12 September 2002

Zambian Society Devastated by HIV/AIDS

By Lindsey Brooks

Washington File Staff Writer

Washington -- The HIV/AIDS pandemic is playing a key role in the worsening

health crisis in Zambia and southern Africa, according to James Morris,

the U.N. secretary-general's special envoy for the humanitarian crisis in

six southern African countries.

"HIV/AIDS is devastating Zambian society," said Morris on September 9

while visiting the country, where an estimated 20 percent of the adult

population is infected with HIV. "Tens of thousands of people have

already died and many, many more are infected. One of the tragic

consequences is a very rapid rise in the number of orphans, as well as

households headed by children and elderly grandparents."

Morris, according to a U.N. press release made available in Washington, is

traveling on a two-week U.N. mission to six affected countries in southern

Africa: Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho, and Swaziland.

"In a home I visited today, I met 19 people, of all ages, living in two

small rooms. The grandmother had the entire burden of support on her

shoulders, and was doing everything possible to get the family through

each and every day," Morris said after a field visit on the outskirts of

Lusaka, on the last day of his three-day mission to Zambia.

In July, the release notes, the U.N. country team began an appeal for $71

million to tackle the humanitarian crisis in Zambia. However, the release

warned, only $23 million has been received for the 2.3 million people at

risk. The total U.N. appeal for the six affected countries is $611

million, of which $138 million has been pledged so far.

Crucial activities by the United Nations and its donor and nongovernmental

organization partners, in support of the government, include providing

adequate food relief as well as access to water and sanitation, heath,

nutrition, and agricultural and education support services.

Over the past year, the situation in Zambia -- one of the world's poorest

countries -- has become "critical," according to the release. A complex

mix of climatic, economic, and social issues has left millions of people

without adequate food and water.

The press release says that over the past 15 years, millions of people in

Zambia have been affected by HIV/AIDS. "While it is obvious that erratic

weather has contributed to the current food crisis in Zambia, it is also

clear that one of the key underlying factors is the depletion of human

resources as a result of HIV/AIDS," it says. The disease has eroded

agricultural productivity by eliminating the able-bodied men and women who

produce the nation's food.

People in both rural and urban areas are feeling the hardships of the

crisis. Many of the poorest people in urban areas cannot afford to buy

maize at current market prices and without food, they lack the strength to

fight HIV/AIDS or other diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and

measles.

Morris also met with Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa during the

Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).

(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International

Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.)



Unless we act, the global AIDS pandemic will claim the lives of 68 million people by 2020, devastating societies all over the globe, particularly in Africa. This holocaust must be stopped. The Global AIDS Alliance is committed to an aggressive campaign that says it’s time to: Donate the Dollars, Treat the People and Drop the Debt! Join Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy to HIV/AIDS in Africa and honored guests at a fundraiser for the Global AIDS Alliance on Saturday, October 12, at The Century Plaza Hotel & Spa, 2025 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Program and reception to begin at 7:30 pm. No tickets required. Please RSVP to LAOCJubilee@yahoo.com

According to the Fraser Institute's 2001 Economic Freedom of the World report (co-published by Cato), privatization has barely made a dent in state domination of the Zambian economy: State-owned enterprises remain prevalent and government investment tops 50 percent of total investment. Price controls are still widespread in manufacturing and agriculture. And inflation as of 1999 was 25 percent a year.

Meanwhile, according to the latest survey by the anti-corruption watchdog group Transparency International, Zambia ranks 75th out of 91 countries for its appalling levels of corruption.

The country is saddled with the legacy of decades of egregious misrule. Kaunda was a disaster for his country. He ran a brutal one-party state and looted his country, skimming off billions to put in personal offshore bank accounts. The country's immense mineral wealth was squandered by the gross mismanagement of state-owned enterprises. A reckless runup of debt left Zambia in hock up to its eyeballs. And, worst of all, since 85 percent of the country is employed in agriculture, price controls caused a steady decline in food production since independence.

After the copper boom ended, Zambia went into freefall: Per capita incomes declined nearly 5 percent annually between 1974 and 1990.

The current government is perhaps not as corrupt, but it will take time and FREE MARKET REFORMS for Zambia to ever grow to the point where it will be able to deal with its AIDS crisis.

"HIV/AIDS is devastating Zambian society," said Morris on September 9

while visiting the country, where an estimated 20 percent of the adult

population is infected with HIV. "Tens of thousands of people have

already died and many, many more are infected. One of the tragic

consequences is a very rapid rise in the number of orphans, as well as

households headed by children and elderly grandparents."



As a person of partial Zambian descent, I would like to add a remark about the alleged "devastation" of Zambia, of for that matter South Africa, and Southern Africa in general.



The truth is, that the data that "estimate" that "20%" of Zambians are infected with HIV, is no better than the data that made the same estimation for South Africa. An estimate that has now been downwardly revised to "11.4%" after the HSRC executed a study that was superior to the previous WHO data.



The problem is, that because of cost restraints, surveys are based on a single ELISA test using the leftover blood of pregnant women at antenatal clinics (taken so they can be routinely scanned for syphilis). ELISA however, is extremely sensitive, which is why in the USA, it is not allowed or used to declare someone HIV positive on the basis of a single ELISA. ELISAs have 70 known factors that make them "spike" (turn positive), like the flu, certain African strains of malaria, antibodies to tuberculosis, exposure to DDT, "sticky blood", and most relevantly, multiple pregnancies. This alone should disqualify using the blood of women at antenatal clinics, but it doesn't, because these tests are cheap, and the blood is available. However, this is the origin of the "20%" number.



However, this does explain why the South African HSRC, when it performed ELISAs on a large, statistically representative sample of the population, managed to revise downward national prevalence of HIV infection from 19%, to 11.4%.



The waiting is for a study that not only performs these ELISAs on a statistically representative sample of the population, but follows up the positive ELISA with confirmatory tests, like Western Blot, as is the norm for HIV diagnosis in the USA.

What is very important to remember, is that *all* the positive tests this data is based on, *remain unconfirmed*.

Perhaps the ultimate atrocity, is that there very well may be a higher number of people with ordinary illnesses, because of the atrocious demands placed on weak countries like Zambia by the World Bank and IMF. Zambian president Levi Mwanawasa has recently publicly complained, that the restraints put on his government has left him unable to improve services like healthcare, education and poverty relief.



Wouldn't it be ironic if the suffering of the poor people in Zambia, caused by the macro-economic targets set for their government by the World Bank and IMF (which already destroyed so many third world economies, including the economy of the Jamaican countryside) would be conveniently blamed on their alleged sexual promiscuity?



