View Full Version : More proof that HIV does not cause AIDS (long)
This should start some good arguments.
I personally am indifferent about this, so don't even bother trying to start an arguement with me :)
MEDICAL DOCTOR PUTS HIS LIFE ON THE LINE
TO PROVE THE HIV VIRUS DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS
The Spotlight, September 12, 1994:
If you or someone you know has tested positive for the HIV virus, there is now good news.
The chances you will get sick or die from AIDS are no greater than if the test came out negative.
The London Times reports a major research group has recently proven the test for the HIV
virus (which is claimed to cause AIDS) is completely invalid and "riddled with false positives".
Malnutrition, multiple infections, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, having once had the
"flu" or measles and even the body's own natural response to anal semen all result in positive
HIV/AIDS tests. {1}.
Now the truth is finally revealed. When a completely normal and healthy person tests positive
for HIV, is then put on the deadly drug AZT {2} -- they die. Death results from the destruction
of the immune system caused by the deadly drug AZT and not by HIV.
I interviewed Dr. Robert E. Willner, a medical doctor who has practiced and lectured on
medicine worldwide for over 35 years. He recently stunned Spain by innoculating himself with
the blood of Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. {3}. Dr. Willner is the author of the
just published blockbuster book Deadly Deception: The Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely
Do Not Cause AIDS.
Caption from an accompanying photograph:
Author of Deadly Deception: The Proof That Sex And HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause
AIDS, Dr. Robert E. Willner stuns Spain by innoculating himself with the blood of
Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. This demonstration to prove the HIV virus
does not cause AIDS and is in fact harmless was reported on the front page of every
major newspaper in Spain. His appearance on Spain's most popular television show
evoked a 4 to 1 response by the viewing audience in favor of his position against the
"AIDS Hypothesis", yet this historic event was never mentioned in the U.S. press... Why?
Q: Dr. Willner, you say in your book AIDS is the greatest fraud in medical history. {4}. That the
perpetrators of this crime are raking in billions while innocent people are being murdered with
the deadly drug AZT. Is AIDS a scam?
A: No, people are indeed dying of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or AIDS. The
scam is that AIDS is not caused by HIV and AIDS is not transmitted sexually or by any other
means.
The real causes of AIDS have been known for centuries and have been listed in medical
textbooks for over 60 years. We have all been lied to and sold a bill of goods by a handful of
unscrupulous, immoral scientists that care more for money and power than they do for the
truth or human life itself.
Most of the medically supervised AIDS deaths were either caused or contributed to by the
deadly drug AZT. In many cases it was given to perfectly normal and healthy individuals who
were terrorized by fear from the AIDS media blitz [CN -- or "blitzkrieg" perhaps?] into taking
the phony HIV test. When a percentage got positive test results they were then given lethal
doses of AZT, a drug that was shelved over 20 years ago because it was found to be too
toxic to give to terminally ill cancer patients.
Q: We have been told all along that all AIDS patients had the HIV virus and that is what
causes AIDS.
A: That is an absolute lie! The HIV/AIDS hypothesis was based on the fact that only 40%
of AIDS cases were confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control to have antibodies to
HIV and not the virus itself. In New York and San Francisco only 7% of AIDS victims
were HIV positive. This means that 60 to 93% of all AIDS patients that were used to create
the AIDS hypothesis were HIV negative.
The entire AIDS hypothesis is based upon a total lie. We were all lied to when we were led
to believe that 100% of AIDS victims were HIV positive.
Q: But how could this happen?
A: To answer that question we must examine just exactly who created this great lie. It
was none other than Dr. Robert Gallo, who was investigated and found guilty of "scientific
misconduct". The very same Dr. Robert Gallo who just a few years prior to AIDS
discovered what he called the HTLV virus. He claimed that HTLV caused human
leukemia but failed to gain scientific acceptance because he could not prove it.
Gallo likewise claimed that HTLV was sexually transmitted and had a latent period of 40
years.
That theory was rejected and failed to gain Dr. Gallo acceptance into the National
Academy of Sciences. His theories on AIDS are just as fallacious and one cannot help
but see the similarities in the scenario.
However, this time instead of trying to prove his insane theories about AIDS to his peers,
without scientific proof, he by-passed them and went public.
Then, with the help of Margaret Heckler, former head of Health and Human Services,
who was under great political pressure to come up with an answer to AIDS, the
infamous world press announcement of the discovery of the so-called AIDS virus
came about.
