Hiv

[SheWolf]

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.

WTF... you are spreading dangerous conspiracy theories, and this thread deserves to be flushed immediately

 

[Good4Nothin]

Granted I posted a position statement paper. What part of the opening statement of "The documents below summarise the abundant evidence that HIV causes AIDS and addresses some of the specific claims of those who assert that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and may assist you in responding to some arguments presented by those who assert that there is no link between HIV and AIDS. Also attached is the Durban Declaration, signed by 5,228 physicians and scientists from over 84 countries, including over 125 from Canada, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. " confused you?

Did you miss the references?
"References Signed by 5,228 physicians and scientists from 84 countries who are dedicated to the control of HIV/AIDS.

1. UNAIDS. AIDS epidemic update. December 1999. Sorry, page not found | UNAIDS
2. Hahn, B. H., Shaw, G. M., De ****, K. M., Sharp, P. M. (2000). AIDS as a zoonosis: scientific and public health implications. Science, 287, 607-614.
3. Weiss R.A and Jaffe, H.W. (1990). Duesberg, HIV and AIDS. Nature, 345, 659-660. 4. NIAID (1996). HIV as the cause of AIDS. [
etc.

And your link to sources are?

It is up to you to prove your position. One should not have to disprove it.
Seems I have done more than you have to demonstrate your opinion than you have to bolster your case.:mrgreen:

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.

 

[Good4Nothin]

WTF... you are spreading dangerous conspiracy theories, and this thread deserves to be flushed immediately

Oh yes, that is the best argument they can come up with. Their theory is correct BECAUSE ... uh, because it would be dangerous to not believe it. Patients might not take their drugs and then what?

I DID say I think AIDS is contagious. People should not be careless about sex.

 

[mike2810]

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.

A sure sign of someone blowing smoke is their failure to provide links to support their position. At this point your opinion is noted. An opinion not supported by medical professionals and researchers. I will ask for the last time provide the links to your source of insight on this topic. Without them we have nothing further to discuss.

Your thread is a least in the correct forum of conspiracies. Your opinion makes as much sense as the flat earthers or no moon landing by humans do.

 

[Good4Nothin]

A sure sign of someone blowing smoke is their failure to provide links to support their position. At this point your opinion is noted. An opinion not supported by medical professionals and researchers. I will ask for the last time provide the links to your source of insight on this topic. Without them we have nothing further to discuss.

Your thread is a least in the correct forum of conspiracies. Your opinion makes as much sense as the flat earthers or no moon landing by humans do.

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.

 

[Good4Nothin]

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."

 

[Good4Nothin]

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. This paper explores the possible role of acid-fast tuberculous mycobacteria as "primary agents" in AIDS."

 

[Drawdown]

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."

The strategy now is to hope to let the disease start dying off with those already infected by making ART widely available. It is probably going to end up being the same approach we see more of when it comes to the superbugs.

 

[What if...?]

No, that's not what you did. You made an affirmative claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV.

What are these "good reasons" to believe that AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus?

Early on, there was a serious break between the first two major researchers. One was the HIV=aids guy.

The other guy fo used on the facts that the diseases that make up aids like Karposis Sarcoma kill people who don't have HIV. Its only aids if they have HIV too.

Also that everybody who was developing aids had what they called "co-factors" which were repeated assaults on the immune system. Like IV drug use and regular blood transfusions and unprotected anal sex.

It was all very interesting.

But eventually they settled on HIV=aids. I don't think the cofactor guy ever got on board. And he was a respected scientist in his field.

 

[mike2810]

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.

You should read the article again that you posted. It does nothing to show that HIV does not lead to AIDS. It discusses "the investigation of emerging Mycoplasma species infection and its possible relationship with the progression of AIDS in HIV-infected individuals can have important impacts on the quality of life of these individuals. Understanding this host/parasite relationship can contribute to better management of these infections and potentially reduce their morbidity.

For example the paper states, " For Mycobacterium tuberculosis, for instance, there is practically a consensus that, besides being an opportunistic pathogen, the bacterium acts as a cofactor for HIV/AIDS, worsening its progression ".

People with HIV/AIDS seem to get worse quicker when dealing with other infections like the ones discussed in your link paper.

Bottom line. Your OP premise is not valid.

 

[Good4Nothin]

The strategy now is to hope to let the disease start dying off with those already infected by making ART widely available. It is probably going to end up being the same approach we see more of when it comes to the superbugs.

You missed the whole point. There are good reasons to think HIV is NOT the only cause of AIDS. In which case, the anti-HIV drugs will NEVER be a cure.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Early on, there was a serious break between the first two major researchers. One was the HIV=aids guy.

