4 thoughts on “Mighty Monty – A House of Numbers Special

  1. I think Djamel Tahi makes important points here:
    http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Content/QA/tabid/169/Default.aspx

    “…It is very regrettable that Brent Leung, the young American film director who recorded Professor Montagnier’s words, did not encourage him to reveal what was behind such assertions. On what scientific studies are they based? Have those studies been published anywhere? We want to know if those people, whose “good” immune system has been able to eliminate the virus, still had traces of the infection. If so and if we believe that Professor Montagnier’s assertions are right, there would therefore be millions of HIV–positive people around the world, living in a state of perpetual anxiety of developing AIDS even though they do not have the virus in their bodies! A good many of them follow a treatment whose side effects are extremely toxic and can be detrimental to their health. This information is crucial, and the people who are concerned should be immediately informed so that they are aware of the virus’ harmlessness and can stop their treatment as quickly as possible. But what should then be the clinical and biological standards that could allow the determination of whether an infection has actually been neutralized and the virus suppressed? If, on the contrary, these people are HIV–antibody–negative (which should be, to say the least, very surprising), how is it possible to prove they’ve been in contact with the virus if it has not left any trace of its brief stay?

    As we clearly see, this statement by Professor Montagnier is far from being insignificant and casts a serious doubt on many aspects of the AIDS research, such as the syndrome’s pathogenesis and aetiology to start with.


    In his answer to the [NEXUS] magazine, Luc Montagnier declared that his words had been “taken out of context” and that those people, he was actually referring to, had actually been only transitively HIV–positive for a few months before turning HIV–negative again.

    Quite obviously, Luc Montagnier hasn’t got any scientific argument to support what he says. Or maybe he cannot reveal his data! For, if he did, the HIV discoverer would once and for all topple into to the Dissidents’ camp. For these, the French virologist’s remarks are a pure delight, as they see (again) in him a weighty ally against a scientific community that always reviled them. But, instead of considering him as being one of theirs, a searcher who has always been ready to change his mind, Dissidents should expose Professor Montagnier’s attitude as well as his lack of conviction regarding the role really played by “his” virus in the syndrome. A virus, whose isolation and characterization, as bio–physicist Eleni Papadopulos–Eleopulos revealed it, remain very questionable. This has brought Eleni Papadopulos and other dissidents to question HIV’s very existence. For their part, leaders of mainstream AIDS research have got used to ignoring the French virologist’s statements whenever they contradicted the established dogma. In the past, their criticisms would limit themselves to cliches, claiming that Luc Montagnier was responsible for his own speech and claiming that they have better things to do in fighting the plague than argue with Montagnier. However, there always has been some kind of embarrassment regarding the former Pasteur Institute’s researcher and his latest statement will only increase their unease.

    That is why, today, Professor Montagnier’s remarks have lead to the urgent need for clarification of his position regarding the causation of AIDS. This is the least we have every right to expect from a Nobel Prize laureate in Medicine.

    Djamel Tahi “

  2. Sadun,

    Some of the comments you make are puzzlements: “In his answer to the [NEXUS] magazine, Luc Montagnier declared that his words had been “taken out of context” and that those people, he was actually referring to, had actually been only transitively HIV–positive for a few months before turning HIV–negative again.”

    Only “transitively HIV-positive?” What in the world does that mean, from a mainstream point of view?

    Dr. M’s complete quote:

    “My statement—taken out of its context in a film that glorifies the “Dissidents” and posted on Internet by a website that is searching for polemical debate—is based on observations I made while I was director of the Centre of reference on AIDS virology at the Pasteur Institute: we actually met several cases of persons being transitively HIV–positive for a few months and then turning HIV–negative again.”

    Persons going from positive to negative. It’s only “transitive” because it REVERSED. Indeed, should we not expect that most ANYONE should be able to reproduce this same trick, if given the opportunity (and anti-oxidants)? Please have a look through the many studies in which AIDS patients remained in good health, reducing “viral load,” etc, essentially by having enough vitamins (call it eating well, taking anti-oxidants, whatever). It adds up to the same thing – a highly treatable, multi-factorial, non-fatal condition.

    http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/RoleOfNutrition.html

    And from my report on the ICC orphanage:
    http://reducetheburden.org/?p=214

    A 1994 study in the journal Journal of Infectious Diseases found that “The risk of death among HIV-infected subjects with adequate serum vitamin A levels was 78% less, when compared with Vitamin A-deficient subjects.” (J.IF 1994; 171: 1196-1202).

