AIDS is a man made virus !

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Let's just get something straight here. I don't really care that a general consensus has come to agree that the word "myth" is to be equated with falsehood or lie. The word myth is a specific word that describes a specific sort of tale that describes either the origins of humanity, or describes the heroic deeds of some individual, and is often told with a supernatural bent. The lazy and sloppy use of this word "myth" to replace falsehood and/or lie is the first clue that in spite of your lengthy two part post, you are not a critical thinker as much as you are a follower of the common zeitgeist.

And yet you use virusmyth.com as your supporting evidence.

im still searching folks and im finding very interesting stuff.... for example this site ..


ari.ucsf.edu...


www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2010/01/14/MN5H1BHUSM.DTL&t

this one is headed as such ..
Study warns of drug-resistant HIV strains



(01-14) 11:42 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Drug-resistant strains of HIV could become more prevalent - even developing into mini-epidemics - in San Francisco over the next five years as patients live longer, healthier lives, according to a study by researchers at UCSF and UCLA.

then we have the archive section ..

ari.ucsf.edu...

www.umoja-research.com...

ill add as i go along .

[edit on 2/8/10 by alysha.angel]


www.apfn.org...


From the Official U.S. Govt. Documents House of Rep.

American Masses Hoodwinked

[edit on 2/8/10 by alysha.angel]

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

You certainly ignored a good chunk of my points, and didn't refeernce a single one of my sources. This leads me to believe you didn't read my post, especially since you are trying to make arguments that were fairly well-explained in my post, such as the math and science behind testing methods.

I spoke to the points I thought were most vital. I read the entirety of your post, and am not obligated to break down every word and analyze it any more than you aren't obligated to do the same for me, and of course you did not do the same for me, so there you go again, accusing me of your crimes.

As to your "fairly well explained" arguments, you have not spoken at all to the arguments rebutting your "explanations" made by actual scientists, and instead just dismiss them all because some were found on a site you clearly disapprove of. In fact, you want to accuse me of fallacy and yet, when it gets right down to it, you can not speak to the claims being made by these doctors and scientists so you attack the site in which their findings were published. Nice.

Statistics are vital to a diagnosis.

This is just not true. Statistics are useful, and maybe even vital for making a prognosis,. but are not at all vital to making a diagnosis. Understanding what the symptoms and signs mean is what makes a diagnosis. In fact, when making a diagnosis, statistic can lead a doctor astray. Statistically speaking those people who have a family history of certain cancers have a higher risk of getting that cancer themselves. So, if a doctor worked on your assumption that "statistics are vital to a diagnosis", someone with a lump who has a family history of prostrate cancer could conceivably be diagnosed with prostrate cancer, when in fact it is just a lump! Of course, no doctor worth his, or her salt would make such a diagnosis, and while they may order a biopsy, they will indeed wait until all the facts have come in instead of relying on statistics, before making a diagnosis.

If we have three methods that are 75% specific of sensitive, but using the three tests in combination with the same blood samples increases the sensitivity and specificity to 99.9%, this is a wonderful application of statistics and science.

Again, if the definitions regarding HIV are arbitrary, and the gold standard of isolating an actual virus has been abandoned, then I suppose all you can do is rely on statistics. You certainly can't rely on facts. You know what is a wonderful application of science? The scientific method! Where is the scientific method in all your statistics?

Why is this difficult to understand?

This is what I am asking you. Is it so difficult to understand that statistically speaking all other viruses work in the same way on people, but when we come to the HIV virus, or retrovirus, suddenly, (statistically speaking), this is not the case? Scientifically speaking the presence of anti-bodies indicates that the immune system is working and doing its job, but not so with HIV, in fact suddenly up is down and left is right, and now the immune system is "under attack" and it is presumed by an HIV retrovirus because of anti-bodies found. Oh sure, there are the other tests that amplify non specific particles that are presumed to be HIV, and it has to be presumed, because no HIV virus has ever been successfully isolated!

Most of your links are from "virusmyth.com"...yeah, no pre-determined goal in THEIR data, huh?

What they have done is compile data from doctors and scientists who have questioned the HIV advocacy as being the actual cause of AIDS. Given that Gallo, Levy and Montignier skipped several steps of isolation in order to claim isolation, I would say there was quite a bit of predetermination going on there, but just ignore that, and instead attack the site that compiled data contrary to your predetermination.

Can you please explain the very clear, obvious electron micrographs of HIV I have posted?

