Hiv

[Good4Nothin]

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.

I posted credible links. There is good evidence for non-HIV pathogens being involved in AIDS. Not just "opportunistic infections." There is evidence that HIV alone is not enough to cause AIDS.

But admitting that would not be good for the drug companies. They need to make their trillions trying to kill HIV.

 

[ecofarm]

I posted credible links. There is good evidence for non-HIV pathogens being involved in AIDS. Not just "opportunistic infections." There is evidence that HIV alone is not enough to cause AIDS.

But admitting that would not be good for the drug companies. They need to make their trillions trying to kill HIV.

You don't understand the articles you posted. They claimed various pathogens contribute to a quickening of AIDS. There was no claim in anything you cited that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

Honestly, when you claimed AIDS is contagious, it was apparent you don't have any real grasp of the issue.

This thread is nuts.

 

[mike2810]

I posted credible links. There is good evidence for non-HIV pathogens being involved in AIDS. Not just "opportunistic infections." There is evidence that HIV alone is not enough to cause AIDS.

But admitting that would not be good for the drug companies. They need to make their trillions trying to kill HIV.

I will ask again , provide a link to 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. "

Providing the information would support your position. So far I have been unable to find any findings to support the OP. Even the link you provided did not show that HIV does not lead/cause AIDS. It showed other factors along with HIV can speed up AIDS.

 

[Good4Nothin]

You don't understand the articles you posted. They claimed various pathogens contribute to a quickening of AIDS. There was no claim in anything you cited that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

Honestly, when you claimed AIDS is contagious, it was apparent you don't have any real grasp of the issue.

This thread is nuts.

I understand as much about AIDS as anyone. Whatever it is that causes AIDS is contagious, at least in many cases. It is an infectious pathogen. But NOT necessarily HIV. Or not necessarily entirely HIV.

It is YOU who does not understand. I cited articles saying that a mycoplasma could be a co-factor. NOT an opportunistic infection, but a NECESSARY co-factor. You just don't understand enough about AIDS to read those articles.

 

[ecofarm]

It is YOU who does not understand. I cited articles saying that a mycoplasma could be a co-factor. NOT an opportunistic infection, but a NECESSARY co-factor. You just don't understand enough about AIDS to read those articles.

I corrected you. You misunderstood the papers you cite.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I will ask again , provide a link to 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. "

Providing the information would support your position. So far I have been unable to find any findings to support the OP. Even the link you provided did not show that HIV does not lead/cause AIDS. It showed other factors along with HIV can speed up AIDS.

I posted research theorizing that a mycoplasma (a type of very small bacteria) might be a NECESSARY co-factor.

The research is not finished. And there is intense pressure on researchers to go along with HIV=AIDS. To keep trying and trying and trying to cure AIDS by killing HIV. Never to look at the obvious alternative, that maybe they should be looking at other kinds of pathogens.

And I DO UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY that AIDS-defining diseases are NOT caused by HIV, but by all kinds of other "opportunistic" pathogens., such as tuberculosis.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I corrected you. You misunderstood the papers you cite.

No I did not. YOU misunderstood.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I will ask again , provide a link to 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. "

Providing the information would support your position. So far I have been unable to find any findings to support the OP. Even the link you provided did not show that HIV does not lead/cause AIDS. It showed other factors along with HIV can speed up AIDS.

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.

 

[ecofarm]

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.

Do you have a single case of AIDS without HIV that you can cite?

 

[mike2810]

I posted research theorizing that a mycoplasma (a type of very small bacteria) might be a NECESSARY co-factor.

The research is not finished. And there is intense pressure on researchers to go along with HIV=AIDS. To keep trying and trying and trying to cure AIDS by killing HIV. Never to look at the obvious alternative, that maybe they should be looking at other kinds of pathogens.

And I DO UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY that AIDS-defining diseases are NOT caused by HIV, but by all kinds of other "opportunistic" pathogens., such as tuberculosis.

Your article linked post 83 is a nov 2008 article. Here is some more current info.
AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) Symptoms, Causes & Treatment


https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv-aids/fact-sheets/26/90/hiv-and-tuberculosis--tb-

"TB is an opportunistic infection (OI). OIs are infections that occur more often or are more severe in people with weakened immune systems than in people with healthy immune systems. HIV weakens the immune system, increasing the risk of TB in people with HIV.

Infection with both HIV and TB is called HIV/TB coinfection. Latent TB is more likely to advance to TB disease in people with HIV than in people without HIV. TB disease may also cause HIV to worsen.

