The HIV causes AIDS hoax is just another scam perpetuated by monetary corruption:
HIV = AIDS Fact or Fraud? (1996)
March 12, 2009 by disinter
The HIV causes AIDS hoax is just another scam perpetuated by monetary corruption:
HIV = AIDS Fact or Fraud? (1996)
Posted in government regulation, video | Tagged AIDS, HIV, hoax, scam | 162 Comments
The “more info” link is dead. What is the name of this video? I’ve seen it before, but don’t remember.
Excellent post, btw. Thanks for posting it.
Jonathan – link fixed, thanks!
The video is titled: HIV = AIDS Fact or Fraud? (1996)
FYI, my ISP (roadrunner/TimeWarner) is returning an error on the “more info” link to “http://positivelyfalse.com”, though it shows up on google search and the very same URL is even listed as a alternate suggestion for what appeared to be a dead link.
So, I don’t think the problem is with your link, but it appears I am being block by my ISP. Weird stuff, huh?
Something is fishy. The old link worked just fine last night. Now this new one only works in Firefox for me, not IE.
I wouldn’t put it past ISPs for blocking the truth. We are definitely heading in that direction anyway. They will eventually censor information in the same manner that the MSM does today. Fun!
I just ran a whois. The domain registration expired yesterday. Timing, not conspiracy.
This time, anyway.
:-)
The video is also posted on other sites as well as google.
Whew. Do you have a recommended site that I could replace that link with?
Their home page is here: http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/. I think it’s rather dated and they are asking for donations to pay for distribution costs.
The complete video can be viewed on google video for free here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8142733917997460212
There was just an episode of Law & Order that addressed this issue. The mother had it, and then passed it to her two sons through birth, having been advised by a doctor that it was all a scam because of something scientific having to do with ‘retroviruses’, so they put everyone on trial for child endangerment. They had one son testify that he was old enough to refuse treatment, but they tried to show he was the victim of those who believed in a ‘conspiracy’ by corrupt pharmies.
What really got me though, was when the prosecutor discredited the ‘conspiracy’ theory by asking the son giving testimony, whether he believed in holocaust-denial, whereupon he forcefully supported the holocaust.
disinter – um… now the “more info” is linking to my blog! LOL. Not that I object to the traffic, but it doesn’t really correlate. Didn’t you mean to direct it to one of the links I posted above?
Archie – That episode of L&O was based on the story of Christine Maggiore, an AIDS dissident who recently died. Christine actually interviewed the medical adviser to the program here. It’s a pretty fascinating program.
Man I’m so tired with all the lies and corruption of the people who are responsible for keeping us safe. And when I try to tell other people of the lies it’s like beating my head against a wall.
What can we do?
Wow, amazing video. I’ve never heard this info before. Amazing, I’m going to look into this subject further—another hoax pulled on the public (9/11, “global warming”, etc.).
This is a very old video, 1996. While some good points are made, AZT is not a treatment drug at all anymore (I believe). Most of this video is anti-AZT which is a moot point at this point. I have hiv and take meds for it, and sure wouldn’t want to stop treatment or “treatment” (if you want to take this hypothesis seriously) after watching this.
Ray – Although no longer used as a stand alone drug (monotherapy), AZT and its close relatives are still regularly prescribed for HIV treatment, in the US and especially in third world countries as part of HAART (highly active antiretrovial therapy).
For reference, read here (2005), and here.
It is also one of the components of newer formulations of drugs, including Combivir and Trizivir.
I’m poz too and swore I’d never take AZT. It was only later that I learned about the “bait and switch” tactics of the drug companies to slip this and similar drugs into our bodies. I hope you are doing well with your therapy. I could not tolerate the drugs I only began to recover my health after stopping all of them.
I’ve been an HIV social worker now for more than 15 years. I didn’t see the video ’cause I’m only on dial-up out here in the sticks, but reading the comments I can say yeah, AZT was a crappy drug. It used to burn the skin of black patients so they would get darl splotches.
I can also say with 100% certaint that HIV does exist just like they say. I have pictures of it. I’ve seen so many patients die who would not take meds and so many more come back from near death after they start meds.
I’m definately a “Grassy Knoll” and “Truther” kind of guy and I know that American lives are woth less than American dollars to more of our leaders than not, but this is real. Its progression is predictable enough that I can tell a patient who is not on meds and their T-Cells have dropped below 100 that they will be hospitalized within six months and I’m almost always right about this.
I just got home from an AIDS conference where doctors are legitimately using the “C-word”, cure with the onset of nanotechnology and gene therapy we honestly beleive that there will be acure within ten years.
I hope you take my word for it here because I know. HIV does exist, and it does cause AIDS.
Really.
Rockefeller bragged about destroying manufacturing in USA. Ted Turner/Prince Charles embrace stealth implementation of eugenics methodologies to thin out human population. Some hugely greedy and evil persons out there.
Although AZT is no longer used by itself as monotherapy, it continues to be prescribed as a component of HAART, or combination treatment. It is also known as Retrovir or zidovudine, and is one of the ingredients in several other HIV drugs, including Combivir and Trizivir.
Other HIV drugs are close cousins to AZT and there’s reason to believe they cause harmful effects (nothing “side” about them) as well.
More HIV-positives now die of non-AIDS causes and many, if not most of those are the result of the drugs.
Ray, I’m poz also and swore I’d never take AZT. I did not learn until later that one of the drugs prescribed to me, Zerit was a similar thymidine analog. Unlike you apparently, I could not tolerate the drugs and only recovered my health after quitting them more than six years ago.
Keep reading my friend. The truth is out there.
Jonathon, you should look for some other meds. Try http://www.poz.com it’s a very good site. How are your current cd4 and viral load levels?
HIV DOES SEEM to cause AIDS in my opinion. My cd4 count was slipping quickly after infection, down to 289 before I started meds (Norvir, Reyetaz, and Truvada — I hope none of those have AZT in them). It would have surely been under 200 one year later, and whenever cd4s are below 200, viral infections DO occur. That’s just a fact.
If trying to make everyone think having hiv is just peachy is a great idea, I would suggest it be done with some UPDATED material.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970
United States Senate Library
HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ninety-First Congress
#2 from the link below (remember the year is 1970): 2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.
They got their funding.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/aids_manufactured.htm
Here’s a more recent movie guys:
ftp://209.85.22.3/unyc/aidsinc.s.wmv
It’s presented by Gary Null and was done a few years back.
The important part about the AIDS scam is the research done by folks with PhD’s and Nobel prizes like Karry Mullis and Peter Dusberg that say that HIV was never properly isolated and identified.
Please spread the above video far and wide! Seed it and or buy the DVD on Gary’s site:
Aids Inc.
http://www.gnhealthyliving.com/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=151
Also, a good board for folks that want to learn more from other health and “positive” folks can be accessed at the AIDS Myth Exposed forum:
http://forums.aidsmythexposed.com/index.php
Interesting
I was told I was positive 18 months ago but a followup test came back negative. It span my head out but I was thankful if a little confused about how it all happened.
After seeing this Im left wondering about the way drug companies dont seem to be acting in the best interests of mankind
Just in case you didn’t know it… that woman who founded Alive & Well is dead. Yeah, she had HIV, then got AIDS from HIV.
Denialism only leads to bad consequences for those involved. I hope that these people aren’t forcing their ideologies on their children. They’ll end up suffering because their parents want to jump on another conspiracy bandwagon.
And why am I not surprised to see links for that Alex Jones nut-job on this site?
Despite getting mountains of donations to cure everything, I can’t recall any major scientific conquest of any disease or condition for at least 40 years. I doubt there would be given the way the rules are set up. The real money is in taking people for a constant ride.
Thank you for the video. I’ll go you one deeper. What if just about everything we believe about haemophilia is a myth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia
Think about it. There’s now a contagious haemophilia that affects women just as much as men. In the 1970’s and earlier, you would’ve been laughed out of med school for even suggesting that was possible.
For all we really know, all that prison blood given to the Red Cross was a scapegoat to cover up just how contagious AIDS really is. That’s how much I trust these people.
I find this difficult to believe because I was around way before there was any treatment for AIDs. I’ve seen many friends and acquaintances die of it, and yes, each of them initially began with a diagnosis of HIV, then later went on to die of full blown AIDs. I saw so many of them waste away, then succumb to pneumonia, dementia, painful sores in the mouth that prevented them from being able to eat, etc. I’ve seen it first hand … many co-workers and friends.
I think this video, and other arguments and myths against HIV causing AIDs can only exist because people no longer see people in their community dying every week, as was the case before AZT and other treatments. Many of my acquaintances, who appeared perfectly healthy but who had had intimate contact with someone who later got AIDs got tested and received a diagnosis of HIV, then years later went on to develop full blown AIDs themselves.
I watched a co-worker through each phase of the disease, from glowing health, then a HIV diagnosis, then mild illnesses emerging, then full blown AIDs, then death. His partner had earlier died of the same disease.
So if not HIV, then what caused these deaths? At that time, there were community newspapers that listed all the names of people who had died of AIDs that week. It was a huge epidemic before treatment was found. Nowadays I rarely hear of people dying of AIDs unless they avoid taking medication regularly.
The ironic thing is that people who got HIV a few years later, and were able to take AZT are still alive today !!
But some people love conspiracies. They can’t live without them. They Love to Hate their governments and love to think that people behind the scenes are always up to insidious deviousness. I think conspiracy theorists should themselves be diagnosed. They need to be cured of their addiction to doom and gloom.
If you watch the video you will learn that no one is saying that HIV does not exist. You will also learn that it does not cause “AIDS”.
If you watch the video, you will find out.
A highly interesting video. Whether or not people agree with it, it serves as an important reminder to always think and not simply accept.
It would come as no surprise to me. There are many myths people are unaware of:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller26.html
[…] HIV does NOT cause AIDS The HIV causes AIDS hoax is just another scam perpetuated by monetary corruption: […]
See:
A very good book to read is: ‘World Without Aids’.
by Steven Ransom & Phillip Day.
Get yourself a copy, you won’t be disappointed.
It really is a shame to see GARBAGE like this getting on the WordPress frontpage.
Saying HIV doesn’t cause AIDS is like saying the earth is flat. But then again, there are people stupid enough to believe that too.
Get out of the conspiracy hole. Please. You are NOT disclosing some kind of ‘hidden information’. What you are doing is spreading dangerous information that can get people KILLED.
Medical information is not for noobs and know-nothings. the LEAST you SHOULD do: disclose your background (age, occupation, education, financial ties) so people can assess the information you provide. Also provide a DISCLAIMERS. Those are some of the most important things when you think you have something to say on medical issues. You are violating important ethical rules of the medblogging sphere.
It isn’t rocketscience. Just state you aren’t a doctor, scientist or whatever you are (not) and state that people shouldn’t be stupid enough to follow up on some unknown guy/gal’s medical info on the internet.
So…I committed the two hours to watch the film.
This should be on television, instead of dopey-ass programming.
Geez…what amazing timing! “Saying HIV doesn’t cause AIDS is like saying the earth is flat”.
The earth has been PROVEN not to be flat; HIV has YET to be proven to conclusively cause AIDS. Bram…admit that you’re being disingenuous, and that you did NOT watch the entire two hour presentation.
You may also benefit from perusing disinter’s posting on conspiracy theorizing just above your own.
Maybe I should stop my present meds, and after my cd4s drop under 200, and I then become sick to the point of death, which most likely (at the rates my cd4 fell BEFORE I started the meds) would be within 2 years — then whoever is responsible for posting this information could meet my family in court? Hmmmmmmmmmmm
This information is VERY dangerous. Please read a responsible source, such as Scientific American, which has denied any possible truth to Duesberg’s information on hiv/aids, but has printed another more recent article by him on a different subject last year. They (Scientific American) are good at being OBJECTIVE.
Hey Ray – No one’s telling you to stop drinking the KoolAid, just pointing out what happens to those who do. Can’t be sued for that, you silly wabbit.
