HIV not causing AIDS

originally posted by: Kenzo

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..

You may note from my reply above that the first ever causing cancer virus to be isolated HL23V for which there was much confidence and discussion back in the 70s turned out not to exist.

Robert Gallo 'discovered' tis virus.


Then HTLV1 was another retrovirus linked to leukemia and lymphoma and it is now stated that HTLV1 causes human cancers...
But... There is no proof that it does. And most importantly the vast majority of those infected with HTLV1 never develop anything as retroviruses known to live peacefully with the host cells.
So this is a virus that in vast majority of cases causes nothing and you must have great belief to accept that in a very small minority causes human cancers.

Again this science has come from Gallo...


Who later on became one of the discoverers of HIV.

a reply to: Asmodeus3


Yeeh agree, it`s the level of science that really isn't so convincing .

And the presense of viral particles in sick tissue or sick human does not to me give the evidence that the viral particle caused the sickness . Or it should be at least showed it can, in scientific way.

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: Asmodeus3


Yeeh agree, it`s the level of science that really isn't so convincing .

And the presense of viral particles in sick tissue or sick human does not to me give the evidence that the viral particle caused the sickness . Or it should be at least showed it can, in scientific way.

It has to be there first!
HL23V didn't even exist when it was thought to cause leukemia...


HTLV1 allegedly causes leukemia and lymphoma to 2%-5% of those infected with the virus. Hence it doesn't cause anything to 95%-97% of those infected . But does it really cause anything to a tiny minority? given there is not even a correlation and not known mechanism other than a hypothesis that has no grounds.

rarediseases.org...


What is the common denominator of the above two great pieces of science? Well...Dr Robert Gallo!


Coming to the topic of the thread.
Dr Gallo is a major contributor to the HIV/AIDS theory. One doesn't need to know much to be suspicious about the motivations between linking the virus to immune deficiency. He has linked every virus he found, and even the ones that turned out not to exist, with human diseases.

a reply to: Asmodeus3


Exactly yes!


Gallo, Fauci...the people who have run the show created corrupted pseudo science , and since then helluva a lot people have suffered from the consequences.

And once the " trusted science guys " make announcement, it like holy sacrament , holy grail .....for those who cant question that science, it`s " trust the authority " .

a reply to: ScepticScot

So , could you specify how/why Al-Bayati is to you unqualified , if that is what you are saying ?

To me it look like he is qualified, and not just academic paper but also personal study in the matter, some own research on the subject.

By writing to BMJ does not mean that he dont know the subject, or that he would not be qualified .

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: ScepticScot

So , could you specify how/why Al-Bayati is to you unqualified , if that is what you are saying ?

To me it look like he is qualified, and not just academic paper but also personal study in the matter, some own research on the subject.

By writing to BMJ does not mean that he dont know the subject, or that he would not be qualified .

I am sure he is a qualified veterinary pathologist.

rationalwiki.org...

While he is clearly entitled to hold an opinion on HIV, I would say he is much less qualified the magnitudes more doctors and researchers who actually treat and research HIV.

In the linked comment that was provided (not study) the source for most his claims seems to be himself.

a reply to: ScepticScot


Why are you lefting out the full education of Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati ?

MOHAMMED A. AL-BAYATI Ph.D., D.A.B.T., D.A.B.V.T. TOXICOLOGIST AND PATHOLOGIST

Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati


About THI & Dr. Al-Bayati



Your arguments are silly, and you only come to this thread to disrupt , you are trolling and dont have nothing to back up your claims . MOHAMMED A. AL-BAYATI is qualified and experienced , he has educations also.

Another interview :

INTERVIEW MOHAMMED ALI AL-BAYATI Are Steroids the Real Cause of AIDS?

a reply to: Kenzo

You may have heard of the Nancy Padian study


www.bmj.com...

the largest study that attempted to measure the efficiency of heterosexual transmission of antibodies to HIV was conducted by Nancy Padian and her colleagues (Padian NS, et al.(1997): Heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in northern California: results from a ten-year study. Am J Epidemiol 146:350-7).

Results

The most striking result of the ten-year study is that Padian et al did not observe any HIV-negative sex partners becoming HIV-positive from years of unprotected sexual intercourse with their HIV-positive partners. NOT ONE HIV-negative sex partner became positive during the 10-year study. Therefore, the observed transmission efficiency was ZERO.

