AIDS has no relation with HIV

[xxx200]

Dr. peter deusberg and other scientists show that AIDS has no relation with HIV.

 

 

 

points shown in the video are:

 

1. HIV has no AIDS causing gene. HIV is identical with other harmless retroviruses genetically. if none of the retros cause disease why HIV?

 

 

2. there is no such thing as slow virus. HIV causes AIDS 10-12 years after infection like herpes and cancer virus. but herpes and cancer viruses are active and large in amount whereas HIV is inactive and smaller in amount. generally any virus cause a disease 3 weeks to 1 month after infection whereas HIV cause AIDS after 10 yrs. AIDS is not caused by HIV.

 

 

3. HIV is not a new virus, so it cannot cause a new epidemic because according to farr's law ( british epidemologist) HIV infects people for centuries without causing AIDS.

 

 

4. HIV fails koch's postulate....*** [ the bold letters in the bracket shows which postulate it fails]

 

a] 10-20% of AIDS patient have no HIV at all. [ the germ must be found in all cases of disease]

 

b] huge amount of cell tissues needed to find HIV. chemical process needed to reactivate the virus. [ the virus must be separated from host cell and grown in a pure culture.]

 

c] HIV does not cause AIDS in animals like chimpanzee and health workers accidentally infected by it rarely got AIDS unless they use recreational drugs and AZT. [ the germ must cause the same disease when injected into a new healthy host.]

 

those disease like bery bery, scurvy, pelegra, SMON ( japan) fail koch's postulate and also fail to be infectious.

 

 

 

 

points shown in the media are:

 

8. AIDS has remained in its original risk groups for 12 yrs.

 

this means that AIDS does not spread out to entire population like an epidemic. so it is non infectous.

 

AIDS risk group

 

gays , IV drug users, hemophiliacs, transfusion patient.

 

HIV is spread evenly (50-50) among men and women without AIDS.

 

inspite of high exposure to HIV , medical worker outside the risk group develop AIDS less frequently than those within the risk group.

 

 

9. international profile of AIDS patient is inconsistent.

 

 

10. AIDS occurs without HIV infection.***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.

 

a] total number of HIV infected people: 28,000,000

 

b] total number of officially reported AIDS cases : 1,393,649 (5%) of a

 

c] HIV infected without AIDS : 95% of a

 

d] estimated total number of AIDS cases : 7,700,000 (27%)

 

surveying world statistics

 

total HIV infected : 28.1 million

 

total AIDS cases : 1.4 millions

 

number of people with HIV without AIDS : 95%

 

 

friends do the above facts show that there is cause effect relation between HIV and AIDS?

 

what do you think?

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Since this challenges mainstream science, it was moved to speculations, where the debate can continue on whether or not this is... valid.

This can be a good start as to why AIDS denialism is not only 'not mainstream', but dangerously false: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/aids_denialism_vs._science/

You may pay some more attention to the long long list of references at the bottom, supporting the article.

This, too, may help clarify the unambiguous evidence of the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS: http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/answering_denialists

There is no "maybe's" here. Studies of the virus were done, extensively, and proved undeniably and with a remarkably large amount of evidence that HIV does cause AIDS.

Disliking facts does not make them nonfacts.

~mooey

P.S, HIV is not a germ, it's a virus. If you're already going that far to deny real established science, you might as well at least try to get the terms right.

[John Cuthber]

If we ignore the outrightly untrue statements about it then the assertion here is like saying that sex doesn't cause pregnancy.

There are plenty of cases where sex does not lead to pregnancy even in some couples who really want a child.

There is also a recorded case (about 2010 to 2020 years ago) of pregnancy without sex.

(I'm editing this too add that, for those who don't trust 2000 year old books as evidence you can consider Dolly the sheep. Since she didn't have a father there can't have been much sex involved in her procreation.

The facts may possibly be true, but the claim is still clearly absurd.

Edited September 7, 2012 by John Cuthber

[xxx200]

!

Moderator Note

Since this challenges mainstream science, it was moved to speculations, where the debate can continue on whether or not this is... valid.