Jonathon, no, I’m not about to quit. And you can be sued for ANYTHING, by the way.
Can’t be SUCCESSFULLY sued, then. Sheesh. I think you missed my point about “KoolAid”. It’s an allusion to AIDS drugs.
More people now die of non-AIDS related causes (i.e. drug toxicities?) than do of AIDS conditions – here.
How many additional drugs do you have to take to control the so-called side effects of ARV? Immodium? Antidepressant? Cholesterol blocker? What studies have been done to investigate unknown interactions with this many drugs?
When your liver fails, your heart enlarges and you die of multiple organ failure and/or cancer, due to the drug effects, will your family sue the pharmaceutical companies and AIDS industry?
I hope you are one of the lucky ones who is able to tolerate your regimen. Please refrain from hurling emotional charges at those of who are forced to admit they are intolerable and have questionable efficacy.
Feel free to drop by my site and visit “The Graveyard”, my growing tribute to personal friends who died despite taking HAART. People fucking die. Period. The drugs do not prevent that inevitability. They do not prolong life (read the studies).
Why do people embrace medical science like religion? You are putting your faith in an industry that is committed only to <a href=”http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2009/03/15/is_pharma_business_model_unsustainable_newsgrabs_sunday_15_march_2009.htm”< making a profit, not improving your health.
The fact that you find ANY information dangerous is idiotic.
HIV doesn’t cause AIDS… That’s why all the antiviral treatments are working so well.
That’s why, since they are treating people ‘as if they where infected bij HIV’ people aren’t dying so much as before the HIV theory became known. Well, as long as they are getting their meds.
That’s why the evolution of HIV correlates with the progression of AIDS.
What is it with denialists? And goalpost shifting to the sideeffects of effective medicine when claiming HIV doesn’t cause AIDS doesn’t surprise me. Standard denialist behaviour.
Information CAN be dangerous ofcourse. The fact you’re not realising that is showing in the facts I pointed out earlier; you’re not disclosing information about yourself, like any medblogging person should do. You lack every background to say even the darndest thing about any medical topic. Let alone discuss complicated things like this. Ofcourse it could be you’re an epidemiologist, an expert on viruses of a medical doctor. But if that would be the case you’d probably disclosed it already, OR (very likely) you wouldn’t post shit like this.
The effects of this kind of information IS KNOWN; it kills people. It really does. You can make people believe anything; evolution is not true, man has not landed on the moon, the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism. Stupid pseudoscientific bullcrap ofcourse. But hordes of people believe it. That’s why it’s so important to disclose your background, since authority, wether or not it is earned, causes people to believe you.
Eating a HIV denier alive:
Click to access science-sold-out.pdf
If you have two hours to watch some denialist crap, perhaps you also have the time to read 66 pages.
I’m really not sure what to believe but this sounds too good to be true, especially when one considers all the accounts of people really dead from AIDS who DON’T do drugs.
However all you guys hurling conspiracy accusations around should be careful, because vaccines DO cause autism, it’s proven. 911 IS scientifically proven to be an inside job (I’ll pwn anyone in that debate) and Anthropogenic Global Warming is proven to be a scam. The Credit Crisis was obviously engineered and the Swine flu IS manufactured and the squalene and thimerasol filled vaccinations are intended to do harm.
Unfortunately with the HIV/AIDS hypothesis I believe it’s too good to be true and AIDS is too lethal to be a ‘lifestyle’ disease.Such a massive drop in CD4 count is unexplained in people that aren’t constant drug users, unless it’s HIV. Blood transfusion ‘foreign proteins causing problems surely would be gone as the body replaced cells and processed them, what the years later would cause AIDS? Eve did not do drugs.
Definately with people’s lives at stake, stopping meds is not the right thing to do. I soooo wish that this video was for real. Perhaps this is an attempt to call the virus old to discredit accusations that it was manufactured as a weapon by the US, it would also serve a depopulation agenda as people stop taking meds.
After all Dr Duesburg is constantly rubbing the back of his neck and looking shifty, which on the show “Lie to me” is a good sign of lying.
Jonathon,
I think you over-reacted to my reply. I TOTALLY understood the parallel you were referencing when you compared Kool Aid to HIV treatment drugs.
I have been on these same 3 drugs for 2.5 years — they are Norvir, Reyetaz, and Truvada. I have never shown, so far, ANY side effects to them. Cholesterol is fine, no sickness or nausea etc. Maybe I’m lucky. But I do think these drugs keep improving.
You aren’t looking at my main statement. At the rate my cd4s were dropping, without the drugs they would have been under 200 within a couple years at most. And statistics show that when they drop below this number, opportunistic infections DO often show up.
I’d rather take my chances with these meds.
I take it you suggest I stop using them?
Disinter:
“The fact that you find ANY information dangerous is idiotic.”
Wow — this statement ITSELF is idiotic beyond belief. I guess you’re happy to defend Bushco’s “information” about WMD as being innocuous as well then?? Go ahead, have the last word, I feel I owe you no further comment. This statement from you should be plenty.
Since you are the original poster of this thread, I think this statement is all one needs to see. Thank you so much for making it.
I can’t tell who “Bram” is addressing, or even what he’s trying to say or is so afraid of. It’s distracting to have to read around all the typos.
As for me, I am fully identified and disclosed to anyone interested enough to follow the links.
Who is an anonymous poster like “Bram” to talk about disclosure?
FYI, I have been living with an “AIDS” diagnosis for seven years; “HIV-positive” for more than ten years; without any AIDS drugs for six years and ZERO prescription drugs of any kind for more than two years now. My overall health continues to improve, though at 52 I am struggling to maintain my slim figure and youthful vigor.
I do not know of a single dissident who claims there is not a health problem affecting some people in the risk groups identified with AIDS. There are a number of questions that have not been answered, despite more than 25 years of “research” and nearly a trillion dollars spent.
There is not even consensus about how HIV causes AIDS and if Bram is so well versed in the subject, he knows this, yet some people fall down on their knees to worship poison pills in the name of treatment.
Why is addressing the failure of ARV (the AIDS drugs) considered “moving the goalposts”. All that AIDS researchers have managed to do is “complicate” (his term) this condition to the point that just about anything someone wants to suggest can be supported by a medical study somewhere.
My life, health and well-being depend on discovering the best information I can find. I do not make any money for asking the questions I ask, unlike many of those making pronouncements on behalf of the AIDS industry.
And Bram’s credentials are….?
Johnathon,
You have an “aids” diagnosis? What is your cd4 count and viral load?
Dear Jonathan, since you are troubled by my typos I’ll spell it out for you (English is not my native tongue)
disclosing credentials: ofcourse this goes for the writer of the blogpost we’re commenting on. I don’t care about commenters that much, but my main concern is about the claim that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
Now, let me say first that I’m very happy that despite being HIV positive and not taking any drugs you’re a healthy person. That’s great. But it doesn’t really provide us with any real ‘evidence’ and it doesn’t provide you with the background to make claims like ‘HIV doesn’t cause AIDS’.
Btw; I’m a nursing student with a great interest in science, pseudoscience and denialism. No, I’m not a scientist, but I’m also not claiming these absurd things like HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
Even if I’m wrong as hell, the fact that ‘disinter’ isn’t disclosing information on his/her own blog AND is posting medically sensitive information is a disgrace.
But I’m still curious how people are going to explain why these antivirals work so well for so many people (and YES ofcourse there are sideeffects) and the evolution of HIV (for instance forming a less virulent C subtype) coincides with it’s spreading in Africa.
But don’t take my word for it. Ever read the blog ‘ERV’? (http://scienceblogs.com/erv/ and http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/)
Any comments on the 66 pages I gave a link to? It’s ALL referenced and shit, find a problem: bring in the evidence and shred it apart. That’s virtually impossible, or at least way harder with documentaries.
Huh? Where do you get such nonsense? Are you so desperate that you are resorting to unsubstantiated ad hominem?
Back on subject: Do you, or ANYone else, have ANY proof that HIV causes AIDS?
Did you bother to watch the video (which I did not make) and find out the credentials of those laying out the facts? Do you have any information that proves that their allegations are untrue?
The information has been there for you to see all along. You are just too ignorant, or lazy, to watch the video.
Where is your proof that HIV causes AIDS?
Ray – It’s hard to keep the emotional hype out of this debate, and I will try harder not to do so by using terms like “KoolAid”. I’m also not going to continue to monitor this thread much longer. These debates usually break down to ad hominen attacks and solve nothing.
The video and other dissident information are for those seeking information, not those who already have all the answers, or are happy with the information they have.
Of course I’m not telling you to stop taking your drugs. If you believe in them, then they are important. As you said: “I’d rather take my chances with these meds.” One of my best friends has been HIV-positive for at least 25 years and has been on every combo there is. He is quite happy to be on the drugs too. We still love each other, agree to disagree and wish those in charge of research would buckle down to answer the question of why we’re in such opposite situations. I’m grateful Brad isn’t in the graveyard yet (and neither am I). Too many other friends are gone, despite the drugs, and their deaths weren’t peaceful ones.
I no longer consider cd4 count and VL to be reliable markers for measuring my health and well-being. How I feel is far more important. Some recent research presented at this year’s CROI conference suggests the t-cells in ARV treated patients aren’t very virile… in fact they have the characteristics of people 25 years older.
As for the information you requested, my life, including labs, past drug use and diagnoses are all on my blog for the world to see. Click on my name above to get there and look for the page titled “attachments”. I’d also encourage you to read “Surviving AIDS without drugs” to learn more of my story.
Comments intimating that I or others like me are “flat earthers”, or are responsible for murder, etc. are insulting and nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric. I just have to learn better to not respond and allow them to speak for themselves.
Bram – Last post to you, my friend because you already know all you need to know and will not be happy unless/until you prove you are right.
I just want the freedom to ask questions and to challenge the mainstream hypothesis.
Interesting that you completely dismiss my experience, saying that “doesn’t really provide us with any real ‘evidence’.” What is it then? Anectdotal evidence is still evidence, just not the kind you want. Show me a study enrolling people like me. Billions of research dollars for more (and more expensive) drugs, but nothing to validate the original fraudulent Gallo papers.
I’ve never stated that HIV does not cause AIDS, so stop twisting words. Unlike you, I don’t know that it does and I do believe the original science was sloppy at best; that everything since then has been built on that crumbling foundation; and that alternative causes have not been sufficiently researched to eliminate them from consideration.
What is “working so well” about ARVs? Mark Cheney went from a healthy stud to a wiped out walking corpse until one weekend he suddenly died in the hospital. Not from “AIDS”, but form simultaneous multiple organ collapse! Oh, wait… that isn’t “evidence” either, is it? Who the hell needs the kind of evidence you are demanding when they are LIVING this nightmare!?
How long have you been a student? I’ve been studying information about this disease for over 20 years. I was an AIDS activist before I was an AIDS patient. The pompous and dismissive arrogance of you and other “whitecoats” because you have (or are trying to get) a piece of paper is astonishing.
Jonathon,
I am happy to hear that you are having good results with your current regimen.
HOWEVER, I did look for your cd4 info, and the page will not come up, it is no longer on the server.
Without a definite figure of what your cd4s are and seeing any increase/decrease in the number over a certain amount of time, there is no way for me to say whether you have “aids” as you say you do, and as you have been told.
There is certainly debate over what cd4 level will lead to AIDS. From the information I’ve seen, it should be right around 200. And if the number has not been consistently slipping, you may simply be more resistant to AIDS development than some other people are.
@ disinter; the fact you didn’t made the video isn’t helping you out. It’s about YOU. You are the person coming out with this information and promoting it on your blog.
