no scientific evidence HIV causes AIDS, and anti-AIDS drugs kill...

I agree with your point about the pharmaceutical companies but would like to ask this. If she is so sure about her findings, why hasn't she infected herself with HIV? I mean back in college chemistry, my final was to isolate and test a certain chemical that the professor handed out. He handed out different chemicals to people and we were to classify the chemical through a series of tests. Well, I tested mine and came to the conclusion that it was sodium chloride (table salt). To be sure that I would recieve an A, I tasted a small bit (very dangerous to do but I was 99% sure). So, why hasn't anyone of these people that are so sure that AIDS isn't caused by HIV infected themselves to prove their theory?

Originally posted by Griff
I agree with your point about the pharmaceutical companies but would like to ask this. If she is so sure about her findings, why hasn't she infected herself with HIV? So, why hasn't anyone of these people that are so sure that AIDS isn't caused by HIV infected themselves to prove their theory?

Good question! Peter Duesberg can answer this one, he has a FAQ page.

Q16: The best way I know to prove the HIV hypothesis wrong is to infect otherwise perfectly healthy people with HIV, don't give them any treatment, and see what happens. I know this type of research has been done with animals. Since you can't experiment on other people, why don't you infect yourself? Maybe you can recruit some followers and have a "population" for a real experiment.

A16: I have considered, even offered, this directly. Here are the problems:

1) In the US, it is not possible to work with HIV without the approval of the National Institutes of Health and the university. Thus I would need an NIH peer-approved grant to do this. Without such a contract I would risk my lab and job.

2) In addition, if 10 years after injecting myself I would still be without symptoms, the HIV-AIDS orthodoxy would call me a bluff unless I had had a grant that allowed for appropriate controls. I have submitted 9 grant applications to study AIDS, including doing the study you mention, but none was approved.

3) In the US there are 1 million HIV-positive persons without any symptoms, and in the world there are an estimated 34 million. Monitoring a few hundred of these for AIDS and non-viral AIDS risks would be a statistically much more relevant experiment than if one person injected himself. But surprisingly such studies are not done. Why not? Guess!

Originally posted by Dae
and see how Nature and other scientific publications refuse to publish a simple letter signed by twelve respected scientific people.

Why in the world should Nature publish something simply because 12 dudes want it published? Thats not how peer review works.

Where is the money to research this!?!?!

Money clearly is not the problem, entire countries have supported the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Besides the fact that duensburg or any of these other jokers and frauds could build up the funds on their own. THey don't do those experiments, and we don't see any papers stating these things, because HIV causes AIDS, and they know it.

How are we supposed to vaccinate against something we cant even test properly?

When a person is vaccinated, they are giving an 'attentuated' version of a virus, they are given a form of the virus that can't reproduce, or a related but non-dangerous form of a virus (like cowpox for smallpox). This, clearly, doesn't work with HIV, or hasn't worked yet.

Strange that after 10 years of study she decided that the aids / hiv connection is a load of crap

Opinions are meaningless, especially when they are divorced from the evidence.
Where are the studies that she conducted, in her decade of research, in which she injected animals with the hiv virus and they never developed aids, and gave them azt but no virus and they developed aids?

The entire industry is being maligned... Unfortunately, with good reason.

Doesn't matter if something is 'peer reviewed'. The medical landscape is organized into various camps and they basically push their representative scenarios... The entire process is hopelessly flawed.

The MD types are operating within a reality context that only really exists in their own minds. It is so flagrant, they are unable to truly complete the MOST important step in the scientific principle where you actually analyze the effectiveness of your approach/premise and make basic improvements/adjustments.

It is so fundamental, that their preconceived notions actually prevent them oftentimes from correctly interpreting what their eyes are telling them because they are totally blind to anything that doesn't fall within their 'medical model'/working theory.

Time and time again, researchers persue premises that are of little use to determining and solving the real problem because they are so locked into their flawed context, that the lose all capabilities to see that things somehow... Do NOT compute.

Endless efforts and endless time are spent in pursuit of premises in which the answers are presupposed by the questions...

