no scientific evidence HIV causes AIDS, and anti-AIDS drugs kill...

Originally posted by golemina

Exactly which HIV cure/treatment is that Nygdan?

What I am saying is that any cure and treatment for people with AIDS needs to focus on destroying the inffection and at attacking the disease, rather than treating and alleviating the symptoms.

Unfortunately, the precision selectivity necessary seems promised/available in methodologies that is quite a ways out.

(You a big South Park fan? Cartmans my hero! )

Originally posted by noctu
and these links to the dissident sites are old and have outdated information that people read and suddenly think they are experts on the issue however if you use the ats search you will find links that debunk them.

The Duesberg site may be old but the man himself is still doing the work. For instance on his Scientific Papers page you can clearly see his last published paper was 2003.

Duesberg, P., Koehnlein, C. and Rasnick, D. (2003) The Chemical Bases of the Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs, Anti-viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition. (J. Biosci. 28: 383-412)

I certianly dont think Im an expert, in a previous post on this thread I clearly stated, "My problem. Researching this topic I run into a brick wall made from of my total lack of medical education."

I have also made an ATS search and this thread is one I decided to update and ask people opinions on the Duesberg site. ATS hasnt clearly debunked anything, not that I saw.

Thanks for posting this, AlienAddicted.

All I knew about HIV or AIDS up until now was what I was taught in PE in middle school. That video raises some damned good points against HIV causing AIDS, and I'm at least glad I've been exposed to the info.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Somehow, I highly doubt that a few independent websites outweigh the hundreds of thousands of studies and papers that prove a link between HIV and AIDS. I personally have performed and seen the results of electron microscopy showing the capsids of HIV attached to infected T cells, and these cells were taken from an AIDS patient with extremely low WBC count.

~MFP

What thousands of papers, what proven link?

The Dr. who 'discovered' the HIV Virus, and announced that it was the cause of AIDS announced his findings at a press conference and would 'later' provide papers of his reserach. Later that day, he took out a patent on the 'HIV' test and then a few days later finally released his 'research', it was hardly research at all, and any scientific evidence was clearly lacking. Infact, his own research showed that only 50% of people in his research with AIDS, actually HAD the HIV Virus. Of course, by the time this information was released it was alot less public, as his 'initial' press conference was yielded a "marvel of modern medical science". By now, all other research into the cause of AIDS had stopped, and all funding for such research withdrawn.

Show me these thousands of papers and evidence. AIDS has been pinned on HIV for one reason, and its statistical. In 1993, when the CDC 'redefined' the meaning of AIDS to include anyone with a T-Cell count lower than 200, the national AIDS rate literally doubled overnight. Today, 50% of people with medically 'diagnosed' AIDS, have not one symptom.

ITs not the doctors doing the research on these things. The doctors read of the research and learn about other people's expeiments and make a judgement from the medical standpoint. But alot of this is just doing what they are told. The link between HIV and AIDS will be very interesting to learn more about if we ever do learn about it. HIV destroys your immune system leaving you open to a variety of problems. AIDS, however, I am eager to know what causes this. Has anyone ever obtained AIDS without being HIV Positive? If not then these scientists got some splainin to do.

What thousands of papers, what proven link?

Imagine that, I spent the 30 seconds it takes to do a pubmed search and came up with papers regarding this subject! Honestly, you medical conspiracy nuts need to get off your arses are do your own gruntwork for once...

Now, when you can counter these papers, ekul, THEN you can have the right to post regarding AIDS and HIV. Until then, you are an uneducated git posting about something you don't know about.

Paper 1
Paper 2
Paper 3
Paper 5
Paper 6
Paper 7
Paper 8
Paper 9
Paper 10
Paper 11
Paper 12
Paper 13
Paper 14
Paper 15
Paper 16
Paper 17
Paper 18
Paper 19
Paper 20

Ok, so above I have provided you with the 20 papers I felt were most applicable to this topic. The subjects of the papers range from clear-cut cause and effect laboratory tests in culture and animal models, documented cases of HIV patient to dentist transmission, transmission and presence of HIV virus from mother to infant (who later died of AIDS), prevalence of HIV and later AIDS in neonates in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as electron microscopy of HIV virus attached to the membrane of T cells.

