Rebecca, I can't even begin to estimate how many people likely died from AZT, but I'm sure it's a very large number. Can you propose a methodology for figuring that out? We know some famous cases like Arthur Ashe and Rudolf Nureyev. And a good friend I went to college with died at age 42 in 1990, allegedly of AIDS. He had tested positive in 1988, which he of course viewed as a death sentence. He was in good health and completely asymptomatic when his doctor put him on AZT, and when he kept getting worse and wasting away, his doctor switched him to ddI, and that finished him off.
I don’t have an exact number to throw out, but I would say that between AZT and the Coof vax, Fauci has led more of his fellow citizens to their deaths than any other American, with the possible exceptions of Generals Lee and Grant.
This post is asking the correct correction- how many people were killed (and, or harmed) by AZT? Not in percentages, but In whole numbers that everyone understands.
The "legal" drug industry relies on use of percentages, because they know the typical person has a poor concept of what a percentage represents in lost or damaged lives.
So, for instance, the calculated excess death rate per covid injection was 0.1%, a seemingly tiny percentage, but a percentage which equals some 18 million dead when applied to the total number of covid injection recipients. That 0.1% death risk (1 in 1,000) likely represents the highest risk of death the ordinary person might encounter.
So, of the many hundreds of thousands (or, likely millions) who received AZT treatments, even if a relatively small percentage died, that percentage represents a lot of dead people. And whether that percentage is 0.3% or 4%, that number represents too many dead people ("too many" is more than zero) for any drug "treatment."
Jon Lauritsen called AZT a kind of genocide against gay men. I'm pretty sure that Fredy Mercury was also killed by AZT. Peter Duesberg probably saved a fair number of lives convincing people to get off and stay away from these drugs. Looking at the AIDS deaths per year, it's super clear to me that the situation escalated when the tests were introduced, and then AZT just escalated that. There was also another drug called 3TC around the time that ddI was introduced if I remember correctly. I read somewhere, I think in a Perth Group document, that 3TC actually acted as an antioxidant in some capacity, and offset some of the damage being caused by AZT and ddI, giving the appearance of the drugs having a beneficial effect.
BUT, this entire thing is about toxicology. Experimental vaccines, pharmaceutical treatments for lots of STIs, heavy popper usage, all kinds of street drugs (which I've seen personally in gay party culture), AZT/ddI/3TC, and the mental torment of a flakey antibody test result.
AZT is the big daddy in all this I think. It's like the more the medical system got involved the worse the situation got.
Dunno how many got AZT overdoses. Including global or just western industrialized regions? They were giving to pregnant mothers.
I just ordered your book "The Real AIDS Epidemic..." 2023 edition and look forward to the reading!
For now, I'm still reading this article:
"Genetica 95:111-132,1995. 111
@ 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Five myths about AIDS that have misdirected research and treatment
Robert S. Root-Bernstein
Department of Physiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI48824, USA
Received 15 February 1994 Accepted 14 June 1994"
Root-Bernstein seems to be pondering if it's always been that gay men were at risk of shorter lifespan from getting too many chronic autoimmune problems arising from too many alloantigenic semen injections but that this phenomenon went unnoticed until the novel life-style innovations of the 1970's drastically accelerated the health problems; on the other hand, Duesberg seems to be saying that it's not the condoms that are critical to preventing AIDS because it's just "a passenger virus" but rather the important thing is to avoid the immunosuppressive freak-off life-style. So is this why Duesberg was so ostracized, because of downplaying the condom factor?
Neither of them saying: 'don't take the pills if you get the lymphopenia' but seems that maybe some male couples should know if they're HLA compatible before injecting one another all night long in the bathouse, especially if the 3 letter agencies are testing out their immunosuppressive (or immunostimulatory?) poisons by spiking the pink cocaine and/or the lube.
