The Church of HIV: Inventing the AIDS Virus

page: 7
67
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by golemina
 


You would think someone that claims to know so much about HIV treatments would know Zidovudine is AZT. Most people that claim to know about HIV and AIDS have no idea. They probably don't even know how HIV tests work. Just ignore them and read the OP.
edit on 22-5-2012 by blackrain17 because: (no reason given)


Very true... it's even on the FDA website as zidovudine, AZT.

www.fda.gov...




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by SamKappler
 


Where a brilliant man... has yet ONCE AGAIN invented a technology... that actually allows you to see the TRUE OCCUPANTS that populate the slides...

(Gaston Naessens! Gaston Naessens! Gaston Naessens!)

Yet no one can be bothered...

Instead you settle for idiotic explanations for their activities...


gole, if it makes you feel better, I set aside that link yesterday to review the website and the guy himself. I didn't say anything because I hadn't taken the time to check it out, but it's there for me to do today or this evening or maybe a bit later. You may be helping more people than you realize; it's just that people may not be telling you that you've guided them to important information.

Thanks. I will try to remember to message you personally with my conclusions.

I found the Pink disease startling. I believe the demand for humans to have answers for things results in many gross errors. I trust my instincts and gut more than anything else, and it has saved me a lot of money and sickness.

I am currently reading a book on energy, or how our emotions cause our states of health, by the thymus gland. Apparently there are physical tests that affect it almost immediately, which in turn causes our entire body to react. If anyone is curious of the title, just let me know, and I'll share. I'm only through the first chapter or so at this point. I have heard of people curing themselves of everything imaginable with only their mind. The medical field is silent on these cases.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by research100
 





the pert (sic) group only has 2 active members , According to the Perth Group's rules, nobody has isolated or proven the existence of the viruses said to cause small pox, influenza, measles, mumps and yellow fever.


I suppose we should, in considering your poorly paraphrased claim made by Avert, look at the obvious. What is the obvious? People who contract the "smallpox virus" (variola) and die, die of smallpox. People who contract an influenza strain all suffer the same symptoms, as do those with measles, mumps, and yellow fever. I've linked smallpox because of its deadly nature and in that regard it comes closest to AIDS, and yet is entirely different. People who die of AIDS die of "AIDS related diseases". Arthur Ashe, for example, died of pneumonia, but because he had been diagnosed as HIV positive, it was reported that he had died of pneumonia as a complication of AIDS. Thus, people who are HIV negative and die of pneumonia simply died of pneumonia, but people diagnosed as HIV positive and who die of pneumonia are pronounced to have died of an "AIDS related illness".

Where variola is the virus known to cause smallpox, all who contract this virus - or are vaccinated with variola and subsequently die of smallpox - all die from the same symptomatic disease, but with AIDS - which is a syndrome and not a disease in and of itself - those who are diagnosed with HIV and subsequently die of an "AIDS related illness" die in several different ways. Further, consider this excerpt from the link I just provided:


In 1902-1911, when the average number of vaccinations was 67.6% of the births, the Smallpox deaths averaged 395 per annum, but in 1912-1921, when the vaccinations had dropped to 43.4% of the births, there was an average of only 12 Smallpox Deaths per annum.

"How can any person who claims to understand statis- tics and to have a logical brain declare that it is vaccina- tion that has stamped out Smallpox, in the face of the above official figures?"


That link is a book called The Facts Against Compulsory Vaccination By H. B. Anderson copyrighted in 1929.

It should further be noted that of the "135 clickable references" provided by Avert, it is doubtful you "clicked" a single one of them, which is amusing given your choice of a username. I say it is doubtful you clicked any of these links because only a cursory glance at these "135 clickable links" reveals that Avert has referenced The Perth Group twice [3] and [40]. Both "clickable links" take you to the same homepage. However, when referencing the Perth Group at [40] instead of providing this link - which is the Perth Group explaining why they challenge the isolation of HIV - instead they simply provide the same home page link they did at [3]. In order to follow Averts "clickable links" of the Perth Group and wants to understand what Avert is referring to in terms of the Perth Group's "gold standard" they have to wade through the home page and either guess at which paper is the one Avert is referring to or somehow all ready know.

Avert also does this three times with The Impact of AIDS links [130] [124] and [121] all again taking you to the very same link. Thrice this is done with The AIDS Heresies [13] and [19], and [107], four times they have done it with Koch's Postulates Fulfilled (each of which led me to a 404 page) [28][37][47], and [53], and this was just cursory glance! You would think you would have, being the researcher you are, caught that.

