To be ohnest with you, I have a lot of doubts that everything what we know about HIV is true. I've read a lot about it, even if HIV dosn't couse AIDS I don't want to have it. This is intersting that we can find a lot of data about HIV on websites of non-beleivers. I can't find a lot of data about it on official websites. I'm asking why? On these websites you can find usually what it's HIV, what does it couse and what you can do if you have it. For me it's imposible that after 25 years, in genetic era we still don't anything. I think it's a huge business for pharmaceutical companies that we have no cure for HIV.
chicagomen saidTo be ohnest with you, I have a lot of doubts that everything what we know about HIV is true. I've read a lot about it, even if HIV dosn't couse AIDS I don't want to have it. This is intersting that we can find a lot of data about HIV on websites of non-beleivers. I can't find a lot of data about it on official websites. I'm asking why? On these websites you can find usually what it's HIV, what does it couse and what you can do if you have it. For me it's imposible that after 25 years, in genetic era we still don't anything. I think it's a huge business for pharmaceutical companies that we have no cure for HIV.
Scientists know a lot about HIV. You need to do more research.
The situation is everyone is different so HIV effects everyone differntly so they can't just make one cure. It's a mutative virus that comes in many forms and fashions. Also the drugs that are avalible out there to combat the virus,and there are a lot of them, because everyone is different the side effects make some worst and some better than others depending on who it is. Which also makes the results different. Understand that this is something that is an epidimic and has only been studied hard core now for 25 years. If you are really interested get intouch with anyone from the Infectious Desies Clinic from Emory University in Atlanta.
Pharmaceuticals will still make a ton of money if they had a cure for HIV.... People will still get it.... people still get Chlamydia, Gonorrhea and the like...
The whole idea that they arent finding a "cure" because it would make them lose money is silly. You could say that about cancer too, and cancer has been around a lot longer than HIV.
I would like you to present your point of view to someone who has lost a loved one to HIV/AIDS, chicagomen.
To watch your man waste away, going blind and terrified by what is happening to him. The array of drugs that he had to take to just keep himself alive (albeit not for long). To be witness to government's who said "they're just poofs!" as they withheld funding for health initiatives that could have helped.
Our world comes together to help those in need all the time, such as the Tsumani in Indonesia and the flood in New Orleans. Where were those charitable forces when gay people were being wiped out in enormous numbers in the early eighties?
Answer? Nowhere.
It is only from the activism and efforts of the gay people on the ground when HIV hit us that we are now able to control this insidious disease. I am now 38 years old. I am young enough to have been around when the condom revolution arrived. Many of my old friends weren't. I lost so many friends, lovers and even outward acquaintances - people you just see around.
You weren't even born when AZT was the only treatment for AIDS. It killed as randomly as it helped. Then we had PCP- intended to stop Karposi's Sarcoma. It did it's job, but to an amazing detriment.
I, personally, spent many years in fucking hospital rooms holding hands as I watched my friends die. I am haunted by those funerals, those times I had to explain to various mothers why their sons were gone.
I was part of the guerilla group who would raid my dead friend's house to remove all porn, lube and toys - whatever! By the time his mom came around, grief stricken, she would find NOTHING to make her son any less than that little boy she remembered.
I'm a lucky boy. I was part of the condom revolution. I have never had unsafe sex. I knew from my upbringing that unsafe sex was dangerous. But between me and the guys who didn't have safe sex there is only a couple of years.
Yes,today, there are the triumvirate of drugs and processes that keep HIV/AIDS at bay. It is no longer a death sentence, for which we are all grateful. But, I ask you - do you want to live the rest of your life reliant on the routine of taking a potent mix of drugs every day, just to keep you alive?
Do you want to spend every day wondering about getting sick?
A friend once tried to convince me that HIV was not the cause of Aids. His argument (which doesn't hold any water imho) was that all those Africans got Aids and since they were not tested for Hiv, nobody could prove that Hiv caused Aids. I'm still rolling my eyes on that one. He also believed in a conspiracy of doctors and pharmaceutical companies, putting out fake information to try and exploit the crisis for the financial gain. I'm not cynical enough to believe this, especially about doctors.
Back in the late '80s/early '90s, when I was editing a magazine, I assigned a reporter to spend six months investigating the claims of people like Peter Duesberg (whom I've interviewed myself). Because my partner is an HIV/AIDS researcher, the reporter got plenty of access to prominent scientists on both sides of this question.
There is simply no evidence that HIV isn't the most significant factor in the development of AIDS. I remember that Duesberg kept saying he would intentionally infect himself with HIV, but somehow managed to forget to do this.
Frankly I didn't know there were many people still around who deny HIV's role in AIDS.
O'dubs, on the Internet you can find anything including morons who "don't know about" or doubt the link between HIV and AIDS. Idiocy abounds on the Internet.
I beleve there is a link bewteen HIV & Aids, But I also believe alot of these drug cocktail combinations cause alot of the Aids sympothoms. The alternative is probaly far worse. My Ex was Poz, I know his doctors use to give him Drug holiday, and it helped alot of his ill symptoms.
I like to think I take a very balanced view on this. If there are people out there who think they have scientific evidence to support the hypothisis that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS, then it is their responsibility to present this evidence, and to show that it can withstand scientific scrutiny.
That being said, there is one thing you can not get around. If you develop AIDS, you have HIV in your blood. And to my knowledge, there is nobody who has ever developed AIDS without it.
Whether a person agrees or disagrees with the theory, it is interesting. Even just from the standpoint of the treatments and western medical approach.
Yes, there are a growing number of scientists, physicians and researchers who dispute the current perspective and treatment on HIV and it's relation to AIDS, proper treatment at what time, side effects of drugs matching the symptoms of a disease, having nothing to do with market and business considerations of the pharmaceutical industry.
I don't know of anyone who disputes that AIDS exists, but how HIV is directly related has always been of dispute, only recently has it become a more public dispute.
HIV is not the only case to site of wide acceptance and institution of practice or treatment on a subject that is in question. Nor would it be the only case to explore in terms of human management, macroeconomics of crisis, politics, government or medicine.
No matter the position on theory, it does not change the case that safe sex is really the only option for preserving a healthy body. There are lots of nasty bugs out there a person can get through unsafe sex. Many people have suffered and died from a lack of understanding of HIV, an evolving practice of treatment and more time and money needs to be spent on research in addition to treatment.
I do know more than a few researchers, nurses, physicians, counselors and even a couple of drug developers who have discussed the issue. Only a couple of them when asked have said that there is a clear link between HIV and AIDS and I don't know two doctors who would approach treatment in the same way, off the record. On record, that's a different story.
I'd like to read the article Obscenewish talked about and I'd love to see more links on both sides. Anyone have them?
That being said, there is one thing you can not get around. If you develop AIDS, you have HIV in your blood. And to my knowledge, there is nobody who has ever developed AIDS without it.
Actually this is one thing I know isn't completely true. There are many documented cases where people with AIDS do not have HIV in their blood. I'll see if I can find the link to that research.
No one disagrees that they are terrible things, but science is based on objective thought. If everyone agreed, science would go nowhere. The clashing of ideas in science leads us to more accurate views. It would suck if everyone just agreed that the world was flat, and no one went against this train of thought.
That being said, there is one thing you can not get around. If you develop AIDS, you have HIV in your blood. And to my knowledge, there is nobody who has ever developed AIDS without it.
Actually this is one thing I know isn't completely true. There are many documented cases where people with AIDS do not have HIV in their blood. I'll see if I can find the link to that research.
By all means, please post it. However, you may be confusing the term AIDS. The A stands for aquired. Meaning that you need to do some action to get it. (sorry if that sounds smug, it isn't my intention). As in contracting a virus, for example.
There are also people who don't believe the Holocaust really happened either. Doesn't mean you should give credence to it.
There is a very clear link between HIV and AIDS. The reason why treatment varies is because people vary. Everyone's immune system is different, and when you are providing a therapy that targets the immune system or a virus that attacks it, everyone is going to have a slightly different response. That's just how virus/host relationships work.
There are well documented cases of HIV + people going decades without the need of therapy. And there are documented cases of people who have high exposure and never contract. There's even documented cases on people clearing the virus from there system.
This is a pretty well-documented phenomenon with most viruses. Smallpox is a good example of this.
I work in Africa. I see the effect of HIV/AIDS on a population that does not have access to "treatments". Trust me, it's real.
chicagomen saidTo be ohnest with you, I have a lot of doubts that everything what we know about HIV is true. I've read a lot about it, even if HIV dosn't couse AIDS I don't want to have it. This is intersting that we can find a lot of data about HIV on websites of non-beleivers. I can't find a lot of data about it on official websites. I'm asking why? On these websites you can find usually what it's HIV, what does it couse and what you can do if you have it. For me it's imposible that after 25 years, in genetic era we still don't anything. I think it's a huge business for pharmaceutical companies that we have no cure for HIV.
