AIDS Hoax: The truth behind the virus that never was

New tests

Dr. Rasnick stressed that since there was no proof of an HIV causing AIDS, testing for it was, in his view, a worthless distraction. He also disputed the use of the term AIDS at all, in a continent where the presenting illnesses of people diagnosed with AIDS are all long-known conditions, usually associated with malnutrition and other consequences of poverty. By the end of the two-day session, a smaller working group of HIV testing had been structured which will now continue through at least Christmas to report, in President Mbeki's words, on "the reliability of, and the information communicated by, our current HIV tests and the improvement of our disease surveillance system."

The working party -- led by Prof. Mhlongo, and including Australian biophysicist Eleni Eleopulos and her colleague Dr. Valendar Turner, Dr. Harvey Bialy, with Dr. Helene Gayle of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and Prof. William Makgoba of the South African Medical Research Council and other panelists willing to continue working -- has accepted responsibility for historic experiments to attempt to purify, or isolate, HIV, and to examine the consequential issue of the accuracy of all so-called HIV testing methodologies.

Virus isolation is the thorn in the foot of the HIV/AIDS marching machine -- it has never been achieved by conventional standards. Until the mid-1970s, virus isolation used to mean separating virus particles from everything in the cell culture that is not virus, and producing an electromicrograph of the resulting purified particles. It is then not very difficult for virologists to analyse the particles' proteins and genetic material, and to test for infectivity.

It is a careful process, however, because all experts agree that there are abundant particles in nature and in cell cultures that in many respects resemble viruses but are not. Only once these steps are successfully completed can any other tests be evaluated for accuracy.

Government confidential website

The two-day meeting had begun on a sharp note. The South African health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, in her opening address noted that the six weeks since the first meeting in Pretoria had seen little exchange between the panelists of differing scientific and medical views via the confidential South African government website established for the purpose.

Noting that some scientists had nonetheless made extensive contributions, which had mostly gone unanswered, Tshabalala-Msimang commented that those who had worked tirelessly "will not be betrayed." The scientific website contributions of Eleni Eleopulos' Perth Group, of Dr. Roberto Giraldo, of Prof. Etiennne de Harven and Prof. Gordon Stewart, and various other "AIDS dissidents" were implied. Plans were announced to make the contents of the web discourses public in due course.

The Panel Secretariat of four civil servants, thrust into the uncharted job of coordinating the workings of the Panel and preparing the report for President Mbeki, was therefore faced with the necessity to stimulate debate in a way which had not occurred so far.

The structure favoured by the Secretariat and implemented by the Canadian, Prof. Owen (again the moderator), allowed for representatives of opposing views to speak for half an hour about their views and data, including on-screen visual material around the issues set down by the Secretariat: (1) aetiology, (2) prevention, (3) treatment, and (4) HIV testing and surveillance.

(continued below)

Who sayeth what

Following each presentation, there would be approximately half an hour allowed for two-minute comments on the presentation from other panelists. To begin, a young South African virologist, Dr. Carolyn Williamson, replaced the South African professor, Hoosen Coovadia, chairman of the Durban AIDS Conference. Williamson opened the proceedings with a standard explanation of the HIV-causes-AIDS theory, without proofs, and distinguished mostly by the puzzling claim that in AIDS "the cause is neither necessary nor sufficient" for the illness.

She appeared at a loss to defend this statement against the question, "How then, is it the cause?", except to say she had been instructed to include the statement. Such are the unfathomable pressures on ambitious young South African scientists, though surely she must have misunderstood the statement. Prof. Peter Duesberg next reiterated his condemnation of pharmaceutical "anti-HIV" drugs, asserting that in many cases these drugs themselves were responsible for illnesses diagnosed as AIDS.

Dr. Roberto Giraldo, the specialist in infectious diseases from New York, covered several aspects in his presentation, including the invalidity of HIV tests, and the range of stresses that can undermine a person's immune system, such as malnutrition and toxins amongst others. He included in his suggestions for treatment the use of anti-oxidants, a point well noted by the South African health minister, and touched on the role of traditional medicine in African cultures.

Next, Prof. Salim Abdool-Karim, principal AIDS researcher of South Africa's Medical Research Council, stressed his belief that the clinical picture of illness in South Africa had indeed changed in recent years. Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, an AIDS clinician from New York, appeared satisfied with conventional AIDS drugs and clinical practice, though he was heard earlier privately resisting pressure from some senior orthodox scientists to begin his presentation with a sound endorsement of the Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART) drug combinations.

