HIV=AIDS: Fact Or Fraud

[Volitzer]

HIV=AIDS: Fact Or Fraud

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8142733917997460212&ei=-2JwSevfFISa-wHdsJmpBQ&q=aids

[tmosley]

We already had a thread on this.

Anyone who says that HIV doesn't cause AIDS is spreading deadly disinformation.

[sam9657]

We already had a thread on this.

Anyone who says that HIV doesn't cause AIDS is spreading deadly disinformation.

I have asked you this MANY times now. SHOW me the study that proves HIV causes AIDS and I will shut up.

[steve005]

We already had a thread on this.

Anyone who says that HIV doesn't cause AIDS is spreading deadly disinformation


I've watched the first five minutes of the video he posted and they raise many valid points. I'm pretty sure they aren't telling people its ok to have sex with people with HIV, nor have unprotected sex with strangers, we've been lied to about mostly everything else I wouldn't be surprised, and they could not be lying and just plain wrong, either way its not like its not worth talking about just becaust it has a thread already... so,,, whats that mean?

[Zippyjuan]

Please read this if you think AIDS is not caused by HIV.
http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm
They do not know everything about the disease, granted, but the overwhelming evidence shows a very strong link between HIV and AIDS. To say there is no link is to ignore the evidence.
Just one exerpt from the article:

How well does HIV infection predict illness and death?
A mountain of evidence shows that much can be predicted from a positive test result. For example:

Around half of people develop AIDS-defining conditions within 10 years of HIV infection, if they don't take antiretroviral drugs. Only a few do not develop AIDS within 20 years.59 60
HIV-positive Americans and Canadians are over 1,000 times more likely to develop AIDS-defining diseases (such as PCP and Kaposi's sarcoma) than those who test negative.61 62
A study in Uganda found that HIV-positive people were 16 times more likely to die over five years than those who tested negative. For those aged 25-34 years old, HIV infection raised the death rate by a factor of 27.63 Numerous other studies have found similar results in Tanzania, Malawi, Rwanda and other parts of Africa.64 65 66 67
A study of female sex workers in Thailand found the death rate to be over 50 times greater among those who tested positive. All of the positive women died of conditions associated with immune deficiency, compared with none of the negative women.68
During a 16-year, large-scale monitoring study of homosexual and bisexual men in the US, 60% of HIV-positives died compared with 2.3% of HIV-negatives.69
In the UK between 1979 and 1992, death rates increased massively among HIV-positive haemophiliacs, but remained unchanged among the rest.70 Similar research in the USA found that HIV-positive haemophiliacs were 11 times more likely to die over a ten-year period, compared with those who tested negative.71
In a European study of babies born to HIV-positive women, none of those who tested negative developed AIDS, compared to 30% of those who tested positive. By their first birthday, 17% of the HIV-positive babies had died.72 A similar study in Uganda found that more than half of HIV-positive babies died before their second birthdays, compared to one sixth of those who were HIV-negative.73
Alternative theories cannot explain why HIV tests should be so effective at predicting illness and death in so many diverse groups of people from all parts of the world.

It is even possible to predict the likelihood that someone will soon develop AIDS by measuring the amount of HIV in their blood, which is known as "viral load". Such measurements can be made using PCR, branched-DNA signal-amplification (bDNA) or quantitative microculture techniques. For example, the table below - based on a long term study of 1,604 patients - illustrates just how useful bDNA forecasts can be:74

Viral load (RNA copies per millilitre of blood plasma) Proportion of patients developing AIDS within six years
less than 500 5.4%
501-3,000 16.6%
3,001-10,000 31.7%
10,001-30,000 55.2%
more than 30,000 80.0%

Dr Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR process, has questioned its ability to measure viral load. However, his arguments have been theoretical, and are not backed up by large-scale surveys, which have repeatedly shown a clear association between viral load and progression to AIDS (in all parts of the world).75 76 Dr Mullis' objections do not apply to the unrelated bDNA and quantitative microculture techniques. Modern bDNA tests produce very similar viral load counts to modern PCR tests (though this was less true of some earlier models).77 78 As with antibody tests, there is no convincing alternative explanation for why viral load counts should be such useful indicators.



It takes a look at many of the arguements raised in the video.

South African President Thabo Mbeki was willing to bet the lives of the citizens of his country on the theory that HIV did not cause AIDS- and thousands are paying with their lives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/720995.stm
That BBC article was from 2000. Today, one in five South Africans is infected. http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm In pregnant women, it is nearly one in three.

It is difficult to overstate the suffering that HIV has caused in South Africa. With statistics showing that almost one in five adults are infected, HIV is widespread in a sense that can be difficult to imagine for those living in less-affected countries. For each person living with HIV, in South Africa and elsewhere, not only does it impact on their lives, but also those of their families, friends and wider communities.

With antiretroviral drug treatment, HIV-positive people can maintain their health and often lead relatively normal lives. Sadly, few people in South Africa have access to this treatment. This means that AIDS deaths are alarmingly common throughout the country. It is thought that almost half of all deaths in South Africa, and a staggering 71% of deaths among those aged between 15 and 49, are caused by AIDS.2 So many people are dying from AIDS that in some parts of the country, cemeteries are running out of space for the dead.3 A recent survey found that South Africans spent more time at funerals than they did having their hair cut, shopping or having barbecues. It also found that more than twice as many people had been to a funeral in the past month than had been to a wedding.4



This is the toll that ignorance can cause.

HIV does not always lead to a person having AIDS but it is hard to find someone with AIDS who does not also have HIV.

[steve005]

what about the many arguments in the orginal video posted? I'm starting to think its from being gay and doing drugs, I still won't have sex with strange women though, rather be safe than sorry

[Zippyjuan]

AIDS is no longer just a homosexual disease. By 2006, 47% of AIDS cases were not gay men. Heterosexual sex causes 31% of new infections. (others include intraveneus drug users). One third of cases are people under the age of 30- and most of those got it through sexual contact. Since 1981, an estimated 1.7 million people in the US have been infected and over half a million of those have since died. About 56,000 new cases are expected this year. It is the sixth leading cause of death in people 25- 44 years old but that is an improvement since 1994 and 1995 when it was the #1 killer in that age group. Improved drugs and treatments have helped. An estimated 21% of people with AIDs do not know they have it. PDF file: http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/3029-09.pdf

[Working Poor]

I think the drugs used to treat hiv cause AIDS

[steve005]

if aids is just a list of 30 deseases with the presents of HIV, and having those deases without hiv means you don't have aids, its NO WONDER YOU DON"T FIND PEOPE WITH AIDS THAT DON"T HAVE HIV, NO WONDER, !!!

[steve005]

but there are plenty of people who die of those 30 deseases but don't have aids.

as much as most of us don't want to think about it, profit is king, and even though people are getting killed, PROFIT IS KING

[M House]

Man this thread makes me cringe. HIV is a virus that compromises your immune system. AIDS is just an acronym that stands for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Obviously, you can get a immune deficiency a variety of ways. If you think HIV is no big deal just get infected, you got a decent chance of surviving for awhile and you'd get to validate your claims yourself.

[sam9657]

Man this thread makes me cringe. HIV is a virus that compromises your immune system. AIDS is just an acronym that stands for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Obviously, you can get a immune deficiency a variety of ways. If you think HIV is no big deal just get infected, you got a decent chance of surviving for awhile and you'd get to validate your claims yourself.

Again show me the study that prooves HIV causes AIDS. Can no one come up with this study?

[M House]

What kinda study do you want? I don't think I'm going to be able to find one titled "HIV causes AIDS". That's the not way they do studies and if you want a article titled like that go look for it in an old newspaper headline.

[Zippyjuan]

I challenge you to prove your side- that it is caused by other things. Only a minority of intravenous drug users have AIDS. Only a tiny fraction of malnourished people have AIDs. Only a small amount of gay men have AIDS but over 99% of people with AIDS have HIV. That is an incredibly high statistical corelation. Massively higher than any of the other supposed causes.

Working poor- If AIDS is caused by the drugs used to treat it, how did it occur before the drugs were invented? The drugs have improved and extended the lives of those taking them (until then AIDS was a death sentence).

[M House]

Alright you want a scientific article explaining some of the mechanics....
You need your CD4s to regulate immune response. These are the little bastards infected by the HIV. They determine the differentiation of a variety of T-cells types in autocrine response. They release cytokines specifically IL-2 and others. You don't have many CD4s to really work with unless you are in that amazing large window of time between late puberty and early adulthood when your thymus is at 110 percent.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1352389&tool=pmcentrez

need help understanding here's wiki T cell function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helper_T_cell

Technically, if this is actually the mechanism I think it is I'm pretty sure you don't need alot of complex drugs to regulate T cells anyway. However I'm not a doctor.... they are stupid and want to kill you and give you AIDs.

[steve005]

but none of you have watched the video posted, why is it so important to accept what we've been told about aids and hiv?? The video has many many valid points, and I only watched the first hour, what about the list of over 600 doctors in the field that keeps getting rejected by all major scientific publishings?

[M House]

but none of you have watched the video posted, why is it so important to accept what we've been told about aids and hiv?? The video has many many valid points, and I only watched the first hour, what about the list of over 600 doctors in the field that keeps getting rejected by all major scientific publishings?