Treatment with HIV medicines is called antiretroviral therapy (ART). ART protects the immune system and prevents HIV infection from advancing to AIDS. In people with HIV/TB coinfection, ART reduces the chances that latent TB will advance to TB disease."





HIV and AIDS: Overview, causes, symptoms, and treatments

 

[Good4Nothin]

Do you have a single case of AIDS without HIV that you can cite?

No, because AIDS is diagnosed by AIDS-defining diseases PLUS a positive HIV test. So, by definition, there can't be AIDS without HIV.

Also, you are confusing association with causality.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Your article linked post 83 is a nov 2008 article. Here is some more current info.
AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) Symptoms, Causes & Treatment


https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv-aids/fact-sheets/26/90/hiv-and-tuberculosis--tb-

"TB is an opportunistic infection (OI). OIs are infections that occur more often or are more severe in people with weakened immune systems than in people with healthy immune systems. HIV weakens the immune system, increasing the risk of TB in people with HIV.

Infection with both HIV and TB is called HIV/TB coinfection. Latent TB is more likely to advance to TB disease in people with HIV than in people without HIV. TB disease may also cause HIV to worsen.

Treatment with HIV medicines is called antiretroviral therapy (ART). ART protects the immune system and prevents HIV infection from advancing to AIDS. In people with HIV/TB coinfection, ART reduces the chances that latent TB will advance to TB disease."





HIV and AIDS: Overview, causes, symptoms, and treatments

Of course you can find mainstream HIV=AIDS articles! As I said, over and over and over, they have jumped to that conclusion WITHOUT any conclusive evidence!!

Please pay attention, or else don't comment.

 

[mike2810]

Of course you can find mainstream HIV=AIDS articles! As I said, over and over and over, they have jumped to that conclusion WITHOUT any conclusive evidence!!

Please pay attention, or else don't comment.

Yet you linked to a main stream source. Double standard on your part.

Why did you ignore that I pointed out that your linked paper was written in 2008 when there is more current information available?
The paper you linked also stated more research was needed.. It is known that people with HIV and AIDS can and do come down with other issues like bronchitis and TB. The patient has a compromised immune system. Much more is known now than in 2008.


(Note: you are not a monitor. You can ignore my posts. You do not have the right to tell me not to comment. This is a debate forum.)

This is my last comment to you on this thread. Believe what you want. eace

 

[Good4Nothin]

Yet you linked to a main stream source. Double standard on your part.

Why did you ignore that I pointed out that your linked paper was written in 2008 when there is more current information available?
The paper you linked also stated more research was needed.. It is known that people with HIV and AIDS can and do come down with other issues like bronchitis and TB. The patient has a compromised immune system. Much more is known now than in 2008.


(Note: you are not a monitor. You can ignore my posts. You do not have the right to tell me not to comment. This is a debate forum.)

This is my last comment to you on this thread. Believe what you want. eace

You asked for links supporting my argument, I gave them. You won't accept the one I posted twice, because it's mainstream. HUH???? If I posted links from HIV dissidents you wouldn't accept them because they are not mainstream!!

Your article was later, sure. But it's the same old propaganda, which I have carefully been arguing against.

You just can't admit you are wrong. Bye.

 

[calamity]

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.

HIV is definitely the underlying virus which, when untreated, leads to AIDS. This is not hard to understand.

HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. It harms your immune system by destroying the white blood cells that fight infection. This puts you at risk for serious infections and certain cancers. AIDS stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. It is the final stage of infection with HIV.

HIV/AIDS | HIV | HIV Symptoms | AIDS | MedlinePlus

But, hey. Some people say the earth is flat. So, there is that.

 

[Good4Nothin]

HIV is definitely the underlying virus which, when untreated, leads to AIDS. This is not hard to understand.




But, hey. Some people say the earth is flat. So, there is that.

Yes, some people say the earth is flat. Others say that HIV=AIDS, even without evidence. If you really want to debunk a theory, you could try logic and evidence, instead of just petty nastiness.

 

[calamity]

Yes, some people say the earth is flat. Others say that HIV=AIDS, even without evidence. If you really want to debunk a theory, you could try logic and evidence, instead of just petty nastiness.

HIV does not equal AIDS. However, AIDS derives from HIV. This has been put to bed back in the 80's.

 

[Good4Nothin]

HIV does not equal AIDS. However, AIDS derives from HIV. This has been put to bed back in the 80's.

