HIV is as much linked to AIDS as ben laden to 911... ?

reply to post by blowfishdl


indeed he was in a cave,
the link is indirect;

put a bad man with a beard in a cave he takes down your 2 castle with kerosene and box-cutters in magical fashion opposing all known physic laws about buildings and planes.

put a retro-virus in your body, he propagates and takes down all your immunity in magical fashion opposing all known biological laws about viruses.

make war.

reply to post by lordtyp0


thanks for your contribution, i'm glad you learnt well your lesson.

but for the sake of the thread better you go through the article with open (but critical of course) mind and leave your emotions apart; we don't need them here.

first you understand each and every point of duesberg before calling for the insane claim of charlatans

then, still before the call, you prove each point wrong in a comprehensive manner, with source from science papers that are real research and not official propaganda.

that was actually the main point of the thread, and duesberg indeed, as stated in the opening post.

i will add in the similarities between war against aids and war against terror the way the alternative theory is being violently rejected by (conditioned?) minds prior to any deep and open-minded investigation of the matter.

reply to post by ::.mika.::


Riiight..
OK, firstly that video link says nothing, it has no evidence at all. It simply says "A bunch of people don't agree with this!". It in turn gives nothing credible.

First, lets start with an observation on the delivery (normal debate parameters):

A: A growing number of experts (with no listing of who or how many or accreditation.).
B: Hint of it being sinister.
C: Hint of an evil coverup to keep the secret down.
D: no actual evidence cited.
E: Do they charge for more information?

Hrm.. seems like an infomercial to me. Or perhaps snake-oil equivalent. Lets continue and examine some things he said:

"In America all science used to be democratic.." no... I'm sorry Science is not what people agree on, they don't put math formulae to a vote. It is vetted by peers or it is junk and tossed out.

"We are killing 180K people with AZT" Indicates a flaw in fighting a virus not a flaw in the hypothesis/theoretical statement that HIV is the cause of AIDS (mind you nobody has ever said absolutely HIV will give each patient AIDS).

"Science could not predict the spread of AIDS." So? Science can't always predict the weather doesn't mean rain doesn't come from clouds or it doesn't snow in the winter.

He also asks if the patient is getting 'his dollars worth of treatment".. who cares? irrelevant to causality.

He also states all the material leading to the link of HIV to AIDS is fabricated material. Right.

One thing to note. In the year 2000 Duesberg was a very prominant AIDS denier who servers on the South African government's AIDS panel. The same panel that was determined to have caused over 330,000 AIDS related deaths from easy treated complications and infections.
There is a quote on his wiki bio that reads "History will judge Duesberg as either 'a nut who is just a tease to the scientific community or an enabler to mass murder".

Upstanding guy that, right?

So, how does this sound. considering I have done the research myself already holding private concerns (I have 3 friends who are HIV Positive).

Here is my counter: You show me evidence on this and I will shred it.

(edit, adding link and a quick impression)

The guy seems to think that any disease + HIV = AIDS. This is flat out wrong and stupid. AIDS = the inability to fight off sickness of any level. Generally referenced by viral load. Not whether some condition is present.


Inventing the AIDS virus Google book



[edit on 30-11-2008 by lordtyp0]

reply to post by lordtyp0

ok,

but let's take one of his paper as base.

like this one : www.duesberg.com...

The HIV-AIDS hypothesis currently holds a monopoly on all AIDS research and treatment. However, the HIV hypothesis is scientifically unproven. It has failed each of 15 testable predictions, as for example that AIDS would explode via sexual transmission of HIV into the general population.

let start with this :
official

1. HIV causes immunodeficiency by killing T-cells (lymphocytes);

duesberg :

However, viruses that integrate their genomes with that of the host, like HIV, cannot kill the host cell. Since the genes of such viruses are part of the host's genes, integrated viruses can only replicate as long as the host survives integration and remains able to express integrated viral genes. All integrated viruses survive from passive, and some retroviruses also from active replication with the host. This strategy only works if the host survives integration. If the virus were to kill the cell as it is integrated, integration would be a useless exercise and it would be undetectable. Indeed, HIV is mass-produced for the "HIV test" in immortal T-cell lines in cell culture at titers of 106 infectious units per ml #(Rubinstein, 1990; Karpas et al., 1992)#. Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, and many other researchers have confirmed that HIV does not kill T-cells #(Lemaitre et al., 1990; Duesberg, 1992)#.