So you should disclose. It really is a standard issue concerning this kind of blogging. But again, don’t take my word for it: http://medbloggercode.com/the-code/
See below for some evidence btw. The movie you posted is so full of irrational thinking, psychological TV tricks (ofcourse, it is a documentary) that it is painstakingly hard to watch. Perhaps this is something you might like to watch. Duesberg has been debunked so many times it isn’t funny annymore. Comparing these kinds of research to Gallup polls. The origins of HIV are quite well known: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10390833
There is evidence on the fact chimps don’t get AIDS. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523571.900-chimps-have-already-conquered-aids.html (which completely is in accordance with the disproving of the idea that the virus is very old, if you ask me…) The virus is actually quite young…
The ‘cluster’theory of AIDS’ epidemics presented in the video is VERY strange. I hope I don’t have to explain why this is so… (a hint; HIV is NOT like influenzaviruses)
@ Jonathan: Although I don’t think it’s necessary, but I’m sorry you (Jonathan) are taking the flat earth thing personally. I just really, really disagree with the whole message that is being voiced here. HIV causes AIDS. If you cannot read the results, you need glasses.
Besides, I’m not saying you’re murdering people. But the claim carried out by this post has very great potential of having fatal effects. The fact you made the choice not to believe and react to it and are living happily, doesn’t prove anything very weird or isn’t evidence for a major multi-decade scientific conspiracy. But you lack one really important clue on your behalf.
As a closing thought I’d suggest not looking for HIV in (blood)donors anymore?
What a double blind placebo controlled trial that could make…
Now then: some evidence to show HIV is deadly and causes AIDS. Disinter has some explaining to do. (ohw yeah; published peer reviewed articles >>> TV documentary)
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Studyhttp://www.statepi.jhsph.edu/macs/dossier/MACS%20Dossier.pdf (p. 10 is quite clear)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8095571?dopt=Abstract
British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, Canada.
The belief that HIV-1 infection causes AIDs has been questioned, and the suggestion made that to know the correct cause of AIDS the incidence of disease in patients with and without risk behaviours and with and without antibody to HIV-1 must be known. We describe findings in such a cohort. In 715 homosexual men followed for a median of 8.6 years, all 136 AIDS cases occurred in the 365 individuals with pre-existing HIV-1 antibody. Most men negative for HIV-1 antibody reported risk behaviours but none developed any AIDS illnesses. CD4 counts fell in anti-HIV-1-positive men but remained stable in antibody-negative men, whether or not risk behaviours were present. The hypothesis that AIDS in homosexual men is caused not by HIV-1 infection but by drugs and sexual activity is rejected by these data. HIV-1 has an integral role in the pathogenesis of AIDS.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7111/767?view=full&pmid=9345167
Objective: To assess the impact of HIV-1 infection on mortality over five years in a rural Ugandan population.
Design: Longitudinal cohort study followed up annually by a house to house census and medical survey.
Setting: Rural population in south west Uganda.
Subjects: About 10 000 people from 15 villages who were enrolled in 1989-90 or later.
Main outcome measures: Number of deaths from all causes, death rates, mortality fraction attributable to HIV-1 infection.
Results: Of 9777 people resident in the study area in 1989-90, 8833 (90%) had an unambiguous result on testing for HIV-1 antibody; throughout the period of follow up adult seroprevalence was about 8%. During 35 083 person years of follow up, 459 deaths occurred, 273 in seronegative subjects and 186 in seropositive subjects, corresponding to standardised death rates of 8.1 and 129.3 per 1000 person years. Standardised death rates for adults were 10.4 (95% confidence interval 9.0 to 11.8) and 114.0 (93.2 to 134.8) per 1000 person years respectively. The mortality fraction attributable to HIV-1 infection was 41% for adults and was in excess of 70% for men aged 25-44 and women aged 20-44 years. Median survival from time of enrolment was less than three years in subjects aged 55 years or more who were infected with HIV-1. Life expectancy from birth in the total population resident at any time was estimated to be 42.5 years (41.4 years in men; 43.5 years in women), which compares with 58.3 years (56.5 years in men; 60.5 years in women) in people known to be seronegative.
Conclusions: These data confirm that in a rural African population HIV-1 infection is associated with high death rates and a substantial reduction in life expectancy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/utils/fref.fcgi?PrId=3494&itool=Abstract-nondef&uid=7590710&db=pubmed&url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=7590710
National Institute for Medical Research, Mwanza, Tanzania.
(Free full text available)
OBJECTIVE–To determine HIV-1 incidence and HIV-1 associated mortality in a prospective cohort study. To determine whether the cohort is suitable for studies aiming to determine the impact of interventions on HIV-1 incidence. METHODS–The study population was a cohort of 1772 urban factory workers (1478 men and 294 women) in northwest Tanzania. The study took place from October 1991 to September 1993. Outcome measures were HIV-1 seroconversion and death. RESULTS–HIV-1 incidence was 1.2 (95% CI 0.7-2.0) per 100 person-years (pyr). Crude annual mortality was 4.9 per 100 pyr in those with and 0.3 in those without HIV-1 infection, giving an age and sex adjusted mortality ratio of 12.9 (95% CI 5.4-30.7). Of all deaths, 62% were attributable to HIV-1 infection. CONCLUSION–HIV-1 infection was a major public health problem, being the major cause of death in this adult population. At an HIV-1 incidence of 1.2 per 100 pyr, a large cohort size would be required to evaluate the impact of interventions on HIV-1 incidence.
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Research/macs_and_wihs.htm
The inescapable conclusion from the more than 750 scientific reports produced by our studies is that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The evidence to support this conclusion is powerful:
The presence of HIV infection is the only factor that is strongly and consistently associated with the conditions that define AIDS;
The higher the amount of HIV in the blood, the greater the risk of developing AIDS (Annals of Internal Medicine 1997; Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 1999);
When therapies that prevent HIV from replicating were used to drastically reduce the amount of HIV in a patient’s blood, there was also a dramatic and unprecedented decrease in the incidence of AIDS and death (Journal of the American Medical Association 1998); and
Even in individuals infected with the virus that causes Kaposi’s sarcoma, Kaposi’s is extremely unlikely to occur without the immunosuppression caused by HIV infection (Journal of Infectious Diseases 2000).
In our studies, the risk of developing an AIDS-like illness in persons who did not have HIV was 1,100 times less than the risk in persons with HIV; these overwhelming odds provide a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research. Full clinical AIDS (seen in 1,715 MACS participants and 1,075 WIHS participants) always occurred in participants who had previously tested positive for HIV. HIV infects immune cells called CD4-bearing T-helper cells, or more simply, CD4 cells.
The list goes on and on….
From Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD:
The real cause: Lifestyle (receptive anal intercourse), heavy duty recreational drugs (cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines), anti-viral chemotherapy, and nutrition. In the West, 98 percent of AIDS cases occur in gay men and IV drug users.
Henry Bauer. The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (2007). Dr. Bauer is a professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies and former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Virginia Tech. This is perhaps the best single reference to date questioning the HIV/AIDS theory.
Duesberg P, Koehnlein C, Rasnick D. The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: Recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition. Journal of Bioscience 2003;28:383–412.
See my articles,
“A Modern-Day Copernicus: Peter H. Duesberg” (2006)
“Finding Truth in Phoenix” (2003)
As it turns out, the reason there was no consensus mathematically as to how HIV killed T-cells was because there was no biological consensus. There still isn’t. HIV is possibly the most studied microbe in history – certainly it is the best-funded – yet there is still no agreed-upon mechanism of pathogenesis. Worse than that, there are no data to support the hypothesis that HIV kills T-cells at all. It doesn’t in the test tube. It mostly just sits there, as it does in people – if it can be found at all. In Robert Gallo’s seminal 1984 paper in which he claims “proof” that HIV causes AIDS, actual HIV could be found in only 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. To date, actual HIV remains an elusive target in those with AIDS or simply HIV-positive.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html
Unlike other viruses, which cause diseases such as smallpox, mumps, and herpes, a retrovirus is like a hitchhiker going along for the ride. It enters a cell, mixes its genes up with those the cell possesses and aligns its fate with that of the cell. Retroviral genes make up an estimated 8 percent of the approximately 35,000 genes in the human genome. It is not in the retrovirus’ self-interest to destroy the cell it lives in. Its survival is contingent on the host cell staying healthy. But HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), a retrovirus, supposedly causes AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) by killing the T cell it infects. Without an adequate number of T cells immunodeficiency results, rendering a person susceptible to AIDS. As Duesberg points out, however, two important facts argue against this model: HIV infects, at most, only 1 in 500 T cells. And T cells infected with HIV placed in a test tube (in vitro) grow and thrive. The cells do not die. Instead, they manufacture large quantities of the virus, which providers use to detect antibodies to HIV in their patients’ blood. For these and a dozen other reasons, the germ theory of AIDS is wrong. HIV is a harmless passenger on the AIDS airplane, not its pilot.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller18.html
disenter – I want to thank you for being patient with me barging into your comment threads. I don’t usually do that and didn’t even realize how much I’ve posted here until after the fact.
Thanks for being a gracious host for such an obviously contentious debate. I can tell your blog gets a lot of traffic, just based on the recent spike of hits coming to my own blog from here.
So Jonathan, I see you won’t tell us your latest cd4 count and viral load. So how do we know you have “aids” as you have told us?
Hopefully you’ll still post that info………
And I see that disinter, not happy with posting a 13 year old, very outdated and poorly done video, is now referring to a “seminal” 1984 paper. As if science has not learned much in the last TWENTY-FIVE years! He MIGHT try consulting some newer research.
To anyone here who is affected by HIV, I suggest you do a LOT of research before believing in Duesberg’s nonsense.
Good luck to you all.
It certainly hasn’t proven that HIV causes AIDS.
More “denialists”:
* Charles Thomas, Ph.D., professor of medicine (retired) at the Harvard Medical School and at Johns Hopkins University, president of Pantox Laboratories, San Diego.
* Dr. Andrew Maniotis, Ph.D., program director for the Department of Pathology, Anatomy, Cell Biology and Bioengineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
* Dr. Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D., member of the National Academy of Sciences and professor of molecular and cell biology, University of California, Berkeley; author of the massive expose “Inventing the AIDS Virus.”
* Dr. Harvey Bialy, Ph.D., adjunct professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Miami School of Medicine.
* Dr. Roberto Giraldo, M.D., specialist in infectious and tropical diseases, Cornell Medical Center, New York, N.Y.
* Dr. Kary B. Mullis, Ph.D., 1993 Nobel Laureate in chemistry.
* Dr. Paul M. Fleiss, M.D, M.P.H., pediatrician and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles.
* Dr. Rodney Richards, Ph.D., chemist and creator of HIV Diagnostics; founding scientist, Amgen, Denver. … and more than a dozen more.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz15.html
Contrary to popular belief, HIV is not necessary to explain acquired immune deficiency and the illnesses associated with AIDS. To understand why this is so, it is first necessary to understand what AIDS is. AIDS is not a new disease or illness; it is a new name or designation for 29 previously known diseases and conditions.
http://aliveandwell.org/
Ray – Thanks for the head’s up about the links to attachments. I’m researching the problem now. Even so, you can see from the thumbnails that my cd4 counts trend down the past ten years, and the VL trends up. I’ve been below 200 on cd4 counts twice, which according to the AIDS paradigm is one of the many definitions of AIDS. As I told you though, I’m not as convinced that cd4 and/or VL correlate with disease progression as you are, but of course I’d like to see those trends reverse without resorting to ARV. We’ll see.
Meanwhile, I’m not stressing my liver, heart, etc. with drug therapy. Of course the mainstream is going to promote anything that recommends starting sooner than later. Again, their interest in our health, rather than their profits is suspect.
Check out RTB’s mission. I think they really nail it on the head. IF you need the drugs, by all means take them! I just take issue with the false mentality that they the benefits inherently outweigh the risks for many people with a HIV-positive diagnosis.
I don’t want to hijack disenter’s thread any more than I already have. If you want to visit further, or stay in touch, feel free to contact me via my blog.
disinter – Since Bram has taken to posting the “research studies”, you and your reader’s might want to read this recent article from that notorious flat earth denialist source, The Wall Street Journal. If a pain scientist is willing to sell out, what assurance do we have that those working in the multi-trillion dollar global AIDS industry can be believed? OMG… now I’m sounding like a conspiracy theorist!