The other guy fo used on the facts that the diseases that make up aids like Karposis Sarcoma kill people who don't have HIV. Its only aids if they have HIV too.

Also that everybody who was developing aids had what they called "co-factors" which were repeated assaults on the immune system. Like IV drug use and regular blood transfusions and unprotected anal sex.

It was all very interesting.

But eventually they settled on HIV=aids. I don't think the cofactor guy ever got on board. And he was a respected scientist in his field.

Right. And that is probably why they have not found a cure for AIDS. They settled on HIV=AIDS.

 

[Drawdown]

You missed the whole point. There are good reasons to think HIV is NOT the only cause of AIDS. In which case, the anti-HIV drugs will NEVER be a cure.

Nobody is claiming they are a cure. They are a treatment.

 

[Good4Nothin]

You should read the article again that you posted. It does nothing to show that HIV does not lead to AIDS. It discusses "the investigation of emerging Mycoplasma species infection and its possible relationship with the progression of AIDS in HIV-infected individuals can have important impacts on the quality of life of these individuals. Understanding this host/parasite relationship can contribute to better management of these infections and potentially reduce their morbidity.

For example the paper states, " For Mycobacterium tuberculosis, for instance, there is practically a consensus that, besides being an opportunistic pathogen, the bacterium acts as a cofactor for HIV/AIDS, worsening its progression ".

People with HIV/AIDS seem to get worse quicker when dealing with other infections like the ones discussed in your link paper.

Bottom line. Your OP premise is not valid.

I posted several articles that suggest HIV is NOT the only cause of AIDS. It might be some kind of co-factor.

YOU should read ALL of the articles I linked. AIDS was, and still is, controversial. But they settled on HIV=AIDS, and decided not to look further. They are advertising the anti-HIV drugs as if they will eventually be the answer. But if HIV is NOT the only, or main, cause of AIDS (and maybe just a harmless co-factor, no one knows), then the current approach will never lead to a cure.

Luc Montagnier was one of the discoverers of HIV, and HE did NOT think HIV is the only, or main, cause of AIDS!

So think again about this, instead of stubbornly taking the side of the medical industry.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Nobody is claiming they are a cure. They are a treatment.

You missed the whole point, AGAIN.

 

[Drawdown]

You missed the whole point, AGAIN.

Clearly. :roll:

 

[mike2810]

I posted several articles that suggest HIV is NOT the only cause of AIDS. It might be some kind of co-factor.

YOU should read ALL of the articles I linked. AIDS was, and still is, controversial. But they settled on HIV=AIDS, and decided not to look further. They are advertising the anti-HIV drugs as if they will eventually be the answer. But if HIV is NOT the only, or main, cause of AIDS (and maybe just a harmless co-factor, no one knows), then the current approach will never lead to a cure.

Luc Montagnier was one of the discoverers of HIV, and HE did NOT think HIV is the only, or main, cause of AIDS!

So think again about this, instead of stubbornly taking the side of the medical industry.

I basically go with known good science till shown different. Looking back at the history of AIDS there was a time when research didn't know and suspected many things. Not so much anymore. An article suggesting that something else is causing AIDS is not the same as proven it. People have suggested the earth is flat, that humans never landed on the moon. Suggestions are bogus without proof.

To that end, show me creditable research that HIV does not cause AIDS and that another pathogen has been shown to cause AIDS without HIV being present, then I will change my mind. Till then I will accept what the majority of medical research has stated.

So think again your position, the type of sources you are using.
(Noted: the one link you provided in comment on one of my post was a "main stream" source. Which I should you that it did not support your opinion. So I suspect you have gotten your ideas regarding AIDS from some tabloid type site. If not, provide the links to the sources you use.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I basically go with known good science till shown different. Looking back at the history of AIDS there was a time when research didn't know and suspected many things. Not so much anymore. An article suggesting that something else is causing AIDS is not the same as proven it. People have suggested the earth is flat, that humans never landed on the moon. Suggestions are bogus without proof.

To that end, show me creditable research that HIV does not cause AIDS and that another pathogen has been shown to cause AIDS without HIV being present, then I will change my mind. Till then I will accept what the majority of medical research has stated.

So think again your position, the type of sources you are using.
(Noted: the one link you provided in comment on one of my post was a "main stream" source. Which I should you that it did not support your opinion. So I suspect you have gotten your ideas regarding AIDS from some tabloid type site. If not, provide the links to the sources you use.

You are wrong and you know it. There is recent research showing mycoplasmas might be a necessary factor. The research is NOT finished. The mainstream medical industry jumped to a conclusion before there was good evidence for it.