unfortunately i don't have the skills to go through this :

Inhibition of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Growth of Infected T Cells by the Immunosuppressive … :

www.pnas.org... to check if duesberg is making up what is suiting him or just reporting genuinely his reference.

in parallel, i have a question also :

beside Gallo, which other researcher has ended up with the same conclusions after conducting independent researches on that specific matter (let me recall that all the researches on aids take as granted that hiv is killing T-cells)

"(edit, adding link and a quick impression)

The guy seems to think that any disease + HIV = AIDS. This is flat out wrong and stupid. AIDS = the inability to fight off sickness of any level. Generally referenced by viral load. Not whether some condition is present."

you look at it the wrong way round. he knows what aids is

he's saying any disease + hiv is attributed to aids to make numbers AND 100% correlation.

he's also saying that people die from aids, but not being hiv, are not taken into the accounts, but accounted for the disease that directly got them.

HIV is the virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome is what happens are years of the body wearing down in its fight against the virus. I’m not sure what the point here is.

Originally posted by only onus
I had an accident at work, And needed a tetnis shot.
When I went in to see the Dr. He asked if I had ever had the heppititus vaccine.
When I told him no. He put down his gloves(he was gitting ready to put them on). And continued with his exam.
After he was finished. I asked about the question. He slightly smiled, and told me to stay away from any, and all vaccinations. Including flu.
I believe that aids is caused from the h-b vaccine.
And I would encourage you to ask anyone with aids, if they had been gone in to git it.
notaids.com...

Are you refering to the hb vaccine which is hemophilus B for flu? or the hep-b the hepatitus vaccine which is strongly reccomended for all dr.s and personel in the medical field?

If in fact your Dr. Told you this then I would find myself a new doc. If that were true there would be millions of cases of Aids running through the medical community that is non-believable coming from a doctor. Same with flu vaccine
And the elderly population.

First HIV is human immunodefiency virus. Aids is
Acquired immunodefiency syndrome. The virus itself attacks the T-helper cells which are the cells that are the first to react in our our immune system when we become ill. The T-cells recognize the foreign body then our body kicks into gear and begins making antibodies to what ever foreign substance is there.

When one has HIV it means they have tested positive to the antibodies of Aids but have not come. Down with the actual aids virus.

When a person has aids, the T-helper cells are attacked and the body has no first line response to fighting off an illness. Most aids illness' come in the form of a specific pneumonia.

It was believed that in the late 1970's and 80's that Aids
Came from the bark of a certain tree deep in the jungles of Africa. Then a type of primate fed off the sap of the tree, and their interaction with humans spread the disease.

I'll try and find the article.

Originally posted by ::.mika.::
reply to post by lordtyp0

ok,

but let's take one of his paper as base.

like this one : www.duesberg.com...

The HIV-AIDS hypothesis currently holds a monopoly on all AIDS research and treatment. However, the HIV hypothesis is scientifically unproven. It has failed each of 15 testable predictions, as for example that AIDS would explode via sexual transmission of HIV into the general population.

---
This presupposes that his view of how AIDS occurs is correct. If it is guaranteed that AIDS occurs in all with HIV with the same time frame and identical conditions. Then it is predictable. You can take this same logic and say 'everyone who gets diagnosed with Lung Cancer will die' basing it off of the lower survival rate. The simple fact is that AIDS did explode in areas that HIV spread in via sexual transmission.


His first paragraph includes conjecture that was proven incorrect time and again:

Until 1984 AIDS science was open. Initially, the new epidemic of pneumonias and Kaposi's sarcomas, since called AIDS, was considered a collection of non-infectious "lifestyle" diseases. But the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta published that the pneumonias and Kaposi's sarcomas of male homosexuals, who were addicted to recreational drugs, were caused by a common infectious agent because patients had been "linked" by sexual contacts.

