Did you know that anti-HIV drugs suppress the bone marrow where all immune system cells are born? Here, for example, is a quote from the Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin, June 1996, No.178, p675-678:
"The antiretroviral drugs currently licenced in the United Kingdom are zidovudine (azidothymidine), zalcitabine (ddC) and didanosine (ddI). All three are nucleoside analogues which are incorporated into different stages of viral nucleic acid replication within the infected host cell. ALL ARE VERY TOXIC. SUPPRESSION OF BONE MARROW ELEMENTS CAN OCCUR WITH ANY OF THE THREE, as can peripheral neuropathy"
Anti-HIV drugs currently come in two varieties: nucleoside analogues and protease inhibitors. Anti-HIV drugs, including protease inhibitors, have been shown to destroy CD4 cells (1-7). Nucleoside analogues are toxic to all cells because they destroy mitochondria (8), the energy factories of all cells. Cells with rapid turnover such as CD4 cells are particularly prone to mitochondrial destruction. This destruction is not immediately apparent because the damage is cumulative and the effects are only manifest when the damage exceeds a particular threshold and a positive feedback mechanism kicks in. The transient rise in CD4 cells upon the administration of anti-HIV drugs is attributed to the anti-HIV effect of the drugs but AZT has been shown to cause the same transient CD4 cell rise in HIV negatives too (9). The CD4 cell rise is really a bone marrow stress response to these poisons.
If you are thinking "How can the administration of immunosuppressive chemicals to treat immune deficiency be justified?" then you are displaying the common sense reasoning that was abandoned at the start of the HIV/AIDS era. Yes, often science does depart from common sense but it does so not by default, as in the case of HIV/AIDS, rather it does so through rigorous empirical justification. Much venom is directed at dissidents for pointing out the many flaws in HIV/AIDS, this venom should rather be directed at the group of virologists who gave birth to the HIV/AIDS construct and started the AIDS bandwagon using science by press conference and abandoning scientific rigour in their lust for self-agrandisement and wealth.
Apart form the early (and proven fraudulent) AZT trials and the longest AZT trial, the Concorde trial (10), studies and statistics that anti-HIV drugs prolong life are not supported by the crucial control of comparing drugs with no drugs. In the Concorde trial, 172 participants died, 169 while taking AZT, 3 while on placebo. When drugs are compared with no drugs then the true nature of anti-HIV drugs is revealed. Rather than prolonging life their effects are the same as poverty and malnutrition (11). Precisely because of the toxicity of the anti-HIV drugs, the authorities in the US abandoned the policy, known as "hit hard hit early", whereby perfectly healthy people were put on these toxins. The protease inhibitor combos were only introduced in 1996 so no-one has survived on these poisons for more than 7 years so far, meanwhile liver failure (due to the combos) is the leading cause of death among HIV positives. As a combined result of the "hit hard hit early" dogma and changes in AIDS definitions, the majority of those who went on the new combos were healthy people who, without non-HIV risk factors, would live long, healthy lives without the drugs. Of course people live longer on drugs if there are more healthy people on drugs!
Although the protease inhibitors have (unlike AZT) been designed as "HIV-specific" there is a ubiquitous naivity that they will only interact with "HIV protease". According to alternative AIDS theories, protease inhibitors (such as the natural, non-toxic protease inhibitor PADMA 28) can be effective because they reverse the cell breakdown processes characterising AIDS. There is evidence that anti-HIVdrugs, including protease inhibitors, have anti-microbial and other non-specific effects (12-14) which may account for any APPARENT, short term, therapeutic benefit seen in AIDS patients. Protease inhibitors have antioxidative effects see the article "Drugs, Disease, Denial.
Treatment of PCP with Septrin is effective until the fungus causing it becomes resistant to septrin. By that time the body has little defence of its own against this fungus or other opportunistic infections because the body has been ravaged by the mitochondria destroying effects of septrin and the mitochondrial and bone marrow toxicity of the anti-HIV drugs.
A GREAT MANY OTHERWISE HEALTHY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN, AND ARE STILL BEING, POISONED FOR NO GOOD REASON.
Given below is further comment by Dr David rasnick.
