• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hiv

It is your opinion the mainstream AIDS researchers are biased. Not all share that opinion. Not all are "sheep" that accept whatever is presented by the mainstream.

You have yet to prove your statement in the OP. You have been shown that when a person has a compromised immune system lots of things can go wrong. HIV weakens the body enough that a person can come down with bacterial infections.

The only one with binders on is you. If you can provide cases where a person did not have HIV but developed AIDS because of X and the paper says X causes AIDS, I will gladly change my mind. Till then I will stick with the known medical science of HIV causes AIDS in some cases.

I NEVER said that all mainstream AIDS researchers are biased! I posted a link to a mainstream journal article that opposed the mainstream theory. PROVING that they are NOT ALL BIASED.

There are obviously many cases of AIDS without HIV -- that is a known scientific fact. There was AIDS long before HIV was infecting humans. But if you define AIDS as an HIV infection plus AIDS-defining diseases, well then obviously there cannot be AIDS without HIV.

I doubt you are following any of this.

What is not known is whether an HIV infection alone is enough to cause AIDS. It is also not known how often HIV does NOT eventually cause AIDS. It is also not known whether killing HIV with ARV drugs actually helps more than it harms. This CANNOT be tested, for ethical reasons. NO ONE KNOWS!!

Yes it's hard to believe that medical science can be this crazy. So naturally you don't want to investigate, you don't want to be curious.

Wishful thinking can be very powerful, and so can the desire to make billions. The drugs are provided all over the world, and American taxpayers are paying for a lot of it.
 
I NEVER said that all mainstream AIDS researchers are biased! I posted a link to a mainstream journal article that opposed the mainstream theory. PROVING that they are NOT ALL BIASED.

There are obviously many cases of AIDS without HIV -- that is a known scientific fact. There was AIDS long before HIV was infecting humans. But if you define AIDS as an HIV infection plus AIDS-defining diseases, well then obviously there cannot be AIDS without HIV.

I doubt you are following any of this.

What is not known is whether an HIV infection alone is enough to cause AIDS. It is also not known how often HIV does NOT eventually cause AIDS. It is also not known whether killing HIV with ARV drugs actually helps more than it harms. This CANNOT be tested, for ethical reasons. NO ONE KNOWS!!

Yes it's hard to believe that medical science can be this crazy. So naturally you don't want to investigate, you don't want to be curious.

Wishful thinking can be very powerful, and so can the desire to make billions. The drugs are provided all over the world, and American taxpayers are paying for a lot of it.

I follow it quite well.
Provide your sources that backs up your statement of, "There are obviously many cases of AIDS without HIV -- that is a known scientific fact"

"HIV is a virus that attacks a type of white blood cell called a CD4 cell in the body's immune system.
It reduces the body's ability to fight infection and illness. The body can fight off many viruses, but some of them can never be completely removed once they are present. HIV is one of these.
However, treatment with antiretroviral therapy can minimize the effect of the virus by slowing or halting its progression. Treatment can now reduce the amount of virus in the bloodstream to levels where it is no longer detectable. This means the body remains healthy, and the virus cannot be transmitted.
AIDS is a syndrome, or range of symptoms, that may develop in time in a person with HIV who does not receive treatment. A person can have HIV without developing AIDS, but it is not possible to have AIDS without first having HIV. "
HIV vs. AIDS: Differences and connections

1993 article
"A mysterious immune deficiency syndrome in people not infected with HIV is extremely rare, scientists have concluded. Reports of the syndrome,
dubbed ‘non-HIV AIDS’, caused a furore last July’s AIDS conference in Amsterdam, but after extensive research scientists have come up with no evidence that
it is new, nor that it is linked with any infectious agent.
"

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718610-700-cause-unknown-for-aids-without-hiv/#ixzz6CRu2Qd2k"

"Last summer in Amsterdam, two scientists studying some of the cases claimed they had found evidence of a virus or virus-like agent in the patients’
cells (This Week, 25 July 1992). A third cautiously added that he had some initial evidence of a virus, but subsequent studies have since brought negative results. In any case, finding a virus would not have proved it causes disease.