This great fraud is now responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals
world-wide. It was no accident that Gallo just happened to patent the test for HIV the
day after the announcement to the world was made. It likewise is no accident that Gallo
is now a multimillionaire because of the AIDS fraud and his fraudulent AIDS test.
Q: Are you saying that Dr. Gallo created AIDS?
A: In a manner of speaking, yes he did. By taking a number of diseases that were killing
a select group of individuals and claiming that they all had one thing in common -- the
innocent retrovirus he now called HIV which he also claimed was sexually transmitted.
The truth is that these individuals were indeed dying of a variety of diseases and they
all did have one thing in common, but it had nothing to do with their sexual preference
or with Gallo's harmless so-called "mysterious" HIV retrovirus.
They were all dying from specific causes that I go into great detail explaining in my
book. {5}. The information is completely documented and based on cold, hard
scientific facts -- not on the phony unproven guesswork or the fraud-laced hypothesis
that is the very foundation of Gallo's ridiculous AIDS theory.
Q: But Dr. Gallo showed us pictures of the HIV virus attacking T- cells.
A: The photographs Gallo purported to be HIV "invading" a cell, were actually photos
of phagocytosis, which is exactly the opposite (the process by which the cell engulfs the
virus). Whenever the virus is found it is never doing anything and is never harming the
cell in any way.
Gallo also reported that AIDS originated in Haiti, in spite of the fact that HIV
antibodies were discovered in frozen blood samples in the United States more than
50 years ago. Where was the "epidemic" then?
Q: How do you answer proponents of the HIV/AIDS connection when they argue
that "everyone knows that HIV causes AIDS"?
A: Once "everyone knew" the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it. It has been
more than 12 years since the so-called "discovery" of AIDS. Yet, there is still not one
single reference paper that exists in the world that proves HIV causes AIDS. In other
words, no experimental proof whatsoever has been offered to establish that this harmless
retrovirus, which cannot even be found in 50 percent of the individuals with AIDS, has
anything to do with it.
Q: Isn't is true that any disease capable of destroying the human body is always found
in vast numbers in the infected person?
A: Yes, of course. Yet, even the highly sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
invented by Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize Laureate, which literally makes it impossible
for viruses to hide, can't find Gallo's HIV virus in sufficient quantities to give someone
the flu let alone kill them.
HIV is rarely found in T-cells (1 virus per 10,000 to 1,000,000 cells) and when it is
found it is doing absolutely nothing. In cases of full blown AIDS, even in those just
hours from death, the virus is extremely difficult to find; and in 50 percent of the cases
it cannot be found at all. Whenever it is found, even in active cases of AIDS, HIV is
inactive, not reproducing and it is certainly not killing T-cells as Gallo claims.
Q: Then what exactly is HIV?
A: HIV is simply a piece of dead tissue not unlike numerous other retroviruses that
exist in our body at any given time. It is one thousandth the size of a regular cell, is
harmless and is simply incapable of doing anything that Gallo claims of it.
Retroviruses can't even reproduce themselves. They need a host cell to reproduce
them. If the retrovirus kills the host cell, as Gallo claims HIV does, then the virus has
immediately committed suicide -- any possible epidemic is over before it began.
T-lymphocytes (our white blood defensive cells) {6} reproduce 500 times faster
than the HIV virus is supposedly reproduced. This simply means that even if the
HIV/AIDS hypothesis were correct it is impossible for HIV to ever win the battle.
It's like saying you are going to conquer China by giving a noncontagious flu to 3
soldiers a day while their army increases by 1,500 troops daily. Retroviruses such
as HIV have been thought to cause many diseases in the past, but extensive, honest
research has proven them basically harmless.
Q: Does Dr. Mullis share your contention about HIV and AIDS?
A: Yes he does. Dr. Mullis says: "Scientists don't believe, they have evidence...
There is no such body of knowledge" (with reference to HIV as the cause of AIDS).
Dr. Peter Duesberg, Professor of Molecular Biology, University of California,
Berkeley, and member of the National Academy of Sciences, puts it even more
distinctly. He writes, "HIV does not cause AIDS... The point that everyone is
missing is that all of those original papers Gallo wrote on HIV have been
fraudulent... The HIV hypothesis was based on those papers."
Q: Are there others who also support your position?
