Electric Politics
 
Donate to Electric Politics
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Green Party USA
Blank
Socialist Worker
Blank
CoffeeGeek.com
Blank
Grist
Blank
Whole Foods
Blank
Whole Foods
Blank
Ben & Jerry's
Blank
Al Jazeera English
Blank
911Truth.org
Blank
Sierra Trading Post
Blank
Black Commentator
Blank
Black Commentator
Blank
Pluto Press
Blank
In These Times
Blank
USNI
Blank
In These Times
Blank
CASMII
Blank
CounterPunch
Blank
CounterPunch
Blank
News For Real
Blank
News For Real
Blank
If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger
Blank
News For Real
Blank
The Agonist
Blank
The Anomalist
Blank
Duluth Trading
Blank
Digital Photography Review
Blank
New Egg
Blank
Free Link

EP PODCASTSXML

October 17, 2008

Where's the Virus?

medieval wood print of physicians treating the sickWhat a wonderful world! So why is it that often people don't find themselves free to exercise their natural curiosity about things? When reputable — indeed, extraordinarily distinguished — scientists began to question whether HIV causes AIDS the backlash was stunning. Yet, to me, as a non-scientist, the skeptics make a lot of sense. And I question the establishment's explanation for why nobody has actually isolated an "HIV" virus. Perhaps the more radical case that HIV doesn't, in fact, exist, is right. What a thought! To get a graceful and philosophical, even poetic, look at what's going on I turned to the courageous independent journalist Celia Farber. I very much enjoyed talking with Celia and hope she'll be a return guest, perhaps on other subjects as well. Total runtime an hour and fourteen minutes. Prepare to be amazed.

Listen

« Economic Realities | Main | Reinventing Russia »



Comments

Heya George,

Just wanted to write in and commend you on perhaps the best podcast I have ever heard. Normally when listening to an hour plus podcast I find myself zoning out for a couple seconds here and there and having to rewind to catch up on what I missed; this podcast had me absolutely enthralled the whole time. Your guest spoke extremely well, and mixed the reality with the philosophical splendidly. You both did a Great Job!

Lastly I think you certainly do deserve the title journalist.

Take care and keep pushing the envelope.

Mike

George -

The great American astronomer whom you mention, the "red shift" dissident Halton Arp, is also one of the thousands who have called for a reassessment of AIDS science. He is one of the "2000+" signatories that Celia mentioned. You can view his 2003 signature at the VirusMyth website.

Many thanks for a wonderful interview!

[I didn't know that about Dr. Arp. Thanks for pointing it out! g.]

"None of the predictions have come true"

You mean like testing the blood supply for HIV would prevent AIDS being caused by blood transfusions? This person seems to have some trouble with the truth. Is this website now advocating we abandon HIV testing of the blood supply?

[No, nobody's saying that. g.]

Excellent Podcast! Thank you! I have been caught in this "war" — having been diagnosed in 2002, attempted to take two cocktails (when I felt perfectly healthy) and these cocktails MADE ME FEEL SICK. I do believe a person's immune system can fail. I was surprised to hear that the Anti-virals could help — when thinking of them as "anti-fungal". Interesting! Again, thanks!

Glenn

Great subject. I found out about this a year ago when I stumbled upon a documentary on the net. I started to read and lo and behold. The HIV/Aids theory is a simple hoax !! This must be the greatest scandal in the history of medicine.

[No, nobody's saying that. g.]

So you agree then that the prediction that testing the blood supply for HIV infection would prevent transfusion-related AIDS was correct? If so, then what Celia Farber said about no predictions being correct wasn't true. And if HIV doesn't exist, as you suggest above, what would be wrong with stopping the testing of the blood supply?

[Must you insist I agree with you? I don't. g.]

George,

If we are going to unpack any one aspect of this, we have to really get tedious and precise and perhaps exhausting; The blood supply question for example, can be examined in detail but only if a moderator assists in keeping the discussion focused. I think the challenge/question seems to be: The blood supply was protected from HIV after 1984, and thereafter, people who would otherwise have been "infected with HIV" through the blood supply were spared. That is therefore one "prediction" that was correct.

There are essentially three components to this discussion, not identical but they belong together: The real data about: 1. Blood transfusions, 2. Hemophiliacs, and 3. Accidental transmission among health care workers.

In each case, there is tremendous fog, but I am willing to wade through it if our host thinks it worthwhile.