    A 1993 study in the journal of AIDS found that vitamin A supplementation increased T Cells and reduced predicted progression to illness in AIDS HIV positive men:

    “Among well nourished HIV seropositive men who participated in the San Francisco Men’s Health Study, high energy-adjusted vitamin A intake at baseline was associated with higher CD4 cell count at baseline, as well as with lower risk of developing AIDS during the 6 year period follow up” (J.AIDS 1993; 6: 94)

    Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, published in the journal Epidemiology noted that better nutritional status equaled better health and prognosis in HIV positive individuals:

    “HIV infection may be modified by nutritional status…Numerous observational studies report inverse association between vitamin status…and the risk of disease progression or vertical transmission.” (Epidemiology 1998; 9: 457-466).

    The study also reported that antibody and PCR tests in pregnant women are also positively affected by basic nutritional supplementation:

    “Adequate vitamin status may also reduce vertical transmission through the intra-partum and breastfeeding routes by reducing HIV viral load in lower genital secretions and breast milk.” (ibid)

    The study concludes: “Vitamin supplements may be one of the few potential treatments that are inexpensive enough to be made available to HIV-infected persons in developing countries.” (Epidemiology 1998; 9: 457-466).

    Increased health, Increased T Cells, significant decreases in mortality – and beta-carotene is cheap. Other vitamins including B, C and E have also proven clinically effective in improving the health of HIV-positive and AIDS patients.

  3. Comments on Montagnier’s answer to NEXUS Magazine

    In January 2010 NEXUS magazine published a response by Montagnier about an article written by Djamel Tahi. “VIH: les contradictions du Pr. Montagnier” and statements Montagnier made in regard to an unedited excerpt from Brent Leung’s film House of Numbers which can be viewed HERE.


    Montagnier

    “My statement—taken out of its context in a film that glorifies the “Dissidents” and posted on Internet by a website that is searching for polemical debate—is based on observations I made while I was director of the Centre of reference on AIDS virology at the Pasteur Institute: we actually met several cases of persons being transitively HIV–positive for a few months and then turning HIV–negative again.

    This is difficult to detect, keeping count of the furtive nature of the infection, but, when applied to AIDS, it simply reflects a general phenomenon that can be found in many viral infections: under the effect of a good immune response, these will disappear after a few weeks.

    In the case of HIV, this explains the enormous disparity of prevalence between the North (0,1% in our countries) and the South (5 to 10% in Africa). In southern areas, for a lot of reasons (such as co–infections or malnutrition), the immune system of many Africans is weakened and allows chronic infection to HIV.

    These cases of people being transitively HIV–positive do not minimize the dangerous nature of HIV, which remains the key factor in the onset of AIDS, but they suggest that a regression of the epidemic can be obtained in Africa by taking general health measures”.

    Perth Group Response:

    According to the HIV theory of AIDS healthy people with competent immune systems (normal levels of T4 cells) get infected with HIV and this infection causes the acquired immune deficiency (AID=low T4 cell count) that leads to AIDS. However, Montagnier says that people with competent immune systems get rid of HIV within a few weeks. In other words only people with immune deficiency develop what he labels as “chronic” HIV infection. If the people who get infected with HIV are already immune suppressed then what is the role of HIV in AIDS?

    According to all the HIV experts, once infected with a retrovirus, always infected. This is because the retroviral RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA which is then incorporated into the host genome (DNA). Once in the host DNA it cannot be removed by any means. This is why HIV infection is incurable. As retrovirologist Harold Varmus said in 1998, “Trying to rid the body of a virus whose genome is incorporated into the host genome may be impossible”. So Montagnier has to explain how “general health measures”, which we assume equate to clean water, sanitation, a good diet and medical services, are able to excise approximately 9 thousand specific bases from the human genome while managing to leave all the rest intact.

    If general health measures can remove these particular 9 Kbases after “a few weeks” then why not also after a few months? Or twelve months? Or twelve years?

    If general health measures, which have no toxicities, can remove the HIV DNA, why are doctors using ARVs with all their toxicities? And why are millions of dollars being spent on vaccine research?

    The Perth Group

    January 26th 2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *