HIV causes AIDS? - Fact or Fraud?

[latinman]

Have we been duped by our government and the great corporate interests?

One of the leading Scientific Dissident Voices, Dr. Peter Duesberg

www.duesberg.com

Video Documentary:

http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506HIV.htm

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[latinman]

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/reappraising/

Rethinking AIDS
Vol. 1, Issue 1

Almost 15 years ago, The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis was formed for the singular purpose of establishing that dissent from the predominant explanation of AIDS was still a real scientific issue, in spite of all such dissent having been relegated by both the mainstream scientific and popular media to the most extreme margins. Its formation was described in the Sunday Times (London) in 1992 in a rare instance of mainstream reporting of HIV/AIDS dissonance.

Initially, we used the traditional medium of a newsletter, distributed by post and via the magnificent, still new, fax machine to several dozen interested scientists and other professionals to make our presence known.

Eventually we succeeded in publishing this letter in Science magazine. It was hardly a mouse that roared. Yet over the years, the small group of public dissenters (that includes Nobelists in Chemistry and Medicine, and members of the US National Academy of Sciences) has increased to more than 2,300 as can be seen here, although no one would ever know this by reading the media over the same period. More remarkable perhaps, this significant increase in scientific dissent occurred over the period, when according to the identical media, the evidence that HIV caused AIDS had become “even more overwhelming” than it was 10 years previously. And more remarkable than that, every single question raised in the first issue of the newsletter remains as pointed now as then.

In fact, as inspection of these graphs clearly shows, the epidemiologic evidence, on which the virus-AIDS hypothesis was first formulated and defended, has become untenable.

Thanks to the ascendance of the internet, we are now able to reinvigorate our informational campaign. We will continuously update this site, and any particularly noteworthy new additions will be displayed on the homepage.

 

[undecided3yr]

Have we been duped by our government and the great corporate interests?

One of the leading Scientific Dissident Voices, Dr. Peter Duesberg

www.duesberg.com

Video Documentary:

http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506HIV.htm

Latinman, If you believe this; I have a product to refer to you! Oxygen Drops:

http://www.appliedozone.com/stabilized_oxygen_supplement.html

Aparantly, we only recieve 1/2 the oxygen we need and somehow, we survive living in a "oxygen deficient environment." Strangly, the environment we evolved in is not something we are properly adapted to.

Anyway I'm not sure who is gullable enough for this product, but you may be just the one!

 

[latinman]

Latinman, If you believe this; I have a product to refer to you! Oxygen Drops:

http://www.appliedozone.com/stabilized_oxygen_supplement.html

Aparantly, we only recieve 1/2 the oxygen we need and somehow, we survive living in a "oxygen deficient environment." Strangly, the environment we evolved in is not something we are properly adapted to.

Anyway I'm not sure who is gullable enough for this product, but you may be just the one!

If you didn't realize, Dr. Duesberg is one of the leading researchers in Retrovirology of the entire world. For sure, he is ranked in the top 10...
Didn't you get a peak into his website? He has published in Science, Nature, etc.

 

[f_w]

http://www.richard-seaman.com/USA/Cities/NewYork/BrooklynBridge/ForSale.html

 

[OSUdoc08]

Have we been duped by our government and the great corporate interests?

One of the leading Scientific Dissident Voices, Dr. Peter Duesberg

www.duesberg.com

Video Documentary:

http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506HIV.htm

I thought gay men caused AIDS.

(That's what the answer on the pathology final was, anyway.)

 

[f_w]

Wrong. One gay flight attendant caused aids !

Or was it the US armys Ames lab ? (considering that they have yet to find the disgruntled employee that took a baggie of weaponized anthrax home in the late 90s, I would be suprised if they had the scientific capablity to come up with a retro, let alone a virus)

 

[SoCuteMD]

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/reappraising/

Rethinking AIDS
Vol. 1, Issue 1

Almost 15 years ago, The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis was formed for the singular purpose of establishing that dissent from the predominant explanation of AIDS was still a real scientific issue, in spite of all such dissent having been relegated by both the mainstream scientific and popular media to the most extreme margins. Its formation was described in the Sunday Times (London) in 1992 in a rare instance of mainstream reporting of HIV/AIDS dissonance.

Initially, we used the traditional medium of a newsletter, distributed by post and via the magnificent, still new, fax machine to several dozen interested scientists and other professionals to make our presence known.

Eventually we succeeded in publishing this letter in Science magazine. It was hardly a mouse that roared. Yet over the years, the small group of public dissenters (that includes Nobelists in Chemistry and Medicine, and members of the US National Academy of Sciences) has increased to more than 2,300 as can be seen here, although no one would ever know this by reading the media over the same period. More remarkable perhaps, this significant increase in scientific dissent occurred over the period, when according to the identical media, the evidence that HIV caused AIDS had become “even more overwhelming” than it was 10 years previously. And more remarkable than that, every single question raised in the first issue of the newsletter remains as pointed now as then.

In fact, as inspection of these graphs clearly shows, the epidemiologic evidence, on which the virus-AIDS hypothesis was first formulated and defended, has become untenable.

Thanks to the ascendance of the internet, we are now able to reinvigorate our informational campaign. We will continuously update this site, and any particularly noteworthy new additions will be displayed on the homepage.

