Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    There has been, and no doubt will continue to be, a lot of
    rhetoric, misinformation, blame, etc. about AIDS, ARC, and the
    HIV virus.  It is true that much remains unknown, but some
    of the information in the base note is wrong and/or irrelevant.
    For example, antibodies are produced by the body as a response
    to viral exposure.  In some cases, these antibodies will cause
    immunity (that is how the typical vaccine works).  In other
    cases, exposure does not confer immunity...as with the common
    cold (rhinoviruses, etc.)
    
    What is most frightening is that it is becoming increasingly
    apparent that the latency period is longer -- perhaps MUCH
    longer -- than had been suspected.  There are 2 latency
    periods:  
    
    	1.  Latency between the time of exposure and a detectable
    		antibody level;
    
    	2.  Latency between either of the above times and actual
    		symptoms  (NOT ALL EXPOSURES RESULT IN AIDS, but
    		a negative response *might* only mean that not
    		enough time has elapsed yet).
    
    A very good book is "And The Band Played On," which traces the
    initial problems in the mid '70's through early '87.  It also
    traces the controversies and conflicts of the researchers and
    policy makers.  No doubt in the future there will be some
    new developments that will improve the knowledge base about
    AIDS, ARC, and HIV.
    
    I found the book as fascinating as a mystery novel...except
    for the *very* disturbing problem that this story is not fiction!
    And the story doesn't, yet, have a "happy ending."
    
    

    So maybe there is a connection between AIDS and Syphilis...
    Ii's no more unlikely than any other theory. The author charges
    that it has not been proven that HIV causes AIDS.
    I did not know that you could PROVE anything in medicine,
    just make enough tests to see if the connection is statistically
    significant.
    It looks like it has not been PROVEN that there is a link between
    AIDS and Syphilis either.
    
    To find one discovery like this and start flaming about authorities
    and media to supply misinformation is a bit much. The medical
    profession can only report what is knows, and it does right not
    to immediately spread information that has not been adequately tested.
    (ie the link to Syphilis.)
    
    Why would 'the media' be any more accurate about AIDS than anything
    else, they are not the expertise. They are usually quite inaccurate
    about most subjects.
    
    There are many avenues to examine and one persons pet theory may
    not hold The Answer. A lot of reseach is going on and this is only
    one more thing to look at.
    
    If a person has antibodies, it only means that s/he has been exposed
    to the virus, the immune system may have successfully fought it
    off or the virus my be hibernating somewhere for years, waiting for
    the body to weaken for some reason. No way to tell. That's why
    people with positive antibody test can be said to be 'at risk'.
    
    I don't think the author in the base note made any significant
    improvement to the AIDS information situation. Just another flamer.
    But investigate his hyphotesis by all means, there might be
    something to learn that way.
    
    						Bj�rn (VIDEO::) Engberg

    .0 is nonsense.
    
    I've never heard of the journals that are being quoted as the source
    of this misinformation: "Amsterdam News", "New York Native"???
    
    If you want reliable information, go to the reputable medical journals,
    such as JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine or Lancet. 
    Or, just ask your physician. If you do so, you'll find:
    
    - There is by now no doubt that the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS.
    - Antibodies to a virus are an indication of prior infection - any
      medical textbook will tell you that.
    
    The contention that all AIDS is just mis-diagnosed syphillis is
    absurd. Syphillis has been around for hundreds of years. AIDS
    is a recent phenomenon.

    
    The following is my response to a reply of the AIDS information
    in HOLISTIC conference 203.  (It is the same information as in this
    note - 431).  Please read on...
    
    Also - a quick comment to .3 - Do you think it is wise to totally
    debunk information based on the fact that you never heard of some
    of the sources?.. Check the Journal of AIDS Research as mentioned
    in the following.  Also, the Committee of Concerned Physicians
    mentioned in .0 happens to be composed of some of the leading
    physicians in the country, if not the world...If they have concerns...
    But, please, don't take my word for it...check it out...
    
RE: .5

>  Lymphoadenopathy-associated virus is not the retrovirus that current medical
>  theory considers to be the cause of AIDS and ARC.


Lymphoadenopathy-associated virus (LAV) is the French name for HLTAV that Dr.
Robert Gallo stole from the French.  The French are currently taking legal
action against Robert Gallo and they have much proof and evidence on this.
Many scientists say that LAV and HLTAV are so genetically similar that they
must be the same virus.  Dr. Joseph Sonnabend & Dr. Matilda Krim have
publicly stated that LAV & HLTAV are so similar that it would defy statistics
if they were not one & the same virus.

In the Baltimore Sun recently, Dr. Farzadegan - Director of the AIDS virus
lab at John Hopkins, announced that 3 patients at John Hopkins Hospital who
tested positively for 2 years for HIV are now testing negatively.  Lab errors
have been ruled out.  Several other men participating in the AIDS studies have
also stopped testing positive for HIV.

Why is that 30% of all people with AIDS do not test positive for HIV?
Correlation does not prove Causation.  HIV has never been SCIENTIFICALLY
proven in a TEST environment to cause AIDS.  Many AIDS patients do not have
HIV.  Just as many AIDS patients have CMV.  Why not blame CMV?

> Dr. Caiazza's letter makes a very good case for the syphilis cause theory.
> Clearly it warrants further research.  The HIV proponants I am sure have their
> counter-arguments.  Not having seen all the evidence, I am not in a position
> to comment on Dr. Caiazza's arguments.

I refer you to the new book "AIDS & Syphilis - The Hidden Link" by H. Coulton.
I also recommend the Journal of AIDS Research, particularly an article in the
first issue entitled "On Cofactors that Can Cause Immune Disfunction - NOT HIV"
by Dr. Joseph Sonnabend.

Gallo claimed in Science Magazine that HTLAV causes AIDS because more often
than not it was seen in AIDS patients.  I reinterate - Correlation does no
prove Causation.

The lack of SCIENTIFIC evidence and ASSUMPTIONS on mere correlations is
appalling.  Gallo has been involved in fraud before in claiming that an
antigen existed that did not exist.  The French have compelling legal
evidence of Gallo's plagerism, renaming LAV as HTLAV.

My friend compiled this information (.0) not as the ultimate answer, but to
suggest alternatives where political biases (i.e. the Nobel Prize) may have
influenced certain researchers.  You cannot disregard the French's lawsuit
against Gallo lightly.


Linda

P.S.  The reference in .0 of the A in the anacronym AIDS meaning AUTO, not
      ACQUIRED was a typographical error on my part... Sorry.
    

    re .4:
    
	"You cannot disregard the French's lawsuit against Gallo lightly."
    
    Why? You yourself mentioned that there's probably politics involved in
    this. I find it much more likely that this lawsuit is simply jockeying
    for credit. Whoever *really* finds the cause for AIDS is bound to get a
    Nobel for it. 
    
    	Jon

    
    re .5:
    
    The reason why I said that you cannot disregard the French's lawsuit
    against Gallo lightly is because of the amount of evidence they
    have supporting their claim of his plagerism....
    

    re .4:
    
    I am perfectly willing to believe other hypotheses about the cause
    of AIDS. I find this quite fascinating. However, I must make a few
    comments:
    
    	"HIV has never been SCIENTIFICALLY proven in a TEST environment
	to cause AIDS."
    
    I'll assume you didn't mean to suggest that we should go inoculating
    people with HIV and see if they get AIDS. Nonetheless, there really
    isn't any such thing as scientific proof, especially in medicine. It
    has never been proved that smoking causes cancer, and the Tobacco
    Institute makes a big deal out of this, in spite of the fact that most
    of us believe differently. Yes, HIV has never been proven to cause
    AIDS, but it's been a pretty good indicator. If someone finds a better
    one, then great. 
    
    The common HIV tests are tests for *antibodies* against HIV, not for
    the virus itself. Suppose 30% of the people with AIDS were infected so
    well that they didn't even make these antibodies. With this hypothesis,
    HIV could cause AIDS and still account for that statistic.
    
    AIDS being caused by a synergism of things is quite interesting. I
    think it attractive and quite plausible. But just as correlation is not
    cause, plausibility is not possibility, possibility is not probability,
    and probability is not fact. 
    
    Accusing Dr Gallo of something as serious as plagiarism simply because
    he and the French are arguing over credit adds nothing to the
    discussion and saves no lives. There is a lot to gain professionally
    from credit for AIDS discoveries. I have heard nothing about the purity
    of the French motives in this -- isn't the objective, after all to find
    a cure for AIDS? 
    
    	Jon

    re .6:
    
    Pardon my skepticism, but this is the first I've ever heard of it. I've
    read nothing in Science, nothing in a reputable newspaper. Come to
    think of it, I've heard nothing in disreputable newspapers, either.
    Given how much there is to gain, I'm very leery.
    
    	Jon

    
    re .7:
    
    The only reason why I mention Dr. Gallo & the French Doctors' court
    case is in reference to the person in the HOLISTIC conference that
    was disclaiming the Cancer Research article because the article
    talked a lot about LAV, not HIV (HLTAV).  I really could care less about
    ego trips & power struggles...  What I care about is that people
    are dying and there may be ways of saving them...NOW.  
    
    As I've said, the information that I have put in this note conference
    is not a final answer......
    
    Linda
    

    Since AIDS is a sexually transmitted desease (STD), and since the other
    STD's (gonnorhea, syphilis, herpes etc.) are still more common than
    AIDS, it is only to be expected that people who got the AIDS infection
    through sex with one or more infected persons will show a high
    probability of having one or more of the other STD's.
    
    HIV is a retrovirus while Syphilis is caused by a bacteria, they
    are very different beasts indeed. The author of .0 charges that 
    you could cure AIDS by curing the Syphilis, and that is nonsense.
    Bacteria can be killed by antibiotics while antibiotics have no
    effect on virus infections. If any antibiotic had been effective
    against AIDS, would we not know that by now?
    
    The only way to resolve this is to get hold of proper statisics
    of the percentage of people who have Syphilis among large enough
    groups of persons with no HIV antibodies, antibody-positive,
    ARC and AIDS victims.
    
    If Syphilis and other infections and conditions are found to be
    able to 'trigger' a latent HIV infection into ARC or AIDS,
    or weaken the immune system to make a person more suceptible
    to a HIV infection, (which is quite possible) it will unfortunately
    not solve the AIDS problem.
    
    						Bj�rn (VIDEO::) Engberg

    
    The point about syphilis here is - long undetected exposure (read
    years) can be fatal and difficult to detect. THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE HIV
    POSITIVE the symptoms your are experiencing may not be caused by ARC
    (AIDS related complications) but by syphilis. 

>    The point about syphilis here is - long undetected exposure (read
>    years) can be fatal and difficult to detect. THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE HIV
>    POSITIVE the symptoms your are experiencing may not be caused by ARC
>    (AIDS related complications) but by syphilis. 

Yes, yes, yes, yes!  Thanks, Eric.

Scientists are still looking for "cofactors" that may--combined with 
HIV infection--trigger the HIV-positive person into a full-blown AIDS
patient.  (There may be more than one such "cofactor.")  Some studies
suggest that years of latent syphilus might be one such "cofactor" or
may be misdiagnosed as AIDS (terciary syphilus and AIDS share many
symptoms---loss of eye-sight, dementia, swollen lymph glands, sickness
by oportunistic infections, and so forth). 

One reason why the syphilus connection isn't being explored by the US 
media could be because the research is being done in Germany.  As the book
"And the Band Played On" proves,  the American scientists and press
tend to ignore European studies unless those studies form a
correlation with American studies.  As ATBPO shows, the French
discovered HIV (called LAV, then) one full year before Gallo
"discovered" HTLV-III.  Where was the American press for that full
year???  (I _highly_ recommend "And the Band Played On"; I thought I
knew a lot about this disease until I read that book!) 

If you are in a high risk group, it would be wise to take the syphilus 
tests suggested in the letter from the concerned physicians.  

As for the existence of "cofactors," we'll probably be learning more 
about that in the years to come, IF the American press is faithful in 
its reporting of the disease, which it HASN'T been in the first seven
years of the epidemic.  (For lots of nasty proof, read "And the Band
Played On.") 


						--Gerry

    
        <<< HYDRA::DISK$NOTES$LIBRARY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HOLISTIC.NOTE;1 >>>
                              -< Holistic Forum >-
================================================================================
Note 203.13                   New facts about AIDS                      13 of 13
SHRBIZ::WAINE "Linda"                                 8 lines   5-JAN-1988 16:05
                            -< The ATLANTIC - 1/88 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    For your information, there is a great article on the AIDS/Syphilis
    connection in the January 1988 issue of The ATLANTIC (by K. Leishman -
    On AIDS and Syphilis).


    Linda
    

    
    
    There is also another good article in the January 1988 issue of
    SPIN magazine.
    
    Linda
    

This is the second note file in which I've felt teased by

	"There's a great article on AIDS in the Atlantic"

and

	"There's another great article in SPIN..."

Could someone who's read the articles and thinks they're so great please
post a few of the best points for those lazy bums like myself that would
love to read a few lines but in reality won't get around to buying the
magazine ?

Thanks!

/Eric

A friend gave this to me and I thought I would put it in this notes
conference.  The following is copied without permission. - LMW


This bibliography relating primarily to AIDS and syphilis is for the sole
purpose of educating the public.  The people who compiled it do not diagnose
conditions relating to health nor prescribe treatment.  Nor do we formally
endorse any health practitioner or protocol.  Further, we do not guarantee
the accuracy of the material described; nor do we necessarily even agree with 
its contents.  Again, this material is for educational purposes only.

For the most part, we have indicated primary articles only.  Many medical
journals publish follow-up discussion of articles.  We may or may not include
such material, and we urge readers to conduct their own follow-up on articles
of particular interest.  We urgently welcome recommendations for the inclusion 
(or exclusion) of any appropriate material.

	    RESOURCES NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH US, BUT SUGGESTED:
                      ---

Coulter, Harris L., AIDS AND SYPHILIS: THE HIDDEN LINK (Berkeley, North 
Atlantic Books; and Washington DC, Wekawken Book Company, 1987).  A summary of 
ideas and treatments to July, 1987.

NEW YORK NATVIE, P.O. Box 1475, New York, NY 10008.  A weekly newspaper by and 
for the gay community.  The most comprehensive AIDS coverage of any 
publication anywhere.  Particularly strong on the syphilis connection.  We 
urge all health-conscious peopl to subscriber ($49 one year U.S. subscription, 
$74 outside U.S.)

James, John, AIDS TREATMENT NEWS.  An 'alternative therapies' newsletter which 
has covered everything but syphilis.  Valuable and comprehensive.  Phone 
number: (415) 282-0110.

HEALING AIDS NEWSLETTER.  A patient-oriented newsletter covering a vast array 
of therapoes, resources, etc.  3835 20th St., San Francisco CA 94114  Phone 
number: (415) 821-7646.

Schell and Musher, Eds, PATHOGENESIS AND IMMUNOLOGY OF TREPONEMAL INFECTION
(New York, Marcel Dekker, 1981).  Technical examination of syphilis and other 
treponemal infections.  Especially strong on immunosuppression.

Brandt, Allan M., NO MAGIC BULLET: A SOCIAL HISTORY OF VENERAL DISEASES IN THE 
UNITED STATES SINCE 1880, 2nd edition (Oxford Univ Press, 1987).

New York Committee of Concerned Physicians, PO.O Box 4523, Highland Park NJ
08904.  (212) 529-1150.  Periodic newsletter on the AIDS/syphilis connection.

The Institute for Thermobaric Studies, in conjunction with Smith-Kline 
Laboratories, is researching a new test for syphilis.  They are accepting 
participants, and there is a moderate fee.  Write TBM Associates, 2811 Martin 
Luther King, Jr. Way, Berkeley CA 94703.  (415) 548-4000.  There are an 
increasing number of reports of people who have tested negative on the 
standard serological syphilis tests and have gone on to test positive when 
having swollen lymphs, skin rashes, and other body 'intrusions' biopsied.  
Joan McKenna of TBM is anxious to document these cases.  Please help.

Salvatore Catapano, 66 S. Brush Dr., Valley Stream NY 11581.  (516) 825-6226.
Medical researcher profiled in the January, 1988 ATLANTIC article.  He has 
developed a protocol for new use of the non-live typhoid vaccine (patented and 
approved for FDA trials).  Anecdotal patient reports are very encouraging.  We 
urge physicians to contact him for more information.

TREATMENT ISSUES, The Gay Men's Health Crisis Newsletter of Experimental AIDS
therapies, 132 W. 24th St. Box 274, New York NY 10011.

DAIR UPDATE (Documentation of AIDS Issues and Research Foundation, Inc.),
2336 Market St. Suite 33, San Francisco CA 94114.  A newsletter.

PI PERSPECTIVE (of Project Inform), 25 Taylor St. Suite 618, San Francisco CA
94102.  An AIDS advocacy newsletter. (415) 928-0293, (800) 334-7422.

Merritt, H.H., et al, "NEUROSYPHILIS" (Oxford Univ Press, 1946).

Dr. Cesar Caceres, 1759 "Q" St. NW, Washington DC 20009.  (202) 667-5041.
Popular DC physician publishes monthly AIDS newsletter.

Positive Action Health Care (415) 788-7545.  New clinic in S.F. aggressively
pursuing alternative therapies.  Plans for branch clinics.


		  MATERIALS AVAILABLE THROUGH US

It is our policy to copy only those materials not presently available for 
sale.  Since our purpose is education (not running a business) we offer these 
materials at a near-cost basis, about 10 cents per page (which includes 
postage for this and free material).  We encourage you to make further copies 
for your friends.  Specific prices are indicated.

	Ordering:

	1. Minimum order is $5.00.
	2. Outside North America, double all prices (for extra postage).
	3. Make checks or money orders (U.S. Funds only) payable to:
			Michael Smith
	   (Send cash at your own risk; we do not recommend it).
	4. Mail to:
			Michael Smith
			279 Collingwood St.
			San Francisco, CA, 94114
			Phone:  864-7363
	   (Please do not send order by registered mail.  This requires a 
	    signature which is very inconvenient, and it may delay your 
	    request.)
	5. On a separate sheet of paper, order by item number and price.  Be 
	   sure your check is included and that your return address is on the
	   paper.  Keep this sheet for future reference and share with a 
	   friend.


1.  Leishman, Katie, "AIDS AND SYPHILIS", THE ATLANTIC (January, 1988, 17-26).
A great overview.  8 pages.  $.80.

2.  McKenna, J.J. et al, "UNMASKING AIDS: CHEMICAL IMMUNOSUPPRESSION AND 
SERONEGATIVE SYPHILIS", MEDICAL HYPOTHESES (21:4, 1986, 421-430).  The article 
which started it all.  (See #1 above for more on McKenna).  10 pages. $1.00.

3.  Duesberg, Peter H., "RETROVIRUSES AS CARCINOGENS AND PATHOGENS: 
EXPECTATIONS AND REALITY", CANCER RESEARCH (47, 1987, 1199-1220).  The first 
major challenge to the HIV theory.  Technicaly complex.  22 pages.  $2.20.

4.  Caiazza, Stephen S., and Craig Johnson, "LETTERS", NEW YORK NATIVE 
(September 14, 1987, 6-7).  Two extensive, well-documented letters challenging 
the efficacy of syphilis diagnosis and tratment by local health program.  2 
pages.  $.20.

5.  Hicks, Charles B., et al, "SERONEGATIVE SECONDARY SYPHILIS IN A PATIENT 
INFECTED WITH THE HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV) WITH KAPOSI'S SARCOMA: A
DIAGNOSTIC DILEMMA", ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (107, 1987, 492-494+, 587).  
Case study of an AIDS patient testing negatice twice on syphilis serology 
tests and finaly being properly diagnosed after a skni biopsy.  5 pages. $.50.

6.  Smith, Michael J., "THE NEW SYPHILIS", THE NEW YORK NATIVE (December 28,
1987, 16-17).  In layman's terms, a patient's commentary on the AIDS/syphilis 
connection.  Reprinted in many gay papers.  2 pages.  $.20.

7.  Four German patient studies.  An unpublished, clinically detailed summary 
of treatment of four of Dierig's and Waldthaler's patients (see the January, 
1988 ATLANTIC article), the earliest patients treated with megadoses of I-V 
penicillin (beginning 1981).  8 pages.  $.80.

8.  New York patients.  An unpublished, clinically detailed summary  of 25 of 
Dr. Stephen Caiazza's patients, treated with I-M and oral Penicillin and other 
drugs.  Relerased by Dr. Caiazza at a press conference in San Francisco, 
October 15th, 1987).  13 pages.  $1.30.

9.  Spates, Ken, "IS SYPHILIS AIDS?", CHICAGO OUTLINES (August 13, 1987, 
October 15, 1987).  Analysis and interview with Dr. Stephen Caiazza. 
2 pages.  $.20.

10. Pierini, Luis, et al, "RESULTS OBTAINED IN THE TREATMENT OF KAPOSI'S 
SARCOMA", REVISTA ARGENTINA DE DERMATOSIFILOLOGIA (32:1-2, 1948, 5-14).
Original Spanish with translation.  12 pages. $1.20.

11. Fayolle, J., et al, "PENICILLIN IN THE TREATMENT OF KAPOSI'S SARCOMA", 
LYON MEDICAL (244:17, 1980, 277-81).  Original French with translation.  
5 pages.  $.50.

