US researchers say they may have found Aids cure

Id like them first to show anyone on earth a direct link between HIV and AIDS. Never been done

Id also like them to show the world a direct link between AIDS and sex. Never been done.

Id be more inclined to believe AZT is a cause of AIDS over HIV.
Why are people with illnesses such as TB not treated for those diseases, because they have HIV?

Lin between HIV and AIDS? I think not

Very well worth discussion....

" This documentary is the most inclusive expose of the HIV/AID$ fraud to date. It explains how the fraud began, how it is perpetuated, and who profits by it. The program explains ten reasons why HIV CANNOT be the cause of AIDS, what the real causes could be, and why dangerous toxic drugs like AZT cause AIDS by prescription. Banned by the mainstream media, yet highly acclaimed by the informed public, this film has saved thousands of lives internationally. Recommended by scientific experts and well-informed physicians alike as an excellent informational source for the HIV/AIDS dissident movement worldwide. This program provides a systematic dissection of the AID$ industry’s utter corruption that resulted in worldwide mass genocide. Interviewed in this program are Dr. Peter Duesberg and Dr. Charles Thomas who initiated the group for Scientific Reappraisal of HIV, along with other experts like Dr. Richard Strohman and Dr. David Rasnick, who debunk HIV mutation theories and the effectiveness of “treatments” with the new protease inhibitors and DNA destroying drugs like AZT. This documentary provides the best complete analysis of these issues in any video form. Also included in the program are CDC statistical studies, the infamous Heckler HHS press conference that invented the AID$ virus in 1984, and comments by Dr. Michael Ellner of HEAL, Christine Maggiore and Celia Farber, AIDS journalist. Much of the current controversy in South Africa and around the world over HIV as the cause of AIDS was initiated by the information presented in this video.«"

Google Video Link

"This is a rare video, taken in 1996 at Ventura College, of Dr Robert (Bob) Beck. A genius in the field of magnetism and electricity, he focused the last decade of his life on using micro currents to render all known virus, bacterial and parasites (including HIV!) powerless. This video seriously challenges current drug/chemical-fueled approach western science takes towards the treatment of disease. This lecture and later ones from Dr Beck are available on DVD via Ebay"

Google Video Link

Its all a scam just like "Global Warming"!!!!

Our slow, tedious progress toward the development of a HIV vaccine is understandably frustrating. Our lack of current success and our witness to the suffering of close family members and entire communities as a result of HIV can lead one to suspect a conspiracy on the part of Pharma to suppress a cure. However, as a healthcare professional in the pharmaceutical industry I have to differ in this sentiment. Remember that countless hours of research had to be completed just for an understanding of how HIV works; this method of transmission is complex. This short video uses terminology that is advanced, but it gives insight into the complex mechanism of transmission.

www.youtube.com...

Transmission is but one aspect; you have to consider replication and dispersal of the virus to the rest of the body. Current research has led to treatments that 'attack' various aspects of the HIV viral 'life-cycle'. Yes, these treatments have nasty side-effects, and yes, the virus often mutates and circumvents any number of treatments, but how many lives have been prolonged? Magic Johnson is the most visible case because he is a celebrity and presumably can pay for any expensive treatments. Many states mandate the coverage of HIV treatments through Medicaid so the poor have access as well. I would therefore argue there are many people that have had their lives prolonged as a result of current treatment but are 'under the radar'.

My final point is that Pharma and our government are not giving up the development of both a cure and a vaccine. You can see this for yourself at the National Institutes of Health website which publicly lists any government-funded clinical trial and the outcome of those trials. There are currently over 3000 government-funded clinical trials geared toward HIV.

www.clinicaltrials.gov... _s=&rcv_e=&lup_s=&lup_e=

Just continue to hope these scientists have indeed discovered a potent cure. If it works it will be the culmination of hundreds of thousands of research hours and billions of dollars of funding. If you discovered the cure after countless previous failures, after you poured 20+ years of your life and other financial resources into research, what do you think is a fair price tag for your work?

AIDS IS A DESIGNED VIRUS. THE RUSSIANS TRIED FOR 6 YEARS TO GET IT TO "JUMP" FROM MONKEY TO MAN WITH ZERO LUCK.

