From peterson@ucsub.Colorado.EDU Tue May 7 09:51:09 1996 Xref: elastic misc.legal:12420 misc.misc:13477 talk.politics.guns:72513 ut.general:3899 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!boulder!ucsub.Colorado.EDU!peterson From: peterson@ucsub.Colorado.EDU (Peterson Penny) Newsgroups: austin.general,ba.general,ca.general,dc.general,cle.general,in.general,misc.misc,la.general,pa.general,chi.general,tx.general,ok.general,oh.general,houston.general,ny.general,nyc.general,la.general,ut.general,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal Subject: Re: HIV is 'Harmless' and does NOT 'cause' AIDS Date: 4 May 96 17:41:50 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Lines: 137 Message-ID: References: <317E6038.1CBA@chelsea.ios.com> <4llpfq$760@news.mpd.tandem.com> <4mem7g$39d@ultra.sonic.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsub.colorado.edu NNTP-Posting-User: peterson X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #8 (NOV) For those who asked for a cite to my previous post that one does not need to be HIV+ to be statistically considered an AIDS case: Recieved the CDC AIDS case definitions from the Colorado Dept of Health (4300 Chery Creek Drive South Denver CO 80222 Tel# 692.2745) As one can see from the 'Chinese Menu' of definitions, one neither needs a HIV+ diagnosis or in fact can be definitively HIV- and still be defined as a AIDS case. (Any disease from I.B is considered AIDS absent HIV status. P. carinii pnuemonia is considered AIDS even with negative HIV test results) So if HIV is the "cause" of AIDSyndrome, how can one have AIDS without HIV??? ==================================================================================== 1993 Revision of Adult and Adolescent Case Definition for AIDS Surveillance Purposes For national reporting, a case of AIDS is defined as an illness characterized by one or more of the following "indicator" conditions, depending on the status of laboratory evidence of HIV infection, as shown below. I. WITHOUT LABORATORY EVIDENCE REGARDING HIV INFECTION If laboratory tests for HIV were not perfomed or gave inconclusive results and the patient had no other cause of immunodeficiency listed in Section I.A below, then _any_ disease listed in Section I.B indicates AIDS if it was diagnosed by a definitive method. A. Causes if Immunodeficiency that disqualify diseases as indicators of AIDS in the absence of laboratory evidencs for HIV infection. 1. high-dose or long-term systemic corticosteroid therapy or other immunosuppressive/cytotoxic therapy <3 months before the onset of the indicator disease. 2. any of the following diseases diagnosed <3 months after diagnosis of the indicator disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (other than primary brain lymphoma), lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, any other cancer of the lymphoreticular or histocytic tissue, or angioimmunoblastic lymphadenopathy. 3. a genetic (congenital) immunodeficiency syndrome or an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome atypical of HIV infection, such as one involving hypogammaglobulinemia. B. Indicator Diseases diagnosed definitively 1. candidiasis of the esophagus, trachea, bronchi, or lungs 2. cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary 3. cryptosporidosis with diarrhea PERSISTING >1 month 4. cytomegalovirus disease of an organ other than liver, spleen, or lymph nodes in a patient >1 month of age 5. herpes simplex virus infection causing a muccocutaneous ulcer that persists longer than 1 month; or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis for any duration affecting a patient >1 month of age 6. Kaposi's sarcoma affecting a patient <60 years of age 7. lymphoma of the brain (primary) affecting a patient <60 years of age 8. Mycobacterium avium complex or M. kansasii disease, disseminated (at a site other than or in addition to lungs, skin, or cervical or hiliar lymph nodes) 9. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia 10. progressive multifocal luekoencephalopathy 11. toxoplasmosis of the brain affecting a patient >1 month of age II. With Laboratory Evidence for HIV Infection Regardless of the presence of other causes of immunodeficiency (I.A.) in the presence of laboratory evidence for HIV infection, any disease listed above (I.B) or below (II.A of II.B) indicates a diagnosis of AIDS. A. Indicator conditions diagnosed definitively 1. CD4 T-lymphocyte count <200 cells/ul, or CD4 T-lymphocyte percent <14 2. recurrent pnuemonia, more than 1 episode in a 1-year period 3. cervical cancer, invsive 4. coccidioidomycosis, disseminated (at a site other than or in addition to lungs or cervical or hiliar lymph nodes) 5. HIV encephalopathy (also called "HIV dementia," "AIDS dementia" or "subacute encephalitis due to HIV") 6. histoplasmosis, disseminated (at a site other than or in addition to lungs or cervical or hiliar lymph nodes) 7. isosporiasis with diarrhea persisting >1 month 8. Kaposis sarcoma at any age 9. lymphoma of the brain (primary) at any age 10. other non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of B-cell or unknown immunologic phenotype and the following histologic types: a. small noncleaved lymphoma (either Burkitt or non-Burkitt type) b. immunoblastic sarcoma (equivalent to any of the following, although not necessarily all in combination: immunoblastic lymphoma, diffuse histiocytic lymphoma, large cell lymphoma diffuse undifferentiated lymphoma, or high-grade lymphoma) Note: Lymphomas are not included here if they are of T-cell immunologic phenotype or their histologic type is not describ- ed or is described as "lymphocytic," "lymphoblastic," "small cleaved," or "plasmacytoid lymphocytic" 11. any mycobacterial disease caused by mycobacteria other than M. tuberculosis, diseminated (at a sit other than or in addition to lungs, skin, or cervical or hiliar lymph nodes) 12. disease caused by M. tuberculosis, pulmonary or extrapulmonary 13. Salmonella (nontyphoid) septicemia, recurrent 14. HIV wasting syndrome (emaciation, "slim disease") B. Indicator diseases diagnosed presumtively Note: Given the seriousness of diseases indicative of AIDS, it is generally important to diagnose them definitively, especially when therapy that would be used may have serious side effects or when definitive diagnosis is needed for eligibility for antiviral therapy. Nonetheless, in some situations, a patient's condition will not permit the performance of definitive tests. In other situations, accepted clinical practice may be to diagnose presumptively based on the presence of characteristic clinical and laboratory abnormalities. 