A: Nearly 500 of the world's top scientists are now challenging Gallo's hypothesis
that HIV causes AIDS and the list is growing daily. Every statistic, every valid
scientific observation and even the test of time now proves Gallo wrong. It was
only a matter of time until thinking scientists raised their heads out of the sand, saw
the truth and started questioning the lies that simply did not stand up to the scrutiny
of impartial scientific reasoning and experimentation.
[CN -- The following is emphasized in the original.]
Project AIDS International [PAI] charges that "the dogmatic AIDS
hypothesis based on the findings of a person convicted of science fraud,
is directly or indirectly responsible for the premature deaths of hundreds
of thousands of people worldwide." PAI further goes on to say: "If action
is not taken immediately against those who are directly or indirectly
responsible for these crimes against humanity through the practice of profit
over life, the drug induced AIDS deaths will most certainly reach
proportions unparalleled by any natural catastrophe in human history."
Q: What about Dr. Gallo's contention that HIV is a slow "mysterious" and
"intelligent" virus.
A: Dr. Duesberg, renowned as one of, if not the world's foremost retrovirologist,
answers that question by saying that [CN -- emphasis in original]:
"Slow" or "lente" viruses do not exist! It is another hypothetical invention
designed to explain what is obviously nonsense. It has no basis in fact, no
precedent in science, and is contradictory to 20 years of research
findings.{7}. Retroviruses can only be replicated by the host cell, and are
dependent on the life-cycle of that cell. Therefore, the virus must replicate
within hours or days in order to survive. For over 20 years, an exhaustive
investigation of retroviruses reveals that there is no such thing as a "slow"
virus.
There is nothing biochemically or genetically different about HIV that would give
it the power to act any differently than any other retrovirus. As Dr. Duesberg so
aptly puts it, "There are no slow viruses, only slow virologists."
Q: Did you always know HIV was not the true cause of AIDS?
A: No. I have to admit that in the beginning I too believed Gallo's big lie. But
the more I learned about retroviruses the more the AIDS hypothesis didn't
make sense.
Q: But how could so many honest scientists be so easily fooled?
A: Again Dr. Duesberg answers that question best by writing: "After a
frustrating 20-year long search for a human cancer virus, the club (the
retrovirologists) was craving for some clinical relevance for the retrovirus
and hence, happily adopted HIV -- the AIDS virus -- as the cause of
AIDS." He went on to explain the impact of the powerful promotion that
made the AIDS hypothesis "instant national dogma". The billions of dollars in
funding, the economic interests of the bio-technology and pharmaceutical
companies and the tremendous notoriety from the press was too much for
these retrovirologists to resist.
Q: Surely there were a few independent scientists who tried to expose
this fraud?
A: There were, and as an example of how their dissension was squelched,
I'll quote Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, founder of the AIDS Medical Foundation.
His is typical of how opposition to the AIDS hypothesis was dealt with. Dr.
Sonnabend writes "...I tried to show that HTLV-1 (HIV) was not involved
in AIDS. All the journals refused to publish it."
After 21 years of intensive research, not one clinically-relevant retrovirus
has ever been discovered, and by scientific standards HIV is no exception.
You also have to understand that when Margaret Heckler, head of Health
and Human Services [HHS], adopted HIV as the cause of AIDS, basically
all institutions which rely on federal government funding or grants had to go
along and cooperate or face extinction. HHS is the paymaster for all health
departments and agencies. This includes the National Institutes of Health.
Q: The proponents of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, led by Dr. Gallo, dismiss
all opposition as not being worthy of their time to openly debate. I
understand from your book they even had the supreme audacity to boycott
a meeting in the White House when an open discussion of the facts and
opposing views were to be presented. Is this true?
A: Yes, that is how they operate. These scoundrels defend their position
by name calling and avoiding debate because they cannot support their
position scientifically. Their followers are either ignorant of the truth or are
going along with the lie because that's where the money is. Let me put it to
you this way. If you knew or [were] unknowingly duped into playing a part
in what has turned out to be the greatest genocide since Adolph Hitler,
would you find it easy to embrace the truth and openly admit it?
Q: What about Kimberly Bergalis {8}, and Magic Johnson?
A: Kimberly Bergalis would still be alive today if she were not given AZT.
Magic Johnson is probably as healthy today as he ever was and will
continue to live a long and happy life so long as he does not take AZT or
any other deadly drug.
