LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  February 2007

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE February 2007

Subject:

Re: Does HIV cause AIDS?

From:

Mandi Smallhorne <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:45:51 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (532 lines)

A correction: I specifically did not say that 'AZT is very dangerous' which
you have inferred from my post, merely that drug therapy has moved on. Just
as oncology treatment has moved on from the blunt instrument it once was, to
using more targeted therapies that are more effective. All drugs are
dangerous in varying degrees - one of our local medical gurus says "all
drugs are poisons with beneficial side-effects". They are therefore to be
taken with caution, but used without fear when appropriate.
I and many another in my country who write and work in this field have this
approach: do all you can to stave off progression to full-blown AIDS through
'natural' means (diet, exercise, lifestyle changes, supplements) but turn to
the drugs when this measures alone are no longer working. This is remarkably
effective; I know at least three people personally who managed to live
productively and well for around twenty years post-diagnosis by taking this
approach. But in all three cases, the full-blown disease eventually reared
its head; all three have started taking a conservative drug regime, which
has helped them revert to better health.
The issue here in the south of Africa is that very few of the infected can
afford the lifestyle lived by the three examples mentioned here. I recently
saw a survey of the diet of a squatter camp/favela/ informal settlement
close to me: the last (main) meal eaten by the bulk of the residents was
recorded as 'pap' (a maize meal porridge) or 'pap and cabbage'. It is more
effective, as a matter of public health policy, to provide drug intervention
(and work on the social issues) than encourage people to regard the drugs as
poisons (as Rath does).
Finally, my attitude towards 'alternative' therapies is not unequivocally
positive, but rather driven by evidence that is being gathered of certain
limited areas where certain treatments are effective. Perhaps that's why I
haven't been 'attacked'?
Mandi

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitchel Cohen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Does HIV cause AIDS?


I really had no intention of posting any of the
thousands of articles critical of the prevailing
HIV causes AIDS paradigm, when we began arguing
over Marxists and the Environment. I've only
posted a couple of them now to show how and why
doubt over that paradigm is not irrational and,
often, well-founded. Which is why I wrote that I
don't know if HIV is the Cause of AIDS, a
statement that Michael Balter could not accept.
Mocking someone and trying to impose one's view
on them is guaranteed to prevent any real
discussion of or movement on these issues.

I appreciated Mandi's post and learn from it. I
note that no one on this listserve has yet
condemned her for her acknowledgment that AZT was
indeed very dangerous (at least that's how I
interpret her statement that no one there is
using it anymore), and for her willingness to
hold out some hope for innovative acupuncture and
homeopathy treatments. They leave that for their
attacks on Jonathan and myself, when we raise
acupuncture and homeopathy as valid treatments
with very long pedigrees involving large numbers
of people. I note that Michael Balter, on the
other hand, was very much a proponent of AZT --
especially for pregnant women -- and used the
same arguments to advocate its widespread use in
Africa in the 1990s, including denunciation of
those who disagreed with him (and who were proven
correct, in my view), that he is using today for
the new drugs (but same methodology).

The only reason that the question, Does HIV cause
AIDS? even matter any more, except for the
historical record, is because U.S. technologists
are putting almost all their funds into devising
pharmaceutical approaches for attacking the virus
and its methods of reproduction and transmission
as a means of thwarting AIDS, and almost no money
into nutritional, environmental and other factors
and are thus contributing to so many unnecessary deaths.

