State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory Birth of AIDS

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Stevie Wonder could see where it all is, you quite obviously know nothing of retroviruses, so you just continue to represent the army of darkness. (LAB COAT WEARING HACKS, DOWN FOR THEIRS.)

You simply refuse to consent to ANYTHING, but "lol" on the other hand though, other people who read my posts & links will be able to make uP their own minds I'm sure regardless of YOUR disregarding triple talk.

> *** "Although retroviruses infect immune cells, they don't kill them." So de Harven viewed them as unlikely candidates for causing AIDS.*** < DID YOU MISS THAT ? DON'T MEAN A THING ? WHATS UP WITH THAT ?
DO YOU SEE THE SCIENTIST WHO SAID IT AS JUNK ? HE'S NOT HONEST BOB GALLO OR A "BOB CLUB MEMBER" OR ONE OF THEIR MINIONS ? IS THAT IT ?

PEOPLE NEED TO READ THIS LINK AND I GUESS YOU NEED TO READ IT AGAIN, ITS JUST THE TIPPY TIP OF THE TRUE ICEBERG TO.

www.healtoronto.com...

Why do think Dr. Montagnier pratically shouted from the roof tops that "H.I.V. >CAN NOT< CAUSE AIDS IN & ITSELF, IT NEEDS A CO-FACTOR." Gallo blew a gasket when Frenchie dropped that ! Do you even KNOW when & where that actually took place ? Do you know that Montagnier actually once thought that he FOUND that missing co-factor ?

Do know what HTLV stands for ? What the name actually means & why it was given that name by Dr. Bob ? puz:

I simply can't wait to hear your answer on that one. @@

Your the one who dodges everything, not I. When your not actually doing that your disregarding anything & everything thats put before you like what YOUR being shown is BUNK even though its quite far from it, miles in-fact.

Do you actually think I CAN'T provide the locations of early retrovirus research ?
"I CAN AND I'M GOING TO, BELIEVE ME. "

>>>BUT

Originally posted by alpha68
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Stevie Wonder could see where it all is, you quite obviously know nothing of retroviruses, so you just continue to represent the army of darkness. (LAB COAT WEARING HACKS, DOWN FOR THEIRS.)

If I know nothing of retroviruses and have presented poor research, please point out where my research is fault. I've provided several links, and you've not even mentioned them. What is wrong with my sources? Where is the science faulty?

Why won't you address this point?

You simply refuse to consent to ANYTHING, but "lol" on the other hand though, other people who read my posts & links will be able to make uP their own minds I'm sure regardless of YOUR disregarding triple talk.

Why would I consent to something that is blatantly wrong? You've provided no evidence, no sources, no research....nothing other than ad hominem attacks, like usual.

> *** "Although retroviruses infect immune cells, they don't kill them." So de Harven viewed them as unlikely candidates for causing AIDS.*** < DID YOU MISS THAT ? DON'T MEAN A THING ? WHATS UP WITH THAT ?

I've shown you several papers on several different retroviruses, including HIV. These papers all show they have cytopathic activity.

Why won't you address the papers I've linked? Why won't you show me where the science is faulty?

[quote[DO YOU SEE THE SCIENTIST WHO SAID IT AS JUNK ? HE'S NOT HONEST BOB GALLO OR A "BOB CLUB MEMBER" OR ONE OF THEIR MINIONS ? IS THAT IT ?

I've actually communicated with Dr. De Harven's associates via e-mail (through a student of mine who was interested in the HIV prize). The student and I wrote both to Dr. de Harven and the folks offering the prize for isolation of HIV, asking what their premise was, exactly. When we sent them proof of isolation (papers demonstrating antigenic isolation as well as electron micrographs), they simply stopped responding to us.

Why do you think that is? Why would they not want to explain the problem with the proof we provided?

Also, I can certainly forward copies of those e-mails to you, if you don't believe I had an exchange with these groups.

Why do think Dr. Montagnier pratically shouted from the roof tops that "H.I.V. >CAN NOT< CAUSE AIDS IN & ITSELF, IT NEEDS A CO-FACTOR." Gallo blew a gasket when Frenchie dropped that ! Do you even KNOW when & where that actually took place ? Do you know that Montagnier actually once thought that he FOUND that missing co-factor ?

That's not at all what Montagnier said. His decription of a cofactor relates to how rapidly an HIV infection progresses from HIV to AIDS.

Here is a good interview with Montagnier from 1995. He explains the "cofactor" issue quite clearly. You'll also note that explains that HIV IS CYTOPATHIC. Now that your own source has contradicted your claims of non-cytopathicity, will you admit you were lying/wrong?