Read more: Cause unknown for 'AIDS' without HIV | New Scientist

Cause unknown for 'AIDS' without HIV | New Scientist
 
I follow it quite well.
Provide your sources that backs up your statement of, "There are obviously many cases of AIDS without HIV -- that is a known scientific fact"

"HIV is a virus that attacks a type of white blood cell called a CD4 cell in the body's immune system.
It reduces the body's ability to fight infection and illness. The body can fight off many viruses, but some of them can never be completely removed once they are present. HIV is one of these.
However, treatment with antiretroviral therapy can minimize the effect of the virus by slowing or halting its progression. Treatment can now reduce the amount of virus in the bloodstream to levels where it is no longer detectable. This means the body remains healthy, and the virus cannot be transmitted.
AIDS is a syndrome, or range of symptoms, that may develop in time in a person with HIV who does not receive treatment. A person can have HIV without developing AIDS, but it is not possible to have AIDS without first having HIV. "
HIV vs. AIDS: Differences and connections

And here we have the mainstream consensus repeated yet again. How many times has it been repeated in this thread? You think repeating the same thing over and over makes it true?
 
Oh yes, of course, we can count on wikipedia to tell us the complete truth about everything.

If you keep repeating the mainstream theory, and you keep linking to articles that express the mainstream theory, do you think that will somehow make it true???? :?

Yeah, wiki is usually pretty good at letting us know if the earth is round or flat :roll:
 
HIV does not cause AIDS. The ARV drugs used for treating AIDS are poison.

AIDS is contagious, but no one knows how or why.

The ARV drugs are like cancer drugs -- they kill everything, but hopefully kill pathogens or cancer cells before killing healthy cells. Actually, the ARV drugs prevent or slow cell reproduction. In ALL cells, but more so in supposed HIV DNA.

If you are on ARV drugs, you are constantly taking a strong antibiotic and cancer chemotherapy drug. So yeah, you won't be as vulnerable to infections or cancer. But you are taking poison, every day. That is not so good.

The drug companies are doing very well with these drugs. Now there is an drug to prevent HIV transmission. So healthy gay men are supposed to take it.

Long term use of these drugs causes heart disease, liver disease, dementia, premature aging, etc.

It's all marketing propaganda from the drug companies! Yes really! Prove to me I am wrong, if you can.

I have read all about how they arrived at the HIV hypothesis, and how they supposedly proved AZT kills HIV and prevents AIDS. Extreme BS.

No one knows whether more deaths were caused by AIDS or by AZT.

Now they have better drugs that aren't as toxic as AZT. There has been NO research comparing ARV drugs to no drugs. Only comparing new drugs to AZT and other older drugs.

It is not ethical to not give HIV patients ARV drugs. But it is ethical to give them drugs that have NOT been proven to work, or to be safe.

The drug companies have won. The whole world agrees with their propaganda.

If you are HIV positive, are you more likely to die from AIDS if you get ARV drugs, or if you don't? NO ONE KNOWS.



I met Dr. Duesberg, who wrote "Rethinking Aids", saw him speak at a seminar. It was really an eye opener.


Are you familiar with his work?
 
I would not use any sources from the HIV deniers like Duesberg or Mullis, even though they are/were qualified scientists. Because you would just say they are HIV deniers and therefore not credible. Anyone who doubts the theory is discredited by the medical authorities.

So all I can do is try to show the scientific and logical errors in the pro-HIV reasoning.


I read Duesberg's book, went to a seminar where he gave a speech, and it was an eye opener.

I"ve yet to read any argument by anyone that refutes his logic. He brings up some compelling facts about retroviruses ignored by others.

And the history of the Aids test, the history of how the HIV came to be, it's smacks of corruption. I don't trust Gallo and the pro HIV establishment.

Thing is, I'm just a layman, so if someone points to some scientific site that supposedly refutes is, I wouldn't know, either way.

What does not make sense to me is why a guy like Deusberg, and Mullis would come out against the HIV/Aids hypothesis, what do they have gain by doing so?

IN fact, Duesberg lost almost everything, except tenure.

History has a number of examples where the mainstream got it wrong. I"m wondering if that is the case here.
 
And here we have the mainstream consensus repeated yet again. How many times has it been repeated in this thread? You think repeating the same thing over and over makes it true?

So using mainstream is only good if it fits your view.
Where is your evidence that refutes what I posted.

My mistake was reengaging you. Live with old research, don't let current medical science get in your way. :mrgreen:
 
So using mainstream is only good if it fits your view.
Where is your evidence that refutes what I posted.