Here, according to Volberding, et al, by 1990 they preferred 500 mg/day AZT, they figured out that 1500 mg/day was too much:
Zidovudine in Asymptomatic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection — A Controlled Trial in Persons with Fewer Than 500 CD4-Positive Cells per Cubic Millimeter
Published April 5, 1990 N Engl J Med 1990;322:941-949 VOL. 322 NO. 14
"Compliance with Study Medication
Adherence to the protocol of the study medication was assessed by evaluations of serum zidovudine levels and mean corpuscular volume of erythrocytes. When the 371 valid assays made after base line were analyzed, 9 percent of the samples from the placebo recipients were reported to contain zidovudine. After adjustment for the time since the previous dose, zidovudine was found in 84 percent and 79 percent of the samples from the 500-mg and 1500-mg zidovudine groups, respectively."
But there are a lot of guys these days engaged in significant sexual escapades involving 'allogenic stimulation' that aren't getting sick. Something unique was happening back in the late 70s and early 80s. EVEN SO, if you look back at the total pool of gay men in the major urban areas where they were concentrating, it was a VERY small percent who got sick and died. The medical system focused on those and turned it into a monster of a situation.
Thanks Christoph., you're comments are helping me understand better.
1) I concur that it had to be that one or more aphrodisiac items was spiked with immunosuppressive stuff, or maybe it's enuf that the amyl/butyl nitrate 'poppers' exacerbates any untoward 'allogenic stimulation'.
In any case, 'allogenic stimulation' idea makes more sense to me than 'virus'.
2) Rebecca uses the term 'proto-AIDS' to refer to the exotic presentations of this initial era, late 1970's to late 1980's, and certainly then 'proto-AIDS' seems like an appropriate turn of phrase to emphasize the remarkable shift in symptomatology over the years.
Were people really showing up at the ER with 'gay cancer' back then. or was it all scaremongering?
3) The doctors saying that nowadays 'the virus naturally mutated into a less infectious, less virulent form' and so that's their explanation, in addition to saying testing & condoms keep the numbers down.
4) If the basic etiology is some kind of 'allogenic antigen exposure' then that suggests how do manage the research using all kinds of easy to acquire animal models to explore the true causative factors and modes of causation vs transmission.
5) For some reason, I can't locate charts of the annual statistics for all these parameters such as CD4 levels & PCR results & HIV serology when gathered from a random population compared to specific cohorts. Seems like such straightforward & critical data should be readily available, but could be I just don't know where to look.
6) Now, there's other ways to try to get an objective assessment, for example is there a long waiting time to get appointments in these places or are the clinics closing shop? Are they hiring new employees? How do they pay the bills if nobody is seeking treatment?
"37 AIDS Centers in New York
Designated AIDS Centers (DACs) are state-certified, hospital-based programs that serve as the hubs for a continuum of hospital and community-based care for persons with HIV infection and AIDS. The Centers provide state-of-the-art, multi-disciplinary inpatient and outpatient care coordinated through hospital-based case management. DACs with pediatric and obstetrical departments also provide specialized HIV care to infants, children, and pregnant women."
Hope it's not too many questions. I have even more but don't wanna strain your patience. Many thanks in advance!
"the results were so “miraculous”—19 died in the placebo group, versus only 1 in the AZT group. But of course, as we also know, clinical trial results have a strange habit of dissipating when the medication being trialed is released into the wild (hello, mRNA vaccines)."
IIRC, Duesberg claimed that the reason why the trial made AZT seem so beneficial was because the people who were receiving it didn't like its side-effects, whereas the people in the placebo group knew they weren't getting it, and desperately wanted it. Apparently you can tell by the taste. I can look up that passage and quote it here if you don't have his book.
People in the 'treatment' arm were also receiving blood transfusions from doctors who quickly realized they were on AZT, whereas the guys taking AZT under the table didn't have that benefit. The whole phase II trials were a sham of science.