Montagnier talks about HIV cytopathicity, co-factors, and HIV as the causative agento of HIV

Please also note that no where in this interview does Montagnier show even a moment of hesitation about naming HIV as the agent causing AIDS. If you're willing to use Montagnier for other information, why not believe him on this part, too? Is it because it doesn't fit into your paranoid worldview?

[quote[Do know what HTLV stands for ? What the name actually means & why it was given that name by Dr. Bob ?

Yes, it's the human T-lymphotropic virus, a classification given to any virus that preferntially infects (and kills) T-cells. HIV was previously classified as HTLV-III until it was identified as the causative agent of AIDS. At that point, it was renamed HIV. This is the same virus as LAV, simpyl isolated a different stage.

In the Montagnier interview above, he explains why the virus was named both HTLV-III and LAV, and seen as two different viruses by the two groups. LAV is late stage HIV, causing lymphadenopathy (hence the L and A in LAV), while HTLV is the early stage, isolated due to a technique Gallo pioneered that allowed for culture of human T cells (which is why they were able to isolate early HIV, before it disseminated to the lymph nodes).

Your the one who dodges everything, not I. When your not actually doing that your disregarding anything & everything thats put before you like what YOUR being shown is BUNK even though its quite far from it, miles in-fact.

Please repost anything I've dodged and I'll be more than happy to answer it. I don't think I've dodged anything, actually, as I have a tendency to break down your posts line by line (partially for completeness and partially because it's hard to read your posts otherwise, due to grammatical and spelling errors).

Do you actually think I CAN'T provide the locations of early retrovirus research ?

When did I ask you to provide this? I never did. I asked you to show why the science I posted is faulty.

Why won't you address the studies I psoted?

YOU WILL NEVER, EVER, COME BACK AND ADMIT WHAT YOU HAD SEEN & WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS, NO WAY, NO HOW.

Prove it.

IN-FACT...IF YOU DO ACTUALLY COME BACK AT ALL, IT WOULD SIMPLY JUST BE TO DISCREDIT WHAT YOU SEEN WITH YOUR OWN TWO EYES, HOPING NOBODY ELSE ATTEMPTS TO LOOK INTO IT FOR THEMSELVES DUE TO YOUR IMPERIAL TONE, I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO ATTEMPT TO SPOON FEED YOU EVERYTHING.

You're not going to "spoon feed" me? In other words, you have no sources, so you're going to refer to some made-up source and claim that I'm "not looking". What a joke.

Post it, or admit you're lying. Either is fine with me.

Why ? ? ? SIMPLE ! Its because ALL you care about is appearing right & superior, regardless if you are or NOT.

I have no desire to be right, personally. I have a desire to see proper science being posted. If someone psots junk science (like you tend to do), of course I'm going to correct it.

What's wrong with denying ignorance? Isn't that the motto of the site?

Which 1959 sample didn't Dr. David Ho extract again ? You said in stone that he didn't do both...CORRECT ?
Is that way too confusing a question something ? I ask because it sure seemed to be the first time I presented it.

David Ho had nothing to do with the 1959 samples from Kinshasa:
UofA isolation of HIV from 1959 sample

Perhaps you need to brush up on your current literature.

The funny thing is that you most likely didn't even know who David Ho was until I "FINALLY" mentioned his name, who do actually think stars in that VIDEO I mentioned anyway ? Dolph "IVAN DRAGO" Lungren ?

edit on 19-10-2010 by alpha68 because: (no reason given)

Wait, wait, wait...you think I didn't know who Dr. Ho was because I knew there was a sample that he didn't isolate?

Are you complete mad, or are you just selectively illogical?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Q. = I'm I completely MAD, you ask ?

A. = NOPE ! I'm to busy laughing !

Due to the fact that it appears as if your Congolese MAN is in all reallity, under absolutely NO uncertain terms, a CONGOLESE WOMAN !

THATS RIGHT FOLKS ! IT''S CONGOLEEZA RICE !

It appears as if you actually need to "BONE uP" on your "GENARAL ANATOMY". So...on that note, here a quick lesson----> Boys have a penis & girls have what is known as a vagina.
David Ho did her to, I'm sure. "NO PUN INTENDED"

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Originally posted by alpha68
[

Due to the fact that it appears as if your Congolese MAN is in all reallity, under absolutely NO uncertain terms, a CONGOLESE WOMAN !

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is, in fact, a Congolese man that was suspected of being an early case, dated to 1959. This is the sample sequenced by David Ho which was later found to be contaminated. This is the "Congolese man" I was referring to on the first page. The Kinshasa sample I linked to above is an entirely different sample, not worked on by David Ho.

I'm not sure why you seem to think there can't be more than one sample. I suppose that doesn't fit into your paranoid scheme.

David Ho did her to, I'm sure. "NO PUN INTENDED"

He's not listed as an author, consultant, referring lab, contributor, or anything else.

