Hiv

[zyzygy]

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!

Is that a joke?

 

[roguenuke]

It is a fact that AIDS is contagious. I do NOT agree with the HIV deniers who say that AIDS is caused by the gay lifestyle, etc.

But the fact that AIDS is contagious does not mean that therefore HIV is the cause!

Any medical research who dared to deny that HIV causes AIDS has been discredited. No matter how highly qualified they might be. Anyone who doubts the theory gets beaten into oblivion. That alone should make you wonder.

It is a fact that HIV is contagious. And since it causes AIDS, then AIDS increases with the spread of HIV. AIDS is technically not contagious in itself.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

You could read what I wrote so far. Instead of just the first sentence.

You have supplied no evidence to support what you have posted up to this post. So no one has any reason to believe your very first statement.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

My purpose is to cast doubt on the current theory. There is no GOOD evidence that HIV causes AIDS. And it's awfully hard to figure out, because of ethical restrictions. There are no animals that get the same disease, so animal research can't give the answer.

Scientists read into physiology sort of the way religious fanatics read into the bible. You can see what you want to see.

Does HIV infection inevitably lead to AIDS, without treatment? That's what they tell us, but how do they know? Everyone either gets treatment, or they don't come back. And what about people with HIV who have not been tested?

It is a fact that they are telling us things they can't possibly know. Doesn't that make you at all suspicious?

This isnt true though. Most people who had AIDS in the beginning had no available treatment, so they were studied. Not everyone can afford the treatment, so they are studied too, some of them. When testing is done, it is for HIV, not AIDS, but many eventually develop AIDS if they haven't by the time the HIV is discovered.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

The number of scientists agreeing with the theory is meaningless. It can easily be the old bandwagon effect. Not to mention the fact that anyone who disagrees will have their career destroyed. Also, there is no mention of the number of scientists who do NOT agree with the theory.

Only if there is actual evidence to the contrary. You need to provide evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS, rather than just claiming it doesnt, casting doubt. Casting doubt is not evidence of your claim.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

I am trying not to post anything from known HIV skeptics, such as Duesberg or Mullis. Here is a mainstream article on the possibility of a bacterial cofactor in AIDS. This possibility is denied by the consensus opinion that HIV alone causes AIDS.

Mollicutes/HIV Coinfection and the Development of AIDS: Still Far from a Definitive Response

The article has no definite conclusions, but should show you that AIDS researchers are not all in agreement, and that the HIV alone causes AIDS hypothesis has not been confirmed.

I am NOT saying this is the only article casting doubt on the current theory. It is just one example. Popular medical websites all state that the mystery has been solved and there are no longer any doubts that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. But even one of the discoverers of HIV, Luc Montagnier, has expressed doubts.

That does not say what you are presenting it as. It says that certain other factors, microbiological things could factor into the severity and/or progression of AIDS. It does not at all support HIV does not cause AIDS.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

HIV pioneer shuns mainstream approach | New Scientist

"Montagnier argues that AIDS researchers are concentrating too heavily
on HIV rather than looking into cofactors such as mycoplasmas, microorganisms
without cell walls that he believes may amplify the effects of the virus."

This too only speaks of a contributing factor, the same one in the earlier post, to severity and/or progression of AIDS after HIV infection.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Since you missed it, here it is again: AIDS: "it's the bacteria, stupid!". - PubMed - NCBI

"It is important to realize that the statement "HIV is the sole cause of AIDS" is just a hypothesis. There are unanswered questions and controversy concerning the role of HIV "as the sole cause of AIDS." And until they are resolved, a cure is not possible."

That paper was from 2008. It states that HIV=AIDS has NOT BEEN demonstrated by evidence.

I don't understand why you keep saying I have not posted anything showing that HIV=AIDS is JUST A HYPOTHESIS.

Who made that statement "HIV is the sole cause of AIDS"? Where is that found?

Even the research you have presented has not shown that if someone doesnt have the microplasm, but has HIV, they will not develop AIDS. Nor does anything you've posted show that someone who doesnt have HIV but does have the microplasm will develop AIDS.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[OscarLevant]

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.

How about some evidence, links, authoritative articles, etc., to support your point of view?

 

[OscarLevant]

I know, I don't expect you to believe me just because I say it. My OP was an introduction to the topic. I did a lot of reading and searching, although it was a while ago. There is a lot more censorship now, and questioning the HIV theory is taboo.

