To: Hawkmoon who wrote (3677 ) 12/8/2002 11:58:05 AM From: Hawkmoon Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6901 And now for something completely different.... Recently I was reading an anthology by one of my favorite authors, James P. Hogan. And he wrote a fascinating article about "AIDS and the New Bishops"(various aspects of which can be found at the following link)...virusmyth.net jamesphogan.com In this article he details the argument against HIV being the root cause of AIDS, as presented by a former NIH researcher, Peter Duesberg: duesberg.com One of his most disturbing contentions is that drugs such as AZT, a DNA chain terminator that prevents all cells from reproducing, actually is responsible for the majority of deaths from AIDS. Simply put, the body ceases to be able to renew itself... all in the hope that, for a limited treatment period, they can destroy all the HIV cells. But I also found it interesting reading with regard to how a retro-virus is different from a normal virus, mainly in the fact that the retro does not destroy the cell "machinery" by burning it out in the replication process..:HIV belongs to a class of viruses known as "retroviruses," which survive by encoding their RNA sequences into the chromosomal DNA of the host cell (the reverse of the normal direction of information flow in cell replication, which is DNA to RNA to protein, hence the name). When that part of the host chromosome comes to be transcribed, the cell's protein-manufacturing machinery makes a new retrovirus, which leaves by budding off through the cell membrane. The retrovirus, therefore, leaves the cell intact and functioning, and survives by slipping a copy of itself from time to time into the cell's normal production run. This strategy is completely different from that of the more prevalent "lytic" viruses, which take over the cell machinery totally to mass-produce themselves until the cell is exhausted, at which point they rupture the membrane, killing the cell, and move on, much in the style of locusts. This is what gives the immune system problems, and in the process causes colds, flu, polio, rabies, measles, mumps, yellow fever, and so on. Btw, Hogan called the article "Aids and the New Bishops" because he compares Duesberg to Galileo:In any case, what do those programs have that should command any confidence? After all these years they have failed to save a life or produce a vaccine. (And if they did, to whom would it be given? The function of a vaccine is to stimulate the production of antibodies, and HIV positives have them already.) No believable mechanism has been put forward as to how HIV kills T-cells. And billions of dollars continue to be spent every year on trying to unravel the mysteries of how HIV can make you sick without being present, and how an antibody can neutralize the virus but not suppress the disease. Scientific principles that have stood well for a hundred years are arbitrarily discarded to enable what's offered as logic to hang together at all, and the best that can be done at the end of it all is to prescribe a treatment that's lethal even if the disease is not. Yet no looking into alternatives is permitted; all dissenting views are repressed. This is not the way of science, but of a fanatical religion putting down heresy. The real victim, perhaps not terminally ill but looking somewhat jaded at the moment, is intellectual honesty and scientific rigor. Maybe in its growth from infancy, science too has to learn how to make antibodies to protect itself from opportunistic infection and dogmatism. And in the longer term it seems that it can. Today, everybody remembers Galileo. Yet how many can name the bishops who refused to look through his telescope? I open up the subject for discussion if anyone is interested.... Hawk