HIV causes AIDS (Watch out for the NWO disinfo saying it does not)

[apex111]

"Reynolds claims that “the pathologists didn’t order an HIV test in the normal course of investigating the death of a white, middle class three year old–” as if race and income dictate diagnostic testing decisions. Instead, the coroner’s office stated that cases of unexplained death “are not routinely tested for HIV because AIDS is so obvious.”
Christine Maggiore

Jim you are the one that is lying, she did not stop an hiv test, the cornoner did!  Either the pathologist was so incompetent he didnt do an hiv test, or he did and it came back negative and he lied about it.

[Sonja]

The reason for the reduced death rates is probably because of lower doses of cell killing chemotherapies like AZT, the death rate was at its highest in the early 90's when AZT was prescribed in monstor doses.

The death rate was at its highest when the gay community didnt know what was killing them.

Maybe a rattlesnake bite isnt going to kill you, but are you going to experiment to find out?
The current science and medicine has allowed many millions of people to live nearly completely healthy, and even become HIV viral load non-detectable, strange that connection......

[LakeshoreBaby]

All you guys are doing is proving that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Even your own quacks admit HIV exists. This BS phony award(who's the judge in this contest again?, exactly) is about isolating the virus itself. The current tests are for the antibodies, that show you have been exposed, and there are sometimes false positives,...and with this specific type of test they want, they believe will end that.
Again, you confused morons don't even know what you are arguing about. Your own quacks admit HIV exists.

http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/award.html

Even your God Duesberg admits HIV exists. You idiots just keep proving how clueless you are.
While Duesberg does not believe that HIV causes the set of illness that have been grouped together under than name "AIDS," he does believe that HIV exists.
http://www.aegis.com/news/bar/1999/BR990715.html

Yes, you appear to be correct.  My apologies.  The existence of a virus called HIV appears to be agreed on.  But they would still like to see proof that HIV tests are accurate (even the real time PCR viral load tests) and to see proof that HIV causes AIDS.  HIV positive people who get well on a bunch of medications doesn't prove that HIV causes AIDS.  There are so many factor involved in medical care.  I wouldn't call people who are asking to see proof, quacks.

[apex111]

most viruses are harmless even if they exist, and once you have antibodies youre usually safe, this seems to the case with HIV that does not do anything when injected into animals, is in only 1/1000 cells and has a window period that was extended from 10 months to ten years

[jimd3100]

"Reynolds claims that “the pathologists didn’t order an HIV test in the normal course of investigating the death of a white, middle class three year old–” as if race and income dictate diagnostic testing decisions. Instead, the coroner’s office stated that cases of unexplained death “are not routinely tested for HIV because AIDS is so obvious.”
Christine Maggiore

Jim you are the one that is lying, she did not stop an hiv test, the cornoner did!  Either the pathologist was so incompetent he didnt do an hiv test, or he did and it came back negative and he lied about it.

She never allowed a test. And anyone that knows how to read can see the coroners report that I will post again. It's there for all to see. So no matter how much you lie and say she didn't stop any tests, it's a fact she did. And it's also a fact the tests were done when she believed the same BS you are pushing and her baby ended up dead.
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/maggiorecoroner.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Maggiore

 She breastfed her daughter, Eliza Jane, and refused to have her tested for the
virus.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/26/usa.aids/print

HIV exists --keep proving how you know nothing about the subject but like to lie about stuff you know nothing about.

[jimd3100]

Yes, you appear to be correct.  My apologies.  The existence of a virus called HIV appears to be agreed on.  But they would still like to see proof that HIV tests are accurate (even the real time PCR viral load tests) and to see proof that HIV causes AIDS.  HIV positive people who get well on a bunch of medications doesn't prove that HIV causes AIDS.  There are so many factor involved in medical care.  I wouldn't call people who are asking to see proof, quacks.

No maybe not quacks, the proper term IMO would be accessery to murder in the case of Christine Maggiore. And for proof of HIV causing AIDS, it's as hard as going to the nearest hospital and asking a DR. Try it.

[apex111]

yeah ask your doc and hell tell you mercury is safe and effective too, what are you talking about, maggiore did not stop her from getting tested, they say they chose not to test her, read what I posted above

[jimd3100]

yeah ask your doc and hell tell you mercury is safe and effective too, what are you talking about, maggiore did not stop her from getting tested, they say they chose not to test her, read what I posted above

I read your posts. Read the coroner report again. And keep telling yourself and everyone else HIV doesn't exist. Keep blabbering on about a subject you are very clearly ignorant on. Oh yea, and your mean family Doctor is out to get you to. Paranoid much?

