How does one get HIV positive?
I mean, do the dissidents believe that it is though sex or what? If it is though sex then
are heterosexual and homosexual sex equally "risky"?
How can you explain the correlation (however tenuous) between the amount of
people who have AIDS and who are HIV positive? ie - How come people with AIDS live
roughly the same lifestyle as HIV positive people?
Posted by Laird on
Friday, 8 January 1999, in response to HIV positive - but
how?, posted by Frank Young
Lets define HIV positive to mean a positive Western Blot test. A
Western Blot measures antibody reactions to proteins. There are certain proteins which
are assumed to belong specifically to HIV. Control group, or presumed HIV negative
blood, lightly reacts with the HIV proteins. A WB test is scored as positive only when the
bands are very dark, indicating a high reaction to the proteins. This fact alone shows the
subjective nature of the WB test; everyone, apparently, has some antibody reaction to the
"HIV" proteins. I suggest you read the Perth Group's paper "Is a
Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection," as well as "A Critical
Analysis of the HIV-T4-CELL-AIDS Hypothesis," both on this web site.
If these antibodies are *not* formed in response to a virus, HIV, then where do they
come from? Are they formed in response to *anything* that is sexually transmissable?
The Perth Group, as well as Stefan Lanka and other dissidents believe that the so called
"HIV" antibodies are the result of oxidative stress, and are in fact auto-
immune antibodies.
Oxidative stress can be acquired through excessive alcohol consumption, illicit drug
consumption, legal drug consumption, smoking, benzene derived sexual lubricants, and
semen. In addition to oxidative stress as cause for the "HIV" antibodies, there
is documented evidence that other immune stressors such as vaccinations, malaria, TB,
hepatitis, etc., can all result in "false" positive WB. (The Perth Group, of
course, argues that *all* positive WB are "false").
Lets call the "cause" of the "HIV" antibodies
"X". (Obviously, the HIV paradigm states that X=HIV). Peter Duesberg
believes that X=HIV but that HIV is harmless. Duesberg believes that you *do* become
HIV positive through sex if you weren't born HIV positive. Duesberg believes that the
primary means of HIV's survival is through perinatal transmission from mother to child.
Duesberg treats the correlation between HIV positive blood and AIDS as a coincidence
of the lifestyles of those at risk for AIDS. Since Duesberg believes that AIDS is caused
by the stress of drugs alone, and that a large proportion of promiscuous male
homosexuals abuse drugs, then those at risk for AIDS will often be found to also be
infected by HIV. In other words, he sees HIV infection as more of an effect, or marker, of
the lifestyle leading to AIDS, while certainly not its cause.
The Perth Group and Lanka, on the other hand, believe that X=Oxidative Stress.
They doubt that HIV even exists, as it has never been isolated by the rules set out for viral
isolation and there exists no electron micrographs (EM) proving HIV's existance. The
antibodies are auto-immune antibodies arrising from oxidative stress from any and all
sources. The only sources of oxidative stress that could be "transmitted"
sexually would be semen and lube. The Perth Group mentions the oxidative nature of
rectally deposited semen, but ignores the toxic nature of always-wet sexual lubricants
(which are all labeled "for topical use only").
The Perth Group would say that for any specific individual, his or her
"X" might be more or less heavily weighted to one type of oxidizer or
another. For a heterosexual male drug user who seroconverts to HIV+, his
"X" may be primarily the drugs, and therefore *not* sexually acquired. For
an analy receptive male homosexual drug user, his "X" may be a
combination of drugs, and possibly lube and semen, and therefore *possibly* sexually
acquired.
My personal gut feeling: I like the oxidative stress theory. I expect that most people
who seroconvert to HIV+ status did so without sex being primarily involved. However,
since the receptive partner is often the greatest abuser of Poppers (nitrite inhalants) and is
having toxic lubricants rectally deposited, they may owe their seroconversion more to the
act of sex than others. (Clearly, inhaling poppers is not a sex act, and hence any
contribution the toxic popper fumes may have on seroconversion cannot be said to be
sexually acquired, but it is sufficient to explain the correlation). While I am not qualified
to argue that semen is not an oxidizer, I personally doubt that its role is a principal one on
evolutionary grounds. I'm quite sure that human beings have been practicing anal sex for
??? years (hundreds of thousands??). We know that some species of chimpanzees practice
male-male anal sex. This isn't to say that semen may not be a significant factor in
"X", but that for those HIV+s whose "X" is 100% semen
(hypothetically) I would argue that they are not likely at risk of AIDS on evolutionary
grounds.
An addendum to my last post.
Your question primarily concerned the sexual transmissability of "X", or
the cause of the HIV antibodies. What of the sexual transmissability of AIDS?
[I could embark on a discussion of what is meant by the term AIDS... Does AIDS
exist? Meaning, should there be a clinical definition of a disease syndrom implying a
definable cause?
Is there in fact some "glue" that holds all of the 30 or so widely
different diseases together under the label AIDS?... but I won't digress here.]
As to the sexual transmissability of AIDS, the positions of the two principal
dissidents were not explicitly stated in my previous post but can be implied. Duesberg
states that AIDS is 100% non-contagious and non-infectious and *not* an STD. This
directly follows from his drug-AIDS hypothesis.
The Perth Group also states that AIDS is non-contagious and non-infectious and
hence is not a disease that you can "catch." The condition of an organism
whose body cells are highly oxidized and starved of energy is "acquired"
through environmental exposure to oxidizers. To the extent that they recognize some
sexually transmitted oxidizing agents, I would say that their position is that the conditions
necessary to achieve the dis-eased state currently called "AIDS" may include
some which were acquired sexually.
Finally, I would like to thank you for your post on this web board. The nature of web
boards is such that posts *should* be relatively brief. That forced me to try to organize
what I know on the subject into a concise, and hopefully, helpful summary.
Posted by Y-It on Friday,
8 January 1999, at 1:02 p.m. GMT, in response to HIV positive - but
how?, posted by Frank Young
Whether you get HIV+ also seems to depend on where you live or who analyzes your
test. The Western Blot test, which is a common test for HIV is not standardized, which
greatly leads to the suspicion that it is inaccurate and invalid. [...]
HIV+? Depends on where
you live
- Visit the Rethinking AIDS Web Board
-
RETHINKING AIDS HOMEPAGE
TORONTO
HOME