 

This can be a good start as to why AIDS denialism is not only 'not mainstream', but dangerously false: http://www.csicop.or...sm_vs._science/

 

You may pay some more attention to the long long list of references at the bottom, supporting the article.

 

This, too, may help clarify the unambiguous evidence of the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS: http://www.aidstruth...ring_denialists

 

There is no "maybe's" here. Studies of the virus were done, extensively, and proved undeniably and with a remarkably large amount of evidence that HIV does cause AIDS.

 

Disliking facts does not make them nonfacts.

 

~mooey

 

P.S, HIV is not a germ, it's a virus. If you're already going that far to deny real established science, you might as well at least try to get the terms right.

 

how could you explain the fact that most people with HIV do not have AIDS? if there is a cause- effect relationship between HIV and AIDS, then people who got HIV, must got AIDS. but the fact is that 5% of HIV people got AIDS and 95% do not. i want an explanation from you. i do not want any article or website for that. i want YOUR REASONING about why people with HIV do not get AIDS. what do you think ?

 

besides the cause-effect relationship between HIV and AIDS must be tested. there must be an experiment on at least 100 healthy people. HIV was injected to their body and ALL of them must got AIDS within a reasonable time. please give me detail of such experiment.

[ajb]

how could you explain the fact that most people with HIV do not have AIDS? if there is a cause- effect relationship between HIV and AIDS, then people who got HIV, must got AIDS.

 

Why?

 

I don't see that you need everyone with HIV to develop full-blown AIDS to establish the relation.

[Greg H.]

how could you explain the fact that most people with HIV do not have AIDS? if there is a cause- effect relationship between HIV and AIDS, then people who got HIV, must got AIDS.

That's an incorrect assumption. It is possible to carry a disease and be asymptomatic for the disease itself.

 

besides the cause-effect relationship between HIV and AIDS must be tested. there must be an experiment on at least 100 healthy people. HIV was injected to their body and ALL of them must got AIDS within a reasonable time. please give me detail of such experiment.

 

The lack of ethical thought in this idea is astounding.

[swansont]

how could you explain the fact that most people with HIV do not have AIDS? if there is a cause- effect relationship between HIV and AIDS, then people who got HIV, must got AIDS. but the fact is that 5% of HIV people got AIDS and 95% do not. i want an explanation from you. i do not want any article or website for that. i want YOUR REASONING about why people with HIV do not get AIDS. what do you think ?

Basic logic. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted.

 

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/logician.php

 

'All wood burns,' states Sir Bedevere. 'Therefore,' he concludes, 'all that burns is wood.' This is, of course, pure bulls***. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan.

 

Similarly, "All people who have AIDS have HIV" (demanded by causality) cannot be turned around to yield "All people who have HIV must have AIDS"

[John Cuthber]

"how could you explain the fact that most people with HIV do not have AIDS?"

" i want YOUR REASONING about why people with HIV do not get AIDS. what do you think ?"

OK, no problem.

Probably for the same reason that I carry the chickenpox virus, but don't have chickenpox.

My immune system knocked it back.

 

This is boringly standard behaviour for a virus. Sometimes HIV does it.

 

So what?

It certainly is not evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

[mooeypoo]

Did you go over the documents I shared? They have quite an extensive scientific overview that answers these questions.

 

The fact you may not understand why the conclusion was reached doesn't make the conclusion false. Read the information again, please, you'll see exactly what was researched, how, and how the conclusion of this relation between HIV and AIDS was established.

 

 

 

May I ask, then, why do you think this "conspiracy" is so widespread? even if we assume for a moment that you might be right (and I do this thought experiment painfully) what would anyone gain by making the connection between HIV and AIDS when none exist?

[xxx200]

OK, no problem.

Probably for the same reason that I carry the chickenpox virus, but don't have chickenpox.

My immune system knocked it back.

 

really? but HIV is the virus who is supposed to destroy your immune system. thus causing AIDS. if it is knocked out by your immune system, how could it cause AIDS?

 

This is boringly standard behaviour for a virus. Sometimes HIV does it.

 

really? then HIV cannot cause AIDS.