I've seen the movie before... it's interesting. But...
Well, the youngest daughter of the ones that made the film died shortly after the film was released. They still believe there's no such thing as AIDS, even with their daughter dying because they refuse to medicate her.
momewrath saidI've seen the movie before... it's interesting. But...
Well, the youngest daughter of the ones that made the film died shortly after the film was released. They still believe there's no such thing as AIDS, even with their daughter dying because they refuse to medicate her.
Quite delusional couple, they are.
The mother, Christine Maggiore, died last December at age 52.
kinetic saidI thought that it worked like first you get HIV and then it (unless treated) it develops into AIDS. Or am I on glue?
The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) destroys CD-4 cells in the human immune system. Not everyone that contracts HIV, that goes untreated develops "AIDS", but most do so. The HIV virus kills, AIDS is just the last stage of HIV, basically at the point where the person's human system is so badly damaged he/she can no longer fight off infectious diseases.
HIV also destroys the intestinal tract thus preventing the body from absorbing important nutrients that are needed for good health. Thus the wasting appearance of many HIV sufferers. People can die of malnutrition caused by HIV as well as other more exotic diseases such as CMV, PCP or non-hodgkin's lymphoma.
HIV=AIDS is a scam. first of all aids is not a single disease its a collection of around 30 old diseases. HTLV-III LAV has never been isolated. robert gallo the man who told the world hiv was the cause of aids made last minute changes to the popovic papers and was found guilty of medical misconduct. And there is a cure for aids. go to the www.uspto.gov website search patents, 5676977-4647773 and you will see on this site that you can get aids without hiv.
SteveKG saidThere are also people who don't believe the Holocaust really happened either. Doesn't mean you should give credence to it.
There is a very clear link between HIV and AIDS. The reason why treatment varies is because people vary. Everyone's immune system is different, and when you are providing a therapy that targets the immune system or a virus that attacks it, everyone is going to have a slightly different response. That's just how virus/host relationships work.
There are well documented cases of HIV + people going decades without the need of therapy. And there are documented cases of people who have high exposure and never contract. There's even documented cases on people clearing the virus from there system.
This is a pretty well-documented phenomenon with most viruses. Smallpox is a good example of this.
I work in Africa. I see the effect of HIV/AIDS on a population that does not have access to "treatments". Trust me, it's real.
Africans are not dieing from aids, they are dieng from poverty related illnesses, but now they call it aids. hiv is not real
rebel65 said And there is a cure for aids. go to the www.uspto.gov website search patents, 5676977-4647773 and you will see on this site that you can get aids without hiv.
As someone who is HIV+ I am happy to entertain the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, IF you can provide me your expert credentials in this matter and the diverse research you have engaged in to come to this conclusion...
until that time, I will listen to those who have been fighting this disease from day 1 like my doctor who has kept me healthy.
rebel65 said And there is a cure for aids. go to the www.uspto.gov website search patents, 5676977-4647773 and you will see on this site that you can get aids without hiv.
Two patents != Scientific findings, dude.
search each patent separately this is no fake site. its the United States Patent and Trademark Office An Agency Of The United States commerce.
It's an interesting concept, but I find it hard to beleive that a virus which causes the presence of a specific antibody does not exist. Besides, even if HIV is just some sort of hoax, it doesn't negate the fact that AIDS exists. If we can detect some sort of problem with a person's immune system (HIV or whatever it may be), I don't see any reason not to undergo treatment to prevent a condition such as AIDS.
There is another movie, just released a couple of weeks ago, called House of Numbers that also seems to question the relationship between HIV and AIDS.
The filmmaker interviewed probably three dozen scientists who have worked on HIV/AIDS research for decades, the A-list of AIDS research, including Dr. Robert Gallo who is credited with discovering HIV.
I can't say this film has made me throw out everything I think I know about HIV/AIDS, but it is extremely though provoking. It's made me realize that there is not complete consensus among the scientists who have researched this.
It also makes a pretty compelling case that Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia are probably caused by amyl nitrite (poppers) and not AIDS.
It also makes a pretty strong case that many of the early deaths may have been caused by AZT, one of the drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS before antiretroviral cocktails. But then, of course, some people died before they even identified AIDS, and they weren't taking treatment drugs. So obviously that might only explain SOME cases.
Some people have lived for years with an HIV diagnosis and without taking any treatment drugs. One girl featured in the film has lived for 16 years without any treatment.
I came away from the film thinking (and this is just my own thoughts on it) that HIV might be like many other diseases in that some people's systems are naturally able to combat it better than others. They can live for years (and conceivably for a normal life span) without ever taking treatment. These are people who may be likely to deny the conventional wisdom about HIV.
In any case, I think there is still a lot of research to be done. We'll probably continue to find out new discoveries about how HIV operates for decades to come.
Philadelphiabound said That being said, there is one thing you can not get around. If you develop AIDS, you have HIV in your blood. And to my knowledge, there is nobody who has ever developed AIDS without it.
That was one of the compelling parts of the film I referred to above. Hearing that there actually are people who have symptoms of AIDS (and meet the clinical definition of it) but routinely test negative for HIV.
rebel65 said And there is a cure for aids. go to the www.uspto.gov website search patents, 5676977-4647773 and you will see on this site that you can get aids without hiv.
Two patents != Scientific findings, dude.
search each patent separately this is no fake site. its the United States Patent and Trademark Office An Agency Of The United States commerce.
Here's the thing, so correct me if I am wrong, but isn't AIDS just a condition of the disease of HIV? I thought AIDS was when your t-cell count dropped below a certain number/ratio. AIDS isn't a disease in itself though. HIV causes those t-cells to drop and HIV is the actual disease. To say HIV does not cause AIDS seems ridiculous since you can't really acquire the syndrome of AIDS without having HIV to put you into that state. But again, I haven't studied the topic recently so my knowledge could be off.
OMG I can't believe people think some of this stuff. But as someone in medical school on his way to becoming a doctor and with a wonderful boyfriend who works in HIV research, let me just clarify some of the points people seem to misunderstand:
1. HIV does cause AIDS. Why? Well AIDS is not a seperate disease from HIV. AIDS is simply a number. HIV is a virus that invades a specific type of immune system cell called the CD4+ T cell. This cell is particularly effective in helping against viral infections. So obviously by HIV infecting the CD4+ T cell it ends up killing the cell, thereby wiping out your immune system. AIDS is simply a diagnosis of when your CD4+ T-cell counts is less than 200 cells/ul of blood.
2. AIDS is not a group of 30 old diseases. Whoever told you that is not imformed about this disease at all. As stated before HIV wipes out your immune system. This means you can't fight off infections your body normally would have been able to handle. So things like the common cold, pneumonias, etc start becoming extremely dangerous. In fact most of the more severe diseases we see in patients with AIDS are of infectious diseases that our bodies can normally very easily handle. Hence scientists and physicians know very little about them since they were very rare problems until the 1980's AIDS epidemic.
3. As for the drug companies holding back a cure...that's totally bullshit. People in reasearch are hardworking people that care about finding a cure and getting it out into the world just as much as everyone else. You might be wondering why can't we find a cure? Well the problem lies in the fact that the virus basically works by "hijacking" its hosts (ie you and I) cells in order to replicate. So by infecting our cells it means that in order to kill the virus, you also have to kill your own cells. So now you begin to see where the problem in finding a cure is. How do you cure a virus that has now taken over the very cells that are you and I. Its not like a bacteria where the bacteria is a seperate organism from the human. Viruses need a host to replicate. So to attack the virus you need to find ways in which it is different from the host. Currently we only know 3 ways that are completely unique to the virus: preventing it from entering our cells (fusion inhibitors), messing up its replication process (reverse transcriptase inhibitors), and by messing up its assembly process (proteinase inhibitors).
This thread is really upsetting to me, and the lack of knowledge amongst gays in pretty astonishing. Please ask your doctors questions. You're smart people, all it takes is a little explaining. But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE refrain from making up stories about how AIDS is that, and HIV doesn't exist, and blah blah blah. GET EDUCATED, help fight against the disease, don't make it worse with misinformation.
