It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
“Burden of Proof” and the Origin of AIDS
The most vocal opponent of the OPV and HB vaccine theories of HIV/AIDS origination is Dr. John Moore, affiliated with Rockefeller University’s Aaron Diamond Research Center in New York. As reported in Medical Hypothesis, following a presentation advancing the HB vaccine theory of HIV/AIDS at the XI International Conference on AIDS, in 1996, Dr. Moore flippantly rebuked this thesis in the Canadian press.
A few years later, he did the same regarding the Edward Hooper’s book, The River, which he alleged was historically inaccurate, potentially damaging to the public’s trust in western medicine, and harmful to his colleagues “efforts to make AIDS vaccines for use in Africa.”
When this author personally contacted Dr . Moore in an effort to begin scientific discourse following his Canadian press interview, Moore refused any formal discussion. Responding later to prodding, he wrote me from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center saying, “I explicity denied you an interview when you requested one. . . . I said to you that I had ‘no interest’ in your . . . grotesque theories . . .
For the record, I know what your views are, and I reject them. Indeed, I dismiss them as uninteresting, incorrect and downright stupid.” In the Vancouver Sun, Moore was further quoted as saying, “HIV is transmitted from monkeys to humans. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. It’s hard scientific reality.” In fact, according to scientific consensus, the defining zoonosis for the origin of HIV occurred between chimpanzees and humans, not monkeys.2
It should be noted that Dr. Moore’s institutional benefactors include the Rockefeller family which, along with the Rockefeller Foundation and its institutional affiliate—the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center in New York—has heavily invested in viral cancer research, vaccine developments, propaganda programs, population control efforts, and the Merck pharmaceutical company in particular. Thus, Moore’s bias is strongly suggested...
Originally posted by Greensage
I remember the first indications for AIDS in the early 80's, they called it the "Gay Cancer". I remember when my first friend died of AIDS, then a cousin, then another friend, and another and another. It was frightening and the world just acted like it was some sort of Gay Disease only.
I can remember my first sexual contact with an HIV positive person. I remember the classes I attended and the never ending AIDS tests, every six months. I remember the fear.
I remember my second sexual contact, then the third, fourth, fifth; what were the odds I thought to myself as my friends and community members died around me.
I remember the endless fundraisers, the protesting, the anger.
One thing that does stick in my mind was the endless counseling with each AIDS test I took. I took classes on HIV and was told that the Virus cannot be seen by traditional tests because of the expense, so instead a protein marker is determined that is present with HIV positive people. I was told that they look only for the protein marker to make the initial determination, then more determinate tests could be performed; one of which was called the Western Blot test at the time. I asked if they are looking for a virus and they said yes but that was not true at all. No one had ever seen the virus at that time. They had drawings how a virus connects to a WBC (white blood cell) and transforms it, how it kills the ability to create new T-cells. They always had drawings and we believed them. We were all scared.
Later on I remember reading that only two scientists could verify that the AIDS virus was real and both of them are in dispute over who really "officially" discovered it, one American and one French researcher. It was probably something from a monkey what ever it was.
So I continued testing and over the years the fear released itself from me, I just assumed everyone was positive and that they just hadn't found out yet. I remained negative. It wasn't condoms, it wasn't some magic fairy dust, my reasons for remaining negative were perplexing at best and contrary to all the loss I had to endured, all the loss we all had endured.
I will say this with all honesty and with truth, I am immune from HIV. There is no other explanation, I knew my practices would not grant me safety from such a dreadful disease, unless there is no virus!
The word immune is the key here; you see, the protein markers are immunity markers, if a virus did arrive in the body or the body was compromised by nutritional or outside influences the protein markers show up. They are the elements that say that the body had indeed come in contact with something that stressed it or worked it on the immunity level; it does not mean there is a virus present that will kill you.
Sadly, people of African heritage naturally have these protein precursors show up in their bloodstream. They become when the immune system becomes suppressed. They come when illnesses are fought off. They come when people lack nutrition or sanitary conditions. This is why there is a predominance of Blacks and positive readings, especially in Africa.
The real killers are the Drugs! The real disease was the Community Leaders, Governments, Organizations, and Pharmaceuticals. They all profited of the deaths of Millions across the planet. They systematically began suppressing the T-cells by drugs and then lifting them with other drugs. They slowly killed as they reaped their rewards.
AIDS is real, but HIV is a lie!
If you are positive, there is a cure! Please do not be blinded by the endless cocktails and protease inhibitors, please don't be blind to the real evil that exists. You can recover!
I am sorry if this offended anyone, I am offended because a lifetime of people were taken from me and I miss them so very much!
I know that when the disease first showed up in the Gay Community it expressed itself as Kaposi Sarcoma, or KS; at the time it confused doctors because it was rare and should not be seen in young adults. I also know that in the 70's the use of "Rush", "Silver Streak", or what is called "Poppers", nitrite inhalants were so popular amongst the Dance Crowds and the Sex scenes everywhere. This was what caused the immunities of young people to fail, causing such rare illnesses as KS and inducing pneumonia and death so immediately; it was the prolonged exposure of deadly inhalants!