ITS DOING EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO WHICH IS KILL BLACKS IN AFRICA SO EUROPE WONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BEING OVERRUN.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE

Originally posted by Swatman

Originally posted by Marked One
We have cures for a lot of things already. Aids. Cancer. You name it. It's just a matter of getting them exposed to the public and telling the capitalist extremists at the big pharma cartels to "f*** off!" and stop thinking in terms of "good business" and start thinking in terms of "actually helping people". But I've said this in another thread and I will say it again. This isn't a perfect world. It never was. And it never will be.

but those companies are in "business" and that business is providing a solution to peoples problems for a price. you dont do hard labor and researchf or free do you? neither do they.

Like the man said, it ain't a perfect world.
You may be right, but while a few men and woman are getting their well deserved paycheck, many are dying because they can't provide any contribution to that paycheck...
It ain't perfect... and some people go as far to say it ain't good enough. I'm one of them, I'm sure we can do better. Maybe it will never be perfect, but I'm sure we can do better.

[edit on 28/12/2008 by Recouper]

obviously HIV was created by the government to wipe certain people off the earth. it was created to kill gays and africans because they are seen as less evolved and a threat to future evolution

[edit on 28-12-2008 by footfall]

Originally posted by Georgehairybush1
Id like them first to show anyone on earth a direct link between HIV and AIDS. Never been done

Id also like them to show the world a direct link between AIDS and sex. Never been done.

Id be more inclined to believe AZT is a cause of AIDS over HIV.
Why are people with illnesses such as TB not treated for those diseases, because they have HIV?

Lin between HIV and AIDS? I think not

Very well worth discussion....

Lets have a discussion indeed... Unfortunately, the comments you make above are outright false!

Before I respond to your comments, I have to give a little background information to make understanding my response simpler. First, prior to 1986 HIV was officially called human T-lymphotropic virus type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus (HTLV-III/LAV). From 1986 to 1990 it was officially recognized as HIV (reflecting a single genotype). Since 1991, the name was further modified to HIV-1 and HIV-2 to reflect the different genotypes ('species') that were identified in 1986 with the African strain (HIV-2). AIDS is defined based on the presence of multiple infections, neolasms (uncharacteristic growth of cells, like cancer), and other life-threatening issues as a result of a mutilated immune system.

1.) There are MULTIPLE studies that explain the relationship between HIV and AIDS. In the interest of space and time I have referenced two from the early days.

Epidemiological evidence that HTLV-III is the AIDS agent. European Journal of Epidemiology 1985 Sep;1(3):155-9

Isolation of infectious human T-cell leukemia/lymphotropic virus type-III (HTLV-III) from patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or AIDS-related complex (ARC) and from health carriers: a study of risk groups and tissue samples. Proc Natl Acad Sciences, USA 1985 Aug; 82(16):5530-4

The first study (again one of many) shows the link between the HTLV-III (HIV) virus and AIDS.

2.) Using the second study I referenced above, it confirmed which bodily tissues the HIV virus was isolated in. Guess what, semen was one of them. This led researchers down the path of determining routes of transmission. You guessed it, sex was a route. I can provide additional scientific journals upon request to support this.

3.) There is no doubt that AZT has some nasty side-effects (liver effects, effects on fat distribution, etc) including death, but to say it causes AIDS over HIV? First, to be placed on AZT you have to be diagnosed as having HIV - which we already know can lead to AIDS. To prove AZT is a cause of AIDS you would have to put healthy people on AZT and see if they develop AIDS.

4.) TB in and of itself presents another big problem. People with HIV that have TB ARE treated - I have personally been involved in their treatment. If you are referring to one of the quotes in your link that mentioned the disparity in funding for people with TB and malaria in Africa, that is a different issue.

In regard to the link you provided, most of the quotes they provided misstate the obvious. Some say that HIV may be one cause of AIDS, but not the whole cause. This is absurd because it is already known that once someone is infected other things (ie - infection) can happen to the person to further compromise their immune system.

Look further to additional discussion...

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


The video links do not work. I am interested in checking them out.

Originally posted by BlumanChu
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

The video links do not work. I am interested in checking them out.

They are working for me

Here is the links to the videos on Google

video.google.com...

video.google.com...

Please do watch them. There are more than a few "crack pots" who feel it is nothing but a money maker at the expense of the people.