For those of you who DID NOT go through the onset and question the relationship of HIV and AIDS, I urge you to get the movie "And The Band Played On" or the book. It is based on actual events and is about the onset and beginnings of the virus and disease. There is a lot of questionable information in these posts and I would urge you all to do your own research and talk to your doctors. As someone who lived through that time and came out unscathed (my apologies for word usage to my HIV+ brothers), I have no doubt about the origins of HIV or A.I.D.S. and while Dr. Robert Gallo is a briliant scientist, he was an ass only interested in beating out the French for credit for the discovery while people were dying. This during the Reagan years when even he, President Ronald Reagan, waited two years before even addressing the situation before the nation.
Do I sound a little angry? Yea, but differnt now that we have "Bug chasers" among us, but that is the subject of another thread.
Just for the record, using the fact that there has been no cure despite 25 years of research is a stupid argument. Science has rarely ever been able to cure any viral disease. Most diseases we have "cures" for aren't cures, but preventative vaccines. We can't cure polio, small pox, chicken pox, influenza, etc... And all those have been around much longer than AIDS.
There is a set of postulates in the scientific community that is used to determine whether or not a particular pathogen is the cause of a disease. Termed the famous "Koch's Postulates", they are as follows:
1. Every individual with the disease in question must be infected with the pathogen in question.
2. One must be able to isolate the suspect pathogen from a diseased individual and be able to grow it in pure culture.
3. The disease must be able to be artificially induced by injecting the pure culture into a healthy animal and/or individual.
4. The same exact pathogen in question must be able to be isolated and grown in pure culture from these diseased individuals who were injected with the pure pathogen.
Many of the early arguments for HIV (the pathogen in this case) not being the cause of AIDS were because HIV does not meet a few of these postulates as they are written. We've since found ways to "work around" these postulates so that they are indeed, scientifically satisfied.
For example, the first interview in the trailer says that "HIV has not been isolated from human beings." This violates Koch's postulates 1 and 2.
Well, viruses are tricky. As hampig71 stated, viruses "hijack" your own cells. In the case of HIV, when it infects a human CD4+ T cell, it inserts its own genetic material into the cell and literally incorporates the entirety of its own genes into the host cell's genes. There, the virus "hides out" in a host cell's own genetic material! In this "hiding out" state, a virus is called a "pro-virus".
Because of this, free viruses in the human blood aren't always detectable as there can be milliions of HIV viruses "hiding out" in the host's own cells in pro-viral form. The solution? Test for the presence of viral genes in an individual instead of looking for free viruses. This can be (and has been) done with simple and common molecular biology laboratory techniques.
I guess my point is that we've since addressed the many arguments against HIV as the cause of AIDS. I think it's good to be skeptical about things you read, but there's a fine line between healthy skepticism and zealous delusion. And it seems many opponents of the idea that HIV causes AIDS seem to have the latter.
jeffy87 saidThere is a set of postulates in the scientific community that is used to determine whether or not a particular pathogen is the cause of a disease. Termed the famous "Koch's Postulates", they are as follows:
1. Every individual with the disease in question must be infected with the pathogen in question.
2. One must be able to isolate the suspect pathogen from a diseased individual and be able to grow it in pure culture.
3. The disease must be able to be artificially induced by injecting the pure culture into a healthy animal and/or individual.
4. The same exact pathogen in question must be able to be isolated and grown in pure culture from these diseased individuals who were injected with the pure pathogen.
Many of the early arguments for HIV (the pathogen in this case) not being the cause of AIDS were because HIV does not meet a few of these postulates as they are written. We've since found ways to "work around" these postulates so that they are indeed, scientifically satisfied.
For example, the first interview in the trailer says that "HIV has not been isolated from human beings." This violates Koch's postulates 1 and 2.
Well, viruses are tricky. As hampig71 stated, viruses "hijack" your own cells. In the case of HIV, when it infects a human CD4+ T cell, it inserts its own genetic material into the cell and literally incorporates the entirety of its own genes into the host cell's genes. There, the virus "hides out" in a host cell's own genetic material! In this "hiding out" state, a virus is called a "pro-virus".
Because of this, free viruses in the human blood aren't always detectable as there can be milliions of HIV viruses "hiding out" in the host's own cells in pro-viral form. The solution? Test for the presence of viral genes in an individual instead of looking for free viruses. This can be (and has been) done with simple and common molecular biology laboratory techniques.
I guess my point is that we've since addressed the many arguments against HIV as the cause of AIDS. I think it's good to be skeptical about things you read, but there's a fine line between healthy skepticism and zealous delusion. And it seems many opponents of the idea that HIV causes AIDS seem to have the latter.
All due respect to you jeffy87, but you are only 21yrs old, this so called virus is older than you, but much younger than some of us in here, they told us the this virus is tricky it mutates, it hides here and there and we were told it had a incubation period of 5yrs and there were only two defining illnesses to say you have aids. Now they tell us that the virus can incubate for 15-20yrs and now aids has 30 defining diseases, next they'll be telling us hiv can incubate for 20-30yrs and so on. And orthodox views try to make the invisible virus so complicated to understand for the average person.
Every one who is told they are positive for hiv antibodies, and not a virus, will make some people very rich. HIV treatment for one person cost the tax payer around £10,000-£15,000 per year multiply that by how many people are told they are hiv+ 100x15,000=£150,000,000 per 100 people per year and now X that by 39.4million people worldwide. you do the maths.
And ask yourself, who is really being deluded here. You need to know that there are now over 2,000 scientist, doctors, journalist and investigators who dont believe the hiv=aids theory.
And people who are so called none progressors are the ones who never took the toxic drugs and they or not rare. i know 3 people in my smallish town alone and and im in touch with 32 people in the UK and another 55 people worldwide and my contact list is growing weekly, and these are just the people i know.
Jeffy, hiv has been isolated and cultured. Typhoid also fails koch's postulates. (Typhoid Mary had it and never got sick.) LOTS of diseases fail Koch's postulates.
Reblit, I took an hiv drug cocktail that made me feel like crap so I quit and felt fine without it for over 6 years. Then I got Pneumocystis pneumonia and changed my tune. Meds are better now, and I tolerate mine now much better than in 1997 & 1998. Don't get too complacent on your 5 years. Not everyone who puts off treatment like I did lives through it. Christine Maggiore might still be alive if she had not been so stubborn.
Beefy_Artist saidTake it from someone who doesn't drink, smoke or takes drugs...this virus exits! Here - is the specifics about the disease... http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_life_cycle_5014.shtml
As a health care provider, I took care of HIV/AIDS patients from the late 80s to early 2000s. Bottom line - Early in the course of the epidemic i saw othewise healthy adolescents to geriatric patients get sick with something - they all had similar symptoms and signs indicating that the immune system was not functioning - laboratory markers supported this - and in the end most died. Fast forward to 2009, death does not occur nearly as frequently. For most people it is because an improvement in treatment aimed at maintaning immune function and/or attacking the HIV virus have been developed. Yes i saw people get sick on HIV drugs - the meds were stopped - most died shortly thereafter. There were problems BEFORE they took the meds. Yes i took care of people who never progressed with their disease (we now know there are genetic markers for such people). Yes i took care of people who progressed but never got sick. BUT for most (early on) they died. Believe what you want -
bdslim91 saidIt's an interesting concept, but I find it hard to beleive that a virus which causes the presence of a specific antibody does not exist. Besides, even if HIV is just some sort of hoax, it doesn't negate the fact that AIDS exists. If we can detect some sort of problem with a person's immune system (HIV or whatever it may be), I don't see any reason not to undergo treatment to prevent a condition such as AIDS.
Antibodies are produced when the immune system has been compromised.
When you get the polio vaccine you are given a very small amount of the polio virus which makes your immune system produce antibodies, and there for immune to the the polio virus. So for the immune system to have HIV antibodies the immune system must have come in contact with the virus first to produce antibodies, which mean your immune system has successfully fort the virus to produce antibodies. Antibodies are past from mother to child going back hundreds of years. Aids is not new, you dont have to have HIV for your immune system to break down. People get very sick all the time without HIV and their sick because the immune system is down.
bdslim91 saidIt's an interesting concept, but I find it hard to beleive that a virus which causes the presence of a specific antibody does not exist. Besides, even if HIV is just some sort of hoax, it doesn't negate the fact that AIDS exists. If we can detect some sort of problem with a person's immune system (HIV or whatever it may be), I don't see any reason not to undergo treatment to prevent a condition such as AIDS.
Antibodies are produced when the immune system has been compromised.
When you get the polio vaccine you are given a very small amount of the polio virus which makes your immune system produce antibodies, and there for immune to the the polio virus. So for the immune system to have HIV antibodies the immune system must have come in contact with the virus first to produce antibodies, which mean your immune system has successfully fort the virus to produce antibodies. Antibodies are past from mother to child going back hundreds of years. Aids is not new, you dont have to have HIV for your immune system to break down. People get very sick all the time without HIV and their sick because the immune system is down.