So you don't get HIV, spread it to a couple of people, and then die later while asking yourself why is my immune system functioning like piss? Or if your lucky you'll live awhile spread it even more people die and on your grave, you'll get to post it was nothing.....

[steve005]

So you don't get HIV, spread it to a couple of people, and then die later while asking yourself why is my immune system functioning like piss? Or if your lucky you'll live awhile spread it even more people die and on your grave, you'll get to post it was nothing.....


uh ok



for people with a brain, what about the many valid points the video raises?

[M House]

Your video is two hours long! Anyway, when was this made reminds me of a film from about 1990. So far several minutes in I wish it'd just give me the damn names of these "top" scientists to look look up myself. So far the video is vague and terrible but that's not fair I guess as I'm not that far in.

[sam9657]

Debating pro HIV = AIDS is almost like debating religion. There is no study that prooves HIV causes AIDS, you have to take whatever they tell solely based on faith.

[torchbearer]

Well if the HIV doesn't cause the AIDS then what does?(yeh, its suppose to be (the) AIDS)
There is a strong correlation between having HIV and developing AIDS.. like a 99% correlation.

[steve005]

i'm sure there is also a strong correlation between blackouts and birds on the powerliness, don't mean one causes the other, whats the percent of hiv patients that refuse treatment? 1 percent maybe? is that where the 99% comes from?

correlation doesn't prove cause

[torchbearer]

i'm sure there is also a strong correlation between blackouts and birds on the powerliness, don't mean one causes the other, whats the percent of hiv patients that refuse treatment? 1 percent maybe? is that where the 99% comes from?

correlation doesn't prove cause

You are talking to someone who studies and proves the strengths of correlations.
Your "sure there is also" correlation is not a correlation.
You get HIV, you end up with AIDS, unless you are infinitely rich like Magic Johnson.
I see Birds on my power line everyday. I have power everyday.
Get a clue and we can talk real science.

[M House]

I quit looking for science 15 minutes into that stupid video. I'll have to finish it later. I wish he'd just post the claims and the doctors to look up, so we can atleast find where he gets this mindset from. So far it's said stupid BS like gayness and drug use cause immune deficiency. Wow....I just don't even know how to combat that.

[sam9657]

I quit looking for science 15 minutes into that stupid video. I'll have to finish it later. I wish he'd just post the claims and the doctors to look up, so we can atleast find where he gets this mindset from. So far it's said stupid BS like gayness and drug use cause immune deficiency. Wow....I just don't even know how to combat that.

You are right, recreational drugs are obviously boost your immune system.

[sam9657]

You are talking to someone who studies and proves the strengths of correlations.
Your "sure there is also" correlation is not a correlation.
You get HIV, you end up with AIDS, unless you are infinitely rich like Magic Johnson.
I see Birds on my power line everyday. I have power everyday.
Get a clue and we can talk real science.

What about these thousands of people who have tested HIV positive and refuse HIV treatment. They are all healthy today.

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

[M House]

Looking at the mechanics of it, I can see how picky the virus is how it goes about infecting and replicating. If the proteins on your CD4s are not a good match to the virus, you will have a degree of tolerance.

[steve005]

Get a clue and we can talk real science.

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

what about that?? are they just trying to hurt people by lying? why does this website even exsist if this isn't worth talking about?

blind faith in modern medicine is never good, so why cant we talk about this wihtout stupid shiI like
I quit looking for science 15 minutes into that stupid video. I'll have to finish it later. I wish he'd just post the claims and the doctors to look up, so we can atleast find where he gets this mindset from. So far it's said stupid BS like gayness and drug use cause immune deficiency. Wow....I just don't even know how to combat that.

if you don't want to argue valid points then what are you doing here? trolling, aids treatment profits many a lot

[torchbearer]

What about these thousands of people who have tested HIV positive and refuse HIV treatment. They are all healthy today.

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

give it time.
When you show me that people who do drugs develop aids at a larger ratio than those with HIV. we can talk.
No one I know who does any hard core drugs have aids.
On the contrary, those people i know who had HIV, now have aids.
For some, it took several years to get there.... others... haven't gotten there yet...
but their immunity is getting worse... and they aren't on drugs.


To the other person, drugs do weaken the immunity. you are more likely to catch a cold..etc... but none of these people develop aids because of long term drug use.
The immune system is still there... just weakened.
HIV use the immune systems as a source of survival.. just like SIV.
Really, what the fuck is wrong with people these days...
I do believe conspiracies can be true.. but really, you must not know people who are dying from this shit.
These people would spit in your face. They got HIV... they now have aids. the only thing they all have in common is having HIV.
Its not any particular type of drug use... or they'd all been meth users that got aids.
Its not a particular type of sexual habit or they'd all be ******s.

They all have on thing in common. HIV.

Since, not all of them use the same medication, its not the medication.

[steve005]

If the proteins on your CD4s are not a good match to the virus, you will have a degree of tolerance.


what about the fact that the HIV tests are not testing for HIV itself but a HIV antibody that your body created to fight the hiv, which means your immune to it if you test positive,???

[Peace&Freedom]

The issue is not whether it is a good thing or not to have HIV, it is whether there is proof that its presence in the body CAUSES AIDs. The fact that there is a 99% coincidence of HIV with AIDS can either mean it causes AIDs, or it is (perhaps) a byproduct of AIDS, or something that chemically occurs simultaneously with AIDS without a causitive connection. Saying the coincidence itself is proof of causation is the common factor fallacy---if you drink gin and water day 1, whiskey and water day 2, beer and water day 3, and got drunk each day, is water the reason you got drunk? In the absence of studies positively showing one leads to the other, the question remains open. So there is reasonable circumstantial basis for exploring the relationship between the two, AND reasonable basis for not believing HIV causes AIDS.

[torchbearer]

what about the fact that the HIV tests are not testing for HIV itself but a HIV antibody that your body created to fight the hiv, which means your immune to it if you test positive,???

how about we give you HIV as an experiment, and check back with us in about 4 years (if you are alive) and tell us how you are doing.

[torchbearer]

The issue is not whether it is a good thing or not to have HIV, it is whether there is proof that its presence in the body CAUSES AIDs. The fact that there is a 99% coincidence of HIV with AIDS can either mean it causes AIDs, or it is (perhaps) a byproduct of AIDS. Saying the coincidence itself is proof of causation is the common factor fallacy---if you drink gin and water day 1, whiskey and water day 2, beer and water day 3, and got drunk each day, is water the reason you got drunk? In the absence of studies positively showing one leads to the other, the question remains open. So there is reasonable circumstantial basis for exploring the relationship between the two, AND reasonable basis for not believing HIV causes AIDS.

Correlational strength can be proven.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=social+statistics+and+correlation+streng th&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

take the night and read here.

[steve005]

they'd spit in my face and give me hiv because I'm debating the point that they might be killing themselves with meications or being mislead,? what the fuck is wrong with you to even think that shit? an old high school buddy got hiv and is taking medication, I told him about this and he did some research and later on was very thankful for me showing him, before all he knew is what the doctors were telling him

[steve005]

how about we give you HIV as an experiment, and check back with us in about 4 years (if you are alive) and tell us how you are doing

dude you have serious problems, make some sense, do you have any input of any value to this discusion?

[axiomata]

they'd spit in my face and give me hiv because I'm debating the point that they might be killing themselves with meications or being mislead,? what the fuck is wrong with you to even think that shit? an old high school buddy got hiv and is taking medication, I told him about this and he did some research and later on was very thankful for me showing him, before all he knew is what the doctors were telling him
This post should be proof enough that you know not what you are talking about; considering you can't get HIV from spit - try again. I feel sorry for your friend, hope he goes back to the doctor soon.

[M House]

HIV when it infects the CD4s it makes them produce the antibodies. Well technically it makes them produce a couple different things so that might not be entirely accurate. If the antibodies are actually present, tests can produce false positives....sometimes, there would however be successfully infected cells present in the system. I'll have to look it up but I'm not even sure the test is actually looking for the antibody itself. You might want Tmosley, the researcher to explain what it's looking for specifically and actually listen to him over that other crap. The only thing I've seen valid on that video so far was the AZT kinda sucked. I'm thinking they are going to have to come with much more novel approach to eliminate something that infects the actual system that would be used to combat it.

[torchbearer]

dude you have serious problems, make some sense, do you have any input of any value to this discusion?

As in, put your money where your mouth is... HIV will give you AIDS.
YOu say no. Then let's do it. We give you HIV, and you prove us wrong.
I bet you get AIDS.
DO you bet you dont?

[M House]

Dude you told your friend to follow your advice when you didn't even understand HIV basics? Anyway technically you could get it in spit though it'd be um rather difficult. Maybe if you tonged your friends tonsils for a couple hours you could see this isn't something you wanna be stupid about.

[steve005]

This post should be proof enough that you know not what you are talking about; considering you can't get HIV from spit

you are wrong about that, at least from what i've heard on tv, it takes a lot of saliva though

[torchbearer]

Dude you told your friend to follow your advice when you didn't even understand HIV basics? Anyway technically you could get it in spit though it'd be um rather difficult. Maybe if you tonged your friends tonsils for a couple hours you could see this isn't something you wanna be stupid about.

Yeah, you'd have to have an open sore to get HIV from spit.
Like spitting into a open wound or something...

