The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:23:07 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


You've given me PR releases and unscientific propaganda.


Another lie. Not a PR release.

Not a lie. PR and propaganda.

There it is. See, I have credible sources. You have Duesburg's book
and not much else except serial lies.

You can quote PR releases and AIDS, Inc. propaganda until the cows
come home, but there is no proof that even one of those victims died
from AIDS.

None. Nada. Zero.

In most of those countries, they don't even test for it.

When the drugs first came out, patients died within months of taking
them. And even within weeks.

You can look it up.

The obvious point here, one more time, is that that with
the earliest patients, there were no AIDS drugs and the
patients died within weeks or months.

If it's so obvious, why don't you get it?

AIDS drugs aren't needed to kill anyone.

The combination of abuse of IV and other recreational drugs, inhaling
poppers, taking antibiotics virtually every single day, having
multiple STDs, men having sex with hundreds of male partners a month,
drinking heavily, getting no sleep, eating poorly, etc. KILLED the
patients in the original cohort.

See: Michael Gottlieb's observations.

Thousands of times each day, humans die from TB, malaria, wasting,
bacterial pneumonia, septicemia, toxoplasmosis, leishmaniasis, PCP,
cytomegalovirus, Kaposi's sarcoma, lymphoma, sarcoma, etc., and are
HIV-.

You can look it up.

The lie repeated.

The lie is repeated by you, not by me.

The lie repeated. * The earliest patients were not treated with
AIDS drugs period because none existed. *They all died.

Yes, they all died. And even after the drugs first came out, they
still "all died." In mere months. Even weeks.

Because they were given a deadly drug that further destroyed their
immune system. And so they died. *Quickly.

They died because they were infected with HIV.

No, they died because they had destroyed their immune systems.

Give it a try, see for yourself.

But tens of millions don't have AIDS.

The lie repeated.

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

Those are projected estimates.

Another lie.

That's exactly what they a ESTIMATES.

They even admit it.

See the word: ESTIMATES

But that's a lie. In fact, the vast majority of those who are said to
have AIDS have never even been tested in any way, shape, or form!

Sure, because you say so. NIH and a mountain of evidence say you're
a liar.

Africa and Asia almost never actually test for HIV. They use the
Banqui definition.

Look it up.

Oh, and whatever you do? Don't travel to Africa and get a cough.

Sometimes I think so, but then come along a few guys like Duesberg,
Mullis, Rasnick, et al., and I realize I'm not alone.

So, you according to you, only a few like the above are
real scientists. That shows the root of your delusions.

No, actually it shows the root of my CONVICTION.

Another lie repeated. *Babies were dying from AIDS before
there were any AIDS drugs.

Yeah, they called them "crack" babies back then. Now they kill them
with prescription drugs.

And another lie folks.

You can look it up. It's easy. Even you can do it.

No, tens of millions haven't died from AIDS, they've died from the
same old diseases they have died from for centuries, e.g. malaria,
wasting, TB, etc.

Another lie.

I've already given you multiple sources that refute your claim.

Same diseases, new name, more $$$.

The lie repeated.

It's the truth.

You can look it up.

It proves that there are thousands of humans who have tested positive
for HIV living long, healthy lives (some up to 26 years!), and who are
NOT taking AIDS drugs.

A video with three or four denialists doesn't prove a thing.

Again, that's just the trailer. There are countless others included
in the documentary.

Plus, you can look it up.

As for there being thousands who test positive for HIV who
live for decades, so what?

No, what it means is that HIV is mostly harmless.

Those are not peer-reviewed studies, and there are no peer-reviewed
studies that prove HIV causes AIDS no matter how long, and how loud,
you protest otherwise.

Another lie.
They most certainly are peer-reviewed and provide the proof.

Not that you would know what a peer-reviewed study actually was, but
there isn't any. None. Zero. Zilch. As three Nobel Laureates have
stated clearly.

Just the usual PR releases and AIDS, Inc. propaganda.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Jun 17, 1:03*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:23:07 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
You've given me PR releases and unscientific propaganda.

Another lie. *Not a PR release.

Not a lie. *PR and propaganda.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

People can judge for themselves. NIH lays out
the overwhelming case that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Complete with references to dozens of studies.

Your studies?

crickets




There it is. *See, I have credible sources. *You have Duesburg's book
and not much else except serial lies.

You can quote PR releases and AIDS, Inc. propaganda until the cows
come home, but there is no proof that even one of those victims died
from AIDS.

The lie repeated.


When the drugs first came out, patients died within months of taking
them. And even within weeks.

You can look it up.

The obvious point here, one more time, is that that with
the earliest patients, there were no AIDS drugs and the
patients died within weeks or months.

If it's so obvious, why don't you get it?

AIDS drugs aren't needed to kill anyone.

Exactly. HIV will do that as it has with the long list
of denialists that chose to ignore sound science and
not take HIV drugs.




The combination of abuse of IV and other recreational drugs, inhaling
poppers, taking antibiotics virtually every single day, having
multiple STDs, men having sex with hundreds of male partners a month,
drinking heavily, getting no sleep, eating poorly, etc. KILLED the
patients in the original cohort.

That was an interesting theory in 1982. Even then, to thinking folks,
it didn't make much sense. All the things on your list have been
going
on forever, yet we had no AIDS patients showing up in hospitals
until 1982. Ask yourself, what's more likely, that somehow getting
no sleep suddenly caused AIDS or that it was a new infectious agent?
And where is the study that shows that absent HIV, it's even possible
to have a case where people's immunes systems suddenly stop
working. Where is the study on that? crickets/.

And then AIDS managed to kill recipients of blood transfusions, who
are in NONE of the above groups. That again strongly suggests
an infectious agent transmitted via blood. Hemophiliacs took
clotting factor made from the blood of many, many donors.
Hence, they are like canaries in a coal mine. Exactly where you'd
expect a new infectious virus transmitted via blood to show up.
But no, not to the denialists. We're supposed
to believe that in hemophiliacs AIDS is caused by something
else, not the same HIV that has been isolated from both
hemophiliacs and the "original cohort" and everyone else
with the disease. We're supposed to believe that a disease with the
same bizarre symptoms shows up in hemophiliacs, IV drug
users, people having promiscous sex, all at the same time,
but all with different reasons.

And then it managed to kill recipients of blood transfusions, who
are in NONE of the above groups. That again strongly suggests
an infectious agent. The blood has been tracked back to the
donors. Get blood that's not infected
with HIV and you're fine. Get blood that's infected with HIV and
you get AIDS.
But no, not to the denialists. We're supposed
to believe that in the case of blood transfusion recipients, eg
Arthur Ash, Isaac Asimov, they just died from other causes.

And then we have the fact that infection through blood
transfusion and blood products, ie tranfusion recipients
and hemophiliacs, stopped just
as soon as a test for HIV was implemented on all donated
blood. Powerful evidence, except to denialists. We
have cases today in third world countries where
screening mistakes have been made and patients
wind up getting AIDS from blood. An investigation is made
and the blood winds up coming from a person infected
with HIV. Again, that would be one hell of a coincidence
if HIV isn't the cause of AIDS.

And then we have all the people who don't fit into any
of the above groups. Female heterosexuals infected
by a partner. Partner is HIV, they have a good chance
of getting AIDS. Partner is HIV-, they NEVER get AIDS.
Again, powerful proof, except to a denialist. These
people now account for 1/3 of the new cases in the USA.

And then we have babies born to mothers that are
infected with HIV. They have a 25% chance of being
infected. These babies were being born infected and
dying of AIDS. This is still occuring in third world
countries today. Yet, in countries with HIV drugs,
treating the mother prior to birth has reduced the
infection rate to 3%. Babies not infected with HIV
live and never develop AIDS.

Bottom line, sound science shows that HIV is the
cause of AIDS. It explains how it is transmitted, how'
it winds up in the various groups. Denialists have to go
through more and more contortions to explain the new
AIDS cases. It's like any lie. You wind up weaving such
an elaborate web of deceit and junk science in a desperate
attempt to continue the lie, that you just wind up discredited.
That is what has happened to you here for all to see.






See: Michael Gottlieb's observations.

Thousands of times each day, humans die from TB, malaria, wasting,
bacterial pneumonia, septicemia, toxoplasmosis, leishmaniasis, PCP,
cytomegalovirus, Kaposi's sarcoma, lymphoma, sarcoma, etc., and are
HIV-.

You can look it up.

The lie repeated.

The lie is repeated by you, not by me.

I notice you keep deleting my references to studies that show
you're lying. Where are your studies? crickets


http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

Before the appearance of HIV, AIDS-related diseases such as PCP, KS
and MAC were rare in developed countries; today, they are common in
HIV-infected individuals.

Prior to the appearance of HIV, AIDS-related conditions such as
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) and
disseminated infection with the Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) were
extraordinarily rare in the United States. In a 1967 survey, only 107
cases of PCP in the United States had been described in the medical
literature, virtually all among individuals with underlying
immunosuppressive conditions. Before the AIDS epidemic, the annual
incidence of Kaposi's sarcoma in the United States was only 0.2 to 0.6
cases per million population, and only 32 individuals with
disseminated MAC disease had been described in the medical literature
(Safai. Ann NY Acad Sci 1984;437:373; Le Clair. Am Rev Respir Dis
1969;99:542; Masur. JAMA 1982;248:3013).

By the end of 1999, CDC had received reports of 166,368 HIV-infected
patients in the United States with definitive diagnoses of PCP, 46,684
with definitive diagnoses of KS, and 41,873 with definitive diagnoses
of disseminated MAC (personal communication).

In developing countries, patterns of both rare and endemic diseases
have changed dramatically as HIV has spread, with a far greater toll
now being exacted among the young and middle-aged, including well-
educated members of the middle class.

In developing countries, the emergence of the HIV epidemic has
dramatically changed patterns of disease in affected communities. As
in developed countries, previously rare, "opportunistic" diseases such
as PCP and certain forms of meningitis have become more commonplace.
In addition, as HIV seroprevalence rates have risen, there have been
significant increases in the burden of endemic conditions such as
tuberculosis (TB), particularly among young people. For example, as
HIV seroprevalence increased sharply in Blantyre, Malawi from 1986 to
1995, tuberculosis admissions at the city's main hospital rose more
than 400 percent, with the largest increase in cases among children
and young adults. In the rural Hlabisa District of South Africa,
admissions to tuberculosis wards increased 360 percent from 1992 to
1998, concomitant with a steep rise in HIV seroprevalence. High rates
of mortality due to endemic conditions such as TB, diarrheal diseases
and wasting syndromes, formerly confined to the elderly and
malnourished, are now common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged
people in many developing countries (UNAIDS, 2000; Harries et al. Int
J Tuberc Lung Dis 1997;1:346; Floyd et al. JAMA 1999;282:1087).




They died because they were infected with HIV.

No, they died because they had destroyed their immune systems.

Show us the study that says it's possible to destroy your
immune system. We all know that if you have a poor diet,
take recreational drugs, don't get enough sleep, you may
be more susceptible to catching a cold or the flu. But
show us the study where it's possible to suddenly have
your immune system T cells wiped out, cell counts near
zero, and even if you
reverse the diet, sleep, etc, you continue to decline and
die. The only way that happens is with AIDS or some
other powerful immune suppression, eg cancer chemo.
That study should be easy, because it's essential for
your BS argument to have any validity.
Study? crickets.


And of course we know it's BS, because many studies
have shown that cohorts with the same risk factors,
eg IV drug abuse, poor diet, multiple sexual partners, etc,
never develop AIDS unless they are infected with HIV.
Again, powerful evidence.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"MYTH: Behavioral factors such as recreational drug use and multiple
sexual partners account for AIDS.

FACT: The proposed behavioral causes of AIDS, such as multiple sexual
partners and long-term recreational drug use, have existed for many
years. The epidemic of AIDS, characterized by the occurrence of
formerly rare opportunistic infections such as Pneumocystis carinii
pneumonia (PCP) did not occur in the United States until a previously
unknown human retrovirus - HIV - spread through certain communities
(NIAID, 1995a; NIAID, 1995b).

Compelling evidence against the hypothesis that behavioral factors
cause AIDS comes from recent studies that have followed cohorts of
homosexual men for long periods of time and found that only HIV-
seropositive men develop AIDS.

For example, in a prospectively studied cohort in Vancouver, 715
homosexual men were followed for a median of 8.6 years. Among 365 HIV-
positive individuals, 136 developed AIDS. No AIDS-defining illnesses
occurred among 350 seronegative men despite the fact that these men
reported appreciable use of inhalable nitrites ("poppers") and other
recreational drugs, and frequent receptive anal intercourse (Schechter
et al. Lancet 1993;341:658).

Other studies show that among homosexual men and injection-drug users,
the specific immune deficit that leads to AIDS - a progressive and
sustained loss of CD4+ T cells - is extremely rare in the absence of
other immunosuppressive conditions. For example, in the Multicenter
AIDS Cohort Study, more than 22,000 T-cell determinations in 2,713 HIV-
seronegative homosexual men revealed only one individual with a CD4+ T-
cell count persistently lower than 300 cells/mm3 of blood, and this
individual was receiving immunosuppressive therapy (Vermund et al.
NEJM 1993;328:442).

In a survey of 229 HIV-seronegative injection-drug users in New York
City, mean CD4+ T-cell counts of the group were consistently more than
1000 cells/mm3 of blood. Only two individuals had two CD4+ T-cell
measurements of less than 300/mm3 of blood, one of whom died with
cardiac disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma listed as the cause of
death (Des Jarlais et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1993;6:820)."



But that's a lie. In fact, the vast majority of those who are said to
have AIDS have never even been tested in any way, shape, or form!

Sure, because you say so. *NIH and a mountain of evidence say you're
a liar.

Africa and Asia almost never actually test for HIV. *They use the
Banqui definition.


