no scientific evidence HIV causes AIDS, and anti-AIDS drugs kill..., page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 27-4-2006 @ 03:23 AM by Dae

Originally posted by Astyanax
I fervently hope that none of the above palaver is going to persuade anyone off their anti-HIV medication. Imagine: an ATS thread that takes lives. Now that would be a conspiracy worth debating.

Wow! I didnt think this particular meme would rear its head.

DANGER DANGER Will Robinson! Must not talk about AZT in anything but a favourable light! Must NOT question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis!! This thread is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

reply posted on 27-4-2006 @ 03:35 AM by Long Lance

so, persuading people not to take their poison just imporves their lives, although they will of course die.

reply posted on 27-4-2006 @ 05:36 AM by Dae

Ive come to see the HIV?AIDS in Africa as an appaling abusive situation. The majority of people in Africa need clean water, regular food and appropiate medication. I would like to point out the following BBC News website articles that support my claim.

Diseases forgotten in wake of HIV

Millions of the world's poorest people are suffering needlessly from diseases that are being ignored, disease expert Professor David Molyneux warns.
Professor Molyneux argues resources are being transferred to interventions against what he calls the "big three" - HIV, tuberculosis and malaria - which have only a limited chance of success.
The 'neglected' diseases list:
Leprosy
Guinea worm
Elephantiasis
River blindness
Trachoma

Appropiate medication is obviously needed which also happens to be extremely cheap compared to HIV medication.

Antibiotic halves HIV/Aids deaths

Giving Africa's HIV-positive children a cheap antibiotic could nearly halve the death rate, research shows.

The Medical Research Council trial in Zambia was stopped early when it became obvious how effective daily co-trimoxazole treatment was. The World Health Organization and Unicef are altering their drug advice in line with the Lancet study.

Again, classic medicine comes to the rescue.

Multivitamins 'slow HIV progress'

Taking multivitamins may help stop HIV infection developing into full-blown Aids, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health in the US say.

In a six-year study, 538 African women with HIV were given a daily supplement of a multivitamin or a dummy pill. Of the 267 taking dummy pills, 12% developed Aids compared with 7% of the 271 on a multivitamin pill.

The 271 also suffered fewer late-stage complications, the researchers told the New England Journal of Medicine.

Multivitamins... remember what "they say" about needing vitimins? A decent diet of food is preferable...

Zinc good for children with HIV

Zinc supplements are a safe and effective way to reduce illness in children with HIV, US researchers say. Evidence shows that they cut the chance of diarrhoea and pneumonia without any risk of worsening the HIV infection, according to a report in The Lancet.

No doubt about it, regular healthy food, clean water and appropiate medicine is something we should all take seriously when understanding diseases in Africa

reply posted on 27-4-2006 @ 03:19 PM by Griff

That's all fine and good but you are using studies that have HIV positive people to prove your theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? How do those studies correlate to HIV not causing AIDS? They say that HIV positive people should take multi-vitamins to slow the onset of AIDS. It doesn't prove anything to me other than HIV positive people are better off taking multi-vitamins....not HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Just my opinion.

reply posted on 27-4-2006 @ 04:20 PM by Dae

Originally posted by Griff
That's all fine and good but you are using studies that have HIV positive people to prove your theory that HIV doesn't cause AIDS?

Hiya Griff

I think you have misunderstood my position, understandable as I havnt really said what it is. Im not someone who believes HIV doesnt exsist, however I am disputing the unquestionalble (question it and yer labled as dangerous/fraud) link between HIV and AIDS. I find the birth of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis totally unscientific.

My previous post is referring to AIDS in Africa. How the HIV hypothesis is killing people. People should be getting regular healthy food, clean water and decent appropiate medication. Instead the Afican Governments are having to purchase very expensive drugs (condition for loans), when it is obvious (see me links) that more traditional methods are needed to reduce the needless deaths in Africa.

Im going to write a post about HIV in America too, it will be totally different and Ill be disputing the HIV/AIDS hypothesis directly as opposed to the Africa post.

reply posted on 28-4-2006 @ 08:37 AM by Griff

That's cool. Sorry for the confusion. I do have to agree that the whole link between HIV causing AIDS is suspicious. I just can't see why the whole medical community would be backing a non truth though. Unless people have been lied to and it just snowballed from there.

reply posted on 28-4-2006 @ 10:28 AM by golemina

>I just can't see why the whole medical community would be backing a non truth though.

The medical establishment, as most areas of human endeavor, is long on dogma and short on science... REAL science.

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting some idiotic medical pinata that is a poster child of thought representative of the ridiculous mindset we satirize from the Middle Ages.

It's like it was last week.

reply posted on 28-4-2006 @ 11:30 AM by bsl4doc

Golemina is right. There is no real science behind medicine.

