Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The non-existent knobs on "HIV" particles 17 August 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Christopher Tyler,
n/a
84043

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The non-existent knobs on "HIV" particles

Christopher Noble wrote:

"The critical factor is HIV!" and, 'Clearly HIV status is the critical factor. Figure 2'

Again, to quote the Stanford paper, "clinical studies presented here directly demonstrate that low GSH levels predict poor survival in otherwise indistinguishable HIV-infected subjects. Specifically, we show that GSH deficiency in CD4 T cells from such subjects is associated with markedly decreased survival"

From Table 1:

'Uninfected':
Mean GSH 1.24 (0.31 SD)
Median CD4 T cells/µl 730

'Infected' CD4 >200:
Mean GSH 1.05 (0.25 SD)
Median CD4 T cells/µl 356

'Infected' CD4 <200:
Mean GSH .88 (0.29 SD)
Median CD4 T cells/µl 72

The 'uninfected' control group had overal much higher T-cell counts and higher glutathione levels. In order to determine if 'HIV' is THE factor, proper controls would need to have been used. The Control group used was deemed appropriate only by virtue of not having had antibodies that reacted on the 'HIV' antibody test. These researchers, like so many others, make an assumption that an antibody reaction is proof of infection.

A more precise control group would need to have been matched for sex, T- cell count, GSH levels, and clinical and behavioral history to determine if only the 'HIV positive' group had a higher mortality rate when matched to GSH levels.

Regarding the control group the authors state, 'Uninfected control subjects were similar in age to the HIV-infected group. About half were laboratory personnel; the remainder lived in the vicinity of the HIV-infected subjects.' If one considers that the largest group of individuals (in the West) associated with a positive antibody test are gay men, and the majority of the 'infected' cohort were men, the control group would need to have been exposed to similar conditions to those with which these men historically have been. Risk factors such as drug use would need to have been accounted for since they are oxidizing agents.

As Peter Duesberg points out:

"A survey of 3,916 self-identified American homosexual men, the largest of its kind, reports in 1990 that 83% had used one, and about 60% two or more drugs with sex during the previous 6 months [91]. These drugs include nitrite- and ethyichloride inhalants, cocaine, amphetamines, methaqualone, lysergic acid, phenylcyclidine, and more [2, 10, 27, 56, 70, 91, 96, 97, 100, 101, 112, 120, 126]. A study of a group of 359 homosexual men from San Francisco reported in 1987 that 84% had used cocaine, 82% alkylnitrites, 64% amphetamines, 51% quaaludes, 41% barbiturates, 20% injected drugs and 13% shared needles [27]." (1)

Shor-Posner G et al. say, “Cocaine-induced oxidative stress appears to involve decreased glutathione and lipid peroxidation..."(2) Especially considering Cocaine has a negative impact on the immune system in and of itself(3), the control group would need to be matched to history of cocaine (and other drug) use as in the 'infected' group.

In addition, because nitrite inhalants have often been associated with gay men, and these are known, potent oxidising agents, the control group would need to have been exposed equally. This is an especially important variable since 'the percentage of female subjects was higher (30%) in the control group.' Straight females are not a known group of people associated with the long term use of nitrite inhalants.

The control group would also need to be matched to antiretroviral use. The study states 'stable (or no) antiretroviral therapy for the previous 4 months (protease inhibitors had not been introduced when these data were collected).' Since AZT and the other nucleoside analogs are potent oxidising agents, this is a critical variable to control for.

Finally, the study would need to be done blind.

Christopher Noble said:
"Even the Perth Group admit that testing positive for HIV is the critical factor."

It is true that the 'HIV' test can, like Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) test, be reactive in people who have a propensity to develop and die from various diseases(4). If one considers the wide array of conditions known to cause the 'HIV' test to be positive, this is no great mystery (5). But certainly illnesses classified as 'AIDS' defining illnesses happen in the absence of 'HIV'.