Mitchel Cohen



At 06:40 AM 2/16/2007, you wrote:
>By the way, many here many be familiar with
>NIAID's detailed fact sheet on the evidence that
>HIV is the cause of AIDS, but just in case I am
>posting it here. I think it does the job nicely.
>
><http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm>http://www.niaid.nih.gov/f
actsheets/evidhiv.htm
>
>I am sure that Mitchel, and Jonathan when he
>returns, will continue to trot out every bit of
>AIDS-related nonsense they can find. I hope that
>I have not joined a list devoted to discussing
>fringe ideas, because there are a lot of
>legitimate issues relating to science and
>society that could and should be discussed. Eg,
>getting AIDS drugs to impoverished parts of the
>world is a critically important issue given the
>death rates in Africa and elsewhere, as is
>preventing the spread of the epidemic, and there
>the pharmaceutical companies and the Bush
>administration have a lot to answer for.
>
>  There do seem to be some sane voices here, so perhaps there is hope.
>
>MB
>
>
>On 2/16/07, Mitchel Cohen
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>The leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the U.S. in
>the last few years has been liver failure, not an
>AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an
>acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors,
>which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years.
>
>********************
>Why I Quit HIV
>
>by Rebecca V. Culshaw
>rebeccavculshaw (at) <http://yahoo.com>yahoo.com
>
>As I write this, in the late winter of 2006, we
>are more than twenty years into the AIDS era.
>Like many, a large part of my life has been
>irreversibly affected by AIDS. My entire
>adolescence and adult life  as well as the lives
>of many of my peers  has been overshadowed by
>the belief in a deadly, sexually transmittable
>pathogen and the attendant fear of intimacy and
>lack of trust that belief engenders.
>
>To add to this impact, my chosen career has
>developed around the HIV model of AIDS. I
>received my Ph.D. in 2002 for my work
>constructing mathematical models of HIV
>infection, a field of study I entered in 1996.
>Just ten years later, it might seem early for me
>to be looking back on and seriously reconsidering
>my chosen field, yet here I am.
>
>My work as a mathematical biologist has been
>built in large part on the paradigm that HIV
>causes AIDS, and I have since come to realize
>that there is good evidence that the entire basis
>for this theory is wrong. AIDS, it seems, is not
>a disease so much as a sociopolitical construct
>that few people understand and even fewer
>question. The issue of causation, in particular,
>has become beyond question  even to bring it up is deemed irresponsible.
>
>Why have we as a society been so quick to accept
>a theory for which so little solid evidence
>exists? Why do we take proclamations by
>government institutions like the NIH and the CDC,
>via newscasters and talk show hosts, entirely on
>faith? The average citizen has no idea how weak
>the connection really is between HIV and AIDS,
>and this is the manner in which scientifically
>insupportable phrases like "the AIDS virus" or
>"an AIDS test" have become part of the common
>vernacular despite no evidence for their accuracy.
>
>When it was announced in 1984 that the cause of
>AIDS had been found in a retrovirus that came to
>be known as HIV, there was a palpable panic. My
>own family was immediately affected by this
>panic, since my mother had had several blood
>transfusions in the early 1980s as a result of
>three late miscarriages she had experienced. In
>the early days, we feared mosquito bites,
>kissing, and public toilet seats. I can still
>recall the panic I felt after looking up in a
>public restroom and seeing some graffiti that
>read "Do you have AIDS yet? If not, sit on this toilet seat."
>
>But I was only ten years old then, and over time
>the panic subsided to more of a dull roar as it
>became clear that AIDS was not as easy to "catch"
>as we had initially believed. Fear of going to
>the bathroom or the dentist was replaced with a
>more realistic wariness of having sex with anyone
>we didn't know really, really well. As a teenager
>who was in no way promiscuous, I didn't have much to worry about.
>
>That all changed  or so I thought  when I was
>twenty-one. Due to circumstances in my personal
>life and a bit of paranoia that (as it turned
>out, falsely and completely groundlessly) led me
>to believe I had somehow contracted "AIDS," I got
>an HIV test. I spent two weeks waiting for the
>results, convinced that I would soon die, and
>that it would be "all my fault." This was despite
>the fact that I was perfectly healthy, didn't use
>drugs, and wasn't promiscuous  low-risk by any
>definition. As it happened, the test was
>negative, and, having felt I had been granted a
