HIV is as much linked to AIDS as ben laden to 911... ?

Saw last night a 1996 documentary about the researches of Peter Duesberg on AIDS and HIV.

www.youtube.com...

(not sure it is the same documentary but it is the same main man -Duesberg- and the same subject)

i'm no biologist nor doctor (in medecine) but his arguments to claim that HIV is NOT aids are very convincing, and valid to my intellect.

Please note, I don't want to discuss now his theory on what "could" be the origin of aids (hard drugs abuse over long term periods, azt, antibiotics, chemotherapy, diagnosis errors...) if it is not hiv (one thing at a time!) but only this capital part that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

beside, and that is mainly what has amazed me (and why i gave the thread this title), the mecanism of this propagation of the war against HIV/AIDS is very much similar to the way the war against alqaeda/terrorrism was broadcast and imposed to the world.

*huge media campaign to create an absolute belief (HIV is causing AIDS)

*proofs presented unscientific and never questionned by authorities and media

*huge amounts of money invested in a so-called war against aids

*huge profits for chemical corporations

*war going on and on with very little progress over long periods of time

*enormous social changes for the people of the world, increasing the social control on all of us by pharma corporations

in wikipedia on duesberg page (in french fr.wikipedia.org...) it is stated that a meta-analysis of duesberg theory was published in a scientifc review ("science", 1994) and that publication was proving wrong Duesberg statements.

Anyone know more bout the validity of this paper : who is to be debunk ? Duesberg or that paper ?

[edit on 27-11-2008 by ::.mika.::]

HIV and Aids were created in a laboratory. These diseases, like cancer, are something that can be treated but never cured. Even the treatments regularly used are not completely effective. They expect people, as complacent sheep, to accept that billions can be spent between research and advertising but a cure cannot be found. There is a very large market of money to be made off of treatment, where as a cure is a one time thing.

Its all very similar to flu vaccines and medicines for the common cold. Most medications in Western medicine do not treat the sickness. They only work to treat the symptoms. There is no real reason besides motivation of control to explain this. To think that thirty nine years ago this country supposedly had the technology to visit the moon, yet not the technology to cure the common cold, is ludicrous.

There is no Virus, no lab created disease there are only existing illnesses that are treated with very dangerous drugs that themselves are the killers.

Think Global Terrorism, Global Warming, War on Drugs, War on Cancer etc add in a concerted media agenda to promote fear and control to the sheeple and your more close to the real issue. Haven't people twigged to the fact that ANY time a government does anything there is an agenda that isn't in your interest!

And, look at how someone is treated for even suggesting that GW has zip to do with a human, never mind a professional scientist! So think of the effort and sacrifice that these brave doctors and researchers have to make to go against the tide of Gov/Pharma funding/propaganda?

Aids Myth

This ‘Virus’ doesn’t even conform to the Koch’s rule and is able to discern between the richer nations and the poorer nations (currently it’s ravaging African countries- odd that! Last I heard the WHO were using visual diagnostics to determine if ‘whole villages’ were affected, you know running noses, secondary infections even distended stomachs etc and if the parent has it then their children has is = epidemic). Magic Johnson? errr I don’t think so!

But, just like the cancer treatment scams you try and take the ‘life’s work’ away from researchers (who get huge funding from the big pharma companies), doctors who get huge funding from the big pharma companies, the media propaganda machine, you the sheeple public opinion! Its virtually impossible to get sheeple to see what is right in front of their faces.

The myth

The Myth2

Educate yourself

reply to post by quetzalcoatl13


Duesberg point is slightly different concerning origins :
- HIV would be a very old virus that is there since always as other retro-virus are and that would be totally harmless as our immune system neutralize it as soon as it gets there or almost.

For the political stuff you state, i myself agree/have the intimate feeling for a very long while (then i'm not surprised and only get confirmations when i see such documentaries; just as i was not when i saw a first video on 911 debunk) - and that it also why i have quit western world since a while (october 2001 precisely).

give a watch to the video, you might change your mind on the origin of hiv (and maybe aids, but his theories about aids are standing after a "could") and see the big picture more precisely.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by ::.mika.::]

Hate to tell you, but those "theories" have been debunked long ago.

