HIV = AIDS, Fact or Fraud?
Too many people are making too much money out of it, and money is much stronger than truth. One of the most powerful video documentaries of our time boldly reveals the modern medical-industrial complex’s dire descent into utter corruption.
This feature-length expose explains exactly how the 300-Billion-dollar AID$ fraud began, why HIV can NOT be the cause of AIDS, what the real causes could be, and who manipulates the public's good intentions while poisoning hundreds of thousands with toxic drugs that cause the very disease they are supposed to prevent.
This is a systematic dissection of the HIV/AID$ machine and how they hijacked a program designed to fight a worldwide plight of human suffering and drove it down the road to hell. Yet this program offers hope, inspired by the courage and articulate arguments of a group of growing voices internationally challenging the HIV=AIDS=DEATH hysteria. A MUST SEE for anyone interested in truly understanding the facts about HIV/AID$.
You will meet a number of highly reputable scientists who all agree that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, including Dr. Peter Duesberg, who was the first scientist to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. He is joined by Nobel Prize winners Dr. Kary Mullis and Dr.Walter Gilbert, along with Dr. David Rasnick, an expert in the field of protease inhibitors.
Is HIV/AIDS the golden idol of junk science? Judge for yourself. Professionally produced, written and researched, acclaimed by physicians, scientists, journalists and humanitarians internationally, this is the video encyclopedia of HIV/AIDS dissident movement! THE defining documentary on the HIV/AIDS fraud.
I remember in 1983 when they said Mozambique 78% of the population were HIV positive.Really? Where are the millions of corpses? This was a lie.All those NGO'S operating in Africa at the time were making millions of out it and injecting patients with the one dollar Elisa test, of course if you had Malaria or TB you came up positive on the test, but they didn't care as they were making up the numbers and earning money and over exaggerating the stats.This is true.I checked it out with the head of labs from New Zealand some years ago.
Happy healthy person here living “apparently” with “HIV” … I stopped taking medication 3 years ago. I was previously on Stribuild, then Genvoya … now I am not taking anything and I am healthy and happy. My health has not declined one bit. I am of the opinion that the medication is harmful. It has terrible side effects (headache, nausea, diarrhea, nightmares, insomnia) all those I experienced and is not normal. NOW I DONT EXPIRIENCE ANY OF THOSE. This is my personal story. I would encourage people to share their story and please feel free to comment on mine. Thank you
Yes, there is no evidence that HIV leads to AIDS, the numerous deaths were all from AZT. It's just another Fraudhi scheme like Covid was. He is now doing the murdering with the Kidney Killer Remdisivir, another highly toxic drug. This goes into great detail on all the problems with HIV...
Well according to this documentary, you're only going to get aids if you're either shooting up or bumming people. I like that theory because i'm in the clear!
Truly, Moses together with Jesus will soon comeback to rewrite the 10 commandments:
Rule #1: Thou shall not commit conspiracy.
Rule#2: Thou shall not commit corruption.
Rule#3: Thou shall not commit false information.
..... and Rule# 1000: Those with HIV/AIDS infection shall be condemned to hell forever. BECAUSE GOD LOVES YOU ALL.
I am very curious as to why this film (I reject the idea that this is a documentary) is not in the
”conspiracy” group? That seems wholly irresponsible.
The idea that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, despite some of these commenters, is not only untrue, disproven, and downright dangerous. I am wondering if possibly the website owners themselves just don't have a clue that this film is pure confabulation.
Not only are the actual scientists in the film apparently outraged over the heavy and selective editing of their words, there is outstanding, solid gold proof that AIDS is caused by HIV. To imply otherwise is playing with fire, not to mention how it's transmitted, treated, etc.
Spreading disinformation like this can seriously endanger people who may not realize what they're truly watching. Science is not easy, and by throwing buzzwords into an idea like this could do serious harm to someone.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I would like to emphasize that there has already been a
”true believer” of this type of disinformation - so much so that, since he was a head of state, denied his people life-saving medicine, and had since been convicted in the ICC and us in prison.
This is no joke. This is a film about a conspiracy theory, that is not even in question, especially what we know now in the 21st century. No one should be misled into thinking that it's anything otherwise.
If for no other reason than social responsibility, this should be filed in your
Then why you are hiding under the name Mach4? Hahaha
HAving hard time?
Have you ever tested the actual "HIV" culture from Gallo's immortal T-cell samples? I know people who have. This virus. can NOT be isolated in PURE culture and reproduce. I will provide you the references:
HIV , like SARS CoV-2,the current Fauci scam, is a dangerous germ-scare, that denies the patient proper diagnosis and then presecribes toxic treatments (like remdesivir and jabs).
You need to honestly research these things, instead of falling for Fauci's lies.
Show us the evidence? You so full of it, there isn't a shred of evidence that this virus, that has not even been isolated, uses a corrupt unapproved PCR viral load test that can't even detect viral particles, just genetic material. You are an obvious big pharma shill, simply prove that HIV, a harmless retro virus is what causes this? They can't even show how it can or would destroy t cells. But Fear and these drugs can do all of this.
Big pharma bot people, pay no attention. He may need to study how the Rockefellers totally corrupted medicine in the USA. He fails to realize there was a $100,000 USD reward for anyone who could prove that HIV leads to AIDS. The funds were never collected because sufficient proof didn't exist. The big killer was AZT, and the Big Breakthrough was massive profits for Big Pharma and using far less toxic drugs so people didn't die right away.
Here are many of the problems with the HIV/AIDS premise and why it fails and is full of holes and contradictions.
by Rebecca V. Culshaw
As I write this, in the late winter of 2006, we are more than twenty years into the AIDS era. Like many, a large part of my life has been irreversibly affected by AIDS. My entire adolescence and adult life – as well as the lives of many of my peers – has been overshadowed by the belief in a deadly, sexually transmittable pathogen and the attendant fear of intimacy and lack of trust that belief engenders.
To add to this impact, my chosen career has developed around the HIV model of AIDS. I received my Ph.D. in 2002 for my work constructing mathematical models of HIV infection, a field of study I entered in 1996. Just ten years later, it might seem early for me to be looking back on and seriously reconsidering my chosen field, yet here I am.
My work as a mathematical biologist has been built in large part on the paradigm that HIV causes AIDS, and I have since come to realize that there is good evidence that the entire basis for this theory is wrong. AIDS, it seems, is not a disease so much as a sociopolitical construct that few people understand and even fewer question. The issue of causation, in particular, has become beyond question – even to bring it up is deemed irresponsible.
Why have we as a society been so quick to accept a theory for which so little solid evidence exists? Why do we take proclamations by government institutions like the NIH and the CDC, via newscasters and talk show hosts, entirely on faith? The average citizen has no idea how weak the connection really is between HIV and AIDS, and this is the manner in which scientifically insupportable phrases like "the AIDS virus" or "an AIDS test" have become part of the common vernacular despite no evidence for their accuracy.
When it was announced in 1984 that the cause of AIDS had been found in a retrovirus that came to be known as HIV, there was a palpable panic. My own family was immediately affected by this panic, since my mother had had several blood transfusions in the early 1980s as a result of three late miscarriages she had experienced. In the early days, we feared mosquito bites, kissing, and public toilet seats. I can still recall the panic I felt after looking up in a public restroom and seeing some graffiti that read "Do you have AIDS yet? If not, sit on this toilet seat."
But I was only ten years old then, and over time the panic subsided to more of a dull roar as it became clear that AIDS was not as easy to "catch" as we had initially believed. Fear of going to the bathroom or the dentist was replaced with a more realistic wariness of having sex with anyone we didn't know really, really well. As a teenager who was in no way promiscuous, I didn't have much to worry about.
That all changed – or so I thought – when I was twenty-one. Due to circumstances in my personal life and a bit of paranoia that (as it turned out, falsely and completely groundlessly) led me to believe I had somehow contracted "AIDS," I got an HIV test. I spent two weeks waiting for the results, convinced that I would soon die, and that it would be "all my fault." This was despite the fact that I was perfectly healthy, didn’t use drugs, and wasn’t promiscuous – low-risk by any definition. As it happened, the test was negative, and, having felt I had been granted a reprieve, I vowed not to take more risks, and to quit worrying so much.
Over the past ten years, my attitude toward HIV and AIDS has undergone a dramatic shift. This shift was catalyzed by the work I did as a graduate student, analyzing mathematical models of HIV and the immune system. As a mathematician, I found virtually every model I studied to be unrealistic. The biological assumptions on which the models were based varied from author to author, and this made no sense to me. It was around this time, too, that I became increasingly perplexed by the stories I heard about long-term survivors. From my admittedly inexpert viewpoint, the major thing they all had in common – other than HIV – was that they lived extremely healthy lifestyles. Part of me was becoming suspicious that being HIV-positive didn’t necessarily mean you would ever get AIDS.
By a rather curious twist of fate, it was on my way to a conference to present the results of a model of HIV that I had proposed together with my advisor, that I came across an article by Dr. David Rasnick about AIDS and the corruption of modern science. As I sat on the airplane reading this story, in which he said "the more I examined HIV, the less it made sense that this largely inactive, barely detectable virus could cause such devastation," everything he wrote started making sense to me in a way that the currently accepted model did not. I didn’t have anywhere near all the information, but my instincts told me that what he said seemed to fit.
Over the past ten years, I nevertheless continued my research into mathematical models of HIV infection, all the while keeping an ear open for dissenting voices. By now, I have read hundreds of articles on HIV and AIDS, many from the dissident point of view but far, far more from that of the establishment, which unequivocally promotes the idea that HIV causes AIDS and that the case is closed. In that time, I even published four papers on HIV (from a modeling perspective). I justified my contributions to a theory I wasn’t convinced of by telling myself these were purely theoretical, mathematical constructs, never to be applied in the real world. I suppose, in some sense also, I wanted to keep an open mind.
So why is it that only now have I decided that enough is enough, and I can no longer in any capacity continue to support the paradigm on which my entire career has been built?
As a mathematician, I was taught early on about the importance of clear definitions. AIDS, if you consider its definition, is far from clear, and is in fact not even a consistent entity. The classification "AIDS" was introduced in the early 1980s not as a disease but as a surveillance tool to help doctors and public health officials understand and control a strange "new" syndrome affecting mostly young gay men. In the two decades intervening, it has evolved into something quite different. AIDS today bears little or no resemblance to the syndrome for which it was named. For one thing, the definition has actually been changed by the CDC several times, continually expanding to include ever more diseases (all of which existed for decades prior to AIDS), and sometimes, no disease whatsoever. More than half of all AIDS diagnoses in the past several years in the United States have been made on the basis of a T-cell count and a "confirmed" positive antibody test – in other words, a deadly disease has been diagnosed over and over again on the basis of no clinical disease at all. And the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years.
The epidemiology of HIV and AIDS is puzzling and unclear as well. In spite of the fact that AIDS cases increased rapidly from their initial observation in the early 1980s and reached a peak in 1993 before declining rapidly, the number of HIV-positive individuals in the U.S. has remained constant at one million since the advent of widespread HIV antibody testing. This cannot be due to anti-HIV therapy, since the annual mortality rate of North American HIV-positives who are treated with anti-HIV drugs is much higher – between 6.7 and 8.8% – than would be the approximately 1–2% global mortality rate of HIV-positives if all AIDS cases were fatal in a given year.
Even more strangely, HIV has been present everywhere in the U.S., in every population tested including repeat blood donors and military recruits, at a virtually constant rate since testing began in 1985. It is deeply confusing that a virus thought to have been brought to the AIDS epicenters of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles in the early 1970s could possibly have spread so rapidly at first, yet have stopped spreading completely as soon as testing began.
Returning for a moment to the mathematical modeling, one aspect that had always puzzled me was the lack of agreement on how to accurately represent the actual biological mechanism of immune impairment. AIDS is said to be caused by a dramatic loss of the immune system’s T-cells, said loss being presumably caused by HIV. Why then could no one agree on how to mathematically model the dynamics of the fundamental disease process – that is, how are T-cells actually killed by HIV? Early models assumed that HIV killed T-cells directly, by what is referred to as lysis. An infected cell lyses, or bursts, when the internal viral burden is so high that it can no longer be contained, just like your grocery bag breaks when it’s too full. This is in fact the accepted mechanism of pathogenesis for virtually all other viruses. But it became clear that HIV did not in fact kill T-cells in this manner, and this concept was abandoned, to be replaced by various other ones, each of which resulted in very different models and, therefore, different predictions. Which model was "correct" never was clear.
As it turns out, the reason there was no consensus mathematically as to how HIV killed T-cells was because there was no biological consensus. There still isn’t. HIV is possibly the most studied microbe in history – certainly it is the best-funded – yet there is still no agreed-upon mechanism of pathogenesis. Worse than that, there are no data to support the hypothesis that HIV kills T-cells at all. It doesn’t in the test tube. It mostly just sits there, as it does in people – if it can be found at all. In Robert Gallo's seminal 1984 paper in which he claims "proof" that HIV causes AIDS, actual HIV could be found in only 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. To date, actual HIV remains an elusive target in those with AIDS or simply HIV-positive.
This is starkly illustrated by the continued use of antibody tests to diagnose HIV infection. Antibody tests are fairly standard to test for certain microbes, but for anything other than HIV, the main reason they are used in place of direct tests (that is, actually looking for the bacteria or virus itself) is because they are generally much easier and cheaper than direct testing. Most importantly, such antibody tests have been rigorously verified against the gold standard of microbial isolation. This stands in vivid contrast to HIV, for which antibody tests are used because there exists no test for the actual virus. As to so-called "viral load," most people are not aware that tests for viral load are neither licensed nor recommended by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection. This is why an "AIDS test" is still an antibody test. Viral load, however, is used to estimate the health status of those already diagnosed HIV-positive. But there are very good reasons to believe it does not work at all. Viral load uses either PCR or a technique called branched-chained DNA amplification (bDNA). PCR is the same technique used for "DNA fingerprinting" at crime scenes where only trace amounts of materials can be found. PCR essentially mass-produces DNA or RNA so that it can be seen. If something has to be mass-produced to even be seen, and the result of that mass-production is used to estimate how much of a pathogen there is, it might lead a person to wonder how relevant the pathogen was in the first place. Specifically, how could something so hard to find, even using the most sensitive and sophisticated technology, completely decimate the immune system? bDNA, while not magnifying anything directly, nevertheless looks only for fragments of DNA believed, but not proven, to be components of the genome of HIV – but there is no evidence to say that these fragments don’t exist in other genetic sequences unrelated to HIV or to any virus. It is worth noting at this point that viral load, like antibody tests, has never been verified against the gold standard of HIV isolation. bDNA uses PCR as a gold standard, PCR uses antibody tests as a gold standard, and antibody tests use each other. None use HIV itself.
There is good reason to believe the antibody tests are flawed as well. The two types of tests routinely used are the ELISA and the Western Blot (WB). The current testing protocol is to "verify" a positive ELISA with the "more specific" WB (which has actually been banned from diagnostic use in the UK because it is so unreliable). But few people know that the criteria for a positive WB vary from country to country and even from lab to lab. Put bluntly, a person’s HIV status could well change depending on the testing venue. It is also possible to test "WB indeterminate," which translates to any one of "uninfected," "possibly infected," or even, absurdly, "partly infected" under the current interpretation. This conundrum is confounded by the fact that the proteins comprising the different reactive "bands" on the WB test are all claimed to be specific to HIV, raising the question of how a truly uninfected individual could possess antibodies to even one "HIV-specific" protein.
I have come to sincerely believe that these HIV tests do immeasurably more harm than good, due to their astounding lack of specificity and standardization. I can buy the idea that anonymous screening of the blood supply for some nonspecific marker of ill health (which, due to cross reactivity with many known pathogens, a positive HIV antibody test often seems to be) is useful. I cannot buy the idea that any individual needs to have a diagnostic HIV test. A negative test may not be accurate (whatever that means), but a positive one can create utter havoc and destruction in a person’s life – all for a virus that most likely does absolutely nothing. I do not feel it is going too far to say that these tests ought to be banned for diagnostic purposes.
The real victims in this mess are those whose lives are turned upside-down by the stigma of an HIV diagnosis. These people, most of whom are perfectly healthy, are encouraged to avoid intimacy and are further branded with the implication that they were somehow dreadfully foolish and careless. Worse, they are encouraged to take massive daily doses of some of the most toxic drugs ever manufactured. HIV, for many years, has fulfilled the role of a microscopic terrorist. People have lost their jobs, been denied entry into the Armed Forces, been refused residency in and even entry into some countries, even been charged with assault or murder for having consensual sex; babies have been taken from their mothers and had toxic medications forced down their throats. There is no precedent for this type of behavior, as it is all in the name of a completely unproven, fundamentally flawed hypothesis, on the basis of highly suspect, indirect tests for supposed infection with an allegedly deadly virus – a virus that has never been observed to do much of anything.
As to the question of what does cause AIDS, if it is not HIV, there are many plausible explanations given by people known to be experts. Before the discovery of HIV, AIDS was assumed to be a lifestyle syndrome caused mostly by indiscriminate use of recreational drugs. Immunosuppression has multiple causes, from an overload of microbes to malnutrition. Probably all of these are true causes of AIDS. Immune deficiency has many manifestations, and a syndrome with many manifestations is likely multicausal as well. Suffice it to say that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS has offered nothing but predictions – of its spread, of the availability of a vaccine, of a forthcoming animal model, and so on – that have not materialized, and it has not saved a single life.