Now, ekul, can you please explain to me how this small sample of research spanning 30 years and originating from America, England, France, Belgium, Brazil, Japan, Russia, and Korea can all be wrong, fraudulent, or incorrect? No? I didn't think so.

~MFP

[edit on 4/17/2006 by bsl4doc]

Originally posted by bsl4doc

What thousands of papers, what proven link?

Imagine that, I spent the 30 seconds it takes to do a pubmed search and came up with papers regarding this subject! Honestly, you medical conspiracy nuts need to get off your arses are do your own gruntwork for once...

I have been looking for an article or site for a few days now that can explain to me, how HIV (A Retrovirus) can kill off enough T Cells to harm the human immune system, when a virus needs to infect 1/3 of its host cells, and HIV is only capable of infecting up to 1 in 1000 (in most cases it only infects 1 in 10,000).

I can only get into one of the links you provided (The PDF) as all the others require a login or a hefty fee to be paid to view each article. The PDF dosen't explain this at all, and is only an update on infection rates etc. Infact, its very first paragraph says.. "the HIV virus, which causes AIDS" blah blah, but dosent even attempt to explain how or why. I'd really like to see an article or have someone explain to me, how HIV can infect enough cells to supress the human immune system.

Infact, Retrovirii by their very nature, cant hijack enough cells. And the HIV Virus is almost identical genetically to most of the other 50-100 retrovirii found naturally in humans, all of which have been brought under control by natural antibody response.

Also, The CDC's Defenition of AIDS creates a correlation between HIV and AIDS where none exists

I assume you know the 27 infections (well 26, the other being a T4 Cell Count lower than 200) that when found with HIV are said to cause AIDS according to the CDC?

Pneumonia + HIV = AIDS
Pneumonia - HIV = Pneumonia

So, if i get Pneumonia and I don't have HIV, then its just Pneumonia. I might have a very weak immune system, and hell.. i could die from it, but because I dont have HIV, its just Pneumonia.

Although, if the HIV virus happens to be present, or I had a flu shot last week, then its AIDS.

Also, as a medical student, would you mind explaining to me how taking Antiretrovirals (which we actually live in a kind of symbosis with) and also taking drugs that supress the immune system (which is needed to.. well stay alive basically) can help the immune system at keep HIV/AIDS at-bay?

And lastly, im not too sure.. but im pretty sure these forums have rules against personal attacks such as calling someone an 'uneducated git'. I would even think, that calling someone uneducated, whom you don't know, have never met and have no real indication of their intelligence level would be, well.. an uneducated thing to do. But thats just me.

Next time, you might want to provide me with some links that I can get into. Or are you afraid I might actually read what you post, do some research and come back with something you have no anwer for?

Edit: Has the HIV virus even been isolated? Could someone possibly post the virii's mollecular structure?


[edit on 17-4-2006 by ekul08]

Originally posted by nuclearap0x
HIV destroys your immune system leaving you open to a variety of problems. AIDS, however, I am eager to know what causes this.

I may be mistaken, but don't retroviruses usually leave their host cells intact?

That video also notes that HIV is detected in your blood not by the actual virus, but by the antibodies that your body produces to fight it off. You have symptoms for a few days after catching it like you would with any number of viruses, and then your immune reacts and it suddenly goes "dormant," right? Or at least that's just what there's evidence of. So I don't think HIV destroys your immune system. Whatever does start knocking your immune system, that's AIDS.

I was taught that the AIDS virus mutates, and that's why they can never find it or easily come up with a vaccine or etc. If someone was trying to hide the actual cause of AIDS, (which I suppose is detected simply by the lack of T-cells in the body?), wouldn't that be a convenient theory to perpetuate? Do they even still say this about the virus?

