STD's

FYI, the term denialism has no place in science ...it is the nature and responsibility of scientists to question and challenge theories ...yet when this normal process occurs in the realm of HIV/AIDS hypothesis, they are immediately marginalized as heretics ...stereotyped as deniers ...as if the great Holocausts of indigenous Americans, Russia or China had some parallel relationship to an illness. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Once again, not true. Of course scientists are charged with questioning and challenging theories. But when the mountain of scientific research provides definitive results, anyone who chooses to disbelieve them can be called a denier. Thus we have climate change deniers, who don't believe that humans are causing global climate change. Or we have vaccine deniers, who say that common childhood vaccines actually cause diseases or disorders such as autism. Or evolution deniers, who don't believe in natural selection.

These people even take pride in the term deniers, saying things like "Galileo was a skeptic". That's bullshit. Science is about evidence. And the amount of evidence provided by the HAD movement is laughably small, circumstantial, and or just plain fabricated.

Let's bring in Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis ...the developer of the PCR test ...and hear what he has to say ...maybe he knows a shade more about the HIV/AIDS paradigm than you or myself. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Maybe he does, but not necessarily. He invented one PROCESS that the HIV tests use to replicate viral DNA for testing. That's like saying the inventor of the photocopier is qualified to be a literary critic. Kary Mullis has never, as far as I can tell, published a research paper on HIV or AIDS.

In his autobiography he does say that HIV and AIDS are unrelated. He also believes in astrology and describes his numerous encounters with aliens and flying saucers.

Forgive me if I don't take his word for it.

Incidentally, here's an excellent video on curing cancer:
http://www.youtube.com/v/vW6K_GNvJOg...y=1&fs=1&rel=0


.

He invented the PROCESS that the HIV test uses. He has never,as far as I can see, published a research paper on HIV or AIDS.

In his autobiography he does say that HIV and AIDS are unrelated. he also believes in astrology and describes his numerous encounters with aliens and flying saucers.

Forgive me if I don't take his word for it. Originally Posted by KCQuestor

So, if something doesn't fit your personal view of the HIV hypothesis, it's discarded out of hand. Do you accept the word of the manufacturers who make the HIV tests?

1) “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood” (Elisa test, billed as a specific antibody test)

2) “Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV infection” (Western Blot test, presumed to be a “confirmatory test”).

3) “This test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection” (PCR or “viral load” test, a test which the patient’s life depends on as it is used to decide when to start taking highly toxic and often deadly antiretroviral drugs and to “screen” the immune response to the virus and therapy).


.

As I said above. Those are legal disclaimers put there by lawyers specializing in risk management. They are trying to avoid being sued

If they were trying to scam us into believing HIV and AIDS are connected to further their own bottom line, why would they put the warnings there at all? Just let us "sheeple" go on believing what were are told, right?

By the way, it does you no favors when you copy and paste the text and commentary of the disclaimers ("...a test which the patient’s life depends on...") from a denialist web site. Celia Farber of truthbarrier.com is not a respected AIDS researcher any more than the rest of the people you have cited are.

Incidentally, here's an excellent video on curing cancer:
http://www.youtube.com/v/vW6K_GNvJOg...y=1&fs=1&rel=0 Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

That video is a Croatian film called "What if Cannabis Cured Cancer?" (If you want to see the YouTube page and not just the full screen video, look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW6K_GNvJOg). It comes from a Croatian conspiracy Web site that talks about Obama's new world order, global enslavement, UFOs, secret societies, and our old friend, mercury-tainted vaccines. Google Translate is a wonderful thing.

Forgive me if I am skeptical about that as well.

Once again, I feel like you only believe what you want to believe.

What you have been arguing about, topples the world of medicine upside down. According to you doctors are being brainwashed with bullshit. Your argument makes it sound like microorganisms don't exist and all the microbes we know of is because God sent a book from heaven to let us know the microbes he put in the world to screw with us. No dude, every organism in existence has been identified by humans, named by humans and being treated by humans. Millions of people suffering around the world from a disease which we refer to as AIDS, aren't even taking treatment since they cant even afford the antiretrovirals. So tell me again, what do you think they are suffering from ?

Buddy. GO back a 100 years and all the modern medicine you see never even existed. Point being medicine is a hit and trial. You get a disease epidemic, you need to find out what it is and try to find a cure. Basically that's how every disease existing at the moment has gone through or is going through. The pharmaceutical companies are using trials to find out alternates and cures for diseases.

Likewise, HIV is also going through this procedure and in a couple of years there will be a perfect diagnosis and there will be a perfect treatment. Till that point we need to rely on whatever treatment we can use to save the lives of many people as we can. Likewise we need to find out who is suffering from it or not. Now there might not be a definite test available but a combination of tests can be used to confirm the HIV virus. (screening test and then a confirmatory test)

Here is an example you can relate to, there are many bacteria which aren't diagnosed by gram stain, which is supposed to be the perfect test to identify a gram negative or positive bacteria. In such situations help of other tests is needed to confirm the diagnosis of bacteria. There isn't a single definite test. You can continue to have your beliefs and I will have mine.

As I said above. Those are legal disclaimers put there by lawyers specializing in risk management. They are trying to avoid being sued. Originally Posted by KCQuestor

Well, we can certainly understand that ...yes indeed, with all the countless, needless deaths and damage to millions of families, doctors do need a weasel clause to deny any responsibility for their actions. Kill with impunity; it's the allopathic way.