This post is a joke, right?

 

[Koil Gugliemi]

I heard you get AIDS from living under bridges and posting crap to forums.

 

[Gauss]

Have we been duped by our government and the great corporate interests?

One of the leading Scientific Dissident Voices, Dr. Peter Duesberg

www.duesberg.com

Video Documentary:

http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506HIV.htm

yet another one of these pointless threads. bravo
/ignore

 

[asdfaa]

Ok, I'm no infectious diseases expert. But I was under the impression that no one had ever been found to have AIDS without also having the HIV virus. Conversely everyone with HIV eventually gets aids. Am I wrong about this?


I agree that the incidence/prevalance graphs are interesting. But I'm nowhere near knowledgable enough to draw any conclusions from them.

 

[Obedeli]

Wrong. One gay flight attendant caused aids !
Or was it the US armys Ames lab ? (considering that they have yet to find the disgruntled employee that took a baggie of weaponized anthrax home in the late 90s, I would be suprised if they had the scientific capablity to come up with a retro, let alone a virus)

Per The Sword and the Shield the secret history of the KGB: Mitrokhin archive, KGB's greatest success at disinformation was planting anti-US stories in 3rd world papers which would ultimately be picked up by the American press. For the US Press, stories from developing countries are chic , avant guard in the art of journalism (if there is such a thing). "AIDS invention" is their biggest success. The stories only need to be retold. Even if they are discredited, the "desire" by those who want to believe the story keep it alive.
The Mitrokhin archive is a collection of KGB data obtained by an agent who saved copies of material in his summer home. After the fall of the Soviet Union, he defected to England and brought his suitcase of material. Through his paperwork, Robert Hanssen (FBI double agent) was convicted of spying along with supporting evidence against Aldrich Ames (CIA double agent). Interestingly, up to the point of Mitrokin's revelation, another agent was practically dismissed from the CIA, suspected as the being the mole. It wasn't until Mitrokhin revealed more details about the double agent and the fact he was in the FBI and not CIA did they clue in. Anyhow, Mitrokhin archive also revealed that the Soviet Union was behind the Pope's assassination attempt 10 YEARS before CNN carried the story 3 months ago.
Back to the point, the US invented AIDS story was first published in Central American paper written by an illegal (spy term for foreign agent). It was picked up by US papers then quickly discredited by the same mainstream press that picked up the story. For conspiracy theorists, it was too much and the story has led to anti-US sympathies across the world to this day(as if they needed anymore provocation). My high school drama teacher produced a one man play portraying a scientist creating the AIDS virus! According to Mitrokin, this story and his survivability, has remained as the greatest success of the KGB. Before you quickly say "bah" to what I say, click on the link below to see the info on the book.

Then again, I don't know why I just wasted 15 minutes of my life to write this on the internet. The people who "want" to believe this story, will always will.


The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB

 

[f_w]

Oh my god, I can't believe you actually thought for even a moment anyone could actually believe that Ames came up with HIV.

 

[Idiopathic]

Conversely everyone with HIV eventually gets aids. Am I wrong about this?

Yes, you are wrong about this. It is theorized that everyone with HIV would eventually get AIDS, but not proven that it is inevitable by a long shot. Some have suggested that only 10% of those affected with HIV will become symptomatic. In this age of increased testing, we will likely find a higher prevalence of HIV, corresponding to a lower relative incidence of AIDS.

 

[skypilot]

I trust the scientists who managed to turn what was an incurable death sentence into a manageable chronic illness using protease and reverse transcriptase inhibitors on this retrovirus. They say it is HIV and hell yah I believe them!

 

[xanthines]

What I don't think YOU realize is that Duesberg has gone off the deep end. Yes, it is true that he is a good retrovirologist and his skepticism was warranted in the early days of the epidemic when data was scarce. However, there are a VAST multitude of experiments that suggest HIV is the causative agents. If you actually read his stuff, all lot of his arguments are based on some irrational belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. He rarely offers any counterevidence and when he does, a lot of his conclusions are either wrong or disingenuous. Just because he's a good virologist doesn't mean he is currently a good epidemiologist, which is where he seems to try and draw a lot his arguments. Despite, antibody and PCR and pharmacological and epidemiological evidence, he continues to question the notion that HIV causes AIDS.

Speaking of PCR, Kary Mullis is another "brilliant" scientist that doesn't know what he's talking about. In case you didn't know, he won the Nobel prize for developing PCR. He also does not believe HIV causes AIDS. Seeing as how he used to be a techno-jock (correct if I am wrong, but he doesn't seem to have done anything but discover PCR), it's a little unclear as to why he suddenly thinks he's an expert in virology and infectious disease. Don't get me wrong, PCR is awesome and he certainly derserved the Nobel prize, but I think fame and fortune has kind of gone to his head and now he doesn't do anything but editorialize. At least Duesberg still does some science.

In short, these guys are a detriment to science and medicine and basically need to shut their big traps when it comes to topics about which they know nothing. Those that don't know any better will believe these guys because of their reputations and past achievements. It's rather irresponsible of them.