However, to avoid reporting a zero efficiency for the sexual transmission of HIV, Padian and colleagues assumed that the HIV-positive sex partners in their study must have become positive through sexual
intercourse before entering the study. Using that assumption, they estimated that an HIV-negative woman would have to have sexual intercourse
1000 times with HIV-positive men before becoming HIV-positive herself. Even more astounding, HIV-negative men would have to have 8000 sexual
contacts before becoming HIV-positive. Virtually identical figures have been reported by others (Gisselquist, D., et al., HIV infections in sub-
Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission. Int J STD AIDS, 2002. 13: p. 657-666; Jacquez, J.A., et al., Role of the primary
infection in epidemics of HIV infection in gay cohorts. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 1994. 7: p. 1169-1184)

Discussion & Issues

Given these figures and that the Centers for Disease Controlestimates that one million Americans have antibodies to HIV raises an
enormous problem for sexually transmitted HIV. Since there are around 280 million men and women in the USA, that means that on average an HIV-
negative woman would have to have random sexual intercourse 140,000 times
(and a man eight times that number) in order to become HIV-positive (assuming equal distribution of HIV between the sexes).

The article was written sometime ago back in 2003. Almost 20 years after and still heterosexual AIDS hasn't materialised. It remains mostly confined to the two risk groups which were identified at the beginning as being the highest risk groups: 1) Intravenous drug users 2) A subset of male homosexuals.

The vast majority affected are young males from the above two groups. People keep having sex to reproduce and the prevalence of HIV in heterosexual couples is extremely low. The only way to include women into the AIDS syndrome is when they made the decision to associate cervical cancer (!) with AIDS by staying that a woman who has cervical cancer and antibodies to HIV is now an AIDS patient. Even with this alchemy there are not many women who fullfil this circular definition.


Hence the heterosexual AIDS has never materialised and despite the preposterous predictions emanating from the AIDS establishment back in the 80s that whole populations will cease to exist of their continue to have....unprotected sex!!!

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: ScepticScot


Why are you lefting out the full education of Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati ?

MOHAMMED A. AL-BAYATI Ph.D., D.A.B.T., D.A.B.V.T. TOXICOLOGIST AND PATHOLOGIST

Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati


About THI & Dr. Al-Bayati



Your arguments are silly, and you only come to this thread to disrupt , you are trolling and dont have nothing to back up your claims . MOHAMMED A. AL-BAYATI is qualified and experienced , he has educations also.

Yes linking to his own CV and web site defitely makes him look awesome.

It would be incredibly generous to describe his beliefs as fringe, there are vastly more qualified experts who research and treat HIV than him.

I have provided several links to back up my posts which cone from actual research, not some online comment from someone considered a crank in medical circles.

Calling me a troll is not only I believe against T&Cs it also shows you are insecure in your arguments (not really surprising given the weight of evidence) and have to resort to name calling.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Actully I haven't heard about that study , but just WOW

That`s really important study! LOL

140,000 times (and a man eight times that number) in order to become HIV-positive (assuming equal distribution of HIV between the sexes).

Exellend find Asmodeus3

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Deliberate misinterpretation of the study.

list.uvm.edu... rset=windows-1252&pending=

Link not working so just one of the relevant parts below.

common practice is to quote out of context a sentence from the Abstract of the 1997 paper: "Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low". Anyone who takes the trouble to read and understand the paper should appreciate that it reports on a study of behavioural interventions such as those mentioned above: Specifically, discordant couples were strongly counseled to use condoms and practice safe sex (1,12). That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the intervention documents the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. The sentence in the Abstract reflects this success – nothing more, nothing less. Any attempt to refer to this or other of our publications and studies to bolster the fallacy that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually or homosexually is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a travesty of the research that I have been involved in for more than a decade.

originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Actully I haven't heard about that study , but just WOW

That`s really important study! LOL

140,000 times (and a man eight times that number) in order to become HIV-positive (assuming equal distribution of HIV between the sexes).

Exellend find Asmodeus3

This is precisely why you don't really see AIDS among heterosexual couples even if you assume that HIV will lead inevitably yo AIDS. It's just so difficult to transmit and even if you are HIV+ but don't belong to the two risk groups then the chance of getting AIDS is extremely small.