12. Jorgensen, Jorgen, et al, "NEUROSYPHILIS AFTER TREATMENT OF LATENT 
SYPHILIS WITH BENZATHINE PENICILLIN", GENITOURIN MED (62, 1986, 129-31).  
Account of two patients who developed neurosyphilis after treatment of latent 
syphilis with I-M benzathine penicillin.

13. van Eijk, R.V.W., "EFFECT OF EARLY AND LATE SYPHILIS ON CENTRAL NERVOUS 
SYSTEM: CEREBROSPINAL FLUID CHANGES AND NEUROLOGICAL DEFICIT", GENITOURIN MED
(63, 1987, 77-82).  Failure of tests, inadequacy of treatment.  6 pages. $.60.

14. Felman, Yehudi M., et al, "SYPHILIS SEROLOGY TODAY", ARCH DERMATOL (116,
1980, 84-89).  Overview.  6 pages.  $.60.

15. Hayward, Rodney A., "LABORATORY TESTING ON CEREBROSPINAL FLUID, A 
REAPPRAISAL", THE LANCET (January 3, 1987, 1-4+).  6 pages.  $.60.

16. Guinan, Mary E., "TREATMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYPHILIS: DEFINING 
FAILURE AT THREE- AND SIX-MONTH FOLLOW-UP", JOURNAL OF AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION (257; Jan 16, 1987; 359-360).  Editorial with several important
implications.  2 pages.  $.20.

17. Mandell, Gerald L., et al, "ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS: PENICILLINS, ETC" (From 
standard text by Goodman and Gilman_.  Thorough summary of the penicillins 
with commentary on megadoses.  10 pages.  $1.00.

18. Potterat, John J., "DOES SYPHILIS FACILITATE SEXUAL ACQUISITION OF HIV?",
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (258; July 24, 1987; 473).  Letter 
from Colorado Springs health official.  1 page.  $.10.

19. Johns, Donald R., et al, "ALTERATION IN THE NATURAL HISTORY OF 
NEUROSYPHILIS BY CONCURRENT INFECTION WITH THE HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS", 
"NEUROLOGIC RELAPSE AFTER BENZATHINE PENICLIN THERAPY FOR SECONDARY SYPHILIS 
IN A PATIENT WITH HIV INFECTION", "SYPHILIS IN THE AIDS ERA", and 
correspondence, THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (316, 1987, 1569-72, 
1587-89, 1600-01, 316:1473-75).  The first major medical journal discussion of 
the connection between neurosyphilis and AIDS.  Also included: NEW YORK NATIVE 
report (July 6, 1987) by editor Charles L. Ortleb of these articles.
13 pages.  $1.30.

20. Smego, Jr., Raymond A., "SECONDARY SYPHILIS MASQUERADING AS AIDS IN A 
YOUNG GAY MALE", NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL JOURNAL (45:4: April, 1984; 253-54).
2 pages. $.20.

21. Wicher, Konrad, et al "SYPHILIS", [book title unknown, 1983].  Thorough
overview of the disease by two well-known syphilologists.  25 pages. $.25.

22. Smith, J. Lawton, "SPIROCHETES IN LATE SERONEGATIVE SYPHILIS DESPITE 
PENICILLIN THERAPY", MEDICAL TIMES (96:6, 1968, 611-23).  Fairly early,
controversial 4-patient study.  12 pages.  $1.20.

23. Spangler, Arthur S., et al, "SYPHILIS WITH A NEGATIVE BLOOD TEST 
REACTION", JOURNAL OF AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (189:2, July 13, 1964; 
113-116).  4 pages.  $.40.

24. Jensen, Jorgen Rikard, et al, "DEPRESSION OF NATURAL KILLER CELL ACTIVITY 
BY SYPHILITIC SERUM AND IMMUNE COMPLEXES", BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASE
(58, 1982, 298-301).  Examination of effect of by-products of syphilis.
4 pages.  $.40.

25. Pavia, Charles S., et al, "CELL-MEDIATED IMMUNITY DURING SYPHILIS", 
BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASE (54, 1978, 144-150).  Focus on 
immunosuppression.  7 pages.  $.70.

26. Musher, Daniel M., et al, "IN VITRO LYMPHOCYTE RESPONSE TO TREPONEMA 
REFRINGENS IN HUMAN SYPHILIS", INFECTION AND IMMUNITY (9, 1974, 4:654-57).
Immune suppression by T. Pallidum.  4 pages.  $.40.

27. Jensen, Jorgen R., et al "ALTERATIONS IN T LYMPHOCYTES AND T-LYMPHOCYTE
SUBPOPULATIONS IN PATIENTS WITH SYPHILIS", BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASE 
(58, 1982, 18-22).  Immunosuppression.  5 pages.  $.50.

28.  Thompson, J.J., et al, "IMMUNOREGULATORY PROPERTIES OF SERUM FROM 
PATIENTS WITH DIFFERENT STAGES OF SYPHILIS", BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL 
DISEASE (56, 1980, 210-17).  Effect of by-products of syphilis. 8 pages. $.80.

29.  Schrader, John W., "TOLERCANCE INDUCTION IN B LYMPHOCYTES BY THYMUS-
DEPENDENT ANTIGENS: T-CALLS MAY ABROGATE B-CELL TOLERANCE INDUCTION BUT 
PREVENT AN ANTIBODY RESPONSE", J. EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE (141, 1975, 974-989).
Mechanism of T-Cell/B-Cell dependency in antibody production. 16 pages. $1.60.

30. Fowler, W., "THE ERYTHROCYTE SEDIMENTATION RATE IN SYPHILIS", BRITISH 
JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASES (52, 1976, 309-312).  5 pages.  $.50.

31. Fitzgerald, T.J., et al, "MORPHOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION OF CULTURED CELLS BY 
THE ATTACHMENT OF TREPONEMA PALLIDUM", BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASES
(58, 1982, 1-11).  11 pages.  $1.10.

32. Solling, J., et al "CIRCULATING IMMUNE COMPLEXES IN SYPHILIS", ACTA 
DERMATOVENOER (58, 1978, 263-67).  5 pages.  $.50.

33. Duesberg interviews.  Various popular magazine interviews/articles dealing 
with Duesberg's anti-HIV theory.  [The most detailed interview was first 
printed in THE NEW YORK NATIVE, July 6, 1987; it is reprinted in CHRISTOPHER
STREET magazine Issue 118 and can be purchased for $3.00 from CHRISTOPHER 
STREET, P.O. Box 1475, New York NY 10008.]  12 pages.  $1.20.

34. Rappoport, Jon, "THE MYTH OF 'AIDS TESTING'" NEW YORK NATIVE (December 28,
1987, 14) and Jean Class' letter, "JUST SAY NO TO THE AIDS TEST", NEW YORK
NATIVE (August 17, 1987, 6).  Commentary on AIDS tests.  2 pages.  $.20.

35. McKenna, J.J., et al. "UNMASKING AIDS: CHEMICAL IMMUNOSUPPRESSION AND 
SERONEGATIVE SYPHILIS", unpublished (1986).  A lengthier version of citation 
#2 above.  This contains complete survey results and individual patient 
profiles.  28 pages.  $2.80.

36. Gans, Ronald, "WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?", NEW YORK NATIVE (March 30, 1987,
14-15).  Re: syphilis testing.  2 pages.  $.20.

37. "ROBERT R."  Newspaper accounts of the St. Louis youngster who apparently 
contracted "AIDS" about 1967 at the age of 13.  Was he instead infected with 
syphilis?  What happened to the person who infected him?  3 pages.  $.30.

38. Lauritsen, John, "FIRST THINGS FIRST" and "AZT ON TRIAL", NEW YORK NATIVE
(May 1 and Oct 19, 1987).  Report on side effects and FDA trials of AZT.
Also, follow-up article by same author on AZT.  [Should persons take AZT 
without a thorough, unbiased investigation into the background and efficacy of
the drug?  Have you and your physician done so?]  12 pages.  $1.20.

39. Caiazza, Dr. Stephen, various published and unpublished writings/reports 
on the AIDS/syphilis connection (1987), including a CDC newsletter, February
16, 1987.  13 pages.  $1.30.

40. Ortleb, Charles, "HBLV OR HIV?", NEW YORK NATIVE (August 17, 1987, 5-6).
Editorial discussion of other viruses.  2 pages.  $.20.

41. "CDC MONKEYS", NEW YORK NATIVE (March 2, 1987).  In 1965 CDC doctors
innoculated one monkey with syphilis; in 1969 that monkey and three others 
died of Pneumocystis.  Discussion of report.  1 page.  $.10.

42. Pitts, Ferris N., et al, :CLINICAL IMPROVEMENT OF TWO PATIENTS WITH
T LYMPHOTROPIC RETROVIRUS DISEASE AFTER POLIO VACCINE HYPERIMMUNIZATION", 
CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY AND IMMUNOPATHOLOGY (43, 1987, 277-280).  Might the polio 
vaccine have some impact (see Catapano typhoid vaccine above)?  How is polio
related historically to syphilis?  Pitts is conducting studies and can be 
reached in Rosemead, California.  Dr. Robert F. Cathcart is using this vaccine
(127 2nd. St. #4, Los Altos CA 94022.  415-949-2822.)  There are also reports 
of success with a polio vaccine to which irradiated HIV has been added.  
Trials are even being conducted.  Any additional information?  5 pages.  $.50.

43. Conant, Marcus A., et al, "SECONDARY SYPHILIS MISDIAGNOSED AS INFECTIOUS
MONONUCLEOSIS", CALIFORNIA MEDICINE (December, 1968, 462-64).  Relatively
early report of atypical case of secondary syphilis.  3 pages.  $.30.

44. Felton, W.F., "ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL INCIDENCE OF UNDISCOVERED SYPHILIS",
BRISTISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASES (49, 1973, 249-255).  7 pages.  $.70.

45. Baker-Zander, Sharon A., et al, "ANTIGENS OF TREPONEMA PALLIDUM RECOGNIZED
BY IgG and IgM ANTIBODIES DURING SYPHILIS IN HUMANS", JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS
DISEASES (151, 1985, 264-272).  Decreased reactivity in late latent syphilis.
11 pages. $1.10.

46. Fulfor, K.W.M., et al, "LEUCOCYTE MIGRATION AND CELL-MEDIATED IMMUNITY IN
SYPHILIS", BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASES (48, 1972, 483-488).  
Variations in immunosuppression.  6 pages.  $.60.

47. Aho, K., "STUDIES OF SYPHILITIC ANTIBODIES", BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL
DISEASES (43, 1967, 259-263).  5 pages.  $.50.

48. Wright, J.M., et al, "WHY IS THE INFECTIOUS STAGE OF SYPHILIS PROLONGED?"
BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASES (50,1974, 45-49).  5 pages.  $.50.

49. Fieldsteel, A. Howard, et al, "PROLONGED SURVIVAL OF VIRULENT TREPONEMA
PALLIDUM (NICHAOLS STRAIN) IN CELL-FREE AND TISSUE CULTURE SYSTEMS",
INFECTION AND IMMUNITY (18:1, 1977, 173-82).  10 pages.  $1.00.

50. Friedmann, P.S., et al, "A SPECTRUM OF LYMPHOCYTE RESPONSIVENESS IN HUMAN 
SYPHILIS", CLIN. EXP. IMMUNOLOGY (21, 1975, 59-64).  6 pages.  $.60.

51. Atwood, William G., et al, "FLUORESCENT TREPONEMAL ANTIBODIES IN 
FRACTIONATED SYPHLITIC SERA", ARCH DERM (100, 1969, 763-769).  Relation 
between fractionated sera and serology tests.  7 pages.  $.70.

52. Lauderdale, Vivian, et al, "SERIAL ULTRATHIN SECTIONING DEMONSTRATING THE
INTRACELLULARITY OF T. PALLIDUM, AN ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC STUDY", BRITISH 
JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASES (48, 1972, 87-96).  10 pages.  $1.00.

53. Musher, Daniel M., et al, "LYMPHOCYTE TRANSFORMATION IN SYPHILIS: AN IN 
VITRO CORRELATE OF IMMUNE SUPPRESSION IN VIVO?", INFECTION AND IMMUNITY
(11, 1975, 1261-1264).  4 pages.  $.40.

54. Leven, G.M., et al, "REDUCED LYMPHOCYTE TRANSFORMATION DUE TO A PLASMA 
FACTOR IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE SYPHILIS", THE LANCET (August 2, 1969; 246-47).
Impact of syphlitic sera.  2 pages.  $.20.

55. Shannon, R., et al, "THE PATTERN OF IMMUNOLOGICAL RESPONSES AT VARIOUS
STAGES OF SYPHILIS", BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASES (53, 1977, 281-86).
6 pages.  $.60.

56. Metzger, E. Michalska, et al, "IMMUNOGENIC PROPERTIES OF THE PROTEIN
COMPONENT OF TREPONEMA PALLIDUM", BRITISH JOURNAL OF VENERAL DISEASES (45,
1969, 299-303).  5 pages.  $.50.

57. Cathcart, Robert F., "VITAMIN C IN THE TREATMENT OF AIDS", JOURNAL OF
MEDICAL HYPOTHESES (14, 1984, 423-33) and newspaper comment.  Dr. Cathcart has 
had more clinical experience with vitamin C than any other physician (some
20,000 patients with varying illnesses).  Nobel prize winner and vitamin C 
advocate Linus Pauling refers to Cathcart's work constantly.  Cathcart is
currently offering a form of the polio vaccine [see #42 above].  His work may 
also be important because C used in conjunction with penicillin and typhoid 
(and maybe AZT?) MAY reduce or even eliminate allergic reactions and/or 
toxicity.  Dr. Robert F. Cathcart, 127 2nd St. #4, Los Altos CA 94022. (415)
949-2822.  12 pages.  $1.20.

58. Baseman, Joel B., et al, "MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF RECEPTOR BINDING 
PROTEINS AND IMMUNOGENS OF VIRULENT TREPONEMA PALLIDUM", JOURNAL EXPERIMENTAL
MEDICINE (151, March, 1980; 573-586).  14 pages.  $1.40.

59. Sparling, P. Frederick, "DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF SYPHILIS", NEW ENGLAND
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (284:12, 1971, 642-653).  12 pages.  $1.20.

60. Wong, Grace H.W., et al, "IN VITRO ANTI-HIV VIRUS ACTIVITIES OF TUMOR 
NECROSIS FACTOR AND INTERFERON", THE JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY (140:1, Jan 1, 
1988; 120-124).  Treatment of cells with two 'hormones' of the immune system 
which snergize to  inhibit HIV.  Currently undergoing evaluation at S.F. 
General on PWAs.  5 pages.  $.50.

61. AIDS Tests and Testing,  Includes instructions for administration of the 
HIV Western Blot test, Abbott Lab's Elisa test, and Immunofluorescence Assay;
and commentary.  19 pages.  $1.90.

62. Salinas, Mike, "KIDNAPPING A VIRUS", THE NEW YORK NATIVE (March 30, 1987,
13).  Questions Gallo's veracity in the 'discovery' of the HIV virus.  See
also Shilts' book, "And the Band Played On" (index under "Gallo", especially
pp. 528-530.  1 page.  $.10.

63. Johnson, Craig, "ONE EPIDEMIC OR TWO?", THE NEW YORK NATIVE (May 4, 1987).
Thorough analysis of syphilis testing.  8 pages.  $.80.

64. Steele, Tom, "MIAMI DOCTORS RECOMMEND TESTING AND TREATING SYPHILIS IN 
PEOPLE WITH AIDS OR ARC".  THE NEW YORK NATIVE (April 27, 1987).  Account of
treatment of syphlitic blindness in AIDS-diagnosed person.  1 page.  $.10.

65. Debs, Robert J., et al, "SELECTIVE ENHANCEMENT OF PENTAMIDINE UPTAKE IN 
THE LUNG BY AEROSOLIZATION AND DELIVERY IN LIPSOMES", AM REV REPIS DIS (1987,
135:731-737).  Note: in major cities this is now a standard protocol for those
who have had PCP and also for those AIDS/ARC patients who want a prophylactic
against possible future incidence of PCP.  Not infallible, but relatively non-
invasive.  7 pages.  $.70.

66. Richman, Douglas D., et al, "THE TOXICITY OF AZT IN THE TREATMENT OF 
PATIENTS WITH AIDS AND AIDS-RELATED COMPLEX", THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF 
MEDICINE (1987, 317:4:192-97).  Some of the downside.  6 pages.  $.60.

67. Tramont, Edmund C., "INADEQUATE TREATMENT OF NEUROSYPHILIS WITH PENCILLIN",
letter, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (1976, 294:1296).  1 page.  $.10.

68. Yoder, Frank W., "PENICILLIN TREATMENT OF NEUROSYPHILIS.  ARE RECOMMENDED
DOSAGES ENOUGH?", JOURNAL AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1975: 232:270-71).
2 pages.  $.20.

69. Baum, Eric W., "SECONDARY SYPHILIS, STILL THE GREAT IMITATOR", JOURNAL
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1983: 249:22:3069-70).  2 pages. $.20.

70. Chapel, Thomas A., "PHYSICIAN RECOGNITION OF THE SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF 
SECONDARY SYPHILIS", JOURNAL AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1981, 246:250-51).
2 pages.  $.20.

71. Hartung, Adolph, et al, "PULMONARY SYPHILIS", JOURNAL AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION (1932, 98:23:1969-72).  4 pages.  $.40.

72. Sparling, P. Frederick, "DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF SYPHILIS", NEW ENGLAND
JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (1971, 284:12:642-653).  12 pages.  $1.20.

73. Stroh, Jack A., "THE 'GREAT IMITATOR' KEEPS UP WITH THE TIMES", HOSPITAL
PRACTIVE (November 15, 1986: 33-35).  Syphilis case similar to AIDS.  3 pages.
$.30.

74.  Finch, Roger, et al, "IMMUNOMODULATING EFFECTS OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS",
JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY (1980, 6:691-99).  Immune suppression by
drugs.  9 pages.  $.90.

75. Drusin, Lewis, "SYPHILIS: CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS, DIAGNOSIS, AND 
TREATMENT", UROLOGICAL CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA (1984: 11:1:121-130).
10 pages.  $1.00.

76. McPhee, Stephen J., "SECONDARY SYPHILIS: UNCOMMON MANIFESTATIONS OF A 
COMMON DISEASE", WEST J MEDICINE (1984, 140:35-42).  8 pages.  $.80.

77. Williams, George, et al, "AIDS IN 1959?", letter, THE LANCET (November 12,
1983, 1136).  1 page.  $.10.

78. Lindskov, R., et al, "ACUTE HTLV-III INFECTION WITH ROSEOLA-LIKE RASH",
letter, THE LANCET (February 22, 1986, 447).  1 page.  $.10.

79.  Tramont, Edmund, "PERSISTENCE OF TREPONEMA PALLIDUM FOLLOWING PENICILLIN
G THERAPY", JOURNAL AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1976, 236:19:2206-07).  Two
cases.  2 pages.  $.20.

80. Mohr, John A., et al, "NEUROSYPHILIS AND PENICILLIN LEVELS IN 
CEREBROSPINAL FLUID", JOURNAL AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1976, 
236:19:2208-09).  2 pages.  $.20.

81. Fiumara, Nicholas J., "FAILURE OF RECOMMENDED TREATMENT FOR SECONDARY 
SYPHILIS", letter, JOURNAL AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1986, 
256:11:1443-44).  2 pages.  $.20.

82. Thomson, Bill, "BODY HEAT", EAST/WEST JOURNAL (January, 1986, 42-47).
Survey of Joan McKenna's theories on body temperature and health.  6 pages.
$.60.

83. Hooshmand, Hooshang, et al, "NEUROSYPHILIS, A STUDY OF 241 PATIENTS",
JOURNAL AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1972, 219:6:726-29).  4 pages.  $.40.

84. Greene, Bruce M., et al, "FAILURE OF PENICILLIN G BENZATHINE IN THE 
TREATMENT OF NEUROSYPHILIS", ARCH INTERNAL MED (1980, 140:1117-1118).
2 pages.  $.20.

85. Schroeter, Arnold L., et al, "TREATMENT OF EARLY SYPHILIS AND REACTIVITY 
OF SEROLOGIC TESTS", JOURNAL AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1972, 221:5:471-76). 
6 pages.  $.60.

86. Drusin, Lewis M., et al, "INFECTIOUS SYPHILIS MIMICKING NEOPLASTIC 
DISEASE", ARCH INTERN MED (1977, 137:156-160).  5 pages.  $.50.

87. Siegel, John H., et al, "DISSEMINATED VISCERAL KAPOSI'S SARCOMA", JOURNAL
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (207:8:1493-96).  4 pages.  $.40.

88. Markovitz, David M., et al, "FAILURE OF RECOMMENDED TREATMENT FOR 
SECONDARY SYPHILIS", JOURNAL AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1986, 
255:13:1767-68).  2 pages.  $.20.

89. "TYPHOID VACCINE", AMERICAN HOSPITAL FORMULARY SERVICE (1987).  
Description of typhoid vaccine.  2 pages.  $.20.