[netizen_x]

Nice painting

[LakeshoreBaby]

I read your posts. Read the coroner report again. And keep telling yourself and everyone else HIV doesn't exist. Keep blabbering on about a subject you are very clearly ignorant on. Oh yea, and your mean family Doctor is out to get you to. Paranoid much?

You are still missing the point.  I admitted my error.  Now post a medical study that actually proves that HIV has been isolated in human tissue, that the ELISA test, the Western blot and the PCR and real time PCR tests detect HIV, and that HIV causes AIDS. 

My guess is that when you did all your research on HIV and AIDS you (like most of us ex-sheep) didn't actually check to see if there were medical studies that actually proves that HIV causes immune system dysfunction and AIDS.  We all assumed that it did because every corporate pharmaceutical controlled, wined and dined doctor was saying it, just like every corporate media seduced person thinks Al-Queda was responsible for 9/11. 

[jimd3100]

My guess is that when you did all your research on HIV and AIDS you (like most of us ex-sheep) didn't actually check to see if there were medical studies that actually proves that HIV causes immune system dysfunction and AIDS.  We all assumed that it did because every corporate pharmaceutical controlled, wined and dined doctor was saying it, just like every corporate media seduced person thinks Al-Queda was responsible for 9/11. 

Yea, well your guess is wrong. I watched as a person I knew went through the process. So just keep speculating and guessing.

[LakeshoreBaby]

Can you see, though, that no matter what the answer to this riddle is, your thinking is messed up?  You are saying that we are speculating.  But what we are doing is asking for proof.  There hasn't been any established that HIV causes AIDS.  This is the whole idea behind the Rethinking AIDS community, to debate the medical establishment to simply show proof that HIV causes AIDS.

It's no different that the 9/11 Truth community asking the current United States federal government administration to back up the official story with proof.  Yet they say that we are speculating.

We don't have to prove that 9/11 was an inside job in order to get another investigation.  We simply are asking questions for the administration to answer, and if they can't answer them, then there needs to be an investigation.

It's the same for the AIDS truth community.  We are asking for proof from the medical establishment that HIV causes AIDS.  If they can't prove it then there needs to be an investigation for the last 24 years of their behavior, and what really causes AIDS. 

I have also seen people with HIV and AIDS.  When I was in medical school I saw people die from what was called AIDS, where the death certificate listed as a secondary underlying cause - AIDS.  But when I look back, I bought into the whole story and did all the research without looking at the basic fundamental principles of the whole idea of HIV/AIDS.  And man, all those people who were dying of AIDS had so many other complicating factors besides HIV, it was sick.  But yet everyone just jumped on the HIV band wagon.  I had to leave that whole arena only with a gut feeling of what a fraud everything was.  Doctors don't heal.  They get angry and react.  How can one trust any of them if they won't even consider other theories, whether or not they are correct?  The answer to the HIV/AIDS riddle doesn't even apply to that sad fact of affairs in the psychology of the medical establishment.

The majority of physicians are dumbed down just like the rest of "society".  John Taylor Gatto's Dumbing Down of America and Norman Dodd's investigation of the Tax Exempt Foundations' interference with the educational system applies to the medical and law societies as much as it does the general public school-educated population.   

[jassy]

If this is the case, why are the African's dying from Aids in droves. Not all have been treated?

maby I can shed a little light on this as a south african.
four years ago the  lady who helped me for a while on my plot and her young daughter were getting skinnier and suffering from health issues. For three months I ferried them both to hospitals and clinics.

After a while I got suspicious when they both got worse so i joined them at the clinic and became a general pain  in the butt until more exstensive tests were done.  It turned out that the mom had pleurisy which was  fixed in two weeks and the daughter had a strain of drug resistant mdr tb which took two years to combat.
the general consensus in some, not all, state hospitals is if you are sick and thin you have aids and nothing is done for you.
both mom and daughter are just fine and dandy.
Thank you apex111  and lakeshorebaby for your input. I have just watched the 2 hour video on HIV and it gave me lots to think about.

[jimd3100]

maby I can shed a little light on this as a south african.
four years ago the  lady who helped me for a while on my plot and her young daughter were getting skinnier and suffering from health issues. For three months I ferried them both to hospitals and clinics.

Gee, I'm not a Dr but it sounds like they might be sick with something...what to do what to do..hmmm....maybe see a Dr?

After a while I got suspicious when they both got worse so i joined them at the clinic and became a general pain  in the butt until more exstensive tests were done.

Holy shit! You took them to medical professionials? That's insane according to the posts on here. And they were tested? Well, let me guess......one test was for HIV and when it turned negative they knew it wasn't AIDS.
 