 

So what?

It certainly is not evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

 

it is the evidence. thank you sir you strengthen my theory with your explanation. thank you for the fact that being knocked out by our immune system is standard behavious of a virus including HIV. this shows HIV cannot cause AIDS.

 

Did you go over the documents I shared? They have quite an extensive scientific overview that answers these questions.

 

The fact you may not understand why the conclusion was reached doesn't make the conclusion false. Read the information again, please, you'll see exactly what was researched, how, and how the conclusion of this relation between HIV and AIDS was established.

 

 

 

May I ask, then, why do you think this "conspiracy" is so widespread? even if we assume for a moment that you might be right (and I do this thought experiment painfully) what would anyone gain by making the connection between HIV and AIDS when none exist?

 

look sir all i need is an information from you that if any experiment showing HIV can cause AIDS conducted on, say, 100 people was carried out or not. if yes, whether ALL the sample successfully got AIDS within a reasonable time or not. you are required to give answer to this question only. i have no time and energy to read your lengthy articles sitting here.

 

 

but i think i got my answer. from the fact that 95% of the HIV infected people will NOT get AIDS and are perfectly healthy, i understood that no such experiment had ever been conducted on anybody ever. also Dr. peter deusberg and his team injected HIV to chimps and chimps don't get AIDS also support my conclusion.

 

look sir , as a scientists you are supposed to look at reality rather than what somebody ( authority ) said to you. it is a very religious behaviour that you are not looking at reality but just repeating what somebody said in an article. i hope that one day you will start looking at reality.

 

thank you.

 

regards.

[mooeypoo]

look sir all i need is an information from you that if any experiment showing HIV can cause AIDS conducted on, say, 100 people was carried out or not. if yes, whether ALL the sample successfully got AIDS within a reasonable time or not. you are required to give answer to this question only. i have no time and energy to read your lengthy articles sitting here.

We gave you information, and you are ignoring it. The information doesn't have to conform to the specific way you see science for it to be actual science. I posted 2 articles in my initial post reply to your question. They give most of the answers to most of your questions, and you seem to have ignored it.

 

You don't seem to be here to disucss the issue, are you? You seem to be here to convince everyone you're right regardless of what evidence tell us - which is why I asked for your motivation here.

 

What is it do you think is happening? If HIV does not lead to AIDS, why, in your mind, is this such a prevalent "conspiracy" and by who?

 

Please answer this, at least.

 

 

 

but i think i got my answer. from the fact that 95% of the HIV infected people will NOT get AIDS and are perfectly healthy, i understood that no such experiment had ever been conducted on anybody ever. also Dr. peter deusberg and his team injected HIV to chimps and chimps don't get AIDS also support my conclusion.

Excuse me, but the people who have HIV and not AIDS are not perfectly healthy by definition; they have a virus in their blood stream. They also are usually required to live on a certain cocktail of drugs that prevents the disease from progressing to full-blown AIDS.

 

Do you even care to have any of your facts right, or are you here on your own agenda? At the very least you should share this agenda with us.

 

 

Now look. There are usually two main reasons people deny HIV in general:

• They're homophobes who seem to have an agenda that AIDS is some homosexual disease and has nothing to do with HIV,
  
• They have some religious agenda, and often think it's better to promote abstinence and religion to the people of Africa (where AIDS is most prevalent) instead of promoting sex education and prevention.
  

 

There are other options, of course, but these two seem to be the most common agendas behind HIV denialism. Seeing as you insist on NOT reading anything we say and not following proper science despite the fact you came to OUR forum and not the other way around, I would ask that you -- at the very least -- tell us what *your* agenda is in this clearly agenda-filled discussion.

 

I will remind you that what you are currently doing (ignoring facts, trolling answers, avoiding replies and attacking responses) is against our forum rules. We're being patient.

 

Give us at least the least bit of respect back and tell us if HIV does not cause AIDS, then why in your view would anyone be behind a conspiracy to the opposite and push for treatment that show this?

 

In other words: What is your agenda here?

Do answer that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On top of the evidence we've shown you throughout this thread, this text below summarizes all your points and answers why they're false; dangerously so.

