duesberg and HIV

[Guest guest]

I " rediscovered " duesberg while researching sexual behavior and

illness. While duesberg attributes much AIDs to malnutrition and

various chemical insults (like amyl nitrate), he does not think it is

an STD and sex has nothing to do with it. Here he states from the

article just cited: People who are not subject to drugs or

malnutrition,

or discontinue drug use or malnutrition before irreversible

damage has occurred, do not develop AIDS, regardless

of antibodies against HIV.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

[Guest guest]

discontinue drug use or malnutrition before irreversible

damage has occurred, do not develop AIDS, regardless

of antibodies against HIV.

>>>He is out to lunch

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " alon marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> discontinue drug use or malnutrition before irreversible

> damage has occurred, do not develop AIDS, regardless

> of antibodies against HIV.

> >>>He is out to lunch

> alon

 

 

based upon that statement alone or have you read his work over the past 24

years. I was

surprised to see that his most recent publication was only last year and that he

actually

has more support for his position today than he did 10 or 20 years ago.

 

[Guest guest]

I was

surprised to see that his most recent publication was only last year and that he

actually

has more support for his position today than he did 10 or 20 years ago.

 

>>>>I have not read something he wrote last year. However i did ask to explain

women getting aids from partners and have no other risk factors. He just did not

have an answer. This was about 8 years ago. I have not seen him since.

What is he saying with the new work? does he explain the example I gave?

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> >>>>I have not read something he wrote last year. However i did ask

to explain women getting aids from partners and have no other risk

factors. He just did not have an answer. This was about 8 years ago. I

have not seen him since.

> What is he saying with the new work? does he explain the example I gave?

> alon

 

What exactly IS your example Alon? AIDS is supposed to take many

years to develop in an individual, presumably once infected with HIV.

Are you saying that the woman gets HIV from her partner? If so, then

your argument presupposes that HIV is what causes AIDS.

 

If you are saying that the woman gets AIDS (a sydrome) from her

partner, then I am an not sure what you are talking about.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

His position is that aids is caused by drugs, malnutrition, etc. There have been

many females that got aids without such risk factors, supporting a communicable

disease theory

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

 

>

> What exactly IS your example Alon? AIDS is supposed to take many

> years to develop in an individual, presumably once infected with HIV.

> Are you saying that the woman gets HIV from her partner? If so, then

> your argument presupposes that HIV is what causes AIDS.

>

> If you are saying that the woman gets AIDS (a sydrome) from her

> partner, then I am an not sure what you are talking about.

>

> Brian C. Allen

 

I had the same question. HIV infection may be meaningless, so the only

correlation would

be with who gets full blown aids. In fact, the vast majority of female AIDs

pts. use drugs

or are malnourished. they may have gotten HIV from their partners, but the

question is do

middle class women with no drug use hx or malnutrition hx (including an eating

disorder)

get full blown AIDS. Statistically this group had almost no AIDs even at the

height of the

epidemic. The number of cases of middle class women with AIDS is so small that

each

case must be examined individually to look for hidden risk factors. I think

what you

thought was a question that cut right to the heart of the hypothesis really was

not. As to

why he could not answer it then, I have no idea. in his currrent paper, he goes

into a lot of

detail on demographics and it is quite interesting. you should read it. You

know I

wouldn't mention it if I did not think it had some merit.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> His position is that aids is caused by drugs, malnutrition, etc. There have

been many

females that got aids without such risk factors, supporting a communicable

disease theory

> alon

 

 

I really think you are wrong about the number of women who get aids without

these risk

factors. I would offer that anorexia or any eating disorder, even if mild, but

prolonged,

might count as malnutrition. This would greatly change your anlysis.

 

[Guest guest]

I really think you are wrong about the number of women who get aids without

these risk

factors. I would offer that anorexia or any eating disorder, even if mild, but

prolonged,

might count as malnutrition. This would greatly change your analysis.

 

>>>Sorry i have seen quite a few patients that were not anorexic by any means, i

have seen healthy athletes, healthy house wives, etc that got aids from their

partners.

The literature is quite clear on this as well

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I had the same question. HIV infection may be meaningless, so the only

correlation would

be with who gets full blown aids. In fact, the vast majority of female AIDs

pts. use drugs

or are malnourished. they may have gotten HIV from their partners, but the

question is do

middle class women with no drug use hx or malnutrition hx (including an eating

disorder)

get full blown AIDS.

