From: Eric T. Jue <etjue@lbl.gov>
Subject: Re: AIDS: What the Gov't Isn't Telling You
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Archive-Number: 5813
Organization: LBL
Date: 30 Jul 1992 17:24:49 GMT

The following is a very interesting article found in another newsgroup in
response to my initial posting.

In article <1992Jul29.095509.26227@riacs.edu> Charles J. Guest,
chguest@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov writes:

Doctor Day has become something of a Parraia since she has dredged up
things in medical journals that were until now not redily available to
the general public.  There is a real loud politically motivated group
of her x-peers who want her to quit telling people the things she 
has found in her research.  They seem to think that public dissemination
of this informatio would cause a panic.  They may or man not be correct.

These items are not new they were available for people to read for
at least 5 years IF you knew where to look.  Doctor Day is different
because she has found a platform within the mainstream media from
where to speak.  Others attempting to sound the alarm (Like Dr. Gene 
Antonio) were unfairly dismissed as alarmists. Dr. Day is in a 
somewhat different situation since she was an on-the-line doctor who 
was pretty well known.  She had no need for a hidden agenda and
wasn't attempting to do anything more than warn her colleagues 
about a problem which she felt was being swept under the rug.

I have not seen a copy of her book yet, but I too have heard her
speak and have seen her on TV.  Her arguments appear valid and
well reasond and DOCUMENTED.  

She speaks of at least 3 cases of closed skin blood splash transmission.
(pores as an entry point?)  She also discusses the fact that the virus
lives outside of the human host for many days.  This is 180 degrees
oposite of what we were told as little as 2 years ago by the medical
community.  The logical question then becomes 'is casual transmission
possible'.  I have no answer for this, BUT if closed skin transmission
has occured, and IF  the virus lives outside of the body, and IF (as
discussed in Discover Magazine) the virus can infect via only one viron
[virus particle] then it would seem that casual transmission is at least
THEORETICALLY possible. 

Lastly, lets consider HOW it has been decided that the virus is not
casually transmissable.  The conclusions were bassed on Epedimiological
studies of patients who contracted aids.  Now keeping in mind that the
virus can be dormant for 10+ years lets think of the questions on the
test.  Have you ever had sex?  Yes.  Well it must have come from there.
Sigh.  Seems like a logical fault here.  In 10 YEARS any number of
behaviors would have been participated in, determining that the only
risk comes from just one behavior without double blind infection testing
which would be massivly unethical) seems to miss the logic boat.
Doubtless most of those victims drank milk, but that does not mean that
milk caused the disease.  10 years is too long for a latency period if
you want to get good epedimiological results. 	The studies are also
unable to answer the very disturbing question of how people who were not
in any
identifiable risk group have contracted aids.  This extra percentage is
very important, but has been totally ignored by main stream medical and
media people.  These extra people who are not within the sphere of EASY
categories and are impossible to explain away simply without a casual or
at
least non-sexual non-blood sharing senario.

Hope this helps.....
------include old stuff-----------
In answer to your question on AIDS viability I am enclosing the
following that I either got of the net or was mailed.  It dovetails with
much of what I read on the subject and I will leave it to you to decide
what the veracity of the information and its implications.

Charles

----------Include-------------------------------v-----------

	The CDC, several books, and some AIDS information phone
information lines claim that the virus is inactivated within 
'a few seconds' or 'a couple of minutes' when virus is expelled 
from the body. They point to research done on families where
there were negligable outside risk factors where some of the 
family members shared toothbrushes or other utensils.
	On the other hand two books, one information line, and
two of the medical professionals we spoke to contend that this is
not the case.  These people say that it can survive for between
twenty minutes, and 14+ DAYS outside of the human host.  They point
to an article in JAMA from 1985, a study by the Pasteur Institute,
and cases of hemopheliacs being given freeze dried, (later re-hydrated),
blood products who came down with an HIV positive result.

	If one accepts the theory that the virus can indeed live outside
of the body, then one must ask the followup question of how likely
it might be for a person who comes into contact with the virus to
become infected.  This might happen in many ways including touching an
object that has HIV virii on it with a cut hand/extremety, rubbing ones
eyes or picking ones teeth with virii picked up on the hands, or
accidental genital contact with a toilet bowl.
		
JArticle 975 (1 more) in sci.med.aids (moderated):
From: matt@BRL.MIL  -- Matt Rosenblatt  (matt@amsaa-seer.brl.mil)
Subject: [4mRe: HIV life expectency outside the body[m
Date: 12 Apr 89 20:38:41 GMT
Reply-To: matt@brl.arpa (Matthew Rosenblatt (AMSAA|jerry) <matt>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Archive-number: 679

In article <22617@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> C94882SM@WUVMD (Steve Middlebrook) 
writes:

I work on a local AIDS hotline and I have been asked the following
question
several times.  I haven't been able to find any written material that
specifically answers it.  Could someone point me in the right direction.
The question is:  How long can the virus live outside of the body?
Is it even a the right question?  Is it likely that the virus is going to
be anywhere where it is not surrounded by body tissue or fluids, except
maybe in a lab?