1. recurrent pneumonia, more than 1 episode in a 1-year period 2. candidiasis of the esophagus 3. cytomegalovirus retinitis with loss of vision 4. Kaposi's sarcoma 5. M. tuberculosis, pulmonary 6. mycobacterial disease (acid-fast bacilii with species not identified by culture), diseminated (involving at least one site other than or in addition to lungs, skin. or cervical or hiliar lymph nodes) 7. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia 8. toxoplasmosis of the brain affecting a patient >1 month of age III. With Laboratory Evidence AGAINST HIV Infection With laboratory test results _negative_ for HIV infection, a diagnosis of AIDS for surveillance purposes is ruled out unless: A. all the other causes of immunodeficiency listed in Section I.A are excluded; AND B. the patient has had either: 1. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia diagnosed by a definitive method; OR 2. a. any of the other diseases indicative of AIDS listed above in in Section I.B diagnosed by a definitive method; AND b. a T-helper/inducer (CD4) lymphocyte count <400/mm3. ====================================================================================== From libertynetwk@earthlink.net Tue May 7 09:52:25 1996 Xref: elastic misc.legal:12413 misc.misc:13466 talk.politics.guns:72469 ut.general:3897 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!tezcat.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp.earthlink.net!usenet From: Charles Miller Newsgroups: austin.general,ba.general,ca.general,dc.general,cle.general,in.general,misc.misc,la.general,pa.general,chi.general,tx.general,ok.general,oh.general,houston.general,ny.general,nyc.general,la.general,ut.general,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal Subject: Re: HIV is 'Harmless' and does NOT 'cause' AIDS Date: Sat, 04 May 1996 16:47:31 -0700 Organization: LibertyNetwork Lines: 92 Message-ID: <318BEC93.14C3@earthlink.net> References: <317E6038.1CBA@chelsea.ios.com> <4llpfq$760@news.mpd.tandem.com> <4mem7g$39d@ultra.sonic.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool043.max2.denver.co.dynip.alter.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) Peterson Penny wrote: > > For those who asked for a cite to my previous post that one does not need to > be HIV+ to be statistically considered an AIDS case: > > Recieved the CDC AIDS case definitions from the Colorado Dept of Health (4300 > Chery Creek Drive South Denver CO 80222 Tel# 692.2745) > > As one can see from the 'Chinese Menu' of definitions, one neither needs a HIV+ > diagnosis or in fact can be definitively HIV- and still be defined as a AIDS > case. (Any disease from I.B is considered AIDS absent HIV status. P. carinii > pnuemonia is considered AIDS even with negative HIV test results) > > So if HIV is the "cause" of AIDSyndrome, how can one have AIDS without HIV??? > > > snip snip > > >rethink-hiv> New Duesberg book reviewed >californ@netcom.com >Sun, 07 Jan 1996 04:55:50 -0800 (PST) Kirkus Reviews, January 15, 1996 AUTHOR: Duesberg, Peter H. TITLE: INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS PUBLISHER: Regnery (256 pp.) Phone: 202-546-5005 $ 24.95 Release date? Mar. 22, 1996 REVIEW: A well-credentialed scientist's hard-driving attack on the accepted view that AIDS is an infectious disease caused by HIV. Duesberg (Molecular biology/Univ. of Calif., Berkeley), an early researcher in the field of retroviruses, asserts that HIV, like virtually all retroviruses, is harmless. He finds that HIV meets none of the usual criteria (such as the six laws of virology) used to establish that a microbe causes disease. But if that is so, why do scientists persist in saying that AIDS is an epidemic caused by HIV? As Duesberg tells it, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention needed a serious epidemic to justify its continued existence, and by naming AIDS a single contagious disease, it created an atmosphere of public fear that brought it increased funding and power. The biomedical establishment took note. Having failed to find a viral cause of cancer, Duesberg says, virus hunters needed a new disease, and AIDS was it. =============================================================== The HIV-AIDS connection was then announced by Robert Gallo, head of a retrovirus lab at the National Cancer Institute, at a 1984 press conference rather than demonstrated in a peer- reviewed scientific paper. =============================================================== Further, Duesberg charges, the pharmaceutical companies exploited the situation by bringing back highly toxic failed cancer drugs, such as AZT, which, he says, destroys the immune system and causes AIDS-like symptoms. Duesberg cites other scientists who have questioned the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, among them several Nobel laureates, including Kary Mullis (for Chemistry), the author of this book's foreword. Duesberg's own theory is that AIDS is linked to the use of immunity-suppressing illicit drugs (such as crack and "poppers"), and he urges investigation along these lines. One need not accept Duesberg's drug hypothesis, however, to be persuaded that the serious charges he makes deserve serious answers. A controversial book, certain to be met with strong resistance from the biomedical establishment. Four appendixes (not seen) include articles on HIV by Duesberg in scientific journals. ------------------------- Regnery Publishing, Inc 422 First St. SE, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20003 Phone: 202-546-5005 ========================================================================= also see Two interviews :: Spin Mag and another mag >> http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/duesberg.html - http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/aids/deuspn.html - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * * Charles Miller 2 Cor 3:17 LibertyNetwk@earthlink.net * a classical liberal: one who abjures statism in all modalities * and one who believes in free will ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^