HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhjelle%carina.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu ()
Subject: Re: HIV/AIDS Link -- recent information sought
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 31
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:10:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.135230.15599@cs.ucla.edu> quilty@PHILOS.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:
>I have followed the work of Duesberg and others who have questioned
>the causative, or sole causative, relation between HIV and AIDS
>(including, apparently, AIDS discoverer Montagnier).

Duesberg doesn't "work" on HIV or AIDS. Never has. Montagnier
does not dispute that HIV is the primary cause of AIDS, only
whether there might be other important factors as well.

>recent information, especially on this groups, which shows a detection
>of HIV in a much higher percentage of T-cells than the .01% detected
>in earlier studies, using more sensitive detection techniques.

Yes, more like 10% based on in-situ PCR. Fauci also points out
that vast amounts of provirus are present in the noncirculating
lymphoid cells of lymphoid tissue. So the "issue" raised by
the supposed low abundance of HIV in vivo is dead.

>Nonetheless, it still seems that HIV is not claimed to be
>*chemically active* in these larger number of cells (or else new

What is "chemically active"?

>detection techniques would not be necessary), which seems to continue
>a legitimate question of the sole causative link (given that a virus
>should presumably have to *do something* to have an effect on a host).

Does not follow; furthermore, the assumption is false.

>I would be interested in anyone having any information on the reaction
>of Duesberg, or others questioning the HIV/AIDS link, to the newly
>shown higher level of t-cell infection, and the relation of this to a
>potential causative relation between HIV and AIDS. 

Since Duesberg's "reasoning" is flawed, it is hard to be too
concerned about what he thinks about all of this.

> I am not, however
>particularly interested in anything which simply reiterates the
>somewhat dogmatic acceptance of an HIV/AIDS link which has
>characterized Gallo and most of the medical AIDS-establishment.

You mean like actual data?

>As is surely evident, I am not a biologist, nor in any related
>scientific field.  I am merely an intelligent, and moderately
>well-informed, lay-person.  If anyone could email me information on
>this topic -- or citations for recent reading -- I would appreciate it.
>-- 
Intelligent, well-informed lay people are capable of seeing
that Duesberg's arguments are emotion-based, and easily dismissed
after  any  careful review of the data. 

Brian

Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: rad!arthur@uunet.UU.NET (Arthur Hu)
Subject: Number of partners unimportant?
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 12
Organization: unspecified
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 17:29:14 PST

Dr. Ron Stall of UCSF and Dan Wohlfieler of SF Stop AIDS (along with
seemingly everybody on soc.motss) have told me that the number of
partners is irrelevant as long as condoms are used all of the time,
thus, the reason so many AIDS information ads and brocures omit
the reduction of sex partners as a recommended strategy.

My question is this - are there anys studies that show what the HIV
rate is for gays or hetero-folk with large numbers of partners who
use condoms all the time? It seems that there is a critical HIV
prevalence rate at which even unremarkable behavior - say 5 lifetime
partners with partners not at risk - still puts an individual at risk.
This seems to be the conclusion of the study in Florida where 8% of
black pregnant women were HIV+, and 30% of the women were at no
unusual risk. So in a gay population that is 10% to 30% HIV+, isn't
it possible that even sex with condoms with a small number of 
partners would still spread a significant number of AIDS cases?

And since people do not use condoms 100% of the time, espeically in
conjunction with alchohol or drugs, isn't it a good idea to reduce
the number of partners anyways? Am I correct in that the general
consensus is that thou shalt not advocate reducing number of partners?
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: mmurrain@HAMP.HAMPSHIRE.EDU
Subject: Re: (26) HIV/AIDS Link -- recent information sought
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 28
Organization: unspecified
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:15:03 -0500

quilty@PHILOS.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:

>I have followed the work of Duesberg and others who have questioned
>the causative, or sole causative, relation between HIV and AIDS
>(including, apparently, AIDS discoverer Montagnier).  I have seen more
>recent information, especially on this groups, which shows a detection
>of HIV in a much higher percentage of T-cells than the .01% detected
>in earlier studies, using more sensitive detection techniques.
>Nonetheless, it still seems that HIV is not claimed to be
>*chemically active* in these larger number of cells (or else new
>detection techniques would not be necessary), which seems to continue
>a legitimate question of the sole causative link (given that a virus
>should presumably have to *do something* to have an effect on a host).

