HIV is a harmless virus and does not cause AIDS

2wsxcde3

This is a theory that has been around as long as AIDS itself but has been largely censored from the popular media.

Watch this video and be stunned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU

You'll never think about HIV and AIDS the same again...not that i'm saying you should start sleeping around with skanks. Chlamydia, gonorrhea and babies very much do exist.

Di0genes

Proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS is overwhelming. National Academy of Sciences, CDC, Institute of Medicine, NIH, AMA, Canadian CDC, Pasteur Institute, UNAIDS, and WHO all agree. Google "HIV and AIDS Myths Debunked" to find a page at AIDSvideos with data and references from research studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals showing that HIV causes AIDS and debunking common myths. Or watch our educational videos such as "The Top Ten Myths About HIV/AIDS."

Responsible scientists agree that HIV causes the disease AIDS. People who are HIV negative do not develop AIDS. We have seen people go from HIV negative to HIV positive to clinical AIDS countless times. There is a correlation between the viral load in a person's blood and the drop in the patient's CD4 count and increase in severity of disease symptoms. When antiretroviral drugs are used and cut the patient's viral load, the CD4 count can rebound and AIDS symptoms can improve.

NIAID: By 12/31/94, "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 .... 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." [CDC, "HIV/AIDS surveillance report, 1994 year-end edition," 1995a;6(no.2).]

NIAID "Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS:" "through December 1999, the CDC had received reports of 56 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 25 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors."

NIAID "Relationship Between HIV and AIDS": Known HIV seroconversion followed by development of AIDS "has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion," in mother-to-child transmission, "and in studies of hemophilia, injection drug use, and sexual transmission in which the time of seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples." [Ward 89, Ashton 94, ECS 91&92, Turner 93, Blanche 94,Goedert 89, Rezza 89, Biggar 90, Alcabes 93, Gisecke 90, Buchbinder 94, Sabin 93]

NIAID "Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS:" "in a 10-year study in the Netherlands, researchers followed 11 children who had become infected with HIV as neonates by small aliquots of plasma from a single HIV-infected donor. During the 10-year period, eight of the children died of AIDS. Of the remaining three children, all showed a progressive decline in cellular immunity, and two of the three had symptoms probably related to HIV infection (van den Berg et al. Acta Paediatr 1994;83:17)"

NIAID "Evidence:" "transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both .... The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886)."

NIAID: "Among HIV-infected patients who receive anti-HIV therapy, those whose viral loads are driven to low levels are much less likely to develop AIDS or die than patients who do not respond to therapy. Such an effect would not be seen if HIV did not have a central role in causing AIDS." [Montaner AIDS 1998;12:F23; Palumbo JAMA 1998;279:756; O'Brien NEJM 1996;334:426; Katzenstein NEJM 1996;335:1091; Marschner J Infect Dis 1998;177:40; Hammer NEJM 1997;337:725; Cameron Lancet 1998;351:543]

NIAID: Cases have been documented where HIV+ mothers gave birth to twins where one was HIV-infected and the other wasn't. "The HIV-infected children developed AIDS, while the other children remained clinically and immunologically normal." [Park. J Clin Microbiol 1987;25:1119; Menez-Bautista. Am J Dis Child 1986;140:678; Thomas. Pediatrics 1990;86:774; Young. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1990;9:454; Barlow and Mok. Arch Dis Child 1993;68:507; Guerrero Vazquez. An Esp Pediatr 1993;39:445]

NIAID: Animal models also show that HIV causes AIDS. "Chimpanzees experimentally infected with HIV have developed severe immunosuppression and AIDS. In severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice given a human immune system, HIV produces similar patterns of cell killing and pathogenesis as seen in people. HIV-2 .... also causes an AIDS-like syndrome in baboons." [O'Neil et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Locher et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523]

Myth: There is Not Yet a Scientific Consensus That HIV Causes AIDS

All of the following have concluded that HIV causes AIDS: in the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences, Centers for Disease Control, Institute of Medicine, National Institute of Health, and American Medical Association; the Canadian Centers for Disease Control; the Pasteur Institute; UNAIDS; and the World Health Organization.

more

http://www.aidsvideos.org/myths/index.shtml#HIVNotCauseAIDS

robtri

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This is a theory that has been around as long as AIDS itself but has been largely censored from the popular media.

Watch this video and be stunned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU

You'll never think about HIV and AIDS the same again...not that i'm saying you should start sleeping around with skanks. Chlamydia, gonorrhea and babies very much do exist.

so i take it you would have no objections to been injected with HIV infected blood then???

robtri

robtri wrote: »

so i take it you would have no objections to been injected with HIV infected blood then???

