HIV:The Virus That Discriminates By Race

#3
#3
vol_in_ar said:
how about paraphrasing?
Click to expand...
People of sub-saharan African descent are more likely to contract aids...even when compared against members of other races who are also classified as living a "high-risk lifestyle."

It was an interesting read.
 
#7
#7
Eventually, the "HIV causes AIDS" dogma will become known as one of the most horrific frauds ever sold to the world.
 
#8
#8
jamesd1628 said:
Eventually, the "HIV causes AIDS" dogma will become known as one of the most horrific frauds ever sold to the world.
Click to expand...

Comments like these really surprise me. Maybe I am just one of the many duped minions...but the link seems reasonable. There is still not a clear patheogenesis (sp?), but I don't think that is necessary to accept the idea.

So - what is the driving force behind the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" mantra and how large is this movement? It is news to me...
 
#9
#9
Aids is just a classification given to people with HIV when their T-cell count gets below 200 and they have an opportunistic infection. A very few people have natural antibodies and don't develop the virus, others are able to avoid an aids classification because of the drug coctail they take.

IMO opinion the only people who buy into this are people who are in denial about having HIV. Creating this AIDS classification has just confused people, they should have never came up with it. People die from the HIV virus destroying all their t-cells and then something as simple as a cold will kil them, since they have no immune system then.
 
#12
#12
oklavol said:
Aids is just a classification given to people with HIV when their T-cell count gets below 200 and they have an opportunistic infection. A very few people have natural antibodies and don't develop the virus, others are able to avoid an aids classification because of the drug coctail they take.

IMO opinion the only people who buy into this are people who are in denial about having HIV. Creating this AIDS classification has just confused people, they should have never came up with it. People die from the HIV virus destroying all their t-cells and then something as simple as a cold will kil them, since they have no immune system then.
Click to expand...

Right...this is my understanding. But, how where does the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" come from exactly? I'm confused by the fraud arguments....
 
#13
#13
I totally know where you are coming from. It's like reprogramming what we learned as fact, like the Earth is round sort of thing, you just learn and store it. I, like you, just assumed what I had always heard was still true. It's not been too long ago that the CDC (I think it was them) came out and said they had over calculated the whole HIV/AIDS infection and death rate significantly, like by millions. So then I think that is when some infectious disease specialist started looking into this hypothesis. That is also something I did not know.

“HIV causes AIDS” is a HYPOTHESIS only, it's never ever been proven, never, not once.
 
#14
#14
Has there ever been a recorded case in which someone contracted AIDS without first contracting HIV?
 
#16
#16
Volnissniss said:
Yes, many. There have also been many people that supposedly have HIV that never develop AIDS.
Click to expand...

I'm just confused as to why this is some sort of scam pulled on the world's population. Just because some people develop AIDS without being infected with HIV doesn't mean that HIV can't cause AIDS. It just means that other factors can also lead to a decreased immune status (and T cell count) that can be labeled as AIDS.

Second, just because everyone who is infected with HIV does not necessarily develop AIDS doesn't mean that HIV cannot lead to AIDS. It just means that people with HIV are at a high risk to develop AIDS, unless they have some genetic or other predisposition to not developing AIDS from their HIV infection.

I don't see where all of this fraud or scam talk is coming from...
 
#17
#17
TennTradition said:
I'm just confused as to why this is some sort of scam pulled on the world's population. Just because some people develop AIDS without being infected with HIV doesn't mean that HIV can't cause AIDS. It just means that other factors can also lead to a decreased immune status (and T cell count) that can be labeled as AIDS.

Second, just because everyone who is infected with HIV does not necessarily develop AIDS doesn't mean that HIV cannot lead to AIDS. It just means that people with HIV are at a high risk to develop AIDS, unless they have some genetic or other predisposition to not developing AIDS from their HIV infection.

I don't see where all of this fraud or scam talk is coming from...
Click to expand...

It's not just those two facts that are the problem. Those things are troublesome, to be sure, but there are many reputable scientists that claim that HIV does not cause AIDS. In fact, there are some who claim that the HIV virus has never even been isolated and may not exist at all. We're talking about reputable scientists here, including at least one Nobel prize winner. These aren't hacks. And the thing that makes it look so bad for the "HIV causes AIDS" pushers is their response to those who claim the theory is flawed. It's like a witch hunt. It is very similar to the "man causes global warming" lie. If you try to say anything against the dogma, you get crucified. If you are actually interested in the topic, just take a look at one web site:

The Perth Group HIV-AIDS Debate Website

TT, it seems you are something of a scientific type. There is a lot of scientific information on that site, including links to published, peer-reviewed articles on the topic. I think you will be surprised by what you find.
 
#18
#18
Thanks, I'll check this out. This is the kind of stuff I was asking for, because I didn't really see the connection between the points I brought up and the language of fraud.

Also, I thought that through PCR, scientists had isolated HIV ... but is it that they haven't actually isolated it in its full form and that is the hang up? Because...it is possible that PCR would have diced up its genetic information a bit....
 
#19
#19
TennTradition said:
Thanks, I'll check this out. This is the kind of stuff I was asking for, because I didn't really see the connection between the points I brought up and the language of fraud.

Also, I thought that through PCR, scientists had isolated HIV ... but is it that they haven't actually isolated it in its fully form and that is the hang up? Because...it is possible that PCR would have diced up its genetic information a bit....
Click to expand...