90. Bayne, Lydia L., et al, "ACUTE SYPHILITIC MENINGITIS: ITS OCCURRENCE AFTER
CLINICAL AND SEROLOGICAL CURE FOR SECONDARY SYPHILIS WITH PENICILLIN G", ARCH
NEUROL (1986, 43:137-138).  2 pages.  $.20.


			UPDATE ON CATAPANO

There is no published material other than the ATLANTIC article.  Anecdotal
reports, however, are very encouraging.  We know that Catapano was granted a
"new use" patent for the typhoid vaccine, but we don't know how thorough an
investigation the patent office conducted.  We know also the FDA has given
Catapano some sort of approval (again, unfortunately, details unknown).  DO 
NOT GO OUT AND INJECT TYPHOID VACCINE.  The protocol is very specific, very
subtle.  We urge you to have your health care professional inquire for 
details.  Salvatore J. Catapano, 66 S. Brush Dr., Valley Stream NY 11581.

		SF GROUP MEETING JANUARY 20, 1988: SOME IDEAS
a. We are not out to prove or 'own' the syphilis theory.  We do advocate
further investigation by medical professionals.  WE WILL NOT ALLOW OURSELVES
TO BE STRESSED OUT by whatever argument or resistance comes from other people.
b. We welcome the participation by any interested people AT WHATEVER LEVEL 
they feel comfortable.  We will not judge or guilt-trip people for what they
contribute or do not contribute to the group.
c. "If it's not broken, don't fix it."  People who are in reasonably good 
health should not jump into a therapy.  THE I-V PENICILLIN THERAPY, 
PARTICULARLY, IS VERY RIGOROUS.  Moreover, PENICILLIN IS NOT THE ONLY THERAPY.
In the next three to four months we should have a much better idea of which 
protocols are effective.  Those in poor health should work with a health 
professional who is willing to talk to (and listen to) other health 
professionals with experience.
d. What can be done now?  Consider getting the least invasive, least harmful
tests: VDRL, MHA-TP, FTA-ABS.  Consider having skin intrusions (rashes, 
swollen lymphs, etc) biopsied and subjected to various tests (silver staining,
darkfield, Kahn, etc).  Consider a lumbar puncture (CSF fluid) for neurological
problems.  BUT REMEMBER: YOU MAY NOT RESPOND TO BLOOD/CSF TESTS DUE TO IMMUNE
SUPPRESSION; AND YOU MAY NOT FIND TREPONEMES IN THE BIOPSIES BECAUSE TREPONEMES
DON'T ALWAYS EXIST IN LATE-STAGING SYPHILIS.  But read, read, read about ALL
these procedures first.


			CONTACT PEOPLE

THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT NECESSARILY PATIENTS, HIV-POSITIVE, NOR EVEN GAY.  They 
may even know lessabout the subject than you, but they're willing to share
information and ideas.  If you reach answering machines, instruct them to call
you "collect".  Please do not call at odd hours.
Los Angeles:  Allan (213) 656-0681 and Don (213) 931-7136.
Chicago:  Ken (312) 472-8708 (Tue-Fri 1pm-6pm) and Loni (312) 337-3341.
Miami:  Bob (305) 895-1293.
Austin:  Dieter (512) 928-4057.
Houston:  Joe/Steve (713) 523-8321.
DC:  Billy Jones (202) 797-3560.
Sarasota:  Buzz (813) 355-4415.
Indianapolis:  Larry (317) 357-4475.
Denver:  Brad (303) 863-7901.
San Antonio:  "Papa Bear" (512) 821-6218.
New York:  John-Michael or Tim (212) 645-7929.
Vancouver:  Mark (604) 879-2509.
Philadelphia:  Bob (215) 546-5924.
San Francisco:  Walt (415) 621-0329, 9am-9pm Pacific Time.


TO RECEIVE THE NEXT BIBLIOGRAPHY, WRITE TO:

		Mike Smith
		279 Collingwood Street
		San Francisco, CA, 94114

Please enclose $1.00 for photocopying and postage.
    

    The January 1989 Penthouse has a GREAT article about AIDS.  I
    recommend it highly.
    
    Also, a new book is out called AIDS, INC. that is also very good.
    It goes into the Reagan Administration/CDC cover-up of the
    truth about AIDS....
    
    Linda
    

    
    Uh, Mike, that could be construed as controversial... 

	Here's what the inside cover of AIDS, INC. says:

	AIDS, INC. - Scandal of the Century by Jon Rappoport
		Virus is Not the Cause
		Definition of AIDS is Worthless
		Treatment is Poison

		Human Energy Press - ISBN 0-941523-03-9 - $13.95 - (May 1988)
		Suite D
		370 West San Bruno Avenue
		San Bruno, California, 94066

		Investigative reporter Jon Rappoport uncovers the shocking
		truth about AIDS: Thousands are dying needlessly as the medical
		world and media pull off he biggest scandal of our time - all
		for the love of power and money.

		AIDS, INC. takes you on a sizzling behind-the-scenes tour of
		laboratories, newsrooms, and even the White House to expose the
		REAL killers behind the disease.  It's the most explosive,
		myth-shattering book you'll read this year.


       Linda
    
    

    Re: .18
    
    Over the past 2 years I have been compiling info regarding AIDS
    and treatments for AIDS.  If you would like me to send you this
    information, please send me a mail message.
    
    Examples of things I have found out:
    
    1) AZT - the current "miracle" drug for treating AIDS - This drug
       was first invented and used in the 60's for treating cancer.
       The FDA then pulled the drug because it was so toxic and the
       drug actually destroys the immune system.  Why give this drug
       to people whose immune system is already unhealthy?
    
    2) The majority (99%) of people suffering from Kaposi Sarcoma test negative
       for HIV.  Most of these people prove positive for Syphilis when
       given the expensive Syphilis test (not the one more commonly
       used).  Dr. Kaposi, when he first noted these lesions back in
       the 40's, he noted the lesions in SYPHILITIC patients.  It has been
       proven that once Syphilis has gone beyond the blood-brain barrier,
       that it is very difficult to detect and to treat.  The current
       treatment for syphilis is not strong enough.  Consult Dr. Caiazza's
       letter at the end of 431.0 for more on-line information.
    
    3) A doctor in New York City, Dr. Catapano, is using a Typhoid vaccine
       for "AIDS" patients and has a near 100% cure rate.  Why hasn't
       this been announced to the general public?  Apparently the vaccine
       stimulates the immune system in some way.
    
    There is a lot more information that I have, but it is too lengthy
    to key in.  Any one interested in more information, please either
    consult the AIDS/Syphilis bibliography that I entered earlier in
    this note, or feel free to contact me by mail...

    Linda

    RE: .22 regarding Hemophiliacs.
    
    The current tests to determine whether blood contains Syphilis
    are inadequate.  Syphilis is and always will be called the great
    masquerader.  Syphilis is transmitted exactly as "AIDS" is supposedly
    transmitted.  One can get Syphilis from sexual contact, congenitally,
    or by transfusions.  There have been many studies that prove that
    the current, "standard" test for Syphilis is inaccurate.  This have
    been demonstrated and proven over the last 20 or so years.   Also,
    there have been cases where a person with a weakened immune system
    has only tested negligibly for Syphilis, but once the intensive
    Syphilis treatments have started and their immune system strengthens
    they slowly show "more" Syphilis.  Eventually with the treatments
    they peak and then finally show "0" Syphilis and have a healthy immune 
    system.  (I know of this for a fact because this happened to a couple 
    of friends of mine.)
    
    As for the Syphilis connection as having been shown to be 
    "non-contributory" in AIDS infection.... Is this why there is more
    research in this area than ever before???  And is this why "AIDS" 
    patients when treated properly for tertiary Syphilis have completely 
    healthy immune systems???

    Linda

    re: .21
    
>    1) AZT - the current "miracle" drug for treating AIDS
    
    Who is calling AZT a "miracle drug"?  Certainly not the medical
    profession.  They are well aware of the adverse side effects.
    Quite a bit of research is being done with AZT in combination with
    other drugs which appear to reduce the toxicity of AZT.
    
>   Why give this drug
>   to people whose immune system is already unhealthy?
    
    Because it has proven to be of some benefit to at least a portion
    of the people who have taken it.  Clearly, AZT has its problems;
    but at the moment it is one of the few drugs known to have any
    beneficial effect at all.
    
>    2) The majority (99%) of people suffering from Kaposi Sarcoma test negative
>       for HIV.    
    
    Which type of KS?  In what population?  They test negative for HIV
    or HIV antibodies?  What percentage seroconvert for HIV antibodies
    over a period of time?
    
    There are at least three different forms of KS, only one of which
    is linked with AIDS.  It has been known for some time that certain
    populations (primarily elderly men of Jewish or Mediterranean ancestry)
    have a higher than normal risk of developing KS.

    
>    3) A doctor in New York City, Dr. Catapano, is using a Typhoid vaccine
>       for "AIDS" patients and has a near 100% cure rate.
    
    What is the status of the patients going into the trial?  How is
    "cure" defined?  How long has the post-trial follow up period been?
    Have these results been independently verified?

    
    It's probably worth noting a couple of things here:
    
    1. The presence of HIV antibodies is only part of the CDC case
       definition for AIDS.  One can be classified as having AIDS
       in the absence of HIV antibodies; conversely, a person who
       is HIV antibody positive is not necessarily classified as
       having AIDS.  Note that the absence of detectable HIV antibodies
       does not necessarily mean the person has not been infected by
       HIV.
    
    2. The fact that a significant number of people diagnosed as having AIDS
       have concomitant syphilis infections is not inconsistent with
       AIDS being caused by a virus unrelated to syphilis.  Both HIV
       and Treponema pallidum (aka Spirochaeta pallida, the microorganism
       which causes syphilis) can be transmitted via many of the same
       routes: sexual contact, exchange of bodily fluids, and through
       lesions in the skin or mucous membranes.  In fact, people
       (especially males) with genital lesions such as those common
       in active syphilis infections are believed to be at higher risk
       of acquiring many sexually transmitted diseases during intercourse
       with an infected partner because the lesions provide a convenient
       entry point for the infectious agent.
    
    3. There are quite a few different laboratory tests for syphilis.
       The accuracy of each test varies quite a bit depending on the
       stage of infection.  This is well documented in medical literature,
       including textbooks of Internal Medicine and common diagnostic
       manuals.  If a physician suspects a patient may have syphilis
       based on clinical symptoms, it is not uncommon for them to order
       a different test if the first one comes back negative.  False
       negative (and false positive) results from diagnostic lab tests
       are not at all uncommon, which is why physicians must rely on
       other factors as well when making a diagnosis.

    re: .23
    
>    there have been cases where a person with a weakened immune system
>    has only tested negligibly for Syphilis, but once the intensive
>    Syphilis treatments have started and their immune system strengthens
>    they slowly show "more" Syphilis.  Eventually with the treatments
>    they peak and then finally show "0" Syphilis and have a healthy immune 
>    system.
    
    This makes perfect sense if one is aware that most of the tests
    for syphilis test for antibodies to T. pallidum -- antibodies
    which are produced by the immune system.  In cases of immuno-
    suppression or immunodeficiency it is not surprising that the
    immune system does not produce these antibodies.
    
>    As for the Syphilis connection as having been shown to be 
>    "non-contributory" in AIDS infection.... Is this why there is more
>    research in this area than ever before???  And is this why "AIDS" 
>    patients when treated properly for tertiary Syphilis have completely 
>    healthy immune systems???
    
    On what basis is the integrity of the immune system being judged?
    By recovery from a specific infection?  Do the same patients
    subsequently succumb to other opportunistic infections?
    
    Basically, two factors are required for a diagnosis of AIDS:
    
    	(1) unexplained immunodeficiency (or presence of HIV antibodies)
    	(2) presence of one of a number of defined opportunistic infections
    
    Several of the opportunistic infections are caused by microorganisms
    which are susceptible to the antibiotics which are used to
    treat tertiary syphilis.  The fact that an AIDS patient suffering
    from one of these infections responds to antibiotic treatment is
    neither significant nor unusual.  
    

"This makes perfect sense if one is aware that most of the tests for syphilis
test for antibodies to T. pallidum -- antibodies which are produced by the
immune system."

If that is the case, it is quite possible for someone to have syphilis, and an
immunodeficiency (AIDS), and not test positive for syphilis.  Perhaps this is
the reason for the insistance on a specific test for syphilis. 

Perhaps Syphilis bacterium infected with HIV virus are what is being
transmitted???  Sounds bizzare, doesn't it? 

Jim.

    re :.27
    
>Perhaps Syphilis bacterium infected with HIV virus are what is being
>transmitted???
    
    Possible, but not highly likely.  Viruses are usually fairly specific
    in the cells they will infect.  T. pallidum and human T cells are
    sufficiently different that a single virus is unlikely to be able
    to infect both.
    
    For the sake of argument, let's assume T. pallidum is the vector
    for HIV.  Once an organism carrying the virus is transferred to
    a new hostnet effect is the same as if no vector had been involved.
    Killing the vector will, at most, prevent the virus from replicating
    *within that cell*; the virus is still capable of transfering itself
    until it invades another cell within the host.

    Re: .24, .26

    .24>You assume an active case of syphilis.  Once cured, it is not
    .24>contageous, unlike a virus which does not 'die'.
    
    The problem lies in the fact that people are not being cured of
    Syphilis.  The current dosage of Benzathine Penicillin is not
    enough to kill the spirochete once it has gone beyond the Blood-
    Brain Barrier.  I have 2 friends that were diagnosed as having
    Syphilis, received the "standard" treatment, still tested positive
    for Syphilis yet the doctors they went to told them they were cured and
    that it was standard to still test positive for Syphilis after
    treatment.  This was 2 different doctors.  They of course sought
    other opinions, and that was the standard response.  Well, one of
    these friends has been very sick with PCP (Pneumocystic Pneumonia),
    does not test positive for HIV or HIV antibodies, has been declared
    as having AIDS based on the fact that he has PCP and is gay.  Once
    put on AZT, he deteriorated quickly.  This man is now currently lying 
    in bed, unable to move and to talk, has periods of dementia (just
    like in Tertiary Syphilis) and is near death.  He had started the 
    intensive treatment for Syphilis a couple of months ago and started 
    improving, but his children decided for him that this treatment was 
    hogwash and demanded the treatment stopped.  (They had
    power-of-attorney and he was still unable to talk coherently.  He 
    finally just gave up and basically is now awaiting to die.)  The 
    other friend of mine has just developed KS lesions and is currently 
    undergoing Dr. Catapano's Typhoid Vaccine treatment along with a
    new treatment in which the lesions are "frozen" off and is doing
    fairly well right now.
    
    re: .26
    
>>    there have been cases where a person with a weakened immune system
>>    has only tested negligibly for Syphilis, but once the intensive
>>    Syphilis treatments have started and their immune system strengthens
>>    they slowly show "more" Syphilis.  Eventually with the treatments
>>    they peak and then finally show "0" Syphilis and have a healthy immune 
>>    system.
    
>    This makes perfect sense if one is aware that most of the tests
>    for syphilis test for antibodies to T. pallidum -- antibodies
>    which are produced by the immune system.  In cases of immuno-
>    suppression or immunodeficiency it is not surprising that the
>    immune system does not produce these antibodies.
    
    It's interesting to note that these 2 friends of mine where diagnosed
    as having AIDS due to their "cause-unknown immunodeficiency".

>    Do the same patients
>    subsequently succumb to other opportunistic infections?
    
     No.

>    Basically, two factors are required for a diagnosis of AIDS:
>    
>    	(1) unexplained immunodeficiency (or presence of HIV antibodies)
>    	(2) presence of one of a number of defined opportunistic infections
    
    Syphilis causes immunodeficiency, is usually not detected or not
    treated properly.  When one is immunodeficient, one will developed
    opportunistic infections....
    
    Linda

    An interesting tidbit:  1932 prediction of AIDS?!

    One thing I found that was interesting is that in the Journal of
    American Medical Association in *1932*, Dr. Adolph Hartung and
    his Associates published a paper entitled "PULMONARY SYPHILIS".
    In this paper, Dr. Hartung, et al. says that if we do not watch
    out and improve our testing and treatment of Syphilis, that
    within 50 years, we will have an epidemic on our hands that will kill
    thousands.  
    
    The testing and treatment of Syphilis has not really changed since
    1930's.
    
    1932 + 50 = 1982....  First diagnosed AIDS cases that I had heard
    of was around 1980, when "a mysterious illness was infecting and
    killing homosexuals".
    
    Linda
    

    
    re .31
    
    What?
    
    /prc

    Re: 31
    
    No... 1932 prediction of an uncontrolled epidemic of Syphilis due
    to inaccurate testing and insufficient treatment.
    
    It is also interesting to note that several scientists in the last
    60's and early 70's also stressed developing new and effective methods
    of detecting and treating Syphilis.  Their concern was largely due
    to the change in sexual mores ... i.e. "Free Love" of the 60's.
    
    Consult: 
    
    Felton. W.F., "Estimate of Annual Incidence of Undiscovered
    Syphilis", British Journal of Veneral Diseases (49, 1973, 249-255).
    
    Conant, Marcus A., et al, "Secondary Syphilis Misdiagnosed as
    Infectious Mononucleosis", California Medicine (December, 1968,
    462-64).
    
    Fulford, K.W.M., et al, "Leucocyte Migration and Cell-Mediated Immunity
    in Syphilis", British Journal of Veneral Diseases (48. 1972, 483-488).
    

    Linda's recent replies seem to be applying the following logic:
    
    	a. a patient is diagnosed as having AIDS
    	b. the patient is treated for syphilis
    	c. the patient recovers
    
    therefore, AIDS must really be syphilis.
    
    Even if one accepts all the premises, there is no basis for reaching
    this conclusion to the exclusion of all others.  Unfortunately,
    insufficient data has been presented to judge the validity of
    premise (c).
    
    Two of the major pathologic facets of AIDS are:
    
    	1. Suppression of the immune system
    	2. Opportunistic infections which occur because of (1)
    
    
    In many cases the opportunistic infections can be successfully treated,
    at least until the cumulative effect weakens the infected patient
    to a point where their body can no longer participate in the struggle.
    What can't be reliably treated at this point is the cause of the immune
    suppression.  In the initial stages of AIDS this distinction may
    not always be clear, especially from clinical symptoms.
    

         re: .29
    
>    that it was standard to still test positive for Syphilis after
>    treatment.
    
    This is absolutely true.  The antibodies are still present after
    the pathogen has been killed.  There are two ways to monitor the
    patient's status:
    
    	1. monitor the antibody levels over time (they should decrease)
    	2. look for live T. pallidum
    
    Neither method can conclusively prove that the disease has been
    completely cured.
    
    
>   Well, one of
>   these friends has been very sick with PCP (Pneumocystic Pneumonia),
>   does not test positive for HIV or HIV antibodies, has been declared
>   as having AIDS based on the fact that he has PCP and is gay.
    
    The diagnosis, as you've presented it, does not meet the CDC case
    definition for AIDS.  An HIV antibody negative individual presenting
    with PCP would also have to have suppressed immune function
    demonstrated by a CD4+ lymphocyte count of less than 400 in order
    to be diagnosed as having AIDS under the CDC criteria.  Sexual
    orientation is not considered (although it may have been at one
    time).
    
>                                                   He had started the 
>    intensive treatment for Syphilis a couple of months ago and started 
>    improving
    
    The treatment for syphilis is simply very intensive doses of anti-
    biotics.  It's not hard to believe that the antibiotic might also
    be at least partially effective against the pathogen causing the PCP.
    

>    It's interesting to note that these 2 friends of mine where diagnosed
>    as having AIDS due to their "cause-unknown immunodeficiency".
    
    Why is this interesting?  It's part of the definition of AIDS.
    

>>    Do the same patients
>>    subsequently succumb to other opportunistic infections?
>    
>     No.
    
    Perhaps you can explain the details of the study.  I'm especially
    interested in details such as patient selection criteria, experimental
    controls, definition of "cure", post-study follow-ups, and confirmatory
    studies.
    
>    Syphilis causes immunodeficiency, is usually not detected or not
>    treated properly.
    
    I've never read of syphilis having any significant impact on CD4+
    lymphocyte counts (which is the definition of immunodeficiency in
    the CDC AIDS case definition).  Perhaps you can supply references
    which support this claim?
    
        
        
    
    
    

    re: .30
    
>    One thing I found that was interesting is that in the Journal of
>    American Medical Association in *1932*, Dr. Adolph Hartung and
>    his Associates published a paper entitled "PULMONARY SYPHILIS".
>    In this paper, Dr. Hartung, et al. says that if we do not watch
>    out and improve our testing and treatment of Syphilis, that
>    within 50 years, we will have an epidemic on our hands that will kill
>    thousands.  
>    
>    The testing and treatment of Syphilis has not really changed since
>    1930's.
    
    I believe this paper predates the use of penicillin to treat syphilis.
    It certainly predates many of the diagnostic tests presently used
    to detect syphilis.
    

    Re: Jerry
    
    If a previous reply to this note, I keyed in a bibliography of
    AIDS/Syphilis material.  Also, read Dr. Caiazza's Letter at the
    end of 431.0.  This goes into the current inadequate testing and
    treatment of Syphilis.
    
    McKenna, J.J. et al, "Unmasking AIDS: Chemical Immunosuppression
    and Seronegative Syphilis", Medical Hypothese (21:4, 1986, 421-430).
    This article was one of the first to connect AIDS with Syphilis.
    