Christopher Noble wrote:
"And you still haven't explained why you used this paper to argue that HIV doesn't exist and doesn't cause AIDS while not carrying through the same logic and applying it to influenza."

What is sufficient for one virus may not be for another. This paper was used as a 'line of evidence' to show that a prediction of the Oxidative Stress theory of AIDS has been fulfilled, that is, glutathione deficiency in the 'AIDS' risk groups is associated with morbidity and mortality. Really quite simple.

Unlike Influenza, people who are given a dubious 'HIV' antibody test and 'diagnosis' of 'HIV infection' are told to go on health-compromising 'therapies' for life, regardless of whether they are sick or not. Considering data has been accumulating well over the past decade that oxidation plays a central role in 'HIV'/AIDS, and data has also accumulated showing reducing agents both decrease expression of 'HIV' and increase probability of survival and health, why have there not been public campaigns to promote this information?

As a gay man, I've seen the fear wash over other gay men as they were told they had 5 to 7 years left before they descended into AIDS. I've seen healthy men go on these 'life-saving' therapies and progressively experience the body deformations and ill-health associated with them. I've been to the circuit parties where a thousand men dance until 5 in the morning while bombed out of the brains on cocktails of drugs including Special K, Ecstacy, GHB, Cocaine, crystal meth, poppers, and more. Because of 'HIV' hysteria these men are spoken of only in terms of their being 'at risk' for 'HIV' infection. Their real health risks have been ignored in favor of insisting any health problems are the result of a retrovirus that no one can seem to find in fresh blood.

When a friend developed a serious illness last year (MAC), his doctors insisted he have an 'HIV' test because, of course, he was a gay man. When it came back positive (by whatever criteria they used) he was told his health problems were the result of 'HIV'. Let's not worry that 'HIV' tests cross-react with antibodies directed against Mycobacterium Avium infection.

When I inquired about his past, knowing he had done some partying he said:

"The drugs I did - geez, that's a scary list! I had my foot in the underground rave culture so drugs like ecstacy, mushrooms, nitrous oxide, and LSD come to mind.  As recently as four years ago I experimented with the Shulgin psychoactives TCT2, TCT7, 5MEODIPT that were being sold online. But even worse, I at times had my other foot in the underground sex club culture. Those drugs included the usual: crystal meth and poppers, primarily. I could tell those things were destroying me from inside, no doubt about it. It's a good thing I'm not having children because I'd probably beget deformed mutants!

My sex club romps could easily turn into a full two days of sex, drug consumption, and no food.  I have a journal that records the flu-like symptoms that usually followed. But each time I blew it off, and in a few weeks or months I'd go again with a slightly more serious illness ensuing. Four years ago I developed a flu-like illness that lasted six weeks after a binge. But even that wasn't enough to stop me. Now I'm left wondering if I've just blown myself to bits and there is no recovery possible!"

And so I again ask Christopher Noble, given that depleted glutathione levels predict morbidity and mortality, what is the rational for using a drug like AZT, which is a potent oxidizing agent, in people already at risk for such depletion? And please consider the fact that in order for AZT to have antiretroviral properties it must be converted into its active metabolite, AZTTP. Given that AZT to AZZTP does not occur at near sufficient levels to inhibit reverse transcription, and given that the strong toxicities of this 'therapy' are so very well documented, why is it being used?

1. Peter Duesberg, 'The role of drugs in the origin of AIDS', Biomed & Pharmacother, Vol.46, pp.2-15, 1992
2. Shor-Posner G et al. Neuroprotection in HIV-positive drug users: implications for antioxidant therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002 Oct 1;31 Suppl 2:S84-8.
3. Halpern, J.H., et al. Diminished interleukin-6 response to proinflammatory challenge in men and women after intravenous cocaine administration. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 88(3):1188-1193, 2003.
4. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epdarby.htm
5. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjtestfp.htm

Competing interests: None declared