There is, of course, more to address regarding your sloppy research and reliance upon one single website to tell you what to think, but these posts are limited in their character space, and of course, actual research takes time and effort. I wouldn't expect you to know that, your username notwithstanding.

Deny ignorance, indeed!




edit on 22-5-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by research100
 


Don't bother, most would rather post outdated information from the 90's to support their unsubstantiated claims. AZT hasn't been used for treatment in forever, yet people continually develops AIDS, many have never touched AZT, the only thing they have in common is that every single person who has developed AIDS, also has HIV, all of them. Those who don't have HIV don't develop AIDS, ever, period. There is zero doubt.

.


Of course, both you and "researcher" have been busted on your utter ignorance regarding AZT by golemina, but this is inexcusable of you since you have spent so much time declaring my O.P. "gunk". Apparently some of that "gunk" got in your eyes and you failed to read the "clickable" link I provided regarding Zidovudine.

Reducing the dosage of AZT and mixing in it a cocktail does not constitute having not used AZT in "forever". Of course, you have been loudly silent since golemina called you on this. This is generally the nature of the propagandists, when they are busted for their outright lies or ignorance, they simply just pretend they were not. It isn't like you will make a post owning up to your mistake, will you?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
JPZ, I joined the same way Sam did ... lurked around, found a topic I was interested in ... and posted. It probabbly wouldn't be a stretch of the immagination to assume that a lot of members join that way ...

You present a case for big pharma and the western governments actively supporting a conspiracy to shut down the 'AIDS denialists', you don't present an equal case for the other side of the argument and then you try and discredit Sam by personal attacks (claiming he is lying, an agent, etc). On top of all that you claim that you are neutral. Well, you are not, you're no better than big pharma or the conspirators.

Having said that, your tone is that of a wounded Internet warrior. Whilst I may have an opinion backing up one side over the other, in this instance, I'm more than cautious in what I write as my extremely uninformed opinion on the subject may result in the death of thousands if not millions of HUMANS. This topic is a matter of life and death, not a matter of having the best keyboard phaser.

Unless you have proof that HIV does not cause AIDS or that vitamin C cures HIV, the you (along with the proponents of this theory) also fall in the bucket of conspirators and disinformants - the same bucket that you place your 'adversaries' in ...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by phalanx001
 





You present a case for big pharma and the western governments actively supporting a conspiracy to shut down the 'AIDS denialists', you don't present an equal case for the other side of the argument and then you try and discredit Sam by personal attacks (claiming he is lying, an agent, etc). On top of all that you claim that you are neutral. Well, you are not, you're no better than big pharma or the conspirators.


You are now the second person to make this suggestion, the other accusing me of "cherry picking". However, in my O.P. I provide the same Avert link that those who disagree with this thread have linked. Further, in a reply to halfholdman, and in replying to that members link of "AIDSTruth" I linked their Debunking denialist myths page and used this external quote:


Myth #1: HIV does not cause AIDS Fact: HIV has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be the cause of AIDS. There is an abundance of evidence showing HIV is the cause of AIDS. With very few exceptions, the human immunodeficiency virus itself or antibodies to HIV are detected in people with AIDS. Studies of people who are HIV-positive show they are more likely to develop AIDS symptoms and more likely to die at younger ages than people without HIV. Scientists can now describe in great detail how HIV infection occurs and causes AIDS. For detailed explanations see:

The Evidence That HIV Cause AIDS NIAID: The Relationship Between the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

"Avert's succint and simple explanation of how we know HIV causes AIDS

TAC's Magazine, Equal Treatment Issue 19, which explains the science of HIV (This is a PDF file so for the very few who are actually following these links go to "AIDSTruth" page I linked to get that file)


The difference between the external quote above and the very same external quote I posted in reply to halfholdman on page 4 is that on page 4 I took the time to use the hyperlinks to those detailed "explanations" that could be linked. I am not wasting my time doing it now because it takes time and you and others have ignored that effort - that effort being I have linked sources used by people attacking the "AIDS denialists" - in order to accuse me of either "cherry picking" or in your case claiming I don't provide an equal case for the other side.

The amount of time it took to simply provide the case for the so called "AIDS denialist" was quite a bit of time. It took time to research this thread, and then time to put that research into hyperlinks so that anyone who chose to could follow the sources. I have since done exactly what I have said I have done and that is to provide sources given by the other side. The difference between I and some of the members who have chosen to attack the O.P. is that I've demonstrably read the research I've linked. That effort took time. Lot's of time.

Further, Sam who specifically joined this site to post in this thread with this post here, decided it was best to describe the efforts I made with that O.P. as:




What I would like to question, however, is the intentions behind spreading such disinformation.