It turned out that the mom had pleurisy which was  fixed in two weeks and the daughter had a strain of drug resistant mdr tb which took two years to combat.

Yea, that happens when you go to those evil Doctors...they give tests to find out what's wrong.

the general consensus in some, not all, state hospitals is if you are sick and thin you have aids and nothing is done for you.

Uh..that's why I posted the information on this thread. If someone goes..."well, your kinda skinny, you must have AIDS, there are drugs for that, but I'm not going to tell you about them"...maybe it's time for a second opinion.

Thank you apex111  and lakeshorebaby for your input. I have just watched the 2 hour video on HIV and it gave me lots to think about.

LOL

[jimd3100]

Can you see, though, that no matter what the answer to this riddle is, your thinking is messed up?  You are saying that we are speculating.

Yea, that's right your speculating. HIV doesn't cause AIDS? HIV isn't real...and blah blah...and my thinking is messed up?
 

But what we are doing is asking for proof.  There hasn't been any established that HIV causes AIDS.  This is the whole idea behind the Rethinking AIDS community, to debate the medical establishment to simply show proof that HIV causes AIDS.

People get sick. They test for HIV. Test is positive. Give drugs to fight HIV. HIV levels go to nearly disappearing. Patient gets better. Compared with Patient gets sick. Patient has HIV. Drugs to fight HIV not given. Patient dies from pcp pneumonia (usually) or another opportunistic infection. Multiply that by millions. There's your proof.

It's no different that the 9/11 Truth community asking the current United States federal government administration to back up the official story with proof.  Yet they say that we are speculating.

Yea, same thing.

We don't have to prove that 9/11 was an inside job in order to get another investigation.  We simply are asking questions for the administration to answer, and if they can't answer them, then there needs to be an investigation.

Yea, 9/11 AIDS whatever.

It's the same for the AIDS truth community.  We are asking for proof from the medical establishment that HIV causes AIDS.  If they can't prove it then there needs to be an investigation for the last 24 years of their behavior, and what really causes AIDS.

 
People get sick. They test for HIV. Test is positive. Give drugs to fight HIV. HIV levels go to nearly disappearing. Patient gets better. Compared with Patient gets sick. Patient has HIV. Drugs to fight HIV not given. Patient dies from PCP pneumonia (usually) or another opportunistic infection. Multiply that by millions. There's your proof.

I have also seen people with HIV and AIDS.  When I was in medical school I saw people die from what was called AIDS, where the death certificate listed as a secondary underlying cause - AIDS.  But when I look back, I bought into the whole story and did all the research without looking at the basic fundamental principles of the whole idea of HIV/AIDS.  And man, all those people who were dying of AIDS had so many other complicating factors besides HIV, it was sick.

So what? Druggies aren't exactly the healthiest people. Now jump up and down and say, "exactly, maybe it's something else besides HIV". But a few posts ago you didn't think HIV existed? What a freakin coincidence HIV in AIDS patients. I wonder why they live longer today? Any ideas? How about the drugs that fight HIV? Hmmm...think that might be proof of something? How about a dead baby from your great spokesperson? That baby didn't even have to be born with HIV. They're are drugs mothers can take that will greatly reduce the chance of a baby being born with HIV. But your spokesperson doesn't think HIV matters, so we have a dead baby from PCP pneumonia, that was HIV positive still not proof though huh?

  But yet everyone just jumped on the HIV band wagon.

 Yea, especially when AIDS patients quite dieing because they were given drugs that fought HIV. Funny how that works huh? I guess you weren't as gullible as them huh?

I had to leave that whole arena only with a gut feeling of what a fraud everything was.

 
And thank God you did leave. There you go with that "gut feeling" but you don't call that speculating.

Doctors don't heal.

 Gee, what an open minded reasonable statement.

 

They get angry and react.

 They are out to get you. Paranoid much?


 

How can one trust any of them if they won't even consider other theories, whether or not they are correct?

Yea, why go with what works? How did they even come up with HIV tests, and new drugs? Gee I wonder. 

 

The answer to the HIV/AIDS riddle doesn't even apply to that sad fact of affairs in the psychology of the medical establishment.

Yea, progress hasn't been made in your weird world.

The majority of physicians are dumbed down just like the rest of "society".

Obviously a med school dropout like yourself is clearly smarter than these "dumbed down" Dr's. Unless the Dr is a quack with a conspiracy theory backed up by nothing but dead babies. Then they are smart.
  

[jimd3100]

It's no different that the 9/11 Truth community asking the current United States federal government administration to back up the official story with proof.  Yet they say that we are speculating.

We don't have to prove that 9/11 was an inside job in order to get another investigation.  We simply are asking questions for the administration to answer, and if they can't answer them, then there needs to be an investigation.

