Re: post mortem HHV6

[Guest guest]

Gail,

Very interesting. I wonder if the new antiviral medication that is coming

out by the end of '00 is going to be effective against HHV6.

Barb

[Guest guest]

Barb, it actually will take a lot less than an antiviral. We've found they

only have to attack the lipid envelope. We're hoping the AIDS world realizes

this and helps to fight the battle!!!

Gail

[Guest guest]

Jerry, HHV-6A has a lipid envelope. So does HIV. With both, attacking the

virus is unnessary. One the evelope has to be attacked. The CDC published

on this in a small magazine years ago but it's never been on Medfile or any

of the others. We got a copy from a researcher who had saved it in his

files. Attacking the lipid envelope is a lot easier to do and so much less

toxic. I don't think that's in the newsletter....there was just too much to

try and get in!

Gail

[Guest guest]

Gail,

Are we talking about the evelope of HHV6A, JHK or something else? I imagine

this will be in the next Forum?

Jerry

----- Original Message -----

From: <GAILRONDA@...>

> Barb, it actually will take a lot less than an antiviral. We've found

they

> only have to attack the lipid envelope. We're hoping the AIDS world

realizes

> this and helps to fight the battle!!!

> Gail

[Guest guest]

Don't I know it, Gail. I'm glad there is once again a newsletter I can look

forward to! There was a time when the Chronicle was something I could look

forward to. Unfortunately it hasn't been that way for a long time and the

Forum is now filling that void.

Jerry

----- Original Message -----

From: <GAILRONDA@...>

.....there was just too much to

> try and get in!

> Gail

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/00 11:09:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, leckie@...

writes:

<< Are you familiar with with the fatty acid 'monolaurin'? It attacks the

lipid

coat of such viruses and is available over the counter from the Vitamin

Shoppe. It is made by Cardiovascular Research. >>

Yes. The CDC actually wrote an article on it years ago that they deep-sixed,

but we got it from a researcher who had it in his files. It's even stronger

when Acetyl-L Carinitine is also used. It seems, though, to merely " disturb "

the envelope but not pierce it, which is better than nothing!

Gail

[Guest guest]

Gail,

Are you familiar with with the fatty acid 'monolaurin'? It attacks the lipid

coat of such viruses and is available over the counter from the Vitamin

Shoppe. It is made by Cardiovascular Research.

Regards, .

Re: post mortem HHV6

> From: GAILRONDA@...

>

> Jerry, HHV-6A has a lipid envelope. So does HIV. With both, attacking

the

> virus is unnessary. One the evelope has to be attacked. The CDC

published

> on this in a small magazine years ago but it's never been on Medfile or

any

> of the others. We got a copy from a researcher who had saved it in his

> files. Attacking the lipid envelope is a lot easier to do and so much

less

> toxic. I don't think that's in the newsletter....there was just too much

to

> try and get in!

> Gail

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/00 5:40:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

sheri.clark@... writes:

<< Does the lipid coat need to be pierced or

just smeared up? I've heard both ways now.

>>

To destroy HHV-6A, you need to pierce it, but disturbing it will inhibit

replication for awhile. It has the uncanny ability to hide really well in

the body so when you turn up negative, you usually aren't!

Gail

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/00 5:50:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

moores@... writes:

<< Gail as long as we are bombarding you -- can any major acedemic hospital

be trusted to do a HHV6 test of spinal fluid? >>

I really don't trust any others right now. Most don't differentiate between

A and B. I don't think there's even a spinal tap test available for us yet.

Viral Pathogenics (http://www.hhv6.com) is working on an easier one, but I'm

sure others are, too.

Gail

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/00 8:27:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

moores@... writes:

<< * I thought ms drs were doing this sort of thing. So are you going to get

on ganicloviar(sp). >>

No, we're paying to have other things tested that will do more. I know of

one patient, really acute, who used the ganciclovir for three weeks, but when

she stopped, she plummeted....and you can't use it all the time. It's too

toxic.

Gail...waiting impatiently!

[Guest guest]

Gail,

Jumping in here for question. Does the lipid coat need to be pierced or

just smeared up? I've heard both ways now.

Thank you, Sheri

[Guest guest]

Gail as long as we are bombarding you -- can any major acedemic hospital be

trusted to do a HHV6 test of spinal fluid?

Steve

[Guest guest]

* I thought ms drs were doing this sort of thing. So are you going to get on

ganicloviar(sp).

Steve

GAILRONDA@... wrote:

> From: GAILRONDA@...

