Have you ever had an HIV test ???

[thamachat]

>And there we go. Any study that support the HIV/AIDS link is >either fraudulent, poorly done, mis-interpreted or other wise >wrong. This is why there is so little point in having these >discussions. A quick check on PubMed with the term "HIV" >came up with nearly 140,000 papers. Sure all of them are >wrong, or written out of vested interest. The fact they they >provide a *huge* body of essentially consistent data *must* >be evidence of some great conspiracy on behalf of hundreds of >thousand of scientists right?

 

Yes, there have been 140,000 papers, $120 billion of US taxpayers money, and still you don't have anything remotely approaching a cure. But despite that, none of the establishment will consider that maybe the HIV theory is wrong. That many if not most HIV scientists have conflicts of interest, take money from the drug companies, have their own companies that make big bucks from HIV, is well established. Even the medical journals have admitted this. An admission that is doubly revealing since the medical journals, too, are taking big money from the drug companies through the advertising that permeates every issue.

 

Journal editors like Richard Smith and others have admitted that corrupt medical research is a big problem. It even goes so far as drug companies ghostwriting articles which then are published under the names of scientists who had nothing to do with them except to put their names on them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1101706,00.html

 

Hell, your man Bob Gallo was disciplined for scientific misconduct in his original Aids papers, was he not?

 

Well, if what Dr. Gabor Miklos and many other scientists say is true, the admittedly huge body of paperwork created by the HIV hypothesis is hardly consistent, it's extremely inconsistent. With all the terrifying numbers coming out of WHO for almost 20 years, why does Africa's population continue to increase at the same rate as in the pre-HIV days? Because those numbers are phony, they are based on nothing but computer modeling, itself based on antenatal screening of pregnant women (neglecting the fact that pregnancy is one of the causes of false positive tests), usually with just one ELISA, which makes it quite clear why Africa's populations keep increasing--because the WHO's numbers and the methodology behind them are bullshit.

 

Dr. Fiala has exposed the way the WHO uses ever-escalating multiplications in its computer modelling programs to make the numbers grow bigger and more terrifying every year. WHO is in bed with the drug companies, just like most of the rest of the medical and Public Health establishment. Not any conspiracy, just good old fashioned corruption. (this is not aimed at you personally, Josh, just the leaders of the medical establishment from whom you get your undoubtedly well intentioned beliefs)

 

You must know, Josh, that the mechanism behind supposed apoptosis in Aids patients has never been proven, that yes you have hundreds of papers but no proof. Meanwhile we do have new proof that the Aids medicines can cause T-cell death, along with all their other deadly side effects. Where is the controlled study that shows that these drugs prolong life? Please show it to me. As far as I know, the basis for claims that the Aids drugs prolong life is that Aids patients live longer now than they did in the early days of the epidemic. But that proves nothing, Aids patients dropped like flies in those early days, because they were given 1500 mg of AZT daily. When they reduced the dose, and added other slightly less deadly chemicals to the cocktail, of course people started taking longer to die. But that's hardly proof that the medicines save them, just proof that they are being poisoned more slowly.

 

Okay, since you're fond of the NIH website, here's a link.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10689313

 

From the above 2000 article: "The mechanism by which HIV causes depletion of CD4+ T cells in infected individuals remains unknown. Numerous theories have been proposed, but none can fully explain all of the events observed to occur in patients"

 

>Look the point here is that I was able to conclusively show that >one of the papers you put up in your arguement was indeed >taken >literally and factually out of context. I am sure that will

 

You didn't conclusively show that the paper was taken out of context. As Rodney Richards showed, you needed to look at the BMJ article by the same authors in order to get the full story. I haven't studied either of these papers, so right now it's your word against Rodney's.

 

>The virus *is* out there, it *is* infecting people, and indeed killing them.

