Invisible Illness Awareness Week 2016: Our Voices Need to Be Heard
Never heard of Invisible Illness Awareness Week? You're not alone. Jody Smith sheds a little light to make it more visible
Discuss the article on the Forums.

XMRV vs HIV and long-term anti-retrovirals

Discussion in 'XMRV Testing, Treatment and Transmission' started by Sasha, Feb 25, 2010.

  1. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    Montagier has clearly gone on record as stating that his views were totally misreprsented.There is no virologist that questions the fact of HIV causation.HIV symptoms dont manifest untill late in the disease.Her blood counts show she is about to enter that stage.The drugs were so effective for her CFS/fm that she stopped them for two years.The idea that HIV does not cause aids is ludicrous nonsene perpertrated by AIDS denialists and has caused the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people all over the world
  2. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    AIDS denialism is not fringe it is totally unscientific based on misrepresentation of outdated is not on the fringe of science but completely without any science.It is a fable and is on the fringe of poor journalism.the aids denialist literature repeatedly states thatHIV is either harmless or does not cause AIDS.There are a very tiny minority of people that can harbour a latent infection of hIV due to a very specific genetic abnormality.for the huge majority however it is rapidly progreesive and fatal without treatment

    ME docs are dealing with reality .AIDS denialists propagate dangerous fantasy
  3. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    govermentsare costrained by facts and the conequences of their actions.for example AIDS denialists convinced the South African goverment that AIDS was not caused by HIV.They stopped providing any antiviral ageants.Lo and behold hundreds of thousnds of men women and children died as a direct results.Does HIV cause AIDS yes.Is AIDS denialist propaganda dangerous and crazy yes. You talked about pollution.The denialist view In my opinion is one of the worst kinds of pollution as it corrupts peoples minds and encourages slow scuicide
  4. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    This is the film house of numbers where the "views" of csientists re aids causation were obtained by denialists

    he film's promotion of AIDS denialism rendered it controversial and "bitterly divisive".[5] A local Fox affiliate TV station described the film as poorly organized and unfocused, but presenting "a barrage of intriguing theories."[6] Promotional material for the Raindance Film Festival described the film as raising "a number of challenging and disturbing thoughts."[7]

    The New York Times was more critical, describing the film as "a weaselly support pamphlet for AIDS denialists", "willfully ignorant", and "a globe-trotting pseudo-investigation that should raise the hackles of anyone with even a glancing knowledge of the basic rules of reasoning."[2] The Wall Street Journal cited the film as part of "this season's fashion in conspiracy theories."[4]

    Reaction from the scientific community was similarly negative. Lancet Infectious Diseases criticized the film's arguments, calling them a "toxic combination of misrepresentation and sophistry."[3], a website created by HIV researchers to address AIDS denialism,[8] criticized the film as concealing its "agenda behind a false veneer of honest inquiry", and published a rebuttal to some of the film's claims.[9] Ben Goldacre, writing in The Guardian, described House of Numbers as "a dreary and pernicious piece of Aids denialist propaganda."[10]

    Eighteen scientists interviewed in the film state that their answers to Leung's questions were selectively edited to convey a false sense that the scientific community disagrees on basic facts about HIV/AIDS.[3][11] Two interviewees, Neil Constantine and Robin Weiss, cite examples supporting the allegation that Leung misrepresented their words in a "surely intentional" manner.[12]

    A panel discussion of the film at a Boston film festival was disrupted by Leung and by AIDS denialists in the audience, who attempted to shout down members of the panel with whom they disagreed.[1] On the 28th of August 2009, Leung responded to the criticism of his film House of Numbers in the online newspaper Huffington Post[13]
  5. Adam


    Sheffield UK
    FWIW - my observations exactly.
  6. Hope123

    Hope123 Senior Member

  7. bluebell

    bluebell Guest

    I know. Beautiful little girl. The adoptive parents you describe...I hope they now have a home full of beautiful, chiming little voices to go with their good memories of their daughter. I only made it halfway through law school, but believe Eliza's mother could have been successfully prosecuted. Wouldn't have made much of a difference to her (dead now too, of course), but would have perhaps prevented more harm. Or maybe just galvinized those groups.

    I had to stop reading about denialists last night because it was so infuriating and sad. I am going to stop posting about it too, since there is probably nothing more stressful for people who are desperate for medical treatment than to read about people who have access to drugs that will help and choose to die horrific deaths without them. Again, this is not meant as an affront to Noreen or anyone else. I think I will channel my energy into making sure the science program at my son's elementary school is in good shape;-).