>

> In a message dated 2/3/00 5:50:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> moores@... writes:

>

> << Gail as long as we are bombarding you -- can any major acedemic hospital

> be trusted to do a HHV6 test of spinal fluid? >>

> I really don't trust any others right now. Most don't differentiate between

> A and B. I don't think there's even a spinal tap test available for us yet.

> Viral Pathogenics (http://www.hhv6.com) is working on an easier one, but I'm

> sure others are, too.

> Gail

>

> ---------------------------

[Guest guest]

Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 19:11:01 EST

From: GAILRONDA@...

Subject: Re: post mortem HHV6

<< it actually will take a lot less than an antiviral.

We've found they only have to attack the lipid

envelope.>>

I havent' seen this research yet... Who is the " we "

you speak of trying to attack this lipid envelope ?

Sounds promising!

Best,

Felscher

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/00 4:03:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, cindyfh@...

writes:

<< I havent' seen this research yet... Who is the " we "

you speak of trying to attack this lipid envelope ?

Sounds promising!

Best,

Felscher >>

Nobody has, it seems! The information was really " dug up " by a member of the

board of The National CFIDS Foundation. The way to attack the virus was an

article by the CDC that doesn't appear on Medline, etc. but we found one

researcher who filed it. But, it appears that the government has known for

many years how to attack AIDS to stop it in its tracks and has known for some

time. We even spoke to a researcher who was on a SEC panel (the panel that

advises whether to give a grant to a researcher through the NIH) for AIDS way

back and she said only those working on the HIV link were granted. They knew

then that it wasn't HIV that was the real culprit unless it was activated by

another retrovirus. A lot of this is covered in our latest issue which has

just begun to arrive (yesterday were the first reports).

Gail

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/00 2:33:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

moores@... writes:

<< Often the losers in a scientific debate make claims of suppression, and

conspiracy. When if fact they have just lost in a competitive process. Of

course they think the game was rigged -- they lost.

But if the secret you speak of really existed how would it of evaded the

scrutiny of so many investigative reporters. Having said that the meanness of

academic debates -- the extent they ostracize

those who are the losing side-- can look a little like suppression to the

outside observes. Careers can be ruined, jobs maybe lost, and research go

unfunded. It is a tough competitive process. But

it is not a conspiracy.

>>

Steve, if we ever get a full congressional investigation, rather than the

current GAO one that refuses to even look at our information, there are

researchers willing to testify about CFS. While our material goes into this

area, of course, it also goes into AIDS since we are talking about the exact

same retrovirus and exact same strain. We have no less than 5 individual

researchers willing to testify under oath that they have been threatened by

Uncle Sam. Three have irrefutable proof of this. Another has the backing of

an ex-government worker. None of them have worked together. When we

recieved some of this information, we found it was hiding " in plain sight "

but three days later, it was whisked out of the data base belonging to the

government. We did not take any of this lightly, you can be sure, and sent

several packets to researchers overseas. We've been in contact with quite a

few and, for those who doubt what we've found, which we anticipated, we're

arranging our own small trial with a researcher who will have no idea what he

is testing for (the illness, that is). I've known bits and pieces of this

for years but was shaken to my very core when I realized how high and how

horrible this went. Even those in other countries have had ties to

researchers in the US. A sixth one willing to testify is from Italy and a

seventh one from Germany. We've tried hard not to believe this. I'm sure

Regush did as well.

Gail

[Guest guest]

Gail

I was at the University of Michigan doing a social science post doc back in 1987

when this issue first came to light. I forget the names but one of the major

AIDS researchers was a Michigan and she

was interviewed about this issue in the University faculty paper. As I recall it

was quite well known that a small group (it actually may have been one

individual) did not buy into the HIV

hypothesis. His (an I believe it was a he) views were well known but the were

not accepted by the majority of the researchers in the US and France -- the two

major research center. I am going by my

memory here so I am not claiming to have my facts absolutely correct.

Across all the sciences it is understood that there is not such thing as

absolute objectivity. Indeed science is moves forward when a previously accepted

belief is toppled and a new theory emerges.

Science must therefore be based on intersubjective agreement (the agreement

among the majority of scientist in an area -- just a little more sophisticated

than the term the conventional wisdom). It

seems that in the AIDS research community there was a high degree of

intersubjective agreement that HIV is the most viable target in controlling

AIDS. Naturally there were some who did not share in

this agreement and the ideas of the dissenters were not supported (monetarily or

otherwise). This does not constitute a conspiracy, it constitutes an academic

disagreement.

The government does at times keep secrets. I just read Moynihan

book called " Secrecy " which is a history of how government has kept certain

issues secret in the cold war years.

However when we think of the NIH and the CDC there is no classification system

which would allow for the hiding of information. (Remember it is the CDC which

did the Wichita study that reveal the

scope of the CFS problem) There is however intersubjective agreement on HIV and

the tendency to discount other theories. This is not a conspiracy -- it is the

normal process of competitive science.

