Re: HIV=/= AIDS video

Pat Fallon (
Sun, 2 Mar 1997 16:42:28 -0500 (Pat Fallon) writes:

>>If HIV were actively
>>infecting T-cells then cell-free virus particles, called virions, should be
>>easily found circulating in the blood. This is the case with all classical
>>viral diseases: Patients with Hepatitis B will have about 10 million free
>>virus particles per milliliter of blood; Flu-like symptoms will appear only
>>in the presence of 1 million rhinovirus particles per milliliter of nasal
>>mucous. HIV, like other retroviruses, can achieve high levels of virus when
>>first infecting the body (up to 100,000 particles per milliliter of blood),
>>but in most people HIV is then permanently inactivated by the antibodies
>>generated against it. replies:

>Pardon my rudeness, but you might not be making elementary errors if you had
>any references less that 6 years old. It's been known for several years that
>HIV is always present and highly active in the lymph nodes of infected
>patients for the entire course of the disease.

There are two papers most often cited supporting the contention that HIV
'lurks' in the lymph nodes (by others, you do not cite any). The first was
written by Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Health and appeared
in the March 25, 1993 issue of Nature.

Fauci reported on his results in using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
to count the number of HIV-infected T cells, as well as checking directly for
cell-free virus particles. He compared the results from lymph node tissues
against the those from circulating blood. What did he find?

Fauci gets down to brass tacks: "...a burst of viremia...a prolonged period...
little, if any...very low...may be related...high levels...
active and progressive..."but where are the numbers? Although implying that
he found large amounts of the virus, Fauci hid his only relevant statistics
in the caption to figure 1, showing that HIV infected only about 1/100 to
1/10,000 CD4+ T cells, EVEN IN THE LYMPH NODES. And this assay DID NOT
DISTINGUISH between cells containing active or dormant HIV.

Fauci's went on to confirm existing textbook knowledge on the workings
of the immune system. He recalled that "an initially adequate immune
response itself also contributes substantially to the clearance of virus
from the circulation. In the late stages of disease [AIDS], these mechanical
mechanisms are altered and an effective immune response against HIV is lost,
leading to an increase in viral burden in [blood cells]." Viremia initiated
from a previously suppressed virus and observed years after infection is a
classical CONSEQUENCE, rather than a CAUSE of immunodeficiency.
Many normally latent parasites become activated in immunodeficient
persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis, herpes, cytomegalovirus
and even retroviruses like HIV. But HIV is just one of many
opportunistic viruses unleashed AFTER the immune system has
been suppressed.

To eliminate any invading virus, the immune system coats it with
antibodies, thereby immobilizing the offending germs. The neutralized
germs are then filtered out in the lymph nodes. Fauci acknowledged
this "virus-traping capability of the node," and his paper notes that
the ONLY virus particles he could find in lymph tissues were
"coated with proteins" [antibodies]. These were viruses caught while
being destroyed. Furthermore, he does not report the actual number
of such neutralized particles, which presumably means he found few.

Fauci then interprets all this by concluding that HIV was being
produced in the lymph nodes and released to the blood, ignoring his
own outline of how the immune system works by trapping and
transporting neutralized virus to the lymph nodes; and his inability to
find any HIV that were not already coated with antibody.

A much more competent paper by Genelabs Technologies of
California and the University of Alabama, which appeared in Science
on March 19, 1993, is the other paper I have heard proponents of
the argument that HIV lurks in the lymph nodes cite. In contrast to
Fauci's paper, it provided hard numbers in an attempt to refute

This study used quantitative PCR to measure levels of actual HIV
expression in the blood, also examining amounts of p24 antigen
[a protein contained in HIV particles] and even infectious virus
itself. It purported to show high levels of HIV shortly after infection,
followed by suppression during the latent period and subsequent
reactivation when the patient reaches terminal AIDS. Was HIV
the cause or a harmless opportunist?

"First of all, the PCR and p24 data showed at best a poor correlation
with the actual number of virus particles. Patients registering high
on these molecular assays often had very little HIV, and vice versa.
Thus only direct measurement of the virus are useful, a point well
worth remembering for many other papers that have used such
artifact-prone methods to claim high levels of HIV in the body."