My mistake was reengaging you. Live with old research, don't let current medical science get in your way. :mrgreen:

I posted mainstream research that criticizes the current consensus that HIV=AIDS. That is what you asked for.
 
I read Duesberg's book, went to a seminar where he gave a speech, and it was an eye opener.

I"ve yet to read any argument by anyone that refutes his logic. He brings up some compelling facts about retroviruses ignored by others.

And the history of the Aids test, the history of how the HIV came to be, it's smacks of corruption. I don't trust Gallo and the pro HIV establishment.

Thing is, I'm just a layman, so if someone points to some scientific site that supposedly refutes is, I wouldn't know, either way.

What does not make sense to me is why a guy like Deusberg, and Mullis would come out against the HIV/Aids hypothesis, what do they have gain by doing so?

IN fact, Duesberg lost almost everything, except tenure.

History has a number of examples where the mainstream got it wrong. I"m wondering if that is the case here.

I am familiar with Duesberg's ideas. His criticism of the HIV=AIDS theory makes sense to me. As do the ideas of other HIV=AIDS skeptics. The mainstream rushed to accept Gallo's ideas with no good evidence. They wanted an easy answer to the AIDS epidemic.

But when Duesberg says AIDS can be explained by drugs and other lifestyle factors, he stops making sense. There are known cases showing that AIDS can be contagious. That makes Duesberg look kind of irrational.

Some people think that neither extreme view is correct, and I agree with them. AIDS is contagious and HIV might have something to do with it. But HIV is not a sufficient cause, and there seem to be other necessary factors.
 
I am familiar with Duesberg's ideas. His criticism of the HIV=AIDS theory makes sense to me. As do the ideas of other HIV=AIDS skeptics. The mainstream rushed to accept Gallo's ideas with no good evidence. They wanted an easy answer to the AIDS epidemic.

But when Duesberg says AIDS can be explained by drugs and other lifestyle factors, he stops making sense. There are known cases showing that AIDS can be contagious. That makes Duesberg look kind of irrational.

Some people think that neither extreme view is correct, and I agree with them. AIDS is contagious and HIV might have something to do with it. But HIV is not a sufficient cause, and there seem to be other necessary factors.

Voodoo perhaps.
 
I am familiar with Duesberg's ideas. His criticism of the HIV=AIDS theory makes sense to me. As do the ideas of other HIV=AIDS skeptics. The mainstream rushed to accept Gallo's ideas with no good evidence. They wanted an easy answer to the AIDS epidemic.

But when Duesberg says AIDS can be explained by drugs and other lifestyle factors, he stops making sense. There are known cases showing that AIDS can be contagious. That makes Duesberg look kind of irrational.

Some people think that neither extreme view is correct, and I agree with them. AIDS is contagious and HIV might have something to do with it. But HIV is not a sufficient cause, and there seem to be other necessary factors.

I don't think duisburg says it's not contagious it's just that there's more contagion amongst drug users because of needles and other risky behaviors, right?

But it's a moot point because if HIV does not cause AIDS and AIDS is defined by HIV plus some other disease and there are about 30 of these diseases tuberculosis etcetera, then the medical data on those diseases still hold true

I was living in Hollywood during the height of the AIDS crisis and I know for a fact that poppers which is amyl nitrate was commonly used by gays. I wonder if there was a correlation between amyl nitrate and the other drugs gays were using and kaposi sarcoma which was the dominant disease associated with AIDS at that time
AIDS was also heavy amongst prostitutes and drug users who use needles
 
Last edited:
I don't think duisburg says it's not contagious it's just that there's more contagion amongst drug users because of needles and other risky behaviors, right?

But it's a moot point because if HIV does not cause AIDS and AIDS is defined by HIV plus some other disease and there are about 30 of these diseases tuberculosis etcetera, then the medical data on those diseases still hold true

I was living in Hollywood during the height of the AIDS crisis and I know for a fact that poppers which is amyl nitrate was commonly used by gays. I wonder if there was a correlation between amyl nitrate and the other drugs gays were using and kaposi sarcoma which was the dominant disease associated with AIDS at that time
AIDS was also heavy amongst prostitutes and drug users who use needles

Duesberg says that AIDS is NOT contagious, and he says that HIV is harmless. Yes, gays were using a lot of amyl nitrate, and Duesberg says that drug is factor in AIDS. I have no opinion on that.