>reprieve, I vowed not to take more risks, and to quit worrying so much.
>
>Over the past ten years, my attitude toward HIV
>and AIDS has undergone a dramatic shift. This
>shift was catalyzed by the work I did as a
>graduate student, analyzing mathematical models
>of HIV and the immune system. As a mathematician,
>I found virtually every model I studied to be
>unrealistic. The biological assumptions on which
>the models were based varied from author to
>author, and this made no sense to me. It was
>around this time, too, that I became increasingly
>perplexed by the stories I heard about long-term
>survivors. From my admittedly inexpert viewpoint,
>the major thing they all had in common  other
>than HIV  was that they lived extremely healthy
>lifestyles. Part of me was becoming suspicious
>that being HIV-positive didn't necessarily mean you would ever get AIDS.
>
>By a rather curious twist of fate, it was on my
>way to a conference to present the results of a
>model of HIV that I had proposed together with my
>advisor, that I came across an article by Dr.
>David Rasnick about AIDS and the corruption of
>modern science. As I sat on the airplane reading
>this story, in which he said "the more I examined
>HIV, the less it made sense that this largely
>inactive, barely detectable virus could cause
>such devastation," everything he wrote started
>making sense to me in a way that the currently
>accepted model did not. I didn't have anywhere
>near all the information, but my instincts told
>me that what he said seemed to fit.
>
>Over the past ten years, I nevertheless continued
>my research into mathematical models of HIV
>infection, all the while keeping an ear open for
>dissenting voices. By now, I have read hundreds
>of articles on HIV and AIDS, many from the
>dissident point of view but far, far more from
>that of the establishment, which unequivocally
>promotes the idea that HIV causes AIDS and that
>the case is closed. In that time, I even
>published four papers on HIV (from a modeling
>perspective). I justified my contributions to a
>theory I wasn't convinced of by telling myself
>these were purely theoretical, mathematical
>constructs, never to be applied in the real
>world. I suppose, in some sense also, I wanted to keep an open mind.
>
>So why is it that only now have I decided that
>enough is enough, and I can no longer in any
>capacity continue to support the paradigm on
>which my entire career has been built?
>
>As a mathematician, I was taught early on about
>the importance of clear definitions. AIDS, if you
>consider its definition, is far from clear, and
>is in fact not even a consistent entity. The
>classification "AIDS" was introduced in the early
>1980s not as a disease but as a surveillance tool
>to help doctors and public health officials
>understand and control a strange "new" syndrome
>affecting mostly young gay men. In the two
>decades intervening, it has evolved into
>something quite different. AIDS today bears
>little or no resemblance to the syndrome for
>which it was named. For one thing, the definition
>has actually been changed by the CDC several
>times, continually expanding to include ever more
>diseases (all of which existed for decades prior
>to AIDS), and sometimes, no disease whatsoever.
>More than half of all AIDS diagnoses in the past
>several years in the United States have been made
>on the basis of a T-cell count and a "confirmed"
>positive antibody test  in other words, a deadly
>disease has been diagnosed over and over again on
>the basis of no clinical disease at all. And the
>leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the
>last few years has been liver failure, not an
>AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an
>acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors,
>which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years.
>
>The epidemiology of HIV and AIDS is puzzling and
>unclear as well. In spite of the fact that AIDS
>cases increased rapidly from their initial
>observation in the early 1980s and reached a peak
>in 1993 before declining rapidly, the number of
>HIV-positive individuals in the U.S. has remained
>constant at one million since the advent of
>widespread HIV antibody testing. This cannot be
>due to anti-HIV therapy, since the annual
>mortality rate of North American HIV-positives
>who are treated with anti-HIV drugs is much
>higher  between 6.7 and 8.8%  than would be the
>approximately 12% global mortality rate of
>HIV-positives if all AIDS cases were fatal in a given year.
>
>Even more strangely, HIV has been present
>everywhere in the U.S., in every population
>tested including repeat blood donors and military
>recruits, at a virtually constant rate since
>testing began in 1985. It is deeply confusing
>that a virus thought to have been brought to the
>AIDS epicenters of New York, San Francisco and