It takes a bold thinker to break outside one of these subjective traps and more importantly to swim against the tide of the entrenched opposition.

It all starts with a Hmmm....

Some might say that's where we are at with HIV/AIDS 'research'...

Originally posted by Nygdan
Why in the world should Nature publish something simply because 12 dudes want it published? Thats not how peer review works.

Gosh, and does it work the way Gallo did it him? Press release with a patent on a HIV test kit that very day with a promise of a vaccine within 3 years?

... Besides the fact that duensburg or any of these other jokers and frauds could build up the funds on their own. THey don't do those experiments, and we don't see any papers stating these things, because HIV causes AIDS, and they know it.

Oooer "dude" thats your opinion. Can you tell me where you get your information that Duesberg is a fraud? I really want to know because I dont want to take seriously someone who is a fruad.

Nygdan, any chance you can be helpful here? Have you spent any time reading Duesberg's site? Please do so if you havnt. Id love to discuss this subject without people telling me how HIV/AIDS works, I know how it works according to main stream, Im talking about other voices, other scientific opinions.

I have no medical education, this subject is difficult enough to research. I have to get my head around receptors and cell membranes - as I said, its difficult enough.

I am an ex-gay man and can tell you that back in the 1980's when AIDS was really decimating the gay community, every gay man I knew who was HIV+ died from AIDS. I never knew, met, or heard about any gay men dying of AIDS that was HIV-. None. Every one of them that was HIV+ died.
They don't use AZT anymore on AIDS patients....they have lots more antivirals out there now to bade the virus off.

There is a definite link from HIV+ to AIDS (with tons of scientific evidence to back it up).
Your suspicion is nothing more than an old rumor from the late 1980's.

Originally posted by golemina
The entire industry is being maligned... Unfortunately, with good reason.

Doesn't matter if something is 'peer reviewed'. The medical landscape is organized into various camps and they basically push their representative scenarios... The entire process is hopelessly flawed.

Science operates by having people review research submissions, and then having them printed in resepected magazines. If Nature published a letter signed by 12 guys, making radical claims without evidence, it'd be a black mark on Nature.

It takes a bold thinker to break outside one of these subjective traps and more importantly to swim against the tide of the entrenched opposition.

Why all the blather? Any one of these guys can do the experiments. None of them have. Thats because even they know that HIV causes AIDS.

Can you tell me where you get your information that Duesberg is a fraud?

Anyone making claims like that but not performing the straightforward experiments is practically de facto a fraud. Give some rats azt drugs in the proper doses, and show that they develop AIDS. Give some of them HIV, and do nothing, and show that they don't develop anything like AIDS.

Have you spent any time reading Duesberg's site?

I have seen these sorts of claims made by lots of researchres, such as Duesberg, for a long while now. Not a single one of them has ever done, or as far as I have seen even attempted to do, the necessary experiments.

I know how it works according to main stream, Im talking about other voices, other scientific opinions.

It doesn't even matter how it works.

Does this substance cause this disease? To test, give subjects the substance, check for disease. Why haven't these experiements been done by duesberg? Or by the 12 that signed the letter? Why did they waste their time sending a letter to the editor? What makes them think that they have the right to dictate what a respected journal like Nature publishes?

Originally posted by zerotolerance
I am an ex-gay man and can tell you that back in the 1980's when AIDS was really decimating the gay community, every gay man I knew who was HIV+ died from AIDS. I never knew, met, or heard about any gay men dying of AIDS that was HIV-. None. Every one of them that was HIV+ died.

Im afraid your story, just like mine is anecdotal. Seems unfair but true.

They don't use AZT anymore on AIDS patients....they have lots more antivirals out there now to bade the virus off.

Im afraid they do still use AZT, it has a different name and is used in conjunction with other drugs. They still prescribe Protease Inhibitors, Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors, Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors. AZT is a nickname, its brand name is Retrovir ® and it is classified as a Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor, and is still in use.

There is a definite link from HIV+ to AIDS (with tons of scientific evidence to back it up).
Your suspicion is nothing more than an old rumor from the late 1980's.

There are tones of correlations, not causes.

description of science Nygdan...

>Science operates by having people review research submissions, and then having them printed in resepected magazines. If Nature published a letter signed by 12 guys, making radical claims without evidence, it'd be a black mark on Nature.

Unfortunately, that is NOT how the medical industry's version really works.

I can only ask you to reread my post.

I can rephrase it for you... The ENTIRE medical disease model is flawed beyond redemption... horribly corrupt... Even to the point of outlawing remedies that actually work to maintain their sole monopoly. Engages in propagandistic campaigns to suppress ANY alternative solutions that might impact the 'golden goose' model practiced in so many lines of research...

You know where you 'research' the disease, medications and cures without EVER providing any real results.

The industry, and proponents such as yourself , refuse to even deal with the repercussions of the REAL impact that is heaped on an unsuspecting public...

Besides HIV/AIDS, if you look at other areas such as cancer, innoculations, autism, etc...

The medical industry causes more damage EVERY DAY than the attacks by the terrorists on 9/11.

I understand that it's hard for proponents such as yourself to swallow, I know that the industry likes to view itself as the guys in the white lab coats being the only thing standing between us and the end of civilization thru some onslaught of disease...

But the sad sad reality is that instead of getting a tear in our eye when some poor beautiful young girl gets trotted out with a shaved head...

Some of us think the medical industry MURDERED that child by poison that makes someone incredibly wealthy and leaving her with only an infinitesimal chance of seeing her next birthday!

What makes you think that the HIV/AIDS death industry is any different?

In my area, the doctor who specializes in HIV doesn't prescribe medication to HIV patients until their T-cell count drops below 300 for a few months. Can you tell me why so many people around here are on medication then? Could it be because they have failing immune systems due to HIV infection? Or are they all drug abusers etc. that just happen to have HIV also?

How would all these people's immune systems be down if it wasn't due to HIV infection?

Originally posted by golemina
What makes you think that the HIV/AIDS death industry is any different?

Who cares how corrupt it is? None of these "its not HIV" "researchers" have done the reasonable experiments to demonstrate their case.

it would be nice to hear an explanation why and how a HIV infection of say, 1% T-cells depresses to immune system and why the massive opportunistic infections look mostly the same?

Let's use equal standards, i give you that the anti HIV/AIDS crowd hasn't demonstrated their case properly, but using drugs like AZT which cause exactly the same symptoms as AIDS and calling opponents quacks does not serve the purpose of credibility when you're sitting on all the funding and resources, does it?

we all know the countless HIV can't cause AIDS threads, don't we? some questions should be answered, like the one about reporoducing the full life cycle in vitro, for example.

Originally posted by Long Lance
it would be nice to hear an explanation why and how a HIV infection of say, 1% T-cells depresses to immune system and why the massive opportunistic infections look mostly the same?

The opportunistic infections don't look the same in different continents I believe. I think the infections in Africa differ from the infections in North America. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere. If I come across it again, I'll post a link. If anyone else can find something either supporting that or denying that, please post also. As for the rest of your post, I agree.

Originally posted by Griff

The opportunistic infections don't look the same in different continents I believe. I think the infections in Africa differ from the infections in North America. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere. If I come across it again, I'll post a link. If anyone else can find something either supporting that or denying that, please post also. As for the rest of your post, I agree.

Ok, that'd be different strains, then, the problem is that people aren't dying from the common cold, they're dying from carposi sarcoma, yeast infections and other exotic things you never ever see under semi-normal circumstances.

if this stuff just weakens the immune system, why aren't people dying from diseases that even kill hiv negative people - like the flu, for example. knowing that the Innuit / Eskimos died from the common cold when they first were exposed to it, it wouldn't it make sense to see HIV+ people die from a cut dirty finger and the common cold? i think it would and it would make even more sense than aids as chronic wasting disease, which takes ages to kill and rarely results in sudden death from omnipresent infections?

Ok, that'd be different strains, then, the problem is that people aren't dying from the common cold, they're dying from carposi sarcoma, yeast infections and other exotic things you never ever see under semi-normal circumstances.

if this stuff just weakens the immune system, why aren't people dying from diseases that even kill hiv negative people - like the flu, for example. knowing that the Innuit / Eskimos died from the common cold when they first were exposed to it, it wouldn't it make sense to see HIV+ people die from a cut dirty finger and the common cold? i think it would and it would make even more sense than aids as chronic wasting disease, which takes ages to kill and rarely results in sudden death from omnipresent infections?

That's fairly easy to explain, LongLance. When you contract a cold, say once or twice a year, do you think it's because you only came in contact with that bacterium or virus once or twice a year? No, it's because you came in contact with a new form or different species of antigen. Your body, despite the loss of T cells, still has memory B cells active in it. They do not require activation by T cells when they come in contact with an antigen in your lymph nodes. However, when you come in contact with something that DOES require T-cell activation, such as a new form of bacteria or virus or simply something you have never encountered before, your body has no way to fight it. This is due to the fact that naive B cells MUST be activated by Helpter T cells before they can begin producing antibodies. Naive T cells follow a similar path before they can produce cytotoxic T cels to eliminate viral infections.

~MFP

OK, Im trying to understand what you have said there bsl4doc, so ill break it down so hoefully you can show me where Im going wrong.

Originally posted by bsl4doc

That's fairly easy to explain, LongLance. When you contract a cold, say once or twice a year, do you think it's because you only came in contact with that bacterium or virus once or twice a year? No, it's because you came in contact with a new form or different species of antigen.

Would this be the same as the eskimos? Or did the eskimos never come across any sort of antigen before?

Your body, despite the loss of T cells, still has memory B cells active in it. They do not require activation by T cells when they come in contact with an antigen in your lymph nodes.

So this bit is an example of an AIDS patient right? They have low t cell count but memory B cells are active which fights common cold?

However, when you come in contact with something that DOES require T-cell activation, such as a new form of bacteria or virus or simply something you have never encountered before, your body has no way to fight it.

You still talking about the AIDS patient? Would this not happen with a new antigen that an AIDS patient could get?

This is due to the fact that naive B cells MUST be activated by Helpter T cells before they can begin producing antibodies. Naive T cells follow a similar path before they can produce cytotoxic T cels to eliminate viral infections.

See, im so confused! From this logic one can assume that the Eskimos shouldnt have died from the common cold unless their t cell count was really low. Because you have said that when a new antigen is present, t cells will activate naive b cells which does a job that eventually leads to the elimination of the virus. So, surely an AIDS patient should be dying of common cold infections that are new to them as their t cells will be too low to active naive b cells to do the job?

I have read that there are over 200 viruses which can cause a cold.

If you could try that explaination again for me I would be most grateful

No problem Dae. I'll try to make a little chart this time and then explain it with text.

New Bacterium:

Antigen --> lymph node --> naive B cell --> must be activated by T cell --> differentiates to produce memory B cell and Ab-producing B cell --> Ab produced

Old Bacterium:

Antigen --> lymph node --> memory B cell --> differentiates --> AB produced

New Virus:

Antigen --> lymph node --> naive T cell --> must be activated by helper T cell --> differentiates into memory T cell and killer T cell --> kills infected cells

Old Virus:a

Antigen --> lymph node --> memory T cell --> differentiates --> kills infected cells


Now, I don't know what all this eskimo business is about. From what I understood, they have fairly robust immune systems. And AIDS patients typically don't die from the common cold because your memory T cells are not typicaly affected by HIV, thus they can fight it somewhat. However, you run into a problem when you are combatting something like pneumonia which is very hard to produce a memory cell for due to it's capsid and mutation ability. You still produce memory cells for it, but it takes your body longer to set up a reaction, and often the body's defese will cause some tissue damage and you will build up fluid in the lungs from dying leukocytes. This is amplied in an AIDS patient.

~Mariella

Thank you for that Dae. An awsome video that left me with no doubt about this fraud.
Actually i had heard about this and started reading a book by Phillip Day called
"World Without Aids"
I dismissed it half way through reading atthe time. There was just something about Phillip Day that bothered me that i could not put my finger on although he has grown on me a little since then after reading some of his articles on cancer and vitamin B17.

BSL4DOC and others who have this unbelievably blinded commitment and trust within the so called HIV/AIDS "Scientific" Community that says that HIV IS the cause of AIDS.

The video presented will open your eyes to what's really happening.

The video is: The Other Side of AIDS

Hear from many individuals who were diagnosed with "HIV" and have lived a healthy and happy life without the use of medical treatment. AZT and other drugs used for HIV treatment has a long list of frightening and life-threatening side effects, and blatantly on label admiting no trials have been done! There is absolutely no evidence, NONE that HIV is a real virus. It has never been properly isolated. Period.

The FDA has never approved a test kit that claims to be used for the purpose of diagnosing HIV infection.

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absense of HIV antibody in human blood."

- ELISA HIV Antibody Test Kit Insert

"A Sample that is reactive in both the ELISA screening test and the Western Blot is presumed to be positive for antibody to HIV, indicating infection with this virus."

- Western Blot HIV Antibody Test Kit Insert


"The Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the precense of HIV infection."

- Viral Load HIV Test Kit Insert



"The AIDS test is not a test for AIDS or HIV but for non-specific antibodies that may or may not have anything to do with HIV. When you really think about it, if you're told that testing is responsible, its a pretty irresponsible test to be taking."

- Christine Maggiore - HIV Positive since 1992, NO MEDS



"The ultimate test in that the establisment is whats called the co-culture technique where you take a sample of the indivduals white blood cells, you cant find HIV in this sample, then you culture these cells with some specials cells that Robert Gallo generated some years ago, you have to throw in some powerful chemicals Ferrohemoglobin IO2 to force these cells to do anything. The idea is to wake up the patients cells to start producing RNA and then this RNA will be coated in the protein and possibly then there will be viral particles produced in the medium, these viral particles now will go affect other cells that you added and then you will amplify over period of time the replication of these viral particles in the labratory, what we call Invetra(sp). Now these particles did not exist in the patient, the person who you got the sample from, you created them in the laboratory, and by creating these virus particles in the laboratory, people say they have isolated HIV from a human being. They have not done any such thing."

- David Rasnick, PhD - AIDS Researcher, Chemist


..We have a series of problems that we are calling AIDS, but that doesnt elavate AIDS into a disease. There's a lot of ads for pharmaceutical drugs/companies, are marketing more and more direct to consumers and encouraging to ask your doctor for the remedy of the day. And I notice that theres alot of these syndromes popping up like social anxiety disorder or "sad", i mean you can make a syndrome out of anything you want basically and then find medicines to sell to make people better from it, and AIDS is not that ludicriously simple but it is in a sense just as constructed, its a contruct, its a category of other problems, some of which were occuring in greater numbers in a very a small subset of people here in the U.S., and other parts of the world, that became due to the social political climate with regard to sex, death, homosexuality, and drug use, it became elavated into this medical phenomenon that has become untouchable and sacred almost."


- Christine Maggiore - HIV Positive since 1992, NO MEDS


Possible Side Effects of Zerit include:

Fatal Lactic Acidosis
Vomiting
Weight Loss
Liver Toxicity
Neuropathy(paralysis)
Fatal Pancreatitus
Buffalo Humps
Anemia
Leukopenia
Painful Defecation
Confusion
Psychotic Disorder
Skin Pigment
Decreased Hearing
Heart Valve Disorder

Some patients treated with Crixivan have had liver problems, including liver failure and death.

Other side effects include:

Abdominal Distention
Flank Pain
Gingival Hemorrhage
Liver Cirrhosis
Jaundice
Anemia
Spleen Disorder
Myalgia
Dream Abnormality
Inflammated Pancreas
Crystals in Urine
Numbness of Mouth
Swollen Kidneys



After 20 years and more than $150 billion in federally funded research, scientists still can't explain how HIV causes AIDS. Millions of people have been declared HIV-positive with tests that can't find the actual virus. The latest AIDS medications are taking more lives than AIDS itself.


HIV is an Illusion.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by eudaimonia]