AIDS debate - Most Controversial Story You've Never Heard

Nurses Activism

Published

I thought this was fascinating and wondered if anyone here had read it?

http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_aidsdebate.html

Here is an excerpt:

Prologue

In 1984, Robert Gallo, a government cancer-virologist, called an international press conference to announce that he'd found the probable cause of AIDS. He claimed that a retrovirus called HIV was destroying the immune systems of young gay men and IV drug abusers, leaving them open to a variety of both viral diseases and cancer.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AIDS is not a single disease, but rather a category of 29 unrelated, previously-known conditions including herpes, yeast infections, salmonella, diarrhea, fever, flus, TB, pelvic cancer in women, pneumonia and bacterial infections. The CDC also designates HIV- positive people who aren't sick, but have a T-cell count below 200, as AIDS patients (T-cells are a subset of white blood cells). The only thing that separates an AIDS diagnosis from any of these conditions is a positive HIV test, which itself is based on Robert Gallo's research.

Gallo's HIV theory, however, was not the only AIDS theory, and according to a growing number of concerned scientists, researchers and activists, it wasn't the best. For 70 years before Gallo, retroviruses were known to be a non-toxic part of the cell, and no single virus could simultaneously cause a viral disease like pneumonia, in which cells are destroyed, and a cancer like Kaposi's Sarcoma, in which cells multiply rapidly.

These scientists argue that Gallo's unified HIV/AIDS theory is flawed and that treating 29 unrelated diseases with extremely toxic AIDS drugs like AZT and protease inhibitors is at best irresponsible and at worse medical genocide.

They may have a point. Ninety-four percent of all AIDS-related deaths in the US occurred after the introduction of AZT, according to CDC statistics through the year 2000. And according to the University of Pittsburgh, the No. 1 cause of death in US AIDS patients today is liver failure, a side-effect of the new protease inhibitors.

The questions arise: Did Gallo truly solve the AIDS riddle, and are we treating AIDS humanely and effectively?

To answer these questions, I spoke with three prominent AIDS researchers.

Dr. Peter Duesberg is a chemist and retroviral expert. Duesberg discovered the Oncogene (cancer gene) and isolated the retroviral genome (of which HIV is one) in 1970. He is professor of molecular biology at UC Berkeley.

Dr. David Rasnick is a protease specialist and has been in AIDS research for 20 years. He and Duesberg work in collaboration on cancer and AIDS research. Rasnick was an advisor on President Mbeki's South African AIDS panel.

Dr. Rodney Richards is a chemist who worked with Amgen and Abbot labs, designing the first HIV tests from Robert Gallo's HIV cell line.

There is a group in San Francisco (ACT UP)that promotes the view that HIV and AIDS are not related. They convince people not to take the medications saying it's the meds causing the illness. They are also dying off at an alarming rate. Before the meds came out the death rate in SF was staggering. Now that many therapies are available, the death rate is falling. Viral loads are becomming undetectable. People are getting back to work. I've seen first hand how effective viral therapy is. Don't let some quack article fool you into dismissing valid scientific studies.

JasmineTea, thanks for a good article.

I could appreciate the so-called "debunkers" a bit more if they would interact with some of the researchers who've worked for years on the anomalies around the AIDS/HIV theories. Specifically, Duesburg, but also Robert Root-Bernstein in his book Re-Thinking AIDS. Instead, there seems to be a whole group of people who think they are rebutting alternative AIDS theories by laughing at researchers who raise serious questions about the HIV theory. The questioners may be wrong; that's part of scientific research, but asking questions, refusing to prematurely settle on an answer: those are serious parts of research as well.

Jim Huffman, RN

Specializes in Urgent Care.
They may have a point. Ninety-four percent of all AIDS-related deaths in the US occurred after the introduction of AZT, according to CDC statistics through the year 2000.

Hold up on that one batman, That is a very misleading statement. That is NO WAY to correalate AZT usage to the death rate of AIDS pt's. simply stating that "this" followed "that" does not establish a relationship between "this" and "that".