Q: Why did you innoculate yourself with the blood of an HIV positive
hemophiliac?
A: Because I cannot stand by and watch the profession I love be
deceitfully used to commit murder by following the Gallo HIV/AIDS'
death banner. I have vowed that if it is necessary I will repeat the process
of sticking myself with the blood of an HIV positive person on television
in every city in the world until this genocide stops. I am a physician and I
will keep the oath I took.
Q: Dr. Willner, in Deadly Deception you say AZT is one of the chief
causes of AIDS. Can you elaborate further for our readers?
A: Yes, and again I will begin by quoting Dr. Peter Duesberg [CN --
emphasis in original]:
"AZT is a random killer of infected and non-infected cells. AZT
cannot discriminate among them. It kills T- cells; B-cells; red cells, it
kills all cells. AZT is a chain terminator of DNA synthesis of all cells
-- no exceptions. It wipes out everything. In the long run it can only
lead to death and the cemetary. AZT is a certain killer! Who will be
responsible for the death of patients (some 200,000 now being
treated with AZT and countless thousands who have already died
from it in the past decade) that results from AZT therapy --
pharmacological homicide?"
The makers of AZT claim "it increases the quality of life." Yet, all one
needs do is read the package insert that comes with AZT and you will learn
the truth: The side effects of AZT as listed on its own package inserts are:
Cancer (lymphomas), Hepatitis, Dementia, Mania (madness, frenzy),
Seizures (epileptic), Anxiety, Anemia, Leukopenia (standard laboratory
evidence of immune suppression), Impotence, Severe Nausea, Chest Pain,
Insomnia, Ataxia (loss of balance), Depression, Muscle Atrophy (wasting),
and this is only half of the death sentence list of side effects that AZT causes.
Does this sound like AZT adds to the quality of life to you or does it sound
like what it really is -- AIDS!
Q: Are there other causes of AIDS?
A: Yes, there are and I explain each and every known cause of AIDS in
great detail in my book. And, may I add, not one of them is sexually
transmitted or HIV related.
Q: What can a person suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency or
AIDS do?
A: There are actually many things a person with AIDS can do if there is
enough time and in most cases there is. The first and most important thing is
to get off of any type of immune suppressive drug whether it be recreational,
prescription or over the counter, immediately. Secondly, don't be conned
into taking AZT or any other last minute, last chance, miracle drug. If you
are, it will most certainly prove to be your last chance at life. Thirdly, stop
believing the lie that you are going to die. Finally, get and read a copy of my
book Deadly Deception as soon as possible. It contains the information you
need to strengthen your immune system. Follow what it tells you and you
will probably be O.K.
Notes
{1} Much of this has long since been reported by Jon Rappoport in his 1988
book, AIDS Inc.. I recently took some heat, by the way, for daring to post my
synopsis of Rappoport's book. One person told me "It's o.k. to discuss political
conspiracies. But one mustn't discuss medical conspiracies." I'll spare you the
"reasoning" behind this.
{2} "...the deadly drug AZT." See, for example, Poison By Prescription: The
AZT Story by John Lauritsen (New York: Asklepios, 1990). So the scam is
they tell you that you have got the dread HIV, then they poison you to death
with AZT, then they bury you ASAP.
{3} "...[innoculated] himself with the blood of... an HIV positive hemophiliac.
" Dr. Peter Duesberg, another "AIDS heretic", has also offered to innoculate
himself with HIV in order to underline his disbelief in current AIDS dogma.
{4} "...the greatest fraud in medical history." Similar to Rappoport in 1988,
"Scandal of the Century".
{5} "...that I go into great detail explaining in my book." Note to persons, most
notably canus lupus mortuus, who betray themselves by their over-eagerness to
throw mud on such "heresies" as contained in this post: How about reading Dr.
Willner's book IN ITS ENTIRETY before you start taking your cheap shots?
Then you can say things like "Where's the documentation?" (Duh, try looking in
the book.) and "What about such-and-such?" (Duh, try reading the book. This
is just a condensed summation.).
This "heresy" is not going to disappear by your throwing mud at it. In addition,
one must wonder at the over-eagerness of supposed "debunkers" to quickly
throw mud. If you want this "heresy" regarding HIV and AIDS to go away, you
are going to have to come down from Mount Olympus and explain to us mere
mortals exactly why it just ain't so. Incantations, magic dust and magic bones
do not impress me, anyway. Logic does. If you can refute what several AIDS
"heretics" have been saying -- THEN DO SO AND IN PLAIN ENGLISH.