Sam has, of course, declined to point to any specific point or link I've provided that would fairly be called "disinformation", but instead has simply just declared it so. It is, according to Sam, "disinformation" because he say's it is, and before he makes this declaration he first begins his post with his anecdotal evidence of a sad story he tells to first gain your sympathy before reifying. Sam continues with this tactic with this:




How come after so much time and effort has been spent to educate people, such disinformation still seems to thrive?


Then this:




I love ATS for its entertainment and informative potential, but there is a limit to what one might accept, a limit that revolves around responsibility and compassion to fellow human beings.


Then this:



And why is it irresponsible to divulge such disinfo? Because it encourages very dangerous behavior on those most affected by this terrible ailment, especially the recently diagnosed.


And this:




Being strictly pragmatic, how can anyone deny that adherence to treatment is crucial to keep the infected alive and to curb further spread of the infection?


Later this:



I repeat: taking the available medicine is paramount to saving lives. This is a fact that no conspiracy theorist should dare deny.


And then finally this:




HIV/AIDS is no laughing matter, and I wish English was my first language to better express my outrage at so much lack of responsibility.


Cont...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by phalanx001
 


Continuing....

Sam wasn't at all responding to my O.P., and this has been obvious to quite a few. Sam was responding to "AIDS denialists" and making the very same standard arguments the propaganda machine makes. Sam willfully misrepresented my O.P., first by telling his sad story to gain sympathy, because he has no cogent arguments to that O.P. Neither do you, which is why you are making this argument:




Unless you have proof that HIV does not cause AIDS or that vitamin C cures HIV, the you (along with the proponents of this theory) also fall in the bucket of conspirators and disinformants - the same bucket that you place your 'adversaries' in ...


I, of course, have not claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, and I most assuredly have not claimed vitamin C cures HIV or AIDS. You felt compelled to make this argument because you want to deflect from what my argument actually is, which is that no one can even provide this information without a vast propaganda machine jerking their knees and screaming all sorts of logical fallacies in an attempt to silence those questioning the AIDS orthodoxy.

You felt compelled to be as deceitful as those you defend because you have no logical arguments against my claim that a vast propaganda machine exists with the intent to silence people who ask valid questions regarding this HIV = AIDS paradigm, and the obvious thing at this point is that by creating this thread and making this argument that propaganda machine has joined this thread to prove my point.

That was easily predicted.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by research100
 


Don't bother, most would rather post outdated information from the 90's to support their unsubstantiated claims. AZT hasn't been used for treatment in forever, yet people continually develops AIDS, many have never touched AZT, the only thing they have in common is that every single person who has developed AIDS, also has HIV, all of them. Those who don't have HIV don't develop AIDS, ever, period. There is zero doubt.

.


I wanted to reply to a separate argument of yours in a separate post. This argument of yours used to dismiss those questioning the HIV paradigm is that they would rather post "outdated information from the 90's to support their unsubstantiated claims." There is, of course, a contradiction in that argument since by declaring these 90's information as "outdated" this contradicts your argument that they are unsubstantiated, but beyond that, it is again worthwhile to go back to that Avert link that "researcher" has praised for its "135 clickable links".

Perhaps, since you've all ready declared that there is no debate, you haven't bothered to investigate these "135 clickable links". However, if you do investigate those links what you will discover is that Avert has also posted several links from the 90's.

[6] Current Trends Update on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) --United States - obviously outdated.

[8] Overview of Internationally Used HIV/AIDS Case Definitions - providing PDF files ranging from 1985 to 2000, 2000 being the most recent information.

[9] 1993 Revised Classification System for HIV Infection and Expanded Surveillance Case Definition for AIDS Among Adolescents and Adults

[13][19]][107] The AIDS Heresies - 1995

[16] Koch's postulates and the etiology of AIDS: an historical perspective - 1992

[17] Unexplained opportunistic infections and CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia without HIV infection. An investigation of cases in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia Task Force - 1993

[20] Could Drugs, Rather Than a Virus, be the Cause of AIDS? - 1994

[23] Factors Known to Cause False Positive HIV Antibody Test Results

[29] Salahuddin 1985, Ho 1985, Wofsy 1986, Hollander 1987

[31] Gluschankof 1997, Bess 1997, Dettenhofer 1999...

[33] Recovery of virtually full-length HIV-1 provirus of diverse subtypes from primary virus cultures using the polymerase chain reaction.

[34] Fang 1996, Feng 1998, Carr 1999...