    Hicks, Charles B., et al, "Seronegative Secondary Syphilis in a
    Patient Infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) with
    Kaposi's Sarcoma: A Diagnostic Dilemma", Annals of Internal Medicine
    (107, 1987, 492-494+, 587).  Case study of an AIDS patient testing
    negative twice on syphilis serology tests and finally being properly
    diagnosed after a skin biopsy.
    
    Guinan, Mary E., "Treatment of Primary and Secondary Syphilis: Defining
    Failure at Three- and Six-Month Follow-up", Journal of American
    Medical Association (257; Jan 1987; 359-360).
    
    Potterat, John J., "Does Syphilis Facilitate Sexual Acquisition
    of HIV?", Journal of American Medical Association (258; July 24,
    1987, 473).

    Johns, Donald R. et al, "alteration in the Natural History of
    Neurosyphilis by Concurrent Infection with the Human Immunodeficiency
    Virus", "Neurologic Relapse After Benzathine Penicillin Therapy
    for Secondary Syphilis in a Patient with HIV Infection", "Syphilis
    in the AIDS Era", and correspondence, THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
    MEDICINE (316,1987,1569-72, 1587-89, 1600-01, 316:1473-75).
    The first major medical journal discussion of the connection between
    neurosyphilis and AIDS.
    
    etc.
    
    RE: Mike Zarlenga....  See my last response to note 203 in Holistic.

    Linda

    Thanks for sending me the bibliography Linda.  However, it presents
    more questions than it answers.  The only references to Catapano's
    typhoid vaccine cite "anecdotal patient reports".
    
    Project Inform, a group which has been distributing information
    on non-approved AIDS treatments for quite some time, does not
    recommend the typhoid vaccine treatment.  Apparently there has
    not been any formal tracking of the test subjects following treatment,
    but informal follow ups with several of Catapano's patients have
    not shown any evidence of lasting improvement in immune system
    function.  In addition, there is concern that if the typhoid
    immunizations do stimulate the immune system, even if for a short
    period of time, that HIV may be simultaneously stimulated.
    
    Caiazza's comments at the end of note 431.0 are extremely misleading
    at best.
    

>    	the ordinary tests
>	for syphilis like a VDRL or an RPR or an ART are, under the very best
>	conditions, merely 60-65% accurate overall.
    
    The key work here is "overall".  There are four stages of syphilis:
    primary, secondary, latent, and tertiary.  The reactivity of the
    VDRL test over all the stages might be ~ 65%.  However, this varies
    quite a bit depending on the stage of infection.  Also, there are
    other tests which are significantly more accurate than the VDRL.
    
            			Stage of disease, % positive
                                ----------------------------
    	Test		Primary		Secondary	Latent		Tertiary
        ----		-------		---------	------		--------
    	VDRL		59-87		   100		73-91		37-94
	FTA-ABS		86-100		99-100		96-99		96-100
    	MHA-TP    	64-87		96-100		96-100		94-100
    
    	(Source: Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 11th ed.,
    		 pg. 646)
    
    
    The inaccuracies of these test are well know, and most physicians
    will order the appropriate tests depending on a particular patients
    clinical situation.
    
    
>	the treatment for
>	syphilis recommended by the CDC and our own Departments of Health - one
>	or two or even more injections of Benzathine penicillin at weekly
>	intervals - is inadequate.  It is inadequate because Benzathine
>	penicillin is a unique preparation of the antibiotic that keeps the
>	penicillin molecule from penetrating the Blood Brain Barrier in any
>	significant concentration.  And guess where Treponema Pallidum, the
>	bacterium that causes syphilis, quickly migrates to and becomes dormant:
>	the very parts of the body which are on the other side of the Blood
>	Brain Barrier - the central nervous system and the eye.
    
    The standard therapy guidelines take this into account.  When neuro-
    syphilis is known or suspected, procaine penicillin G or penicillin
    G are administered for at least 10 days before benzathine penicillin
    therapy is started.  Both procaine penicillin G and penicillin G
    demonstrate much greater CSF penetration than benzathine penicillin.


>	Know that one of the earliest signs of advanced syphilis can be one or
>	more violacious skin lesions.  Often they first appear on the ear or in
>	the mouth.  These lesions are impossible to distinguish from Kaposi's
>	sarcoma either visually on gross examination or even under the micro-
>	scope.
    
    To quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, page 1590:
    
    		The skin lesions of Kaposi's sarcoma are RATHER
    		DISTINCTIVE [emphasis mine -JAE] dark blue or
    		purple-brown nodules or plaques [...]
    
    There are color plates of both syphilitic lesions and Kaposi's
    sarcoma lesions in this textbook.  I was able to distinguish
    between them quite easily.  That's not to say the lesions are
    easily distinguishable in all cases, but it would appear they
    are not as easy to confuse as Dr. Caiazza claims.
    
    
>	Know that for years the only useful therapy for syphilis was an
>	assortment of heavy metals like Mercury or Arsenicals or Bismuth
    
    Heavy metal treatments for syphilis were used until the 1940s when
    antibiotics first became available; they subsequently fell into
    disfavor because of their toxicity.

Here is an example of some of the many articles from magazines and from 
medical journals that I have collected over the last 2+ years.  I apologize
for the length, and any typos...

Re-printed without permission from May 1988 OPTION magazine, a Canadian
health magazine published by the Health Action Network Society.  (OPTION
is a well-respected health magazine in Canada, similar to the American
magazine, Longevity....LMW)

	DOCTORS NEAR 100% SUCCESS WITH AIDS  by BERNARD AHERNE

	A Berkeley researher, A Manhattan physician with a large AIDS caseload
and 2 German medical doctors have come to similar conclusions about the cause
and best means of treatment of AIDS that are radically different from common
opinion and practice.

	Each had been investigating the role of syphilis in AIDS before
becoming aware of the work of the others.  Details of this exciting and often
frustrating work is detailed in AIDS AND SYPHILIS-THE HIDDEN LINK by 
H.L. Coulter, Ph.D. (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley).

	Joan McKenna reported in an article in MEDICAL HYPOTHESES, (21:4 Dec
1987) something that was later echoed in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (Jan. 16/87) in an editorial by a worker at the Centre for
Disease Control, that the standard serological test is not a reliable criterion
for a cure in syphilis.  Added to that is the opinion of Stephen Caiazza, M.D.,
that the standard tests for the syphilis is not reliable and furthermore, the
customary form of treatment is not effective either.

	Persons with AIDS that are treated for syphilis with aqueous penicillin
(intravenously or intermuscularly, the treatment of choice for Dr. Caiazza)
have resulted in almost all patients getting better over the past year.

	One of the main problems with the syphilis issue is that the public has
assumed that syphilis is mostly a thing of the past like tuberculosis, although
that disease started cropping up with PWAs (Persons with AIDS) as well.

	McKenna pointed out that the experts have largely ignored the extent
of chronic inflammatory disease and the extensive use of drugs, both medically
prescribed and of the "street" variety, among certain groups of people.
Therefore, she says, these people "had a kind of pre-AIDS syndrome".

	The Berkeley scinetist was astonished that the U.S. Center for Disease
Control had received clincal reports for 2 years from physicians who found
patients with symptoms of secondary syphilis, but who had negative
bloodwork, meaning that the results of the standard tests for syphilis 
were negative.

	"Well, what are you doing about it?" she asked the CDC.
	"Nothing" was the reply.
	"What are you GOING to do about it?" she then asked.
	"Nothing." answered the CDC representative.

	McKenna says that many physicians were not questioning their patients
about their history of drug use, prescription or otherwise, with the result that
if they contracted syphilis, their chemically immune-suppressed systems would
likely be further suppressed by that disease, and yet antibodies to the
syphilis-causing spyrochete might not be evident, resulting in negative test 
results.

	In order to test the AIDS-syphilis theory, Dr. Caiazza had himself
injected with syphilis.  Within a matter of weeks, he became very ill, and 
although he tested positive for HIV "in every orifice of his body", there was 
no sign of treponemes (that cause syphilis).

	"You've got to go by clinical insight.  You can't depend on the 
laboratory findings all the time," the New York physician points out.

	Some patients didn't show symptoms or test positive for antibodies
to syphilis until after their immune systems were at least partially restored.
At that point, rashes sometimes appeared, fevers also developed.

	Few public health officials have adopted Caiazza's explanation 
concerning AIDS although Dr. David Sencer, the former Health Commissioner of
New York Cty resigned because he could no longer support the orthodox theory
as to the cause of the AIDS epidemic.

	An undetermined number of American physicians are employing the treat-
ment protocals of Dr. Caiazza.

	Several different forms of medical treatment have achieved nearly one
hundred percent success rates in treating AIDS in the United States, Europe,
and Australia.  However most medical authorities and public health officials
insist that the disease is largely incurable and that in the absence of an 
effective drug or vaccine, that the only constructive measure is to educate
members of the public to change their sexual practices and to stop sharing
hypodermic needles for injecting dugs.

	The successful methods of treatment are being carried out by licensed
medical doctors, some of whom are also scientists, but since their methods
are not orthodox or widely recognized by other members of the profession,
they remain largely unknown or ignored.  Because the major media outlets
normally report only mainstream medical developments, the public is largely
unaware of these breakthroughs.

	By March of 1988, New York City physician Stephen Caiazza reported that
he had lost only one out of 216 patients diagnosed with AIDS over a period of
the previous year by treating them all for syphilis with a type, dosage
and method of application that differs from the standard form of treatment.

	When Caiazza asked for help from the drug company that was manufacturing
the penicillin he was using, because many patients could not afford the cost
of the treatment, he was told that there was no point in helping him in
covering some of the cost of the penicillin, which is a generic, not a
patented drug, because it would only help prove that the potentially higher-
profit drugs tha corporation was working on would no longer be necessary.

	Treatment of viral and bacterial diseases using large doses of Vitamin
C, for example, has been used successfully for over 50 years, and was one of 
the earliest success stories with AIDS, but news of this success is still
little known.  It seems the people that should know, such as the public health
officials and physicians dealing directly with persons with clinical AIDS,
are still mostly unfamiliar with the clinical work in the field, as well as
the reported studies in the medical literature nor do they appear to understand
the theoretical considerations about how and why this form of treatment has been
so effective.
    

Here is a portion of on article on AZT in which it is stated that HIV is not
the cause of AIDS:  (re-printed without permission)

Excerpt from the article, "AZT ON TRIAL - DID THE FDA RUSH TO JUDGEMENT - AND
THEREBY FURTHER ENDANGER THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE" by John Lauritsen
from the October 19, 1987 issue of the NEW YORK NATIVE.

	HIV IS NOT THE CAUSE   (section header)

	AZT (Retrovir) is officially defined as a drug for "symptomatic HIV 
infection".  Its label states it is for the "management of certain patients 
with serious manifestations in infections caused by the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV)".  Therefore it is crucial to know whether or not HIV really is
the cause of AIDS, or whether HIV infection is even harmful.  According to
Duesberg, HIV is a benign passenger virus, and HIV "infection" is nonpathogenic.
If so, prescribing a poisnous drug to attack a harmless virus would be utter
madness.

	Colleagues in the sciences have told me that we should now consider it
highly probable that HIV is not and could not possibly be the cause of AIDS.
I agree.  Not only are the arguments compelling that are put forward by
Duesberg, Dr. Jospeh A. Sonnabend, Dr. Nathanial S. Lehrman and others, but no
attempt to rebut these arguments has been made by any of the leading HIV
champions, including Dr. Robert Gallo (the so-called "discoverer" of HIV) of
the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Drs. William Haseltine and Myron Essex
of Harvard, or their faithful colleagues in the Public Health Service.

	The HIV edifice appears to have collapsed, and the "AIDS virus"
crowd have resorted to stonewalling.  A British television team recently
attempted to interview Gallo.  They were informed by NCI officials that it 
would first be necessary to submit in writing a list of all questions Gallo
would be asked, and that under no circumstance would the good doctor discuss
etiology, or whether or not HIV is the cause of AIDS.


    

For a more indepth scientific explanation of the research that Dr. Peter 
Duesberg has done and why he has stated that HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS,
please consult the CANCER RESEARCH (the publication of the American
Association for Cancer Research, Inc) (47, 1987, 1199-1220).  The article
is entitled "Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and
Reality".

For a more indepth scientific  explanation of Dr. Stephen Caiazza's work
regarding the treatment of "AIDS" patients as Tertiry Syphilis patients,
please consult an article entitled "Chronic Spirochetal Infection And
The Pathogenesis of AIDS" in the scientific journal Quantum Medicine - A
Journal of Comparative Therapeutics - January 19888 - Volume I Number I.
This is an indepth clinical study of Dr. Caiazza's work.

Linda
    

An interesting commentary from May 1988 OPTION magazine.  Re-printed
witout permission. 

	THE REAL AIDS COVER-UP   by Judith Cross

	AIDS is nothing more and nothing less than tertiary syphilis.  In my 
opinion, that's it folks!  If the virus (HIV) does anything at all, it messes
up the standard tests for syphilis, which were notoriously unreliable before 
the virus showed up.

	"Impossible; all those people dying and all that money being spent on
finding a cure, and all the fuss being made about testing must mean something,"
you say.  That's true, but you're not going to like what it does mean.
North American's have not been treating syphilis properly.

	For years, European health services have been critical of the standard
syphilis treatment employed in North America.  They have felt that it is not 
controlled adequately either by the form of penicillin used or the length of
treatment provided.  Italy and Germany routinely treat the disease for at 
least a year.

	I would imagine that quite a case could be made against the public
health authorities in North America for not heeding the requests of their
European counterparts to change treatment modes over the last 20 years.

	Many AIDS cases result from tertiary syphilis erupting from its
dormant stage while others appear to be caused by this more virulent bug 
being passed on.  HIV may or may not have a role in increasing virulence
in the early stages of some cases of AIDS, but it is clear the virus is not
the cause.

	Dr. Peter Duesberg is a distinguished virologist who was one of the
first to question the disease-causing role of HIV last year in the prestigous
journal CANCER RESEARCH.  Dr. Gallo was the guest speaker in February of this
year (1988) at the Vancouver (B.C) Institute lecture series.  He managed to
get through 45 minutes of the lecture without once mentioning syphilis as a 
possible cause of AIDS.  When Bernard Aherne of OPTION questioned Dr. Gallo
about the syphilis theory, Dr. Gallo resorted to what seemed to be, according
to members of the audience, a character assassination of Dr. Duesberg,
instead of answering the question that was put to him.

	Character assassination is the last tactic to be expected from a man
of Dr. Gallo's stature.  Based upon my own experience, this was a last
ditch effort of someone cornered by a truth he does not want recognized.

	Proof that syphilis is at least the major infective agent in AIDS
is slowly emerging, as patients treated by New York City physician, Dr.
Stephen Caiazza, gain in health and strength.  He is treating his AIDS 
patients for syphilis.
    

Perhaps if your repudiations were more then 'You're all wet!', they might
be worth answering.

Jim.

Tainted with HIV or Syphilis?

The problem with saying 'does not have syphilis' is that one of the premises
is that the (some) syphilis tests do not detect all cases of syphilis.

Wrong.  You fail to consider other possibilities such as coinfections.  If every
case of HIV also has syphilis, how do you expect to be able to show that HIV
leads to AIDS and syphilis leads to something else?

Jim.

    re: .46
    
>    If every
>case of HIV also has syphilis, how do you expect to be able to show that HIV
>leads to AIDS and syphilis leads to something else?
    
    To start with, you can look at cases which are infected by syphilis
    but not HIV.
    

    Re: .49
    
    >	Absolutely right.  But the syphilis case, in conjunction with
    >the other control case (HIV and syphilis), does lead to the con-
    >clusion that HIV is the cause.
    >	In addition, if it can be shown that infection with only HIV
    >does cause AIDS, it can be identified as the single responsible
    >cause.
    
    Mike,  Could you please tell me what are your references in regards
    to these statements?  I really would like to look these up...
    Also, I would prefer references be independent of the news media,
    and that they be articles published in medical journals and that
    it be work that is independent of Dr. Gallo and the National 
    Institute of Cancer, the Harvard team, and the CDC.  Also, I want 
    the research done to show that HIV follows Koch's Postulates,
    which is one of the major reasons why some scientists are emphatic
    that HIV CANNOT cause AIDS because it does NOT follow Koch's
    Postulates.  I would also like to see any research that is done that
    proves your syphilis statement (with the same above criteria).
    
    Much Thanks,
    
    Linda

    re .50:
    
    Linda, there's been a debate in SCIENCE about this very issue in the
    past year. Gallo and others have been writing some interesting stuff. I
    don't know the issue, but a quick trip to the library would find it.
    
    As for Koch's Postulates, despite their impressive name, they really
    aren't worth all that much. An etiology that follows the postulates
    establishes cause -- meaning that if your alleged agent follows the
    postulates, nigh everyone will agree you've established cause.
    
    However, there's always a however. Koch's Postulates are notoriously
    iffy when applied to viruses. There are many accepted causes for
    diseases that do not follow the postulates. For example, chicken pox,
    mononucleosis, and many varieties of common flu. People often do not
    have measurable antibodies to viruses until the disease has run its
    course, and sometimes not even then. Mono is notorious for not being
    detectable until the patient has recovered.
    
    The point of all this is that following Koch's Postulates establishes
    cause. But it is not true that not following them denies cause.
    
    	Jon

    
    Re: .51

   Koch's Postulates are the gold standard which must be met before a cause
   and effect relationship between an infectious agent and a particular
   disease can be validated.  Whether virological or bacterial causes,
   thses postulates must be met for proof of cause & effect.  I have
   been told by my scientist and medical doctor friends that these
   postulates are used internationally and is accepted as the norm in
   the scientific investigation of illness/disease.  If these postulates
   are not met, one CANNOT conclude a cause-and-effect relationship.
   They are as follows:

	a) the infectious agent must be found in all instances of a particular
	   disease

	b) the agent must be grown in culture

	c) the agent grown in culture must reproduce the disease in question
	   upon introduction into an appropriate host

	d) the microbe must be isolated form the experimental host so infected

   HIV has yet to meet Koch's postulates and Dr. Gallo, NCI, CDC, et al.
   had no right to claim HIV causes AIDS until they could prove that HIV
   follows these postulates.  People have died needlessly from their
   incompetence, greed, and egotism.

   If you have found some study that does have HIV following Koch's Postulates
   please state specifics so that it can be looked into (scientist, lab,
   dates, medical & scientific journals in which the work was published,etc.).
   As of this date, I, nor any of my friends (including my doctor friends
   who treat AIDS patients), have found such a study, which is one reason
   why a (growing) portion of the medical and scientific world is so alarmed 
   and upset over Gallo, et al.

   Linda    

    I thought this editorial really "ties" things up nicely, and explains
    everything in lay-man's terms, so here it is...  Once again, I
    apologize for the length.  I also request that you read in its entirety
    before commenting, and that if you are going to refute this, please
    be a bit more specific than "No it's not true"...Thanks

	EDITORIAL: AIDS VIRUS; EPIDEMIC OR EPIC BLUNDER?

	From Quantum Medicine - A Journal of Comparative Therapeutics
		Volume I Number I - January 1988


	Presently this nation is in the grip of a widespread panic concerning a 
virus known severally as the "AIDS virus, HTLV III, HIV, or LAV", loudly
asserted to be the causative agent for Acquired Immuno Suppressive (or 
Deficiency) Syndrome (AIDS).

	According to conventional folk wisdom the virus is suppose to cause the
syndrome, and to be communicable by various means, the exact means frequently
dictated by the believer's religious, political or social viewpoints.

	There have been thousands of articles in newspapers, journals and, 
indeed, quite a few books written about the disease and the virus, and to most
people the two appear to be synominous.  Indeed, we talk about AIDS testing,
but what we mean is testing the individual for the presence of an antibody to
the virus.

	Governmental proclamations and other rumors about a forthcoming epidemic
or plague are all built around the number of people believed to be infected with
the AIDS virus, not the number of people with the full blown AIDS syndrome
which, so far, is relatively rare, involving some thirty thousand Americans
since the disease was first reported as a discrete syndrome in 1981.

	Statistics abound, as do gloomy prognostictions about plague and the end
of the human race.  This year $800 million is being spent on AIDS research, next
year the projected budget is $10 Billion.  AIDS testing is now a political 
issue, and large numbers of Americans, such as the Armed Forces, have been 
involuntarily tested for antibodies to the AIDS virus.

	Before we plunge the nation into an orgy of testing for antibodies to
this virus, and stigmatizing people who have such antibodies, it would be wise
to re-explore the connection between the AIDS Syndrome, and the Virus said to
cause the syndrome.  Periodically, we should re-examine anything which "everyone
knows" to see if, in reality, anybody knows anything about it.

	There have always been quite a few people who, for varying reasons,
have openly doubted that the HTLV III Virus causes AIDS, and this is not really
remarkable, since from the beginning no one has been able to fulfill Koch's
Postulates concerning the virus as a causative agent for the disease.

	In the world of scholarly research, recently Dr. Peter Duesberg of the 
Department of Molecular Biology and Virus Laboratories of the University of
California, Berkley, has recently completed and published an exhaustive study
of the virus and its effects on humans for the National Cancer Institute under
NCI Grant CA39915A-01.  Dr. Duesberg's study entitled "Retroviruses as
Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expecations and Reality" was published in the March
1987 issue of Cancer Research.