 

I suggest you read this, absorb the material carefully, consider who and what you're risking by spewing dangerous pseudoscientific nonsense that can actually kill people, and then go practice (safe) sex with yourself.

 

Although members of the HIV/AIDS denialist community are united by their disagreement with the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS, the specific positions taken by various groups differ. Denialists claim many incompatible things: HIV does not exist; HIV has not been adequately isolated,[44] HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates,[45] HIV testing is inaccurate,[46] and that antibodies to HIV neutralize the virus and render it harmless.[47] Suggested alternative causes of AIDS include recreational drugs, malnutrition, and the very antiretroviral drugs used to treat the syndrome.[48]

 

Such claims have been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature; a scientific consensus has arisen that denialist claims have been convincingly disproved, and that HIV does indeed cause AIDS.[5][49] In the cases cited by Duesberg where HIV "cannot be isolated", PCR or other techniques demonstrate the presence of the virus,[50] and denialist claims of HIV test inaccuracy result from an incorrect or outdated understanding of how HIV antibody testing is performed and interpreted.[51][52] Regarding Koch's postulates, New Scientist reported: "It is debatable how appropriate it is to focus on a set of principles devised for bacterial infections in a century when viruses had not yet been discovered. HIV does, however, meet Koch's postulates as long as they are not applied in a ridiculously stringent way".

 

The author then demonstrated how each postulate has been met - the suspected cause is strongly associated with the disease, the suspected pathogen can be both isolated and spread outside the host, and when the suspected pathogen is transmitted to a new and uninfected host, that host develops the disease.[5][53] The latter was proven in a number of tragic accidents, including an instance when multiple scientific technicians with no other known risk factors were exposed to concentrated HIV virus in a laboratory accident, and transmission by a dentist to patients, the majority of whom had no other known risk factor or source of exposure except the same dentist in common.[5]

 

Early denialist arguments held that the HIV/AIDS paradigm was flawed because it had not led to effective treatments. However, the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy in the mid-1990s and dramatic improvements in survival of HIV/AIDS patients reversed this argument, as these treatments were based directly on anti-viral activity and the HIV/AIDS paradigm.[54] The development of effective anti-AIDS therapies based on targeting of the HIV virus has been a major factor in convincing some denialist scientists to accept the causative role of HIV in AIDS.[55]

 

In a 2010 article on conspiracy theories in science, Ted Goertzel lists HIV/AIDS denialism as an example where scientific findings are being disputed on irrational grounds. He describes proponents as relying on rhetoric, appeal to fairness, and the right to a dissenting opinion rather than on evidence. They frequently invoke the meme of a "courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy", invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei.[56] Regarding this comparison, Goertzel states:

 

...being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory. Publishing dissenting theories is important when they are backed by plausible evidence, but this does not mean giving critics ‘equal time’ to dissent from every finding by a mainstream scientist.

— Goertzel, 2010[56]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism#HIV.2FAIDS_denialists.27_claims_and_scientific_evidence

(Emphases mine)

 

I'm still waiting to hear what you propose is the agenda. I'm curious under which conspiracy-group you find yourself under.

 

 

Do answer that part, if you answer at all.

 

~mooey

[John Cuthber]

I guess it goes with the territory.

The sad truth is that, from time to time, the internet will give a voice to people who simply have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

 

That seems to have happened here.

If XXX200 was genuinely asking the questions then they would accept that they have to answer the points put to them. They would, for example, have to explain that there is a difference between these two ideas

Sex does not produce children

HIV does not produce AIDS

Sadly, they are unable to do so for two reasons .

The first is that there isn't a difference; their view point is fundamentally as absurd as the idea that children are not a result of sexual activity.

The second reason is that they have no idea how to deal with logical deduction.

They are unable to accept that, for example

All alsatians are dogs

is not the same as

All dogs are alsatians.

 

It's a pity really, isn't it?

[swansont]

look sir all i need is an information from you that if any experiment showing HIV can cause AIDS conducted on, say, 100 people was carried out or not. if yes, whether ALL the sample successfully got AIDS within a reasonable time or not. you are required to give answer to this question only. i have no time and energy to read your lengthy articles sitting here.