The whole story is extremely confusing. It isn't really a conspiracy theory, because no one is trying to fool us. The medical experts and the drug companies, probably, believe the HIV drugs are effective and have changed AIDS from a fatal disease to a chronic disease.

There are many tangled branches to the story, can't be spit out all at once in a short post.

In the 1980s, there were suddenly many AIDS deaths among gay men and IV drug users. Medical researchers found signs of what they call HIV in the blood of all the victims. Aha! That means HIV causes AIDS, right? Not so fast. The cause could be something else, and the signs of HIV might just go along with the real cause. There are actually many reasons for a positive HIV test -- this is well known and acknowledged by medical science.

After they decided HIV causes AIDS, they searched for a drug that would kill HIV, and they chose AZT. It was a highly toxic cancer drug. A clinical trial began, comparing AIDS patients treated with AZT vs placebo. Within a fairly short time, the AZT group had lower mortality. The trial was stopped, because they felt it had confirmed their theory, that AZT kills HIV, and HIV causes AIDS.

However, no one knows if this effect would have continue over a longer period. And some doubt that it would have. Still, that ONE clinical trial is the entire basis for the AIDS/HIV/AZT theory.

New, less toxic HIV drugs were developed. They were NEVER tested against placebos -- that would be "unethical," since it was "known" that AZT works. The less toxic drugs resulted in lower mortality. It was assumed that they were better at killing HIV. It was NOT assumed that they were simply less toxic and less likely to cause death.

Meanwhile, the diagnostic criteria for AIDS changed. Previously, patients were diagnosed with AIDS because of the "opportunistic infections" that AIDS leads to. But after the HIV theory was accepted, patients were diagnosed based on having a positive HIV test. As I said before, HIV tests can be positive for many reasons, including pregnancy. Also, Africans are more likely to be HIV positive, without necessarily having AIDS.

So now that people could be diagnosed with AIDS just because they were HIV positive, they were not necessarily sick when diagnosed. AIDS stopped being a "death sentence," but maybe that was because people diagnosed with AIDS were not necessarily as sick as those who were diagnosed in the 1980s.

But why, you ask, do AIDS patients improve when taking ARV (anti-retroviral) drugs? No one really knows. But it is known that ARV drugs are antibiotic -- they can kill bacteria, viruses and cancer cells. They are similar to cancer chemotherapy, after all. So the opportunistic infections caused by AIDS can be killed with ARV drugs, leading to the impression that they are curing HIV/AIDS.

But that's good, right? You want to kill those infections. Well yeah, but for one thing they never completely cure AIDS so patients take them for life. Would you want to be on cancer chemotherapy FOR LIFE. Also, the ARV drugs are taken to be proof of the HIV theory. But if they work by killing opportunistic infections, that would NOT support the HIV theory.

So much is still not known about HIV and AIDS. But the publicity tells us it's all under control. All an HIV positive person has to do is take the drugs, and they will live an almost normal life. That is BS -- no one has any idea if it's true.

And now they are giving preventative ARV drugs, to healthy gay men. The drugs are literally poison. They interfere with the reproduction of DNA in ALL CELLS. Not just in HIV. They destroy health, in many ways.

I have read Dr. Duesenberg's book. I even met him in person once years ago.

But, is his book , "Rethinking AIDS" relevant now?

Has he updated his book?


I don't think AZT is being used any more.

 

[OscarLevant]

I didn't "FAIL" to provide links. I just haven't done that yet. I provided some background.

In any OP, if you take a position, especially one that defies conventional wisdom, it's courtesy to list links to prove or support your case. If someone says you 'failed to list', it' a reasonable statement, given this fact.

 

[OscarLevant]

It is a fact that AIDS is contagious. I do NOT agree with the HIV deniers who say that AIDS is caused by the gay lifestyle, etc.

But the fact that AIDS is contagious does not mean that therefore HIV is the cause!

Any medical research who dared to deny that HIV causes AIDS has been discredited. No matter how highly qualified they might be. Anyone who doubts the theory gets beaten into oblivion. That alone should make you wonder.

Here's an interesting video:

 

[OscarLevant]

I am not here to state anything with certainty. There is no certainty on this subject. If you want to stick stubbornly to accusing me of that, the conversation is over. If you are curious, then we could explore the topic further.

That is not what you said in the OP.

It's on you to get your premise articulated

1. As completely as you can within the 5000 character limit

2. Provide authoritative evidence, links, to support your case. This could be hard stats, or at least authoritative opinions or a path of logic based on evidence, and so forth.