After ten years involved in the academic side of HIV research, as well as in the academic world at large, I truly believe that the blame for the universal, unconditional, faith-based acceptance of such a flawed theory falls squarely on the shoulders of those among us who have actively endorsed a completely unproven hypothesis in the interests of furthering our careers. Of course, hypotheses in science deserve to be studied, but no hypothesis should be accepted as fact before it is proven, particularly one whose blind acceptance has such dire consequences.
For over twenty years, the general public has been greatly misled and ill-informed. As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because "everyone else accepts it to be true," I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness. And the craziness has gone on long enough. As humans – as honest academics and scientists – the only thing we can do is allow the truth to come to light.
March 3, 2006
Rebecca V. Culshaw, Ph.D. [send her mail], is a mathematical biologist who has been working on mathematical models of HIV infection for the past ten years. She received her Ph.D. (mathematics with a specialization in mathematical biology) from Dalhousie University in Canada in 2002 and is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at a university in Texas.
Once you realize your house is built out of straw you will understand why there is no basis for your claims.
I worked as a RN in the designated AIDS ward in the 80s. It never made sense to give AZT, a chemo drug, to AIDS patients as I witness, first hand, the damage that was happening to these innocent people right before my eyes. None of their theories made sense at all, from eating bushmeat, sex with monkeys, and patient zero...all of didn't connect to a damn thing. Get your head out of Fauci's ******* and wake up.
The term HIV - Human Immunodeficiency Virus should be stricken from the earth and all books and articles supporting this massive genocidal conspiracy theory that HIV causes AIDS should be burned. Anything that Fauci, Gallo, Dr. Birx, Tedros, et al., aka the Medical Mengeles, should be held accountable for crimes against humanity and medical tyranny.
And here we have Fauci at the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic... ready and willing put push vaccines on us all, that he and Gates developed, that he and Gates will profit from. Will we collectively stand for it? Research all you can about Fauci and this coronavirus. After the USA deemed a moratorium on Chimeric research Fauci funnel 3.7 million dollars to Wuhan lab. This is a chimeric virus. He's corrupt to the core. Wake up folks.
yep, same story but people don't learn from the past. Sometimes I really ask myself whether this is to "get rid of" the totally dumb people although this might sound inhumane. It's sad to see that the same scheme continues for over a hundred years and despite having internet now, people are still continuing to sleep and ingest this kind of crap.
Yes. You are very correct. Remdesivir, is like AZT, and is a Nucleotide Analogue. What happened with "HIV" and AIDS is now 1,000 times worse with this Fauci fraud.
The whole medical industry was designated to make profit, nothing more nothing less. They couldn't care less about "curing" people. Learn the history of how the medical industry was manipulated by the Rockefellers.
rubbish documentary with a rubbish bnarrator.nothing more than spin propoganda
Really? I bet you can NOT even dispute one of the 10 reasons WHY HIV is a FRAUD?
Give it a shot... BTW, now look at what Fauci is doing!
Ok I read your words.
You use double talk!
You quote say "why HIV can NOT be the cause of AIDS, what the real causes could be, and who manipulates the public's good intentions while poisoning hundreds of thousands with toxic drugs that cause the very disease they are supposed to prevent."
So you are saying it exist!?
Basically your saying doctors are the cause.
So what are you saying.?
It don't exist then magically it does exist....ughhhh....really.
It is not double speak. They never say HIV is not a real virus, but that it is a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS. AIDS is also a real condition. However evidence does not support HIV being the cause. The drug meant to prevent the development of AIDS actually CAUSES immune suppression. (Acquired Immune Deficiency Virus). The lies continue because of profit. You clearly didn’t watch the documentary you brainwashed.
Doctors are the actual devil. Trust on Jesus have a good life, stay away from Sin. Pray daily. Even though if your blood report says HIV Positive. Never mind. Jesus is with us as a living God. Those who trust Jesus will not have medicine. Having natural food is itself a good medicine and Jesus is our Healer.
Its a matter of Blind faith on Christ.
Very true in deed... it only Jesus Our saviour
Michael D., physician:
Anyone on this thread should check the entries of Susan G. versus Mike A in about 2014-2015. Explains the whole issue! Viruses constitute an estimated 10 to the 31st power of life forms on earth. That’s greater than all known stars in our universe. The amount of genes and therefore protein coded for is probably nearing infinity...my emphasis. If those suckers, like the comensal Retroviruses HIV wanted to harm us, we’d have never evolved!!!
Brilliant. I'll sleep soundly tonight, never having to fear HIV, but continuing to have faith in natural "medicine" (I know that's now a bad word), and look after my self the ways I know to be right (good diet, lifestyle). Damn the medical profession for perpetuating another hoax on all of us.
Too many brainwashed sheep by greedy Corporation... MORE than half of the "diseases" that "exist" doesnt even exist they just want you sheep to buy "medicine" because you are brainwashed sheep that cant think for yourself... And especially these "deadliest" "diseases"...
A trend I have noted over the past few years of hiv/aids management is the gradual lowering of the requirements for diagnosing aids. Foe instance, the initial cd4 level for initiating haart was 200cells/mm3. This was later raised to 350/mm3 and now it is 500/mm3. This has recruited many more normal healthy people with no other issues other than testing positive for "HIV antibodies" and having a ?reduced cd4 counts into the AIDS category. Little wonder then that the statistics show reduced death rates!! It's mainly because many healthy people are now mislabeled.
1. what other virus's are you talking about?
2. the HIV virus attaches itself to the hosts DNA, hence within the very immune specific cells that would normally fight infection. There is no known case of an individual ever curing themselves of HIV through normal immune response. Only 1 person cured ever so far after 2 bone marrow transplants.
3. why are only HIV positive people dying of AIDS? They've had a blood test since mid 80s they've even identified each of the multiple strains. Another thing to ask yourself is if you don't believe the health community understands it then why has their treatment for it been so effective? It's a highlight of recent science that current therapy can mean a near normal life expectancy if only everyone had access to healthcare we take for granted
You a one of the benefiting people through hoax of hiv/Aids...but it will come to pass
You think they're testing every African who dies of AIDS for HIV? They don't even DIAGNOSE them with AIDS with an HIV test, but rather off of symptoms.
So, we are back to the medieval era, and HIV is a plague exclusive designed to kill gay men. Because if it's a virus, it MUST infect everyone. If this virus only affects gays, anyone with a micro brain can rethink about hiv. ''There are a lot o women with hiv''. OK , NAME ONE! FAMOUS, ARTIST , SINGER, ACTRESS. THERE IS NONE. AND FREDDIE MERCURY IS NOT A WOMAN
You don't think there are any women lining with HIV/AIDS? You can't possibly believe that. Is it because you just can't think of a female celebrity who is positive, or that you don't feel like checking your claims by looking it up to see if you're correct?
And therefore, since you don't know of any females with HIV/AIDS, then it's a disease
”designed” to kill gay men? (maybe you forgot that women can also be gay?) Or, possibly
”designed” to kill all gay men AND women, because you can't think of anyone's name who is straight and positive?
So since you don't know of any women with this disease, it's only a disease of gay men. Yes, that definitely sounds like a well-thought out conclusion.
Charles B: If you refuse to believe "denialism" is a real force in the world today then you would take another look at Michelle and Barack Obama because they live in denialism
I've actually been researching this for my personal interest for some time and now stumbled on this documentary, which I have yet to see. The question I have for anyone still on this comment thread is: has anyone come across statistics, from any country or any group, that shows the incidence of the HIV virus in confirmed AIDS patients? I've searched high and low and cannot seem to find such a study.
What bothers me about the HIV=AIDS theory (and it is a theory, as is all science - very few concepts have been conclusively proven) is that HIV is a virus in a family of 3 viruses. The other two are entirely benign in the human body but this one is not. From a biological standpoint, this makes little sense as the activity of the viruses is similar (though, granted, nor perfectly the same) or they wouldn't all belong to the same family. So the question remains in my mind, what makes this one different from the other 2? The current literature out there on what we deem the HIV virus does not answer this question.
Based on what I've read, I'm going to put forth my theory, that will undoubtedly offend some people and make others nod in contemplative agreement... it is entirely possible that HIV and AIDS correlate but are not cause and effect. Patients with AIDS have a complex batch of symptoms that is hard to pinpoint due to the fact that a lowered immune system allows a great deal of opportunistic infections to occur. My theory is stated as such: people with AIDS definitely have an autoimmune disease. This disease is likely caused by environmental or nutritional habits (i.e. poor eating habits, binge drinking, drug use, high levels of a certain pollutant, etc.). HIV is merely one of the opportunistic viruses that take advantage of the lowered immune system so we have related this to be the cause of AIDS, but the HIV viral load in AIDS patients is actually the effect of a different cause. A person with a healthy immune system would never have an issue controlling the HIV virus. However, due to the fact that at times in our lives we all come under moments of extreme stress, and we know that with the rise of processed foods today, nutrition is at an all time low in the developed world, this triggers the cause for AIDS and in those patients that already had HIV, it appears as if HIV is the cause. When immunity is restored, HIV is controlled naturally, but if the conditions that caused lowered immunity in the first place remain, then HIV multiplies and since we're already looking for it, it seems like it's also the cause because it correlates strongly with the AIDS condition.
Does this make sense? Thoughts?
I strongly agree with this..
If that were the case, then you would expect the HIV virus to be proliferative and “problematic” in tissue culture, but it isn’t. It doesn’t do anything, so where to we have an isolated virus, cultured and capable of infection? There hasn’t even been a complete virus identified and isolated from an AIDS patient. And there are plenty of “AIDS” patients that are HIV negative... Idiopathic CD4+ lymphocytopenia.
Something makes me seriously doubt you are a biochemist.
Susan, it would be better to educate yourself before engaging in scientific conversations as it's very obvious you are irrelevant with the subject . If Peter Duesberg and Karry Mullis are quacks and charlatans then what about you?? All information you provide is copy paste and you go ahead to use the world health statistics without checking how reliable the data is. Most are fabricated. You want evidence that HIV is older than 35 years. First of all provide the evidence that HIV is killing cells and then we discuss the your enquiry.
She is totally brainwashed by
big pharma and their predatory profit machine.
Again for Susan,
You claim that some retroviruses cause leukaemia. Can you name them please and give us a reference. If retroviruses causing cancers we would have known this by now. In the 60's and the 70's it was precisely this program the virus cancer program that didn't prove anything like that. It was a relative of HIV that was suspected guess by who!! If retroviruses were causing cancers then they would be unable to kill cells as HIV allegedly does. Susan you have mixed up a couple of things in your mind and its obvious your knowledge in biology is very limited. You reproducing information without understanding much and without thinking.
Susan, you don't have to receive AZT to die if you are severely immunosuppressed. However if you do you will die faster. As the matter of fact AZT will kill you regardless of your HIV status and your general health if used for a considerable period of time. In any other case it will cause great harm as all chemotherapies do.
I have been taking HIV medicine for 7 years now and on 2nd line.. I am.very tired of taking this since I have many health issues even since I have started this medicines.
Will it be wise to stop this medicine and my health will become better ?
Do you have any idea my friend?
If yes could you pls suggest me ?
The amount of comments in this post reflect the lack of knowledge and understanding of what science is and what scientific process means. I am amazed to see arguments based on belief and faith. Don't you believe that HIV causes AIDS?! As its a matter of belief or faith .... In reality many aspects of everyday life based on faith, belief and blind trust. No evidence no case that is the basis of science.
This is the truth, and we know it now.. To bad some people succumb to believing that HIV is a deadly disease I would be dead already, 28 years with this " virus " and I never took any meds but yet I am as healthy as ox. Some people can't see the truth in front of their faces, HIV and Aids is a scam!!!! People die from thousands of illness it doesn't necessary has to be HIV .... Before talking make sure you know what you saying because not everything they teach you at school is legit. There is a lot of opinion though, but I speak for myself and for what I have learn and seen. Plus I am gay and a phlebotomist that work in a clinic. Eat right, exercise, don't use drugs, make sure you eat organic foods ( natural ) use a condom, be happy and love thy neighbor and you will see a dramatic change in you.
If what you are saying is the truth, then I would be willing to bet that you are one of the very small segment of the poplulation that carries a gene mutation that prevents the hiv virus from infecting the cell. People who have this mutation can be hiv positive and they will never go on to develop AIDS.
jesus christ, you have to joking right? What happened to the HIV/AIDS pandemic? It was supposed to have wiped out the majority of us heterosexuals by 2000. Funnily enough we are all still here. Clearly you weren't sexually active when this nonsense first hit the headlines. I thought I would be dead within months of the panic first starting. It was disgraceful propaganda and there are still useful idiots running around spouting this nonsense without understanding anything about the politics behind it. Like climate change it has made an awful lot of people very rich.
Perhaps you should take a look at the hiv and AIDS statistics in sub-saharan Africa. One in every three people are hiv positive. Over 15% of the population is infected. There are many other areas in Africa where the incidence is slightly lower.
When AIDS first came on to the scene virtually nothing was known about it except that from the time you first became sick you were dead within 2 years. Of course the medical community was worried about a pandemic! It was a good thing too that they rang the alarm bells. More money was put toward finding out about AIDS than any other medical condition to date. There is more known about the hiv virus than any other virus. From this tremendous push to understand and find a treatment, cure, or vaccine for hiv came the new class of anti-retrovirals. Initially the treatment was cumbersome with dozens of pills a day. Along with that came side effects. But patients were living longer! Today the newest drug cocktails are in some cases only one pill a day. HIV pos. people are living with it as a chronic disease that can be managed. Many are alive 20 years and longer.
You refer to the early AIDS information as disgraceful propagands. Have you ever heard of erring on the side of extreme caution? Would you have thought it wise for the doctors to just say "hey don't worry about safe sex." Did it ever occur to you that the very reason it didn't become a full blown pandemic in the US was the huge campaign to encourage safe sex and other practices? Still, hundreds of thousands of mostly younger people did die in the early stage. For you to call it propaganda sounds like some dude who didn''t want to be preached to about practicing safe sex habits. For some bizarre reason you are angry because they were wrong about suggesting that it might become a pandemic. Strange way of thinking.
You sound like an AIDS denialist. Never mind that the HIV virus has been isolated. It's genome mapped. It's been grown in brain, organs, blood, tissue. Every day around the world grad students isolate, take apart. micrograph, put back together the hiv virus. In spite of what the morans who think none of this has happened, hiv doesn't cause AIDS, and some don't even believe AIDS exists.
Go to PubMed and type in hiv cause of AIDS. I stopped at 2 million studies that have been done that not only proves this, but explain precisely how hiv infects the cell and replicates. Don't be a fool. Most of these studies were done at Universities that don't have any financial incentive to lie.
oh dear, what utter rubbish. No HIV has not been isolated. Are you seriously suggesting the pandemic originally predicted did not break out because suddenly all the heterosexuals started practising safe sex!!! ffs. The population of the USA has increased from 240 million in 1984 to 320 million today. Engage your brain. This is supposed to be a highly infectious disease that is transmitted sexually. So how can the population increase by more than 30% without a pandemic kicking in?
Scientists have cultured, grown, and isolated the HIV virus in brain, blood, bone, different organs etc. You are so far behind the times it's laughable! Every day around the world newly trained bench researchers isolate the HIV virus, take it apart, put it back together and micrograph it. Your problem is you are getting your information from crackpot aids Denialist web sites. You do know that 99.99% of all doctors, researchers, scientists, epidemiologists, and the general population of the world know that hiv is the cause of the syndrome called AIDS?
I'll say it again. In the US and other first world countries the reason there wasn't a pandemic is because of huge amounts of of money poured into research that resulted in scientists knowing more about hiv than any other virus. They figured out how it was transmitted and spread,band through public awareness people learned how to protect themselves. In places like South Africa they didn't have that luxury. There are many places in S Africa where 1in every 3 persons are infected! If that's not a pandemic , I don't know what is! Of course you won't find the truth or anything close to it on those Denialist sites. Maybe some day it will be possible to prosecute people like them for spreading such lethal nonsense.
Susan, please site your study with regard to "scientists have cultured grown, and isolated the HIV virus in brain, blood, bone, different oragans, etc." Unfortunately, though ignorance, people like you fall prey to this propoganda. As a scientist, I can tell you that HIV has never been cultured in vitro without tons of effort to put it together and activate it. Furthermore, it has never been isolated as a complete active virus from any AIDS patient. In fact, it cannot even be activated in vitro (outside the body) if leukemic cells are not present (its original name was Human T-Cell Leukemic Virus) because the idiot that discovered it (Robert Gallo) claimed it caused leukemia before he realized he can cash in on AIDS with it. Once active, it shows in vitro, none of the harmful effects that everyone claims and it takes tons of prodding to get it to infect other cells in-vitro. Yes, let us discuss South Africa. How come as AIDs cases go up, malnutrition cases go down on a perfectly reciprocal curve? Before AIDs, malnutrition was always known for immunocompromised disease. Here in the US, military screening finds that the percent of both men and women who are HIV positive is equal. However, 90% of those who fall prey to AIDs are male homosexuals. How come the number of HIV positive women who come down with AIDS are a very small minority when compared to HIV infected men? Let's talk transmission: A ten year study by Padian, Shiboski, Glass, and Vittinghoff found that 176 sexually active couples (one HIV positive and one negative) did not transmit the disease over ten years (a large percentage of them did not use condoms). In fact, Gottliebs observations showed that HIV is hard to transmit, even blood to blood, without other factors like a warm, wet incubator with a high density of bacteria (anal sex). Even then, Gottlieb found that it takes 1000 anal sexual encounters for HIV to be transmitted. This information is not shared, because the public would not agree to spend all this money for a 'homosexual only' disease. Yes, HIV is a real virus and it can be transmitted (mostly from mother to child as a genetic provirus, which has been the main route of infection for retroviruses since evolution began). Nonetheless, there is no scientific evidence that it causes AIDs.
