It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

10 Scientific Reasons why HIV can not cause AIDS

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Firstly, lets start at the beginning on how HIV was discoverd.
Dr. Luc Montagnier first isolated the retrovirus in 1982, the results were sent to a lab in califonia for testing where Dr. Robert Gallo then himself claimed to have discoverd the retroviris calling it HTLV 1, so the french scientist sued, and the two scients are both acclaimed to had discoverd the retroviris HIV.
Now just abit of past about Dr.Robert Gallo, befor the AIDS epidemic in the 80's Gallo was a scientist work on cancer research. His research was very similar to the AIDS research. Gallo was trying to prove that a similar virius to HIV caused cancer. The research proved fruitless. Then he had a new shot in the early 80's to prove his theories again with AIDS. In the early 80's Gallo and other scients claimed that HIV viruses were killing off t-cells which make up our immune system. Even now in 1996 Gallo changed that claims saying HIV plus another virus are killing off the t-cells not the HIV alone.

Insted of me typing out all of the reasons i will just give you a nice little link.
10 Scientific Reasons why HIV does not cause AIDS


Also dont forget in the early 90's they were handing out a drug to HIV "positive" people ZLT. Which literaly is a toxic drug. WHat it is designed to do is destory part of the persons body, like abit of a bone or abit of a kidney, so the body develops more white blood cells to fight the drug. This then makes the person for a short time feel better, but the doctors insist the people stay on the drug, in the end it was the drug that slowly killed them.




posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
So no one cares that billions of dollars of tax payers money has been has been swindle into bottomless research on the HIV causing AIDS hypothesis?
Yeah i guess the reptilians are a bigger worry....



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Thanks for a very interesting little read there, it does indeed raise some very good questions. One thing I found rather interesting was this...


HIV needs a chemically induced process to reactivate.

I wonder speficly what chemical process this is refering to as it sounds very similar to some theories I've read about other weaponized biological agents needing a chemical activation, this was intended to help localize the effects of a biological agent once deployed. Hit em with the agent, then hit your target area with the chemical needed to activate it, and you only kill the folks you want killed. This may be yet another piece of evidence to support the HIV/Military link.
Great link though none-the-less.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Sounds intresting indeed, especialy with the gay pride movement in the late 70's and early 80's, the target demographic in america has not changed for alongtime, male homosexuals.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Some links on this topic i have put together in the past. It's alot of reading but will imo clear up most of your questions and fears.

AIDS Test 'Is Not Proof Of Infection'

AIDS: Scientific or Viral Catastrophe? What are we really dealing with?

AIDS: 'No Gold Standard' For HIV Testing Why is the testing so totally unreliable?

Multivitamins Slow AIDS Effect in Study. A disease or just people dying or hunger and general poverty?

Top 100 AIDS Science Inconsistencies. Can we give anyone toxic drugs when there is so many flaws with just the diagnosis? Is the principle not to first do no harm?

What really causes aids? Wich is in my opinion a perfectly valid question considering where i come from and how my government have seen fit to act so far.

This should help you on your way and for any other health issues this

Stellar



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

1) HIV is neutralized by antibody immunity.
When a person tests "positive" to HIV, it means they carry antibodies to the virus. Which means that they have immunity.


Viruses like HIV cannot reproduce without the aid of a living cell. The main target of HIV is an immune cell called a lymphocyte or the specific name CD4. This cell is a type of T-cell. After HIV gets in a person's system, it finds it's favorite host cell...yep, the T-cell. This doesn't mean they have immunity, especially once the HIV starts working with the T-cells. It means that HIV manipulates the body's immune system to spread itself throughout the body.

HIV will hijack the host cell to reproduce thousands of copies of itself. To create drugs that interfere with the varous steps HIV takes during it's life cycle is called "rational drug design."


2) HIV does not kill the T cells it infects.
HIV can only kill T cells under rare laboratory conditions. In fact, HIV researchers use T cells to grow the virus because T cells live quite compatibly with HIV.


Ummm, not really true according to research. The T-cell does die and there are a number of scenarios as to how.
1- Asfter being infected the cell itself "commits suicide" or apoptosis in the hope of killing the virus.
2 - Or as thousands of HIV buds attack the cell, it destroys the membrane wall killing it.
3 - Finally, the immune system itself goes after these rogue T-cells and destroys them.


3) HIV does not infect enough T cells to cause AIDS.