KP

Online References:

The HSRC study that put HIV prevalence at 11.4 %, instead of 19%

http://www.hsrc.ac.za/about/HSRCReview/Vol1No1/index.html?hiv_study.html~content

A layman's description of the HSRC's study, from The Independent (South Africa) by Anso Thom

http://www.independent.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20021206063345189C308684

The mortality figure of all registered deaths in South Africa (362,400 for the 12 months leading up to 2000), which puts a huge question mark on the alleged 365,000 people who would be dying annually of AIDS in South Africa according to the WHO.

http://www.statssa.gov.za/Archives/Releases/Vital%20statistics/03091%2097-2000.pdf



Even though South Africa is frequently mentioned as the hardest hit country *in the world*, it is relevant to note that during the highpoint this "devastating" epidemic, the population of South Africa grew 10.3%, namely from 40.6 million people in 1996, to 44.8 million people in 2001. (The population of South Africa was about 27 million in 1980.)

http://www.statssa.gov.za/SpecialProjects/Census2001/Census2001.htm

1. Predictions of the spread of AIDS based on the HIV hypothesis are continually being readjusted.9 AIDS has not significantly spread beyond the original risk groups and there are many fewer cases of full-blown AIDS than anticipated. For this reason the 'latency period' has continuously been extended. It is now up to 10-15 years and still growing. This 'latency period' is a statistical product designed to reconcile the low incidence of AIDS with the relatively high level of HIV infection.6

2. The number of HIV carriers has remained constant at about 1 million since 1985 when the antibody test was initiated.5

3. There is not enough HIV in the bodies of PWAs to account for the billions of T-cells killed.7

4. HIV can hardly ever be isolated from patients with AIDS, suggesting that the body's natural vaccination process has occurred.7

5. Karposi's sarcoma has been found in many young male homosexuals who have never been infected by HIV. Even adherents of the HIV hypothesis now concede that KS is not caused by HIV. Nonetheless, this disease is diagnosed as 'AIDS' but only when the sufferer has antibodies to HIV.8

6. Other AIDS indicator diseases with T-cell depletion are found in individuals who do not have antibodies to HIV. In fact, all AIDS diseases have occurred in all risk groups in the absence of HIV or its antibodies since the beginning of the epidemic. HIV infection is thus not a necessary prerequisite for the diagnosis of AIDS - were it not for biased definition.7,8

7. Tests show that the number of HIV-infected T-cells remains the same no matter if you are asymptomatic or have full-blown AIDS. Any other viral infection would show a dramatic increase throughout the course of the disease.7

8. Although sexually transmitted diseases infect males and females equally, more than 90% of American AIDS sufferers are male. This is true even of health care workers who develop AIDS, although two-thirds of all US health care workers are female.6

9. The risk of getting AIDS for HIV-infected people varies tenfold with gender or country. In America, the annual AIDS risk of an HIV-infected person is currently 4%; in Africa it is 0.3%.6,7

10. HIV is spread primarily through homosexuals in the US and primarily through heterosexuals in Africa.7 This would suggest that AIDS is possibly a non-infectious disease.

11. So-called 'African AIDS' affects males and females equally, and also involves a different pattern of associated opportunistic infections. These differing patterns do not rescue the HIV hypothesis for American AIDS, but indicate that a single virus may not be responsible for the multitude of conditions diagnosed as AIDS in Africa and America.7

12. About three-fourths of the 20,000 US haemophiliacs were infected with HIV almost 10 years ago. According to the HIV hypothesis, at least half of those infected should have died by now—but the mortality rate among haemophiliacs has remained constant at 2% over the last 15 years.10

13. HIV is said to be a sexually transmitted virus, yet it is barely detectable in the semen of AIDS ...[Message truncated

HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS

JUST A FEW FACTS:

1. So-called “HIV” has NEVER been isolated according to the rules for viral isolation laid out by the Institut Pasteur in 1973. All claims of “isolation” are shoddy attempts to interpret cellular debris as a “virus”. Electron micrographs of so-called “HIV” show cellular debris common in everyone’s blood.

2. The so-called “HIV test” does not detect the presence of so-called “HIV”. Even the test kits themselves have a disclaimer on them that states they are not to be used to detect the presence of absence of “HIV” or diagnose a person as having “AIDS”! These “tests” have never been standardized against the gold-standard of viral isolation. This is why the FDA has not approved ANY so-called “HIV test”! Furthermore, test results on the same blood sample can be and often are considered “positive” in one country, city, or laboratory, while being considered “negative” in another! Not even the criteria for what constitutes a so-called “positive” test are standardized! You can be considered “positive” in Africa and “negative” in the U.S.! In addition, the Elisa “test” is such a bogus scam that unless you dilute the blood sample 400 times, EVERYONE tests “positive” on it! Go see for yourself!

3. So-called “HIV tests” are known by their manufacturers to “cross-react” with other antibodies. You can get a “false-positive” on an “HIV test” from one of 60 different medical conditions. All of the “tests” for “HIV” are worthless, whether you use the ELISA, the Western Blot, or the PCR. In fact, since “HIV” has never been isolated, you could consider ALL “positives” to be false positives—i.e., cross-reactions. No wonder a certain percentage of DOGS test “positive” on the so-called “HIV test”! Furthermore, since these bogus “tests” don’t test for the actual virus, but rather for proteins that supposedly belong to antibodies to it, we could assume that for the first time in the history of science, an antibody reaction signified a failure to fight a microbe, rather than a successful resistance against it! You may have forgotten this, but antibodies are the sign that the body has successfully beaten an invading particle! And what would an “HIV” vaccine do? It would artificially induce antibodies that would be considered “good”, while a person’s natural antibodies would be considered “bad”? That’s absurd! Talk about turning science on its head! One could then assume that a previously “negative” person would be “positive” after taking the vaccine, because now they’d have antibodies to the supposed virus! No wonder the last vaccine test failed—“AIDS” is not caused by a virus! Think it through!

4. AZT, a popular “anti-HIV” drug, was originally a chemotherapy drug that was shelved because it was deemed unsafe at ANY dose. AZT is a “DNA chain terminator” that indiscriminately kills cells. Drugs such as AZT are one of the causes of what mainstream scientists and the CDC have chosen to call “AIDS”. In other words, tens of thousands of people are being poisoned to death by illegal and prescription drugs.

5. “AIDS” does not behave like any infectious disease known in history. In the U.S. and Europe, it DOES behave like a toxic disease. That is because in the U.S. and Europe, “AIDS” results from toxic causes, such as chronic drug abuse and toxic, experimental “anti-viral therapies” given to “AIDS” patients. In Africa, “AIDS” is the ultimate disease of definition, being caused by old, endemic diseases and relabeled as “AIDS”. Hardly anyone in Africa is ever “tested” for “HIV”, anyway. (Not that an “HIV test” tests for “HIV”, however!) They present with the symptoms of endemic diseases and doctors count them as “AIDS” statistics. This is called a “presumptive diagnosis”. Supposed death rates from “AIDS” in Africa are estimates by the WHO and other organizations. Strange that the population of Africa is still booming if they’re in the midst of a so-called “pandemic”! Furthermore, since “HIV” has never been isolated, you absolutely cannot prove that ANYONE in the world has EVER died of “AIDS” as defined by the CDC.

6. Eminent scientists from around the world, including Nobel Prize winners, have always argued that “HIV” not only doesn’t cause “AIDS”, but that biologically speaking, it CAN’T. Retroviruses do NOT cause disease, and in fact make up approximately 2% of the human genome, passed from mother to infant! But you never heard these facts, did you? Hundreds of highly respected scientists have been suppressed, censored, and marginalized since 1981, before “HIV” was even declared the supposed cause of “AIDS”. In fact, before the bogus idea of “HIV” was announced in 1984, the dominant hypothesis was that “AIDS” in the U.S. and Europe was caused by chronic drug abuse—a hypothesis that has VASTLY greater evidence for it than the failed infectious “HIV” theory. No wonder after 20 YEARS of “HIV” nonsense, you have NO cure, NO vaccine, and NO workable therapy. The predictions of the “HIV” theory have failed miserably. It’s time to rethink the cause of “AIDS”!