Rebecca, I can't even begin to estimate how many people likely died from AZT, but I'm sure it's a very large number. Can you propose a methodology for figuring that out? We know some famous cases like Arthur Ashe and Rudolf Nureyev. And a good friend I went to college with died at age 42 in 1990, allegedly of AIDS. He had tested positive in 1988, which he of course viewed as a death sentence. He was in good health and completely asymptomatic when his doctor put him on AZT, and when he kept getting worse and wasting away, his doctor switched him to ddI, and that finished him off.
I don’t have an exact number to throw out, but I would say that between AZT and the Coof vax, Fauci has led more of his fellow citizens to their deaths than any other American, with the possible exceptions of Generals Lee and Grant.
This post is asking the correct correction- how many people were killed (and, or harmed) by AZT? Not in percentages, but In whole numbers that everyone understands.
The "legal" drug industry relies on use of percentages, because they know the typical person has a poor concept of what a percentage represents in lost or damaged lives.
So, for instance, the calculated excess death rate per covid injection was 0.1%, a seemingly tiny percentage, but a percentage which equals some 18 million dead when applied to the total number of covid injection recipients. That 0.1% death risk (1 in 1,000) likely represents the highest risk of death the ordinary person might encounter.
So, of the many hundreds of thousands (or, likely millions) who received AZT treatments, even if a relatively small percentage died, that percentage represents a lot of dead people. And whether that percentage is 0.3% or 4%, that number represents too many dead people ("too many" is more than zero) for any drug "treatment."
Jon Lauritsen called AZT a kind of genocide against gay men. I'm pretty sure that Fredy Mercury was also killed by AZT. Peter Duesberg probably saved a fair number of lives convincing people to get off and stay away from these drugs. Looking at the AIDS deaths per year, it's super clear to me that the situation escalated when the tests were introduced, and then AZT just escalated that. There was also another drug called 3TC around the time that ddI was introduced if I remember correctly. I read somewhere, I think in a Perth Group document, that 3TC actually acted as an antioxidant in some capacity, and offset some of the damage being caused by AZT and ddI, giving the appearance of the drugs having a beneficial effect.
BUT, this entire thing is about toxicology. Experimental vaccines, pharmaceutical treatments for lots of STIs, heavy popper usage, all kinds of street drugs (which I've seen personally in gay party culture), AZT/ddI/3TC, and the mental torment of a flakey antibody test result.
AZT is the big daddy in all this I think. It's like the more the medical system got involved the worse the situation got.
Dunno how many got AZT overdoses. Including global or just western industrialized regions? They were giving to pregnant mothers.
I just ordered your book "The Real AIDS Epidemic..." 2023 edition and look forward to the reading!
For now, I'm still reading this article:
"Genetica 95:111-132,1995. 111
@ 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Five myths about AIDS that have misdirected research and treatment
Robert S. Root-Bernstein
Department of Physiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI48824, USA
Received 15 February 1994 Accepted 14 June 1994"
Root-Bernstein seems to be pondering if it's always been that gay men were at risk of shorter lifespan from getting too many chronic autoimmune problems arising from too many alloantigenic semen injections but that this phenomenon went unnoticed until the novel life-style innovations of the 1970's drastically accelerated the health problems; on the other hand, Duesberg seems to be saying that it's not the condoms that are critical to preventing AIDS because it's just "a passenger virus" but rather the important thing is to avoid the immunosuppressive freak-off life-style. So is this why Duesberg was so ostracized, because of downplaying the condom factor?
Neither of them saying: 'don't take the pills if you get the lymphopenia' but seems that maybe some male couples should know if they're HLA compatible before injecting one another all night long in the bathouse, especially if the 3 letter agencies are testing out their immunosuppressive (or immunostimulatory?) poisons by spiking the pink cocaine and/or the lube.