The facts of the matter are, until 1984 there was little understanding, the portion of 'addicted to recreational drugs' was conjecture as later it was shown many subjects who contracted were not promiscuous (ie, they were monogamous, their partner was not) and non-drug using. The author likes to claim off handedly that all such cases are liars.

As for HIV-AIDS holding a monopoly on treatment. Again this is the author presenting his theory as valid over-all. The rest of the scientific community disagrees with him. Based on his South African herbal remedies killing so many I would be inclined to agree with the monopoly.

duesberg :

However, viruses that integrate their genomes with that of the host, like HIV, cannot kill the host cell. Since the genes of such viruses are part of the host's genes, integrated viruses can only replicate as long as the host survives integration and remains able to express integrated viral genes. All integrated viruses survive from passive, and some retroviruses also from active replication with the host. This strategy only works if the host survives integration. If the virus were to kill the cell as it is integrated, integration would be a useless exercise and it would be undetectable. Indeed, HIV is mass-produced for the "HIV test" in immortal T-cell lines in cell culture at titers of 106 infectious units per ml #(Rubinstein, 1990; Karpas et al., 1992)#. Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, and many other researchers have confirmed that HIV does not kill T-cells #(Lemaitre et al., 1990; Duesberg, 1992)#.

This part is correct in literal terms, it does not 'kill' the T-Cell, it hijacks it. The T-Cell becomes a factory and no longer functions as it should.

---

Inhibition of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Growth of Infected T Cells by the Immunosuppressive … :

www.pnas.org... to check if duesberg is making up what is suiting him or just reporting genuinely his reference.

in parallel, i have a question also :

beside Gallo, which other researcher has ended up with the same conclusions after conducting independent researches on that specific matter (let me recall that all the researches on aids take as granted that hiv is killing T-cells)

I am not sure who was credited, but it is easy to determine normal function. A helper T cell holds chemical signatures of foreign objects (bacteria, viral, cancer) Upon detection it secretes more of the signatures which go into the system to help the immune systems 'armies' identify and kill the object. If the T-Cells are not producing the signals, then normal trivial conditions spread and become large scale problems. They linked it to t-cells based on infection behavior and the fact the ~phage levels were normal.
T-Cells were lowered levels. One possible reason (and yes there are allot of ideas on the lowered T-Cell count specifics, not cause being HIV or environmental. They all think HIV is the fountainhead of the trouble)... One possible reason is the body recognizes the faulty cell and attacks it. Another hypothesis is that since there is less of the 'signal' the body thinks there is less problem and scales back production. We see similar effects with hormones (drug addiction is a classic case, the brain stops making endorphins as it gets the 'happy juice' from the drug instead.).

Some good links.Denialist myths

And yes, it is strong science.

(edit, fixing quote tags to make it more readable)

[edit on 30-11-2008 by lordtyp0]

Originally posted by ::.mika.::
"(edit, adding link and a quick impression)

The guy seems to think that any disease + HIV = AIDS. This is flat out wrong and stupid. AIDS = the inability to fight off sickness of any level. Generally referenced by viral load. Not whether some condition is present."

you look at it the wrong way round. he knows what aids is

he's saying any disease + hiv is attributed to aids to make numbers AND 100% correlation.

he's also saying that people die from aids, but not being hiv, are not taken into the accounts, but accounted for the disease that directly got them.

BTW, nobody dies from AIDS, theyd die from the disease they can't fight off BECAUSE of AIDS.

And, honestly I don't agree that he knows what AIDS is. All his papers thus far all say 'everyone is wrong, I wont frame a cause but you should buy my book cause everyone else is wrong!"

HIV Diagnosis methods

[edit on 30-11-2008 by lordtyp0]

Here is an article that takes apart the Duesberg theory.

www.avert.org...

reply to post by lordtyp0


stop me if i misread but are you saying that :

* hiv infects cells but don't kill them

* we know for sure they get destroyed because of this infection

BUT

* we don't know how the t-cell get destroyed in the hiv/aids process

( ! )

( ! )

( ! )

before going further, how do we know that the t-cells doesn't get destroyed by something else ? did we check other possibilities or did we stop looking after it was ADMITTED that hiv SOMEHOW kills t-cells

(there is a huge difference in being infected and being dead - not only for cells !)

reply to post by paxnatus


thanks

Conclusion

There is no single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS.

the rest is literature.