7. Robert Gallo, the scientist who announced at a press conference that he found the “probable” cause of “AIDS” (supposedly “HIV”), did not undergo a peer review process first, but chose to engage in “science by press conference.” He also stole his sample from the real “discoverer” of “HIV”, Luc Montagnier of the Institut Pasteur, in Paris, and was later convicted of scientific misconduct! Perhaps Gallo wanted to be famous and to reclaim his dignity after his horrible error with HL23V. In 1981, Gallo announced to the scientific world that he had discovered a virus (HL23V) that caused leukemia. After five years of fanfare, it turned out that the antibody tests for this “virus” were actually cross-reacting to contamination in the sample! I.e., there was no virus! This event deeply embarrassed Gallo in front of his peers. A similar thing has happened with “HIV”. Look it up!

8. Luc Montagnier, the actual “discoverer” of so-called “HIV” has even admitted, on video, that he did not and could not purify and isolate the supposed virus! Look it up!

9. There is no paper in existence that proves how or that “HIV” causes “AIDS”. There are many that claim or assume that “HIV” causes “AIDS”, but none that actually prove it scientifically. Try to find one!

10. Sexually-transmitted diseases are always distributed equally between men and women. In the U.S., the so-called “AIDS” distribution is 90% male, 10% female. This reflects with stunning similarity the distribution of drug abusers in the U.S. In Africa, it’s roughly 50/50—just like all of the old, endemic, African diseases such as tuberculosis! Sorry to disappoint you and burst your bubble, but “AIDS” is NOT sexually-transmitted! In fact, in the longest study of its kind (by Padian, et. al.) it was shown that “HIV” is clearly not transmitted through sexual contact (if “HIV” even exists, that is!) It looks like you’ll have to find another pet cause.

This list could go on for a thousand pages. Hundreds of respected scientists and scholars from around the world have compiled powerful evidence that HIV does NOT cause AIDS! It may sound “crazy” now, but it won’t after you hear what they have to say…

For the REAL story visit virusmyth.net (the website of the Group For The Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis), or one of the following websites:

questionaids.com

aidsmyth.com

aidsrealitycheck.org

healtoronto.com

actupsf.com

duesberg.com

Read: Inventing the AIDS Virus by Dr. Peter Duesberg and What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong? by Christine Maggiore. In those two books, and on the websites mentioned above, you will find complete documentation for every fact listed above, and much more!

These facts are common knowledge to AIDS dissidents—why aren’t they to YOU!?

I love the attempt to make it seem like there's more than one jackass who actually belives this nonsense, by the use of so many different handles.

Especially after recent posts have thoroughly refuted the inanity of this tripe.

What possible motivation could someone have to spread this nonsense other than garden variety mental illness.

Oh well, it is entertaining.

I just hope i didnt contract HIV/ AIDS during those years when i was a junkie. the years of my IV drug use......its kinda scary...

Dont worry folks, even if i did contract this horrible disease

I would never expect your sympathy and compassion.

I even if i was so sick that i couldnt take care of myself and lost everything---give me no compassion or help.

But then again, if i was in that situtation, i would probally think alot differently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3210296.stm

South Africa HIV rate 'falling'

A new analysis of the Aids epidemic in South Africa suggests that fewer people are becoming infected with HIV than in previous years. The research also predicts that the total number of HIV-positive people in South Africa will remain constant for the foreseeable future.

Research from ante-natal clinics shows that the proportion of young women carrying the Aids virus has declined over the last five years.

Scientists have now combined that finding with information from a recent nationwide survey, and put the data into a computer programme which aims to model the epidemic.

_____________

Every epidemic disease is now renamed 'AIDS' under the Bangui Definition.

Mortalities (non natural) in S.A. remain at the same 2.2% P.A. that they were BEFORE AIDS. Either every other disease in the region vanished overnight or 'AIDS' is simply the old diseases with a new name. You decide.

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

In Africa, the continent supposedly being decimated by

HIV, HIV tests are rarely ever done, so there the idea

that all patients with AIDS are infected with HIV is

based entirely on supposition.

At a WHO conference in the Central African Republic in 1985, U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) introduced the "Bangui Definition" of AIDS in Africa.

The CDC officials later explained, "The definition was reached by consensus, based mostly on the delegates' experience in treating AIDS patients. It has proven a useful tool in determining the

extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, especially in areas where no testing is available.

It's major components were prolonged fevers (for a month or more), weight loss of 10% or greater, and prolonged diarrhea..."(McCormick, 1996). Where AIDS is diagnosed clinically, large numbers of AIDS patients test negative for HIV. As no HIV testing is required in Africa we have no idea how many AIDS cases there are HIV positive (De ####, 1991; Gilks, 1991; Widy-Wirski, 1988).

_______

Other conditions common in underprivileged and

impoverished communities that are known to cause false

positive results are tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and leprosy (Burke, 1993; Challakeree, 1993; Johnson, 1998; Kashala, 1994; MacKenzie,1992; Meyer, 1987). In fact, these are the primary health threats in Africa; several million cases of tuberculosis and malaria are reported in Africa each year - more than all the AIDS cases reported in Africa since 1982 (WHO, 1998)*.

Sex And HIV: Behaviour-Change Trial Shows No Link

The East African (Nairobi)

March 17, 2003

Posted to the web March 19, 2003

By Paul Redfern, Special Correspondent

Nairobi

A UK funded trial aimed at reducing the spread of Aids in Uganda by

modifying sexual behaviour appears to have had little discernible

effect.

The trial, carried out on around 15,000 people in the Masaka region,

involved distributing condoms, treating around 12,000 victims of

sexually transmitted diseases and counselling.

However, while the trial led to a marked change in sexual behavioural

patterns, with the proportion reporting causal sexual partners falling

from around 35 per cent to 15 per cent, there was no noticeable fall

in the number of new cases of HIV infection, although there was a

significant reduction in sexually transmitted diseases such as

syphilis and gonorrhoea.

The trial results, which were reported in the British medical journal

The Lancet, have already aroused some controversy.

The team leader of the trial, Dr Anatoli Kamalai, acknowledged that

there was "no measurable reduction" in HIV incidence with "no hint of

even a small effect."

But the research team's view is that the spread of HIV was already

declining in the area and the trial might not have been big enough to

detect any additional change.

There is, however, another view which has recently been put forward

which claims that inadequately sterilised needles across Africa have

led to a greater rate of HIV infection than sexual contact.

It is a view put forward by a mainly American group of scientists,

including Dr David Gisselquist, who told the Times of London that

"Results from the Masaka study add to the already long list of

findings from other studies that don't fit the hypothesis that most

HIV in African adults is from sexual transmission.

"These results from Masaka are similar to results published earlier

from a similar study in Rakai, Uganda, where interventions that

reduced STD prevalence had no impact on HIV incidence." However, such

a view is by no means mainstream in the latest thinking on the spread

of HIV in Africa.

Most scientific research still believes that HIV is mainly spread by

sexual transmission and that people suffering from STDs are

particularly prone.

The trial was the first systematic attempt on a large scale to assess

whether modifying sexual behaviour and better management of other

sexual diseases could cut the transmission of HIV in Africa.