And mycoplasmas is just one example of an alternate theory. Montagnier was a discoverer of HIV! And he doubts that HIV can be the sole cause of AIDS!

Duesberg is a virologist and he said HIV can't possibly be the cause. They ignored him, but he might be correct.

You are not interested in learning anything. You only care about defending the mainstream.

All the articles I linked are mainstream, none are conspiracy theories or alternative medical sites. This is valid research. Some people have found good reasons to question the HIV=AIDS theory.

Your concern is that maybe the medical industry can't be trusted. You can't even imagine that. Horrors.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Most people are conformists, followers. They will believe anyone who is considered an expert, an authority, without trying to understand what the expert is actually saying. It is taken on faith.

This is natural and normal. Only a minority of people ever discover or invent anything. Only a minority ever question the status quo and the mainstream authorities.

If it were otherwise, society might be too chaotic. We need stability. There have to be more sheep in the herd than shepherds.

But often this fact of human nature can create problems, like the problems that were created with HIV and AIDS. It had been years since I researched this topic in depth. It is only one of several problems with our medical industry that I looked into. But now I decided to go back to HIV/AIDS and try to see if anything has changed.

I suspect the HIV=AIDS theory has only become more entrenched. I suspect that many HIV skeptics have been silenced and censored. After all, it is "dangerous" to doubt the theory.

I will post more information here as I find it.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I have been reading and trying to get up to date about the AIDS/HIV controversy. As so often happens when a controversy goes on for decades, I think both sides are wrong.

The HIV dissidents deny that AIDS is contagious, when there are many obvious cases proving that it is. And they deny that HIV has anything to do with AIDS. They think AIDS is entirely a lifestyle disease. All that seems stubbornly irrational.

The HIV=AIDS mainstream is absolutely certain that HIV is the only cause of AIDS. They are absolutely certain that killing HIV is the best and only approach to treating AIDS.

So the two sides can't understand each other, and never even try. There is evidence that infectious pathogens aside from HIV may be involved in causing AIDS. If that is true, it might explain why treatments that target HIV can sometimes help, but do not cure AIDS.

It does seem certain that AIDS is much more complicated than the simple HIV=AIDS theory.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Most people are conformists, followers. They will believe anyone who is considered an expert, an authority, without trying to understand what the expert is actually saying. It is taken on faith.

This is natural and normal. Only a minority of people ever discover or invent anything. Only a minority ever question the status quo and the mainstream authorities.

If it were otherwise, society might be too chaotic. We need stability. There have to be more sheep in the herd than shepherds.

But often this fact of human nature can create problems, like the problems that were created with HIV and AIDS.

What a load of supercilious tripe.

 

[Good4Nothin]

What a load of supercilious tripe.

Oh I know. You hate to think of yourself as a little sheep. Baaaaa.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Oh I know. You hate to think of yourself as a little sheep. Baaaaa.

You are quite arrogant for one so unqualified. The CTist always thinks he or she is superior to everyone else and that only they have access to secret knowledge, yet they are always unqualified and often just hang out on crank sites regurgitating the stupidity of others with similar delusions of superiority.

They often use brain dead generalisations such as 'sheep' or 'sheeple', which immediately indicates the user is a crank.

 

[Good4Nothin]

You are quite arrogant for one so unqualified. The CTist always thinks he or she is superior to everyone else and that only they have access to secret knowledge, yet they are always unqualified and often just hang out on crank sites regurgitating the stupidity of others with similar delusions of superiority.

They often use brain dead generalisations such as 'sheep' or 'sheeple', which immediately indicates the user is a crank.

Oh, I know, we should never question the expert consensus on anything. After all, the experts went to medical school, where they learned everything anyone could possibly ever know about health.

And the experts know it is best to go along with the mainstream consensus, whatever it may be, even if it doesn't make sense. Life is more peaceful, and more profitable, when everyone agrees.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Oh, I know, we should never question the expert consensus on anything. After all, the experts went to medical school, where they learned everything anyone could possibly ever know about health.

And the experts know it is best to go along with the mainstream consensus, whatever it may be, even if it doesn't make sense. Life is more peaceful, and more profitable, when everyone agrees.

Yes, yes, I've seen the same old routine from 9/11 truthers, Chemtrailers, Flat-Earthers and all the other CTists I've ever challenged. I'm unimpressed. Furthermore, I didn't say anything about not questioning, but it would be nice if at least one of your kind could produce credible evidence for a change. However, one never seems to get any from the CT community, just assertions based upon ignorance.