"Second, this new study revealed a complete absence of HIV while
the patients T cell counts drop. Of the 32 HIV-infected subjects
with no symptoms of early stages of AIDS, having CD4+ T cell
counts ranging from 231 to 1080, 28 had no virus whatsoever, while in the
remaining 4 it was barely detectable. The virus is simply not around while
the immune system undergoes most of its destruction."

"Third, the virus was inconsistently reactivated in patients with full-blown
clinical AIDS or T cell counts below 200. Of these 28 cases, 6 had no
virus at all. Only 6 others had greater than 1 thousand virus particles
per milliliter of blood, and only 2 of those reached a high of 100,000
particles per milliliter. This was an incredible spread of values, meaning
that the virus could return from latency only in a percentage of patients
whose immune systems had already been destroyed. Had HIV done the
damage, it would have been found all along, in all individuals, in extremely
large amounts. Only the 2 patients with the highest levels of the virus
might have qualified; the other 26 did not. The verdict: HIV is merely a
sporadic opportunistic infection."

"The fact that these authors were able to find several patients with
detectable HIV, which contradicts most other studies showing only a
---tiny fraction of infected people with infectious particles, strongly implies
that this group of patients had been carefully selected at the start. The
report failed to describe what risk group they fall into, nor how they were
chosen. In any case, the established scientific literature shows that the
great majority of AIDS patients have no active virus at all."
[all above quotes from "Does HIV lurk in your lymph nodes?", Bryan
J. Ellison, Rethinking AIDS, v 1, #4, April 1993]

>Antibodies do indeed clear it
>from the blood and that's why it's not found in the blood for a variable
>period of several years between initial development of antibodies and
>late-stage disease.

Agreed. This is true for HIV and many other "passenger" and opportunistic
viruses. But the fact that they aren't around when the immune system is
being damaged makes them poor candidates for causal agents. They are
reactivated after the immune system collapses. Reactivation of previously
suppressed latent viruses is a classical result, not a cause, of immune system
collapse. For a virus to be reactivated, the immune system must first be
destroyed by something else-the real cause of a disease.

>However, antibodies just aren't fast enough to provide
>100% protection from transmissions in the lymph nodes.

Not "fast" enough? Care to cite this reference? Fauci couldn't find any
HIV virus that wasn't "coated with proteins" [antibody] in the lymph
nodes. They sound pretty "fast" to me. Textbooks, and Fauci [see above]
recall that the lymph nodes are where neutralized virus are transported,
filtered out and consumed by antibody. Fauci confirmed as much.
If HIV was too "fast" for antibodies "in the lymph nodes", then
Fauci would have found antibody-free virus in the lymph
nodes. And if HIV was too "fast" for antibodies in the
lymph nodes, why wouldn't it be too "fast" for antibody
while circulating in the blood. Where is this reference to
"fast" HIV in the lymph nodes, so I can read what would make
HIV "fast" there, but only 'half-fast' elsewhere? I guess you
are arguing that HIV is a "slow" virus in that disease occurs
only after a latent period that averages 10 years in adults; AND
that it is too "fast" for antibodies in the lymph nodes. So I guess
it's a "fast" slow virus!

>HIV can also jump directly from cell to cell in such a way
>that antibodies aren't very effective.

I'd like to read more about how HIV can "jump directly from cell
to cell" in a manner that renders antibodies ineffective. Especially,
since you yourself mention:

>Antibodies do indeed clear it from the blood
>and that's why it's not found in the blood

Since you mention that the antibodies do indeed clear it
from the blood, does HIV only "jump" in the lymph nodes? So
"fast" HIV lurks in the lymph nodes where it "jumps" from
cell to cell. Facinating. I await your citations with bated breath.

On the subject of citing sources, you mentioned:

>you might not be making elementary errors if you had
>any references less that 6 years old...

I notice you did not cite ANY references. I suppose that entitles
you to criticize my "6 years old" references with impunity? And,
by the way, I cited Duesbergs book, copyrighted 1996, and
A Lancet article from 1992. So get a calculator. And some
manners. I expected better from a contributor to the
Extropian list than the sentence quoted above.

>Pardon my rudeness...

You said it.


Pat Fallon