[edit on 17-4-2006 by bsbray11]

I can only get into one of the links you provided (The PDF) as all the others require a login or a hefty fee to be paid to view each article. The PDF dosen't explain this at all, and is only an update on infection rates etc. Infact, its very first paragraph says.. "the HIV virus, which causes AIDS" blah blah, but dosent even attempt to explain how or why. I'd really like to see an article or have someone explain to me, how HIV can infect enough cells to supress the human immune system.

Hmm, didn't realise you had to pay for pubmed. I've been accessing it on the hospital computers, we must have a subscription. I'll try to find some articles elsewhere.

Infact, Retrovirii by their very nature, cant hijack enough cells. And the HIV Virus is almost identical genetically to most of the other 50-100 retrovirii found naturally in humans, all of which have been brought under control by natural antibody response.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Oh my GOD you could not be more wrong. Retroviruses by nature are extremely effective. Their reverse transcriptase enzyme allows them to reverse transcribe their RNA into DNA and slip it into the host cell. This allows them to become a prophage and go into a dormant state, hence the name lentivirus. Also, HIV is not genetically identical to any other retrovirus. Can you provide a source for your statement
?

I assume you know the 27 infections (well 26, the other being a T4 Cell Count lower than 200) that when found with HIV are said to cause AIDS according to the CDC?[/quote[

Source?

Pneumonia + HIV = AIDS
Pneumonia - HIV = Pneumonia

So, if i get Pneumonia and I don't have HIV, then its just Pneumonia. I might have a very weak immune system, and hell.. i could die from it, but because I dont have HIV, its just Pneumonia.

I don't see what the problem is here...AIDS is Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome, not Pneumonia Induced Immuno Suppresion Syndrome. Pneumonia doesn't reduce the number of T helper cells in the body. Doctor's don't measure "your immune system", they measure levels of specific cells. Pneumonia and HIV affect the levels of different cells, thus making it possible to find a distinction between the two.

Also, as a medical student, would you mind explaining to me how taking Antiretrovirals (which we actually live in a kind of symbosis with) and also taking drugs that supress the immune system (which is needed to.. well stay alive basically) can help the immune system at keep HIV/AIDS at-bay?

We live in symbiosis with? HAHA! Can you PLEASE provide me a source for this one? Cause that's great. hehe. Taking antiretrovirals prevents the passage of genes from the virus to host cells by preventing the reverse transcription of the viral genes. It's very similar to FSH-inhibitors in men who produce too much testosterone, the drug simply acts as an allosteric inhibitor for the enzyme. I don't see why that is a hard concept to understand.

And lastly, im not too sure.. but im pretty sure these forums have rules against personal attacks such as calling someone an 'uneducated git'. I would even think, that calling someone uneducated, whom you don't know, have never met and have no real indication of their intelligence level would be, well.. an uneducated thing to do. But thats just me.

Your right, and I'll apologize when you make an intelligent post supported by peer reviewed research.

Edit: Has the HIV virus even been isolated? Could someone possibly post the virii's mollecular structure?

Sure has. Here are some good electron microscopy pictures of HIV alone and attacking T cells www.virology.net... . Scroll down to the "Primate lentivirus group" area and you'll see a series of pics.

~MFP

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Oh my GOD you could not be more wrong. Retroviruses by nature are extremely effective. Their reverse transcriptase enzyme allows them to reverse transcribe their RNA into DNA and slip it into the host cell. This allows them to become a prophage and go into a dormant state, hence the name lentivirus. Also, HIV is not genetically identical to any other retrovirus. Can you provide a source for your statement

I said almost. But here are some links, while not exactly a medical journal, i think you'll find the latter nicely referenced.

Ten Scientific Reasons why HIV cannot Cause AIDS
A Closer Look At HIV

I never said Retroviruses arent effective, they're just not effective enough. 1 in 1,000 host cells? How can that supress or destroy immune function?