Did you realize that 90% percent of all deaths in the last decade have occured within 30 days of eating carrots? but I dont think that eating carrots caused the deaths. That is not the scientific method, that's first year of any science education (associate or bachelor)

I would correalate the fact that Ninety-four percent of all AIDS-related deaths in the US occurred after the introduction of AZT, more with the fact that aids takes many years to show in HIV infected persons, and many more years to die. HIV/Aids was "discovered" in the very early 80's, so 94% of deaths after the intro of azt (1988?) I would expect that 94% of death occured in this time, even if AZT lengthens life this would still be true (depending on average length). do the math.

Also what percent of aids dx's where made after the intro of AZT, not mentioned of course.

there is far more literature that supports azt helping than not. its easy to find (google). I dont think that this article outweighs the bulk of the published literature.

this would seem like taking healthcare info from Good housekeeping (or star, cosmo, us or anyother mass market mag)

Hey Y'all

Yer ol' Papaw was a Nurse before there was a disease called AIDS. I have lived with the disease about as much as anyone can who's not either studying it or suffering from it. This thread lead me to google the topic: "infectious disease hiv aids skeptics". It was a trip down memory lane.

The three diagnostic labels that lead to the original suspicion that a new immune-deficiency was loose in the world have become familiar: Kaposi's Sarcoma, PCP and Disseminated Mycobacterian Avian Complex. It's important to remember that these were amazingly RARE, almost unheard of, before 1980. Kaposi's was only known in Mediterranean old men and a few immune-suppressed unfortunates. After 10yrs (roughly '84 to '95), it had increased OVER 2,000% among unmarried young men in SanFrancisco.

Pneumocystius Pneumonia is a very widespead organism. Virtually anyone can be exposed. But prior to '67 only 107 cases had EVER been diagnosed in the USA. By '94, that number was 127,000.

Disseminated Mycobacteria Avian Complex is also a common bug. But prior to '81 there were only 32 documented cases in the US ever. By '94 that number was about 30,000.

When I was in school and was myself a baby nurse, there was a group of Pt's that were common in hospitals. Hemophiliacs would come in with bleeding disorders and receive 'clotting factors'. Has anyone seen a hemophiliac lately?

AIDS changed everything in the hospital like the terrorist attacks of 11 Sept 01 did for the military.

By following demographics, it was quickly determined that the causative agent followed the same pathway that Hepatitis B did--blood-borne, sexual contact and Mother-Infant. Research quickly turned to retroviruses. It didn't take long for likely contagious viruses to turn up--first there were several names and confusion. We had HTLV and ARV and a couple of others.

Then in '86 a big global conference combined three viruses that had been shown to kill the T-Lymphocyte "CD4 +" and the label HIV was hung on them.

Archives of old blood specimens were canvassed and it showed that HIV first appeared in blood in the US in the mid '70's. It was found in clotting factor VIII in '78, for instance. So we nurses were giving our hemophiliac pts the HIV virus unknowingly for almost 10 years before we had a test to discover it. How about that, boys and girls?

But some HIV + people seemed NEVER to get AIDs. How's that happening? They were naturally studied thoroughly. There were two things that seemed to be going on: They did not drop their CD4 + levels and they did not increase their VIRAL LOAD. There proved to be a direct relationship between these two factors and the development of AIDs symptoms.

There is a golden rule of medical/biological researchers called "Koch's Postulates". Basically, before a microorganism can be proven to cause a disease 4 standards of proof have to exist: 1) It is found in every case of the disease. 2) It can be isolated and grown in pure cultures. 3) When given to an uninfected host, it causes the same disease. And 4) it can then be found in the 2d host.

The horrible truth is that WE NURSES (and lab techs) have proven Koch's postulates apply to HIV. We got exposed to the virus thru needle sticks, grew the virus, developed AIDS and supplied blood showing that HIV was the difference between previous good health and post exposure AIDS.