Such an experiment has not been carried out, for the same reason that nobody has done an experiment to see if shooting you in the head can kill you: it's horrible, morally and ethically. Would you volunteer to be a subject in such a trial?

[Mellinia]

really? but HIV is the virus who is supposed to destroy your immune system. thus causing AIDS. if it is knocked out by your immune system, how could it cause AIDS?

 

 

 

really? then HIV cannot cause AIDS.

 

 

 

it is the evidence. thank you sir you strengthen my theory with your explanation. thank you for the fact that being knocked out by our immune system is standard behavious of a virus including HIV. this shows HIV cannot cause AIDS.

 

 

 

look sir all i need is an information from you that if any experiment showing HIV can cause AIDS conducted on, say, 100 people was carried out or not. if yes, whether ALL the sample successfully got AIDS within a reasonable time or not. you are required to give answer to this question only. i have no time and energy to read your lengthy articles sitting here.

 

 

but i think i got my answer. from the fact that 95% of the HIV infected people will NOT get AIDS and are perfectly healthy, i understood that no such experiment had ever been conducted on anybody ever. also Dr. peter deusberg and his team injected HIV to chimps and chimps don't get AIDS also support my conclusion.

 

look sir , as a scientists you are supposed to look at reality rather than what somebody ( authority ) said to you. it is a very religious behaviour that you are not looking at reality but just repeating what somebody said in an article. i hope that one day you will start looking at reality.

 

thank you.

 

regards.

 

Good gracious. Do you even know how the HIV virus attacks our immune system?! We get AIDS only when our immune system fails, i.e. the virus load gets too much to handle, same like a flu virus. When the flu virus gets too much, you get 'sick', to counter it, you take antibiotics. Problem with HIV is(of course, you would knew this if you read about it in wikipedia) that it mutates too much for our immune system or antibiotics to handle, and it can initiate SLEEP MODE in your body until the right moment when it pops up alive and kicking. I believe you did get a basic biology course on our immune system, right? RIGHT?!

[mooeypoo]

Such an experiment has not been carried out, for the same reason that nobody has done an experiment to see if shooting you in the head can kill you: it's horrible, morally and ethically. Would you volunteer to be a subject in such a trial?

Actually, that's not accurate. Look at my post above, it seems this experiment (small scale) was done by accident when in some lab.

 

Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. 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).

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx

[xxx200]

What is it do you think is happening? If HIV does not lead to AIDS, why, in your mind, is this such a prevalent "conspiracy" and by who?

 

Please answer this, at least.

 

it is clear from the facts i gather that HIV does not cause AIDS. now why the conspiracy? it is for one reason: business. there is a partnership between CDC and other private sector organization to achieve the aim of CDC. such partnership is authorized by section 399F of the Public Health Service Act. the "medicine" of HIV is anti retroviral drugs which is sold by the private sector health organization who are partners of CDC. since HIV is a retrovirus, anti retroviral drugs are the only weapon against it. so the sell of anti retroviral drug skyrocketed after discovery of HIV. if HIV is not declared the cause of AIDS, then these anti retroviral drugs will be useless. their SELL will decline. hence CDC is so against the AIDS deniers. it clearly propagates that HIV caused AIDS without sufficient proof.

 

now do you understand?

 

 

 

Excuse me, but the people who have HIV and not AIDS are not perfectly healthy by definition; they have a virus in their blood stream. They also are usually required to live on a certain cocktail of drugs that prevents the disease from progressing to full-blown AIDS.

 

this is your belief and not necessarily truth. if people with HIV has really some illness, what is the proof of such illness except the fact that they have HIV? you just look at their bloodstream, find HIV and prescribe drug cocktail without caring if they really have any disease or not. it sounds like hearing that the falcon took my ear i go looking out for the falcon without ever seeing if my ear is really in its place. such nonsense.