The so called 'deniers' seem to have hard scientific evidence backing them and the HIV-AIDS proponents have nothing more than cherry picked statistical and anecdotal evidence. Even so, they are able to fool the majority of people into the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. This is because of ignorance. I do not mean that in a derogatory way. How many people, even today, know the difference between a conventional DNA or RNA virus and an RNA retrovirus? I would wager that if you went to your MD and asked him to explain the difference that he would not know either. It's easy to fool people who don't know what you are talking about. Its harder to fool other scientists who know what a retrovirus is, how it behaves, and are not afraid of ridicule when they speak the truth.
Furthermore you wrote:
HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and some don't even believe AIDS exists. AIDS is a catch all for a myriad of diseases that have existed since man walked the earth. Saying it doesn't exist is meaningless. It's not a disease. AIDS is invariably invoked by those idiots who believe a harmless (if it exists at all) retrovirus magically kills T-cells. You are aware I hope there are thousands of retroviruses and many more waiting to be discovered. None of them kill cells. They use them as a vehicle to multiply. Except of course for the one in a million super virus HIV. Ridiculous.
Ok if HIV isn't the cause of AIDS then why are HIV postive patients living a lot longer then where 15-20 years ago? I'm a HIV positive if I stop taking my meds I would get sick and die
Your meds are killing you.
How dare you make such an ignorant and misinformed statement. I was working in the hospitals during the mid and late 80's, During this time an AIDS diagnoses meant you could pretty much expect to be dead in 2 years. The AIDS wards in hospitals were packed with AIDS patients who had come to die.
Then the HARRT therapy came on line and with antiretroviral drugs hiv positive patients are living 20 and more years after diagnoses when before the new drugs they were uniformly DEAD in two years or less.
So you can take your "the meds are killing you" statement and shove it up your ass. You have no idea what you are talking about! Now they don't even have AIDS units in hospitals. They don't need them! The patients are living and treating it as a chronic disease.
Im sorry susan, but your statement is ignorant. If you really take the time and research you will see that there are reputable virologist, who have nothing to lose, break it down to a point where it makes perfect sense. In the late 80s people were dying because there was a wave of drug use that people, mostly in the gay community were doing. So many people buy in to the media, the cdc, and big pharma, and believe everything they tell you, when it is proven they have been wrong about so many other things. There are people walking around healthy, then they take an hiv test, start the treatment, then the health problems start, not from the virus, but the treatment that are all black box labeled. ALLL of the side effects are aids like symptoms. Lets stop being band wagon jumpers and start using common sense and start thinking.
"In the late 80s people were dying because there was a wave of drug use that people, mostly in the gay community were doing." This is Wrong. Trembor, maybe you should start using evidence-based research models, not unscientific conjecture. So if one scientist says the world is flat, everyone believes them? The number of experts who support this dangerous theory can be counted on one hand, all most likely are guests on Fox news.
There are NO reputable virologists who don't think hiv causes AIDS. There are a handful of nut job, fringe lunatics like Cary Mullis (Nobel prize winner who went on to drop too many hits of acid) who is NOT either a clinician (doctor who takes care of patients) or an hiv researcher. Peter Duesberg who because he has tenure at Berkley can't be ousted for being a crank.
Then there is a list of other various losers who have no respect from their colleagues because of their HIV AIDS denailist opinions. These people make their income by whoring themselves out as speakers at AIDS denialists meetings. The fact is 99.99% of doctors, researchers, scientists, and hiv positive patients agree that hiv causes AIDS and the meds are keeping hiv pos people alive.
The HIV virus HAS been identified, taken apart, put back together, and micrographed. It's genome is mapped every day in labs all around the world. More is known about the HIV virus than any other virus.
Ha ha! So you think the AIDS epidemic was caused by drug use by gays in the 80's? Really? Okay Einstein how do you explain the fact that not only gays were being infected but hemophiliacs, blood transfusion recipients, newborns from their mothers who were infected, and even today in sub-Saharan African where 1 in every 3 people is hiv positive. Were and are all these people doing drugs? "Drugs" had nothing to do with it unless you want to make the claim that being under the influence of drugs makes you less likely to practice safe sex. You are just repeating old Professer Donald Duck aka Peter Duesberg ridiculous theory. He's been disproven thousands of times. The debate is over. We KNOW what causes AIDS and it's hiv. Go to PubMed and search hiv causes AIDS. There is enough proof there to keep you busy reading for the next several years
You are spreading the same bull other hiv positive denialists spread. One by one they are dying off from ......guess what? AIDS! Just Google dead AIDS denialists and you will see a long list of hiv pos AIDS denialists.
There is NO denying that the Haart is effective and is allowing people who are hiv positive to live 20 years and longer. Before the newer drugs a person diagnosed with hiv was typically dead in two years. Hospitals don't even have AIDS units anymore, Why? Because there's no need for it. I was on the front line when the AIDS epidemic started. I saw first hand how this disease decimated whole communities. Now patients who take the meds are living 20 years and beyond. Those who stop their meds become sick and die.
By the way there most definitely is a gene mutation that prevents the hiv pos person from going on to develop AIDS. Elizabeth Glazer now deceased from AIDS (died before HAART ) and the founder of the Pediatric AIDS Research Foundation had two children who were both infected with hiv during delivery. Elizabeth Glazer was married to Paul Glazer and actor on the 70's show Starsky and Hutch. One of their children the girl Ariel died at age 3 from AIDS the son who is now well into his 20's is hiv pos but never got sick. Why? Because he inherited this gene mutation from his father Paul Glazer.
When you censor virologist who speak out and ask questions, then a light bulb should go off. When you strip people who have valid questions the opportunity to do so in public, something is wrong. All of these so called wonderful people you are mentioning are benefiting from the "Aids Industry", and thirty years of telling people HIV causes AIDS, what do you expect for people who place all of their trust in doctors and scientist? You mention the list of dissidents who have passed on, but you don't have enough time in a day to list the people who have bought into the orthodox hypothesis, took the meds, and died.
We need to get back to pure honest science, not conspiracies and money making schemes. Explain why there hasn't been an open forum to address both points of views, I'm sure we would be a lot further along than we are now. The only thing that has changed is the drugs are less toxic, so instead of killing people in one to two years like back in the 80s, now it's about twenty years. I would be willing to listen to both sides, but the dissident side has been censored while the orthodox side has all the funding and publicity, but no cure or vaccine after thirty years. Billions and billions of dollars and no vaccine or cure, but more drugs, lots and lots of drugs. I bet the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't change a thing.
All I hear is take HAART, and you'll live a normal life. I don't hear a lot of talk on nutrition and a healthy lifestyle from these Aids doctors and big pharma, why because there is no money in it. Some doctors speak of nutrition, but only while taking HAART.
Nobody is censoring Peter Deusberg, Cary Mullis or any of the other whack jobs who expouse this ridiculous nonsense.
You claim that I mention the AIDs dissidents, I call them deluded denialists, that have died, but I don't mention the other AIDS patients who have died from the meds. If you have AIDS and you don't treat it with the proven to work some or most of the time meds, you will most certainly die. It couldn't be any more predictable.
If you are HIV pos and your blood work shows that you need to be on the meds and you take them, your chances of living a long time as opposed to NOT taking the meds and dying for sure seems preferable to most reasonable people. Do a certain percentage of people on the drugs die from complications from the drugs? Yes. It's still a better deal than refusing meds and dying is a certainty.
You talk about both sides as if there is an equivalency. The quote "other side" and many, many, other sides WERE looked at in the early stages of research when nothing was known. Every hypotheisis was tested and the final, solid, provable, replicable evidence came in.
The other side hasn't any scientific evidence that proves what they are saying is true. Nothing. Zero. Nada. All they have are their opinions. But nothing in the way of scientific evidence. You know like a REAL study that was well designed, published in a respectable journal and peer reviewed by their peers? It doesn't exist. While mainstream medicine has produced millions of studies proving what is known about hiv.
The same hand full, cast of characters are nothing more than the mouth pieces for the Denialist group. It was always small, but is getting smaller every day.
Do you have any idea how expensive research is? You are wrong about the other side being silenced or censored. The problem is they don't have any evidence. If they had it they'd be telling everyone about it. But they don't. Just their opinions.
So you think you can cure AIDS with nutrition? Don't think so. But everyone pretty much knows by now that a healthy diet and lifestyle is the way to go. But it can't replace the anti-retrovirals.
You keep bringing up the money. Do you work for free? Should the medical establishment work for free? I agree than medical care is too costly. But there are many reasons for this. No one thing is to blame.
Again, a lot of conjecture and assertions without one source to back them up.
Key word Susan Dear is reputable and most of these quacks have been bought. Read the investigative book called world without Aids that clearly illustrates that there was no testing phase where the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS and vice versa was even allowed to be tested by its peers. In fact the Guy responsible for pushing this is a scammer. Do you work and Google the stuff before you just believe what the mass media pushes down your esophagus
They will never find a cure for AIDS or HIV because it is too profitable to even come up with one. More than 30 years and they are not even close and you know why, There is no disease and therefore there can be no cure.
Its like herpes excess baggage and that's all
There is no debate. It's over. HIV causes AIDS. More is known about the HIV virus than any other virus. Your ignorant comment about them not finding a cure for AIDS because it's too profitable to come up with one is ridiculous. More money has been spent on researching HIV and more is known about it than any other virus. To say they aren't even close is just more ignorance on your part. They are very close to starting human trials for a vaccine. But then I suppose you are anti-vaccine too.
You speak out of both sides of your mouth, both sides equally stupid. First you say HIV is like herpes excess baggage (whatever that's supposed to mean) and then you say there is no diseases at all. So which is it?
You are nothing more than a member of a very small fringe group of AIDS denialists. The denialists that are HIV positive but deny that HIV causes AIDS are dying off one by one. And what are they dying from? AIDS! Actually the list has gottten quite long. Pretty soon they will have all died off and the world will be a better place because of it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In 1988 I was at a meeting on the Stamford University Campus of the now defunct Syntex Pharmaceutical company. The meeting was to discuss our ten-year plan and, of course, the subject of AIDS was a primary topic. We were told that the company was developing a new treatment paradigm where people would be treated with our medications based on a viral load. This was back when AIDs first came out and I didn't have a chance to look into the science, so I believed the HIV-AIDS theory. At the time it was said that people with a low viral load would be treated because they had the best chance of survival and making the medication look effective. Additionally we could treat them for a longer period of time to just keep them alive to be treated again - maximizing profitability. People with high viral loads would be written off as beyond help and refused treatment as they would be a "waste of money." I was one of about twenty people in this conference room and I was young and idealistic. When I stood up and recommended that we consider developing a cure for AIDS rather than a treatment, I was the thousand pound gorilla in the room and was made to feel 2" tall when I was told, "where is the profit in that?"
As far as you taking joy in the death of so called AID denialists : all people die Susan (even you will die one day). When someone finally dies, your ilk is the first to point out that they died of an AIDS related disease (whether that is true or not). Most of the people the Truth org hacks like to list, however, out live those on the ART drugs. Funny how you don't seem to mention that. Nonetheless, taking joy in anyone's death to make a point is the sign of a sick mind.
The debate is not over Susan. Debate is what science (true science that is not politically controlled) is about. Throughout history, debates were said to be over with hundreds of theories later proved to be wrong. Eventually, HIV-AIDS will follow the same fate as the theory of the world being flat.
OMG Susan, you are killing me. You are obviously an educated person, please take the time to investigate this and think for yourself. Duesburg was considered the world renowned expert on retro-viruses. He was the first virologist to map the genome of a retrovirus and was lauded by Robert Gallo as a genius until he questioned Gallo's science. How do you know ART works? Because you look at viral loads and believe them. Viral loads are a result of PCR, invented by the man you say took too many hits of acid. If you don't trust Mullis, then how can you trust viral load results?
You say these people are whoring themselves out, when it would be far more profitable to join the HIV-AIDS gravy train. These people lost all grants and backing. The so called reputable virologists you mention however, get these grants and backing without publishing even one scientifically valid and truly controlled study. You keep saying that you know HIV causes AIDS and everyone else is a crank. Well, prove it. Where's your science? Site your studies? Be careful though, because I will tear them apart on a truly scientific basis.
The electron micrographs from the CDC simply show a retrovirus budding off a leukemic CD4 cell cultured in vitro. This may or may not be HIV. Even if it is, it doesn't mean that HIV is cytotoxic and killing the cell. As I said in a prior reply to you, retorviruses reproduce by splicing their proviruses into the genome of the host cell and allowing that cell to live the reproduce so the offspring can reproduce the provirus.
One last thing. The wonderful, reputable, virologists you mention are simply political hacks and have no morals whatsoever. Case in point: Robert Gallo - father of HIV-AIDS. Montagnier sent him the HIV virus sample (LAV at the time) in 1982. Gallo claimed that HTLV-I caused AIDS but could not find any in AIDS patients. Then in 1983, Gallo claimed his newly found retrovirus (HTLV-II) caused AIDS but could not find any in AIDS patients. In 1984, he named Montagnier's virus HTLV-III (now known as HIV) and claimed it caused AIDS. Subsequent investigation found that HTLV-III was identical to the LAV virus sent to Gallo in 1982. Gallo's answer? "I discovered it at the same time but didn't publish until 1984." Subsequent investigation showed that HTLV-III was 100% identical to LAV genetically (meaning it came from the same donor). Gallos' answer? "My donor must have been a lover of Montagnier's donor." During this time Gallo asserted that HTLV-III caused both leukemia and AIDs. However, he was challenged because leukemia would proliferate cells and and AIDS would decrease them. Instead of seeking a scientific answer, he simply abandoned the claim that HTLV-III caused leukemia. Prior to his discovery of HTLV-I, a Japanese research team sent Gallo a retrovirus believed to cause leukemia, along with a paper of their findings. Gallo stole the research and published it as his own. This is known because Gallo's publication was identical to the Japanese paper and even included a deliberate error intentionally planted by the Japanese in case someone tried to steal their discovery. And this is the man you are trusting for the HIV-AIDs theory? Really?
This is pure cr*p. The first Medicine called AZT was a banned drug that they dusted out of the closet as they finally found a way to use this cr*p on HIV positive patients. On the drug package itself it has a picture of skull and bones indicating how dangerous it is. Those who pack it wear special gloves to prevent being poisoned by it.
In the Congo area there are people who have had it for over 50 years now and with no side effects.
HIV is a retrovirus and all retroviruses are harmless and are only activated when the liver is poisoned or weakened and this is what these medications do.
So when the blood cell goes up in the case of taking AZT its because the body is making a desperate attempt to fight this toxin.
So Susan the only ignorant one is use. It is amazing what fear and programming can do. People can die from fear and stress. In fact DIS EASE is a body not at ease. it is a body that is stressed and death can be classified as extreme inflammation
In the very beginning of the AIDS epidemic they didn't have anything to treat it. The only drug available that had any effect of slowing the disease down was AZT. It wasn't that effective and it did have alot of side effects. But what could the medical community do? People were dying like flies. Dying horrible deaths. AZT was only given to try to keep people alive until better treatments became available. Then in the early 90's the new antirtrviral drugs came on line. Patients who used to be dead in less than 2 years after diagnoses are now alive after 20 years or more! Some only take a couple of pills a day. It is now being treated like a chronic disease and not the automatic death sentence it used to be.
All retroviruses are harmless? Really! Some are harmless, but some are not. They can cause cancers like leukemia.
People in the Congo have lived with being hiv positive for 50 years? Care to provide a citation for that claim? There is no place on planet Earth that has been more decimated by hiv and AIDS than in Africa,particularly sub-Saharan. Millions have died and to this day 1 in every 3 people is hiv pos.
Your last few sentences were gibberish. Some ridiculous pseudo scientific b.s. You need to stay off the AIDS denialists web sites. Scientists know with certainty that hiv causes AIDS. Every day in labs around the world scientists identify the AIDs virus under the electron microscope. They take the virus apart and put it back together, they map it's genome, and micrograph it' structure.
People are alive and living 20 years and beyond because of the HARRT therapy.