>>>>I am treating one right now. She is a therapist that was a healthy dancer,

normal weight and good appetite, no drug use, surgery, or prior medical history.

She had 1 unprotected sex (a one night stand) and otherwise was actually

celibate for several years. She discovered her HIV when she developed aids

related pneumonia.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

You know I

wouldn't mention it if I did not think it had some merit.

 

>>>Do you have a copy?

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> You know I

> wouldn't mention it if I did not think it had some merit.

>

> >>>Do you have a copy?

> alon

 

Subhuti thinks Deusberg is nuts. I wonder what Misha thinks. I know she must

be familiar

with this work. Here is the link. It says html, but I think its a PDF. from a

peer reviewed

journal. http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

Todd I have been reading Deusberg's new article. One thing that jumped at me is

the fact that his argument basically goes against the basic principles of CM.

His point is that if a virus effect a system, ie zheng qi, than it would be

impossible to have so many diverse diseases, even though the HIV argument is

that all the other diseases are opportunistic.

I have been talking with Len Saputo which by the way thinks Deusberg may be

right, (he has moderated several meetings on Aids were Deusberg participated),

about his theories. He says that Deusberg has the answers to all the questions

anyone raises, however he has not debated prominent virologist. We will try to

set up a meeting with UCSF Drs that are convinced HIV is the cause of Aids, but

Len claims none of them are usually willing to talk to him. So much for

scientific debate.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> His position is that aids is caused by drugs, malnutrition, etc. There have

been many

females that got aids without such risk factors, supporting a communicable

disease theory

> alon

 

 

While I am not sure that stats really bear out this statment above, I have a

similar question.

Is AIDs rampant in certain heterosexual male populations where drug abuse is

also

common. Such as methamphetamine addicts. Or how about heterosexual black males

from the inner city? It seems more likely that lifestyle PLUS infection may be

factors. I

would really like to see an extensive case study meta-analysis to determine

whether

lifestyle or co-factors are most prominent. Most telling in Deusberg's claims

is the 100%

correlation between gay sex, amyl nitrate and kaposi's sarcoma. Not a single

case of KS

occurred in AIDs pts. who did not use this drug. In fact, amyl nitrate induced

KS was

identified in the mid 70's before AIDS. The fact that the diseases associated

with AIDS

seems to cluster around particular lifestyles makes one wonder how one could not

see this

as a factor.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

I have been reading Deusberg's new article. One thing that jumped at me

is the

fact that his argument basically goes against the basic principles of CM. His

point is that if

a virus effect a system, ie zheng qi, than it would be impossible to have so

many diverse

diseases, even though the HIV argument is that all the other diseases are

opportunistic.

 

 

I think his point is why would the effects of the virus lead to such diverse

opportunistic

illnesses (and several others which he says are not classically opportunistic,

like KS) unless

there were at least independent co-factors such as massive drug abuse. He

provides a

lotof data that HIV doesn't even infect many cells or have much effect on

immunity at all.

In fact, the preence of HIV has only been documented in a few AIDS patients.

The test is

actually for HIV antibodies. Viruses should not be able to replicate or enter

other cells

after antibodies have been produced against them and there is no evidence that

HIV does

so any differently. As you probably know, HIV does not satisfy KOCH's

postulates for a

proven vector of microbial illness (others do a search for " KOCH's postulates "

if you don't

know what I mean). Deusberg thus goes further and says HIV is actually just a

harmless

passenger.

 

The question remains as to why the triple cocktail apparently rescued many

people from

the brink of death if the virus it acts upon is not the cause of AIDS. Just as

it has recently

turned out that statin protection against MIs may actually be due to their anti-

inflammatory effect not their cholesterol lowering effect, perhaps protease

inhibitors have

additional effects besides preventing viral replication or whatever it is they

are claimed to

do. We know the side effects of these drugs are fat deposits (excess phlegm

damp). Is it

possible they are acting as yin tonics to rebuild the ravaged immune systems and

these fat

deposits are an expected side effect. Research is now being done at Bastyr, I

believe, to

use garlic supplements (warm and spicy and cholestrerol lowering) to combat the

fat

deposits from the triple cocktail. If not functioning as tonics, by what other

TCM

mechanism do people propose the drugs are working thier miracles in many cases.