Why do you keep making things up? Why can't you make an argument from facts, rather than fantasy?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Honestly, that offical Pub Science link you posted with "1959" in the title in your post above went & redirected us all into a total "TricK BaG" ! Quit trying to make me look bad, while I'm try'in to make you look bad !
You just always have to be rude don't ya. I already told you more than once that your giving me a complex insulting my spelling & everything else, when did I never claim that the 3rd grade wasn't the best four years of my life anyway ?

Cool it already with those types of jabs at my GROTESQUELY LARGE EGO, it stings.

Congoleeza Rice supposed 1960, from the EXACT same "HooD" as Sailor Boy & Tribe Guy, Congoleeza Rice is staring in that 1959 Pub Link that you posted up there, why didn't you just go get my sailor boy & tribe guy links off page 1 of this thread, you know the ones below here that mention Ho giving them both a prostate exam silly.

www.aegis.org...

www.cnn.com...

You are correct in regards to what HTLV-1 stands for "NOW", but you are INCORECT in regards to what it actually means by a country mile. HTLV-1 originally stood for "Human T-Cell Lukemia Virus" and in 1985 Gallo changed it to "Human T-Cell Lymphtropic Virus" which neither implies "CANCER" nor "CELL KILLING" thus maintaining the imbiguity that the virus could cause both diseases at once ! LOL ! Neat trick Huh ?

Can you figure out why ?

Originally posted by alpha68


Honestly, that offical Pub Science link you posted with "1959" in the title in your post above went & redirected us all into a total "TricK BaG"

How so? The link I provided directs you to the paper I referenced, and the abstract is very clear. How is it a"trick bag" (whatever that means, anyways)?

Congoleeza Rice supposed 1960

No, the sample was from 1959, not 1960.

from the EXACT same "HooD" as Sailor Boy & Tribe Guy

Again, no. The region of the Congo that the male sample is from is largely unknown. The female sample is specifically from Kinshasa. The sailor, an Englishman, had visited several locations in Africa, and it's not known if he ever visited the Congo area. So, none of them are from "the exact" same area.

[quote[why didn't you just go get my sailor boy & tribe guy links off page 1 of this thread, you know the ones below here that mention Ho giving them both a prostate exam silly.

I didn't use your links because I was showing you that people other than Ho have found early HIV samples. Why do you have such a hard time following basic, step-by-step logical processes? You ask for A, so I give you A. You then ask why I didn't give you B and C, despite never asking for B and C.

HTLV-1 originally stood for "Human T-Cell Lukemia Virus"

Not true. Human T-cell leukemia virus is an alternate (and still used) name for human t-cell lymphotropic virus. The two names describe the two activities of the same virus. It's the same situation as "HRSV (human syncitial respiratory virus)" or "Pneumovirus". Same deal, same virus, same everything...just different names based on action or specificity.

and in 1985 Gallo changed it to "Human T-Cell Lymphtropic Virus" which neither implies "CANCER" nor "CELL KILLING" thus maintaining the imbiguity that the virus could cause both diseases at once ![/quote[

No one has ever claimed it causes cancer. The technical definition of leukemia ia an increase in the number of immature WBCs in the blood, with a marked decrease of mature/functional cells. This is precisely what HTLV does as it kills T-cells, which it also does. Neither of these are really in question, as they've been demonstrated to be common actions of HTLV for several decades.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


A trick bag is a "bag of tricks", what else could it possibly mean ?

Your WRONG !
Just plain wrong on all counts, first off David Ho (FRAUD) did in-fact extract BOTH samples form both Sailor Boy & Tribe Guy and if the MISSING LINK ever becomes da FOUND LINK, I'm sure Diamond Dave will be extracting something out him / her to !
Anyone who reads my links will see that he did & your 1959 Pub Med JiVe staring Congoleeza Rice is also plain to see, just please remember to always keep in mind, Boys = Penis & Girls = Vagina, AND you'll be alllllright. HTLV

Again, you are are wrong about HTLV-1 as well as the definition of it, Gallo's an enema nozzle, the reason I gave for him changing it is correct.

Viruses became YOUR specialty when may I ask ?

You see that I believe that MONEY you were trying to claim flew out of you hands due to the fact that the people who are offering it are not interested in anyone actually isolating H.I.V./ LAV / HTLV-III, they want someone to isolate a virus, the virus that causes full blown A.I.D.S..>THE HYPOTHETICAL A.I.D.S VIRUS<

H.I.V. can't cause A.I.D.S related DEMENTIA and the SIGNAL DISEASE of A.I.D.S = Kaposi Sarcoma, they want the VIRUS that can, because H.I.V. most certainly can't cause either, I know as well as they do that no typical or known microrganism can. >FUNNY THING IS, ONE ACTUALLY CAN & DOES<

Have you EVER heard Gallo talk smack about how he believes H.I.V. could cause A.I.D.S related Dementia ?
Its PRICELESS !