The Nancy Padian study follows a range of other studies that showed exactly the same i.e that it's extremely difficult to transmit HIV via sexual intercourse and despite the preposterous claims made in the 80s about sexual transmission.of HIV and scared an entire generation to death.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Deliberate misinterpretation of the study.

list.uvm.edu... rset=windows-1252&pending=

The study maybe misinterpreted by some people however the findings by Nancy Padian and colleagues show clearly that HIV is very difficult to transmit and even if you assume that HIV+ always leads to AIDS, this is the main reason why you don't see heterosexual AIDS and most AIDS cases are still confined in the risk groups 1) Intravenous drug users 2) A subset of male homosexuals

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Deliberate misinterpretation of the study.

list.uvm.edu... rset=windows-1252&pending=

The study maybe misinterpreted by some people however the findings by Nancy Padian and colleagues show clearly that HIV is very difficult to transmit and even if you assume that HIV+ always leads to AIDS, this is the main reason why you don't see heterosexual AIDS and most AIDS cases are still confined in the risk groups 1) Intravenous drug users 2) A subset of male homosexuals

Not really

HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Deliberate misinterpretation of the study.

list.uvm.edu... rset=windows-1252&pending=

The study maybe misinterpreted by some people however the findings by Nancy Padian and colleagues show clearly that HIV is very difficult to transmit and even if you assume that HIV+ always leads to AIDS, this is the main reason why you don't see heterosexual AIDS and most AIDS cases are still confined in the risk groups 1) Intravenous drug users 2) A subset of male homosexuals

Not really

HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide

You are misinterpreting what was said. Still heterosexual transmission is hard to achieve and it takes a lot of attempts to get infected. The point of view of the other author you are referring to is not supported by much data. Is just a narrative.

AIDS has always been confined among the risk groups but apparently to haven't read or understood the history of the syndrome and you don't know that is going on.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Deliberate misinterpretation of the study.

list.uvm.edu... rset=windows-1252&pending=

The study maybe misinterpreted by some people however the findings by Nancy Padian and colleagues show clearly that HIV is very difficult to transmit and even if you assume that HIV+ always leads to AIDS, this is the main reason why you don't see heterosexual AIDS and most AIDS cases are still confined in the risk groups 1) Intravenous drug users 2) A subset of male homosexuals

Not really

HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide

You are misinterpreting what was said. Still heterosexual transmission is hard to achieve and it takes a lot of attempts to get infected. The point of view of the other author you are referring to is not supported by much data. Is just a narrative.

AIDS has always been confined among the risk groups but apparently to haven't read or understood the history of the syndrome and you don't know that is going on.

The other author being

Nancy Padian, PhD

The author of the study your are using says you are misinterpreting it.

This is behind paywall, but maybe someone can read it. It has the WHO Kevin de Cock explaining the risk for heterosexual women

Aids claim sparks backlash for WHO

Next this , which is commenting and quoting WHO Kevin de Cock statements:

The exploitation of Aids Brendan O'Neill

Finally we have a high-level admission that there is no threat of a global Aids pandemic among heterosexuals. After 25 years of official scaremongering about western societies being ravaged by the disease – with salacious, tombstone-illustrated government propaganda warning people to wear a condom or "die of ignorance" – the head of the World Health Organisation's HIV/Aids department says there is no need for heterosexuals to fret.

Kevin de Cock, who has headed the global battle against Aids, said at the weekend that, outside very poor African countries, Aids is confined to "high-risk groups", including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers. And even in these communities it remains quite rare. "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in countries [outside sub-Saharan Africa]", he said. In other words? All that hysterical fearmongering about Aids spreading among sexed-up western youth was a pack of lies.

Much of the media has treated Dr De Cock's admission as a startling revelation. In truth, experts have known for many years that in the vast majority of the world, Aids has little impact on the "general population". In her new book The Wisdom of Whores, Elizabeth Pisani – who worked for 10 years in what she refers to as "the Aids bureaucracy" – admits that by 1998 it was clear that "HIV wasn't going to rage through the billions in the 'general population', and we knew it".

