Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Never mind the fact that prior to Robert Gallo advocating HIV as the source of AIDS, he was advocating HIV as the source for a form of leukemia, which is a cancer of the blood
Can you site some studies and/or references to a scientific study that states this?
The report which received most attention at the VIII International Conference on AIDS was a presentation describing several cases of severe immuno-deficiency in persons without detectable HIV at a "Recent Reports" session at the conference, Dr. Jeffrey Laurence of Cornell Medical Center reported five cases of immune suppression characterized by low T4 cell counts, opportunistic infections, like CMV colitis, PCP and KS. Some patients had risk factors for HIV-1 infection yet none had any evidence of HIV-1 or HIV-2. Dr. James Curran, Director of AIDS at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), reported six additional cases which had been reported to the CDC in the past years. The agency chose not to report these cases and received severe criticism by many researchers for that decision. Other researchers reported similar HlV-negative cases of immune-suppression, including Dr. David Ho with 11 cases of patients. These were mostly gay men with low T4 cell counts, three of whom had OIs. In addition, Luc Montagnier, the co-discover of HIV-1, reported experience with a similar case. He claimed to have found HIV in the urine of a patient whose blood had no traces of the virus after PCR analysis.
Antibody tests are the first test. After that, they take your sample and do a viral test. Read it again. A test that actually tests the virus. They can even tell you if you have HIV A, B, C, D, E or F. How can they do this if they can only test for antibodies?
To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyse precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that is can replicate...That's the whole point of putting the virus question. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses. You have to prove that whatever particle you nominate can actually make copies of itself. No replication, no virus. I'm sorry but this is an extremely important point. No one, especially virologists, can afford to ignore it.
To analyse their constituents and to prove they are truly viruses, retroviral-like particles must first be purified. This is done by a process called density gradient ultracentrifugation, something that may sound complicated but which isn't. A test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, is prepared light at the top, but gradually becoming heavier towards the bottom. A drop of fluid from a cell culture is gently placed on top and the test-tube is centrifuged for several hours at extremely high speeds. This generates forces many thousands of times that of gravity and any tiny particles present are gradually forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them penetrating further. For retroviral particles, this occurs where the density reaches 1.16 gm/ml, the point where the particles concentrate or, to use virological jargon, band. The 1.16 band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. So, to prove the existence of a retrovirus one is obliged to:
1. Culture putatively infected cells.
2. Purify a sample in a sucrose density gradient.
3. Photograph the 1.16 band proving there are particles of the right size and form, and there is no other material.
4. Extract and analyse the constituents of the particles and prove they contain reverse transcriptase by showing they can make DNA from RNA.
5. Culture purified particles with virgin cells demonstrating that a new set of particles appears with the same morphology and constituents as the originals...
Now I am going to discuss some of the data from four papers published in Science in May 1984 by Dr. Robert Gallo and his colleagues from the US National Cancer Institute...Reading these data it is obvious that Gallo and his colleagues had abandoned the traditional method of retrovirus isolation. This is enigmatic when one realises that, in 1976, Gallo himself had stressed that the detection of particles and reverse transcriptase, even reverse transcriptase inside particles, are not proof of the existence of retrovirus because, no matter how remarkably such particles may resemble retrovirus, many such particles are not viruses because they totally lack the ability to replicate (Gallo et al., 1976).
And this is an argument that HIV is a natural virus?
Originally posted by Legion2112
I'm hearing a whole lot of "supposedly" and "I've believed this since" for a thread with such a declarative title. I put nothing past the more nefarious dregs of modern society, but for this to be taken seriously you're going to need more than (for all I know) a Scandinavian blog and the testament of a man who a) I've never heard of and b) who's credentials haven't been proven. Don't get mad because people aren't jumping on the bandwagon, just come back with more proof after you've done this research you plan to do.
Until then I'm doubting the veracity of this based on the fact that if it was designed as population control, it's proven to be a failure since the first widespread reporting of cases of HIV and subsequent AIDs infection are more than 30 years old and from what I read, your source hasn't even made the distinction between the virus and the syndrome it can, but not always, causes.
YUP. JPZ, nevermind the coincidences.
Another researcher, Dr. Sudhir Gupta from the University of California at Irvine reported evidence of a new virus in a 66 year old woman who had developed severe immunodeficiency and OIs many years after receiving blood transfusions. Dr. Gupta described the virus as a "human intracisternal retroviral particle" or "HICVR" because it was found in closed spaces called cisterns in the cytoplasm of cells.