The multitude of links I provided, not once, but twice now, do precisely that, but of course, you couldn't be bothered to read all that data, as you were too quick to make this post in order to do so.

Why won't you just look at the photos and tell me what they are, if not HIV?

Why don't you read the links I provided and refute what they have to say about those photos?

I've provided scientific explanations for every point made about HIV/AIDS being a hoax.

Not one of the links I provided has anyone of those doctors or scientists referring to the HIV=AIDS model as a "hoax". What they do is question the methodology that was used, they bring up valid questions, and they point the reality that HIV has never been successfully isolated!

I have cited sources from various journals, studies, and universities, and I have provided clear, concise explanations.

And I have done the same.

You, on the other hand, have done nothing but attack me and ignore my sources, posting your own that have obvious agendas.

This is just not true, and you playing the victim isn't going to make you appear to be any more scientific. It does however make clear that you have obvious agendas.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Nutter

And yet you use virusmyth.com as your supporting evidence.

The actual data I provided was found from several different sites, and yet you still hope to frame it as all coming from this one site. It is unfortunate indeed, that that site falls prey to the same sloppy use of a word for their name, but the data they provide is not theirs, and comes from doctors and scientists all over the world. You still can't speak to the actual data, and can only engage in fallacies.

reply to post by SinkingSun


I stopped reading when I got to this because your statement of "treat" cancer really made me mad. My dad has had cancer and you know what the radiation saved his life so I ask you sir are you a doctor of radiology? Or do you just read on forums about the terror of radiation, of course there people that get bad reactions to the radiation I get that, and yes some forms just aren't treatable I get that too. But you come say to my father sir just come say. I really don't believe that this is man-made either, are you guys aware there is a genetic immunity to HIV which in modern science is proven to cause AIDS. Its called a CCR 5 deficiency a receptor on your cells in which the virus attaches itself to. So why create a virus with a natural immunity or even a mutated immunity that can be passed down...doesnt make sense does it. As a last question are you a doctor at all, I mean you question the effects of anti-biotics, go get an infection and then use antibiotics I bet you'll get better with them. I really just hate this huge distrust of modern medicine its as if every pill made is made to harm and hurt. This is the same with AIDS it was a random disease that popped up and spread like wildfire and its understandable for people to question how, but to say science created it a genetic engineering that didn't even know how to clone at the time. Do you honestly think they know about gene splicing to make RNA or change the RNA of a virus I dont think so. I get the paranoia and the questions but the fact is there is no way that science was that advanced to create disease like that on purpose, accident is a different story but were not talking about that. Of course I will support medicine and doctors and science because I was an Ap bio student last year and I want to be a doctor.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


You common folks such as myself see...? This is the scary part. Two self-styled experts--to what degree either are right, I have no idea--arguing each is right with a difference between them of day and night. ...Just scary.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Aliensun]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I spoke to the points I thought were most vital.

You mean, the ones you could find a "virusmyth.com" link for, right?

I read the entirety of your post, and am not obligated to break down every word and analyze it any more than you aren't obligated to do the same for me, and of course you did not do the same for me, so there you go again, accusing me of your crimes.

I quoted and touched on every part of your post.

As to your "fairly well explained" arguments, you have not spoken at all to the arguments rebutting your "explanations" made by actual scientists, and instead just dismiss them all because some were found on a site you clearly disapprove of. In fact, you want to accuse me of fallacy and yet, when it gets right down to it, you can not speak to the claims being made by these doctors and scientists so you attack the site in which their findings were published. Nice.

The "claims" made on that site are easily explained by basic science. I'll go through them right now for you, if that will stop you from posting further screed.

First link: This article, written by Etienne de Harven is nothing but more of Dr. de Harven's insane ramblings. This man, working with President Mbeki, has cause the deaths of nearly half a million Africans due to his denialist views. As for the material of the article, he misleads the audience by constantly referring to technology and biology from the 1970s and early 1980s, rather than modern technology and biological markers being used at the time of the article's writing, 2003. Why would he do that? Could it be because he knows that using modern references would destroy his argument?

Second link: The author of this link mischaracterizes the papers they are citing. They claim the two papers are meant to show "isolates" of HIV, when really, if you look at the actual papers (linked at the bottom of the article) they are meant to show that microvesicles can and do often contaminate the samples, adding an extra consideration to future research. The articles are not, however, claiming that these images are isolates of HIV, nor are they calling into question previous images of HIV.

Third link: This is nothing but a press release, citing no sources, referencing no data, no studies, no images, no...anything. You might as well have just posted an editorial.