Do you know what Gallo says regarding H.I.V.'s inabillity to kill CD-4's in vitro ?

Originally posted by alpha68
Your WRONG !

Just plain wrong on all counts, first off David Ho (FRAUD) did in-fact extract BOTH samples form both Sailor Boy & Tribe Guy

Neither of those samples are the Kinshasaa woman I linked to above. Stop using strawman arguments and simply address the sample I linked above. Why can't you do that?

Anyone who reads my links will see that he did & your 1959 Pub Med JiVe staring Congoleeza Rice is also plain to see,

What about the sample is "plain to see"? There is no link between the Kinshasa woman and David Ho.

Again, you are are wrong about HTLV-1 as well as the definition of it,

Source, please.

Viruses became YOUR specialty when may I ask ?

Around the time I began viral genetic research in graduate school, and then again when I began my infectious disease fellowship about a year ago.

Why do you ask?

You see that I believe that MONEY you were trying to claim flew out of you hands[
due to the fact that the people who are offering it are not interested in anyone actually isolating H.I.V./ LAV / HTLV-III, they want someone to isolate a virus, the virus that causes full blown A.I.D.S..>THE HYPOTHETICAL A.I.D.S VIRUS<

False. Dr. de Havren and the AIDS prize group (Perth group, I believe), specifically asked for a specimen of HIV isolated from an AIDS patient. That is all. I provided them with papers, electron micrographs and lab work, all with additional references, and they bailed.

H.I.V. can't cause A.I.D.S related DEMENTIA and the SIGNAL DISEASE of A.I.D.S = Kaposi Sarcoma,

No one has ever claimed HIV causes dementia or Kaposi's sarcoma. HIV does, however, lower the immune system and allow the infections that cause dementia and Kaposi's sarcoma to occur. Why don't you understand that no one is claiming HIV causes these conditions? That's basic science.

Have you EVER heard Gallo talk smack about how he believes H.I.V. could cause A.I.D.S related Dementia ?

Gallo has never said this. He has shown that HIV infection causes immune suppression, which then allows infection by other agents that cause dementia, as well as other problems (like candida, for example).

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


You have NEVER mentioned the Congo woman even once until I jokingly brought her uP here on page one of this thread, whenever anyone mentioned anything doing with Boyd Graves & those documents, it was always "THE 1959 CONGOLESE MAN THIS, AND THE 1959 CONGOLESE MAN THAT."

Just so your aware....I have officially put out an "AMBER-ALERT" on you for the corpse-napping of a one "CONGOLEEZA RICE" in hopes that you peacefully turn yourself in and you return her safely in the same exact nine pieces that see was in when the two of you were first introduced.

Gallo changed the name of HTLV-1 from "Human Leukemia Virus" to "Human T-cell Lympotropic Virus" in 1985 in-order to change the meaning without changing the the four letter abriviation "HTLV", you see the scientific-Chinese TERMINOLOGY & meaning of >HUMAN T-CELL LYMPHOTROPIC VIRUS< is in-fact-------------------------------> "ONE WHO FAVORS INFECTING T-CELLS". The reason Galo did this is because its points to neither the out of controll cell growth that is CANCER, nor the cell KILLING claimed to be done in AIDS, giving him the ability to blame HTLV on BOTH DISEASES, even though the virus could NEVER cause cancer in the very same exact cell that it was about to be locked & loaded into the role of the T-cell Killing AIDS VIRUS, its an OXYMORON, but then again, so is Gallo.

Max Essex (FRAUD LEUKEMIC CAT FeLV VACCINE BOY) inflated Galos head by implicating his HTLV virus as being the cause of AIDS Essex was glued to Gallo just before, durring & after Frenchie found LAV, you have
absolutely no idea about any of it do you ?

www.aids.harvard.edu...

www.natvetlab.com...

www.bizjournals.com...

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


You say that you do in-fact have an "ELECTRON-MICROGRAPH" of an H.I.V.-1 virus that you personally isolated ? I'm quite impressed & I would absolutely love to see it. Was it a difficult task to perform ? Could you please post the pic of it here on this thread ?

Bum deal on collecting the prize $, I can only imagine the amount of tinkering you must have done with your personally isolated virus,
Indeed, what types of experiments did you perform on it (?), and what were a few of the (your) conclusions ?

Was it the first retrovirus you ever worked with ?

Originally posted by alpha68

You say that you do in-fact have an "ELECTRON-MICROGRAPH" of an H.I.V.-1 virus that you personally isolated ? I'm quite impressed & I would absolutely love to see it. Was it a difficult task to perform ? Could you please post the pic of it here on this thread ?