I don't have any info on what Duesberg and others have to say, but I can
say something about the issue of HIV infecting cells. Viruses work by
insinuating thier DNA into the DNA of the host. Some viruses can stay
dormant for years, only later to have an effect. In fact, there is evidence
that there are provirus sequences (sequences of viral DNA) that have been
passed down to us over many many generations. Think about it, if 20-30%
(high estimate) of T4 cells are infected, and once in a while, a few  of
these become active and start replicating HIV, you can see how you might
see a slow decrease over time in T4 cell count.
_________________________________
                  Michelle Murrain
            School of Natural Science,
 Hampshire College Amherst, MA 01002
                 (413) 549-4600 x688
 email: mmurrain@hamp.hampshire.edu

       "knowledge is wealth, share it"
_________________________________

Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: Phillip Pink  <ppink@metronet.com>
Subject: CMV info needed
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 16
Organization: Texas Metronet Communications Services, Dallas TX
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 03:23:39 -0600

I was wondering if anyone had heard of a treatment for CMV Retinitis where
the antiviral was directly injected into the eye.

I do not know if I read this in an ATN or just dreamed it up. If anyone
can help refresh my memory I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks,
ppink
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Subject: Re: CDC estimates of HIV infection
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Archive-Number: 27
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:45:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.231301.16926@cs.ucla.edu>, corwin+@CMU (Scott Safier) writes:
>This month's SPY magazine has a (rather humourous) article which
>indicates that the CDC's estimate of the number of people infected
>with HIV has not changed since 1985.  The estimate is always "over 1
>million people."  Does anyone know why this is?

It is not easy to estimate the prevalance of HIV.  The size of the
largest risk groups--gay men, bi men, and IV drug users--are already
uncertain to begin with.  Different estimates exist regarding the
prevalance of HIV within each group, partly because it varies from
city to city, and rural rates of increase are apparently much higher
than urban rates.  The US military in 86-87 directly checked the
seroprevalance rate in ~4 million of its own, and found a ~.1% rate.
This mostly serves as a base for the population at large, since gays
and drug users are discouraged from enlisting.  The rate in the Peace
Corps seems to be about 2.5x the military rate.  The rate among blood
doners is yet some other figure.  Etc.  The only reality check is the
number of AIDS cases--and here the CDC gets very precise--but it is a
very weak restraint.

In sum, 1-1.5 million is about the best one can say.  The roundness
of the figure gives it a lock that our ignorance cannot veto.  The
correct figure is presumably on the increase, but keep in mind that
the true number itself will obviously not increase as fast as new
infections--about 80% of those HIV+ in 1987 are now dead.

>						  Was the last/most
>recent study done in 1985?  Does anyone know of a better estimate?

Others have done their own studies.  Insurance companies and the like
have commissioned independent estimates.  Some are twice the CDC's.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: CDC estimates of HIV infection
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:25:57 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 40

In article <1993Jan25.165759.19055@cs.ucla.edu>, I wrote:
>It is not easy to estimate the prevalance of HIV. [...]

Chris Foreman of The Brookings Institution referred me to the CDC's
summary of its estimation process: "HIV Prevalence Estimates and AIDS
Case Projections for the United States: Report Based Upon a Workshop"
MMWR v39 #RR-16 (30 Nov 90).

Reading through it, I see I left out one other significant factor in
the illusory constancy of the one million figure.  In the time between
the 1986 and the 1990 estimates, more information regarding prevalance
and disease progression became available.  Taking this into account,
the CDC is now retroactively estimating that there were 750,000 HIV+
people in the US in Jan 86.

For what it's worth, let me mention that a more extreme downsizing
occurred in African HIV estimates.  The original tests unknowingly
cross-reacted with malaria antibodies, leading to an incredible number
of false positives.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Subject: Re: New AIDS Definition
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Archive-Number: 24
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:10:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.135001.3616@cs.ucla.edu>, uschukle@arts (Mr Udo Schuklenk) writes:
>I'm still trying to track the new CDC AIDS definition down.