 

The only thing that's out there are alleged HIV tests that have never been validated by the presence of HIV, causing false positives which then lead to tremendous psychological turmoil that causes immune dysfunction, leads to deadly chemotherapy drugs that don't kill you as quickly as they used to but still kill you, leads to social isolation and depression and antibiotic treatments, all of which harm immunity, leads to doctors refusing to treat people for their actual illnesses, insisting on only treating the HIV, leads to loss of hope for the future, all of which taken together, or even individually, are enough to kill a person.

 

That makes a lot more sense than a simple-minded theory about a magic virus.

 

http://www.aras.ab.ca/articles/AIDSQuotes.htm

[lembeh]

 

 

>Okay, since you're fond of the NIH website, here's a link.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10689313

 

Again, you wilfully mis-use papers. That paper (review actually) does not argue for a minute about the loss of T-cells occurs in response to HIV infection (your original position), what it says is that the *mechanism* is not clear. They themselves say that apoptosis is a likely candidate. The *precise* details are not known. Its now known that the immune system in HIV patients is actually in "hyper drive" producing billions of new T-cells evry day, but these are lost, most likley through apoptosis. The production and loss of T-cells *has* been measured and quantified, and we know this is happening. The figures that are measured in HIV patients reprsent the "steady state" levels, and do not represent production/death levels.

 

Sadly, you use exactly the same arguments as the creationalists: "The scientists don't agree on the details, so it *must* be wrong". While the majority of scientists don't agree on the details (true) they *do* agree that HIV leads to AIDS and that HIV is a virus.

 

 

>Yes, there have been 140,000 papers, $120 billion of US taxpayers money, and still you don't have anything remotely approaching a cure. But despite that, none of the establishment will consider that maybe the HIV theory is wrong.

 

Bad argument. The slow progress in finding a "cure" (which most scientists think will not be achievable, as opposed to a treatment) is evidence that it is all wrong? What about cancer research, again no "cure", billions of dollars (trillions probably). All bogus research as well? How about TB? Malaria? All bogus research? So in your world, the only "good" research is any that supports the HIV-myth position, and everything else is crap? Do you *honestly* buy that position????

 

Despite what you think, the *vast* majority of HIV/AIDS work *IS* consistent, not only within the field, but also in the associated fields. HIV/AIDS research is NOT conducted ina vacuum, and impinges on, and is impinged upon by, other scientific fields. If the HIV stuff was totaly bogus would not scientists i *other* fields of endevour not also be crying "foul"??

 

Most scientists are dedicated, honest workers, with a true passion for thier field. They are *not* jaunting off to the riviera as you state, but are honestly working to solve some of the problems that beset the world. To imply that all (or the vast majority) scientist would "collude" to increase human suffering to benefit themselves is shabby and an insult to the vast majority of scientists.

-j-

[iuytrede]

If you doubt the devastaing effects of AIDS in Africa go there and have a look.

AIDS in Southern Africa is as obvious and ubiquitous as is prostitution in Thailand.

Coffin shops are a booming business in Malawi.

 

As for those 120 billion dollars... quite opposite to what you say, it is amazing how fast the scientific establishment has found a treatment for AIDS. I can't think of any other disease where it took just a couple of decades to make so much progress. The reason is, of course, massive funding.

 

I really admire josh who takes the time to point out some of the faults of the virus myth! Thanks a lot!

[thamachat]

>what it says is that the *mechanism* is not clear. They >themselves say that apoptosis is a likely candidate. The *precise* details are not known. Its now known that the immune system in HIV patients is actually in "hyper drive" producing billions of new T-cells evry day, but these are lost, most likley through apoptosis.

 

You, Josh Ingu, said that there was "proof" that HIV kills T cells. You are now admitting that there is no proof as to the mechanism. Other scientists have demonstrated that almost any physical or psychological stress leads to reduction in T cells, and there are few stresses more stressful than being told you have "HIV." So the T cell reduction can be due to the diagnosis, not to HIV. When you say that the immune system is in "hyper drive" I strongly suspect that this is not "known" it is "theorized" just as Dr. Ho's theory about a massive immunological war going on in Hiv patients was "theorized" though treated everywhere in the media as if it were a fact. And it is now widely admitted that Ho's theory was ridiculous.

 

0>Sadly, you use exactly the same arguments as the >creationalists: "The scientists don't agree on the details, so it *must* be wrong". While the majority of scientists don't agree on the details (true) they *do* agree that HIV leads to AIDS and that HIV is a virus.

 

That's hardly the totality of my argument. The point is that there's no proof that Hiv causes Aids, and there is ample reason to suspect that other things do. Anyone who can think for himself and reads the criticism of the Hiv theory can easily see how the CDC created this epidemic by manipulating definitions of what Aids is and isn't. They've done this many times in the past with many diseases.

 

>Bad argument. The slow progress in finding a "cure" (which >most scientists think will not be achievable, as opposed to a treatment) is evidence that it is all wrong? What about cancer research, again no "cure", billions of dollars (trillions probably). All bogus research as well? How about TB? Malaria? All bogus research? So in your world, the only "good" research is any that supports the HIV-myth position, and everything else is crap? Do you *honestly* buy that position????

 

Malaria can be cured. TB can be cured. Cancer research is and has been a black hole for federal money. From the time of Nixon's war on cancer, when they spent $30 billion trying to prove that cancer was caused by viruses, a ridiculous theory and a politically motivated one. The research establishment simply ignored all the evidence that cancer is caused by chemicals in the environment, because the politicians wanted and still want to protect the chemical companies that give them money. So viruses were chosen as the cause of cancer because they can't be sued. Cancer and Aids research certainly are politically motivated, and the war on cancer has been a failure.

 

I have no objection to people investigating the theory that a virus causes Aids. I do object to the US government deliberately shutting out, ostracizing and de-funding anyone who has a different theory. That's not the way science is supposed to be done. That's a clear sign that the motivation is political.

 

>Despite what you think, the *vast* majority of HIV/AIDS work *IS* consistent, not only within the field, but also in the associated >>fields. HIV/AIDS research is NOT conducted ina vacuum, and impinges on, and is impinged upon by, other scientific fields. If the HIV stuff was totaly bogus would not scientists i *other* fields of endevour not also be crying "foul"??

 

No, they don't cry foul, because they can see very clearly that anyone who cries "foul" gets defunded and scientifically ostracized, even loses his job, due to now ubiquitous connections between academia, the federal research establishment and the drug companies. Those who have cried foul have been exceptionally courageous. A lot of them are emeritus professors, who are beyond retribution. That's why they are able to cry foul.

 

If there weren't these punishments for crying foul, I am sure we'd have tens of thousands of Aids dissidents coming out of the closet.

 

>Most scientists are dedicated, honest workers, with a true >passion for thier field. ... To imply that all (or the vast majority) scientist would "collude" to increase human suffering to benefit themselves is shabby and an insult to the vast majority of scientists.

 

I never said that anyone was colluding. I agree most scientists are probably honest, though in the Aids field I think a lot of them are corrupt, have obvious conflicts of interest, and are able to rationalize what they do so as to see themselves as do gooders. Nobody's colluding, it's just that anyone can see that this is the way the game is played, and if they don't go along, they lose their funding and maybe their jobs. Is that motivation enough for you?

[thamachat]

Okay, Iuytrede. I repeat my request for someone to show me a controlled study that compared people who ate Aids drugs with similarly matched people who didn't, and found that those who took the drugs lived longer. I don't believe there is such a study, but maybe I'm wrong. Show it to me.

 

I also don't see anyone taking issue with the key points in my article about HIV testing in Thailand and the way it differs from the west. Are you saying that's just okey-dokey? Why do we have testing standards that differ from country to country, and that make it easier to conjure up an epidemic in Thailand? Why do we allow Thai people to be condemned by testing standards that would be disallowed in the west?

 

Iuytrede, I presume you have been to S. Africa and seen people dying in the streets from Aids? Your observation differs from that of many others. For instance, Doug Casey, author of the #1 NY Times bestseller "Crisis Investing." He said:

 

?I?ve seen no evidence of an AIDS plague anywhere in Africa. No overloaded hospitals, no sick people lying about the streets, no horror stories from locals and the epicenter of the epidemic is supposed to be in the very places in central and southern Africa where I?ve spent the most time. In fact, when I was in the Congo?s Katanga province last year, I went out of my way to visit a hospital in Lumumbashi run by a Belgian doctor to talk with someone who actually dealt with these things first hand. His opinion was that people were dying of lots of things, but not noticeably more than was ever the case.

 

?He thought that to whatever degree AIDS was a problem, malaria was a vastly bigger problem. He thought AIDS was 90% hysteria and 10% reality.

 

?Other than Mr. Mbeki, nobody I talked to in South Africa even cared about AIDS, simply because so few people even knew somebody who knew somebody who supposedly had it. People are far more concerned about crime.?

International Living Magazine, Aug, 2000

 

Coffin shops are a booming business in Malawi, are they, Iuytrede? Maybe it's true, because the government there is giving out free Aids drugs, and their severe toxicity could certainly cause a boom in coffin sales.

 

Here's what Rian Malan wrote when he tried to find coffin evidence of an Aids plague in S. Africa, when few people were receiving Aids drugs.

 

?[south Africa?s] coffin makers had to be laboring hard to keep pace with growing [AIDS] demand. One newspaper account?told of a company called Affordable Coffins, purveyor of cheap cardboard caskets, which had more orders than it could fill. But the firm was barely two months old when the story ran, and two rival entrepreneurs who launched similar products a few years back had gone under.

 

??So I called the real-wood [coffin] firms??It?s quiet,? said Kurt Lammerding of GNG Pine Products. His competitors concurred-business was dead, so to speak.

 

??It?s a fact,? said Mr. A. B. Schwegman of B & A Coffins. ?If you go on what you read in the papers, we should be overwhelmed, but there?s nothing. So what?s going on? You tell me.?

 

?So I called a black-owned firm, Mmabatho Coffins, but it had gone out of business, along with some others I tried calling. This was getting seriously weird. The death rate had almost doubled in the past decade, according to a recent story in South Africa?s largest newspaper. ?These aren?t projections,? said the Sunday Times. ?These are the facts.? And if the facts were correct, I thought, someone somewhere had to be prospering in the coffin trade.

 

??I wandered around [the carpentry workshop building] searching for coffin makers, but there were only two. Eric Borman said business was good, but he was a master craftsman who made one or two deluxe caskets a week and seemed to resent the suggestion his customers were the sort of people who died of AIDS. For that, I?d have to talk to Penny. Borman pointed, and off I went, deeper and deeper into the maze. Penny?s place was locked up and deserted. Inside, I saw unsold coffins stacked ceiling-high, and a forlorn CLOSED sign hung on a wire."

(From Aids in Africa: In search of the Truth, Rolling Stone Nov 22 2001):

[iuytrede]

told you go look by yourself

you may be in for a nasty surprise

[BelgianBoy]

thamachat said:

Malaria can be cured.

 

False.... it can be treated, but not 100 % cured.

Relapses are always possible as it remains in your blood for life.

 

Now back to AIDS

 

BB

[lembeh]

 

I am out the country for now, but will look to address your latest round of nonesense when I am back. Silence is not agreement.

-j-

[Auricman]

Traditional science required that if you propose a theory, you were required to prove it. New science says, if you have a theory, call a press conference and announce your theory. Then denounce anyone who dares to question your theory.

Auricman

[Crash999]

josh_ingu said:

 

I am out the country for now, but will look to address your latest round of nonesense when I am back. Silence is not agreement.

-j-

Save your effort... I remember Scuba's detailed debunking of the various virusmyth articles... to which yet another article would be cut-and-pasted.

 

Some people just want to believe things so hard that they'll take any supporting evidence as fact (just look at Iraq, for example)... With the virusmyth folks one hopes the situation isn't that they're positive and trying to rid themselves of the guilt of continuing to shag girls bareback.

 

Cheers!