MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : The "HIV/AIDS" debate.
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 179 of 184 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  in response to Message 178Sent: 10/3/2008 7:30 PM
QUOTE: "...HIV-1 protease is not an active enzyme when it is first expressed in cells. It has to be activated to do its job," Tang said. "What we were able to see is how it self-activates from an immature form when the virus is not infective into a mature form when the virus gains infectivity..." UNQUOTE.

Again, the problem is that they are assuming these enzymes are from "HIV," but they don't look for "HIV," to be sure there are particles present that meet the textbook descriptions of it. When this has been done, an excess of microvesicles (cellular "junk") has been found, rather than an abundance of "HIV," which would be necessary for "HIV" to be dangerous. In any case, claims about proteases need to be made with caution, because as wikipedia.org points out:

QUOTE: ...Proteases occur naturally in all organisms... The activity [of proteases] can be a destructive change, abolishing a protein's function or digesting it to its principal components; it can be an activation of a function, or it can be a signal in a signaling pathway... Proteases are also a type of exotoxin, which is a virulence factor in bacteria pathogenesis... UNQUOTE.

Thus, one must be very careful when making claims about proteases. It is most likely the case that in "HIV/AIDS" the "patient" has stressed his/her body to such a degree that dangerous protease activity is present, and no "virus" is required for this. Simple, inexpensive experiments could demonstrate this point, refuting "HIV/AIDS," but of course those who control the research money are too "conflicted" or ideological to fund such experiments.

Source of fist quoted passage: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081001145028.htm


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: The "HIV/AIDS" debate.   MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  10/31/2008 12:56 AM