-X

If you didn't realize, Dr. Duesberg is one of the leading researchers in Retrovirology of the entire world. For sure, he is ranked in the top 10...
Didn't you get a peak into his website? He has published in Science, Nature, etc.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Ok, I'm no infectious diseases expert. But I was under the impression that no one had ever been found to have AIDS without also having the HIV virus. Conversely everyone with HIV eventually gets aids. Am I wrong about this?


I agree that the incidence/prevalance graphs are interesting. But I'm nowhere near knowledgable enough to draw any conclusions from them.

The part in bold isnt true.. Here is why.. say you were found to have HIV but not AIDS yet and you walked outside and got run over by a city bus going 85 being driven by a Guy with Aids and HIV.. the first guy would technically have HIV but would never develop AIDS..

Thank you for your attention.

 

[EctopicFetus]

What I don't think YOU realize is that Duesberg has gone off the deep end. Yes, it is true that he is a good retrovirologist and his skepticism was warranted in the early days of the epidemic when data was scarce. However, there are a VAST multitude of experiments that suggest HIV is the causative agents. If you actually read his stuff, all lot of his arguments are based on some irrational belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. He rarely offers any counterevidence and when he does, a lot of his conclusions are either wrong or disingenuous. Just because he's a good virologist doesn't mean he is currently a good epidemiologist, which is where he seems to try and draw a lot his arguments. Despite, antibody and PCR and pharmacological and epidemiological evidence, he continues to question the notion that HIV causes AIDS.

Speaking of PCR, Kary Mullis is another "brilliant" scientist that doesn't know what he's talking about. In case you didn't know, he won the Nobel prize for developing PCR. He also does not believe HIV causes AIDS. Seeing as how he used to be a techno-jock (correct if I am wrong, but he doesn't seem to have done anything but discover PCR), it's a little unclear as to why he suddenly thinks he's an expert in virology and infectious disease. Don't get me wrong, PCR is awesome and he certainly derserved the Nobel prize, but I think fame and fortune has kind of gone to his head and now he doesn't do anything but editorialize. At least Duesberg still does some science.

In short, these guys are a detriment to science and medicine and basically need to shut their big traps when it comes to topics about which they know nothing. Those that don't know any better will believe these guys because of their reputations and past achievements. It's rather irresponsible of them.

-X

Here is a little joepardy for you guys..

What happens when you make a lot of money and do too much LSD?








Answer: Kary Mullis (BTW OJ thanks you)

 

[Red Beard]

Speaking of PCR, Kary Mullis is another "brilliant" scientist that doesn't know what he's talking about. In case you didn't know, he won the Nobel prize for developing PCR. He also does not believe HIV causes AIDS. Seeing as how he used to be a techno-jock (correct if I am wrong, but he doesn't seem to have done anything but discover PCR), it's a little unclear as to why he suddenly thinks he's an expert in virology and infectious disease.

Not to mention that he claims to have seen space aliens.

 

[f_w]

The nobel prize is bad for your mental health.

Just look at what happened to Linus Pauling. He got the double whammy and in his old days he believed that shoveling 10grams of vitamin C down your throat every day would pickle you for eternity (you could argue that it worked for him, he died at age 93. but you could also argue that hormesis from the stray radiation he caught during his early years kept him that well preserved).

 

[3dtp]

If you didn't realize, Dr. Duesberg is one of the leading researchers in Retrovirology of the entire world. For sure, he is ranked in the top 10...
Didn't you get a peak into his website? He has published in Science, Nature, etc.

And then why is there such widespread HIV/AIDS in Africa? Epidemiology there is hard to ignore. Can't blame it on AZT there nor recreational drugs. They're not available in equatorial and southern Africa at prices the vast majority can afford.

And what's this? Viruses are not implicated in carcinogenesis? HPV? Cervical Cancer? yeah sure? No need for the HPV vaccine to put me out of business is there?

So, I submit that antiretrovirals don't exist, don't work, that CMV in immunocompromised (ie chemotherapy) patients never happens and viruses do not cause the flu or the common cold. Bad Humours do. So, get your voodoo beads out, do a little dance, kill a chicken and cure them all.

Amazing what living in Berkely, too much canabis and side trips to SFO can do to a brilliant mind.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Viruses are our friends..

 

[DrMom]

I'm gonna move this to the Topics in Healthcare forum...

 

[captaintripps]

Ok, I'm no infectious diseases expert. But I was under the impression that no one had ever been found to have AIDS without also having the HIV virus. Conversely everyone with HIV eventually gets aids. Am I wrong about this?


I agree that the incidence/prevalance graphs are interesting. But I'm nowhere near knowledgable enough to draw any conclusions from them.

Actually, AIDS is diagnosed by detection of HIV antibodies or PCR amplification of viral sequence both of these can have high false positive rates and neither directly detects HIV.

 

[yuripride]

In case you didn't notice, Huesberg hasn't published any of this crap in a Pubmed journal since 1995. Either he stopped believing his own crap or the scientific community decided it had heard enough of it.

 

[captaintripps]

In case you didn't notice, Huesberg hasn't published any of this crap in a Pubmed journal since 1995. Either he stopped believing his own crap or the scientific community decided it had heard enough of it.

