Kary Mullis' Next-Gen Cure for Killer Infection

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Put it your own words. In other words prove it. Nothing but vague relationships. and more talk. Scientific method remember?

Reducing scientific research to soundbites and layman's terms has nothing to do with the scientific method. Regardless, I'll bend and do what you ask.

The basic argument, based on all knwn science on HIV, is as follows: AIDS patients, universally, demonstrate a presence of IgG antibodies for HIV. This anitbody is not present in those not showing an active HIV infection or AIDS. This would suggest that an exposure to HIV or a current HIV infection (the only route by which specific HIV-antibodies can be made) is concurrent with AIDS.

Additionally, patients who are known to be HIV+ have given blood samples, which have then been analyzed using electron microscopy. The images I linked in my first post above show HIV particles attacking human T-lymphocytes, the cells responsible for viral immunity. The elimination of these cells is the reason AIDS patients are able to develop candida and other typically rare infections, often leading to their deaths. The entire basis for diagnosing AIDS is a low CD4 (cluster of differntiation 4, a marker unique to T-cells) count. The fact that HIV attacks, infects, and destroys CD4 cells (Helper T-cells) is the basis for development of AIDS, meaning that HIV directly causes AIDS.

In a bulleted style for quick reference:
- HIV antibodies observed in HIV and AIDS patients
- HIV imaged and proven to infect CD4 cells
- CD4 cells are responsible for cell-mediated immunity
- Destruction of CD4 cells by HIV leads to immunocompromised state
- Severe immunocompromised state is termed AIDS
- Hence, HIV causes AIDS.

Are we clear now? Can you point to which part of my explanation is not backed by research and is unclear?

People with HIV can live long healthy lives without the other conditions that are associated with AIDS. It's just semantics.

People who stick to their HAART treatment most definitely can. Thsi is because we place them on highly active anti-RETROVIRAL treatment (HAART). The "R" is the key here. We prevent them from developing AIDS in some cases due to methods which block the virus from binding to CD4 cells or prevent the virus from reverse transcribing it's RNA into the cell's genome, the key to infection. If AIDS were NOT viral in nature, and was NOT specifically caused by HIV, why would the treatment, made specifically for HIV, I give patients tend to work?

In fact it's believed it's been with us for thousands of years, according to some. To think this has happened all of a sudden because of HIV is science fiction.

Source?



[edit on 11/22/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]

[edit on 11/22/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]

Ok I'll bite.

Is that it? really? I can't send that.

You've failed to address the issue. Even this simple layman can see that.

Here's what you have to do.

Isolate the AIDS retro virus without a doubt, you have not even addressed this at all!!!!

it's all HIV. Again further strengthening the dissidents case.

and therefore it shows you have no understanding of what the argument is actually about.

And when you have done that, within the scientific method. You can collect the big cash prize on offer for doing it. Lucky You!! Who'd have thought that such a genius would be lurking around ATS!

Just ask the question? has the aids retrovirus been absolutely isolated, purified and cultured? If you can answer this without a doubt then you have done what many have been trying to do for decades.

Good luck! Perhaps you'll even get that noble prize!

[edit on 22-11-2009 by squiz]

reply to post by squiz


*sighs* Squiz, the AIDS retrovirus IS HIV. How does that not logically follow?

AIDS is a lack of T-cell mediated immunity. So, logically, one would ask "what is causing the death of the T-cells in AIDS patients?" To answer this, blood samples weer taken and cultured. This is when we discovered that the few remaining T-cells were coated with HIV particles, meaning that these viruses were infecting and eliminating the T-cells, and causing a lowered immune response, which sit eh ONLY THING AIDS DOES, it compromises your immune system and lets OTHER DISEASES kill you. AIDS itself does not kill. The opportunistic infections concurrent with AIDS do.

What part of my argument is missing in order for this to make perfect, logical, scientific sense? A problem was detected, the cause of the problem was theorized, and this theory was supported by later blood tests and imaging, which I have posted at least once in this thread, with images and papers to support it.

In fact, if you ever opened your eyes, you would know that the discoverers of AIDS have won a Nobel prize for their work. Are you suggesting that this work is somehow falsified? The two who shared the prize for the discover of AIDS virus (HIV) were the people Gallo defrauded in an attempt to claim credit for himself.

www.nytimes.com...

[edit on 11/22/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa



Show me the isolated virus? This is what Kary was talking about. Unless it's occurred in recently. AIDS the retro virus has never been isolated.

I'll ask again, has the aids retrovirus been absolutely isolated, purified and cultured?

If you can prove it. Great. I like science and won't deny empirical proof. I'll thank you and admit I was wrong. But I'm sorry you haven't shown or even touched on this.

HIV is not AIDS. HIV is meant to CAUSE AIDS. A person can have HIV and not have AIDS.

Collect your prize yet?

[edit on 22-11-2009 by squiz]

reply to post by squiz


Squiz, I think you're misunderstanding terminology. AIDS is a syndrome (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), not a virus. The mains cause of this syndrome is the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV. They aren't one and the same. One is an infective agent (an antigen) and the other is a condition resulting from the viral infection. So, basically, you wouldn't say someone has a condition called "HIV", you would say they are "HIV positive", meaning there is no condition called "HIV", at least not when I'm trying to diagnose someone. Saying someone has HIV is the same as saying someone has papilloma virus, it simply means they've been infected with that virus.

To answer your questions, yes, the retrovirus that causes AIDS has been isolated. Here are a few pictures, as well as links to the site they are found on so that you can see the context and related information:

Electron micrograph 1 from University of Iowa

HIV infecting T-cell of AIDS patient from AIDSMeds

HIV budding from a T-cell from University of South Carolina

As shown in these pictures, HIV is responsible for infecting CD4 cells in humans. The destructiong of these cells causes an immunodeficient state. When the titer for CD4 cells drops below about 400, it is considered AIDS, or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

[edit on 11/22/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]

There are many status quo adherents that will resort to personal attacks and anything other than substantive discussion to avoid the evidence.

Post by melatonin
No wonder you have issues knowing ass from elbow. And you add to that a biochemist, Kary Mullis - AIDS/HIV and climate change denier. ...

You see, the fact that Mullis has a Nobel provides no credibility to his claims of the validity of astrology, alien abductions, and talking raccoons, or to his HIV/AIDS and climate change denial. In fact, reading his own words betrays his lack of credibility on this issue (from his book):

The concept that human beings are capable of causing the planet to overheat or lose its ozone seems about as ridiculous as blaming the Magdalenian paintings for the last ice age.

Mullis is one of the few who are fearless enough to confront the CW head-on. The best they can do in response is to attack him personally.

s&f

jw

[edit on 22-11-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa



So what you are saying is that there is no identifiable virus known as AIDS and that AIDS is a collection of specific diseases related to HIV?

If so then welcome to the dissenters.

I'm just a layman, so you'll have to point out where in those links I can see a picture of the AIDS virus? seems to be all about HIV?

I did not say the virus that causes aids, I said the actual aids virus.
your're starting to sound like a dissenter, good for you!

[edit on 22-11-2009 by squiz]

reply to post by jdub297


Thank you, Thank you.

Ridiculous isn't it? an incredible break through like this. And this sort of crap has to happen. I thought it might, seeing he is controversial.
Because of the significance I thought people would be able to look beyond the petty ad hom attacks. Very sad.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

So what you are saying is that there is no identifiable virus known as AIDS and that AIDS is a collection of specific diseases related to HIV?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. There is no AIDS virus because the "AIDS virus" is known as HIV. AIDS is a syndrome, not a virus. All AIDS is, is a systematic immunocompromising state caused by the destruction of T-cells by HIV. This immunocompromised state leaves patients open to opportunistic infections, which are usually baeten back by your CD4 cells. Most AIDS patients eventually die of respiratory infections brought about by their AIDS-induced state. It's no different than cancer patients losing a kidney and dying of renal failure: the disease has eliminated a key component of the body, and the body can't compensate.

I'm just a layman, so you'll have to point out where in those links I can see a picture of the AIDS virus? seems to be all about HIV?

If you'll put the snarkiness aside and read the contextual information I posted along with the pictured (the bits from UofI and USC), you'll see that these photos were included with conclusive studies, using blood samples from AIDS patients. No other viruses were seen infecting the T-cells, leaving HIV as the sole culprit. What else would you propose has been killing the T-cells of these patients? An invisible, undetectable virus?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by squiz

 

What "proof" has Kary Mullis provided? I've read up on him before, and he speaks in generalities with no research to back up his claims. Even the most basic claims, such as the 'prove the HIV virus exists" shtick, was just easily shot down above in my first post.

You've entirely missed the point.

Of course there is an HIV pathogen. We are surrounded by them.

Mullis' point, and that of many others, is that susceptibility to AIDS is not co-dependent upon exposure to HIV. Rather, AIDS is the cumulative result of assault on the immune system that is the natural consequence of multiple harmful exposures.

You swim in crap, you're going to get sick. AIDS is the result, in many analyses, of the barrage of deleterious attacks on the immune system. Play with death often enough, and you will "acquire" an infection that capitalizes on any "deficiencies" in your "immune" system: AIDS.

The "syndrome" is proof that no single causative pathogen is the lethal mechanism. When you weaken your defenses through constant battle, you will eventually meet your match.

jw

You've entirely missed the point.

Of course there is an HIV pathogen. We are surrounded by them.

Mullis' point, and that of many others, is that susceptibility to AIDS is not co-dependent upon exposure to HIV. Rather, AIDS is the cumulative result of assault on the immune system that is the natural consequence of multiple harmful exposures.

You swim in crap, you're going to get sick. AIDS is the result, in many analyses, of the barrage of deleterious attacks on the immune system. Play with death often enough, and you will "acquire" an infection that capitalizes on any "deficiencies" in your "immune" system: AIDS.

The "syndrome" is proof that no single causative pathogen is the lethal mechanism. When you weaken your defenses through constant battle, you will eventually meet your match.
jw

Then please explain to the CDC why all AIDS patients demonstrate HIV infection and antibodies, while those without HIV or AIDS do not.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Dude, just go watch AIDS inc, you don't have to agree with it.
But you should understand what the actual argument is.
You've actually hit on an important piece without realizing it.

My apologies for my rudeness, but it seems like I'm constantly arguing irrelevant points when I come here. So I've been a bit defensive lately.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Dude, just go watch AIDS inc, you don't have to agree with it.
But you should understand what the actual argument is.
You've actually hit on an important piece without realizing it.

My apologies for my rudeness, but it seems like I'm constantly arguing irrelevant points when I come here. So I've been a bit defensive lately.

Why don't you just STATE the main question, rather than dancing around it? I don't have the time or ability (I'm using the hospital's wifi right now, pretty restrictive stuff, unfornately) to watch a propaganda video. In my line of work, we want information boiled down to a few, well-supported points, and all questions should be presented outright. So, question away.

reply to post by squiz

So what you are saying is that there is no identifiable virus known as AIDS and that AIDS is a collection of specific diseases related to HIV?

There is no such thing as an "AIDS" virus. You need to learn the meaning of the terms "Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome." A "syndrome" is not a disease, but a collection of symptoms.

By definition, AIDS is a collection of symptoms and observations that are related to failure of the immune system to attack otherwise defensible pathogens.

It's as if the immune system is "worn out," or gives up" to normal crap that can turn into something bad, when it wouldn't otherwise. It is "acquired."

AIDS is not a necessary consequence of HIV, although the virus renders the host susceptible to one or more of any infections that most people easily fend off. "AIDS" is a handy tag or label to seek funding and attention. In and of itself, it is meaningless. It is nothing more than a DESCRIPTION!

jw

[edit on 22-11-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa


Why don't you just STATE the main question, rather than dancing around it?

I have twice now, has the aids retrovirus been absolutely isolated, purified and cultured?

And you agreed it is not a virus.

So we agree.

There is no such thing as an "HIV" virus. You need to learn the meaning of the terms "Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome." A "syndrome" is not a disease, but a collection of symptoms.

By definition, HIV is a collection of symptoms and observations that are related to failure of the immune system to attack otherwise defensible pathogens.

It's as if the immune system is "worn out," or gives up" to normal crap that can turn into something bad, when it wouldn't otherwise. It is "acquired."

AIDS is not a necessary consequence of HIV, although the virus renders the host susceptible to one or more of any infections that most people easily fend off. "AIDS" is a handy tag or label to seek funding and attention. In and of itself, it is meaningless. It is nothing more than a DESCRIPTION!

jw

None of this has any grounding in science. The V in "HIV" stands for virus. HIV has been imaged hundreds, if not thousands, of times, both isolated and while infecting human immune cells. I have provided these pictures twice in this thread. The systematic infection and destruction of immune cells by HIV leads to an immunodeficient state, known as AIDS.

reply to post by squiz


I agree in the same sense that you and I agree that Down syndrome isn't a virus. A syndrome is a condition, just like a "cold" is a condition. There is no "cold" virus, but we do know that a virus (both rhinoviruses and adenoviruses) cause the common cold. It's a game of semantics which you're taking far too seriously, or not understanding.

reply to post by squiz
Wishful thinking. When confronted by head-on challenges to "accepted
science", defenders will resort to ad hom and worse. No substance, of course.

It's like, "We know best, so pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Sadly, only time will tell. Until then the "scientific consensus" will continue to suffice for the sheep and co-conspirators.

Frustrating, if I gave a fig. I take solace in the fact that the idiots will share in everyone else's misery. They will NEVER accept responsibility.

s4u

deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


I'm actually very interested in any information you have that can refute what I've posted. Can you share?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
Your selective and deceptive "quotes" can't buttress a false position.

There is no such thing as an "AIDS" virus. I can't prove a negative. Show me one.

By definition, AIDS ( a "syndrome") is a collection of symptoms and observations that are related to failure of the immune system to attack otherwise defensible pathogens.

It's as if the immune system is "worn out," or gives up" to normal crap that can turn into something bad, when it wouldn't otherwise. It is "acquired."

AIDS is not a necessary consequence of HIV, although the virus renders the host susceptible to one or more of any infections that most people easily fend off. "AIDS" is a handy tag or label to seek funding and attention. In and of itself, it is meaningless. It is nothing more than a DESCRIPTION!

Happy?

jw

[edit on 22-11-2009 by jdub297]