But it is not correct to say that AIDS is not contagious. And HIV could be a factor. So I think Duesberg is kind of extreme in completely denying the entire mainstream theory.

There are no good animal models for AIDS, nothing that is similar enough. So there is no way to determine if HIV really is the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS. And no way to determine if the ARV drugs are harmful or helpful. You could inject HIV into human subjects and wait 5 or 10, or however many, years to see if they get AIDS. But that would be illegal.

And testing the ARV drugs against placebo is considered unethical, since the ARV drugs are "known" to be effective and safe!! Well how do they know that, if the test was never done. The only ARV drug vs placebo study used AZT. There were more deaths in the placebo group, very early in the study, so it was cut short.

And victory was declared -- the cause and cure of AIDS had been found. Well no, not really. The drugs don't cure, but supposedly control. But do they really control AIDS? There is no way to know.

We have been told that there is no longer a controversy, that AIDS treatments are safe and effective and result in an almost normal healthy life. There is NO good evidence showing that. It's all marketing and drug company propaganda. But any scientist who questions it is accused of murder! Because AIDS patients might stop taking the drugs if they hear they are toxic and ineffective. And they would quickly die. According to the propaganda.
 
Duesberg says that AIDS is NOT contagious, and he says that HIV is harmless. Yes, gays were using a lot of amyl nitrate, and Duesberg says that drug is factor in AIDS. I have no opinion on that.

But it is not correct to say that AIDS is not contagious. And HIV could be a factor. So I think Duesberg is kind of extreme in completely denying the entire mainstream theory.

There are no good animal models for AIDS, nothing that is similar enough. So there is no way to determine if HIV really is the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS. And no way to determine if the ARV drugs are harmful or helpful. You could inject HIV into human subjects and wait 5 or 10, or however many, years to see if they get AIDS. But that would be illegal.

And testing the ARV drugs against placebo is considered unethical, since the ARV drugs are "known" to be effective and safe!! Well how do they know that, if the test was never done. The only ARV drug vs placebo study used AZT. There were more deaths in the placebo group, very early in the study, so it was cut short.

And victory was declared -- the cause and cure of AIDS had been found. Well no, not really. The drugs don't cure, but supposedly control. But do they really control AIDS? There is no way to know.

We have been told that there is no longer a controversy, that AIDS treatments are safe and effective and result in an almost normal healthy life. There is NO good evidence showing that. It's all marketing and drug company propaganda. But any scientist who questions it is accused of murder! Because AIDS patients might stop taking the drugs if they hear they are toxic and ineffective. And they would quickly die. According to the propaganda.

This isn't exactly rocket science.

AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). By leading to the destruction and/or functional impairment of cells of the immune system, notably CD4+ T cells, HIV progressively destroys the body's ability to fight infections and certain cancers.

...

(CDC) currently defines AIDS in an adult or adolescent age 13 years or older as the presence of one of 26 conditions indicative of severe immunosuppression associated with HIV infection, such as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a condition extraordinarily rare in people without HIV infection. Most other AIDS-defining conditions are also "opportunistic infections" which rarely cause harm in healthy individuals. A diagnosis of AIDS also is given to HIV-infected individuals when their CD4+ T-cell count falls below 200cells/cubic millimeter (mm3) of blood. Healthy adults usually have CD4+ T-cell counts of 600-1,500/mm3 of blood. In HIV-infected children younger than 13 years, the CDC definition of AIDS is similar to that in adolescents and adults, except for the addition of certain infections commonly seen in pediatric patients with HIV. (CDC. MMWR 1992;41(RR-17):1; CDC. MMWR 1994;43(RR-12):1).

In many developing countries, where diagnostic facilities may be minimal, healthcare workers use a World Health Organization (WHO) AIDS case definition based on the presence of clinical signs associated with immune deficiency and the exclusion of other known causes of immunosuppression, such as cancer or malnutrition. An expanded WHO AIDS case definition, with a broader spectrum of clinical manifestations of HIV infection, is employed in settings where HIV antibody tests are available (WHO. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 1994;69:273).

https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/news/528/the-evidence-that-hiv-causes-aids

In other words: no HIV virus present, no AIDS diagnosis.
 