In a commentary in The Lancet, Judith Stephenson and Frances Cowan of

the Royal Free and University College Medical School in London

acknowledged that "many people will be disappointed by the lack of

reduction in HIV incidence, despite an apparently appropriate

intervention that reduced other STDs and was implemented on a huge

scale with great care and commitment."

The two researchers suggest that it might have been "the right trial

and the wrong time" - when HIV incidence was falling and when there

were already substantial reductions in risk behaviour.

Copyright © 2003 The East African. All rights reserved. Distributed

by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).

http://allafrica.com/stories/200303190482.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200303190482.html

"I just hope i didnt contract HIV/ AIDS during those years when i was a junkie. the years of my IV drug use......its kinda scary...

Dont worry folks, even if i did contract this horrible disease

I would never expect your sympathy and compassion.

I even if i was so sick that i couldnt take care of myself and lost everything---give me no compassion or help.

But then again, if i was in that situtation, i would probally think alot differently."

I love it. Here I am defending those suffering from HIV/AIDS from some half wit jackass who's saying that they aren't even sick, and my doppelganger is trying to insult me.

I love it.

To even see my name is to send this ass into some fit of ninth grade rage.

LOL!

What an idiot!

Made an ass of yourself on that one buddy.

Does HIV Exist?

By Michael Coon

, who is an Immunologist currently working on mechanisms of T

effector cell differentiation with respect to their role in complications

arising from bone marrow transplant. In the HIV/AIDs arena, He worked for

many years on local AIDS community issues. and has worked professionally in

the HIV molecular epidemiology lab of Jim Mullins at Stanford U. and the

University of Washington.

It may come as a surprise to some people but there is a group of people who

maintain that HIV, the etiologic cause for AIDS, does not even exist. You

read that right; there is a group that includes Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,

Valendar Turner, John Papadimitriou, David Causer and Stefan Lanka, commonly

referred to as the "Perth Group" because they are based in Perth, Australia,

who, incredible as it may seem, claim that there is no proof for the

existence of HIV. They have a web site called Virusmyth.com,

(http://www.virusmyth.com ) where their arguments, such as they are, are

laid out. While their views have long ago been refuted by a mountain of

evidence, they cling to their belief that HIV doesn't exist, and so it

cannot be the cause of the AIDS pandemic that is now ravaging the African

subcontinent. They have even issued a $25,000 challenge to the research

community to prove the existence of the virus

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm ).

We see these kinds of devious challenges from time to time; there is for

example, Kent Hovind's $250,000 reward for "empirical evidence of evolution"

(http://www.drdino.com/). Challenges such as this are not intrinsically

daft, they can be quite effective when the arguments are sound, the

challenge is simple and the conditions are not otherwise strawmen. A good

example of this type is James Randi's well constructed challenge for

evidence of the paranormal

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.randi.org/research/challenge/index.html ). On the face

of it, the Virusmyth.com challenge seems scientifically rigorous yet simple;

the hallmarks of a good challenge. Unfortunately for the folks at Perth, it

merely seems so.

One thing is clear from the response to the researcher who's claimed the

prize; the folks over at Virusmyth.com have no intention of allowing the

contest to be won. The researcher who has claimed the prize, by the way, is

Peter Duesberg, an iconoclastic Berkeley retrovirologist who claims that

although HIV does indeed exist, it is not the cause of AIDS. The Perth Group

has taken steps to ensure that their challenge will remain unanswered. They

do this partly by setting unreasonable rules, partly by constructing

strawmen, and partly by moving the goalposts.



Unreasonable Rules

The challenge itself, is carefully crafted to ensure that no-one is likely

to take them up. This ensures that they can continue to claim that as the

challenge has not been satisfied, their arguments must be devastating to the

research and medical establishment. The reason for this is simply that the

Perth Group insists that the proof for the existence of HIV can arise from

their method alone. No other evidence is acceptable. Basically they have

seven steps (below) that they claim are required to prove that HIV is real.

Imagine a reward for proof that the earth is round. But then requiring for

proof that claimants to the prize must travel to the moon and take a

picture. No other methods, from any other source at any other time would be

acceptable.

While flying to the moon and taking pictures of the earth would indeed prove

that we live on a round ball of mud, it is expensive, dangerous and wholly

unnecessary for that purpose. We could, for example, ask someone to walk

several hundred miles, look down a well and measure the angle of the sun at

noon and compare it to a well near us. Or we could sit by a bay on a calm

clear day and watch boats sail away. Or we could plot our path through the

heavens. Or we could observe the shadow of the earth ON the moon. Or we

could circumnavigate the earth in sailing ships and plot our latitude. Or we

could ascend in a balloon, or in an airplane, or launch a satellite. All of

these methods have been used, some since ancient times, to demonstrate that

the earth is round.

We do not need to isolate HIV by the techniques cited by the Perth Group to

prove its existence. To insist upon their method to establish the reality of

HIV is to unequivocally demonstrate one's credulity before charlatans.

A Classic Strawman Argument

A strawman argument is an argument that uses a contrived and false premise

that is used expressly to deconstruct another argument. The people at

Virusmyth.com claim that since HIV researchers have not used guidelines

established in 1973 at the Institute Pasteur to purify HIV, then the very

existence of the virus is questionable. Unfortunately for the Perth Group,

no such guidelines were established at Pasteur or anywhere else.

Despite what it says at their site, the whole challenge is based upon the

biggest hairiest strawman I've ever seen. The challenge first appeared in a

magazine called Continuum. The folks at Virusmyth publish Continuum, and the

challenge is reprinted at the Virusmyth.com web site

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm ).

"The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were thoroughly discussed at the

Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the logical minimum requirements

for establishing the independent existence of HIV. They are:

Culture of putatively infected tissue.

Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.

Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morfological (sic)

characteristics and dimensions (100-120nm) of retroviral particles at the

sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not

even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.

Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.

Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are unique.

Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and can

not be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that is,

tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under

identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected

with a retrovirus.

Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles are

introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle is

obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5."

Edward King

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~eking/index.htm ) published a

rebuttal to the Virusmyth challenge in AIDS Treatment Update

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/news/ekisolation.htm ). From that

essay;

"Contrary to the implication by Continuum, the Pasteur Institute did not

draw up such guidelines in 1973. When we asked Continuum to provide the

reference for a published account of the Pasteur Institute's guidelines,

they could only supply two papers which did describe research into

retroviruses, but did not themselves meet the seven steps Continuum was now

requesting for HIV. Ironically, the authors of the papers cited by Continuum

were also the first to describe the isolation of HIV in 1983."

Indeed, those two papers cited by the Perth Group are;

Sinoussi F, Mendiola L, Chermann JC. (1973). Purification and partial

differentiation of the particles of murine sarcoma virus (M. MSV) according

to their sedimentation rates in sucrose density gradients. Spectra

4:237-243. Toplin I. (1973). Tumor Virus Purification using Zonal Rotors.

Spectra 4:225-235.

Spectra is an obscure French-Canadian journal and is blastedly hard to get

hold of. The journal is available in the U.S. only at large university

libraries with comprehensive journal collections. Still, the papers ARE

available. They DO NOT use guidelines from the Pasteur Institute. Further,

take a gander at that first author's name on the first paper cited. She was

a member of the group who first isolated HIV in 1983. Her paper is cited

below.