This guy had no scientific basis for his beliefs, and he has been proven wrong over and over agai.

But of course the author of this piece believes something that is 12 years old, something made to make this idiot rich, over science.

Typical of the conspiracy crows. Find one thing to support your beliefs, and ignore everything else.

More interested in this one supposed fact I heard and if it is just BS or is it correct.

When AIDS does occur it slightly mutates itself depending on the make-up of the host. The mutation limit is over a possible 9 million different mutations that can occur.

In other words AIDS can slightly mutate and there is a possible 9 million different strains of it such as different strains of the flu or a cold.

reply to post by ::.mika.::


All I have to say to people who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS:

If you're so sure, why haven't you injected yourself with HIV yet to prove your theory?

Not you mika, but these so called scientists who say this.

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl13
There is a very large market of money to be made off of treatment, where as a cure is a one time thing.

Actually it has been cured. Unfortunately it involves frying the patients immune system (bone marrow) which is 30% fatal. Then getting a bone marrow transplant from someone with the HIV immune gene. The chances of finding bone marrow that matches are astronomical, let alone trying to find one that both fits and has this gene.

But, it worked for a guy in Germany (I think it was Germany). It was on yahoo news one day but I can't find it now.

Dr. Gero Huetter said his 42-year-old patient, an American living in Berlin who was not identified, had been infected with the AIDS virus for more than a decade. But 20 months after undergoing a transplant of genetically selected bone marrow, he no longer shows signs of carrying the virus.

blog.oregonlive.com...

Please read the entire article. It's only a few paragraphs. In short, it is only 20 months later and the HIV could potentially come back but it may be a giant step in the right direction for a cure.

Originally posted by OldMedic
Hate to tell you, but those "theories" have been debunked long ago.

This guy had no scientific basis for his beliefs, and he has been proven wrong over and over agai.

But of course the author of this piece believes something that is 12 years old, something made to make this idiot rich, over science.

Typical of the conspiracy crows. Find one thing to support your beliefs, and ignore everything else.

thank you for your contribution, but it is pretty much useless as it is only a very subjective opinion - in the form and i don't read anything else ...

can you write some convincing stuff ?

like a proper debunk, consistent and without value statements, of his 10 factual points ? cause with that kind of post of yours we go nowhere. or backward maybe.

Griff,

i don't understand how the mutation stuff explain the "magical" unreal properties of hiv highlighted by duesberg.

apparently psychoimmunology is the way forward with things like this.

I have been told by someone who I trust that an american lady working in this field has the 'cure' for AIDS but cant get it out there to people for the usual obvious reasons.

I dont know this formyself or any ore details, only that I trust the eprsons judgement and opinion who gave me this information as she has worked with the lady in question in other areas.

I had an accident at work, And needed a tetnis shot.
When I went in to see the Dr. He asked if I had ever had the heppititus vaccine.
When I told him no. He put down his gloves(he was gitting ready to put them on). And continued with his exam.
After he was finished. I asked about the question. He slightly smiled, and told me to stay away from any, and all vaccinations. Including flu.
I believe that aids is caused from the h-b vaccine.
And I would encourage you to ask anyone with aids, if they had been gone in to git it.
notaids.com...

griff and quetzacoal remain silent...

shame,

here is some quotes from one of the paper of the so-called "so-called scientist", all available free on the web.

beside if not the most recognised researcher on retro-virus is not to be taken seriously, i'm wondering how to take the wealthiest professor gallo...

(1) HIV-infected persons will get AIDS, and otherwise matched HIV-negatives will not. In the face of the relentless propaganda for the HIV hypothesis, it comes as a big surprise to almost everybody that there is not even one study to show that American, heterosexual or homosexual men, who are HIV-positive but not drug users or hemophiliacs ever get AIDS. More precisely, there is no study to show that such men would get AIDS-defining diseases that exceed the long-established, low background of these diseases in otherwise matched, HIV-free counterparts

...