Don't be an ignoramous. Perfectly healthy people got blood transfussion with HIV infected blood and went on to develope AIDS! Babies born to mothers who were hiv pos beccame hiv pos and then progressed to AIDS and died. Nurses and doctors who were healthy stuck themselves with hiv infected needle and became hiv pos. then went on to develop AIDS and died. .Kind of shoots your whole stupid theory about only people who are stressed and your blabbering about poisoned livers and bla bla bla. So much nonsense. You have no idea how stupid you sound! Go to Pub Med. type in hiv causes AIDS there are literally hundreds of thousands of article proving just that. Articles coming from all around the world. From top universities. Get yourself informed. Stop listening to cranks and charlatans like Deusberg and Mullis. They have never taken care of an AIDS patient in their lives. They are irrelevant. The only way they can make a buck is from being the mouth piece for the dying AIDS denialist camp. They have no credibility in the eyes of 99.99% of the world's scientific community.
Susan, it is true that AZT is a DNA chain terminator and was the only treatment available. However, it was far from effective. Instead, it killed the patients. The only backing AZT had was that T-cells increased after dosage during the clinical trials. Glaxo Welcome didn't bother to point out, however, that T-cells always increase in response to being poisoned (you can drink bleach right now and your T-cells will skyrocket). Long term efficacy of AZT was never published because when the human body is poisoned it will respond with a sharp increase in T-cells and then a catastrophic drop of T-cells.
Then why wasn't HIV causing AIDS 200 years ago ?
What is your proof that HIV existed in humans 200 years ago?
Susan, 8% of the human genome is made of retrovirus. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of HERV (human endogenous retrovirus) in each of us at this very moment.
Source: "Long-term reinfection of the human genome by endogenous retroviruses". Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 (14): 4894–99. Bibcode:2004PNAS..101.4894B.
Susan, I was working in hospitals at that time as well. People who died of AIDS (the average lifespan was 3 months in 1987), died from the toxic effects of AZT. The anti-retroviral cocktails are less toxic so people are living longer.
Here's the problem with ART. First we are told by Robert Gallo that HIV is the worlds first cytotoxic virus and kills cells. Then, when people who refuse therapy live 10 and 20 + years, we are told that HIV fools the immunity. Actually, this makes more sense, because if you knew how a retrovirus works, then you would know that the only way it could possibly cause illness is by tricking the immune system.
HIV is a retrovirus. Retoviruses enter cells and, using reverse transcription (thus the name 'retro' meaning backwards), they transcribe their RNA into a DNA copy. This DNA copy is then spliced into the genome of the infected cell. This is where retroviruses are different Instead of using up the cells resources to replicate, thus exhausting the cell and lysing (killing) it to release the replicated virus; they splice their DNA into the cell (now known as a provirus) and allow the cell to live and reproduce so the offspring also have the provirus.
So, here are the HIV-AIDs theories:
The first theory (Robert Gallo): HIV mutates to the point of missing key epitopes so our immunity misses it. (Funny, how HIV is always mutating but never mutates beyond the p24 antigen, which is the gold standard marker for detection). This theory was abandoned because people started living longer when AZT was no longer in the picture.
The second theory (Prof. McMichaels of Oxford):
1) HIV infects the person and goes unchecked by the immunity for the first three weeks of infection (flu like symtoms).
2) The immune system develops antibodies and kills the active HIV as well as the infected CD4 cells, which are identified by the HLA markers.
3) This is the magical part. For some unknown reason the HIV provirus goes dormant and is no longer expressed. This is the latent period where people can live with HIV without symtoms for up to ten years.
4) This is the second magical part. For some unknown reason, the CD4 cells decide to express the HIV retrovirus 3, 5, 10 years later.
5) The secondary immune response has the T-killer cells kill the infected T-helper cells (of which there are now many because they have been reproducing for ten years with the provirus). Since T-killer cells are modulated by T-helper cells, they kill their own lifetime and immunity is compromised. Now the patient has AIDS and is subject to opportunistic infection.
6) Here's the problem with this theory. Even in advanced cases of AIDs, there is less than one in 40 T-helper cells infected with active virus. The human body can recover 5% T-helper cells in the 2 days it takes for HIV to infect a cell. Therefore, there are not enough cells infected to cause illness.
The third theory by Robert Gallo was to address the problem I mention above with the second theory. Gallo stated that only a few T-helper cells express the provirus at a time over the latent period, slowly wearing down your immunity. The problem here is that there is still not enough active infection (even in advanced AIDS patients) to cause illness. So, Gallo then comes out with his latest theory that once HIV starts the process of tricking the immunity, no active virus need be present to get aids as the fragments of HIV will continue to trick the immunity.
What is so sad about these theories is that they have absolutely no science behind them. They are simply made up to explain challenges to the HIV-AIDS theory.
Let's suppose that Gallo's theory (or any theory other than the first is true). It would then contradict that claim that ART is effective. If no active virus is needed to cause the disease, then you do not need ART to hinder replication of the virus.
Yes, the HIV-AIDs theory is full of these contradictions. All I am asking for, as a scientist, is to have them scientifically investigated instead of denying them by calling the people who point these contradictions out 'deniers.'
Honestly, Katie, I wonder if you even WATCH the video doc.
Please Katie, watch the documentary. HIV has been around for a couple of centuries. Where was the AIDS ? Nobody was coming down with AIDS until the 80's. If HIV caused it, AIDS would be 200 years old, and it's not.
Katie. Truth be told, we don't know if HIV causes AIDS. It may, but it has not been proven scientifically and every time there is a challenge, the HIV-AIDS people make up a new theory to answer that challenge with no evidence to support it other than they made it up to make sense. So, does HIV cause AIDS, maybe (anything is possible). Scientifically, however, it is very unlikely. People are living longer with the ART cocktails because the cocktails are far less toxic than was AZT in high doses. So the cocktails take longer to kill people. Also, people who refused treatment are now going on 27 years, so people living longer on ART cocktails are no indicator that the drugs are saving lives. The HIV-AIDs crowd loves pointing out when a 27-year survivor of HIV who refused treatment dies, but everyone dies eventually. Even so, far more people being treated are dying than those who refuse it, so taking joy in the death of these people is nothing more than the sign of a sick mind.
@Susan maybe you're having a hard time admitting you unknowingly took part in mass genocide.
They stopped killing people with AZT and went to far less toxic and deadly drugs, most are dying of liver failure, not from AIDS, yet they get labeled and AIDS death. Just like how they are fudging all the data with this Covid Scam.
Obvious you did not watch this documentary, you would understand that the only thing going to kill you is the drugs you are taking.
on 2010 i had a direct sex without using condom with my boyfriend and now i have another boyfriend with him if i want to direct sex is there any chance of getting AIDS to me. Plz help me out sir...
Even if you test positive for hiv THAT does not mean that the virus is active. viruses remain in the body for many years after the antibodies have done there job.
Ok, so HIV does not cause AIDS!
Some people tend to state this, then if come up with such a dangerous statement then PLEASE do back it up with valid proof and STATE what causes AIDS (then), is AIDS even a disease?
I would remove this video from all websites until these guys come with some valid proof. Most AIDS patients do have HIV! Fact.
The contentions are the following:
- No pure HIV virus has ever been isolated, which is a requirement for any viral experiment.
- Humans are known to have tens of retroviruses in the physiological composition, many of which are not contractible and are harmless... HIV is a retrovirus.
- The rational for saying patients are dying because of HIV, is at best ridiculous. For example, Patient A dies of pneumonia, but had no HIV virus, the cause of death is pneumonia. Patient B dies of pneumonia but tested positive for HIV, the cause of death is aids. The problem with that is simply that correlation is not always causation (Science 101). In other words, patient C died of Cancer, but tested positive for stomach ulcer, and then could you say, the virus for stomach ulcer killed patient C? HIV is not known to cause a particular ailment like other pathogens are known to do!
- First hand info here. I know of a very close relative who has HIV for over 25 years, has been married for 10 years to a man who swore never using condoms during sex. He is as of last month HIV negative! The woman is very healthy after she radically changing her lifestyle of alcoholism etc.
I am not an expert on the topic, but there are enough doubts to make us question what is going on here.
Actually the cause of death would be listed as :
AIDS related pneumonia. Usually it's AIDS related pneumocystis pneumonia.
Actually, it's pneumocystis carnii pneumonia (pneumocystis itself is not the species. Can you pronounce carnii?) BTW, chemotherapy patients die of this every day and ART drugs are chemotheraputic agents developed to terminate the DNA chains of cell (hopefully cancer cell) division. The other ART drugs, like the protease inhibitors, non-nukes, and integrase inhibitors are chemotherapies that were developed back when Gallo said HIV type retrovirus caused cancer and were subsequently abandoned when Gallo was proved wrong. Susan, can you put two and two together? Before AIDS, the number one reason for death by pneumocystis carnii pneumonia was chemotherapy. ART treatment is chemotherapy. Gee, do you think the ART chemo could have something to do with the pneumonia? This is where a controlled study (that has never been done) would shed some light.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious that "Most Aids patients do have HIV."
I agree with you that most patients have HIV, then, the truth becomes AIDS could be caused by HIV, but NOT ALWAYS caused by HIV.
Dude do your research other than believing what mainstream media pumps out. Look at the video of a DR who in England injected himself twice with the HIV virus to prove that it was all bogus. He did it twice in a span of 10 years and is perfectly healthy.
You know you keep telling people to do their research. And the only way researching the hiv AIDS issue and comming up with the same conclusions you have would mean to only go to AIDS denialists web sites. There are NO scientific studies proving that hiv does not cause AIDS. There just aren't. So really what you are telling people to do is to listen to people like Deusberg who is a pariah in the medical community. Why is he a pariah? Because 99.99% of all doctors who actually take care of hiv and AIDS patients know what he is saying is dangerous advice. They know he is dead wrong. I would even say he has blood on his hands.
So when you tell people to go and do their research, what you are saying is listen to these handful of denialists. And BTW they don't have any scientific evidence that back up their claims.
Or you can REALLY do your research and go to Pub Med search hiv cause of AIDS and you will get enough proof to keep you reading for the next 100 years.
Susan, my prior post explains how retroviruses work. Decades of science prove that HIV does not cause AIDS. Then, of course, I can turn that question on you (as I did earlier). Where is your scientific proof that HIV causes AIDS? And please don't get back to me with names of people that say it does and that the science is there. Show me the actual science. If you are really a healthcare worker (as you inferred), then you can to to any medical library and do the real research for yourself.
Mike A the hiv/AIDS debate was settled a long time ago. You should move on to a more relevant topic.
If hiv isn't the cause of AIDS then please explain the dramatic drop in mortality in AIDS patients who are receiving anti hiv treatment. These people are living 20 years and longer, when they used to be dead within months in most cases. Deuesberg, Mullis, and others like them are not clinicians. They don't take care of patients with AIDS.
There is more known about the hiv virus than any other virus!
Susan. There you go again. Saying there is more known about HIV than any other virus. Where is your proof? What do you know about it (other than what I educated you with in my prior replies)?
You asked me to explain the dramatic drop in mortality in AIDS patients who are receiving ART. It is simple, prior to ART, AZT was the only treatment available. Back then, the dosage of AZT (15mg and greater) killed in a matter of months. While people refusing treatment lived for years. ART (which includes AZT in far lower doses) is far less toxic than was AZT. Now it is killing people in a matter of years. To this day no controlled study has been performed with ART. The proponents of HIV-AIDS say that a controlled study would be cruel because you cannot have a placebo group and deny people treatment - regardless of the fact that there are thousands refusing the treatment anyway.
Maybe you can explain to me why there are so many 20+ year survivors who refused treatment and show no signs of AIDS (do it scientifically Susan - these emotional rants of yours do not help your credibility in the least).
"Maybe you can explain to me why there are so many 20+ year survivors who refused treatment and show no sign of AIDS (do it scientifically Susan these emotional rants of yours do no help your credibility in the least."
You instruct me to prove it "scientifically" that there are thousands of 20+ year survivors who are refusing treatment? LOL!! YOU are the one making that claim without any science to back it up. Not me! I don't agree with this statement at all. That comment is nothing more than a sneaky attempt to hide your real agenda. The fact that you are a part of a tiny, miniscule fringe group of crackpot AIDS denialists.
Here's a news flash for you. That debate was settled 3 decades ago! Go to Pub Med and type in "hiv the cause of AIDS", I stopped at 89,000 papers proving this fact.And that is only the last 10 years!
I can provide you with study after study showing the dramatic increase in survival since the introduction of anti-virals. There isn't any debate among scientifically educated scientists and clinicians who actually take care of these patients as to whether or not the HARRT therapy is keeping hiv patients alive 20 yrs and beyond. Today there are a multitude of drug cocktails that can be tried, until one is found that works for the patient.
AZT while altered and given at a much lower dose with other anti-virals is still used effectiely today.
You make the erroneous claim that in the beginning there was only AZT and the patients who took it were dead in months and those who didn't were alive 20 years and more. I worked in a large AIDS unit that was filled with patients who were dying and never received AZT at all. The reality was back then those diagnosed with hiv were usually dead within 2 years post diagnoses, with or without AZT. I saw this on a daily basis with my own eyes.
There are the very small percentage of people infected with hiv who carry a particular gene mutation that prevents the virus from invading the cell. Even though they are hiv pos they will never progress to AIDS.
It's not dangerous to say that the science doesn't exist to support HIV-AIDS. It is dangerous, however, to assert that HIV causes AIDs without any science behind it. Have you seen anyone win the Nobel prize for proof that HIV causes AIDS? Of course not. Because all the so called proof is cherry picked statistics and anecdotal evidence. It's not on us to prove HIV does not cause AIDS, it's on you to prove that it does.
Even if HIV does cause AIDs. There are so many holes in that theory. Perhaps these holes are the reason that after 30 years we are no closer to a cure of the "most studied and understood virus of all time," according to Susan. By challenging poor science, then good science can follow to fill those holes and maybe come out with a cure (even if HIV did cause AIDS). By saying the debate is over, then 18 people a minute will continue to die of this disease.
lol! Talk about conjecture! We now have a 20+ years of clinical record. I'm talking about the actual patient management of hiv pos patients. We've seen what happens to health care workers who are hiv neg. have no risk factors, stick themselves accidently with a hiv contaminated needle from a hiv pos patient, convert from sero neg to sero pos, and go on to be infected with the hiv virus.Take a look at what the cost of AIDS denialism in Africa cost in more than 350,000 lives!
Ask any infectious disease doctor that was around in the eighties when hiv came on the scene. Ask them about the packed AIDS units with young gay men dropping like flies. Now they don't even have AIDS units. Why? Because of the AART that's why. Ask a clinician. You know?.......The people who are ACTUALLY taking care of these patients. Not some old has been, who was once a respected and relevant scientist, who for some strange reason decided to jump the shark much like Gautier who now is researching homeopathy! lol! They dried up his research $$ and ran him out of France! He's researching homeopathy in China! How can one explain this behavior from a Nobel Prize winning scientist? Alzheimer's?? Same with Mullis. Only he was never that exceptional. He didn't invent PCR he improved on it. He hasn't done anything since.
My point is, it's not this cast of characters you point to for your evidence of no proof that hiv causes AIDS. Doctors on the front lines. Doctors that have been on the front lines since the beginning of the AIDS crisis know the answers. They see the PROOF right in front of their eyes every day
Susan: I'm so glad you replied.
You say that you have 20+ years of clinical record. Site it! Where is your proof? You are a clinician, aren't you? You can at least use Google, can't you? Geez, talk about conjecture. I would have at least expected you to reply with something concrete.
The fact is that HIV is so hard to transmit, that 0.3% of all healthcare workers with accidental needle stick of of known HIV contaminated blood seroconvert (1997 NLM: Cardo, Culver, Ciesielski , Srivastava , Marcus, Abiteboul , Heptonstall, Ippolito, Lot, McKibben, Bell). Even if it does transmit, where is the proof that it causes AIDS. I sited my source, where is yours?
I already addressed Africa in a prior reply to you. I will not waste my time by being redundant if you won't take the time to read it in the first place.
I was around and treating so called AIDS patients in the eighties. In fact, I had HIV positive blood up to my elbows once when treating a 2-year old girl - so I don't have to ask anybody what it was like in the eighties. You say that ART is why less people are dying of AIDS. Again, where is your proof? I say that AZT was causing people to drop like flies in the eighties and the less toxic ART regime is causing them to die slower. Want to know my proof, just read the package inserts of AZT and the other ART drugs. All list AIDs related diseases as potential effects of taking the drug.
Sorry, but you are ranting too much and giving no hard evidence whatsoever. You called someone a has been who is researching homeopathy? To whom, may I ask, are you referring?
Regarding Mullis, you made a critical error by using Wikipedia as your source material. Geez really, is that the best you can do to back your argument? You should have followed the old adage: "Don't believe anything you read on Wikipedia." Mullis invented PCR. Wikipedia is the only source that says he did not. Even if he did improve on it, you like to say ART is proven by viral load testing, which is the version of PCR developed by Mullis. Sounds like a contradiction in your argument to me.
If you think doctors are on the front lines as far as understanding, or knowing, what they are prescribing and the mechanism behind the HIV-AIDS hypothesis, then you are not as educated and are far more ignorant than I hoped.
I will say it again: You say science is behind you but your only reply was a non-scientific rant with Wiki as a source.
If not the drug therapies then what accounts for the dramatic drop in mortality? FYI I didn't use Wiki as a source for Mullis. Some of the info came out his own mouth.lol!
BTW I've found Wiki to be extremely reliable. It's most often the quacks, conspiracies nuts, and alternative TO medicine cranks that whine and complain when they're being exposed.