He obviously doesn't know much about the disease he is telling us ALL ABOUT>

And they would spit on this guy because he is insulting.
My friends are dying from this shit, and he is acting like its a conspiracy to make pharma rich.

I'd be more willing to believe they have a cure, but weren't giving it... than to believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

[steve005]

Dude you told your friend to follow your advice when you didn't even understand HIV basics
Anyway technically you could get it in spit though it'd be um rather difficult

so i don't understand it yet i was right about saliva, ok...


anyway I didn't give him any advice, just opened his mind to the video and alive and well website

[axiomata]

"Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

[M House]

He's gonna think he can screw around and possibly spread it while at the same having a poor potential outcome for his health. You can be Magic and deal with it or you can be that woman with AIDS who had a kid die of some "mysterious" illness and didn't even bother to take a single precaution to prevent transmission.

[steve005]

And they would spit on this guy because he is insulting.
My friends are dying from this shit, and he is acting like its a conspiracy to make pharma rich


so, people die in war all the time, thats not a "conspiracy" right?

how am I being insulting, how am I "acting" like its a conspiricy?

[sam9657]

so, people die in war all the time, thats not a "conspiracy" right?

how am I being insulting, how am I "acting" like its a conspiricy?

HIV = AIDS is not really a conspiracy, its more of the AIDS establishment refusal to admit they have made a big mistake when they announced that they had found the "probable" cause of AIDS back in the early 80s.

[steve005]

He's gonna think he can screw around and possibly spread it while at the same having a poor potential outcome for his health. You can be Magic and deal with it or you can be that woman with AIDS who had a kid die of some "mysterious" illness and didn't even bother to take a single precaution to prevent transmission

who? what?


anyway just watch the video or quit trolling


like I said before, you don't find people with aids because the defintion of aids is- some condition with the presents of HIV, but exact same symptoms without hiv are not AIDs,

also retro viruses have an icubation time of 2 6 weeks, and after that they wont come back except rarely

[steve005]

HIV = AIDS is not really a conspiracy, its more of the AIDS establishment refusal to admit they have made a big mistake when they announced that they had found the "probable" cause of AIDS back in the early 80s

I tend to agree with that, but its still for the money

[steve005]

As in, put your money where your mouth is... HIV will give you AIDS.
YOu say no. Then let's do it. We give you HIV, and you prove us wrong.
I bet you get AIDS.
DO you bet you dont?

ok you try that, one of us will live, thats for sure

[tmosley]

What about these thousands of people who have tested HIV positive and refuse HIV treatment. They are all healthy today.

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

I explained all this in the last thread. A certain percentage of humans (1% on average, ~4% of nordic bloodlines) are immune to HIV because they don't have the receptor that on the surface of their T-cells that is required for infection, thus they can be HIV positive, but never show immune symptoms. If I'm not mistaken, those people can still be vulnerable to infection of brain cells after a very long incubation (like 10-20+ years), but that might not be the case.

NO virus can be detected directly. Infection by any virus is inevitably done by screening for antibodies. Viruses are just too damn small, and they don't stick together like bacteria do. Its easy to see a huge mass of bacteria, but you couldn't see a huge mass of virii even if they would stick together.

EVERY attack against the argument that HIV causes AIDS was dismantled years ago. EVERY point is either just plain invalid, or has been shown to be wrong, as I showed in the other OTHER thread on the subject, where I dismantled sam's points one by one. Of course, he has the now apparently religious belief that it is all a big conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world, scientists who are at war with each other over money, and who would likely win a bloody Nobel prize if they showed that AIDS had a different cause and used that information to successfully treat/cure it. If it wasn't a religious conviction, he would have responded to each of my points, or brought out new evidence. He didn't. All we have instead is a 2 hour long baseless conspiracy theory apparently made in the 90's that give no facts, only vague assertions.

My research team is very close to a cure, using molecular methods that would target the HIV virus, inactivate it, and eliminate it from the body. If it cures monkeys with AIDS (hope to start the experiments late this year), then we will know for sure, because it targets the same receptor as those antibodies you people seem to think come from the evil g-men.

[M House]

I explained all this in the last thread. A certain percentage of humans (1% on average, ~4% of nordic bloodlines) are immune to HIV because they don't have the receptor that on the surface of their T-cells that is required for infection, thus they can be HIV positive, but never show immune symptoms. If I'm not mistaken, those people can still be vulnerable to infection of brain cells after a very long incubation (like 10-20+ years), but that might not be the case.

NO virus can be detected directly. Infection by any virus is inevitably done by screening for antibodies. Viruses are just too damn small, and they don't stick together like bacteria do. Its easy to see a huge mass of bacteria, but you couldn't see a huge mass of virii even if they would stick together.

EVERY attack against the argument that HIV causes AIDS was dismantled years ago. EVERY point is either just plain invalid, or has been shown to be wrong, as I showed in the other OTHER thread on the subject, where I dismantled sam's points one by one. Of course, he has the now apparently religious belief that it is all a big conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world, scientists who are at war with each other over money, and who would likely win a bloody Nobel prize if they showed that AIDS had a different cause and used that information to successfully treat/cure it. If it wasn't a religious conviction, he would have responded to each of my points, or brought out new evidence. He didn't. All we have instead is a 2 hour long baseless conspiracy theory apparently made in the 90's that give no facts, only vague assertions.

My research team is very close to a cure, using molecular methods that would target the HIV virus, inactivate it, and eliminate it from the body. If it cures monkeys with AIDS (hope to start the experiments late this year), then we will know for sure, because it targets the same receptor as those antibodies you people seem to think come from the evil g-men.

I sure hope that works cuz the only way I can see eliminating it entirely would be to flush the infected CD4s and get a new batch. Probably not going to happen. Otherwise, I hope you guys could figure out a way to get the load off of their functions. Seems we got a better understanding of how some of the immune elements are regulated with the endocrine system these days.

[steve005]

My research team is very close to a cure, using molecular methods that would target the HIV virus, inactivate it, and eliminate it from the body. If it cures monkeys with AIDS (hope to start the experiments late this year), then we will know for sure, because it targets the same receptor as those antibodies you people seem to think come from the evil g-men

ur full of crap

[sam9657]

ur full of crap

I am sure TMosley will find the cure. We have been promised that a cure is just around the corner for the last 25 years. Yet we are still still chasing this carrot on a stick.

They know that if they either find a "cure" or admit their error the AID$ gravy train will end. Not to mention the embrassment and lose of crededibility of such an admission.

[Peace&Freedom]

Correlational strength can be proven.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=social+statistics+and+correlation+streng th&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

take the night and read here.

If firefighters are found in proximity to a fire in most cases, does that prove they started the fire? Correlative strength proves the existence of a correlation, not the generation of one factor by the other factor. And I doubt the social statistics in the url relate to the HIV-AIDS bio-chemical causation matter in question. I repeat, in the absence of studies positively showing one leads to the other, the question remains open.

The issue is the ABSENCE of the causation evidence, so all the HIV causes AIDS folks here have to do is produce it, and their absolutism would be justified. Until then, there is reasonable circumstantial basis for exploring the relationship between the two, AND reasonable basis for not believing HIV causes AIDS.

[tmosley]

ur full of crap

No, you're just an idiot. If you had read anything that I have posted on these forums, you would know that we have come across a new kill mechanism that works against almost any type of of communicable disease (prions being the only exception that I can think of), as well as cancer, and works BETTER than the body's own defenses (because we can have a localized concentration about 3-4 orders of magnitude higher than the antibodies the body makes).

We haven't gotten one red cent of money from any institution, public or private, for this work. When we tried to, all we got was a bunch of trouble. Now that we have results, we'll be publishing some papers, and applying for grants and seeking corporate money to start to push it through animal and clinical trials. We haven't been able to do much work on it, because we have been busy making antimicrobial materials (like plastics) utilizing the same kill mechanism for things like implants and boat paint. This is because we don't have to go through such extreme trials to get that stuff to market. The paycheck from those projects are funding our drug work.

[torchbearer]

If firefighters are found in proximity to a fire in most cases, does that prove they started the fire? Correlative strength proves the existence of a correlation, not the generation of one factor by the other factor. And I doubt the social statistics in the url relate to the HIV-AIDS bio-chemical causation matter in question. I repeat, in the absence of studies positively showing one leads to the other, the question remains open.

The issue is the ABSENCE of the causation evidence, so all the HIV causes AIDS folks here have to do is produce it, and their absolutism would be justified. Until then, there is reasonable circumstantial basis for exploring the relationship between the two, AND reasonable basis for not believing HIV causes AIDS.

do you even know what correlations are?

[steve005]

do you even know what correlations are?

is trolling all you do? get life

[Ninja Homer]

Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry

The following was written by Kary Mullis for the introduction to the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter H. Duesberg (Regnery Publishing, INC; Washington DC, 1996):

"In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, DL Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, DL Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.

This time, DL Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time."

[Ninja Homer]

Well if the HIV doesn't cause the AIDS then what does?(yeh, its suppose to be (the) AIDS)
There is a strong correlation between having HIV and developing AIDS.. like a 99% correlation.

