It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HIV not causing AIDS

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2022 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Kenzo


From the same article

www.bmj.com...


The HIV-hypothesis states that HIV cause AIDS by killing the CD4+ Tcells directly or indirectly [8]. It appears that there is no scientific evidence to show that HIV can kill infected T4 cells (CD4+ T cells) in
vitro or in vivo. In addition, the abnormalities in the immune system of patients with AIDS are not restricted to the reduction of T4 cells as
predicted by the HIV-hypothesis. Hoxie et al. observed no evidence of death in T cells infected with HIV in tissue culture [17]. These cells
continued to produce virus particles for more than four months after inoculation with the virus. Many reports described the changes in the
lymph nodes of patients infected with HIV and these changes range from extensive cellular hyperplasia of T and B lymphocytes and the supporting stroma to severe atrophy of the glands. Changes in the lymph nodes of 505 HIV-positive patients who were asymptomatic or had AIDS demonstrate three distinct stages [1]. These are hyperplasia (245 patients), atrophy (117
patients), and mixed stage (172 patients). The presence of hyperplasia in the infected lymph nodes contradicts the HIV-hypothesis which states HIV destroys infected T cells [8].



See bottom of the paragraph.
Hyperplasia in the lymph nodes of 245 HIV+ individuals who were either asymptomatic or had AIDS (out of the 505). We see proliferation of T cells in the lymph nodes in a large number of HIV infected individuals. The opposite of destroying T cells.



posted on Nov, 14 2022 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

If you still think that Robert Gallo is the scientist who proved causation then you need to look again.



This is written 100 different ways in every major medical and academic statement about him.

"Dr. Gallo is recognized internationally for his co-discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS" but no says you...



There is a huge difference between discovering a virus and proving it is pathogenic by causing a certain type of disease.

Luc Montagnier and Francoise-Barre Sinoussi were awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the virus HIV.

No Nobel Prize has been given for proving causation of AIDS by HIV. There is nobody who gets credit for it. It is however assumed that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS and there is no AIDS without HIV.

Upon close inspection we find that there is what we call AIDS without HIV. If you are not looking at the literature the mainstream will never mention what I have included here.


Idiopathic CD4+ T cell lymphocytopenia


Another expression for AIDS without HIV.

Nobody will believe this if you bring it up in a conversation as most have been programmed to be lazy and be passive 'learners' accepting what is served to them. Some things maybe true and some other things maybe wrong.



posted on Nov, 14 2022 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is a huge difference between discovering a virus and proving it is pathogenic by causing a certain type of disease.


Having a debate with you and a couple of others just down right sucks. You all do not read anything and just repeat the same narratives. You said NO ONE has ever been credited with linking HIV to AIDS, then you said find one if you can. I named Dr. Gallo as it saying just that in 100 different medical and college's article, and you say...well he doesn't count... well suck it...lol



Upon close inspection we find that there is what we call AIDS without HIV. If you are not looking at the literature the mainstream will never mention what I have included here.


Of course there is... anything that drives the CD4 count to below 200 cell/MM3 is basically the same thing. With HIV they just call that stage of the HIV disease AIDS at that point. As I said, if you do not like them calling it AIDS then use something different.

Once again 4th time... What killed all the gays in the 80s with HIV before drugs were used?


edit on 14-11-2022 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2022 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is a huge difference between discovering a virus and proving it is pathogenic by causing a certain type of disease.


Having a debate with you and a couple of others just down right sucks. You all do not read anything and just repeat the same narratives. You said NO ONE has ever been credited with linking HIV to AIDS, then you said find one if you can. I named Dr. Gallo as it saying just that in 100 different medical and college's article, and you say...well he doesn't count... well suck it...lol



Upon close inspection we find that there is what we call AIDS without HIV. If you are not looking at the literature the mainstream will never mention what I have included here.


Of course there is... anything that drives the CD4 count to below 200 cell/MM3 is basically the same thing. With HIV they just call that stage of the HIV disease AIDS at that point. As I said, if you do not like them calling it AIDS then use something different.

Once again 4th time... What killed all the gays in the 80s with HIV before drugs were used?

Recreational drugs. The fact that not everyone with HIV will develop aids or the fact that not everyone with AIDS has HIV should be enough to dispel the notion that hiv is the sole cause of AIDS. It quite literally can’t be since it isn’t.
edit on 14-11-2022 by macaronicaesar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2022 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is a huge difference between discovering a virus and proving it is pathogenic by causing a certain type of disease.


Having a debate with you and a couple of others just down right sucks. You all do not read anything and just repeat the same narratives. You said NO ONE has ever been credited with linking HIV to AIDS, then you said find one if you can. I named Dr. Gallo as it saying just that in 100 different medical and college's article, and you say...well he doesn't count... well suck it...lol



Upon close inspection we find that there is what we call AIDS without HIV. If you are not looking at the literature the mainstream will never mention what I have included here.


Of course there is... anything that drives the CD4 count to below 200 cell/MM3 is basically the same thing. With HIV they just call that stage of the HIV disease AIDS at that point. As I said, if you do not like them calling it AIDS then use something different.

Once again 4th time... What killed all the gays in the 80s with HIV before drugs were used?



No. You have created a strawman.

I have said nobody has ever been credited for the causative link between HIV and AIDS i.e nobody has been credited for proving HIV causes AIDS.

Are you now changing the words used? Because I am quite sure I have used several times the words cause and effect and causation of AIDS by HIV.

So I will repeat it again: There is nobody who has got credit for proving that HIV causes AIDS. If they was one such person or persons you would have known them by now and they would been famous.

So my question again: Who has proven that HIV causes AIDS?


This is the starting point of the debate. Then everything else can be discussed and myself and others have discussed a lot of matters here. If you don't like the discussions by the way nobody forces you to be in these threads.

You have asked the question on whether there could be AIDS without HIV.

Yes there is. It is not known as it won't be discussed in the mainstream and it is called


Idiopathic CD4+ T cell lymphocytopenia


So the claim that AIDS cannot exist without HIV is disproven. The first blow to the narrative and it's a massive one.
edit on 14-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2022 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: macaronicaesar

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

There is a huge difference between discovering a virus and proving it is pathogenic by causing a certain type of disease.


Having a debate with you and a couple of others just down right sucks. You all do not read anything and just repeat the same narratives. You said NO ONE has ever been credited with linking HIV to AIDS, then you said find one if you can. I named Dr. Gallo as it saying just that in 100 different medical and college's article, and you say...well he doesn't count... well suck it...lol



Upon close inspection we find that there is what we call AIDS without HIV. If you are not looking at the literature the mainstream will never mention what I have included here.


Of course there is... anything that drives the CD4 count to below 200 cell/MM3 is basically the same thing. With HIV they just call that stage of the HIV disease AIDS at that point. As I said, if you do not like them calling it AIDS then use something different.

Once again 4th time... What killed all the gays in the 80s with HIV before drugs were used?

Recreational drugs. The fact that not everyone with HIV will develop aids or the fact that not everyone with AIDS has HIV should be enough to dispel the notion that hiv is the sole cause of AIDS. It quite literally can’t be since it isn’t.



Idiopathic CD4+ T cell lymphocytopenia


This is AIDS without HIV

Hardly anyone knows this condition.

And what you said is correct. Not everyone with HIV will develop AIDS. In fact if you don't belong to the high risk groups such as intravenous drug users and a subset of male homosexuals then your chances of developing AIDS are very small even if you are HIV positive.



posted on Nov, 14 2022 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

So my question again: Who has proven that HIV causes AIDS?



Can you reword your question? As it is it doesn't makes sense since AIDS is just a set point in the loss of CD4 cells as I have said a few times now.... as in once the it drops below 200 cell MM3 they call it AIDS. So are you asking if HIV causes the reduction in CD4 cells?



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

So my question again: Who has proven that HIV causes AIDS?



Can you reword your question? As it is it doesn't makes sense since AIDS is just a set point in the loss of CD4 cells as I have said a few times now.... as in once the it drops below 200 cell MM3 they call it AIDS. So are you asking if HIV causes the reduction in CD4 cells?


The question is clear.

Who has proven that HIV causes AIDS?



Another question could have been who has discovered the virus?

Answer: Luc Montagnier and Francoise-Barre Sinoussi were awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the virus.

* In addition other virologists in the US were also working in the same field such as Robert Gallo.


There is something into this which isn't understood well. There is a difference between correlation and causation. You may isolate the virus and make the case that many of these AIDS patients have had the virus in the past but that doesn't mean it's the cause of the disease. It could the cause, it could a cofactor, or it could be just a passenger retrovirus.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

This is completely wrong


In fact if you don't belong to the high risk groups such as intravenous drug users and a subset of male homosexuals then your chances of developing AIDS are very small even if you are HIV positive.


Untreated HIV will result in AIDS im slmost all cased

Treatment for HIV is now very effective and prevents AIDS. Yet more prove of the connection.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

This is completely wrong


In fact if you don't belong to the high risk groups such as intravenous drug users and a subset of male homosexuals then your chances of developing AIDS are very small even if you are HIV positive.


Untreated HIV will result in AIDS im slmost all cased

Treatment for HIV is now very effective and prevents AIDS. Yet more prove of the connection.





That is an assertion which is not correct.
You need to read before you post about 'untreated HIV resulting in AIDS in almost every case'. That was the narrative back in the 80s and unfortunately you are parroting it in 2022.

Read before you post.

This is a post by another user above.


The fact that not everyone with HIV will develop aids or the fact that not everyone with AIDS has HIV should be enough to dispel the notion that hiv is the sole cause of AIDS. It quite literally can’t be since it isn’t.


Clearly your understanding of this condition is very poor

My question as above: Who has proved that HIV causes AIDS?

Luc Montagnier and Francoise-Barre Sinoussi got the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the virus.

But who proved causation of the syndrome AIDS by HIV?
edit on 15-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

This is completely wrong


In fact if you don't belong to the high risk groups such as intravenous drug users and a subset of male homosexuals then your chances of developing AIDS are very small even if you are HIV positive.


Untreated HIV will result in AIDS im slmost all cased

Treatment for HIV is now very effective and prevents AIDS. Yet more prove of the connection.





That is an assertion which is not correct.
You need to red before you post about 'untreated HIV resulting in AIDS in almost every case'. That was the narrative back in the 80s and unfortunately you are parroting it in 2022.

Read before you post.

This is a post by another user above.


The fact that not everyone with HIV will develop aids or the fact that not everyone with AIDS has HIV should be enough to dispel the notion that hiv is the sole cause of AIDS. It quite literally can’t be since it isn’t.


Clearly your understanding of this condition is very poor.



The main difference between the 80s and now is the effective use of antivirals to treat HIV.

You understanding of the topic seems to be borderline non existent



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

This is completely wrong


In fact if you don't belong to the high risk groups such as intravenous drug users and a subset of male homosexuals then your chances of developing AIDS are very small even if you are HIV positive.


Untreated HIV will result in AIDS im slmost all cased

Treatment for HIV is now very effective and prevents AIDS. Yet more prove of the connection.





That is an assertion which is not correct.
You need to red before you post about 'untreated HIV resulting in AIDS in almost every case'. That was the narrative back in the 80s and unfortunately you are parroting it in 2022.

Read before you post.

This is a post by another user above.


The fact that not everyone with HIV will develop aids or the fact that not everyone with AIDS has HIV should be enough to dispel the notion that hiv is the sole cause of AIDS. It quite literally can’t be since it isn’t.


Clearly your understanding of this condition is very poor.



The main difference between the 80s and now is the effective use of antivirals to treat HIV.

You understanding of the topic seems to be borderline non existent



I am afraid that is not true again.

My question is still the same:

Who has proved causation of AIDS by HIV?

Here from a post above by another member


The fact that not everyone with HIV will develop aids or the fact that not everyone with AIDS has HIV should be enough to dispel the notion that hiv is the sole cause of AIDS. It quite literally can’t be since it isn’t


Some reading on this matter will help. If you are unwilling and you want to parrot a narrative then that wouldn't change the course of this conversation. I will insist on the same questions.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.bmj.com...



The presence of hyperplasia in the infected lymph nodes contradicts the HIV-hypothesis which states HIV destroys infected T cells [8].


The author talks about proliferation of T cells in the lymph nodes of several HIV+ individuals. The inner was 245 out of 505 which shows exactly the opposite to the hypothesis that HIV destroys infected T-cells. It's a contradiction in few words.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.bmj.com...



The presence of hyperplasia in the infected lymph nodes contradicts the HIV-hypothesis which states HIV destroys infected T cells [8].


The author talks about proliferation of T cells in the lymph nodes of several HIV+ individuals. The inner was 245 out of 505 which shows exactly the opposite to the hypothesis that HIV destroys infected T-cells. It's a contradiction in few words.




Your link



Important editorial notice for readers: This is a rapid response (online comment by a third party) and not an article in The BMJ. It is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media. The Editor, 06/12/2021.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.bmj.com...



The presence of hyperplasia in the infected lymph nodes contradicts the HIV-hypothesis which states HIV destroys infected T cells [8].


The author talks about proliferation of T cells in the lymph nodes of several HIV+ individuals. The inner was 245 out of 505 which shows exactly the opposite to the hypothesis that HIV destroys infected T-cells. It's a contradiction in few words.




Your link



Important editorial notice for readers: This is a rapid response (online comment by a third party) and not an article in The BMJ. It is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media. The Editor, 06/12/2021.










The link has been provided by the OP and there is nothing wrong with it. If it is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites that is not of my fault. The author of the article discusses the relevant literature of HIV and AIDS and references every point he makes by referring directly to the literature and not to speculations or beliefs.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


We are still asking ,who has proven causation of AIDS by HIV ?

I guess it`s hard to give answer when nobody has not done it



Blind faith to science is never good , and real science is actually allways challenging itself, questioning everything.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.bmj.com...



The presence of hyperplasia in the infected lymph nodes contradicts the HIV-hypothesis which states HIV destroys infected T cells [8].


The author talks about proliferation of T cells in the lymph nodes of several HIV+ individuals. The inner was 245 out of 505 which shows exactly the opposite to the hypothesis that HIV destroys infected T-cells. It's a contradiction in few words.




Your link



Important editorial notice for readers: This is a rapid response (online comment by a third party) and not an article in The BMJ. It is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media. The Editor, 06/12/2021.










The link has been provided by the OP and there is nothing wrong with it. If it is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites that is not of my fault. The author of the article discusses the relevant literature of HIV and AIDS and references every point he makes by referring directly to the literature and not to speculations or beliefs.


It's an online comment. The modern equivalent of a letter to the editor.

As for references here are the first 7 he uses.

Notice a pattern?

[1] Al-Bayati, MA. Get All The Facts: HIV does not cause AIDS. Toxi-
Health International, Dixon, CA 1999 [www.toxi-health.com...].

[2] Al-Bayati, MA. The Real Cause of AIDS. Mecola's health
newsletter, Issue 236, July 11, 2001
[www.mercola.com...].

[3] Al-Bayati, MA. Is there proof that HIV-positive persons
consistently develop illnesses that are rare or never occur in HIV
negative persons? Virusmyth.net, September 2001
[www.virusmyth.net...].

[4] Al-Bayati, MA. HIV Does Not Cause AIDS. The British Medical
Journal, January 30, 2002
[bmj.com...].

[5] Al-Bayati, MA. Keep The Dentist Working: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS.
The British Medical Journal, March 15, 2002
[bmj.com...].

[6] Al-Bayati, MA. AIDS in Africa is caused by Starvation and
Medications. The British Medical Journal, March 7, 2002
[bmj.com...].

[7] Al-Bayati, MA, Flores JJ, Hosbein LM, Maggiore C. Resolution of
AIDS in HIV Positive Patients: A Clinical Study of Non-HIV Causes and
Treatments for AIDS Illnesses, 2000 [www.aliveandwell.org/index.php?
page=study].



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: ScepticScot


We are still asking ,who has proven causation of AIDS by HIV ?

I guess it`s hard to give answer when nobody has not done it



Blind faith to science is never good , and real science is actually allways challenging itself, questioning everything.


Blind faith is believing crackpot denial websites rather than actual science.

Already posted a study on how HIV affects t-cells.

Here is another.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...#!po=7.03125



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


Al-Bayati seems to know this whole subject x1000 better than Anthony Fauci LMAO




posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.bmj.com...



The presence of hyperplasia in the infected lymph nodes contradicts the HIV-hypothesis which states HIV destroys infected T cells [8].


The author talks about proliferation of T cells in the lymph nodes of several HIV+ individuals. The inner was 245 out of 505 which shows exactly the opposite to the hypothesis that HIV destroys infected T-cells. It's a contradiction in few words.




Your link



Important editorial notice for readers: This is a rapid response (online comment by a third party) and not an article in The BMJ. It is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media. The Editor, 06/12/2021.










The link has been provided by the OP and there is nothing wrong with it. If it is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites that is not of my fault. The author of the article discusses the relevant literature of HIV and AIDS and references every point he makes by referring directly to the literature and not to speculations or beliefs.


It's an online comment. The modern equivalent of a letter to the editor.

As for references here are the first 7 he uses.

Notice a pattern?

[1] Al-Bayati, MA. Get All The Facts: HIV does not cause AIDS. Toxi-
Health International, Dixon, CA 1999 [www.toxi-health.com...].

[2] Al-Bayati, MA. The Real Cause of AIDS. Mecola's health
newsletter, Issue 236, July 11, 2001
[www.mercola.com...].

[3] Al-Bayati, MA. Is there proof that HIV-positive persons
consistently develop illnesses that are rare or never occur in HIV
negative persons? Virusmyth.net, September 2001
[www.virusmyth.net...].

[4] Al-Bayati, MA. HIV Does Not Cause AIDS. The British Medical
Journal, January 30, 2002
[bmj.com...].

[5] Al-Bayati, MA. Keep The Dentist Working: HIV Does Not Cause AIDS.
The British Medical Journal, March 15, 2002
[bmj.com...].

[6] Al-Bayati, MA. AIDS in Africa is caused by Starvation and
Medications. The British Medical Journal, March 7, 2002
[bmj.com...].

[7] Al-Bayati, MA, Flores JJ, Hosbein LM, Maggiore C. Resolution of
AIDS in HIV Positive Patients: A Clinical Study of Non-HIV Causes and
Treatments for AIDS Illnesses, 2000 [www.aliveandwell.org/index.php?
page=study].









Perfectly legitimate as it comes from someone who is not a pedestrian and can comment on the available data which he references one by one. Letters to the editor are long being known to consist a way of adding, supplementing, challenging and debating current research.

I understand that you are trying hard to invalidate the author but the author is someone who has knowledge and understanding of the matters he discusses. I observed the same pattern when matters in regards to Covid were discussed a few weeks ago.

And my question again is what are your qualifications/credentials and what is the relevant knowledge and experience you have on the subject?

On another thread you also has a go against Dr Malhotra who argued that all vaccinations should pause given that the risk of getting serious disease from the vaccines is greater than the risk of hospitalised due to Covid. I remember the phrases used by a few members such as irresponsible, crackpot, charlatan, quack, and the rest.

I know that these threads and views contradict your narrative and beliefs but you are now confronted by reality.
edit on 15-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join