Thanks for caring........!

reply to post by FearSoul


hulda clark has been curing hiv and aids n cancer for over a decade. there is a huge cover up over her but she is so righteous. check out her books she doesnt even have a website of her own because shes a scientist not a money fiend. she used to teach at san diego university but government shut her down. it is illegal to cure or say u cure these diseases. and if u disobey and try to tell the trueth as dr clark has they try to deface ur character. its as real as life itself. get her books n learn to defend urself from the poison within our habits that help trigger disease.

Originally posted by BlumanChu

Originally posted by Georgehairybush1
Id like them first to show anyone on earth a direct link between HIV and AIDS. Never been done

Id also like them to show the world a direct link between AIDS and sex. Never been done.

Id be more inclined to believe AZT is a cause of AIDS over HIV.
Why are people with illnesses such as TB not treated for those diseases, because they have HIV?

Lin between HIV and AIDS? I think not

Very well worth discussion....

Lets have a discussion indeed... Unfortunately, the comments you make above are outright false!

Before I respond to your comments, I have to give a little background information to make understanding my response simpler. First, prior to 1986 HIV was officially called human T-lymphotropic virus type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus (HTLV-III/LAV). From 1986 to 1990 it was officially recognized as HIV (reflecting a single genotype). Since 1991, the name was further modified to HIV-1 and HIV-2 to reflect the different genotypes ('species') that were identified in 1986 with the African strain (HIV-2). AIDS is defined based on the presence of multiple infections, neolasms (uncharacteristic growth of cells, like cancer), and other life-threatening issues as a result of a mutilated immune system.

1.) There are MULTIPLE studies that explain the relationship between HIV and AIDS. In the interest of space and time I have referenced two from the early days.

Epidemiological evidence that HTLV-III is the AIDS agent. European Journal of Epidemiology 1985 Sep;1(3):155-9

Isolation of infectious human T-cell leukemia/lymphotropic virus type-III (HTLV-III) from patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or AIDS-related complex (ARC) and from health carriers: a study of risk groups and tissue samples. Proc Natl Acad Sciences, USA 1985 Aug; 82(16):5530-4

The first study (again one of many) shows the link between the HTLV-III (HIV) virus and AIDS.

2.) Using the second study I referenced above, it confirmed which bodily tissues the HIV virus was isolated in. Guess what, semen was one of them. This led researchers down the path of determining routes of transmission. You guessed it, sex was a route. I can provide additional scientific journals upon request to support this.

3.) There is no doubt that AZT has some nasty side-effects (liver effects, effects on fat distribution, etc) including death, but to say it causes AIDS over HIV? First, to be placed on AZT you have to be diagnosed as having HIV - which we already know can lead to AIDS. To prove AZT is a cause of AIDS you would have to put healthy people on AZT and see if they develop AIDS.

4.) TB in and of itself presents another big problem. People with HIV that have TB ARE treated - I have personally been involved in their treatment. If you are referring to one of the quotes in your link that mentioned the disparity in funding for people with TB and malaria in Africa, that is a different issue.

In regard to the link you provided, most of the quotes they provided misstate the obvious. Some say that HIV may be one cause of AIDS, but not the whole cause. This is absurd because it is already known that once someone is infected other things (ie - infection) can happen to the person to further compromise their immune system.

Look further to additional discussion...

You did not watch the two videos that were posted. Both are about 200 minutes long. The first one on page one of this thread has the worlds best virus expert providing a lot of good information that any so called student or researcher in the field would do well to listen to before making a preemptive stike. Watch it first, then make an intelligent reply to it and we will listen.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by John Matrix]

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


wow! TYVM all seeing eye!

i just watched the entire first video, and wow, astonishing

thats why i LOVE ATS

i can come here, and have all my old ideas thrown away and shown to be nothing more than deceptions from the powers that be.

the pattern forming is a bit disheartening, because its like i can just pick anything the govt said and it turns out to be a lie

anyways, great video man, thanks for sharing it with me

reply to post by John Matrix


its sad, these so called "Doctors and scientists" are actually retarded

When their "idea" gets refuted and crictical questioning arises putting doubt on their "idea" they act like religious zealots and defend the defeated idea to the death

When in reality, the non-retarded scientists and doctors, who ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND the SCIENTIFIC METHOD - will gladly reject any old idea in the face of good questioning.