Actually, I believe it's a 100% correlation. The reason for the correlation is because of the definition of AIDS. It's circular logic via definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_Classification_System_for_HIV_Infection_in_Adu lts_and_Adolescents

According to the US CDC definition, one has AIDS if he/she is infected with HIV and present with one of the following:

A CD4+ T-cell count below 200 cells/µl (or a CD4+ T-cell percentage of total lymphocytes of less than 14%).

or he/she has one of the following defining illnesses:

* Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs
* Candidiasis esophageal
* Cervical cancer (invasive)
* Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
* Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
* Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal for longer than 1 month
* Cytomegalovirus disease (other than liver, spleen or lymph nodes)
* Encephalopathy (HIV-related)
* Herpes simplex: chronic ulcer(s) (for more than 1 month); or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis
* Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
* Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal (for more than 1 month)
* Kaposi's sarcoma
* Lymphoma Burkitt's, immunoblastic or primary brain
* Mycobacterium avium complex
* Mycobacterium, other species, disseminated or extrapulmonary
* Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia
* Pneumonia (recurrent)
* Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
* Salmonella septicemia (recurrent)
* Toxoplasmosis of the brain
* Tuberculosis
* Wasting syndrome due to HIV


So if a person has one of those diseases, but not HIV, then they are just diagnosed as having that disease and treated as such.

If a person has one of those diseases, and has HIV, then they are diagnosed as having AIDS.

The reason there's such a strong correlation between having AIDS and having HIV is because HIV is included in the definition of AIDS.

[tmosley]

Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry

The following was written by Kary Mullis for the introduction to the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter H. Duesberg (Regnery Publishing, INC; Washington DC, 1996):

"In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, DL Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, DL Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.

This time, DL Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time."

Robert Gallo published the paper she's looking for in 1986. The title is "Determining that the retrovirus now known as HIV-1 is the cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)". He won a Lasker Award for it. I found it in ten minutes on Wikipedia.

This person is a retard. Winning a Nobel prize doesn't make you competent in all fields of science. Hell, Krugman doesn't even know anything about economics, yet he still won one in that field. She should have known that the best way to find the reference (assuming this was before Google and Wikipedia) would have been to trace references. Hell, she could have gotten a book about the history of the disease. The discovery certainly would have been in there, and scientific books cite sources.

Edit: Here are three references:
Barre-Sinoussi et al. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Science (1983) 220:868-871
Popovic et al. Detection, isolation, and continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS. Science (1984) 224:497-500
Gallo et al. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science (1984) 224:500-503

FYI, HTLV-III=HIV

[M House]

What I want to know is what can the CD4+ still do functionally when infected?

[PitViper]

Well I will not say I know one way or the other if AIDS and HIV go hand in hand, or exist, or whatever . . . but I would like to know one important statistic that always seems to be missing.

That is of the people who Die of HIV or AIDS:

What Percentage of Them Were Taking "Medication" from big Pharma??????

Now the control would be (albeit tough to secure) a population with AIDS or HIV who refuses to take ANY drug whatsoever (including "medications") and live a natural healthy life with plenty of exercise pure food, water etc.

Only then could you determine what is killing these people.

Just my Opinion though.

www.individualism.asia


*** If you believe your country is in jeopardy please fly your flags upside down ***

[tmosley]

Well I will not say I know one way or the other if AIDS and HIV go hand in hand, or exist, or whatever . . . but I would like to know one important statistic that always seems to be missing.

That is of the people who Die of HIV or AIDS:

What Percentage of Them Were Taking "Medication" from big Pharma??????

Now the control would be (albeit tough to secure) a population with AIDS or HIV who refuses to take ANY drug whatsoever (including "medications") and live a natural healthy life with plenty of exercise pure food, water etc.

Only then could you determine what is killing these people.

Just my Opinion though.

www.individualism.asia


*** If you believe your country is in jeopardy please fly your flags upside down ***

Here's a study for you, conducted in Haiti. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/22/2325

[Zippyjuan]

I would like to repeat my challenge from earlier. If AIDS is not caused by HIV, what does cause it and provide supporting studies and links. I am not seeing anything yet.

[steve005]

I would like to repeat my challenge from earlier. If AIDS is not caused by HIV, what does cause it and provide supporting studies and links. I am not seeing anything yet

the very definition of AIDS is just one of 30 or more conditions with the presents of HIV, so having the condition and not HIV is just the condition

in other words, people are dying of conditions that they'd have with or without hiv, but its only aids if they have hiv,

[Ninja Homer]

Robert Gallo published the paper she's looking for in 1986. The title is "Determining that the retrovirus now known as HIV-1 is the cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)". He won a Lasker Award for it. I found it in ten minutes on Wikipedia.

This person is a retard. Winning a Nobel prize doesn't make you competent in all fields of science. Hell, Krugman doesn't even know anything about economics, yet he still won one in that field. She should have known that the best way to find the reference (assuming this was before Google and Wikipedia) would have been to trace references. Hell, she could have gotten a book about the history of the disease. The discovery certainly would have been in there, and scientific books cite sources.

Edit: Here are three references:
Barre-Sinoussi et al. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Science (1983) 220:868-871
Popovic et al. Detection, isolation, and continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS. Science (1984) 224:497-500
Gallo et al. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science (1984) 224:500-503

FYI, HTLV-III=HIV

Thanks. You're right... probably a good scientist within their field, but a crappy researcher.

For the record, I don't know enough about this to take sides, but I'm staying open minded to both.

[steve005]

for example in africa, two people could die of same thing, but the one with hiv will of said to die of aids and the other man just from malnutrition or whatever

[tmosley]

for example in africa, two people could die of same thing, but the one with hiv will of said to die of aids and the other man just from malnutrition or whatever

Dude, make a real argument or shut up.

[sam9657]

for example in africa, two people could die of same thing, but the one with hiv will of said to die of aids and the other man just from malnutrition or whatever

Plus in Africa in most cases they do not administer HIV tests because it is too expensive. Instead people are diagnosed with AIDS based on symptoms including cough, fever, diarrhea, tuberculosis and cancer. No wonder AIDS is a heterosexual disease in Africa, while still primarly confined to homosexuals and drug users in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangui_definition

To reveal the absurdity of this Bangui test. Most people who have experienced the listed symptoms at one time would have been diagnosed with AIDS if they lived in Africa, but if they lived in the US they would be AIDS free.

[Zippyjuan]

You guys are so naive it is scary. About one third of new cases in the US are not homosexual and not drug users. Your arguments are rediculous. Provide supporting evidence to your theories. Not having the money to test for all HIV cases in Africa has nothing to do with the cause of AIDs.

[sam9657]

You guys are so naive it is scary. About one third of new cases in the US are not homosexual and not drug users. Your arguments are rediculous. Provide supporting evidence to your theories. Not having the money to test for all HIV cases in Africa has nothing to do with the cause of AIDs.

Ok so by your argument that 1/3 of new AIDS cases in the US are not homosexuals or drug users, THEN this means that 2/3 of new AIDS cases in the US ARE homosexuals or drug users. Validating my point that the demographics of AIDS in US is vastly different than that of Africa. This is due to the difference of the definition AIDS between the geographies.

PS: as for providing links, all of what I am saying can easliy be found via a quick google search, YET when I ask you to show me the study that prooves HIV causes AIDS or try to find it myself, it seems to be extremely difficult to come up with.

[Ninja Homer]

I would like to repeat my challenge from earlier. If AIDS is not caused by HIV, what does cause it and provide supporting studies and links. I am not seeing anything yet.

Most people who say AIDS is not caused by HIV will reference the work of Dr. Peter Duesberg. You'll find a lot of what you're asking for here: http://www.duesberg.com

The alternate theory to AIDS being caused by HIV is that AIDS is caused by certain recreational drug use, mostly amyl nitrites or “poppers”. They also say that another cause of AIDS is AZT, the drug actually used to treat HIV. AZT is a chemotherapy drug originally intended to be used on cancer, but was found to be too toxic. So a person tests positive for HIV, takes AZT to treat the HIV, the AZT destroys the person's immune system, and the person then develops AIDS.

I don't have any supporting studies... just relaying what I've been reading. There's probably some quoted studies here: http://rethinkingaids.com/

[tmosley]

Ok so by your argument that 1/3 of new AIDS cases in the US are not homosexuals or drug users, THEN this means that 2/3 of new AIDS cases in the US ARE homosexuals or drug users. Validating my point that the demographics of AIDS in US is vastly different than that of Africa. This is due to the difference of the definition AIDS between the geographies.

PS: as for providing links, all of what I am saying can easliy be found via a quick google search, YET when I ask you to show me the study that prooves HIV causes AIDS or try to find it myself, it seems to be extremely difficult to come up with.

Are you retarded? I posted the studies in this very thread.

Christ. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

[sam9657]

Are you retarded? I posted the studies in this very thread.

Christ. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

The articles you have posted are study which show there may be some link between HIV and AIDS. But the problem is that all of these study you have linked are NOT the original HIV = AIDS study nor do they proove HIV causes AIDS.

Please post the original study by Robert Gallo that shows HIV causes AIDS. I have yet to find this study.

[tmosley]

Most people who say AIDS is not caused by HIV will reference the work of Dr. Peter Duesberg. You'll find a lot of what you're asking for here: http://www.duesberg.com

The alternate theory to AIDS being caused by HIV is that AIDS is caused by certain recreational drug use, mostly amyl nitrites or “poppers”. They also say that another cause of AIDS is AZT, the drug actually used to treat HIV. AZT is a chemotherapy drug originally intended to be used on cancer, but was found to be too toxic. So a person tests positive for HIV, takes AZT to treat the HIV, the AZT destroys the person's immune system, and the person then develops AIDS.