I do not know how much truth there is in the alternative AIDS hypothesis.

However given the fact that it is well known (I thought everyone knew about the

alternative hypotheses it has been around

for over 12 years) another research institution, perhaps in another country,

would have picked up on this hypothesis if any critical mass agreed with this

theory.

In an open country with competitive science there are no real conspiracies

rather their are winning and loser (and yes I am aware that a few exceptions to

this such as the experiment with syphilis

in the South). So far the alternative AIDS theory has lost. It is also true that

mainstream science has made reasonable (if not exceptional) in that scientific

battle against AIDS. As far as the

economic and political battle against AIDS is concern that is another matter. In

the US not so bad but in Africa it has been a disaster.

Often the losers in a scientific debate make claims of suppression, and

conspiracy. When if fact they have just lost in a competitive process. Of course

they think the game was rigged -- they lost.

But if the secret you speak of really existed how would it of evaded the

scrutiny of so many investigative reporters. Having said that the meanness of

academic debates -- the extent they ostracize

those who are the losing side-- can look a little like suppression to the

outside observes. Careers can be ruined, jobs maybe lost, and research go

unfunded. It is a tough competitive process. But

it is not a conspiracy.

Steve

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/4/00 5:58:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, KenL@...

writes:

<< But

it is not a conspiracy. >>

Steve, the only advancement made by the NIH that is known publicy besides CBT

is the HTP axix. Demitrack discovered that trying to prove it was all in the

head. When the opposite was found, they refused to publish. Demitrack left.

He spent two years redoing his work at a university. When he submitted for

publication, Straus blocked him, took the old study out, dusted it off, and

published. They gotten smarter since then. But it is not a conspiracy.

Gold's study is listed under CFS funding but the title was secretly changed

to eliminate CFS and it was all on mental illness. No CFS patient was used.

But Grossberg has been funded and his funding refunded, yet his retroviral

studies have not been published since the early 90's. And, although he works

on the retrovirus found in CFS, his work is not mentioned under CFS funding.

But it is not a conspriacy. Perhaps you have another name for the unending

bias at the NIH. Perhaps you know who the " patient advocates " were who

helped to plan the upcoming " state of the science " meeting at the NIH

featuring Straus, Wesseley. and Sharpe. Perhaps it is a mistake that they

funded an immunologist with money to do CBT work. Perhaps it was a mistake

that they funded Barsky and partner for the ls of Medicine article that

called this a " functional somatomization " and then edited the letters to the

editor that will come out on the 15th of this month so much that the authors

want to disown them. But it is not a conspiracy.

Gail

[Guest guest]

Being a Ph.D. candidate before I smartened up and realized that I was not a

" political " , I must completely agree with Steve here. CFIDS is a loosing cause

for NIH and CDC... for example, if long term antibiotics are recognized as

being the correct treatment for 70% of CFIDS patients, antibiotics that have

been available for 40 years.... it is as embarrassing to the medical

establishment as some fake " pre-humoid " fossil were, or suggesting that some

dinosaurs had feathers.... On the otherhand, if it is cured with a new

experimental anti-viral drug than their face is saved. I've seen this

" face-saving-behaviour " when I designed applications for Main-Frame

computers.... it is ugly... and mean.

Ken

----- Original Message -----

From: Dr. Steve

Having said that the meanness of academic debates -- the extent they

ostracize those who are the losing side-- can look a little like suppression to

the outside observes. Careers can be ruined, jobs maybe lost, and research go

unfunded. It is a tough competitive process. But

it is not a conspiracy.

Steve

[Guest guest]

When I spoke of advancements I was referring to AIDS not CFS. I completely agree

that the advocates of CBT are desperately trying to get a hold on CFS. At best

there method has helped some folk

feel marginally better. psychologist routinely over estimate the benefits of

CBT. The originally NIMH studies that compared CBT with imparimine(sp?) showed

that the drug was significantly more

effective than the placebo and the CBT was not. However due to the complex

nature of the study it came out the CBT was not significantly better than the

drug (when I say significant I mean

statistical significant at the .05 level). So CBT was not better than nothing

and drug were better than nothing but CBT was not found to be statistically

different from drugs. It sound confusing

doesn't it.

However whenever one read the psychological literature when they quote the study

they always indicate the CBT was found to be just as effective as drug (in away

they are right) but they never say

that CBT is just as effective as nothing.