The goal of science is not to cling to a theory - but to be willing to reject that theory when new information arises.

And im sorry, but i view all these "Sheeple" "scientists" who come ranting and raving that our questions hold no merit, as heartless religious zealots who care more about MONEY than the TRUTH.

Yes im calling a scientist who does not question things, an idiot. Hes not even a scientist either. Look anyone can put on a lab coat and say a bunch of meaningless BS.

It takes Thinking and Questioning to become a real scientist.

And all these industry hard liners are NOT scientists, at BEST they are SNAKE OIL SALESMEN

Just the bad part is, the snake oil is toxic and will kill you.

You know things have gotton bad when the drugdealer on the street corner is selling safer drugs than the local pharmacy.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by All Seeing Eye

 

wow! TYVM all seeing eye!

i just watched the entire first video, and wow, astonishing

thats why i LOVE ATS

i can come here, and have all my old ideas thrown away and shown to be nothing more than deceptions from the powers that be.

the pattern forming is a bit disheartening, because its like i can just pick anything the govt said and it turns out to be a lie

anyways, great video man, thanks for sharing it with me

It is sad to come to the realization that the real "Virus" is something quite different than what we are taught.

There will come a time when Justice will be administered, hopefully in my lifetime.

Oh, and by the way, YVW.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by All Seeing Eye]

Let cross fingers and hope this to be true, after many years they are very close to clean up the U.S. experiment AIDS mess

Originally posted by Swatman

Originally posted by Marked One
We have cures for a lot of things already. Aids. Cancer. You name it. It's just a matter of getting them exposed to the public and telling the capitalist extremists at the big pharma cartels to "f*** off!" and stop thinking in terms of "good business" and start thinking in terms of "actually helping people". But I've said this in another thread and I will say it again. This isn't a perfect world. It never was. And it never will be.

but those companies are in "business" and that business is providing a solution to peoples problems for a price. you dont do hard labor and researchf or free do you? neither do they.

That's not my point. My point is; say for example I was a doctor and I came out and devised a perfect once and for all cure for cancer and began a venture to produce and market such solution/substance.

The pharma cartels are going to want a cut of my profit. Whether I choose to share the profit or not? The pharmaceutical cartels are going to lose business in cancer treatment because of my miracle cancer cure. So guess what?

Regardless. They'll either find a good reason to have me stuck inside a prison cell to rot for the rest of my life. Or worst? (Although I feel that the former would actually be worst.) I'm going to be assassinated. All for the sake of capital. And it was all because I was just trying to do my god-d***ed, f***ing job as a doctor.

To those who are complaining that the industry isn't moving fast enough on getting possible cures out to people:

Have you ever complained that a pharmaceutical treatment got pushed through FDA approval too fast? If so, how can you also complain that things get pushed through too slow?

This is just my opinion, but I think a big part of how our medical and pharmaceutical industries got to the terrible state of corruption they're now in is that we asked our doctors and scientists to be gods, and they didn't tell us they weren't. They have to do the best they can, and that means balancing adequate safety testing for new drugs with the need to make them available to the public as quickly as possible. Now we don't believe the doctors when they tell us what causes a disease, but we also don't believe them if they tell us they don't know what's causing it. We assume that if a potential "cure" is reported once in the popular news but then we don't hear about it for several years, that there's been a coverup. Maybe the cure just didn't work after all, or maybe it worked fine if you didn't mind dying of something else that the cure gave you.

Hmm Isnt this how I am Legend started?

All i can see is everyone taking a shot and turning into face eating zombies

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by BlumanChu

Originally posted by Georgehairybush1


You did not watch the two videos that were posted. Both are about 200 minutes long. The first one on page one of this thread has the worlds best virus expert providing a lot of good information that any so called student or researcher in the field would do well to listen to before making a preemptive stike. Watch it first, then make an intelligent reply to it and we will listen.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by John Matrix]

I made the 'intelligent' reply to Georgehairybush1's comments with references to scientific journals and I addressed each one of his comments. Because I responded to a statement rather than launch the initial comment that generated the response, how can that be pre-emptive? Secondly, I already provided references to two scientific references to refute Georgehairybush1's statements. Did you read them? You asked me to watch the videos! Finally, to call Dr. Duesberg 'the worlds best virus expert' is stretching it. I am not saying that because I disagree with his viewpoints but because there are other more world renowned viral experts (ie - Dr. Jeffrey Cohen, Dr. Kuan-Teh Jeang) at the NIH for example.

