Re: PJ and AIDS

From: Kamilla Ludwig (kamillal@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sun Jan 02 2000 - 02:46:14 EST

  • Next message: glenn morton: "Re: PJ and AIDS"

    Joel,

    I haven't visited the website yet, but it's nice to know I'm not the only crank
    out there who doesn't believe the HIV/AIDS myth :-)

    Peter Duesberg, a retrovirologist and member of the National Academy of
    Sciences has done some work on this. But they won't publish him in their
    journal. Also, a physiology professor from Michigan, Robert Root- wrote quite
    a good book on this a few years ago. He posited a Root-Bernstein model. His
    work made a lot of sense to me.

    The HIV/AIDS theory never made sense to me. I always thought virus A caused
    disease A. But with AIDS it manifests itself differently in the States than it
    does in Africa and I can't think of any other single virus that does that. And
    then there's the whole problem with shifting definitions, some diseases are now
    considered to be part of the AIDS constellation that weren't before and some
    other diseases are now "out". And you could present two patients with the
    exact same diseases, symptoms, histories and T-cell counts - the whole works
    but if one tested positive for HIV antibodies and the other didn't, only one
    would get the "AIDS" diagnosis.

    Oh well, I'm just a crank with a B.S. and no retrovirology experience.

    Kamilla

    Joel Duff wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I am wondering if there was any discussion of the following letter to
    > Science in 1995. I just ran accross this today and what caught my eye was
    > one of the people that signed this complaint. I have not followed the
    > AIDS literature very closely. Is there anyone out there that has followed
    > the story close enough that they are aware of this group "Group for the
    > Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis?" I keep up on current
    > literature so I could imagine that if there was no evidence that the HIV
    > virus was the causitive agent it would appear to PJ that this was yet
    > another example of the scientific community putting its blinders. Reading
    > the material on the web site there is much language there that sounds like
    > PJs writing so I wasn't too surprised to find his name attached.
    > Interesting his seems to be the only name of a non-scientist and I wonder
    > how he became involved.
    >
    > Just trying to kick of the new millenium with another hot topic.
    >
    > TTFN,
    > Joel Duff
    >
    > http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data2/letterscience.htm
    > Begin quote:
    >
    > AIDS PROPOSAL
    >
    > The following letter was published in Science (17 Feb. 1995, vol.267
    > pp.945-946):
    >
    > In 1991, we, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the
    > HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, became dissatisfied
    > with the state of the evidence that the human immunodeficiency
    > virus (HIV) did, in fact, cause AIDS.
    >
    > Specifically, we have proposed that researchers independent of
    > the HIV establishment should audit the
    > Centers for Disease Control's records of AIDS cases, bearing in
    > mind that the correlation of HIV with
    > AIDS, upon which the case for HIV causation rests, is itself an
    > artefact of the definition of AIDS. Since
    > 1985, exactly the same diseases or conditions have been defined
    > as "AIDS" when antibodies are present,
    > and as "non-AIDS" when HIV and antibodies are absent.
    > Independent professional groups such as the
    > Society of Actuaries should be invited to nominate members for
    > an independent commission to
    > investigate the following question: How frequently do
    > AIDS-defining diseases (or low T cell counts)
    > occur in the absence of HIV? Until we have a definition of AIDS
    > that is independent of HIV, the
    > supposed correlation of HIV and AIDS is mere tautology.
    >
    > Other independent researchers should examine the validity of the
    > so-called "AIDS tests," especially
    > when these tests are used in Africa and Southern Asia, to see if
    > they reliably record the presence of
    > antibodies, let alone live and replicating virus.
    >
    > The bottom line is this: the skeptics are eager to see the
    > results of independent scientific testing. Those
    > who uphold the HIV "party line" have so far refused. We object.
    >
    > Eleen Baumann
    > Tom Bethell
    > Harvey Bialy
    > Peter H. Duesberg
    > Celia Farber
    > Charles L. Geshekter
    > Phillip E. Johnson
    > Robert W. Maver
    > Russell Schoch
    > Gordon T. Stewart
    > Richard C. Strohman
    > Charles A. Thomas Jr.
    >
    > For the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the
    > HIV/AIDS Hypothesis.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 02 2000 - 02:57:37 EST