My concern is that CFS should not be coupled with the alternative theory of

AIDS. The alliterative theory of AIDS may one day be proven right but I doubt

it. An NO ONE knows for sure that CFS is

caused by HHV6, you might believe it but you don't know it -- hell I will be the

first one to try ProGan when it comes out but that is out of desperation not

knowledge.

The problem with CFS is that it has not yet been studied by the academic medical

centers. This is a very different problem than the AIDS situation which has been

studied in great detail and a

strong majority opinion has been reached. The arrogance of the CBT crowd will

crumble once CFS begins to be studied in academic settings. The Research of the

New Jersey Institute that was funded by

SS has already made an impact on social policy.

This is not to discredit the work of the privateers, such as Cheney, Nicholson

and the like. The academics may find their findings to be critical in an

understanding of CFS.

I think it a great mistake to couple advocatcy regarding CFS research with the

alternative AIDS hypotheses. Research on HHV6 and CFS can be pursued without

this coupling. The research that I have

seen on CBT and CFS is weak and it will crumble on it's own as soon as more

extensive biological research is pursued at academic medical centers.

Steve

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/00 1:19:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

onelist writes:

<< This is not to discredit the work of the privateers, such as Cheney,

Nicholson and the like. The academics may find their findings to be critical

in an understanding of CFS.

>>

Steve and all. It is darn near impossible to be a clinician and do research.

Some-

body has to see patients. The best that clinicians can do is try certain

tests or

therapies on a group of patients to determine it's effectiveness or degree of

predictability.

Mike

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/00 9:06:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ccrane@... writes:

<< Gail,

Does this kind of nonsense go on with other diseases?

>>

Not many of them, but it's more widespread than thought. A lot of people

have told me how they envy the AIDS community being so strong and united. We

had to contact various groups to give them some information and we found out

how very splintered they were! But CFS has been especially bad in the

" nonsense " department.

Gail

[Guest guest]

Gail,

Does this kind of nonsense go on with other diseases?

in North Carolina

> Re: Re: post mortem HHV6

>

>

> From: GAILRONDA@...

>

> In a message dated 2/4/00 5:58:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> KenL@...

> writes:

>

> << But

> it is not a conspiracy. >>

> Steve, the only advancement made by the NIH that is known publicy

> besides CBT

> is the HTP axix. Demitrack discovered that trying to prove it

> was all in the

> head. When the opposite was found, they refused to publish.

> Demitrack left.

> He spent two years redoing his work at a university. When he

> submitted for

> publication, Straus blocked him, took the old study out, dusted

> it off, and

> published. They gotten smarter since then. But it is not a conspiracy.

> Gold's study is listed under CFS funding but the title was

> secretly changed

> to eliminate CFS and it was all on mental illness. No CFS

> patient was used.

> But Grossberg has been funded and his funding refunded, yet his

> retroviral

> studies have not been published since the early 90's. And,

> although he works

> on the retrovirus found in CFS, his work is not mentioned under

> CFS funding.

> But it is not a conspriacy. Perhaps you have another name for

> the unending

> bias at the NIH. Perhaps you know who the " patient advocates " were who

> helped to plan the upcoming " state of the science " meeting at the NIH

> featuring Straus, Wesseley. and Sharpe. Perhaps it is a mistake

> that they

> funded an immunologist with money to do CBT work. Perhaps it was

> a mistake

> that they funded Barsky and partner for the ls of Medicine

> article that

> called this a " functional somatomization " and then edited the

> letters to the

> editor that will come out on the 15th of this month so much that

> the authors

> want to disown them. But it is not a conspiracy.

> Gail

>

> ---------------------------

[Guest guest]

It's also in coconuts.

Phil

Leckie wrote:

> From: " Leckie " <leckie@...>

>

> Gail,

>

> Are you familiar with with the fatty acid 'monolaurin'? It attacks the lipid

> coat of such viruses and is available over the counter from the Vitamin

> Shoppe. It is made by Cardiovascular Research.

>

> Regards, .

>

> Re: post mortem HHV6

>

> > From: GAILRONDA@...

> >

> > Jerry, HHV-6A has a lipid envelope. So does HIV. With both, attacking

> the

> > virus is unnessary. One the evelope has to be attacked. The CDC

> published

> > on this in a small magazine years ago but it's never been on Medfile or

> any

> > of the others. We got a copy from a researcher who had saved it in his

> > files. Attacking the lipid envelope is a lot easier to do and so much

> less

> > toxic. I don't think that's in the newsletter....there was just too much

> to

> > try and get in!

> > Gail

> >

>

> ---------------------------

[Guest guest]

From: " Crane " <ccrane@...>

Does this kind of nonsense go on with other diseases?

[Patti:] MS, GWS, autism, ADD, and adverse vaccine reactions spring to

mind.