I have to admit that when I first started watching this I thought this was a bunch of rubbish. I just finished reading a book how people are making money off this exact argument, only in Africa, and a long term study done shows that tens of thousands of lives were lost because some corrupt African dictator decided that the pharmaceutical industry was corrupt. He then used some opportunistic scientists to back them up and they became rich on his tab in the process -- when watching this, please keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there who make money off BOTH sides of this argument, and think about how gullible people in our society are now a days.
I have changed my mind a bit since finishing this -- only in relation to the poor scientist who lost his grants. I think that both sides of an argument should always be investigated. He makes wonderful points about recreational drug use and one of his strongest cases is that there are no specific AIDS related diseases, rather only ones that already exist. In this way, any disease can be made up.
HOWEVER, this documentary plays on the Americans who have obviously never themselves worked with AIDS patients -- neither here nor in Africa. In Africa, people with AIDS will die from other more aggressive diseases or from genocide before their immunity is slowly worn down. I know plenty of people with HIV and AIDS and I hate to say it but they are not, and have never been, drug users.
Either way, I think that this needs to be investigated. Maybe it CAN be transmitted sexually, who knows? Just because one doctor makes a good point doesn't mean that he is right on all the aspects of his theory, and this video may put people off -- by the time it was over I had much more to criticism instead of praise. The point is that there is enough evidence here to get even smart scientists asking for a re-evaluation. No matter how you look at it, our best solution is to give a toxic drug to already sick people. This way, people on both sides of the argument lose out, and look how much money is being spent!
And yes, I did spend some time without drugs. I was tired, suffered from fungal skin infections, oral thrush, general lymphadenopathy, chest infections etc. Within 1 month of taking ARTs (Atripla) I had my health back and felt like a man in his 20s again rather than one in his 60s.
When you went off the drugs, your body was detoxing itself which caused the fungal skin infections, oral thrush and the other effects you were suffering. When your body has been use to the medication for so long, if you get off of then cold turkey, you will suffer detoxing effects. When you went back on the drugs, your body was just getting back into what it's use to.
Detoxing? What a load of b.s. And just what are your qualifications to be telling someone such nonsense.
He told you he felt better when he went back on the drugs. What part of that don't you understand?
It happens over and over. People do well on their meds. Then try to stop them and they almost immediatly become sick and sicker. The drugs are keeping people alive. Period. For some two bitt sheister like yourself to tell people that the cause of the side effects of stoping their meds was their body detoxing from the meds and not the fact that their TCell count was dropping opening them up to infections is irresponsible and criminal in my opinion. Criminal, because they might listen to your ignorant advice.
Stop playing doctor.
Something you should know about Atripla - it contains a drug called Sustiva (Efavirenz), which is little more than a highly-addictive psychoactive placebo. It metabolizes into agents that work on the benzodiazapine receptors, so going off the drugs causes drug-withdrawal symptoms that are mistakenly diagnosed by clinicians as "caused by HIV" and going back on them of course makes you feel better and even a superhuman 20-something because you're basically taking daily Valium. Sustiva is even smoked and snorted recreationally - hardly a conspiracy theory, given this has been reported by ABC and VICE news. Much like tobacco companies manipulate the amount of nicotine in their products, Big Pharma manipulates the content of cocktails to addict HIV-positives to their medication (which ends up selling more). The LOTTI study of 2014 is the only controlled clinical trial of scheduled treatment interruptions and it found for most users there is a benefit to stopping the drugs.
AIDS drugs are powerful antimicrobials - and part of the problem is that the body loses its ability to naturally fight off fungal opportunists because it becomes reliant on the daily external regimen. When going off the drugs, it's important to boost the immune system, and the best way to do this is powerful antioxidants such as intravenous reduced glutathione. My roommate died from liver failure due to Crixivan poisoning in 2003 and I have another friend who died from a heart attack from Abacavir - both are not AIDS-defining, and in both cases I was screaming, "you need to get off the drugs."
HIV antibody tests are useful in that they do have predictive value of the development of some (but not all) AIDS-defining opportunistic infections in the presence of other risk factors - but that's because HIV tests are not HIV tests (and I've been persuaded HIV hasn't been proven to exist). The way the test was invented was basically by immunotyping clinical AIDS patients: determine 30 possible antibodies, and then select the 11 that most commonly reacted with clinical 'AIDS' patients at elevated antibody titers (including those with KS, which everyone agrees nowadays has nothing to do with HIV or AIDS and is the result of amyl-nitrite toxicity meaning the "HIV test" was not validated against HIV but rather against the blood serum of heavy popper users). It's a remarkable display of circular reasoning.
What this means is 'AIDS Drug' trials do sometimes have clinical endpoints and may provide some benefit and that 'HIV Tests' do identify people at risk for AIDS, but the interpretation of the tests as 'indicating infection with an incurable exogenous immune-collapsing retrovirus' is unfounded. The documentary "House of Numbers" points out the disclaimers on the package inserts to HIV tests.
Regarding HIV denialism: the sheer number of credentialed experts who have spoken out against HIV over the years, combined with the statement against interest of those saying there's a problem, combined with the way questioning AIDS is treated as if one questions the Kennedy Assassination or 9/11 in spite of the obvious flaws of the official narrative indicates there is very much a conspiracy going on to uphold AIDS orthodoxy. I would go further and suggest AIDS is a psychological warfare operation planned in the early 60's by deep-state globalists in tandem with the sexual revolution as a means of global population fertility control and eugenics because in any rational scientific universe HIV should have fallen apart decades ago.
As for medical experts like susan g on here - I could easily find 20,000 papers claiming excess stomach acid causes ulcers, Vioxx is good for you, and Pellagra is an infectious disease caused by a germ. And as a psychological warfare operation, 'AIDS' preys on the psychological and cultural deficiencies of those in the medical profession - who are too often blinded to the harm they cause their own patients, even though it's right in front of their face. This is because they are incredibly authority-minded and incapable of thinking critically.
HIV causes AIDS! PUT SIMPLY(And I mean simply) - The HIV virus attacks the white blood cells (T-cells, also known as CD4+ T cells ) which protect the body from infection and are produced in the lymphnodes. The average healthy human has somewhere between 500 and 1200 of these cells per cubic millimeter(mm3). A reduction of these cells (a compromised immune system such as that created by the hiv infection) leaves the human body open to infection. When the HIV virus has brought the T-cell or CD4 count to below 200mm3 we call that AIDS. So - HIV attacks T-cells, T-cells decrease in number, T-cells fall below 200mm3, Aids is diagnosed.
AIDS itself does not kill you....if not treated your body will no doubt pick up some virus or other and with a lowered immune system(below 200mm3 CD4) your body will not be able to fight it off.
Wasting Disease - wasting is not a disease it is a conditon that occurs when a debilitating disease (i.e. AIDS, TB, chronic diarrhea etc) causes muscle and fat tissue to "waste" away.
I'm HIV positive. :)
Have you ever went some time without using drugs? How did you feel? Healthier? Sometimes you have to use your instincts.
With over 38000 confirmed deaths as a result of AIDS before ARTs became available in 1987...my instinct is to continue with the meds until a cure is found. My blood work shows that they work to improve my immune functions. I count myself lucky to have them. To believe in this conspiracy rubbish would be disrespectful to the memory of all those who longed for such drugs and are now dead. Many of them served as guinea pigs to give me my health.
Fact - those who die today from AIDS are late diagnosed, do not have access to ARTs or are taken in by this AIDS denialism crap.
So you admit that you are essentially using YOUR instincts. The important thing is that you feel that your therapy works for you but perhaps you shouldn't blame others who use alternative therapies. The drugs that you use are not the Holy Grail and if I were you I'd be wary of depending on large pharmaceuticals with vested interests. There are many ways to boost your immune system and there are those out there who choose to not use ARTs because they are toxic and will, over time, destroy kidney function, liver function, etc. In the end it is YOUR life and you have to take care of it.
P.S. And as for waiting for a cure, well, my feeling is you aren't going to ever see one because the "Fight Against AIDS" has become a business empire in its own right, and finding a cure might not serve the interests of many, many people.
Thats exactly the type of paranoised crap Im talking about... :)
I don't think what I say is paranoia at all. Rather, I feel that it is important to keep a balanced view and look at the big picture from all angles. Yes, it would appear that ARTs are extending people's lives and that's a good thing, but there are people out there who would say that the lowered doses of AZT in those ARTs are what's extending lives. Just a question: Have you personally known someone who never took AIDS drugs, took good care of their health, and ended up dying from AIDS? Just curious. And like I said, it's your life and it is up to you what you do with it, but to be honest (Yes, I have researched the subject for quite some time now) I feel that the whole HIV/AIDS thing has been very messy from the very beginning, and there is no dount in my mind that there was huge pressure from the gay community (and others) to find the cause as to why the immune systems of so many gays were breaking down way back in 81. No, I'm not an AIDS denialist but I am not convinced that HIV inevitably leads to AIDS and I am convinced that there are many factors that cause immune deficiency. Even Luc Montagnier himself concedes that there are most likely several factors that lead to people developing full-blown AIDS and not just HIV alone, and he even concedes that if a person is exposed to HIV and has a healthy immune system then the body can actually rid itself of the HIV in a few weeks naturally! If you can't believe Luc Montagnier then who WILL you believe? Anyway, good luck and take care of yourself.
have you been taking drugs...poppers...and don't you have a low self esteem which would be the reason why your immune system is beaking down???
Hence you can catch any disease...which they will call AIDS
I know of a lot of people who are hiv positive and the ones who are sick or dead are the ones who took the meds. The ones who refused the meds and live healthy are alive and well. I am not suggesting that anyone stop taking their medication, but just do the research and incorporate a little common sense. T cell counts varies throughout the day. As one of the virologist stated, the HAART medication is a dna terminator, and the reason that your t-cell count is up is because the meds eat away at your bone marrow, which is rich in t-cells, so the T-cell count the test is picking up is from the bone marrow.
It's a running joke here where I live in West Hollywood, California, otherwise
known as boys town............the only people that die from aids are the ones
who get medical treatment. Another interesting fact, All those people dying
in Africa from "Aids"? Is there not a single person who does not remember well
before "Aids" was discovered that these Africans were dying en masse from
"Wasting Disease"? Suddenly "Aids comes along and Poof!! no more wasting
disease! How can a disease which was medically purported to kill so many
people suddenly disappear and be replaced by a new disease with a new
name? If Aids was discovered when scientists claim it was, then it cannot
be confused with Wasting Disease that plagued Africans for a much longer
time before "Aids" was identified. Sorry, can't have it both ways.
I live in Ontario Canada and am friends with a man that has had HIV for over 30 years and he takes the medication 2 years off and 1 on and is healthy even well living a very unhealthy life.Thats my only knowledge about this but it seems the people with no reason to lie witch others do for money are right.Not to say a person will 100 persent live with the medication.I feel my friend would and has lived 30 years with only taking the meds every 3 years mabe less.He probably would be dead if he was taking it every day and not as learned as he is about what works for him.
What does this mean?
when i see a film like this, what i want to see is a public debate or a openly accessible answer to it. I have been trained in science and i still cannot be sure as to which is correct or accurate here. I don't focus on the lack of cure, cures are rare for any illness, and we do seem to have some degree of management in developed countries. Often this is the best we can get, with any illness... not just lucrative ones.
Since Duesberg published his first paper on the subject in 1987, scientists have examined and criticized the accuracy of his hypotheses on AIDS causation. Duesberg sustained a long dispute with John Maddox, then-editor of the scientific journal Nature, demanding the right to rebut articles that HIV caused AIDS. For several years Maddox consented to this demand but ultimately refused to continue to publish Duesberg's criticisms:
[Duesberg] forfeited the right to expect answers by his rhetorical technique. Questions left unanswered for more than about ten minutes he takes as further proof that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Evidence that contradicts his alternative drug hypothesis is on the other hand brushed aside...Duesberg will not be alone in protesting that this is merely a recipe for suppressing challenges to received wisdom. So it can be. But Nature will not so use it. Instead, what Duesberg continues to say about the causation of AIDS will be reported in the general interest. When he offers a text for publication that can be authenticated, it will if possible be published.
your comment had nothing to do with disproving anything in this docu... and was just a personal opinion from an editor.
To prepare a "text for publication that can be authenticated" and to run clinical trials requires research grants- which as stated, no one wants to give him. Why don't you give him a couple million dollars so he can do this?
At no point in this documentary did any person state that AIDS does not kill or that if tested posative for AIDS they will not die. Fact is immune deficiency does kill.The argument is that HIV may not cause AIDS and as stated in this doco many of us may already carry this disease as a result of being born with it and live out our entire lives healthy and die at a ripe old age of some other disease or infliction and never know we had HIV at all.
There are many,many cases on record of people testing posative for HIV and living long healthy lives. However due to testing posative for HIV the death certificate may not state pneumonia,rather AIDS related pneumonia or something along those lines. As you say facts are facts and i think allot of the facts mentioned in this doco are lost on you.
In saying that i hope you live a long and happy life.
I'm a female who's ex-husband gave her HIV. I break all stereotypes. I'm from an upper crust white neighborhood. If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. If I stopped taking my meds everyday, I would be sick. The fact is that most of the aids denialists, who didn't have aids supposedly, are now dead. Facts are facts.
What they see in your blood is no virus,because they never saw this virus. They only look for antibodies. However these antibodies are the same antibodies as those in over 70 other diseases. You may have bleeding gums that produce these antibodies or something else. The HIV treatments make people ill, I know it by experience. I quit them all 2 years ago and I now know that I don't suffer from anything like a virus killing me.
No they are not. This is supposed to be a sexually transmitted disease. So just where the f*** are the dead bodies? I have never met anyone in my 52 years who has contracted aids, neither have I ever heard of someone , who someone knew...etc etc. If this is a sexually transmitted disease as we were terrorised into believing in the 80s and 90s, millions of heterosexuals in the western world would be dead by now. I repeat millions. They are not. The theory is disproved not by examining T-Cell counts but by mere f****** observation. This is called empirical science.
If this conspiracy theory is itself a conspiracy it must be removed from the site.
Facts in the documentary seemingly cannot be pooh-poohed so easily.
1.No argument found against the class 8 question(how infectious when antibodies are already there) or remaining dormant for years
2.Few organization might also be keen on keeping the theory alive as they might think that the fear will keep people away from SEX-DRUG-HOMO-etc.
Science should be above conspiracy.
it often is, but it rarely gets to that point... sadly, science is not about the $. I don't know if this is truthful as a documentary. What I do know with regards to science, and being a scientist once myself, is that the noble nature of seeking answers has changed. Once brilliant researchers sought to find answers, without specific regard to the number of people affected by those answers. That meant solid research was done for the sake of answering a question and solving a problem. Now, scientists only pursue answers to popular questions, ones with grants and glory. What ever happened to the researchers who would spend years searching for an answer that might only save one person out of millions? (See movie Lorenzo's oil) I have a friend with a rare kidney disease that has no name. There are 5 or 6 people worldwide with the condition and so there is no interest in solving it because there is no money to be made. No one wants to know about this peculiar condition that could also unlock so much knowledge about the body... nope. Not one researcher is willing to take on the puzzle of how it is possible for one man to produce over 7000 kidney stones. Yes. 7000, it's in guniness. The pain of one person matters not if the dollar value is not there. Researchers have long abandoned the heart of truth-seeking.
i will go see a psychiatrist after i have you injected with cancer and azt drugs which you love to promote. i think that is fair enough. i first inject you then you accompany me to a psychiatrist after that you may want to get an insurance company (wchich includes cancer as payable) or funeral company to arrange your burial hahaha
I will give you a dose of your own medicine so that people reading this will know what is the real truth behind these drugs
when I read your comments, I get an image of a wild-eyed man with crazy hair who keeps quacking "ha ha" like a parrot (you DO end most of your sentences with "haha")
Rather than arguing with science, why don't you go see a psychologist/psychiatrist? You sound like you're early onset schizophrenia. And I say this sincerely.
@RR and yet you know that Hugh doens't do any STD testing? Oh please. We're talking about a man who is so medically paranoid that he's constantly getting check ups, eating countless types of vitamins, and of course viagra.
The porn industry is required by law to do testing constantly so shoots can be shut down whenever one actor tests positive for HIV.
I do not work for the drug industry so I don't get money from it. I'm merely stating FACTS so that m@#$%^ like you don't die a horrible death and meanwhile, spread the disease to as many unsuspecting people as possible.
are you mentally unsound? Your writing style is unusual.......... You've basically made up your mind and refuse to see reason. maybe you should actually learn a little about science first.
lets do it this way
why dont you try injecting yourself with cancer drugs(which is basically the same as AZT which are both poisonuous so called drugs) the thing is you wont even classify AZT and cancer drugs as poison, and so since you dont classify that as poison and consider it as a harmless no sideffect medicine why dont i inject you with cancer drugs free of charge I WILL PAY FOR IT MAN
OK, presented with this overwhelming argumentation, I must give up. Seems like HIV does not cause AIDS.
oh common man! as if you know the life of hugh and the other billionaires out there who f evry second. what are you a PR man or something. they test first before they F oh common i know people who live a life like hugh and they dont do that so dont fool me and they are still f^&% alive and kickin
the porn industry knew about the outbrek only recently? oh common man your industry is an outbreak in itself!
why dont we try you together with chr be injected with cancer and azt drugs so that you will know if it is indeed a medicine or not
that is a fair challenge enough. i will answer the bill of your injection since both of you love these drugs
and i thought this thread is dead because of my unbreakable arguments how pathetic
Chr. Monsune 75
“Simply give AZT to HIV Negative and healthy people for a long period of time…and they will die from the same effects!”
