The Church of HIV: Inventing the AIDS Virus

Isolate some first.

HTLV-III (HIV) isolated from CSF

HIV isolated from peripheral blood

HTLV-III (HIV) isolate from brain tissue and CSF

They were isolating HIV as early as 1985. I'm not sure why these were hard for you to find. They are available on PubMed, and if you don't have a subscription to the above journals, your public library likely does.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I find it interesting that those who want to claim things such as "isolated viruses" constantly rely on single abstracts from papers on the internet insisting on payment in order to read the full paper. This means one of two things, of the three papers you linked, either you have relied solely upon the abstract yourself, or you have paid for the privilege of reading these studies but were either too lazy or too disrespectful to quote the studies thoroughly.

In stark contrast to your pay to read studies, those insisting that the HIV virus has never been isolated offer up their research online free of charge. Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto; offers Problems With Isolating HIV, and address he gave on December 8 2003:

How can we best help Africa? How can we set priorities aimed at bringing under control what is described as an AIDS epidemic? For twenty years, all AIDS research has been based on the HIV hypothesis. Do we now have reasons to question this hypothesis? Yes, because there is a major problem with isolation and purification of HIV. The major problem being that, in spite of innumerable claims to the contrary, this retrovirus has never been isolated nor purified in a scientifically acceptable manner that would satisfy the classic requirements of virology.

To demonstrate the problem’s magnitude it appears necessary to compare current results on HIV with those obtained, previously, in experimental pathology, on another retrovirus known to be significantly associated with a particular leukaemia of laboratory mice, the Friend leukaemia. Both retroviruses, i.e. the Friend leukaemia virus and the HIV hypothetically related to AIDS, share extremely similar morphology under the electron microscope, have identical diameters, and sediment at the same density in sucrose gradients. A direct comparison between isolating and purifying these two different retroviruses is, therefore, entirely appropriate.

A CRITIQUE OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE ISOLATION OF HIV A Summary of the Views of Papadopulos et. al.

A virus is a microscopic particle of particular size and shape (morphology) which contains particular constituents (biochemical properties) and which is able to replicate only at the behest of living protoplasm, that is, a virus is an obligatory intracellular parasite. Replication of a virus-like particle is the property which defines the particle as being infectious, that is, virus-like particle + replication = virus. These defining data determine that the only way to prove the existence of a novel (new) virus is to (i) isolate viral-like particles, that is, first obtain the particles separate from everything else; (ii) determine their morphological characteristics; (iii) analyse their constituents (nucleic acid and proteins) demonstrating that such properties are those of retroviruses and are unique; (iv) prove that the particles are infectious, that is, when pure particles are introduced into non-infected cell cultures, new but identical particles appear. Only then can the viral-like particles be deemed to a virus. In the case of retroviruses, the steps in this procedure were developed over the half century that preceded the AIDS era and are described in Toplin and Sinoussi.

Of course, virtually all of the Perth Groups studies are available for no charge on the internet. I suppose the HIV "experts" will offer up a bevy of ad hominem attacks on Papadopulos - just as they do for Deusberg - and will dismiss the readily available material as being "not science", and I suppose one of the criteria they use to make this determination is that if it were science, only an abstract would be available on line and pay per view would be the only possible way to read the full text. That must make it science!

You have presented yourself in this site as a medical expert, and I have wondered what has taken you so long to make an appearance in this thread, but is this truly the best you can do? Three abstracts?

If you are the medical expert you present yourself as, and being an esteemed member of ATS, I know for a fact you are quite capable of communicating, why not simply just explain in layman's terms why Deusberg, Papadoulos and others are wrong in their assertions, questions, and skepticism's?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This means one of two things, of the three papers you linked, either you have relied solely upon the abstract yourself, or you have paid for the privilege of reading these studies but were either too lazy or too disrespectful to quote the studies thoroughly.

If you read my entire post, you would see that I told readers how to access these studies for free. They are all from VERY large journals, which most public libraries have (or are given) subscriptions to. I don't pay for a subscription to the journals myself, either. I work at an academic-center hospital (university), and have access to them through the university's library website.

In stark contrast to your pay to read studies, those insisting that the HIV virus has never been isolated offer up their research online free of charge. Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto

Many of these articles are offered free-of-charge because they were never published outside of a personal website. Running a journal costs money, which the publishers try to make back in charging for views, much like bookstores. You can't just walk into a bookstore and walk out with a free copy of anything you like, can you?

Curiously, nearly every person you cite an article from has a book for sale. Don't you find it a bit hypocritical, given your argument above?

You have presented yourself in this site as a medical expert, and I have wondered what has taken you so long to make an appearance in this thread, but is this truly the best you can do? Three abstracts?

If you are the medical expert you present yourself as, and being an esteemed member of ATS, I know for a fact you are quite capable of communicating, why not simply just explain in layman's terms why Deusberg, Papadoulos and others are wrong in their assertions, questions, and skepticism's?

Nope, three abstracts are not "the best I can do", it's just all I "wish to do". I don't post here anymore for several reasons. Over the years I spent reading and posting in this forum, I found that, despite the motto of this site, people are very hostile to their beliefs (educated or not) being challenged, even when blatant falsehoods are pointed out with their own sources.

I also don't post in threads you are involved in, because any attempt to provide context for a bit of science, provide more or better sources, or to simply offer an opinion acts as an invitation for you to pour hate-filled posts my way. I just don't care to deal with you anymore, and you are part of the reason myself (and two other medical professionals I know posted here) have left. You are contributing to the decline in expertise in this forum, and are making it a single-channel source of information, rather than the back-and-forth it used to be.

So, good luck with everything. I'm sure nothing I can say or do will change your opinion, so...why bother? You have the benefit of NOT being HIV positive, so of course you can rally behind the myths of Duesberg and de Harven. No amount of science, direct contradiction of your sources, or anything else will make a difference.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

If you read my entire post, you would see that I told readers how to access these studies for free. They are all from VERY large journals, which most public libraries have (or are given) subscriptions to. I don't pay for a subscription to the journals myself, either. I work at an academic-center hospital (university), and have access to them through the university's library website.

Whether you access them for free or not, what you have declined to do - more accurately refused to do - is offer up quotes from these reports that would help the lay reader better understand why it is those questioning the HIV paradigm - scientists in their own right - are wrong.

Many of these articles are offered free-of-charge because they were never published outside of a personal website. Running a journal costs money, which the publishers try to make back in charging for views, much like bookstores. You can't just walk into a bookstore and walk out with a free copy of anything you like, can you?

Hypocritical you say? Peter Deusberg answers your poorly researched question here:

In 1993 John Maddox, the editor of Nature, commissioned a commentary refuting the hypothesis that drugs cause AIDS (Ascher et al., 1993). The piece described 215 patients each of which had used drugs (Duesberg, 1993a; Duesberg, 1993b; Duesberg, 1993c). In view of this Duesberg sent a letter to Nature arguing that the perfect correlation between drug use and AIDS confirmed, rather than refuted, the drug hypothesis. Maddox censored the letter and wrote an editorial "Has Duesberg a Right of Reply?" (Maddox, 1993). The editorial pointed out that the world's oldest science journal could not afford an open scientific debate on the cause of AIDS because of the perceived dangers of infectious AIDS.

The censorship Duesberg has been confronted with is well documented. The New Science Review, as recently as March 8th of 2012 posted this article: ‘The Scientist’ Smears Duesberg in Censorship Story

The comments include some explanation of the wretched Natrass’ activities in this line, which are of course entirely predictable given her affiliations, the most recent of which is an invitation to visit Yale and teach the hapless students there. There was a time when such lame brains engaged in servile self promotion would not have been offered a visit to Yale but apparently that era is long past.

Here is that Scientist smear campaign posted on March 1st of 2012.

Nope, three abstracts are not "the best I can do", it's just all I "wish to do".

It is unclear why you have placed quotation marks around the phrase "wish to do", but of course, here are, just one more member in this site who smugly pretends that people should just simply take you and your three abstracts on faith and accept them as reasonable refutations of Deusberg, the Perth Group and other skeptics of the HIV paradigm. You preen on about hurt feelings and explanations as to why you don't post in my threads - presumably asking us to pretend you have not just done that now here in this thread - but offer up any science? You don't "wish to do" that, but will take my confront of that dubious tactic and call it "hate filled".

Sigh.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Her middle Pubmed link, PMID: 2420772 or "the first Japanese isolate of AIDS virus as YU-1"

the fulltext PDF is free of charge at

www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/cancersci1985/77/1/77_1_16/_article

The 1st and 3rd I can upload, if it leads to a grounded debate...

Originally posted by amcpwoy
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Her middle Pubmed link, PMID: 2420772 or "the first Japanese isolate of AIDS virus as YU-1"

the fulltext PDF is free of charge at

www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/cancersci1985/77/1/77_1_16/_article

The 1st and 3rd I can upload, if it leads to a grounded debate...

If you understand the study, then speak to it. The point of linking a citation is that it has been cited and people can follow the link to verify the source. Again, if you understand the study then speak to it. Simply posting a link and pretending somehow it is a refutation is nothing more than priest class mystical incantations.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I was bridging the posts, trying to reduce attrition, to the minimum unavoidable as opposites in debate.

I did the 'librarian task', went and found fulltext, which is what you seem to want, not just abstracts.

As for refutation, I didn't take a position, but provide material.

A few family members are MD's, so I hear at least a weekly discussion of how things went at the hospital during that certain X timespan.

So I can't give an expert view, but as someone embedded in medical talk, I can't state how many times my relatives discussed diagnosis soundness, and bad management decisions by the hospital.

Having had a few run-ins with her[VneZonyDostupa], there was a couple of cases where she was strange, such as not performing citation checks as she with her access could have done, and dismissing material outright.

But others you just need a very thick skin.

What I can say to agree with you on is the Maddox Nature editor blockade, that was sad.

Maddox is infamous for his Benveniste 'homeopathy' debunk job with association with pseudosceptics and just plain old Randi...

Also agree with Gallo's misconduct.

I think it was dealt with a simple, hassle-free way, that of giving Nobel Prize recognition to original French Montagnier only, not Gallo.

reply to post by amcpwoy



I'm not a medical expert either, and I do appreciate you supplying the link. My frustration is that those who want to dismiss the scientists who are challenging the HIV paradigm refuse to actually discuss the science, and instead use that priest class mystical incantation nonsense.

I am sorry if I came off as to hard on you. I just know that, and particularly in this site, that if there is going to be a reasoned debate it will be because someone is taking the time to explain these studies that supposedly refute the scientists challenging the HIV paradigm.

I don't know why, but several months ago my computer started giving me problems in opening PDF files. I will read the link you provided, but I am going to have to rely upon a friend to first send me that link by email so I can view it as I cannot open it up from the link itself.

However, even upon reading the study, I am, just like you, not a medical expert and will just have to hope I can understand what is being said without having to spend countless hours learning facts about virology and such just to be able to understand the study and how precisely it refutes the skeptics claims.

Thank you for your efforts.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Duesberg (who doesn't deny HIV exists) would not agree with Lanka, for example. www.righto.com...

Thank you for the above link. I learned about the work of Stefan Lanka when someone posted to my thread "Smallpox Is Not Contagious?" a reference to the thread "Believe it or not, Viruses may not exist at all!"

I have a file on Lanka's work and I've been interested in reading anything I can find written by him. I think he is very credible. I've printed the 12 page "Dr. Stefan Lanka answers critic Steven B. Harris M.D.'s rejoinder to his paper, 'HIV: Reality or Artefact'," and I'm looking forward to reading it.

From my file on Lanka, here are some of my notes expressing what struck me about things I hear him saying.

Regarding testing for HIV:

1. Makes no sense to measure lymphocytes in the blood.
   
2. Only a few of them are in the blood.
   
3. The immune system is carried out in the tissues.
   
4. No correlation between disease and health in T-cells or T-cell subsets.
   
5. Regardless, T-cell tests are sold.
   
6. Beginning in 1977 in the U.S., could patent biological entities or biological techniques.
   

Another thing that struck me was that Lanka said the disease should be called Acquired Energy Deficiency Syndrome because its true cause is the breakdown in the delivery of oxygen to the blood and/or body tissues.

In the book Virus Mania: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhnlein it is pointed out on page 47 that viruses - as opposed to bacteria and fungi - don't even have their own metabolisms. They are missing the decisive attributes of living beings.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Stefan Lanka

In the printout I mentioned there is a reference to the fact that Lanka has successfully isolated a virus and I wanted more info about that.

Googling that I came across the article "Interview with James McCumiskey about The Ultimate Conspiracy, Dr. Hamer, German New Medicine, Stefan Lanka and Germ Theory."

It's interesting what McCumiskey says about Lanka's background:

Dr. Stefan Lanka is around my age, born in 1963 in Germany. As a schoolboy he had an interest in understanding how Nature worked, and studied Biology at University. He got a PhD in Biology by isolating a virus called the ectocarpus siliculosus virus. He was very excited because he thought he had discovered the first stable virus-host relationship: The sea algae 'infected' with this virus thrived in its presence.

He wrote up his thesis in the late 1980s, and got his PhD, and was deemed to be an expert on viruses. The HIV-AIDS hysteria was at its peak and he read the scientific literature, but nowhere did he find any scientific publication where the HIV-virus had been isolated from the host cell. Nowhere! Naturally enough he was astounded, told everybody but nobody was interested. Dr Lanka moved on then from the HIV-virus to the 'viruses' that we vaccinate our children against such as mumps, measles and rubella, and again found no scientific paper where any scientist had managed to isolate them.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
....any attempt to provide context for a bit of science, provide more or better sources, or to simply offer an opinion acts as an invitation for you to pour hate-filled posts my way. I just don't care to deal with you anymore, and you are part of the reason myself (and two other medical professionals I know posted here) have left. You are contributing to the decline in expertise in this forum, and are making it a single-channel source of information, rather than the back-and-forth it used to be.

So, good luck with everything. I'm sure nothing I can say or do will change your opinion, so...why bother? You have the benefit of NOT being HIV positive, so of course you can rally behind the myths of Duesberg and de Harven. No amount of science, direct contradiction of your sources, or anything else will make a difference.

Yes I have noticed this problem with this thread and a few others on this subject. The people that submit the 'evidence' seem to be blind to progress, and unwilling to accept anything that is not a direct refutation of their source of information. This was a good argument to have back in the 90's. It's just history now. No facts, only a past vision.

The information in this thread is enlightening for the way science and politics get mixed up.
Just don't use it for medical information. Especially the title. And most of the dated medical analysis.

It's like its a debate at high school. Life experience and common knowledge mean nothing in this 'debate', only the references, the one with the most, gets the first speaker award and moves on to the semifinal rounds.

This is is a debate about the history of politics surrounding one aspect of medicine and science. Actually, only one aspect of the politics as well, only one 'piece' of history about the raging debate concerning the existence (and this debate has other influences, social, religious, moral...that are not even noted in this bickering on who isolated what and who could prove what). No true fact-finding as all the 'medicine' in this research is 20 years old. It is interesting how many twists and turns the science has taken. But it's all history. Old news.

Jean-Paul is a professional debater. And a good historian. Not a purveyor of current science or fact. And, like many of the people that push this alternate reality, very possibly motivated by factors that are not political or scientific. Yes, I said it. Why does anyone keep dusting off this tripe and spouting it as current fact? It's nothing but a bunch of bullfighting between research political figureheads, tryind to discredit each other and take credit, with no real science!

And Jean-Paul does have the benefit of not being HIV-positive, this prevents him from having to look at current science and current proof, and take current drugs. He can stay in the fantasy land of dreaming the virus did not exist, and comfort himself with the knowledge that mid-90's technology will never isolate it for him and prove him wrong. No stinking CD4 counts, no viral load, none of that poison pill, don't believe in that crap anyway, there is no virus.

My opinion for what it's worth. That and a nickel will get you some bubble gum.
Since my statement was not a debate of facts, just an opinion, no need to argue the validity. I can answer that now. It IS my opinion and that's the fact.

So you can cite me for not providing the correct references. I have plenty, I could find plenty. But I 'wish not to'.

The reason - I believe in Darwin, and I believe anyone that reads this thread and actually believes it is up for a Darwin Award. I don't wish to exclude them by spouting facts, someone might believe me, without references, and that can't happen. It is the way of evolution that some will believe this and not their doctors, and die. Because Jean-Paul said it didn't exist. And a bunch of people agreed with him. So it must be true.

I'm not competing for the semifinal rounds. I've said my opinion and I am moving on, you can trash me after the door swings shut. I'll leave the trophy for you guys to continue haggling over.

Potential link between an auto immune disorder in Thailand and recent Merck Vaccine trials...

occupycorporatism.com...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Potential link between an auto immune disorder in Thailand and recent Merck Vaccine trials...

occupycorporatism.com...

edit on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:16:54 -0500 by MemoryShock because: (no reason given)

This post is not topical to this thread. The condition being discussed has no similiarity except for the symptoms.

However this topic should get its own thread.