[39] ... Chen 1997

[43] Duesberg Defends Challenges to the Existence of HIV: Article 1 of 2 for Continuum

[50] Human immunodeficiency virus-2 infection in baboons is an animal model for human immunodeficiency virus pathogenesis in humans - 1998

[51] Chimeric simian/human immunodeficiency virus that causes progressive loss of CD4+ T cells and AIDS in pig-tailed macaques - 1996

Once again I am out of character space and yet there is gobs of more "gunk", which is to say "outdated information" from the 90's posted by Avert in their "135 clickable links". Should we dismiss Avert as well, or will you admit that dismissing data because it was published in the 90's is just a logical fallacy?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by blackrain17
 


You have zero clue what you are talking about, yet you make your snide remarks. AIDS isn't a disease per se, it's the accumulative affects of HIV, Tcell count drops below 200 or you have an opportunistic infection that is AIDS defining. People recover from low Tcell counts every single day, so, yes, AIDS patients do live long lives, obviously the sooner treatments can be started the more likely to prevent AIDs from developing in the first place.

Circumcision can reduce the risk of transmission of HIV female >>>> Male by up to 50%, that's why it has something to do with this, mr smartie pants.

You try to sound smart by saying nothing. Do you even know HIV and AIDS are different bla bla bla. I can tell you one thing. I know a hell of lot more than you.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
reply to post by research100
 


Don't bother, most would rather post outdated information from the 90's to support their unsubstantiated claims. AZT hasn't been used for treatment in forever, yet people continually develops AIDS, many have never touched AZT, the only thing they have in common is that every single person who has developed AIDS, also has HIV, all of them. Those who don't have HIV don't develop AIDS, ever, period. There is zero doubt.

.


Of course, both you and "researcher" have been busted on your utter ignorance regarding AZT by golemina, but this is inexcusable of you since you have spent so much time declaring my O.P. "gunk". Apparently some of that "gunk" got in your eyes and you failed to read the "clickable" link I provided regarding Zidovudine.

Reducing the dosage of AZT and mixing in it a cocktail does not constitute having not used AZT in "forever". Of course, you have been loudly silent since golemina called you on this. This is generally the nature of the propagandists, when they are busted for their outright lies or ignorance, they simply just pretend they were not. It isn't like you will make a post owning up to your mistake, will you?



I made an error. I have no problem admitting it. I wasn't on the site to respond to gole. I don't sit here all day waiting for replies. Propagandists, you post this # and call me a propagandists, lmao..



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by macaronicaesar
 


You can lyao all you want, at least you are willing to admit your error. You are, however, allowing your rage to imbalance you. Your vitriolic attack on blackrain is just one example. Blackrain may be making arguments you disagree with, or asking questions you think are stupid questions, but blackrain hasn't attacked you personally, only your arguments, and again, you offer up no substantiated evidence to refute anything I've said in the O.P., but will laughingly then claim I have relied upon "outdated information from the 90's to support their unsubstantiated claims". Keep laughing, my friend. It may help you deal with that untempered rage.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I, of course, have not claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, and I most assuredly have not claimed vitamin C cures HIV or AIDS. You felt compelled to make this argument because you want to deflect from what my argument actually is, which is that no one can even provide this information without a vast propaganda machine jerking their knees and screaming all sorts of logical fallacies in an attempt to silence those questioning the AIDS orthodoxy.

You felt compelled to be as deceitful as those you defend because you have no logical arguments against my claim that a vast propaganda machine exists with the intent to silence people who ask valid questions regarding this HIV = AIDS paradigm, and the obvious thing at this point is that by creating this thread and making this argument that propaganda machine has joined this thread to prove my point.

That was easily predicted.



Don't need logic to 'defend' anyone. Your argument is basically flawed.

We have 2 camps.

1. A camp that implies a HIV infection will cause what appears to be described as AIDS (via a weakened immune system for lack of correct terminology).

2. A camp that believes that HIV doesn't cause aids (and in some instances believe that HIV doesn't exist at all). From readings so far, I'm unclear as to what alternative mechanism they're suggesting in terms of what actually causes AIDS.

I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but both camps appear to lack explicit and conclusive evidence to support their respective claims.

To make the connection that camp one is in bed with western governments and with pharmaceutical companies and part of a massive conspiracy to milk money is potentially a (relatively far fetched) viable suggestion. This does not make it a reality though. To extend this and 'make' it a reality without any substantial evidence has the potential to cost millions of human lives (and if i understand the material posted here, it already has costed a LOT of human lives for the followers of camp 2) - this is the point Sam was making in his previous posts.

Basically, camp one does appear to have over camp two a track record of realistic treatment results in terms of delaying the onset of AIDS (exclusive of those that are immune already to developing AIDS).

Given the above, the safer and logical approach from a humane perspective appears to be treatment with currently available medicine (as imperfect as it may be). Thus, until camp 2 actually find the cause of AIDS and develops an alternative treatment regime that produces real results, people like Sam's wife will side with camp 1 and choose the lesser of 2 evils. Sounds logical to me.


edit on 23/5/2012 by phalanx001 because: Clarity
edit on 23/5/2012 by phalanx001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have no rage at all, poster like yourself are a dime a dozen, anyone who disagrees with you is an agent, a provocateur, disinfo, progagandists, and then you have the nerve to comment on how I attacked blackrain when all of your posts are filled with attacks, how many people are you going to call disinfo agents, propagandists or just liars in general, like you did Sam who posted about his wife, somehow, you know more than this man with 1st hand experience, rather than dispute what he told you, you'd rather deny everything he's said and attack him based on the date his account was created, your trick is old, you're a bully, and it won't work with me.


There is nothing to debunk in the OP, HIV is the only single predictor of depleted T Cells and eventual AIDs development, one of his patients, Christine Maggiore had been supporting these claims made by Dr Duesberg and eventually died of Pneumocytis carinii pneumonia, which is AIDS defining, had she sought treatment this would of never happened. Duesberg asserted it was a some sort of cleansing diet she was(pretty sure this was absurd claim) on that caused her to develop this pneumonia almost exclusively linked to AIDS.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by phalanx001

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I, of course, have not claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, and I most assuredly have not claimed vitamin C cures HIV or AIDS. You felt compelled to make this argument because you want to deflect from what my argument actually is, which is that no one can even provide this information without a vast propaganda machine jerking their knees and screaming all sorts of logical fallacies in an attempt to silence those questioning the AIDS orthodoxy.

You felt compelled to be as deceitful as those you defend because you have no logical arguments against my claim that a vast propaganda machine exists with the intent to silence people who ask valid questions regarding this HIV = AIDS paradigm, and the obvious thing at this point is that by creating this thread and making this argument that propaganda machine has joined this thread to prove my point.

That was easily predicted.



2. A camp that believes that HIV doesn't cause aids (and in some instances believe that HIV doesn't exist at all). From readings so far, I'm unclear as to what alternative mechanism they're suggesting in terms of what actually causes AIDS.
edit on 23/5/2012 by phalanx001 because: Clarity
edit on 23/5/2012 by phalanx001 because: (no reason given)


This sentence is completely out of context. I have read absolutely nothing from the original posts that states that these guys believe that HIV does not cause AIDS.

What they have basically said is that there has been no factual scientific research done to PROVE that HIV causes AIDS and until that is done it's just a THEORY that is now practiced as MEDICINE!

Additionally when this 'camp' says "wait a minute... before you go turning this to fact, how about you show the proof", 'camp 2' gets shut up, and are basically considered lunatics that are no longer scientists.

This is the basic argument that you're refuting from the OP... and your depiction of the argument is wrong.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKillah

Originally posted by phalanx001

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I, of course, have not claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, and I most assuredly have not claimed vitamin C cures HIV or AIDS. You felt compelled to make this argument because you want to deflect from what my argument actually is, which is that no one can even provide this information without a vast propaganda machine jerking their knees and screaming all sorts of logical fallacies in an attempt to silence those questioning the AIDS orthodoxy.

You felt compelled to be as deceitful as those you defend because you have no logical arguments against my claim that a vast propaganda machine exists with the intent to silence people who ask valid questions regarding this HIV = AIDS paradigm, and the obvious thing at this point is that by creating this thread and making this argument that propaganda machine has joined this thread to prove my point.

That was easily predicted.



2. A camp that believes that HIV doesn't cause aids (and in some instances believe that HIV doesn't exist at all). From readings so far, I'm unclear as to what alternative mechanism they're suggesting in terms of what actually causes AIDS.
edit on 23/5/2012 by phalanx001 because: Clarity
edit on 23/5/2012 by phalanx001 because: (no reason given)


This sentence is completely out of context. I have read absolutely nothing from the original posts that states that these guys believe that HIV does not cause AIDS.

What they have basically said is that there has been no factual scientific research done to PROVE that HIV causes AIDS and until that is done it's just a THEORY that is now practiced as MEDICINE!

Additionally when this 'camp' says "wait a minute... before you go turning this to fact, how about you show the proof", 'camp 2' gets shut up, and are basically considered lunatics that are no longer scientists.

This is the basic argument that you're refuting from the OP... and your depiction of the argument is wrong.


It's not out of context. Try the AVERT in the OP page 1: www.avert.org... . It contains references to the source of their info.

From what I understand: (1) Duisburg believes HIV is harmless - (follow the link to Duisburg.org for a confirmation of his view). (2) the Perth group believe that HIV doesn't exist (follow the link to Theperthgroup.com for a confirmation of this view) .... Etc ...

I stated that neither 'camp' has explicit proof that HIV causes AIDS. Patients are choosing the lesser of 2 evils - the evil with a track record of treatment prolonging life.

There is a far fetched possibility that every respected medical body around the world is part if a conspiracy that involves most western governments, pharmaceutical companies, etc ... I.e. The point that the OP is pushing for. However, there is also a remote possibility that there is no organised world wide conspiracy and camp 2 is harshly sidelined purely because they are wrong and their carelessness is actually costing human lives. This remote possibility is more likely to be closer to reality as camp 2 has presented zilch PROOF as to what causes AIDS (Even less than camp 1) and camp 2 has negative track record as far as prolonging life of patients is concerned ...


edit on 23/5/2012 by phalanx001 because: Clarity



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKillah

This sentence is completely out of context. I have read absolutely nothing from the original posts that states that these guys believe that HIV does not cause AIDS.

What they have basically said is that there has been no factual scientific research done to PROVE that HIV causes AIDS and until that is done it's just a THEORY that is now practiced as MEDICINE!

Additionally when this 'camp' says "wait a minute... before you go turning this to fact, how about you show the proof", 'camp 2' gets shut up, and are basically considered lunatics that are no longer scientists.

This is the basic argument that you're refuting from the OP... and your depiction of the argument is wrong.


Hey SilentKillah.


I pretty much support most of your well based arguments put forth in this post...

And while recognizing the OP's meticulous and nearly flawless presentation (within the somewhat conventional paradigm
)... (Such rigor is SO rare. It is highly entertaining watching the wannabe establishment PARROTS bouncing off his intellect and whining Wee! Wee! Wee! All the wAZT home!
)

Will push the envelope out to the paradigmatic limit that it NEEDS to be if we want to attempt to keep pushing the notion that we are a sentient species.


And I will categorically state that HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS.

Laying out the premise to support this contention is probably too large for this post... And probably too large for this thread...

But I have put it out there.

And I CAN support it.

Please note that the OP has clearly stated he is not pushing this view.




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

On p.4 you say that it's propaganda that 'AIDS denialists" are not called "HIV doesn't lead to AIDS denialists", although your own quote from AIDSTruth spells that definition out clearly in the first line (your 2nd quote). Then you mention rare cases of immune-deficiency that are none HIV-specific, which is scientifically admitted and known by your own links. Some suspect there may be another virus at play, but this is as yet uncertain, while more usually it is due to cancer or autoimmune treatments. Unlike AIDS as the final stage of HIV infection, this usually clears up on its own, and progresses differently, as your Wikipedia link clearly says. I don't think it's because such patients are not given ARVs, and there is no evidence to prove this. They certainly don't get it from ARVs. What is proven to myself is that people with HIV who progress to AIDS and a CD4 count of 250 and below will die from secondary infections and cancers if they do not get ARVs.

Then I'm accused of being "sly" for saying that early doses of AZT had toxic side-effects in many people!
Wow!
That's not sly, what's sly would be using this to say ARVs cause AIDS, and that the same doses are still given today, or that only people who got AZT died of AIDS.
I also see nothing sly in the fact that early treatments with AZT were toxic in many patients.
This is well discussed in many narratives and films on the early years of HIV/AIDS in the US.
Many people who were sick demanded the medication, and even exchanged it illegally.
Risks of toxicity were known, but dying people with bleak outlooks were willing to take the risk.
Nobody was forced to take AZT, and many also chose not to take it, or to stop the treatment when they developed side-effects, with the view that a quality of a short life without the side-effects of AZT was superior to the quantity of a slightly longer life with it.
At that stage it only worked for a brief period, since the virus becomes resistant to a single treatment of ARVs.
This is also well known and hardly a conspiracy or propaganda.
Nevertheless, AZT was the first thing that actually worked, even if only temporarily.
AIDS treatments didn't just fall out of the sky, and like many medications they needed dosage adjustments and research.
Like many medicines, herbs and even vitamins they can be beneficial in certain doses and toxic in others.
There's been a lot of progress since HAART in 1996, although some people still get treatment resistance and adverse reactions, even death from ARVs. However the numbers are low and the cocktails are improving continually.
Once again, I see no conspiracy or propaganda, or anything unique.