We live in symbiosis with? HAHA! Can you PLEASE provide me a source for this one? Cause that's great. hehe. Taking antiretrovirals prevents the passage of genes from the virus to host cells by preventing the reverse transcription of the viral genes. It's very similar to FSH-inhibitors in men who produce too much testosterone, the drug simply acts as an allosteric inhibitor for the enzyme. I don't see why that is a hard concept to understand.

You just keep skipping over my "kind ofs" dont you.

Here you go The Role of Retroviruses in Human Life and Disease

Without Retroviruses the human race would cease to exist. Now, im not an expert on this but i assume leading HIV drugs don't selectively target the HIV retrovirus, but rather retroviruses in general? What I fail to see, and maybe it isnt "as hard to see" as you make out, is how removing a large number of retroviruses from people can help them?

Your right, and I'll apologize when you make an intelligent post supported by peer reviewed research.

You obviously don't think I'm right, or you would not have made such a sarcastic, insulting comment.. yet again. I seriously dont think you understand the rules of this forum.

I also find it quite amusing that you're willing to post peer reviewed research, as long as it supports your take on events. That peer reviewed research that dosent support your take, somehow dosent make it to your posts.

A Good place to get started when looking for some names


Lastly: Thank you for this. Haven't looked over much of it yet but it looks very interesting indeed.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I may be mistaken, but don't retroviruses usually leave their host cells intact?

The Majority, I beleive do.

I was taught that the AIDS virus mutates, and that's why they can never find it or easily come up with a vaccine or etc. If someone was trying to hide the actual cause of AIDS, (which I suppose is detected simply by the lack of T-cells in the body?), wouldn't that be a convenient theory to perpetuate? Do they even still say this about the virus?

[edit on 17-4-2006 by bsbray11]

See, my understanding of Aids Virus is that.. it dosen't exist. AIDS is simply a name given to a number of diseases and infections that are not new (pneumonia, some cancers etc) when present in HIV+ patients.

So, supposidly the HIV destroys the immune system, but AIDS is not really a virus, at least.. not a single one. So if they have a yest infection, it is only called AIDS if the person is also HIV+, hence the 'correlation' between HIV/AIDS.

95% of people with HIV do not have AIDS.

I beleive someone is working on an aids vaccine called AIDSVAX? (not 100% on that). I think they were hoping for about a 50% success rate.

How can you immunise against AIDS though? There is no aids virus to immunise against. I don't get it, surely you're more likely to make a HIV vaccine?

I worry about 'vaccines' with a 50% success rate too, or really anything below a 100% success rate. If AIDS does mutate as you say, then surely a vaccine would only prompt the virus to mutate in people who have had the vaccine, and later become infected?

Last thing we want is a SUPER-AIDS Epidemic.

Not really related, but an interesting read is this, from nature.com: Did Black Death boost HIV Immunity in Europe? but, you do have to be a nature subscriber.

[edit on 17-4-2006 by ekul08]

Originally posted by ekul08
See, my understanding of Aids Virus is that.. it dosen't exist. AIDS is simply a name given to a number of diseases and infections that are not new (pneumonia, some cancers etc) when present in HIV+ patients.

Ah, that makes sense to me.

So is there any research going into how that could be treated?

Originally posted by Dae
The Duesberg site may be old but the man himself is still doing the work.

Where are the studies he has done where he infected chimps with SIV and they didn't die from aids? Where are the tests where he gave test animals proportionate doses of AIDS drugs and showed that they only then develop AIDS? Where are the statisically valid studies he's done showing that peple who get AIDS Drugs get AIDS, but people who don't get the drug but have HIV don't get AIDS?

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Where are the studies he has done where he infected chimps with SIV and they didn't die from aids? Where are the tests where he gave test animals proportionate doses of AIDS drugs and showed that they only then develop AIDS? Where are the statisically valid studies he's done showing that peple who get AIDS Drugs get AIDS, but people who don't get the drug but have HIV don't get AIDS?