Keep

in mind, we need to identify another category of herbs that might also lead to

these

phlegm deposits. I think some sort of excess and stagnation must be at play, so

what

herbs will cause this directly. I would say all tonics might be culprit.

Astringents and

heavy settlers, too, but except for those that are also tonics I don't see how

they could

have such profound effects. Also keep in mind that these drugs need to be taken

continuously like tonics; they don't work like an SHL formula that relieves a

chronic illness

in 3 packs. Deusberg considers the triple cocktail in asymptomatic HIV patients

just

another insult on immunity, though. He seems to sidestep its effects on those

who were

already sick. I can see how the same drugs might be useful to those who have

already

destroyed their immunity with drugs, but too tonifying perhaps for those who are

merely

infected with the possibly harmless HIV. If you need tonics, they heal you, but

if you don't

they make you sick.

 

[Guest guest]

Todd

before we can speculate on herbs we need to have a better definition of aids. Is

it a single disease? Remember that Deusberg does not buy the theory of a single

mechanism many diseases, which is the core of our medicine

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

,

wrote:

> I " rediscovered " duesberg while researching sexual behavior and

> illness. While duesberg attributes much AIDs to malnutrition and

> various chemical insults (like amyl nitrate), he does not think it

is

> an STD and sex has nothing to do with it. Here he states from the

> article just cited: People who are not subject to drugs or

> malnutrition,

> or discontinue drug use or malnutrition before irreversible

> damage has occurred, do not develop AIDS, regardless

> of antibodies against HIV.

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

> FAX:

 

Dear Alon, et al:

I have been following your posts and arguments about HIV and AIDS.

I firmly believe, after seeing or supervising practitioners treating

thousands of people with HIV for more than twenty years, that HIV (not antibody

but virus)

must be present in order for AIDS to develop. This does not preclude that

co-infections

and co-causative factors are likely to increase the progression of disease

processes.

I have seen a goodly number of people who do not fit the " malnutrition drug-using

co-

infected " criteria and have seen non-using healthy single-virus infected no

bacterial or

other infections clients who have developed AIDS defining diagnosesor drops in

CD4

counts to AIDS-defining levels. I have also seen " drug-users " who continue to

use not

develop AIDS and are long-term non-progressors. I have had a number of clients

who are

" drug-using malnourished self-abusers " who DO NOT get AIDS because they do not

have

HIV!!! Also, the argument that " HIV drugs cause AIDS " I do not buy for a

minute--many of

my clients who developed AIDS never took any HIV drugs prior to being diagnosed

with

AIDS and had been working for month or years (depending on if in 1982 or 2003)

using

natural therapies and good lifestyle, no drugs, etc.

I just read the article by Duesberg from June 2003--it is, to me, a rehash and a

reworking

of the arguments he has been making for years regarding HIV and AIDS. He has

transformed and changed his theories from " AIDS is caused by syphilis " to " AIDS

is caused

by illegal drugs " to " AIDS is caused by AZT " etc.

There are a huge amount of holes in many of his writings--he makes up the

premises and

then refutes them himself--this is highly annoying and, as far as I am

concerned,

unethical.

I also hold Duesberg and his cohorts personally responsible for a major part in

the great

rise in HIV infection and AIDS diagnoses (and genocide) in South Africa for

his convincing Mbeki that HIV does not cause AIDS. Mbeki did not allow HIV drugs

to be

funded by the government in South Africa for a long time and did not push for

anti-HIV infection messages because of this stance. Others, including Nelson

Mandela,

have spent many years working to reverse this dangerous and dealy position.

If you want a refutation of his article in detail, I can do it.

Otherwise, I have to say, there is plenty of evidence that HIV must be present

in order for

someone to develop a true AIDS diagnosis.

Yours, Misha

[Guest guest]

> If you want a refutation of his article in detail, I can do it.

> Otherwise, I have to say, there is plenty of evidence that HIV must be present

in order

for

> someone to develop a true AIDS diagnosis.