It took awhile, for the same powers that we deal with today, to take advantage and figure out ways to manipulate this and profit from it. Now they have it down to a science. They are the same ones that took advantage of this "disease", and they are the same ones that are taking advantage of Mankind now, and that is my truth "So help me God".
Among HIV denialists, there are four claims: (1) AIDS is man made, (2) HIV tests are not reliable, (3) HIV has never been reliably identified, and (4) antiviral therapy given to HIV patients results in AIDS, not the virus itself.
MYTH 1: AIDS IS MAN-MADE
First, we should correct an error of notation in the original post. AIDS is a syndrome (hence the S in AIDS).
MYTH 2: HIV tests are not reliable Again, we have an error, either of notation or omission, by the original poster.
The Rapid Test is typically used in "minute clinics" and general practitioner settings. It can be performed orally, and measures the presence of anti-HIV antibodies. The drawback to this test is that it requires the person to have been infected for 3-4 months, as your body needs to have mounted some level of an immune response. This test is 99.5% sensitive (meaning few, if any, false negatives) and over 99.9& specific (meaning very few, if any, false positives). This data has been demonstrated both by clinical trials, as well as by the CDC and FDA
The pharmaceutical corporations that manufacture and commercialize these test kits acknowledge the inaccuracy of the tests. This explains the seemingly surprising statement included in the kit inserts: "Elisa testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present" (Abbott 1997).
The insert for one of the kits for administering the Western blot warns: "Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection" (Epitope Organon Teknika).
In like manner, the insert that accompanies a very frequently used test for PCR Viral Load warns: "the Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection" (Roche 2003).
Interestingly, the only valid method of establishing the sensitivity and the specificity of a diagnostic test in clinical medicine is to compare the test in question with its gold standard. The only possible gold standard for the HIV tests is the human immunodeficiency virus itself, HIV. Since HIV has never been isolated as an independent, free and purified viral particle, it is not possible to properly define either the sensitivity or the specificity of any of these tests. Currently, the sensitivity and the specificity of the tests for HIV are arbitrarily defined, not by comparison to purified HIV itself, but by comparison of the tests in question with the clinical manifestations of AIDS, or with T4 cell counts.
"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood. Therefore sensitivity was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of AIDS and specificity based on random donors" (Abbott 1997).
As shown above, HIV testing is a multi-level and multi-platform process. It isn't one, single test, and it isn't something done haphazardly.
HIV has never been either isolated or purified as a real virus.
The most frequently used technique for isolation and purification of retroviruses includes the following primary steps: (1) Concentration of the viral particles by centrifugation; (2) Electron microscopy monitoring of the concentrated viral particles; (3) Biochemical and genetic analysis of the purified viral particles; (4) Controlling the experiments to avoid misinterpreting endogenous retroviruses as exogenous infectious retroviruses; and (5) Biological tests to ascertain if the isolated retrovirus is indeed potentially pathogenic and virulent (O’Connor et al 1964; De Harven 1965a,b, 1974).
However, neither Montagnier, nor Gallo, nor Levy et al. had adhered to these techniques when they claimed to have isolated “the AIDS virus” in 1983 and 1984 (Barré-Sinousi et al 1983; Papovic et al 1984; Gallo et al 1984; Levy et al 1984). The first two steps were omitted; they did not provide the electron microscope evidence that particles from the “infected” culture supernatant, sedimenting at 1.16 gm/ml of sucrose, were composed primarily of viral particles (concentrated viral particles). Instead, they provided electron microscope photographs of stimulated/activated cultured lymphocytes releasing particles similar to retroviruses.
These same particles, however, can be released by “non infected” stimulated/activated lymphocyte cultures (Dourmashkin et al 1993). Unfortunately, the experiments were not properly controlled; where were the electron microscopy photographs of “infected” as well as “not infected” culture supernatants sedimenting at 1.16 gm/ml of sucrose, EM micrographs required to determine whether or not viral particles were concentrated at that gradient? Additionally, where were the electron microscopy pictures of “non infected” lymphocytes grown under identical culture conditions?
So-called “HIV proteins” are not specific markers of HIV.
Gallo’s group from the National Cancer Institute performed Western blot using “lysates of HTLV-III producer cell clones” and serum diluted 1:500, and, also without having previously purified viral particles, arbitrarily decided that, “antigens newly expressed after viral infection and recognized by the human serum used included p65, p55, p41, p39 and p24. A large protein with a molecular weight of approximately 130,000 and a protein of 48,000 were also detected” (Schüpbach et al 1984). However, they also concluded that, “these results show clearly that the antigens detected after viral infection are either virus-coded proteins or cellular antigens specifically induced by the infection” (Schüpbach et al 1984).
Levy’s group of researchers, from the University of California in San Francisco, performed standard indirect immune fluorescence procedures using HTLV-1, LAV and ARV “infected cells” and serum diluted 1:10. They found that antibodies against what was supposed to be ARV (AIDS Related virus) in 88% of AIDS with Kaposi’s sarcoma, 100% in AIDS with opportunistic infections, in 93% of male sexual partners of AIDS patients, and in 57% of clinically healthy homosexual men (Levy et al 1984).