Yes they jumped to that conclusion almost immediately. Skepticism was discouraged, and eventually not allowed. I posted articles, which of course you did not read, by scientists who do not believe that HIV is the only or main cause of AIDS.

You can repeat the mainstream consensus all you want, without ever investigating. That would be much easier than thinking.

 

[mike2810]

Some don't want to accept the fact that research does not support the OP position. Much has been learned in the last 15 or so years regarding AIDS. Some tend to stick to old beliefs.
Interesting that none of the more recent (1-5 years old) supports the OP position.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Some don't want to accept the fact that research does not support the OP position. Much has been learned in the last 15 or so years regarding AIDS. Some tend to stick to old beliefs.
Interesting that none of the more recent (1-5 years old) supports the OP position.

So that means the co-factor idea has been disproven scientifically? Or that the medical industry censors and refuses to fund research that might not support their theory?

And there is recent research on AIDS co-factors.

It's hard to be a skeptic, because now they are accused of murdering people. Saying the drugs are toxic and much less effective than claimed might cause people to stop taking them. And then they die, and it's all the fault of the HIV skeptics.

That is not what science is supposed to be. It is tragic that medical science has sunk this low.

 

[Good4Nothin]

And by the way, look at some of the research saying AIDS patients can now live almost normal healthy lives, if they take the drugs. How did they discover that? By comparing AIDS patients who take the drugs to those who don't, and seeing how long each group lives? No, of course not, that would take decades. They do it by ESTIMATING. Huh? What?

When they estimate how long an AIDS patient will live, they can pretty much say whatever they want. There is no evidence, no facts. They can say whatever they want and people like mike2810 will believe it because it was said by a medical EXPERT. Dare not question any expert. Their statements might be nonsensical, but they are giving AIDS patients hope. And the AIDS industry is doing tremendously well selling all those expensive drugs, and you would not want to interfere with that!

 

[mike2810]

And by the way, look at some of the research saying AIDS patients can now live almost normal healthy lives, if they take the drugs. How did they discover that? By comparing AIDS patients who take the drugs to those who don't, and seeing how long each group lives? No, of course not, that would take decades. They do it by ESTIMATING. Huh? What?

When they estimate how long an AIDS patient will live, they can pretty much say whatever they want. There is no evidence, no facts. They can say whatever they want and people like mike2810 will believe it because it was said by a medical EXPERT. Dare not question any expert. Their statements might be nonsensical, but they are giving AIDS patients hope. And the AIDS industry is doing tremendously well selling all those expensive drugs, and you would not want to interfere with that!

It was your premise to prove in your OP. It is not others job to disprove.

Your reverse burden of proof is typical in the CT section. If someone says Bigfoot exists but provides no real evidence of its existence should the premise be accepted? Who is responsible to demonstrate the existence or non existence.

What is interesting is I have asked for your sources. You linked to one "main stream" publication. Then in posts say the main stream medical research is tainted. Reveal your sources if the main stream research publications are not what you are using.

 

[Good4Nothin]

It was your premise to prove in your OP. It is not others job to disprove.

Your reverse burden of proof is typical in the CT section. If someone says Bigfoot exists but provides no real evidence of its existence should the premise be accepted? Who is responsible to demonstrate the existence or non existence.

What is interesting is I have asked for your sources. You linked to one "main stream" publication. Then in posts say the main stream medical research is tainted. Reveal your sources if the main stream research publications are not what you are using.

YOU DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I linked to a mainstream article to show this is not a crazy conspiracy theory. There are MANY non-mainstream articles by HIV skeptics. I did NOT SAY all mainstream research is tainted. I said that many mainstream AIDS researchers are biased or have to go along with the consensus to protect their careers.

I have explained all this. You are not even trying to be even slightly rational.

 

[mike2810]

YOU DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I linked to a mainstream article to show this is not a crazy conspiracy theory. There are MANY non-mainstream articles by HIV skeptics. I did NOT SAY all mainstream research is tainted. I said that many mainstream AIDS researchers are biased or have to go along with the consensus to protect their careers.

I have explained all this. You are not even trying to be even slightly rational.

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.

 

[calamity]

Yes they jumped to that conclusion almost immediately. Skepticism was discouraged, and eventually not allowed. I posted articles, which of course you did not read, by scientists who do not believe that HIV is the only or main cause of AIDS.

You can repeat the mainstream consensus all you want, without ever investigating. That would be much easier than thinking.

That HIV leads to AIDs is a medical fact. :roll:

HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by conclusive evidence