Re: HIV=AIDS
Steve Edwards (SAlanEd@concentric.net)
Mon, 03 Mar 1997 11:19:23 -0600
>Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 11:16:45 -0600
>To: Extropy@extropy.org
>From: Steve Edwards <SAlanEd@concentric.net>
>
><snip>
>1. Unlike conventional infectious diseases, including venereal diseases,
>American/European AIDS is nonrandomly (90%) restricted to males, although no
>AIDS disease is male specific.
>2. HIV is said to cause AIDS only after a peculiar latent period. There is
>no precedent for an infectious agent that causes primary diseases on average
>only 10 years after transfusion in adults and only after 2 years in
>children. The diversity of these latent periods is inconsistent with one
>infectious agent and their magnitude is characteristic for diseases caused
>by chronic exposure to toxic substances.
>3. There is no common, predictable pattern of AIDS symptoms in patients of
>different risk groups. Instead, different risk groups have their own
>characteristic AIDS diseases.
>
>
>Pat Fallon <snip>
>
>
>I've spent some time teaching about AIDS, and I agree that Gallo is not to
be trusted and there are some things that don't fit about the whole HIV=AIDs
hypothesis. But Duesberg can't be trusted either (I've met the man, he's
into publicity for it's own sake). A lot of the confusion that comes in is
about what HIV does or doesn't do. The list above contains some inaccuracies--
>
>1) AIDs is not at all male specific. The over abundance of male cases in
the U.S. is entirely due to its route of entry onto American soil via a
homosexual community that was incredibly promiscuous. New cases of HIV
infection not attributable to needles show a female dominant pattern with
African American teenaged girls most at risk.
>
>2) There is something strange about the latency period. It keeps
increasing. At the present rate, it won't be odd to find HIV positive
patients dying of old age before the virus gets them. Nevertheless, the vast
majority of HIV positive people eventually die of opportunistic infection, a
fact that needs explaining.
>
>3) HIV, by itself, is not what kills you. It only destroys your immune
system. Hence it is not odd that different risk groups should have
different symptoms. A common symptom among all risk groups is the
destruction of T cells.
>
>The AIDs infrastructure has at time been alarmist and overconfident of
research claims. It wants money thrown at it. Nevertheless, one should not
throw out all the HIV/AIDs research on that grounds.
>
>
>Steve Edwards, former virologist
>
>
SAlanEd@concentric.net, SAlanEd@aol.com,
http://users.aol.com/salaned/cyberplace.html
"Life, he himself said once, (his biografiend, in fact, kills him verysoon,
if yet not, after) is a wake, livit or krikit, and on the bunk of our
breadwinning, lies the cropse of our seedfather..."