It's the same for the AIDS truth community.  We are asking for proof from the medical establishment that HIV causes AIDS.  If they can't prove it then there needs to be an investigation for the last 24 years of their behavior, and what really causes AIDS. 

Well, this is great. The "AIDS truth" community. Great fukin name. Try and tell people HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and be sure to mention how it's a truth movement. Just like 9/11 truth. Thats real fukin helpfull. Are you paid, or do you do this shill work for free?

[LakeshoreBaby]

Your welcome jassy.

jimd, I guess you never heard of naturopaths and herbs for healing.  There's probably a role for surgery with critical problems and a limited role of pharmaceuticals in medicine.  But there are so many herbs out there that do everything that big pharma can.

So where's your proof?  Why can't you say "I don't have any." or "I'm not expert enough to comment."  One thing for sure, you'd be a great government tax prosecutor.  "Your honor, this case does not depend on facts.  The fact is he a taxpayer.  There's nothing to prove. That's it that's all."

[apex111]

 

HIV Is Not the Cause of AIDS
By Peter H. Duesberg

Science, Vol. 241, pp. 514-517, July 29, 1988.


Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
    1) HIV is in violation of Koch's first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (.
    2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
    3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
    4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
    5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive "AIDS test," because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the "AIDS test" identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
    6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
    7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
    It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi's sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
    9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

References and Notes:

J. Albert et al., J. Med. Virol. 23, 67 (1987).
L.A. Falk, D. Paul, A. Landay, H. Kessler, N. Engl. J. Med. 316, 1547 (1987).
G.M. Shaw et al., Science 226, 1165 (1984).
D. Richman, J. McCutchan, S. Spector, J. Infect Dis. 156, 823 (1987).
C.-Y. Ou et al., Science 239, 295 (1988).
M.E. Harper, L.M. Marselle, R.C. Gallo, F. Wong-Staal, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 83, 772 (1986).
A. Ranki et al., Lancet ii, 589 (1987).
Centers for Disease Control, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 258, 1143 (1987).
P.H. Duesberg, Cancer Res. 47, 1199 (1987).
H. von Briesen et al., J. Med. Virol. 23, 51 (1987).
D. Gallo, J. Kimpton, P. Dailey, J. Clin. Microbiol. 25, 1291 (1987).
J.W. Curran et al., Science 239, 610 (1988).
G.H. Friedland and R.S. Klein, N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 1125 (1987).
J. Coffin et al., Science 232, 697 (1986).
A. Fauci, ibid. 239, 617 (1988).
J. Sprent, in B and T Cells in Immune Recognition, F. Loor and G.E. Roelants, Eds. (Wiley, New York, 1977), pp. 59-82.
H.A. Kessler, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 258, 1196 (1987).
R.C. Gallo, Sci. Am. 256 (No. 1), 47 (1987).
Centers for Disease Control, AIDS Weekly Surveill. Rep., 18 April 1988.
R. Baum, "AIDS: The molecular biology," Chem. Eng. News (23 November 1987), pp. 14-26.
R.M. Selik, E.T. Starcher, J.W. Curran, AIDS 1, 175 (1987).
R. Colebunders et al., Lancet i, 492 (1987).
K.J. Pallangyo et al., ibid. ii, 972 (1987).
F. Clavel et al., Nature 324, 691 (1986).
J. Sonnabend, in New York Native (9 May 1988), p. 19.

[jimd3100]

So where's your proof?  Why can't you say "I don't have any." or "I'm not expert enough to comment."  One thing for sure, you'd be a great government tax prosecutor.  "Your honor, this case does not depend on facts.  The fact is he a taxpayer.  There's nothing to prove. That's it that's all."

My proof of what? That HIV causes AIDS? My proof is every person that has AIDS and taking medication that fights HIV and they are not dieing anymore, like the people who used to have HIV and then died. This changed in 1996. Also your spokespersons dead baby.

So what is the point of this? If you want to ask some real questions, not ones that are 20 years old and already answered. You could ask, where did HIV come from? How come (so far) it can't be completely killed off? It can reach the point of being non detectable, but if the meds are stopped it shows up again. Where is it hiding? (some suspect in the lymph nodes). Why not focus on real questions instead of complete total BS like is HIV real? Does it really cause AIDS? Those have been answered for years. Why don't you try dealing with the real world, just for a change of pace if nothing else. I didn't just find this out from reading a website. I've lived this in the real world. This isn't a "theory" anymore.

[jimd3100]

 

HIV Is Not the Cause of AIDS
By Peter H. Duesberg

Science, Vol. 241, pp. 514-517, July 29, 1988.

