k - and now for a bit of my basic intuition concerning your "theories":
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'Y')ou want a breakdown of the video? Here:
"I've been terrorized as a gay man into believing things that aren't provable"
*lie*
"Lie" is all we get? starting off slowly perhaps.
"That's not an epidemic. The number of cases went up because the number of test that was done went up."
*lie* People don't die from tests. They die from diseases, and if they hadn't started dying, no one would have developed a test.
Uhm strawman?
A test that is incorrectly classifying many "symptoms" as having only one cause.
"It follows a long standing tradition of dumping our abandoned drugs onto the third world."
*lie* In case you hadn't noticed the multinationals are in the process of suing South Africa and other countries because they want to restrict the availability of AIDS drugs in Africa not increase it.
As if one instance of something occuring that correlates with your hypothesis makes it correct?
I will not check either way wether or not this is true yet countries as well as companies could have followed quite an opposite policy for many years in order for this statement to be made.
and then there is the things that we do not know - to be considered.
"It's really society that is killing these people in general and modern medicine that's killing them in particular"
*lie*
Again - all we get is "lie"?
"I believe that I am alive after 20 years of being HIV positive because I didn't AZT or any anti-AIDS drug"
This one is possibly true. AZT and other anti-retrovirals have a lot of side effects. HIV has a variable course. Some people can go a very long time before their immune system starts to fail. In the early days of HIV treatment, people were treated as soon as they were diagnosed, and some of them probably did die unnecessarily from medication side effects. These days we wait to see the immune system starting to fail before we prescribe meds.
Why does this retrovirus not act like all the rest?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Farr's Law
Farr's Law requires, for an epidemic to be a valid example of contagion, that the epidemic increase its incidence rates exponentially. Since polio has been ubiquitous since the beginning of human history, its incidence rate should have peaked long ago and universal immunity conferred, if immunity was ever required, and if the poliovirus was actually a predator.
Polio's non-compliance with Farr's Law is explained by viropathologists with a unique argument, the inverse of the argument usually given to support germ theory. The argument is that the poliovirus, which has been intimate with mankind since the beginning of history, suddenly became estranged from humans because of modern hygiene, and thus humans lost their natural immunity to the virus. So it is modern hygiene and the resulting lack of exposure to the virus that is said to have caused the polio epidemics to rage as never before.
It is interesting that for only one brief moment, viropathologists are willing to become eco-nutritional types who appreciate the value of natural breast feeding and the importantance of the internal microbiological ecology conferred positively upon humans by dirt.
Three different promotions of their inverse argument follow:
(1) The prominent book on polio history by Naomi Rogers, where the inverse argument resides in the title, Dirt and Disease: Polio Before FDR. The language style here is popular.
(2) In Textbook of Child Neurology (1995), John H. Menkes promotes the inverse argument with scientific language style:
Poliomyelitis... is less likely to be symptomatic in areas with inadequate sanitation, because poor sanitization is conducive to exposure at an age when lingering transferred maternal immunity can attenuate the clinical picture. (p420)
(3) In the propaganda film, A Paralyzing Fear: The Story of Polio in America. This was funded by the government and pharmaceutical firms and released in 1998.
PeakOil is You
THE AIDS/HIV Thread (merged)
Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS
by NEOPO » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 15:54:07
"As long as AZT remains on the market, we continue to be betrayed"
lie
Again?
"Scientists as a whole and medical scientists in particular, they don't question anything"
lie
and Again?
"The whole AIDS establishment is guilty of some hideous sins and everybody's been fooled"
lie
whew...
"Nobody has ever seen HIV"
Lie. I just showed it to you.
Out of context and very very manipulative by design.
"When two different parties look at the same data and come to different conclusions it's no longer scientific."
Lie. This happens all the time. Most data sets can lead to multiple interpretations. Typically one right one and multiple incorrect ones.
Yes and in this case the incorrect one was hastily trumpeted as a breakthrough without peer review.
"AIDS is a religion to these people. They believe in this virus."
Lie.
"There is so much money being pumped into AIDS that people have no incentive what so ever to see the truth."
Lie. I never got a dime of AIDS research money. No doctor I know did. The truth is blatantly obvious.
