XMRV vs HIV and long-term anti-retrovirals

G

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
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
Hi Robin,
My post was just eaten, but I'll try to recall what I can!

I look forward to reading the pdf you mention. I'm not sure if that was written before or after the articles I read that quoted him in the 90s.

I agree that some of what I wrote would be considered fringe to the status quo--it's frustrating that this restricts further research. I always try give a little leeway to unpopular theories, especially those where the MD/scientist lose face for speaking them since that is so similar to what most ME/CFS/FM docs have to face. As this site mentions, the dollars spent on AIDS per year is astronomical in comparison to other illnesses, and you have to do a little research to get past the press that money buys. (I don't in any way mean to condemn ART therapy!)

The scientists/MDs I've read about are: Montagnier, Shyh-Ching Lo, and Robert Root-Bernstein. I believe it's Shyh-Ching Lo's work on mycoplasma that is considered somewhat groundbreaking and fairly unpopular.

I understand the premise of ART therapy, I'm just thinking aloud about what other effects they may have on the immune system or other bugs in general. I think I am a couple of years younger based on your age in 91, but I do remember the AIDS quilt project and still how new the illness was at that point.

I hope I was able to get across that I'm interested in more research that benefits everyone, HIV positive or negative, who is suffering from immune deficiency illnesses. Since the coinfections can be identified and often treated, and because so much is coming out about EBV's potential as a causative agent in many illnesses (not just a benign virus "almost everyone" gets exposed to), I want to see more happen here. There's very little I'm satisfied with in terms of available medical care!

Again, I want to state that there is no arguing the extended lifespans we've seen for HIV positive people since ARTs, I'm just personally very curious about the possibilities! I also didn't mean to state that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. From what I've read, even the "doubter" scientists are saying that it becomes deadly when a coinfection sets it off, but can lay dormant for close to two decades in some cases until this happens, but I haven't heard anyone call it harmless.
AIDS denialism is not fringe it is totally unscientific based on misrepresentation of outdated studies.it 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
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
If you've read "Lab 257: Inside Plum Island", "Cure Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic", "Osler's Web", etc. you know that the government, press, doctors, corporations and everyone else lies to you repeatedly and without remorse, regardless of consequences.

People with CFS arguing about "valid studies" is extremely ironic. Should I start arguing about how all the CFS studies that say we're all sexually abused hysterical women "prove conclusively" that case for CFS? Especially for all of us males, it must be the case!

The point is very simple: We are all in a "forced trust" relationship in almost every facet of our lives. This is the preferred operational mode for scamsters and crooks of all stripes. The only way to truly "know" something is to be able to verify or do it yourself. This requires each and every one of us to become scientific and medical researchers and verify test results stated in "scientific papers" independently ourselves.

Examples of forced trust relationships:
1) All of your levels of government and military (as in we promise not to harm you....much).
2) All of the scientific, mechanical, engineering communities and their watchdog agencies (why do we need the watchdogs anyways? Can't we just all get along? No.) We award all major construction projects to the lowest bidder and pay them up to a 25% "bonus" to finish the project hastily. Remember that every time you start your "safe" Toyota and drive over a bridge or work in a high-rise.
3) All corporations and non-gmo's
4) All financial institutions
5) Everything you eat, drink and breathe.
6) Pretty much everything you read.

I live in Houston, Texas and have been on-site to "the largest toxic waste incinerator in North America" (their words, not mine) run by Laidlaw, who at the time was in the press for cooking their books. It happens to be situated right on the Houston Ship Channel right at the San Jacinto monument, the one where Texans "celebrate" the victory over Santa Anna and the independence of Texas. The winds typically blow out of the Southeast, blowing this supposedly non-toxic ash directly over the Houston metropolis. I asked about safety measures and the manager said, well, our waste areas are lined with plastic (but visibly open on top - like a dirt mound). I asked what happens when it floods (very common in Houston and the ship channel is the primary outlet for flooding). "It gets washed right into the bay, doesn't it?" I said. "Well, yeah, I suppose so", he answered, continuing "but it's very safe after incineration!"

I could go on, but I realize everyone is going to believe what they are brainwashed to believe, er, "choose" to believe, based on what they are told over and over again absent actual personal scientific methodology applied by that person.

In short, most everything in your life is accepted based on blind faith and the real irony is most people will argue otherwise. If you're told the same thing over and over again and given cases that "prove" it to be true, you're going to believe it, whether it is true or not.

Remember H. Pylori? Doc says ulcers are a bacterial infection, all "respected professionals" say you're crazy, guy infects himself, gets ulcers and cures himself? One case proves it, right? Good science? No, wouldn't even make a scientific journals' bullshit requirements that mean nothing except that you're well funded and therefore, part of the "right to rule" class. Yet, apparently true. Go figure.