I'm sorry, but just about everything coming out of your mouth is some of the dumbest stuff I have ever heard. You clearly have no background in science or logic, since all of your arguments are based on incorrect scientific speculations or flaws in logic.
An antibody does not mean your body has successfully fought anything. Stop pretending to know shit! It means your body has come into contact with an antigen and your cells now recognize that antigen as invasive and will use antibodies to try to fight it.
Just because you have an antibody that does not mean it will prevent anything. The problem with HIV is, one, that it mutates very quickly, and two, research has identified the fact that our antibodies are simply not equipped to fight the virus due to the number of spikes HIV retains and the difficulty one-handed and two-handed antibodies have in neutralizing it accordingly.
I don't care that you are older than I am. I don't care if you have HIV. Saying those things are justifications for your being right is a fallacy of logic in regards to the fallacy of authority, which states status has nothing to do with truth. You clearly, clearly, clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to anything scientific or medicinal, so stop espousing your lies as if they're true.
_chuck_ saidJeffy, hiv has been isolated and cultured. Typhoid also fails koch's postulates. (Typhoid Mary had it and never got sick.) LOTS of diseases fail Koch's postulates.
Reblit, I took an hiv drug cocktail that made me feel like crap so I quit and felt fine without it for over 6 years. Then I got Pneumocystis pneumonia and changed my tune. Meds are better now, and I tolerate mine now much better than in 1997 & 1998. Don't get too complacent on your 5 years. Not everyone who puts off treatment like I did lives through it. Christine Maggiore might still be alive if she had not been so stubborn.
HIV drugs damage your healthy cells the very cells so called HIV needs to replicate and they also damage your DNA which can not be repaired. MY auntie died from pneumonia at the age of 42 and developed other infection. She was not HIV+ and as for Christine Maggiore you should speak to the people who new her on a personal level. Her husband is HIV- Rock Hudson the first well know film star, his long time partner was HIV- Magic Johnsons wife HIV- and there are many more cases like that. I know people 20yrs on and not just five years who have never been ill.
OMG I can't believe people think some of this stuff. But as someone in medical school on his way to becoming a doctor and with a wonderful boyfriend who works in HIV research, let me just clarify some of the points people seem to misunderstand:
1. HIV does cause AIDS. Why? Well AIDS is not a seperate disease from HIV. AIDS is simply a number. HIV is a virus that invades a specific type of immune system cell called the CD4+ T cell. This cell is particularly effective in helping against viral infections. So obviously by HIV infecting the CD4+ T cell it ends up killing the cell, thereby wiping out your immune system. AIDS is simply a diagnosis of when your CD4+ T-cell counts is less than 200 cells/ul of blood.
2. AIDS is not a group of 30 old diseases. Whoever told you that is not imformed about this disease at all. As stated before HIV wipes out your immune system. This means you can't fight off infections your body normally would have been able to handle. So things like the common cold, pneumonias, etc start becoming extremely dangerous. In fact most of the more severe diseases we see in patients with AIDS are of infectious diseases that our bodies can normally very easily handle. Hence scientists and physicians know very little about them since they were very rare problems until the 1980's AIDS epidemic.
3. As for the drug companies holding back a cure...that's totally bullshit. People in reasearch are hardworking people that care about finding a cure and getting it out into the world just as much as everyone else. You might be wondering why can't we find a cure? Well the problem lies in the fact that the virus basically works by "hijacking" its hosts (ie you and I) cells in order to replicate. So by infecting our cells it means that in order to kill the virus, you also have to kill your own cells. So now you begin to see where the problem in finding a cure is. How do you cure a virus that has now taken over the very cells that are you and I. Its not like a bacteria where the bacteria is a seperate organism from the human. Viruses need a host to replicate. So to attack the virus you need to find ways in which it is different from the host. Currently we only know 3 ways that are completely unique to the virus: preventing it from entering our cells (fusion inhibitors), messing up its replication process (reverse transcriptase inhibitors), and by messing up its assembly process (proteinase inhibitors).
This thread is really upsetting to me, and the lack of knowledge amongst gays in pretty astonishing. Please ask your doctors questions. You're smart people, all it takes is a little explaining. But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE refrain from making up stories about how AIDS is that, and HIV doesn't exist, and blah blah blah. GET EDUCATED, help fight against the disease, don't make it worse with misinformation.
Future MD class of 2011
Scientists like Barbara McClintock, who won a Nobel Prize for finding that cells operate with intelligence and seek to repair themselves, have given us a very different understanding of the particles they make. We now know that our cells create multitudes of tiny transport particles (vesicles) to carry the proteins and genetic codes needed within and between cells. The ones that travel between cells, those our cells use to communicate with each other - are puzzlingly just like those that we have long blamed for illnesses.
It now seems that we may have broadly misconceived the virus; that they may be simply inert messages in envelopes carried from cell to cell. In the last ten years scientists have begun to call them instead ‘exosomes', ‘particles that leave the body' of the cell, thus removing the inference that they are all poisons. Distinguishing the healthy particle from the pathogenic is now an enormous problem for the virologist, for it has been discovered that our cells make them all in the same way, in the very same place. It also seems we cannot stop this process without risking severely damaging our cells.
So, perhaps we need to halt the juggernaut of virology with its virus hunt, and look to see if there is another way of helping us keep healthy. We need to know how we can strengthen the malnourished cell, rather than use the many medicines that try to prevent it from making particles by interfering with its essential processes. We need to know if a poisoned cell may produce unhealthy messengers or viruses. We need to learn far more about cells - for only now are we starting to understand how they communicate and the very important role played in this by the particles we had totally demonised as viruses.
bdslim91 saidIt's an interesting concept, but I find it hard to beleive that a virus which causes the presence of a specific antibody does not exist. Besides, even if HIV is just some sort of hoax, it doesn't negate the fact that AIDS exists. If we can detect some sort of problem with a person's immune system (HIV or whatever it may be), I don't see any reason not to undergo treatment to prevent a condition such as AIDS.
Antibodies are produced when the immune system has been compromised.
When you get the polio vaccine you are given a very small amount of the polio virus which makes your immune system produce antibodies, and there for immune to the the polio virus. So for the immune system to have HIV antibodies the immune system must have come in contact with the virus first to produce antibodies, which mean your immune system has successfully fort the virus to produce antibodies. Antibodies are past from mother to child going back hundreds of years. Aids is not new, you dont have to have HIV for your immune system to break down. People get very sick all the time without HIV and their sick because the immune system is down.
I'm sorry, but just about everything coming out of your mouth is some of the dumbest stuff I have ever heard. You clearly have no background in science or logic, since all of your arguments are based on incorrect scientific speculations or flaws in logic.
An antibody does not mean your body has successfully fought anything. Stop pretending to know shit! It means your body has come into contact with an antigen and your cells now recognize that antigen as invasive and will use antibodies to try to fight it.
Just because you have an antibody that does not mean it will prevent anything. The problem with HIV is, one, that it mutates very quickly, and two, research has identified the fact that our antibodies are simply not equipped to fight the virus due to the number of spikes HIV retains and the difficulty one-handed and two-handed antibodies have in neutralizing it accordingly.
I don't care that you are older than I am. I don't care if you have HIV. Saying those things are justifications for your being right is a fallacy of logic in regards to the fallacy of authority, which states status has nothing to do with truth. You clearly, clearly, clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to anything scientific or medicinal, so stop espousing your lies as if they're true.
I get all my information from the scientist who have Nobel Prizes and prizes like that in science who no longer believe or who have never believed the HIV theory, so i dont give a dam what you think. Do i not have a right to listen to these scientist and make my own judgement. And why should we believe what you post it cuts both ways. All of you who trust the aids establishment seem to IGNORE the FACT that Robert Gallo's sceintific papers were fraudulent, he was investigated by former Head of the Secret Service Larry Stewart, the man who had led their investigation into Robert Gallo's HIV research. And HIV science is still based on them same fraudulent papers. SO GO CHECK THAT FACT OUT. before you start calling people liars. And ask yourselves why hasnt the man who said he found the cause of aids, not been given the Nobel Prize for his discovery and ask why the French scientist have been awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery. Come back to me when you know that answer.
And for those of you who dont believe your government and scientist would deceive you. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments.
"The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens...
For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.
The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumours, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. One of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”
The study was meant to discover how syphilis affected blacks as opposed to whites—the theory being that whites experienced more neurological complications from syphilis, whereas blacks were more susceptible to cardiovascular damage. How this knowledge would have changed clinical treatment of syphilis is uncertain.