Now AIDS/HIV skeptics infiltrate the internet like second-hand smoke. They assert that bad behavior leads to AIDs--not a preventable infection. They focus on drug users for instance. But CD4 counts of HIV-Negative IV drug abusers have been shown to NOT GO DOWN. And in Pts with HIV related CD4CD4 suppression, no difference could be found between IV drug abusers and Non-IV druggies. The deniers also blame sexual promescuity, as though THAT never existed before 1980!!! But there is no record of AIDs in (for instance) prostitutes before HIV.

Dr Duesburg is revered by the deniers, I've learned. A quote I found: "...we always knew...about retroviruses--that they don't kill cells."

Now anyone is welcome to an opinion. But no one is welcome to ignore evidence. And when Dr Duesburg with his academic background addresses a College aged group and tells them (the most sexually active demographic) that AIDS is NOT and infectous disease....well, some people think there is a Judge we will all meet someday, and I would not want to be in Dr Duesburg's shoes on THAT day.

Thanx for your attention

Papaw John

Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
There is a group in San Francisco (ACT UP)that promotes the view that HIV and AIDS are not related. They convince people not to take the medications saying it's the meds causing the illness. They are also dying off at an alarming rate. Before the meds came out the death rate in SF was staggering. Now that many therapies are available, the death rate is falling. Viral loads are becomming undetectable. People are getting back to work. I've seen first hand how effective viral therapy is. Don't let some quack article fool you into dismissing valid scientific studies.

Great post.

Specializes in PeriOp, ICU, PICU, NICU.

Very interesting article indeed.

Has it occured to any of the aids sceptics on this board that the posts you are making may cause someone with an hiv infection not to take their coctail? Or maybe to continue unsafe sexual contact or whatnot?

Specializes in ORTHOPAEDICS-CERTIFIED SINCE 89.
Has it occured to any of the aids sceptics on this board that the posts you are making may cause someone with an hiv infection not to take their coctail? Or maybe to continue unsafe sexual contact or whatnot?

No I would not read it that way. This is a board dedicated to Nursing for and by Nurses.

I would hope that just like anything else read on the internet someone coming across this board would read all sides and form their own opinions. Why do you think it would be otherwise?

Specializes in Critical Care.
Hey Y'all

Yer ol' Papaw was a Nurse before there was a disease called AIDS. I have lived with the disease about as much as anyone can who's not either studying it or suffering from it. This thread lead me to google the topic: "infectious disease hiv aids skeptics". It was a trip down memory lane.

The three diagnostic labels that lead to the original suspicion that a new immune-deficiency was loose in the world have become familiar: Kaposi's Sarcoma, PCP and Disseminated Mycobacterian Avian Complex. It's important to remember that these were amazingly RARE, almost unheard of, before 1980. Kaposi's was only known in Mediterranean old men and a few immune-suppressed unfortunates. After 10yrs (roughly '84 to '95), it had increased OVER 2,000% among unmarried young men in SanFrancisco.

Pneumocystius Pneumonia is a very widespead organism. Virtually anyone can be exposed. But prior to '67 only 107 cases had EVER been diagnosed in the USA. By '94, that number was 127,000.

Disseminated Mycobacteria Avian Complex is also a common bug. But prior to '81 there were only 32 documented cases in the US ever. By '94 that number was about 30,000.

When I was in school and was myself a baby nurse, there was a group of Pt's that were common in hospitals. Hemophiliacs would come in with bleeding disorders and receive 'clotting factors'. Has anyone seen a hemophiliac lately?

AIDS changed everything in the hospital like the terrorist attacks of 11 Sept 01 did for the military.

By following demographics, it was quickly determined that the causative agent followed the same pathway that Hepatitis B did--blood-borne, sexual contact and Mother-Infant. Research quickly turned to retroviruses. It didn't take long for likely contagious viruses to turn up--first there were several names and confusion. We had HTLV and ARV and a couple of others.

Then in '86 a big global conference combined three viruses that had been shown to kill the T-Lymphocyte "CD4 +" and the label HIV was hung on them.