I don't have any supporting studies... just relaying what I've been reading. There's probably some quoted studies here: http://rethinkingaids.com/

I also posted a study refuting this. People diagnosed with AIDS receiving no treatment have 70% mortality after one year. People who get treatment have between 10 and 20% mortality after one year.

It can't really get much clearer than that.

[tmosley]

The articles you have posted are study which show there may be some link between HIV and AIDS. But the problem is that all of these study you have linked are NOT the original HIV = AIDS study nor do they proove HIV causes AIDS.

Please post the original study by Robert Gallo that shows HIV causes AIDS. I have yet to find this study.

MY GOD YOU ARE SO FUCKING RETARDED. THAT'S THE STUDY I POSTED. IT STARTS WITH "GALLO".

I'm facepalming so hard right now, I can feel the back of my skull.

Edit: Here is the reference AGAIN. Gallo et al. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science (1984) 224:500-503

[steve005]

I also posted a study refuting this. People diagnosed with AIDS receiving no treatment have 70% mortality after one year. People who get treatment have between 10 and 20% mortality after one year.

It can't really get much clearer than that

dude you must be a big pharma troll or really FUCKING RETARDED, we're talking about whether "HIV" causes "AIDS"
so how does what you just said relate?

if people with hiv take a very toxic drug called AZT than theywill develop aids

[sam9657]

MY GOD YOU ARE SO FUCKING RETARDED. THAT'S THE STUDY I POSTED. IT STARTS WITH "GALLO".

I'm facepalming so hard right now, I can feel the back of my skull.

Edit: Here is the reference AGAIN. Gallo et al. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science (1984) 224:500-503

I have read this study before. It DOES NOT even come close to prooving HIV causes AIDS. In fact it only shows there is a correlation, in fact not even a very good correlation. Here is the link to the study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6200936

Peripheral blood lymphocytes from patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or with signs or symptoms that frequently precede AIDS (pre-AIDS) were grown in vitro with added T-cell growth factor and assayed for the expression and release of human T-lymphotropic retroviruses (HTLV). Retroviruses belonging to the HTLV family and collectively designated HTLV-III were isolated from a total of 48 subjects including 18 of 21 patients wih pre-AIDS, three of four clinically normal mothers of juveniles with AIDS, 26 of 72 adult and juvenile patients with AIDS, and from one of 22 normal male homosexual subjects. No HTLV-III was detected in or isolated from 115 normal heterosexual subjects. The number of HTLV-III isolates reported here underestimates the true prevalence of the virus since many specimens were received in unsatisfactory condition. Other data show that serum samples from a high proportion of AIDS patients contain antibodies to HTLV-III. That these new isolates are members of the HTLV family but differ from the previous isolates known as HTLV-I and HTLV-II is indicated by their morphological, biological, and immunological characteristics. These results and those reported elsewhere in this issue suggest that HTLV-III may be the primary cause of AIDS.


So basically the study is saying that just because we found 26 out of 72 AIDS had HTLV-III, means that HIV causes AIDS for sure? What about the other 46 AIDS patients who did not have HTLV-III? Now you can call me retarded but this DOESN NOT consitute definitive proof that HIV is the sole and only cause of AIDS by any stretch of the imagination.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't know why I am bothering at this point but:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm

The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS
BACKGROUND
The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was first recognized in 1981 and has since become a major worldwide pandemic. AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). By leading to the destruction and/or functional impairment of cells of the immune system, notably CD4+ T cells, HIV progressively destroys the body's ability to fight infections and certain cancers.
An HIV-infected person is diagnosed with AIDS when his or her immune system is seriously compromised and manifestations of HIV infection are severe. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) currently defines AIDS in an adult or adolescent age 13 years or older as the presence of one of 26 conditions indicative of severe immunosuppression associated with HIV infection, such as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a condition extraordinarily rare in people without HIV infection. Most other AIDS-defining conditions are also "opportunistic infections" which rarely cause harm in healthy individuals. A diagnosis of AIDS also is given to HIV-infected individuals when their CD4+ T-cell count falls below 200 cells/cubic millimeter (mm3) of blood. Healthy adults usually have CD4+ T-cell counts of 600-1,500/mm3 of blood. In HIV-infected children younger than 13 years, the CDC definition of AIDS is similar to that in adolescents and adults, except for the addition of certain infections commonly seen in pediatric patients with HIV. (CDC. MMWR 1992;41(RR-17):1; CDC. MMWR 1994;43(RR-12):1).

In many developing countries, where diagnostic facilities may be minimal, healthcare workers use a World Health Organization (WHO) AIDS case definiton based on the presence of clinical signs associated with immune deficiency and the exclusion of other known causes of immunosuppression, such as cancer or malnutrition. An expanded WHO AIDS case definition, with a broader spectrum of clinical manifestations of HIV infection, is employed in settings where HIV antibody tests are available (WHO. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 1994;69:273).

As of the end of 2000, an estimated 36.1 million people worldwide - 34.7 million adults and 1.4 million children younger than 15 years - were living with HIV/AIDS. Through 2000, cumulative HIV/AIDS-associated deaths worldwide numbered approximately 21.8 million - 17.5 million adults and 4.3 million children younger than 15 years. In the United States, an estimated 800,000 to 900,000 people are living with HIV infection. As of December 31, 1999, 733,374 cases of AIDS and 430,441 AIDS-related deaths had been reported to the CDC. AIDS is the fifth leading cause of death among all adults aged 25 to 44 in the United States. Among African-Americans in the 25 to 44 age group, AIDS is the leading cause of death for men and the second leading cause of death for women (UNAIDS. AIDS epidemic update: December 2000; CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; CDC. MMWR 1999;48[RR13]:1).

This document summarizes the abundant evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Questions and answers at the end of this document address the specific claims of those who assert that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

EVIDENCE THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS
HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.
Among many criteria used over the years to prove the link between putative pathogenic (disease-causing) agents and disease, perhaps the most-cited are Koch's postulates, developed in the late 19th century. Koch's postulates have been variously interpreted by many scientists, and modifications have been suggested to accommodate new technologies, particularly with regard to viruses (Harden. Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli [II] 1992;14:249; O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613). However, the basic tenets remain the same, and for more than a century Koch's postulates, as listed below, have served as the litmus test for determining the cause of any epidemic disease:

Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly associated with the disease.
Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host.
Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host.
With regard to postulate #1, numerous studies from around the world show that virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry antibodies that indicate HIV infection. With regard to postulate #2, modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease. In addition, the polymerase chain (PCR) and other sophisticated molecular techniques have enabled researchers to document the presence of HIV genes in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease.

Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).

In addition, through December 1999, the CDC had received reports of 56 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 25 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors. The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases, in mother-to-child transmission, and in studies of hemophilia, injection-drug use and sexual transmission in which seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999). For example, in a 10-year study in the Netherlands, researchers followed 11 children who had become infected with HIV as neonates by small aliquots of plasma from a single HIV-infected donor. During the 10-year period, eight of the children died of AIDS. Of the remaining three children, all showed a progressive decline in cellular immunity, and two of the three had symptoms probably related to HIV infection (van den Berg et al. Acta Paediatr 1994;83:17).

Koch's postulates also have been fulfilled in animal models of human AIDS. Chimpanzees experimentally infected with HIV have developed severe immunosuppression and AIDS. In severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice given a human immune system, HIV produces similar patterns of cell killing and pathogenesis as seen in people. HIV-2, a less virulent variant of HIV which causes AIDS in people, also causes an AIDS-like syndrome in baboons. More than a dozen strains of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a close cousin of HIV, cause AIDS in Asian macaques. In addition, chimeric viruses known as SHIVs, which contain an SIV backbone with various HIV genes in place of the corresponding SIV genes, cause AIDS in macaques. Further strengthening the association of these viruses with AIDS, researchers have shown that SIV/SHIVs isolated from animals with AIDS cause AIDS when transmitted to uninfected animals (O'Neil et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Liska et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1999;15:445; Locher et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523; Hirsch et al. Virus Res 1994;32:183; Joag et al. J Virol 1996;70:3189).

AIDS and HIV infection are invariably linked in time, place and population group.

Historically, the occurence of AIDS in human populations around the world has closely followed the appearance of HIV. In the United States, the first cases of AIDS were reported in 1981 among homosexual men in New York and California, and retrospective examination of frozen blood samples from a U.S. cohort of gay men showed the presence of HIV antibodies as early as 1978, but not before then. Subsequently, in every region, country and city where AIDS has appeared, evidence of HIV infection has preceded AIDS by just a few years (CDC. MMWR 1981;30:250; CDC. MMWR 1981;30:305; Jaffe et al. Ann Intern Med 1985;103:210; U.S. Census Bureau; UNAIDS).

Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a person will develop AIDS.

Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).

In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV-infected.

For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research.

In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet 1993;341:658).

Before the appearance of HIV, AIDS-related diseases such as PCP, KS and MAC were rare in developed countries; today, they are common in HIV-infected individuals.