Last edited:
This isn't exactly rocket science.



In other words: no HIV virus present, no AIDS diagnosis.

Right, they changed the diagnosis so there must be a positive HIV test. That says nothing.
 
Right, they changed the diagnosis so there must be a positive HIV test. That says nothing.

Well, considering we have millions infected with HIV who do not have access to expensive drugs dying like flies from AIDS, it's safe to say HIV leads to AIDS leads to death. Now, o course, that ruins all the CT fun. So, carry on.
 
Well, considering we have millions infected with HIV who do not have access to expensive drugs dying like flies from AIDS, it's safe to say HIV leads to AIDS leads to death. Now, o course, that ruins all the CT fun. So, carry on.

And you know how many are dying like flies without the drugs, vs how many are dying like flies with the drugs?
 
In Africa, they often don't have HIV tests. So they diagnose AIDS based on diseases like tuberculosis. No one knows how many of those patients are infected with HIV.

Also, the HIV drugs are antibiotic, so they can control some of the opportunistic infections. So it might have nothing to do with HIV.

No one knows much about this. They pretend to know, they think they know. And you believe whatever they say because you are too lazy to think for yourself.
 

Yes I talked about this already. This one short-term study. One of the only, or the only, placebo controlled HIV drug experiments. You can NEVER draw a conclusion from one medical study. AZT is KNOWN to be highly toxic, it is known to have killed many AIDS patients. That is WHY they developed less toxic drugs.

After this minimal research, new drugs were compared to AZT. The new drugs were less toxic, so mortality was lower with the new drugs.

It has NEVER been shown by any good quality research that the HIV drugs are safe and effective. It has NEVER been shown that the drugs work by lowering HIV levels.
 
Yes I talked about this already. This one short-term study. One of the only, or the only, placebo controlled HIV drug experiments. You can NEVER draw a conclusion from one medical study. AZT is KNOWN to be highly toxic, it is known to have killed many AIDS patients. That is WHY they developed less toxic drugs.

After this minimal research, new drugs were compared to AZT. The new drugs were less toxic, so mortality was lower with the new drugs.

It has NEVER been shown by any good quality research that the HIV drugs are safe and effective. It has NEVER been shown that the drugs work by lowering HIV levels.

This was an initial study done back in 1987. After that many more studies have been done and newer, more effective drugs developed. All of them point to one thing: if you don't lower your viral load, you die.

In short, your thesis is bull****. But, it is perfect for CT. Carry on.
 
This was an initial study done back in 1987. After that many more studies have been done and newer, more effective drugs developed. All of them point to one thing: if you don't lower your viral load, you die.

In short, your thesis is bull****. But, it is perfect for CT. Carry on.

It has been pointed out to G4N that the research presented is not current. G4N choices to ignore more current publications.

The thesis presented in the OP is not supported by current medical science.
 
This was an initial study done back in 1987. After that many more studies have been done and newer, more effective drugs developed. All of them point to one thing: if you don't lower your viral load, you die.

In short, your thesis is bull****. But, it is perfect for CT. Carry on.

Yes, many studies were done, ALL of them comparing AZT to the newer drugs! I keep explaining this.
 
It has been pointed out to G4N that the research presented is not current. G4N choices to ignore more current publications.

The thesis presented in the OP is not supported by current medical science.

It is a controversy. Some research supposedly supports HIV=AIDS, other research supports "maybe HIV plus maybe other co-facters"= AIDS.

There is no conclusive research. Ethical concerns prevent that. And the AIDS industry makes it very hard for HIV skeptics to get funding.
 
Brother, definitely right. All that is artificially created is poison for the body. Refusal of synthetic food, drugs and a closed lifestyle in a city cell will lead a person to a new lifestyle, thereby allowing them to develop their thinking, love life, and most importantly learn to control birth rates. all known diseases can be cured if you fundamentally change your lifestyle and abandon unnecessary and unnecessary circumstances by which a person surrounded himself. Our young world government set a goal to reduce the population by 90%, thereby allowing a person to develop his mental potential and create more deliberate world domination thereby bringing the secrets of conspiracies and organizations to light, but more on this later. The main thing is that all diseases can be cured, and life can be prolonged for many centuries. but we will wait until the old government passes away because a loser has no place in our world!

ef8.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom