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: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: ScepticScot


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





He was there in the HIV/AIDS era and here in the Covid era. That's extraordinary! One person and his closed colleagues dictating public policies that had a significant impact on the quality of life and on the lives of many who have been affected by either HIV or Covid.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.


Are you really want to repeat your embarssing mistake of that thread where you questioned my ability to comment without a PHD, despite neither you or the author of the article we were discussing having one?

You are ignoring the massive weight of evidence that HIV results in AIDs and accepting uncritically the views of an unqualified author whose main source of referred seems to be himself.

Reality is that HIV not being the cause of AIDS is a fringe belief unsupported by the evidence. You can belive it to be true if you wish but reality is very different.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

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.


Are you really want to repeat your embarssing mistake of that thread where you questioned my ability to comment without a PHD, despite neither you or the author of the article we were discussing having one?

You are ignoring the massive weight of evidence that HIV results in AIDs and accepting uncritically the views of an unqualified author whose main source of referred seems to be himself.

Reality is that HIV not being the cause of AIDS is a fringe belief unsupported by the evidence. You can belive it to be true if you wish but reality is very different.








Who says that I don't? That's your own understanding on the matter...

Dr Malhotra is a very knowledgeable and experienced cardiologist and has a qualified opinion. I am sure he is not a quack, a crackpot, or a charlatan, as some of you have stated in your replies.

I have asked you whether you have a PhD or any qualifications/experience on the subjects that are discussed. Reasonable question to ask.



On the topic of this discussion.

Still you are trying to invalidate someone who knows well what he is talking about and has written a good response to the editor. He references every point he makes and everything he has brought to the attention of the editor is legitimate for discussion. I also see that you have called him unqualified! But what are your qualifications? I am asking you again.

I am not ignoring the data and I am not parroting narratives. On the other hand you seem to parrot a narrative without understanding the concepts.

You can believe what you want. But first you need to get to know what a retrovirus is, how it infects cells, and what it can cause, If anything.

If you dont have anything to add then that's fine there is no need to take part on these conversations accusing qualified individuals as being irrelevant and unqualified.

And my question still hasn't been answered:

Who has proved casuation of AIDS by HIV?
edit on 15-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3


I have provided multiple links showing mechanism.

Choose to ignore them if you will.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The question is clear.

Who has proven that HIV causes AIDS?



It is not as I explained and so ends our conversation.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The question is clear.

Who has proven that HIV causes AIDS?



It is not as I explained and so ends our conversation.


Up to you.
The question remains the same though.

Who gets credit for proving the causative link between HIV and AIDS?

Here is an explosive interview by Kary Mullis back in 1996 who got the Nobel Prize for the discovery of PCR who says the exact same thing. There is nobody who gets credit for the statement that HIV causes AIDS.

youtu.be...

The interview is about 2 hours long and should be the first thing one has to view before entering this field.

Subsequently Mullis has repeated the same on all his interviews and talks and until now the only people who get credit for the discovery of the virus is Luc Montagnier and Francoise-Barre Sinoussi.

There is nobody who was awarded any prize and got credit for the causation of AIDS by HIV.



posted on Nov, 15 2022 @ 11:30 AM
link   
www.cdc.gov...#:~:text=Studies%20show%20that%20HIV%20may,contact%20with%20their%20infected%20blood.

From the CDC

There are other pieces of information and many others who have claimed that HIV is NOT a news virus.


HIV infection in humans came from a type of chimpanzee in Central Africa. Studies show that HIV may have jumped from chimpanzees to humans as far back as the late 1800s.

The chimpanzee version of the virus is called simian immunodeficiency virus. It was probably passed to humans when humans hunted these chimpanzees for meat and came in contact with their infected blood.

Over decades, HIV slowly spread across Africa and later into other parts of the world. The virus has existed in the United States since at least the mid to late 1970s



The implications of this are enormous. Of course there have been many claims that HIV isn't something new. If HIV is with us for over a century according to the CDC, and it may have jumped from chimpanzees to humans via zoonosis back in the late 19th century then why did it not cause AIDS or why didn't we see AIDS long before it was first seen in the beginning of the 80s where it mainly affected young male homosexuals and intravenous drug users.

How is it that AIDS was spot on only in the homosexual and intravenous drug scenes back in the early 80s in San Francisco but it was not spot everywhere else in the many decades prior to the modern pandemic.

There are accounts of earlier HIV+ infected individuals and they are described briefly on Wikipedia. But none of them prove that HIV was the cause of death of these individuals given that in Africa for example the old diseases that we'll known such as tuberculosis and malaria have been renamed as AIDS in the presence of HIV antibody.
edit on 15-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 01:53 AM
link   
More storys from Dr. Mohammed Al Bayati


Dr. Mohammed Al Bayati 4ZZZ Radio Interview On AIDS Causes 2004



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Rock Hudson become ( was made ) AIDS victim

How Rock Hudson’s Liver Failure Conned 325 Million Out Of Congress



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Dr. Michael Gottlieb and how to make odd science .

The Muddled Beginnings of The AIDS ‘Pandemic’ in 1981



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 01:59 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 02:30 AM
link   

That rabbit hole is very deep. The more you dig, the more absolutely incomprehensible facts and contradictions emerge


Aids: An Iatrogenic Depopulation Strategy?



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Kenzo


The syndrome was always confined in the vast majority of cases in the two risk groups

1) Intravenous drug users
2) A subset of young male homosexuals

Even now the majority of cases are still from the above two groups and most are young males.

Given that there were very few females in comparison coming down with AIDS in 1993 there was decided that women should also be included in the syndrome as the virus cannot discriminate between males and females...

So the solution was to include cervical cancer in the AIDS defining diseases!

If a woman has cervical cancer in the presence of HIV antibody then she is now an AIDS patient.

I think there are 27 well known diseases existed for very long and much longer than AIDS which are considered AIDS defining diseases, if they occur in the presence of HIV antibody. It has started with only two of them, such as Kaposi Sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia and now it's 27.

Nobody can be sure if this will ever stop as they can keep adding diseases on the AIDS syndrome and as a result most people will be getting AIDS in the presence of an antibody test for HIV. This is an ingenious way to inflate the numbers based on a circular definition.

I think you need to be myopic not to be able to see what is going on.



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3


Good thinking Asmodeus3



The cervical cancer and AIDS link was new to me , the con artist are really creative , to create the illusion .


Sadly it seems, like most people in ATS are quite myopic. Deny ignorance is just two words, and stops there. The narrative that is build with fake/cheap lies cant be challenged . It`s funny ,this is so called conspiracy forum, but this is still mostly people who rather believe official narrative than use own brain , and are not able to see one of the biggest medical fraud ever created



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: Asmodeus3


Good thinking Asmodeus3



The cervical cancer and AIDS link was new to me , the con artist are really creative , to create the illusion .


Sadly it seems, like most people in ATS are quite myopic. Deny ignorance is just two words, and stops there. The narrative that is build with fake/cheap lies cant be challenged . It`s funny ,this is so called conspiracy forum, but this is still mostly people who rather believe official narrative than use own brain , and are not able to see one of the biggest medical fraud ever created




I think ATS is a good place for those who don't accept the official narrative and dogma without any challenge. You may have come across some members who do accept the official narrative and dogma without any challenges but this is a minority. If you take a look for example in the Covid threads the narrative seems to have collapsed.

Yes, cervical cancer (!) was included in the AIDS defining diseases to catch more women as the statistics were desperate and pretty much everyone was a male apart from a few exceptions. Still the vast majority of AIDS patients are male and from the two risk groups discussed above.



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Covid narrative is alive , most here still belive covid virus exist, so clearly most here still want to believe the narrative. True that on other parts the narrative has collapsed, which is good.

The similarities with HIV and SARS-CoV-2 is very same as to how people react and believe, and narrative is going strong as long people think it's real .



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Covid narrative is alive , most here still belive covid virus exist, so clearly most here still want to believe the narrative. True that on other parts the narrative has collapsed, which is good.

The similarities with HIV and SARS-CoV-2 is very same as to how people react and believe, and narrative is going strong as long people think it's real .









There is a difference between the existence of the virus and whether is as pathogenic as it was allegedly thought to be initially. It turned out from the first few months that the infection fatality rate was very small, around 0.15%

You need to have very good evidence to show that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't exist or to do the same with HIV. If you can find papers and evidence that cast doubt on the existence of HIV then surely we can discuss it.

But I will entertain your thoughts in the next reply as I have to check something first.



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Well i choose deliberately to not make this topic in that level , as to also not discuss too much the existence of virus ...this or that . I allready earlyer in ATS writed some and noticed people are not ready to think it enough.

The Germ theory vs The Terrain Theory is maybe subject of another thread .

It`s maybe best to focus first in this single level, the HIV = AIDS theoretical mumbo jambo hocus pocus claims .


The debunking of Germ theory is quite wide subject also



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Kenzo

Here is something you will find very interesting.

As you know Robert Gallo was one of the scientists who contributed to the discovery of HIV together with Luc Montagnier from the Pasteur Institute in France. Luc Montagnier Montagnier and Francoise-Barre Sinoussi were awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the virus.


Robert Gallo has isolated a virus that he called HTLV-3 and Luc Montagnier the same virus as it seems which was then called LAV. These two viruses were assumed to be the same and later on were renamed HIV.

There is a 'rumour' Gallo misappropriated the virus and this could be the reason why he wasn't awarded anything in relation to the discovery of the virus.

Dr Gallo as a retrovirologist together with many other of his colleagues were hunting retroviruses back in the 60s and 70s that were pinpointed as potential causes of human cancer. Later on this turned out not to be the case, i.e retroviruses play negligible role in human cancers.

However Gallo was convinced that retroviruses do cause human cancers and was looking to find them and link them to cancers or later on to immune deficiencies.

As a result he isolated the first ever cancer causing retrovirus that he called HL23V. This retrovirus was responsible for causing leukemia and there were at that time much discussion and many research papers on how this virus causes cancer

This is a paper in Nature

www.nature.com...

Everyone was convinced that this retrovirus was causing cancer and accordingly many other viruses will be found in the future with similar properties.


But....


en.wikipedia.org...



HL23V was reputedly a type C RNA tumor virus first isolated in 1975 from cultured human acute myelogenous leukaemia peripheral blood leukocytes, which would have been the first cancer-causing retrovirus isolated from human sera.[1] It was later shown to be a laboratory contaminant of three monkey viruses. The journal Nature, which had published the original research, later retracted the article.



The retrovirus turned out not to exist!!!
But it was mainly contamination by whatever material from three monkey viruses...



There is more to it...

Gallo discovered HTLV1 another virus that allegedly causes leukemia and lymphoma. Both are blood cancers by the way. The virus does exist in this case but I leave it to you to find out how many people infected with HTLV1 go to develop leukemia or lymphoma... You will be amazed by the statement that

'HTLV1 causes lymphoma/leukemia'




edit on 16-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2022 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I find this about HTLV-1


Problems caused by HTLV-1

If you are infected with HTLV-1, the virus won’t necessarily affect your health.
Most people with HTLV-1 find it causes them no problems at all.
  But around 1 in 20 people develop one of two serious conditions: 


Or


Adult T-Cell Leukemia/Lymphoma Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL) is a rare and often aggressive (fast-growing) T-cell lymphoma that can be found in the blood (leukemia), lymph nodes (lymphoma), skin, or multiple areas of the body. ATLL has been linked to infection with the human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1); however, less than five percent of individuals with HTLV-1 will develop ATLL


I have doubt the HTLV1, without going deeper to it...



The contamination is one of the major problems with " virus isolation " in general .

Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)


And the virus isolation problems has been there for very long time , so i must say that i highly doubt Gallo, Montagnier and Francoise-Barre Sinoussi even used the right scientific methods back then. The process can go wrong so many times, and ways...

Those virologist apply their science and methods to process which i have my doubts . They dont simply even know how to isolate , purify etc..



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join