. It was horrible.

    That's one of the reasons I find the "AIDS dissidents" like David Crowe so frustrating - it's as if they have no memory or insight at all of what for many of us is recent history.
    ReplyDelete
  18. Well Dr. Sonnabend was there too... on the fron lines even... and His theories were/are substantially different than the mainstream.

    He saw many logical reasons for what those men were suffering... I am still looking into Syphillis... I did not get that study from David Crowes site though would not be surprised if it is there.

    And Syphillis does very well lead to immunosupression can hide and evade for over 20 years and can lead to death which is an HIV+ patient would be written off as AIDS... many of those symptoms are AIDS defining if you have low t-cells. (which even old age may contribute to)

    The one thing I have not seen... and maybe you can provide something here... Is perfectly healthy people diagnosed HIV+ who do not have a number of these factors dying of AIDS.

    These things you guys call co-infections, and opportunistic infections... there is proof that those same issues sometimes present the same results in non-positive people.

    Particularly when their true diagnosis is overlooked or ignored in the face of HIV positivity.

    Why couldn't you say that having CMV, Herpes, Syphillis, EBV, Gum Disease, and the numerous factors that seem to be involved in the ill diagnosed as AIDS as the true causes of their immune breakdown and death... (not to mention drug abuse, and other environmental factors)

    When AIDS diagnosed people not on drugs who are health conscious and do not have those factors live long times even with t-cells well below 200.

    There is a woman in my clinic who has had t-cells below 200 for over 10 years no viral load no other infections and is in perfect health. How do you explain that. And she has never taken an ARV.

    Why isn't anyone willing to consider that its the actualy build up of those factors... that is truly leading to the long term immunosuppression and death?

    Many of these things can cause illness and death on their own in the right circumstances how can we blame an elusive virus that rarely harms anyone without these other factors?

    And how do you explain that the many positives without those build ups of factors or who decided to take intiative on their health seemingly live long happy lives.

    And I am sorry but writing off people who die of cervical cancer, the many hard to diagnose auto-immune disorders, liver failure, and the numerous other factors that cause death in people over 50 these days is not suffecient for me to believe we are dealing with actual AIDS deaths rather than scape goats...that help numbers accumulate.

    And truly how do you explain the dramatic difference between patients at that time (the 80's) and patients today... and don't say the drugs... (though of course the use of the drugs back then could have further contributed to the ugliness of their deaths)

    I am speaking of the number of healthy people living with this alledged illness. The fact that it often takes 15 to 20 years for people to get sick... I am also sorry but I know a ton of sick people in their 50's who are not HIV+ so truly how do you explain that they died of HIV and not these other issues simply because of the long term abuse and lack of health...

    I mean really could you not logically say that in a person who is healthy and does not have numerous other issues that HIV is truly harmless?

    Anyways I do believe this discussion calls for another thread. We can start with the many many many things and contradictions that I have found in current mainstream science and go from there... I do appreciate your help. But I still have not recieved enough validation to clear up my confusion.

    Also as I said before I do not come to these conclusions based on the words of David Crowe or dissident sites. I spent two years exploring the databases of the NIH, NLM, and pub med... (and still continue to) which led me to understand that many of their points are correct... but we can start with the many things I have researched intensely that have brought me to where I stand today and go from there.
    ReplyDelete
  19. Joe Sonnabend (who is retired now) has been a fierce critic of some aspects of the scientific establishment, but to say his current thinking on AIDS is substantially different from the mainstream is plain wrong.

    He says: "Some individuals who believe that HIV plays no role at all in AIDS have implied that I support their misguided views on AIDS causation by including inappropriate references to me in their literature and on their web sites. Before HIV was discovered and its association with AIDS established, I held the entirely appropriate view that the cause of AIDS was then unknown. I have successfully treated hundreds of AIDS patients with antiretroviral medications, and have no doubt that HIV plays a necessary role in this disease."

    You are doing your "barrage of questions" thing again, but I'll try to pick out what I think is the nub of your question:

    "Why couldn't you say that having CMV, Herpes, Syphillis, EBV, Gum Disease, and the numerous factors that seem to be involved in the ill diagnosed as AIDS as the true causes of their immune breakdown and death... (not to mention drug abuse, and other environmental factors)"

    The short answer is that people with these factors (and pretty well everyone in the world has at least some of these) do not get the specific immune system disease AIDS and rarely anything that looks like it (progressive CD4+ immune supression leadiung to characteristic OIs)... unless they have HIV. No one of these factors, or even collection of these factors predicts AIDS. Only HIV infection does.

    One final point: you ask why people with AIDS do so much better now than people at an identical stage of health did back in the 80s. And you say "don't say it's the drugs". Why do you automatically dismiss the very explanation accepted by virtually every research scientist and clinician on the planet (including Joe Sonnabend)?
    ReplyDelete
  20. Because of the lack of evidence that HIV is actually responsible... and because of the evidence that points to the many reasons for CD4 cell decline that are unrelated to HIV... and often are because of treatments, or abuse, if not compiling issues... and not simply ARVS alone. I am looking at how certain common OI's are treated in positives and how some of those treatments cause CD4 cell decline and are immunosupressive, playing a major role in why some people progress to AIDS... it is truly interesting... you can help me on that topic... very soon...
    ReplyDelete
  21. @ still trying ,

    Youtube "Andy Lindsay true hiv story wmv"

    You are so busted !
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)