Unless you count hundreds of thousands of studies on nearly every topic imaginable, thousands of labs (private and public) who test and retest every treatment, the hundreds of thousands of easily reproduced results from the aforementioned studies, the biomedical research conducted at major universities, the advances made in easily reproduced science over the last 500 years, the simple cause and effect relationship seen in many treatments, the millions of people treated for common diseases every year who recover thanks to those treatments, the statistics that show when modern medicine is introduced into an area certain diseases lessen or disappear, the eradiction of small pox, the reduction of malaria, among others.

But you're right, there's no real science in medicine. Peer review doesn't mean a thing, huh? And all lab tests ever performed ever in all time everywhere are falsified, right?

And I'm sure medical science is "middle ages" technology, go back your alchemist's table and work with your herbs and potions. Tell me when you can produce an easily reproduced treatment for, well, anything.

~Mariella

reply posted on 29-4-2006 @ 11:09 AM by golemina

The problem in a nutshell is what MDs sell is dogma and not science... people that don't agree with MDs are just fools, and MDs KNOW the truth, have ALL of the answers, and the fools and their babblings are just brushed aside...

Your basic viewpoint you are selling is that medicine, as coming from MDs, stands on some giant pyramid of knowledge where their version of cause and effect is NOT only a clear vision, but an ABSOLUTE reality.

>Golemina is right. There is no real science behind medicine.

I've discussed this on a number of threads. Laid out specific j'accusations. Use the search feature and feel free to educate me. I promise I will respond.

>Unless you count hundreds of thousands of studies on nearly every topic imaginable, thousands of labs (private and public) who test and retest every treatment, the hundreds of thousands of easily reproduced results from the aforementioned studies, the biomedical research conducted at major universities, the advances made in easily reproduced science over the last 500 years, the simple cause and effect relationship seen in many treatments, the millions of people treated for common diseases every year who recover thanks to those treatments, the statistics that show when modern medicine is introduced into an area certain diseases lessen or disappear, the eradiction of small pox, the reduction of malaria, among others.

What you seem to forget many of us that have problems with the gospel according to MD, is that LOTS of us have not only looked behind the curtain... We've looked under the MD establishments labcoats and let me tell you...

The Emperor is NOT wearing any clothes under there!

Your 'studies' have enormous contextual problems... And that is only the first strike.

>But you're right, there's no real science in medicine. Peer review doesn't mean a thing, huh? And all lab tests ever performed ever in all time everywhere are falsified, right?

>And I'm sure medical science is "middle ages" technology, go back your alchemist's table and work with your herbs and potions. Tell me when you can produce an easily reproduced treatment for, well, anything.

There is absolutely NO point in responding, you've already been asked to perform the simplest of verifications of the drivel some of us are selling...

The school of medicine you belong to is basically self-enclosing and refuses to even look at anything that would conflict in any way without even looking!!!

I've told you repeatedly SICK people have ACID PHs.

...And you steadfastly refused to perform the simplest of tests with PH strips and saliva...

I'm sorry Bls4doc, you do sound like you are sincere... and it's absolutely NOT personal, but your piano lessons are over.

reply posted on 29-4-2006 @ 11:43 AM by Astyanax

Originally posted by DaeWow! I didnt think this particular meme would rear its head.

DANGER DANGER Will Robinson! Must not talk about AZT in anything but a favourable light! Must NOT question the HIV/AIDS hypothesis!! This thread is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria!

Thank you for the helpful link to a definition of memes. I seem to remember reading something about them in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Great book. Life-changing.

Your hysterical little outburst is both unfunny and unpersuasive.

I would have left you and your hijacked thread alone, but you went and did this:

Originally posted by Dae

Originally posted by zerotolerance
I am an ex-gay man and can tell you that back in the 1980's when AIDS was really decimating the gay community, every gay man I knew who was HIV+ died from AIDS. I never knew, met, or heard about any gay men dying of AIDS that was HIV-. None. Every one of them that was HIV+ died.

Im afraid your story, just like mine is anecdotal. Seems unfair but true.

How dare you. This person, with obvious and evident sincerity, was speaking from his own experience, which is more than you are doing; your own rickety case is based on other people's research and opinion, much of it discredited. Just because zerotolerance's experience (which is universal, unless you care to tell us of any HIV-negative people you've heard about who've died of AIDS) doesn't square with your axe-grinding, you discredit it by unfair comparison to the documentary nature of own your second-hand evidence and throw it out. A low, casuistical, contemptible debater's trick.

To add bad faith to irresponsibile scaremongering is to double the offense.

reply posted on 29-4-2006 @ 02:45 PM by Long Lance

Originally posted by Astyanax

To add bad faith to irresponsibile scaremongering is to double the offense.

How's 'scaremongering' as you called it irresponsible? afaics, no-one has ever survived acute AIDS, what does a patient have to gain by embracing contemporary treatments? time at the most, although most people around here will probably dispute that.

it's NOT at ALL like quackery in cases like removable tumors being treated by snake-oil.

reply posted on 30-4-2006 @ 09:45 AM by golemina

Not only do I support you brother Dae...

But I would point out the obvious...

That acidity of the ad hominem attacks directed at you are in direct proportion to the validity of the kind viewpoint you bring.

Just as it is said that violence is the last resort of a limited mind... So to a philosopher might add that ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the scoundrel who has been bested... and basically has NOTHING to add even remotely ON TOPIC.

So Dae... Keep grinding your axe... I just love the sweet sound that it makes.

As to you boys who can't seem to play nice... Might I add a good hearthy

reply posted on 30-4-2006 @ 11:26 AM by bsl4doc

Study one

Receipt of antiretroviral agents without a protease inhibitor before or after AIDS significantly reduced the risk of death. When protease inhibitors were added to other antiretroviral agents that were initiated prior to AIDS, the risk of death was lowered by 75 percent; when protease inhibitors were added to antiretroviral agents started after AIDS, the risk of death was lowered by 64 percent.

Italian Study from my home town =)

Our data show that the survival of PWA is increasing. The effect on survival time began in 1995, becoming stronger in the second half of 1996, and increasing even further in 1997. The increased survival was concomitant to a decrease in AIDS incidence [19] and appeared to be correlated with the increased availability and use of new combination therapies. In Italy, dual combination therapy was introduced in 1995 and triple combination during the summer of 1996 with an experimental programme, followed by an expanded programme in 1997. Survival tended to increase with calendar year and with year of AIDS diagnosis, and, in particular, in individuals who developed AIDS in 1996-1997 or who had survived until that time.

So, there are two different studies from two different nations by different lab teams, different universities, different private labs, etc. Now, why is it that BOTH studies show a marked increase in AIDS survival time AFTER combination therapy was introduced? Prior to its introduction, AIDS patients could expect to live an average of 17 months after the onset fo AIDS. Now that are living an average of 1.5-2 years. Doesn't that seem like an improvement? Especially considering the drugs are becoming less and less harsh on the person's system, as well? Most drugs are mainly protease inhibitors, which do not target your own cells, just the proteases used by the HIV virus.

~Mariella

reply posted on 1-5-2006 @ 12:52 AM by Dae

Originally posted by Astyanax
Thank you for the helpful link to a definition of memes. I seem to remember reading something about them in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Great book. Life-changing.

Sure, no problem

Your hysterical little outburst is both unfunny and unpersuasive.

Hmm, so are we not allowed to discuss this subject without scaremongers coming on and well scaring?

I would have left you and your hijacked thread alone, but you went and did this:

So, what would you have added anyway? Dont you like what Im posting about? Waited for somthing to 'have a go at me' with? Nice. How have I hijacked this thread? You saying I should have started a new one despite a perfectly good one here?

Originally posted by Dae
Im afraid your story, just like mine is anecdotal. Seems unfair but true.

Why I said that? Because it was said to me, in this thread too.

Originally posted by Nygdan

quote: Dae
then she told me that those nine are dead and the other one having had no treatment was still alive and healthy today.

Obviously this is an anecdote, but is there anyway to demonstrate that this story is true?

How dare you. ...To add bad faith to irresponsibile scaremongering is to double the offense.

Sounds like high horse talkin' that does.

reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 05:05 AM by Dae

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Prior to its introduction, AIDS patients could expect to live an average of 17 months after the onset fo AIDS. Now that are living an average of 1.5-2 years. Doesn't that seem like an improvement? Especially considering the drugs are becoming less and less harsh on the person's system, as well? Most drugs are mainly protease inhibitors, which do not target your own cells, just the proteases used by the HIV virus.

~Mariella

Hiya Mariella

Thanks for this, it all helps!

You make a good point, the combination therapy does lessen the harsh effects of simply taking AZT on its own. However, in my mind, this only says exactly that. The combination therapy adds a year or two to a patients life only because the combination is less harsh on a persons system. You said it yourself.

In your second link I found an interesting paragraph.

When repeating the analyses for specific risk groups, we found no significant differences in the access to combination therapy and survival (data not shown). This finding is not completely consistent with previous observational studies conducted in Italy in the era of zidovudine monotherapy, which showed a worse outcome (i.e., AIDS) for IDU, compared with the other population groups. This was attributed to delayed pre-AIDS treatment and perhaps to a worse compliance to antiretroviral treatment [28]. Since drugs are provided free of charge in Italy, we can assume that the differences between IDU and other individuals are due to differences in individual motivation and in perception of the benefits of treatment, which are perceived to be higher for combination therapy than for monotherapy.