You don't "know" what you know until you personally know it and even then you can't tell anyone because they won't believe you if it goes against the politically accepted position. If faced with death by AIDS or death by slow kidney and liver failure from the treatment of AIDS, that's not really much of a difference is it? You're still dead in a very slow and painful way. As soon as "treatments" that are proven not to cure are "required by force" as is done with cancer radiation treatments (remember radiation kills?) for children, you no longer have freedom but tyranny.

That said, let's start taking bets on when and what Noreen is going to die from, since we're all experts now. I bet cancer, because radiation causes cancer and doctors don't believe in homeopathy (like cures like), all the while "treating" cancer with the most toxic mutagenic and cancer causing toxic waste substance known to man, radiation!

In my opinion, if it sounds really stupid or there is a never ending war on it, it's bullshit.

Examples: "War on Terror" - A war against a military tactic by definition cannot be won until the tactic is no longer useful militarily. "War on Cancer" - no cures, ever. Those that reported to work, quashed and doctors labeled as crooks or quacks or both. Remember when diseases actually were cured? When was that, back in the stone age, right?

I know, I'm a nut job because I cause your already overstimulated paranoid brains to worry even more than you do on your own, so kill the messenger and settle down, everything is fine. Now go back to sleep, everything is fine and right in the world again because it was printed in a "respected" journal more than once.

Anyone who has tried long term antibiotics or antivirals or any thing else has gotten really sick of taking them and the side effects to your pocketbook, veins for bloodwork, etc. Not to mention physical side effects.

Do I think Noreen is crazy? She's just another one of us in this insane asylum prisoner planet trying to find a way out that goes against the system's solution that isn't a solution at all. She is at least trying to use her own awareness of how she feels and what her lab tests say as somewhat of a guide. I would think more of you CFS hysterical women (and men) would get that.

How many of you have tried "juju juice" or "miracle oil" or "Hydrogen Peroxide IV's" or whatever else trying to get well that someone says helped them? Are you crazy? Or just desperate?

Who can say that the toxic stew that is our food, water and air aren't the primary causes of everything that ails us?

In India today they shit, piss, and throw their dead into the water they drink and we call them ignorant. In Houston, all the toxic waste from petrochemicals, fluoride, residual drugs of all sorts and chlorine are in our water but hidden to the naked eye by science by the use of alum, which binds with particulates making it appear clear to the naked eye when it isn't. Run an electrical current through the water and you'll see what you're really drinking. In Houston's case, there is a layer about 1/3 of the total volume that looks far worse than used motor oil that forms in the water. I know, I've personally done the science. So who really are the ignorant ones - you tell me.
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
 
G

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] Aidstruth.org, 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]
 

Adam

Senior Member
Messages
495
Likes
2
Location
Sheffield UK
It sounds like Noreen is shopping for a new diagnosis. Interestingly XMRV is leading us towards antiretrovirals. What is Noreen going to do if and when she tests positive? Argue that she doesn't need ART? What is Noreen going to do if she tests negative? Argue that the tests are wrong?

Noreen it's one thing to refuse treatments that lead to your own death. It's another thing to risk someone else's life (your husband) or worse to promote cessation of treatments that have proved to control the viral load of HIV + patients. This is plain ridiculous and harmful.
FWIW - my observations exactly.
 

Hope123

Senior Member
Messages
1,264
Likes
1,082
There has been extensive research into mycoplasma and HIV. That HIV does not cause AIDS is one of the fringiest of fringe theories.

I think Eliza Maggiore is the best argument one can present that this kind of misinformation is just unacceptable. People can believe what they want, but she was too young to form her own beliefs...

http://transact.up.seesaa.net/image/elizajane.jpg

This is really very sad. I'll always remember the nine-year-old girl that died from HIV while I was in training. Her mother was an IV drug user and gave her up for adoption. So at least she had two loving adoptive parents. She was a happy child although she was always in and out of the hospital; if she had lived another year, she would have probably survived on the then new antiretrovirals.
 
B

bluebell

Guest
This is really very sad. I'll always remember the nine-year-old girl that died from HIV while I was in training. Her mother was an IV drug user and gave her up for adoption. So at least she had two loving adoptive parents. She was a happy child although she was always in and out of the hospital; if she had lived another year, she would have probably survived on the then new antiretrovirals.
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;-).
 
goverments are 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
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.
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
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.
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!
 

Overstressed

Senior Member
Messages
406
Likes
140
Location
Belgium
The problem I see with ART (anti retroviral therapy) for XMRV is that per Mikovitz XMRV is very, very slow replicating. It only replicates when the cell divides. This puts the virus in a completely different category from HIV, which is rapidly mutating and always active. So while ART helps people with AIDS, often dramatically, the effect of ART for XMRV might be much less significant.
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.

OS.
 
Messages
51
Likes
22
Location
Newark, NJ
Overstressed,

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.