The lie repeated.

"In studies conducted in both developing and developed countries,
death rates are markedly higher among HIV-seropositive individuals
than among HIV-seronegative individuals.

For example, Nunn and colleagues (BMJ 1997;315:767) assessed the
impact of HIV infection over five years in a rural population in the
Masaka District of Uganda. Among 8,833 individuals of all ages who had
an unambiguous result on testing for HIV-antibodies (either 2 or 3
different test kits were used for blood samples from each individual),
HIV-seropositive people were 16 times more likely to die over 5 years
than HIV-seronegative people (see table). Among individuals ages 25 to
34, HIV-seropositive people were 27 times more likely to die than HIV-
seronegative people.

In another study in Uganda, 19,983 adults in the rural Rakai District
were followed for 10 to 30 months (Sewankambo et al. AIDS
2000;14:2391). In this cohort, HIV-seropositive people were 20 times
more likely to die than HIV-seronegative people during 31,432 person-
years of observation.

Similar findings have emerged from other studies (Boerma et al. AIDS
1998;12(suppl 1):S3); for example,

•In Tanzania, HIV-seropositive people were 12.9 time more likely to
die over two years than HIV-seronegative people (Borgdorff et al.
Genitourin Med 1995;71:212)
•In Malawi, mortality over three years among children who survived the
first year of life was 9.5 times higher among HIV-seropositive
children than among HIV-seronegative children (Taha et al. Pediatr
Infect Dis J 1999;18:689)
•In Rwanda, mortality was 21 times higher for HIV-seropositive
children than for HIV-seronegative children after 5 years (Spira et
al. Pediatrics 1999;14:e56). Among the mothers of these children,
mortality was 9 times higher among HIV-seropositive women than among
HIV-seronegative women in four years of follow-up (Leroy et al. J
Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;9:415).
•In Cote d'Ivoire, HIV-seropositive individuals with pulmonary
tuberculosis (TB) were 17 times more likely to die within six months
than HIV-seronegative individuals with pulmonary TB (Ackah et al.
Lancet 1995; 345:607).
•In the former Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), HIV-
infected infants were 11 times more likely to die from diarrhea than
uninfected infants (Thea et al. NEJM 1993;329:1696).
•In South Africa, the death rate for children hospitalized with severe
lower respiratory tract infections was 6.5 times higher for HIV-
infected infants than for uninfected children (Madhi et al. Clin
Infect Dis 2000;31:170). "

Your studies? crickets






Oh, and whatever you do? Don't travel to Africa and get a cough.

More lies and innuendo.
I've been to Africa and have no such concerns, because I'm
not a fear mongering bigot.





Sometimes I think so, but then come along a few guys like Duesberg,
Mullis, Rasnick, et al., and I realize I'm not alone.

So, you according to you, only a few like the above are
real scientists. * That shows the root of your delusions.

No, actually it shows the root of my CONVICTION.

Everyone can judge you and what you are for themselves.




Another lie repeated. Babies were dying from AIDS before
there were any AIDS drugs.

Yeah, they called them "crack" babies back then. Now they kill them
with prescription drugs.
And another lie folks.

You can look it up. It's easy. *Even you can do it.

No, tens of millions haven't died from AIDS, they've died from the
same old diseases they have died from for centuries, e.g. malaria,
wasting, TB, etc.

Another lie.

I've already given you multiple sources that refute your claim.

Yes, Duesburg's book and the denialist video. You'll take
any scrap that you can find, won't you? Yet real studies,
well, you have none.





Same diseases, new name, more $$$.

The lie repeated.

It's the truth.

You can look it up.

It proves that there are thousands of humans who have tested positive
for HIV living long, healthy lives (some up to 26 years!), and who are
NOT taking AIDS drugs.
A video with three or four denialists doesn't prove a thing.

Again, that's just the trailer. *There are countless others included
in the documentary.

Countless? I think not. I guarantee I could count them.
Lets say you have a dozen, or twenty? So what? Twenty
denialists proves nothing. They are just replacing the dead
denialist from 10 years ago who didn't take AIDS drugs and
now, well, now they are dead. Soon enough the denialists
in that video will in turn be dead too.




Plus, you can look it up.

As for there being thousands who test positive for HIV who
live for decades, so what?

No, what it means is that HIV is mostly harmless.

The big lie repeated. Here are my studies, where are
yours?

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

In studies conducted in both developing and developed countries, death
rates are markedly higher among HIV-seropositive individuals than
among HIV-seronegative individuals.

For example, Nunn and colleagues (BMJ 1997;315:767) assessed the
impact of HIV infection over five years in a rural population in the
Masaka District of Uganda. Among 8,833 individuals of all ages who had
an unambiguous result on testing for HIV-antibodies (either 2 or 3
different test kits were used for blood samples from each individual),
HIV-seropositive people were 16 times more likely to die over 5 years
than HIV-seronegative people (see table). Among individuals ages 25 to
34, HIV-seropositive people were 27 times more likely to die than HIV-
seronegative people.

In another study in Uganda, 19,983 adults in the rural Rakai District
were followed for 10 to 30 months (Sewankambo et al. AIDS
2000;14:2391). In this cohort, HIV-seropositive people were 20 times
more likely to die than HIV-seronegative people during 31,432 person-
years of observation.







Those are not peer-reviewed studies, and there are no peer-reviewed
studies that prove HIV causes AIDS no matter how long, and how loud,
you protest otherwise.
Another lie.
They most certainly are peer-reviewed and provide the proof.

Not that you would know what a peer-reviewed study actually was, but
there isn't any. None. Zero. Zilch. As three Nobel Laureates have
stated clearly.

The studies are clearly referenced at this link.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx


And excerpts have been provided time and time again. All real,
peer-reviewed studies. Where are YOUR studies?

crickets

On Jun 19, 4:36*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:06:08 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc.


Not PR releases. A complete and overwhelming proof that HIV
causes AIDS from National Institutes of Health. Complete with
links to dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists.


http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

We call that the scientific method.



Special Note: It now appears that Trader Boy is concerned about the
dates on some of this information


Yes, because denialists like to go back in time so you can ignore all
the information we know now that was not known decades ago.
I notice you don't address the direct case of this where I
demolished the nonsense from that paper.
I gave you study after study that showed the issue the authors of that
17 year old paper brought up has been settled. They claimed
there were no studies that showed HIV+ people in Africa
have a higher mortality. That may have been true 17 years
ago. Since then, we have study after study that shows those
that are HIV+ have 13 to 27 times the mortality rate of identical
groups that are HIV-. Rendering that paper irrelevant.



As you are reading below, keep in mind that Robert Gallo, who holds
the patent on the HIV test kit, has become a multi-millionaire many
times over, all thanks to a test for antibodies to a mostly harmless
virus.http://www.duesberg.com/media/cffatal.html

Good for him. Maybe that's why some denialists are
so jealous.

BTW, if HIV is harmless, why do those around the world
that test HIV+ have a 13 to 27 higher mortality rate than
identical cohorts that are HIV-? Hmmm? What is the
denialist explanation for that one? Must not have one
or we'd have heard it by now. Maybe it will be the usual
Dogman refrain: I already gave it to you....


http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

In studies conducted in both developing and developed countries, death
rates are markedly higher among HIV-seropositive individuals than
among HIV-seronegative individuals.

For example, Nunn and colleagues (BMJ 1997;315:767) assessed the
impact of HIV infection over five years in a rural population in the
Masaka District of Uganda. Among 8,833 individuals of all ages who had
an unambiguous result on testing for HIV-antibodies (either 2 or 3
different test kits were used for blood samples from each individual),
HIV-seropositive people were 16 times more likely to die over 5 years
than HIV-seronegative people (see table). Among individuals ages 25 to
34, HIV-seropositive people were 27 times more likely to die than HIV-
seronegative people.

In another study in Uganda, 19,983 adults in the rural Rakai District
were followed for 10 to 30 months (Sewankambo et al. AIDS
2000;14:2391). In this cohort, HIV-seropositive people were 20 times
more likely to die than HIV-seronegative people during 31,432 person-
years of observation.

Similar findings have emerged from other studies (Boerma et al. AIDS
1998;12(suppl 1):S3); for example,

•In Tanzania, HIV-seropositive people were 12.9 time more likely to
die over two years than HIV-seronegative people (Borgdorff et al.
Genitourin Med 1995;71:212)
•In Malawi, mortality over three years among children who survived the
first year of life was 9.5 times higher among HIV-seropositive
children than among HIV-seronegative children (Taha et al. Pediatr
Infect Dis J 1999;18:689)
•In Rwanda, mortality was 21 times higher for HIV-seropositive
children than for HIV-seronegative children after 5 years (Spira et
al. Pediatrics 1999;14:e56). Among the mothers of these children,
mortality was 9 times higher among HIV-seropositive women than among
HIV-seronegative women in four years of follow-up (Leroy et al. J
Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;9:415).
•In Cote d'Ivoire, HIV-seropositive individuals with pulmonary
tuberculosis (TB) were 17 times more likely to die within six months
than HIV-seronegative individuals with pulmonary TB (Ackah et al.
Lancet 1995; 345:607).
•In the former Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), HIV-
infected infants were 11 times more likely to die from diarrhea than
uninfected infants (Thea et al. NEJM 1993;329:1696).
•In South Africa, the death rate for children hospitalized with severe
lower respiratory tract infections was 6.5 times higher for HIV-
infected infants than for uninfected children (Madhi et al. Clin
Infect Dis 2000;31:170).




COMMENTARY

It is incomprehensible how a body of scientists at the National
Institutes for Health in the US could present both sides of a
scientific debate as a series of "MYTHS" and "FACTS". *Especially
without providing the names of scientists who hold the opposing view
or any citations to enable the reader to investigate the matter
himself. *The only conclusion one can make from this behaviour is that
the NIH does not want their readers to learn the full story.

There is no debate. 99.9% of the scientific and medical
community agree that HIV causes AIDS. All you have are
a few denialists who persist in refusing to believe it. No one
is debating with them because they have no arguments of merit.
I suppose NASA should provide a debate forum about whether
the USA really landed on the moon. And every time some
loon claims that airplanes didn't really hit the WTC or Pentagon,
someone from the FBI should respond.





Here we examine one very important "FACT" and leave it up to the
reader to make his own judgement as to whether or not it is a MYTH .

FACT: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A RETROVIRUS HAS BEEN ISOLATED FROM THE
TISSUES OF AIDS PATIENTS. *HENCE THERE IS NO GOLD STANDARD FOR
ANTIBODY TESTING FOR "HIV" INFECTION AND NO PROOF A RETROVIRUS CAUSES
AIDS

Where did Montagnier and Gallo isolate HIV from?
Moon rocks? How dumb can you be? But they are right about
one thing. That nonsense is enough for any reasonable
person to make up their mind about who to believe.

On Jun 19, 8:58*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:36:25 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Jun 19, 6:28*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:12:24 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc.

Not PR releases.

Yes, PR release and AIDS,Inc. propaganda, no matter how often you deny
it.



Not PR releases. A complete and overwhelming proof that HIV
causes AIDS from National Institutes of Health. Complete with
links to dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists,
qualified in the pertinent field of science.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid...


We call that the scientific method.


Special Note: It now appears that Trader Boy is concerned about the
dates on some of this information
Yes, because denialists like to go back in time so they can ignore
all
the information we know now that was not known decades ago.

But there is nothing "new" that changes anything.

Only if you're a denialist and refuse to look at
the mountain of evidence in the last 15 years that clearly says
you're wrong. Instead, you post 17 year old papers that say
studies that show increased mortality for HIV+ people don't
exist. Well, we now have LOTS of those studies and they
show a 13 to 27 times higher mortality rate. Excellent example
of how the denialist operate. They claim HIV is harmless,
ignore the current data from real studies, and try to use data
from two decades ago, when so much less was known, instead.

But it won't work. Not here. Not today.



What was true 20 years ago, is still true today.


In the case in point, the authors claimed there were no
studies of HIV+ mortality available. Today there are lots of
them, which I already provided. And they show that HIV
infection results in an order of magnitude increase in
mortality. That does indeed change what is true today
and what is a lie.



I notice you don't address the direct case of this where I
demolished the nonsense from that paper.
I gave you study after study that showed the issue the authors of
that
17 year old paper brought up has been settled.

You haven't showed anything, Trader Boy. *You only keep reposting the
same old PR release and AIDS, Inc. propaganda.


I showed the studies exist today that the 17 year old paper said
did not. And they demolish the whole argument, completely.



They claimed
there were no studies that showed HIV+ people in Africa
have a higher mortality. *That may have been true 17 years
ago. *Since then, we have study after study that shows those
that are HIV+ have 13 to 27 times the mortality rate of identical
groups that are HIV-.

No, "we" don't. *They are a figment of your imagination.


The studies exist. Here they are again for all to see.
Why do you continue to lie and make a fool of yourself?
Do you think this makes anyone likely to believe anything you have
to say about anything?

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"In studies conducted in both developing and developed countries,
death
rates are markedly higher among HIV-seropositive individuals than
among HIV-seronegative individuals.

For example, Nunn and colleagues (BMJ 1997;315:767) assessed the
impact of HIV infection over five years in a rural population in the
Masaka District of Uganda. Among 8,833 individuals of all ages who
had
an unambiguous result on testing for HIV-antibodies (either 2 or 3
different test kits were used for blood samples from each
individual),
HIV-seropositive people were 16 times more likely to die over 5 years
than HIV-seronegative people (see table). Among individuals ages 25
to
34, HIV-seropositive people were 27 times more likely to die than
HIV-
seronegative people.

In another study in Uganda, 19,983 adults in the rural Rakai District
were followed for 10 to 30 months (Sewankambo et al. AIDS
2000;14:2391). In this cohort, HIV-seropositive people were 20 times
more likely to die than HIV-seronegative people during 31,432 person-
years of observation.