This would be a very easy way to prove your hypothesis OP.

Of course no one would ever agree to it because deep down, they know it's BS.

Stinicker

I'd still err on the verge of caution tbh!

2wsxcde3

Stinicker wrote: »

I'd still err on the verge of caution tbh!

Same here. But from my study on it, there are a lot of unanswered questions and problems with the HIV=AIDS theory.
Much more than the main stream media would have you believe.

Im Only 71Kg

there's a good chance someone of youth will read this...thread should be closed.

nullzero

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

there's a good chance someone of youth will read this...thread should be closed.

2wsxcde3

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

there's a good chance someone of youth will read this...thread should be closed.

Censorship. That's all this issue gets. And with so much censorship, real debate on the issue never happens and so the problem persists.

Nobel prize winners as well as the top cancer expert in the 70's and 80's (considered top before he had his reputation taken away for his theory on HIV) Dr Peter Deusberg have come out against the fraud that is HIV=AIDS.

We're not talking about a couple of cranks that don't know any better, we're talking about some of the highest professionals in the field of medicine. More would speak up about it but are afraid of their careers.

CiaranMT

Unanswered questions and problems.. Such as? Please provide examples of contention. Specific examples too, which are present today, not the late 80's/early 90's.

I'll take the word of the present day scientific community (with their vastly superior knowledge of the disease) over one doctor who specialises in cancer.

Im Only 71Kg

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Censorship. That's all this issue gets. And with so much censorship, real debate on the issue never happens and so the problem persists.

Nobel prize winners as well as the top cancer expert in the 70's and 80's (considered top before he had his reputation taken away for his theory on HIV) Dr Peter Deusberg have come out against the fraud that is HIV=AIDS.

We're not talking about a couple of cranks that don't know any better, we're talking about some of the highest professionals in the field of medicine. More would speak up about it but are afraid of their careers.

well at least change the threads title...it's misleading. thats all. i don't think young kids would have an interest in the science to be honest.

craggles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Censorship. That's all this issue gets. And with so much censorship, real debate on the issue never happens and so the problem persists.

Nobel prize winners as well as the top cancer expert in the 70's and 80's (considered top before he had his reputation taken away for his theory on HIV) Dr Peter Deusberg have come out against the fraud that is HIV=AIDS.

We're not talking about a couple of cranks that don't know any better, we're talking about some of the highest professionals in the field of medicine. More would speak up about it but are afraid of their careers.

So.....

What is to stop you or anyone else injecting themselves with the correct blood type infected with HIV? Prove it!

craggles

Seriously, find someone of your blood type who is supposedly HIV positive, take some of their blood into your own system and prove to the world that it's a myth! Save us all, I implore you!

2wsxcde3

CiaranMT wrote: »

Unanswered questions and problems.. Such as? Please provide examples of contention. Specific examples too, which are present today, not the late 80's/early 90's.

I'll take the word of the present day scientific community (with their vastly superior knowledge of the disease) over one doctor who specialists in cancer.

Here is a link to just one of the many documentaries on this on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU
Youtube is just about the only place you'll find info on this because as i've said, it's censored from the main stream media.

Peter Deusberg is not just some cancer expert - he was the leading expert at the end of the 20th century leading the ground work for much of todays fight on cancer. And he still is an expert - but because of his outspoken opinion on the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, his funding was cut and so is not able to carry out the same groundbreaking work he once was able to. Other leading scientists agree with what Deusberg says but know if they speak out, it's the end of their career.

Dude i'm not a Dr, go research it yourself. The very drug that's prescribed for HIV, AZT may very well be actually causing AIDs. AZT was so toxic that it was not recommended for cancer sufferers back in the 80's when it came out but they said they'd give it a go with AIDs. In addition, many of the sufferers of AIDs in Africa don't have HIV, thus proving that there's an issue with the HIV=AIDs theory. But because the HIV=AIDs establishment have defined AIDs as someone who has HIV AND another major illness such as pneumonia etc, its a self fulfilling prophecy. Their statistics only show people who have AIDS and HIV, thus making an unsafe connection between the two. They conveniently remove all those people that have AIDs but don't have HIV from their statistics.
I've examined the leading experts on the HIV=AIDs theory and their attempt to pour cold water on peter Deusbergs theory but the more i hear from them, the more i realize they're not very convincing.

BTW If you think I'm a crackpot that follows every conspiracy theory I'd just like to inform you that i don't believe:

• 9/11 was an inside job
• That bin laden is still alive
• That there are aliens at area 51
• That the queen is a lizard

etc etc etc

2wsxcde3

craggles wrote: »

Seriously, find someone of your blood type who is supposedly HIV positive, take some of their blood into your own system and prove to the world that it's a myth! Save us all, I implore you!

That's a stupid childish response that doesn't address the issue.
Just look at the large amount of data which shows people suffering from AIDS with no trace of HIV in their blood. These statistics exist but aren't included in many of the statistics.
Yes HIV exists but it's a relatively harmless virus. Everyone has viruses in their body. it's estimated that on average people have about 50 or so of these harmless viruses in their body. That's fact, not me making it up.

finty

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is a link to just one of the many documentaries on this on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU
Youtube is just about the only place you'll find info on this because as i've said, it's censored from the main stream media.

Peter Deusberg is not just some cancer expert - he was the leading expert at the end of the 20th century leading the ground work for much of todays fight on cancer. And he still is an expert - but because of his outspoken opinion on the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, his funding was cut and so is not able to carry out the same groundbreaking work he once was able to. Other leading scientists agree with what Deusberg says but know if they speak out, it's the end of their career.

Dude i'm not a Dr, go research it yourself. The very drug that's prescribed for HIV, AZT may very well be actually causing AIDs. AZT was so toxic that it was not recommended for cancer sufferers back in the 80's when it came out but they said they'd give it a go with AIDs. In addition, many of the sufferers of AIDs in Africa don't have HIV, thus proving that there's an issue with the HIV=AIDs theory. But because the HIV=AIDs establishment have defined AIDs as someone who has HIV AND another major illness such as pneumonia etc, its a self fulfilling prophecy. Their statistics only show people who have AIDS and HIV, thus making an unsafe connection between the two. They conveniently remove all those people that have AIDs but don't have HIV from their statistics.
I've examined the leading experts on the HIV=AIDs theory and their attempt to pour cold water on peter Deusbergs theory but the more i hear from them, the more i realize they're not very convincing.

BTW If you think I'm a crackpot that follows every conspiracy theory I'd just like to inform you that i don't believe:

• 9/11 was an inside job
• That bin laden is still alive
• That there are aliens at area 51
• That the queen is a lizard

etc etc etc

This is almost 20 years old, the scientific community has moved on.

The reason you can't find evidence isnt because its "censored in the mainstream" its that even the crackpots accept that HIV causes AIDS.

They are more worried about the US faking killing Osama Bin Laden these days


You've done research on youtube!!! :eek:

2wsxcde3

finty wrote: »

You've done research on youtube!!! :eek:

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

In any case, i have no problem doing research on youtube if the research is coming from leading experts in the field of medicine including nobel prize winners.

finty

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

In any case, i have no problem doing research on youtube if the research is coming from leading experts in the field of medicine including nobel prize winners.

Nonsense, Nonsense, Nonsense

Find some "research" from this millenium so.

Scientific understanding of this virus has moved on hugely in 17 years.

You are listening to one misguided scientist from 2 decades ago and ignoring everyone who contradicts him.

Top notch research!

2wsxcde3

Dude, at least i'm doing research on the topic. You're just coming on here shouting down people without having done your own research into it (ie in other words don't know the arguments for and against the HIV=AIDs hypotheses at either side).
Peter Deusbergs facts still hold true today. He still speaks at medical seminars on the issue and has held his ground on the issue right back from when AIDs first came to light to this day (5th May 2011).

Dude, go research what the issue actually is before coming on here shouting people down.

robtri

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

In any case, i have no problem doing research on youtube if the research is coming from leading experts in the field of medicine including nobel prize winners.

as yes youtube..... home of the scientific community

if you want to research at least use medical publishcations
that have been peer reviewed...

youtube... FFS

2wsxcde3

robtri wrote: »

as yes youtube..... home of the scientific community

if you want to research at least use medical publishcations
that have been peer reviewed...

youtube... FFS

This is research involving documentaries/news programmes with intelligent people (ie medical experts) having intelligent debates on the issue (which is more than can be said for people on here).
Maybe you should go do some research yourself (as you obviously haven't) and find out what the issue actually is with the HIV=AIDs hypothesis rather than assuming you know.

Monty Burnz

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

If they do, and they are correct, they will win the Nobel Prize. That's a pretty good incentive for tenured researchers.