Interesting. Millions of HIV positive take a drug-combination including AZT and have done it for a decade, and live normal lives, despite some reporting side-effects.
But HIV negative will die! Interesting indeed.
And how would you know?
CHR you again!
how many times do i have to debunk your arguements
lets do it this way
why dont you try injecting yourself with cancer drugs(which is basically the same as AZT which are both poisonuous so called drugs) the thing is you wont even classify AZT and cancer drugs as poison, and so since you dont classify that as poison and consider it as a harmless no sideffect medicine why dont i inject you with cancer drugs free of charge I WILL PAY FOR IT MAN!
so that you will see what i am talking about
those who believe in my arguments isnt that a fair challenge
so that we will stop talking about what is the truth to hiv and these drugs
why dont we put an end to this thread by injecting chr monsune with cancer and aids drugs so hell find out the real truth if it is really a poison or a medicine
common chr lets do it!
IM PAYING FOR IT! hhahahahaahaha
I hope you don't already have AIDs. Because if you screw prostitutes, your risk is very high and you're in denial. if you already have aids and you continue to have sex with other people, you're putting them at risk and that makes you a potential murderer.
The issue is NOT having sex less or more. The issue is whether or not the person you're having sex with is CLEAN.
Hugh hefner has sex with lots of girls, however I will guarantee you anything that the girls are contractually obligated to stay loyal to him during the length of their "arrangemet" and that there are regular STD tests to make sure the girls are clean.
Why do I believe this? Because that's what the porn industry does. DUH! and that's how we found out about the recent HIV outbreak in the porn industry!!!
You just want to justify your bad behavior. You would rather go into denial than to protect yourself. Frankly, i couldn't give less of a F that you want to pay for prostitutes. it's none of my business. I only care if you're contributing to a public health crisis. If you get aids and you spread it to your wife or girlfriend and you do so KNOWINGLY, you can go to jail! and you'd DESERVE to go to jail.
seeing as you're on this site and you've already admitted in writing that you frequent prostitutes, in the future if you DO get infected and infect others, there's written documentation.
YES! there is a scientifically validated way to determine on a genetic basis WHO spread HIV to whom. so there's no denying it. How do you think the CDC traces infections? a Ouji board?
@A quiet mind
The baby contracted HIV because the mother refused to take antivirals when pregnant and giving birth to the child. Those drugs have been proven to reduce the chance of passing HIV on to the infant but because she didn't believe HIV caused AIDs, she basically murdered her child. Denial kills!
@ Will See
If you knew even one iota of real information on virology and bacteriology you'd know the reason there's HIV1 and 2 isn't because scientists made up a new category to explain things they can't explain. All bacteria and viruses have different strains. There are countless strains of E. coli, countless strains of Listeria, and the same goes for virus. ESPECIALLY for viruses like HIV because HIV is a retrovirus (meaning it's genetic code goes from RNA to DNA instead of DNA to RNA). Retroviruses have a very high mutation rate because there is no mistake-fixing mechanism when you go from RNA to DNA. As a result, different strains of HIV are constantly appearing. The high mutation rate is also why its impossible, so far at least, to make a vaccine against HIV. But at the same time, due to the predictable rate of mutation that can be found in HIV, we can actually determine who was the original patient zero in every HIV outbreak. All we have to do is look at the genetic material of the HIV in all the infected, do a calculation on the differences that are a result of mutations, and we can calculate backwards to find hte person who had the original strain of HIV (ie the patient zero who infected everyone else). (Even with Herpes there are multiple strains. Most commonly known ones are herpes simplex 1 and 2, which causes cold scores and genital herpes)
Trust me it's a science. it's not something we just made up for the hell of it. And if you had studied genetics and cellular genetics, you'd be too informed to buy the simplest conspiracy theory answer. Real science is tough to understand so I know why lazy people would rather believe BS and go into denial.
The reason that antiviral drugs and drug cocktails do not CURE people is because viruses are incurable. The goal of the drugs is to prolong life and delay the onset of full blown AIDs. Just like insulin injections do not CURE a diabetic but simply controls the disease, the same is true of antiviral drugs for HIV.
We now know a small number of people are naturally resistant to HIV due to a difference in their cell surface receptor. Apparently it is better at exposing the virus to the immune system so it will be recognized and targeted for destruction.
H1N1 is very real but like all viruses, there are different strains. I have a phylogeny chart of all the H1N1 strains that infected numerous populations in asia and the west if you'd like to study it so that you may understand the mutation rate (molecular clock).
This is not a documentary. This is propaganda of the worst kind. Of COURSE HIV causes AIDS. there's been countless research by scientists all over the world that proves HIV causes AIDs. You think all the new grad students and post-docs who join the research every year wouldn't have noticed if the project they were working on was faked? You think all the money going towards AIDs research was spent on tequila?
HIV causes AIDS because HIV *IS* AIDS. why the different terms? because AIDs is when your HIV load is too high and your immune system too low and opportunistic diseases get ya when you're weakened. A person who has HIV but NOT AIDs is simply an infected person who still has immune function. That's it! these propagandists talk as if HIV and AIDs were separate diseases, they're NOT.
To the people who prefer to listen to a tiny group of quacks versus the entire world's legitimate scientists, I both pity and worry about you. If you have HIV, I hope your denial doesn't get you killed or another person infected. Not too long ago, one of the anti-HIV-causes-Aids proponents had children and refused to take antivirals to reduce her chance of passing HIV to her children. She thought HIV doesn't cause AIDs but her kids ended up infected. Then one of her kids died of HIV-related complications and she insists it was pneumonia, not AIDs that killed the kid. OF COURSE IT WAS PNEUMONIA! that's how AIDs kills! it weakens your immune system so that opportunistic infectios will get you and you won't be able to fight it off!
that's like a person insisting someone can die from a limb getting amputated while disputing the reason for that is because of blood loss
It seems like some people here are very eager to state their opinion about the HIV/AIDS and the treatment of it without checking the facts. Even not consider some of the facts actually presented in this documentary (not even knowing if they are facts or not!).
One should always applaud when people are being critical, even if what they say seem unreasonable, they are contributing by questioning what so many of us blindly belive in.
If you are so damn busy with agreeing or disagreeing with people, then join a political movent, study law enforcement or join some fanatically religious group. Don't bother with science. Numbers and calculations are not trying to convince us of any thing, although the people who present them might. All we have to do is consider.
wow, what BS. i have had friends who were on their deathbeds due to AIDS. Shitting out blood, vomitting blood, down to 100lbs. They started these new HIV drugs and now are healthy, functioning adults. To say that HIV doesnt cause AIDS is dangerous. My friends can now live productive lives with hardly any side effects with these new meds. Docs like this really shouldn't exist anymore. If you know anyone that works in an aids clinic anywhere they will tell you since 1995 when these new drugs have come out the death rates have decreased DRAMATICALLY! Call any aids clinic near you and they will tell you this info
"Simply give AZT to HIV Negative and healthy people for a long period of time…and they will die from the same effects!"
Interesting. Millions of HIV positive take a drug-combination including AZT and have done it for a decade, and live normal lives, despite some reporting side-effects.
But HIV negative will die! Interesting indeed.
And how would you know?
Simply give AZT to HIV Negative and healthy people for a long period of time...and they will die from the same effects! But yeah...I forget...we can't experiment on human to prove that pharmaceuticals company are crooks and making profits out of our lives!
lol @ AllNighter
yo, chr. monsune
you are a bore
really come on.
You must hate Michael Moore
but whats more, I only wrote this because it was sad that you got the last word.
"H.I.V. has been around in humans for hundreds of years and did not cause A.I.D.S."
I thought I'd seen it all, but this one is new. Any evidence available?
H.I.V. has been around in humans for hundreds of years and did not cause A.I.D.S.Our government is blowing our tax dollars and lying to us and covering it up like it all-ways has done since our country was formed and all-ways will...it's the nature of power position and ego...
Whether or not HIV causes AIDS is an interesting topic worthy of investigation. However, this documentary repeatedly attmepts to blame "lifestyle factors" such as drug use for the appearance of AIDS in many patients. They not only blame the patients for their conditions, but overlook a simple fact: AIDS is commmunicable, it often passes from mother to child, and people without negative "lifestyle factors" that they list have been infected by the millions. Their conclusions make little sense, and they lack the proof to back up their statements, but rather seem keen on perpetuating the marginalization of AIDS victims.
also, probably the simplest argument that i have against this aids hiv thing is....
i will believe everything you say about hiv and aids IF and only IF!
IF Hugh Hefner dies first and because of hiv aids i will believe in everything you say about hiv and aids and probably kneel for forgiveness from you BUT for as long as that man is alive and kicking man you can not and will not convince me about hiv aids haha
it just wont stick in my mind that someone like me who fu*^%^ prostitutes once a month have a better chance of having hiv aids than a man who fu*&^&% every second of his life and who seems to be more healthy than me haha
why dont you first remind Hugh and the others like him to cut their penises first than waste your time on a small timer like me who cant even afford to F&%%$^ every second
i just cant understand why aids propagandist are wasting so much time on someone like me (and a small timer like me) than waste their time on these billionaires and celebrities who fu&^%^% every second.
i just cant understand why hahahaha
For everybody who have watched this documentary and seems to be refusing to believe the statement that HIV does not cause AIDS is understandable. I am not sure if I believe all of the statements but I do know that companies have been known to cheat and lie so why not now? Statistics have proven that our consumption of medications during these past few years have increased by 300 percent. We are going crazy by consuming so much medications without giving a second thought on what it could be doing to our bodies. Human bodies have a certain amount of chemicals that need to stay in balance and medications are chemicals that could easily break the balance of chemicals in our bodies. In other words we are putting chemicals in our bodies in places that should not be there or should not be there at all. I am not saying that all medications are harmful, its just that at the current amount our society is consuming its quite alarming.
again! your statements are not just ambiguous but also vague!
it sounds as if you are an elementary graduate.
i ask you a direct question and you answered it with vague and ambiguous answer!
if im your teacher i will definitely give you a NEGATIVE Z FOR LIFE!
chr common man!
all medicine is poison you said common! get a life!
you cant even get what im saying whats your IQ?
i can take a lot of drug in the pharmacy taken one at a time
even though im not sick for the disease it cures
frm arthritis, to high blood, etc..
just for comparison to your so called all medicines are poisonous statement
my body can deal with that medicine and forget it
BUT! dont give me a chemo and aids drug man!
it is like injecting yourself with an insecticide!
lets look at another example, say ahh antibiotic drug now thats a target specific drug---it targets specific strains of bacteria and whatever in the body without damaging the surrounding areas
now lets look at your chemo and aids drug(is a collateral damage drug) which you promote how does it work?
IT WORKS BY DESTROYING EVERYTHING IN ITS PATH! good cells bad cells it does not choose it is like a mad man on the loose
that is why you get so weak and as thin as a somalian kid!
when you take these medicines!
all medicines are poison you make me laugh man!
you make simple things really complicated!
im trying my best to make this thing as simple as possible to all the readers here and what do you do?
you obfuscate things...
we talk about medicines
and you drag it into a philosophical language game!
to the readers, just use your reason and logic in this
you know who between us is messing things up!
I may be a moronic idiot, but correct me if I'm wrong . . . . has anyone died of "AIDS" that WASN'T HIV positive? I mean seriously! Can you die of this horrible disease apart from HIV infection?
Millions (literally) have died from AIDS, have they not? Looks like we'd have some pretty good data on cause and effect by now.
just to keep this discussion going you know how stupid this chemo thing just like aids drugs...
it is what i call a "collateral-damage drug' which means if you kill the person then therefore you kill the disease haha
how stupid can i get!
its like we have a hostage situation in this building call in the cops. the cops come and they say y dont we just blast the whole $%$% building off so that we kill all the terrorists!
now isnt that such a nice idea when applied to medicine
how stupid can it get!
and that is exactly how chemo kills you---i mean cure you so to speak according to doctors.
aids medicine is just the same
it follows the same stupid principle
after all the billions and the decades wasted this is all we get!
and chr monsune does not want you to know that people!
> why dont we ask first hand CHR MONSUNE how
> would he categorize chemotheraphy drugs is it a
> POISON OR A MEDICINE?
Everything you eat has wanted and unwanted effects. Medicine is biochemically active stuff, and it comes with big or small side effects. For chemotherapy the side-effects are unfortunately serious. For HIV medication much less so.
So, all medicine is also "poison" - it is a trade-off. There are those who wants to go unpoisoned to their grave - their choice.
just a note
like anti aids/hiv medicines, chemotheraphy is just about the same level as these drugs ok---in terms of medical technology the are just about in the same primitive stage.
i cant even help but think why in the last few decades electronics/computer tecchnology has progressed so much from 1 transistor to a million transistors jst inside a single small chip and medicine has not progressed that much---there are a lot of new diseseases and still after decades and so many billions no cure oh common! ...
so just to give you people an idea how primitive chemotheraphy and hiv/aids(assuming its true) medicine is why dont we ask first hand CHR MONSUNE how would he categorize chemotheraphy drugs is it a POISON OR A MEDICINE?
because if you go inside a hospital they will tell you ah this is the cure for your cancer---chemo
so now why dont we just talk about the reality of it
i want the truth ok a straightforward TRUTH!
and dont tell me "you cant handle the truth" just like jack nicholson" in a few good men ok!
---also, there was also this dr famous dr who innoculated himself with aids and he died--- why because he was shot dead because of aids haha the people who believed in aids cant wait for him to die because they know he will not die in 10 yrs time
those losers! hahaha
to Aequitas----Thats right man!
at least someone in here is thinking unlike chr monsune!
i even doubt if magic is even taking aids medications...
and why is that so??
because if he is taking these medications he would have been dead long ago!
and why is that so?
because these medications are poisons!
his internals would have been deep fried long ago had he taken all these medications!
and that is why he is such a flubber right now
and not emaciated like a somalian kid!
do i make sense to you people?
just use logic man!
you dont even need to look at the facts
and all those probailistic sex mathematics that is being
said by chr monsune !
just use 1% of your brain!
If this is true, Magic Johnson suddenly makes more sense.
To chr monsune common man don't confuse me with your so called HIV probabilistic mathematics of the statistical quantification etc. etc.applying that to aids
I am an engineer i eat math for breakfast, lunch, and dinner...
I eat math 3x a day and don't tell me i still have to compute while having sex... haha
You are such a headache!
i had comments yesterday but it was deleted because it was so good that it can not be questioned for its accuracy
well that is what you get for saying the truth.
only intelligent people who understands political economics of this know
"As for drug companies – I wouldn’t doubt for a moment that they would turn a profit to hurt others ..."
Neither do I. This is also why there are strong regulations to protect us. The medicine approval process is extremely elaborate and well-founded in science. Antiviral medicine is no exception. This does not mean that mistakes can not happen, but it is not the order of the day.
There are no countries in the world that have an infection rate of 70%. But people with untreated AIDS die, nothing has changed. In countries where they have no treatment you can walk into the places and see where they put their victims. Young people literally ruttening away, with arms and legs being merely bones. Google for "aids patient" and view images.
"i should have been dead by now just like the other guys who were diagnosed and sentenced by their doctors to death."
If you are "only" infected nobody will predict when you will die, or even if.
If you have progressed to AIDS, chances for surviving one years untreated is in average about 50%, as far as I remember.
It is anyone's choice if he/she wants to be treated or not, or follow recommendations. Some waits until the writing on the wall becomes crystal clear.
The problem is, that if you wait long enough your chances for a successful treament drops sharply.
People with HIV, treated in time, have today only a tribled chance of dying before time, compared to non-infected.
Why anyone want to run around with CD4-cells in the few hundreds, and rising viral load (something that today even small labs will be able to test), if beyond me. But most of the deniers do not test.
Have you guys seen that movie STINKS! It is about how the FDA covers hundreds of chemical ingredients under the word fragrance in every cleaning product and any other product of personal use. People believes blind that what you get in the store is been tested and it is not poisonous to humans but because people don't want to be responsible and the interest in keep making money they lie to us! I would not be surprise that if you can't trust the FDA then how could we trust the multimillionaire industry that sells pills? They for sure want you to keep buying them and in order to buy you must be sick.
Haven't researched enough to know if this is true or the predominant view is true. It is though the first time I've seen someone say the two aren't related. I have a family member that is in a medical lab and she has always said that they don't understand cancers even completely and she believes they blame smoking for everything and that's why as a non smoker she had no fear of a husband who smoked. From that experience I know that her view of the evidence is not taken well by peers. Medicine has a lot to work on, once they think they find a cause they tend to leave it in concrete and say debate over. For that reason I think there could be some truth in what these folks are saying.
