It is not crystal clear at all, because the AIDS risks cause AIDS,
not HIV. These AIDS risks have for decades damaged immune recall, and always will.
Presumably these risks he refers to are the usual IV drug use (sharing of needles), unsafe sexual practices etc. These also cause HIV. Try again.
HIV is ancient.
Evidence?
We know from the haemophiliacs that purification of,
and eventual replacement of, the native-derived factor treatments, stopped the AIDS process in these men.
Considering haemophilia is due to a deficiency in clotting factors rather than a defect in the immune system, I find that hard to believe. Perhaps a bit of evidence instead of his say so would help.
Quick note - he does mention this later on. Initially he seemed to mean that (his prefered ) HIV treatment in those with HIV and haemophilia also destroyed their clotting factors, a potentially deadly side effect. Hence his statement about needing clotting factor replacement. Later on however he just comes out and says it, that haemophilia is a co-factor for HIV, ie it just boggles the mind.
Now out of embarrassment, the haematologists
conveniently forget all their good work in the 88 - 94 period with immune
column adherance, and non-native products, and suddenly attribute the
reversal to good health in these folks to the anti-HIV meds - BS (bad
science) I feel. The cytokines killed these people back then - low mol
weight polypeptides that cross filters, enter (and activate or kill) cells,
cross immune barriers, and resist DNA-asing purification. Only proteinasing
techniques can get the cytokines out, but this high heat wrecks the needed
clotting factor(s) too. It does work for BSE eg by autoclaving the prions -
the self-replicating proteins that cause mad cow disease.
Ok. Lets try and sort out the medico-babble. Cytokines are basically signalling molecules. They are implicated in several diseases, with the idea is if we work out which cytokine does what, and we can stop its signalling we might be able to treat the disease.
By immune barriers he presumably means physical barriers to infection, for example skin. Of course cytokines won't be stopped by these barriers because they are secreted by cells already beyond the barrier.
Note - I did a quick google search just to see if there is another meaning - which seem to include immune mechanism causing transplant rejection (which clearly is a different concept altogether).
Polypeptides are molecules with certain number of amino acids. When you get enough AA it becomes more than a peptide, and becomes a protein.
Dna-asing purification. Ok adding the suffix "ase" in enzymes after the enzyme / substance name refers to breaking down a target. So for example DNAasing would be refering to breaking down DNA. Why he thinks this would significant that it can't break down cytokines seems a bit strange to my limited knowledge since cytokines are polypeptides and not DNA. But hey, maybe AV can correct me.
Any way he seems to be saying that its not HIV per se killing our immune cells, its cytokines (which are normally secreted by cells but can be done so inappropriately in several autoimmune diseases). Is he saying AIDS is an autoimmune disease?
He then implies that proteinasing techniques (breaking down protein) in haemophiliacs with AIDS improved outcome, as long as you replace their deficient clotting factors which are further destroyed by said techniques. Since he describes using "great heat" to do these proteinasing techniques, presumably they involve drawing out the patients blood and heating the blood drawn out then putting it back in (in a similar vein to dialysis). Again we need his evidence that these techniques cured AIDS in haemophiliacs.
I am not sure why he needed to add that part about mad cow's disease (note that human equivalent is Crejford- Jacob disease, yes my spelling is totally wrong). It seems a bit strange he would mention BSE instead of CJD, especially since autoclaving (a method used to sterilise medical equipment by heating them to high temperatures. Do farmers even need to sterilise farming equipment after coming in contact with a BSE cow). Perhaps he did it to make him seem more knowledgeable.
Note CJD is not a bacterial or virus. He is correct in that he mentions its a prion, which is basically an "infectious protein", ie this protein can somehow alter similar structure proteins to take on its structure hence spreading the disease, in a vaguely analogous manner to how viruses spread by tricking the body's cells to make more of it.
And besides, KS was reported in many gay men in New York City in the 80s who
did not have positive HIV serology. It is true that the KS was worse in the
HIV cases, as was TB reactivation. But HIV may also be a background marker
for a health challenge - did you know that 18% of dying persons who were not
in any traditional AIDS risk group, became HIV(+) near to their passing? Bob
Gallo told Colman Jones in 1998 on the phone, that HIV may be only a marker
for AIDS risks, and Bob just invited me to a small meeting at his university
in Maryland. We shall see where this may go. We get along well.
1) There is a window period of 3 months for detecting HIV, ie there may be up to a 3 month period after exposure before HIV is detectable by our current methods.
2) Even if KS was in men who didn't have HIV, what does that prove. Unless these men where high in number vs those with HIV and KS its going to be hard to show the latter is statisitically insignificant.
You seem to believe in HIV infection. What do you mean by "infection" - a
positive antibody test? for "neutralising antibody" might I add, according
to many experts in both camps.
Presumably either a positive antibody test (taking into account the window period) or some other method. Perhaps PCR, although its not commercially available (but presumably would be a more accurate test than standard serology)
And no quantifiable virus in the density
gradient, as per Montagnier and de Harven, among many.
What is this supposed to show?
How do you account
for all the completely healthy HIV cases who refuse the meds?
Geez, how about HIV takes time to "kick in" as it is. I should also point out some people are virtually immune to some strains since HIV requires co-receptors eg CCR5 to enter the cell, and some people are deficient in these co-receptors. Fun fact, some new HIV drugs are made to inhibit these co-receptors eg Maraviroc, Vicriviroc. Hey look, I can chuck big medical jargon in to make me look knowledgeable too.
How do you
account for the "deadly" HIV strains isolated in Toronto, but when infused
into paediatric patients at our Sick Kids hospital, did no harm at all? Ask
Stan Read about these seven young persons, now in their twenties. Try that
with hep A or B!
I can only assume that these strains were infused into paediatric patients by mistake, otherwise it boggles the mind that he thinks medical professions would deliberately infuse HIV into kids. But please provide evidence for this claim about kids which were infused with HIV and are perfectly healthy. Whats the betting if this is true these kids were on anti-retroviral drugs?
And he got caught out with his medical jargon to try and make him look smart.
1) hepatitis A is not transmitted via blood but via the faecal oral route through contaminated food and water. So his line about if we infused hep A is ludicrous.
2) Secondly hepatitis B if you catch it as a kid, you can continue to be relatively healthy adults (complications will eventually develop, but hep B takes a long time to do the damage). He is possibly confusing with catching hepatitis B as an adult, where you present acutely unwell.
How can you believe in HIV even a bit when all the thirty-plus vaccine
trials have zero efficacy against the syndrome itself? There is no other
disease like this on our planet - so let's just re-write all the vaccinology
and natural immunity stuff to explain those neutralising antibodies to HIV -
thank god I have a good medical education - my sense of humour.
Because so far we have failed to successfully vaccinate against HIV therefore its not a real virus? WTF?
HIV genes move/mutate rather slowly, except for outer particles like
the GP
120 and the V3 loop. Don Francis tried to zero in on the V3 loop and
his
vaccine was a big zero, like all the efforts in humans. Donald ws a CDC
epidemiologist, and should have stuck to that! If HIV mutated as fast
as the
"experts" claim, it would mutate right out of AIDS asap!
Wrong. HIV mutates faster because as a retrovirus it uses RNA instead of DNA to store is genetic code. RNA replication in HIV lacks the usual proofreading mechanisms of DNA replication which must mean it makes more mistakes and hence mutates faster.
The fact that its difficult to develop a vaccine supports the contention that it mutates fast. Why does he think we have to "update" the flu vaccine every year. Because the flu mutates through a process called antigenic drift.
And his statement about HIV mutating right out of AIDS seems to indicate he thinks evolution is something right out of Pokemon. HIV evolves into....
Arguing from a
few
star phylogenies, such as seen in gay men, in no way proves HIV is a
recent
arrival in humankind. It proves that gay men started to get very sick
in
1978-80, and the virus could therefore kick in.
For his competing theory to work, he needs to show evidence of earlier HIV presence. Good luck.
Recall I mentioned all
the
natural immunity stuff in "priming studies". I am not name dropping.
Clerici, Shearer, Tsoukas, and Bernard are people I talk to, and they
have
plenty on the Web. Luc is a very old colleague, and very open-minded.
Without being aware of the context of the conversation, its kind of hard for me to get what he is hinting at.
I also said that I am not of the opinion that HIV is harmless. The
various
co-factors are necessary, I would claim, in causing HIV-exposed persons
sero-convert to chronic active HIV infection, and even to get sick, as
opposed to the latent HIV infection documented by innate and DTH
studies,
authors cited above.
Its known that HIV weakens the immune system and leads one to be vulnerable to other diseases. If he is claiming the otherway round, he needs to provide evidence, and if HIV is clearly important enough that in the presence of these co-factors to be significant, why has he gone to all that effort previously to dismiss its significance. Is this someone trying to have his cake and eat it too? I note a similar debating tactic used by holocaust deniers - we don't deny Jews were killed, we just deny it was that bad as our opponents claim.
I tried to explain that HIV *may* be only a marker
for
immune shifting, and therefore all the other AIDS risks you mention. At
best, being colonised with HIV is rather more common than serologic
tests
would indicate, and HIV may be necessary for AIDS if and when it gets
activated to the chronic active stage by the various AIDS risks. This
is why
anti-HIV immune stimulation by vaccines, preventative or therapeutic,
does
nothing against the syndrome itself.
If HIV is only a marker, then why did you mention its not completely harmless.
AIDS therefore is not syphilis only, not al all. Chronic syphilis in
gay
men, who were not managed correctly for twenty years with respect to T
pallidum, will lead to similar node changes as seen in HIV disease
(Diane
Farhi, et al) by the cytokine changes it induces, ie the shift to Th2,
and
anti-Th1 regulation - as seen in Chagas, and Indian Subcontinent
Donovanoses, amongst other very dangerous immuno-regulatory infections.
I am not going to waste any more time while on holiday reading on Th1 and Th2 immune pathways. No doubt I will have to reread that crap later on. However his basic logic goes like this
Some diseases (eg syphilis) cause similar symptoms to what HIV is alleged to do, therefore its the other disease and not HIV causing these symptoms. I will leave others to work on the pseudo-logic. However I find it inconceivable that someone with both HIV and syphilis would not at least be treated for syphilis. Since syphilis is the main culprit, why can't he provide documentation that these patients improved after syphilis treatment?
1) If AIDS is not ancient, then why so many 1000s of AIDS deaths in the
West
in my old texts?
Which texts would these be. I didn't realise that they had serological testing for HIV in those days.
2) I have always maintained that management of the underlying
co-factors
will do more, and do it more safely, than some of the anti-HIV regimes
we've
been thru. This is true for IVDA and haemophilia.
Again what does haemophilia have to do with HIV? I gave him too much credit earlier when I thought his line about HIV and haemophilia was refering to patients with both HIV and haemophilia and that his alleged HIV treatment worsened the haemophilia (because it also destroyed clotting factors), but now he seems to actually come out and state that haemophilia is a co-factor.
That said, these days
I do
encourage low dose RTI and NNRTI use in many of my fifty or so
"patients"
who regularly keep me abreast their health choices, and seek my input.
This reminds me of the Scientology approach. They bag psychiatry every chance they get, but for legal reasons they have to state that they aren't train professionals and people should seek help from the appropriate authorities.
I
believe the safer therapies can modulate the Th2 shift. Syphilis
mangement
on this continent is still way off the mark, and when we get this
right, HIV
will not harm most gay men it infects.
Ah, the evidence we want. Now all he has to do is get it.
3), I would agree this proves little, except that many many
life-threatening
health challenges can also allow/stimulate HIV reactivation.
But why should it matter if HIV is only a "marker".
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
