At the bottom of this message, I am attaching a recent study ("WangMedHypothes2010") which lends credence to what the Perth Group have been saying about semen for years. (It is not necessary to believe in the existence of HPV nor in its supposedly destructive powers in order to see the evidence for the harmful effects of semen that is presented in this study.)
The following excerpt from a recent e-mail from the Perth Group provides an excellent summary of the Perth Group's contributions to AIDS discourse, including the data surrounding semen which they have cited and analyzed and how these published data compare to the policies of the Rethinking AIDS Group:
"At the beginning of the AIDS era the Perth Group put forward a theory of AIDS pathogenesis, presented supporting evidence and made predictions. The Perth Group's views have not changed. Most of them, including,
(a) evidence that neither Montagnier nor Gallo isolated 'HIV' from 'fresh AIDS tissues' or from cultures, and thus proved its existence;
(b) evidence that AIDS patients and those at risk are exposed to strong oxidising agents i.e. these individuals will be oxidised;
(c) the relationship between redox and immune deficiency;
(d) the relationship between redox, antibody synthesis and antibody/antigen reactions;
(e) the role of drugs in AIDS and the mechanism (cellular oxidation), that is, the drug theory of AIDS;
(f) semen toxicity, its role in AIDS and its mechanism;
(g) the synergistic effects between semen and drugs;
(h) ways of preventing and treating AIDS;
can be found in: EPE, Reappraisal of AIDS-Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause?, Medical Hypoth. 1988; 25:151-162. Additional data on (f), including
1. semen does not discriminate between the sexes. It is toxic irrespective of where it is deposited, gut or vagina. Although the site may determine different pathological effects.
2. the toxicity of semen is facilitated by gut trauma, drugs, poor nutrition, stress.
3. the toxicity of semen itself in a gay man may turn out not to be much higher than in a woman practising exclusively vaginal intercourse exposed to a similar volume of semen over a similar time.
can be found in E P-E, VT, JP, Kaposi's Sarcoma and HIV. Medical Hypoth. 1992; 39:22-29. You may also like to read Looking Back on the Oxidative Stress Theory of AIDS.
Sometime around the mid 1990s, someone, somehow, changed the name of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis to Rethinking AIDS. RA has been claiming Montagnier proved the existence of HIV, the virus is sexually transmitted, albeit not very efficiently, but is harmless. More recently 'the last two presidents' claimed they showed there is no evidence that proves the existence of HIV. But they also claim Montagnier did prove the existence of a retrovirus, an endogenous retrovirus, although all retrovirologists agree there are no endogenous retroviruses. Neither have they published such evidence.
Now, in its 'new phase' RA lets dissidents know that:
1. Montagnier says 'HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS'.
2. According to RA HIV is a cause of AIDS (please see THIS MESSAGE for more information) and 'Stopping drug use, providing nutritious food, are obvious solutions to obvious problems and a blood test is unlikely to help'. (There is no HIV expert who will not agree that factors other than HIV may cause immune deficiency and AIDS indicator diseases; that HIV needs co-factors, accepted by Gallo in 1986, and that all drugs, recreational, prescription and ART, are toxic).
In other words, in its 'new phase', RA has exchanged position with Montagnier in regard to AIDS pathogenesis. It appears RA is more devoted to Montagnier’s virus than Montagnier is himself.
There are two main differences between the HIV experts and RA.
1. The HIV experts advocate testing. RA states the test for the very virus that is a cause of AIDS, “is unlikely to help”. In fact, RA advises those at risk to boycott the tests.
2. The HIV experts claim AIDS is sexually transmitted. RA states AIDS 'it’s not sexually transmissible' and advise those at risk to ignore safe sex education.
Since RA accepts that HIV is sexually transmitted and is a cause of AIDS, and the scientific literature shows beyond reasonable doubt that sex plays a role in AIDS, RA's advice is not only illogical, it is also grossly negligent. No wonder RA President David Crowe now says 'there is no RA science' and the scope of RA is not to deconstruct the HIV theory of AIDS."
In addition, in his 17-page paper on anal intercourse, openly gay "positive" dissident-and (former?) RA supporter Tony Lance cites the Perth Group's work but then has the gall to carefully cherry pick quotes from the Perth Group, all the while avoiding any mention of semen or condoms!
Lance's theory on anal sex is...ummm... HALF-ASSED because he fails to mention the toxic effects of semen and potential benefits of condom usage. Despite this fact and the fact that it has been very rare historically that an openly gay man would get promoted in RA, Lance and his theory had been promoted within RA by leaders who have repeatedly expressed what I assert is a really clear bias AGAINST condoms. Perhaps Lance has or had a similar bias himself. However, Lance has since experienced "more than a year of significant health challenges" which apparently compelled him to start taking the "anti-HIV" drugs! Also, another big supporter of Lance and his theory was conservative homophobe Henry Bauer who also believes in the Loch Ness monster. YAY! Just what the dissident movement needs-ANOTHER conservative who hates homos, but THIS one believes in NESSIE, too...(sigh)...
I haven't been able to determine if Lance is still held in high esteem by RA and Bauer, nor if Crowe has called Lance "insane", now that Lance has decided to take the "anti-HIV" drugs. For more information on the latest RA dissident supporters to start taking the "anti-HIV" drugs, please see THIS MESSAGE.
The above examples are hardly the first time that the leaders of Rethinking AIDS and the old "Group for Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis" have thought with their penises. Celia Farber and Christine Maggiore, despite being physically attractive, never possessed the intellectual prowess to comprehend the very technical issues which they so often discussed-and which Farber, unfortunately continues to attempt to discuss-in public fora. That never stopped the mostly male, mostly heterosexual leadership of the dissident movement from promoting both of these bimbos, both of whom were die-hard (LITERALLY, in Maggiore's case) Duesberg dittoheads. (see: http://www.tig.org.za/index.php?topic=23.msg31#msg31 for more on this problem).