Prior to the appearance of HIV, AIDS-related conditions such as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) and disseminated infection with the Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) were extraordinarily rare in the United States. In a 1967 survey, only 107 cases of PCP in the United States had been described in the medical literature, virtually all among individuals with underlying immunosuppressive conditions. Before the AIDS epidemic, the annual incidence of Kaposi's sarcoma in the United States was only 0.2 to 0.6 cases per million population, and only 32 individuals with disseminated MAC disease had been described in the medical literature (Safai. Ann NY Acad Sci 1984;437:373; Le Clair. Am Rev Respir Dis 1969;99:542; Masur. JAMA 1982;248:3013).

By the end of 1999, CDC had received reports of 166,368 HIV-infected patients in the United States with definitive diagnoses of PCP, 46,684 with definitive diagnoses of KS, and 41,873 with definitive diagnoses of disseminated MAC (personal communication).

In developing countries, patterns of both rare and endemic diseases have changed dramatically as HIV has spread, with a far greater toll now being exacted among the young and middle-aged, including well-educated members of the middle class.

In developing countries, the emergence of the HIV epidemic has dramatically changed patterns of disease in affected communities. As in developed countries, previously rare, "opportunistic" diseases such as PCP and certain forms of meningitis have become more commonplace. In addition, as HIV seroprevalence rates have risen, there have been significant increases in the burden of endemic conditions such as tuberculosis (TB), particularly among young people. For example, as HIV seroprevalence increased sharply in Blantyre, Malawi from 1986 to 1995, tuberculosis admissions at the city's main hospital rose more than 400 percent, with the largest increase in cases among children and young adults. In the rural Hlabisa District of South Africa, admissions to tuberculosis wards increased 360 percent from 1992 to 1998, concomitant with a steep rise in HIV seroprevalence. High rates of mortality due to endemic conditions such as TB, diarrheal diseases and wasting syndromes, formerly confined to the elderly and malnourished, are now common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged people in many developing countries (UNAIDS, 2000; Harries et al. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1997;1:346; Floyd et al. JAMA 1999;282:1087).

In studies conducted in both developing and developed countries, death rates are markedly higher among HIV-seropositive individuals than among HIV-seronegative individuals.



There is more at the link if you are willing to read it.

OK- maybe a little more from the link:

Nearly everyone with AIDS has antibodies to HIV.

A survey of 230,179 AIDS patients in the United States revealed only 299 HIV-seronegative individuals. An evaluation of 172 of these 299 patients found 131 actually to be seropositive; an additional 34 died before their serostatus could be confirmed (Smith et al. N Engl J Med 1993;328:373).

Numerous serosurveys show that AIDS is common in populations where many individuals have HIV antibodies. Conversely, in populations with low seroprevalence of HIV antibodies, AIDS is extremely rare.

For example, in the southern African country of Zimbabwe (population 11.4 million), more than 25 percent of adults ages 15 to 49 are estimated to be HIV antibody-positive, based on numerous studies. As of November 1999, more than 74,000 cases of AIDS in Zimbabwe had been reported to the World Health Organization (WHO). In contrast, Madagascar, an island country off the southeast coast of Africa (population 15.1 million) with a very low HIV seroprevalence rate, reported only 37 cases of AIDS to WHO through November 1999. Yet, other sexually transmitted diseases, notably syphilis, are common in Madagascar, suggesting that conditions are ripe for the spread of HIV and AIDS if the virus becomes entrenched in that country (U.S. Census Bureau; UNAIDS, 2000; WHO. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 1999;74:1; Behets et al. Lancet 1996;347:831).

[sam9657]

ZippyJuan, this is a rebuttal to what you posted.

A rebuttal to the NIAID/NIH document
“The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS”

Koch’s Postulate #1:
The assumption that a positive “HIV antibody” test indicates
active HIV infection in every case is not supported by the
scientific evidence. Also, the supposed correlation between a
positive HIV antibody test and AIDS is extremely weak”, based
on circular logic and has been flawed from the very beginning.
On April 23, 1984 Dr. Robert Gallo filed a patent application for
an antibody test, now generally referred to as the “AIDS test”.
The same day Gallo announced at an international press conference
that he had discovered a new retrovirus that he called
HTLV-III (now known as HIV), and that it was “the probable
cause of AIDS”. This announcement caught even the scientists
in the audience by surprise. Gallo had circumvented an
essential part of the scientific process; he had not published
his research findings in any scientific or medical journal or subjected
them to the normal process of peer review prior to being
announced to the public.
When Galloʼs “evidence” was finally published weeks later
there were some serious problems. The laboratory procedure
Gallo and his colleagues considered to prove isolation were
observed only in 36% of his AIDS patients and only 88% were
positive on the “HIV-antibody” test. Also, in order to ensure that
only the AIDS patients and not the healthy control group came
up positive on his antibody test, he had to dilute the blood an
extraordinary 500-fold. At lesser dilutions too many healthy
controls would also test positive. These facts alone should
have been enough to cast serious doubt on Galloʼs claim that
he had discovered a new retrovirus or the “probable cause of
AIDS” (Gallo, 1984; Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1993a; Koliadin,
1998). An excellent summary of how corrupt, deceitful (and
possibly even criminal) his research was can be found in the
book Science Fictions by John Crewdson, a Chicago Tribune
science writer (Crewdson, 2002)

There are tens of thousands of people who have been reported
with AIDS to the CDCʼs HIV/AIDS Surveillance “without laboratory
evidence regarding HIV infection”:
Upon request, the CDCʼs director of the HIV/AIDS division,
Harold Jaffe, stated that the HIV status of 43,606 out of the
253,448 American AIDS cases recorded by the end of 1992
was “not tested” (per. com., 1993). However this figure seems
to be an understatement. Obviously, all 10,360 American AIDS
cases diagnosed before the HIV antibody test, i.e., before
1985, were not tested (HIV/AIDS Surveillance, February 1993).
In addition, the CDC published that “Approximately one third
of AIDS patients in the United States have been from New
York and San Francisco, where, since 1985, 7% have been
reported with HIV-antibody test results, compared with 60% in
other areas” (Confronting AIDS-Update 1988). Thus, between
1985 and 1987, 58% (93% x 1/3 + 40% x 2/3) of the 56,807
AIDS cases recorded in that period, or 32,948, have not been
tested. For 1988, the CDC reported that 27% or 9,039 of the
33,480 AIDS cases recorded for that year were not tested for
HIV (Selik, R. M., et al., 1990, J. AIDS 3, 73-82). According
to the CDCʼs Technical Information Activity, 3682 AIDS cases
without an HIV-test were recorded in 1989, 2888 in 1990, 1960
in 1991, and 1395 in 1992 (per. com., 1993). Thus, at least
62,272, or 18,666 more than Jaffe reports, were not tested
(Duesberg, 1993).
There are thousands of people who have been diagnosed with
AIDS even though they were found to be HIV negative on the
antibody tests:
Determination of the HIV-AIDS correlation is further obscured
because HIV-free AIDS cases are not recorded in the CDCʼs
HIV/AIDS Surveillance. By 1993, at least 4621 HIV-free AIDS
cases had been documented in the U.S., Europe, and Africa
with the clinical AIDS definition. […] Some of these proved to
be HIV-free even by PCR amplification of viral RNA and DNA
(Duesberg, 1993).
In addition, HIV antibody tests are rarely used in Africa and
other poor nations where the majority of people with AIDS supposedly
reside, so there is no way of knowing how many test
positive on the HIV antibody tests. In these parts of the world
AIDS case definitions like the Abidjan/WHO, Bangui/WHO (clinical),
Caracas/PAHO and revised Caracas/PAHO leave the door
wide open for AIDS surveillance “without laboratory evidence
regarding HIV infection”. Surveys indicate that more than half of Africans who qualify for an AIDS diagnosis test HIV-negative:
227 patients with “AIDS”: 59% test HIV-negative (Lancet
340, p971, 1992)
122 patients with “AIDS”: 69% test HIV-negative (Am.
Rev. Resp. Diseases 147, p958, 1993)
913 patients with “AIDS”: 71% test HIV-negative
(J. AIDS 7:8, p876, 1994)
Finally, since positive HIV tests are now required in most
wealthy nations to diagnose AIDS, even people suffering from
one of the 29 “AIDS indicator diseases” with symptoms exactly
like those of AIDS, are not diagnosed with AIDS. This creates
a ridiculous artificial correlation in which the definition of AIDS
requires an HIV positive test, and then the artificial correlation
is used to try to show that HIV must be causing AIDS. (Note:
Under a few exceptional circumstances the CDC does not
require proof of HIV infection e.g.; PCP pneumonia with no
other apparent cause.)
In summary: If HIV antibody positive = HIV infection, clearly HIV
is not found in all cases; and the definition also allows HIV to
be absent. so HIV fails Kochʼs Postulate #1.

[sam9657]

KOCH’S POSTULATE #2

HIV has never been “isolated from the host and grown in
pure culture.” Proof of purification requires an electronmicrograph
showing [pure] viral particles with the morphology
of retroviruses — and nothing else. Such an electronmicrograph
has never been provided for HIV (Papadopulos, 1998b).
Attempts to show the purity of so-called HIV isolates have been
a complete failure (Gluschankof, 1997; Bess, 1997; De Harven,
1998a). Even Luc Montagnier, regarded as the discoverer of HIV,
has admitted that his research team failed to purify a virus. He
also said “analysis of the proteins of the virus demands mass
production and purification. It is necessary to do that”. His team
“had not enough particles produced to purify and characterize
the viral proteins” (Tahi, 1997). Since viruses and cells are made
of proteins and nucleic acids, and especially since there are
thousands of proteins and nucleic acids in cells, even if HIV did
exist how is it possible to tell which constituents are viral and
which are cellular? Attempts to show the purity of so-called HIV
isolates have been a complete failure (Gluschankof, 1997; Bess,
1997; De Harven, 1998a).