Dr. David Rasnick, an expert in protease inhibitor design, presented a panorama of the scientific literature from major journals discrediting these "anti-HIV" drugs. It seemed many of the conventional scientists in the room had not seen these data before. Later in the day, Dr. Valendar Turner of the Perth Group, whose Eleni Eleopulos has done so much over the years to keep the questions in HIV/AIDS focused on scientific matters, discussed perhaps the key question, which will now be carried forward: When even Prof. Luc Montagnier, accredited as discoverer of HIV, acknowledges his team was never able to isolate "the virus", why has the presence of such a virus been so universally accepted?

Turner showed a slide of a Western Blot antibody test gel -- the type of test believed throughout most of the world to be the best for HIV -- which by the strictest criteria anywhere would be positive for HIV, before revealing it was in fact positive for leprosy.

Dr. Helene Gayle of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, who supervises the disbursement of billions of AIDS dollars, appeared to have little new to bring to the Panel, but managed to fill her time with slides of black text and statistics on a navy blue background, which this observer was not alone in finding difficult to decipher.

(continued below)

The second day

On the second day, Prof. William Makgoba, currently head of the South African Medical Research Council, took the floor to present epidemiological data on HIV in South Africa. He was unable, when repeatedly questioned, to give figures for actual AIDS deaths in South Africa, instead showing graphs of projected percentages of national annual mortality that could be attributed to AIDS.

He also insisted that the ELISA antibody testing methodology used in South Africa was in line with British standards, resulting in a "false positivity" rate of 0.1%. He made no attempt to address the absence of any gold standard for "true positivity." Next the Panel heard from Dr. Harvey Bialy on the progress made towards designing the experiments that had been hastily foreshadowed at the press conference at the conclusion of the first meeting six weeks before, which it was hoped would settle some of the areas of scientific disagreement.

Shortly into his improvised presentation, a loud disagreement flared up from opposite sides of the room between Prof. Peter Duesberg and Dr. Helene Gayle, ostensibly over some comments about AZT, which saw Duesberg leave the conference hall, pursued by Tshabalala-Msimang who spent tense minutes persuading him to return in the interest of the many people whose lives would be influenced by the successful working of the Panel.

However, thereafter Duesberg absented himself from the working group on experiments, at much the same time that Eleni Eleopulos, who had not been at the Pretoria meeting, became one of its most active members. Indications are that Duesberg continues to be willing to participate as the process moves forward. The Panel split into working groups next, to try to deliver recommendations to the anxious Secretariat that they could use in preparation of their report. The group on experiments confirmed it intention to "test the tests"; there was also a set of conventional recommendations produced from the working group around treatment, and that around "co-factors."

Mbeki, the whipping boy President Thabo Mbeki has become the liberal media's whipping boy for seeking advice about how applicable to South Africa the received Western wisdoms about HIV/AIDS are.

Scientific journals were asserting in the mid-1980s that HIV was not epidemic in South Africa. Now it is said to be everywhere you look. Mbeki has publicly asked how this can be so. What will the answers mean for policy? And why are these statistics showing AIDS in men and women almost equally? If this is heterosexually spread, why did it not happen in the West, where frankly most people do not use condoms? Why are there no figures for AIDS mortality in South Africa? Real data, not projected estimated. When can these figures be available? Why are the figures for HIV positivity in South Africa extrapolated from testing in ante-natal clinics with an ELISA test about which its manufacturer warns the principal cause of false-positivity is pregnancy? When none of the 29 illnesses grouped as AIDS is new, what evidence is there that a "new" microbe is involved in the apparent increase of some of these illnesses? From the answers to these questions, the Mbeki government seeks to understand whether there are untried approaches to the problems in the country -- principally TB, which is said to account for 60% of the AIDS-projection figures -- which would be affordable and effective. By Christmas, one of the biggest questions in AIDS science should have it answer, supervised by top international bodies, at the behest of a president not afraid to test convention and go the extra distance to find the truth: is there such a thing as HIV?

Huw Christie is the editor of Continuum magazine at www.continuummagazine.org

reply to post by daynight42


How do you even believe cancer exists? Seen it? Had it? You believe the scientists and doctors that you think are all full of it for the money? You would not believe the 'profiteering apes' anyway, so why should I bother to post links from them?