>Los Angeles in the early 1970s could possibly
>have spread so rapidly at first, yet have stopped
>spreading completely as soon as testing began.
>
>Returning for a moment to the mathematical
>modeling, one aspect that had always puzzled me
>was the lack of agreement on how to accurately
>represent the actual biological mechanism of
>immune impairment. AIDS is said to be caused by a
>dramatic loss of the immune system's T-cells,
>said loss being presumably caused by HIV. Why
>then could no one agree on how to mathematically
>model the dynamics of the fundamental disease
>process  that is, how are T-cells actually
>killed by HIV? Early models assumed that HIV
>killed T-cells directly, by what is referred to
>as lysis. An infected cell lyses, or bursts, when
>the internal viral burden is so high that it can
>no longer be contained, just like your grocery
>bag breaks when it's too full. This is in fact
>the accepted mechanism of pathogenesis for
>virtually all other viruses. But it became clear
>that HIV did not in fact kill T-cells in this
>manner, and this concept was abandoned, to be
>replaced by various other ones, each of which
>resulted in very different models and, therefore,
>different predictions. Which model was "correct" never was clear.
>
>As it turns out, the reason there was no
>consensus mathematically as to how HIV killed
>T-cells was because there was no biological
>consensus. There still isn't. HIV is possibly the
>most studied microbe in history  certainly it is
>the best-funded  yet there is still no
>agreed-upon mechanism of pathogenesis. Worse than
>that, there are no data to support the hypothesis
>that HIV kills T-cells at all. It doesn't in the
>test tube. It mostly just sits there, as it does
>in people  if it can be found at all. In Robert
>Gallo's seminal 1984 paper in which he claims
>"proof" that HIV causes AIDS, actual HIV could be
>found in only 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. To
>date, actual HIV remains an elusive target in
>those with AIDS or simply HIV-positive.
>
>This is starkly illustrated by the continued use
>of antibody tests to diagnose HIV infection.
>Antibody tests are fairly standard to test for
>certain microbes, but for anything other than
>HIV, the main reason they are used in place of
>direct tests (that is, actually looking for the
>bacteria or virus itself) is because they are
>generally much easier and cheaper than direct
>testing. Most importantly, such antibody tests
>have been rigorously verified against the gold
>standard of microbial isolation. This stands in
>vivid contrast to HIV, for which antibody tests
>are used because there exists no test for the
>actual virus. As to so-called "viral load," most
>people are not aware that tests for viral load
>are neither licensed nor recommended by the FDA
>to diagnose HIV infection. This is why an "AIDS
>test" is still an antibody test. Viral load,
>however, is used to estimate the health status of
>those already diagnosed HIV-positive. But there
>are very good reasons to believe it does not work
>at all. Viral load uses either PCR or a technique
>called branched-chained DNA amplification (bDNA).
>PCR is the same technique used for "DNA
>fingerprinting" at crime scenes where only trace
>amounts of materials can be found. PCR
>essentially mass-produces DNA or RNA so that it
>can be seen. If something has to be mass-produced
>to even be seen, and the result of that
>mass-production is used to estimate how much of a
>pathogen there is, it might lead a person to
>wonder how relevant the pathogen was in the first
>place. Specifically, how could something so hard
>to find, even using the most sensitive and
>sophisticated technology, completely decimate the
>immune system? bDNA, while not magnifying
>anything directly, nevertheless looks only for
>fragments of DNA believed, but not proven, to be
>components of the genome of HIV  but there is no
>evidence to say that these fragments don't exist
>in other genetic sequences unrelated to HIV or to
>any virus. It is worth noting at this point that
>viral load, like antibody tests, has never been
>verified against the gold standard of HIV
>isolation. bDNA uses PCR as a gold standard, PCR
>uses antibody tests as a gold standard, and
>antibody tests use each other. None use HIV itself.
>
>There is good reason to believe the antibody
>tests are flawed as well. The two types of tests
>routinely used are the ELISA and the Western Blot
>(WB). The current testing protocol is to "verify"
>a positive ELISA with the "more specific" WB
>(which has actually been banned from diagnostic
>use in the UK because it is so unreliable). But
>few people know that the criteria for a positive
>WB vary from country to country and even from lab
>to lab. Put bluntly, a person's HIV status could
>well change depending on the testing venue. It is