If these are, in fact, "heresies", then you ought to be able to sit down and
carefully write a logical and understandable explanation as to why. The fact
that, at this late date, very little in the way of a calm, careful, and reasoned
rebuttal (not just pot shots taken at minor points) has been offered is, in itself,
cause for alarm. If these "heresies" are easily refuted, then one must wonder
why this hasn't been done but that, rather, cheap, bullying tactics have been
used.
{6} "T-lymphocytes (our white blood defensive cells)..." Note here, for example,
how difficult terms are immediately explained. Would that some of the dogmatists
of AIDS could do likewise.
{7} "...is contradictory to 20 years of research findings." The interviewer adds,
"(and I might add billions of dollars in funding)".
{8} Kimberly Bergalis. As I recall, she was the woman in Florida who claimed
she had contracted AIDS via her dentist -- not through sex but through just
being a normal dental patient.
Final note:
This book is not yet available in bookstores. Because there may be those who
want to get a hold of the book, because I cannot just tell them "Go to the
library" or "Order it through a local bookstore", I am providing information
on how to get the book. Note that I make no profit by doing so. If you can
get this book in some other way than as follows, then fine. This information is
provided to increase knowledge, understanding, and awareness.
brothernumber9
05-21-2004, 11:36 AM
WOW...that's some incredible stuff. Or should I say really credible stuff. I'm astounded.
Yeh, after 4 years studying nutrition, one big thing I've learned is that most "facts" are false; and what you "know", you must forget if you want to really learn.
brothernumber9
05-21-2004, 11:56 AM
I mean this is REALLY revelational, especially if it is true that AIDS cannot be aquired or at least has not been proven to be spread by intercourse.
Ford Prefect
05-21-2004, 11:56 AM
link?
Originally posted by brothernumber9
I mean this is REALLY revelational, especially if it is true that AIDS cannot be aquired or at least has not been proven to be spread by intercourse. i've never heard that. I always heard you get HIV from intercourse, not aids.
I got this in an email from aajonus venderperlitz (sp?). I dont know where he got teh article
IronFist
05-21-2004, 02:42 PM
I always heard you get HIV from intercourse (or blood transfusion, or sharing needles).
And then HIV leads to AIDS an indefinite time later on.
So this guy is saying that you can have AIDS without having HIV?
Originally posted by IronFist
And then HIV leads to AIDS an indefinite time later on.
THAT'S what this guy is proving wrong. We are all told that once you have HIV, you WILL have aids. This guy is saying that is completely untrue.
I really suggest reading it. Doesnt take really taht long. If you hate staring at pc screens like me, just print it out.
WinterPalm
05-21-2004, 07:40 PM
Sounds like somebody slept with the wrong person!:cool:
_William_
05-21-2004, 08:42 PM
Whoa... thats whack.
If this is true then it has major repercussions. I really don't know enough about the matter to know if what he's saying is true though.
I'm printing this off and getting the opinion of my bio teacher.
:)
dont take everything a teacher says as fact. Just cause they a professor, doesn't mean they know it all. And remember that people in this country only know what they are told. People here are generally told what/how to think.
I clash with a lot of my nutrition/science prof's because of things like that. It's like people hear/read something and automatically think its true. Nobody wants to put in the effort to actually find the real knowledge for themselves.
Even with this aids article here. I don't know if its true or not. I guarentee I could bring it to a doctor here and they'd say "oh this is false" even though they didn't read the book and other papers on it.
IronFist
05-21-2004, 10:57 PM
Just cuz it's published doesn't mean it's true. I saw this hokey book that said that all diseases were caused by emotional imbalances.
For example, it said that various STD's were caused by being insecure with your sexuality. Nevermind the fact that sleeping with infected people transfers the virus to you. It just said like "Herpes - insecurity with ones sexuality." You have to admit that's crap.
I'm pretty sure I just said that ;)
Basically, like the old proverb, believe nothing of what you see and half of what you hear..... or was that half of what you see and nothign you hear?
You get the idea.
Ford Prefect
05-22-2004, 06:41 AM
I'm been looking on the web a little and everything I could find along these lines was published in the early to mid 90's. Everything also referenced research that was mostly from the mid 80's to early 90's as well. It doesn't look like much research is done at all with this in recent times, and this movement drops off a bit every year.
Yeh, I noticed that too. But i'm not discarding this just on the fact there's not much materials for it.
Just because something doesn't have many sources/materials, doesn't mean its false.
fa_jing
05-22-2004, 10:45 AM
It does seem rather suspect that a disease would have a latency period of 15-30 years.
Liokault
05-22-2004, 01:45 PM
the truth is finally revealed. When a completely normal and healthy person tests positive
for HIV, is then put on the deadly drug AZT {2} -- they die. Death results from the destruction
of the immune system caused by the deadly drug AZT and not by HIV.ositive
So the people who die from AIDS are really dying because of thgis drug?
What about the millions in Africa who have died from AIDS with out ever having seen a drug?
IronFist
05-22-2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Liokault
What about the millions in Africa who have died from AIDS with out ever having seen a drug?
Ray Pina
05-24-2004, 06:24 AM
Does this mean you can start having unprotected sex with *****s and sharing dirtly needles?
IronFist
05-24-2004, 06:56 AM
^ Sure, if you want to get HIV.
This sounds like a load of BS. Especially the part about AZT being the killer and not the virus.
First off, people don't get put on AZT immediately after testing positive for HIV. When their viral load reaches a threshold and their T cell count is sufficiently low, they begin drug therapy (which is now a little more complicated than just taking AZT). So, there is no way that the drugs are what is f-ing people up and not the disease.
Further, HIV is a virus, AIDS is a syndrome. Okay, HIV is not AIDS in latency. AIDS by definition is when HIV has done sufficient damage to your immune system that you meet criteria for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
Sorry, but on that statement about AZT alone, this is some bs and is actually pretty dangerous, as it could lead people to not go on drug therapy. Yes, it is possibly to have HIV and never have full-blown AIDS, because drug therapy is sophisticated enough now that it can stop the virus from completely disabling the immune system, not because there is no connection between the two.
It does seem rather suspect that a disease would have a latency period of 15-30 years.
Ever heard of cancer? How about toxoplasmosis? Mad Cow disease? All of these can exist in the body for many years before manifesting or before the symptoms become noticeable.
I always wondered how magic johnson got over it. He never seemed to be that ill. How did he recover from it?
oh, and cancer and Mad cow are hugely influenced by food or chemicals in food (or its processing). Don't know about the toxo one, never heard of it.
rubthebuddha
05-24-2004, 02:21 PM
cancer and Mad cow are hugely influenced by food or chemicals in food agreed, but i'd venture to say the same thing about AIDS. a fit person is less likely to die from it than a couch potato.
cancer isn't something you really acquire via transmission, but rather a culmination of a life's environmental factors (air, water, food, environment, etc.). some people are born more resistant, some people build up their resistance, etc.
in magic johnson's case, i can't say if he was less likely to die than anyone else, but being an elite athlete, he was in incredible shape, and had been for many years.
Fu-Pow
05-25-2004, 11:28 AM
Guys, this idiot is a total quack. I didn't even bother to read that whole post because within the first couple lines I could tell he was full of it.
Take it from me I have a B.S. in Biochemistry and I work at a well respected institution in a Molecular/Epidemiological Genetics lab. I'm no scientific slouch.
The link between HIV and AIDs is clear.
It would be very easy to prove (all though its already been proven many times over and on many different levels.)
Simply take a bunch of AIDs patients test their blood for the HIV virus. Take a equal number of healthy patients and test their blood for HIV and what will be the outcome?
I'd venture to guess that ALL of the AIDs patients have HIV and some of the healthy patients would have it as well (although they are not showing symptoms yet). If you did a statistical analysis then it would overwhelmingly show that HIV and AIDs are positively correlated. And further more you could statistically show that if you conducted the exact same experiment again using different patients that you would run a very high chance of getting the exact same result again....called in a statisitcal terms a low P-Value.
Futhermore, you could test the blood, semen, vaginal fluid, lymph system etc of the AIDs patients for HIV and you would find the virus in all of these fluids. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the virus is transmitted through these fluids.
HIV is a retrovirus that infects Helper T cells (a crucial part of the immune system), uses them for its own replication and then destroys the cell when it proliferates. Without the Helper T cells the immune system is much less effective and leaves the patient vulnerable to diseases that a healthy immune system could easily fight off.
People like Magic Johnson have STAYED ALIVE (not been cured) by taking a buttload of expensive drugs (which BTW most people can't afford) that prevent the virus from replicating.