Some people knew it earlier. In 1987, my friend and colleague Dr Michael Fitzpatrick wrote a fiery pamphlet titled The Truth About the Aids Panic. At the height of the Conservative government's scary tombstone campaign ("Don't die of ignorance"), he wrote: "There is no good evidence that Aids is likely to spread rapidly in the West among heterosexuals." In Britain, most of the small-scale spread of "heterosexual Aids" has been a result of infected individuals arriving from Africa. In the UK in the whole of the 1980s – the decade of the Great Aids Panic – there were 20 cases of HIV acquired through heterosexual contact with an individual infected in Europe.

And it isn't the case that the heterosexual pandemic failed to materialise because officialdom's omnipresent pro-condom propaganda was a success. According to James Chin, a clinical professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley and author of the new book The Aids Pandemic, it was always a "glorious myth" that there would be an "HIV epidemic in general populations". That myth was the product of "misunderstanding or deliberate distortions of HIV epidemiology" by Unaids and other Aids activists, says Chin.

It is time to recognise that the Aids scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the past 30 years

originally posted by: Kenzo
This is behind paywall, but maybe someone can read it. It has the WHO Kevin de Cock explaining the risk for heterosexual women

Aids claim sparks backlash for WHO

Next this , which is commenting and quoting WHO Kevin de Cock statements:

The exploitation of Aids Brendan O'Neill

Finally we have a high-level admission that there is no threat of a global Aids pandemic among heterosexuals. After 25 years of official scaremongering about western societies being ravaged by the disease – with salacious, tombstone-illustrated government propaganda warning people to wear a condom or "die of ignorance" – the head of the World Health Organisation's HIV/Aids department says there is no need for heterosexuals to fret.

Kevin de Cock, who has headed the global battle against Aids, said at the weekend that, outside very poor African countries, Aids is confined to "high-risk groups", including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers. And even in these communities it remains quite rare. "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in countries [outside sub-Saharan Africa]", he said. In other words? All that hysterical fearmongering about Aids spreading among sexed-up western youth was a pack of lies.

Much of the media has treated Dr De Cock's admission as a startling revelation. In truth, experts have known for many years that in the vast majority of the world, Aids has little impact on the "general population". In her new book The Wisdom of Whores, Elizabeth Pisani – who worked for 10 years in what she refers to as "the Aids bureaucracy" – admits that by 1998 it was clear that "HIV wasn't going to rage through the billions in the 'general population', and we knew it".

Some people knew it earlier. In 1987, my friend and colleague Dr Michael Fitzpatrick wrote a fiery pamphlet titled The Truth About the Aids Panic. At the height of the Conservative government's scary tombstone campaign ("Don't die of ignorance"), he wrote: "There is no good evidence that Aids is likely to spread rapidly in the West among heterosexuals." In Britain, most of the small-scale spread of "heterosexual Aids" has been a result of infected individuals arriving from Africa. In the UK in the whole of the 1980s – the decade of the Great Aids Panic – there were 20 cases of HIV acquired through heterosexual contact with an individual infected in Europe.

And it isn't the case that the heterosexual pandemic failed to materialise because officialdom's omnipresent pro-condom propaganda was a success. According to James Chin, a clinical professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley and author of the new book The Aids Pandemic, it was always a "glorious myth" that there would be an "HIV epidemic in general populations". That myth was the product of "misunderstanding or deliberate distortions of HIV epidemiology" by Unaids and other Aids activists, says Chin.

It is time to recognise that the Aids scare was one of the most distorted, duplicitous and cynical public health panics of the past 30 years

It's clear from the Padian study, which is the largest conducted over a period of 10 years, that heterosexual transmission is very difficult to achieve.

youtu.be...

In this video Dr James Chin says that

The vast majority of the world's population is at no measurable risk from HIV infection

I see that you have already quoted him above speaking about the myth of the HIV & AIDS epidemic in the general populations. He was correct, and so do many others, as this epidemic never materialised. The claims by the AIDS industry were preposterous back in the 80s. And they have been refuted.

a reply to: Asmodeus3


very difficult to achieve indeed.



Money, greed, business taked over the paradigm of AIDS.......


It was then AIDS .INC


There was of course also many dumb scientist, and dishonest scientist who wanted to be famous.