So-called HIV-RNA is not a specific marker of HIV.
The HIV viral load test is an amplification genetic test that makes copies of fragments of RNA that arbitrarily have been regarded as parts of the HIV genome. These fragments of RNA are found in culture supernatants or in patient’s blood. They are never, however, extracted directly from purified viral particles. What is known as “HIV RNA” might just as well originate from cultured cells or be present in the blood of persons undergoing stress. It could also originate from endogenous, non-infectious retroviruses.
False positive reactions on the HIV tests.
There are abundant scientific publications explaining that there are more than 70 different documented conditions that can cause the antibody tests to react positive without an HIV infection (Johnson 1993, 1995, 1996a,b; Hodgkinson 1996; Turner 1996, 1997/8; Shenton 1998; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al 1993; Giraldo 1997d, 2000a; Giraldo et al 1999).
Originally posted by Moonguy
Originally posted by Solasis
Where is your proof? An article in -- what language is that? Scandinavian? -- which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, does not really count. I believe that this is possible, but there's no hard proof of it that we have access to.
Where is youre proff to say otherwise? What logic are you using? from 10 10 year old ? which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, Do YOU really count?...NO! I beleive that AIDS is a man made proof, since we have dumpt billion of dollards into it and no cure.... what would be the reason behind it?... any smart person would understand it is a man made virus to control population.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
First? You're a little late for first my friend, and it has all ready been pointed out.
Oh come on! Do you think your disclaimer at the beginning excuses this shoddy nonsense? The O.P., of course, made no assertions that HIV tests are not reliable, and therefore did not make any error of notation, nor of omission, unless you want to count the fact that the O.P. made no reference at all about the reliability of the HIV tests as an omission, and I suppose an error because that omission didn't quite fit into your pre-written and saved post. If you are so lazy that you can't even be bothered to actually address what was actually said by the O.P., and instead just pretend that your post you saved for just this occasion, somehow speaks to the limited arguments the O.P. made, then why should we trust that this saved post of yours is actually filled with trustworthy data? After all, lazy is as lazy does.
Oh is that so? Then why do pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that HIV tests are not specific for HIV?
HIV has never been either isolated or purified as a real virus.
False positive reactions on the HIV tests.
I could continue with another post, as I am running out of space in this one, but why bother? You will undoubtedly dismiss I, and the reports author of which I have cited as being "denialists",
Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by alysha.angel
If AIDS was manmade would they not have made a better job of it, I mean would it not have made sense to make it immune to anti-retrovirus drugs, they could have made something much better.
If you're willing to throw out all my work and references over a silly editing error, I guess we can see where your bias lies.
Please read my post in its entirety. You'll see that no diagnosis of HIV is made without several tests (usually three), all using different methods. This reduces the chance of a false-positive to nearly zero. Each individual test has a higher than zero chance of a false positive, but when you combine predictive values of the three tests, it reduces this chance greatly.
This is basic statistics.
Please see my related images and links. It has absolutely been isolated as a "real virus".
I have never denied that false positives are possible. However, the standard procedure now is to combine antibody tests with PCR and viral load tests before confirming a diagnosis. Again, basic statistics shows that the chance for a false positive when combining these various methods is nearly zero chance of this happening.
No worries. I've reported your ad hominem attack earlier in this post and responded to the points you've made. I'm not sure what else you want from me.
Sorry, but total AIDS-related deaths since 1981 are around 25 million. Assuming the same percent increase of 4.1 billion to 6.9 billion (a factor of 1.68), 25 million becomes 42 million. Still a minuscule percentage of the overall population. So no, it wouldn't "be much bigger."
Originally posted by Faiol
Originally posted by nataylor
These people creating viruses for population control must be utterly incompetent. The world population has gone from 4.1 billion in 1975 to 6.9 billion today. That's not a very good track record of controlling the population.
are u high?
just imagine if Aids didnt existed ... it would be much bigger
about the man made ... who knows, ITS POSSIBLE ... I dont know
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I of course, did not "throw out all (your so called) work and references" and spoke to much of it in my post, which you clearly know since you lazily speak to my arguments.
I did read your post in its entirety! Quit being so self involved and certainly don't think that pretending I did not read your entire post before responding will work as an appropriate rebuttal. Indeed, it appears you are merely accusing me of your own crimes, and did not read what I posted. I listed several citations making it perfectly clear of the arbitrary definitions, and the lack of an isolated virus. It matters not if it is three or thirty different tests that are done, if those tests are all designed based on arbitrary definitions, and lack an actual isolated virus as a gold standard.
Statistics do not make a diagnosis.
Oh for crying out loud! Your arrogance knows no bounds. Either you have not read all of my posts in this thread, or you haven't bothered to read the links I provided, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Of course, since you couldn't be bothered to read through those links the first time they were posted, why should anyone expect you will read through them this time?