Bum deal on collecting the prize $, I can only imagine the amount of tinkering you must have done with your personally isolated virus,
Indeed, what types of experiments did you perform on it (?), and what were a few of the (your) conclusions ?

Was it the first retrovirus you ever worked with ?

Can you point out the bit where I said I did this work personally? I would hate for you to have to admit you either didn't actually READ my post, or that you are making things up to create an argument out of thin air. If you were more familiar with the Perth Group/Russel prize for HIV/AIDS, you would know that they don't require that you've done the work personally, they simply ask for proof of any form.

Here are some of the images you've requested, too:

Utah Medical School Pathology Department A wonderful reference, offering texts and pictures

Avert Gallery Contains some electron micrgraphs of various HIV stages, some colorized, some not.

University of South Caroline Medical School Pathology Department

Those are the first few I found in the sources I usually use for reference. Want more?

Originally posted by alpha68
You have NEVER mentioned the Congo woman even once until I jokingly brought her uP here on page one of this thread, whenever anyone mentioned anything doing with Boyd Graves & those documents, it was always "THE 1959 CONGOLESE MAN THIS, AND THE 1959 CONGOLESE MAN THAT."

I opsted links to that sample when you claimed no samples were found that Ho hadn't been involved with. You couldn't prove me wrong, so now you're changing the subject. Nice try.

Gallo changed the name of HTLV-1 from "Human Leukemia Virus" to "Human T-cell Lympotropic Virus" in 1985 in-order to change the meaning without changing the the four letter abriviation "HTLV", you see the scientific-Chinese TERMINOLOGY & meaning of >HUMAN T-CELL LYMPHOTROPIC VIRUS< is in-fact-------------------------------> "ONE WHO FAVORS INFECTING T-CELLS". The reason Galo did this is because its points to neither the out of controll cell growth that is CANCER, nor the cell KILLING claimed to be done in AIDS, giving him the ability to blame HTLV on BOTH DISEASES, even though the virus could NEVER cause cancer in the very same exact cell that it was about to be locked & loaded into the role of the T-cell Killing AIDS VIRUS, its an OXYMORON, but then again, so is Gallo.

Go back to your basic science classes. The killing of T cells (which HIV does) causes an increase in the release of immature lymphocytes from the lymphoid tissue, which is called "leukemia".

Basic, basic stuff here.

Max Essex (FRAUD LEUKEMIC CAT FeLV VACCINE BOY) inflated Galos head by implicating his HTLV virus as being the cause of AIDS Essex was glued to Gallo just before, durring & after Frenchie found LAV, you have
absolutely no idea about any of it do you ?

What does this relationship have to do with the decades of research post-Gallo that shows definitively that HIv causes AIDS?

Why can't you just look at the evidence, rather than going after Gallo, who is an admitted egotist?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa



You may actually be bigger grasping at strawmen tripe talking thief then your idol Dr. Robert "HONEST BoB" GALO.

Go back to my basic science classes (?), you say ?

The killing of T-cells (Which HIV does NOT, nor does HTLV-1 & 2) so it (OR THEY) could not causes an increase in the release of immature lymphocytes (WHICH ARE KNOWN AS "BLASTS", by the way.) from the lymphoid anything, which is actually called "CANCER".

Only 35% or so, of lymphocytes are in-fact T-cells for starters.

The immune system does not play ANY such role in cancer, hunter / killer cells are trained NOT to attack the host body, and since CANCER CELLS are in-fact seen by them as part of said hosts body & non-foreign invaders that are supposed to be there, they blow right by leaving the out of control multipling cells to go about their buisness unimpeded.

Basic, basic stuff here, is right (!), that you obviously know NOTHING about.

What do you know about Gallo & his quest to find a disease for the first human retrovirus (?) his virus, his HTLV-1 ?
Because I will be speaking on it quite extensively in my next post.

Gallo is a P.O.S. and I want everyone here to know it, "ITS ONE HELL OF A START !" that a quote from the man himself, you know.

When will you be posting your "MICROGRAPH" and speaking on you H.I.V. research in your next post ?

Originally posted by alpha68

The killing of T-cells (Which HIV does NOT, nor does HTLV-1 & 2)

Please explain why my sources which say they DO kill T-cells are wrong, then. Why do you still refuse to even acknowledge the sources I posted? Is it because you can't explain why they're wrong?

so it (OR THEY) could not causes an increase in the release of immature lymphocytes (WHICH ARE KNOWN AS "BLASTS", by the way.) from the lymphoid anything, which is actually called "CANCER".