Often the caller's concerns are "hysterical" fears about AIDS on 
doorknobs etc. Sometimes though, someone is legitimately worried about a
drop of HIV infected blood or semen on some object. What is the time
frame involved here? Will the blood outlive the HIV, vice versa, or will
they "die" together?   [S. MIDDLEBROOK]

Maybe the caller's "hysterical" fears came from reading Gene Antonio's
 book, _The AIDS Coverup?_.  In his scare book, which came out a
couple of years ago, Gene Antonio gave a couple of medical journal
citations which could serve as a start to "point [Steve] in the right
direction."  

The September 28, 1985 issue of the British medical journal _Lancet_
contained a study by a team of French researchers from the Viral Oncology
Unit at the Pasteur Institute revealing that the AIDS virus can remain
infectious outside the body for up to ten days:

  LAV/HTLV-III, the agent causing AIDS, has been isolated from body fluids
  (blood, semen, saliva, tears).  Its isolation in saliva prompted us to
  investigate the possibility of transmission by saliva, and we have
studied
  the sensitivity of LAV/HTLV-III at room temperature. . . .  The virus
used
  for the infectivity assay . . . was left at room temperature for 0, 2,
4,
  or 7 days in a sealed tube or allowed to dry in a petri dish.  After the
  times indicated in the figure the virus was used to infect stimulated T
  lymphocytes and viral production was determined in cell-free supernatant
  by testing for the reverse transcriptase activity twice a week.  [The
data]
  shows the unusual stability of HTLV-III at room temperature.  No
signifi-
  cant difference was found between 0, 2, or 4 days.  Only a slight
decrease
  is noted with a delay in the virus production indicating a loos of a few
  infectious particles after 7 days at room temperature.
    Two petri dishes containing 25,000 cpm equivalent reverse
transcriptase
  of dry virus were kept at room temperature for 4 or 7 days and then re-
  suspended in 0.220 ml water and used to measure the infectivity.  As
[the
  data show], significant numbers of viral particles are then inactivated,
  but some infectious virus is still present since release of virus was
seen
  on day 10.  This result indicates that the virus is resistant at room 
  temperature, either in dry form or liquid medium.
******** emphasis follows (mine) ***** continuing article... 
   This resistance of LAV at room temperature may explain the appearance
of
  some cases of AIDS cases in non-risk groups. *******
        To prevent possible contami-
  nation by viral particles in dry or liquid form hygiene should be
increased
  in the general population.  Moreover, some more safety precautions
should
  be taken in laboratories and in hospitals and by dentists who use a
vacuum
  pump for saliva aspiration.  Indeed, these data strongly support the
use of
  disinfectants found to be effective against the AIDS agent.

                -- F. Barre-Sinoussi et al., "Resistance of AIDS Virus at
                   Room Temperature," _Lancet_, 28 September 1985, pp.
721-722

Shortly after this study, researchers from the laboratory of Tumor Cell
Biology, National Institutes of Health and elsewhere reported findings on
the
stability of concentrated amounts of the AIDS virus:

  In view of the serious consequence of HTLV-III/LAV infection, its
stability
  under clinical and laboratory conditions and its inactivation by
commonly
  utilized inactivating agents and disinfectants are of tremendous
importance
  to health care workers and laboratory personnel.  Here, the results of
  testing the stability of HTLV-II/LAV under various experimental
conditions
  are reported. . . .
    To test the effect of some frequently encountered clinical and
laboratory
  conditions on the infectivity of the HTLV-III (TM), virus diluted in
media
  supplemented with 50% human plasma was dried and incubated at 23 to 27
  degrees Centigrade, or incubated in an aqueous temperature (23 to 27
degrees
  Centigrade), 36 to 37 degrees Centigrade, and 54 to 56 degrees
Centigrade
  for various periods of time.  In a dried state, complete inactivation of
  virus required between three and seven days. . . .
    Exposing virus to different temperatures resulted in a reduction of 
  infectious virus corresponding to increasing times of incubation and
  increasing temperatures.  Complete inactivation . . . of infectious
virus
  was seen between 11 and 15 days of exposure at 36 to 37 degrees
Centigrade.
  Infectious virus was still detected after 15 days at room temperature.
. . .
    Infectious cell-free virus could be recovered from dried material
after
  up to three days at room temperature, and in an aqueous environment
(e.g.,
  water), infectious virus survived longer than 15 days at room
temperature.
  Even under the more rigorous heating conditions commonly used to
inactivate
  complement (54 to 56 degrees Centigrade), infectious virus was detected
  three hours after exposure. . . .   The stability of HTLV-III at 54 to
56
  degrees Centigrade suggest that the inactivation of virus in blood
products
  (e.g., antihemophilia factors) could require more extensive treatment,
as
  has been suggested.

                        -- L. Resnick et al., "Stability and Inactivation
of
                           HTLV-III/LAV under Clinical and Laboratory
                           Experiments," _JAMA_ 1985:225:1897-1891.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++
+ *READ* ---> The opinions expressed above are to the best of my
knowledge, +
+ however all options should be discussed with persons who have
professional+
+ training with the subjects covered here. * ALL POSSIBLE DISCLAIMERS
APPLY!+
+ ____FROM: chguest@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov =>or<=
sun!ames!pioneer!chguest____+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++