Fourth link: Again, another press release with no data, no soruces, no anything. It's simply a statement explaining that one scientist has claimed there is no isolated HIV, but he provides no rebuttal to any of the currently standing science. Once again, nothing but an editorial.

Fifth link: Same scientist, this time actually trying to support his argument. He claims that because the "Pasteur method" wasn't followed (a method which hasn't been used for decades due to it's cumbersome, inefficient approach), HIV can't be said to exist. This is similar to saying that because you didn't build your computer yourself, like hobbyists used to do before mass-produced PCs, your computer MUST not be called a computer or accepted as existing. He then goes on to make wild claims about reverse transcriptase not being specific, and that the Western blots for HIv glycoproteins were falsified, all of which he justifies through small snippet quotes from sources, most of which he is taking out of context to support his claims.

Sixth link: Same article, just summarised. The scientist also dismissed an HIV isolate because he didn't like how they looked in a sucrose gradient, showing his obvious ignorance to the fact that the process of getting such a particle in a sucrose gradient can affect the membrane and protein projections. Maybe he should have spent a little more time in the lab and less time on conspiracy sites.

Seventh link: A discussion board post (really?) that claims proteins don't crystallize in the human body (false) and that they function through vibration (false). If your source has two lies back to back, I toss it. Sorry.

So, I've addressed all seven of your articles. Can you address a single one of mine, now?

This is just not true. Statistics are useful, and maybe even vital for making a prognosis,. but are not at all vital to making a diagnosis.

And where did you learn to diagnose, again? I learned at a medical school, a university hospital, and now a public hospital. How many hours have yous pent working with patients?

Statistics are absolutely vital to diagnosis. Nothing is as simple as "oh, the patient has these three symptoms, it must be this disease". Every single patient is a veritable stew of conditions, diseases, infections, and unique responses. You have to look at the data you can gather from physical exams, bloodwork, and imaging, and then decide what, statistically, is most likely to be wrong with them. If five of the symptoms point to esophageal cancer, but four also point to strep throat, you order an imaging study to rule out esophageal cancer immediately, rather than waiting a month to see if antibiotics clear up what might be strep.

Statistically speaking those people who have a family history of certain cancers have a higher risk of getting that cancer themselves. So, if a doctor worked on your assumption that "statistics are vital to a diagnosis", someone with a lump who has a family history of prostrate cancer could conceivably be diagnosed with prostrate cancer, when in fact it is just a lump!

If doctors were as simplistic as your strawman arguments, sure, tha can happen. The reality is, though, that before any diagnosis of prostate cancer was made, the patient would have had to go to imaging and have a biopsy performed. Diagnosing a patient with cancer without any supporting evidence can get your license taken away.

Of course, no doctor worth his, or her salt would make such a diagnosis, and while they may order a biopsy, they will indeed wait until all the facts have come in instead of relying on statistics, before making a diagnosis.

And they would have ordered that biopsy due to the statistical probability of this patient being more likely to have developed cancer. So, thank you for proving my point.

Again, if the definitions regarding HIV are arbitrary, and the gold standard of isolating an actual virus has been abandoned, then I suppose all you can do is rely on statistics. You certainly can't rely on facts. You know what is a wonderful application of science? The scientific method! Where is the scientific method in all your statistics?

The gold standard ISN'T isolating the virus. The gold standard for the vast majority of viral diagnoses is using a double-pronged assay: one enzyme assay, one PCR assay. Isolating any virus is a long, inefficient process that can be avoided by using rapid and accurate indirect detection methods.

This is what I [..]

You see few antibodies because HIV attacks CD4 T-cells, which are they "Gatekeeper" to beginning an antibody response. This is beginner level immunology. If you knock out the control tower, so to speak, none of the B-cells will be able to be primed and activated. The virus also mutates its surface markers at a fairly rapid pace, making it difficult for cells to be primed against a common antigen. Just because YOU don't understand immunology doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to those who do.

What they have done is compile data from doctors and scientists who have questioned the HIV advocacy as being the actual cause of AIDS.

They have compiled information from a select few doctors and ignore all opposition. That's different from what you've stated.

Why don't you read the links I provided and refute what they have to say about those photos?

None of your links explain the images I posted, sorry. Try again.

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 you're proof to say otherwise? What logic are you using? from 10 year ago ? which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, Do YOU really count?...NO! I believe that AIDS is the man made proof, since we have dumpt billion of dollars 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.