Undergod

I reckon there probably is a connection between HIV and AIDS; however, the issue is blurred in many places. I remember reading that the test for HIV in extremely poor areas is done by checking for symptoms, as the antibody test is expensive. Unfortunately these symptoms are the same as those for malnutrition- you can see why this is a problem

I also remember this article; sex workers in Nairobi, where the rate of HIV infection in the general population is something like 7% or higher, are frequently found to be HIV-negative, a situation that is all but impossible unless they have some kind of immunity. I haven't heard much about it since though.

clever_name

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That's a stupid childish response that doesn't address the issue.
Just look at the large amount of data which shows people suffering from AIDS with no trace of HIV in their blood. These statistics exist but aren't included in many of the statistics.
Yes HIV exists but it's a relatively harmless virus. Everyone has viruses in their body. it's estimated that on average people have about 50 or so of these harmless viruses in their body. That's fact, not me making it up.

Its not stupid at all, for decades the medical opinion of ulcers was that they were diet and stress related. this changed when Dr. Barry Marshall decided to try to give himself an ulcer.

End result is medical opinion of ulcers was challanged and proved wrong because of him.

So all anyone who is 100% sure that HIV is harmless has to do is undertake a well documented test on themself. It really is that simple.

Look at the respect Dr. Marshall and his colleagues recieved for their work on ulcers, imagine the kudos for such a step forward in AIDS research? In fact why has this not already been done if the doctors are so sure?

HavingCrack

Undergod wrote: »

I reckon there probably is a connection between HIV and AIDS; however, the issue is blurred in many places. I remember reading that the test for HIV in extremely poor areas is done by checking for symptoms, as the antibody test is expensive. Unfortunately these symptoms are the same as those for malnutrition- you can see why this is a problem

I also remember this article; sex workers in Nairobi, where the rate of HIV infection in the general population is something like 7% or higher, are frequently found to be HIV-negative, a situation that is all but impossible unless they have some kind of immunity. I haven't heard much about it since though.

The same team of researchers from Nairobi also did this research in 2007 http://www.awcfs.org/new/features/features-archive/243-herpes-treatment-gives-hope-to-hiv-positive-people which was along similar lines. I haven't heard anything since either though and the tests seemed a bit inconclusive.

Interestingly, in around 2-3% of cases HIV sufferers do not develop AIDS. I reckon there might be an answer in there. I think a commerically available 'cure' for HIV or at least something that prevents the onset of full blown AIDS is still 15-20 years down the line however.

RoboClam

HavingCrack wrote: »

The same team of researchers from Nairobi also did this research in 2007 http://www.awcfs.org/new/features/features-archive/243-herpes-treatment-gives-hope-to-hiv-positive-people which was along similar lines. I haven't heard anything since either though and the tests seemed a bit inconclusive.

Interestingly, in around 2-3% of cases HIV sufferers do not develop AIDS. I reckon there might be an answer in there. I think a commerically available 'cure' for HIV or at least something that prevents the onset of full blown AIDS is still 15-20 years down the line however.

The current thinking is that the resistance to infection is due to a deficiency in a receptor called CCR5, which the virus uses to enter the cell.

CiaranMT

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is a link to just one of the many documentaries on this on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU
Youtube is just about the only place you'll find info on this because as i've said, it's censored from the main stream media.

Peter Deusberg is not just some cancer expert - he was the leading expert at the end of the 20th century leading the ground work for much of todays fight on cancer. And he still is an expert - but because of his outspoken opinion on the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, his funding was cut and so is not able to carry out the same groundbreaking work he once was able to. Other leading scientists agree with what Deusberg says but know if they speak out, it's the end of their career.

Dude i'm not a Dr, go research it yourself. The very drug that's prescribed for HIV, AZT may very well be actually causing AIDs. AZT was so toxic that it was not recommended for cancer sufferers back in the 80's when it came out but they said they'd give it a go with AIDs. In addition, many of the sufferers of AIDs in Africa don't have HIV, thus proving that there's an issue with the HIV=AIDs theory. But because the HIV=AIDs establishment have defined AIDs as someone who has HIV AND another major illness such as pneumonia etc, its a self fulfilling prophecy. Their statistics only show people who have AIDS and HIV, thus making an unsafe connection between the two. They conveniently remove all those people that have AIDs but don't have HIV from their statistics.

1. You're the one making the claim, ergo, burden of proof lies on you. You have to back up your position with evidence. It can then be evaluated and critiqued.

2. He was an leading expert in cancer, not HIV/AIDS. As others have said, the understanding of the diseases has moved on massively in the last couple of decades.

I've examined the leading experts on the HIV=AIDs theory and their attempt to pour cold water on peter Deusbergs theory but the more i hear from them, the more i realize they're not very convincing.

Such as? Give a few reasons as to why you don't find them convincing.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

In any case, i have no problem doing research on youtube if the research is coming from leading experts in the field of medicine including nobel prize winners.

As others have said, go to medical journals. Use Google Scholar. There is plenty of scientific research available.

Receiving a Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to question a different field of research. It's like taking the word of a physicist when they critique a principle of chemistry, just because they have an award.

Sure, they've contributed hugely in their own field, but they'll need to have research to back up their assertions.

Has the good Dr. Deusberg carried out research which refutes the current thinking?

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Dude, at least i'm doing research on the topic. You're just coming on here shouting down people without having done your own research into it (ie in other words don't know the arguments for and against the HIV=AIDs hypotheses at either side).
Peter Deusbergs facts still hold true today. He still speaks at medical seminars on the issue and has held his ground on the issue right back from when AIDs first came to light to this day (5th May 2011).

Dude, go research what the issue actually is before coming on here shouting people down.

His facts? Please point these out.

Just because he's stuck to his opinion doesn't make him right, or someone to be admired for his integrity or whatever.

robtri

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This is research involving documentaries/news programmes with intelligent people (ie medical experts) having intelligent debates on the issue (which is more than can be said for people on here).
Maybe you should go do some research yourself (as you obviously haven't) and find out what the issue actually is with the HIV=AIDs hypothesis rather than assuming you know.

sorry, but u posted one youtube video and have based your results on this.... I think it is you who needs to do proper research

craggles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That's a stupid childish response that doesn't address the issue.
Just look at the large amount of data which shows people suffering from AIDS with no trace of HIV in their blood. These statistics exist but aren't included in many of the statistics.
Yes HIV exists but it's a relatively harmless virus. Everyone has viruses in their body. it's estimated that on average people have about 50 or so of these harmless viruses in their body. That's fact, not me making it up.

That's funny.

Shoot up and vindicate yourself, prove decades of scientific research false with one harmless injection!

hardCopy

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This is a theory that has been around as long as AIDS itself but has been largely censored from the popular media.

Watch this video and be stunned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU

You'll never think about HIV and AIDS the same again...not that i'm saying you should start sleeping around with skanks. Chlamydia, gonorrhea and babies very much do exist.

No thanks, feel free to transcribe it though, then I'll read it.

2wsxcde3

Most people that come out with "conspiracy theories" do so in order to make money. They make money on a film, selling their story to the media, writing books etc. In other words there's a huge financial gain for them coming out with their theory. This is why i generally take what they have to say with a pinch of salt.

Now when someone speaks (out like Deusberg has done) and only has something to lose and nothing to gain, you should at least pay attention.

As regards Deusberg being a cancer expert and not an AIDs expert - There were no "AIDs experts" when AIDs was discovered, it was a brand new illness. People in other areas of medicine transferred their expertise across to understanding HIV and AIDs and this is what has made the modern day HIV/AIDs expert. Deusberg is one such person. He no longer concentrates on cancer, but instead is devoted to HIV/AIDs research and has been since the 80's.

I'm not saying he's right, i'm not saying he's wrong. What i'm saying is that he has had so much to lose taking the stance he has with nothing to gain, that we should at least listen to what he has to say.

CiaranMT

So you've gone from "HIV is a harmless virus and does not cause AIDS" to

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I'm not saying he's right, i'm not saying he's wrong. What i'm saying is that he has had so much to lose taking the stance he has with nothing to gain, that we should at least listen to what he has to say.

And in fairness, I think he's been proven wrong a long time ago and many, many times since by the research.

Any chance answering the questions on the previous page?

Dave!

Well Duesberg has books to sell too, if that's what concerns you about other conspiracy theories

http://www.duesberg.com/books/index.html

But even if he didn't, it doesn't matter really. You can always find some renegade academic, ideologue or deluded conspiracy monger to support your agenda. Isn't there still a flat earth society? There's a few researchers who doubt the fact of evolution, who think that vaccines are dangerous, fluoride in water is a public health risk, etc.

2wsxcde3

Dave! wrote: »

You can always find some renegade academic, ideologue or deluded conspiracy monger to support your agenda. Isn't there still a flat earth society?

Yeah. There was one in the 17th century. His name was Galileo. While others secretly agreed with him, they kept their opinions to themselves to avoid the same fate as Galileo.

Dave!

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yeah. There was one in the 17th century. His name was Galileo. While others secretly agreed with him, they kept their opinions to themselves to avoid the same fate as Galileo.

Good thing you don't get persecuted for scientific enquiry nowadays then, and scientists are free to dissent from the consensus if they want. Science engages in robust debate all the time and argues internally over evidence and interpretations. When people don't support their theories with good evidence, or become too invested in or attached to some fringe idea that doesn't jive with the current evidence, then they get criticised or marginalised.

Here's a blog post you might want to read. Haven't looked at it meself, I just know that the writer devotes alot of attention to AIDS denial...
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=179

Here's a comprehensive website too. Seems to cover alot.
http://www.aidstruth.org/

craggles

So has anyone injected themselves with HIV yet?

2wsxcde3

craggles wrote: »

So has anyone injected themselves with HIV yet?

What would that prove? If i did get HIV i wouldn't take AZT anyway.

Monty Burnz

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

What would that prove? If i did get HIV i wouldn't take AZT anyway.

It would prove that HIV doesn't cause aids. Or that it does.

2wsxcde3

We already know that there are people who got HIV and never got AIDs even after 20 or more years.

We also know that people have been diagnosed with AIDs and who don't have HIV in their system.

Me doing what you said would prove nothing new.

Monty Burnz

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Me doing what you said would prove nothing new.

Do you have further evidence on this that does not rely on a video from 17 years ago that you would like to put to us?

2wsxcde3

Not much point arguing with you. You seem to depend on stupid arguments in debating the issue and in making yourself sound intelligent.

Reekwind

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Yeah. There was one in the 17th century. His name was Galileo. While others secretly agreed with him, they kept their opinions to themselves to avoid the same fate as Galileo.

Are you seriously comparing Galileo to someone who has made money by claiming that AIDS in Africa is a "myth"?

HavingCrack

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

We already know that there are people who got HIV and never got AIDs even after 20 or more years.

This sub section of HIV sufferers only accounts for approximately 1-2% of those diagnosed with HIV. I am pretty certain these people hold the key to creating a 'cure' for AIDS but it doesn't prove that HIV does not cause AIDS by any means.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

We also know that people have been diagnosed with AIDs and who don't have HIV in their system.

Such as?

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Me doing what you said would prove nothing new.

No, I would suggest the reason you don't want to do it is that deep down you don't really believe what you're saying. You're talking the talk but won't walk the walk, like every other AIDS conspiracy theorist I've talked to.

Di0genes

This chapter did not appear in the original edition of this book, because for fifteen months leading up to September 2008 the vitamin-pill entrepreneur Matthias Rath was suing me personally, and the Guardian, for libel. This strategy brought only mixed success. For all that nutritionists may fantasise in public that any critic is somehow a pawn of big pharma, in private they would do well to remember that, like many my age who work in the public sector, I don’t own a flat. The Guardian generously paid for the lawyers, and in September 2008 Rath dropped his case, which had cost in excess of £500,000 to defend. Rath has paid £220,000 already, and the rest will hopefully follow. Nobody will ever repay me for the endless meetings, the time off work, or the days spent poring over tables filled with endlessly cross-referenced court documents.

On this last point there is, however, one small consolation, and I will spell it out as a cautionary tale: I now know more about Matthias Rath than almost any other person alive. My notes, references and witness statements, boxed up in the room where I am sitting right now, make a pile as tall as the man himself, and what I will write here is only a tiny fraction of the fuller story that is waiting to be told about him. This chapter, I should also mention, is available free online for anyone who wishes to see it.

Matthias Rath takes us rudely outside the contained, almost academic distance of this book. For the most part we’ve been interested in the intellectual and cultural consequences of bad science, the made-up facts in national newspapers, dubious academic practices in universities, some foolish pill-peddling, and so on. But what happens if we take these sleights of hand, these pill-marketing techniques, and transplant them out of our decadent Western context into a situation where things really matter?

In an ideal world this would be only a thought experiment. AIDS is the opposite of anecdote. Twenty-five million people have died from it already, three million in the last year alone, and 500,000 of those deaths were children. In South Africa it kills 300,000 people every year: that’s eight hundred people every day, or one every two minutes. This one country has 6.3 million people who are HIV positive, including 30 per cent of all pregnant women. There are 1.2 million AIDS orphans under the age of seventeen. Most chillingly of all, this disaster has appeared suddenly, and while we were watching: in 1990, just 1 per cent of adults in South Africa were HIV positive. Ten years
later, the figure had risen to 25 per cent.

It’s hard to mount an emotional response to raw numbers, but on one thing I think we would agree. If you were to walk into a situation with that much death, misery and disease, you would be very careful to make sure that you knew what you were talking about. For the reasons you are about to read, I suspect that Matthias Rath missed the mark.
This man, we should be clear, is our responsibility. Born and raised in Germany, Rath was the head of Cardiovascular Research at the Linus Pauling Institute in Palo Alto in California, and even then he had a tendency towards grand gestures, publishing a paper in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine in 1992 titled “A Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease Leading the Way to the Abolition of this Disease as a Cause for Human Mortality”. The unified theory was high-dose vitamins.

He first developed a power base from sales in Europe, selling his pills with tactics that will be very familiar to you from the rest of this book, albeit slightly more aggressive. In the UK, his adverts claimed that “90 per cent of patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer die within months of starting treatment”, and suggested that three million lives could be saved if cancer patients stopped being treated by conventional medicine. The pharmaceutical industry was deliberately letting people die for financial gain, he explained. Cancer treatments were “poisonous compounds” with “not even one effective treatment”.

The decision to embark on treatment for cancer can be the most difficult that an individual or a family will ever take, representing a close balance between well-documented benefits and equally well-documented side-effects. Adverts like these might play especially strongly on your conscience if your mother has just lost all her hair to chemotherapy, for example, in the hope of staying alive just long enough to see your son speak.

There was some limited regulatory response in Europe, but it was generally as weak as that faced by the other characters in this book. The Advertising Standards Authority criticised one of his adverts in the UK, but that is essentially all they are able to do. Rath was ordered by a Berlin court to stop claiming that his vitamins could cure cancer, or face a €250,000 fine.
But sales were strong, and Matthias Rath still has many supporters in Europe, as you will shortly see. He walked into South Africa with all the acclaim, self-confidence and wealth he had amassed as a successful vitamin-pill entrepreneur in Europe and America, and began to take out full-page adverts in newspapers.
˜The answer to the AIDS epidemic is here,” he proclaimed. Anti-retroviral drugs were poisonous, and a conspiracy to kill patients and make money. “Stop AIDS Genocide by the Drugs Cartel said one headline. “Why should South Africans continue to be poisoned with AZT? There is a natural answer to AIDS.” The answer came in the form of vitamin pills. “Multivitamin treatment is more effective than any toxic AIDS drug. Multivitamins cut the risk of developing AIDS in half.”

Rath’s company ran clinics reflecting these ideas, and in 2005 he decided to run a trial of his vitamins in a township near Cape Town called Khayelitsha, giving his own formulation, VitaCell, to people with advanced AIDS. In 2008 this trial was declared illegal by the Cape High Court of South Africa. Although Rath says that none of his participants had been on anti-retroviral drugs, some relatives have given statements saying that they were, and were actively told to stop using them.

Tragically,Matthias Rath had taken these ideas to exactly the right place. Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa at the time, was well known as an “AIDS dissident”, and to international horror, while people died at the rate of one every two minutes in his country, he gave credence and support to the claims of a small band of campaigners who variously claim that AIDS does not exist, that it is not caused by HIV, that anti-retroviral medication does more harm than good, and so on.

At various times during the peak of the AIDS epidemic in South Africa their government argued that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and that anti-retroviral drugs are not useful for patients. They refused to roll out proper treatment programmes, they refused to accept free donations of drugs, and they refused to accept grant money from the Global Fund to buy drugs. One study estimates that if the South African national government had used anti-retroviral drugs for prevention and treatment at the same rate as the Western Cape province (which defied national policy on the issue), around 171,000 new HIV infections and 343,000 deaths could have been prevented between 1999 and 2007. Another study estimates that between 2000 and 2005 there were 330,000 unnecessary deaths, 2.2 million person years lost, and 35,000 babies unnecessarily born with HIV because of the failure to implement a cheap and simple mother-to-child-transmission prevention program. Between one and three doses of an ARV drug can reduce transmission dramatically. The cost is negligible. It was not available.

Interestingly, Matthias Rath’s colleague and employee, a South African barrister named Anthony Brink, takes the credit for introducing Thabo Mbeki to many of these ideas. Brink stumbled on the “AIDS dissident” material in the mid-1990s, and after much surfing and reading, became convinced that it must be right. In 1999 he wrote an article about AZT in a Johannesburg newspaper titled “a medicine from hell”. This led to a public exchange with a leading virologist. Brink contacted Mbeki, sending him copies of the debate, and was welcomed as an expert.
This is a chilling testament to the danger of elevating cranks by engaging with them. In his initial letter of motivation for employment to Matthias Rath, Brink described himself as “South Africa’s leading AIDS dissident, best known for my whistle-blowing exposé of the toxicity and inefficacy of AIDS drugs, and for my political activism in this regard, which caused President Mbeki and Health Minister Dr Tshabalala-Msimang to repudiate the drugs in 1999″.

In 2000, the now infamous International AIDS Conference took place in Durban. Mbeki’s presidential advisory panel beforehand was packed with “AIDS dissidents”, including Peter Duesberg and David Rasnick. On the first day, Rasnick suggested that all HIV testing should be banned on principle, and that South Africa should stop screening supplies of blood for HIV. “If I had the power to outlaw the HIV antibody test,” he said, “I would do it across the board.” When African physicians gave testimony about the drastic change AIDS had caused in their clinics and hospitals, Rasnick said he had not seen “any evidence” of an AIDS catastrophe. The media were not allowed in, but one reporter from the Village Voice was present. Peter Duesberg, he said, “gave a presentation so removed from African medical reality that it left several local doctors shaking their heads”. It wasn’t AIDS that was killing babies and children, said the dissidents: it was the anti-retroviral medication.

http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/

Monty Burnz

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Not much point arguing with you. You seem to depend on stupid arguments in debating the issue and in making yourself sound intelligent.

Up goes the white flag.

CiaranMT

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

We already know that there are people who got HIV and never got AIDs even after 20 or more years.

We also know that people have been diagnosed with AIDs and who don't have HIV in their system.

Me doing what you said would prove nothing new.

Like Monty said, sources would be useful.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Not much point arguing with you. You seem to depend on stupid arguments in debating the issue and in making yourself sound intelligent.

This is the point of an argument, to back up your points so that they are credible.

2wsxcde3

CiaranMT wrote: »

sources would be useful.

Sources are difficult to give as the pro HIV=AIDs side (who are winning) give out statistical data that is skewed to show that HIV causes AIDs.

As they state in Wiki:

"There are two main definitions for AIDS, both produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The older definition is to referring to AIDS using the diseases that were associated with it, for example, lymphadenopathy, the disease after which the discoverers of HIV originally named the virus.[15][16] In 1993, the CDC expanded their definition of AIDS to include all HIV positive people with a CD4+ T cell count below 200 per µL of blood or 14% of all lymphocytes.[96]developed countries+ T cell count rises to above 200 per µL of blood or other AIDS-defining illnesses are cured. The majority of new AIDS cases in use either this definition or the pre-1993 CDC definition. The AIDS diagnosis still stands even if, after treatment, the CD4"



In other words, the definition states that it's only AIDs if you also have HIV. This discounts all the people that have AIDs like symptoms and are for all intents and purposes AIDs sufferers but because they don't have HIV, they're not included in the statistical data as having AIDs. So the figures are unhealthyily skewed. This is why you need to take statistics on the issue very carefully.



It's like making the statement:


"All firetrucks are red. My dad drives a truck and it is red. Therefore my dad's truck must be a firetruck"

CiaranMT

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Stuff unrelated to request.

You were asked to a source for the following:

1) We already know that there are people who got HIV and never got AIDs even after 20 or more years.

2) We also know that people have been diagnosed with AIDs and who don't have HIV in their system.


In the case of 1), this is entirely possible. Just because they haven't gotten AIDS for the 20 or so years doesn't mean they will never get it.

In the case of 2), if this has occurred, it's likely been a mis-diagnosis, and a very, very bad one at that. You can't have AIDS without first acquiring HIV.

Nonoperational

I don't think anyone will deny that it is possible to develop some of the illnesses that are usually associated with AIDS without being HIV positive. At the end of the day HIV is a disease that compromises our immune systems. There are other ways to compromise our immune systems without having HIV.

However, to say that HIV does not cause AIDS is in my opinion complete and utter bull****. There is ample evidence to show the correlation between increased viral loads and reduced CD4 T cells and the development of AIDS. There is also evidence that using drugs to suppress the virus and therefore keeping the CD4 count up puts off development of serious disease. Often for many many years.

To say HIV is harmless, well that is so so unlikely to be true and there is so much evidence against it that it really doesn't merit much more discussion.

2wsxcde3

CiaranMT wrote: »

if this has occurred, it's likely been a mis-diagnosis, and a very, very bad one at that. You can't have AIDS without first acquiring HIV.

This is the very problem i'm talking about. HIV and AIDs might be two entirely separate things with an unsafe connection built between the two.

AIDs is rampant in africa BUT HIV is not. However, the HIV=AIDs camp largely remove those AIDs cases from their statistics because it messes up their results.

Deusberg has pointed this out several times and has never been contradicted on it by anyone in the established HIV=AIDs camp.

Deusberg is portrayed as a crank and a psycho but the reality is that very few of his teachings are actually challenged.

Monty Burnz

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

AIDs is rampant in africa BUT HIV is not.

Can we please have some evidence for these assertions?

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Deusberg is portrayed as a crank and a psycho but the reality is that very few of his teachings are actually challenged.

The Flat Earth society are viewed as cranks and loons but very few of their teachings are actually challenged.