	In that study Dr. Duesberg points out that approximately 0.5 to 1% of
all Americans have the antibody to the virus; that in the high risk groups, such
as sexualy promiscuous homosexuals and bi-sexuals of whom 17 to 76% have the
antibodies, intravenous drug users of whom 50 to 87% have the antibodies and
hemophiliacs of whom 72 to 85% are antibody positive, only 0.3% of those who
have the antibody develop the disease, and the overwhelming majority of those
high risk people with the antibodies do not develop the disease.

	He also points out that children in Africa, of whom from 20 to 60% are
antibody positive, have no single incidence of the disease,  In Haiti there
is an incidence of 0.01% of the disease amongst 20% of the population with the
antibody.

	From these and other facts and figures discussed in the report, Dr. 
Duesberg concludes in his study that the virus is not the cause of the disease,
but is the cause of a mild mononucleosis-like disease occurring around eight
weeks after exposure to the virus and lasts around two weeks until antibody to 
the disease is produced after which the syndrome disappears.

	He cites evidence that individuals who have been shown to have been
antibody positive since 1972 have no evidence of the disease, and states
"Unexpectedly, most of the AIDS virus-positive blood donors identified in 
transfusion associated AIDS transmission did not have AIDS when they donated
blood and were reported to be in good health six years after the donation.

	From the report it is clear that the only basis for contending that the
virus causes the disease is that 90% of persons with the disease have the 
antibody to the virus although in 50% of persons with the disease the virus
cannot be isolated and in 10% there is no antibody.  Significantly, 80 to 90%
of AIDS sufferers are also infected with Epstein Barr and cytomeglovirus,
and 75% with herpes virus.  Additionally, 90% of intravenous drug users are
positive for hepatitis B virus, so that standing alone the 90% incidence of
antibody positity for HTLV III in AIDS sufferers is not very convincing.

	The hypothesis that the virus causes the disease faces several other
challenges, including its failure to explain how active antibody immunity,
which effectively prevents virus spread and expression, would not prevent the
virus from causing a fatal disease, as well as the direct evidence that the 
virus is not sufficient to cause the disese.  This direct evidence includes 
the low percentage of symptomatic infections and the fact that amongst those 
with the antibody, and presumably infected with the virus, there are some at 
high risk and others at no risk for developing the disease.  Finally, the 
hypothesis that the virus causes the disease "offers no convincing explanation
for the paradox that a fatal disease would be caused by a virus that is latent 
and biochemically inactive, and that infects less than 1% and is expressed to
less than 0.01% of susceptible lymphocytes".

	Additionally, the hypothesis does not explain why the virus does not 
cause the disease in those who have the virus but not the disease, since there
is more active or further spread in carriers with the disease than in those who
have the virus but not the disease.

	Dr. Duesberg concludes "...it seems likely that the AIDS virus is just
the most common among the occupational viral infections of AIDS patients and 
those at risk for AIDS, rather than the cause for AIDS.  The disease would be
caused by an as yet unidentified agent which may not even be a virus, since
cell free contacts are not sufficient to transmit the disease".

	A careful reading of Dr. Duesberg's paper would convince almost anyone
without a stake in the outcome that the hypothesis that the virus causes the
disease is unproven and likely to remain unproven.

	Reading that report together with the reports of Steven Caiazza, a
physician who observed that at post mortem 20 of 20 persons who died from AIDS
were infected with previously undiagnosed tertiary neurosyphilis, which was not
detectable with the VDRL test commonly employed, and thereafter has treated 
several persons suffering with AIDS by administering appropriate treatment
for syphilis with complete remission of the AIDS symptoms but no effect on
HTLV III Virus infection, seems to supply the necessary clue to the true nature
of AIDS.

	Following Dr. Caiazza's reports, two additional reports appeared in
the New England Journal of Medicine confirming his observations.

	Syphilis is certainly capable of producing symptoms identical to those
which are generally regarded as diagnositic of AIDS, and has been reported to do
so at least since 1539 when Diaz de Isla described the stages syphilis as
they are known today, but added a terminal stage of fever, emaciation, diarrhea,
jaundice, abdominal distention, delerium, coma and death.  In 1546, Girolamo
Frascatoro, published "De Contagione et Contageosis Morbis", in which his
description of Syphilis contained a stage marked by muscular weakness, 
lassitude, and emaciation, both suggestuve of the syphilitic "rupia" commonly
described a century ago and said to be related to death from toxemia, or a
terminal stage of syphilis characterized by emaciation, diarrhea, fevers,
lassitude and death.

	As recently as 1914 Sir William Osler in his classic "Modern Disease"
reported a "Quaternary Stage of Syphilis" in Syphilitic patients who had been
treated with mercury.

	From the reports of Caiazza and others, it is apparent that the 
Benzathine Penicillins used to treat Syphilis for the past ten years do not
effectively cross the blood brain barrier and are ineffective in eradicating
neurosyphilis.

	Thus, it seems likely that the "epidemic" of AIDS we have witnessed
is nothing more than undiagnosed and untreated tertiary or "Quaternary" 
neurosyphilis unrecognized, untreated and mistakenly identified as a new
disease, rather than an old disease long known to fit the transmission pattern
of AIDS in every respect.

	Dr. Caiazza and co-workers findings are reported at page 1 of this
journal in detail.

	The hypothesis that AIDS is a disease caused by a retrovirus is likely 
no more than a fascile imputation of causation made in the heat of a race for
notoriety and research funds at a large Federal Research Agency which has 
produced far more controversy than results sinece its inception.

	The so called AIDS Virus is misnamed, and blamed for a disease it 
does not produce.  The disease it does produce is self limiting and
inconsequential, testing for antibodies to that virus is a waste of time and
money, and likely to lead to much social mischief if undertaken as a mandatory
public health measure.  Some of the money earmarked for AIDS research should be
diverted into research to find a better screening diagnostic test for Syphilis 
than is presently available, since the VRDL has been shown not to reveal the
presence of neurosyphilis in most of the AIDS victims tested so far.  The 
public health measures presently advocated to prevent the spread of AIDS are 
appropriate for preventing the spread of syphilis.  There is no necessity
for a public health panic about an AIDS epidemic.  The disease has been with
us for hundreds of years, and while capable of being transmitted by sexual
contact, blood transfusion and rarely by other means is not likely, once
recognized and properly treated, to produce a serious public health education
problem although, some public health education on the subject is doubtless
indicated under the circumstances.

	The AIDS industry we have created, largely built around testing for the 
HTLV III antibody and searching for a vaccine, should be dismantled or turn
its resources to developing a more effective screening test for syphilis than 
is presently available.

	Since the misinformation about the AIDS virus originated in and was
widely disseminated by an agency of the United States Government, the Congress 
should give serious consideration to developing a system for compensating people
who have been damaged in their professions, lives and reputations by the
widespread dissemination and rather uncritical acceptance of this misinformation
for the past three years, in particular, those patients of the IAT clinic in
Freeport whose treatment was interrupted for several months through the 
activities of the agency which disseminated this information.  Some of those
patients died unnecessarily due to this unwarranted interruption in treatment.

	The Congress might also ponder whether or not avidity for publicly
funded research funds in glamour diseases might not have played a role in the
boondogle, and consider some better controls both over research grants paid for
out of public funds, and premature and unverified announcements about public
health by government research agencies whose oficials appear as publicity hungry
as the rest of the world.  Some mature restraint and more thorough investigation
at the National Cancer Institute might have prevented some of the panic induced
by the assertion that AIDS is caused by a retrovirus for which there is no cure
and for which we need billions in research to find a vaccine.  That agency has
a plethora of unsolved problems about Cancer and does not need to seek out new
frontiers in infectious disease, which is the responsibility of another agency.

	Those who are devoted to using the public health machinery of the nation
to enforce their notions of morality should be as content with the Treponema
Pallidum as with HTLV III as a launching platform for the moral preachments;
the rest of us can turn our attention to more important matters, as the AIDS
Epidemic is about to become a minor footnote in medical history.

	The implications of this for our civil liberties, our national budget 
and peace of mind should be self evident.

	Dr. Caiazza and his co-workers, who are Eclectic Physicians, and Dr.
Peter Duesberg of the University of California should be congratulated for an
excellent piece of medical detective work which should lay to rest the AIDS
panic which has gripped the nation for the past three years.
    

    Re: .45, .52
    
    Mike, I feel that I have answered these questions before, but I will 
    answer them again....
    
.22>    	Does your book explain why hemophiliacs with no prior exposure
.22>    to syphilis get AIDS, yet do not contract syphilis, after receiving
.22>    tainted transfusions?

    Blood products tainted with Syphilis.....  The tests for Syphilis
    are inaccurate.....See prior notes.  

.45>    	Please comment (Am I right or wrong?) : 
    
.24>    	Even if every single case of AIDS also showed exposure to
.24>    syphilis, if I could show that exposure to HIV leads to AIDS, and
.24>    exposure to syphilis leads to something other than AIDS, I have
.24>    identified, conclusively, that syphilis does not cause AIDS, and
.24>    that HIV does.
    
    In my opinion, you are wrong.  Tertiary Syphilis has the exact same
    symptoms that are consider the "standard" symptoms for full-blown
    AIDS.  So how can you prove your statement?   You can have Syphilis 
    and not have HIV. From the scientific studies I have seen if one 
    has AIDS symptoms one does not always have HIV, yet this is still
    AIDS.  See Previous Notes.

    Linda
    

    Linda,
    
    I urge you to read current information on HIV and AIDS (the 10/88
    issue of Scientific American is a good start) and a basic textbook
    on clinical medicine.  You may discover that your sources are
    presenting incomplete and distorted information as "fact".
    
    I don't have time to address all of the errors I've found in your
    recent notes, but I'll try to hit the major points:
    
    1. VDRL test inaccurate for diagnosing tertiary syphilis.
    
    VDRL is only one of several standard diagnostic tests for syphilis.
    Standard diagnostic protocols for syphilis require the use of other,
    more accurate, tests such as the FTA if tertiary syphilis is suspected.
    
    
    2. Benzathine penicillin is not effective for treating neurosyphilis.
    
    The standard treatment protocol for neurosyphilis is procaine
    penicillin or aqueous penicillin G followed by benzathine penicillin.
    Both procaine penicillin and aqueous penicillin G are much more
    effective at crossing the blood/brain barrier than benzathine
    penicillin.
    
    The information on the diagnosis of treatment of syphilis was found
    in at least four sources, including a textbook used by first year
    medical students.
    
    
    3. Treatment for syphilis "curing" AIDS patients.
    
    Most of the clinical symptoms of AIDS are caused by opportunistic
    infections, not directly by the HIV infection.  The role of HIV
    in AIDS is that it suppresses the immune system so that the
    opportunistic infections are able to thrive.  In some patients
    syphilis is indeed one of the opportunistic infections; in others,
    the antibiotics administered to treat syphilis may be effective
    against whatever pathogen is responsible for a particular infection.
    
    Successful treatment of an opportunistic infection in a patient
    is not the same as treating AIDS -- the patient's immune system
    is still suppressed, leaving them vulnerable to acquiring subsequent
    infections.
    
    Also, given that HIV and syphilis are both transmitted by sexual
    contact, it is not unexpected that a large portion of AIDS patients
    are also infected with syphilis.
    
    
    4. Application of Koch's postulates to HIV
    
    First, Koch's postulates are often difficult to apply to viruses:
    
	Although [Koch's] postulates were adequate to prove the
	causes of some bacterial and fungal diseases, they had
	to be modified for other infections, particularly for
	diseases caused by viruses that replicate only in humans
	and not in other animals.  (Jawetz, Melnick, and Adelberg,
	Review of Medical Microbiology (17th ed., 1987), pg.162.)

	[Unfortunately, the text does not state what modifications are
	made to Koch's postulates for dealing with viral infections.]

    Second, HIV infection alone is not sufficient to cause AIDS;
    opportunistic infection(s) must also be present.  Thus, it's
    not hard to believe Koch's postulates cannot be used to prove
    that HIV causes AIDS.  The proper approach is to prove the cause
    and effect relationship between HIV and immune system suppression,
    which is a precursor to AIDS.
    
    
    5. Prevalence of other viral infections (EBV, CMV, HSV) in AIDS
       patients.
    
    Your sources report the following infection rates for AIDS patients:
    
    	Epstein-Barr virus \	80-90%
    	cytomegalovirus    /
    	herpes virus		75%
    
    Compare the above to infection rates in the general population:
    
    	Epstein-Barr virus	50% by age 5; 80-90% by adulthood
    	cytomegalovirus		60-90%
    	HSV-I			30-100% \ varies depending on population
    	HSV-II			3-70%   / being tested
    
    On the other hand, the incidence of HIV infection among the general
    population is nowhere near that of AIDS patients.
    
    
    6. Many patients with HIV antibodies but not AIDS.
    
    The average time between HIV infection and AIDS is known to be
    5+ years.  This leaves a large window of time where one can have
    HIV antibodies and not yet have developed the clinical symptoms
    of AIDS.
    
    The argument was put forth that two people have had HIV antibodies
    since 1972 but have not yet developed AIDS.  I fail to see how this
    is any different than similar cases involving other viruses.  A
    person who receives a low inoculation of the virus or who has above
    average immune system function at the time of infection may well
    be able to fight off the virus without suffering critical damage
    to their immune system.  This in no way reduces the threat of a
    particular pathogen to the rest of the population.
    
    7. Why doesn't the presence of antibodies prevent HIV from causing
       further damage to the immune system?
    
    This is really blowing smoke!  Why doesn't the presence of syphilis
    antibodies prevent that disease from progressing??
    
    In the case of HIV, the situation can be likened to a battle between
    armies: HIV on one side, the antibodies on the other.  Each side
    can cause damage to the other, but it doesn't happen all at once.
    In addition, the virus can hide inside of host cells where it can
    either reproduce or remain dormant without being affected by the
    antibodies (which can only attack virus present outside of or on
    the exterior surface of the cells).  Initially the antibodies do
    contain the effects of HIV; however, over time, HIV gains ground
    and eventually overpowers the immune system.  As mentioned previously,
    this can take a long time.

Is it correct to state that HIV suppresses the immune system, which is measured
by a decrease in the detected count of antibodies?  The AIDS syndrome is caused
by opportunistic infections taking advantage of the supressed immune system?

Is the suppression of HIV permanent?  IE If HIV were cleaned out, would the
immune system recover? 

"In addition, the virus can hide inside of host cells where it can either
reproduce or remain dormant without being affected by the antibodies (which can
only attack virus present outside of or on the exterior surface of the cells)."

How is this different from other viral infections?  What remedies are there to
there to other viral infections? 

Jim.

    This is not different from other viral infections. Viruses invade
    cells, take over the cells genetic material and use it to make
    more viruses. When the virus is within the cell it cannot be attacked.
    This (as should be obvious) is becuase anything that would kill
    the virus within the cell would also kill the cell, and would kill
    healthy as well as infected cells.
    
    Viruses can be attacked and deactivated when they burst out of a
    cell and are free in the blood or tissue fluid.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .59
    
>Is it correct to state that HIV suppresses the immune system, which is measured
>by a decrease in the detected count of antibodies? 
    
    HIV does suppress the immune system.  The T4 lymphocyte count,
    not the HIV antibody level, is used to measure the extent of the
    immunosuppression.
    
>    The AIDS syndrome is caused
>by opportunistic infections taking advantage of the suppressed immune system?

    That is correct.
    
>Is the suppression of HIV permanent?  IE If HIV were cleaned out, would the
>immune system recover? 
    
    I assume you mean to ask is the suppression [of the immune system]
    BY HIV permanent?  I'll have to check this when I get home; I don't
    recall if/how T4 lymphocytes and macrophages (another component
    of the immune system affected by HIV) are regenerated.

>>"In addition, the virus can hide inside of host cells where it can either
>>reproduce or remain dormant without being affected by the antibodies
>>    (which can
>>only attack virus present outside of or on the exterior surface of the cells).
>How is this different from other viral infections?  What remedies are there to
>there to other viral infections? 
    
    As Bonnie said, it is basically the same for other viral infections.
    What most people don't realize is that following the acute symptomatic
    phase of many (if not most) viral infections the virus remains dormant
    inside the body.  In some cases, such as HSV-I and -II, recurrent
    symptomatic outbreaks are fairly common; in others, recurrence is
    either very rare or much less frequent.  For example, herpes zoster
    (shingles) is caused by reactivation of the same virus which causes
    chicken pox.
    
    In most cases there is no reliable way to eradicate the virus; the
    best that can be done is treat the symptoms.  (Sound familiar?)
    There are experimental drugs such as acyclovir which have been
    observed to have some effect against some viruses.  I believe AZT,
    which has been used with some success in some AIDS patients, is
    also an antiviral drug.
            

    Viruses have protein outer coats. They attach to a particular
    site on a cell membrane by special enzymes and inject the 
    DNA or RNA from with in the coat into the cell. The protein
    coat stays outside. In the cell the host's genetic machinery
    then regenerates new viral nucleic acid and protein coats.
    
    Several experimental methods of attacking viruses involve
    attempts to bind to the protein coat, to the part of the
    virus that attaches to the cell or to the recptor site on
    the cell. All of these would block the virus from entering
    the cell. Another method I have read about involves flooding
    the infected individual with protein molecules that mimic
    the injection site proteins, in an attempt to tie up all
    the viruses outside of the cells (i.e. the viruses would mostly
    bind to the free protein molecules rather than the similar
    molecules on the cell membrane.)
    
    Also, viruses can attach to the DNA in a cell's nucleus and
    become indistinguishable from the host's DNA. Everytime that
    cell divides the viral DNA will divide along with the cell's
    chromosomes and pass on to subsequent cell generations. Then
    much later some other event will trigger the viral DNA to
    become active again and start producing viruses again.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    re .57:
    
    Mike,
    
    You mean if I *didn't* believe that AIDS is caused by HIV, then
    the article *wouldn't* be there?!?
    
    ;-)
    Paula

    Re: .58 - (Jerry) - cross-posted in Holistic

    First of all I want to thank you, Jerry, for the way in which you
    have responded to me...  Now I will comment on what you have said:


    >VDRL is only one of several standard diagnostic tests for syphilis.
    >Standard diagnostic protocols for syphilis require the use of other,
    >more accurate, tests such as the FTA if tertiary syphilis is suspected.

    Yes, this is totally true, but as you have said "if tertiary syphilis
    is suspected".  One problem is that the FTA tests are very expensive
    and very time-consuming.  Because of this, the FTA tests are used very
    infrequently.  Also one of the major problems is tertiary syphilis
    has the exact symptoms of so-called AIDS.  Because of this and that the 
    focus now-a-days is AIDS (yes AIDS hysteria has hit the medical community),
    the person is immediately diagnosed as AIDS, with no other diseases
    even considered, whether or not the person tests positive for HIV.
    I know this is true due to the experiences of several friends, some of
    whom are physicians who are appalled at the diagnostic skills of the
    average medical doctor.
    
    
    >The standard treatment protocol for neurosyphilis is procaine
    >penicillin or aqueous penicillin G followed by benzathine penicillin.
    >Both procaine penicillin and aqueous penicillin G are much more
    >effective at crossing the blood/brain barrier than benzathine
    >penicillin.
    
    This is also true.  Dr. Caiazza uses aqueous penicillin in his treatment
    of syphilis/AIDS patients.  My understanding is that the problem is with
    treatment of primary and secondary syphilis patients in which only
    a small dosage Benzathine penicillin is used.  The dosage used does not
    kill off all of the spirochetes, and then the spirochetes finally pass
    the blood-brain barrier.  Because these patients are supposedly "cured",
    if they develop the symptoms of tertiary syphilis, tertiary syphilis
    is rarely considered.
    
    
    >Successful treatment of an opportunistic infection in a patient
    >is not the same as treating AIDS -- the patient's immune system
    >is still suppressed, leaving them vulnerable to acquiring subsequent
    >infections.

    It is my understanding that in Dr. Caiazza's patients, their immune systems
    return to normal, regardless of whether HIV is present or not.
    
    >Also, given that HIV and syphilis are both transmitted by sexual
    >contact, it is not unexpected that a large portion of AIDS patients
    >are also infected with syphilis.

    Given that syphilis and HIV are both transmitted by sexual contact, it
    is not unexpected that a small portion of AIDS patients are also
    infected with HIV.
    
    
    >First, Koch's postulates are often difficult to apply to viruses:
	>Although [Koch's] postulates were adequate to prove the
	>causes of some bacterial and fungal diseases, they had
	>to be modified for other infections, particularly for
	>diseases caused by viruses that replicate only in humans
	>and not in other animals.  (Jawetz, Melnick, and Adelberg,
	>Review of Medical Microbiology (17th ed., 1987), pg.162.)

    Yes, it is often difficult to apply Koch's postulates to some viruses,
    but eventually, if a virus definitely causes a disease, it will
    follow Koch's postulates.  I have talked to 2 clinical physicians,
    1 virologist, and one medical doctor with a strong virological background.
    They have all said to me that any research scientist, when proving
    a cause of a disease whether it is virological or bacterial, will follow
    Koch's Postulates.  If they cannot prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt",
    that an organism causes a disease, the normal protocol is to state that
    that the organism is "suspected" of causing the disease, and further
    research will be done until Koch's Postulates are followed.  Gallo
    DID NOT DO THIS!  It is my understanding that to this date, the
    only thing that HIV can be isolated and proven to cause is an mild
    mononucleosis-type infection, NOT what is known as the AIDS syndrome.