For all the doctors and scientists here providing advice, here's a file that explains the process of how the CDC disclaims itself ...from itself.

And I know, I know ...you disallow the voice of anyone who disagrees with HIV dogma ...though let's pretend there are NOT nearly 3,000 other dissenting BioTechs and professionals opposed to your unproven HIV theory.

We can settle this whole debate right here and now ...no fuss ...no muss. Simply point us to the definitive paper ...the original document that proves without a doubt that HIV causes AIDS.

Thanks,

Bill

Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
The following was written by Kary Mullis for the introduction to the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter H. Duesberg (Regnery Publishing, INC; Washington DC, 1996):

In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, DL Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, DL Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.

This time, DL Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time.

.

SSI Endorses 1984 SCIENCE Report Retraction


Washington DC, Dec 9 – Nearly 25 years after the publication of four foundational articles on HIV and AIDS, prominent scientists, physicians and legal experts are now asking for their removal from the journal Science.

Their request is based upon new evidence that Dr. Robert Gallo – the former National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher who declared he had found the probable cause of AIDS – had actually based his claims on his own unverified last-minute alterations to lab reports and experiments.

The letter’s 37 signatories include medical doctors, chemists, oncologists, university professors, virologists, researchers, pathologists, AND biologists.

After fellow researcher Matthew Gonda PhD informed Gallo that his electron microscopy showed no evidence of a virus in 1984, Gallo used Gonda’s name and photographs to corroborate his claim that he had isolated the virus. Because the majority of all subsequent AIDS research is predicated on the assumption that Gallo’s research was legitimate, the ramification of these findings of fraud raises serious questions regarding past and current US policy toward AIDS research.

It now appears that Gallo never produced any evidence or proof that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS. As a result of his unchallenged claims, Gallo was officially declared one of two co-discoverers of the HIV in 1984.

Gallo left NCI after the Dept’s of Health’s Office of Research Integrity (ORI) accused him of committing scientific misconduct (1992). Although the evidence against him was considerable a legal technicality prevented criminal charges from being filed.

Gallo shares a patent for HIV tests that generates millions of dollars in annual revenue, although the tests do not detect the presence of the virus itself or any unique or specific components of HIV. No HIV test manufacturer has ever claimed that their tests detect HIV or AIDS.

The new findings were first admitted into evidence during a Congressional investigation (Dingell-1993) that focused on questions related to Gallo’s alleged theft of cell culture samples. Those hearings never examined the actual fabrication of research.

The ORI reported that Gallo’s “irresponsible laboratory management has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.” Not only did Gallo’s conduct prevent fellow scientists from verifying his research, but Gallo distributed research materials with the express stipulation that his experiments not be repeated.

Semmelweis Society International (SSI) has determined that the new evidence does not conflict with the findings of its own investigation, which was initiated after a former medical student raised questions about AIDS in Africa.


.

OMG, you did not just cite Duesberg. I was actually hoping that you might not be that far gone.

Jackie, you were right. There's no reasoning with this one. My apologies for doubting you.

Nope, did not quote Peter Duesburg.

...still waiting though for that scientific reference that proves HIV causes AIDS.

...it must be somewhere ...surely someone so knowledgable and well-informed should be able to produce the document quite easily ...shouldn't you?

I'll give you a hint ...you will never find it because it doesn't exist.

Read the first 2-3 pages of this request by scientists, physicians and legal experts to remove Robert Gallo's articles from Science based on his omissions, alterations and deletions intended to conceal the truth that his lab NEVER found any clue as to what causes AIDS.

.

Mr.Bill if you are so confident that AIDS isnt caused by HIV then I believe you will have no issues having sex with a woman who has AIDS ? OH wait, with the currently ideology of yours, i am pretty sure you must be having AIDS. Ironically you will never know if you do have AIds or not since you don't believe that diagnostic tests exist even.

Mr.Bill if you are so confident that AIDS isnt caused by HIV then I believe you will have no issues having sex with a woman who has AIDS ? OH wait, with the currently ideology of yours, i am pretty sure you must be having AIDS. Ironically you will never know if you do have AIds or not since you don't believe that diagnostic tests exist even. Originally Posted by oj111

With all due respect, OJ, if you are so confident, then where is the scientific reference that proves HIV causes AIDS? I mean, how do you know ...because everyone else says it does?

Don't deter from the central issue here.

If the orthodox view of HIV=AIDS is so resolute, then where is the definitive proof for this belief? So far, all we have is a press conference and altered documents.

I want to see the original scientific paper ...where is it?

.

Jackie, you were right. There's no reasoning with this one. My apologies for doubting you. Originally Posted by KCQuestor

Yeah, valiant effort, but you can't fix stupid.

This would be a good time to post some ad hominem attacks ...or beg a Mod to close down the thread ...like what happened to my main HIV thread ...when it got just a little too close to the uncomfortable truth ...that HIV=AIDS is a fraud.

...still waiting ...valiant crusaders ...for that elusive scientific paper.

Bill


.

I doubt a mod will close down the thread, but I'd lay odds from this point on that you'll be the only person interested in anything you might have to say on this subject, Mr. Bill.

Too bad Mr. Hands and Mr. Sluggo are not to be found when they are so desperately needed.