THE hard proof is the logic of the fact that after all this time, all this advancement in technology, all the news of cures on cancer and aids from promising new discoveries that where closed and hidden and shut down mean that there is more then the idea of AIDS being just a natural virus that pop up from who knows where fro who knows what reason... CMON!!! wake up!!!

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Moonguy]

So, Someone just throws out here any statement at all that they can't prove and it's up to the responder to prove his case? What are you a 12 year old?!?!

Your headline should read: IN MY OPINION AID'S IS MAN-MADE

I will agree it is possible it is but just saying so don't make it so does it? If I just say something it's automatically true?

Let me try it..... This administration is the best the countries ever had!

Nope, don't work...

reply to post by alysha.angel


This isnt exactly news. I have known about it for over 30 yrs now.
If I remember the story right, it came out of Africa when the citizens there were having sex with monkeys and then with women...then it came out that it was man made by the CIA.

Secrets of Human Biological Experimentation

It does happen folks. So let's not simply assume Aids is not man made.

1970 United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.

1978 Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men.

1981 First cases of AIDS are confirmed in homosexual men in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, triggering speculation that AIDS may have been introduced via the Hepatitis B vaccine

Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by alysha.angel

 

This isnt exactly news. I have known about it for over 30 yrs now.
If I remember the story right, it came out of Africa when the citizens there were having sex with monkeys and then with women...then it came out that it was man made by the CIA.

So why come Europeans don't have Goat Aids?

If you really think about it. Why wouldn't a military develop biological weapons that attack the enemy at the genetic level?

It just makes sense that man made diseases exist.

reply to post by Come Clean


Is that your proof? That it would make sense even if that were true, why would they release a genetic disease that could also harm themselves? Genetic engineering is a precarious science, I know I've done it. Its also very dangerous in my science class we made antibiotic resistant E.coli, it worked my cutting a strip from a virus and inserting it into the bacteria by way of coaxing it into accepting it. The trouble is contamination, and what would you do with it after it gets out into the public. For the most part we don't understand how to cure many genetic diseases let alone create them and silently insert them into the public...come on now

Originally posted by Come Clean
If you really think about it. Why wouldn't a military develop biological weapons that attack the enemy at the genetic level?

It just makes sense that man made diseases exist.

No, it doesn't make sense. No matter who your "enemy" is, you are 99.7% genetically identical to them. Any disease you create will be just as dangerous to you as it is to them.

I'm no prophet, but I think in time we will come to learn that nearly every strand of virus has been bio-engineered. Just one of those "feelings" I get.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by immortal coil]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
No, it doesn't make sense. No matter who your "enemy" is, you are 99.7% genetically identical to them. Any disease you create will be just as dangerous to you as it is to them.

I have agreed with most of your posts obviously. But, why doesn't it make sense? Why did they make Anthrax?

What I mean is, why did they alter anthrax? Couldn't have been for a good use, correct?

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Nutter]

It makes absolute sense! Coming out of the sixties was all about purifying America. One way to do that is attack people at the genetic level.

Absolute sense.

Hello Tuskegee!!! It's been done before and I see no reason why they would ever stop. You telling me they all of a sudden grew a conscience?

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Come Clean

 

Is that your proof? That it would make sense even if that were true, why would they release a genetic disease that could also harm themselves? Genetic engineering is a precarious science, I know I've done it. Its also very dangerous in my science class we made antibiotic resistant E.coli, it worked my cutting a strip from a virus and inserting it into the bacteria by way of coaxing it into accepting it. The trouble is contamination, and what would you do with it after it gets out into the public. For the most part we don't understand how to cure many genetic diseases let alone create them and silently insert them into the public...come on now

Women are different than men genetically. Tall people are different than short people genetically. Blacks are different than whites genetically.

I don't have time to give a biology class but just trust me. Everyone is different genetically.

But you have groups of people who are similar to each other genetically.

It makes sense to develop a genetic weapon to wipe out China for instance. Only way to test that is to wipe out others first.

I briefly went through these pages and im not saying i believe it was man made. but people say it doesn't make sense?

depopulation - its killed million of people, then you want to argue it can be prevent with a condom, what else does a condom prevent? babies

its no threat to them - TPTB can easily keep themselves aids free

money - like anything harmful to our health, people are making crap loads of money off of it

This whole premise of this thread is not even worth the characters I am typing in to my laptop, but I could not stop myself from chiming in. It is very irresponsible to make claims that have no basis in fact. AIDS is a serious disease, and the dead and the dying deserve better than having there disease turned in to another ridiculous conspiracy theory.