From: msalminen@nphi.fi
Newsgroups: bionet.molbio.hiv
Subject: Re: Mailing, Anwears by Mika
Date: 29 Jul 92 10:34:38 GMT
Distribution: bionet
Organization: National Public Health Institute, Finland

Ok, having been away from the lab and this forum MUCH TOO LONG i feel thart
some replies are needed.

I'm sorry not to be able to give you the exact references, but if you want to
be more specific in further questions, i will try to answear.


In article <1992Jul28.203317.23129@ncsu.edu>, curtis@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
> Well, I wrote a letter inquiring about duesberg some six weeks ago, asking
> that I have mail sent (not wishing to disturb the repartee herien -- I even
> disclaimed vis my unscientific nature).
> 
> 	I asked for: some paper outlining WHY Duesberg was wrong --
> 		...some paper that worked as the "proof" for the HIV
> 		   hypothesis.
> 

1. HIV-1 or 2 infection can be demonstrated in all AIDS cases with some method.

2. All well documented HIV positive cases develop AIDS, although the
asymptomatic period varies.

3. The epidemiology of AIDS correlates 1:1 with the spread of HIV infection in
populations.

4. The monkey HIV, SIV infection results in an AIDS-like disease with
subsequent death.

5. Recently, the pig-tailed macaque has been infected with HIV-1 and develops
AIDS = Kochs postulates satisfied. (reported at the 8th int. AIDS conf. in
Amsterdam last week.)

etc. etc. ....



> 	I asked wether the reports that there were many (far more than the 
> 12 you mentioned) AIDS patients w/o HIV I or II  (non-seropositive, I think 
> is the word).
> 

There is not far more than 12 WELL DOCUMENTED cases. The explanation is, focus
on the words Immune Deficiency Syndrome, nothing really implies that these
cases have Acquired it.

Furthermore:

	- The cases have been reported over a long timeperiod
	- There are no close links between them
	- The syndrome is not transferrable

Conclusion: These are cases of Immune Deficiency syndrome, falsely diagnosed as
HIV-AIDS, propably caused by a variety of reasons ranging from genetic defects
to possible toxins. They have been brought to attention by the increased
awareness of these kind of symptomes.

The conclusion is not only mine but a consensus by a panel of experts at the
AIDS conference.

I dont say that other, unrecognized HIV-like retroviruses do not exist, but i
think that we wont find them in these patients. The propable epidemiology would
be different.

> The responses were from the relatively kind (Peter Prevelige -- thanks) to the
> to the "whatdoyouthinkweareabunchoffuckingidiotswhydontyouandyourunscientific-
> kindgobacktoreadingtheenquirer" vitriolic.  The best, however, was when the 
> person who heads the group (or something) wrote that, if there were any more 
> letters of this unscientific nature sent, the group would be shut down.

Sorry about this, but if you are a serious virologist, its pretty frustrating to
have to answear this kind of questions all the time. The rules of this group
state that this is a forum of HIV MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. However, i feel you are
right in that you deserve a serious answear.

In response to the shutdown threats, I understand the reasons, but i think some 
level of nonsense postings should be tolerated (talking about the articical
constucton of HIV) if promptly answeared. Ill try to be faster in the future.

> 	In all of the hubbub (there HAD been a previous person asking something
> about alien sex having started it all, or something as silly -- so I guess
> they were ready)

Correct, thats hubbub, and anyone with a sound mind recognizes it, so lets
forget it.

> I was never provided with an answer to either question and never
> provided with the names of the articles/papers that might provide such answers.

Hope you get some now!

> 	I feel like the elephant's child.

Don't take it so seriously, people like to work in the lab, for most of them
computers are just a compulsory thing. Hopefully this will change ower time.

> SO, as I can see, NOBODY seems to write to this board anymore, scientific or
> otherwise.  As far as I can see, there seems to be nothing to do but go back
> to listening to the AP bullshit that has assumed that HIV=AIDS with all of the
> witless, careless abandon that the average idiot such as myself deserves.  The
> illuminated will take care of everything.  Dont ask questions.

> Curtis.

Your wrong, there have been some good discussions here considering the V3
variaton for example. Response times have been slow, but at least i will
try to be faster in the future.

If you will try to pinpoint your questions more you migth find that you get
better answears. People like to give short answears, so post your questions
preferably in many messages.

Finally, words like bullshit decribing the
association of HIV with AIDS are inappropriate and should preferably not be
used in any serious discussion (on any subject).  
 
> 
> Path: eos.ncsu.edu!curtis
> Newsgroups: 
> Distribution: world
> Followup-To: 
> From: curtis@eos.ncsu.edu (Abba Jones)
> Reply-To: curtis@eos.ncsu.edu (Abba Jones)
> Organization: Project EOS - North Carolina State University

Outside this discussion, follow the group for the following subjects in the
near future.

	HIV-variation - imlications for vaccine and drug research

	HIV-pcr primer compilation project

	HIV-evolution - whats happening

	etc. 

Best wishes,

	Mika Salminen  HIV-unit, Nat. Pub. Health Inst. Helsinki

	msalminen@finnhi  (bitnet)
	msalminen@nphi.fi (internet)