The definitive reference is CDC "1993 Revised Classification System
for HIV Infection and Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS
Among Adolescents and Adults" MMWR v41 #RR-17 (18 Dec 1992), a small
20-page booklet.  Seeing by the date stamped on the cover that it took
a month to arrive here in Philadelphia, I suspect your local Down Under
libraries won't be getting a copy until the snow starts falling.

>If anyone out there has the new definition (not just a summary from
>a newspaper) PLEASE e-mail it to me or post it with regular mail

According to the inside front cover, you can get single copies free
from the CDC National AIDS Information Clearinghouse, PO Box 6003,
Rockville, MD 20849-6003, 800-458-5231.  Presumably that will be as
slow.  You can also purchase copies from Superintendent of Documents,
US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325, 202-783-3238,
and no doubt they will add on shipping charges per your request.

In short, five new conditions have been added to the 1986 CDC definition.
HIV+ people with pulmonary tuberculosis, recurrent pneumonia, invasive
cervical cancer, <200 CD4+ T-lymphocytes per microliter, or <14% CD4+
T-lymphocytes out of all lymphocytes, are to be reported to the CDC as
AIDS, in addition to the 23 existing diseases.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: fogarty@sir-c.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: CDC estimates of HIV infection
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 34
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Date: 26 Jan 1993 01:13:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.165759.19055@cs.ucla.edu>, 
weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

|>
|>In sum, 1-1.5 million is about the best one can say.  The roundness
|>of the figure gives it a lock that our ignorance cannot veto.  The
|>correct figure is presumably on the increase, but keep in mind that
|>the true number itself will obviously not increase as fast as new
|>infections--about 80% of those HIV+ in 1987 are now dead.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please site your source for this figure.  From personal experience, I find 
80% hard to believe.  I have many friends who knew that they were HIV+ back 
then, and they are still around.
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: Bill Beblo <wb%rigel@uunet.UU.NET>
Subject: Questions on HIV & tests
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 7
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Red Bank, NJ 07701
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 17:05:16 GMT

The Background:

A friend of mine tested positive for HIV antibodies three years ago. 
Because I'm of a 
more scientific background, I have been assisting him in keeping track of
regular test 
results and in tracking new treatments and the like.  He visits his
doctor quarterly and has 
bi-monthly blood tests taken.  A brief summary of these tests over the
past three years is 
as follows:

CD4+ ranges between 362 and 525; CD8+ ranges between 326 and 641;
CD4+/CD8+ 
ratio ranges between 0.69 and 1.25; CD4+/ALC ratio ranges between 25% and
38%; 
Beta-2 levels between 1.6 and 2.4; and p24 antibody levels always < 70. 
His p24 antigen 
has always been negative by the Coulter method; by the IDL method was <
26, but for 
the last year has also been negative.  

This last year of negative IDL test results seems to correlate with his
taking of Tagamet (4 
x 400mg daily).  He is also taking Zovirax (3 x 200mg daily) as a
preventative measure.  
He has never had any infections or problems that could be attributable to
HIV.

The Questions:

I have heard things recently about people who have effectively fought off
HIV, and those 
that may have sero-reconverted.  Most of his test results fall into the
lower end of the 
"normal" range.  I look at his test results and it seems that at the very
least HIV is not 
"going wild" in his case, but I also ask myself if he really has HIV in
his body anymore.  
Are there any tests that can determine this conclusively?

I've heard about a test called PCR which seems to be able to detect the
actual presence 
of HIV in the body.  Is this test widely available?  I get the impression
that it comes in 
various flavors (HIV, EBV, CMV, ?).  What tests should he ask his doctor
to perform?  Do 
(should) doctors order these tests for all patients suspected of being
HIV positive?

Any advice or suggestions would be welcomed.

Thanks,
Bill Beblo
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Subject: Re: HIV/AIDS Link -- recent information sought
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Archive-Number: 30
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:23:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.135230.15599@cs.ucla.edu>, quilty@PHILOS (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:
>I have seen more recent information, especially on this groups, which
>shows a detection of HIV in a much higher percentage of T-cells than
>the .01% detected in earlier studies, using more sensitive detection
>techniques.  Nonetheless, it still seems that HIV is not claimed to
>be *chemically active* in these larger number of cells (or else new
>detection techniques would not be necessary), which seems to continue
>a legitimate question of the sole causative link (given that a virus
>should presumably have to *do something* to have an effect on a host).