Dr. Duesberg has plenty definitive publications questioning the validity of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, none of which have been properly addressed by AIDS researchers. If you check his work currently, some very interesting observations on carcinogenesis. Aside from being brainwashed in medical school, one of the goals of this training is to become a critical and independent thinker. Spend some time studying the pathogenesis of AIDS and find that not everything is crystal clear. Big Pharma can have a major influence on the public.

 

[mshheaddoc]

I'd like to thank Dr. Crackpot for influencing South African President Thabo Mbeki to refusing treatment of AIDS to his people. And apparently the S. African president still believes to this day the number of infected and number of deaths are grossly overstated.

‘Denialism’ and misinformation in South Africa

Many people argue that the response to HIV/AIDS in South Africa has been hampered by ‘AIDS denialism’, a minority scientific movement that refutes the orthodox idea that HIV causes AIDS. Some leading figures in South Africa have flirted with this school of thought, much to the dismay of AIDS activists. President Mbeki has consistently refused to acknowledge that HIV is the cause of AIDS; he argues that HIV is just one factor among many that might contribute to deaths resulting from immunodeficiency, alongside others such as poverty and poor nutrition.

“Does HIV Cause AIDS? Can a virus cause a syndrome? How? It can’t, because a syndrome is a group of diseases resulting from acquired immune deficiency. Indeed, HIV contributes, but other things contribute as well.”18

Although Mbeki has never declared outright that he rejects the link between HIV and AIDS, he has continually inferred as much through statements such as this. He has also failed to publicly state that he believes HIV to be the cause of AIDS.

While international scientific consensus holds that antiretroviral medication is an effective treatment for HIV, Mbeki has claimed that it is harmful and unsafe. Drug companies, he argues, have exaggerated the importance of ARV treatment in order to further their profits.

In 2000 Mbeki included a number of ‘AIDS dissidents’, such as the controversial American scientist Peter Duesberg, in a committee set up to advise the Government on tackling the AIDS crisis19. In the same year, hundreds of delegates walked out of the International AIDS Conference in Durban in protest after Mbeki reiterated his view that HIV is not wholly responsible for AIDS.20

In October 2000, Mbeki stated that he would withdraw from the public debate about whether HIV causes AIDS, after admitting that his stance had created confusion amongst the public. Since making this statement he has largely avoided the issue of what causes AIDS, but has repeatedly suggested that the impact of AIDS in South Africa may have been overstated.

In 2002 the Cabinet issued a statement on their latest AIDS campaign, declaring:

“In conducting this campaign, Government’s starting point is based on the premise that HIV causes AIDS”21

While this remains the official stance of the Government, there is evidence that certain politicians continue to question scientific consensus on AIDS. President Mbeki has repeatedly stressed the importance of a good diet in halting the progression of AIDS, as has the Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who famously urged people to eat lots of beetroot and garlic to fight off the illness. While it is true that a good diet is an important part of treatment, it is certainly no substitute for antiretroviral medication, as she has suggested.

The Health Minister has also voiced support for the Dr Rath Health Foundation, an organisation that promotes vitamin supplements as a substitute for ARV drugs. The foundation has previously published adverts in South Africa claiming that antiretroviral drugs are toxic and cause AIDS. In August 2005, The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that such statements were a threat to public health, and that the organisation would not be allowed to make such claims in future adverts. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang later stated in newspapers that:

“No reason exists to criticise Rath, his treatments and his foundation”22

The Dr Rath Health Foundation continues to promote its ineffective vitamin treatment in South Africa despite widespread international condemnation. The organisation has been banned from almost all other countries in which it has tried to operate. The TAC, which recently won a court case to prevent the Rath Foundation from wrongly labelling them ‘a front for the pharmaceutical industry’, has strongly criticised the Government for failing to condemn the organisation.

The Health Minister continues to make statements that play down the importance of ARVs, and it is likely that the attitude towards the drugs taken by her and other politicians has been central to the slow rate of progress in providing access to treatment. Amongst the scientific community there is little doubt about the benefits of ARVs; a recent study in South Africa reported that 93% of HIV positive people surveyed were alive after one year of treatment.23

Alongside AIDS denialism and misinformation about AIDS treatment, false beliefs about how HIV can be transmitted are also a concern. At a trial in April 2006, South Africa’s former Deputy-President, Jacob Zuma, stated his belief that taking a shower after having sex had reduced his chances of contracting HIV. There was widespread dismay amongst the AIDS prevention community that a politician (particularly one who had once been head of the National AIDS Council) could display such ignorance, and a fear that his statement would cause confusion amongst the public, undermining years of AIDS prevention campaigns. The National AIDS Helpline was subsequently inundated by callers querying the validity of his statement.24

Many people believe that the widely publicised views of politicians such as Mbeki, Tshabalala-Msimang and Zuma have added to the climate of misinformation that surrounds the problem of AIDS in South Africa. Zackie Achmat, leader of the TAC, argues that the real hindrance to antriretroviral drug provision in the country is not lack of funding, but the attitude of the Government:

“The biggest problem we have in South Africa is that we have a President who doesn’t believe that HIV causes AIDS.”25

Here's the link to this article so you can feel free to look up the references

Oh and here's some great evidence
It goes through Koch's postulate and everything.
And their conclusion:

Conclusion

There is no single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. Instead there are tens of thousands of papers containing a wide range of evidence that, taken together, make the case overwhelming.