 

 

There are still some issues as to why HIV does not satisfy Koch's postulates and

the

possible presence of undiagnosed factors like mycoplasma. Deusberg's hypothesis

is

flawed, but I think he has done more of a service than a disservice as the

evidence of HIV

as the sole cause of AIDs has some major holes that need to be addressed. What

do you

make of the 17 major flaws he lists and the recent NY times ad by a number of

scientists

who have nothing to do with Duesberg and yet also question the hypothesis. I

also do not

buy the drug use hypothesis, but I do think there is more to the story than

meets the eye.

As for Africa, I don't know about his role, but I do know I have read a number

of articles

suggesting that much AIDs is misdiagnosed in Africa. It may be rampant, but to

give all of

them the triple cocktails without blood tests confirming HIV would be an ethical

and

humanitarian disaster as well.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Misha Cohen " <TCMPaths@a...> wrote:

I have seen a goodly number of people who do not fit the " malnutrition

drug-using co-

> infected " criteria and have seen non-using healthy single-virus infected no

bacterial or

> other infections clients who have developed AIDS defining diagnosesor drops in

CD4

> counts to AIDS-defining levels.

 

 

Yet I still believe that statistically, worldwide and here, the vast majority of

AIDS patients

are part of the drug using and/or malnourished subpopulations. The fact that a

considerable number of exceptions exist does blow holes in Deusberg's premise,

but one

thing still nags me. Despite the examples you provide of AIDs patients who do

not fit the

profile (assuming they were honest with you about drug use), how do you explain

that

AIDs never became an epidemic for those outside the profile. Basically if you

were a white,

middle class college student, heterosexual and the only drug you ever did was

smoke pot

once in a while, it did not seem to matter if you had multiple unprotected

sexual

encounters. So few of this group in the past ten years got HIV much less AIDS.

Yet as I

understand it, once news of the triple cocktail hit the clubs, straight kids

pretty much

stopped having safe sex.

 

So for the past 8 years of so, we should have had a massive outbreak of AIDs in

this

group, but did not. At the same time there has been a rash of other STDs in

this group

confirming that safe sex is on the decline. That seems to suggest that one

might need

some preexisting deficiency for HIV to even take root in the system in the first

place.

Again, while not disputing that HIV must be present in AIDS, there are many

unanswered

questions. Its like with evolution. The creationist are out of their minds (I

hope I offended

someone), but they still raise questions that need to be answered to solidify

the theory. I

think its the same here. I am sure Duesberg believes what he writes and

ultimately the

blame for a governmental decision must lie with the government that makes it,

not those

who testify in earnest. I hardly think you are suggesting Duesberg knows he is

wrong and

is purposefully dooming Africans to AIDS.

 

[Guest guest]

Amen, Misha.

 

I didn't want to waste the time and breath to go after yet another reworking

of Duesberg's thoughts. I've worked with thousands of HIV patients as well

as drug-using non-HIV+ clients over the years in a very similar cohort as

yours. Duesberg makes me furious, in part due to the clients I've seen die

over the years who didn't use the anti-HIV meds because of his theories, as

well as the African crisis.

 

Thank you for taking the time to go after this thread with some of your

extensive, personal experience.

 

Mark Reese

[Guest guest]

I think he has done more of a service than a disservice as the evidence of HIV

as the sole cause of AIDs has some major holes that need to be addressed.

>>>>>Todd that may not be true. He single handedly stopped aids drug use for

quite a while in south Africa and some see him has guilty of murder for this

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Mark Reese " <tcm2.enteract@r...>

wrote:

> Amen, Misha.

>

> I didn't want to waste the time and breath to go after yet another reworking

> of Duesberg's thoughts.

 

Mark

 

Perhaps he would finally go away if someone actually refuted his specific

claims. I see a

lot of fury here, but little in the way of substantial rebuttal. I do not

believe Duesberg

myself. I regularly advise my patients to get on the triple cocktail. I worked

at IEP from

92-95 and our results were not satisfactory till the triple cocktail was

developed.

However, I personally collated the statistics of the 150 HIV and AIDs pt. we had

at the

time. In our cohort, 100% of the AIDs patients had drug or diet risk factors,

just as

Deusberg says. I know you guys have seen far more patients, making your

experience

more valid. But unless Duesberg is refuted point by point, he won't go away.

 

[Guest guest]

In our cohort, 100% of the AIDs patients had drug or diet risk factors, just as

Deusberg says.

>>>>Todd there are many patients without these risk factors something he just

ignores.

Alon