    >Second, HIV infection alone is not sufficient to cause AIDS;

    That's what I've been presenting....

    >opportunistic infection(s) must also be present.  Thus, it's
    >not hard to believe Koch's postulates cannot be used to prove
    >that HIV causes AIDS.  The proper approach is to prove the cause
    >and effect relationship between HIV and immune system suppression,
    >which is a precursor to AIDS.
    
    This proper approach has not been done yet.
    
    >On the other hand, the incidence of HIV infection among the general
    >population is nowhere near that of AIDS patients.

    If HIV is "THE" cause of what has been called the AIDS, then EVERY AIDS
    patient must have HIV.  This is not the case at all.  99% of AIDS patients
    who have KS do not have HIV.  75-80% of AIDS patients who have PCP do
    not have HIV.
   
    >Why doesn't the presence of syphilis
    >antibodies prevent that disease from progressing??
    
    As of now, I do not know.  I have put a call into a couple of people
    who would know all the specifics.  As soon as I get the information,
    I will key it in.

    
    >I urge you to read current information on HIV and AIDS (the 10/88
    >issue of Scientific American is a good start) and a basic textbook
    >on clinical medicine.  You may discover that your sources are
    >presenting incomplete and distorted information as "fact".
    
    I read just about everything that I can find on AIDS.  I have read this
    article in Scientific American and based on prior things that I have read,
    I disagreed with just about everything that it said.  I also read the
    article in this month's Discover magazine, and I disagreed with everything
    that it said also.  I have re-read all of my college biology books, and I
    have found that what Duesberg and Caiazza has presented has made perfect
    sense to me, whereas Gallo & the NCI & the CDC's viewpoint has many
    flaws.  You must also keep in mind that the Scientific American and
    Discover magazine and magazines of that type will only print things that
    the CDC support.  If they print things that are contrary to what the CDC
    states as "truth", it has been my experience that it is done in a very
    negative and condescending way.  That is why I prefer my references to
    be independent publications that do not bow to the CDC or NCI.

    Linda
    

    header of .57 = argumentum ad hominum
    
    Doesn't shed much light when the case is headed by something that
    in effect says, "I'm right, you're wrong, which must be obvious
    since you're a dolt...."
    

    re: .64
    
>> (discussion of diagnostic tests for tertiary syphilis)
    
>    One problem is that the FTA tests are very expensive
>    and very time-consuming.  Because of this, the FTA tests are used very
>    infrequently.
    
    What is the difference in cost?  Since such tests are normally
    performed in a lab and not directly by the physician, I'm curious
    as to why a physician would be concerned that the test is time
    consuming (within certain bounds).
    
>    Also one of the major problems is tertiary syphilis
>    has the exact symptoms of so-called AIDS.  Because of this and that the 
>    focus now-a-days is AIDS (yes AIDS hysteria has hit the medical community),
>    the person is immediately diagnosed as AIDS, with no other diseases
>    even considered, whether or not the person tests positive for HIV.
    
    This would appear to indicate a deficiency in physician training,
    not in the definition of AIDS.
    
    Under the CDC case definition, a diagnosis of AIDS requires that
    a definitive diagnosis of the opportunistic infection be made
    except in a few specific cases in HIV antibody positive individuals.
    
    To wit:
    
    	Although testing for anti-HIV antibody is reasonable when
    	examining a patient suspected of having AIDS, it is essential
    	that the clinician first undertake an aggressive investigation
    	of the particular symptom complex the patient is manifesting.
    
    	("Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome", in Scientific American
    	Medicine 7:XI:7)
    
>> (discussion of syphilis treatment protocols)
        
>    My understanding is that the problem is with
>    treatment of primary and secondary syphilis patients in which only
>    a small dosage Benzathine penicillin is used.  The dosage used does not
>    kill off all of the spirochetes, and then the spirochetes finally pass
>    the blood-brain barrier.
    
    The normal treatment for primary and secondary syphilis is a single
    dose of 2.4 million units of benzthine penicillin IM - hardly a
    small dose.  This therapy is effective in >95% of patients with
    normal immune system function, but less so in immunocompromised
    patients.  Increasing the dosage of penicillin is not without risks,
    and often the immunocompromised patients can be successfully managed
    with careful post-treatment monitoring.  Also see my comments below.
    
>    Because these patients are supposedly "cured",
>    if they develop the symptoms of tertiary syphilis, tertiary syphilis
>    is rarely considered.
    
    Any treatment for syphilis is supposed to be followed by periodic
    monitoring of the antibody titers for at leat one year to ensure
    the treatment was effective.  If the antibody titers are not
    measureable or are inconclusive, any subsequent symptoms similar
    to syphilis would normally be taken to indicate that the treatment
    was ineffective or that the patient has been reinfected.

    
>    It is my understanding that in Dr. Caiazza's patients, their immune systems
>    return to normal, regardless of whether HIV is present or not.
    
    Please describe the selection criteria, experimental protocol, post-
    treatment evaluation criteria, and follow-up results.  Have the
    results been independently verified?  Given the misleading statements
    Caiazza has made regarding standard diagnostic and treatment protocols
    for syphilis, apparently to enhance his own position, I have a hard
    time accepting anything attributed to Caiazza without independent
    verification.
    
>    Given that syphilis and HIV are both transmitted by sexual contact, it
>    is not unexpected that a small portion of AIDS patients are also
>    infected with HIV.
    
    A small portion of AIDS patients are also infected with HIV???
    You may wish to go back and reread your own reply in 431.55:

.55>                                 90% of persons with the disease have the 
.55> antibody to the virus 

>                        If they cannot prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt",
>    that an organism causes a disease, the normal protocol is to state that
>    that the organism is "suspected" of causing the disease, and further
>    research will be done until Koch's Postulates are followed.  Gallo
>    DID NOT DO THIS!  It is my understanding that to this date, the
>    only thing that HIV can be isolated and proven to cause is an mild
>    mononucleosis-type infection, NOT what is known as the AIDS syndrome.
    
    I don't have reports which give enough detail on the experiments
    and their results to determine how much Gallo, et al. have actually
    proven and how much they have concluded based on statistical
    correlations.  It would appear, though, that there is at least strong
    circumstantial evidence that HIV causes immune system deficiency
    and various neurologic symptoms in addition to ARC (AIDS Related
    Complex -- the "mononucleosis-type infection" you refer to).  If
    you wish to refute this you will have to do more than claim that
    Koch's postulates haven't been applied to the relationship.
    
>    >Second, HIV infection alone is not sufficient to cause AIDS;
>
>    That's what I've been presenting....
    
    Not quite.  Note that I said "HIV infection **ALONE** is not...".
    In other words, HIV is necessary but not sufficient to cause AIDS.
    (Strictly speaking this isn't true since the AIDS case definition
    does permit a diagnosis of AIDS without evidence of HIV infection
    in several very specific cases, but I'm trying to keep this simple
    so I can get some sleep!)  On the other hand, you have been claiming
    that HIV plays no significant role in the development of AIDS (if
    indeed you even acknowledge that AIDS exists).
    
>    If HIV is "THE" cause of what has been called the AIDS, then EVERY AIDS
>    patient must have HIV.  This is not the case at all.  99% of AIDS patients
>    who have KS do not have HIV.  75-80% of AIDS patients who have PCP do
>    not have HIV.
    
    Please provide a source for these figures, including the reference
    populations.  Also clarify whether "HIV" refers to the virus or
    antibodies to the virus.
    
>    >Why doesn't the presence of syphilis
>    >antibodies prevent that disease from progressing??
>    
>    As of now, I do not know.  I have put a call into a couple of people
>    who would know all the specifics.  As soon as I get the information,
>    I will key it in.
    
    That was a rhetorical question intended to demonstrate that at least
    one of Duesberg's objections to the HIV theories is, at best, extremely
    weak.

>    I read just about everything that I can find on AIDS.  I have read this
>    article in Scientific American and based on prior things that I have read,

    If these "prior things" are the articles you have posted here, I
    suggest that you reread the Scientific American articles with a
    somewhat more open mind.  You may discover that some of the biases
    in your own sources.  (Which is not to say that the authors of the
    Scientific American articles are entirely unbiased either, but there
    are two sides to the coin.)
         
>    I have found that what Duesberg and Caiazza has presented has made perfect
>    sense to me, whereas Gallo & the NCI & the CDC's viewpoint has many
>    flaws.
    
    Please let me know if Duesberg and Caiazza still make perfect sense
    after you get the answer to my question regarding syphilis infections
    and the immune system (see above).  The answer won't sink Duesberg's
    arguments, but you should see at least a couple of leaks.
    
>                                     That is why I prefer my references to
>    be independent publications that do not bow to the CDC or NCI.
    
    Bias comes from many sources, not just the evil giants greedy for
    research dollars.
    

The logic that because the CDC definition of AIDS includes HIV, that if you have
AIDS symptoms but don't have HIV, then you don't have AIDS is *certainly*
circular reasoning! 
    
Why do I get the feeling that the "experts" don't *really* know anything, but
have a house of cards build on theory and assumptions?

The 'AIDS' test tests for HIV antibodies, and assumes that if you have
antibodies then you have HIV virus infection.

It seems like a better "AIDS" test would be to test for the low levels of the
immune system components as mentioned before which is also a part of the AIDS
definition, and work backwards to figure out the cause or causES. But that could
take years after the infection for that symptom to develop.

What's the chance that HIV has been around all the time, but now some pollutant
causes our bodies immune system to eventually lose the battle?

Jim.

    Re: .66
    
    >The normal treatment for primary and secondary syphilis is a single
    >dose of 2.4 million units of benzthine penicillin IM - hardly a
    >small dose.  This therapy is effective in >95% of patients with
    >normal immune system function, but less so in immunocompromised
    >patients.  Increasing the dosage of penicillin is not without risks,
    >and often the immunocompromised patients can be successfully managed
    >with careful post-treatment monitoring.  Also see my comments below.

    Read some of the Syphilis articles listed in the AIDS/Syphilis
    bibliography and you will find that this therapy is very ineffective
    especially in immunocompromised patients.  It is these immunocompromised
    patients that tertiary syphilis is prevalent.  Also, the post-treatment
    monitoring is insufficient.  As I have said before, I have several
    friends that have been diagnosed with secondary syphilis, that received
    the one dose of Benzathine, that still prove positive for syphilis,
    and the doctors basically said that as far as they were concerned they
    were cured because they stopped having symptoms of secondary syphilis.
    Apparently the syphilis became dormant because most of those friends later 
    developed tertiary syphilis.
    
    
    >Any treatment for syphilis is supposed to be followed by periodic
    >monitoring of the antibody titers for at leat one year to ensure
    >the treatment was effective.  If the antibody titers are not
    >measureable or are inconclusive, any subsequent symptoms similar
    >to syphilis would normally be taken to indicate that the treatment
    >was ineffective or that the patient has been reinfected.

    From what I have seen and heard, this is not the case.  I think that
    in some of the cases I have seen the problem was that after the
    initial dose of Benzathine, they were tested with VDRL test and
    did not have the symptoms still for secondary syphilis...that
    the syphilis became dormant, but later developed in tertiary syphilis.
    Since the symptoms disappeared, they appeared to be "cured".
    There are a lot of medical journal articles regarding the improper
    testing and treatment of syphilis.  For start, you can look at some
    of the articles listed in the bibliography.

    VDRL is still the most commonly used test for syphilis.  I was told
    by a couple of medical doctors that if the VDRL test had just come
    out and tried to get the approval of being used as a test for Syphilis
    it would not get it.   The FTA tests are also not 100% affective in
    measuring syphilis, but they are much more reliable than VDRL.  If I
    remember correctly, the figures that were stated to me was around 50% 
    reliable for VDRL, and around 80% reliable for FTA.  Once again, these 
    percentages can be verified in some of the articles listed in the 
    bibliography.
    
    >Please describe the selection criteria, experimental protocol, post-
    >treatment evaluation criteria, and follow-up results.  Have the
    >results been independently verified?  Given the misleading statements
    >Caiazza has made regarding standard diagnostic and treatment protocols
    >for syphilis, apparently to enhance his own position, I have a hard
    >time accepting anything attributed to Caiazza without independent
    >verification.

    First, I would suggest that you consult Quantum Medicine - January 88,
    for Dr. Caiazza's study.  It goes into all the details.
    
    >If
    >you wish to refute this you will have to do more than claim that
    >Koch's postulates haven't been applied to the relationship.

    Please consult some of the articles listed in the bibliography.  You
    might want to start the Dr. Duesberg's Retrovirus study  printed in
    Cancer Research.  
    
    >On the other hand, you have been claiming
    >that HIV plays no significant role in the development of AIDS (if
    >indeed you even acknowledge that AIDS exists).

    From what I have read, HIV plays no significant role in the development
    of AIDS.

    AIDS is exactly what it stands for....  If your immunity is very low,
    you have an acquired immune deficiency syndrome.  Immunosuppression
    and immunodeficiency can be caused by many factors such as drugs
    ("illegal" or prescription.....antibiotics lower the immune system,
    and in large amounts, or small amounts over a very long time, can
    really destroy your immune system), the environment, diet, alcohol,
    nicotine, caffeine, sugar, Candida, etc.   A very good article to
    read is by J.J. McKenna and colleagues called "UNMASKING AIDS: CHEMICAL 
    IMMUNOSUPPRESSION AND SERONEGATIVE SYPHILIS", MEDICAL HYPOTHESES (21:4, 
    1986, 421-430). 

    >Please provide a source for these figures, including the reference
    >populations.  Also clarify whether "HIV" refers to the virus or
    >antibodies to the virus.

    If I have time this weekend, I will go through my files and try to find
    the exact articles.  I believe that at least one of the articles that 
    contain this information is listed in the bibliography.
    
    >That was a rhetorical question intended to demonstrate that at least
    >one of Duesberg's objections to the HIV theories is, at best, extremely
    >weak.

    Personally, I am not going to comment until I talk to at least highly
    qualified individual.  From what I have heard, that objection was
    not a weak one.   As I have said before, why don't you read the
    exact article by Duesberg in Cancer Research?  If you are critique-ing
    his work, you really should get it "right from the horse's mouth"
    before you pass judgment.

    >If these "prior things" are the articles you have posted here, I
    >suggest that you reread the Scientific American articles with a
    >somewhat more open mind.  You may discover that some of the biases
    >in your own sources.  (Which is not to say that the authors of the
    >Scientific American articles are entirely unbiased either, but there
    >are two sides to the coin.)
         
    And I would suggest you read the exact articles by Duesberg, Caiazza,
    McKenna, etc. before you critique them.  Have you read any of them?
    So far, it sounds like your only sources are from magazines that are
    very anti-Duesberg....  I don't know, maybe you have read the
    exact articles and that you personally still feel that Gallo, et al. 
    are correct.  You are entitled to your opinion....And I'm entitled
    to mine....  And as long as I see sick people getting well through
    therapies not "CDC/Gallo approved", and sick people who follow
    what CDC and Gallo suggest who die....I think I'll stick with the "rebels".

    >Please let me know if Duesberg and Caiazza still make perfect sense
    >after you get the answer to my question regarding syphilis infections
    >and the immune system (see above).  The answer won't sink Duesberg's
    >arguments, but you should see at least a couple of leaks.

    Yes, it does still make sense.
    
    >Bias comes from many sources, not just the evil giants greedy for
    >research dollars.

    That's true,....but who has the most to loose?

    
    Linda

    re: .67

>The logic that because the CDC definition of AIDS includes HIV, that if you
>have
>AIDS symptoms but don't have HIV, then you don't have AIDS is *certainly*
>circular reasoning! 

    Someone has to define what AIDS is; in this case it was the CDC.
    If you match the criteria, you have AIDS; if you don't, you have
    something else.  If the "something else" doesn't already have a
    name, feel free to name it!  Note that the case definition for AIDS
    has already changed at least once, and it may change again in the future.

    Or are you objecting to the fact that the CDC established the case
    definition?

>Why do I get the feeling that the "experts" don't *really* know anything, but
>have a house of cards build on theory and assumptions?

    Well, it's safe to say they don't know everything -- which is quite
    different than not knowing anything.

    And, yes, most of the present knowledge is primarily theory.  Some
    of those theories may be correct; almost certainly there are some
    which are not.  This is no different than in any other field of
    science!

>The 'AIDS' test tests for HIV antibodies, and assumes that if you have
>antibodies then you have HIV virus infection.

    Antibodies usually aren't present unless the antigen is (or has been)
    present.  I don't see what point you're trying to make with this
    statement.

>It seems like a better "AIDS" test would be to test for the low levels of the
>immune system components as mentioned before which is also a part of the AIDS
>definition, and work backwards to figure out the cause or causES. But that could
>take years after the infection for that symptom to develop.

    If there is a known cause for the immune system deficiency then you
    don't have AIDS, you have something else.  AIDS is, *in part*, a
    diagnosis of exclusion.

>What's the chance that HIV has been around all the time, but now some pollutant
>causes our bodies immune system to eventually lose the battle?

    There is evidence that HIV has been around for a while, but it has not
    been nearly as prevalent as it is now.  I'm not sure how much, if any,
    research has been done to determine how the virus has mutated over
    time.

The following is the CDC surveillance case definition for AIDS.
A complete commentary and explanation appears in the Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 36(suppl 1):1S, 1987.
    
    
I. HIV status of patient is unknown or inconclusive

If laboratory tests for HIV infection were not performed or gave
inconclusive results and the patient had no other cause of immuno-
deficiency listed in I-A (see below), a definitive diagnosis of any
disease listed in I-B (see below) indicates AIDS.

   A. Causes of immunodeficiency that disqualify a disease as an
      indication of AIDS in the absence of laboratory evidence of
      HIV infection.

	1. The use of high-dose or long-term systemic corticosteroid
	   therapy or other immunosuppressive/cytotoxic therapy within
	   three months before the onset of the indicator disease.

	2. A diagnosis of any of the following diseases within three
	   months after the diagnosis of the indicator disease:
	   Hodgkin's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (other than
	   primary brain lymphoma), lymphocytic leukemia, multiple
	   myeloma, any other cancer of lymphoreticular or histiocytic
	   tissue, or angioimmunoblastic lymphadenopathy.

	3. A genetic (congenital) immunodeficiency syndrome or an
	   acquired immunodeficiency syndrome that is atypical of
	   HIV infection, such as one involving hypogammaglobulinemia.

   B. Diseases that indicate AIDS (requires definitive diagnosis)

	1. Candidiasis of the esophagus, trachea, bronchi, or lungs.

	2. Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary.

	3. Cryptosporidiosis with diarrhea persisting for more than
	   one month.

	4. Cytomegalovirus disease of an organ other than the liver,
	   spleen, or lymph nodes in a patient older than one month.

	5. Herpes simplex virus infection causing a mucocutaneous ulcer
	   that persists longer than one month; or herpes simplex virus
	   infection causing bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis for
	   any duration in a patient older than one month.

	6. Kaposi's sarcoma in a patient younger than 60 years.

	7. Lymphoid interstitial pneumonia or pulmonary lymphoid
	   hyperplasia (LIP/PLH complex) in a patient younger than
	   13 years.

	8. Lymphoma of the brain (primary) affecting a patient younger
	   than 60 years.

	9. Mycobacterium avium complex or M. kansasii disease,
	   disseminated (at a site other than or in addition to the
	   lungs, skin, or cervical or hilar lymph nodes).

       10. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia.

       11. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

       12. Toxoplasmosis of the brain in a patient older than one month.


II. Patient is HIV positive

Regardless of the presence of other causes of immunodeficiency (see I-A,
above), in the presence of laboratory evidence of HIV infection, any
disease listed in I-B (see above) or in II-A or II-B (see below)
indicates a diagnosis of AIDS.

   A. Diseases that indicate AIDS (requires definitive diagnosis)

	1. Bacterial infections, multiple or recurrent (any combination
	   of at least two within a two- to four-year period), of the
	   following types in a patient younger than 13 years: septicemia,
	   pneumonia, meningitis, bone or joint infection, or abscess
	   of an internal organ or body cavity (excluding otitis media
	   or superficial skin or mucosal abscesses) caused by Hemophilus,
	   Streptococcus (including pneumococcus), or other pyogenic
	   bacteria.

	2. Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated (at a site other than or in
	   addition to the lungs or cervical or hilar lymph nodes).

	3. Histoplasmosis, disseminated (at a site other than or in
	   addition to the lungs or cervical or hilar lymph nodes).

	4. HIV encephalopathy.

	5. HIV wasting syndrome.

	6. Isosporiasis with diarrhea persisting for more than one month.

	7. Kaposi's sarcoma at any age.

	8. Lymphoma of the brain (primary) at any age.

	9. M. tuberculosis disease, extrapulmonary (involving at least
	   one site outside the lungs, regardless of whether there is
	   concurrent pulmonary involvement).

       10. Mycobacterial disease caused by mycobacteria other than
	   M. tuberculosis, disseminated (at a site other than or
	   in addition to the lungs, skin, or cervical or hilar
	   lymph nodes).