People should be encouraged to question scientific orthodoxy. However, the views of AIDS dissidents, which have been well known for many years and thoroughly debated in scientific journals, have failed to win support. The core arguments of the Perth Group (that HIV has not been isolated according to their own particular rules) and Dr Duesberg (that no one fully understands how HIV causes AIDS) do not invalidate the wide range of evidence outlined on this page. The HIV theory is compelling because it provides a simple, unique cause that consistently accounts for all of the observed phenomena.

As an independent AIDS organisation, AVERT is primarily interested in what works. Studies have repeatedly shown that antibody testing is a highly effective way of predicting risk for AIDS; that modern antiretroviral treatment brings dramatic benefits; and that people who avoid exposure to HIV do not get AIDS. We will therefore continue wholeheartedly to recommend these things.

Sad part is, there are some people (and some strains) that people are immune to. That has been proven, additionally the less virulent HIV-2 strain also makes a "cause" that AIDS is not caused by HIV. These are exceptions people, not the rule. Yes some of these drugs are toxic but overwhelming evidence has shown that without these drugs your body will replicate this virus. And when it replicates the virus it will reach a point where your immune syste can not handle it and yes you will end up with one of the 26 AIDS defining opportunistic infections.

Wasn't this the guy that said he would infect himself with the virus to prove it? I remember reading that he said that in 2003 somewhere. I'll look for the quote. I know someone said it but then it was laughed at because he never "innoculated" himself with it either.

 

[nole stomper]

Dr. Duesberg has plenty definitive publications questioning the validity of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, none of which have been properly addressed by AIDS researchers. If you check his work currently, some very interesting observations on carcinogenesis. Aside from being brainwashed in medical school, one of the goals of this training is to become a critical and independent thinker. Spend some time studying the pathogenesis of AIDS and find that not everything is crystal clear. Big Pharma can have a major influence on the public.

dude, you're a future dentist. all you have to worry about is wearing 2 pairs of gloves. or, if you don't think the virus causes aids, then screw the gloves.

 

[mshheaddoc]

Oh and people, please watch the "personal" attacks. They don't bring anything to the thread. I have a feeling with some comments already said that things could get ugly then we'd have to close the thread. Please keep it informative. Thanks

 

[logos]

Duesberg is a well known virologist. I think some objections were reasonable in the past, however there is now quite a lot of evidence for the HIV/AIDS correlation. Not the least of which to me is the wild success of HAART.

 

[captaintripps]

dude, you're a future dentist. all you have to worry about is wearing 2 pairs of gloves. or, if you don't think the virus causes aids, then screw the gloves.

Dude, you're right I am a future dentist and I am also a PhD candidate in Biomedical Science so this issue is of concern to me as with any health professional.

 

[latinman]

Duesberg is a well known virologist. I think some objections were reasonable in the past, however there is now quite a lot of evidence for the HIV/AIDS correlation. Not the least of which to me is the wild success of HAART.

Correlation not necessarily implies causation. That is Stat 101 ...

HIV --> Aids: doesn't follow the Koch's postulates...

 

[latinman]

Correlation not necessarily implies causation. That is Stat 101 ...

HIV --> Aids: doesn't follow the Koch's postulates...

Do you know that Dr. Gallo - the person who first claimed that HIV caused AIDS had also made the same statement in the past for Cancer and other diseases. I don't think is a person that can be believed specially if you consider that he didn't have much success in his scientific career prior to this claim...

 

[OSUdoc08]

Ok, I'm no infectious diseases expert. But I was under the impression that no one had ever been found to have AIDS without also having the HIV virus. Conversely everyone with HIV eventually gets aids. Am I wrong about this?


I agree that the incidence/prevalance graphs are interesting. But I'm nowhere near knowledgable enough to draw any conclusions from them.

Have you ever seen this guy?

He doesn't have AIDS.

 

[ilovestewie]

There are HIV infected people who never develop AIDS and are never put on retroviral therapy. They are refered to as "elite responders/suppresors". I just thought Id add that in there if anyone thought that HIV=AIDS. However, the definition of AIDS is closely associated with HIV infection so it is impossible to say that HIV does not cause AIDS. HIV decreases CD4 counts, and a high viral load/low CD4 count is associated with "AIDS defining illnesses." If the question is "is HIV the ONLY thing that causes AIDS then we can debate. however, it is a fact that was essentially created when the definition of AIDS was created that HIV causes it. DO other things cause immunodeficiency complexes? yup. but what does that have ot do with anything?

 

[mudshadow]

I just read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. HIV is a benign virus that is transmitted perinatally. He claims that the reason AIDS develops is from "high risk" activities and unsanitary lifestyles.
For instance, the majority of US/European-related AIDS cases are from candida infections and cancers
(kaposi's sarcoma) all related to "high risk" behaviors [heroin use, amyl nitrate use] + positive HIV antibodies; whereas African AIDS related cases are from TB, helminthe infections and wasting diseases, all related to unsanitary conditions.
Also, the HIV test only tests for HIV antibodies. HIV could be benign for years and years! None of Koch's postulates on viruses state that any virus that has once been suppressed by an immune system can suddenly become fervent later on in the lifespan. This has never been demonstrated to occur (as far as I know) in any viral studies nor has it been proven to occur with HIV.