[edit on 17-4-2006 by Nygdan]

Good blummin questions!!!

Where is the money to research this!?!?!

Go watch the video and see how Nature and other scientific publications refuse to publish a simple letter signed by twelve respected scientific people. The Group for Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis:

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes a group of diseases called AIDS. Many bio-medical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

More people signed and I think the number went to the hundreds... still refusal.

So tell me, wheres he gonna get all sots of money for this research and if Im not mistaken, to work with HIV you have to have it sent to you from a lab that produces it... and that means proper channels.

So Nygdan, those questions are good, I wonder if they have been researched.

Oh and please, explain to me why Gallo was able to hold a press conference to share his findings and not PEER REVIEW? Why the HIV test kit already patented not days after the press release? And tell me again why that letter wasnt even published in a number of scientific publications?

Good blummin questions!!!

Sure is.

Also, something else i've been thinking about lately..

The AZT Trials were conducted in 1986 (i beleive)

In the 1980's, having AIDS or HIV was considered a death sentence. The AZT Trials supposidly found that 'the drug increased life expectency and stopped HIV developing into full aids as quickly', but in the 80's people thought you could go from haivng HIV to AIDS (and die) within a year, this was later changed to two years in the US, then five years.. then ten.. then indefinately.

I know it was compared to a Placebo in the trials, but how many years did these trials go for?

Am I missing something, or how could they possibly know the drug is effective (letalone safe), if it wasn't trialed for 10-20 years like the incubation period from HIV to AIDS can sometimes, supposidly be?


[edit on 18-4-2006 by ekul08]

Originally posted by ekul08
I know it was compared to a Placebo in the trials, but how many years did these trials go for?

Am I missing something, or how could they possibly know the drug is effective (letalone safe), if it wasn't trialed for 10-20 years like the incubation period from HIV to AIDS can sometimes, supposidly be?

Dont think it went on for years, from what I can remember, the trials went for a short time (a few weeks?). They stopped it because people on the placebo were dying at a rate of knots, apparently, so they called it unethical and gave all the patients AZT.

What Id like to know is this. How do they know the numbers of people dying of AIDS in Africa, have they tested them all? Nah, they dont, what they do do though is this, "Agree with me you have HIV/AIDS and you will get medical care, if its just diarrhea I cant help you."

The World Bank gives out loans to countires right? Well, they used to say,"We will loan you x amount if you privatise your water supply". Now they say the condition for the loans means putting aside x amout for HIV treatment. Google search = World Bank Loans HIV. For instance Loans to Russia

The project will improve policies and strategies, support public information campaigns, strengthen surveillance and monitoring, improve laboratory service to ensure that the use of antiretroviral drugs can be properly monitored, enhance blood safety and support the earliest stages of work on HIV vaccines in Russia.

Vaccination?? Correct me if Im wrong but to be vaccinated from polio, for instance, you must be injected with the polio virus? Are they suggesting we inject HIV to build resistence? How are we supposed to vaccinate against something we cant even test properly? Even when they talk about different sub types of HIV, they arnt talking about the HIV itself (when are they ever!?) CXCR4 and CCR5 are receptors embedded in the membrane of a cell, again nowt to do with HIV itself..

Originally posted by Dae

Dont think it went on for years, from what I can remember, the trials went for a short time (a few weeks?). They stopped it because people on the placebo were dying at a rate of knots, apparently, so they called it unethical and gave all the patients AZT.

How can you say AZT is what kills people then if the people on the placebo were dying at a faster rate?

What Id like to know is this. How do they know the numbers of people dying of AIDS in Africa, have they tested them all? Nah, they dont, what they do do though is this, "Agree with me you have HIV/AIDS and you will get medical care, if its just diarrhea I cant help you."

You obviously don't know anything about Africa then. People are being excommunicated from their culture, family etc. and left to die. You really think people want to jump on the bandwagon and exclaim...yeah I've got AIDS? And do you really think the healthcare over there is that great? I mean they have doctors (yes doctors) saying that raping a virgin child will cure you?