Your comments aside, I went ahead and watched both of the videos. It would take me 20 pages to comment on much of what was posted there so I will just address two comments. Dr. Duesberg's essential argument is that 1.) the current hypothesis states that HIV does not cause disease immediately after infection like other viruses and instead has the unique property of causing disease (AIDS) years later; and 2.) AIDS is caused by recreational drug use and malnutrition.

1.) HIV does cause sickness after initial infection as evidenced by flu-like symptoms, fever, sore throat, diarrhea, etc. Basically, like your common flu-bug (influenza). Because this does not kill you it does not mean it is not eliciting its untoward effects. The second point is that a decrease in CD4 (helper T-cells) is the net effect of HIV infection (there is debate as to whether HIV does this solely by lysing the T-cell, or whether once exposed to HIV, T-cells lose their ability to launch an effective immune response, or T-cells that were exposed to HIV are 'attacked' by other T-cells due to HIV protein fragments that remain on the initially exposed T-cell). The time to damage the immune response is the reason for the time delay before the development of other aspects of the syndrome.

2.) The argument is that recreational drugs can cause AIDS. This would mean each of these drugs would probably have to cause neutropenia (low white blood cell count). '___' - rarely (99% of the population is not malnourished? He cannot, therefore, he has to make the claim that >99% incidences of AIDS are accounted for by recreational drug use in the US/Europe. Can you imagine how many people actually have or will be getting AIDS based on this logic? How can all the anti-HIV drugs cause AIDS when they have a different mechanism of action? The video is obviously dated (around 1996) because it does not mention any anti-HIV drug other than AZT as causing AIDS. There are approximately 30 different agents currently on the market. Also, if these HIV drugs cause AIDS then they all should have the side-effect of neutropenia (low white blood cell count) with a very high incidence...[cont'd]

[cont'd] Some HIV drugs do not even have neutropenia reported as a side-effect. These drugs were tested versus placebo in HIV-infected people and their incidence of neutropenia is relatively low (~7%) or not exhibited (ex - Kaletra). Dr. Duesberg or others would have to show some other mechanism being induced by the drugs to cause AIDS.

After watching the video I then read Dr. Duesberg's most recent scientific publication on this topic (Duesberg P, Koehnlein C and Rasnick D 2003 The chemical basis of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition; J Biosci. 28 383-412). The article basically repeated a lot of the arguments made in the video. Interestingly, Dr. Duesberg concluded his article by blasting the scientific 'peer-review' process and discussing the negative influence of dollars in the entire scientific process. He also described how he attempted to have versions of the publication published in other scientific journals but was rejected at the last minute by the publications (one American and one European) - this article is published in an Indian journal. I have to admit that I respect his dedication to his cause - though I disagree based on the mountain of evidence. As a side-note, I passed this topic of discussion over to a colleague of mine who is an infectious disease specialist. I presented it in a way so as not to bias the conversation. I will re-post what we discuss. Dr. Duesberg's email address was made public in the above referenced article and I was going to offer to provide it for those of you sentimental to his cause if you promise to use sound judgment in corresponding, but I have to confirm this complies with the forum's rules -(Moderator - would that be a violation?)

I will close with this: Dr. Duesberg argues he cannot secure funding to disprove the viral hypothesis. I argue that he can tackle Goliath in pieces: first, by designing a study that shows that recreational drugs can alter immune response. Second, if the outcome of the first is positive he will have the bridge to be able to make the case that it may also lead to AIDS. This way he does not raise red flags at the outset by attacking Pharma drugs and he would be able to secure funding to go in the direction of AIDS. Of course, he could always infect himself with HIV and see what happens - as the old school scientists used to do. I am a strong skeptic of his hypothesis but I have humored myself and his proponents in this forum by reading the scientific publications of Dr. Duesberg and others, watching his (?) video, and by reaching out to another scientist who is 'in the field' (versus a lab geek) to start the wheels of debate. It is easy to watch a video and proclaim that you are now 'in-the-know'. I hope that others who stand by his hypothesis can do the same in the opposite direction.