There's actually a fine line between lymphoblasts and lymphocytes, and it depends on how many activation signals they've received. I'll grant that lymphoblastic leukemia is more common. That being said, depleting mature T-cells (such as by HIV infection), does, indeed, cause an increased release of lymphoblasts, leading to leukemia when their activation signals become skewed.

The immune system does not play ANY such role in cancer, hunter / killer cells are trained NOT to attack the host body, and since CANCER CELLS are in-fact seen by them as part of said hosts body & non-foreign invaders that are supposed to be there, they blow right by leaving the out of control multipling cells to go about their buisness unimpeded.

Again, you need to read up on basic science. When you have an unusually large number of lymphoblasts being released, the ability of lymphoid organs to shut down self-reacting cells (called anergy) becomes impaired, allowing more self-reactive cells to leak through and create systemic issues.

What do you know about Gallo & his quest to find a disease for the first human retrovirus (?) his virus, his HTLV-1 ?
Because I will be speaking on it quite extensively in my next post.

So, you're going to change the subject rather than answer any questions you've been asked?

Typical.

When will you be posting your "MICROGRAPH" and speaking on you H.I.V. research in your next post ?

The micrographs are in the post above. They were posted hours ago.

reply to post by


My mission at the moment is to show the person who started this link & the other good people reading our exchanges who the crooked mainstream scientists are (ALONG WITH THEIR TRACK RECORDS) that started all this actually are, starting with Dr. Robert C. Gallo my friend, because they are who the world listens to (MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS M.D.s & wanna be's & LAY PERSONS ALIKE), and if YOU actually pick up some sense & gain some obviously much needed knowledge along the way, well... that would simply just be fantastic !

"MOVING RIGHT ALONG"

I already told you why, but I planned to acknowledge those links you posted further in due time, the only reason that I haven't until now is because you can't seem to hold your horses. First off all in regards to that posted research, its all JUNK. The money thats poured into AIDS research as well as all the retro-junk animal virus researched through the floor already to absolutely no avail, because it in-turn throws more logs on the fire & fans the flames for more H.I.V. / AIDS research grants even though they are already out of control, the funding is already toooo & past the moon, hence, they have to continue to keep on adding more & more fraud fortified tripe on top of more & more fraud fortified tripe in-order to attract & recrute more retro-hacks into the club and keep those RUBEL'S rolling in. It works out for the universities to teach their students the A.I.D.S ESTABLISHMENTS fraud filled tipe which gets them paid after they graduate.

You would expect a virus that is supposed to kill cells in vivo (INSIDE THE BODY) to also kill cells in vitro (OUTSIDE THE BODY IN A LAB DISH), BOTH THE H.I.V. 1 & 2 VIRUSES DO NO SUCH THING, YOU SAID YOU YOURSELF ISOLATATED H.I.V.-1, YOU TOLD ME THAT YOU CULTURED VIRUSES BEFORE,SO WHY DON'T YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT ? H.I.V. IS ONLY A BSL-2 VIRUS AND I THINK THATS WAY TOO GENEROUS, YOU COULD WORK WITH IT IN A PACKED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LUNCH-ROOM AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. WHATS uP ? WERE YOU NOT ALLOWED TO WORK WITH YOUR OWN VIRUS ?
IF NOT, DID SOMEONE STOP YOU ?

There is abolutely NO reason at all what so very ever why H.I.V. can't or won't kill a chimpanzee, IT WON'T AND DON'T----------->WHY ?

Do you have any IDEA what the establishment says in regards to that little virology conundrum VneZonyDostupa ?

I will tell you EVERYTHING, but I want you to give me YOUR side & interpetation of whats above here first.

Hmmm....AND WHICH ONE OF THOSE LINKS YOU POSTED ABOVE SHOW THE MICROGRAPH OF THE H.I.V.-1 VIRUS YOU YOURSELF PERSONALLY & ACTUALLY ISOLATED & WHAT WOULD THOSE LINKS HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR VIRUS ANYWAY ? ? ? ?

Take a look at the link below, it shows what real scientists can do when there isn't a WORLD-WIDE LA COSA NOSTRA OF FRAUD AT WORK HIDING THE FACTS AND MAKING uP SMACK AS THEY GO ALONG.

THEY CAN TURN THE DEADLIEST VIRUS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH INTO WHAT ? TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT CAN BE DONE WHEN THERE IS NO ESTABLISHMENT TALKING UP JUNK FOR MONEY, DO YOU THINK IF EBOLA RESEARCH HAD THE BACKING THAT H.I.V. / A.I.D.S. HAS YOU WOULD EVER SEE ANYTHING THE LIKES OF WHATS IN THE LINK BELOW ?

www.nature.com...

www.news.wisc.edu...

Originally posted by alpha68
reply to post by

 

I already told you why, but I planned to acknowledge those links you posted further in due time, the only reason that I haven't until now is because you can't seem to hold your horses. First off all in regards to that posted research, its all JUNK. The money thats poured into AIDS research as well as all the retro-junk animal virus researched through the floor already to absolutely no avail, because it in-turn throws more logs on the fire & fans the flames for more H.I.V. / AIDS research grants even though they are already out of control, the funding is already toooo & past the moon, hence, they have to continue to keep on adding more & more fraud fortified tripe on top of more & more fraud fortified tripe in-order to attract & recrute more retro-hacks into the club and keep those RUBEL'S rolling in. It works out for the universities to teach their students the A.I.D.S ESTABLISHMENTS fraud filled tipe which gets them paid after they graduate.

Please show a financial connection between any author on my sources and an "AIDS establishment". Also, if the science in these papers was "junk", surely it would have been easy for a student/scientist in another country to disprove it? Why haven't they?

You would expect a virus that is supposed to kill cells in vivo (INSIDE THE BODY) to also kill cells in vitro (OUTSIDE THE BODY IN A LAB DISH), BOTH THE H.I.V. 1 & 2 VIRUSES DO NO SUCH THING,

Several of my links show HIV, as well as other retroviruses, DO have cytopathic effects in tissue culture. Please READ the posts before you make things up.

YOU SAID YOU YOURSELF ISOLATATED H.I.V.-1, YOU TOLD ME THAT YOU CULTURED VIRUSES BEFORE,

Please quote where I said that. I would hate for you to be caught lying.

H.I.V. IS ONLY A BSL-2 VIRUS AND I THINK THATS WAY TOO GENEROUS,

Why would it be classed any higher? It doesn't aerosol, and we have prophylaxis in case of needle sticks. It does meet the criteria for higher BSL levels.

WERE YOU NOT ALLOWED TO WORK WITH YOUR OWN VIRUS ?
IF NOT, DID SOMEONE STOP YOU ?

The little work I've done with HIV was limited to genetics, my field of choice. No one ever stopped me from doing anything with my samples, none of which were whole virus and none of which were isolated by myself (they were requested from another lab). Why?

There is abolutely NO reason at all what so very ever why H.I.V. can't or won't kill a chimpanzee, IT WON'T AND DON'T----------->WHY ?

It doesn't kill chimps because it isn't a simian virus. SIV is not HIV.

Hmmm....AND WHICH ONE OF THOSE LINKS YOU POSTED ABOVE SHOW THE MICROGRAPH OF THE H.I.V.-1 VIRUS YOU YOURSELF PERSONALLY & ACTUALLY ISOLATED & WHAT WOULD THOSE LINKS HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR VIRUS ANYWAY ? ? ? ? :

Please quote where I said I personally isolated the virus. I would hate for you to be caught lying.

THEY CAN TURN THE DEADLIEST VIRUS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH INTO WHAT ? TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT CAN BE DONE WHEN THERE IS NO ESTABLISHMENT TALKING UP JUNK FOR MONEY, DO YOU THINK IF EBOLA RESEARCH HAD THE BACKING THAT H.I.V. / A.I.D.S. HAS YOU WOULD EVER SEE ANYTHING THE LIKES OF WHATS IN THE LINK BELOW ?

www.nature.com...

www.news.wisc.edu...

You think these papers don't have "establishment junking up' their work? You realise this research came from a public school, through NIH, CDC, and DOD funding, right?

reply to post by


Ohhh...I see.

You may find this hard to believe, but I actually consider you a friend here at ATS, even though your mean to me, at least you pretend to listen to my rambling, and your quite entertaining.

On that note, I must say that I don't ever recall you "VneZonyDostupa" ever mentioning having personally isolated H.I.V.-1 or even 2, for that matter. Whats an "ELECTRON MICROGRAPH" anyway, and why would VneZonyDostupa ever claim to have one ? Dr. de WHO ? Never heard of him or her ? Whats a PERT GROUP ? What do they do ? Work with Shampoo ? ?

Please know that I am what I claim to be, and that I eat hack retrovirologists for lunch.
(Most leave quite a bad after-taste to may I add.)

Listen, people have been saying what I told you on this thread regarding retroviruses for thirty years (!), they do not kill the cells that they infect !
H.I.V. is supposed to be some sort of SPECIAL retrovirus that DOES what all of the others animal & human retrovirues alike DON'T, and have NEVER been known to do, and thats kill the cells that it infects. I have see fraud packed reseach to absolutely no end claiming that all types of them now do.

Do you think that T-Cells are all that H.I.V. infects in vivo ?

I will so you all I can and write you book on all this if I have to ! I just hope it makes some sort of a difference in your BiG picture.

By far the "BiGGEST H.I.V. FRAUD" besides Gallo in all of it, have you ever heard of "TONY FAUCI" ? This guy is # 1. on my fraud list as well as most other peoples who know better. He runs from "MULLIS" & "DUESBERG" though however. They smear the creep. Gallo is a different type of fraud than Fauci, he should be wearing a NAZI armband.

Originally posted by alpha68
On that note, I must say that I don't ever recall you "VneZonyDostupa" ever mentioning having personally isolated H.I.V.-1 or even 2, for that matter.

Then why do you keep asking me for my "work" on HIV?

Please know that I am what I claim to be, and that I eat hack retrovirologists for lunch.

Then why do you seem to now have even a bachelor's level education in biology? You've made glaring errors in basic science, even in areas you aren't disputing.

Listen, people have been saying what I told you on this thread regarding retroviruses for thirty years (!), they do not kill the cells that they infect !

And those people have been wrong for about thirty years, as the research I posted (and which you have yet to touch) shows.

H.I.V. is supposed to be some sort of SPECIAL retrovirus that DOES what all of the others animal & human retrovirues alike DON'T, and have NEVER been known to do, and thats kill the cells that it infects. I have see fraud packed reseach to absolutely no end claiming that all types of them now do.

That's not what makes HIV "special". What makes it "special" is that it infects CD4+ cells (no other virus known currently does this as a preferential mechanism) and has a rapid rate of mutation, making a vaccine sort of a hopeless venture until you can find a conserved protein (which TAT is thought to possibly be).

Do you think that T-Cells are all that H.I.V. infects in vivo ?

For the most part, yes, that's all it infects. There are minor infections in other tissues that have little to no pathological consequence.

By far the "BiGGEST H.I.V. FRAUD" besides Gallo in all of it, have you ever heard of "TONY FAUCI" ? This guy is # 1. on my fraud list as well as most other peoples who know better. He runs from "MULLIS" & "DUESBERG" though however. They smear the creep. Gallo is a different type of fraud than Fauci, he should be wearing a NAZI armband.

So, more character assassination, but no evidence of any false information regarding HIV? When are you going to get tired of the "dodge the topic" game?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I keep telling you that if the retrovirologists quit posting their tripe, it will derail the entire fraud train.
All that grant & pharma money requires a steady stream of fraudulent research, its not brain surgery kid.

HIV ASSUMED TO KILL T-CELLS

Based on early observation by Gallo et al., HIV is assumed to cause immunodeficiency by spcifically killing T-cells (Gallo et al., 1984; Weiss and Jaffe, 1990). Gallo observation was restricted to primary T-cells (Gallo et al., 1984) but not established T-cell lines (Rubinstien, 1990) However, according to Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, "In a search for a direct cytopathic effect of the virus on (primary) T-lymphocytes, no gross changes could be seen in virus producing cultures, with regard to cell lysis or impairment of cell growth" (Montagnier et al., 1984). Others have confirmed that HIV does not kill infected, primary T-cells in vitro (Hoxie et al., 1985 Anand et al., 1987 Langhoff et al., 1989 Duesberg, 1989c). Moreover, HIV-infected primary T-cells are concidered the natural "reservior" of HIV in vivo (Schnittman et al., 1989)
Thus, Gallo's controversial observation probably reflects the notorious difficulties experienced by his labratory in maintaining primary blood cells alive in culture insted of a genuine cytociadal function of HIV (Crewdson, 1989; Culliton, 1990 Rubinstien, 1990, Hamilton, 1991).
Gallo showed in a later study from his labratory that about 50% of the uninfected T-cells died within twelve days in culture (Gallo, 1990). Indeed the assumption that HIV is cytocidal is incompatable with generic properties of retroviruses and with specific properties of HIV:
1.) The hallmark of retrovirus replication is to convert the viral RNA into DNA and to deliberately intergrate this DNA as a parasitic gene into the cellular DNA (Weiss et al., 1985). This process of integration depends on mitosis to succeed, rather than on cell death (Rubin and Temin, 1958; Duesberg, 1989c). The resulting genetic parasite can then be either active or passive just like other cellular genes (Duesberg, 1987). Transcription of viral RNA from chromosomally integrated proviral DNA also works only if the T-cell survives infection, because dying cells are not transcriptionally active. Thus, this strategy of replication depends entirely on the survivival of the infected cell (Duesberg, 1987)
Noncytocidal replication is the reason that retroviruses were all concidered potential carcinogens befor AIDS (Weiss et al.,1985; Duesberg, 1987)

Let that keep you busy for a spell, your so wrong about all this. There is a W-H-O-L-E lot more ! All your question will be answered along these lines.

reply to post by alpha68


Please post a link (either to the papers you reference or the site you copy and pasted your post from) so that I can read the referenced papers in context, rather than in your biased tirade.

Thanks.