When the study began in 1932, standard medical treatments for syphilis were toxic, dangerous, and of questionable effectiveness
By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. How had these men been induced to endure a fatal disease in the name of science?
To persuade the community to support the experiment, one of the original doctors admitted it “was necessary to carry on this study under the guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.” At first, the men were prescribed the syphilis remedies of the day—bismuth, neoarsphenamine, and mercury— but in such small amounts that only 3 percent showed any improvement.
The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The men grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical care—almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before—these innocent and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as “the longest non therapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”
President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997
I may be one who tends to be cynical and am definitely one who will hear any conspiracy out, because honestly, truth can only be found by looking at both sides of anything.
And while I think that this belief in HIV not being the cause of AIDS or whatever nonsense, is completely ridiculous, everyone needs to understand the country and world we live in.
It was only in the 70s that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.
How long ago was it that police could send someone off to an insane asylum without cause?
We give out placebos to people who think they are being medicated (I understand reasons behind this one, but people are still lied too).
We torture people at Guantanamo Bay without proof of crime.
We tested nuclear weapons on the bikini islands and infected an entire civilization with radiation.
Look at what we did to the Japanese during WWII.
I'm sorry, but you have to be cynical when your country is this powerful and has a dirty history.
calibro saidDoes anyone else read this particular thread and really just want to punch someone silly after?
Its seems some people cannot face or even bother to look at the facts about Robert Gallo's fraudulent papers. Why was he not awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery????? And is there any need to want to punch someone because they have questions to ask. People are only debating this because of SCIENTIST who dont believe the theory. Where does your anger come from.
Did i insult anyone? Did i ask anyone to believe me? Theres no room for hate in a debate.
If it was clear cut that HIV is the cause of aids, there would be no debate, but after 25yrs SCIENTISTS are still asking unanswered Questions. So lets talk about the man at the centre of this debate Robert Gallo.
_chuck_ saidJeffy, hiv has been isolated and cultured. Typhoid also fails koch's postulates. (Typhoid Mary had it and never got sick.) LOTS of diseases fail Koch's postulates.
Reblit, I took an hiv drug cocktail that made me feel like crap so I quit and felt fine without it for over 6 years. Then I got Pneumocystis pneumonia and changed my tune. Meds are better now, and I tolerate mine now much better than in 1997 & 1998. Don't get too complacent on your 5 years. Not everyone who puts off treatment like I did lives through it. Christine Maggiore might still be alive if she had not been so stubborn.
A couple of observations from the youtube clip. It seems to me that it was filmed in the early 90s. His "diagnosis" was made "6 years ago". With that said (and since i was taking care of patients back then) i will say some clinicians did stereotype homosexuals back then with any chronic disease as having HIV until proven otherwise. I beleive his experience may have been a reflection of poor health care. Hell, even in the clinic i worked in, we had a situation with someone coming to us claiming he had been told he was HIV positive. Initially we had no reason to doubt him - 6 months later the picture did not "fit" we ran our own test and he was HIV negative! We use to get referrals to our HIV clinic just because someone was a homosexual and presented with a chronic cough! OK so even if HIV is not the cause of the immune system failing - something is. Given the nature of the route of transmission, disease course, its characteristics - it is most likely a virus of some sort. How do you explain the dramatic decrease in deaths from complications of AIDS? How do you explain the dramatic improvment in immune function with therapies directed at controlling the HIV virus and improving immune function? Would like to read your thougths on these two questions.
_chuck_ saidJeffy, hiv has been isolated and cultured. Typhoid also fails koch's postulates. (Typhoid Mary had it and never got sick.) LOTS of diseases fail Koch's postulates.
Reblit, I took an hiv drug cocktail that made me feel like crap so I quit and felt fine without it for over 6 years. Then I got Pneumocystis pneumonia and changed my tune. Meds are better now, and I tolerate mine now much better than in 1997 & 1998. Don't get too complacent on your 5 years. Not everyone who puts off treatment like I did lives through it. Christine Maggiore might still be alive if she had not been so stubborn.
United States Patent 5,676,977 Antelman October 14, 1997 Method of curing AIDS with tetrasilver tetroxide molecular crystal devices
Abstract
The diamagnetic semiconducting molecular crystal tetrasilver tetroxide (Ag.sub.4 O.sub.4) is utilized for destroying the AIDS virus, destroying AIDS synergistic pathogens and immunity suppressing moieties (ISM) in humans. A single intravenous injection of the devices is all that is required for efficacy at levels of about 40 PPM of human blood. The device molecular crystal contains two mono and two trivalent silver ions capable of "firing" electrons capable of electrocuting the AIDS virus, pathogens and ISM. When administered into the bloodstream, the device electrons will be triggered by pathogens, a proliferating virus and ISM, and when fired will simultaneously trigger a redox chelation mechanism resulting in divalent silver moieties which chelate and bind active sites of the entities destroying them. The devices are completely non-toxic. However, they put stress on the liver causing hepatomegaly, but there is no loss of liver function.
Inventors: Antelman; Marvin S. (Rehovot, IL) Assignee: Antelman Technologies Ltd. (Providence, RI) Appl. No.: 08/658,955 Filed: May 31, 1996
EXAMPLE 1
Five patients afflicted with AIDS of the candidiasis etiological category were segregated for Tetrasil treatment. The rationale for selecting them was based on facts presented in an article by Peter H. Duesberg and Brian J. Ellison entitled "Is The AIDS Virus A Science Fiction?" (Policy Review, Summer 1990 pp. 40-51). Only the factual presentations of the article were utilized and the hypothesis of the authors was ignored. The facts presented in the article related to the method of selecting AIDS patients based on the five aforementioned etiological subgroups targeted by the CDC, and the evidence presented, that there is AIDS without HIV as well as with it so that an anti-viral agent in most instances will not necessarily restore the immunity system.
twentyfourhourslater saidA couple of observations from the youtube clip. It seems to me that it was filmed in the early 90s. His "diagnosis" was made "6 years ago". With that said (and since i was taking care of patients back then) i will say some clinicians did stereotype homosexuals back then with any chronic disease as having HIV until proven otherwise. I beleive his experience may have been a reflection of poor health care. Hell, even in the clinic i worked in, we had a situation with someone coming to us claiming he had been told he was HIV positive. Initially we had no reason to doubt him - 6 months later the picture did not "fit" we ran our own test and he was HIV negative! We use to get referrals to our HIV clinic just because someone was a homosexual and presented with a chronic cough! OK so even if HIV is not the cause of the immune system failing - something is. Given the nature of the route of transmission, disease course, its characteristics - it is most likely a virus of some sort. How do you explain the dramatic decrease in deaths from complications of AIDS? How do you explain the dramatic improvment in immune function with therapies directed at controlling the HIV virus and improving immune function? Would like to read your thougths on these two questions.
AZT, killed over 300,000 Americans, as soon as they stopped giving AZT the death rate went down. Now the drugs are not so toxic, well some arent, but people are dieing from organ failure rather than a virus.
Win Free Money! PDF Print E-mail FAQs - HEAL London
That's right, there are two prizes on offer: £50,000 and $50,000. These are genuine awards to be won for the first person to meet the criteria for either. How to win £50,000
This is a continuation of the previous Continuum award, generously made available by Alex Verney-Elliot, offered to the first person who can demonstrate proof of the isolation of HIV as a distinct, exogenous infectious retrovirus. You may think that would be easy - just talk to your local HIV/AIDS specialist or the Terence Higgins Trust and ask for the references, but there is the problem: There aren't any.
That's the thing. Nowhere in any medical or scientific literature is any evidence that HIV has ever been isolated from any patient, from blood, semen, saliva, urine or breast milk. You'll soon realise that science has increasingly been playing fast and loose with the meaning of words that we always thought had precise meanings.
You may have been under the mistaken impression that 'isolate' a virus actually mean to separate it and purify a collections of viruses from other biological matter in someone's body. That is not what's been happening though, because despite vast numbers of people allegedly having a 'viral load' of, let's say, 50,000 per ml of blood, scientists have been unable to actually find any whole HIV in their blood, which may seem a bit strange to you. How there be all these viruses in a patient's blood if no-one can find any?
Instead, what they do is take cells from someone they believe has HIV, then put them in a torturous environment with foreign cells and powerful (and stressful) mitogenic chemicals. The cells believed to contain HIV then start producing retroviral particles which are hailed by the scientists as proof of HIV infection.