Here is the foundation fo the "HIV does not cause AIDS" hypothesis.
1) AIDS in drug users and homosexuals in the USA and Europe is probably caused by the heavy ancillary use of glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents to medically treat the wide range of the chronic serious illnesses.
2) AIDS in hemophiliacs is clearly related to the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents to prevent the development of antibodies for factors VIII and IX and to treat chronic illnesses.
3) AIDS in people receiving blood and/or tissue is related to the use of glucocorticoids to prevent reactions of transfusion and tissue rejection.
4) AIDS in infants and children is probably caused by their exposure to drugs and corticosteroids in utero and their exposure to corticosteroids after birth used to treat their chronic illnesses.
5) AIDS in Africa is caused by malnutrition, release of endogenous cortisol, and by opportunistic diseases. Atrophy in the lymphoid tissue has been observed in HIV-negative people suffering from malnutrition.
6) Damage to the immune system is rapidly reversible after removal of the true insulting agent or treatment of the true causes in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative AIDS patients.
7) Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) and lymphoma are probably induced by the use of steroids and drugs, and the release of endogenous cortisol.
8) HIV appears to be a harmless virus both in the in vivo and the in vitro settings.
9) The uses of glucocorticoids, AZT, and protease inhibitors to treat AIDS are contraindicated.

 

[noonday]

I just read "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. HIV is a benign virus that is transmitted perinatally. He claims that the reason AIDS develops is from "high risk" activities and unsanitary lifestyles.
For instance, the majority of US/European-related AIDS cases are from candida infections and cancers
(kaposi's sarcoma) all related to "high risk" behaviors [heroin use, amyl nitrate use] + positive HIV antibodies; whereas African AIDS related cases are from TB, helminthe infections and wasting diseases, all related to unsanitary conditions.
Also, the HIV test only tests for HIV antibodies. HIV could be benign for years and years! None of Koch's postulates on viruses state that any virus that has once been suppressed by an immune system can suddenly become fervent later on in the lifespan. This has never been demonstrated to occur (as far as I know) in any viral studies nor has it been proven to occur with HIV.

Here is the foundation fo the "HIV does not cause AIDS" hypothesis.
1) AIDS in drug users and homosexuals in the USA and Europe is probably caused by the heavy ancillary use of glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents to medically treat the wide range of the chronic serious illnesses.
2) AIDS in hemophiliacs is clearly related to the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents to prevent the development of antibodies for factors VIII and IX and to treat chronic illnesses.
3) AIDS in people receiving blood and/or tissue is related to the use of glucocorticoids to prevent reactions of transfusion and tissue rejection.
4) AIDS in infants and children is probably caused by their exposure to drugs and corticosteroids in utero and their exposure to corticosteroids after birth used to treat their chronic illnesses.
5) AIDS in Africa is caused by malnutrition, release of endogenous cortisol, and by opportunistic diseases. Atrophy in the lymphoid tissue has been observed in HIV-negative people suffering from malnutrition.
6) Damage to the immune system is rapidly reversible after removal of the true insulting agent or treatment of the true causes in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative AIDS patients.
7) Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) and lymphoma are probably induced by the use of steroids and drugs, and the release of endogenous cortisol.
8) HIV appears to be a harmless virus both in the in vivo and the in vitro settings.
9) The uses of glucocorticoids, AZT, and protease inhibitors to treat AIDS are contraindicated.

huh. guess the fact that the people from all of those different and diverse populations who develop the same immunodeficiency and then many develop similar opportunistic infections all have anitbodies to HIV and thus indicate HIV exposure...that's too simple an explanation? not to mention that none of this was going on before the early 80's, the rapid expansion of these disorders is happening in an epidemic fashion, and that treatments based upon "HIV causes AIDS" have been working wonders?

need i point out that with MANY other viruses, a significant portion of those infected never develop illness, while some get very sick and some die, and yet no one claims that these viruses are not the cause of resulting illness in those people? Hep C, Hep B, etc.


occum's razor, anyone?

 

[mudshadow]

huh. guess the fact that the people from all of those different and diverse populations who develop the same immunodeficiency and then many develop similar opportunistic infections all have anitbodies to HIV and thus indicate HIV exposure...that's too simple an explanation? not to mention that none of this was going on before the early 80's, the rapid expansion of these disorders is happening in an epidemic fashion, and that treatments based upon "HIV causes AIDS" have been working wonders?

need i point out that with MANY other viruses, a significant portion of those infected never develop illness, while some get very sick and some die, and yet no one claims that these viruses are not the cause of resulting illness in those people? Hep C, Hep B, etc.


occum's razor, anyone?

First off, what immunodeficiency ar eoyou talking about? HIV is in most cases fought off by the immune system to a level where it cannot be considered hampering basic cell or immunological function.
Secondly, would you classify cancer and TB as similar opportunistic infections?
Tuberculosis, helminthe infections, kaposi's sarcomas, wasting disease...all were occurring before Gallo(foremost proponent of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis)patented the HIV detection kit in the 1980s.
AZT treatments have not been "working wonders". They are immunosuppresants themselves!