Here, according to Volberding, et al, by 1990 they preferred 500 mg/day AZT, they figured out that 1500 mg/day was too much:
Zidovudine in Asymptomatic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection — A Controlled Trial in Persons with Fewer Than 500 CD4-Positive Cells per Cubic Millimeter
Published April 5, 1990 N Engl J Med 1990;322:941-949 VOL. 322 NO. 14
"Compliance with Study Medication
Adherence to the protocol of the study medication was assessed by evaluations of serum zidovudine levels and mean corpuscular volume of erythrocytes. When the 371 valid assays made after base line were analyzed, 9 percent of the samples from the placebo recipients were reported to contain zidovudine. After adjustment for the time since the previous dose, zidovudine was found in 84 percent and 79 percent of the samples from the 500-mg and 1500-mg zidovudine groups, respectively."
"f u cn rd ths, u cn bcm a sec & gt a gd jb"
But there are a lot of guys these days engaged in significant sexual escapades involving 'allogenic stimulation' that aren't getting sick. Something unique was happening back in the late 70s and early 80s. EVEN SO, if you look back at the total pool of gay men in the major urban areas where they were concentrating, it was a VERY small percent who got sick and died. The medical system focused on those and turned it into a monster of a situation.
Thanks Christoph., you're comments are helping me understand better.
1) I concur that it had to be that one or more aphrodisiac items was spiked with immunosuppressive stuff, or maybe it's enuf that the amyl/butyl nitrate 'poppers' exacerbates any untoward 'allogenic stimulation'.
In any case, 'allogenic stimulation' idea makes more sense to me than 'virus'.
2) Rebecca uses the term 'proto-AIDS' to refer to the exotic presentations of this initial era, late 1970's to late 1980's, and certainly then 'proto-AIDS' seems like an appropriate turn of phrase to emphasize the remarkable shift in symptomatology over the years.
Were people really showing up at the ER with 'gay cancer' back then. or was it all scaremongering?
3) The doctors saying that nowadays 'the virus naturally mutated into a less infectious, less virulent form' and so that's their explanation, in addition to saying testing & condoms keep the numbers down.
Does anybody use these?
https://www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/how-accurate-self-testing-home-testing-hiv
4) If the basic etiology is some kind of 'allogenic antigen exposure' then that suggests how do manage the research using all kinds of easy to acquire animal models to explore the true causative factors and modes of causation vs transmission.
5) For some reason, I can't locate charts of the annual statistics for all these parameters such as CD4 levels & PCR results & HIV serology when gathered from a random population compared to specific cohorts. Seems like such straightforward & critical data should be readily available, but could be I just don't know where to look.
6) Now, there's other ways to try to get an objective assessment, for example is there a long waiting time to get appointments in these places or are the clinics closing shop? Are they hiring new employees? How do they pay the bills if nobody is seeking treatment?
"37 AIDS Centers in New York
Designated AIDS Centers (DACs) are state-certified, hospital-based programs that serve as the hubs for a continuum of hospital and community-based care for persons with HIV infection and AIDS. The Centers provide state-of-the-art, multi-disciplinary inpatient and outpatient care coordinated through hospital-based case management. DACs with pediatric and obstetrical departments also provide specialized HIV care to infants, children, and pregnant women."
Hope it's not too many questions. I have even more but don't wanna strain your patience. Many thanks in advance!
"the results were so “miraculous”—19 died in the placebo group, versus only 1 in the AZT group. But of course, as we also know, clinical trial results have a strange habit of dissipating when the medication being trialed is released into the wild (hello, mRNA vaccines)."
IIRC, Duesberg claimed that the reason why the trial made AZT seem so beneficial was because the people who were receiving it didn't like its side-effects, whereas the people in the placebo group knew they weren't getting it, and desperately wanted it. Apparently you can tell by the taste. I can look up that passage and quote it here if you don't have his book.
People in the 'treatment' arm were also receiving blood transfusions from doctors who quickly realized they were on AZT, whereas the guys taking AZT under the table didn't have that benefit. The whole phase II trials were a sham of science.
I believe John Lauritsen spoke of roughly 100,000?
My BFF was a victim of AZT cancer 😢🙏
I can’t bring myself to “like” this comment. I’m so sorry for your loss. That’s awful.