Pick up the Kindle version of The Real AIDS Epidemic for free until June 26.
Consider the following article from 1990:
“We find the lesions which are generally called KS in about 95% of AIDS patients,” says Dr. George Hensley, professor in the department of pathology at the University of Miami Medical School, who oversaw the studies. This suggests a remarkably high prevalence rate of a second unknown agent in AIDS patients.
One is driven to wonder whether the researchers might have been correct on the point they have abandoned--that Kaposi’s sarcoma and all the other dismaying symptoms of AIDS do indeed have the same cause--but are wrong in the one that they still cling to: that HIV is the cause of AIDS. To question this has been denounced as heresy. But it was also once heresy to question HIV’s role in Kaposi’s sarcoma.
Kaposi’s sarcoma, once considered the hallmark of HIV AIDS, is now considered to be caused not by HIV any longer, but by a herpes virus?
Given the modes of transmission of herpes viruses, one must logically ask the following question: Do HIV negative AIDS patients exhibit Kaposi’s sarcoma? The answer might surprise you.
Kaposi’s sarcoma among non HIV AIDS patients
More to come very soon on this fascinating subject. Weigh in with your thoughts and questions in the comments.
Pretty amazing that the LA Times would publish such an article in 1990! I wonder what happened to the person who wrote it, and if the Times published some "damage control" soon afterwards. It's also amazing that more HIV/AIDS researchers didn't pick up on this obvious clue that something was seriously flawed with the whole HIV causes AIDS paradigm, considering KS was viewed as a hallmark manifestation of HIV/AIDS throughout the '80's. Shows how deeply entrenched the dogma was.
It seems that Kaposi’s sarcoma was long considered a crucial indicator disease of AIDS cases in the US and Europe.
Can someone explain why KS cases were so rare and unusual in Uganda, Tanzania, Congo and other African countries?