Please refrain from projecting personal experiences as some sort of irrefutable fact or as a refutation of the facts.
Just because you did not does not mean that the industry is not, certain researchers are not and on and on ad infinitum.
"The best evidence against the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is that there is no evidence for it. In the vast scientific medical literature, over 100,000 journal articles published so far on HIV/AIDS, we can not find evidence that HIV causes AIDS, the AIDS is a contagious disease, or that it's sexually transmitted."
Blatant and categorical lies.
Just when I thought we were getting somewhere...
"If this had been shown, that HIV causes AIDS, we should know who these benefactors of humanity are, by name. These people would be candidates for the nobel prize. I challenge you, any American, journalist, scientist, to come up with the names of these individuals who we should revere and should honor with awards and things. I think you will find that you won't be able to come up with it."
Googling "HIV discovery" the FIRST hit contains the following quote. "In 1984, research groups led by Dr. Gallo, Dr. Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, and Dr. Jay Levy at the University of California, San Francisco, all identified a retrovirus as the cause of AIDS"
Meaning?
We tend to use things as a reference rather then as scripture upon the congregation.
"There has never been viremia, which means the blood flooded with whole preinfectious viruses. If HIV were actually doing anything, making people sick, there would in fact be viremia, meaning millions of whole viruses per milliliter of plasma. In fact nobody has observed even one of them."
HIV's viremic stage occurs within a few days to a few weeks after infection. It is characterized by a flu like febrile illness with lymphadenopathy. During this period viral loads can reach 100 million copies per ml.
You yourself just observed maybe 100 of them, so it ought to be pretty obvious that's a lie.
Ok perhaps - one concession is no problem.
This must be what the doctor felt like when nothing could save the kings son.
"HIV is so clever it knows to cause Kaposi Sarcoma in gay men. It knows to cause TB and wasting in IV drug users and it knows to cause diarrhea and cadidiasis in hemophiliacs."
Kaposi Sarcoma, like most AIDS defining illnesses, is a secondary infection. HIV weakens the immune system. The person then becomes vulnerable to infection by, among other things, human herpesvirus 8. HHV8 is the actual causitive agent of KS. HHV8 tends to be spread sexually in gay male communities and thus KS happens mostly in gay male communities.
Off the top of my head I don't know the reason for the other distinctions, but I would suspect that it's similar differences in exposure to other pathogens.
Or so they say - again this a maybe and a perhaps.
Do you not think that they would attempt to cover their well financed asses?
Not saying that this is the case yet you seem to go on as if it were an impossibility and honestly thats borderline fundamentalism and I assure you that I am one to know it when I see it.
"So they invented a very strong antibioticum, and it's not an antibioticum to say, it's pure chemotherapy. It's a double folic acid antagonist. The good old sulfonamide and two of them put together would kill every microbe."
The medicine he's talking about here is trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. It's sold under the trade names Bactrim or Septra. It is hardly "strong" or "pure chemotherapy". It has a rather limited spectrum. It sure as heck doesn't "kill every microbe". The most common place where it is used is in the outpatient treatment of women with urinary infections.
Maybe/perhaps.
"KS is caused by nitrites as well, because the nitrites are transformed to NO only in the smallest blood vessels because the partial pressure of oxygen is high enough to perform this transformation and NO is a very potent growth stimulant, so we have neoplasia and hypoplasia in the endothelium and this condition is called Kaposi Sarcoma."
NO is not a growth stimulant, it's a vasodilator. If NO was a growth stimulant, everbody who took viagra would come down with Kaposi Sarcoma. Kaposi Sarcoma is not caused by nitrites. It is caused by HHV8 infection in combination with immunosupression.
Hmm a huge perhaps now please bare with me...
Is it not possible that with Viagra for instance that an additive which prevents the KS from occurring was discovered and implemented?
Not a far stretch of the imagination IMO.
"The model of immunology would say, at this time, if the immune system is weak, so cancer would appear. This was a fundamental mistake and it was wrong when they said in 1981. They knew already in 1980 that this was wrong. The immune surveillance theory of cancer failed."
The immune system has an irrefutable role in surveillance for and removing cancer cells. People with inadequate immune function either congenitally, from transplantation drugs, or from AIDS are at high risk for a variety of cancers.
"If this constelation of symptoms, this syndrome, were caused by a virus, one would think that it would spread from the original risk populations into the general population. That's what infectious diseases do. They spread, out of the original risk populations. Problem is, through 1992, this simply wasn't the case. After ten years of the so called raging AIDS epidemic, 90% of cases remained in those original risk groups[gay men and IV drug users]. So you've got a disease that's restricted to certain risk groups and it's not spreading, hence it is highly unlikely that it is caused by a virus."
This sounds good, but it's actually not true. Most infectious diseases are not homogenously distributed in the population. Pediatricians and day care workers are more at risk for catching colds because they're around sick children a lot. People who live on Indian reservations or in very poor neighborhoods are at much higher risk for Hepatitis A infection because sanitation isn't as good. People who are in risk groups that cause them to be more likely to be exposed to an infectious agent, will always remain at higher risk of contracting that infection. AIDS has spread out somewhat. In 2005, about 30% of new cases resulted from heterosexual transmission. Never the less, homosexual men still have large numbers of sex partners. IV drug users continue to share needles. These groups will continue to be heavily affected by this disease in perpetuity.
That's the first 21 minutes of the film. Sorry I don't have time to critique the entire two hours, but this gives you a pretty good sense of the lies and misrepresentations being put forward.
All apologies yet for as much as you may have added to the discussion you still resorted to asking us to simply trust you on one too many occassions IMHO and you also use poorly constructed arguments/logic in attempts to degrade rather then disprove these theories.
Regardless of the volumes I may jot down here I am most definately lacking words to describe what I am witnessing yet I try to keep in mind how dimly lit my lightbulb must be in order to justify my relative speechlessness.
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
-
NEOPO - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 3588
- Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: THE MATRIX
Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS
by dukey » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 16:01:30
how can the 'aids' epidemic in africa be the same as in the western world
when in the western world its 90% of men
and in africa it's 50:50 men/women.
That can not possibly be the same disease.
when in the western world its 90% of men
and in africa it's 50:50 men/women.
That can not possibly be the same disease.
-
dukey - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2248
- Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS
by smallpoxgirl » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 16:05:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', 'I')f you die from pneumonia but lack antibodies, it's classified as pneumonia, but if you HAVE the antibodies, it's classified as AIDS.
This whole thing began because very rare problems were popping up with unusually high frequency in populations that had not previously been at risk for them. Nobody could figure out why seemingly healthy young gay men were suddenly popping up with Kaposi Sarcoma and pneumocystis pneumonia when previously these had only occurred in transplant patients and cancer patients who immune system was depressed from chemotherapy.
If people were having depressed helper T counts. If they were developing PCP pneumonia and Kaposi Sarcoma and they were HIV negative, then obviously something would need re-thinking. The fact is that people who died with PCP pneumonia and Kaposi Sarcoma and have depressed helper T counts, they virtually without exception have HIV virus in their blood. They have measurable quantities of both the antibodies and the virus. That's not just coincidence. 0.16% of the population have this virus. If it's not doing anything, then why is it that this same 0.16% are the only ones with a charecteristic drop in the CD4 count? Why are they the only ones who get these very unusual infections?
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
-
smallpoxgirl - Expert
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS
by smallpoxgirl » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 16:10:20
OK NEOPO. Continue your investigation.
Let us know what you find.
Let us know what you find.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
-
smallpoxgirl - Expert
- Posts: 7258
- Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS
by MacG » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 16:20:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', 'T')his is quite interesting. About when did the protocol change take place?
Ummm....mid to late 90's.
Statistics and correlations can be a nasty can of worms, and things rarely are what they seem to be at a first glance and so, but I DO find it interesting that we had this dramatic drop in "HIV death" between 1995 and 1997 here. From 130 to 47 cases in just two years. Before that it had been up and up and up.
One hypothesis could be that giving AZT to people without clinical symptoms, but with antibodies, could actually have hastened their deaths somewhat. But there could of course be other, hierto unknown, explanations for the radical drop in deaths.
-
MacG - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