The word ʻisolationʼ is commonly used in HIV research papers
and, to most people, implies that the virus has been purified.
Yet, in reality, the term has been degraded to utter meaninglessness
because all that is looked for are surrogate markers
(e.g. certain enzymes or proteins) which are believed to come
from HIV. Not even one single intact viral particle is identified,
and none of the surrogate markers that are used are actually
specific to HIV. The process starts with unpurified extracts of
body fluids being added to a culture of cancerous cells along
with some stimulating chemicals. After several days or weeks,
the culture is usually examined for one of the following signs:
the reverse-transcriptase enzyme, the protein ʻp24ʼ, retroviruslike
particles or proteins that bind with antibodies from AIDS
patients. None of these are specific to retroviruses. Cultures
are radically changed by being exposed to atmospheric oxygen
levels (21%) rather than the 0.5-10% found within the body. It
seems that this is just another indication that culture systems
are unrepresentative of the real world: Roy S et al. Oxygen
sensing by primary cardiac fibroblasts a k key role of p24. Circ
Res. 2003; 92. ( Ranki, 1988; Roy; Papadopulos, 1993a).
The assumption that HIV can be isolated from “virtually all AIDS
patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals”
will be discussed in greater detail in sections B and C.

[sam9657]

Koch’s Postulate #3

Of the three people who supposedly got AIDS from ʻpurifiedʼ
or ʻconcentratedʼ virus, only one has been discussed in
any credible detail in the scientific journals. Duesberg is puzzled
why these cases have not been written up in medical journals,
as this would have been an opportunity to show that one of
Kochʼs postulates of causation by a microbe has been fulfilled
(Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, 2001). There have been no
scientific papers written about two of these three people and
there have never been any further reports, even though these
situations must have occurred no later than 1993 and since then
millions of needlestick injuries have occurred.

Weiss et al report:
In a prospective cohort study of 265 laboratory and affiliated
workers, one individual with no recognized risk factors for
human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection was
HIV-1 seropositive at the time of entry into the study. Molecular
analyses of two HIV-1 isolates derived in two independent
laboratories from a blood sample from this worker showed
that the isolates were indistinguishable from a genotypic form
of HIV-1 present in the H9/HTLV-IIIB cell line (Weiss. Science
1988, 239(4835):68-71).
This sounds impressive, but what does Weiss mean when he
claims “the isolates were indistinguishable”? Valendar Turner
offers a good analogy:
To speak of HIV DNA (i.e.; “molecular analyses”) first one
needs to prove that a particular sequence is unique and is
present (as the RNA equivalent) in Retroviral-like particles
proven to be a retrovirus (they arenʼt a virus until you prove
they and they alone are what induce the appearance of more
such particles). To proceed without such proof is no different
from conducting a paternity suit where there is no proof
that the DNA of the alleged father has been taken from the
defendant or even a man. What defines the alleged fatherʼs
DNA is solely that it comes from his body. Itʼs no different with
retroviruses. The operative expression is virologica habeas
corpus. Amplification, sequencing, hybridization is wondrous
stuff and keeps masses of scientists employed but their work
is utterly meaningless in terms of a retrovirus if you donʼt have
proof thatʼs where it comes from.

To see the basic fallacy underlying these molecular analyses,
consider the results of attempts at HIV isolation from a cell line
like H9/HTLV-IIIB. Two papers in the leading science journal
Virology in March 1997 provide astonishing data on the purification
and isolation of HIV (Gluschankof et al, 1997; Bess
et al, 1997). For the first time in the history of AIDS, elusive
electron microscope images of ʻHIVʼ collected or ʻbandedʼ at
the official density required for purifying retroviruses, 1.16 gm/
ml, were published. The electronmicrographs (EMs) disclosed
“major contaminants” in “pure HIV” — an oxymoron to say the
least. The authors of these studies conceded that their pictures
reveal the vast majority of the material in the density gradient
was cellular contamination. HIV expert Hans Gelderblom, of
Berlinʼs Robert Koch Institute, co-authored the first paper which
describes the contamination as “an excess of vesicles” — particles
of cellular proteins, that may contain DNA or RNA. In a
consecutive paper, a U.S. research team from the AIDS Vaccine
Programme in Maryland reveal carefully, “It is unknown how
these cellular proteins associate with the virus” and warn, “The
presence of microvesicles in purified retroviruses has practical
implications”. One has to wonder how it could be possible to
sequence an “HIV” genome or obtain pure HIV proteins from
“isolates” like these. (See Figure 1.)
Eleopulos and colleagues summarize the problem:
The “HIV RNA” and “HIV DNA” are defined on the basis of
length (approximately 10,000 nucleotides) and chemical
composition (adenine rich) of all the RNA present in cultures
of tissues of AIDS patients, NOT on the basis of RNA
extracted from a particle first isolated and then proven to be
a retrovirus.
In 1990 the HIV genome was said to consist of ten genes. This
year Montagnier reported that HIV possesses eight genes
and according to Barr‚-Sinoussi, HIV has nine genes. Neither
is there constancy of the number of nucleotides in the “HIV
genome”. Also, to date, only 11 full length “HIV genomes” have
been sequenced and accordingly, HIV genotype consignments
are derived from sequence analysis of subgenomes measuring
2% to 30% of the total. The data is that such “genomes”
vary between 3-40%. (If 30% of the HIV genome varies as
much as 40%, how much does 100% of the HIV genome vary?
In the HIV Western blot, how can an HIV producing one set of
proteins detect antibodies that are produced in response to
the set of all other disparate “HIV genomes”? When does “HIV”
become some other entity?). Thus, not only are there no two
HIV genomes of the same length or nucleotide composition,
there is no single genetic entity “HIV DNA” to describe the
myriads of “HIV genomes”. It is also estimated that patients
contain between one and one hundred million distinct HIV
DNAs at the one time. Neither is it correct to encompass such
DNAs under the umbrella of a quasispecies of “closely related
genomes” (Eleopulos, 1996).

NIH: “In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida
dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of
virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients.”

Duesberg summarizes the evidence disproving the allegations
against Dr. Acer:
Based on their own research, insurance companies concluded
that the HIV strains in the five patients were different from
that in Acer, meaning each caught it from a different source.
(116) A study out of Florida State University has backed this
conclusion. (117) Even the CDC acknowledged this evidence,
though it still preferred to believe the dentist had infected Bergalis.
But the CDCʼs own numbers give away the reality. An
estimated 1 million Americans have HIV, in a total population
of 250 million. Thus, 1 in 250 Americans have the virus. Five
HIV -infected patients of Dr. Acer, out of 1,100 tested, comes to
1 in 220, virtually identical to the national average. [...] These
HIV positive patients merely represent random samples from
the general population.
The CDCʼs theory that AIDS was transmitted from Dr. Acer
to his patient [Kimberly Bergalis] began to crumble in the
mainstream press in 1994 when an investigative reporter
researched the alleged victims of Dr. Acer. “He found weak
evidence, shoddy science, and the work of a very accomplished
malpractice attorney.” (118)
The report first casts doubt on the time course of AIDS transmission
from Dr. Acer to his patients. “[Bergalis] developed
AIDS just two years after the surgery, and only 1 percent
of HIV positive patients develop the full-blown disease that quickly.” (119) The investigation disclosed that one of the six
other patients that Acer presumably infected had visited the
dentistʼs office only once for a cleaning by a hygienist, not
by Acer himself. (120) The report further calls into question
the exclusive reliance of the CDC and the malpractice
attorney of the “Acer six” on the DNA fingerprinting technique
to match Acerʼs virus with those of his patients. [...] Several
experts have directly challenged the DNA fingerprinting that
linked Acer to his patients, claiming that instead Bergalisʼs
virus matched other HIV strains much more closely. (121)
In view of this, a writer in the New York Times commented,
“The CDC owes it to the public to reopen [Acerʼs] case.” (122)
(Duesberg, 1996)
Not one paramedic, emergency medical technician or surgeon
in the U.S. has contracted AIDS from on-the-job exposure
(CDC, 2000). Out of 733,374 total U.S. AIDS cases through
1999, only 25 are thought to be occupationally acquired, based
on presumptive evidence — meaning they admitted no other
risk factor (CDC, 2000). In Canada, out of 17,389 AIDS cases
through 2000, only 5 are reported as occupationally acquired
(PPHB, 2001). Only one case has been documented, and the
evidence was weak and circumstantial (CCDR, 1992). Consider
that the 1 million needle-stick injuries among health care
workers in the U.S. each year result in about 1,000 cases of
hepatitis among health care workers annually. That means that
in the 18 years of AIDS, health care workers contracted 18,000
cases of hepatitis and 25 cases of AIDS. Pretty strange if HIV
is a blood-borne virus!

[sam9657]

Rest of Paper can be found here:

http://www.healtoronto.com/nih/main.html

[LibForestPaul]

AIDS does not equal HIV.
i.e. Immune diseases are caused by HIV and a host of other conditions.

