It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


World AIDS Day Shocker! Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier claims HIV can be cleared by good nutrition!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:13 AM

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I read a couple of transcripts of interviews with the guy, and he clearly understands, and does not doubt, that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

All he says, is that the development of A to B is not a given.

Nowhere in that link does he say otherwise. All he says, is that it is possible to prevent HIV from developing into full blown AIDS.

And minus research data, it's empty speculaton.

And I ask you - if HIV does not cause AIDS, how many AIDS patients are not HIV positive?

I made clear in my original post that I am not advocating a dismissal of the HIV=AIDS theory. However, in direct response to your last question; under the current definition of AIDS in most Western societies, nobody dies of AIDS without first being diagnosed as HIV positive because the requirement of being HIV positive is a part of the current definition of AIDS. Prior to that definition and why the definition was specifically changed to only affect those who tested positive for HIV, is because there are and had been people who continually tested negative while suffering from what appeared to be symptoms of AIDS.

The current definition that requires a positive reaction to the HIV tests is a circumlocution of language that bizarrely states that AIDS proves its caused by HIV because only those who are HIV reactive are considered to be candidates for AIDS. Another way of putting that would be, AIDS proves its HIV proves its AIDS. There should be no question that AIDS exists and little question that there does seem to be a retrovirus called HIV that seems to have an inextricable link to AIDS. The questions lie in if there is a retrovirus known as HIV why can't it be isolated without being contaminated? If it is causing AIDS then how? Why is it that so many scientists and doctors remain so sure it does cause AIDS but can't explain how it does or when it will?

There are just too many questions regarding this theory and they are valid questions that should be asked not attacked and dismissed as being some form of dissident behavior or denialism. There is a concerted effort on the part of those who advocate the HIV=AIDS paradigm to misrepresent facts. Your own language is illustrative of this. Willfully ignoring my own language you attempt to frame me as one who asserts that HIV does not cause AIDS. I have never made any such claim but merely have pointed to certain facts that explain why the HIV=AIDS theory remains a theory and has not been accepted as law.

When Montignier makes an assertion that A does not necessarily lead to B he is echoing the age old scientific dictum that correlation does not prove causation. Given his own history with LAV it should be understood that from the get go, he recognized a clear correlation between the retrovirus now known as HIV and AIDS. When Robert Gallo imprudently announced to the world in 1984 that he alone had discovered the cause of AIDS, Montignier being an ethical scientist rightfully challenged Gallo's assertion because too little was known at that time and was equally and rightfully outraged that Gallo claimed sole credit for this questionable discovery.

No doubt, there is much more known about HIV today, yet still no one has been able to effectively bring about a pure isolation of the retrovirus. It is a retrovirus that seemingly acts like no other virus on the planet and even the tests for it indicate a dubious understanding of the virus since all the tests are predicated on the presence of anti-bodies which normally indicates that the virus has been contained and only HIV defies this understanding. Any person who shows anti-bodies for small pox or chicken pox shows that the pox itself has been contained and they are no longer in the communicable phase of small pox or chicken pox but past it. The HIV virus, on the other hand, acts in the exact opposite way and no one seems to be able to explain why.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by KRISKALI777

Cancer - present in some cases, ....

I read it as carefully as possible.

Can you just flush it out instead of being snarky?

Make your meaning clear. Don't blame your audience for your failure to communicate a point. In the context of what you wrote, there is no other obvious interpretation.

Be clear.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by TrueTruth

I have completed over 1000 medical and coronial autopsies within the last three years and have only seen about 10 cases of full blown inoperable cancer (where the subject is riddled).
Histologically there may be a higher rate than this for sure (I dont look at the specimens under the microscope)!
My sister was the second person globally to recieve Chemo-therapy, the only other test subject back in 1974, was one of the Kennedy lads (whom was 23 at the time).
Before Chemo, AZT was used as a Cancer drug; but removed from use because of its toxicity. Why bring it back and then give to immune decificent individuals- read the contra-indications of AZT for yourself!
It may seem like an uninformed blanket statement; But, if Cancer where the epidemic we are all told it is, then why the lack of physical occurence???
Just asking.......

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:21 AM
reply to post by KRISKALI777

On the subject of "cancer" one of the first things they taught us in Anatomy/pathology, was that "Cancerous" was a "generic" type term that is used to "describe" the condition of a cell. Does that sound right?

So, as for the big "C", it's not so much a cause of death, as a condition of cellular degeneration (abnormal condition of a cell)(-osis) that causes death.

oops, off topic

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:09 AM
It might also be worth pointing out that prior to advocating HIV as a possible cause for AIDS, Gallo had advocated that same HIV as a possible cause of a particular form of leukemia. It was because of his long history with this retrovirus that Montignier contacted him and sent him his own sample of the LAV for consideration. However, what is worth pointing out is that Gallo first advocated this retrovirus for being a cause of cancer which has been pointed out by another poster is rapid cell growth and then Gallo turns around and advocates HIV as being the cause of AIDS which is known to be a depletion of cells. There is no virus that acts in this way. Amusingly, it is Duesberg who is labeled the quack.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:17 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:49 AM
reply to post by Happyfeet

Your entire post offensive not only to those who have mental disabilities but to the poster you are replying to as well. Not to mention the links you give. You are not even on topic.

Is it that difficult to have at least some class when posting? All that needed to be said was that the source given is subpar at the very least.

As for the topic at hand I do not see good diet getting rid of HIV/AIDs that is ludicrous at best. I can see how it might possibly help to stave off the virus HIV and how it might help to keep an infected person alive longer, but not outright cure it. I believe they have a cure for it just as there are many cures for cancer. The thing is that it is more profitable to just string the people alive, let them suffer, and medicate them. Those at the top will never “find” a cure for either, at least not for the general public.


[edit on 12/3/09 by Raist]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:58 AM
reply to post by KRISKALI777

Why use AZT? Despite the side effects, which are nasty, the data is clear that it extends life for HIV/AIDS patients. Simple cost benefit scenario. Its history as a cancer drug is a moot point.

In terms of your cancer theory, I don't really follow. Are you saying that you don't think those people you autopsied REALLY died from cancer, based on what you were looking at? Minus any tissue analysis? Despite the fact that they actually did have some kind of cancer?

I really have no idea what to make of this. Doesn't sound like a scientific theory, so much as a personal opinion based on skepticism I can't quite fathom where from came.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:42 AM
I have to counter some conspiracy statements made in this thread.

The HIV drugs do in fact work. There is NO pharmaceutical conspiracy. I've taken drug holidays before and my blood work reflected a higher viral load and lower CD4 counts. When I get back on my meds, my numbers shot back up.

Without these life saving yet toxic medications, I would be dead.

Nutrition is everything. Everything we put in our bodies is basically a drug. Wether it be medications, food or drink.

Protein, veggies, fruits, legumes and nuts in the right combination will thwart and delay the onset of most diseases. Its a fact jack, because I am living proof!

However, I will agree there are pharmaceuticals that are detrimental to the public at large. Especially anti-depressants.

People with HIV do not die from AIDS. They die from a myriad of opportunistic infections.

Hiv and the medications I take have caused me osteoporosis, gerds, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, diarrhea, chronic fatique, nausia, dizzyness, high blood pressure, high triglycerides, high cholesterol, many staph infections (to include MRSA), arthritis, damaged joints, pnuemonia's, chronic bronchitus, nueropathy and general somatic pain. No picnic going on here. Thank the sky god for these life extending medications.

I participated in several clinical trials conducted by the NIH before the antiviral medications became available. I attribute my longevity to those trials.

I remember when my t-cells fell below 200 and I was given the classification of AIDS. In 1996 the antivirals came on the market and my t-cells doubled. I cryed like a baby because I could not believe my life was about to vastly improve. I'm now considered to have advanced hiv disease and am fairly stabilized.

Until you walk in my shoes..........well you know the answer. I refused to watch or read any of the links. Been there, done that. Why are the people not infected seem to know more than the infected?

I don't apologize for any spelling errors: as I had to use to many big words.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by brilab45]

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by Keymaster1

Yes, I did hear of that guy in New England. He would be considered a non-progressor. Some people have some kind of gene variant that keeps the hiv at bay. I want his bone marrow!

Glad you got out of the V.A. I used to get all my care there. They call my local V.A. the "death house". Currently, I see only civilian doctors; as their healthcare is superior and I actually feel cared for. What really bites is that I'm a 100% disabled veteran. I should be getting free health care, it's inferior health care in my opinion. We should be very afraid of any government run healthcare system.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in