Other researchers countered that these particles represented lab contaminants and not viruses. Dr. Max Essex of Harvard's School of Public Health argued that this virus-like particle was probably a "retroid"--a fragment of the normal human gene that resembles a virus, yet which have no pathogenic potential. In this case, as in four of Dr. Ho's cases, reverse transcriptase (the enzyme that copies HIV inside infected cells) was present. However, this is a non-specific finding that occurs during Hepatitis C, Grave's disease, and Kawasaki's disease.
Other researchers from New York reported cases of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) in gay men who were not infected with HIV. Most of these cases were relatively mild (non-extensive, less than 10 lesions and without oral involvement) and their meant T4 cell count was 768. Tumor samples failed to show HIV-1 OI HIV-2, but one patient's tumor revealed evidence of HTLV-1. It has been postulated that an undetermined sexually transmitted agent may be responsible for the development of KS in these men. Officials from the World Health Organization and the CDC plan to organize an international meeting to investigate all these cases of HIV negative AIDS from both a basic science and an epidemiological perspective. In the meantime, The New York City Department of Health is gathering information about any immune suppressed illness that may be related to these cases. Doctors, health care providers, people with HIV and others are encouraged to contact Allen Greenberg at (212) 566-5062, who is conducting investigations.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I have only made two arguments:
A.) AIDS is not a virus, it is a syndrome.
B.) HIV is a hypothesis that has never been proven to be the actual source of HIV.
Notice that there are no cases where another virus hasn't been found? So if HTLV-1, HICVR, Hepetitus C, Grave's disease, and Kawasaki's Disease can cause AIDS, why can't HIV?
Remember we are talking about a handful of cases here.
It's like saying just because the common cold virus causes a stuffy runny nose, chills and a fever, then there obviously is no such thing as a flu virus that does the same thing.
Your second link. Again the researcher goes into that HIV doesn't appear to be the same size as a retrovirus.
So, again my question is: And this is proof that the virus wasn't man made?
I can understand your argument here. The title of the thread should be "HIV is a man made virus".
Did you mean the "source of AIDS"? And you blast the OP for getting them confused?
Originally posted by Nutter
Originally posted by Solasis
I believe that this is possible, but there's no hard proof of it that we have access to.
How about the fact that 100% of the homosexuals who received the Hep vaccines in the late 70's are the ones who died of AIDS. No correlation? Just coincidence?
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I am not exactly what your point is here.
I only mentioned Gallo's advocacy of HIV as the source of a particular type of leukemia to demonstrate that Gallo's involvement with HIV goes well beyond AIDS, and to also point out that cancer is generally considered to be an acceleration of cell growth and that AIDS is marked by a depletion of cells.
Originally posted by alysha.angel
the school i went to told us kids that HIV was the virus that caused the AIDS virus , so when did it stop being a virus?
Did you not read the poster's link? The one with verifiable evidence that in the 1960'=70's the government was interested in a "special virus cancer program"?
Actually, when HIV is first introduced into the system there is an "abnormal increase of blood cells" called CD-8+ T-cells which attack the infected CD-4+ T-cells.
HIV controllers exhibit potent CD8 T cell capacity to suppress HIV infection ex vivo and peculiar cytotoxic T lymphocyte activation phenotype
Some rare HIV-1-infected individuals, referred to as HIV controllers (HIC), have persistently undetectable plasma viral load in the absence of therapy. This control of HIV-1 replication has been associated with a strong, multifunctional specific CD8+ T cell response. However, no direct link between this immune response and the control of viremia has so far been provided. We investigated parameters of specific CD8+ T cell response and in vitro susceptibility to HIV-1 infection in 11 HIC. We found high frequencies of HIV-specific CD8+ T cells.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What do you have invested in the HIV hypothesis?
All people who get chicken pox have been infected with the virus, there is not a "handful of cases" where someone got chicken pox but wasn't infected with the virus. The same goes for measles, or influenza.
This is just empty rhetoric and you have all ready shown you are making assumptions about my arguments that just are not true. A virus is a virus and a common cold virus or a flu virus acts the same in all people who are infected with it.
Your question is disingenuous. I haven't made any assertions about the origin of HIV what-so-ever.
I posted in this thread because the O.P. insisted on referring to AIDS as a virus. It is not a virus, never has been a virus and it is a syndrome. Why are you attempting to frame my assertions as being something other than they are?
Yes I did mean AIDS, but that is a typo that I will most assuredly fix. The O.P. was not guilty of a typo, but rather guilty of perpetuating that common meme that AIDS is HIV. HIV may or may not cause AIDS, but if it does, at this point, more than 25 years after it was first advocated as the source of AIDS, has still not been proven to be so. That is the cold hard fact of the matter, why are you so offended with that fact?