Similar findings have emerged from other studies (Boerma et al. AIDS
1998;12(suppl 1):S3); for example,

In Tanzania, HIV-seropositive people were 12.9 time more likely to
die over two years than HIV-seronegative people (Borgdorff et al.
Genitourin Med 1995;71:212)
•In Malawi, mortality over three years among children who survived
the
first year of life was 9.5 times higher among HIV-seropositive
children than among HIV-seronegative children (Taha et al. Pediatr
Infect Dis J 1999;18:689)
•In Rwanda, mortality was 21 times higher for HIV-seropositive
children than for HIV-seronegative children after 5 years (Spira et
al. Pediatrics 1999;14:e56). Among the mothers of these children,
mortality was 9 times higher among HIV-seropositive women than among
HIV-seronegative women in four years of follow-up (Leroy et al. J
Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;9:415).
•In Cote d'Ivoire, HIV-seropositive individuals with pulmonary
tuberculosis (TB) were 17 times more likely to die within six months
than HIV-seronegative individuals with pulmonary TB (Ackah et al.
Lancet 1995; 345:607).
•In the former Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo), HIV-
infected infants were 11 times more likely to die from diarrhea than
uninfected infants (Thea et al. NEJM 1993;329:1696).
•In South Africa, the death rate for children hospitalized with
severe
lower respiratory tract infections was 6.5 times higher for HIV-
infected infants than for uninfected children (Madhi et al. Clin
Infect Dis 2000;31:170). "




Nor do you have a response for this:

FACT: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A RETROVIRUS HAS BEEN ISOLATED FROM THE
TISSUES OF AIDS PATIENTS. *HENCE THERE IS NO GOLD STANDARD FOR
ANTIBODY TESTING FOR "HIV" INFECTION AND NO PROOF A RETROVIRUS CAUSES
AIDS

No evidence HIV has been isolated from AIDS patients?

That's because there is no gold standard for the presence of HIV,
because HIV tests only test for ANTIBODIES, not the presence of the
actual virus.

Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that Gallo and
Montagnier isolated and identified HIV in tissue from AIDS patients.
That's how the new retro virus was indentified. Since that time
it has also been directly found in AIDS patient after AIDS patient
where scientists have had the need to look for the actual virus.
We've even DNA matched the virus in one patient to show that it
matched the strain in another patient. An example of where that was
done is the case of Kimberly Bergalis, the girl who got infected with
AIDS from her dentist.

The HIV tests in widespread use are what rely on testing for
antibodies.
Anyone familiar with medicine knows that this is the most common
and very accurate way of testing for many diseases.



I've already given you manifold reasons why, yet you can't wrap your
little brain around them.


REasons for what? The 13 to 27 times higher mortality in people who
are hiv+ compared to identical cohorts that are not? As for almost
everything
I've asked, no, you have not. No studies, no answers, just
crickets....



I repeat: there is nothing new. What was true 12 years ago is still
true today. *HIV is not the cause of AIDS.


LOL




SUMMARY

The notion that HIV/AIDS is infectious and sexually transmitted is
based on a relationship between antibodies claimed specifically
induced by a retrovirus HIV and particular diseases in certain risk
groups. However, the HIV theory has been challenged for well over a
decade in many scientific publications, principally by Peter Duesberg
from the USA and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues in
Australia.

Wow, imagine that. *Two out of hundreds of thousands of
scientists deny that HIV causes AIDS.

There are now over 2600 dissenting scientists and doctors and
researchers. And I've already given you a link to the list.

Assuming that is even true, how many of them are qualified in the
area they are giving opinions on? Hmmm? Or how many are like
Mullis, a chemist commenting on virology and medicine? Where
are the studies from these scientists? No, what we have are
papers from 1982 specualting that recreational drug use MIGHT
cause AIDS. Back from a time when so little was known.
Now we have the studies that in group after group, no matter
the risk factors, the only people that get AIDS are the ones who
are HIV+.

Where are the studies from Montagnier, who claims HIV can be
erradicated from a patient by "oxidative stress relief", whatever
that is? Hmmm? He's had 3 decades now. Where are these
people where it's worked? crickets...





Failure of HIV/AIDS to spread beyond the original risk
groups, and particularly to Western heterosexuals, especially non-drug
using prostitutes, signals that the HIV theory of AIDS is in need of
urgent reappraisal.

Of course we know in 2012 that one third of all new AIDS
cases in the USA are among heterosexuals who are not
drug abusers.

No, that is NOT true.


Of course it is:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei...c.htm#exposure

In 2009 10,393 of the new cases of AIDS were in heterosexuals who
are not IV drug abusers. The total new cases was 34,000.

Two thirds of the cases among women are women who are NOT
IV drug abusers. They are being infected by sex with a person
infected with HIV.

Really, really basic data that is there for anyone to see.


...
A BRIEF HISTORY

A Nobel Laureate stirs the waters

In 1988 Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry was
employed by the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) to set up
analyses for HIV testing. When preparing his report he asked a
virologist colleague for a reference that HIV is "the probable cause
of AIDS". He was told he did not need one. Mullis was surprised.(1)

And we're supposed to glean what from this?

No one expects some moron like you to "glean" anything from it. But
smart people can usually glean from it that the actual inventor of the
PCR test says that it cannot be used to quantify HIV., and that he
doesn't think HIV causes AIDS either, and still cannot find even one
peer-reviewed study that proves HIV is the cause of AIDS.


Of course, he's a chemist, not a virologist or researcher of diseases.
And he apparently writes in his own book about talking to a glowing
alien raccoon. Maybe if instead he looked at the many, many
studies that are out there that prove HIV is the cause of AIDS he'd
stop making a fool of himself.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx




A decade later Mullis was to write, "I finally understood why I was
having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS.
There weren�t any".(2) Indeed, an interested non-specialist observer,
armed with a few contacts and a good library, merely has to scratch
the surface to realise that the HIV theory of AIDS begs many more
questions than it answers.(1-63 *)

Maybe he should ask the alien raccoons he wrote about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
Extraterrestrial life

"Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon.
Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around
midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left
sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a
flashlight. "On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree.
Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with
little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, ‘Good evening, doctor,’
and he replied with a hello." Mullis later speculated that the raccoon
‘was some sort of holographic projection and… that multidimensional
physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible’. Mullis denies LSD
having anything at all to do with this.[32]"

It doesn't get any better than this. *ROFLMAO.

Yes, it does! *Crick had an even more exciting acid trip, right before
he discovered DNA!

Nice try, but apparently Mullis claims in his book that he was
NOT on acid at the time.....

Still waiting for your explanation of some very simple things:

If HIV is indeed harmless, why do people that test positive for it
all over the world have a 13 to 27 times higher mortality rate than
those in an identical cohort that do not?

Why is it that in study after study, whether in gay men, babies,
hemophiliacs, IV drug users, or soccer moms, only those that test HIV+
ever go on to develop AIDS? And those that are in an identical
cohort but HIV- never do?

Why if AIDS drugs cause AIDS did the earliest patients who
received no AIDS drugs because there were none, die? Why
have most of the AIDS denialists who believed Duesburg and
refused AIDS drugs died? Why are people in third world
countries who have no access to AIDS drugs still dying of AIDS?

I can explain all of the above very easily with the current
understanding
of HIV and how it causes AIDS. It makes for a simple and
straightforward world. The denialist world is a convoluted one,
because you have to twist, cherry-pick, lie and distort to come up
with bizarre ways to explain the above. If the consequences of
life and death were not involved it would be laughable.

On Jun 20, 11:27*am, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 06:27:48 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc. (and not just
links to them), and can't even understand the difference between a
virus and antibodies to a virus, or what The Scientific Method
actually means, I'm going to repeatedly post various
articles, studies, papers, and the web sites, etc., of those who
question the link between HIV and AIDS.

Not PR releases. A complete and overwhelming proof that HIV
causes AIDS from National Institutes of Health. Complete with
links to dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists,
qualified in the pertinent field of science.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid...




Only if you're a denialist and refuse to look at
the mountain of evidence in the last 15 years that clearly says
you're wrong.

That mountain of evidence doesn't exist, because the vast majority of
it is PR releases and AIDS, Inc. propaganda.

Not true, the studies are cited there, at NIH, one after the other.
Mountains of evidence. Where is Montagnier's study that
shows HIV can be eradicated via "oxidative stress reduction"
and nutrition? He's had 3 decades.
Where are Duesburg's studies that show HIV is harmless?
crickets.....




What was true 20 years ago, is still true today.
In the case in point, the authors claimed there were no
studies of HIV+ mortality available. * Today there are lots of
them, which I already provided. *And they show that HIV
infection results in an order of magnitude increase in
mortality. *That does indeed change what is true today
and what is a lie.

But they never allow for taking AIDS DRUGS!

Which is "AIDS by presciption"!

The lie repeated. The earliest AIDS patients received no
AIDS drugs because there were none. We had these
patients dying left and right for 5+ years. That is what lead to the
investigation into AIDS to begin with.

Denialists have refused AIDS drugs, most of them are
now dead.

Patients in third world countries that don't have access to
drugs, they die from AIDS.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"MYTH: AZT and other antiretroviral drugs, not HIV, cause AIDS.

FACT: The vast majority of people with AIDS never received
antiretroviral drugs, including those in developed countries prior to
the licensure of AZT in 1987, and people in developing countries today
where very few individuals have access to these medications (UNAIDS,
2000).
In more recent years, three-drug combination therapies have produced
another 50 percent to 80 percent improvements in progression to AIDS
and in survival when compared to two-drug regimens in clinical trials.
Use of potent anti-HIV combination therapies has contributed to
dramatic reductions in the incidence of AIDS and AIDS-related deaths
in populations where these drugs are widely available, an effect which
clearly would not be seen if antiretroviral drugs caused AIDS (Figure
1; CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; Palella et al. NEJM
1998;338:853; Mocroft et al. Lancet 1998;352:1725; Mocroft et al.
Lancet 2000;356:291; Vittinghoff et al. J Infect Dis 1999;179:717;
Detels et al. JAMA 1998;280:1497; de Martino et al. JAMA 2000;284:190;
CASCADE Collaboration. Lancet 2000;355:1158; Hogg et al. CMAJ
1999;160:659; Schwarcz et al. Am J Epidemiol 2000;152:178; Kaplan et
al. Clin Infect Dis 2000;30:S5; McNaghten et al. AIDS 1999;13:1687)."




Nor do you have a response for this:

FACT: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A RETROVIRUS HAS BEEN ISOLATED FROM THE
TISSUES OF AIDS PATIENTS. *HENCE THERE IS NO GOLD STANDARD FOR
ANTIBODY TESTING FOR "HIV" INFECTION AND NO PROOF A RETROVIRUS CAUSES
AIDS

No evidence HIV has been isolated from AIDS patients?

That's because there is no gold standard for the presence of HIV,
because HIV tests only test for ANTIBODIES, not the presence of the
actual virus.

Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that Gallo and
Montagnier isolated and identified HIV in tissue from AIDS patients.
That's how the new retro virus was indentified.

But you're confusing apples with oranges. There is no gold standard
for verifying that an antibody test is actually verifying the presence
of an actual virus!

You're the one obviously confused. You claimed there is no
evidence HIV has been isolated from AIDS patients. That is
just an outrageous lie. Isolating the virus from AIDS patients is
exactly what Montagnier and Gallo did, that lead to the
discovery of HIV. They didn't find it in moon rocks. THEY
ISOLATED IT FROM AIDS PATIENTS. It's also been
isolated time after time, when necessary, ie to determine
if the HIV virus is genetically the same as the one that
infected someone else to determine the transmission path.
But of course for denialists, that isn't good enough.
They seem to think it must be isolated from every last
patient. Curious thing though, that unique demand isn't made
of say hepatitist or TB or virtually any other disease on
the planet.



You still do not know the difference bewteen antibodies to a virus and
the actual virus. And until you do, YOU are not qualified to review
this data!

Yes, this coming from the resident expert that claims:

HIV is harmless
HIV doesn't cause AIDS
AIDS is caused by poor nutrition, gay sex, not enough sleep
AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs
AIDS can be cured by diet and sleep
AIDS cases are virtually non-existent in heterosexuals
HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer
No virus can cause cancer
Prions don't exist
Prions don't cause Mad Cow.


Everyone can judge for themselves who understands what.



Wow, imagine that. *Two out of hundreds of thousands of
scientists deny that HIV causes AIDS.

There are now over 2600 dissenting scientists and doctors and
researchers. And I've already given you a link to the list.

Assuming that is even true, how many of them are qualified in the
area they are giving opinions on? * Hmmm? *Or how many are like
Mullis, a chemist commenting on virology and medicine?

I see. First you claim it's only two scientists who dissent, then I
show you that there are at least 2600 scientists, doctors,
researchers, who do, and you question their credentials!

I would claim that it's only a couple scientists who are actually
involved in AIDS and HIV research that claim HIV is
not the cause of AIDS. Scientists who have actually done
research, done studies,
etc. As opposed to scientists who while qualified in one
field, eg chemistry, go off the rails with opinions on subjects
way out of their scope of expertise.



Does it take
a retrovirologist to review the data? If so, then you should bow down
to whatever Duesberg claims, because he's the man of whom your hero,
Robert Gallo, once said "knows more about retroviruses than any man
alive." Case closed!

Again, one kook among hundreds of thousands is to be expected.


Still waiting for your explanation of some very simple things:

If HIV is indeed harmless, why do people that test positive for it
all over the world have a 13 to 27 times higher mortality rate than
those in an identical cohort that do not?

AIDS DRUGS! What part of AIDS DRUGS do you not understand?

Again, ignoring the fact that for the first 5 years of AIDS
we had no AIDS drugs. All we could do was treat patients
for whatever their immediate opportunistic disease was.
And almost all of them died.