>also possible to test "WB indeterminate," which
>translates to any one of "uninfected," "possibly
>infected," or even, absurdly, "partly infected"
>under the current interpretation. This conundrum
>is confounded by the fact that the proteins
>comprising the different reactive "bands" on the
>WB test are all claimed to be specific to HIV,
>raising the question of how a truly uninfected
>individual could possess antibodies to even one "HIV-specific" protein.
>
>I have come to sincerely believe that these HIV
>tests do immeasurably more harm than good, due to
>their astounding lack of specificity and
>standardization. I can buy the idea that
>anonymous screening of the blood supply for some
>nonspecific marker of ill health (which, due to
>cross reactivity with many known pathogens, a
>positive HIV antibody test often seems to be) is
>useful. I cannot buy the idea that any individual
>needs to have a diagnostic HIV test. A negative
>test may not be accurate (whatever that means),
>but a positive one can create utter havoc and
>destruction in a person's life  all for a virus
>that most likely does absolutely nothing. I do
>not feel it is going too far to say that these
>tests ought to be banned for diagnostic purposes.
>
>The real victims in this mess are those whose
>lives are turned upside-down by the stigma of an
>HIV diagnosis. These people, most of whom are
>perfectly healthy, are encouraged to avoid
>intimacy and are further branded with the
>implication that they were somehow dreadfully
>foolish and careless. Worse, they are encouraged
>to take massive daily doses of some of the most
>toxic drugs ever manufactured. HIV, for many
>years, has fulfilled the role of a microscopic
>terrorist. People have lost their jobs, been
>denied entry into the Armed Forces, been refused
>residency in and even entry into some countries,
>even been charged with assault or murder for
>having consensual sex; babies have been taken
>from their mothers and had toxic medications
>forced down their throats. There is no precedent
>for this type of behavior, as it is all in the
>name of a completely unproven, fundamentally
>flawed hypothesis, on the basis of highly
>suspect, indirect tests for supposed infection
>with an allegedly deadly virus  a virus that has
>never been observed to do much of anything.
>
>As to the question of what does cause AIDS, if it
>is not HIV, there are many plausible explanations
>given by people known to be experts. Before the
>discovery of HIV, AIDS was assumed to be a
>lifestyle syndrome caused mostly by
>indiscriminate use of recreational drugs.
>Immunosuppression has multiple causes, from an
>overload of microbes to malnutrition. Probably
>all of these are true causes of AIDS. Immune
>deficiency has many manifestations, and a
>syndrome with many manifestations is likely
>multicausal as well. Suffice it to say that the
>HIV hypothesis of AIDS has offered nothing but
>predictions  of its spread, of the availability
>of a vaccine, of a forthcoming animal model, and
>so on  that have not materialized, and it has not saved a single life.
>
>After ten years involved in the academic side of
>HIV research, as well as in the academic world at
>large, I truly believe that the blame for the
>universal, unconditional, faith-based acceptance
>of such a flawed theory falls squarely on the
>shoulders of those among us who have actively
>endorsed a completely unproven hypothesis in the
>interests of furthering our careers. Of course,
>hypotheses in science deserve to be studied, but
>no hypothesis should be accepted as fact before
>it is proven, particularly one whose blind
>acceptance has such dire consequences.
>
>For over twenty years, the general public has
>been greatly misled and ill-informed. As someone
>who has been raised by parents who taught me from
>a young age never to believe anything just
>because "everyone else accepts it to be true," I
>can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby
>contributing to this craziness. And the craziness
>has gone on long enough. As humans  as honest
>academics and scientists  the only thing we can
>do is allow the truth to come to light.
>
>March 3, 2006
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Rebecca V. Culshaw, Ph.D., is a mathematical
>biologist who has been working on mathematical
>models of HIV infection for the past ten years.
>She received her Ph.D. (mathematics with a
>specialization in mathematical biology) from
>Dalhousie University in Canada in 2002 and is
>currently employed as an Assistant Professor of
>Mathematics at a university in Texas.
>
>
>
>
>--
><http://www.michaelbalter.com>www.michaelbalter.com
>
>******************************************
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>******************************************

__________ NOD32 2066 (20070216) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager