 |
Reply
| |
My own view is that HIV is the necessary cause of AIDS, but not the sufficient cause, some co-factors are needed. The Anti-HIV drugs do more harm then good. The vaccines have been worst then useless. Therefore reversing AIDS should be achieved by managing co-factors and treating HIV +'s with alternative immune boosting therepies ie-selenium.
The majour problems with the HIV does not exist dissidents-This DNA would have to be in all people. If these antigens were expressed following oxidation, they would all be the same. This is clearly not the case. The HIV DNA has been shown to some extent. Although the available isolates are far from perfect, they have shown it is a unique viral entity.
|
|
 First
Previous
2-9 of 9
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
I can understand how a reasonable person could come to hold these views, if that person was only reading "orthodox" material (or if the person just skimmed over some "dissident" material). If you read the material on this site, you will realize that there is a totally different view of "infectious disease" more generally (which is supported by evidence and not contradicted by any), and that the "HIV/AIDS" notion is simply impossible. I hope you take the time to read at least much of the information here, especially the essays and the threads on the "HIV/AIDS debate" and also the underlying cause of "disease."
As to "HIV/AIDS" specifically, I've been looking for someone to debate the "orthodox" side for a long time, so we can use this thread for that purpose (even though you are not "perfectly orthodox" yourself). First, it's your responsibility to explain how death by "HIV" occurs, specifically. Then, you need to cite the professional literature, and explain how the actual data generated supports your notion. I have my own explanations for "AIDS deaths," but they would vary from one person to another (since there are about 30 old "diseases" now classified as "AIDS" if the person "tests positive").
Now, why am I a "dissident" here. First, I read all the evidence with an open mind, and I also was thinking in terms of the scientific method. If I remember correctly, only 36% of the "AIDS patients" tested by Gallo in the early days were "HIV positive," so right there is a huge problem, in terms of the scientific method. It's also now known that reverse transcriptase activity is not unique to "retroviruses." It's also true, but never discussed among "orthodox" folks, that markers for "HIV" can be generated in anyone, if the correct stressors are applied.
For example, the "viral load" test should be nearly 100% accurate, correct? Yet if we use this test on "HIV negative" people whose bodies are under a great deal of stress (such as someone with acute flu symptoms) there are going to be a lot of "false positives." I am so sure of this that I'm willing to pay for the experiment to be done (the "orthodox" crowd won't do this experiment, because they fear refutation, which is the exact opposite of the way a true scientist should think in this context), if I am wrong. I ask you, what percentage should test "positive," and if your response is more than zero, how do you explain this?
I look forward to continuing this "debate." |
|
Reply
| |
| Well Hans Selye may have been correct. As far as you go, that remains to be seen. I would be glad to debate you. Lets start a formal debate. You go first and I will reply to you. This should be fun. Since this is forum you don't need to reference anything, just be sure to provide correct information. |
|
Reply
| |
Science is not about "correct" anything. It's about putting forth a hypothesis, which should then be tested as rigorously as possible. Do you think "HIV/AIDS" has been tested to such a degree? I've already stated my ideas and provided supporting information (have you read the essays and relevant threads in the general forum?). We were warned (I was a young man at the time and remember) about how it would soon spread to the heterosexual community, how huge numbers of people would soon die of it, how the numbers of the dead would increase dramatically, but how a vaccine would soon be developed. How many "strikes" do these individuals get before they are "called out?"
I'd like to hear what your view is, but if you don't really have a coherent one, then so be it. I think that I can "cure" just about anyone who is "HIV infected" but otherwise still in apparently good health, but I'd need to be allowed to demonstrate this in a scientifically valid way (in other words, I'd have to be sure that the person is not doing dangerous things, like taking illegal drugs). And of course that person could not take the truly deadly "AIDS drugs," so I doubt that I would be allowed to demonstrate the correctness of my position. I would be more than happy to be "infected with HIV," but the "HIV" would have to be isolated. I would not accept a blood transfusion from an "AIDS patient," because my hypothesis is that excess antigenic exposure (which occurs with transfusions) leads to "premature aging" of the "immune system."
I hope you understand, however, that this is not necessary. In science, if you can directly refute a hypothesis, then it must be abandoned, and this is why I suggested that "HIV negative people" be tested for "high viral loads" when they get acute flu symptoms. If they do, then a direct refutation has occurred, and "HIV/AIDS" is gone. Can you at least answer me here - is there any other way to view such a result? Such an experiment would be cheap and easy to do, which is why I'm more than willing to pay for it, if I am wrong. Why don't you take me up on this, if you are so sure of your position? |
|
Reply
| |
Lets start with some evidence based on epidemiology. The vancouver study is the nail in the coffin for dissidents. It showed that within risk groups only those who had HIV developed AIDS. Patient 0 is believed to be a guy named Dugas. All the original AIDS cases (then called GRID) were in gay men who had either had sexual intercourse with Dugas, or had sexual intercourse with a partner of Dugas (there were no know exceptions). Cuba also shows that HIV is a necessary cause of AIDS. Cuba locks up everyone who tests HIV+!!! AIDS is virtually non-existent in Cuba. Neighboring countries with no such policy have high rates of AIDS. The epidemiology clearly shows that HIV is the necessary cause of AIDS.
|
|
Reply
|  0 recommendations | Message 6 of 9 in Discussion |
|
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
Go ahead and cite the relevant passages from the studies you think are so crucial. Saying "nail in the coffin" is not appropriate in science, because refutation is always possible. This is why in science the term "theory" is used. The best any claim can be is a theory, and that is only if there is no evidence against it, which is not the case with "HIV/AIDS." The problem with claiming that only those who "test positive for HIV" go on to develop "AIDS" is that it is also consistent with alternative notions. That is, in my view (which is consistent with the evidence as a whole), "testing positive" means that there has already been excessive antigenic exposure and/or extreme cellular-levels stress, which would indeed predispose one to one or more of the diseases that are considered "AIDS" if one "tests positive for HIV." It's circular reasoning that became institutionalized, and is not a valid way to do science. It is, however, a good way to start a cult.
Dugas died of kidney failure - I'm not sure what you are trying to use him as an example of - again, it's likely that all his partners shared his lifestyle, which again, involved excessive antigenic exposure as well as extreme cellular-level stressors. "HIgh rates of AIDS" would mean that there has been a raging epidemic for many years, and if this was the case, there would be many more dead, even with the lax standards in some nations.
Epidemiology is only useful as supporting evidence for a claim, because it does not follow the scientific method. Furthermore, any epidemiologist will tell you that if the underlying assumptions are wrong, the results need to be put aside, or discarded, which is the case for these kinds of "HIV/AIDS" studies.
Now I'm going to ask this question of you, and if you don't respond directly and appropriately, I'm not going to allow you to post here any more: If I do my experiment, and I test 500 "HIV negative" people for "viral loads of HIV" when they have acute flu symptoms, and half of them have "high viral loads," but when they recover from the flu, go back to having no viral loads of "HIV" (though some might still have some level of "viral load of HIV" !), do you understand that these results would directly refute the "HIV/AIDS" claim? If you don't understand, explain what it is that confuses you and we can continue. |
|
Reply
| |
| The VL is pretty much amplifying retroviral debris by PCR. Studies have shown a correlation between high VL and lower CD 4 and other conditions. OK I suppose if I were to do your experiment and show that 50 or 100% with acute flu symptoms present a high viral load, VL is worthless. This is not a disproof of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. The problem with my debating HIV/ AIDS dissidents who dispute the existence of HIV, is that no one paper proves HIV exists. I have disputed these claims based on really just tid bits from various papers, a viral isolate,amplified material,etc. I think that when you add all the stuff up it becomes clear that HIV exists. As far as what I mean by co-factors, there are several stand-out factors that cause faster progression to AIDS-malnutrition is a big one,multiple infections, drug use is up in the air right now but several papers have shown this is very possible. |
|
Reply
| |
I was trained as an academic historian, and historians almost always need to take "bits and pieces" of evidence and "tie them together" into a coherent "story." Indeed, this is where so many historians "go wrong," because it's so easy to simply see what you are looking for, rather than allowing the evidence to lead you towards the "truth." If you have seen evidence that is compelling, there is no reason for you to be unable to cite it here. If you say you can't at least cite some it, you are being disingenuous and you will only lose your intellectual credibility.
One important thing I learned in graduate school was to construct the best alternative case, and then see if it "held water." I've looked at all the evidence I could find (online) and there simply is no case to be made for "HIV/AIDS," even a "bad" one. True viral diseases are either going to kill you quickly (not 8, 10 or 20 years later), or else the virus is not the real issue, though it can cause problems and make matters worse (due to conditions in the body that could be avoided). The idea that there is a viral entity, "HIV," that originates outside the body, can "infect" the body (what does this actually mean?), and then do harm over a decade without an otherwise healthy body being able to adapt and deal with it effectively, is beyond science fiction. It is laughable.
I just hope you keep reading, because at one time I too would have dismissed the "dissidents" as a bunch of "quacks," and I'm certainly not proud to admit this fact. When I took the time to look at all the evidence (and having it available online was, of course, crucial) with an open mind, it was obvious a terrible mistake had been made, and the people in charge are clearly "conflicted" and there is little incentive for them to re-evaluate their notions. I'm more than willing to put up my own money (if I'm wrong) to do the kinds of refutation experiments that science is supposed to be based upon, and I've got this site that contains more than enough evidence for a much more likely explanation for "AIDS," but that is all I can do about it, realistically. I don't mind engaging people like yourself, so long as you present your evidence and make a clear, succinct case.
So far, you have yet to do that, so I'm asking you one last time to present your evidence and explain (as if you are talking to people who don't know about any of this) your case. There is no need to do this tomorrow. Don't rush, put together what you feel is a very strong argument, with supporting citations. Alternatively, we can take this one issue at a time. For example, what led you to believe that "HIV" had been isolated and was directly responsible for "AIDS"? Again, citations of actual data is required, or else this will not be a scientific discussion, and therefore, does not belong on this forum. I usually allow people to "go on rants" to some degree, hoping that I can persuade them to "stick to the evidence," but at some point I must "pull the plug on them" in order to keep this forum consistent with its "mission." |
|
|
First
Previous
2-9 of 9
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to General