[If we get good questions I'm happy to be a moderator. And I'm reminded here of a different question with regard to the blood supply that involves my own situation: having inherited iron overload, or hemochromatosis, I regularly go to the Red Cross (which charges me for the privilege) for therapeutic phlebotomies. It's the exact same procedure as for blood donation. Except that my blood, because of my iron overload condition, is deemed unfit for use so afterward thrown away. In fact, however, it's perfectly good blood which could be used for people who need blood. In Canada, for example, blood taken from people who have hemochromatosis is used for blood donations, and probably it is in other countries as well. Considering the extreme discomfort I endure every month (a couple years ago, before I got used to having this done, torment would have been a more exact word), I'd prefer having a productive use made of the blood and it seems a shame to me it's wasted. There's talk in the Red Cross, over the past year, that their policy may be changed but as of yet nothing concrete. g.]

Absolutely fascinating podcast, best science one since Arp.

It's rather liberating to be left with increasingly less to believe in, but more to contemplate.

Fantastic interview. I'm in agreement with Celia that we are finally approaching a point of unraveling this tragic episode in the history of medical science, as we emerge from the dark ages of molecular biology. It can't happen soon enough.

I was fortunate enough to have read many of Celia's articles in Spin magazine years ago. Not in the medical profession but a music enthusiast, this was probably the only way I would have stumbled across her articles at that time. I've always questioned why I had continued to test negative after so many risky sexual encounters with others who later tested positive. For such a contagious virus I must have been immune to it, right? As it relates to Celia's observations on the mindset of the scientific community and media, I wonder how likely it would be for the same theories to be advanced for the first time in today's internet information age. I am truly grateful for Celia's and as she mentioned in the broadcast Duesberg's perseverance for the truth. Thank you!

George : Orwell, my model, liked concise language, but your AIDS piece demands an extensive response.

It could be summarized thus : AIDS is a variety of non-infectious immune disorders related manifestations mostly curable by fresh water, 'organic' carrots, and a positive attitude. That it is a sinister infectious pandemic is a conspiracy co-ordinated by the 'AIDS Establishment' to further it's self interest, principally their profits from 'chemotherapy' which they callously know are the ACTUAL cause of death.

I am an orthopedic surgeon. Occasionally I have an AIDS patient needing rotten tissue excised or a septic joint drained or whatever, but it also my lot to be every day deep in the blood of strangers, manipulating sharp bone shards, sharp instruments, betimes wire (it is the riskiest), and power tools, with a thin stretched latex glove the only thing separating me from that blood.

Active AIDS blood can contain 250,000 virus copies per cu mm ( a volume the size of the period at the end of the sentence). Would your journalist accept just a little bit of untested blood being injected into her?

She just might — she is obviously sincere — but in the same way as Colonel Turgison the Base Commander in Dr Strangelove who knew his 'precious bodily fluids' were being perverted by fluoridation. A beautiful portrayal of delusion as it had deteriorated into lethal paranoia.

So what about this establishment? There are certainly running battles over 'the truth' in medicine, and some of them are quite personal and vicious — usually academic careers and personality differences are behind them. But are they powered by Big Pharma or whatever? At a stretch, one or other side can have support, but these external commercial agents cannot realize the necessary legal and clinical acceptance of a drug. For that you need a level 1 trial (prospective, randomized, controlled, double blinded, peer reviewed, with sufficient statistical 'power' to give probabilities, odds-ratios etc.).

Those usually have to be multi-center, with adequate numbers of clinicians and patients. Which business does not possess. In any event, based on my experience of the Orthopedic Establishment, it is improbable the 'AIDS Establishment' is monolithic, and capable of ruthless co-ordination against 'enemies'. In contacts with my Infectious Disease colleagues I get no sense they are meeting, in cloaks at midnight, to chant to a horned statue of Big Pharma.

Is there an actual unitary disease — AIDS? My first case was a colleague, who asked me and everyone else what was the matter with him. Coughing and wasting away. A promiscuous homosexual. Nobody knew the answer — early eighties — but he did have Pneumocystis Carinii Pneumonia. It's a protozoon. Your journalist talked as if it were a fungus and darkly spoke of a plague of fungi. I don't think so, but if the fungi are coming they aren't going to be stopped by homegrown cabbage, and pilates.

Is AIDS from an infectious agent? I'm no epidemiologist, but how else to explain such disparate evidences as the Haiitian administrators returning from secondment to the Congo being the first to develop it, then for it to spread over their island home; or re-used needle clusters in Romania, China , or among IV druggies in Russia; or along truck route prostitutes in Kenya. The evidence seems overwhelming, and no less convincing than that for syphilis. Except Koch's postulates — which, absent a default hypothesis, are too high a standard to preclude society from viewing AIDS as an infectious disease for other reasons.
But due to a retrovirus?

There certainly seems to be a high degree of correlative association between HIV and AIDS. Causation proof as with smoking and cancer, can be worried about by researchers, but society would still be well served by discouraging smoking.

Your interviewee sees retroviruses as basically misunderstood friends of mankind — sort of like wolves. Touch-feely little guys guiding us through the thickets of evolution. And, although not directing them, she alludes to 'spiritual' factors.