 

[EctopicFetus]

Have you ever seen this guy?

He doesn't have AIDS.

Your last line should read...

He doesn't have AIDS yet.

 

[EctopicFetus]

First off, what immunodeficiency ar eoyou talking about? HIV is in most cases fought off by the immune system to a level where it cannot be considered hampering basic cell or immunological function.
Secondly, would you classify cancer and TB as similar opportunistic infections?
Tuberculosis, helminthe infections, kaposi's sarcomas, wasting disease...all were occurring before Gallo(foremost proponent of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis)patented the HIV detection kit in the 1980s.
AZT treatments have not been "working wonders". They are immunosuppresants themselves!

AZT is an antiretroviral.. Immunosuppresant? HUH?

 

[latinman]

AZT is an antiretroviral.. Immunosuppresant? HUH?

Have you looked into the panel of this Drug and seen what are its side effects? As a matter of fact Ectopic Fetus, since AZT is harmless as you claim why don't you start taking it empirically for a 6 month span. Then come back to this Forum and let us know what have been the effects...

 

[latinman]

Have you looked into the panel of this Drug and seen what are its side effects? As a matter of fact Ectopic Fetus, since AZT is harmless as you claim why don't you start taking it empirically for a 6 month span. Then come back to this Forum and let us know what have been the effects...

I will certainly guarantee you that your T cell count will go down without regards to whether you are HIV negative.

 

[OSUdoc08]

Your last line should read...

He doesn't have AIDS yet.

It's been over 15 years now. Do you think he will?

He looks healthier than ever.

 

[EctopicFetus]

I will certainly guarantee you that your T cell count will go down without regards to whether you are HIV negative.

Too funny..

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202602.html

Anyways it CAN cause SEs like Bone marrow suppression but.... this is not a common effect...

As for why I wont take AZT or anything else you are mixing 2 things.. I never said it doesnt have SEs rather that it is NOT an immunosuppresent. Dont confuse the issue cause you have no idea what you are talking about. Its a common trick used by people who make nonsensical arguments you dont answer the real issue but rather you try to change it a little to muddy the waters.. Nice try,..

 

[EctopicFetus]

It's been over 15 years now. Do you think he will?

He looks healthier than ever.

Keep in mind that Magic has (for all intents and purposes) unlimited financial resources. Truth is I just talked to an ID attending about this and what he said was basically we dont know what will happen when people have HIV for 30 yrs (cause no one has made it that long). In the end yeah I think he will get it, if you look at people who have HIV and are on HAART they have nasty SEs. We will see what happens with Magic but I would guess he dies from HIV/AIDS rather than from old age.

 

[Cinnameg]

The part in bold isnt true.. Here is why.. say you were found to have HIV but not AIDS yet and you walked outside and got run over by a city bus going 85 being driven by a Guy with Aids and HIV.. the first guy would technically have HIV but would never develop AIDS..

Thank you for your attention.

Actually, there are a lot of people that get HIV that never develop AIDS symptoms and live long, healthy lives. They seem to be resistant. Too bad we all aren't like that.

 

[Cinnameg]

And then why is there such widespread HIV/AIDS in Africa? Epidemiology there is hard to ignore. Can't blame it on AZT there nor recreational drugs. They're not available in equatorial and southern Africa at prices the vast majority can afford.

And what's this? Viruses are not implicated in carcinogenesis? HPV? Cervical Cancer? yeah sure? No need for the HPV vaccine to put me out of business is there?

So, I submit that antiretrovirals don't exist, don't work, that CMV in immunocompromised (ie chemotherapy) patients never happens and viruses do not cause the flu or the common cold. Bad Humours do. So, get your voodoo beads out, do a little dance, kill a chicken and cure them all.

Amazing what living in Berkely, too much canabis and side trips to SFO can do to a brilliant mind.

Actually that's Berkeley. And no, doesn't quite f*ck with your mind that much.

 

[phllystyl]

Actually, AIDS is diagnosed by detection of HIV antibodies or PCR amplification of viral sequence both of these can have high false positive rates and neither directly detects HIV.

The least you can do to join the conversation is to learn the proper diagnostic criteria for AIDS and the correct statistical and methodological information for HIV testing.

 

[mudshadow]

Too funny..

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202602.html

Anyways it CAN cause SEs like Bone marrow suppression but.... this is not a common effect...

As for why I wont take AZT or anything else you are mixing 2 things.. I never said it doesnt have SEs rather that it is NOT an immunosuppresent. Dont confuse the issue cause you have no idea what you are talking about. Its a common trick used by people who make nonsensical arguments you dont answer the real issue but rather you try to change it a little to muddy the waters.. Nice try,..

AZT was originally developed as an anti-cancer agent until it proved too harmful. Years later it was resurrected as an anti HIV and AIDS drug.

Studies of AZT treatments have confirmed cytotoxicity of DNA chain terminators (Oddone et al., 1993; Tokars et al., 1993; Lenderking et al., 1994; Lundgren et al., 1994; Seligmann et al., 1994). One study observed a 25% increased mortality (Seligmann et al., 1994), and another a 4.5-fold higher annual AIDS risk and a 2.4-fold higher annual death risk in AZT-treated HIVpositive hemophiliacs compared to untreated controls (Goedert et al., 1994).