Ray – Give me a break. I’m still troubleshooting and filing a trouble ticket with ix.com, my hosting service. Would like me to copy you on that for proof? Are you able to open any of the .pdf files? I can open the ones that are standard letter page size, but not the weird chart sizes either, so there IS a problem, but it’s not with my honesty, dear.
BTW, anyone can create an Excel spreadsheet, so how does posting that prove or disprove anything. If you’re willing to base the validity of my diagnoses on that, it doesn’t reflect well on what you’re willing to accept from the mainstream.
I will upload them to the wordpress servers and relink. Give me about an hour or so. I’d like to watch the last half of Desperate Housewives. Meanwhile slip out of your shorts and shake those twisted knots out of them.
As for 1984 research: All research since then is based on Gallo’s three papers to Science in 1984. Janine Roberts has posted some examples of his fraud here. If the foundation is rotten, how can the structure built up on it be sound?
Ray – All the documents should be available now. Please let me know if you still have difficulty opening them. I have yet to format and upload a list of all the diagnoses I’ve been given the past ten years, but will get that posted as well as soon as I can.
I’ll await your response of “ah hah! Falling cd4… you’re going to die!” Remember, I don’t accept your belief in that interpretation of laboratory markers. It’s like relying on the Bible to save someone who doesn’t believe in it. You have no idea how sick I was until two years ago–look at my medication list to see how many drugs I’ve been on. I’m still recovering.
BTW, I find it very interesting that you doubt my status and AIDS diagnosis. Do you really find it that hard to believe that I would do just about anything to avoid taking those drugs again? It’s OK if you do, ‘cuz I find it amazing that so many people willingly… even eagerly just swallow the pills.
I wonder if we’d ever be able to meet in the middle somewhere, ‘cuz I definitely don’t enjoy this debate/argument.
Jonathon,
Thanks, yes, the graphs are now up and working! I looks like you were being tested MONTHLY in ’02?
I think we ARE meeting on some middle ground. You choose not to use the meds and I do. I am not telling you that you have to use ’em. In your case, so far, things seem to be going ok for you without them.
In my case, they were dropping steadily over one year’s time (and I DON’T use any drugs or poppers), and the meds immediately brought my VL to undetectable (and therefore harder to pass on hiv) and the cd4s are slowing rising.
@disinter: sure. Leave all the evidence you asked for and got out of it… Why respond?
Surely, the deathrates among HIV infected persons is a SCAM. For decades. Sure… (it’s way easier just to repost the same you already claimed!)
Ofcourse Duesberg comes in handy. Ofcourse there is no reason why you should adress the questions I have with this man’s statements (mentioned in my post). I’m a graduating nursing student and even I can see the downright irrational thinking in this very old movie.
And how should I know the information you are posting on retroviruses is correct? You don’t provide any sources for your statements to back them up and I don’t know wether you have the education/knowledge to make such claims. And aren’t you mistaking ENDOGENOUS retroviruses for retroviruses when you are claiming retroviruses make up 8% of our genome? I’m really pretty sure you do… BIG difference. Check your facts please. You are posting on HIV and AIDS and you go wrong on even this very basic information…
Where do you get your info?
I’m a bit frustrated to see I am giving you the referenced evidence on HIV mortality rate, with some quite recent research (like the MACS) and all you do is regurgitate the same ol’ same ol’ that is in the video. You DON’T provide references to research, just lists of names. (which is quite a known tactic, if you know a bit about creationism)
I gave you references that give quite a clear picture on the HIV-AIDS-DEATH connection. Now it’s your turn to refute these. I’ll give a hint. Duesberg has written a comment to one of the links I provided you…
@Jonathan. Ah yes the Reuben thing. Ofcourse I have read about it. Yes, it is very disgusting. But it is no evidence for a multidecade conspiracy that involved thousands of scientists. Besides, it’s a bit awkard isn’t it? First I get asked for evidence, which I provide. Then not one single line in the comments is adressed to this evidence (lists of doctors are way more compelling) and secondly you are saying that the evidence doesn’t matter, since some fucked up scientist has had everyone by the balls. But to return the Reuben favor:
Now then, is there anyone able to explain the clear link that is found between HIV and AIDS and DEATH and shown in the references I posted. (if you wan’t there’s more ofcourse) It clearly disproves disinters idea that HIV is just a hitchhiker that causes no harm…
It’s very easy: you copy paste the link I provided and say what’s wrong.
Wow. As expected I see this is a pretty active blog post.
Bram, you have to concede that not everyone with HIV develops AIDS – this is even in mainstream media reports.
All people eventually die, whether they die as a result of AIDS is still contentious as general immune failure is the result of many deaths in HIV+ or -. I’m not even medically trained but know that.
There are lots of reports of HIV+ people who have equal lifespans to those who are HIV- away from treatment drugs, indeed this is why drugs are now only offered when/if the immune system fails.
And we know even from mainstream media that prior to the early 80’s AIDS deaths were pretty much unheard of. The same causes were later umbrella’d under AIDS and accumulated under revision of the definition.
And as the video pointed out there are at least over 4,000 known cases of AIDS in the HIV negative (which are now accounted for as a revision to hypothesis as “Idiopathic CD4+T-Lymphocytopenia”), which is enough to incite interest as HIV should be responsible for ‘all’ AIDS without exception if it’s said to be what it is.
AIDS dissenters aren’t unconcerned with immunodeficiency, they seem concerned that the focus on HIV may indeed be a brick wall. Is it not worth seeing if experiments shed a light? I find the word ‘denialist’ kind of uncomfortable as it draws a parallel with denying the holocaust.
In nearly 30yrs of focus on HIV there hasn’t been really any development.
All science is about replacing a wrong theory with one that is less wrong. Revision should always be a priority. That’s what I side with dissenters on.
mo79uk: I already stated that I don’t see evidence for weird phenomena in the things you state. I already stated that and you can read it back in the evidence that was asked for and I provided. It is not ‘strange’ that not everyone with HIV develops AIDS. It’s not unknown that some people with AIDS aren’t HIV positive. But it just isn’t proof that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. People who are infected with HIV are like a 1.000 times more prone to develop AIDS and have seriously higher mortality rates. But, again, people don’t have to refute my words. I posted some research, (way more recent than the DOCUMENTARY, on which I gave some short comments also, without anyone adressing the issues I have with it…) which is there to shred apart. But nothing. Nada. Perhaps I’m being cocky, but a documentary isn’t what I’d call ‘proof’. Anything can be stated. (like for, our genome is 8% retrovirus… anything on that disinter????)
There is just to much false information in the documentary and in this comments thread. People asking for evidence AND getting it and then just posting a list of denialist doctors or getting in the ‘science is on big fraud foxhole’, but leave the evidence aside.
Also I noted a question: since HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and is said to be a non virulent passenger, we should stop screening for HIV in (blood)donors? It would surely give an opportunity to rigorous testing of some theories and hypotheses…. Anyone?
(We’ll just assume it isn’t already researched from very sad cases where nurses and doctors get infected with HIV and develop AIDS without displaying any risky behaviour)
And I keep being disgraced by the fact that disinter is posting (really old) material on a medical topic on which he/she shown to miss even the most basic of understanding/knowledge, without disclosing her background. Disinter knows nothing, but a video can be shown to anyone. As soon as evidence poors in the thread (evidence that ANYONE can access) he/she isn’t commenting on it. Well, with all the scientist that are against the HIV-AIDS theory, the MACS has to have soms damn well defined criticism????
Owh yeah, if there is anyone interested in why there is a very big difference between endogenous retroviruses and retroviruses like HIV go check out the ERV blog I posted before. Don’t take my word for it, but not knowing the difference between an RV and an ERV is quite a ‘disturbing’ thing when you posts things like ‘HIV doesn’t cause AIDS’. And, if you want to be really specific, HIV is a lentivirus…
Ohw yeah, when you do check out the ERV blogs, there is a bonus: you’ll see that the claim that the virus is very old (Duesberg claims it is a couple of hundred years old) has been thoroughly disproven. (but then again, that is recent evidence, so the documentary makers couldn’t assess the question like we can now. If they wanted…) When it comes to evolution, ERV’s are very, very interesting.
Bram,
But isn’t it that people who have HIV and develop AIDS also have a cofactor? I’m not talking perhaps just about piggybacking viruses that the scientists now suggest (Gallo himself concedes HIV can’t do much on it’s own), but rather general poor health maintenance?
The documentary definitely isn’t proof, even Duesberg and others have stated that they’d like the chance to deliver that.
How can the AIDS theory be watertight when opposing opinions to a non peer-reviewed theory aren’t entertained?
If mainstream thought is right it has nothing to lose by looking into alternative opinions rather than just ignoring them.
I admit I have only general knowledge in HIV/AIDS and was intrigued by the top posts link on WordPress, but you can’t deny this video alone has valid questions (not answers) about the prevailing theory? The video might be more than a decade old but if the same core arguments remain it’s age doesn’t matter.
Also, while the mainstream theory prevails I *don’t* think it’s a good idea to abandon screening for HIV in blood products. It’s better to be safe than sorry for the time being, that’s for sure. Questioning the AIDS theory doesn’t mean condoning transmission of HIV.
God help us.
If you are too lazy to read the many sources (along with a list of people that actually have credentials, unlike yourself) that I provided in the comments above, then you are wasting my time.
At one time it was mainstream thinking to believe that the earth was indeed flat. Unfortunately, there were idiots like the modern day ‘HIV doesn’t cause AIDS’ deniers that attacked the round-earthers with ad hominem (and worse). Someday these bozos will realize the earth is, in fact, round.
It appears the only conspiracy is the one involving peer-reviewed medical journals and Big Pharma in general:
http://www.naturalnews.com/025852.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/012119.html
Oh lookie here:
Gallo himself, admitting to another researcher that HIV could not be isolated from human samples alone; and a letter from an electron microscopy expert saying that there was no HIV virus contained in Gallo’s 1984 samples.
Gallo’s research has come under fire before, with U.S. government investigations in the 1990s concluding that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements” and that “the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records … reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”
http://www.naturalnews.com/025787.html
AIDS Fraud Exposed: HIV Science Papers from 1984 were Falsified
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000646_AIDS_HIV_medical_myths.html
If anyone here would like to see a concise summation of Duesberg’s theory and the evidence against it, please consult Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis
disinter, you should REALLY stop calling people on the other side “idiots”. These people on the other side WILL hopefully consider the source!
Ray – I am so sorry. I will send them a lolly-pop.
attacking with ad hominems… lol… I didn’t made one single ad hominem except for calling you a know nothing. But that didn’t happen for nothing. Not knowing the difference between ERV’s and RV’s is quite something when you consider this thread… And you haven’t adressed or corrected this grave error…
But ofcourse, still not a single direct answer to my questions. Ohw yes, science progressed since 1984….
@mo79uk. Why keep testing: disinter clearly states HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and is that dangerous at all. I quote: “HIV is a harmless passenger on the AIDS airplane, not its pilot. ”
All those taxdollars spent on the few cases in which blood and organs are containing HIV…
Now your learnin… maybe.
Just as it hasn’t been proven AIDS isn’t caused by HIV, the opposite hasn’t conclusively been proven either, so we do need final word experiments.
Of course it’s controversial to test the outcomes between on and off treatment groups, but individuals do exist who choose between a side and I’m sure they’d value having an opportunity to shed light on what’s right for people in future.
If Gallo keeps making changes to his root idea, then surely that alone is indicative of his own uncertainty which affects other work based on his.