There are two problems with that approach though. Firstly, experiments that show that happening tend to be rather short on negative controls that don't produce those particles. One of the most basic scientific principles children are taught at school is to have controls that do not contain the factor you believe is relevant to a particular outcome, in order to test whether or not that factor is indeed what makes the difference. What you tend to find with AIDS science is that either they miss out the controls (ie, people believed not to be infected with HIV) or else the controls get the same results.
If the negative controls produce the same results under the same conditions as the cells from people believed to be HIV+, then that indicates it isn't the alleged presence of HIV that makes the difference. And this should be no surprise because for a long time it has been known that cells have a significant proportion of DNA (at least 1%) that can become viral under the right conditions, and that highly stressed cells produce retroviruses.
When they are believed to come from within the cell's original DNA they are called HERV's, or Human Endogenous RetroVirus. When they are believed to come from outside the cell they are called Retroviruses. The only problem is, there appears to be little evidence that exogenous retroviruses actually exist, and it is entirely possible that all expression of retroviruses is simply a behaviour of the cell under extreme stress whose purpose is not yet understood.
It was this awareness of the potential confusion between endogenous and exogenous retroviruses that led to an international symposium at the Pasteur Institute in 1972 to thrash out a method to determine if a particle really was an exogenous retrovirus or not. You probaby won't be surprised to hear that the agreed, robust method was almost immediately abandoned, probably because scientists wanted to find exogenous retroviruses and the robust method was essentially dismissing the idea.
Essentially though, even orthodox experiments have indicated that expression of retroviruses only happens under stress, so retroviruses, whether they are endogenous or exogenous, have already been comprehensively demonstrated to be a symptom of stress, not the cause. This rather undermines the whole notion that HIV is a rampaging infectious virus killing cells left, right and centre.
As for claims of isolation of HIV when there has been no control group at all. Well, that's not science. So if you're going to claim the Continuum award, in memory of Michael Verney-Elliot, You'd better start looking pretty hard for the evidence.
How to win $50,000
Alive and Well have an award running too, enabling you to win $50,000 if you can find one study that validates HIV tests. ie, if you can find one study that shows HIV tests actually reliably demonstrate the presence of HIV that many people claim they do. Of course, the obvious problem here is that in order to be able to do that, you have to first catch your retrovirus.
And that is essentially the reason why no HIV tests have ever been validated against HIV, because they can't find HIV to validate the tests against. That's why former HIV test designer, Dr Rodney Richards, has turned against his own invention, when it became clear to him that the test he'd designed was never going to be validated. He currently describes HIV tests as an 'illusion'.
calibro saidDoes anyone else read this particular thread and really just want to punch someone silly after?
Its seems some people cannot face or even bother to look at the facts about Robert Gallo's fraudulent papers. Why was he not awarded the Nobel Prize for his discovery????? And is there any need to want to punch someone because they have questions to ask. People are only debating this because of SCIENTIST who dont believe the theory. Where does your anger come from.
Did i insult anyone? Did i ask anyone to believe me? Theres no room for hate in a debate.
If it was clear cut that HIV is the cause of aids, there would be no debate, but after 25yrs SCIENTISTS are still asking unanswered Questions. So lets talk about the man at the centre of this debate Robert Gallo.
Dude, you're logic is just so stupid. Not winning a Nobel prize has nothing to do with your argument; they're mutually exclusive events. Second, if you remember, the Nobel Prize for Medicine was given to the guy who discovered lobotomies, and now everyone recognizes that as an inhumane way to treat anything. Furthermore, one has been given to the research team that came up with the AIDS cocktail.
rebelit saidWin Free Money! PDF Print E-mail FAQs - HEAL London
That's right, there are two prizes on offer: £50,000 and $50,000. These are genuine awards to be won for the first person to meet the criteria for either. How to win £50,000
This is a continuation of the previous Continuum award, generously made available by Alex Verney-Elliot, offered to the first person who can demonstrate proof of the isolation of HIV as a distinct, exogenous infectious retrovirus. You may think that would be easy - just talk to your local HIV/AIDS specialist or the Terence Higgins Trust and ask for the references, but there is the problem: There aren't any.
That's the thing. Nowhere in any medical or scientific literature is any evidence that HIV has ever been isolated from any patient, from blood, semen, saliva, urine or breast milk. You'll soon realise that science has increasingly been playing fast and loose with the meaning of words that we always thought had precise meanings.
You may have been under the mistaken impression that 'isolate' a virus actually mean to separate it and purify a collections of viruses from other biological matter in someone's body. That is not what's been happening though, because despite vast numbers of people allegedly having a 'viral load' of, let's say, 50,000 per ml of blood, scientists have been unable to actually find any whole HIV in their blood, which may seem a bit strange to you. How there be all these viruses in a patient's blood if no-one can find any?
Instead, what they do is take cells from someone they believe has HIV, then put them in a torturous environment with foreign cells and powerful (and stressful) mitogenic chemicals. The cells believed to contain HIV then start producing retroviral particles which are hailed by the scientists as proof of HIV infection.
There are two problems with that approach though. Firstly, experiments that show that happening tend to be rather short on negative controls that don't produce those particles. One of the most basic scientific principles children are taught at school is to have controls that do not contain the factor you believe is relevant to a particular outcome, in order to test whether or not that factor is indeed what makes the difference. What you tend to find with AIDS science is that either they miss out the controls (ie, people believed not to be infected with HIV) or else the controls get the same results.
If the negative controls produce the same results under the same conditions as the cells from people believed to be HIV+, then that indicates it isn't the alleged presence of HIV that makes the difference. And this should be no surprise because for a long time it has been known that cells have a significant proportion of DNA (at least 1%) that can become viral under the right conditions, and that highly stressed cells produce retroviruses.
When they are believed to come from within the cell's original DNA they are called HERV's, or Human Endogenous RetroVirus. When they are believed to come from outside the cell they are called Retroviruses. The only problem is, there appears to be little evidence that exogenous retroviruses actually exist, and it is entirely possible that all expression of retroviruses is simply a behaviour of the cell under extreme stress whose purpose is not yet understood.
It was this awareness of the potential confusion between endogenous and exogenous retroviruses that led to an international symposium at the Pasteur Institute in 1972 to thrash out a method to determine if a particle really was an exogenous retrovirus or not. You probaby won't be surprised to hear that the agreed, robust method was almost immediately abandoned, probably because scientists wanted to find exogenous retroviruses and the robust method was essentially dismissing the idea.
Essentially though, even orthodox experiments have indicated that expression of retroviruses only happens under stress, so retroviruses, whether they are endogenous or exogenous, have already been comprehensively demonstrated to be a symptom of stress, not the cause. This rather undermines the whole notion that HIV is a rampaging infectious virus killing cells left, right and centre.
As for claims of isolation of HIV when there has been no control group at all. Well, that's not science. So if you're going to claim the Continuum award, in memory of Michael Verney-Elliot, You'd better start looking pretty hard for the evidence.
How to win $50,000
Alive and Well have an award running too, enabling you to win $50,000 if you can find one study that validates HIV tests. ie, if you can find one study that shows HIV tests actually reliably demonstrate the presence of HIV that many people claim they do. Of course, the obvious problem here is that in order to be able to do that, you have to first catch your retrovirus.
And that is essentially the reason why no HIV tests have ever been validated against HIV, because they can't find HIV to validate the tests against. That's why former HIV test designer, Dr Rodney Richards, has turned against his own invention, when it became clear to him that the test he'd designed was never going to be validated. He currently describes HIV tests as an 'illusion'.
I'll give you a $100 if you can prove gravity. If you know anything about science, you'd know gravity, like evolution, is a theory (a scientific theory, not a crackpot one). Still, you tell me how many times that rock won't fall the ground. You need not prove something tangibly in science for it to be true.
This thread makes my head hurt. I'm a scientist. HIV kills CD4+ T cells, without them, you get AIDS and start to get diseases from tons of other infections -- for this there is plenty of proof. I've heard the argument against HIV causing AIDS and it angers me since there's so much proof to the contrary.
Also, there's a lot of really good scientists out there, not just in pharma but also in the public sector like at NIH, working to find a cure. So tell me, if there's a huge conspiracy, why would scientists at the NIH (or academic institutions) be involved? I'm always weary of theories that involve conspiracies. Mostly because in order for a conspiracy to work, it's gotta be small. Otherwise the reward for defecting and revealing the "secret" is too great. I.e., we'd know about it by now.
rebelit saidWin Free Money! PDF Print E-mail FAQs - HEAL London
That's right, there are two prizes on offer: £50,000 and $50,000. These are genuine awards to be won for the first person to meet the criteria for either. How to win £50,000
This is a continuation of the previous Continuum award, generously made available by Alex Verney-Elliot, offered to the first person who can demonstrate proof of the isolation of HIV as a distinct, exogenous infectious retrovirus. You may think that would be easy - just talk to your local HIV/AIDS specialist or the Terence Higgins Trust and ask for the references, but there is the problem: There aren't any.