(2) American AIDS is new, because HIV is new in America. However, in America HIV is a long-established retrovirus #(Duesberg, 1992, see Chapter 6)#. Ever since the virus could be detected in 1984, an unchanging 1 million Americans are HIV-positive (Fig 1A) #(Curran et al., 1985; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 1994, Farber, 1995b)#. By contrast, a new microbe/virus spreads exponentially in a susceptible population (see V). Thus the non-spread of HIV establishes it as an old virus in America #(Duesberg, 1992)#.

...

(3) HIV is active and abundant in persons with AIDS, and inactive and rare in healthy virus carriers. All microbes cause diseases by killing or alterating a larger number of target cells than the host can spare or regenerate during the course of an infection. Thus HIV would have to infect and kill at least 50% of all human T-cells to cause AIDS. However, in AIDS patients HIV is found hibernating in only 0.1% of T-cells, and biochemically active in less than 0.01% of T-cells #(Duesberg, 1992; Duesberg, 1993e; Piatak et al., 1993)#. Indeed, there are healthy HIV-positive people with 30- to 40-times more infected T-cells than in AIDS patients #(Simmonds et al., 1990; Bagasra et al., 1992; Duesberg, 1992)#. The fact that the vast majority of susceptible T-cells remain uninfected, even in people dying from AIDS, is the definitive evidence that there is no active HIV in HIV-antibody-positive persons. HIV is neutralized by antiviral immunity, even in AIDS patients. If there were un-neutralized HIV, all T-cells would be infected.

...

(4) HIV causes AIDS by killing T-cells. However, viruses that integrate their genomes with that of the host, like HIV, cannot kill the host cell. Since the genes of such viruses are part of the host's genes, integrated viruses can only replicate as long as the host survives integration and remains able to express integrated viral genes. All integrated viruses survive from passive, and some retroviruses also from active replication with the host. This strategy only works if the host survives integration. If the virus were to kill the cell as it is integrated, integration would be a useless exercise and it would be undetectable. Indeed, HIV is mass-produced for the "HIV test" in immortal T-cell lines in cell culture at titers of 106 infectious units per ml #(Rubinstein, 1990; Karpas et al., 1992)#. Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, and many other researchers have confirmed that HIV does not kill T-cells #(Lemaitre et al., 1990; Duesberg, 1992)#

... ...

(15) If HIV is the cause of AIDS, the percent incidence of AIDS diseases will be the same in all risk groups. However, the percent incidence of AIDS-defining diseases is very different in different risk groups. For example, Kaposi's sarcoma in America and Europe is almost exclusively observed in male homosexuals #(Beral et al., 1990)#. Intravenous drug users have a proclivity for tuberculosis, weight loss, and pneumonia #(Duesberg, 1992)# and a very high mortality dying at 30 years #(Lockemann et al., 1995)#. Pneumonia and candidiasis are virtually the only AIDS diseases ever diagnosed in hemophiliacs #(Duesberg, 1992; Duesberg, 1995b)#. And bacterial infections other than tuberculosis are almost exclusively diagnosed in babies with AIDS #(Centers for Disease Control, 1987; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1992; Duesberg, 1992, see Chapter 6)#. Thus the percent incidence of an AIDS diseases is very different in different AIDS risk groups.

good read -> www.duesberg.com...

Originally posted by ::.mika.::
griff and quetzacoal remain silent...

shame,

No. Just haven't had anything to add until now.

(1) HIV-infected persons will get AIDS, and otherwise matched HIV-negatives will not. In the face of the relentless propaganda for the HIV hypothesis, it comes as a big surprise to almost everybody that there is not even one study to show that American, heterosexual or homosexual men, who are HIV-positive but not drug users or hemophiliacs ever get AIDS. More precisely, there is no study to show that such men would get AIDS-defining diseases that exceed the long-established, low background of these diseases in otherwise matched, HIV-free counterparts

I have known plenty of HIV positive people who died from AIDS who were not drug addicts.