The World Bank gives out loans to countires right? Well, they used to say,"We will loan you x amount if you privatise your water supply". Now they say the condition for the loans means putting aside x amout for HIV treatment. Google search = World Bank Loans HIV. For instance Loans to Russia

The project will improve policies and strategies, support public information campaigns, strengthen surveillance and monitoring, improve laboratory service to ensure that the use of antiretroviral drugs can be properly monitored, enhance blood safety and support the earliest stages of work on HIV vaccines in Russia.

And you have a problem with them trying to improve people's lives?

Vaccination?? Correct me if Im wrong but to be vaccinated from polio, for instance, you must be injected with the polio virus? Are they suggesting we inject HIV to build resistence?

How are we supposed to vaccinate against something we cant even test properly? Even when they talk about different sub types of HIV, they arnt talking about the HIV itself (when are they ever!?) CXCR4 and CCR5 are receptors embedded in the membrane of a cell, again nowt to do with HIV itself..

I'm not in the medical field but maybe the vacination is some sort of other retrovirus that inables our bodies to fight off another retrovirus like HIV?

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Griff]

Thats very interesting about the tests done. I'm going to have to do some more research into this.

Also the World Bank thing is another interesting read. Never liked them much :-/

Looking at the statistics of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the USA/America, it would seem to me like the problem in Africa is somewhat different.

I have a little hypothesis. One of the doctors against HIV causing AIDS seems to think malnutrition can be a huge factor in developing aids, among others.

What if the AIDS epidemic in Africa was simply a plot to stop the westerns spending of money on Africa's development. For instance, when millions of people are dying because they are starving, that induces guilt in the humans who arent (or, damn well should..) a feeling of, "what can I do?".

To think that millions of people are dying from AIDS, an incurable disease, we don't feel so helpless, we don't think, "What can I do?". We arent as inclined to donate money for the development as africa, afterall now a growing percentage of those people who used to die from starvation are dying from AIDS, so the figures for starvation rates look as though they are improving.

I say malnutrition but in all likelyhood it could be many things (ontop of each other, or just singularly) that could lead to AIDS in africa. Dihorrea as you said. Yeast Infections, but Malnutrition, long term is something I feel comfortable in saying, would in all likelyhood, weaken the immune system.

In Africa, a HIV test is not required for an AIDS diagnosis. They can diagnose purely on symptoms alone. But the symptoms of aids is very broad, and many otherwise completely healthy people would exibit the signs of AIDS but not have HIV.. meaning from the clinical US definition of AIDS, they don't have it.

Just a little rant, blah. Sorry.

I think this person may know a little about AIDS / HIV:

Rebecca V. Culshaw, Ph.D. , is a mathematical biologist who has been working on mathematical models of HIV infection for the past ten years. She received her Ph.D. (mathematics with a specialization in mathematical biology) from Dalhousie University in Canada in 2002 and is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at a university in Texas.

Strange that after 10 years of study she decided that the aids / hiv connection is a load of crap... hmmmm a few here were asking for "expert" opinions... I don't think we can get much more expert than this... what do you think bsl4doc ??

I find her quote below to be the saddest of all:

The real victims in this mess are those whose lives are turned upside-down by the stigma of an HIV diagnosis. These people, most of whom are perfectly healthy, are encouraged to avoid intimacy and are further branded with the implication that they were somehow dreadfully foolish and careless. Worse, they are encouraged to take massive daily doses of some of the most toxic drugs ever manufactured. HIV, for many years, has fulfilled the role of a microscopic terrorist.

Why I quit HIV


The Fallout

I am quite speechless after reading this article (as well as the other informations supplied in this forum topic). Actually it shouldn't really come as a suprise and it only gives me one more reason to hate the pharmacutical companies and their army of "lapdog doctors"...

-SB

[edit on 18-4-2006 by sobolwolf]

[edit on 18-4-2006 by sobolwolf]