1. J Virol 2002, 76(12):5966-73
2. J Biol Chem 1989, 264:6127-33
3. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1990, 34:637-641
4. Antiviral Chemistry and Chemotherapy 1991, 2:125-132
5. AIDS 1989, 3:417-422
6. NEJM 1987, 317:192-197
7. Physicians Desk Reference 1999
8. Nature Medicine 1995, 1(5):417-422
9. AIDS 1996, 10(12):1444-5
10. Lancet 1994, 343:871-881
12. Physicians Desk Reference 1999
13. J. of Infectious Diseases 2000, 181:1629-1634
14. J. of Infectious Diseases 1999, 180:448-453
First, we must look at the CDC's HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports to see how AIDS has changed in the USA over the past two decades. The CDC data show that AIDS peaked in 1992 and has been going down steadily ever since (see for example the cover of the 1997 year end edition of the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report). The mortality rate from AIDS is dropping because AIDS has been declining in the USA since 1992, years before the introduction of HAART, the multi-drug combinations that Delaney touts. The apparent life-saving benefits of the HIV-protease inhibitor cocktails is a consequence of the simple fact that these drugs have appeared on the scene long after AIDS peaked in the USA, during a period when the mortality due to AIDS was naturally in decline (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1997): U.S. HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 1997; Year-end edition. 9: 1-43).
Another reason for the decline in AIDS deaths is the CDC's re- definition of what constitutes AIDS in the USA. Since the mid 1990s, well over half of all new AIDS cases in the USA represented people who weren't even sick. As of 1993, all you needed to qualify as an AIDS case were results from two lab tests: be immune to HIV, that is have antibodies to the virus, and have fewer than 200 CD4 cells per microliter of blood or a CD4 percentage less than 14 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1993, Revised Classification System for HIV Infection & Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents & Adults. MMWR 1992; 41: 1-19).
In 1997, 36,634 people (61% of all new AIDS cases) were classified under this non-disease category (Table 12 of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1997): U.S. HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 1997; Year-end edition. 9: 1-43). We can no longer follow the nationwide trend of including healthy people as AIDS cases after 1997 because the CDC stopped listing the AIDS-indicator diseases and conditions (formerly Table 12) in its HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports.
However, San Francisco continues to report AIDS cases according to specific AIDS-defining diseases. The San Francisco Quarterly AIDS Surveillance Report for 2000 shows in Table 10 on page 8 that 47.7 percent of all AIDS cases from 1980 through 2000 were diagnosed with AIDS according to the two lab tests of the 1993 definition change (Katz M, Schwarcz S, Hsu L, Parisi MK, Chu PL, Scheer S (2000): Quarterly AIDS Surveillance Report. Journal The AIDS Surveillance Report is accessible via internet: www.dph.sf.ca.us/PHP/AIDSSurvUnit.htm). Since this is a cumulative number, which combines all AIDS cases under four different definitions of AIDS, well over half of all people (mostly gay men) in San Francisco that are currently being labeled as AIDS cases have no AIDS-defining disease.
The CDC has a rule that an AIDS case is classified according to the earliest definition that applies. Because the majority of new AIDS cases in the USA are classified according to the non-disease criteria of the CDC's 1993 definition change, they do not have any of the colossal list of AIDS diseases--from diarrhea to dementia, pneumonia to cervical cancer--required by earlier definitions. Thus, the majority of new AIDS cases are disease-free (healthy) people. In spite of the 1993 definition change, with its inclusion of large numbers of healthy people as AIDS cases, the figure on page 1 of the Quarterly AIDS Surveillance Report for San Francisco cited above shows that the number of new AIDS cases for 2000 was at the same level as 1982 (below 50 cases), so few you could know them all by name.
As a consequence of the CDC's 1993 definition of AIDS, over half of the people treated with the anti-HIV drug cocktails in the USA since 1996 (the year the HIV protease inhibitor cocktails became available) were healthy when they started taking the drugs. Delaney, the mainstream AIDS press and AIDS researchers are crediting HAART with prolonging the lives of these healthy people. Sadly, these healthy people taking HAART don't stay healthy long. They eventually get sick from the drugs and die if they stay on them long enough (Levy JA (1998): Caution: should we be treating HIV infection early? The Lancet 352: 982-983; Duesberg PH, Rasnick D (1998): The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus. Genetica 104: 85-132; Lauritsen J (1990): Poison by Prescription-The AZT Story. New York, Asklepios Press; Altman L: U.S. Panel seeks Changes in Treatment of AIDS Virus. New York Times 2001;February 4: 16; Altman L: U.S. warns doctors to limit use of anti-HIV drug. New York Times 2001;Jan. 5: A12).