That's the thing. Nowhere in any medical or scientific literature is any evidence that HIV has ever been isolated from any patient, from blood, semen, saliva, urine or breast milk. You'll soon realise that science has increasingly been playing fast and loose with the meaning of words that we always thought had precise meanings.
You may have been under the mistaken impression that 'isolate' a virus actually mean to separate it and purify a collections of viruses from other biological matter in someone's body. That is not what's been happening though, because despite vast numbers of people allegedly having a 'viral load' of, let's say, 50,000 per ml of blood, scientists have been unable to actually find any whole HIV in their blood, which may seem a bit strange to you. How there be all these viruses in a patient's blood if no-one can find any?
Instead, what they do is take cells from someone they believe has HIV, then put them in a torturous environment with foreign cells and powerful (and stressful) mitogenic chemicals. The cells believed to contain HIV then start producing retroviral particles which are hailed by the scientists as proof of HIV infection.
There are two problems with that approach though. Firstly, experiments that show that happening tend to be rather short on negative controls that don't produce those particles. One of the most basic scientific principles children are taught at school is to have controls that do not contain the factor you believe is relevant to a particular outcome, in order to test whether or not that factor is indeed what makes the difference. What you tend to find with AIDS science is that either they miss out the controls (ie, people believed not to be infected with HIV) or else the controls get the same results.
If the negative controls produce the same results under the same conditions as the cells from people believed to be HIV+, then that indicates it isn't the alleged presence of HIV that makes the difference. And this should be no surprise because for a long time it has been known that cells have a significant proportion of DNA (at least 1%) that can become viral under the right conditions, and that highly stressed cells produce retroviruses.
When they are believed to come from within the cell's original DNA they are called HERV's, or Human Endogenous RetroVirus. When they are believed to come from outside the cell they are called Retroviruses. The only problem is, there appears to be little evidence that exogenous retroviruses actually exist, and it is entirely possible that all expression of retroviruses is simply a behaviour of the cell under extreme stress whose purpose is not yet understood.
It was this awareness of the potential confusion between endogenous and exogenous retroviruses that led to an international symposium at the Pasteur Institute in 1972 to thrash out a method to determine if a particle really was an exogenous retrovirus or not. You probaby won't be surprised to hear that the agreed, robust method was almost immediately abandoned, probably because scientists wanted to find exogenous retroviruses and the robust method was essentially dismissing the idea.
Essentially though, even orthodox experiments have indicated that expression of retroviruses only happens under stress, so retroviruses, whether they are endogenous or exogenous, have already been comprehensively demonstrated to be a symptom of stress, not the cause. This rather undermines the whole notion that HIV is a rampaging infectious virus killing cells left, right and centre.
As for claims of isolation of HIV when there has been no control group at all. Well, that's not science. So if you're going to claim the Continuum award, in memory of Michael Verney-Elliot, You'd better start looking pretty hard for the evidence.
How to win $50,000
Alive and Well have an award running too, enabling you to win $50,000 if you can find one study that validates HIV tests. ie, if you can find one study that shows HIV tests actually reliably demonstrate the presence of HIV that many people claim they do. Of course, the obvious problem here is that in order to be able to do that, you have to first catch your retrovirus.
And that is essentially the reason why no HIV tests have ever been validated against HIV, because they can't find HIV to validate the tests against. That's why former HIV test designer, Dr Rodney Richards, has turned against his own invention, when it became clear to him that the test he'd designed was never going to be validated. He currently describes HIV tests as an 'illusion'.
I'll give you a $100 if you can prove gravity. If you know anything about science, you'd know gravity, like evolution, is a theory (a scientific theory, not a crackpot one). Still, you tell me how many times that rock won't fall the ground. You need not prove something tangibly in science for it to be true.
Science cant be based on assumption either and for you to say that science need not prove something for it to be true, proves to me, what a lot of people in the UK think about some Americans as being dumb. Peter Deusburg is a great virologist and not a crackpot and nor are the thousands of scientist who dont believe HIV=AIDS Some of you in the US love to use words like crackpot wako when someone disagrees with you. And you all are still IGNORING the FACT that Robert Gallo's scientific papers were fraudulent and HIV research to this day is still based on his fraudulent papers.
Can someone please post the scientific papers from 1984 which prove what Robert Gallo told the world that HIV is the Cause of AIDS and end the debate worldwide once and for all.
javaman9999 saidThis thread makes my head hurt. I'm a scientist. HIV kills CD4+ T cells, without them, you get AIDS and start to get diseases from tons of other infections -- for this there is plenty of proof. I've heard the argument against HIV causing AIDS and it angers me since there's so much proof to the contrary.
Also, there's a lot of really good scientists out there, not just in pharma but also in the public sector like at NIH, working to find a cure. So tell me, if there's a huge conspiracy, why would scientists at the NIH (or academic institutions) be involved? I'm always weary of theories that involve conspiracies. Mostly because in order for a conspiracy to work, it's gotta be small. Otherwise the reward for defecting and revealing the "secret" is too great. I.e., we'd know about it by now.
These conspiracies as you put it are coming from the scientific community its self and not from joe puplic. Scientists with Nobel Prizes and other scientific awards and i for one will not dismiss what they have to say, as there are two sides to every story, but the mainstream scientists wont hold an open public debate to allow the other side to tell their side. Why is that??
And i dont doubt there are many good scientists who believe the theory. As you are a scientist javaman9999, can you post the scientific papers from 1984 of Robert Gallo's research proving that HIV is the cause of Aids. After all he is the man who told the World before any scientific papers had been published.
Yeah it does, because Gallo didnt screw up or make an honest mistake, he blatantly lied and changed popovics papers. Its was Montagnier who sent the virus sample to Gallo, which they called the LAV, Gallo re-named it HTLV-3. and presented to the world the LAV which Montagnier did not say was the causes of Aids. So if the LAV and the HTLV-3 are identical, then all HIV research is still based on fraudulent claims. HIV still to this day does not meet Koch's postulate 1,2,3 or 4 neither does it meet Farr's law.
If this was a sexually transmitted infection it would infect men and women equally, so why is it infecting 90% men, mainly gay men and only 10% of women in the west, when in Africa it supposedly infects men and women equally. Its a FACT that westerners are for more sexually promiscuous than Africans and we know that straight men and women practice anal sex and wife swapping in the west. Are homosexuals genetic makeup different to that of heterosexuals? Its a FACT that some men sleep we both sexes. So this infectious deadly virus isnt meeting Farr's law of a infectious spreading disease.
In the UK its a FACT that STD's and STI's in the young heterosexual population are spreading fast, but not HIV infection. Now this UK TV condom advert put out by the National Health Service i find very puzzling. This deadly infectious virus is supposedly sexually transmitted and we are ALL told at risk of catching. you'll notice that there is not one single mention of this DEADLY VIRUS HIV.
So is it only gay and black people who have to worry about this DEADLY INFECTIOUS VIRUS NOW?? think about it.
Ok Rebelit... I'll hold your hand here for a bit. Go to www.pubmed.gov, in the search box type: "Gallo R [au] HIV" or type: "Montagnier [au] HIV" You will get all of their papers relating to HIV. Sort by publication date and you can find the papers you want (early 80s) and see for yourself. I'm not going to include them here because there are a lot of them. 4 in Science, a handful in PNAS, and a few in New England Journal of Medicine. And those are just Gallo's papers.
Last word, though: scientists don't prove theories. Something cannot be proven. Someone mentioned gravity as an example. You can only disprove theories. The more theories you disprove, the more likely (higher probability) your theory (or one theory) is likely to be true. This is based on statistics. Generally speaking, in order for scientists to "believe" something, the p-value needs to be below 0.05. Which means there is less than 5% chance of the event or hypothesis occurring by chance.
javaman9999 saidOk Rebelit... I'll hold your hand here for a bit. Go to www.pubmed.gov, in the search box type: "Gallo R [au] HIV" or type: "Montagnier [au] HIV" You will get all of their papers relating to HIV. Sort by publication date and you can find the papers you want (early 80s) and see for yourself. I'm not going to include them here because there are a lot of them. 4 in Science, a handful in PNAS, and a few in New England Journal of Medicine. And those are just Gallo's papers.