Virusmyth responds to the Dr. King's point about the absurdity of basing a

challenge to purify the virus on non-existent "guidelines" by agreeing that

the papers they site for evidence for these guidelines do not, in fact,

follow them

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epreplyek.htm ). One is left to

wonder, then, why they are surprised that few people take them seriously.

Even if these guidelines had been promulgated as the Perth Group asserts,

they would today be considered obsolete and unduly restrictive. HIV happens

to be somewhat sensitive to gradient centrifugation and undergoes minor

structural changes (discussed in detail below) so that electron micrographs

(photographs of the virus under an electron microscope) do not have all the

characteristics of the virus viewed without gradient ultracentrifugation.

Using current methods of molecular biology it has been possible to

synthesize the entire genetic structure of HIV, introduce it into cells

("transfection") and observed that the transfected cells produce HIV viral

particles which can, in turn, infect other cells. This is the strongest

possible proof of the existance of HIV and the one that is pointed to by

Duesberg in his claim for the prize.

Amphiboly

The dead give away for intellectual dishonesty is the practice of amphiboly;

the use of equivocal, poorly worded or murkily-stated premises to further an

argument. Back in school when faced with an assignment from a challenging

professor that we were unable to meet, we used to refer to this strategy

this way; "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with

####". The folks at Virusmyth use a form of amphiboly known as moving

the goalposts, wherein the premise of an argument is changed when the

argument is specifically refuted.

For example, when Ed King refuted their claim that the Pasteur Institute did

not establish the so-called guidelines for proving the existence of a

retrovirus and when Virusmyth was forced to admit that the papers they claim

supported their position did not in fact do so, they suddenly switched

tactics. They claimed that although the Spectra authors did not use the

non-existent Pasteur guidelines, they did not need to because those authors

were purifying RNA tumor viruses

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epreplyek.htm ).

When challenged by Peter Duesberg to explain why 19 full length clones of

HIV does not constitute proof that the viral genome exists, they claim that

it is because the viral genomes are not all of the same size or sequence

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epreplypd2.htm ). Here they

conveniently ignore the very well known fact that retroviral reverse

transcriptase (RT) is highly error prone. More convenient for Virusmyth, is

that by changing the subject they believe they have rebutted Duesberg's

argument.

The reader will also note the vague and undefined nature of some of their

demands in the challenge. For example they require that tissue from

"matched, unhealthy subjects" be used to isolate highly purified virions

which are then used to infect reputedly uninfected tissue. As they leave the

term "unhealthy" undefined, they retain the ability to claim that studies

which, in fact demonstrate just this, are not valid because the subjects

were not either properly matched or unhealthy

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epcomreplypd.htm ).

(Note; The text hyperlinked in the previous sentence is touted at the

Virusmyth web site as a rebuttal to Duesberg's claim. I leave it to the

reader to decide if, in fact, Virusmyth addressed Duesberg).

Addressing The Challenge

One of the main reasons why few researchers have, or would, take the

challenge is because there simply is no percentage in it; it is clear that

any claims to the reward will be dodged, the challenge while technically

feasible is costly, and the language of the challenge is so inexact as to be

nearly meaningless. But the most important reason why few people would claim

the prize is that all the conditions as outlined in the challenge to prove

the existence of HIV have already been met.

This challenge is in some ways akin to the absurd comment by Kary Mullis who

has said that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS because there isn't one paper

that demonstrates that it does

(http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110

27021329/http://www.valleyadvocate.com/hiv-aids/a960530.html#foreward ). The

absurdity of this claim has been pointed out to Dr. Mullis over and over

again to no avail; the man still believes that the lack of proof for the

cause of AIDS by HIV in a single paper is sufficient for him to reject the

HIV/AIDS causality. The people at Virumyth have taken this kind of

sophomoric thinking to heart. They insist that HIV cannot be proven to even

exist unless the seven steps that they (wrongly) claim are required to prove

the existence of the virus are done in a single study. Of course all of the

steps listed by them have been done, several of them concurrently in a

single study. But they continue to insist that because no one has done the

experiments in the way they deem necessary, then the virus has not been

proven to exist.

Before getting into a technically dense discussion of the evidence one might

ask a simple question; is there anything a layman might accept as proof for

the existence of the virus? Usually photographs are considered good proof,

with the obvious fakery caveats. There are literally hundreds of papers in

the primary literature with excellent images of the virus in various stages

including within an infected cell, budding from a cell or free from any

cells. There are even numerous such photos published on the web that you can

look at right now. Here are a few.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=medstat.med.utah.edu]/jump/http://medstat.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS.html#1

http://www.mcl.tulane.edu/departments/pathology/fermin/HIVFIGSTable.html

http://www.arte-tv.com/special/AIDS/dtext/sida2.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=wwwpp.uwrf.edu]/jump/http://wwwpp.uwrf.edu/~kk00/hivvector/hivvector.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www.iapac.org]/jump/http://www.iapac.org/clinmgt/avtherapies/saq6.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www.unsw.edu.au]/jump/http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/microbiology/maureen/fig5.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=wwwpp.uwrf.edu]/jump/http://wwwpp.uwrf.edu/~kk00/poster/HIV/HIV.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=bioinformatik.biochemtech.uni-halle.de]/jump/http://bioinformatik.biochemtech.uni-halle.de/uli/genetherapy/hiv.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www.cmsp.com]/jump/http://www.cmsp.com/data2/im101.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www.sci-imagemakers.com]/jump/http://www.sci-imagemakers.com/markus.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=life.anu.edu.au]/jump/http://life.anu.edu.au/viruses/ICTVdB/61065001.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://telpath2.med.utah.edu/WebPath/HISTHTML/EM/EM017.html

http://www.avert.org/virus.htm

http://www.thebody.com/niaid/hiv_lifecycle/virbud.html

http://www.cmsp.com/data2/tng100.htm

http://www.cmsp.com/data2/fx100003.htm

http://www.micro.unsw.edu.au/maureen/gen-info.htm

http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/Big_Virology/BVretro.html



Below I present some of the relevant literature that meets the demands of

the challenge. Note that I give a restricted, limited citation list. In most

cases there are many more papers (and probably some that make the point

better than the ones I cite here) that could be cited but are not. I have

cited only those papers that use density ultracentrifugation for virus

purification, as that is one of the requirements set forth by the challenge.

There are other much more powerful methods, but this is the one that

Virusmyth requires so for sake of brevity, I have stuck with it. For the

reader unfamiliar with scientific papers, it should be noted that in none of

the citations in this FAQ do the authors address the challenge directly.

That is, while the authors use the methods that the Perth Group insists upon

they do not specifically address the challenge. I indicate the conditions

for the challenge laid forth by the Perth Group with a (PP) before the

number.

(PP)1.Culture of putatively infected tissue.

This one is easy. In fact culture of "putatively" infected tissue was first

done way back in 1983 by Robert Gallo's group at the NIH in the US and Luc

Montaigner's crew at the Institute Pasteur in Paris (this is in fact, how

the virus was first identified) see; Gallo, RC et al. Science. 1983 May

20;220 (4599):865-7 and Barre-Sinoussi F, et al. Science 1983 May

20;220(4599):868-871.