       11. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of B cell or unknown immunologic
	   phenotype and the following histologic types: small non-
	   cleaved lymphoma (Burkitt's or non-Burkitt's) or immuno-
	   blastic sarcoma.

       12. Salmonella (nontyphoidal) septicemia, recurrent.


   B. Diseases that indicate AIDS (presumptive diagnosis)

	1. Candidiasis of the esophagus.

	2. Cytomegalovirus retinitis with loss of vision.

	3. Kaposi's sarcoma.

	4. Lymphoid interstitial pneumonia or pulmonary lymphoid
	   hyperplasia (LIP/PLH complex) in a patient younger than
	   13 years.

	5. Mycobacterial disease (acid-fast bacilli with species not
	   identified by culture), disseminated (involving at least one
	   site other than or in addition to the lungs, skin, cervical
	   or hilar lymph nodes).

	6. P. carinii pneumonia

	7. Toxoplasmosis of the brain in a patient older than one month.


III. Patient is HIV negative

With laboratory test results negative for HIV infection, a diagnosis
of AIDS for surveillance purposes is ruled out unless:

   A. All the other causes of immunodeficiency listed in I-A (see above)
      are excluded; AND

   B. The patient has had either of the following:

	1. P. carinii pneumonia diagnosed by a definitive method.

	2. A definitive diagnosis of any of the other diseases
	   indicative of AIDS listed in I-B (see above) and a
	   CD4+ helper-inducer T cell count of less than 400/mm^3

    re: .68

>    So far, it sounds like your only sources are from magazines that are
>    very anti-Duesberg....

    Actually, no.  In fact, I don't recall ever having seen mention,
    positive or negative, of Duesberg, Caiazza, et al. anywhere other
    than in your notes (although I admit I haven't looked at every
    bibliography of every article I've read on the subject).  The
    objections I've presented are entirely my own based on information
    obtained from a number of sources.

"Antibodies usually aren't present unless the antigen is (or has been) present.
I don't see what point you're trying to make with this statement."

The problem is that this presupposes that HIV *is* the cause of AIDS.

"If there is a known cause for the immune system deficiency then you don't have
AIDS, you have something else."

An immune system defiency by any name or caise is still AIDS.

"I'm not sure how much, if any, research has been done to determine how the
virus has mutated over time."

I was thinking more along the lines that our immune systems have become less
effective.

Jim.

    This is a fascinating discussion.  Reminds me back when (I lived near
    Philadelphia) and they were trying to figure out what caused [what
    is today known as] Legionaires Disease.  Lots of confusion there, too.
    
>>> The problem is that this presupposes that HIV *is* the cause of AIDS.
    
    Even if HIV xx isn't the causative agent for AIDS, it does offer the
    best (read: cheapest and easiest to administer) way for testing large
    volumes of blood.  Other approaches, like testing for the ratios of
    the different T-cells, currently either take more time and/or more
    expensive equipment.  There are a lot of problems with this approach,
    since I believe a person can be infectious long before these symptoms
    are seen.

>>> An immune system defiency by any name or caise is still AIDS.
    
    Not really.  There are lots of immunodeficiency diseases, either caused
    by pathogens or via genetic abnormalities that are not associated with
    the AIDS complex.

    re: .72

>The problem is that this presupposes that HIV *is* the cause of AIDS.

    Right - because that's the way AIDS is defined.  That's not to say
    it's not possible to have an immune system deficiency which isn't
    caused by HIV; just that if you do it isn't AIDS.  Some other
    causes of immune system deficiency are known (see section I-A
    of the case definition in 431.70, for example); there are most
    likely others which are not known.

    The reason for defining AIDS in this manner is relatively straight-
    forward.

    In 1981 physicians first noticed a sudden increase in certain rare
    diseases known to occur in those with suppressed immune system
    function.  The number of these cases began to rise rapidly, and
    in many no known cause for the immune system suppression could be
    identified.  In 1982 this syndrome became known as AIDS.

    By late 1983 a retrovirus which was eventually named HIV had been
    isolated from blood and tissue samples taken from AIDS patients.
    Initially, evidence of HIV infection was found in only a small
    portion of AIDS patients, but the percentage grew as the tests
    became more sensitive and now almost all AIDS patients show
    evidence of HIV infection.  Numerous studies have shown that
    HIV infects and kills T4 lymphocytes, the immune system cells
    found to be severely depleted in AIDS patients.

    While this evidence may not be sufficient to prove that HIV causes
    AIDS, it is sufficient to show a strong link between the virus and
    AIDS.

    At this point there are several reasons it might be useful to include
    the presence of HIV infection in the definition of AIDS:

    	1. it helps distinguish cases which don't fit a given hypothesis

    	2. it helps identify a set of closely related cases for
    	   epidemiologic tracking purposes

    	3. when the cases are diagnosed by (suspected) pathogen,
    	   clinical tests for vaccines and therapeutic agents are
    	   easier to control and evaluate

    [I don't know why the CDC AIDS case definition allows certain
    HIV-negative cases to be classified as AIDS unless it is
    intended to include cases which are statistically likely to
    be false-negative antibody tests.  The issue of MMWR in which
    the case definition was originally published (see 431.70 for
    reference) may explain the rationale for the selection criteria.]

>An immune system defiency by any name or caise is still AIDS.

    This is not true, as Jim Mackin has already pointed out.  See
    section I-A of the AIDS case definition (note 431.70), where
    several other known causes of immune system deficiency are enumerated.

>I was thinking more along the lines that our immune systems have become less
>effective.

    I have not seen any evidence that this is the case.  The high rate
    of HIV infection among AIDS patients and the known effects of HIV on
    T4 lymphocytes can explain the immune system deficiency in most
    AIDS patients.  If there were a general reduction of immune system
    effectiveness among the population at large we could expect to see
    more cases of AIDS in patients who have not been infected by HIV.

    
    Re: .74
    
    From what I have read and from what I have seen with many people
    that I know, just because you test positive for HIV does NOT
    mean that you will develop "AIDS".  HIV is a very weak virus, that
    does not cause a vast immunity deficiency/suppression.  As I have
    said before, "AIDS" is exactly what it stands for and is not dependent
    on the presence of HIV.  There are many things that cause immunity
    deficiency/suppression....none of which are HIV.  AIDS is not a
    disease, it is a syndrome....There is NO "AIDS virus".
    

    Linda

    
    Re: .75

    Jerry,
    
    You do know that I disagree with the majority of what you stated!...
    
    Since I feel that I have addressed most of the issues stated, my
    only comment is.....Please consult all of the articles I have
    mentioned, or have keyed in.....
    
    
    Linda

Found an interesting article in the November 1989 issue SPIN called
"SINS OF OMISSIONS - THE AZT SCANDAL" by Celia Farber (starts on page 40).
It's a long article so I can't type it all in, but here are some excerpts:

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    (in reference to the ONLY study done on AZT which was used to get AZT
     approved by the FDA.  The FDA approved it only for severe "AIDS" patients.)

    AZT is the only antiretroviral drug that has received FDA approval for
treatment of AIDS since the epidemic began 10 years ago, and the decision to
approve it was based on a single study that has long been declared invalid.

    The study was intended to be a "double-blind placebo-controlled study",
the only kind of study that can effectively prove whether or not a drug works.
In such a study, neither patient nor doctor is supposed to know if the patient
is getting the drug or a placebo.  In the case of AZT, the study became 
unblinded on all sides, after just a few weeks.

    Both sides contributed to the unblinding.  It became obvious to doctors
who was getting what because AZT causes such severe side effects that AIDS 
per se does not.  Furthermore, a routine blood count know as a CMV, which
clearly shows who is on the drug and who is not, wasn't whited out in the
reports.  Both of these facts were accepted and confirmed by both the FDA and
Burroughs Wellcome, who conducted the study.

    Many of the patients who were in the trial admitted that they had analyzed
their capsules to find out whether they were getting the drug.  If they weren't,
some bought the drug on the underground market.  Also, the pills were supposed
to be indistinguishable by taste, but they were not.  Although this was
corrected early on, the damage was already done.  There were also reports that
patients were pooling pills out of solidarity to each other.  The study was so
severely flawed that its conclusions must be considered, by the most basic
scientific standards, unproven.

    The most serious problem with the original study, however, is that it was
never completed.  Seventeen weeks into the study, when more patients had died
in the placebo group, the study was stopped, five months prematurely, for
"ethical" reasons: It was considered unethical to keep giving people a placebo
when the drug might keep them alive longer.  Because the study was stopped
short, and all subjects were put on AZT, no scientific study can ever be
conducted to prove unequivocably whether AZT does prolong life.


    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    "That study was so sloppily done that it really didn't mean much," says
Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, a leading New York City AIDS doctor.

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    Dr. Harvey Bialy, scientific editor of the journal "Biotechnology", is
stunned by the low quality of science surrounding AIDS research.  When asked
if he had seen any evidence of the claims made for AZT, that it "prolongs
life" in AIDS patients, Bialy said, "No.  I have not seen a published study
that is rigorously done, analyzed and objectively reported."

    Bialy, who is also a molecular biologist, is horrified by the widespread
use of AZT, not just because it is toxic, but because, he insists, the claims
its widespread use are based upon are false.  "I can't see how this drug
could be doing anything other than making people very sick," he says.

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    AZT has been aggressively and repeatedly marketed as a drug that prolongs
survival in AIDS patients because it stops the HIV virus from replicating and
spreading to healthy cells.  But, says Bialy:  "There is no good evidence that
HIV actively replicates in a person with AIDS, and if there isn't much HIV
replication to stop, it's mostly killing healthy cells."

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    "I am absolutely convinced that people enjoy a better quality of life and
survive longer who do not take AZT," says Gene Fedorko, President of Health
Education AIDS Liaison (HEAL).  "I think it's horrible the way people are
bullied by their doctors to take this drug.  We get people coming to us shaking
and crying because their doctors said they'll die if they don't take AZT.  That
is an absolute lie."  Fedorko has drawn his conclusion from years of listening
to the stories of people struggling to survive AIDS at HEAL's weekly support
group.

    "I wouldn't take AZT if you paid me," says Michael Callen, cofounder of
New York City's PWA coalition, Community Research Initiative, and editor of
several AIDS journals.  Callen has survived AIDS for over seven years without
the help of AZT.  "I've gotten the shit kicked out of me for saying this, but I
think using AZT is like aiming a thermonuclear warhead at a mosquito.  The
overwhelming majority of long-term survivors I've known have chosen not to take
AZT."

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    The last surviving patient from the original AZT trial, according to
Burroughs-Wellcome, died recently.  When he died, he had been on AZT for
three and one-half years.  He was the longest surviving AZT recipient.  The
longest surviving AIDS patient overall, not on AZT, has lived for eight and
one-half years.


    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    (In regards to the August 17, 1989 government announcement regarding
     the NIH's latest study "proving" how "wonderful" AZT is, and suggesting
     that 1.4 million healthy, HIV antibody-positive Americans should take AZT:)

    The leading newspapers didn't seem to think it unusual that there was no
existing copy of the study, but rather a breezy two-page press release from the
NIH.  When SPN called the NIH asking for a copy of the study, we were told that
it was "still being written."

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    "I'm convinced that if you gave AZT to a perfectly healthy athlete,"
says Fedorko, "he would be dead in five years."

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

    The news that AZT will soon be prescribed to asymptomatic people has left
many leading AIDS doctors dumbfounded and furious.  Every doctor and scientist
I asked felt that it was highly unprofessional and reckless to announce a study
with no data to look at, making recommendations with such drastic public health
implications.  "This simply does not happen," says Bialy.  "The government is
reporting scientific facts before they've been reviewed?  It's unheard of."

    "It's beyond belief," says Dr. Sonnabend in a voice tinged with desperation.
"I don't know what to do.  I have to go in and face on office full of patients
asking for AZT.  I'm terrified.  I don't know what to do as a responsible
physician.  The first study was ridiculous.  Margaret Fischl, who has done both
of these studies, obviously doesn't know the first thing about clincal trials.
I don't trust her.  Or the others.  They're simply not good enough.  We're
being held hostage be second-rate scientists.  We let them get away with the
first disaster; now they're doing it again."

    "It's a momentous decision to say to people, "If you're HIV-positive and
your T-4 cells are below 500, start taking AZT," says the AIDS doctor who wished
to remain anonymous.  "I know dozens of people that I've seen personally every
few months for several years now who have been in that state for more than
five years, and have not progressed to any disease."

    "I'm ashamed of my colleagues," Sonnabend laments.  "I'm embarrassed.  This
is such shoddy science it's hard to believe nobody is protesting.  Damned
cowards.  The name of the game is protect your grant, don't open your mouth.
It's all about money ...  it's grounds for just following the party line and
not being critical, when there are obviously financial and political forces
that are driving this."

    When Duesberg heard the latest announcement, he was particularly stunned
over the reaction of Gay Men's Health Crisis President Richard Dunne, who said
that GMHC now urged "everybody to get tested," and of course those who test
positive to go on AZT.  "These people are running into the gas chambers," says
Duesberg.  "Himmler would have been so happy if only the Jews were this
cooperative."

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

There's a new book out that's terrific.  It's called "THE GREAT AIDS HOAX"
by T.C. Fry (February 1989, Life Science Institute, ISBN # 1-55830-005-8).
I highly recommend it.

This is what the front cover says:

    THE GREAT AIDS HOAX

    o How the AIDS conspiracy began.

    o Why AIDS is a monstrous hoax.

    o Documenting that AIDS is a concocted disease, and is actually several
      old immunodeficiency diseases lumped together.

    o Pinpointing the real causes of what is called AIDS.

    o Revealing why government and commercial interests conspired to foist
      the AIDS hoax upon the American populace.

    o Why AIDS is rife among homosexuals.

    o How AIDS can be overcome in three to five weeks in almost all cases.



This is what the back cover says:

    Would you believe that AIDS is one of the bigger scams of the 20th century?

    Would you believe...

    ...that AIDS is an umbrella acronym for a collection of old diseases that
       have been in medical literature since as far back as 1539?

    ...that drugs, alien proteins and other poisons cause the problems called
       AIDS?

    ...that the treatment of choice for AIDS is listed in the medical manuals
       as a prominent cause of AIDS, and is far more deadly than AIDS itself?

    ...that Dr. Robert Gallo's widely televised picture of an AIDS virus
       injecting itself into a cell was an outright fraud and is nothing more
       than a process of cellular phagocytosis as illustrated in most physiology
       textbooks?

    ...that the AIDS panic and hysteria were deliberately manufactured and
       disseminated utilizing improved Hitlerian big lie techniques?

    ...that AIDS is, in almost all cases, easily reversible when its easily
       ascertainable causes are discontinued and health-building measures are
       adopted?

    ...that AIDS can almost alwats be totally overcome in 20 to 40 days?

    Gee, Mike, have you read the book already?  I just finished reading
    it.....   At least, I assume that you have read it, or how else 
    would you know whether or not the contents are accurate?

.80>  appeasing the author's dreams of quick profits.

    If you  wanna discuss profits, why don't we discuss all the money that
    Burroughs-Wellcome has made killing people?  Or how about all the grant
    money that "scientists" such as Dr. Gallo has received for creating
    a "disease" that kills homosexuals and drug-users?  That's more 
    interesting, I think.....

    Linda

    	I can't bring myself to believe that anyone can seriously be
    entering the past few notes.
    	If there really is such a book. I feel sorry for anyone who
    would truly put stock in it.
    	Was Polio also concocted for profit?  You mean to tell me that
    people like Rock Hudson were fooled into death?
    	I pity the poor relatives of any person who reads it.  If they
    come down with it they are garanteed to die.
    	If I am wrong please give be documented FACTS about recovery
    form some source other then that book.
    	This reminds me of the cures that were going around for cancer
    in the 60s and 70s.  So many people lost so much during that time.
    Because of these quacks
            
    Hope this book is not real
    
    Mike

    
    Let me start off by saying I am a contractor and this is not my name
    (George) but this is the account given to me.
    
    
    Like Mike I found it quite necessary to reply to this whole gamut of
    self-proclaimed healing books.
    
    What do I know about ADIS? Not a lot but I do know bare facts when I do
    see them.  I have taken a job doing data entry evenings for some extra
    money. The subject of the work is AIDS related research.
    
    Linda, part of me wants to flame at you but I am going to try and
    present facts here responding to your words. Due to confidentiality I
    can not disclose certain information to the net.
    
    
.79>    o Why AIDS is a monstrous hoax.

    The data I am inputting is from around the country. If it is such a
    hoax why are so many people contracting the same symptoms when even
    they do not know each other? 
    
.79>    o Documenting that AIDS is a concocted disease, and is actually several
.79>      old immunodeficiency diseases lumped together.

    If it was several diseases lumped together the research on this would
    be far more advanced than it is now.  The research is still in an
    embryonic stage and needs to advance to find a cure for AIDS not
    several smaller diseases.  Despite belief not many diseases can work in
    harmony to this many people.
    
.79>    o How AIDS can be overcome in three to five weeks in almost all cases.

    I have seen people cases who are on treatment from everything to one
    week to six months and even greater.  If it is so easily cured then why
    are all of these people dying? Some of them have great faith in their
    lives but they still die.
    
.79>    ...that the AIDS panic and hysteria were deliberately manufactured and
.79>       disseminated utilizing improved Hitlerian big lie techniques?

    Who would gain from this? Drug companies are spending more than they
    are making on the drugs right now in research alone. It taken almost
    six years to get a drug onto the market and FDA approved.
    
.79>    ...that AIDS is, in almost all cases, easily reversible when its easily
.79>       ascertainable causes are discontinued and health-building measures are
.79>       adopted?

    Most of the cases I have seen are active people with busy lives who
    have had their lives altered/destroyed by this.
    
.79>    ...that AIDS can almost alwats be totally overcome in 20 to 40 days?

    I would love to see the author of this book tell an AIDS patient this
    to his face. It isn't a mental illness it is a physical illness.
    
    ->	Unfortunately, some of those cover bullets are true, and that
    ->may lend credibility to the other, outrageously false, bullets.

    Mike I don't know how many are actually true. Granted their is now an
    AIDS hysteria growing in the coutry but if people become aware of what
    this is about the learned people will not become hysterical.  Most of
    the hysteria is from those who do not choose to teach or learn about
    AIDS.
    
    I am not going to digress into a battle of words but let me say one
    thing. This if it is a hoax, and I solely believe it is not, this is
    the best perpetrated one on earth.
    
    Debbi

    
    Mike,
    
    Thanks for the response.  My opinion for what it is worht is that it is
    not rife amongst just homosexual men the studies I have seen (about 200
    of them this week) have a mix of homosexual, bisexual, lesbian,
    straight people. Gay men are the largest group but it is not "rife" so
    to speak.  I think with the trends turning towards safe sex we may see
    an increase in AIDS amongst intravenous drug users who think "it can't
    happen to me".
    
    The biggest side effect of AZT right now is CMV Retinitis, which is a
    form of blindness.  Granted not a lot is known but there is a company
    in the process of clincal testing for a drug which would counteract the
    CMV Retinitis.  If it does indeed prove to be an active solution to
    this part of the problem it will be sent off to the FDA.  Until then
    the responses from clinical studies will be analyzed.
    
    One of the biggest fears right now is that many pharmeceutical
    companies are holding AIDS patients hostage. That is not true. 
    These companies are acting out responsibly by putting onto the buyers
    market a drug which has not been fully researched. If it was put on the
    market in a hurry without proper evaluation the results could be
    absolutely catastrophic.
    
    Debbi

RE:. 83> Yes, the book exists and I have read it.  For facts, please consult all
of the references that I have mentioned throughout the 80-some replies.

RE: .84>  I'm glad that you feel that you do not need to read a book before
critiquing it.  Personally I prefer to examine something thoroughly before I
comment on it (which is why I am able to cite medical journals and articles
backing up everything I have stated in this note).

Re: .85> Please consult the information and all of the medical references
that I have mentioned within this note.

RE: the book> Why don't you people read it first, then comment on it.  I don't
necessarily agree with EVERYTHING in the book, but it's one of the few books
I have read that clearly states what I know of what is behind the "AIDS" scam
from my previous research (which included talking with - many times - 
doctors such as Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, considered to be one of the most
knowledgeable doctors on "AIDS" in New York City).  

RE: the AZT article>  No Comments?

Linda

	 RE: .88 (Linda)

	 One of the problems here is that you gave us the front and
	 back cover of the book and didn't give us anything more.  You
	 talk about a sham, but you don't tell us anything about it.
	 You say this book is wonderful, but you don't really tell us
	 anything about it....you say that AIDS can be cured in a few
	 weeks, but you don't tell us how!

	 I, for one, don't have TIME to read this book right now...How
	 'bout you tell us something about it and it's findings.
	 


	 Don't forget...you're presenting an idea that the majority of
	 the people in our society laugh at.....you're going to have
	 to defend yourself quite a bit and you're going to have to
	 back up what you say with proof.

	 I can't believe in what you're saying until you give me a
	 little more than the front cover musings of some book with
	 off-mainstream ideas.

	 Ya know?

	 kath

Re: .90>  This study is also very questionable.  Here is another excerpt from
"Sins of Omission - The AZT Scandal" - Spin 11/89, Celia Farber.  This is in
response to the study you mention in reply .90:


    The leading newspapers didn't seem to think it unusual that there was no
existing copy of the study, but rather a breezy two-page press release from
the NIH.  When SPIN called the NIH asking for a copy of the study, we were told
that it was "still being written."