Today in third world countires, many people don't have
access to drugs, and they die.

And today as the drugs have gotten more effective,
we have combination therapy where patients are
living symptom free. Powerful proof, except to denialists
who have a preconceived agenda and then desperately
try to lie, twist and distort to try to explain away the obvious.





Why is it that in study after study, whether in gay men, babies,
hemophiliacs, IV drug users, or soccer moms, only those that test HIV+
ever go on to develop AIDS?

Because only those who test positive can officially have AIDS!

Then show us the study that shows all these people who are
not HIV+ that have the exact same symptoms of AIDS and
are dying. Of course you can't because no such study exists.

This is like saying that because only those that test positive
for TB can die of TB, or only those that test positive for
hepatitis can die from hepatitits, something is drastically wrong.
What a crazy mixed up world denialists choose to live in.



You can have the same diseases, but if you don't test positive for
AIDS, you have to die from something else.

Of course these people that are alleged to exist, simply don't.





If you test positive for HIV and get hit by a car, or shot dead by an
Al Queda terrorist, you'll be said to have died from "AIDS
complications."

An outrageous and pathetic lie. In fact, quite the opposite is
true. It's denialists who refuse to accept that those infected
with HIV are dying of AIDS. Classic case are the denialist nuts
themselves that are infected with HIV.
They refuse HIV drugs. As would be expected
for a few years, they are fine. They run around making denialist
videos saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS. They are the heros
of the denialists and cited as proof that HIV doesn't cause
ADS.

Of course, eventually they
come down with AIDS with all the classic symptoms.
They waste away and finally die at 35. Now, instead of
admit the obvious, that they died of AIDS, it's the denialists
that now go to desperate lengths to try to get us to
believe they died of something else. In the process,
they have no problem smearing their former heros.
"Oh, he must have been an IV drug abusing prostitute,
but we didn't know about it, etc"

Here's a couple examples of denialists dead from AIDS:

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists

"Sophie Brassard

Sophie Brassard, a Canadian, was the HIV-positive mother of two HIV-
positive, perinatally-infected sons. Citing the influence of HEAL,
Alive and Well, Duesberg and Mullis, she refused to allow her children
access to medical care when the became ill and fled the country with
them. She consequently lost custody and parental rights. She died of
AIDS on September 16, 2002, at age 37.

Kelly Jon Landis

We regret to report that Kelly Jon Landis died December 3, 2007 in
Santa Monica, CA, at age 39 after suffering for several months with
lymphoma and other AIDS symptoms. Self-described as the "dissident
saint," he was a health food fanatic and avid bicycle rider who
avoided standard medical care and sought alternative therapies. He
felt that simply leading a drug-free healthy lifestyle would protect
him from disease."

There are two dozen more at the website:

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists






And those that are in an identical cohort but HIV- never do?

Never do what? *Die? Tens of thousands of HIV- people die every single
day from the same diseases that HIV+ people die from, minus the AIDS
drugs.

But of course the issue isn't that hiv- people die every day.
The issue is that those that are hiv+ are dying at 13 to 27
times the rate of those that are hiv-. Powerful proof.
This "blame the drugs" tactic is just so pathetic. Using
that basis, I could prove that it's hepatitis drugs that kill
hepatitis patients and it's cancer drugs that kill cancer
patients. Really, really lame.





Why if AIDS drugs cause AIDS did the earliest patients who
received no AIDS drugs because there were none, die?

For the 237,492nd time, from combined abuse of using IV and other
recreational drugs, inhaling poppers, drinking heavily, men having sex
with hundereds of male partners per month, going without sleep, eating
poorly, getting multiple STDs, taking antibiotics like most people eat
Gummy Bears, etc.

And why is it that this appeared suddenly in 1982, when all
those activities and more existed forever? And why is it
that at the same time, the disease appeared exactly where
you'd expect a blood born virus to appear, ie hemophiliacs
and blood transfusion recipients? And why did it disappear
from hemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients just as
quickly once a test was available and blood was screened
for HIV? Those are rhetorical questions, because there
are no answers.

And where is the study that shows it's possible for men
having sex with many men or drug abusers to completely
destroy their immune systems. We all know for example
that drug abuse or poor nutrition may lead to a person
being more susceptible to catching a cold or the flue.
But show us the study that shows,
absent HIV infection, drug abusers or those on a poor diet
can wind up with no CD4 cells and unable to recover,
even if they stop the drugs and/or eat a nutritious diet.

crickets, because there is no such study and it's just
another lie.





Why have most of the AIDS denialists who believed Duesburg and
refused AIDS drugs died?

Some have died, yes. But aren't people allowed to die anymore?

Yes, but see, here is the problem. They aren't dying at
80, or 70, or 60. They are HIV+ and are dying at 35
with all the symptoms of AIDS. EXACTLY as expected,
knowing that HIV causes AIDS.

Here's a few mo

http://whatstheharm.net/hivaidsdenial.html

Sylvie Cousseau
Age: 41
Paris, France
Died
March 31, 2001

Sylvie was diagnosed HIV positive, but pursued alternative treatments
for her disease including homeopathy, acupuncture and drinking her own
urine. She eventually died of AIDS.

Ken Anderlini
Age: 45
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Died
April 17, 2007

Ken was a filmmaker and professor at Simon Fraser University. He did
not believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS. He later died of a
neurological disorder that his friends admitted mainstream medicine
would have said was caused by HIV. Read more






Why are people in third world
countries who have no access to AIDS drugs still dying of AIDS?

Because they're not dying from AIDS, they're dying from the same
diseases they've always died from, TB, malaria, cholera, wasting,
parasitic infections, malnutrition, poor hygiene, etc.

Of course that's a lie too....

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"MYTH: There is no AIDS in Africa. AIDS is nothing more than a new
name for old diseases.

FACT: The diseases that have come to be associated with AIDS in Africa
- such as wasting syndrome, diarrheal diseases and TB - have long been
severe burdens there. However, high rates of mortality from these
diseases, formerly confined to the elderly and malnourished, are now
common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged people, including well-
educated members of the middle class (UNAIDS, 2000).

For example, in a study in Cote d'Ivoire, HIV-seropositive individuals
with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) were 17 times more likely to die
within six months than HIV-seronegative individuals with pulmonary TB
(Ackah et al. Lancet 1995; 345:607). In Malawi, mortality over three
years among children who had received recommended childhood
immunizations and who survived the first year of life was 9.5 times
higher among HIV-seropositive children than among HIV-seronegative
children. The leading causes of death were wasting and respiratory
conditions (Taha et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:689). Elsewhere
in Africa, findings are similar."

"In developing countries, patterns of both rare and endemic diseases
have changed dramatically as HIV has spread, with a far greater toll
now being exacted among the young and middle-aged, including well-
educated members of the middle class.

In developing countries, the emergence of the HIV epidemic has
dramatically changed patterns of disease in affected communities. As
in developed countries, previously rare, "opportunistic" diseases such
as PCP and certain forms of meningitis have become more commonplace.
In addition, as HIV seroprevalence rates have risen, there have been
significant increases in the burden of endemic conditions such as
tuberculosis (TB), particularly among young people. For example, as
HIV seroprevalence increased sharply in Blantyre, Malawi from 1986 to
1995, tuberculosis admissions at the city's main hospital rose more
than 400 percent, with the largest increase in cases among children
and young adults. In the rural Hlabisa District of South Africa,
admissions to tuberculosis wards increased 360 percent from 1992 to
1998, concomitant with a steep rise in HIV seroprevalence. High rates
of mortality due to endemic conditions such as TB, diarrheal diseases
and wasting syndromes, formerly confined to the elderly and
malnourished, are now common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged
people in many developing countries (UNAIDS, 2000; Harries et al. Int
J Tuberc Lung Dis 1997;1:346; Floyd et al. JAMA 1999;282:1087)."





I can explain all of the above very easily

No, you can't, not without using PR releases and AIDS, Inc.
propaganda.

Now I've answered these questions for the last time.

If you ask them again, I will ignore them.


You're good at ignoring what you don't want to see. I doubt
you will ignore me though. You told us 10 days ago you
were done discussing AIDS, yet here you are, back for
another trip to the woodshed.

On Jun 22, 1:41*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 06:35:34 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc. (and not just
links to them),

Not PR releases. A complete and overwhelming proof that HIV
causes AIDS from National Institutes of Health. Complete with
links to dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists,
qualified in the pertinent field of science.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid...



Special Note: It now appears that Trader Boy is concerned about the
dates on some of this information (further proving that he still
doesn't understand what The Scientific Method is),

The point to the dates is that denialists like to use articles,
papers, opinions, etc from 20 or 30 years ago, when so
little was known about HIV and AIDS. They usually do that
with the dates omitted in an attempt to mislead. They have
to do that, because the proof since then that HIV is the
cause of AIDS is overwhelming.




What was true 20 years ago, is still true today.
In the case in point, the authors claimed there were no
studies of HIV+ mortality available. * Today there are lots of
them, which I already provided. *And they show that HIV
infection results in an order of magnitude increase in
mortality. *That does indeed change what is true today
and what is a lie.

But they never allow for taking AIDS DRUGS!

Which is "AIDS by presciption"!

The lie repeated. *The earliest AIDS patients received no
AIDS drugs because there were none. *We had these
patients dying left and right for 5+ years. *That is what lead to the
investigation into AIDS to begin with.

Denialists have refused AIDS drugs, most of them are
now dead.

Patients in third world countries that don't have access to
drugs, they die from AIDS.

No, they die from the same old diseases they've always died from,
malaria, TB, wasting, malnutrition, cholera, multiple parasitic
infections, poor hygiene, dirty water, etc.

They just call that "AIDS" today.

The lie repeated. The earliest AIDS patients received no AIDS
drugs and had all the classic symptoms of AIDS. They were
not dying from the same old diseases. Same thing with
hemophiliacs, blood transfusion recipients, etc. And
curiously, as soon as an HIV test was available and blood
was screened, hemophiliacs and blood transfusion patients
stopped dying from AIDS. Very powerfult proof, ignored
by the denialists.

And in Africa, we know it's a lie that these people are
just dying of the same diseases.


In developing countries, patterns of both rare and endemic diseases
have changed dramatically as HIV has spread, with a far greater toll
now being exacted among the young and middle-aged, including well-
educated members of the middle class.

In developing countries, the emergence of the HIV epidemic has
dramatically changed patterns of disease in affected communities. As
in developed countries, previously rare, "opportunistic" diseases such
as PCP and certain forms of meningitis have become more commonplace.
In addition, as HIV seroprevalence rates have risen, there have been
significant increases in the burden of endemic conditions such as
tuberculosis (TB), particularly among young people. For example, as
HIV seroprevalence increased sharply in Blantyre, Malawi from 1986 to
1995, tuberculosis admissions at the city's main hospital rose more
than 400 percent, with the largest increase in cases among children
and young adults. In the rural Hlabisa District of South Africa,
admissions to tuberculosis wards increased 360 percent from 1992 to
1998, concomitant with a steep rise in HIV seroprevalence. High rates
of mortality due to endemic conditions such as TB, diarrheal diseases
and wasting syndromes, formerly confined to the elderly and
malnourished, are now common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged
people in many developing countries (UNAIDS, 2000; Harries et al. Int
J Tuberc Lung Dis 1997;1:346; Floyd et al. JAMA 1999;282:1087).

MYTH: There is no AIDS in Africa. AIDS is nothing more than a new name
for old diseases.

FACT: The diseases that have come to be associated with AIDS in Africa
- such as wasting syndrome, diarrheal diseases and TB - have long been
severe burdens there. However, high rates of mortality from these
diseases, formerly confined to the elderly and malnourished, are now
common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged people, including well-
educated members of the middle class (UNAIDS, 2000).

For example, in a study in Cote d'Ivoire, HIV-seropositive individuals
with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) were 17 times more likely to die
within six months than HIV-seronegative individuals with pulmonary TB
(Ackah et al. Lancet 1995; 345:607). In Malawi, mortality over three
years among children who had received recommended childhood
immunizations and who survived the first year of life was 9.5 times
higher among HIV-seropositive children than among HIV-seronegative
children. The leading causes of death were wasting and respiratory
conditions (Taha et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:689). Elsewhere
in Africa, findings are similar.






You're the one obviously confused. *You claimed there is no
evidence HIV has been isolated from AIDS patients.

That's another straw man.

But the point you continue to fail to understand is that they don't do
that anymore. *They rely on tests for ANTIBODIES! Antibodies that are
not exclusive to HIV, to boot.

Well, what do you expect? That we must isolate HIV from
every last patient? You denied it had been isolated at all.
That is a lie. It has been isolated. That is where HIV was
discovered. In AIDS patients. It;s been isolated repeatedly,
when necessary and used to prove that HIV causes AIDS.
We've isolated the virus from one person and found it to
be genetically identical to the virus in a suspected person
who was the route of infection.

We use an antibody test to determine who is infected with
HIV. That is EXACTLY what is done with a long, long list
of infectious diseases. It works, it's accurate, it's fast
and it's very cost effective. For example, if we think a patient
might have hepatitis or TB, we use a test for the antibodies to
hepatitis and TB. Nothing sinister or unusual about that at all.





Yes, this coming from the resident expert that claims:

HIV is harmless

Check!

HIV doesn't cause AIDS

Check! But it causes really stupid people to actually give certain
people AIDS. I.e., "AIDS by prescription."

AIDS is caused by poor nutrition, gay sex, not enough sleep

Check!

AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs

Check!

And this is something you can test on yourself.

AIDS can be cured by diet and sleep

Check! *Along with certain lifestyle changes.

AIDS cases are virtually non-existent in heterosexuals

Check!

HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer

Check!

Prions don't exist

Check!

Prions don't cause Mad Cow.

Check! Organophospates (insecticides) probably do.

Everyone can judge for themselves who understands what.

Exactly!

And I encourage them to do so. Then they can judge the
soundness of all the rest of what you have to say.



And that's who these people are.

They are denialist kooks.



Does it take
a retrovirologist to review the data? If so, then you should bow down
to whatever Duesberg claims, because he's the man of whom your hero,
Robert Gallo, once said "knows more about retroviruses than any man
alive." Case closed!

Again, one kook among hundreds of thousands is to be expected.

By your definition, a kook is anyone who disagrees with you, and for
someone who clearly doesn't even have a clue as to the difference
between a virus and an antibody, that's rich.

No, a kook is someone pontificating on subjects out of
their area of expertise. Or someone who still believes the
same pathetic theories from 30 years ago that have
been completely disproven. Someone who has no
studies of their own and relies on misrepresenting studies
from 20 years ago, ignoring all the studies since then
that say they are wrong. They just go on with the pathetic
arguments from decades ago.

A classic example of this is your post of a paper from 25
years ago speculating that recreational drug use MIGHT
be the cause of AIDS. It was a theory, back in the early days.
The days before we saw hemophiliacs, who aren't abusing
drugs, come down with the exact same disease. The
days before we saw blood transfusion recipients coming
down with AIDS from HIV infected blood. Blood that
was traced back to an HIV infected donor. Back in the
days before studies were done that show an identical
cohort of drug users, hemophiliacs, blood transfusion
patients, gay men, etc, that are NOT infected with HIV
NEVER go on to develop AIDS.

So, yes, anyone that ignores the above, and uses crap
from 25 years ago is indeed a denialist kook.



Still waiting for your explanation of some very simple things:

If HIV is indeed harmless, why do people that test positive for it
all over the world have a 13 to 27 times higher mortality rate than
those in an identical cohort that do not?

AIDS DRUGS! What part of AIDS DRUGS do you not understand?

Again, ignoring the fact that for the first 5 years of AIDS
we had no AIDS drugs. *All we could do was treat patients
for whatever their immediate opportunistic disease was.
And almost all of them died.

Exactly! *Because they had all already destroyed their immune systems!
See: GRID, and Michael Gottleib's original observations.

Still waiting for any study that shows this unrecoverable
destruction of a person's immune system. The same
destruction that suddenly appeared at the same time in
gay men, IV drug abusers, hemophiliacs, and even
blood transfusion recipients. That would be one hell
of a thing. Somehow, they all suddenly destroyed their
immune systems, wound up with the same disese
and are unable to recover.

Now, real science says this just does not happen.
The alternate and straightforward explanation is that
HIV destroys the immunes system. IT's been show
in the lab and in patients. And it accounts entirely for
the above scenarios of HIV infection paths and AIDS.
IT also explains how once blood was screened for
HIV, the infection path in hemophiliacs and blood
transfusion recipients stopped.

Actually, the infection of transfusion patients had
been virtually eliminated, but it still occurs in some
third world countries from time to time. And guess
what? When the recipient winds up with AIDS,
they've gone back, found the infected blood donor,
who it turns out has AIDS and is HIV+ with the
identical genetic strain. Again, powerful proof.






Today in third world countires, many people don't have
access to drugs, and they die.

And they'd been dying from those same diseases for millions of years.

The lie repeated:

"MYTH: There is no AIDS in Africa. AIDS is nothing more than a new
name for old diseases.

FACT: The diseases that have come to be associated with AIDS in Africa
- such as wasting syndrome, diarrheal diseases and TB - have long been
severe burdens there. However, high rates of mortality from these
diseases, formerly confined to the elderly and malnourished, are now
common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged people, including well-
educated members of the middle class (UNAIDS, 2000).

For example, in a study in Cote d'Ivoire, HIV-seropositive individuals
with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) were 17 times more likely to die
within six months than HIV-seronegative individuals with pulmonary TB
(Ackah et al. Lancet 1995; 345:607). In Malawi, mortality over three
years among children who had received recommended childhood
immunizations and who survived the first year of life was 9.5 times
higher among HIV-seropositive children than among HIV-seronegative
children. The leading causes of death were wasting and respiratory
conditions (Taha et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:689). Elsewhere
in Africa, findings are similar."

Pay special attention about the part about these diseases now
being common in the middle class in Africa. Did all of them
suddenly go on starvation plans, start drinking dirty water?
In the denialist world, they would have to. In the real world,
of course, they are infected with HIV and have AIDS.





Why is it that in study after study, whether in gay men, babies,
hemophiliacs, IV drug users, or soccer moms, only those that test HIV+
ever go on to develop AIDS?

Because only those who test positive can officially have AIDS!

Then show us the study

It doesn't take a study! *It just takes the ability to reason
deductively!

Sure, because again you have no study, nada, zilch.





No HIV+, no "AIDS." *Period.

See: circularity

So, it must be another example of bad medicine that only
those that test positive for hepatitis B, ever get hepatitis B
and die from it, right? Same scenario for disease after
disease.



You yourself have listed people here who OBVIOUSLY died from
congenital heart defects, renal failure, heart attacks, etc., yet you
claim they died because of AIDS, or from not taking AIDS drugs.

There is agreement except in that denialist world that
they died of AIDS because their immune systems had no
CD4 cells. See, in the real world, that has been demonstrated
time after time. Show us the study where people who have
heart defects or renal failure have collapsed immune systems.
Of course, you can't because it's not true.

The other total nonsense here is that there is no level of
proof of anyone dying of AIDS that could satisfy a denialist.
We've shown time and time again, that the HIV virus itself
can be found in AIDS patients. And that it cannot be found
in healthy people. We've moved on from there, so that we
have a reliable antibody test. We use it to determine who
is infected with HIV, just like we do with almost any other
infectious disease. Yet, denialists like you want to play the
game that because a person is HIV+, has all the classic
symptoms of AIDS, then dies of TB or pneumonia, that person didn't
have AIDS because we didn't isolate the actual virus out
of that patient. Unbelievable nonsense.





And those that are in an identical cohort but HIV- never do?

Never do what? *Die? Tens of thousands of HIV- people die every single
day from the same diseases that HIV+ people die from, minus the AIDS
drugs.

But of course the issue isn't that hiv- people die every day.
The issue is that those that are hiv+ are dying at 13 to 27
times the rate of those that are hiv-.

For the umpteenth time, theses people wouldn't be dying at all, if it
weren't for the AIDS drugs!

What a miracle disease this is. We have various groups of
people with AIDS:

Gay men with many partners
hemophiliacs
blood transfusion recipients
IV drug users
babies born to HIV infected mothers
heterosexual soccer moms
heterosexuals in Africa, across all classes.

Within those groups we've had people both treated
with HIV drugs and not treated. Somehow then the
disease is caused by AIDS drugs in some of these
people. Yet the other people also get AIDS, with
the identical symptoms, without drugs. Go figure
how a disease can do that.

The alternate and sane explanation is that HIV
causes AIDS. And we have study after study that
shows absent HIV infection, identical cohorts in
the groups above, NEVER DEVELOP AIDS. And
we've explained the infection path in ALL the
above groups and it makes perfect sense.





HIV- people don't take AIDS drugs, therefore they have a great chance
of surviving whatever illness or disease they may or may not have.

Why if AIDS drugs cause AIDS did the earliest patients who
received no AIDS drugs because there were none, die?

For the 237,492nd time, from combined abuse of using IV and other
recreational drugs, inhaling poppers, drinking heavily, men having sex
with hundereds of male partners per month, going without sleep, eating
poorly, getting multiple STDs, taking antibiotics like most people eat
Gummy Bears, etc.

And why is it that this appeared suddenly in 1982,

Already answered that.

The lie repeated.



And where is the study that shows it's possible for men
having sex with many men or drug abusers to completely
destroy their immune systems.

Already answered that.

The lie repeated. You have no such study or it would
be posted right here for all to see. Why continue to lie
and make an ass of yourself?

On Jun 24, 5:10*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:58:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc. (and not just
links to them),

Not PR releases. A complete and overwhelming proof that HIV
causes AIDS from National Institutes of Health. Complete with
links to dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists,
qualified in the pertinent field of science.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx





The lie repeated. *The earliest AIDS patients received no AIDS
drugs and had all the classic symptoms of AIDS.

Look, you were talking about Third World AIDS, not the original U.S.
GRID cases.

I was simply proving that AIDS patients were dying of AIDS
BEFORE there were even any AIDS drugs, ie the first several
years of the disease. These sudden, new, unexplained deaths
due to patients having non-existent immune systems were
what brought attention to the disease to begin with. These
were the first AIDS patients in the USA.

Today we have third world AIDS cases were people are
still dying the same way, ie without access to HIV drugs.
Same disease, 30 years later. And at the same time
those with access to drugs which specifically target
the HIV virus are living. We have denialist nuts here in
the USA that refuse HIV drugs and they too are dying
of AIDS, EXACTLY like the original patients. Powerful
proof to anyone willing to look.




You're the one obviously confused. *You claimed there is no
evidence HIV has been isolated from AIDS patients.

That's another straw man.

But the point you continue to fail to understand is that they don't do
that anymore. *They rely on tests for ANTIBODIES! Antibodies that are
not exclusive to HIV, to boot.

Well, what do you expect? * That we must isolate HIV from
every last patient?

That, or at least be able to see the actual virus in the bloodstream,
before you start giving the patient drugs that are designed to kill
cells, ALL CELLS, such as AZT.

Uh huh. I see. And why exactly is it that you demand this
unprecendented and superfilous proof from HIV infection
when no similar isolation of the actual virus is required in
say hepatitis, syphilis or rubella?




We use an antibody test to determine who is infected with
HIV.

But that tells you almost nothing! It just means that the person was
once exposed to HIV (or any of the proteins that comprise it). You
have antibodies floating around in your body to hundreds of different
kinds of pathogens, but do you currently have the hundreds of diseases
that these pathegens can cause?

Similar tests are used for other diseases. You have a
problem with those? Or are you uniquely focused on only
AIDS, because you're a denialist? We have study after
study that shows those infected with HIV almost all go
on to develop AIDS. For additional proof, visit the graves
of the denialist folks who believed Duesburg and similar
jerks and wound up dead. They too believed HIV was
harmless. Now they are dead.


Of course not, because your immune system has already dealt with them.

I see so we should throw out all the routine tests used
throughout the world that rely on antibodies to diagnose
infection with a whole host of diseases. Everything from
hepatitis to rubella and syphilis. Just because you say so.





I'll say it again, until you understand the difference between viruses
and antibodies to viruses, you will never understand this stuff.

Exactly!

And I encourage them to do so. *Then they can judge the
soundness of all the rest of what you have to say.

Exactly!

And I sinecerely appreciate the opportunities you're giving me here to
at least try to inform people who may have an interest in these
topics, e.g., a parent with a young daughter, in the case of HPV.

You are precisely the last person anyone with children should be
listening to. You're an AIDS denialist and you're dangerous. For
proof, look at the graves of all the dead people who listened to
the denialist crap and refused drugs:

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists

There's a couple dozen there to start with. Now, if HIV is just
harmless, why are these people dead at like 35? Hmmm?
All that was wrong was they were HIV+ right? They refused
HIV drugs, which you claim causes AIDS. Why are they
all dead of this very unique disease?





By your definition, a kook is anyone who disagrees with you, and for
someone who clearly doesn't even have a clue as to the difference
between a virus and an antibody, that's rich.

No, a kook is someone pontificating on subjects out of
their area of expertise.

But Duesberg, as Gallo himself said, "knows more about retroviruses
that anyone," so who has more expertise than Duesberg?

Answer: NO ONE!

I don't know what Gallo actually said and in what context or
when. I do know that you have a remarkable propensity to lie
or take things totally out of context. And in the end, Duesburg's
BS arguments make no sense and are totally inconsistent with
what we know about HIV and AIDS today. It's 99.9%
of the scientific community with study after study,
against a couple of hacks ith a story that makes no sense.




A classic example of this is your post of a paper from 25
years ago speculating that recreational drug use MIGHT
be the cause of AIDS. *It was a theory, back in the early days.

Exactly! That's because that's where the evidence led one!

Oh please. It didn't even really lead anywhere back then. It's
just that you initially had young men, many of whom abused
drugs. It was not unreasonable to think that the drug abuse
MIGHT have some connection.
But even then it did not make much sense that a person
could cause their CD4 cells to go to zero and stay there,
through drug abuse. Stay there and not recover even if the
drugs are stopped. I'm still waiting for the study that shows
this is possible with any eational drugs. Of course there is
no such study. But that essential missing piece doesnt
stop AIDS denialists, does it?



That's where the evidence *still* leads one, if one takes the blinders
off.


Oh please. Within a few years, HIV was isolated from these
patients and found to be the cause of AIDS. Then the drug
connection made perfect sense. It's not the drugs, it's the
IV DRUG USE that provides an exchange of blood that
passes the HIV virus. Really, really, simple stuff. It also
explains why drug abusers, abusing the same drugs, but
not via IV, don't get infected with HIV, don't get AIDS.
It explains the pathway of infection to hemophiliacs,
blood transfusion recipients, babies, and soccer moms.




Again, ignoring the fact that for the first 5 years of AIDS
we had no AIDS drugs. *All we could do was treat patients
for whatever their immediate opportunistic disease was.
And almost all of them died.

Exactly! *Because they had all already destroyed their immune systems!
See: GRID, and Michael Gottleib's original observations.

Still waiting for any study that shows this unrecoverable
destruction of a person's immune system.

But if you were alive during the early 80s, you had a front row seat
to the study!

Again, you have no such study, because it cannot exist.
Funny thing that. Thirty years later and it should be simple.
Just show us a study that shows that it's possible to destroy
one's immune system to the point that you have no CD4
cells by drug abuse, inhalants, to much sex, being a hemophiliac,
receiving a transfusion or being a soccer mom. It's
impossible because it's BS.