Later, following the acrimony about just who isolated the first virus, the

issue was revisited. "Two of the first human immunodeficiency virus type-1

(HIV- 1) strains isolated were authenticated by reanalyzing original

cultured samples stored at the Collection Nationale de Culture des

Microorganismes as well as uncultured primary material". From; Wain- Hobson

S, et al. Science 1991 May 17;252(5008):961-5.

HIV can grow in chimpanzees (though it rarely causes disease) and in primary

cell cultures. See; Castro BA, et al. J Med Primatol 198918(3- 4):337-42

HIV-1 culture isolates were obtained from the lymph nodes and peripheral

blood mononuclear cells from 11 HIV-infected patients. See; AIDS 1994

Aug;8(8):1083-8 Tamalet C et al.

Typically, patient tissue culture isolates are derived from initial primary

cultures and clones of the virus are isolated by subsequent passage through

other cell types. See, for example; Saag MS, et al. Nature 1988 Aug 4;334

(6181):440-4, and Cheng-Mayer C, et al. Virology 1991 Mar;181(1):288-94.

Intrinsic biological properties, such as syncytia formation, cell tropism

and cytopathogenicity of different strains of HIV have been assessed by

growing primary and secondary cultures. See; von Briesen H, et al. J Med

Virol 1987 Sep;23(1):51-66.

In fact, even defective HIV, that is HIV that grows very poorly and had an

atypical Western blot and ELISA profile, has been cultured from tissue

derived from patients. See; Huet T, et al. AIDS 1989 Nov;3 (11):707-15.

There are a great many more reports of primary tissue culture isolates of

HIV. Most workers, however, use the far easier, more sensitive and cheaper

method of PCR. Even so, some researchers used tissue culture of primary HIV

isolates from patients infected with HIV to evaluate the cytopathogenicity,

cell tropism, replication capacities of different viral strains and the

correlation to clinical status. See; Lu W, Andrieu JM J Virol 1992

Jan;66(1):334-40.

(PP) 2. Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.

The Perth Group seems to have a fixation on this method, so let's take a

quick look at it, shall we? Density gradient ultracentrifugation is a method

of separating thingies based on their relative densities. The technique

requires that suspensions containing the virus are made up in a buffered

sucrose solution. The samples are then spun at high speed in order to

greatly enhance the effects of gravity resulting in the suspension of all

things of similar density in a single band. Most (but not all) retroviruses

have a density of 1.16 g/ml (~35% w/v sucrose), thus retroviruses should

form a band on top of a solution containing 1.16 gms of sucrose per ml of

buffer. Here's the thing; that density is NOT a unique characteristic of HIV

or even retroviruses. That is; it is an extrinsic quality. Here's an

analogy; I know that anyone who has seen the Monty Python movie the Holy

Grail will remember that scene where Sir Bedevere is trying to get those

English peasants to figure out what floats on water. They came up with (I

think) wood, ducks and very small rocks. Same thing here; lots of stuff

could sediment at 1.16 g/ml. In fact, everything that has a density of..1.16

g/ml.

Nevertheless, real scientists use the technique to isolate and purify HIV.

In one paper, by Yamamoto S, et al.( J. Virol. Methods 1996 Sep; 61

(1-2):135-43) the authors used density banding to isolate viral particles

and compared the qualitative and quantitative detection of reverse

transcriptase (see below for the significance of this).

It IS true, as noted by the Perth people, that standard HIV-1 particle

preparations created with sucrose density-equilibrium gradients are

contaminated with cell-derived microvesicles, see; Bess JW Jr Virology. 1997

Mar 31;230(1):134-44 and Gluschankof P, et al. Virology 1997 Mar

31;230(1):125- 33. This does not, of course, mean that HIV banding at 1.16

g/ml is non- existent, nor does it mean that the virions cannot be separated

from the microvesicles, see; Ott DE, et al. J Virol 1996 Nov;70(11):7734-43

and, for a more recent report; Dettenhofer M, Yu XF J Virol 1999

Feb;73(2):1460-7

(PP) 3. Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morfological (sic)

characteristics and dimensions (100-120nm) of retroviral particles at the

sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not

even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.

Note here the devious nature of their challenge and one of the reasons why

they will never accept a claim to the reward. As noted by Edward King;

"Scientists have highlighted the irrelevance of this insistence on purity if

the HIV particles themselves are clearly present; for example, it's like

saying that it is impossible to identify a German Shepherd dog by its unique

appearance, if it happens to be surrounded by a pack of poodles."

But what evidence do real scientists have? Well here's a bit;

Viral particle size is usually measured either directly by electron

microscopy (EM), see; Gentile M, et al. J Virol Methods 1994

Jun;48(1):43-52, and Garnier, L, et al. J. Virol. 1999 Mar;73(3):2309-20 or

it is determined by rate zonal sedimentation, see; Garnier, L, et al J Virol

1998 Jun;72(6):4667- 77. By the way HIV, like many other retroviruses is

about 80-120 nm in diameter.

Researchers use EM and gradient ultracentrifugation to demonstrate the

presence of the virus even while acknowledging the presence of microvesicles

that are clearly not viruses. "Electron microscopy of gradient-enriched

preparations from supernatants of virus-infected cells revealed an excess of

vesicles with a size range of about 50-500 nm, as opposed to a minor

population of virus particles of about 100 nm. Electron micrographs of

infected cells showed polarized vesiculation of the cell membrane, and virus

budding was frequently colocalized with nonviral membrane vesiculation."

From; Gluschankof P, et al. Virology 1997 Mar 31;230 (1):125-33. See also;

Meerloo T, et al. J Gen Virol. 1993 Jan;74:129-35.

Fortunately for the rest of the world, very few people take the Perth Group

seriously. There is a great deal of effort underway to generate a vaccine.

One of the things that is likely to be required for an effective modified

virus vaccine is a highly pure, homogenous batch of HIV that is inactive (so

that people do not get infected from the vaccine). This has been

accomplished, see; Richieri SP, et al. Vaccine 1998 Jan-Feb;16 (2-3):119-29.

These folks even have very nice thin section electron microscopy evidence

showing a homogenous field of intact viral particles. They purified the HIV

particles by both anion-exchange chromatography and by sucrose density

gradient ultracentrifugation.

Some workers have even isolated viral cores. After first purifying and

concentrating the virions themselves, the viral capsules are then removed by

detergent and the cores containing the viral genome and associated proteins

is visualized by EM (Welker R. et al. J Virol 2000 Feb;74(3):1168-77).

(PP)4. Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.

Done. In intact virions the process is called natural endogenous reverse

transcription (NERT) and has been demonstrated, see; Zhang H, et al. J Virol

1996 May;70(5):2809-24, Zhang H, et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1998

Apr;14 Suppl 1:S93-5, and Busso M, Resnick L J Virol Methods 1994

Apr;47(1-2):129-39 (also shown in SIV; see Dornadula G, et al. Virology

1997 Jan 6;227(1):260-7). Yamamoto S, et al.( J. Virol. Methods 1996 Sep;

61(1-2):135- 43) used density banding to isolate viral particles and

compared the qualitative and quantitative detection of reverse transcriptase

assays. In fact, one can even measure intraviral RT activity in the blood of

patients who are positive for HIV; Zhang H, et al. J Virol 1996 Jan;70

(1):628-34.

In the course of looking for a vpr gene protein in HIV, HIV particles were

banded on a sucrose density gradient and reverse transcriptase activity was

detected in just the fractions expected for a retrovirus (Cohen et al J.

Virology 64:3097-3099, 1990). RT activity can be detected in the (cell free)

sera of infected people but not in the sera of uninfected people (Heneine W

et al J Infect Dis 1995 May;171(5):1210-6, Pyra H., et al. Proc Natl Acad

Sci U S A 1994 Feb 15;91(4):1544-8, Boni J., et al. J Med Virol 1996

May;49(1):23-8

One report demonstrates that antiretroviral drugs work even on highly

purified virions. The RT activity of HIV occurs primarily in the cytoplasm

of the infected cell, but there is evidence that sometimes the virions can

initiate reverse transcription prior to infection (Lori et al. J Virol 1992

Aug;66(8):5067-74) RT inhibitors inhibited transcription of RT activity

associated with highly purified virions (see; Ventura, M., et al, Arch

Virol 1999;144(3):513-23

As noted above, HIV virions have even been shown to contain HIV DNA (Lori F,

et al. J Virol 1992 Aug; 66(8):5067-74). As HIV is a retrovirus, I will

leave it to the reader to consider the problem for Virusmyth in explaining

where, exactly, retroviral DNA found in the virions comes from.



(PP)5. Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are

unique.

Well, apart from the RT examples above, I'll just give some of the evidence

for the viral protein, gag. There is, of course, a lot of the same evidence

available for other viral proteins. The acronym gag is derived from

group-specific antigen because it was found that a single antiserum from an

infected person was capable of cross-reacting with related retroviruses. The

gag gene encodes four proteins in the mature virus, the capsid (p24), matrix

(p17), nucleocapsid (p7) and p6 proteins. These processed gag proteins play

different roles in the HIV lifecycle including (but not limited to) budding

(p6), core structure (capsid), genome RNA architecture (nucleocapsid) and

viral capsule structure (matrix). The gag precursor protein plays an

important role in the structure of the immature viral capsule.

There is, of course, a huge amount of evidence based on the more powerful,

specific and sensitive PCR techniques, but I'll stick to the Perth Group's

need for this particular methodology. The following papers used

ultracentrifugation to purify HIV virions. Evidence for sequence

determinants of HIV genome encoded gag genes that control the size, shape,

morphogenesis and budding of viral particles purified by

ultracentrifugation; Garnier, L, et al J Virol 1998 Jun;72(6):4667-77, Wang

CT, et al. J Virol. 1998 Oct;72(10):7950-9, Dawson L & Yu, XF Virology 1998

Nov 10;251(1):141-57 and Reicin AS, et al. J Virol 1996 Dec;70(12):8645-52.

(PP)6. Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and

can not be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that

is, tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under

identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected

with a retrovirus.

Ah, well. We now come across another canard of the Perth Group; "unhealthy

subjects". Weasel room, if I've ever seen it. You see; no matter how many

times the experiment is done, they can dodge claims to the prize by saying

something to the effect of; "ah, but since your controls did not have

(insert lacking illness here), they are not proper controls. Therefore HIV

doesn't exist."

**Sigh** What can anyone say to this? Well not much. However, controls like

this have been done since the very earliest days of the epidemic. For

example, in a very early report patients with AIDS had serum that contained

anti-HTLV antibodies while serum from 25 patients who did not have AIDS did

not react to HTLV (early on in the epidemic when it was clear that it was

caused by an infectious agent, most likely a virus and prior to the

identification of HIV, it was thought that the virus was actually HTLV).

Karpas A, et al. Mol Biol Med 1983 Nov;1(4):457-459.

See Gallo, RC et al. Science. 1983 May 20;220(4599):865-7 and Barre-

Sinoussi F, et al. Science 1983 May 20;220(4599):868-871 for the original

papers on the identification of HIV (called HTLV-III by Gallo and LAV by

Montagnier). They used non-infected tissue controls. Also; Gelmann EP, et

al. Science 1983 May 20;220(4599):862-865

(PP)7. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles

are introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle

is obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5.

Leaving aside the Perth Group's required degree of purity, infecting cells

with virus derived from infected people has been done since very early on in

the epidemic. It is a routine way to derive patient isolates or to obtain

viral clones (see, for example; Saag MS, et al. Nature 1988 Aug

4;334(6181):440- 4, and Cheng-Mayer C, et al. Virology 1991

Mar;181(1):288-94. As noted above).



Conclusion

Perhaps the best evidence for the existence of the virus was outlined by

Peter Duesberg when he claimed Virusmyth's prize. He pointed out that by use

of modern molecular biology techniques scientists have been able to

reconstruct intact viruses that are infectious (see for example, Page et al,

J. Virol. 64:5270-5276, 1990). Of course there is no ethical way that the

virus, reconstructed or not, can be used to demonstrate the pathology of the

virus, but we can prove that the virus exists. Fore example, it has been

shown by PCR that cells from infected persons contain HIV DNA but cells from

uninfected people do not (see; Bagasra O, et al. N Engl J Med 326:1385-1391,

1992, Ho DD, et al. N Engl J Med 321:1621-5, 1989, Rouzioux C, et al. AIDS

6:373- 377, 1992, Alimenti A, et al. AIDS 8:895-900, 1994).

Duesberg in claiming the prize, noted that "The existence of the retrovirus

HIV predicts that HIV DNA can be isolated from the chromosomal DNA of

infected cells. This prediction has been confirmed as follows: Full-length

HIV-1 and HIV-2 DNAs have been prepared from virus-infected cells and cloned

in bacterial plasmids (Fisher AG et al, Nature (London) 316:262-265 1985,

Levy, JA et al. Science 232:998-1001 1986 and Barnett, SW et al. J Virol.

67:1006-1014 1993). Such clones are totally free of all viral and cellular

proteins, and cellular contaminants that co-purify with virus. These clones

produce infectious virus that is neutralized by specific antisera from AIDS

patients. For example, virus produced by infectious HIV-2 DNA is neutralized

by antiserum from HIV-2 but not from HIV-1-infected people (Barnett, SW et

al. J Virol. 67:1006-1014 1993)."

The evidence for the existence of HIV presented in the papers cited in this

FAQ is not comprehensive. It is not meant to be. Instead the point here has

been to show that despite the fact that there has been no one who has taken

up Virusmyth's challenge, there is indisputable evidence that HIV exists

even when using the Perth Group's favored methods. They have constructed a

strawman challenge that has led them to a claim that would be laughable if

it weren't for the fact that there are some groups out there who use

arguments like Virusmyth's to make the claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV.

If the virus doesn't even exist, so the argument goes, there is no way that

it can cause AIDS. Frightened, desperate and uninformed people are then led

to believe that they need not seek treatment for their infection. In this

way, Virusmyth is indirectly responsible for the suffering and deaths of

people fooled by their pseudoscience. Some of the members of the Perth Group

are scientists and they commit the worst sin any scientist can; they ignore

data that falsifies their hypothesis. They have much to answer for.

Every epidemic disease is now renamed 'AIDS' under the Bangui Definition.

Mortalities (non natural) in S.A. remain at the same 2.2% P.A. that they were BEFORE AIDS. Either every other disease in the region vanished overnight or 'AIDS' is simply the old diseases with a new name. You decide.