Originally posted by ::.mika.::
did you give a look to the profit made from azt/tri-therapy and by the whole hiv/aids stuff ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

do your home work

I suggest the same. AZT isn't part of the therapy anymore. I've asked my friends and I've asked my doctor (a gay man who deals with HIV patients on a daily basis).

I remember the case of a gay man in the U.K that was positive... he did not want to take the cocktail of drugs even though he was pressured... mysteriously a year later he was tested negative for HIV.....ummmmmmmmmmm I beleive it is the cocktail of drugs that actually knock out the immune system...not the virus... it is possible that the virus is sexually transmitted but it is harmless..

Originally posted by ::.mika.::
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

stop me if i misread but are you saying that :

* hiv infects cells but don't kill them

Correct, the integration of the new genetic material does not kill the cell. This is what your post said: Infection does not kill the cell.

* we know for sure they get destroyed because of this infection

BUT

* we don't know how the t-cell get destroyed in the hiv/aids process

In a similar way that eating cyanide doesn't kill you, the cyanides affects on the cells do. This is the same hair splitting that this quack uses in his paper. Figured it was legit to do. The fact is that virus infection in a cell does not kill the cell. The cell does die however when the new viral material ruptures forth from the cell (normal viral load process).

Got it?

Additionally the T-Cells are reduced at an increased rate, this increased rate is the variable which could be one of a hundred possible items from the body attacking infected cells to the body thinking it doesn't need more to: X, Y, Z whatever.

( ! )

( ! )

( ! )

bang bang bang back atcha.

before going further, how do we know that the t-cells doesn't get destroyed by something else ? did we check other possibilities or did we stop looking after it was ADMITTED that hiv SOMEHOW kills t-cells

right, you realize biology and more specific micro-b and genetics is insanely tight and competitive? Everyone is looking for additionals, if it were possible that some side answer existed that overwrote without resorting to bad science.. it would make that biologist into the Einstein of virology forever etched in the history books. All of them I am sure read the papers for flaws.
Mathematicians are the only more competitive group (I'm lumping physicists in since its all math).

Ever seen nerds excited? Ever seen a nerd with something worth a nobel prize getting excited? Think anyone could censor someone who prob knows how to hack into the history books?

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
I remember the case of a gay man in the U.K that was positive... he did not want to take the cocktail of drugs even though he was pressured... mysteriously a year later he was tested negative for HIV.....ummmmmmmmmmm I beleive it is the cocktail of drugs that actually knock out the immune system...not the virus... it is possible that the virus is sexually transmitted but it is harmless..

This would be a false positive. Anti-body tests detect.. Anti-bodies. Anti-bodies are forever in the system. Similar to if you have h-pylori (common bacteria that causes stomach ulcers). You will forever test postive in the blood work for having H-Pylori even after its been blown out with antibiotics.

Even those with the t-cell mutation to make the hiv attachment impossible- would still test positive for HIV if the person seroconverted. (seroconversion does not nesc mean infection.)

Originally posted by ::.mika.::
put a retro-virus in your body, he propagates and takes down all your immunity in magical fashion opposing all known biological laws about viruses.

Since I believe HIV was constructed to do this, I have no arguement. It's my opinion that people like Duesberg are the ones who created HIV and that is why they are trying so desperately to claim it doesn't cause AIDS. BTW, I have about as much evidence to back my theory up as they do theirs. Which is nothing.

Originally posted by only onus He asked if I had ever had the heppititus vaccine. When I told him no. He put down his gloves(he was gitting ready to put them on). And continued with his exam.

The old hep B vaccines were made from pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected individuals. Most hemopheliacs also died becuse their drugs were made from pooled blood serum as well.

In China they had an outbreak as well. Turns out black market blood traders were going into villages to collect plasma for sale. They would take pints of blood from tons of villagers, extract the plasma, and then give them all a pint of blood back, except they were mixing the blood in the process and if one person had hiv they all got it.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Sonya610]