Archives of old blood specimens were canvassed and it showed that HIV first appeared in blood in the US in the mid '70's. It was found in clotting factor VIII in '78, for instance. So we nurses were giving our hemophiliac pts the HIV virus unknowingly for almost 10 years before we had a test to discover it. How about that, boys and girls?

But some HIV + people seemed NEVER to get AIDs. How's that happening? They were naturally studied thoroughly. There were two things that seemed to be going on: They did not drop their CD4 + levels and they did not increase their VIRAL LOAD. There proved to be a direct relationship between these two factors and the development of AIDs symptoms.

There is a golden rule of medical/biological researchers called "Koch's Postulates". Basically, before a microorganism can be proven to cause a disease 4 standards of proof have to exist: 1) It is found in every case of the disease. 2) It can be isolated and grown in pure cultures. 3) When given to an uninfected host, it causes the same disease. And 4) it can then be found in the 2d host.

The horrible truth is that WE NURSES (and lab techs) have proven Koch's postulates apply to HIV. We got exposed to the virus thru needle sticks, grew the virus, developed AIDS and supplied blood showing that HIV was the difference between previous good health and post exposure AIDS.

Now AIDS/HIV skeptics infiltrate the internet like second-hand smoke. They assert that bad behavior leads to AIDs--not a preventable infection. They focus on drug users for instance. But CD4 counts of HIV-Negative IV drug abusers have been shown to NOT GO DOWN. And in Pts with HIV related CD4CD4 suppression, no difference could be found between IV drug abusers and Non-IV druggies. The deniers also blame sexual promescuity, as though THAT never existed before 1980!!! But there is no record of AIDs in (for instance) prostitutes before HIV.

Dr Duesburg is revered by the deniers, I've learned. A quote I found: "...we always knew...about retroviruses--that they don't kill cells."

Now anyone is welcome to an opinion. But no one is welcome to ignore evidence. And when Dr Duesburg with his academic background addresses a College aged group and tells them (the most sexually active demographic) that AIDS is NOT and infectous disease....well, some people think there is a Judge we will all meet someday, and I would not want to be in Dr Duesburg's shoes on THAT day.

Thanx for your attention

Papaw John

Very educated and illuminating.

Thanks Papaw.

~faith,

Timothy.

Has it occured to any of the aids sceptics on this board that the posts you are making may cause someone with an hiv infection not to take their coctail? Or maybe to continue unsafe sexual contact or whatnot?

Most of the AIDS/HIV skeptics -- while not seeing a connection between the HIV virus and the syndrome -- see a large connection between the syndrome and unsafe sexual practices. This is especially true with Robert Root-Bernstein, who deals with that aspect at length in his book Re-Thinking AIDS

And as far as not taking their "coctail" [sic], we would do well to remind ourselves that science doesn't advance without people asking questions, and making changes in treatments: including their own. Anyone who takes any treatment -- of whatever variety -- without thinking through the issue is doing themselves a disservice.

Jim Huffman, RN

Specializes in Critical Care.
Most of the AIDS/HIV skeptics -- while not seeing a connection between the HIV virus and the syndrome -- see a large connection between the syndrome and unsafe sexual practices. This is especially true with Robert Root-Bernstein, who deals with that aspect at length in his book Re-Thinking AIDS

And as far as not taking their "coctail" [sic], we would do well to remind ourselves that science doesn't advance without people asking questions, and making changes in treatments: including their own. Anyone who takes any treatment -- of whatever variety -- without thinking through the issue is doing themselves a disservice.

Jim Huffman, RN

Since the advent of the cocktails, the number of AIDS pts I take care of have fallen off dramatically.

And the ones I do tend to take care of these days - I do so for the other multi-system failures that plague humanity (such as renal failure) as much as for ARC.

I'd call that compelling.

If I was diagnosed w/ HIV today, I'd be taking the cocktail tomorrow. . .

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in ER.
there never has been any research that supports the notion that HIV causes AIDS or that AIDS is even a disease. .

That's why no one calls it a disease- it's a syndrome. A group of symptoms that happen to occur together.(Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome)

+ Add a Comment