I remember at some point years ago I read that over 70% of haiti was affected by hiv/aids and since their disaster happened people are STILL sending cash. That figure stuck in my mind because it was so large. Why aren't they dying if they aren't using our drugs from the US. As for drug companies - I wouldn't doubt for a moment that they would turn a profit to hurt others and ride the common thought and that's probably what fuels my suspicion coupled with listening to my family member say don't believe everything a doctor says because they rarely do their own research because there isn't enough time.
to Chr Monsune, what you are saying is not only ambiguous but also vague!
the more i look at your justification the more i@#$% i become. and also the more i think it is such a stupid disease wherein getting would require you to get a calculator and compute using all those stupid statistical formulas that are actually useless in the real world.
why dont you and your cohorts at the aids institute invent a more stupid disease that wont require me to use a calculator just to know my chances. why dont you ask them to invent a disease(not as stupid as this one) that kills you instantly or next day the moment you have sex. and not this stupid aids disease that you dont even know when you are going to die. because if i am gonna believe in this aids B.S. im more likely to die of a headache than with aids.
what a crappy disease! whover invented this is an i@#$%!
AIDS is b@##$%&*!
i should have been dead by now just like the other guys who were diagnosed and sentenced by their doctors to death..
if you now how healthy i am i think me and including those who were sentenced to death together with their doctors go tru a marathon session non stop and lets see who gives up first the sentencers or us the sentenced haha!
"I know a couple whose wife is HIV positive for 29 years."
That was a long time, she must then have been infected around 1981. She will then be an Long-Term-Non-Progressor, LTNP. Great! LTNP's have consistently low viral load, and will as sexual partners have a lowered infectivity.
The risk of sexual infection for a man with a HIV+ woman is often estimated to be around 0.1% pr. intercourse, but it is an average figure. Some women will never infect their partner, regardless of how much unprotected sex they have.
HIV is not special here. Even high-infectious viral diseases, like active Hepatitis or Herpes, may just never infect the partner.
These are realities to be considered. Saying that HIV-infected people never should have unprotected sex is an oversimplification.
But the risk is very hard to calculate, and the partner must be informed, otherwise it is inexcusable.
Is this a joke? Are these people complete i@#$%&?? They are going to have a LOT of blood on their hands if people start buying into this garbage. Shame on you.
Sorry for posting twice, this is mildly edited.
WHATEVER YOU DO, PROTECT YOURSELF REGARDLESS OF WHO IS SPEWING PROPAGANDA!!!!
On the other hand, this documentary is very thought provoking. I can't say I bought it hook line and sinker, and at the same time it gives me something to think about. FOR A FACT! I know a couple whose wife is HIV positive for 29 years. Within 29 years, she remarries three times, but none of her husbands are HIV positive. Yet none of them ever used condoms during sex with her! Also as of today she is as healthy as a mountain goat!
I have heard about this claim that HIV does not cause AIDS before, and I have always said it is all bananas. However, this documentary has given me another way to look at the whole scary picture.
This documentary is very thought provoking. I can't say I bought it hook line and sinker, and at the same time it gives me something to think about. FOR A FACT! I know a couple whose wife is HIV positive for 29 years, remarried three times but none of her husbands are HIV positive even though they attest to not using condoms during sex. Also as of today she is as healthy as a mountain goat!
I have heard about this claim that HIV does not cause AID cries before and have always said it is all bananas, but this documentary has given me another way to look at the whole scary picture.
Chr Monsone - you are typically a person who loves to sound informed and educated! You fail to look at things critically and certainly, your ability to oberve things socially is weak. i was diagnosed HIV positive too 8 years ago and I was told point blank by a doctor i was gonna be dead in four years. i literelly laughed in his face and have since refused to take any of their meds and I am here alive and well.
People who are diagnosed HIV positive tend to be people with different social and geographical backgrounds. Seems so funny how among prostitutes who are found to be positive - those prostitutes who use drugs and maintain a risky type of behavior die a lot faster than those hookers who live a relatively clean life and do not take HIV drugs. have you considered the fact that there is a trend called sex tourism in the world? And the culprits in this trend are White American and white British men? they go to the world's brothels in third world countries to have sex for a dollar all night with young vulnerable children.
They do this in the so called HIV havens! Do not fool yourself to think these perverts use condoms - because a lot of biracial children are being born in these brothels, they are left behind by their father who go back to America to their "responsibilities" - now imagine this happening for over 30 years but the statistics of the infection rate in USA has been always constant for the past 25 years (1 million infected since recording started, while in Africa and Asian the virus infected millions n the same period of time) . I do not know about you - but I am not stupid. I imagine, illicit drugs' business runs in the billions and the major consumers of those drugs are Americans.
I have lived among Americans my friend - they live for sex and drugs and there is practically no class discrimination when it comes to that - do you want to tell me that when they are loaded with drugs, which are known to increase sexual desire, they will always remember to wear condoms before sex? Well if so how come stats USA claims an increase in the spread of gonorrhea and other other stds?
Conspicuously while all other STDs are on the rise in USA, the HIV numbers remain constant at i million over the years. Now consider this - they tell you one person is infected with HIV every nine seconds in USA or Canada - ok just do the Maths.If the number of those being infected would remain constant, that is only possible mathematically if the number of people being infected is equal to the number of people dying from HIV/AIDS.
Well there are drugs to help people live ha? well if we do not see the AIDS graves, why are the numbers of infection in USA constant? Surely you must think Africans are children of a lesser God. You know nothing about how a dangerous disease like syphilis is neglected in Africa mean time ti has spread its tendercles and is ravaging populations there while over-funded organizations and individuals go there to look for HIV.
People like yo know little and little knowledge is always very dangerous. Personally I find Robert Gallo to be an idiot who loves to bask in Academic glory - be careful of such people. there are a lot of eminent biologist who have disputed him and while the statistical evidence is piling against him, i wonder why people of little knowledge like you even bother to comment on a serious issue like this one.
This gave me a new outlook to all the programming of media and medicine. I do not have the either of the diseases but always try to learn and educate myself on what I do not know. The first rule I am inclined to use now is: Everyone wants one thing from me and that is my BELIEF in them or what they are saying. Please learn and practice this rule as well!
"According to Hiv/Aids establishment I should be dead by now"
This is simply not true. The "establishment" records experiences with HIV-infected people, and a small percentage of people never progress to AIDS, and some progress very slowly. Average is around 10 years.
For this reason, treatment is usually postponed until figures and a general health evaluation says "time to start".
Great that you can stay well for long time. Some people are that lucky. Some people are not.
Note that this goes for virtually any known disease. Do you die from Malaria? Typhoid? Cholera? Plague? There is no "according to establishment"-opinion here. Some die rapidly, some are close, some just get sick, some are hardly affected.
There are also nobody (to my knowledge) that dispute that antivirals have some (small) toxic effect. Note, that the more you have allowed yourself to progress, the more toxic medicine you may have to take.
The big problem is, that figures - viral load and T-cell counts - have to be respected, regardless of whether you have lived alright with HIV-infection for 5 or 15 years. Please do not make the mistake, that just because you are in the lucky group you will forever be so.
When figures get bad enough there is one thing certain: that HIV is so much more "poisonous" than the meds. With meds you live fine, without them you, frankly, are so likely to die.
Do your checks, and if doctor's recommendation is that it's time to start treatment, think more than twice before saying no.
May you stay well forever!
Hi to everyone again.
It is my duty to again tell the world about honoring theirs hearts and their intuitions.
A few of my good friends have been on the cocktail for many years. Even though their "numbers are good" they don't feel so good or look so good...
Here it goes:
15 years ago I was diagnosed HIV +.
Even though it could sound like a death sentence something inside me knew it wasn't.
The doctors tried to pressure me to go on a treatment but I felt very skeptical about it.
There nothing personal about their advice and it seems like they were trained to give out drugs without recommending other alternatives.
Their one track minded attitude made me suspicious.
I also wasn't ready to a lifetime commitment to take very hardcore drugs for the rest of my life. I wasn't ready to endure terrible side effects and poison my body because the establishment said so.
This documentary confirms what I believed from the get go.
According to Hiv/Aids establishment I should be dead by now and I am alive and well.I have vibrant health needles to say I have been working out for 18 years and I eat well.I am no Saint and I have done my fair share of partying and staying up all night.
I am the Anti Christ of the establishment and I am going to keep on testifying so I can inspire other people to believe in themselves and not believe the hype.
Love and Light.
What a joke of a Doc.
"...only towards the end do we find out that he [Dr. Duesberg] had lost all of his federal funding allegedly as a result of his outspoken criticisms of the HIV=AIDs hypothesis."
To get funding you have to do scientific work, which stands up to peer review for quality.
Duesberg's 'work' for the last 20 years is a disaster. In the beginning he shared the view on the causes of AIDS with a number of other researchers. Not yet so many cases. All options were open. Drugs? Bacteria? Food poisoning?
Then came the explosion in AIDS cases in the eighties. Only a few doctors in the world would ever have seen a PCP case. Then, in '81, 4 cases in the same hospital. The Lancet called it "bizarre". In the coming years such cases grew to tens of thousands.
Several large studies were made, involving a thousands of homosexuals.
Drugs as cause were ruled out by the strongest argument we have: total lack of sufficient correlation.
OK, AIDS was found mostly among gays, and many gays use poppers. So far so good.
But in came children born by HIV+ mothers, bleeders using blood products, gays who swore they never used drugs, people who injected known recreational drugs etc. Only common link: being HIV+.
Studies involving thousands(!) of gay men were made. Some being HIV+, some HIV-, some using poppers extensively, others none.
The results were crystal clear.
How many immune disease cases was found in poppers-using men that were HIV-negative?
Hundreds? Ten? Five? No: zero.
How about men reporting never using poppers, but being HIV+? Same risk for developing AIDS as popper-users.
With these data the poppers-cause-AIDS theory is stone dead and buried.
But if anyone want to fund Duesberg for doing research, they are welcome. But don't expect him to do experiments or produce data, he hasn't been doing this for 20 years.
"I wonder if he is not motivated somewhat by his frustrations. Also, much of the science quoted here is pretty dated, going back into the early 1990s. Would have liked to see more recent studies used."
To be HIV-does-not-cause-AIDS you have to ignore an enormous amount of research, and select a few studies that could be interpreted to support this view.
"I honestly don't know what to make of this film. Quite scary if it is true in its accusations that AIDs has not been cured, because we've focused on the wrong causes."
AIDS has not been cured, as it is impossible to remove the virus from long-lived cells in the body. With medication we can suppress HIV to become undetectable, but when the treatment stops the HIV-count goes up again.
This doc throws alot at the viewer and very quickly. It quotes different studies without much context, and uses only two expert sources over and over again. Dr. Dueling is used most prominently, and only towards the end do we find out that he had lost all of his federal funding allegedly as a result of his outspoken criticisms of the HIV=AIDs hypothesis. I wonder if he is not motivated somewhat by his frustrations. Also, much of the science quoted here is pretty dated, going back into the early 1990s. Would have liked to see more recent studies used.
I honestly don't know what to make of this film. Quite scary if it is true in its accusations that AIDs has not been cured, because we've focused on the wrong causes.
"it is taught that one has a 0.3 percent chance of contracting HIV from an infected needle, now with a percentage that low how is it they say that drug users contract this virus from the needles….hmm? "
This is because of the difference in the way the needles are used.
If you just put the needle into another person, inject something, then withdraw the needle and then by accident get the needle into your own skin the chance is very small. The 0.3% is simply calculated statistically - how many infected,
divided with how many reported an accident with a HIV+ person.
But recreational drug users don't do it like that - they deliberately drag lots of blood into the syringe to mix with the drugs, all to boost the effect when it's re-injected into the bloodstream. When pass the syringe to the next person and he does the same, any blood left in the syringe (and there will always be some) will directly mix with the blood from the previous one.
In my opinion it should come as no surprise to anybody that we here talk about two completely different scenarios and a dramatically different infection risk.
Add to that, that accidents for a nurse will be rare event, most likely only one single time in their life. Drug users do their injection over and over again.
- - -
"The other point i notice is that it is taught that one has a 0.09 percent chance of contracting HIV through mucous contact, so how can they say you can contract the virus through one sexual encounter…..hmm?"
You can also win the lottery, even if you only play once. It is just not very likely.
In addition, the figure 0.09% is average. Those having sores (typically from other STDs) have a much higher risk.
But sure, the average high-school student that has casual sex at some party, should not destroy months of their life worrying about HIV-infection.
- - -
"i fully believe this documentary, if you want more scientific evidence watch the documentary “AIDS INC.” It’s more scientific and detailed than this one, i fact i sent it to some of my friends that are doctors and scientific researchers who would soon get back to me on this"
There is definitely an "AIDS Inc.", and some drug companies who make big money. Also, some CEOs would like to bend the truth to suit their business - it is their job. But it is not from them we form our opinion about HIV and AIDS.
In all countries the tobacco companies are among the largest businesses. So, how many doctors are they buying? How many people believe, that smoking is probably not harmful to your health?
I don't know anybody. The evidence against smoking is overwhelming, with literally tens of thousands of studies showing the causality between smoking and disease.
But you will find a few discredited scientists that still claim that smoking does not cause disease, and can drum up arguments that convinces laymen.
Likewise for HIV and AIDS.
i just have a few things to say, i'm just got through a course in bloodborne pathogens and when dealing with the HIV/AIDS topic there are some confusing things about it e.g. it is taught that one has a 0.3 percent chance of contracting HIV from an infected needle, now with a percentage that low how is it they say that drug users contract this virus from the needles....hmm? The other point i notice is that it is taught that one has a 0.09 percent chance of contracting HIV through mucous contact, so how can they say you can contract the virus through one sexual encounter.....hmm? so i fully believe this documentary, if you want more scientific evidence watch the documentary "AIDS INC." It's more scientific and detailed than this one, i fact i sent it to some of my friends that are doctors and scientific researchers who would soon get back to me on this
"If you don’t get HIV you can safely bet 100,000 to one that you in the next 20 years will not get PCP, KS or a CD4 cell count below 300.
If you are HIV+ even a fifty-fifty bet is a very bad deal."
I should have added that it only applies to untreated cases.
If people are treated in time (which is before having progressed to AIDS) life goes on. T-cells start rising and the progression towards AIDS is reversed.
Even if diagnosed with AIDS there are good chances for a normal life, though significantly worse than for above.
Are the meds toxix? Sure. All meds are, not the least those you need to keep taking.
But those starting early enough can avoid the worst drugs, and life appears pretty normal.
I know quite a handful of such people. I also had a couple of friends who treated too late, some because they did not know their status, some because they denied the effects of HIV.
I don't think you have the slightest grasp on Farr's Law as it pertains to HIV/AIDS. In the US, HIV "infection" has remained at a FLAT LINE LEVEL,from the first random sample testing in 84 until now..26 years later at about .05% (ranging from as low as about .043 to .063%) That means roughly about 1 person out of 200 will test "positive" to HIV antibody year after year after year. This is well confirmed by the CDC on over 25 million Americans EVERY YEAR and disputes any small studies conducted by Big Pharma paid liars. HIV is NOT new. You would probably find the same random numbers going back to 1890 and in 2050 as well.
HIV obviously fails EVERY "cause and effect" test you can possibly examine it under to try and demonstrate HIV as the cause of AIDS.
1.The Patient is ANTIBODY IMMUNE (no rampant viral particle increase compared to any other viral disease - NO active virus)
2. Retroviruses do not kill host cells, or they would kill themselves as well. -- years of study and common sense prove this.
3. There is not enough active virus to kill cells even if they did. This wold be like killing the Chinese army at three soldiers a day.
4. Viruses don't take 25 years to cause a disease, the life span of "HIV infection is about three weeks.
5. Farr's Law again.. HIV Can NOT be new.
6. HIV has no AIDS causing genes and is exactly like all other harmless retroviruses.
7. It does not work evenly in US women or in people outside of risk groups, all of which have reasons to explain why they are sick without HIV.
8. It does not work the same way with drug addicts, gay men, or people living in dire poverty. AIDS is totally different in every continent in the world, due to different causes in each.
9. People without HIV in these risk groups get the SAME diseases (all 29 of them are old and existed for years before "AIDS)
10 The Vast majority of people (about 95% worldwide) with "HIV infection" are healthy not sick. WHO and UNAIDS have even admitted that their "projections were wrong and misguided"
I think you should do the same. Give it up. HIV/AIDS is a terrible fraud and lie.
Well, I got an instant smirk when the very first thing was a disclaimer pointing out that this documentary is based on alternative theories, and most definitely isn't given as medical advice or instruction.
You don't see many of them on condom adverts.
"The death of EJ was attributed to a negative antibiotic reaction"
By you, maybe, and by notorious dissident Al-Bayati, who also stood behind the laughable report "Everybody tests positive for HIV..."
The medical examiner found rampant signs of HIV-infection. See below.
"Retroviruses have been around in man for centuries."
Sure, but still the first one was only discovered in ´81. So nobody could have intentionally created HIV, the knowledge was simply not there.
"cause of a “new Epidemic” based on Farr’s Law of evenly spread positive testing."
Au contraire. HIV is a star example of Farr´s law, which Dennis J. Bregman and Alexander D. Langmuir showed in 1990. "The 6 years of incidence data closely fit a normal distribution that crests in late 1988 and then declines to a low point by the mid-1990s." Farr´s law applied.
(JAMA. 1990;263(11):1522-1525. )
Still, on any dissident website you can read about HIV not following Farr´s law. Of course, if a law predict 25% percent increase in broken legs in US and the true figure turns out to be only 24%, any dissident can say that the "law failed".