Now on the other hand, knowing that HIV is the cause of
AIDS and how it's transmitted it's easy to explain the
transmission paths of HIV and AIDS in all those groups.

Really, really simple stuff.





Every single one of the original cohort were heavy abusers of drugs
(when it was still called GRID), etc., and they all died!

They died from having their immunes systems destroyed, not from HIV
(because many of them did not test positive for HIV, when their blood
samples were tested later on),

Which of course is a total lie. Virtually everyone of them was
later shown via blood samples that were saved to be HIV+.
You wanna prove otherwise, show us the proof.



but from abusing drugs over a period of
years. That was the original 100% correlation, and it didn't need to
be invented.

Drug abuse has been going on for hundreds of years.
Yet, suddenly in 1982 this appeared for the first time.
Gee, sounds more like a new virus infection.
And show us the study that says drug abuse can
cause the total and permanent collapse of a patients
immune system. No study, because it's not true.
Even with the most powerful immuno suppressive
drugs given to certain patients, ie transplant patients,
there is no such total destruction of the immune system.
And as soon as the drugs are stopped, the patients
immune system rebounds.

For proof that it's not drugs causing AIDS, here's the
studies that show you can't cause the immune supression
seen in AIDS with drugs:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

Other studies show that among homosexual men and injection-drug users,
the specific immune deficit that leads to AIDS - a progressive and
sustained loss of CD4+ T cells - is extremely rare in the absence of
other immunosuppressive conditions. For example, in the Multicenter
AIDS Cohort Study, more than 22,000 T-cell determinations in 2,713 HIV-
seronegative homosexual men revealed only one individual with a CD4+ T-
cell count persistently lower than 300 cells/mm3 of blood, and this
individual was receiving immunosuppressive therapy (Vermund et al.
NEJM 1993;328:442).

In a survey of 229 HIV-seronegative injection-drug users in New York
City, mean CD4+ T-cell counts of the group were consistently more than
1000 cells/mm3 of blood. Only two individuals had two CD4+ T-cell
measurements of less than 300/mm3 of blood, one of whom died with
cardiac disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma listed as the cause of
death (Des Jarlais et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1993;6:820)."

See, I have studies.

You have zippo.




Why is it that in study after study, whether in gay men, babies,
hemophiliacs, IV drug users, or soccer moms, only those that test HIV+
ever go on to develop AIDS?

Because only those who test positive can officially have AIDS!

Then show us the study

It doesn't take a study! *It just takes the ability to reason
deductively!

Sure, because again you have no study, nada, zilch.

Neither do you! *Unfortunately, you're too stupid to figure that out.

Here again is the link to NIH. It lays out the overwhelming cas
that HIV is the cause of AIDS. And it goes over every bogus
argument that you and clowns like Duesburg have made and
shows them to be nonsense. It references dozens of studies.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

Where are your studies? Oh, you have no studies, just
papers from 30 years ago





No HIV+, no "AIDS." *Period.

See: circularity

So, it must be another example of bad medicine that only
those that test positive for hepatitis B, ever get hepatitis B
and die from it, right? * Same scenario for disease after
disease.

Red herring alert! Red herring alert! *Red herring alert!

What? *Did you finally run out of straw men?

No, it's a perfect example of the exact same scenario.



Hepatitis B isn't HIV. And thousands of people have tested positive
for Hep B but actually experienced only a short, mild illness, and
certainly didn't die. Their immune systems dealt with it! Of course,
no one gives them deadly DNA chain terminators like AZT, either.

Hepatitis is like AIDS in some respects. The initial symptoms
can be mild or missed entirely. But peoples immune system
does not just deal with it and like AIDS, it's not harmless.
Year later the disease can cause liver failure and death.
We don't give hepatitis patients HIV drugs
because we treat them with hepatitis drugs. But we test
for hepatitis with an antibody test. We diagnose infection
with Hep A, B, C with antibody tests. We don't require that
the actual virus be isolated from each patient. Really, simple
stuff.




You yourself have listed people here who OBVIOUSLY died from
congenital heart defects, renal failure, heart attacks, etc., yet you
claim they died because of AIDS, or from not taking AIDS drugs.

There is agreement except in that denialist world that
they died of AIDS because their immune systems had no
CD4 cells.

Because they were all taking AZT!

Sure. Following that logic, I could claim hepatitis is just
a harmless virus too. Why, all the deaths occuring
are not from the hepatitis, but from the drugs used to treat it.
Follow the above denialist procedure and you can prove it's
the drugs that actually kill with any deadly disease.

Of course, people that are not denialists know better.



You're absolutely the dumbest person I've ever encountered. Anywhere.


I'll let others decide who has the science right and who's the loon.
Let's see, you're the one who's claimed:

HIV is harmless
HIV doesn't cause AIDS
AIDS is caused by poor nutrition, gay sex, not enough sleep
AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs
AIDS can be cured by diet and sleep
AIDS cases are virtually non-existent in heterosexuals
HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer
No virus can cause cancer
Prions don't exist
Prions don't cause Mad Cow.
Avoiding one stroke in 32 men over 5 years by reducing
their blood pressure just 10 points is a "slim benefit".

Anything new you'd like to add to your list of shame today?

On Jun 25, 12:05*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 16:38:23 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc. (and not just
links to them),

Just the overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS, from NIH
with references to dozens of studies, peer-reviewed.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx



I was simply proving that AIDS patients were dying of AIDS
BEFORE there were even any AIDS drugs,

But no one has ever disputed that, you dip****.

You're, as usual, arguing with straw men.

Again, you're confused. You claimed that its AIDS drugs
that cause AIDS. These patients were never given AIDS
drugs. They all died. So do the denialists infected with HIV
who refuse AIDS drugs today. Positive proof, except to a denialist.
To be a denialist, you have to claim that this new disease,
seen in gay men, IV drug users, hemophiliacs, blood
transfusion recipients, babies, heterosexuals in Africa
and soccer moms in the USA is being caused by something
different in every group. Yet it winds up with the same
effect, the complete destruction of CD4 immune cells.
Now, if true, that one be one hell of a thing.

Denialist nonsense:
Gay men - too many sexual partners, not enough sleep

Truth:
We have studies which I've provided that show identical
cohorts, absent HIV infection, never get AIDS


Denialist nonsense:
hemophiliacs - they just die anyway

Truth:
We have studies which I've provided that show identical
cohorts, absent HIV infection, never get AIDS. And just
as soon as a test for HIV was in place and blood products
were screened, hemophiliacs were no longer getting AIDS.



blood transfusion recipients - it wasn't the hiv infected blood
they received, they just happened to die with all the symptoms
of AIDS from something else.

Truth:
Only the transfusion recipients who received blood with
HIV develop AIDS. The blood has been tracked back to
the donor with HIV/AIDS time after time.

Denialist nonsense:
babies - they died of AIDS because they were crack babies
Studies, which I've provided, show that only babies
infected with HIV get AIDS. The HIV- ones never do.
The rate of transmission of HIV to babies was 25%.
The rate of transmission is now 3% because we have HIV
drugs that taken by the mother, prevent it.

Denialist nonsense:
heterosexuals in Africa - poor nutrition and bad hygiene, they've
been dying of the same diseases all along.

Truth:
Studies show that the disease profile in Africa has changed
drastically with AIDS. Diseases like PCP pneumonia, which
prior to AIDS was rare, are now common. That's right, PCP
pneumonia, one of the same opportunistic infections that
was killing the earliest AIDS patients in the USA. Similarly
TB infection is now 4X what it was in Africa. And HIV/AIDS
is taking it's toll on the middle class. Now how can that be
if it's poor nutrition and hygiene that cause African AIDS?

soccer moms - who knows, pick another lame story

Truth:
We have case after case where the path through infection
was from a male sexual partner that was infected with
HIV.



First, no one is going to start giving a deadly DNA chain terminator
(AZT, etc.) to anyone with hep, syphillis, or rubella. *Second, there
are various ways of diagnosing those diseases without relying on tests
for antibodies, via culture, skin scrapes, etc.

Who cares what alternate ways there are or are not to diagnose
any disease? The point here is you're demanding that the actual
HIV virus be isolated out of every patient. The truth is that is
rarely done with any infectious disease and instead antibody
testing is used. Therefore your demands of what must be
done are ludicrous. And even if it were done, why then you'd
just find the next BS issue.

The truth is HIV has been found in virtually every AIDS patient
where researchers needed to find it. The mapping is 1 to 1.
We also know the HIV antibody tests are reliable and that is
why they are used to determine infection. Just like is done
with syphillis or hepatitis. Welcome to modern medicine.


http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.

Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled
researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions. HIV
has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and vaginal
secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the
epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity
and contact with infected blood (Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol
1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16).



If you can't see the wisdom in making it 100% certain that a person
actually has a disease before treating him with drugs that will
eventually kill him, I can't really help you.

There is no need to because the real world of science
has shown that the HIV tests are very reliable. And in
the course of therapy, the patients CD4 cells and the
amount of HIV virus in their systems are measured.
Drugs are adjusted accordingly. It's extremely unlikely
somone is going to be put on drugs without needing them.
No more likely than with any other life threatening disease.
And the drugs are not killing patients, they are extending their
lives. Before we had the drugs, well everyone infected
with HIV pretty much died. Today the denialists who
refuse drugs, they are still dying. Funny thing that, if it's
AIDS drugs that cause AIDS.






There's just no there, there.

We use an antibody test to determine who is infected with
HIV.

But that tells you almost nothing! It just means that the person was
once exposed to HIV (or any of the proteins that comprise it). You
have antibodies floating around in your body to hundreds of different
kinds of pathogens, but do you currently have the hundreds of diseases
that these pathegens can cause?

Similar tests are used for other diseases.

But none that are treated with deadly DNA chain terminating drugs
(AZT, etc.)!

Well, of course not. Because there are other drugs to treat
those diseases.



We have study after
study that shows those infected with HIV almost all go
on to develop AIDS.

No, you don't.

They are right he

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx



The tests are virtually worthless, and the reason many
of them go on to get AIDS is because they are treated with deadly DNA
chain-terminating drugs! "AIDS by presciption!"

Sure, by that logic I could TRY to prove that cancer deaths
are caused not by cancer, but by cancer drugs. That
hepatitis deaths are not from hepatitis, but from the
drugs used to treat it. Of course that whole nonsense
is demolished by:

The earliest AIDS patients received no AIDS drugs.
They died from AIDS

The denialists who are HIV+ refuse drugs and they die
from AIDS

In third world countries, millions have no access to
AIDS drugs and they die of AIDS.

Now, instead of accept the truth, denialists have to
invent all kinds of distorted BS to TRY to explain
the above. But they can't.




But Duesberg, as Gallo himself said, "knows more about retroviruses
that anyone," so who has more expertise than Duesberg?

Answer: NO ONE!

I don't know what Gallo actually said and in what context or
when.

Then look it up, moron.

See, it doesn't work that way. YOU made the claim as
to what Gallo said. You then should know where it was said,
in what context, and YOU are the one that is obligated to
produce it to defend your claim. I won't be holding my
breath. You have no studies, no real data. And I'm
betting you don't have this either.




Or not. I really don't care.

A classic example of this is your post of a paper from 25
years ago speculating that recreational drug use MIGHT
be the cause of AIDS. *It was a theory, back in the early days.

Exactly! That's because that's where the evidence led one!

Oh please. *It didn't even really lead anywhere back then. *It's
just that you initially had young men, many of whom abused
drugs. *It was not unreasonable to think that the drug abuse
MIGHT have some connection.

Not some of them. *ALL of them! *A 100% correlation!

The lie repeated.

The first AIDS patient appeared in 1980. There were no
AIDS drugs until 1987, so AIDS drugs could not be the
cause. There was a whole stream of cases
in those years, gay men, IV drug abusers, hemophiliac
kids, babies. So, show us the study that says all of those
were drug abusers. That is what you'd have to do to prove
that drug abuse was the cause. The truth is the one thing
they all had in common was HIV INFECTION. Really, really,
simple stuff.

I mean this is about as dumb as you can get. We have one
disease with consistent symptoms and it causes the
virtually complete elimination of CD4 immune cells. But
we're supposed to believe that in IV drug abusers, it's
caused by the drugs. In hemophiliacs, well it's because
they just die anyway. In babies, it's because the mother
was on drugs. In Africa, it's poor nutrition. In soccer
moms it's AIDS drugs.

Now that would be one hell of a new disease. To
manifest itself in different groups, from different
causes and result in exactly the same thing,
wiping out CD4 cells. Of course the obvious truth
is that it's HIV that's the cause. And we can
indentify and explain why it's infected those groups.
We can show that HIV attacks those blood cells
in the lab. We can measure the decline in AIDS
patients.

Where is your study that shows drug abuse is the
cause? Of course you can't provide it, because
there isn't one. So, instead you go back to 25 year
old papers, speculating on causes, when little
was known about the disease and HIV had not
even been discovered.

Classid denialist nonsense.





Nota bene: On the Drudge report today, you will note a Chinese man,
after reportedly staying up for 11 days watching soccer on TV, and
drinking heavily, went home and went to sleep. He never woke up. So
the next time you think that burning the candle at both ends can't
kill you, and rather quickly, think back to this guy.

Wow that's real convincing proof.
But, did he die of AIDS? LOL




That's where the evidence *still* leads one, if one takes the blinders
off.

Oh please. *Within a few years, HIV was isolated from these
patients and found to be the cause of AIDS.

No, that's not what happened. HIV wasn't isolated from these patients.

The lie repeated. Where do you think Gallo and Montagnier
found HIV? In moon rocks? That lie is enough in itself to totally
discredit you.



In fact, even after the "test" was developed, many of them didn't even
test positive for HIV.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.

Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled
researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions. HIV
has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and vaginal
secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the
epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity
and contact with infected blood (Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol
1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16)."

Your source would be? As usual, you have no source.



You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Now that's special coming from you.


Still waiting for any study that shows this unrecoverable
destruction of a person's immune system.

But if you were alive during the early 80s, you had a front row seat
to the study!

Again, you have no such study, because it cannot exist.

If you had two eyes in those days, you had your "study."

Seeing is believing.

I saw it. I saw gay men dying, whether they abused drugs or
not. I saw IV drug users dying. I saw those that used the same
drugs, but did not inject them, not dying. I saw hemophiliacs
dying. I saw blood transfusion recipients dying. And I saw
the hemopiliacs and blood tranfusion AIDS path stop just as
soon as there was a blood test for HIV.

I saw some success with the earliest AIDS drugs. I saw
reports that they stopped working and that researchers had
found out it was because the virus mutated to avoid the drugs.
I saw better and better drugs developed so that today people
are no longer dying. Except for those without the drugs, like
the denialist nuts and those in third world countries.

Now, where is that study that shows it's possible for anyone
to destroy their CD4 immune system so that it is unrecoverable,
by diet, lack of sleep, recreational drug abuse, etc?

crickets....

It's been 30 years and no such study. Gee, I wonder why?



See: Gottleib's original observations.

Every single one of the original cohort were heavy abusers of drugs
(when it was still called GRID), etc., and they all died!

They died from having their immunes systems destroyed, not from HIV
(because many of them did not test positive for HIV, when their blood
samples were tested later on),

Which of course is a total lie. *Virtually everyone of them was
later shown via blood samples that were saved to be HIV+.
You wanna prove otherwise, show us the proof.

Your use of the word "virtually" is significant (in a way that you
probably can't understand), because many of them tested HIV-.

No, I use the word virtually so you can't make an issue out
of the pathological case that is the one in a hundred thousand
exception. But you will anyway, because that's the only
place you can play.


So what did those men die from?

Answer: Burning the candle at both ends for months and years!

And of course the problem of why we never saw that in
the prior hundred years never occured to you. No, it
just mysteriously showed up in 1980. Go figure.
And then it quickly showed up in other groups, hemophiliacs,
transfusion recipients, middle class Africans, soccer moms.
Gee, did they all start to burn the candle at both ends at
precisely the same time?





but from abusing drugs over a period of
years. That was the original 100% correlation, and it didn't need to
be invented.

Drug abuse has been going on for hundreds of years.

Not to the extent it was going in with the original cohort, when it
was still called GRID.

Here's a puzzling thing. If it was corelated directly to drug abuse,
then why in the world did they initially call it Gay Related
Immune Deficiency? Should have been DRID.

The truth of course is that it's not corelated to drug abuse.
Study after study has shown that ABSENT HIV INFECTION
an identical cohort of drug users does not develop AIDS.
And drug abusers who don't share a needle, do not
develop AIDS. Really, really simple stuff.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"Compelling evidence against the hypothesis that behavioral factors
cause AIDS comes from recent studies that have followed cohorts of
homosexual men for long periods of time and found that only HIV-
seropositive men develop AIDS.

For example, in a prospectively studied cohort in Vancouver, 715
homosexual men were followed for a median of 8.6 years. Among 365 HIV-
positive individuals, 136 developed AIDS. No AIDS-defining illnesses
occurred among 350 seronegative men despite the fact that these men
reported appreciable use of inhalable nitrites ("poppers") and other
recreational drugs, and frequent receptive anal intercourse (Schechter
et al. Lancet 1993;341:658).

Other studies show that among homosexual men and injection-drug users,
the specific immune deficit that leads to AIDS - a progressive and
sustained loss of CD4+ T cells - is extremely rare in the absence of
other immunosuppressive conditions. For example, in the Multicenter
AIDS Cohort Study, more than 22,000 T-cell determinations in 2,713 HIV-
seronegative homosexual men revealed only one individual with a CD4+ T-
cell count persistently lower than 300 cells/mm3 of blood, and this
individual was receiving immunosuppressive therapy (Vermund et al.
NEJM 1993;328:442).

In a survey of 229 HIV-seronegative injection-drug users in New York
City, mean CD4+ T-cell counts of the group were consistently more than
1000 cells/mm3 of blood. Only two individuals had two CD4+ T-cell
measurements of less than 300/mm3 of blood, one of whom died with
cardiac disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma listed as the cause of
death (Des Jarlais et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1993;6:820)."

See, real studies, by real scientists. Where are your studies?

Why is it that in study after study, whether in gay men, babies,
hemophiliacs, IV drug users, or soccer moms, only those that test HIV+
ever go on to develop AIDS?

Because only those who test positive can officially have AIDS!

Then show us the study

It doesn't take a study! *It just takes the ability to reason
deductively!

Sure, because again you have no study, nada, zilch.

Neither do you! *Unfortunately, you're too stupid to figure that out..

Here again is the link to NIH.

That's not a credible study! *It's basically a PR release!

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
They take apart ALL of your denialist arguments one by
one and provide reference after reference to studies.

Where are your studies?

crickets.....

On Jun 25, 4:01*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:29:17 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc.

It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the
cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health.
And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed
studies by real scientists over decades that prove the
case.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

The denialist? Where are their studies?

crickets....




http://www.naturalnews.com/z027354_A...ne_system.html

Originally published October 29 2009
The AIDS myth exposed: Why experts are challenging conventional AIDS
mythology
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Conventional medicine's explanations of HIV and AIDS are
a medical myth at best; and outright quackery at worst. There is no
such thing as a virus that "causes" AIDS, since the very definition of
AIDS is widely disputed by scientists around the world.
(And patients
are often diagnosed with AIDS who have no HIV whatsoever.)

Which of course is a lie and faulty logic.




In conjunction with the release of the myth-busting documentary House
of Numbers (www.HouseOfNumbers.com), NaturalNews has pulled together a
collection of fascinating quotes from top health authors and
researchers who challenge conventional thinking about HIV and AIDS. If
you've been suckered into Big Pharma's lies about HIV and AIDS, you
will find the information here absolutely shocking. What's said here
calls into question the entire basis of the "AIDS industry" with all
their (failed) vaccines and patented prescription drugs.

Yes a fascinating collection of quotes, little snippets from here
and there, undated as always. Not from AIDS researchers or viral
disease experts, but mostly from holistic health folks.
Where are the studies in peer reviewed journals?

crickets....


It seems that the AIDS hoax is about to be publicly exposed. As the
House of Numbers documentary explains, "a world without AIDS may be
closer than you think."

In fact, it may exist already.

Sure, in the hallucinations of the denialists anything is possible.



This doesn't mean that people aren't suffering from very real immune
suppression disorders; it just means the conventional mythology that
attempts to explain the causes of this immune suppression is factually
wrong. Read more below to learn the details...

It just the denialists won't recognize that it's HIV causing the
immune suppression and AIDS. They like to invent every alternate
explanation. A different one for hemophiliacs, a different one for
IV drug abusers, a different one for soccer moms, a different one
for AIDS in Africa. Instead of
reconizing the obvious truth that they all share only one thing
in common, HIV infection and that is the cause of AIDS.



The AIDS myth exposed
The renaming of old diseases as AIDS further supports the hypothesis
that the AIDS syndrome is never found in anyone without presence of
HIV. By definition, there is no AIDS without HIV, regardless how many
non-HIV people may die from the very same symptoms.

Just show us the study that shows absent HIV infection, there
are signifcant numbers of people dying from AIDS.
Of course that study doesn't exist, because it's not true.



Accordingly,
anything that even remotely resembles immune deficiency plus HIV now
counts as an AIDS disease, despite the fact that AIDS patients with
Kaposi's sarcoma have been reported to have normal immune systems. It
has been argued that wherever there is HIV, AIDS will be the
consequence. However, this argument is heavily flawed.

No it's not.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.

Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled
researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions. HIV
has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and vaginal
secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the
epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity
and contact with infected blood (Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol
1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16)."




- Timeless Secrets of Health & Rejuvenation: Unleash The Natural
Healing Power That Lies Dormant Within You by Andreas Moritz

Two of the 16 patients in the control group developed AIDS. In another
study, 10 HIV positive patients without AIDS took 150-225 mg
glycyrrhizin daily. After 1-2 years, none developed symptoms
associated with AIDS or AIDS-related complex (ARC), while one of 10
patients of a matched control group developed ARC and two progressed
to AIDS and subsequently died.

I love it when you post things you don't understand that just
blow your own pathetic case out of the water. Let's see, we
have 3 patients in a control group of 10 who are HIV+ that
developed AIDS. Two died. Exactly what's to be expected,
since HIV causes AIDS. In the other group, taking a drug
extracted from licorice root, no one developed AIDS.
But that was a study of 10 patients for a whopping 1 to
2 years. Since we know AIDS can take much longer to
develop, it's interesting, but without further study,
fairly worthless.

I also note that no reference is given to the actual study
so that it can be evaluated. That's typical.



The result of glycyrrhizin in
HIV-positive and AIDS patients is almost immediate improvement in
immune function.

Again, more evidence that sinks the denialist boat. If HIV is
just a harmless virus, why is there any need to impove the immune
function in those infected with it?




In one study, nine symptom-free HIV-positive patients
received 200-800 mg glycyrrhizin in vitro daily. After 8 weeks.
- Textbook of Natural Medicine 2nd Edition Volume 1 by Michael T.
Murray, ND

Symptom free? You've told us time after time that HIV is just
harmless. So, why would HIV+ patients have symptoms?
Why would they be patients at all?


And what does Michael T Murray have to say about HIV and
AIDS when asked?

http://www.sharecare.com/question/sy...9d864_94272367

Question: What are the sympoms of HIV infection or AIDS?

Answer:

"The spectrum of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection ranges
from a person with a positive test for HIV without any signs of immune
deficiency to a person with full-blown AIDS. The onset of AIDS can
be either sudden, with the development of fever, sweats, malaise,
fatigability, joint and muscle pain, headaches, sore throat, diarrhea,
generalized swelling of lymph glands, and/or rash on the trunk; or it
can be more insidious, presenting as unexplained progressive fatigue,
weight loss, fever, diarrhea, and/or generalized swelling of the lymph
glands."

Now if the doctor believes that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, it's
would be
pretty remarkable for him to not just say so in answering that
question.
Sounds to me like believes HIV is the cause of AIDS.




It was obvious that the FTC was not interested in whether Immune Plus
helped in the treatment of AIDS; they were only interested in
curtailing its marketing. The FTC alleged that Immune Plus was being
advertised as a "cure" for AIDS. At no time did True Health or
International White Cross claim to have a cure. Test results in the
Immune Plus ad were taken directly from the nutritional AIDS test, and
True Health sold the exact same formula that was used in their AIDS
test to International White Cross.
- Innocent Casualties : The FDA's War Against Humanity by Elaine Feuer

Apparently an effort by the FTC to stop marketing of some dubious
supplement in connection with AIDS treatment. Of course
we all know that has nothing to do with whether HIV causes
AIDS. Boy, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel
now. How long did it take you to come up with that one?


He sees AIDS as a sort of catch-all term that "spuriously links 29 (at
last count) old and extremely heterogeneous AIDS indicator diseases
together with a presumption of HIV infection." Those who believe in
AIDS as a new syndrome, he says, would have a case if, indeed, it were
"a serious disease of acquired immune deficiency without preexisting
or induced immune deficiency." The problem is that "in all verifiable
cases, demonstrable immune-suppressive disease and/or treatment have
always preceded" the onset of AIDS.
- AIDS: A Second Opinion by Gary Null, James Feast

Which of course is not true. You mean this Gary Null?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Null

"Gary Michael Null (born in 1945) is an American talk radio host and
author on alternative and complementary medicine and nutrition. On his
talk radio show and in his books and self-produced movies, Null has
criticized the medical community, promoted a range of alternative
cancer treatments and dietary supplements, and questioned the link
between HIV and AIDS.

In 2010, Null reported that he had been poisoned and nearly killed by
ingesting one of his own dietary supplements, "Gary Null's Ultimate
Power Meal". "



In fact, he showed that HIV alone could not cause AIDS.

Oh, really? Who is the "he" here? Just give us the reference
to the peer-reviewed study that showed this.

crickets....


Increasing
evidence indicates that AIDS may be a toxicity syndrome or metabolic
disorder that is caused by immunity risk factors, including heroin,
sex-enhancement drugs, antibiotics, commonly prescribed AIDS drugs,
rectal intercourse, starvation, malnutrition, and dehydration. Dozens
of prominent scientists working at the forefront of AIDS research now
openly question the virus hypothesis of AIDS.
- Cancer Is Not A Disease - It's A Survival Mechanism by Andreas
Moritz

Another lie. AIDS a toxicity syndrome or metabloic disorder?
Studies please....

crickets.....

And where are the dozens of prominent AIDS researchers
that are openly questioning that HIV causes AIDS? And note
the AIDS researcher requirement. Not chemists who talk to glowing
alien squirrels. We want the list of the dozens of AIDS
researchers and references to their studies that support their
claims.

crickets....





When this happens disease runs rampant, as we see with the immune
destroyer known as Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS.
People don't die from AIDS; they die from diseases that their shot
immune systems can't deal with. Ironically, vaccinations are supposed
to boost the immune system when, in truth, they undermine it. All the
crap they put into vaccines is another attack that the immune defence
has to cope with and this reduces its ability to meet other challenges
effectively by making the DNA/RNA misfire.
- Infinite Love Is the Only Truth: Everything Else Is Illusion by
David Icke, Icke David

Again, obviously it has nothing to do with HIV causing AIDS.
It is an example of some more loons apparently on the anti-vaccine
bandwagon. Where do you find this stuff? Are you googling
for AIDS+kooks?





In this study, the immune systems of mice were blocked by infecting
them with a retrovirus that causes mouse AIDS and/or feeding them
ethanol. They measured certain immune system functions, then gave them
Pycnogenol and measured them again. Researchers found out that immune
stimulators were increased, immune suppressors decreased, and natural
killer cells were stronger. In other words, even when the immune
system was barely working, Pycnogenol brought it back. Research in
this direction may be very significant for those interested in the
AIDS virus.
- The Super Anti-Oxidants: Why They Will Change the Face of Healthcare
in the 21st Century by James F. Balch, M.D.

Again, more filler, nothing whatever to do with HIV causing AIDS



Another report also noted low serum zinc levels in those with AIDS but
not other stages of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection. A
child with AIDS was found to have all the signs and symptoms of a
zinc-deficiency disorder.

WOW! One whole child was found? Amazing.


It is still unclear why these AIDS patients
have low serum zinc levels. What is clear is that this aspect of the
AIDS problem should be vigorously pursued. These exciting findings
justify further clinical trials to determine the effects of
supplementary zinc on the immune system and in the treatment of immune
disorders such as AIDS.
- The Doctor's Vitamin and Mineral Encyclopedia by Sheldon Saul
Hendler

Again, more filler, nothing whatever to do with HIV causing AIDS




Formula for Chronic Viral Syndromes (HIV Infection, ARC, AIDS, Herpes,
CMV, EBV) Note: By now, virtually everyone has heard of AIDS (acquired
immune deficiency syndrome). What many do not know is that AIDS does
not have to be fatal.

Of course not. Those that take the current AIDS drug combo
therapy are doing very well.


There are those with AIDS who have survived in
relatively good health for several years now. An ever increasing
number are surviving longer and longer.

Yes, those of the AIDS drugs. Those not on the drugs, well they are
still dying. Just look at the dead denialists who believed
HIV was harmless. They refused AIDS drugs, opting instead
for treating it with diet, natural supplements, mediation, etc.
They're dead now.


The secret is to pay attention
to details. These include diet, exercise, stress reduction, use of
supplements, immune enhancers, anti-viral agents and taking steps to
prevent the diseases associated with AIDS.
- The Doctor's Vitamin and Mineral Encyclopedia by Sheldon Saul
Hendler

The secret is to follow 99.9% of the scientific and medical
community and recognize that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
We had young people dying all over the place. We found
out HIV was the cause and today with drugs, they are living.
Powerful proof.




It is important to note that while all people with AIDS are
HIV-positive, not all people with HIV develop AIDS. Most HIV-positive
people develop AIDS within eight to twelve years after first
contracting the virus, but some develop it much faster, and many
others still remain healthy decades after contracting HIV It appears
that people who are able to ward off full-blown AIDS are those whose
immune systems are the strongest.

Again, what you post just sinks the pathetic denialsist claims.
Right there in black and white it says "Most hiv+ people develop
AIDS within 8 to 12 years." Whooh! If HIV is not the cause of
AIDS and just a harmless virus, how can that be? The above
paragraph is a rare case where you've posted the truth.
How did that slip through?

Therefore, complementary therapies
for HIV and AIDS work to bolster the ability of the immune system to
fight infection.
- Prescription for Natural Cures: A Self-Care Guide for Treating
Health Problems with Natural Remedies Including Diet and Nutrition,
Nutritional Supplements, Bodywork, and More by James F. Balch, M.D.
and Mark Stengler, N.D.



It's quite obvious what's going on here. I post links,
references, and summaries from dozens of real studies,
by real scientists, doing real peer-reviewed research
on HIV and AIDS. And together, they conclusively prove
that HIV causes AIDS. You have no studies and know it.
You are now reduced to just coming up
with anything, as if that helps your case.
In fact, it's all unsupported opinions, no studies, and
increasingly now, no relevance to the cause of AIDS.
Like the fact that the FTC went after some company
selling supplements matters? Get a grip dude.

On Jun 26, 2:09*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:52:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[same old bull caca snipped]

Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost
the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc. (and not just
links to them),

It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the
cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health.
And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed
studies by real scientists over decades that prove the
case.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid...


The denialist? Where are their studies?
crickets....


http://www.naturalnews.com/z027354_A...ne_system.html

Originally published October 29 2009
The AIDS myth exposed: Why experts are challenging conventional AIDS
mythology
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Conventional medicine's explanations of HIV and AIDS are
a medical myth at best; and outright quackery at worst. There is no
such thing as a virus that "causes" AIDS, since the very definition of
AIDS is widely disputed by scientists around the world.
(And patients
are often diagnosed with AIDS who have no HIV whatsoever.)

Which of course is a lie and faulty logic.

It's the opinion of the writers. You call it "faulty logic," while
others would call it being truthful.

It's been demonstrated to the satisfaction of 99.9% of the
scientific and medical community that HIV exists and is the
cause of AIDS. It's no more a matter of opinion today than
that the polio virus causes polio or that the hepatitis virus causes
hepatitis.



Yes a fascinating collection of quotes, little snippets from here
and there, undated as always. * Not from AIDS researchers or viral
disease experts,

You've got to get over this pseudo-religion you practice, where only
certain, approved researchers ("high priests") are allowed to express
opinions, or review the data.

Sorry, but around here we call that evaluating the sources
of information. On the one side, we have credible sources like NIH
with study after study by real scientists,
published in peer-reviewed journals, with explanations that
make perfect sense. On the other side we have
articles written by radio talk hosts, opinions on infectious viruses
from chemists that write about talking to glowing alien raccoons,
etc.



It just the denialists won't recognize that it's HIV causing the
immune suppression and AIDS.

That's because they can read, and they know it's impossible for a
mostly harmless retrovirus (that can't even be found in the vast
majority of AIDS patients, even full-blown AIDS patients!) couldn't
possibly cause almost 30 different diseases, but that drugs (and other
lifestyles that can weaken, even destroy, the immune system) can.

The lie repeated yet again.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.

"Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have
enabled researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few
exceptions. HIV has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and
vaginal secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the
epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity
and contact with infected blood (Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol
1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16)."

Denialist studies?

crickets....


As to all the different diseases, no mystery there to anyone
with even a basic understanding of AIDS. HIV destroys the
immune system, leaving the person open to all kinds of
opportunistic infections. The particular ones any given AIDS
patient will develop is dependent on where they live,
what diseases they are exposed to, etc.




They like to invent every alternate
explanation. *A different one for hemophiliacs, a different one for
IV drug abusers, a different one for soccer moms, a different one
for AIDS in Africa.

Actually, the reason is precisely the same for each of them. Immune
destruction.

Yes, by the HIV virus. That has been demonstrated in study after
study. We've shown that HIV infects and destroys immune system
cells in the lab too. We've shown a direct corelation between the
amount of HIV virus in patients and the state of their immune systems.


Usually brought on by long-term recreational drug abuse,
burning the candle at both ends for years, malnutrition, not getting
any sleep, inhaling poppers, drinking heavily, eating poorly, and
taking AIDS drugs (AZT, etc.).

The lie repeated. Where is the study that supports the above?

crickets.


For this nonsense to have ANY validity, you'd have to start
with the simple study that shows it's possible for a person
to totally destroy their immune system, via lack of sleep,
diet, drinking, or recreational drugs. Destroy it to the point
that the immune system can't recover, despite the fact that
what is alleged to have caused it, ie drugs, poor diet, has
been eliminated/corrected.

Of course that study does not exist, because it's pure BS.
Even patients that undergo deliberate immune suppression
in the course of some disease treatment, recover their
immune function as soon as the drug treatment is stopped.
And that is why you have to resort to opinion pieces,
specualtion papers, from 25 years ago, because you
have no such study period.

On the other hand, we do have the studies that show in
all the groups you listed above, absent HIV infection
the people never get AIDS. You can be a drug abusing
hooker that doesn't sleep and unless you are HIV+
you do not get AIDS and die.


http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining
illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV-
infected.

For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the
Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV
Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive
were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness
than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide
a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research.

In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a
median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in
individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses
occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the
fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug
use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet
1993;341:658)."



And in case anyone would like to see what would happen to you if you
were to practice a similar lifestyle, give it a try yourself. See what
happens. It won't take long at all.

A person who abuses drugs or doesn't get enough sleep
may have health problems. But study after study shows
they don't get AIDS unless they are HIV+. See the above
studies for examples. On the other
hand, we also have soccer moms who did not abuse
drugs, got plenty of sleep, but were infected by
a male partner, are HIV+ and developed AIDS. We have
blood transfusion recipients who got infected with HIV.
The patient later develops AIDS and the tainted blood
is identified and tracked back to an HIV/AIDS donor.
Here is the study:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

"Studies of transfusion-acquired AIDS cases have repeatedly led to the
discovery of HIV in the patient as well as in the blood donor.

Numerous studies have shown an almost perfect correlation between the
occurrence of AIDS in a blood recipient and donor, and evidence of
homologous HIV strains in both the recipient and the donor (NIAID,
1995)."


As for a really bad lifestyle, that would be the denialist
nuts who refused AIDS drugs. They believed what you
said, that HIV is harmless and not the cause of AIDS.
They chose to treat HIV infection with food, supplements,
yoga, etc.
They are mostly dead from AIDS now, dying young.

Here's about a dozen right he

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists




Just show us the study that shows absent HIV infection, there
are signifcant numbers of people dying from AIDS.

The only requirement one must have to die from AIDS is a mostly
worthless test for HIV *antibodies.* *If the test says that you have
them, then you must die from AIDS. You will not be allowed to die from
anything else. However, if you don't have them, you can feel free to
die from something else.

Following that logic, then there is something mysterious
or sinister when someone who tests positive for hepatitis,
dies from hepatitis. Or someone who tests positive for
TB dies from TB.... Go figure.


Accordingly,
anything that even remotely resembles immune deficiency plus HIV now
counts as an AIDS disease, despite the fact that AIDS patients with
Kaposi's sarcoma have been reported to have normal immune systems. It
has been argued that wherever there is HIV, AIDS will be the
consequence. However, this argument is heavily flawed.

No it's not.

Yes, it is.

The vast majority of KP patients have normal immune systems (mostly
Italian and Jewish men). Provided they don't do anything to destroy
their immune systems, for example, inhale poppers, night after night
after night.

Which of course has nothing to do with anything. KS
was seen only in those certain groups and was rare there.
Yet it began showing up in young men, IV drug users,
and AFrican heterosexuals, all infected with HIV. HIV
wipes out the immune system and KS is one of the
possible diseases.





- Timeless Secrets of Health & Rejuvenation: Unleash The Natural
Healing Power That Lies Dormant Within You by Andreas Moritz

Two of the 16 patients in the control group developed AIDS. In another
study, 10 HIV positive patients without AIDS took 150-225 mg
glycyrrhizin daily. After 1-2 years, none developed symptoms
associated with AIDS or AIDS-related complex (ARC), while one of 10
patients of a matched control group developed ARC and two progressed
to AIDS and subsequently died.

I love it when you post things you don't understand that just
blow your own pathetic case out of the water. *Let's see, we
have 3 patients in a control group of 10 who are HIV+ that
developed AIDS. *Two died.

I have no idea where you got those numbers. *Perhaps out of one of
your comic books?

I got it from what you posted. And you're right, since we
have no actual reference to a study, we don't know if it's
real or not. But clearly it says that in the control group of
HIV+ patients, 3 developed AIDS and 2 died.


It says that two of the 16 patients in the control group developed
AIDS. Not a word about anyone dying.

"and two progressed
to AIDS and subsequently died."

Geez...



Then it says that in another study, 10 HIV positive patients without
AIDS took 150-225 mg glycyrrhizin daily. After 1-2 years, none
developed symptoms associated with AIDS or AIDS-related complex (ARC),
while one of 10 patients of a matched control group developed ARC and
two progressed to AIDS and subsequently died.

Translation: 10 out of 10 HIV positive patients developed no symptoms
after 2 years of having their immune systems treated.

Why would anyone need to have their immune system
"treated" if HIV is harmless?



Out of 10 HIV+ patients in a control group (no attempts made to treat
their immune systems), 1 developed ARC, and two more went on to die
from AIDS.

Exactly what's to be expected

Exactly! Bravo!

Yes, when you don't treat HIV infection, people die.
No surprise.




The result of glycyrrhizin in
HIV-positive and AIDS patients is almost immediate improvement in
immune function.

Again, more evidence that sinks the denialist boat. *If HIV is
just a harmless virus, why is there any need to impove the immune
function in those infected with it?

Do you have any idea of just how stupid a question that was?

Really, it boggles the mind.

No, it's a very simple question. If HIV is harmless,
why is there any need to improve the immune function
in those infected with it? Why don't you just provide
a reference to the real study so we can see what it really says?





You currently have *antibodies* to hundreds of viruses (most of them
relatively harmless, others, not so much) and other pathogens in your
body (yes, that's a fact).

But you're not sick, are you? Now, can you hazard a guess as to why
you would want to get/keep your immune system intact and fully
functioning, and what would likely happen to you if you didn't?

I'm not treating my immune system to improve it, I
have no need to.
Apparently, the researchers felt there was a need to do
so in those infected with HIV. Now why would they
need to do that if HIV is harmless?




Tsk tsk tsk.

One reason they might have symptoms is because they're taking AIDS
drugs. Other reasons they might have symptoms is because they've been
abusing IV and other recreational drugs for years, drinking heavily,
burning the candle at both ends, have multiple STDs, inhaling poppers,
eating poorly, not getting any sleep, practicing poor hygiene, are
infected with multiple microbes, ...


The usual drivel that was speculation as to the cause of
AIDS 30 years ago. Today of course, we know better.
ABsent HIV infection, none of the above activities lead
to AIDS.

Just provide us with a reference to the actual study.
Then we can see what the study was REALLY about,
what the patients were or were not on, etc.

But as usual, crickets......