[tmosley]

Koch's postulates don't work for viruses. This was said in the last thread.


dude you must be a big pharma troll or really FUCKING RETARDED, we're talking about whether "HIV" causes "AIDS"
so how does what you just said relate?

if people with hiv take a very toxic drug called AZT than theywill develop aids

I wasn't talking to you, fool. I was talking to NinjaHomer, the study I cited shows that HIV treatment decreases mortality by 70 to 85%. Thus, use of AZT does NOT increase the death rate of the infected.

But then, I suppose you'll just continue to deny reality for all time, as you have shown a propensity to in the past. In a few more months, you'll start this EXACT SAME THREAD again, and the cycle of douchbaggery will continue.

Well, I'm done with it. If you or your family gets AIDS and dies from your foolishness, then I have to thank Darwin. The human race will be better off, as will my blood pressure.

[sam9657]

Koch's postulates don't work for viruses. This was said in the last thread.



I wasn't talking to you, fool. I was talking to NinjaHomer, the study I cited shows that HIV treatment decreases mortality by 70 to 85%. Thus, use of AZT does NOT increase the death rate of the infected.

But then, I suppose you'll just continue to deny reality for all time, as you have shown a propensity to in the past. In a few more months, you'll start this EXACT SAME THREAD again, and the cycle of douchbaggery will continue.

Well, I'm done with it. If you or your family gets AIDS and dies from your foolishness, then I have to thank Darwin. The human race will be better off, as will my blood pressure.

Thats the thing, my family will NEVER get AIDS because we do not use recreational drug and understand proper nutrition.

[Zippyjuan]

Recreational drug use is only one of the ways you can get infected. You can also get it from heterosexual conduct. Does your family abstain from that as well? Nutrition is not really a factor for getting HIV. I willl have to read the rest of your post when I have more time.

[HonestyInMedicine]

Colloidal silver should be in everyone's medicine cabinet who has tested positive for HIV or Aids'. The answer to cures for ANY chronic or degnerative disease INCLUDING AIDS is to strengthen your immune system and you DON'T do that with drugs -- that's for darn sure. Drugs ONLY MASK SYMPTOMS. To get rid of the disease, you have to get rid of what is causing it. Only doctors trained in Naturopathic Medicine can help with this. M.Ds are NOT trained in Naturopathic medicine -- only Allopathic Medicine (which is not healthcare but disease care).

[dannno]

Recreational drug use is only one of the ways you can get infected. You can also get it from heterosexual conduct. Does your family abstain from that as well? Nutrition is not really a factor for getting HIV. I willl have to read the rest of your post when I have more time.

Nutrition is a factor for getting AIDS, not HIV. Many people have had AIDS and never had HIV. It may be due to drug use, malnutrition or a host of other conditions and diseases. There are a number of causes of AIDS, and HIV is not one of them. Those who face similar risk factors for developing AIDS also have similar risk factors for getting HIV. However, HIV is a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS.

[dannno]

Colloidal silver should be in everyone's medicine cabinet who has tested positive for HIV or Aids'. The answer to cures for ANY chronic or degnerative disease INCLUDING AIDS is to strengthen your immune system and you DON'T do that with drugs -- that's for darn sure. Drugs ONLY MASK SYMPTOMS. To get rid of the disease, you have to get rid of what is causing it. Only doctors trained in Naturopathic Medicine can help with this. M.Ds are NOT trained in Naturopathic medicine -- only Allopathic Medicine (which is not healthcare but disease care).

Ya I use colloidal silver for immune support. Good stuff.

[dannno]

I do believe conspiracies can be true.. but really, you must not know people who are dying from this shit.
These people would spit in your face. They got HIV... they now have aids. the only thing they all have in common is having HIV.

Actually I do know an AIDS patient who has has HIV for almost 20 years. He used alternative treatments up until about 7 years ago, at which point he switched to the AIDS cocktails and alternative treatments. He now has thousands of dollars worth of medication in boxes that has expired, and he's still kicking, working, and is fairly healthy.

He knows about Peter Duesberg as he studied much of his work in the past. He doesn't know what the truth is either. He did not spit in my face when I brought up AIDS denial.

I wish he would read more of Duesberg's new material and perhaps figure out what is actually wrong with his own health, because he certainly does have some issues. Unfortunately he has gotten to the age where, with an open mind as he once had, is fairly set in his beliefs and his ways. He doesn't eat a healthy diet and is not concerned with that either, so I can't really see that happening at this point.

[dannno]

M House, if you only watched the first 15 minutes of that video I'd recommend finishing it up. From my perspective, Dr. Duesberg pretty much proves what he is trying to say. There are a lot of people with HIV who claim to be alive and well. I think this is really important, and instead of being ignorant about it I wish more people would take it seriously. People have a hard time believing that an entire society can be hoodwinked like we were.

[M House]

I'll get back to it. I believe that HIV tends to greatly interfere with immune processes looking at the mechanics. However, it's choosy when it comes to picking cells to "attack" and replicate from. Some people will likely be very incompatible with viral infection and be relatively immune. I do not believe it was handled very well so far in the treatment, drugs, and research however. Hopefully, T mosley is right when he says he gots something quite a bit different. Otherwise, I think you might as well just get creative. You can flush your CD4+ I believe by either converting or destroying them in the thymus and control certain elements of the immune system without them. Many compounds do this remember the cannabinoids and their immunological effects. However you'd have to pick a different mechanic to operate it from probably the testosterone/DHEA cycle if I'd just take a crap shoot.

[M House]

Okay, I'm a bit baffled why you can't take care of AIDs with your own body. I only affects a small part of the CD4 production path from what I understand and your body should be able to make many more. You might not be able to remove the virus fully but hell you should be able to make it hard for it to stay in number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymus
You outta be able to cycle thru CD4 production here just hacking and slashing testosterone and DHEA. I mean that's pretty much what you had to survive at puberty. It's also affected by the vagus nerve. You can do alot with that. Notice the chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intrathymic_T_Cell_Differentiation.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spleen
Okay it's also involved with CD4s but I'm not sure what the specific role is. Maybe destruction and regulation of some of them. It's controlled thru the spleenic nerve and responds to different auto-immune elements. This might be more complicated to operate but whatever I'll just say yes, I mean what we can't we do?

Alright I need to track down some of the other major players involved with our auto-immune system and review that article I had on some of the HIV mechanics.

[M House]

Alright, Dannno I'm going back thru the video to listen to Duesberg. After listening a bit I'm beginning to see the problem. He's a smart guy but he's arguing without the idea HIV does nothing instead of concentrating on faulting the holes in it's mechanics.
Obviously it doesn't exactly....
1. Reactivate
2. Mutate
3. Migrate
4. Hibernate
It's in the immune and lymphatic system which technically is make things weird. The way I see it slowly knocks out CD4 mechanics. You body can of course produce new CD4s but they can of course can be re-infected. I figure for the initial stage of infection it's pretty much taking root as you can't clear all of these cells. As you age your ability to produce and differentiate CD4s decreases. Once the ability to produce these becomes significantly decreased, you can't even work the auto-immune elements to suppress the virus. It can take off now but I doubt there will ever be a particularly high concentration. Once it overthrows the CD4+ production chain it loses it host cell source. All the other associated diseases are just complications of having a knocked out immune response. Anyway, that's my guess I'll finish up the video.

[M House]

I don't know why they keep hammering away with Koch's postulate it's a retrovirus. Is there a single one of those that would meet all the listed conditions?

[Ex Post Facto]

Apparently there is a cure. This should be reason to relax the patent regulations, as is already defined in the constitution to provide patents for only a period of time for the inventor to produce the item. Not to forever, hold onto a publicly beneficial patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Antelman+Technologies%22&OS=%22Antelman+Technologies%22&RS=%22Antelman+Technologies%22


testing revealed complete 100% destruction of the AIDS virus in vitro at 20 PPM, and the fact that said devices were harmless when ingested and inhaled, being non-toxic.

[M House]

Okay, I finished it for the most part I really didn't agree with much. Saying drugs cause aids is kinda silly. I mean you smoke marijuana are you gonna get AIDs? However, I have looked into Zidovudine (AZT) and don't feel it's very good at all. It also brought up the bone marrow which is part of the cellular mechanics that's useful. I guess I have a few different disease and things to look at and compare though. I beginning to think AIDs might have been a long existing virus too that has simply worked itself into populations thru sex etc. that can't handle it. I mean europeans did okay with small pox and others but hell it wiped Native Americans off of the map. I also feel the more hosts it infects the more compatible it can become to different immune systems. Aka why we sorta have the epidemic now. Afterall it uses the immune system itself to reproduce more or less. Your system does the work for the virus in so many ways here. Anyway, to stop the virus you got to destroy the infected cells period. This is very difficult to do apparently.

[M House]

Apparently there is a cure. This should be reason to relax the patent regulations, as is already defined in the constitution to provide patents for only a period of time for the inventor to produce the item. Not to forever, hold onto a publicly beneficial patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22Antelman+Technologies%22&OS=%22Antelman+Technologies%22&RS=%22Antelman+Technologies%22

Call me skeptic but I don't think that will eliminate it. It might work somewhat but it doesn't seem to getting at the core of the problem. You have to destroy all the cells that have integrated the virus. Otherwise they will just produce more.