Similarly, I know plenty of drug addicts that don't have AIDS.

How does my experience fit in with this?

It's very insulting to the friends and family of AIDS victims when people claim that only drug addicts get AIDS.

(2) American AIDS is new, because HIV is new in America. However, in America HIV is a long-established retrovirus #(Duesberg, 1992, see Chapter 6)#. Ever since the virus could be detected in 1984, an unchanging 1 million Americans are HIV-positive (Fig 1A) #(Curran et al., 1985; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 1994, Farber, 1995b)#. By contrast, a new microbe/virus spreads exponentially in a susceptible population (see V). Thus the non-spread of HIV establishes it as an old virus in America #(Duesberg, 1992)#.

HIV is new in America, however in America HIV is a long-established retrovirus? How does that make sense?

And the virus couldn't be detected in 1984. Just the antibodies. The virus couldn't even be detected when he wrote this stuff. Which goes into your next point. How does he know how many T-cells are infected when we couldn't even detect the virus back then?

Duesberg seems to not know what he's talking about. At least back then. Can you find anything recently from him? Has he changed his mind?

Everything in that he references is from over 10 years ago and then some.

[edit on 11/29/2008 by Griff]

hiv is not directly linked to aids. only people who are follls think that. its sad really that is where rumor and myth to people become fact. like if 10 people say its true it must be. THough all 10 of those people are idiots. HIV weakens the immune system and does lead to a higher risk of the subject getting other ailments such as aids etc. its always good not to comment on things in the medical field unless in it. People in the medical field are carefully screened to only allow the best in the world and keep out the unwashed masses. this must be done to protect the integrity of work since the average person is poor or not intelligent. neither of which is a good breeding ground for the cream of the crop genetically speaking.

reply to post by tigpoppa


Having worked with HIV/AIDS in developing nations I can assure you that the highest percentage of people I saw being treated were married women. Again, this is in developing nations...but those women got HIV/AIDS (yes, I'm coupling the term) from their husbands the majority of the time. The disease progressed not due to drug usage but from varied conditions.

In recovering nations such as Russia, the majority of the people who came in with HIV/AIDS were intravenous drug users.

In neither case did I "judge" them. It is a disease no different than heart disease. Do you stigmatize the diabetics who slip up and eat candy, or the man who clogs his arteries and needs a triple bypass? Perhaps, but not like you do those that suffer from HIV/AIDS.

When we suggest that the disease progresses due to a continued "lifestyle" which includes drug use we are ignoring the disease that progresses without inducement.

I know extremely good, moral people who are living with this disease. I have been around babies dying of it. Again, dying not from doing blow or shooting junk...they happen to have a disease and not nearly enough access to the proper medicine.

Moreover, there is research that indicates that survivors of the Black Plague held a particular phenotype and that same phenotype tends to throw off the HIV/AIDS virus. Considering that this phenotype was found in Europe and the only "Africans" that have this are "African Americans" it makes sense that Magic Johnson would expel the virus and black-Africans do not as African Americans have the potential to have European background as well.

Anyway, just thoughts. My overall point is that I don't think we need to stigmatize people with AIDS further by conjecturing that it is tied to a lifestyle.

Originally posted by Griff

I have known plenty of HIV positive people who died from AIDS who were not drug addicts.

Similarly, I know plenty of drug addicts that don't have AIDS.

How does my experience fit in with this?

It's very insulting to the friends and family of AIDS victims when people claim that only drug addicts get AIDS.

well he's talking about statistics and medical research, not about one 's experience.