Ohw lord. This is gettin pathetic. (reffering to the 1984 scam piece) No scrutiny in science on vaccines and flushots? That’s why flushots for the elderly are in a vicious debate. But ofcourse the people over there don’t have access to Cochrane reviews to check the absence of scrutiny, since the ivory tower doesn’t give clear written abstracts…
But since disinter keeps implying that HIV is harmless, he/she could ofcourse easily explain why people infected with HIV are dying so much more… (and that is controlled for other factors)
Disinter; do you have any background on the scientific method? It appears that, besides appearing to have no knowledge on viruses, you lack understanding of the scienctific method. (for instance, answering with lists of doctors when something about evidence is being asked…)
Also, again: are you going to adress my questions and answers, apart for paternalizing on my learningcurve? I gave you what you wanted. You asked for comments on the movie and evidence that HIV causes AIDS, which I gave you. You gave me nothing. Except for an ad hominem. (on which I say: God won’t help you and you’d better hope a nurse had a good education when you need one)
And why keep battering against Gallo? As you might know, the Nobelprize was awarded to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier. You know why: because they discovered HIV. Eventhough Gallo might have been wrong I suppose you should be more concerned about these Nobelprize winners…. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/press.html
They usually call the tactic you deployed fighting a strawman…
When?
I think I will avoid all nurses from now on if they are as ignorant as you are. You are a disgrace to your profession.
Because the absurd evidence you provided at the link below relies on this fraudster’s “research”.
Yep, and no one has ever proven that HIV causes AIDS.
Nice tries though.
mo79uk: the theory that HIV causes AIDS is proven on the highest of scientific standards. I gave a little list of some evidence. You can read it for yourself. (don’t belive me or disinter on this, believe the science behind it) There are thousands of papers on this subject. Especially read about the MACS, if you are asking about final word experiments. Even if Gallo was wrong as hell, it doesn’t change one single this. HIV has been isolated, HIV has been shown to be a bad ass virus (although certain subtypes are less virulent and thus giving options for a better spread of the virus) and HIV has been shown to be the number 1 cause for AIDS. Those are not questions, those are facts.
Well, since disinter isn’t going to adress the evidence he/she asked for, I advice you to do it. Read the links I gave you. Check for this big multidecade conspiracy yourself, that concerns thousands of scientists from all over the world.
The options you are speaking about for research would never ever EVER come through an ERB.
Yes, read more about it here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/025852.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/012119.html
Hahahahahahaha disinter.
I really am starting to like you. Just ignore everything and keep blabbering out the same. There are numerous errors in the movie. (I stated some…) There are numerous errors in the links you gave. (also stated) There are numerous errors in your answers. (you still believe RV’s make up 8% of our genome? Do you realize that answer really shows you incompetence on this subject and in fact turns the concerning comment into downright nonsense?)
the MACS for instance gave really clear evidence HIV causes AIDS… I gave you the link, have your way. Duesberg is like a piece of roadkill, just like Horowitz, Culshaw and all the others…
But ofcourse applying the scrutiny you ask for to your own answers is a bit to much to ask for. (why ask for Science to withdraw a piece, when you are not able to even correct serious basic errors yourself and admit you are terribly wrong on the RV stuff?)
And for your information: nursing is to be a evidence based profession, or growing into becoming one. Well, since you don’t understand what that means I’m absolutely not moved by yet another ad hominem. Your style of discussing really is a gem…
Then why did you just call it a theory? And you claim to be some sort of medical professional? Umm, okay.
It has never been proven that HIV causes AIDS.
It obviously has a LOT of growing to do if you are involved.
Do you even understand the irony of what you just said? You followed your cry about my ad hominem with an ad hominem (not to mention another red herring).
Ohw and: still nothing on disinter’s background. (I disclosed mine) Not that I have any doubt that there is nothing in it that concerns science…
Disinter is shouting about unethical scientific behaviour and him/herself unable to even abide the most simple of rules.
I adressed your style of discussing. I gave enough examples on why your discussing style lacks just about anything and no I never claimed to be a medical professional. You don’t get back on things you asked for, you just keep on saying the same, you neglect accusations about the movie you posted. How can you say HIV doesn’t cause AIDS without adressing the links I gave you? How can you – for crying out loud – say HIV is non virulent, when I gave you more than one piece of evidence clearly showing HIV is a killer? You just don’t neglect it and keep replying the same, unless you want people to think they are discussing a skipping CD player?
And why call it just a THEORY? JUST A THEORY? Do you have ANY IDEA what a theory means?
It’s like I’m talking to a creationist. Well, have fun with your live and your big conspiracy ideas. I’m outtahere.
Whahahahaha RV’s make up 8% of our genome (not making up this BIG and very basic (not to say stupid) mistake) AND why call something a theory when it is proven, AND not adressing ONE single thing on the MACS link. And THEN saying science is a big fraud. Whahahahaha
To much for one man to bear…
gawd… I thought he’d never leave. You have more patience than me, disinter.
Wait! You have patients…
That must mean you do have a medical background!
Yes, you have told us a million times you are going to school to be a doctor wannabe (nurse), which supposedly makes you an expert on everything concerning HIV. Yadda Yadda… No one is falling for it, unless they are falling down laughing.
Good lord, you are either desperate or you can’t comprehend what you read (most likely).
I said: “Then why did you just call it a theory?”
That does not read: “Then why did you call it just a theory?”.
And yes, both sides have just that: theories. No one has ever proven that HIV causes AIDS.
And no, your red herrings aren’t helping your case at all. In fact they serve to discredit you.
I didn’t realize I was dealing with a 12 year old. No more wasting time on you.
LOL Jonathan. We certainly have a mental patient on our hands, no doubt.
Bram (if you happen to return),
I respect the evidence you present but AIDS is still ambiguous, even by mainstream views (which is why its definition has been revised quite radically at least three times so far) to be analogous to hard facts like herpes zoster causing the pox.
The irony is that attenuated herpes zoster is given to build up immunity, yet someone who is HIV+ already has the antibodies for it, showing the virus is incapacitated/dormant. So, how could you really make, say, a vaccine for someone who is in effect vaccinated? This shows no logic. That bit of the video floored me as I never thought about that before. I can’t find any good retorts to that.
“the theory that HIV causes AIDS is proven” is untrue. The only way that statement can be concrete is when/if a treatment gets rid of HIV and this then prevents/cures AIDS. That would fill the picture.
However this currently appears to be a losng battle, so a bit of fresh perspective is badly needed. And this doesn’t mean being totally careless with the current hypothesis for the time being, if nothing more than to keep order on a possibly ‘sold’ public.
“But since disinter keeps implying that HIV is harmless, he/she could ofcourse easily explain why people infected with HIV are dying so much more… ”
Retroviral drugs perhaps?
I think I’ll end my participation here too. But disinter, thanks for the video – it certainly enlightened my week!
disinter,
Yes, we do have a mental patient on our hands apparently, and it is clear he is YOU.
Oh, and by the way, thank you for proving you do NOT know what a theory is. A theory CAN be something that has been proven.
Consult a dictionary.
And saying something over and over again as you keep doing does not make it a fact.
Just did:
a concept that is not yet verified
Yep, both are still theories.
Ditto. It is most certainly a fact that it has never been proven that HIV causes AIDS. No matter how few, or many, times it is repeated.
Nice try, though.
disinter,
Where the HELL did you get that definition? Source please!
Websters:
the⋅o⋅ry
/ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Origin:
1590–1600; < LL theōria < Gk theōría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to theōr(eîn) to view + -ia -y 3
Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
disinter,
Clearly you looked at something like synonym 1. READ THE SECOND SENTENCE.
I take it you think that relativity or evolution has not been proven as fact yet also? Jeez.
This, from Wikipedia, is the most accepted definition of a theory in scientific circles:
The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
dininter: What CHILDREN’S dictionary did you get that definition from? LMAO!!!
Yep, both are still theories.
And I repeat for the mental patients full of desperate red herrings: It has never been proven that HIV causes AIDS.
I guess it’s YOUR thread, and that you have to have the last word. So be it. I hope this thread doesn’t ruin too many lives.
From Wikipedia:
Duesberg’s denial of HIV/AIDS science is cited as a major influence on the public health policies of South Africa under the administration of Thabo Mbeki. Duesberg also served on an advisory panel to Mbeki, convened in 2000. The consequent failure of South Africa to provide antiretroviral drugs in a timely manner is thought to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of excess AIDS deaths and HIV infections.
Ray really goofed on his “last” post (does he mean it?)
The mainstream bashes dissidents for questionable sources, yet he now resorts to wikipedia.
bias at wikipedia. (after the first two links to wikipedia itself, of course)
I’m not sure if the original principles of wikipedia ever stood a chance, but the site is quickly deteriorating into a mouthpiece for propagandists. The rules favor those with the resources to control the input of information, and if there’s an industry with resources available, AIDS Inc is near the top. They won’t even permit a link to Christine Maggiore’s memorial page there.
That’s cold.
I knew someone would bring such a thing up. If Wikipedia can be updated by outside sources, and if “THE SITE IS QUICKLY DETERIORATING INTO A MOUTHPIECE FOR PROPAGANDISTS” than why doesn’t the “genius” disinter get some of his “facts” up on Wikipedia???
The fact is that this “info” by Duesberg IS leading to more deaths from AIDS. And hopefully the “information” on this thread that disinter isn’t doing the same thing.
“The fact is… ”
One group at wikipedia is attempting to address some (not all) issues of bias there. This is from that page:
“Wikipedians tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents to or opponents of certain political ideologies or religious beliefs. Editors with strong opinions tend to edit vigorously and often; editors without an intellectual agenda tend to edit less since they do not desire to represent a particular point of view. This may lead to subjective articles and heavy-handed promotion or criticism of topics.”
The AIDS mainstream share many of the characteristics of a dogmatic religion (such as using terms like “the fact is…”) and it is not unreasonable to suggest they could be included in the description above.
I thought you were leaving this thread, Ray. You really can’t stand not to have the last word, can you?
That fact that you rely on a site that allows anyone to edit it for your information rests my case.
first: this is not a ‘debating post’, it’s kind of a final ‘thank you note’ (really!)
disinter: just a tip:
If you want some credibility to crawl out of this deep shithole you call a blogpost (since I’m called a mental patient, I guess going ‘ad postem’ is no problem); delete the comments regarding your opinions about ‘a theory’. (and while you’re at it; the ‘look @ me, I knowz ratrovirizes’ bullcr*p too)
But if you’d do me a favor, leave them here; everytime I need to know why I spend also a part of my leisure time on studying the big, bad and evil scientific method, I’ll have a quick look @ this thread. Although that isn’t going the be often, since it gave me a really good reason to keep on studying. Perhaps I’ll be back in 30 years or something.
So you can’t go wrong on it! (it’ll be the first time in this thread!)
I also think of using it as a case for my fellow students: spot the stupidity, pseudoscience & very bad medicine! So I copy-pasted it. It’s quite asthonishing actually that something so bad, could turn into something I learned from and I can share with my fellow students for further learning. (real learning that is)
So, after all: thank you for providing an almost limitless piece of pseudoscientific, quackinfested, malinformed heap of dung AND making me learn some more about HIV & AIDS.
I already had a good laugh with my friends on ‘this person’ that is unable to answer really simple questions from a ’12 year old mental patient’, and more importantly shown to be very, deeply, utterly wrong on very basic knowledge. (partly by a 12 year old mental patient)
And besides having a good laugh, we were learning something to!
Priceless! So thanks again! (I’m really not being sarcastic or cynical) It almost made me go into seizure at times, but it was worth the effort after all.
A what a typo: make those 30 years 300 years.
Brammy, your insecurity speaks volumes. Please continue.
And finally(?) after all of Bram and Ray’s childish tantrums, the fact still remains:
No one has ever proven that HIV causes AIDS.
disinter,
It’s just amazing how you keep printing the same sentence over and over again. You know, people are going to see through that for what it is quite easily. So maybe I DON’T have to waste any more time here.
Since this is your thread, and you’ll keep looking at it, of course, you’ll have the last posting stating the same old dis-proven statement. Or should I call it a theory? LOL But don’t think because the last posting will be this statement from you that people will not be able to see this nonsense you’ve posted for what it is.