"I think you should come up to date and scare people with H1NI now, since that it where that latest scam is making money."
I agree. Irresponsible usage of public resources on dubious medicine. The difference is in the figures. H1N1 has, according to ECDC killed 15,000. This is in comparison to the seasonal flu that kills 250,000.
HIV has killed 30 million people, and keeps killing 2 million people pr. year.
In addition, H1N1 and flu kills preferably weaker people who might not have lived long anyway. HIV kills people in their sexually active age.
"What does this mean? “The who HIV skeptcism is based on what you can convince layment about.”"
Each and every point presented in the debate does not make it over the doorstep to the places of people who actually work with it.
Down in the bar you and a few discredited scientists can convince Tom, Dick and Harry that HIV is not proven to exist, and never has been isolated according to the "Pasteur Institute standard", or has never caused disease, is not sexually transmitted etc. etc.
Take this to the Pasteur Institute and they shake their head. They will tell you that the strains of HIV-1 can be classified into four groups: the "major" group M, the "outlier" group O and two new groups, N and P.
They will tell you that they have isolated HIV for almost 30 years, and that they are busy analyzing the HIV-DNA structures, reviewing test results, improving tests for less common subtypes etc.
You can also convince lots of people that the albatros never existed, pictures were faked, and that nobody ever has found one.
Then take it to your local university, Ornithology faculty, and tell them that the hundreds of studies, pictures, descriptions of habitat, classification of subspecies etc. etc. is a misunderstanding. You will get equally far as for HIV.
That is what I mean. Laymen and a handful of scientists who has said the same for 30 years.
- - -
The mecical examiners finding for Eliza Jane. None of it related to an antibiotic reaction. For HIV it is the order of the day.
Of course, according to Al-Bayati, it is all wrong. What else can he say? It can convince you, so it is OK.
1. Pneumocystis carinii was found in Eliza Jane's lungs by Gomori methenamine silver staining in association with pink foamy casts in the alveoli. The lungs were also edematous (water-logged).
2. Eliza Jane was mildly neutropenic (low neutrophil--a type of white blood cell--count) and profoundly anemic (low red blood cell count)
3. Eliza Jane's brain contained throughout its white matter with relative sparing of cortex a number of variable-sized microglial nodules characterized by multinucleate giant cells associated with moderate pallor and myelination, occasional macrophages, and angiocentric pattern. These lesions stained positive by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for the HIV core p24 protein, a finding consistent with HIV encephalitis.
4. There was atrophy of the spleen and thymus
5. There was enlargement of the liver with fatty infiltrate of the cells (steatosis) and ascites
Your comments neither make sense or have any validity whatsoever. The death of EJ was attributed to a negative antibiotic reaction, NOT AIDS. and that is why the faulty "cause of death" was settled out of court. Why do you defame the dead child and facts to perpetuate this myth? Christine die not die of "AIDS" either.
What do you mean by this? "Did Nixon build the pyramides? HIV was definitely not made by man. It has been around since the 60es. The first human retrovirus was found in ‘81."
Retroviruses have been around in man for centuries. HIV is very old and can not be the cause of a "new Epidemic" based on Farr's Law of evenly spread positive testing. The great fear of an HIV/AIDS "epidemic" went into decline in 1993. Even Oprah doesn't go there anymore.
I think you should come up to date and scare people with H1NI now, since that it where that latest scam is making money.
What does this mean? "The who HIV skeptcism is based on what you can convince layment about."
Did Nixon build the pyramides? HIV was definitely not made by man. It has been around since the 60es. The first human retrovirus was found in '81.
HIV and related diseases exploded epidemically in the 80es. PCP was documented in 30 or so cases before 80. During the 80es tens of thousands of PCP was reported, all in HIV+ people. If drugs were the cause we should have 10,000 times increase in drug intake. Madness.
The who HIV skeptcism is based on what you can convince layment about.
to call these people quaks is ridiculous... subjects like this need skeptisism to ever be solved, cause for further research is obviously needed and these people are pushing for it, are you people saying that we should all just execpt that HIV 100% causes AIDS and go on forever without a cure. We must listen to these people because it makes more sense than it dosn't.
I have alot of respect for these guys, people that fight for evidence are always discoverers and milestones in history i.e Galileo who was condemed for disbelife on widely excepted matters based on little proof.
There is alot of inconsistencies in this doc. One of these id where the narrator is talking about homosexual male sex and foriegn proteins causing the AIDS virus, Homosexuals have been having sex way before AIDS was even identified and before the condom was ever created. So, how is it possible that AIDS wasn't found until the 80's if foreign proteins were causing AIDS in gay men? That makes no sense at all. However, the theory of drug use is extrememly interesting as well. I have hard time seeing the consistancies in this theory and idea, at least how it is being presented in this doc. There just isn't enough evidence or information in this one doc to make see the connections.
One other point is why does this documentary not cover the discrepancies between the two doctors that suppossively have discovered the AIDS virus around the same time? Why does this documentary not cover the inconsistant details involving the "green" monkey theory as to the origin of AIDS? It only mentions in one little part of this documentary and that is where the comparison of AIDS related cases in Africa vs. the cases in the United States. Also no where in this documentary did it even suggest that AIDS maybe an actual man made virus. Toying with that idea just in speculation is enough to show that the narrator and the researchers for this doc at least did a detailed investigation. And yes there is some connections to AIDS and the man made theory.
we just have to keep in the back of our minds that medical science is more applied than it is researched, ok?
How many practioners prescribing a drug for how many men and women actually finding and verifying it?
It is just to keep in mind that the system of checks and accountability in the medical market and regulatory system in place does not allow for anyone nor for a practionner to be so sure... and the real point of this documentary is to show you that even researchers may disagree while the society has already agreed.
Hi Will See,
both E.J. and Christine died from AIDS, and the story is, as I wrote, the most likely statistical outcome.
There are no court-case outcomes supporting any other view. Are you referring to the lawsuit where releasing an autopsy report that gave E.J's death cause as AIDS-related pneumonia? The lawsuit, settled out of court, was about the _release_ of this information, not about whether it was correct or not.
The only such support I have been able to find comes from the notorious Al-Bayati, who is a well-known denialist with a very relaxed attitude towards the truth.
_His_ reports has been debunked numerous times.
First a young child die from AIDS, then the mother, from PCP, a disease that only hits immuno-compromized people. Solution for the denialists? Lie about it.
Kelly K. You may not realize this but you are actually in danger of a slander lawsuit about E.J and Christine Maggiore in your obvious non-medical or expert declaration of the "cause" of these deaths being HIV/AIDS. These non-verified and now debunked diagnoses have been reviewed in court cases by the evidence and analysis of the actual cause of death and HIV AIDS was not determined to be the cause.
Lawsuits may follow the sources and further spreading of these slanderous lies, beginning with the LA examiners who made the initial misdiagnosis.
This is typical of people who believe religiously in Gallo's fraud, and follow blindly without any validation.
Maggiore was a school example:
If you are HIV positive, and not treated before giving birth, half of your children in average will get the virus, and have, still untreated, only one chance in 20 to see their 4th birthday.
The evidence that HIV-infection is the cause of immune-disease is extreme.
Getting certain diseases - like PHP, or CD4 count less than 200 - gives you an AIDS diagnosis right away. Don't even need to test for HIV (though most people insist on it), unless you have special reasons for being immunocompromised (like treatment after a transplantation).
You may be on to something Emmanuel. I say you follow your heart, it's good to see people out there that have still got that spirit.
Forget these hacks that say Orville and Wilbur Wright, I mean what kind of names are those, invented the aeroplane. It was Sir George Cayley, almost 100 years before those hillbilly brothers, but Cayley died almost unknown, a privte soul who flew just for his own enjoyment.
But not you Emmanuel, I have a feeling about you. You are cut from different cloth, just lie Dr. Barry Marshall. He won a nobel prize because of a feeling he had, a feeling deep within his bones. He did the only thing people like you guys do in a situation like that. They experiment on themselves. Marshall ingested a bacteria that he had cultivated to see if bacteria actually caused stomach ulcers, it was the only logical option. Turns out it did cause it and it was one of the most most radical and important changes in the last 50 years in the perception of a medical condition.
Go for it, get HIV, and prove to us all that it doesnt cause AIDS.
You would win a Nobel Pize too. But don't forget to mention me at your acceptence speech.
I followed my heart and intuition regarding the HIV/AIDS topic which led me to watch this truthful documentary.
This is stupid... we all know that HIV/AIDS research gets virtually no funding anymore. It's not cured, however medications of today work so well, that people can live a full productive life with HIV with out it progressing to AIDS.
No one cares.
Admittedly, HIV/AIDS is still a serious problems in impoverished countries, but Americans don't care about that, just like they don't care about TB and Leprosy.
Out of sight...
Out of mind.
morons, this are the same people advising the African Government back when they denied citizens treatment for the disease,the excuse? AIDS was a myth.. LOL..
Well I hope you're right Charles! Fortunately these denialist movements don't get much respect in our society.
a-q-m: That's really sad. Denial is a powerful thing isn't it.
The woman's name was Christine Maggiore. Her 3-year-old baby was called Eliza Jane and she died of pneumonia as a complication of AIDS so they cannot blame drug use on the baby's death. Maggiore blamed the baby's death on "antibiotics" given shortly before the baby died. "Pneumonia as a complication of AIDS" was the official cause of death for the baby's autopsy, and then later Christine Maggiore also died from the same thing, though no autopsy was made. She never believed their illnesses were caused from HIV. It is thought the baby contracted the HIV from breastfeeding.
Tim: I refuse to believe "denialism" is a real force in the world today and there is nothing you can do to change my mind! ;-)
Thanks, that was actually a very informative answer.
Charles: There's a lot of conflicting info about the cocktail treatment. Whatever position you take, you can find data to support it, and that does make it all extremely confusing. The treatment doesn't work the same for everyone, and for some people it can have terrible side effects. But it does have the potential to help, and that wouldn't be the case if it was based on false science. If the denialists were right, they would've come up with a much better treatment by now. And they'll probably never stop pushing their agenda. Denialist movements push on even in the face of overwhelming evidence. If Holocaust denialism is still alive, you can bet AIDS denialism will endure for at least another 50 years.
Tim: Perhaps you might know the answer to this. I'm still really confused about this topic. I know HIV causes AIDS. Dah! But, aren't the triple drug cocktails keeping people "healthy" now except for the side-affects and the fact that they can't ever stop the treatments? Are people on the drug cocktail still getting full-blown AIDS and dying while taking the drugs like they should? Looks like they would stop pushing this agenda if people stopped dying like they did back in the late 1980's after they started the drugs.
Simply appalling. Is there anything that we can actually agree on? It seems that there's a denialist movement to every fact. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a documentary out there trying to show how popcorn actually comes from potatoes.
The Age of AIDS is a way better AIDS doc, and it's also on this site. I noticed it's not on the "You might also like" list. Most of those are conspiracy/mystery docs. Which is fitting, because that's what this one is.
By the way, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has led to effective treatments that have helped people. What have the denialists done besides help hundreds of thousands die in South Africa? People need to think seriously before they cry "conspiracy."
Jari: That would be so funny if it wasn't so sad! I watched a doc like this on another website and yahooed the woman speaking and she too died from AIDS related causes as well as her daughter.
I also watched a documentary that suggested the cause of AIDS in people was chimpanzees used for polio vaccines in the 1950. I think I will look for that doc now and see if it can also be posted here.
"the magazine Continuum, which consistently denied the existence of HIV/AIDS, shut down when its editors all died of AIDS-related causes." Wikipedia
If you are a denialist, you quite obviously are mentally ill and need immediate psychiatric attention.
I will try to politely say that you are GROSSLY misinformed about at least five things.
First of all, the Centers for Disease Control actually knew back in the early 1980's that the risks involved with GRID (Gay related Immune Deficiency) where primarily in fast track gay lifestyle men using poppers and other immune suppressing drugs,(also found in IV drug addicts) and they reported this themselves. So long before HIV was discovered the CDC had it right, and were pressured into accepting the phony viral cause with Gallo's fraud by HHS Sec. Heckler.
The CDC documented over 5,000 cases of "AIDS" without HIV even after HIV was created at the press conference in 1984.
The reason why they came up with HIV 2 was to explain why HIV was NOT causing AIDS anywhere near the same rate in Africa, claiming it was a "weaker" form of the virus.
The constant infection rate in the US at about .05% is indicative of an OLD virus, not a new one, and should have caused an "AIDS epidemic" back in 1795 and on through time. Remember that 50% of the people with HIV since 1984 first being tested in the US are female. Why are US AIDS patients primarily 90% male even after the absurd latency period of 25 years? It doesn't work in vast amounts of women unless they are drug addicts. So it is not HIV, but drugs causing AIDS.
There was only ONE large group study of couples not using safe sex that has attempted to measure how many would transmit HIV to their uninfected partner. It was called the Padian study and it followed over 150 couples for about 10 years. Guess what? NOT ONE sexual transmission of HIV infection could be documented. Just like the video says, sexual transmission of HIV is less that 1 out of 1,000 encounters or being "hit by lightning" Dr. Walter Dowdle from the CDC's own research said this.
It's time to face the facts. HIV=AIDS is absurd!!! Watch the video again and take notes. Try to think about what you are hearing. There is no mass epidemic of AIDS caused by a retrovirus that takes 195 years to cause 29 old diseases that have been in Africa for centuries.
HIV?AID$ is a dangerous genocidal fraud. Like H1N1 it has been way overblown and become a terror tactic of the medical industrial complex wasting over 350 billion tax dollars.
I would Kali, only because I find that cleaning the faeces off my penis afterwards makes me heave.
now can i have sex without condom or no?
No, he is not telling anyone to take drugs. (Drug needles aren't the only way to spread HIV.)
He simply stated that if you think it's not dangerous, why not test one's hypothesis. Though I wouldn't advice to do so since one becomes a walking biohazard after that. Wonder how many HIV infected people out there are spreading the infection because they think they don't get the condition from it...
In the university there has been no doubtful conversations about this and never has there been a paper in a peer reviewed publish that suggests that AIDS would have a different cause.
And about the rise of numbers in people who have died of the infection..
The population has been on the rise and the disease has become widely spread in areas where there is no medication. So duh, there are casualties. In areas where the medication is available, death rates from AIDS have decreased. The medication does allow a better life quality and halts the virus from infecting more cells.
HIV infects blood cells and once the CD4+ blood cell count drops person's immunity goes apeshit. That is what AIDS means, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. There is no rational reason to believe that a virus like HIV would not be the cause of AIDS, knowing how it functions. Preventing HIV contraction is the key in fighting the disease.
Now 25 years after "THE probable cause of AIDS" was hoisted on the unknowing American Public by Gallo and HHS Sec. Heckler, the obvious FRAUD and MASS genocide is horrific.
People still echo the fear of a Machiavellian tactic to drive people through terror. THIS IS DANGEROUS. like shouting fire in a crowded theater.
NOTE: In 1998 Nature (as AID$ Inc. publication) even published an account itself that blasted the last bit of scientific nonsense behind the HIV=AIDS hype in an article called "Last Nail in the Coffin for Viral Load" by Roder. et. al.98.
So for over 11 years, now the last attempt to explain the HIV=AIDS hypothesis has been dead. But people still cry that the "sky is falling"
Until the public discerns that the real dangers are quacks like Gallo and AID$ Inc. with their fear tactics and toxic drugs like AZT. Instead of phantom viruses like HIV, we are headed for a high-tech dark ages.
I'm no scientist, but I noticed the dramatic increase in death from aids after AZT was released as a treatment. Makes you wonder...
Angelo, are you suggesting for us to take illegal drugs and die?
The whole documentary is not based on scietific facts but just on a bunch of idiots. I seriously cannot believe there are so stupid people out there who believe that HIV is not the cause of Aids. I agree with Angelo.
The basic tried and true science behind why hundreds of scientists are against the HIV=AIDS hypothesis is incontrovertable. No one has yet to show any scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS
You mean except for the Pasteur Institute, whose team won a Nobel Prize for proving it? Not to mention every other scientist with their salt who isn't trying to sell you something? Except for that, you mean.
This is a VERY dangerous documentary. The so-called leading experts they focus on in this video have been shown time and again to be quacks. They aren't considered experts by legitimate science but rather charlatans who are murdering people. You don't think HIV causes AIDS? Then I suggest you go out and share a needle with someone, contract the virus and don't take the meds and see how long you last. It's a shame that people like this are allowed to think yet alone speak.
A must see! backed by well known scientists. Another case of disagreement among scientists on life-threatening issues. All too often we hear doctors, and governments agencies telling us hand in hand about the safety of products so that they may be consumed, when the real brains have not even settled together on the scientific facts concerning that safety.
money rules the world and your lives people, dont let private interests rule your health. The invisible hand of Adam Smith doesn't work in the complex field of health and its market, or if it does it is after major disaster only.
It is time to use our clever minds into redesigning the systems that rule mankind. In the meanwhile, keep an eye on the FDA, your governments, and all huge industries. And try paying artisans and small businesses more and big industries less. MONEY MUST NOT BE CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF A FEW, IN PROPORTIONS WHICH ENABLES THEM TO FOOL US ON EVERY FRONT OF PERCEPTION. SO IS STILL THE CASE.