Over time the T-cells become less and less in which case the body cannot defend itself from attack.


Sub note: The recent invention of "viral load" testing is an attempt to explain away the fact that almost no sign of HIV can be found by standard measurements. Viral load tests do not measure viable virus and have not been approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection.


When HIV levels are too low to be measured, viral load is said to be undetectable but that does not mean that the HIV is gone. Those people maintain a very low level of virus and can be detected in other areas than the blood. Viral load testing tells the virus levels in the blood, BUT NOT in lymphoid tissue which is where HIV interacts the most with the host's immune system.


4) HIV has no AIDS causing gene.
HIV behaves no differently than any of these others. If none of these other retroviruses cause AIDS, why should HIV? And vice versa, if HIV causes AIDS, why don't all the rest? So there is no genetic reason why HIV would cause AIDS.


Right. There is no gene for AIDS. AIDS is the name given to the condition when the HIV becomes so great that immune system is damaged so bad it cannot fight back to colds and such.


5) There is no such thing as a "slow virus".
HIV is inactive, then is said to cause 30 different diseases 10 years later. None of which are specific to HIV itself.


Technically not in the "lentivirus" group, HIV still causes symptoms in the host after the original infection and progresses slowly through the body...therefore the term "slow virus" means the overall progression. Also the above quote is misleading. Yes HIV causes other diseases which are not specific to HIV. That is because HIV breaks down the IMMUNE SYSTEM which then allows OTHER DISEASES to attack the body.

I like how they word that one.


6) HIV is not a new virus, so it could not cause a new epidemic.
Farr's Law asserts that new infections spread exponentially through the population. HIV has been reported at more or less 1 million infected in the USA each year since they had a test for it in 1984. So it cannot be a new virus.


Well, there is considerable debate on the application of Farr's Law which shows that HIV infection "crested" years ago and is on the decline. It really doesn't account for different populations, different methods of transmission, geographic factors such as for the rise in air travel during the "break out years" and other factors which apply. Farr's Law was made in the early 1900's and was about smallpox.

Hmmm, well...I don't even want to go on but I know much of this because my wife works with HIV/AIDS for a company that has patents on HIV and is connected to the Pasteur Institute in France. She also works on the actual machines that do testing and much, much more.

It all seems like some propaganda hype to me, like it's going to cure itself I suppose. They even say at the bottom that the whole thing is from some video. Seems like it is more of a scare tactic scheme to me.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Good post Zedd. I would never encourage people to not be responsible but since aids does not seem to be a problem in the West one has to wonder if it has anything to do with sex or transmission by blood. Why has the virus stuck with the original high risk groups ( wich have always been high risk groups) and not spread as it was predicted to? There are so many contradictions when it comes to HIV-AIDS that it's rather obvious ( to me at least) that some foul play is afoot....

I actually posted a list with 100 AIDS inconsistencies and your free to take a bash at that or give it to your wife. I would love to know how all these issues can be explained away as just mere ignorence on our parts....

I can see you know enough to be able to judge this fairly if you wanted to.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I concur with twitchy on this. The idea of AIDS being "turned on" chemically sounds to be a very logical path. If so proven, it would show a major flaw in the drug companies policy called FRAUD. You would think by now that after all the Billions invested on the backs of the little man we would have more to show for the bang. Instead, we have nothing more than a money-pit with a never ending bottom.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Actually, I will tell you...there is something FAR BIGGER than the areas that most people seem to want to THINK the HIV/AID conspiracy lies.

Yes there is a conspiracy, but it's really in the testing process and the reporting of false negatives.

Nobody ever seem to look at this...



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
...but since aids does not seem to be a problem in the West one has to wonder if it has anything to do with sex or transmission by blood...
Stellar


"Not a problem in the West?" What? AIDS is a global disease; by the time it was first recognized in the early 1980s, HIV had already spread to nearly every continent. It has killed people of all races and classes, from the economically flourishing gay neighborhoods of San Francisco and New York to the poorest slums in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

The CDC believes that in every country of the world - including the West - each and every person with HIV has on average infected one other person within a few months. The time it takes for one to infect two to infect four to infect eight to infect sixteen and so on is called the 'doubling time'. It is also estimated that AIDS has already killed over half a million Americans - that's close to the number killed in ten Vietnam wars - and more Americans become infected every day. And that is just in the US alone.

And you really don't think that is a problem?

But look, I have no intent to derail the thread...I originally intended to point out that using anything from the rather notorious HEAL organization is extremely dubious...their "Scientific reasons" are often the laughing stock of, well, everyone. Except the innocent people who buy into their garbage and fail to seek the proper treatment.


The reason AIDS has taken such a hold in Africa and parts of Asia is because these regions suffer from stifling political and economic oppression. Leading public health experts are unanimous that prevention is of paramount importance to combat AIDS. But until recently, President Mbeki refused to acknowledge that South Africa even had an AIDS problem, a factor that contributed to the advance of the disease in that country. By contrast, the government of Thailand acknowledged AIDS as a problem early and encouraged discussion and education, bringing infection rates down rapidly.

Yet recently the Thai government has oppressed intravenous drug users; police killed more than 2000 in 2003 and thousands more were imprisoned. The consequence: drug use was driven further underground and open discussion of the need to use sterile needles was made impossible. As a result, HIV infection rates are now soaring among drug users. Coincidence? I don't think so.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
... You would think by now that after all the Billions invested on the backs of the little man we would have more to show for the bang. Instead, we have nothing more than a money-pit with a never ending bottom.


Sorry, but R&D in pharmaceutical/medicine is probably the most laborious process known. Science is not a calculator - can't multiply the investment to give you an approximate chance of cure/vaccine/treatment. Sometimes we get lucky, other times it's like trying to reason with a Republican.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Actually, I will tell you...there is something FAR BIGGER than the areas that most people seem to want to THINK the HIV/AID conspiracy lies.

Yes there is a conspiracy, but it's really in the testing process and the reporting of false negatives.

Nobody ever seem to look at this...



no, but just 'looking at it' won't do squat. tell me how is one supposed to avoid being intentionally infected f.ex. during a simple blood test?? say you get pulled over and found drunk *nudge wink nudge* you tell them you're sober, so they take you to a hospital for confirmation (blood test) and *blam* you're toast. they would probably even acknowledge their 'error' and apologize for the 'inconvenience'....

the more common way to do it would be, as you mentioned, the false positive, tell them they got HIV, convince them of the latest&greatest treatment, infect them there.... of course, that's not reliable, a paranoid soul might as well dodge this kind of attempt to his/her life.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
well ,i believe that aids is manmade, either by purpose or mistake.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Imagine, if you are recovering from malaria or organ transplant or have high levels of antibodies or have just had tetanus vaccination or Hepatitis B or a recent viral infection or flu and you went for an HIV test. There is a very high probability that you would be test positive! People in the tropics, especially Africa have a relatively high incidence of malaria and is it a coincidence that HIV tests “reveal” a high incidence of seropositive groups in Africa ? And even if you are otherwise healthy but because of malnutrition and/or a relatively weak antioxidant defense mechanism, your CD4 cell count is low, the Anthony Fauci medical dogma requires that you take toxic AZT!
oldamericancentury.org


now, ain't that wonderful?


The complete article is rather lenghty, i admit, but it sure is an eye opener wrt medication and the ease with which the entire system can be fooled / subverted and abused. Why not prescribe mercury while you're at it? wait, there's thimerosal, right....


mod edit to use "ex" instead of "quote"
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**
Quote Reference.

[edit on 20-1-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
ZeddicusZulZorander, what i know about the testing of HIV i found out it a old documentry, i dont know if they have now changed the testing process or not. Either way back in the earlier days of AIDS in the 80's, they would test your t-cell count. If you had a lower than average number of t-cells, and had HIV in their blood. On somedays everyone has a low t-cell count, it doesnt provide a accurate reading.
HIV is a old retro-virus, if you look at the link i gave earlier it explains how HIV doesnt and hasnt acted like a new retro-virus, the way it has spread.
We just didnt know HIV was in our blood streams befor the testing for it (thats what i believe) the thing is, i dont believe HIV is causing AIDS (a break down of the immune system) i believe something else is causing AIDS, just not HIV.

So tell me ZeddicusZulZorander, is their a different conspiracy other than that?



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bripe Klmun
"Not a problem in the West?" What? AIDS is a global disease; by the time it was first recognized in the early 1980s, HIV had already spread to nearly every continent.


Aids is still constrained the the original risk groups and the overall rate of infection is not exponential as it should have been if every person was really at risk. Go and look the the percentages of aids sufferers in 1985 and compare it to 2005. Makes you think right?


It has killed people of all races and classes, from the economically flourishing gay neighborhoods of San Francisco and New York to the poorest slums in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.


So has cancer and a dozen other diseases. Do you not find it strange that this diseases tends to spread almost only in high health risk groups anyways?


The CDC believes that in every country of the world - including the West - each and every person with HIV has on average infected one other person within a few months.


Then everyone would have had aids by now and we just do not see those growth rates under relatively wealthy and healthy people.


The time it takes for one to infect two to infect four to infect eight to infect sixteen and so on is called the 'doubling time'. It is also estimated that AIDS has already killed over half a million Americans


What diseases has not killed half a million Americans in the last 20 years? I have no idea where that figure comes from anyways as there is no way to tell if someone has aids at the time of his death beside asking him. No one has ever died of aids as aids just supposedly attacks your immune system.


- that's close to the number killed in ten Vietnam wars - and more Americans become infected every day. And that is just in the US alone.


And cancer?


And you really don't think that is a problem?


Well i tend to say things for a reason but i could be more specific and state that it is clearly not a problem if your a average American living a relatively healthy life without using drugs or doing other idiotic things.


But look, I have no intent to derail the thread...I originally intended to point out that using anything from the rather notorious HEAL organization is extremely dubious...their "Scientific reasons" are often the laughing stock of, well, everyone. Except the innocent people who buy into their garbage and fail to seek the proper treatment.


If you want to protect the innocent why not help feed the 600 million starving people around the world? The scientific community hardly needs you help in suppressing anything that run contrary to currently accepted dogma


The reason AIDS has taken such a hold in Africa and parts of Asia is because these regions suffer from stifling political and economic oppression.


Economic pppression by the West? Well yes your right and if people were not starving to death mabye their immune systems would function as well as those of the west and we would have the same "infection" rates as in the West. Political oppression does not always make people unhealthy. Iraq's primary medical care system was in most respects far better than in many western countries. Political oppresion and aids have almost nothing to do with each other.


Leading public health experts are unanimous that prevention is of paramount importance to combat AIDS.


British teenage pregnancy rates is the highest in Europe but the aids infection rate is not going up. Aids and unprotected sex is related only when your poor and off a generally darker colour. In the West unprotected sex does not seem to lead to aids....


But until recently, President Mbeki refused to acknowledge that South Africa even had an AIDS problem, a factor that contributed to the advance of the disease in that country


He has a council who advises him on the issue so one has to wonder if his insane or just brave enough to admit the truth. South Africa does not have a Aids problem as much as we have the general poverty problem.


By contrast, the government of Thailand acknowledged AIDS as a problem early and encouraged discussion and education, bringing infection rates down rapidly.


If you know how bad the accuracy of these testing procedures where you would probably take pause and wonder what is really happening in Thailand.


Yet recently the Thai government has oppressed intravenous drug users; police killed more than 2000 in 2003 and thousands more were imprisoned. The consequence: drug use was driven further underground and open discussion of the need to use sterile needles was made impossible. As a result, HIV infection rates are now soaring among drug users. Coincidence? I don't think so.


Drug users are a high risk group who catch all kinds of other diseases anyways so why should we assume aids has anything to do with blood and not just with the same old risks?

I really have read rather widely on the topic and if you want to debate this in depth that is fine. It will not be hard to show you why you should not be worrying about "Aids".

Stellar

[edit on 19-1-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
That was impressive information...............thanks



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Another question for people who have AIDS, or know someone who has AIDS. Are they still giving out AZT to AIDS patients?



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wang
Another question for people who have AIDS, or know someone who has AIDS. Are they still giving out AZT to AIDS patients?


I know a few people that have AIDS and a few who are HIV positive. I don't think AZT is in the cocktails anymore. I'm not possitive on this so don't quote me. I do know that they don't give you treatment until your immune system is lowered enough. This reasoning is that the medicine is bad for you and to prolong the life of the patient. They don't start a person on treatment until they actually need the treatment.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
One question?
if testing doesn't prove anything, with false negatives
and false positives...

then what is up with the whole "safe blood supply" that we are constantly told about?

When i donated blood, they asked lots of questions regarding the possibility of AIDS... I wanted to say "look for yourself if you are worried" but I am starting to think they can't... with any surity...

Is that the true conspiracy that you were hinting about Zed?

Unsafe blood supply? blood marked safe isn't neccessarily so?
tests for aids, dont always show an infection, especially if the donor isn't honest?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join