Ok Jonathon, I’ll leave, because YOU are the one who needs the last word, aren’t you? You know, it might help a bit to work ALONG with others in your boat instead of against them.
Anyone else looking at this thread, I just ask you to do your own research.
Yes by all means, please do. Let us know when, if ever, anyone proves that HIV causes AIDS. Currently there simply isn’t any proof.
It is interesting that you have some video from John Stossel on your blog. He realizes that there is plenty of science that confirms that HIV is the virus that transmits AIDS. The virus acts indirectly, by destroying the immune system. Why is that so complex?
Christine Maggiore killed her daughter and herself because of her mistaken beliefs. This ignorance kills.
Ah Ray… I would have gladly let this poor whipped dog lie in peace if you hadn’t written: “Ok Jonathon… You know, it might help a bit to work ALONG with others in your boat instead of against them. ”
Do you experience this kind of hostility often?
What boat are you talking about, Ray? You and I are certainly not in the same boat. We may have both been passengers on the big ship that hit the iceberg and sank, but we’re in different life boats.
I do see you across the waves though Ray, and I see the sharks circling all of us. Do you see them?
More than twenty years ago I gave up several years of my life to organize and agitate for fast track drug approval from the FDA so you can have the drugs you now depend on. Those in the mainstream said the exact same words to me then that you said above. Where were you then?
We’ve been screwed and lied to from the earliest days. Maybe the magic pills will help you live long enough to realize that. I truly hope so.
BTW, you’re welcome.
I couldn’t help returning myself! :)
Bram,
You should’ve kept to arguing eloquently, your last response was a little too heated to do you any favours.
Rogue Medic,
Christine Maggiore’s death was due to ‘AIDS related conditions’ which umbrellas the most common causes of death anyway. Even so there’s no proof that HIV was the initiator of her fate, which makes disinter’s bolded claim still correct. You’ll find there’s a few bounties for anyone who can disprove that.
Ray,
You shouldn’t be surprised that people on this blog post counter what you say as most people who visited came because they wanted to simply see this viewpoint rather than slam it.
If you feel happy with your medications I wish you well.
At random, one page – http://www.aidsmap.com/en/docs/7406D7A6-4857-4550-929D-1F7C0713E091.asp – about the AIDS test reveals instability of the hypothesis without even looking at dissenter information.
A few points:
“The test for HIV is called an HIV antibody test.” i.e. what would logically form a vaccine.
“It is easier and cheaper to detect antibodies to HIV than it is to look for the virus itself.” This is erroneous as other viruses can likely be detected as easily as the antibody test for the same cost, as with most blood tests.
And the most telling sentence:
“Even if you’re found to be HIV antibody positive, this doesn’t predict which HIV–related conditions may or may not develop. All it tells you is whether there are HIV antibodies in your blood.” then
“…But not everyone with HIV infection has developed AIDS. In fact, we know that after being infected for ten years, about one in three people still don’t have any symptoms of AIDS.” 1 in 3 people are also likely to be ‘resistant’ to wanting treatment.
Even so 2 out of 3 people is identical to the statistic of getting one of the AIDS umbrella’d diseases regardless of HIV status.
One other potentially strong bit is weakened by the word ‘likely’:
“However, without treatment, two–thirds of adults infected with HIV are likely to develop AIDS within ten years of being exposed to HIV.”
Likely isn’t the terminology used when talking about cold hard facts.
The viral load test appears also akin to putting a magnifying glass on ant and saying it’s a cockroach.
Christine Maggiore’s death was due to ‘AIDS related conditions’ which umbrellas the most common causes of death anyway.
Since there was no autopsy, there is no official cause of death. Yet her death was a typical AIDS death.
Her family refused an autopsy. If she did not die of AIDS, what was there to hide. She probably knew she was dying of AIDS. She probably knew she had killed her daughter. It appears that she just didn’t want everyone else to know how barbaric her behavior was.
HIV denialism has always been about avoiding science.
Even so 2 out of 3 people is identical to the statistic of getting one of the AIDS umbrella’d diseases regardless of HIV status.
2 out of 3 of all deaths?
How many people who are not HIV+ die of Kaposi’s Sarcoma?
How many people who are not HIV+ die of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (Christine Maggiore’s symptoms were typical for PCP)?
AIDS doesn’t kill you quickly, but it is how HIV kills people.
AIDS drugs prolong the lives of those with AIDS and they delay (possibly even prevent) development of AIDS.
Antibodies are sometimes the way that a disease is identified. The antibodies can be easier to locate than the actual virus. This was one of the major steps in identifying the progression of polio. Polio is a disease that has a similar ability to produce overt signs of the disease in only a minority of people infected.
My mistake. Even you state that AIDS produces overt signs in 2/3 of people infected – a 2 to 1 majority. Do you believe that polio is not caused by poliovirus? Do you think that the polio vaccines were ineffective and that it was just a dramatic increase in the incidence of Guillaine Barre syndrome, or something else, since polio does not appear to be something that meets your criteria as an illness?
I’m reading this amazing thread through my mailbox, which means I get to read the order backwards. Wow, for whatever reason, this topic gets out the big money spin teams, the people who magically appear whenever the USS Liberty is discussed by former armed forces personnel or the JonBenet Ramsey story whenever you point out the fact that the mother’s family won two Miss West Virginia titles and MTV’s Driven bio on Britney Spears is virtually identical to JonBenet’s before her murder.
Why is this? Sadly, I don’t know enough about the vagaries of AIDS to hazard a guess. However, I do have an official USS Liberty approved depth charge. Did you know that no one knows for sure why male homosexuals have a life span averaging 44 years and lesbians live for an average of 49 years. Do I think that’s relevant to this topic? You know it.
Rogue Medic,
I didn’t imply her death couldn’t have been due to immunodefiency/AIDS. Had she had an autopsy it would still only likely imply an AIDS death, but this still doesn’t implicate HIV specificly.
I admt I’m not aware of how many HIV- people develop KS or PCP, however these diseases still have invidivual names which shows they existed before the AIDS defintion and were umbrella’d. A brief web search does show the HIV- can develop KS though.
The therapeutic value of AIDS drugs is disputed by their rather heavy side effects alone because they can equal IDS.
I don’t dispute the polio virus. Vaccination prevents this, yet as I said the HIV+ are also in effect vaccinated and yet they are said to suffer from this immunity.
Christine Maggiore’s death due to a diagnosis of PCP would essentially be a diagnosis of AIDS. KS and PCP are rare outside of AIDS patients. The sudden resurgence of these illnesses in the early 1980 was not a coincidence. These are opportunistic infections – they attack people with weakened immune systems. I believe that she knew she had AIDS and insisted that there be no autopsy, because she knew what it would show. She did not want the rest of the world to know that she killed her daughter. At least, not the true believers who could not see the pretty clear signs of AIDS.
Weakened immune systems that are able to create some immune response to HIV, just not an effective immune response. since HIV affects the immune cells, the response is not a helpful one. There is no single antibody that protects against the infection. There are many antibodies being used in various combinations.
Polio was a relatively easy disease to create a vaccine for. There are only three strains of polio, and they do not mutate. HIV mutates like cancer. The common cold also mutates frequently, so it is unlikely there will be a cold vaccine any time soon. The current belief is that imitating the natural immunity of those who do not get sick, or have very slow progressing AIDS, is the best possibility for an AIDS vaccine. This is the most recent attempt for a vaccine.
A New Approach to Designing the AIDS Vaccine.
The therapeutic value of the AIDS drugs is most effectively demonstrated by the change in the AIDS death rate when they were introduced. As a paramedic, I used to frequently transport AIDS patients before the introduction of the protease inhibitors. Now it is rare. MMWR – AIDS pdf.
Rogue Medic wrote:
“She did not want the rest of the world to know that she killed her daughter.”
Good thing he’s not a conspiracy theorist.
“This is the most recent attempt for a vaccine.”
Could also be just the latest attempt to keep the faucet open on research funds. It seems there has been a promising new AIDS vaccine research announcement like this every month since Margaret Heckler and Bob Gallo promised one within two years in 1984. “Announcements” like this are a dime-a-dozen and can no longer be taken seriously. They remind me of Lucy telling Charlie Brown: “this time… honest!”
“The therapeutic value of the AIDS drugs is most effectively demonstrated by the change in the AIDS death rate when they were introduced.”
a) The death rate was dropping before the introduction of HAART.
b) After the initial cluster of AIDS in fast track gay men who were not healthy, despite what the CDC reported, the number of healthy people diagnosed with HIV soared. This would obviously affect the death rate.*
c) It is the nature of epidemics (if there is an infectious virus) to wane…. lose virulence. Why would AIDS be any different?
How often are you guys going to keep repeating these same old tired canards? I thought your beliefs were founded upon Real Science™.
* For more, read this analysis.
Sheesh… why do paramedics and nursing students get so worked up about folks asking questions before they submit to a lifetime of chemotherapy?
If you take things out of context, you change their meaning. What I wrote was, I believe that she knew she had AIDS and insisted that there be no autopsy, because she knew what it would show. She did not want the rest of the world to know that she killed her daughter. At least, not the true believers who could not see the pretty clear signs of AIDS.
Good thing he’s not a conspiracy theorist.
One person hardly qualifies as a conspiracy.
I explained why the vaccines are difficult to create.
a) The death rate was dropping before the introduction of HAART.
The peak in cases on the chart is due to a change in the definition of AIDS and prevention.
The peak in deaths on the chart is later. The peak in deaths coincides with the introduction of protease inhibitors.
b) After the initial cluster of AIDS in fast track gay men who were not healthy, despite what the CDC reported, the number of healthy people diagnosed with HIV soared. This would obviously affect the death rate.*
Your point is lost in some apparently political statement.
How often are you guys going to keep repeating these same old tired canards? I thought your beliefs were founded upon Real Science™.
They are only canards, if they are false. There is no good reason to believe that they are.
c) It is the nature of epidemics (if there is an infectious virus) to wane…. lose virulence. Why would AIDS be any different?
Some illnesses are seasonal. Do you have any evidence that AIDS is seasonal?
Sheesh… why do paramedics and nursing students get so worked up about folks asking questions before they submit to a lifetime of chemotherapy?
Asking questions is a good thing. Listening to conspiracy theorists is just silly and deadly. People in health care are trying to help people. You are spreading false information that directly interferes with the health of patients.
So, there is no test to determine the strength of the immune system with basics such as mumps, chicken pox, influenza, rhynovirus, etc.? That right there would tell you if the subject already had some form of undetectable AIDS and if HIV was just a popular virus that gets first in line in most cases.
How on earth can you say HIV causes AIDS if you don’t have a test like that and you have even just one verifiable instance where someone came down with AIDS with no history of HIV?
If something has the money for a spin team to fight any and all academic freedom on the subject, you know that’s derived from something very profitable. Perhaps they’ll make it a crime to question if HIV causes AIDS.
So, there is no test to determine the strength of the immune system with basics such as mumps, chicken pox, influenza, rhynovirus, etc.? That right there would tell you if the subject already had some form of undetectable AIDS and if HIV was just a popular virus that gets first in line in most cases.
Are you asking about T cell counts?
Why don’t you go to the CDC web site and read their material. They have plenty. They are not getting rich from this. Private companies would be the ones doing that. You can look at their income disclosures to see how much money the different companies make off of different treatments.
Blaming everything on conspiracies, just because you do not understand the science is a sucker play.
I have a distant relative who has HIV via a blood tranfusion. He has young kids and most of his life in front of him. When he came down with the flesh-eating virus, he wondered if this was the end.
I’m sorry, but blood supplies should be tested for all of the main things people with AIDS come down with because that likely indicates it’s contaminated. My guess is that that’ll never happen because it stands in the way of someone’s $10-million dollar bat mitzvah with 50 Cent and Arrowsmith, just like thimerosal.
Blood supplies are tested.