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

In Africa, the continent supposedly being decimated by

HIV, HIV tests are rarely ever done, so there the idea

that all patients with AIDS are infected with HIV is

based entirely on supposition.

At a WHO conference in the Central African Republic in 1985, U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) introduced the "Bangui Definition" of AIDS in Africa.

The CDC officials later explained, "The definition was reached by consensus, based mostly on the delegates' experience in treating AIDS patients. It has proven a useful tool in determining the

extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, especially in areas where no testing is available.

It's major components were prolonged fevers (for a month or more), weight loss of 10% or greater, and prolonged diarrhea..."(McCormick, 1996). Where AIDS is diagnosed clinically, large numbers of AIDS patients test negative for HIV. As no HIV testing is required in Africa we have no idea how many AIDS cases there are HIV positive (De ####, 1991; Gilks, 1991; Widy-Wirski, 1988).

_______

Other conditions common in underprivileged and

impoverished communities that are known to cause false

positive results are tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and leprosy (Burke, 1993; Challakeree, 1993; Johnson, 1998; Kashala, 1994; MacKenzie,1992; Meyer, 1987). In fact, these are the primary health threats in Africa; several million cases of tuberculosis and malaria are reported in Africa each year - more than all the AIDS cases reported in Africa since 1982 (WHO, 1998)*.



________



STRAIGHT AIDS MYTH SHATTERED

New York Post

March 19, 2004 --

THE public health experts - and their amen corner in the media - owe Helen Gurley Brown an apology.

The legendary Cosmopolitan editor was vilified in 1993 when she published a piece called "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS." But she was right.

Eleven years later, Details is asking: "Whatever Happened to AIDS and Straight Men?" The article states, "A disease-free man who has unprotected sex with a drug-free woman stands a one in 5 million chance of contracting HIV."

The story by Kevin Gray also cites a joke that made the rounds of the New York City Department of Health as statistics came in showing that the predicted spread of AIDS to heterosexuals wasn't happening:

"What do you call a man who got HIV from his girlfriend? . . . A liar."

"I feel somewhat vindicated," Brown told PAGE SIX.

Michael Fumento, who wrote the original 1990 book titled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS," said, "I'm not waiting for an apology. It's not going to happen."

When Basic Books published Fumento's tome, "Distributors refused to handle it," he says. "Stores refused to carry it. And at many stores that did have it, clerks left it in the basement."

Celia Farber, who wrote an AIDS column in Spin magazine, was routinely attacked because she refused to rehash the propaganda put out by AmFAR and other groups.

"Everybody who was wrong got journalism awards. Everybody who was right got all but driven from the profession," Farber said.

Farber exposed the conspiracy between profit-hungry drug companies, researchers who wanted more funding, homosexuals who didn't want the disease to be known as "the gay plague," and conservatives who wanted to turn back the sexual revolution.

"They believed in what they were doing, not what they were saying," Fumento said. "They knew it was lies. They felt the end justified the means."

At a recent editorial meeting at Seed, the new science magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Laurie Garrett supposedly threatened to quit when a colleague suggested a story about Peter Duesberg, a leading retrovirologist.

Duesberg lost his funding, his laboratory, and his students when he announced in 1987 that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. "He lost everything," said one insider. Duesberg switched to cancer research, and is now touted to win a Nobel Prize.



_________



Excerpted from United News of India:

CIA Report on HIV/AIDS Baseless

by Annapurna Jha

November 10, 2002



''Mr Gates interest in HIV/AIDS projects in India is not meant for charity,

as it appears. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributing funds to

fight AIDS is to protect his billions of dollars of investments in

pharmaceutical companies interested in conducting field trials in India,''

Mr Mulloli said.

Health Minister Shatrughan Sinha has already rejected the CIA report, and

the National Intelligence Council clearly stated the CIA estimates to be

'highly exaggerated' and not based on surveillance data collected in India.

Mr Gates has reportedly funded the controversial report and also made huge

investments in companies involved in AIDS drug research.

Charging that the CIA's direct and unwarranted involvement in Indian public

health issues amounted to direct intervention in its domestic affairs and a

challenge to its soverignity, Mr Mulloli questioned the basis on which the

CIA said that 310,000 people had died in India due to AIDS in 1999 alone.

The Indian Parliament talked of a mere 114 AIDS related deaths in 1999.

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

Excerpted from Pioneer News Service, New Delhi:

Sinha Rejects US Report on AIDS

November 10, 2002

India has rejected an US intelligence agency report which projects that the

country will have over 25 million people suffering with AIDS by 2010 even as

an NGO charged that the report was aimed at exploiting Indian market for

AIDS drugs and vaccines.



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

Excerpted from the Daily Pioneer:

Mysterious Malaise

by Purushottaman Mulloli of JackIndia

November 17, 2002



The CIA says India will have 25 million infected people by 2010, the maximum

in any country. But India has recorded only 287 AIDS deaths in 1997, 217 in

1998, and 114 in 1999. In whose interest is it to push up these figures?

YOU ARE A BUNCH OF FREAKS AT THAT SITE PAUL KING!

Please visit pozfriends.net (forums, chat, dating, guestbook, member photos, anti dissident action group, etc) to learn the truths (AIDS EXISTS).

AIDS Apologists VS AIDS Dissidents - The Truth About AIDS Denialists

AIDS Apologists VS AIDS Dissidents - Truths About AIDS Denialists

©AIDS-Dissidents.tk
**Dear webmaster, we see your group/forum is being attacked by AIDS dissidents (we have had the same problem from sites like dissidentaction and virusmyth or from paulking, so we are warning you). Please make sure you block domain names listed on http://www.medchecker.com/dissident/aids-dissidents.htm . You must do what you can to stop these web terroists/trolls before they take over your web site and any rational conversations! It may be a good idea to remove this entire thread...

AIDS apologists are those who know HIV leads to AIDS (proven by science, so much scientific proof) and we are defending the scientifically known fact that viral pathogenesis and progression of 'HIV to AIDS' causes the eventual need for combination therapies to prolong life. Mixed "AIDS Apologist" links here or find comments here from both sides (dissidents and the scientific community), but still about AIDS Apologist activities...

AIDS dissidents (better known as AIDS Denialists who are AIDS dissidence, dissidence is anti-establishment like, against science and progression, argumentative) deny HIV causes AIDS and claim the medications kill the patients (AZT "over use" alone started this myth in the late 80s, but medicine combo/therapies are working today in the year 2000+). Basically a group of non doctors and non scientists who challenge the conventional HIV/AIDS model or hypothesis and do not accept the proven evidence. These dissident groups seem almost fanatical by them posting the same message multiple times to a targeted list of internet websites (non dissident sites of course, clogging up the normal flow of reading material with intentions of shutting the sites down) and insulting/bashing anyone who may not agree.

What are AIDS dissidents? Find out who, what, where, when and why:
http://www.hivforum.com/?dissident=dissident+site:aegis.com

What are AIDS denialists all about? See the myths exposed:
http://www.hivforum.com/?dissident=dissident+site:thebody.com

Learn about how they are murdering HIV positive people:
http://www.medchecker.com/dissident/aids-dissidents.htm

Thanks.
http://www.HIVforum.com

AIDS DissiDUNCE Exposed Blogs