See, I've been going down your thread, and you have wasted many comments defending the fact that you didn't do your homework, didn't articulate the fullness of your position, so members attacked you for it, and now you are defending it, all of which is a waste of time

Get it done right in the OP, and articulate EXACTLY what you mean. I have made this mistake myself, and so I can say it with good authority the importance of stating your case fully in the OP. The OP is not merely a "place to get the conversation going" yes, it's that, but without articulating your POV, you are going to get attacked on what you say

 

[CLAX1911]

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.

First of AIDS isn't contagious it's a syndrome that's like saying Asperger's is contagious. Virus that causes AIDS is contagious.

The difference between poison and medicine is the dosage. I remember doing a little work and a plant that made Tylenol and they pointed at this white powder that was built up on various components. They told me not to touch it because it could kill me. When I asked them what it was they said it's Tylenol. It was just extremely concentrated.

People generally don't die from AIDS they die from the flu or cold. HIV attacks the immune system. The I in both of those acronyms means immunodeficiency. The virus doesn't kill you the syndrome doesn't kill you it's whatever your immune system can't fight off that kills you.

 

[SMTA]

I know, I don't expect you to believe me just because I say it. My OP was an introduction to the topic. I did a lot of reading and searching, although it was a while ago. There is a lot more censorship now, and questioning the HIV theory is taboo.

The whole story is extremely confusing. It isn't really a conspiracy theory, because no one is trying to fool us. The medical experts and the drug companies, probably, believe the HIV drugs are effective and have changed AIDS from a fatal disease to a chronic disease.

There are many tangled branches to the story, can't be spit out all at once in a short post.

In the 1980s, there were suddenly many AIDS deaths among gay men and IV drug users. Medical researchers found signs of what they call HIV in the blood of all the victims. Aha! That means HIV causes AIDS, right? Not so fast. The cause could be something else, and the signs of HIV might just go along with the real cause. There are actually many reasons for a positive HIV test -- this is well known and acknowledged by medical science.

After they decided HIV causes AIDS, they searched for a drug that would kill HIV, and they chose AZT. It was a highly toxic cancer drug. A clinical trial began, comparing AIDS patients treated with AZT vs placebo. Within a fairly short time, the AZT group had lower mortality. The trial was stopped, because they felt it had confirmed their theory, that AZT kills HIV, and HIV causes AIDS.

However, no one knows if this effect would have continue over a longer period. And some doubt that it would have. Still, that ONE clinical trial is the entire basis for the AIDS/HIV/AZT theory.

New, less toxic HIV drugs were developed. They were NEVER tested against placebos -- that would be "unethical," since it was "known" that AZT works. The less toxic drugs resulted in lower mortality. It was assumed that they were better at killing HIV. It was NOT assumed that they were simply less toxic and less likely to cause death.

Meanwhile, the diagnostic criteria for AIDS changed. Previously, patients were diagnosed with AIDS because of the "opportunistic infections" that AIDS leads to. But after the HIV theory was accepted, patients were diagnosed based on having a positive HIV test. As I said before, HIV tests can be positive for many reasons, including pregnancy. Also, Africans are more likely to be HIV positive, without necessarily having AIDS.

So now that people could be diagnosed with AIDS just because they were HIV positive, they were not necessarily sick when diagnosed. AIDS stopped being a "death sentence," but maybe that was because people diagnosed with AIDS were not necessarily as sick as those who were diagnosed in the 1980s.

But why, you ask, do AIDS patients improve when taking ARV (anti-retroviral) drugs? No one really knows. But it is known that ARV drugs are antibiotic -- they can kill bacteria, viruses and cancer cells. They are similar to cancer chemotherapy, after all. So the opportunistic infections caused by AIDS can be killed with ARV drugs, leading to the impression that they are curing HIV/AIDS.

But that's good, right? You want to kill those infections. Well yeah, but for one thing they never completely cure AIDS so patients take them for life. Would you want to be on cancer chemotherapy FOR LIFE. Also, the ARV drugs are taken to be proof of the HIV theory. But if they work by killing opportunistic infections, that would NOT support the HIV theory.

So much is still not known about HIV and AIDS. But the publicity tells us it's all under control. All an HIV positive person has to do is take the drugs, and they will live an almost normal life. That is BS -- no one has any idea if it's true.

And now they are giving preventative ARV drugs, to healthy gay men. The drugs are literally poison. They interfere with the reproduction of DNA in ALL CELLS. Not just in HIV. They destroy health, in many ways.

Your barely lucid post of non-medical opinion sans any kind of support documentation is a total waste of bandwidth.