Science Daily - HIV and AIDS

I gave one link...the entire section of Science Daily devoted to the topic. Read thru a few PAGES of the articles, (a few for the readers of this post, ALL OF them for you), you will have more wisdom on the subject - or you will just call a bunch of science a bunch of bull - again, and go on about your way spreading more disinformation. There are many other sites you could read. Anyone that thinks they should inform others of the fallacies of HIV should educate themselves, otherwise they are just dangerous idiots.

I KNOW there's nothing I can do to change these opinions of some people. As this condition comes with it's own bias and stigma, it is a favorite whipping boy for those that like to make stars and flags, since it ALWAYS draws the most uninformed responses, more than I see on any other subject of this board.

And that's the point of my posting - to show others that may have more sense the fallacy of these arguments, and propose another reason thatt these people make them - bigotry, stupidity, false superiority, and a bullheadedness that cannot be overcome with any logic.

Some people will even argue it is day when going outside proves it is night, and never bother to look and see for themselves.

reply to post by neotech1neothink

Mbeki was removed by his own party in 2008, and is conservatively blamed for 300 000 preventable deaths in SA from AIDS.

AIDS denialism in SA is long over.

It's probably one of the most bewildering chapters in post-Apartheid history.

None of the denialists worked with AIDS patients or did specific research on HIV.
Loosely most of the groundwork was left to vitamin entrepreneurs like the Rath Foundation, who left SA after lost court battles.
A further charge they never faced was that they gave out a single anti-retroviral as a "vitamin pill" (which works temporarily), and several of their "success stories" were actually on ARVs.
However at least 12 people died after being encouraged to stop their medical treatments by the Rath Foundation.

I'm HIV-poz, and was diagnosed in 2004 after several tests (which were all positive).
I do not have AIDS, nor am I the "walking dead".
In SA ARVs are only given by the government when the CD4 reaches 250.
Since 2004 my count went down from 1 250 to around 750.
It never went up again, and it will reach AIDS one day.
However, we have hope these days that it will be a manageable condition, rather than a death sentence.
Just my story.

If people want to believe strange things, and vegetable cures or whatever that's fine.
It's your life.
But I never want to live under a government again that makes choices for people, and that imposed denialism.
Nobody is forced to take ARVs.
I also don't want to be forced not to take them, because to me the evidence is clear, and after fighting big pharma and the TRIPS agreement I want proven medication, and not a minister of health who tells me to take beetroot, garlic, African potato and lemon.

If you are HIV positive, just remember that infecting somebody else knowingly is a criminal offense, and no court recognizes the ridiculous theories of the denialists.

reply to post by neotech1neothink


Do you dare to put DATES on your sources? Post something from THIS century, please. Everything you post of is old and dated information, driven by a political or religious agenda, that has been discredited so many times with NEW studies it is no longer relevant.

In fact it is nothing but fiction. Much like the topic of this post.

reply to post by Danbones


You heard me but no ones willing to put their money where their mouth is. How about you? How confident are you that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? Fancy getting infected... for science?

Mbeki's advisory AIDS panelists included Roberto Giraldo, who became the then Minister of Health's (Dr.Manto Tshabalala-Msimang) adviser on "nutritional interventions".
Giraldo also had came up with the controversial Dutch nurse Tine van der Maas, who promoted a tonic known as Africa's Solutions (with vitamins, African potato and olive leaf extract), and claimed she could heal anything with certain veggies and olive oil.
She encouraged patients with thrush to put a garlic clove in the vagina, and a rusty nail into the cooking pot for "iron"! (See Debunking Delusions: The inside story of the Treatment Action Campaign by Nathan Geffen., Jacana Media, 2010.)

She was often whisked away from her "clinic" by the minister to prove her natural "nursing skills", although her success rates remained elusive, and sometimes she claimed they were stolen, and at others that patients who don't come back must be better.
Things didn't look good for Tine or Giraldo when a celebrity (Khabzela) stopped taking ARVS after a week, although his CC4 count was in the single digits, and Tine was called by the minister to nurse him instead.
He died a very tragic and horrific death, which was later put in a biography of his life.

The late Sam Mhlongo and David Rasnick were two more major figures who worked for the Rath Foundation.
(See Mortal Combat: AIDS Denialism and the Struggle for Antiretrovirals in South Africa by Nicoli Nattrass, University of KwaZulu-Natal Press: 2007. P. 35.)

These people have long left our shores in infamy.
The health minister was fast-tracked for a liver transplant, although she even drank booze in hospital, and many felt she did not deserve medical treatment that she denied others.
She didn't live long after the transplant.
And it wasn't just AIDS - the whole public health system was left badly damaged by her rule.
Mbeki was rudely ousted by the ANC in 2008 for various reasons, and he didn't complete this term as President.
Rath ended up in Russia or Eastern Europe from the last I heard.
Rasnick probably went back to studying rats in the US, although I'm sure AIDS denialism is still a second career for many.

Anyway, here's some vintage Tine van der Maas.
She's probably still around somewhere to cure anything under the sun with garlic, beetroot and lemon (although Africa's Solutions is defunct).
Go for it denialists!
If you have a medical emergency look for Tine.
She cures everything.



A blast from the past: things come to a climax at the 16th International AIDS Conference in Toronto (2006).
The minister turned the SA exhibit into a vegetable display!

reply to post by halfoldman


See, this is the ignorant and outright dangerous world these denialists would have us live in. It's one thing believing in aliens, free energy and all that other stuff (which is odd but essentially harmless) but spreading ignorance and giving dangerous and outright criminal medical "information" is another thing entirely. Any excuse to make themselves feel like they're superior and more enlightened than us "believers", as if they're privy to some special, secret knowledge that is denied to us "sheep".

Dr. Marshall infected himself with H. pylori bacteria to prove to the world that they were the cause of stomach ulcers, not stress and lifestyle. I'm still waiting for some ATS pioneer to do the same with HIV to prove that it's oh so harmless.

reply to post by john_bmth

Well, in 1993 one denialist, Dr Robert Willner, did apparently inject himself with blood from a hemophiliac said to have HIV/AIDS.
Apparently Willner tested negative afterwards, although he passed away from a heart attack not long after his performances in 1995. en.wikipedia.org...
He was also a great proponent of ozone therapy which is nowadays pretty much considered nonsense.
A number of questions remain however, not only on the donor and the somewhat obscure method of "transmission", but also on the subsequent tests, which are not here for our scrutiny.

Anyway, here's the good doctor apparently injecting himself with HIV.
The donor hardly looks concerned (and I would be giving my infected blood to somebody, no matter how convinced of denialism I've been myself, there's still that chance that you could be giving somebody a death sentence).
Willner sounds like a sincere man.
Sincerely wrong on almost every statement, but sincere nevertheless.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Danbones

 

You heard me but no ones willing to put their money where their mouth is. How about you? How confident are you that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? Fancy getting infected... for science?

edit on 13-6-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

link please
is a very simple request

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Danbones

 

You heard me but no ones willing to put their money where their mouth is. How about you? How confident are you that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? Fancy getting infected... for science?

edit on 13-6-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

why don't you take the drugs if they are so safe?

Id like you to support your opinion with some ats style referenses that would possible convince an intelligent person your position has merit
the drama queen stuff is so totally lame

Originally posted by halfoldman
AIDS denialism in SA is long over.

If you are HIV positive, just remember that infecting somebody else knowingly is a criminal offense, and no court recognizes the ridiculous theories of the denialists.

One of the most astonishing posts i've read here yet. Thank you.

All you say is indeed true. Manto and her beetroot

Look, eating healthy is kinda important you know, if your diet is bad you get sick. But the mind bending numbers of infected, coupled with the complete absence of state medical care meant that the state was trying to find cheaper solutions (many have said the plan was to let them die). Bounded by pharmacalogical patents on one hand, and swindlers on the other. South African society didn't seem to figure highly in their plans. Mbeki was an easy mark for stupid ideas, they all are.

I hear ARV's have gone designer, kids stealing them from patients and smoking it.

The denialists have a point though, bring me specific evidence and cure. Billions into "research" and we can only mitigate the effects? Diet being half your health anyway? Personally cancer scares me more, but again, more because of the treatment than dying of it. Dagga is also supposed to help, some.

peace man

reply to post by neotech1neothink


Hi!

I am delighted that at least some ATSers are now willing to consider the possiblitly that AIDS is the biggest hoax that the collective human race has fallen for. I have know about this for over 15 years! Due to the book called:
The Great Aids Hoax, written by TC Fry Here

For those that really want to access to the details of the scientific analysis, I emplore you to read THIS

From the above mentioned document:

While scientists raced to develop a test that would detect HIV, and people all over the world worried about whether they had been infected, important scientific rules and standards were completely ignored.

One such standard measure, used to determine whether a particular micro-organism is the cause of a disease, is a set of three laws known as Koch's postulates.

The first law says that the suspected micro-organism has to be present in all cases of the disease. HIV is not. Between ten and twenty percent of all AIDS patients show no traces of HIV whatsoever, not even its antibodies. Another law says that the micro-organism must be able to be taken from a host, animal or human, and further spread in pure culture. This cultivation can only be done in 50 percent of all AIDS patients. The third law says that inoculations of pure cultures of the micro-organism into animals must produce in them the same disease. HIV has been injected into thousands of laboratory animals, and not one has developed AIDS.

Peter Duesberg is so convinced that HIV alone cannot cause AIDS, that he told his old friend Gallo that he wouldn't mind being injected with it. His argument is compelling, and he has been waiting for almost a year for anyone in the scientific community to come forward and refute it. No one has. Many won't even speak with him. Spin did.

SPIN: You have defied the entire medical establishment by claiming that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. What convinces you?
DUESBERG: Koch's postulates were postulated at a time when we couldn't do what we can do now. Now we can detect things at lower concentrations and activities, and we are falling into a trap where we are saying that they are critically relevant. The incidence of the virus HIV is so low that Koch would never have seen it. This is what they [today's scientists] are overlooking. That the "AIDS virus" is at incredibly low concentrations and activity. That's why I am saying that HIV can't be the cause of a fatal disease, because it is so inactive. In fact, HIV is found in far more healthy humans than sick humans. This is very embarrassing to many people. They'd rather ignore it.

For a parasite or a virus to be pathogenic [disease-causing], it has to meet three criteria:

One. It must be biochemically active. In other words it must do something to get something done.

Two. It would have to affect or intoxicate more cells of a host, an animal or a human, than the host can spare or regenerate. Stated otherwise, you would only suffer from influenza virus if it kills or infects a significant portion of your lung cells, the polio virus if it gets into your nervous system, or if the hepatitis virus takes hold of a large part of your liver. You wouldn't notice an infection that involves 0.01 percent of your cells. That would be what you would call a latent infection. We all get them. Most of us have a latent tuberculosis infection, for example.

Three. The host must be genetically and immunologically permissive. It has to let it happen, so to speak. It has to accept the pathogen. It cannot be immune to it.

The HIV virus, the so-called AIDS virus, does not meet one of these criteria. For instance, the virus is never active - not only in those who have no symptoms, but also in those who develop full-blown AIDS and die from it. Even in people who are dying of AIDS, the virus is hardly detectable, measured only by locating its antibody. An antibody to a virus is like a vaccination; it has been traditionally, and still is, the ultimate weapon against a virus. It is an indication of a past disease, not of a future disease. If you have antibodies, you should be congratulated. You are safe. You don't have to worry about it any more. But somehow, they have convinced the public to believe that the disease is yet to come, which really makes no sense; it's absurd. Once the antibody is made, the show for the virus is over. The time for the virus to strike and cause disease is before immunity, not after immunity.

I am delighted Neotech that you are having a small breakthrough in reaching people that are more willing to think twice about what we have been led to believe.

Star and flag for your bravery! You are so not alone.

reply to post by Danbones


Stop trying to move the goalposts. This thread (and my point) isn't about HIV meds, it's about you and other denier's claims that HIV is harmless so I ask again (and dont duck the issue this time): are you prepared to be infected with HIV? Is your faith that strong?

I'll take the deafening silence and off topic floundering as a resounding "no".

So basically what they are saying is that AIDS is caused by drug users and people on AZT in Europe and America but AIDS is caused by parasites and malnutrition in Africa?

This would make sense as the chances of getting AIDS from HIV in the US/Europe is 15 times more likely than in Africa.

It is also suspect that there is a list of other illnesses that must be present before AIDS can be confirmed.

So those who take drugs are spreading AIDS, not so much the unprotected sex people as it takes roughly 1,000 sexual contacts to get HIV in the first place...

Maybe i am reading it wrong and misunderstanding but it seems to me that AIDS is in fact a combination of diseases caused by Drug taking that causes the HIV virus (otherwise not fatal) to become AIDS and then fatal...

Even in people who are dying of AIDS, the virus is hardly detectable, measured only by locating its antibody. An antibody to a virus is like a vaccination; it has been traditionally, and still is, the ultimate weapon against a virus. It is an indication of a past disease, not of a future disease. If you have antibodies, you should be congratulated. You are safe. You don't have to worry about it any more. But somehow, they have convinced the public to believe that the disease is yet to come, which really makes no sense; it's absurd. Once the antibody is made, the show for the virus is over. The time for the virus to strike and cause disease is before immunity, not after immunity

Is this true? If this is true then why the hell are people being prescribed meds to combat AIDS when their body has already done it? Could it be that the article is correct that the AZT's and other social drugs are causing the HIV virus to become fatal AIDS?

reply to post by harryhaller

Yes, eating a healthy diet is important for everyone, and especially people with HIV become very aware of this.

However being made to eat several lemons a day, or having Pronutro (a breakfast cereal) blended with lemons, garlic, olive oil and beetroot is not pleasant.
Not like olive oil is an affordable food in SA for the poor in any case, so not only did Manto refuse to roll out ARVs that were virtually donated, she also didn't roll out her salad mixture.
Even the healthiest diet cannot prevent AIDS, and when thrush goes from the mouth throughout the entire digestive tract in a thick white coating, eating and digesting become impossible anyway.

Tine eventually put Khabzela on drips of Africa's Solutions when he couldn't eat any more, as the quackery slowly murdered him.

I've heard of this ARV abuse in a drug called Whoonga a while back.
That would be vary sad.
However, the story is not consistently verified, and might have been urban legend and some stoned opportunists performing for the camera.
There is a street drug called Whoonga, but it has no ARVs, at least not lately.

The evidence that HIV causes AIDS in almost all HIV-positive people is overwhelming.
Science doesn't have a cure, and it doesn't promise a "cure" or guarantees.
It does have a manageable treatment, which is not perfect and does have side-effects that vary between individuals.
But so many people are living, and raising families, and working that were at death's door before ARV treatment and its "Lazarus effect".

Medical dagga (fat chance in SA) is indeed helpful for wasting diseases that require appetite and handling the nausea of strong medications. This is well researched, although I cannot go into further details on ATS.

I was a vegetarian before my diagnosis and I still am, although I eat fish, especially salmon and sardines.
Although genes always trump everything, I do think this made a difference, because a lot of people progress faster, and I'm no health nut when it comes to wine.
I never drink colas however, and stick to red (rooibos) or green tea.
Pretty general things that are recommend for all.

reply to post by jrmcleod

I don't think it's true because a viral load test nowadays picks up the virus itself, and this test usually goes with a CD4 count for the annual blood work.
Although it's expensive, and tests should be combined to rule out any chance of error, it is sometimes used as an indication of infection for people who require early detection, such as rape victims or medical staff with needle-stick injury.
An anti-body test will only be useful after the window period, when the body has sero-converted, and produces antibodies in an unsuccessful attempt to fight HIV.

With a low CD4 count the viral load usually explodes from virtually undetectable into the millions.

At this stage people are hyper-infectious.
People are also hyper-infectious shortly after infection, although usually at that point they are unaware of this.
I recall having quite a fever for two weeks and the glands behind my ears were like peanuts.
That's conversion sickness, although some people don't feel much, while others must be hospitalized.
Few doctors at that time recognized it though, and they thought it was a bad flu.

Anyway, I'm not a doctor, but check out the terms and tests.

Here they call it the PCR test, which tests for HIV itself, and not the antibodies.



And no, AIDS is not caused by poppers, AZT (especially with today's doses) or malnutrition.
All rubbish that doesn't make sense.
Before HIV/AIDS hit SA from the mid 1990s we had an average life expectancy of 65 years.
From the apartheid legacy SA was one of the best countries in Africa, even for the black population, and there was never starvation.
Some say when the ANC exiles returned from other parts of Africa they brought the virus.
Under Mbeki average life expectancy dropped to 49 years.
We never had this thing before, and it struck down the rich and the poor (including the relatives of politicians).

reply to post by UnlimitedSky

'THe great AIDS hoax'??? More garbage printed in 1990. Back when it was just a hypothesis.
It's proven as fact now.

People waking up??? I don't think so. From this thread all I see is many people deluded and buying into crap and the HOAX is the idea that HIV is some fantasy. And thankfully, a few that know the facts. And at least two (including me) on this thread that LIVE the facts.

Don't tell that tripe to me. And it is just stupid and dangerous to use old literature to promote a DANGEROUS HOAX.