They do this by several mechanisms. If I recall AZT does this by interferring with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase which is crucial to allowing the virus to replicate. By interferring with the replication process the Helper T Cells are temporarily protected from being destroyed.
However, if Magic was to go off of the drugs then the virus would overwhelm his Helper T's, his immune system would be weakened and he would eventually show symptoms of AIDs and die.
Peace and be safe.
:)
SaMantis
05-25-2004, 12:20 PM
Oh please, you're ALL wrong!
It's obvious from a moment's observation that HIV is a simple imbalance of the vitreous humours within the body, especially an overabundance of black bile.
I would recommend staying away from open fires for several weeks and opening all the windows in the house, especially in the dead of winter.
And treatment with a couple dozen leeches wouldn't hurt, either.
;) :D
IronFist
05-25-2004, 01:29 PM
Why don't they make the drugs more affordable? I bet there's a lot of people who would be interesting in buying them.
Fu-Pow
05-25-2004, 02:00 PM
Because drug companies have to recoup their Research and Development costs which are very high especially for something like an HIV drug (we're not talking a new version of exlax here!). Also, the FDA is largely to blame because the cost to get new drugs approved for sale through them is prohibitively expensive.
Then once the R and D costs are recouped the company still has to turn a profit to keep its stock holders happy.
So even if a drug company had the best intention of helping people they still wouldn't be able to give out their product for free or they would quickly cease to exist.
Thats what these AIDs activists fail to realize. Someone also has to foot the bill for this type of research.
Ford Prefect
05-25-2004, 03:25 PM
Pharmaceutical companies are by far turning some the largest profit margins in the world. Time did a big write up on it with the numbers. R&D is recouped many times over. That excuse is pure BS.
Fu-Pow
05-25-2004, 04:45 PM
Bleaaahhhhh!!!!!:p :rolleyes:
Fu-pow,
I hate statistics :mad:. Your argument sucks :p. It's the exact same argument politicians use here against legalising marijuana. Simply take a bunch of chemical drug users (heroin, speed, e, whatever) test their blood for THC. Take a equal number of non-chemical drug users and test their blood for THC and what will be the outcome?
I'd venture to guess that ALL of the chemical drug users have THC and some of the non-chemical drug users would have it as well (although they are not showing signs of chemical drug use yet). If you did a statistical analysis then it would overwhelmingly show that chemical drugs and cannabis are positively correlated. And further more you could statistically show that if you conducted the exact same experiment again using different patients that you would run a very high chance of getting the exact same result again....called in a statisitcal terms a low P-Value.
Therefore, cannabis use leads to hard drug use? Causality or correlation? I used to know plenty of cannabis users who weren't into hard drugs, although I didn't know many hard drug users who weren't into cannabis (except girls). Also, almost every hard drug user I knew drank water ;) - causality or correlation?
Bear in mind I'm not saying you're wrong. In fact, with my limited understanding of the issues I'd agree totally that HIV -> AIDS is a causality relationship. I just hate statistics. :mad: :p
Way to derail a thread into your own political agenda.
Nothing wrong with statistics. People with agendas get ahold of them and twist them up. Worry about those people.
bungle
05-26-2004, 07:07 AM
http://www.mercola.com/2004/may/26/aids_cure.htm
Kinda interesting. Wong Kiew Kit also reckons he can cure it.
Originally posted by dwid
Way to derail a thread into your own political agenda.
Nothing wrong with statistics. People with agendas get ahold of them and twist them up. Worry about those people. *Ahem* Sorry:o. Wasn't trying to get any message across. I was just pointing out the most common example of misuse of causality that I frequently see. Drugs have been a non-issue for me for many years. I used to hate hearing that argument though.
I understand. Correlation does not equal causation. It's fundamental to really understanding statistics, but is one of the most common things people screw up (sometimes intentionally) and make data seem to say something they really don't.
Fu-Pow
05-26-2004, 11:28 AM
I'd venture to guess that ALL of the chemical drug users have THC and some of the non-chemical drug users would have it as well (although they are not showing signs of chemical drug use yet). If you did a statistical analysis then it would overwhelmingly show that chemical drugs and cannabis are positively correlated. And further more you could statistically show that if you conducted the exact same experiment again using different patients that you would run a very high chance of getting the exact same result again....called in a statisitcal terms a low P-Value.
Therefore, cannabis use leads to hard drug use? Causality or correlation? I used to know plenty of cannabis users who weren't into hard drugs, although I didn't know many hard drug users who weren't into cannabis (except girls). Also, almost every hard drug user I knew drank water - causality or correlation?
If that was your data then it would not support your conclusion. What are you testing? What is the null hypothesis? If you set up the experiment the way you described then you would be testing whether or not hard drug users more frequently ALSO use cannabis, not whether cannabis is a gateway drug. You see? When you are not clear on your original hypothesis and you give liberal interpretation to your results then that is what we call BAD SCIENCE!!!
Bad science and poorly used statistics exist....but correctly used statistics and well planned experiments are a very useful tool for understanding physical phenomenon in an objective way...so don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Liokault
05-26-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by IronFist
Why don't they make the drugs more affordable? I bet there's a lot of people who would be interesting in buying them.
As well as what has already been posted about recouping cost, it should be pointed out that huge amounts of drugs are given to Africa (mainly but also other third world areas)for (more or less) free. Whats the out come? Africa develops a large drug export industry, undercuting the very companys that make the product and HAVE to supply to give to Africa.
Fu-Pow, in case you missed it, I took your post word for word and substituted "HIV" and "AIDS" for "THC/cannabis" and "hard drugs". You were implying that HIV->AIDS is a causality relationship. I was showing the flaw in reasoning by illustrating a common argument that cannabis->hard drugs is causality. As I said, I agree that there is causality for the HIV->AIDS. I just disagreed with your argument for it.:p
rubthebuddha
05-26-2004, 09:43 PM
toby, you're such a *****. :D
Xebsball
05-28-2004, 10:19 AM
I read about a brzlian doctor who agrees with that guy of hiv non-aids thing
basicly its a romophobic, conservative
dumb
****
oh yeah id like to add,
yes definately there are slow virus
we could enlist even more than that other dude enlisted
freehand
05-31-2004, 04:28 PM
Toby: "Fu-Pow, in case you missed it, I took your post word for word and substituted "HIV" and "AIDS" for "THC/cannabis" and "hard drugs". You were implying that HIV->AIDS is a causality relationship. I was showing the flaw in reasoning by illustrating a common argument that cannabis->hard drugs is causality. As I said, I agree that there is causality for the HIV->AIDS. I just disagreed with your argument for it."
That's not the complete argument for it. We also know much about *how the virus causes AIDS. And what Fu-Pow said is true for *every case of AIDS. As much as the political conservatives would wish otherwise, not every "hard drug" user starts with cannabis or is using cannibis when tested.
Check this out:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
If any of you have any real question on this, ask yourself which is most likely: that all of the medical researchers, medical doctors, nurses, lay experts, and social workers like Red Cross and Doctors without Borders are lying about this (to get rich!), or that the one voice of dissent is trying to get famous and sell books?
Freehand
Like I said, I agree that there is causality with HIV->AIDS. Just not the argument presented.
Dunno about where you're from, but here in Oz I'd say you'd be safe in saying that pretty much all hard drug users also use cannabis regularly. The only exceptions might be girls. Most girls I knew were into speed and e's and the nightclub scene but not smoking much. Smoking dope is very common in Oz. It's also been decriminalised in most states i.e. you only get a warning if you have less than 1oz on you and you're allowed to grow 2 plants. That's what I gather, anyway.
MasterKiller
06-01-2004, 07:03 AM
I read that HIV is genetically similar to The Plague, and that 15-20% of caucasians have inherited immunities to HIV because of our European ancestors' exposure to The Plague virus.
I'd like to see the data on that.
It would seem that if such an immunity were inheritable, that (1) there would be a test to determine if you were immune, in the same way they are able to test for immunity to other diseases, and (2) designing an immunization for HIV would be a relatively simple task.
Fu-Pow
06-01-2004, 12:38 PM
I saw a show on it about PBS. The immunity is traceable to one SNP. This is totally heritabe. It also makes you immune to the plague. They can test to see if you carry this SNP and therefore are immune. You still carry the HIV virus you just don't get AIDs from it. Having a SNP that protects you doesn't translate into any kind of vaccine...at least not yet. It might, however, illucidate a way to screw up the mechanisms of the virus.
Very informative. Thanks.
I had never heard of that. Guess I'll keep my eyes open for a rerun of the program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.