Obviously, it's a complicated, science-intensive topic. Here is an except from one of the articles on the web site I cited you to:

"All retrovirologists agree that one of the principal defining physical characteristics of retroviruses is their density. In sucrose density gradients they band at the density of 1.16g/ml. Using the method of sucrose density banding in 1983 Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, Luc Montagnier and their colleagues claimed to have isolated a retrovirus, that is, to have obtained material which contained nothing else but "purified labelled virus" which now is known as HIV. Similar claims were reported by Robert Gallo’s group in 1984. It goes without saying that if the material was pure HIV, then all the proteins present in such material must be HIV proteins. Instead, only the proteins which were found to more often react with sera from AIDS patients and those at risk were said to be HIV proteins, and the antibodies which reacted with them the specific HIV antibodies. Since then the reaction of these proteins with antibodies is considered proof for HIV infection. Again, if their material was pure HIV then all the nucleic acids present in their material must be the HIV genome. Instead, only some fragments of RNA rich in adenine were arbitrary chosen and were said to constitute the HIV genome. Since then, these fragments have been used as probes and primers for hybridisation and PCR studies, including the determination of "viral load".

The biggest problem in accepting Montagnier's and Gallo's groups claims is the fact that neither published even one electron microscope picture of the "pure" HIV to prove that the material contained nothing else but isolated, retrovirus-like particles, "purified labelled virus". In 1997 Montagnier was asked by the French Journalist Djamel Tahi why such pictures were not published. Incredibly Montagnier replied because in what his group called "purified" HIV there were no particles with the "morphology typical of retroviruses". When he was asked if the Gallo group purified HIV, Montagnier replied: "I don't know if he really purified. I don't believe so". If this is the case then the 1983 Montagnier findings and the 1984 Gallo's finding, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they did not have any retrovirus much less a unique retrovirus, and that the proteins and the RNAs which were present in their "purified" material could not have been of retroviral origin."

And here is an article which, I think, specifically addresses the question you are asking:

The Isolation Of HIV: Has It Really Been Achieved? Part 1

Bottom line for me, after reading many articles on the subject (and trying as best I can to understand them), seeing the general reaction of those bound to the "HIV causes AIDS" theory, realizing the enormity of what is at stake if the theory is proven false, the whole thing just has a bad smell to it. Something is wrong somewhere.
 
#21
#21
jamesd1628 said:
Again, if their material was pure HIV then all the nucleic acids present in their material must be the HIV genome. Instead, only some fragments of RNA rich in adenine were arbitrary chosen and were said to constitute the HIV genome. Since then, these fragments have been used as probes and primers for hybridisation and PCR studies, including the determination of "viral load".
Click to expand...

This answers my question. I do wonder why the adenine-rich RNA fragments were chosen to be part of the retrovirus and others weren't. I would think that some sort of logic was used at the time. But, if only these fragments are used for PCR without proper justification, then I can see why there would be questions as to whether or not HIV has been fully isolated. I'm not a biologist...so perhaps I am completely confused about the matter :).
 
#22
#22
TennTradition said:
This answers my question. I do wonder why they would be interested in the adenine-rich RNA fragments were chosen to be part of the retrovirus and others weren't. I would think that some sort of logic was used at the time. But, if only these fragments are used for PCR without proper justification, then I can see why there would be questions as to whether or not HIV has been fully isolated. I'm not a biologist...so perhaps I am completely confused about the matter :).
Click to expand...

It would take a trained biologist to understand a lot of the discussion, and I don't pretend to understand it all by any stretch. But I have read a lot of it and tried to understand what I can. I have ready some incredibly interesting things long the way. E.g., here's a little tidbit about HIV tests (this was written in response to NIH's "fact-sheet" about AIDS):

In “The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS” (The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS, NIAID Fact Sheet) one reads: “Nearly everybody with AIDS has antibodies to HIV…numerous studies from around the world show that virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry antibodies that indicate HIV infection”. The relationship between a positive antibody test and AIDS is said to prove that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

There is no doubt that many, if not all, AIDS patients, at least in the USA, Europe and Australia, have a positive antibody test. However, there is no agreement as to whether these tests “indicate HIV infection". For example, the packet insert for the Axsym system (HIV-1/HIV-2) manufactured by Abbott Laboratories includes the words “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.

Wow, then what the hell is the point of the test? That full article is here:

NIH / ANTIBODIES
 
#23
#23
So, would this then be about the same as HPV? HPV certainly does not cause cervical cancer (and women can be inflicted with cervical cancer without ever having HPV), yet it does significantly increase the risk?
 
#24
#24
therealUT said:
So, would this then be about the same as HPV? HPV certainly does not cause cervical cancer (and women can be inflicted with cervical cancer without ever having HPV), yet it does significantly increase the risk?
Click to expand...

That's a good question...I've been wondering the same thing. Perhaps there isn't proven causation, but is there risk correlation?

Medicine and biology are rather interesting. You've got pretty common diseases, such as Type I Diabetes, that are not really fully understood? What virus is it that you get that sets your immune system off to destroy your pancreas islet cells? That is the theory...but it isn't well understood (as far as I know).
 
#25
#25
jamesd1628 said:
There is no doubt that many, if not all, AIDS patients, at least in the USA, Europe and Australia, have a positive antibody test. However, there is no agreement as to whether these tests “indicate HIV infection". For example, the packet insert for the Axsym system (HIV-1/HIV-2) manufactured by Abbott Laboratories includes the words “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.
Click to expand...

I would like to know what the positive to negative antibody test ratio is when comparing the community with AIDS and the community without. There would seem to be correlation...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top