With the internal evidence of the interview it would be a parody of her worldview to call it the 'patriarchy-dominated-chemical-industry-techno-science-out-of-control-organic-gaia-holistic-denying-complex conspiracy, but not by a lot. The birds getting their 'flu' by flying through chemicals (evidently accepted as likely by your good self, but easily assented to by her) is revealing.

All VERY irritating.

But enough. Herewith something positive.
I have two suggestions, both in the medical field, you might consider.

1) Medicare/single payer/cost factors.The influence of lawsuits or perceived threats of them. I train surgeons and am impressed how as the years have passed they echo ever worsening cover-my-ass behaviors. Hugely costly, and damaging often to the patients.
I do not have an individual potential resource person to suggest, but I'd flesh out the framework and questions that such a segment could use, if you wish.

2) Proof of surgery. My university (McMaster) is a world leader in analysis of orthopedic surgical literature, and my brilliant colleague Mo Bhandari would give a stellar interview. I'd be happy to introduce you.

Best wishes George,

John Sadler

Did HIV testing reduce the risk of AIDS from the blood supply?

Well, first of all, foreign blood is immune suppressive. So blood, by itself can cause "AIDS". Secondly, exposure to foreign substances will generate an immunological reaction, so it's possible that the positive HIV tests that result after blood transfusions are merely caused by exposure to blood.

The question is, does HIV-positive blood have a great risk of death associated with it?

Here's a paper that might help:

Ward JW et al. The natural history of transfusion-associated infection with human immunodeficiency virus. N Engl J Med. 1989 Oct 5; 321(14): 947–52.

And it does indeed show a high risk of death after a transfusion of blood suspected of being positive:

"Of the 694 recipients [of blood suspected of being HIV infected] 331 (48%) had died within one year of transfusion."

But, this is funny, of situations with "stronger evidence" of HIV, the risk of death was LOWER:
"Of the 233 recipients [with stronger evidence that the blood was HIV+] 95 (41 percent) had died within the first year after transfusion."

And, this is really, really wierd, transfusions of HIV-NEGATIVE blood had a HIGHER risk of death!

"By comparison 73 of 146 recipients of components from a random selection of donors not known to be infected with HIV (50%) died in the year after transfusion."

And here's something else, the risk of "AIDS" was correlated with the amount of blood transfused...

"...the recipients with AIDS had received significantly more units of blood at the time of infection than the recipients without AIDS (median, 21 vs. 7 components; P=0.01)."

In conclusion...

"In our study... HIV infection had no apparent effect on the one-year mortality rate after transfusion."

This evidence is not compatible with HIV being a health risk, but it is compatible with blood transfusions causing false positive HIV reactions. And with "improvements" to HIV tests over time, the number of such cases would go down because fewer tests would be positive.

This doesn't necessarily mean that HIV testing of the blood supply is a terrible thing. There does appear to be an association with ill health and positive HIV tests over a large number of people (i.e. the HIV test is not individually predictive in a single person, but a population of HIV+ people will likely be less healthy than a population of HIV- people). So HIV tests will eliminate some people with immune abnormalities from the blood supply. The big problem is that in addition to withdrawing the blood, the people tested are told that, despite being healthy (very few overtly sick people give blood), they actually are fatally ill.

Another point, in response to John Sadler's posting. One of the side effects of the use of protease inhibitors is osteonecrosis (bone rotting). For example:

"We describe 5 patients whose symptoms of osteonecrosis [bone disintegration] developed with viral suppression and improvement in CD4 lymphocyte counts as a result of antiretroviral therapy. In addition, we review previously reported cases... We conclude that osteonecrosis is an emerging manifestation of HIV infection and that it may be either a consequence of immunologic and virologic improvement resulting from antiretroviral therapy or a complication caused by the drugs themselves."

Monier P et al. Osteonecrosis Complicating Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy in Patients Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Clin Infect Dis. 2000 Dec; 31(6): 1488–92.

This is an unfortunate characteristic of modern medicine. Very good work is done fixing up the problems caused by others, and neither the creator of the problem nor the fixer of the problem realize the flaws in the medicine model. But in many cases you can never fix people up, so people captured by the system (the HIV+ for example) find their physical and emotional life is rapidly declining but, after a certain point they need the system to keep them alive due to problems created earlier. Another example of this are the various anemias caused by many AIDS drugs. Are the doctors who manage the anemia heroes or facilitators of a bankrupt medical model?

For those seriously interested in all this, I also really recommend Janine Robert's book:

http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com

It's really exciting information.

And for understanding the HIV tests, the Perth Group's analysis is very valuable:

http://theperthgroup.com/

It's not a simple topic. So there is no point in expecting all questions to be instantly clarified, people should do some research themselves before making up their mind.

Leave a comment