RA board member Charles Geshekter tries outsmarting the Perth Group concerning the oxidative nature of semen, and gets smartly sorted out

From: Val Turner

Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 12:49 PM

Subject: RE: Semen and AIDS

Dear Charles,

It's a pleasure to hear from you again.  Not much has changed in Perth since you were here.  Just a few more people and a lot less money in the state coffers.

Here are our answers to your questions.  They are written under the questions in bold.

Regards,

Eleni and Val

 

Dear Val:

I read with great interest your post regarding the possible role of semen as a causative agent or a "non-infectious agent" in AIDS cases.

Because this matter is of importance to my own work-in-progress regarding HIV/AIDS in Africa, I would like to pose some questions here and trust that you will be able to provide me with clarifications and suggestions.

1) When you indicate that semen is a causative agent or non-infectious agent in AIDS cases, are you referring to its potency and effectiveness when received orally by gay men and by heterosexual women alike?

We have not said that oral semen in men or women contributes to or is the cause of AIDS.  Neither has anyone else.  However, since semen is toxic one can expect large amounts of orally deposited semen (it's the dose that counts), to have at least some localised effects. 

If not, then what would you suggest is the basis for swallowed semen having a different effect on gay men than on heterosexual women?

2) When you indicate that semen is a causative agent or non-infectious agent in AIDS cases, are you referring to its potency and effectiveness when received anally by gay men and by heterosexual women alike?

Yes.

 If not, then what would you suggest is the basis for semen deposited in a heterosexual woman's anus as having a different effect than on gay men?

3) I am not certain what the sexuality literature for Australia suggests on this point, but major studies on the USA suggest that between 11-13% of all heterosexual adult women prefer anal penetration and ejaculation to vaginal penetration and ejaculation. What is hard to explain are the vanishingly tiny number of heterosexual, non-injection drug using female cases of AIDS in San Francisco - the cumulative total over 28 years is 302, or roughly 11 per year. And that cumulative total of 302 is always qualified with an asterisk linked to the disclaimer that the number "includes persons who have had heterosexual contact with a person with HIV/AIDS or with a person who is at risk for HIV."

"And that cumulative total of 302 is always qualified with an asterisk linked to the disclaimer..."

Why is it a disclaimer?

We see that Christian has commented on the rest of this paragraph. 

[Dear Charles,

I don't want to get into the debate of whether or not anal intercourse could be causative to HIV and/or Aids.

However  it is important to keep in mind that sperms are potent antigens and induce the production of antibodies in the recipient.

The anal mucosa is much thinner as compared to the vaginal wall. This could explain why anal receptive intercourse would led more frequently to an antibody reaction to sperms as compared to vaginal intercourse. Furthermore my understanding of the epidemiological aspects of what is called HIV/Aids is mainly focused on those group of the homosexual population that has an extensive sex life and a high number of sexual partners. The exposure to many different antigens and the production of antibodies against each of them might explain a positive HIV test result in these men. This would also explain why women having receptive anal intercourse (with fewer partners) are far less likely to test positive. 

all the best

Christian]

If you want more information may we suggest you read our papers especially 

 1. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. Reappraisal of AIDS: Is the oxidation caused by the risk factors the primary cause? Med Hypotheses 1988;25:151-162. http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/reappraisalofaids.html

2. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. Looking back on the oxidative stress theory of AIDS. Continuum 1998;5:30-35. http://theperthgroup.com/CONTINUUM/lookingback.html

3. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF. Deconstructing AIDS in Africa. The Independent Monthly 1994:50-51. http://theperthgroup.com/POPPAPERS/IndependentMonthly.pdf

4. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF. Reconstructing AIDS in Africa-Reply to Kaldor and Ashton. The Independent Monthly 1995;Feburary:23-24. http://theperthgroup.com/POPPAPERS/IndependentMonthly.pdf

5. Papadopulos-Eleopopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Bialy H. AIDS in Africa: Distinguishing fact and fiction. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 1995;11:135-143. http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/africafactandfiction.html

6. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Kaposi's sarcoma and HIV. Med Hypotheses 1992;39:22-9. http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/ks.html

7. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Alfonso H, Page BAP, Causer D, et al. Mother to Child Transmission of HIV and its Prevention with ATZ and Nevirapine. Perth: The Perth Group, 2001.

Also see our criticism of the The AIDS Trap Edition 1 (as far as we can tell) in the attached file. 

Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5 may especially help your WIP regarding AIDS in Africa.  These are not long or difficult. 

4) In her book Inventing AIDS (1990), Cindy Patton pinpointed an unresolved cross-cultural and cross-gender paradox that takes us back to the three questions and observations listed above. Patton stated: 

"The attempt on the part of [HIV/AIDS] researchers was clearly to reconcile cultural anxieties and stereotypes with certain curiosities in their own data. Their efforts were directed toward explaining how in the West and among whites, active homosexuals passed the virus to passive homosexuals, while in Africa and among prostitutes and people of color in the U.S., women engaging in anal intercourse passed the virus to heterosexual men. The collision of homophobia and racism provided the anus with a curious but pivotal gender: the female anus was thought capable of doing what the male anus was not."

We all know the  male and female anus are not different.   There is no "unresolved cross-cultural and cross-gender paradox" here.  The only unresolved problem is the misinterpretation of the scientific evidence. 

 Any ideas about how to resolve these curious conundrums will be much appreciated.

With pleasure Charles.  Start by getting rid of the beloved virus.   Or at least try to explain the epidemiology -- which means find a plausible causative factor that fits the epidemiology.  See our response to The AIDS Trap if you're not familiar with these data.

At some stage the dissidents will have to deal with and resolve these problems.   That is, "the virus" and the epidemiology.   Totally devoid of obfuscations.  The sooner the better. 

Best regards,

Charles Geshekter