Oddone, E.Z., P. Cowper, J.D. Hamilton, D.B. Matchar, P. Hartigan, G. Samsa, M. Simberkoff & J.R. Feussner, 1993. Cost-effectiveness analysis of early zidovudine treatment of HIV infected patients. Br. Med. J. 307: 1322-1325.

Tokars, J.I., R. Marcus, D.H. Culver. C.A. Schable, E.S. McKibben, C.I. Banden and D.M. Bell, 1993. Surveillance of HIV Infection and Zidovudine Use among Health Care Workers after Occupational Exposure to HIV-infected Blood. Ann. Intem. Med. 118: 913-919.

Lenderking, W.R., R.D. Gelber, D.J. Conon, B.E Cole, A. Goldhirsch, P.A. Volberding & M.A. Testa, 1994. Evaluation of the quality of life associated with Zidovudine treatment in asymptomatic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 330: 738-743.

Lundgren, J.D., A.N. Philips, C. Pedersen, N. Clumeck, J.M. Gatell, A.M. Johnson, B. Ledergerber. S. Vella & J.O. Nielsen. 1994. Comparison of long-term prognosis of patients with AIDS treated and not treated with Zidovudine. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 271: 1088-1092.

Seligmann, M., D.A. Warrell, J.-P. Aboulker, C. Carbon, J.H. Darbyshire, J. Dormont, E. Eschwege, D.J. Gitling, D .R. James, J.-E. Levy, P.T.A. Peto, D. Schwarz, A.B. Stone, I.V.D. Weller, R. Withnall, K. Gelmon, E. Lafon, A.M. Swart, V.R. Aber, A.G. Babiker, S. Lhoro, A.J. Nunn & M. Vray, 1994. Concorde: MCR/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection. Lancet 343: 871-881.

Goedert, J.J.. A.R. Cohen, C.M. Kessler, S. Eichinger, S.V. Seremetis, C.S. Rabkin, EJ. Yellin, P.S. Rosenberg & L.M. Aledort. 1994. Risks of immunodeficiency, AIDS, and death related to purity of factor VIII concentrate. Lancet 344: 791-792.

 

[latinman]

AZT was originally developed as an anti-cancer agent until it proved too harmful. Years later it was resurrected as an anti HIV and AIDS drug.

Studies of AZT treatments have confirmed cytotoxicity of DNA chain terminators (Oddone et al., 1993; Tokars et al., 1993; Lenderking et al., 1994; Lundgren et al., 1994; Seligmann et al., 1994). One study observed a 25% increased mortality (Seligmann et al., 1994), and another a 4.5-fold higher annual AIDS risk and a 2.4-fold higher annual death risk in AZT-treated HIVpositive hemophiliacs compared to untreated controls (Goedert et al., 1994).

Oddone, E.Z., P. Cowper, J.D. Hamilton, D.B. Matchar, P. Hartigan, G. Samsa, M. Simberkoff & J.R. Feussner, 1993. Cost-effectiveness analysis of early zidovudine treatment of HIV infected patients. Br. Med. J. 307: 1322-1325.

Tokars, J.I., R. Marcus, D.H. Culver. C.A. Schable, E.S. McKibben, C.I. Banden and D.M. Bell, 1993. Surveillance of HIV Infection and Zidovudine Use among Health Care Workers after Occupational Exposure to HIV-infected Blood. Ann. Intem. Med. 118: 913-919.

Lenderking, W.R., R.D. Gelber, D.J. Conon, B.E Cole, A. Goldhirsch, P.A. Volberding & M.A. Testa, 1994. Evaluation of the quality of life associated with Zidovudine treatment in asymptomatic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 330: 738-743.

Lundgren, J.D., A.N. Philips, C. Pedersen, N. Clumeck, J.M. Gatell, A.M. Johnson, B. Ledergerber. S. Vella & J.O. Nielsen. 1994. Comparison of long-term prognosis of patients with AIDS treated and not treated with Zidovudine. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 271: 1088-1092.

Seligmann, M., D.A. Warrell, J.-P. Aboulker, C. Carbon, J.H. Darbyshire, J. Dormont, E. Eschwege, D.J. Gitling, D .R. James, J.-E. Levy, P.T.A. Peto, D. Schwarz, A.B. Stone, I.V.D. Weller, R. Withnall, K. Gelmon, E. Lafon, A.M. Swart, V.R. Aber, A.G. Babiker, S. Lhoro, A.J. Nunn & M. Vray, 1994. Concorde: MCR/ANRS randomised double-blind controlled trial of immediate and deferred zidovudine in symptom-free HIV infection. Lancet 343: 871-881.

Goedert, J.J.. A.R. Cohen, C.M. Kessler, S. Eichinger, S.V. Seremetis, C.S. Rabkin, EJ. Yellin, P.S. Rosenberg & L.M. Aledort. 1994. Risks of immunodeficiency, AIDS, and death related to purity of factor VIII concentrate. Lancet 344: 791-792.

Nice References Mud Shadow...