 

 

 

Now look. There are usually two main reasons people deny HIV in general:

• They're homophobes who seem to have an agenda that AIDS is some homosexual disease and has nothing to do with HIV,
• They have some religious agenda, and often think it's better to promote abstinence and religion to the people of Africa (where AIDS is most prevalent) instead of promoting sex education and prevention.

what if AIDS is really related with homosexuals? have you ever tested the relation between gays and AIDS? you have never seen the video i have posted in my initial post which clearly shows that 62% gays have AIDS. unless you see the videos and UNDERSTAND the facts stated there, you will never understand me.

 

There are other options, of course, but these two seem to be the most common agendas behind HIV denialism. Seeing as you insist on NOT reading anything we say and not following proper science despite the fact you came to OUR forum and not the other way around, I would ask that you -- at the very least -- tell us what *your* agenda is in this clearly agenda-filled discussion.

 

my agenda is to open you eyes up and show you the truth. and what is proper science according to you? trusting what others say rather than understanding the facts?

 

I will remind you that what you are currently doing (ignoring facts, trolling answers, avoiding replies and attacking responses) is against our forum rules. We're being patient.

 

no, thats not your forum rules. the rule is to trust BLINDLY what others say without understanding the meaning of it. i don't want to follow such rules.

[mooeypoo]

It seems it doesn't quite matter what we answer you; about the relationship between HIV and homosexuals or about anything else - since it's VERY clear that you're reading none of our replies.

 

You're not here to debate,you're here to proselytize. Why should we waste any more time, considering what you have to say, if you don't even give us an ounce of respect and consider our points?

 

 

 

no, thats not your forum rules. the rule is to trust BLINDLY what others say without understanding the meaning of it. i don't want to follow such rules.

Seeing as you agreed to them when you signed up, your choice is to either follow the rules or leave.

 

Make it quick.

[xxx200]

Although members of the HIV/AIDS denialist community are united by their disagreement with the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS, the specific positions taken by various groups differ. Denialists claim many incompatible things: HIV does not exist; HIV has not been adequately isolated,[44] HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates,[45] HIV testing is inaccurate,[46] and that antibodies to HIV neutralize the virus and render it harmless.[47] Suggested alternative causes of AIDS include recreational drugs, malnutrition, and the very antiretroviral drugs used to treat the syndrome.[48]

 

]Such claims have been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature; a scientific consensus has arisen that denialist claims have been convincingly disproved, and that HIV does indeed cause AIDS.[5][49]

 

 

so it is based on consensus and peer reviewed article. some people say that these claims are false (consensus) means that these claims are scientifically false. the article of gallow the finder of HIV=AIDS theory is not peer reviewed, by the way.

 

Regarding Koch's postulates, New Scientist reported: "It is debatable how appropriate it is to focus on a set of principles devised for bacterial infections in a century when viruses had not yet been discovered. HIV does, however, meet Koch's postulates as long as they are not applied in a ridiculously stringent way".

 

 

really? koch's postulate shows how to judge cause - effect relationship. such postulate will be outdated because new scientists, a mere magazine said so. how silly. cause effect relationship is identical to everything in this world.

 

The author then demonstrated how each postulate has been met - the suspected cause is strongly associated with the disease, the suspected pathogen can be both isolated and spread outside the host, and when the suspected pathogen is transmitted to a new and uninfected host, that host develops the disease.[5][53] The latter was proven in a number of tragic accidents, including an instance when multiple scientific technicians with no other known risk factors were exposed to concentrated HIV virus in a laboratory accident, and transmission by a dentist to patients, the majority of whom had no other known risk factor or source of exposure except the same dentist in common.[5]

 

 

if this thing really happened then how come there is HIV positive people with no AIDS? how come HIV when injected in chimps does not cause AIDS? then either this article is a lie or the world health statistics is a lie. which one is a lie then?

 

 

Early denialist arguments held that the HIV/AIDS paradigm was flawed because it had not led to effective treatments. However, the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy in the mid-1990s and dramatic improvements in survival of HIV/AIDS patients reversed this argument, as these treatments were based directly on anti-viral activity and the HIV/AIDS paradigm.[54] The development of effective anti-AIDS therapies based on targeting of the HIV virus has been a major factor in convincing some denialist scientists to accept the causative role of HIV in AIDS.[55]

 

what are the name of those denialist-turned- believer scientists? please give their name.

 

 

In a 2010 article on conspiracy theories in science, Ted Goertzel lists HIV/AIDS denialism as an example where scientific findings are being disputed on irrational grounds. He describes proponents as relying on rhetoric, appeal to fairness, and the right to a dissenting opinion rather than on evidence. They frequently invoke the meme of a "courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy", invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei.[56] Regarding this comparison, Goertzel states:

 

...being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory. Publishing dissenting theories is important when they are backed by plausible evidence, but this does not mean giving critics ‘equal time’ to dissent from every finding by a mainstream scientist.

— Goertzel, 2010[56]

 

who is this ted goertzel? what is his qualification and why should we believe him?

 

 

reallu mueee, you have posted the SILLIEST piece of article i have ever seen. thank you for westing my time.

[mooeypoo]

so it is based on consensus and peer reviewed article. some people say that these claims are false (consensus) means that these claims are scientifically false. the article of gallow the finder of HIV=AIDS theory is not peer reviewed, by the way.

Consensus and Peer reviewed articles.

 

You *are* in a science forum. That is what evidence means.

reallu mueee, you have posted the SILLIEST piece of article i have ever seen. thank you for westing my time.

Try to read the actual articles I (and others) have quoted, you might notice they're far from wasting your time if you care at all about learning anything.

 

You're welcome.

[Mellinia]

if this thing really happened then how come there is HIV positive people with no AIDS? how come HIV when injected in chimps does not cause AIDS? then either this article is a lie or the world health statistics is a lie. which one is a lie then?

 

Quote from wikipedia.

 

The integration of the viral DNA into the host cell's genome is carried out by another viral enzyme called integrase.

 

This integrated viral DNA may then lie dormant, in the latent stage of HIV infection.^[40] To actively produce the virus, certain cellular transcription factors need to be present, the most important of which is NF-κB (NF kappa B), which is upregulated when T-cells become activated.^[42] This means that those cells most likely to be killed by HIV are those currently fighting infection.

You can be HIV positive but AIDS may not develop. Know thy enemy, man.

Unless, of course, you simply believe wikipedia is simply hoax by business owners..........I presume that you think that any HIV/AIDS reading material are, too, hoaxes...right?

[John Cuthber]

it is clear from the facts i gather that HIV does not cause AIDS.

 

It is clear from the facts that you cited that HIV doesn't cause AIDS in the same way, and to the same extent, that it is clear from the facts I stated that sex doesn't lead to pregnancy.

 

Why do you keep ignoring this point?

[swansont]

Actually, that's not accurate. Look at my post above, it seems this experiment (small scale) was done by accident when in some lab.

Fair enough, it's been observed, but it was not a clinical trial, done one purpose.

 

it is clear from the facts i gather that HIV does not cause AIDS. now why the conspiracy? it is for one reason: business. there is a partnership between CDC and other private sector organization to achieve the aim of CDC. such partnership is authorized by section 399F of the Public Health Service Act. the "medicine" of HIV is anti retroviral drugs which is sold by the private sector health organization who are partners of CDC. since HIV is a retrovirus, anti retroviral drugs are the only weapon against it. so the sell of anti retroviral drug skyrocketed after discovery of HIV. if HIV is not declared the cause of AIDS, then these anti retroviral drugs will be useless. their SELL will decline. hence CDC is so against the AIDS deniers. it clearly propagates that HIV caused AIDS without sufficient proof.

 

now do you understand?

In much the same way, broken bones do not really heal from being immobilized — doctors are in the pocket of big plaster, and from John Cuthber's point, also in the pocket of big condom (and his buddies, "the pill" and iud, et. al)

 

And if that sounds ridiculous, then you'll begin to see the laughable shortcomings of your conspiracy argument.

[Phi for All]

thank you for westing my time.

!

Moderator Note

Enough trolling, xxx200. If you're unwilling to listen to reason or back your assertions up rationally you should go west the space on another forum.

 

Thread closed.