The controversy for me was that a President of our country adopted the denialist theories and decided what was good for the people by stone-walling the distribution of ARVs, and that we had a minister of health who pushed discredited dietary "solutions".
Otherwise people can do as they please and debate whatever they like.
They can buy all kinds of over-priced and unproven herbal solutions, or get some pastor to pray it away.
Nobody can force them to take ARVs, and still today there are many people who choose "alternative cures" in Africa, and ARVs still don't reach everyone.
But also nobody in state authority should push denialism over established science, and people should be given a choice and a right to information and treatment.

There may be many websites on HIV/AIDS, but there is little to actively engage and counter AIDS denialism.
In SA now there's an increasing number of books on the period of denialism.
The only other recent source of debate was the "House of Numbers" documentary, and its counter-website.
Some have links to overall conclusions, but little on denialism itself.
So I agree that the scientific response could be better.

I said quite clearly that I'd hope the denialist scientists continue their research, although they might benefit in future from avoiding dodgy people on the ground who push unproven and misleading "cures".
I actually starred your thread and post, so I'm sad to see that I'm now accused of being "sly" for mentioning an obvious and well explained fact on AZT.

Despite the overwhelming success of HAART since 1996 I'd like to see more research, and more of the statistically tiny anomalies surrounding AIDS, like slow-progressions, non-progressions, immunity and non-HIV specific immune deficiency. They may hold a very important key in the future. I'd also like to see continuing research into herbs and safe dosages and forms that could work with ARVs, or even to help shield the body from side-effects.

I didn't come here for a "pissing contest", simply to represent my view, and I don't think we know everything on AIDS, but ARVs work and people have made remarkable and continual recoveries on them, and such benefits are clearly greater than the risks or dying of AIDS.
edit on 23-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by SilentKillah

This sentence is completely out of context. I have read absolutely nothing from the original posts that states that these guys believe that HIV does not cause AIDS.

What they have basically said is that there has been no factual scientific research done to PROVE that HIV causes AIDS and until that is done it's just a THEORY that is now practiced as MEDICINE!

Additionally when this 'camp' says "wait a minute... before you go turning this to fact, how about you show the proof", 'camp 2' gets shut up, and are basically considered lunatics that are no longer scientists.

This is the basic argument that you're refuting from the OP... and your depiction of the argument is wrong.


Hey SilentKillah.


I pretty much support most of your well based arguments put forth in this post...

And while recognizing the OP's meticulous and nearly flawless presentation (within the somewhat conventional paradigm
)... (Such rigor is SO rare. It is highly entertaining watching the wannabe establishment PARROTS bouncing off his intellect and whining Wee! Wee! Wee! All the wAZT home!
)

Will push the envelope out to the paradigmatic limit that it NEEDS to be if we want to attempt to keep pushing the notion that we are a sentient species.


And I will categorically state that HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS.

Laying out the premise to support this contention is probably too large for this post... And probably too large for this thread...

But I have put it out there.

And I CAN support it.

Please note that the OP has clearly stated he is not pushing this view.




If it's not too much trouble, can you please do humanity a favour and enlighten us as to what does cause AIDS?Perhaps you'd volunteer for a study to be infected with HIV and that way you can prove your theory? No doubt Dr Duisberg is looking for test subjects ...



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by phalanx001
 


You apparently seem to think that you don't need logic for anything at all. You certainly don't seem to think you need logic to make your arguments, and instead seem content that logical fallacies will do. You hopelessly and haplessly attempt to present two camps, willfully deceitful in your descriptions of these camps. Here's a reality sandwich for you, sport; in this thread there are certainly two camps:

1.) There is the O.P. and those who've actually read that O.P., made some effort to follow links provided and consider the argument being made, which is that a vast propaganda machine exists with the sole purpose of shouting down and silencing anyone who dares to present the story of these so called "AIDS denialists". In this camp, there are some who agree with Deusberg, et al, and others who do not agree with the so called "AIDS denialists", but all in this camp have made genuine efforts at providing verifiable sources to back up their arguments, or at the very least have read the thread carefully and use logic to make their arguments.

2.) Then there is the propaganda camp. These are the members who, if they did bother to read the O.P. let their jerking knee smack them in their nose, so smarting from that pain couldn't see past their nose and began to make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims about the O.P., ironically claiming that the O.P. was filled with unsubstantiated claims. Not a single member in this camp has made a single effort to offer up one verifiable source to back up their claims, and in this camp, there is you, and there is macaroniceasar, who seem absolutely convinced that they don't need to offer up any science to support their arguments, and why? Well, because they have Sam Keppler in their camp.

Sam is the poster child of the propaganda camp in this thread, and you, macaroniceasear and Sam insist that the O.P. is not worthy of discussion, Sam insisting that it is "disinformation" and boy he knows because he did the research on it and take his word for it he knows. You and macaroniceaser are sure he knows so the both of you follow his lead and like Sam, refuse to offer up one single scientific source to back up your claims, and expect everyone reading this thread to trust this, and why? Why because Sam had a really sad story to tell, and this all the science you need.

Sam didn't have to offer up any of the research he expects everyone believe he did, and why? Well, because Sam began with a really sad story, and because he told this really sad story, Sam believes that everyone should be "responsible and compassionate" and just ignore the O.P. because it is in Sam's words "disinformation" and everyone should excuse any misleading remarks or deceitful remarks he makes about the O.P. because....well, because Sam had really sad story to tell. That's the science he and your camp are relying upon, Sam's really sad story.

So, if it is really sad stories you need, then I'll tell you what; another poster in this thread took me to task for not "digging deep enough" and without ever bothering to link any information at all made a snide remark about Christine Maggorie. If it is really sad stories you require, then by all means, follow me to the next post, and I will share with you the The Tragic Story of Christine Maggiore.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The Tragic Life and Times of Christine Maggorie and How I Came to Know of Her Tale

The first time I ever heard of Christine Maggiore was on an interview with Frank Sontag on a popular L.A. radio station. I had just recently moved to Los Angeles, and I had stumbled upon Frank's talk radio show and had been listening to his show off and on for a few months, when one evening, his guest was Christine Maggiore. The story she told, in a nutshell, began much like this:


Christine was a beacon of hope for many people whose lives, like her own, had been turned upside down by an HIV positive diagnosis. When she received this devastating label in 1992, Christine — in spite of predictions that she had five years to live — did not give up, but devoted her life to helping others. For several years she was a public speaker for AIDS Project Los Angeles, LA Shanti Foundation and was a founding board member of Women At Risk. It was in the process of trying to find a doctor that she felt comfortable dying with that Christine starting getting conflicting information from AIDS experts, particularly troubling in the search to save her own life. One doctor in particular suggested that Christine retest and she finally did, testing HIV negative, positive and indeterminate over a dozen times in subsequent months. She was shocked. Christine took her questions and confusion to the very AIDS organizations that she was helping to build and their unanimous dismissal of her inquiries forced Christine to look outward. This series of events profoundly shook her faith in mainstream AIDS beliefs and sent her down a rabbit hole of exploration that would challenge everything that she had been lead to believe.


As I listened to Christine tell her own story, I quietly sat there remembering my own memories of 1984 when Robert Gallo announced at an international press conference he had found the "probable cause of AIDS" and how this "probable cause" was HIV. Immediately the media began a campaign to assure everyone that this AIDS plague - once called GRIDS (Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome) or "gay cancer" - was an equal opportunity plague that was as much a threat for heterosexual's as it was for homosexuals. Particularly for people with very active sex lives. I had spent well over a decade as a bartender, and one of the many perks of being a bartender was the opportunity to have loads of sex with really hot women. So, in 1984, when Gallo and Margaret Heckler assured the world that we were all at threat from sex, and that we should all get tested, I of course, went and got tested.

My test came back "negative", which me, being ignorant about what this meant, panicked. "Negative? Oh my God! You mean I have AIDS?" My doctor smiled calmly and explained that being negative was a positive thing and that what I wanted to avoid was testing "positive". So, in my relief, I asked him - just to make sure - if I was okay. He said yes, that I was probably okay, but just to be sure I should come back in three months and test again. I asked him why and he explained to me that the virus, this HIV, didn't always appear right away and that I still might be harboring the virus but the test was unable to detect it at this point. Great! I thought to myself. I wasn't out of the woods yet, and now had to spend the next three months fretting about all the sex I had with all those different women and how this might kill me.

Three months later, I went to get tested for HIV again. Again the test came back negative, but strangely my doctor recommended I come back in six months and test again. I asked him why. He told me because of my honesty in relating my sexual history that just to be sure and "safe", it wouldn't hurt for me to keep testing. I was resistant but he scolded me and asked me point blank if I had stopped having sex with women. I admitted I had not but that I was using a condom. So, to be - as Sam would call it - responsible and compassionate, I went back in six months and again tested negative.

These tests were not cheap, but I dutifully did what my doctor told me to do. In the meantime, Luc Montagnier had been making a big stink about Gallo, questioning his ethics and science, and calling him all sorts of names in the news. This, I was only peripherally aware of, but aware of it just the same. At some point, in my bartending career, I started reexamining my behavior, and came to the conclusion that I was a womanizer. So, wanting to be - as Sam likes to put it - responsible and compassionate, I stopped whoring around so much and became much more interested in monogamy.

Continued...





top topics
 
67
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join