Thimerosal has nothing to do with autism. Read the research.
Conspiracy theories will cost you a lot of money. The scam artists, who make their living off of these schemes, are always selling you something. Books. Potions. General BS. Belief in conspiracies may even kill you, as it did Christine Maggiore’s daughter.
Arrowsmith?
That is funny.
Like this one?
http://www.naturalnews.com/022574.html
More on Thimerosal:
http://www.naturalnews.com/011764.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/022237.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/025595.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/022237.html
“Here’s the bottom line: Mercury, which is the dangerous element in thimerosal, is known to be extremely toxic, causing a wide range of neurological disorders and possibly others, including cancer. This is not even open to discussion; it’s a statement of fact.”
I don’t know about “conspiracies”, but Thimerosal can definitely kill you.
What’s the worst thing that could happen if it became generally accepted that all HIV cases do not automatically become AIDS cases and that AIDS can happen without any prior HIV? Will the Sears Tower implode in its own footprint with the BBC announcing it an hour beforehand?
Tell me something. Let’s say you spent big bucks on an astromony course. Let’s also say that your professor told you that the cause of sun spots had not been established to the satisifaction of all accredited personnel. Do you want your tuition money back?
Playing detective, what do the two above paragraphs tell me? I’m no West Pointer, but something is sacred that has no apparent reason for being so. Make no mistake about it, this is a Maginot Line and if it falls, continental Europe goes down with it. But why?
Let me guess and I’m all but blind on the AIDS topic. If I took anti-AIDS drugs, would I look like a WWE wrestler and have ‘rhoid rage? Would my face break out and would my testicles shrink?
disinter,
The natural news lies.
Eric Vaughn,
stream of consciousness writing worked well for James Joyce. Your writing is not in the same league.
As I go down the thread, here’s a link that briefly describes an anti-AIDs drug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZT
I sincerely hope that someone I know never reads that link. (Like the way I hope my sister never reads about the afermath of Vioxx. She’s got a lot of bad signs at 44.) She had her husband’s sperm treated so they could have children and I suspect that’d be one of the drugs involved.
Yep, the makers are real good corporate citizens, LOL. Blood cells treated with AZT still come down with stuff so it has to be combined with other drugs. (I think we’d be better off giving the poor souls heroin.)
Maybe it’s just me, but my mother died of ovarian cancer and prolonging her life in that bloody condition would just be cruel. Especially when it gets to the point where there’s no hope. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just dull their pain?
“Christine Maggiore’s death due to a diagnosis of PCP would essentially be a diagnosis of AIDS. KS and PCP are rare outside of AIDS patients.”
Rare or not you can’t make assumptions. She would be defined as an AIDS death simply by having PCP and being HIV+. This still doesn’t indicate cause.
“The sudden resurgence of these illnesses in the early 1980 was not a coincidence.”
These coincided with the approval of immunosuppressive glucocortoid aerosols 4yrs prior and the advent of the ‘fast lane’ drug lifestyle.
“I believe that she knew she had AIDS and insisted that there be no autopsy, because she knew what it would show.”
As I said, she was aware autopsy details would be used to say she died of AIDS (one of approx. 30 possible ways to die) and didn’t want such clear ammo given to her opponents when she can no longer defend herself.
“Weakened immune systems that are able to create some immune response to HIV, just not an effective immune response.”
How is the presence of antibodies not effective? That is the core response. No matter whether there are different strains of HIV the fact you create antibodies to any of them mean you are in effect immunised. An immune response means you are not immune compromised. And this remains the case unless until/if you fall ill.
“so it is unlikely there will be a cold vaccine any time soon.”
This is not even necessary given the many effective symptom control treatments for the short duration of this illness.
“The therapeutic value of the AIDS drugs is most effectively demonstrated by…” the listing of side effects on patient information leaflets. One on the video above stated ‘immunodeficiency’, and though AZT has been marginalised it still forms part of current drugs.
The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is not just about fraud, it’s all running based on woeful ignorance of other parties to not explore other hypotheses.
These coincided with the approval of immunosuppressive glucocortoid aerosols 4yrs prior and the advent of the ‘fast lane’ drug lifestyle.
Which caused them to become HIV+?
As I said, she was aware autopsy details would be used to say she died of AIDS (one of approx. 30 possible ways to die) and didn’t want such clear ammo given to her opponents when she can no longer defend herself.
In other words, her death was due to AIDS.
How is the presence of antibodies not effective? That is the core response. No matter whether there are different strains of HIV the fact you create antibodies to any of them mean you are in effect immunised.
An immune response means that your body has been exposed to the virus, not that it has produced a 100% effective immunity to the virus. The response of the immune system has not been effective against AIDS. The immune response means that a part of the virus is identified by the body. It does not mean that identifying that part of the virus leads to protection against the virus.
An immune response means you are not immune compromised. And this remains the case unless until/if you fall ill.
No. It is not an all or nothing system. allergic people have immune systems that malfunction. They identify relatively harmless items as life threatening. They respond in a way that may be just the typical hay fever allergy. The immune response may be as serious as anaphylaxis due to a peanut or bee sting allergy. A response that may kill the person.
If you call tech support for help, do they always fix the problem? No. They may be able to identify the problem. that does not mean they are able to fix the problem. This is one of the problems with AIDS. The immune system identifies the virus as foreign, but does not produce an effective defense.
The HIV/AIDS hypothesis is not just about fraud, it’s all running based on woeful ignorance of other parties to not explore other hypotheses.
the other hypotheses have been considered. They have not been found to be scientifically valid.
Thank gawd for Rogue Medic. He has finally convinced me that renounce denialism and to believe the REAL TRUTH™: HIV causes AIDS and the drugs will save me.
I don’t know what I was thinking when I quit them more than two years ago. I must have been kidnapped and hypnotised by radical denialists.
I’m going to start taking all my medications again.
Good thing I still have big bottles of Immodium left over for the resultant incapacitating diarrhea.
I think my walking stick is still in the basement, for use when I become unable to walk upright by myself… again.
I don’t really need to be able to leave the house to go to Costco or drive, things I was unable to do several years ago, but for some funny reason have no problem with off the drugs.
Who cares if I re-develop osteopenia, so long as Rogue Medic doesn’t mind coming to pick me up in his ambulance–not as an AIDS patient, mind you. There are drugs for osteopenia, you know. What’s a few more pills to counter the effect of chemotherapy?
Ankle brace? Check… don’t want to buy another one for the multiple ankle sprains.
My family will just have to get used to once again seeing the hand tremors, memory lapses and other neurological twitches that resolved after quitting the drugs.
Hell, maybe that brain inflammation will even come back and I can return to the path towards “AIDS dementia”.
My friends will again look anywhere but at my sunken face. Fortunately Rogue doesn’t mind if my Medicare benefits are asked to pay for cosmetic cheek implants.
All of that will be worth it if I can only get more tcells and lower the test results of my vl labs, because THAT’s what really matters when judging one’s health, right? The doctor tells me so. (Sing to the tune of the Bible tells me so.)
Thank you, all-knowing Rogue Medic! You are responsible for my new-found “health”. How will I ever repay you?
(Let me count the ways.)
Jonathan,
The severity of side effects of medication has nothing to do with whether the medication works for most patients. Very little is 100% in medicine. Extrapolating the side effects to a conspiracy theory is illogical.
Rogue – You act as if the effects (nothing “side” about them) of ARV are uncommon and minor. Please visit thebody.com or patientslikeme.com and review the list of medications taken by those on ARVs to counter these effects. They are the RULE, not the exception.
Those most able to withstand the toxicity of ARV are often those least likely to need it because they are healthy. They are only reacting to a non-specific test result out of fear. It should not take a huge leap of faith to understand that healthy people can tolerate the effect of chemo longer than those who are already sick and weak.
You continue to tout the message that the drugs “work”. What does that mean? Cremation also “works”.
Read the recent research articles about those people with HIV who are dying of “non-AIDS” causes, such as heart failure, liver cancer, etc. (more now die of these causes than of so-called AIDS defining causes). In nearly every study I’m reviewing, the participants are on ARV, but the researchers are adamant the drugs are not the cause.
The only studies actively recruiting and studying long term non progressors (LTNP) and “elite controllers” are for exotic vaccine research. We are not dying from “AIDS”, and we are not experiencing the “non-AIDS” conditions either. The big difference is that one group is taking ARV (and resultant supportive medications to “manage” effects) and the other is not.
If these folks can’t find a vaccine for a known, identifiable virus that is supposedly understood down to the molecular level, that speaks loudly that it’s time for some small portion of research funds to be dedicated to start over from the beginning and look for possible alternative explanations… and treatment.
This is not conspiracy theory, Rogue, but I can’t stop you from calling it that.
I can’t wait for your response about the “clever”, “evasive”, “mutating” virus… an entity that can’t even be defined as living by most definitions.
Would it make a difference if you knew that I accept that there is something making some people–mostly in high risk groups–quite ill? There were plenty of factors affecting that first group of gay men in 1981. They were not “previously healthy”, as reported by the CDC, and the death rate among people in that group was high and rapid.
Since then the definition of AIDS has been broadened and expanded and is based on markers, not symptoms. I’m not asking that ARV drugs be banned, only that they not be considered the sole response, nor the first line of restoring health. How would I have ever known that I could manage my diagnosis without the drugs if I hadn’t made that decision on my own? How long would I have lived had I remained on them, and more importantly, what would my quality of life have been like?
These are questions you’d prefer to blow off as exceptions, but no one really knows because no one is studying that aspect of treatment!
That is my issue in a nutshell: few people are addressing HEALTH. No one in the medical field (which is not the same as health) urged me to quit smoking cigarettes. In my volunteer experience in the 1980s and 1990s, we were told to encourage the sick to eat “anything”, including highly processed food-like products and sugar.
Read the stories of others like me who are living with an HIV-positive diagnosis without ARV drugs. In most cases people have made huge lifestyle changes to improve their overall health. ARVs simply do not fit into this model well.
While some of the affected choose to “fight the virus”, others of us are choosing to “become healthy/ier”. Why is that so hard to understand. What part of that concept is a conspiracy?
You can trust the medical and pharmaceutical industry (and that is what it is) if you’d like. All patients who get the diagnosis are entitled to full disclosure about their options and risks of treatment.
Period.
You continue to tout the message that the drugs “work”. What does that mean? Cremation also “works”.
Slowing the progress of the disease. Of course, if you feel that cremation is your style, then it may work for you.
Read the recent research articles about those people with HIV who are dying of “non-AIDS” causes, such as heart failure, liver cancer, etc. (more now die of these causes than of so-called AIDS defining causes). In nearly every study I’m reviewing, the participants are on ARV, but the researchers are adamant the drugs are not the cause.
I will.
If these folks can’t find a vaccine for a known, identifiable virus that is supposedly understood down to the molecular level, that speaks loudly that it’s time for some small portion of research funds to be dedicated to start over from the beginning and look for possible alternative explanations… and treatment.
I don’t believe that anyone is claiming that a vaccine is the only way to treat AIDS. I don’t believe that only vaccines are being funded.
No one in the medical field (which is not the same as health) urged me to quit smoking cigarettes.
That is surprising. You should get a doctor familiar with more recent medical practice than what was practiced in the 1950’s.
In my volunteer experience in the 1980s and 1990s, we were told to encourage the sick to eat “anything”, including highly processed food-like products and sugar.
At the time, there was greater concern that patients were not getting calories, so any calories would be better than none. Medical marijuana was also encouraged, although at the time there was no evidence to support it (largely for political reasons). Now there is good evidence.
Why is that so hard to understand. What part of that concept is a conspiracy?
Claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS and that this is a drug company conspiracy, as some do, is conspiracy theory stuff.
You can trust the medical and pharmaceutical industry (and that is what it is) if you’d like. All patients who get the diagnosis are entitled to full disclosure about their options and risks of treatment.