    Houston, Texas U.S.A
    Governments, media, doctors, and all others we are in a forced trust relationship with tell us all what the facts are and we all suffer the consequences as you generously point out above, so be wary and decide for yourself when possible, as you clearly do with a strong "I'm right" position.

    You still miss the obvious. I don't care what causes AIDS, nor do I say HIV does/does not cause AIDS in my post. I care about cures - real solutions without toxic side effects.

    I do say the treatment for AIDS is not a cure and is a more expensive and costly form of slow suicide than the disease through kidney and liver failure. It is profiting off of the slow death and suffering of others, and at very obscene profit margins that make informed black market drug dealers very, very jealous.

    I like many of the posters also know people with AIDS and the ones I know or know of are just as foggy brained and tortured as those with CFS, Lyme, Fibro, MS etc., etc. while on the drug cocktail. But yes, they are still alive.

    I would say the propagandist views and their "solutions" are all poisonous and that you are in denial about the value or should I say lack of value of HAART.

    When in fear for your life, most of us would choose HAART if offered and live to fight for another day and hopefully another better solution.

    Arguing about what is or is not the cause of AIDS is of little value to anyone and is really a freak side show at this juncture. The real argument is about what works or doesn't work and personal choice given the options. And imposition of will upon others choices given second-hand heavily massaged "facts".

    Denial is part of our very human approach to catastrophic information and I would bet that every single person with CFS has at some point stated they were well or gone off meds "because they felt better". Who hasn't tried some "fringe" treatment approach to get better?

    Apparently you are in that group who only try those treatments approved by the medical establishment as "safe and peer reviewed". If you're still posting here, it hasn't worked out as promised has it? The "good" doctors and "good" scientists haven't come to the rescue as you've been told they would, now have they? So why do you still believe they have with AIDS or MS or ALS or whatever?

    I think a more fruitful perspective on this isn't about the "right" or "wrong" perspective but on what does the treatment do for me versus do to me. The cost/benefit analysis. Does it work or doesn't it?

    AIDS treatment is essentially palliative, not curative like everything coming out of organized scientific religion these days. It's all about which propagandist you want to side with - none of them have an effective cure they are making available.

    In the absence of a cure, it is all about choosing how you want to die and what you want to try in desperation to save yourself. That is the stark reality and to think AIDS patients "have it better" because lots of money is being spent and they have ineffective treatment options that prolong their death sentence and their suffering is "good" is perverse logic at best.

    Why aren't you arguing for the immediate FDA approval of ampligen for AIDS patients? Few major reported side effects, non-toxic for long term use and 70% effective (to some degree) for both AIDS and CFS patients. This directly from a doctor who was part of the pilot study for ampligen on both AIDS and CFS patients. So it meets big pharma's greed incentive and it does not cure but prolongs the life of the victim - indefinitely. Why aren't AIDS patients aware of this great injustice? Why aren't they fighting for this? Probably because they simply don't know or have been propagandized.
  9. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    In the battle between science versus speculation and propaganda I choose the side of science.everything you have stated is propaganda or speculation or both.Anecodes and opinion are not fact.Science is not perfect but it sure as heck beats whatever is in second place!
  10. Overstressed

    Overstressed Senior Member

    This is strange what you say, because HAART is so successful because it attacks the virus during the different steps of its lifecycle, making it more difficult to build resistance to HAART. Since XMRV is a retrovirus too, lifecyle is similar, i.e. it's an RNA-virus, that converst it's RNA to DNA trough reverse transcriptase. HAART disrupts this step, so this could be helpful in XMRV too.

    On the other hand, I'm asking myself why people with HTLV-infection are not on HAART, or maybe some of the drugs, like integrase inhibitors.

    Anyone ? HTLV is also slow replicating, not found in the blood, mainly in cells.

  11. tonydewitt


    Newark, NJ

    You ask an excellent question - why indeed aren't people with HTLV infection on HAART? The sad answer is that the medical community does not care about HTLV (or XMRV for that matter). And ironically, the drugs that would work well against HTLV, such as demethylating agents (azacytidine), HDAC inhibitors (valproic acid), and NF-kB inhibitors (BMS-345541 and purvalanol A) would work well against HIV too! So it's a classic case of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face - the medical industry doesn't care about HTLV, and in turn HTLV drugs could help the medical industry's biggest challenges, HIV and cancer. Total irony...

    Best wishes.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page