I also know people who supposedly died of aids and don't fit in this picture. I don't think truth, or the seek for truth, is insulting; however i know it might hurt deeply.

this is explained by the loop thing, this catch 22 thing: whenever someone dies from any disease and is HIV+, the death is attributed to aids, if hiv-, the death is attributed to the disease that was the direct cause of the death.

the link is made the other way round. and if duesberg is correct the link in the good way round has never been made in a scientific manner (hiv actually destroying T4 on its own).

to make parallel with war against terrorism, as soon as the bomb explode it is believed it is the islamists because it is believed they all want to kill us and showed this will on 911.

what could possibly prove this theory wrong is a research that show that hiv+ people actually lose their T4 cells, although they did never use hard drugs, they never took aids medecine, never went through chemotherapy, never been vaccinated against hepathitis, have good nutrition...

HIV is new in America, however in America HIV is a long-established retrovirus? How does that make sense?

And the virus couldn't be detected in 1984. Just the antibodies. The virus couldn't even be detected when he wrote this stuff. Which goes into your next point. How does he know how many T-cells are infected when we couldn't even detect the virus back then?

Duesberg seems to not know what he's talking about. At least back then. Can you find anything recently from him? Has he changed his mind?

Everything in that he references is from over 10 years ago and then some.

[edit on 11/29/2008 by Griff]

no, you misread, if you go to read the full article page you'll understand : the first sentence of each point is the official theory. what comes after the however in each point is what duesberg know/discovered/studied.

to state that a specialist in retro-virus don't know what he's talking about is very presomptuous especially when you haven't really give yourself any deep attention to the subject, only rejecting it.

what i came across recently is alternative theories stating hiv does not even exist !

he didn't change his mind to my knowledge and you should give a look to his back-up and reference, there are even a nobel in medecine in those.
Its next point was that if hiv infect T4 cells, it doesn't kill them ! beside they reproduce more quickly than they get infected.


[edit on 29-11-2008 by ::.mika.::]

reply to post by Rintendo


you don't get the vice in the manipulation process established.

and you are so wrong to believe that this theory stigmatize drug addicts. very very short views.

it is stigmatizing only those pharma corps that want full control over our lives and that are killing us for money.

do you really believe pharma corps want you to be healthy ? who they will sell their chemical to ? did you give a look to the profit made from azt/tri-therapy and by the whole hiv/aids stuff ?

don't be so naive, understand this loop thing that create a correlation the wrong way round, and avoid using arguments that don't question or prove the link between hiv and aids. because it doesn't bring us clother to truth at all

start actually by reading the full article and/or watch the video, do your home work on the references and which scientists are backing up duesberg.

then do the same for gallo. you'll see easily who is the imposter, who is the one after money, who is unscientific and who is not.

(gallo is the only one to claim a link between hiv and aids - montagnier that supposedly dicovered hiv before never claim that link- but gallo never published any paper in any science review about that ! his claim has just been taken as granted with no criss-crossing from other researchers and the convenient -for social control and profits- propaganda started...)

I didn't know Bin Laden had directly been linked to 9/11.

Heh, good to know you aren't a doctor (in medecene.. sic)



AIDS was diagnosed before the anti-viral drugs were administered. They found that HIV was present in every AIDS patient.

Here's some simple deductive information:

HIV destroy's T-Cells, that is the cells that identify threats to the body. Interact with memory cells etc.

AIDS = Aquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndome. IE: The Immune system is destroyed. The body can't fight off simple diseases.

So, you are saying: A Virus is present that is shown to hijack and destroy the Immune system but it does not cause AIDS (You know, a destroyed immune system)...

The horror of this is: How many people died from lack of treatment because of this psychosis and quasi-science 'studies'.

These carrion eater hacks like to blur the line and imply that AIDS is some disease. It is a symptom of loss of function.

Most the theorists claim that HIV does not destroy the immune system. But, simple fact that if a single virus replicates even 10 'loads' from a single T-cell. And if only 60% of that load goes live in another T-Cell... eventually T-Cells become non-viable.

What do T-Cells do? They identify threats based on chemical signatures. What do you think happens when all the guards at the gate are busy doing other things?

Holy crap, I think this post has got me angrier than a religion vs atheism post... I am going to move on now as it isn't worth time.