Not in the least.  It in fact possibly _answers_ one of Duesberg's big
objections.  The virus has such a long latency time since most of it is
inactive.  (Actually, the objection was always pretty meager.  Numerous
viruses are known to have long latency times.  Perhaps the longest is
the chickenpox virus.  After an initial childhood infection, it roosts
inactively in your nerve endings, and sometimes breaks out again 50 years
later, causing shingles.)

>I would be interested in anyone having any information on the reaction
>of Duesberg, or others questioning the HIV/AIDS link, to the newly
>shown higher level of t-cell infection, and the relation of this to a
>potential causative relation between HIV and AIDS.

Considering how much Duesberg has ignored inconvenient facts in the past,
I wouldn't be surprised to see no change in his assertions.

>                                                    I am not, however
>particularly interested in anything which simply reiterates the
>somewhat dogmatic acceptance of an HIV/AIDS link which has
>characterized Gallo and most of the medical AIDS-establishment.

That acceptance is not dogmatic.  Not even somewhat dogmatic.  Please
don't call it such.  A goodly proportion of the establishment accepts
the possibility of cofactors, but this has proven much harder to show.
Some theories of HIV->AIDS causation, for example, posit a second virus
--which could be just about anything--to trigger HIV-infected stem cells
to multiply.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Subject: Re: CDC estimates of HIV infection
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Archive-Number: 29
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:03:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.165759.19055@cs.ucla.edu>, I wrote:
>	     about 80% of those HIV+ in 1987 are now dead.

As was pointed out in e-mail, this is rank gibberish.  I meant that
about 80% of those diagnosed with AIDS by 1987 are now dead.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: quilty@PHILOS.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters)
Subject: HIV/AIDS Link -- recent information sought
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 26
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: 25 Jan 1993 00:24:41 -0500

I have followed the work of Duesberg and others who have questioned
the causative, or sole causative, relation between HIV and AIDS
(including, apparently, AIDS discoverer Montagnier).  I have seen more
recent information, especially on this groups, which shows a detection
of HIV in a much higher percentage of T-cells than the .01% detected
in earlier studies, using more sensitive detection techniques.
Nonetheless, it still seems that HIV is not claimed to be
*chemically active* in these larger number of cells (or else new
detection techniques would not be necessary), which seems to continue
a legitimate question of the sole causative link (given that a virus
should presumably have to *do something* to have an effect on a host).

I would be interested in anyone having any information on the reaction
of Duesberg, or others questioning the HIV/AIDS link, to the newly
shown higher level of t-cell infection, and the relation of this to a
potential causative relation between HIV and AIDS.  I am not, however
particularly interested in anything which simply reiterates the
somewhat dogmatic acceptance of an HIV/AIDS link which has
characterized Gallo and most of the medical AIDS-establishment.
As is surely evident, I am not a biologist, nor in any related
scientific field.  I am merely an intelligent, and moderately
well-informed, lay-person.  If anyone could email me information on
this topic -- or citations for recent reading -- I would appreciate it.
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/
From: Ron Buckmire <buckmr@rpi.edu>
Subject: Israel Relaxes HIV restrictions on *some* foreign nationals
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 46
Organization: unspecified
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:15:44 EST

Israel announced Tuesday that it will not test tourists, journalists or foreign
embassy officials for HIV antibodies. In modifying an announced plan to
test all foreigners entering Israel it said that it still intends to test most 
immigrants for HIV before granting citizenship. Prospective immigrants from
the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia are excluded from proving that they do not
have HIV.  Israel has reported 215 cases of AIDS and had introduced the testing
plan to try to stem the spread of disease. AIDS activists had crticized the
plan for violating human rights and insisted that spending the money on education would be more effective on reducing HIV infection. 

[assembled  from wire reports]
   
---
RON BUCKMIRE
Fundraising Committee for the Procurement of a mesh tank-top for LL Cool J
11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids