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.
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].
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...
Idiopathic CD4+ T cell lymphocytopenia
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Idiopathic CD4+ T cell lymphocytopenia
originally posted by: macaronicaesar
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.
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?
Idiopathic CD4+ T cell lymphocytopenia
originally posted by: Asmodeus3
So my question again: Who has proven that HIV causes AIDS?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
The presence of hyperplasia in the infected lymph nodes contradicts the HIV-hypothesis which states HIV destroys infected T cells [8].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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].