Last word, though: scientists don't prove theories. Something cannot be proven. Someone mentioned gravity as an example. You can only disprove theories. The more theories you disprove, the more likely (higher probability) your theory (or one theory) is likely to be true. This is based on statistics. Generally speaking, in order for scientists to "believe" something, the p-value needs to be below 0.05. Which means there is less than 5% chance of the event or hypothesis occurring by chance.
Well, how funny is that!, Montagniers items 51,154,193 and 241 these papers are unable to be viewed. I wander why?? Well lets leave it that, and i'll keep on believing Peter Duesburg and the thousands of scientist and the people who are living without HIV toxic drugs including myself who dont believe HIV exist. when they find the papers to prove it i'll come back with my head held down in shame. But me personal i'd rather believe im not going to die, than believe im going to die.
Someone with untreated hiv ( it really does exist ) is more likely to die of opportunistic infection than any other cause, and to do so long before normal life expectancy.
Your 5 asymptomatic years after quitting HAART the first time hardly "proves" that it doesn't exist. I went longer that that without symptoms after I quit HAART. During that time I was not in denial; I was alert and aware that it was remotely possible to remain symptom free for a decade or more. Statistically unlikely given my high viral load and slowly declining CD4 count. I remained fully informed and chose to avoid treatment unless symptoms caused my quality of life to deteriorate. Pneumocystis was that event. During my many years avoiding medication, advances in pharmacology resulted in much better (more durable, less toxic, and easier tolerance) combinations.
_chuck_ saideveryone is going to die ... eventually
to deny that is the epitome of denialism
Someone with untreated hiv ( it really does exist ) is more likely to die of opportunistic infection than any other cause, and to do so long before normal life expectancy.
Your 5 asymptomatic years after quitting HAART the first time hardly "proves" that it doesn't exist. I went longer that that without symptoms after I quit HAART. During that time I was not in denial; I was alert and aware that it was remotely possible to remain symptom free for a decade or more. Statistically unlikely given my high viral load and slowly declining CD4 count. I remained fully informed and chose to avoid treatment unless symptoms caused my quality of life to deteriorate. Pneumocystis was that event. During my many years avoiding medication, advances in pharmacology resulted in much better (more durable, less toxic, and easier tolerance) combinations.
Well CHUCK for a man who is HIV+ im SHOCKED that you only practice SAFE SEX sometimes. Is Peter Duesburg a Great virologist a denialist because he asked questions about the hiv theory. Science is about questioning and questions should be answered not demonised by using words like denialist. He was demonised by the very man who blatantly lied and has now been proven that his papers were fraudulent. im curtainly not going to believe a man who lied to the entire world. And why would i want to believe something that comes out of the most corrupt and hated nation on the planet with the most dirtiest and most horrific history in recorded times.
And you are ignoring the fact that there are around 7 thousand scientists across the world who are questioning this theory now. there are thousands not a handful of people living over 20yrs without meds and thousands who stopped the meds 10-15yrs ago who are living without getting a single infection. So its not just my asymptomatic 5yrs. And its a fact that you can get Aids without HIV. The biggest cause of death in Aids victims is organ failure and not a virus. And this is the only NEW retrovirus in the history of science to cause disease.
muscles4muscles saidHow can you say it's a fact that westerners are more promiscuous than Africans? How can that even be measured?
Because its a fact that homosexuality in Africa is still a big taboo and still carries a death sentence and Aids in Africa is a heterosexual disease unlike that in the west. Im not saying there arent any gays in Africa, but its not displayed or talked about. Africans are deeply religious and god fearing people. Over the last 10yrs i have travelled to many parts of Africa, and i never came across one gay bar, not one gay night club, not one cruising ground, not one wife swapping club or any bath houses or sex shops and despite what we see in western media not all of Africa is as poor as we are led to believe or riddled with Aids. The only place i see any gay bars was in south Africa, where there is a large western population. Its also documented by westerners that westerners are more promiscuous than Africans.
Is Peter Duesburg a Great virologist a denialist because he asked questions about the hiv theory.
Duesburg was never a great virologist. He was a pretty good oncologist 25 years ago. He is a denialist for pushing disproven theories as if they were fact, not for asking questions.
rebelit said Why would i want to believe something that comes out of the most corrupt and hated nation on the planet with the most dirtiest and most horrific history in recorded times.
Duesburg may have been born in Germany, home of the holocaust which must not be horrific enough for you. He has been in the US most of his life, where he did all his denialist writing. How's using geographical origin as a substitute for logical thinking working now?
rebelit said There are thousands not a handful of people living over 20yrs without meds and thousands who stopped the meds 10-15yrs ago who are living without getting a single infection.
Long-term nonprogressors are about 1% of hiv cases. Not very good odds. Hardly proof that hiv/aids doesn't exist.
rebelit said The biggest cause of death in Aids victims is organ failure and not a virus.
Aids is a weaking of the immune system. The biggest cause of death is opportunistic infections. They are called opportunistic because they take the opportunity to become lethal while the immune system is too weak to fight back. The Opportunistic infections causing the most deaths are cytomegalovirus, pneumocystis, mycobacterium avium, and toxoplasmosis.
(Semantically, organ failure is the cause of all deaths. For instance death by drowning is a failure of the lungs to provide adequate oxygen exchange, and death by guillotine is failure of the arteries to provide adequate bloodflow to the brain.)
rebelit said
And this is the only NEW retrovirus in the history of science to cause disease.
Sucks that evolution happens during our lifetime, doesn't it?
Is Peter Duesburg a Great virologist a denialist because he asked questions about the hiv theory.
Duesburg was never a great virologist. He was a pretty good oncologist 25 years ago. He is a denialist for pushing disproven theories as if they were fact, not for asking questions.
rebelit said Why would i want to believe something that comes out of the most corrupt and hated nation on the planet with the most dirtiest and most horrific history in recorded times.
Duesburg may have been born in Germany, home of the holocaust which must not be horrific enough for you. He has been in the US most of his life, where he did all his denialist writing. How's using geographical origin as a substitute for logical thinking working now?
rebelit said There are thousands not a handful of people living over 20yrs without meds and thousands who stopped the meds 10-15yrs ago who are living without getting a single infection.
Long-term nonprogressors are about 1% of hiv cases. Not very good odds. Hardly proof that hiv/aids doesn't exist.
rebelit said The biggest cause of death in Aids victims is organ failure and not a virus.
Aids is a weaking of the immune system. The biggest cause of death is opportunistic infections. They are called opportunistic because they take the opportunity to become lethal while the immune system is too weak to fight back. The Opportunistic infections causing the most deaths are cytomegalovirus, pneumocystis, mycobacterium avium, and toxoplasmosis.
(Semantically, organ failure is the cause of all deaths. For instance death by drowning is a failure of the lungs to provide adequate oxygen exchange, and death by guillotine is failure of the arteries to provide adequate bloodflow to the brain.)
rebelit said
And this is the only NEW retrovirus in the history of science to cause disease.
Sucks that evolution happens during our lifetime, doesn't it?
Why do dumb Americans like you use the holocaust in your statements, its a total miss use of the word and its an insult to Jew-ish people. And so what if he is German Duesberg had nothing to do with the holocaust.You are a white American, so should i not believe or trust any white man because of the worst holocaust in the history of mankind where an estimated over a hundred and ten million lost their lives, which was slavery?
And its the drugs causing opportunistic infections, just like AZT caused Aids its self and killed 300,000 Americans and god knows how many world wide.
I believe in god as the creator and not in evolution and as for the holocaust, there are many people wanting Questions asked as to whether it really happened at all, but that's for another forum.
And Deusberg is a Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Cell Biology.
AND CHUCK YOU ARE HIV+ SO WHY DO YOU ONLY PRACTICE SAFE SEX SOMETIMES?
"The important thing is to not stop questioning." Albert Einstein
Whether H.I.V. causes or doesn't cause A.I.D.S. isn't the hot issue; what is the issue is the use of common sense and respect for yourself to protect yourself. There are always going to be those nut job conspiracy theorists who are going to follow come idiot idea that goes against the medical community. Pretty soon we're going to be convinced that space aliens through the powers of anal probing gave the first guy H.I.V., so let's all band together and boycott the Blue Diva from the 5th element and get over it!
Be responsible and get tested at your local heath department, physician or free clinic to find out your status and prevent the spread of HIV and infectious STD's.
It existed or/and exists but, what it does is entirely subjective! In my opinion it's all about some "higher power" trying to control the sex game. It amazes me you don't see everyone dropping dead from any other disease on the planet these days.
That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Far more people die from the flu than AIDS. Don't forget about malaria, dysentery, cholera, and all those other imaginary diseases that apparently don't kill people anymore.