Science, Vol. 241, pp. 514-517, July 29, 1988.
LOL! Yea, to bad Medical Research into AIDS during the last 20 years hasn't proven anything. What a dumbass, posting a 20 year old paper by a quack. Notice anything about AIDS patients now compared to 20 years ago? Like they don't drop dead anymore? LOL....just pathetic...

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Publications/hivaids/12.htm

KOCH'S POSTULATES FULFILLED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent developments in HIV research provide some of the strongest evidence for the causative role of HIV in AIDS and fulfill the classical postulates for disease causation developed by Henle and Koch in the 19th century (Koch's postulates reviewed in Evans, 1976, 1989a; Harden, 1992). Koch's postulates have been variously interpreted by many scientists over the years. One scientist who asserts that HIV does not cause AIDS has set forth the following interpretation of the postulates for proving the causal relationship between a microorganism and a specific disease (Duesberg, 1987):

The microorganism must be found in all cases of the disease.
It must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.
It must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host.
It must be found in the experimental host so infected.
Recent developments in HIV/AIDS research have shown that HIV fulfills these criteria as the cause of AIDS.

1) The development of DNA PCR has enabled researchers to document the presence of cell-associated proviral HIV in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease (Kwok et al., 1987; Wages et al., 1991; Bagasra et al., 1992; Bruisten et al., 1992; Petru et al., 1992; Hammer et al., 1993). RNA PCR has been used to detect cell-free and/or cell-associated viral RNA in patients at all stages of HIV disease (Ottmann et al., 1991; Schnittman et al., 1991; Aoki-Sei, 1992; Michael et al., 1992; Piatak et al., 1993) (Table 3).


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

Table 3. Assays to Detect/Measure HIV Antibody-Positive Patients

Assay % of antibody-positive patients CD4+ range (cells/mm3) Viral parameter measured
p24 antigen 20
37-95 200-500
<200 Free viral antigen in serum or plasma
ICD p24 45-70
75-100 200-500
<200 Immune-complexed viral antigen in serum or plasma
Plasma viremia 75-100 <200 Infectious cell-free virus
PBMC culture 95-100 <500 Infectious cell-associated and amplifiable virus
DNA PCR 100 <1,000 Cell-associated proviral DNA
RNA PCR 100 <1,000 Cell-free and/or cell-associated viral RNA


Modified from Hammer et al., 1993.


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

2) Improvements in co-culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease (Coombs et al., 1989; Schnittman et al., 1989; Ho et al., 1989; Jackson et al., 1990).

1-4) All four postulates have been fulfilled in three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated HIVIIIB in the laboratory (Blattner et al., 1993; Reitz et al., 1994; Cohen, 1994c). Two patients were infected in 1985 and one in 1991. All three have shown marked CD4+ T cell depletion, and two have CD4+ T cell counts that have dropped below 200/mm3 of blood. One of these latter individuals developed PCP, an AIDS indicator disease, 68 months after showing evidence of infection and did not receive antiretroviral drugs until 83 months after the infection. In all three cases, HIVIIIB was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced, and shown to be the original infecting strain of virus.

In addition, as of Dec. 31, 1994, CDC had received reports of 42 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 17 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors (CDC, 1995a). These individuals all had evidence of HIV seroconversion following a discrete percutaneous or mucocutaneous exposure to blood, body fluids or other clinical laboratory specimens containing HIV.

The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases (Ward et al., 1989; Ashton et al., 1994), in mother-to-child transmission (European Collaborative Study, 1991, 1992; Turner et al., 1993; Blanche et al., 1994), and in studies of hemophilia, injection drug use, and sexual transmission in which the time of seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples (Goedert et al., 1989; Rezza et al., 1989; Biggar, 1990; Alcabes et al., 1993a,b; Giesecke et al., 1990; Buchbinder et al., 1994; Sabin et al., 1993).

In many such cases, infection is followed by an acute retroviral syndrome, which further strengthens the chronological association between HIV and AIDS (Pedersen et al., 1989, 1993; Schechter et al., 1990; Tindall and Cooper, 1991; Keet et al., 1993; Sinicco et al., 1993; Bachmeyer et al., 1993; Lindback et al., 1994).

[apex111]

yeah 20 years, more evidence against the hypothesis, those chimps are still alive, the direct cell killing hypothesis has been thrown out because so few cells are infected as Duesberg stated, the padian study came out where there were 0 seroconversions amongst serodiscordant couples who had unprotected sex, Rodriguiez study where fake viral loads had very little effect on t cell counts sex etc etc

Duesberg's a quack? California scientist if the year, NAS member, recognized as the worlds leading expert on retroviruses in the 80's, not to mention the many scientists who support him.

[jimd3100]

yeah 20 years, more evidence against the hypothesis, those chimps are still alive,

Duesberg's a quack? California scientist if the year, NAS member, recognized as the worlds leading expert on retroviruses in the 80's, not to mention the many scientists who support him.

LOL...just pathetic..Chimps are not people. Maybe you didn't notice that they are a different species. the 80s.....well, it is now 2008, and he aint so respected. All those scientists that support him...LOL...yea in your weird world most scientists and Medical researchers support him, but here in the real world where I live most don't. BTW, you forgot that the DRs are out to get you.

Why don't you top yourself and post a medical paper written in 1600 about how leeches are a cure for headaches. LOL

[apex111]

rebuttal to NIH fact sheet

http://healtoronto.com/nih/main.html

[apex111]

Scientists that have supported Duesberg in the past and present

Richard Strohman Phd UCB mcb professor
Charles Thomas PHD former harvard MCB professor
Kary Mullis phd Biochemist Nobel Prize winner inventor of the PCR
Shyh Ching Lo PHD MD military's highest ranking infectious disease pathologist, and all his collegues at the Armed forces Institute of Pathology, they actually austopsied AIDS Patients
Walter Gilbert Nobel Prize winner Harvard MCB professor (In an private email after being heckled by an AIDS activist he might have changed his mind)
Luc montagnier in 1990 discoverer of HIV said hiv might be benign in 1990
Lynn Margulis Phd evolutionary biologist NAS member won Clintons medal of science in 1999

And "consensus" does not mean much in science, a lobotomy used to be considered a good treatment for mental illness by the orthodox doctors you worship, scientific minorities like Copernicus have prevailed.

[jimd3100]

And "consensus" does not mean much in science, a lobotomy used to be considered a good treatment for mental illness by the orthodox doctors you worship, scientific minorities like Copernicus have prevailed.

Yea, you're brilliant. Why dont you tell us again that HIV doesn't exist. And then you can post an article by your God Duesberg debunking yourself. LOL  Have fun talking to yourself.

[A K]

1. Han't Magic Johnson been HIV positive for 10 or so years now, and he is perfectly healthy?  

2.  Didn't the government run vacine programs advertised for gay men in NY and SF in the late 70's, and didn't the majority of the men in those tests die of AIDS?

3.  Didn't polio vacines in Africa match the first showings of AIDS, as shown in a famous article in Rolling Stone and later a film documentary?

4.   Is there not a transcript of a congressional hearing from the early seventies, reprinted in the William Cooper book "Behold A Pale Horse", where a military researcher asks for funds to continue tests on a bioweapon that can "destroy the body's natural immune system which keeps us relatively free from infectous diseases."?

[Femacamper]

I heard of a case where somebody said they were willing to inject themselves with the HIV virus to prove that it couldn't cause AIDS.

Not sure if they followed through, and what the results were.

[LakeshoreBaby]

My proof of what? That HIV causes AIDS? My proof is every person that has AIDS and taking medication that fights HIV and they are not dieing anymore, like the people who used to have HIV and then died. This changed in 1996. Also your spokespersons dead baby.

So what is the point of this? If you want to ask some real questions, not ones that are 20 years old and already answered. You could ask, where did HIV come from? How come (so far) it can't be completely killed off? It can reach the point of being non detectable, but if the meds are stopped it shows up again. Where is it hiding? (some suspect in the lymph nodes). Why not focus on real questions instead of complete total BS like is HIV real? Does it really cause AIDS? Those have been answered for years. Why don't you try dealing with the real world, just for a change of pace if nothing else. I didn't just find this out from reading a website. I've lived this in the real world. This isn't a "theory" anymore.

But that's the whole point Mr. Prosecutor.  These questions haven't been answered.  So where is your proof?  Where are the facts of the case you are making?  Where are the facts in your evidence file that HIV causes AIDS and that a virus called HIV has been detected in human tissue?  Please reposit them with the clerk of the proper court.  And don't forget the judge's private evidence file for him to examine for probable cause.  Please post.

[Sonja]

most viruses are harmless even if they exist, and once you have antibodies youre usually safe, this seems to the case with HIV that does not do anything when injected into animals, is in only 1/1000 cells and has a window period that was extended from 10 months to ten years

You prove your ignorance here.  HIV is an Antibody! Does anyone know the true science of it?
Evidence of the ANTIBODY in the system is an indication of an anti-immune system break down which may or may not come, in most cases DOES. Perhaps HIV is not the cause, but evidence of the HIV ANTIBODY in testing -proves an assault on the body that is so strong it cannot fight whatever it is and before the current science-people just died.

I have also seen people with HIV and AIDS.  When I was in medical school I saw people die from what was called AIDS, where the death certificate listed as a secondary underlying cause - AIDS.  But when I look back, I bought into the whole story and did all the research without looking at the basic fundamental principles of the whole idea of HIV/AIDS.  And man, all those people who were dying of AIDS had so many other complicating factors besides HIV, it was sick.

Wow, this is Brilliant! As if ANYONE who understands auto-immune diseases does not understand that AIDS is actually a breakdown that causes lots of connective illnesses. You did the research...post it!

HIV, on the other hand, is implicated in this disease, but to say that it is the only factor is shortsighted. More than likely, parasites and chemical pollution in the body are the other factors.

For Christ sakes, you are an idiot or so ignorant of the world around you it is pathetic. Get a condom.

I agree with debating the cause of AIDS as far as where it comes from, but I dont feel people should be insulted for believing and seeing results from current science, as f**ked up as it is, no doubt, we are not the most brilliant as medical science goes, but with HIV/AIDS they are doing a whole lot better than most.
Cancer treatments burn people to death, but some have been able to have longer and productive lives, most die in horrible pain.
Pick your battles. This one they are doing great at. So, WTF are you talking about?
How about any of you prove  HIV does NOT cause AIDS and that current protease inhibitors do not allow people to live HIV free non-viral loads equalling full, healthy, happy lives?
Because I know a bunch of people that would have DIED otherwise.
You people can talk a lot of shit, but have really nothing to debate compared to the lives that have been saved by this hypothesis, and until you have a better theory for saving lives, better STFU. Even those who claim to have found a cure know they were infected and positive for HIV, as per postings in this thread, the Flow Chart.

Barking up the wrong tree here.

I am a eugenics researcher, if you look at my posts most are about vaccines and the like. You people are taliking out of your ASS about HIV/AIDS.
Aids is bio-warfare. It was designed to kill Black people, but was experimented on gays through Hep vaccines given for free in three different cities to GAY MEN.
We do NOT KNOW what it IS. What WE DO KNOW is when the HIV antibody is formed in the body, you are going for dead.

Stop talking shit and fighting about something you THINK you know something about and DO NOT HAVE A CLUE. No One does.
We just know , we have been the subject of a governmental biowarfare program, and it has been a sad thing, heartbreaking.

Until YOU come up with a miracle CURE, you can talk SHIT ALL DAY. So FAR, the HIV connection has saved lives, a major glitch, strangely in the bio-warfare , eugenics program. GAYS ARE NOT DYING. Must be rough for all you christian fundis.

[LakeshoreBaby]

My dear sweet Sonja.  I am only asking questions.  No research needed.  This is what jimd said he did.  I don't recall insulting anyone except to point out that someone's thinking can't be normal if they accept mainstream thinking without addressing fundamental principles, continue to say something, won't post proof, and then say it's quackery to ask to see proof.  It would be just as simple to post the proof, admit that there is none, say that they aren't expert enough to do the research, or simply don't have the time and thus admit then for the purposes of this thread that there are no facts in evidence in this thread that can prove that A causes B.  Then the question is still left open. And there is nothing wrong with that. 

Please post information that the accepted mainstream medical theory of HIV is that it's an antibody and not a virus.  Thank you kindly. 

[LakeshoreBaby]

But I will add that I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings.  That was not the intent.  jimb can get my blood boiling.  This thread asked the question of whether HIV even causes AIDS.  My contention is that I have not seen any proof that HIV causes AIDS.  I had not even seen any proof that HIV even exists, but jimd pointed out that people that I respect and trust believe otherwise.  But this still leaves the huge question of whether HIV causes AIDS.  I haven't seen any fundamental research that shows that HIV causes AIDS.  There is a $50,000 dollar reward for the person who can find even one medical study that proves HIV has even been isolated in human tissue, so as to indicate that the rest of the 24 years of research on this subject since 1984 is not severely undermined. 

[Sonja]

Please post information that the accepted mainstream medical theory of HIV is that it's an antibody and not a virus.

Wow, you have never known the HIV test was for HIV anti-bodies, not for the virus itself?

HIV antibody testing is used to determine whether or not a person is infected with HIV. Antibodies to the HIV virus can be detected by a screening test called an ELISA. http://www.labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/hiv_antibody/test.html
Its the antibody they test for, which does bring up some questions, I must admit. Like , what is the original? HIV? But the test is never for HIV in itself, never, but having HIV anti-bodies, and if untreated mean certain death.

Lakeshorebaby,

if they accept mainstream thinking without addressing fundamental principles, continue to say something, won't post proof, and then say it's quackery to ask to see proof.

Do the same yourself! Post the theory instead of questioning the present one (which is working) with zero back up!
Prove it!
Right now millions of people are living healthy productive lives and not dying based on present theory and what is known. PLEASE! Prove otherwise! I think about 100 million people worldwide will be thrilled to be enlightened by your wisdom, knowledge and a cure.
What? You cannot provide something better than what they have now?! Shocking! Go back to whatever you thought was important in your life, before you thought to try to make up some bullshit that HIV was not causing AIDS. Or PROVE IT and HELP!
Because Millions are living now, when they were dying before.
Please! Give us your CURE. TELL ALL the people being treated for HIV , and living THEY ARE WRONG!

[Sonja]

Go to a hospice. They will tell you all about it. Ask the woman, who got it from her cheating husband, ask a kid who got it from birth, its HIV transmitted by antibodies, the child did not get direct HIV infection.
Its not parasites, its not bad living, its blood to blood,  body fluids, the anti-body kills somehow, not the infection. The antibody kills everything in its path, destroys the ability for the body to fight off infection and disease Completely different from any known natural science.
Maybe everyone is right, its not HIV that kills, its race specific, so maybe its the antibody that kills, IE: the test for HIV is always an antibody test, NEVER an actual HIV infection test.
I admit it puzzles me, but I know this is a bio-weapon, artificially created that I think was designed for black people. We never heard except in certain documentaries how bad this hit the black community.

[jassy]

Gee, I'm not a Dr but it sounds like they might be sick with something...what to do what to do..hmmm....maybe see a Dr?
 
Holy shit! You took them to medical professionials? That's insane according to the posts on here. And they were tested? Well, let me guess......one test was for HIV and when it turned negative they knew it wasn't AIDS.
 Yea, that happens when you go to those evil Doctors...they give tests to find out what's wrong.
 
Uh..that's why I posted the information on this thread. If someone goes..."well, your kinda skinny, you must have AIDS, there are drugs for that, but I'm not going to tell you about them"...maybe it's time for a second opinion.
LOL

Umm. the reason I wrote this was to say I took them to the wise doctors in the first place. the very same doctors I go to. Yes, they do reside and practise at the state hospitals and clinics. The difference was I asked questions as to why they were getting sent home with aspirin.
The statement I was making was that a lot of deaths are attributed to aids when the real reason is that the people are not treated for what they really are suffering from.

I gather that from your replys you have first hand knowledge of the workings of state hospitals in Africa. I must have missed something in my exsperiance with them.

[LakeshoreBaby]

Sonja, very good.  The tests are for the antibodies, and some they claim for genetic material.   Now can you show that there has been HIV virus actually isolated from human tissue, so that it can be proven that the genetic material they claim is detected from the PCR and real time PCR test is actually from the HIV virus?  And to show that the antibodies they claim are to the HIV virus actually are?  It would seem that in order to know that the antibodies they claim are detected from the ELISA test are in fact from HIV, and that the genetic material found on the PCR tests are from HIV, they would have to have isolated the virus in the first place from human tissue, to derive a source from which they can match the antibodies to the virus, and to have a source from which to compare the genetic material found on the PCR tests.  Please post this research, and win $50,000 dollars from aliveandwell.org.  Thank you kindly.   

[apex111]

Antibodies are usually a good thing, thats why we get better after a flu, measles etc.  Thats the whole reason for getting vaccinated.  HIV was not a bioweapon, if there is a bioweapan it would not be well known by members of the public, but if you do a  little research youll find out that mycoplasma was developed as an incapacitating agent, the Army has a patent called "pathogenic Mycoplasma"     Read Project Day Lily to find out about how it was a bioweapon illegally tested.
http://www.projectdaylily.com/

Here's the Army's patent on it
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5242820.html

[apex111]

No way hiv is a bioweapon.................its said not to cause any symptoms for 10 years....................there is not much evidence that those who are positive who are not on AZT, hard drugs, mycoplasma infected get aids, thats why they kept extending the window period

[netizen_x]

Yea, you're brilliant. Why dont you tell us again that HIV doesn't exist. And then you can post an article by your God Duesberg debunking yourself. LOL  Have fun talking to yourself.

HIV doesn't exist: prove otherwise.

[Femacamper]

HIV does exist: prove otherwise.

[netizen_x]

Is there not a transcript of a congressional hearing from the early seventies, reprinted in the William Cooper book "Behold A Pale Horse", where a military researcher asks for funds to continue tests on a bioweapon that can "destroy the body's natural immune system which keeps us relatively free from infectous diseases."?

Yeah, but they couldn't make one; so they made one up.

cheats are losers