    We asked a few questions about the numbers.  According to the press
release, 3200 early ARC and asymptomatic patients were divided into two groups,
one AZT and one placebo, and followed for two years.  The two groups were
distinguished by T-4 cell counts; one group had less than 500, the other more
than 500.  These two were then divided into three groups each: high-dose AZT,
low-dose AZT, and placebo.  In the group with more than 500 T-4 cells, AZT had
no effect.  In the other group, it was concluded that low-dose AZT was the most
effective, followed by high-dose.  All in all, 36 out of 900 developed AIDS in
the two AZT groups combined, and 38 out of 450 in the placebo group.  "HIV-
positive patients are twice as likely to get AIDS if they don't take AZT", the
press declared.

    However, the figures are vastly misleading.  When we asked how many patients
were actually enrolled for a full two years, the NIH said THEY DID NOT KNOW,
BUT THAT THE AVERAGE TIME OF PARTICIPATION WAS ONE YEAR, NOT TWO.

    "It's terribly dishonest the was they portrayed those numbers," says Dr.
Sonnabend.  "If there were 60 people in the trial those numbers would mean
something, but if you calculate what the percentage is out of 3200, the
difference becomes minute between the two groups.  It's nothing.  It's hit or
miss, and they make it look like it's terribly significant."

    The study boasted that AZT is much more effective and less toxic at
one-third the dosage than has been used for three years now.  That's the good
news.  The bad news is that thousands have already been walloped with 1500
milligrams of AZT and possibly even died of toxic poisoning - and now we're
hearing that one third of the dose would have done?

    With all that remains so uncertain about the effects of AZT, it seems
criminal to advocate expanding its usage to healthy people, particularly since
only a MINISCULE PERCENTAGE OF THE HIV-INFECTED POPULATION HAVE ACTUALLY
DEVELOPED ARC OR AIDS.

********************************************************************************

end-of-SPIN article, now a personal comment:

Now, after reading the above, I think that it was highly UNRESPONSIBLE (never
mind shoddy journalism) for a scientific magazine such as DISCOVER to publish
that scientific report without investigating it further and asking questions.
They have a duty to report the FACTS to the public, not to print what the
government tells them to print.  I am highly outraged at DISCOVER!

Linda

Re: .89>  The book ties up some of the things already mentioned within
	  this note.  I'm sorry, but I really don't have time to go into
	  much of the book.  I didn't find a lot of NEW information (at least
	  for me) within the book, and I would be re-hashing things already
	  mentioned within this note.  The reason I suggest the book is that
	  it is interesting and mentions several things I have mentioned
	  within this conference.  I don't necessarily agree with everything
	  he states in his book (somethings he mentions warrants further
	  investigation by myself before I will say that I agree with it),
	  but it is a very thought-provoking book.

	  His "cure" for AIDS is a nutritional/healthy living approach.
	  I personally know 3 people who were diagnosed as having full-blown
	  "AIDS" and told they had 3 months to live if lucky, and used this
	  approach to combat their condition.  They
	  stayed away from AZT and "cleaned up" their lifestyle (no drugs,
	  healthy foods, plenty of rest, eliminate stress, exercise, etc.).
	  They were diagnosed about 5 years ago.  Today they are healthy,
	  happy, well-adjusted, etc.  There have been studies done in
	  California which I believe I have mentioned within this note.
	  (This note contains many medical references supporting just about
	  everything I have stated.  There are several articles that I have
	  also keyed in, backing up what I say.)

	  I have known many people who have been diagnosed as having AIDS.
	  All of them who have taken AZT are now dead.  All of them who
	  stayed away from AZT and sought alternative treatments as mentioned
	  in this note and still alive and in fairly good shape.

	  Linda

    Linda,
    
    Just for coffee and conversation last evening I brought up this topic
    with Bill.
    
    He suggested that I let you know the book is about what you paid for
    (he guessed between 8.95 and 14.95) however, for someone who thinks
    they have AIDS and have not been diagnosed as such for fear of finding
    out the truth it may work. Simplified if they don't have AIDS they will
    not die from it.
    
    In his medical opinion, which I do respect, he feels that it is almost
    impossible to believe such a book with such unrealistic expectations.
    
    If it does not offend anyone who has responded here he asked me if I
    could strip out the responses and let him read them.  I will remove all
    names etc...
    
    Debbi

    re .91, DISCOVER magazine.
    
    DISCOVER is a science magazine in the same sense that
    TIME is a news magazine.
    
    If you want real news, or real science, you'll have to
    go elsewhere (e.g. Scientific American or Science, The
    Economist or The New York Times).
    
    Otherwise, don't be surprised when frothy gee-whiz articles
    written quickly have authors who fail to check all the details.
    
    			-John Bishop

    re .96.
    
    1.	I mentioned Sci. Am. in my reply as a more-reputable
    	magazine. Science News would be another.
    
    2.	.91 wasn't by you, it was by Linda Waine.
    
    3.	She didn't quote DISCOVER so much as complain about
    	it, and call it irresponsible.  She felt (it seems)
    	that the DISCOVER writers should have done more digging
    	and investigation of the claims before they printed
    	that article.
    
    4.	My .95 is trying to say "Get real".  Getting angry at
    	PEOPLE magazine because it gets astrophysics wrong is
    	a waste of your time.  DISCOVER is a notch or three above
    	PEOPLE.  OMNI is between the two.
    
    Now clearly, even PEOPLE will be mostly correct, and quoting
    DISCOVER is a reasonable thing as a first approximation.
    But expecting in-depth investigative journalism from the
    popular press in any matter other than sex or money scandals
    is unrealistic.  Is this clearer?

    					-John Bishop

    Re DISCOVER magazine, article from .90:
    
    It looks like a normal article--I'd assume it was correct
    until told otherwise, but wouldn't bet my life on it.  It
    looks like a write-up of a press release from the department
    of Health and Human Services (which is what other noters say
    it is), and I assume that the DISCOVER reporters are sufficiently
    competent to re-phrase a press release.
    
    But I'm not the one who was upset at the magazine, and I'm
    not terribly interested in the topic (AZT), and I'm not trying
    to quarrel.
    
    I know that when I read notes and find two people having a long
    conversation about a side issue I dislike it and wish they'd take
    it off-line.  So, if you think there's more to say (I don't),
    let's continue this by MAIL.
    
    				-John Bishop

    
    Good point Mike. Thanks for that information.  The AIDS process wears
    down the body's immune system and they are at a greater risk of
    catching a cold or as in this case contracting cancer than a
    non-infected person.
    
    I am wonderinf if the author of that bok had known people who were ill
    due to a virus unexplained but just shrugged into the AIDS category..
    
    D. 

        From the Dec. 16, '89 issue of Science News (Vol. 136,
        No. 25) page 396:
        
        		AZT causes cancer in lab animals
        		--------------------------------
        
        	Investigators last week reported finding vaginal
        	cancer in mice and rats given high doses of
                zidovudine (AZT), the only federally approved
                drug that attacks the AIDS virus directly.  But
                U.S. public health officials urge doctors to
                interpret those results cautiously.
                
                "The Public Health Service still strongly
                recommends that AIDS patients and others for whom
                the drug is approved continue their zidovudine
                therapy under consultation with their physician,"
                says James O. Mason, assistant secretary for
                health at the Department of Health and human
                Services.  He adds that many toxic drugs cause
                cancer in animals when given in high doses over
                long periods.  The new results do not necessarily
                suggest a cancer risk for people taking AZT, he
                says.
                
        A third and final paragraph briefly summarized the study.
        
        Dan

re: 431.79 by TADSKI::WAINE "Linda" >>>
re: good book on the AIDS hoax >-

>"THE GREAT AIDS HOAX"
>by T.C. Fry (February 1989, Life Science Institute, 
>ISBN # 1-55830-005-8).
    
    HELP ....... I need to know *WHERE* you got this book !! I tried 
    to order  it  through  my  local  library,  and  they  said it isn't
    orderable.
    
    The clerk checked the current (1989-1990) BOOKS IN PRINT catalogue,
    and could fins no such author as "T.C. Fry", no such publisher as
    "Life Science Institute",  and  no  such  title  as  "The Great Aids
    Hoax".
    
    I find this frustrating, so please tell us where you got your book, so
    we can get one also. 
    
    Would  you be willing to  Xerox  off  a  few  of  the  front  pages
    (frontispiece) ?  The publisher may be a sub-contractor or a private
    publisher for a specialized interest group and may not show up in
    the "Books in Print" catalogue.  

    However, the local librarian agreed to do a search of the ISBN
    numbers (so I hope its correct). By some chance, do you have the LC
    catalogue Number ? (should be right near the  ISBN #).
    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob Early    
    
    (My interest is piqued , because I  knew  a  TC Frye back in the 60s
    who  achieved  church  recognition  for  'the touchy feely  groupie'
    sessions he led in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.)

    

    .103
    
    Bob, wasn't it obvious before that this book is a hoax and a sham
    itself?  Isn't it obvious now?

>.103
    
>Bob, wasn't  it  obvious  before  that  this  book is a hoax and a sham
>itself?  Isn't it obvious now?

Is this your opinion or a proven fact ?

After being "stepped on" by a few  DECcies  for doubting other "apparent
scams", without foundation, i felt it would be better to first get facts
(provable facts) before pronouncing a thing to be a scam !!

Second, several books of  such a genre are (or have been) on the market,
wherein the author proclaims <something>to  be  a  hoax  or  some  other
aberrant behavior is "normal behavior".

What I don't understand is:   If <someone> already believes this book to
be a hoax, then why hasn't the corroborating information been posted ?

Or alternatively, removed or set hidden by the moderators ??

    In re: .105
    
    It is a well educated opinion.  I feel it is amply corroborated by the
    extensive quotations from the publication supplied earlier in this note.
    Several postings to the same effect _have_ been made earlier.  I
    presume the moderators have done nothing because it is not in
    violation of Note or company policy to promote dubious publications.
    
    There are sometimes cases where scientific insights or breakthroughs
    are denounced as or mistaken for hoaxes.  But most hoaxes are
    unambiguous transparent nonsense.  I feel this is transparent nonsense. 
    I do not need to read through every page or issue of the National
    Enquirer to know that the assertions in its headlines are transparent
    nonsense.  Likewise here.
    

re: 431.106 


>It is a well educated opinion.  I feel it is amply corroborated by the
>extensive quotations from the publication supplied earlier in this note.

Hmm Let us determine a basis for the comments.

The question is: 
Is the Note which references the book (431.78?) ITself a hoax, declaring
that the book  exists ?

Or is  the book "real" but is in itself a Hoax upon the public.  Umm one
other  "hoax"  notion  which  immediately  comes  to mind is the extreme
opinion (held by some) that the 'Holocaust' was a hoax.

>Several postings to the same effect _have_ been made earlier.  I
    
>There are sometimes cases where scientific insights or breakthroughs
>are denounced as or mistaken for hoaxes.  But most hoaxes are
>unambiguous transparent nonsense.  I feel this is transparent nonsense. 

The case "differences"  is this:
IF the note itself is a hoax, then why would a bonafide DEC employee
attempt to perpetrate such  a  suggestion to the consternation of
other  DEC  Employees  ?  I mean, DEC does have  minimum  standards  for
employee  conduct  in  regard to how much pain and aggravation they  can
cause other employees, governed by (for example DEC Policy 6.54), and 
more recently the "Valuing Differences" philosophy.

My enquiry about a source  for  the  book,  is based on whether the book
exists ?

I am of the opinion that  if  the  book  exists,  then  where  may it be
obtained from ?  Informed sources have  already  told  me that there are
several  publishers  within the US who have names  which  "sound  like"
generally  accepted  companies, but are in trying to foist  off  to  the
public their alternative views as being "correct".

Bob ..

BTW, i like the opening phrase .. it is a well educated opinion. 
Do any opinions exist which are not well educated ?? ;^\)

    Re: Note 431.107 by WOODRO::EARLY
    
    >>..notion which immediately comes to mind is the extreme opinion 
    (held by some) that the 'Holocaust' was a hoax...>>
    
    Excuse me Sir, Methinks that the using of the UNTHINKABLE crimes
    against humanity that resulted in the sadistic, industrial genocide
    against  15 - 20 million inhabitants of the Earth is - UNACCEPTABLE 
    comparison !
    
    You may not have intended it that way, but using industrial genocide as 
    a "comparison" to make a point...
    in a "debate" about a MERE book is (to say the least) TRIVIALIZING  
    an event unparalled in human tragedies. 
    
    The "comparison" in note .107 can be viewed by those who survived such  
    brutalities as yet another example of trivializing the HORRORS of Auschwitz,
    Dachau, Buchenwald...  (Unintentional or not.)   
                          I personally do not see what's "cute/smart"(?) about
                          dancing on sacred grounds - like Auschwitz.
    For goodnessake, please try another example ! A more appropriate example !
    (Books should be compared with books)
    
    FaZari.

    In re: .107
    
    It never occured to me that the book might not exist, or that the noter
    who mentioned it wasn't sincere.  Your difficulty finding it only
    suggests to me that it was printed by a "vanity" press - i.e. paid for
    by the author - rather than a regular publisher.
    
    As to "well educated opinions"  -  yes, there are certainly some
    opinions that are better informed, and others that are less so.  I was
    speaking fairly literally.  It happens I have a ph.d. in the history of
    science.  The persistant phenomenon of pseudo-science - and public
    fascination with it - has long been of interest within that profession,
    especially in the history of medicine.
    
    			- Bruce

    Wednesday my anthropology instructor pointed out a truism that
    seems to fit this debate: "Myth is much more powerful and lasting
    than facts".

    When the myth states that someone is keeping you from something you
    think will save you it's even more powerfull. When I worked in
    cancer therapy we saw much the same debate and "suppressed" cures
    being discussed as there are now in AIDS. liesl

 So, it is information we are seeking. How do I ....... ?
       
       Well, now, I have some *interesting news* ...
       
       My path led me to do some research.  AS yet, I have not found the
       publisher: Life Science Institute (as referenced in 431.76?).
       
       However,  I  did  find  a  company called:  Life ScienceS  Press.
       Watch the S in sciences.
       
       The receptionist did "hear" about the book, and they frequently
       get orders from a company in Florida called" (Ta da):
           LIFE SCIENCE  PRESS (note: no 's' on Science)
       
       However, no address for Life Science Press is currently known.

       I think the person who suggested that 'maybe' its by one  of  the
       so called 'vanity' companies, or perhaps a Specialty Books
       Publisher .... well, there you have it ....whatever.

re: 431.108 
    
    >in a "debate" about a MERE book is (to say the least) TRIVIALIZING  
    >an event unparalled in human tragedies. 

       (Note: as an aside, the Holocaust is not the first nor the only 
       example  of    such  mass  murder.    It  is  probably  the  most
       publicized, though.)
       

       Please re_read my note.  *I* am not triviallizing  anything.  The
       comparison was intended in this way:

       There are (in  point  of  fact) **SOME** people who are trying to
       declare that to be the case. *I* am not one of them.
       
       There are **SOME** people  (even  3 make a *some*) who would have
       us believe that many **catastrophic**  manmade  calamities  were a
       hoax in order to reduce the  historical impact.
       
       There are **SOME** People trying to make us believe that **SOME**
       people are inferior by  virtue of color, religion, social stratus,
       politics, corporate affiliations.
       
       If I am not *free*  to make comparisons, then what are we free to
       do ??
       
       In regards to this book.   I  haven't  the  faintest  clue to its
       existence,  or  the original noters intent.   My  original  reply
       (.103) was a call for "how about more information ?".
       
       I could care less about there intent or politics.  I am painfully
       aware of the "differences" in how facts are presented for review.
       I  am  personally familiar with several  publishers  who  produce
       "obscure books" ...  but these books  do  exist.   True or not ??
       How do tell, some X or z numbers  of  years later, what the facts
       really are ???
       
       
       
       
       
    
       

    Bob,
    
    If the Life Science Institute is not in the primary business of
    publishing books, it might not show up in the places where you've
    looked.  F'rinstance, if it's some kind of think tank, it might
    periodically publish its own research under its own name, but that
    wouldn't rate it a publisher's listing in _books in print_.  
    
    This is a pretty common situation, and doesn't necessarily imply
    anything nefarious about their research or their proceedings. 
    Church groups often publish material under their own names,
    anything from please-give-to-the-poor pamphlets to cookbooks to
    collections of the pastor's best sermons.  
    
    You won't find all the manuals and pamphlets and technical
    handbooks that Digital publishes listed in those places, either,
    only the stuff we publish through Digital Press.  
    
    Now, I don't know exactly how you'd go about tracking this book
    down even if you knew it was published under these kind of
    conditions, but maybe it's a clue.
    
    All that's involved in "publishing" a book, by the way, is finding
    someone to print it for you.  I can take a typed draft of my novel
    down to PIP printers, order 500 copies, pay them a couple of
    thousand bucks, and have a published novel that will never show up
    in anybody's library listings.  But legally it's as much a book,
    and just as protected by the same laws, as The Cider House Rules
    or Compton's Encyclopedia.  And some books printed this way, and
    sold by energetic authors, have gone on to become regular
    conventionally published books.  The One-Minute Manager started
    out as a self-printed thing the author gave out as part of his
    seminars. 
    
    --bonnie

    I found another good book.  I've only read parts of it so far, but it
    seems good.  I got it at Shambhalla book store in Cambridge.  It's
    called "AIDS: HOPE, HOAX, AND HOOPLA" by Michael L. Culbert, D.Sc.
    (Copyright January 1989, Robert W. Bradford Foundation, A Trust, Library
    of Congress Catalogue Card Number 88-93058, ISBN: 0-934740-15-1).

    This book is similar to the "AIDS, INC." book by Jon Rappoport, but goes
    into more about the alternative treatments available.  I don't agree with
    everything I have read so far, but it does have some good "stuff".

    **********************************************************************

    This is from the back cover:

        AIDS - - the killer among us - - is preventable and controllable!...
    but you may not be getting the message as the HIV/AIDS industry blossoms
    and the Establishment and media cry "certain death".

        This is part of the information in "AIDS: HOPE, HOAX, and HOOPLA" by
    medical write Michael L. Culbert, D.Sc.  In this 17-chapter overview, you
    will see why AIDS is not necessarily a terminal disease, and why "the AIDS
    virus", working alone, cannot be its single cause.  More importantly, you'll
    read ways and means of treating the "HIV/AIDS infection curve" on a
    multifactorial basis outside the usual concepts of American medical
    orthodoxy and how new methods are producing long-term survival and
    life-enhancement in thousands of cases.

        The Bradford Research Institute research which went into this book and
    an earlier monograph and also laid the groundwork for "eclectic" treatment
    methods in Mexico describes the underlying causes of AIDS - alterations
    in food processing, multiple viral infections, flouridated water, substance
    abuse, parasites, antibiotic and steroid abuse, toxic chemicals, among
    others - aside from the mysterious development of "the AIDS virus" itself.

        Biological warfare and laboratory-error aspects of "AIDS virus"
    development and deployment are discussed - as well as gathering support
    for the syphilis-AIDS connection.  The mind-body connection and incredible
    contributions to healing through imaging and meditation are discussed.

        The author explains why AIDS is not a "gay disease" - and why "the
    AIDS test" - now being discussed as a basis for quarantining people - is
    unreliable.

        He demonstrates how a vast new industry is growing up around the
    dubious premises of AIDS causation and treatment - and how natural therapies
    in combination with experimental drugs, proper eating and proper thinking
    may be able to bring the pandemic of the century under control.

    **********************************************************************

    Here is the table of contents:

    Introduction (Bruce W. Halstead, M.D.)

    Author's Introduction

    Chapter  1: What Goes On Here?

    Chapter  2: Tracking The Killer

    Chapter  3: HIV-1. HIV-2. Etc.: The Magical Mystery Viruses

    Chapter  4: Of Blood and Semen: Is AIDS a 'Gay Disease'?

    Chapter  5: The Multi-Viral Connection

    Chapter  6: The Drug Connection

    Chapter  7: The Iatrogenic Connection

    Chapter  8: The Parasite Connection

    Chapter  9: The Poor Nutrition Connection

    Chapter 10: The Fluoridation Connection

    Chapter 11: A Biological Warfare/Vaccines Connection?

    Chapter 12: Is it Really Only Syphilis?

    Chapter 13: The Clash of Paradigms: Toward Eclectic And Holistic Therapy
                For HIV/AIDS

    Chapter 14: The Bioelectrical Connection

    Chapter 15: The Mind-Body-Soul Connection

    Chapter 16: A Foreign Clinic Experience

    Chapter 17: A Rational Program For The Prevention Of HIV/AIDS

    Appendix I: The HIV/LAS/ARC/AIDS Infection Curve
                Centers for Disease Control Revised Case Definition
                Walter Reed Classification System

    Appendix II: Orothdox Therapeutic Approaches In HIV/AIDS

    Appendix III: 'Alternative' Approaches In HIV/AIDS

    Appendix IV: The HIV-Positive, AIDS/ARC Bradford Research Institute-
                 Mexico Program
    Index

    **********************************************************************

    All the usual disclaimers (no money, I'm not an M.D. and not prescibing
    anything, I don't necessarily agree with everything in the book, etc.)

    Linda