So we have a special case here for IDU. If I understand correctly it would appear that the treatments dont really work for these patients, they say that it is due to the delay of pre-AIDS treatment and something about motivation and perception. I find that odd! Do IDU patients continue with their drug use while on any thearpy, mono or combo? It doesnt say and I would think that it was important. Its been a long known fact that herion users get sick, recreational drugs are immunosuppressive.

I had a look at Duesberg's site and found what he says about the combination thearpy.

Q4: According to our leading experts the new cocktail (protease + transcriptase inhibitors) seems to work or at least to keep the disease at bay. How is that possible?

A4: Contrary to the assertions of your "leading experts", the anti-HIV drug cocktails are failing in the US. A front page article of the New York Times , showing dying AIDS patients, issued a first warning in August 1997: "Despite powerful new AIDS drugs many are still losing battle (NYT, August 22, 1997).

By September 1997 the American press already reported that "AIDS drug cocktails fail 53%" (San Francisco Examiner, September 29, 1997). In view of this I wonder what your "leading experts" do to make the cocktails "work". Where did they publish their success stories?

I found this study linked within one of your links. It says:

These results suggest that the new antiretroviral combinations may prolong the AIDS incubation time and the overall survival of HIV-infected individuals; however, they do not necessarily imply that the survival of persons with AIDS (PWA) has increased. Early antiretroviral treatment may prolong the AIDS-free time without improving survival after AIDS diagnosis, as shown by trials reporting that a shorter survival of PWA can be the consequence of a prolonged AIDS incubation time [12]. However, some studies conducted among PWA with low CD4+ cell counts suggest that the new drugs also have an effect on the outcome of individuals with advanced immunodeficiency [6,13].

I bolded out the part I dont understand, is it saying that a prolonged AIDS-free time, via treatment, can shorten the survival of PWA? Odd! Another odd thing, I click on their references, 12,6 and 13, and it links back to the same study. I was hoping to read more about those specific statements.

So, in conclusion ( lol ) IDU patients dont seem to benifit from HAART/combined thearpies and treatments seem to prolong life more than it did with AZT, monothearpy, alone.

I look forward to your thoughts Marie

reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 09:04 AM by Griff

Thanks for all the info DAE. The thing I see about the quotes from the Duesberg site is the dates. 1997. That was almost 10 years ago. Combination therapies have increased their success dramatically over the last 10 years. Those quotes are from when combination therapy was a child. Just my thoughts. Does he have something more recent?

Has anyone heard the theory about selenium and other vitamins that are depleted by HIV?

www.newmediaexplorer.org...

www.ovpr.uga.edu...

www.keephopealive.org...

I can't find the original study that I read but here are some web sites to look into. The theory is, I believe, that HIV depletes selenium (and other important nutrients) from the body and that is what really causes the AIDS symptoms....not the virus itself. This coincides with the information DAE posted some posts ago. I find this theory very plausable. It would mean that HIV isn't directly responsible for AIDS but AIDS is an indirect cause of the selenium depletion.

reply posted on 2-5-2006 @ 11:05 AM by Dae

Originally posted by Griff
Thanks for all the info DAE. The thing I see about the quotes from the Duesberg site is the dates. 1997. That was almost 10 years ago. Combination therapies have increased their success dramatically over the last 10 years. Those quotes are from when combination therapy was a child. Just my thoughts. Does he have something more recent?

Funny you should say that because the studies that bsl4doc posted were also 1997 and I wondered at more recent studies too, hehe

Has anyone heard the theory about selenium and other vitamins that are depleted by HIV?

Nice info! Is it possible that it may simply be a depletion of selenium alone and not HIV is depleting it? Hmm, what Im saying is, what if through immune surpressing factors combined with a depletion of these nutrients creates illnesses that are usually in check, like syphilis?

Here is an interesting article on BBC news site. The repeated pointing out of glaring holes in the theory is great, I just wish people would do the same for the accepted ideas too.
Aids virus 'could be weakening'

The researchers, writing in the journal Aids, stressed their work in no way meant efforts to prevent the spread of HIV should be scaled down.

"HIV is still a life-threatening infection"
Keith Alcorn

Researcher Dr Eric Arts said: "This was a very preliminary study, but... Obviously this virus is still causing death, although it may be causing death at a slower rate of progression now...

"However, we are still far from that point - HIV is still a life-threatening infection."

However, Dr Vitoria stressed that the latest findings should not lull people into a false sense of security.

He also questioned whether it was possible to draw firm conclusions from such a small study.

The full article is rather interesting, makes me wonder about how many studies that they dont do for fear of being labled as meanace to society.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^