I don’t trust any particular group. The research is the best source of factual information. Patients should always get enough information to be able to make an informed decision about treatment.
RM – Are you HIV-positive and taking ARV?
“Which caused them to become HIV+?”
As I wrote: ‘fast lane’ drug lifestyle. Here’s an unverbatim quote from the video sourced from elsewhere:
“…A recent three-year study in London was abandoned because only 3 of the 500 prostitutes showed up HIV positive, and they were drug users. So it’s obviously sexually transmitted then.”
http://www.altheal.org/tests/summary.htm
You may argue all these prostitutes were engaged in safe sex or had immense good luck, but they are not immune from other STDs. They are also heterosexual and female compared to the major at risk homosexual male in the West (look up the statistics).
The fact of the matter is that HIV (which could be, as in the video, a harmless passenger virus) ‘can’ be caught opportunely due to the immune effects of hard drugs themselves rather than dirty needles which would be similar to exchange of fluid in sex.
However even still HIV hasn’t been shown to cause AIDS/kill T-helper cells. And drug users succomb to illness of IDS while being HIV-
“In other words, her death was due to AIDS.”
No, she died of PCP. You have to prove HIV causes AIDS which resulted in this disease taking her. Come back to me when you get the cheque from here: http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm
Also, until a drug can remove HIV and this makes a difference to immunodeficiency that some get down the line, no comment can be passed.
“An immune response means that your body has been exposed to the virus, not that it has produced a 100% effective immunity to the virus.”
Let me repeat. If you were to create an AIDS vaccine you would need to make someone HIV+ This is a retroviral fact. Since HIV creates no symptoms itself beyond initially probably mimicking a cold you can safely assume it has been dealt with rather than seemingly ruminating over ever increasing years (to suit the hypothesis as it grows weak every 5-10yrs) with no symptoms.
The role of antibodies is to look out for and destroy foreign bodies – their existence means the immune system responded; it has not been muted as in true immunodeficiency demonstrated by use of AZT and lack of CD4 by other causes.
“allergic people have immune systems that malfunction.”
You’ll find, taking peanut allergy as an example, it’s recently been found (over here in England) you can train the body to respond normally by slowly introducing very small quantities of peanuts. Sound familiar to vaccination? Also, HIV only infects 1 in 1000 T-helper cells – very small for a monstrous yet non-T-helper-destructive killer virus.
“If you call tech support for help, do they always fix the problem? No. They may be able to identify the problem. that does not mean they are able to fix the problem.”
Sounds like you’re talking about antiretroviral drugs to be honest.
“the other hypotheses have been considered. They have not been found to be scientifically valid.”
This is blatantly wrong. Duesberg for example still wants the opportunity to prove his claims.
Some other points: It’s erroneous that AIDS drugs slow the progress of disease given that treatments are now given when/if the immune system becomes compromised ever increasingly late in life.
The mainstream view of HIV causing AIDS is as untested that it’s not. Which is why I want Duesberg to get a green light as there are people who would volunteer to be studied with and without treatment, even if there are ethics questions in that.
No.
Rethinking AIDS President David Crowe on Right to Redress with Steve Allen and Jason Erb for 2 Hours
Thursday March 19 from 8-10 AM EDT
Rethinking AIDS and Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society President David Crowe will be a guest on the Right to Redress radio program with Steve Allen and Jason Erb to present compelling evidence that diseases that are said to be infectious have major non-infectious contributors and may have completely non-infectious causes.
You can listen to the live stream or the archive at http://blogtalkradio.com/RightToRedress.
Comments are welcome in the live chat forum during the show, and you can call in with your questions in the last half hour at 347-884-9417.
The role of antibodies is to look out for and destroy foreign bodies – their existence means the immune system responded; it has not been muted as in true immunodeficiency demonstrated by use of AZT and lack of CD4 by other causes.
There is an article about work on a CMV vaccine that describes some of the problems that make it difficult to create a vaccine. Also, this is not an HIV vaccine, but they have similar problems with exposure, immune cells, and immunity not being as simple as you suggest.
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=cmv-vaccine-shows-promise-2009-03-18
From that (highlights are mine):
A previous experimental immunization known as the Towne CMV vaccine did not prevent immune-compromised kidney-transplant patients from becoming infected with the virus, but it did keep them from developing symptoms, according to a 1984 study published in The Lancet. CMV subverts the machinery humans use to mount an immune response against viruses. It also uses some of that machinery, such as infection-fighting white blood cells, to spread itself throughout the body. Once a person has a virus, he or she typically develops antibodies against it and will not become infected again. But it appears that having CMV does not make a person immune to future infections — another reason skeptics doubt a vaccine could accomplish such a feat, either
Allergy sensitization is almost the opposite of immunization, since the goal is to decrease the response of the immune system, although the idea of a series of small exposures is similar.
Let me repeat. If you were to create an AIDS vaccine you would need to make someone HIV+ This is a retroviral fact.
Since there is no effective HIV vaccine, we do not know what it would require. It may be possible to create a vaccine that responds to only a part of the HIV virus and does not create antibodies. If the virus were not attacked, but prevented from entering the cells or some other method of controlling the infection, the person might not be producing conventional antibodies. Without a vaccine that works, we shouldn’t insist on what we believe it must do or must not do.
1) CMV has been isolated, HIV has been not – a range of bodily states can cause you to test HIV positive and even these tests caution in interpretation due to frequency of false positives.
Therefore, according to The Perth Group, HIV may not exist (as opposed to Duesberg who believes it does) as an actual virus. If it was isolated it would have been tested in a vaccination form a long time ago.
2) Towne CMV is a strain. HIV strains cannot be identified if it has not been isolated (anything so far has been unpure).
I can see why Towne CMV stopped them from developing symptoms as it helped the body identify what symptoms any strain causes. This isn’t dissimilar to someone with measles getting herpes at a later date (same family, two strains, different symptoms).
In fact you can even just look at flu jabs. They only contain the seemingly popular strain of the year which is why people can still get the flu after it.
If HIV does cause AIDS and you can create a vaccine of at least one strain, that would help people. But they would still be HIV+.
3) The role of a vaccine is only to bolster or enable immunity – therefore to create antibodies. If you create medicine that prevented HIV from not entering cells it would be a drug treatment (even if delivered with HIV into the body), not a vaccine.
Even, so HIV has only ever shown a corellation with AIDS, not a cause. This is undisputed mainstream fact shown by patient information using weak words like ‘may/likely’.
CMV has been isolated, HIV has been not . . . . If it was isolated it would have been tested in a vaccination form a long time ago.
Maybe you should tell that to the people working on the CMV vaccine.
This isn’t dissimilar to someone with measles getting herpes at a later date (same family, two strains, different symptoms).
Not even close. Measles is not related to German measles and neither is related to herpes. The only connection is that the measles vaccine and the German measles vaccine are combined with the mumps vaccine, but not because of any genetic similarity.
I’m not even going to try to figure out what you might have been trying to start to say in #3, because it makes no sense.
Vaccines really are drugs. Ask the FDA.
Search for ‘CMV has been isolated’.
Herpes simplex is responsible for both measles and herpes. Look it up.
Vaccines are not pharmaceutical drugs. They utilise attenuated viruses, i.e. something they may modified but did not create.
Hold on, I retract one part – chickenpox and herpes are from the same family and I edit my statement that people who have pox can later get herpes.
Wow, this topic went to 147 replies (as of this writing) and it didn’t even have an American Airlines jet that had perfectly crashed into the Pentagon’s finance department on the first floor. Congrats, Disinter.
I’m really good at seeing through spin and I’m also good at war games but I’d have a long way to go to get into an accredited med school. This is what I think the truth is on HIV.
HIV is simular to radiation poisoning and Spanish Flu deaths in that it’s a physical reaction to a massive exposure to whatever the AIDS virus is. If you were directly exposed to a heroin-addicted prostitute with AIDS, the chances are huge your body will display an HIV reaction. If you were having an affair with a woman whose hubby went to that same hooker, you’ll still get AIDS but your body wont go into HIV shock.
I find the recent account of Natasha Richardson’s death, the great AIDS fundraising actress, to be suspicious to say the least, so I’ll say that even way more AIDS without HIV cases have arrived. (Anti-Semites are noted for their great predicting powers, LOL.)
The current medical system is part of the problem and not the solution and unfortunately this great Cerebus would have to be utterly humiliated while the entire human race is under attack before anything meaningful changes.
Anything that ruins your immune system will give you “AIDS”. Duesberg shouldn’t have said “drugs” – too sensitive a subject it appears. Real heavy drinkers also die young, heavy drug users aren’t known for longevity, etc. AZT users probably get the cure when they stop using poppers and switch to AZT, probably switching to orange juice would work even better.
[…] HIV does NOT cause AIDS […]
It is absolutely horrifying that anyone would purvey such ridiculous conspiracy theories to gratify some sort of self-belief that they know ‘the truth’, and are somehow more important or noble people because of this.
Obviously this blog will probably only be read by delusional (you) and reactionary (me) people, so I would hope there will be no lasting damage done. But it is people in more influential positions that make these claims that cost innocent, impressionable individuals their quality of living and in some cases their lives.
There is no point trying to convince you to change your opinions, half an hour of reading the comments on this page have made that painfully clear to me, but do you not even sometimes entertain the fact that maybe questioning your convictions could be a healthy thing to do?
And please don’t attempt to turn that sentiment on me, I just used some of my life to watch your video and read your words. Even the information that might have been worth drawing attention to is laughably out-dated. You haven’t even got a solid statement from a practicing (and can I stress the importance of this next phrase) NON PRIVATE medical doctor.
I can only hope that this is a pathetic, sadistic joke in very poor taste. Unfortunately, it seems that is not the case.
Dan
I would say that any threat at all to the cosmetic surgery industry such as the possibility that there might be other avenues outside of HIV to acquiring AIDS can expect to get the treatment that this topic got on this discussion.
One writer was right in that the majority of responders here are not doctors, but you don’t have to be to see all the spin doctoring. You do not have to know exactly what is being hidden in order to know that something IS being hidden. The vague explanations alone tell you that.
“One writer was right in that the majority of responders here are not doctors, but you don’t have to be to see all the spin doctoring. You do not have to know exactly what is being hidden in order to know that something IS being hidden. The vague explanations alone tell you that.”
I have to agree, what you say is exactly right.
[…] 4, 2009 by disinter As a follow-up to this post, see James Foye’s recent […]
[…] appears to be colder than it was a decade ago. HIV Does Not Cause AIDS by Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati HIV does NOT cause AIDS disinter HIV & AIDS – Could Duesberg Be Right? Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS The […]
As a human race, it is not what we don’t know that will bring us harm. It is WHAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE BUT ISN’T that will be our undoing.
Does HIV have something to do with AIDS? Probably. Should the scientific community respond to it with harsh criticism and closed eyes like a stubborn child? Absolutely not.
The videos and articles presented here bring up some very clear holes in the HIV = AIDS theory. And, since AIDS makes ‘smart’ people very rich and impacts only the ‘poor,’ it will be very difficult to come to an objective conclusion on this one.
I don’t know if HIV causes AIDS or not. I’ve been HIV+ going on 11 years. My tcells have dropped to 52 and my VL is high. I haven’t gotten sick yet. I am not on meds. You can see my story here: youtube.com/etay1207
I know this web page provides quality based articles
and other material, is there any other site which offers such
stuff in quality?
I almost never comment, but after browsing a
few of the remarks here HIV does NOT cause AIDS | disinter.
I do have a couple of questions for you if it’s okay. Is it only me or does it look like a few of the remarks appear like they are left by brain dead individuals? :-P And, if you are writing on other sites, I would like to follow anything fresh you have to post. Would you make a list of the complete urls of your public pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?
[…] you were directed here from disinter’s blog, feel free to look around. I’ve notified disenter of the errant link, but it seems it’s […]
[…] you were directed here from disinter’s blog, feel free to look around. I’ve notified disenter of the errant link, but it seems it’s […]