H.I.V. Is Reported Cured In A Second Patient, A Milestone In The Global AIDS Epidemic

[Makrosky]

Yet you provide no lead... Moving on to other subjects doesn't mean you have changed our mind.

Neither the Wiki seems to reflect your claim. You would expect they'd have a field day...

Neither is it obvious at first glance on Kary's site. I would expect a more visible note, yet the mildest info I can find also involves your question...

"Regarding AIDS I have published a hypothesis wherein the Retroviridae in general, rather than a particular species, is the problem. This was published in Genetica 95:195- 197, 1995. It offers a mechanism for how the disease develops, and importantly makes predictions that can be experimentally confirmed or falsified easily in rodents. This hypothesis may or may not be true but it illustrates the nature of a useful scientific hypothesis. This is in contrast to the current AIDS establishment’s “It’s the virus, stupid!” No experiments were ever done or even suggested to test the HIV hypothesis. The fact that antiretroviral therapies may prolong the lives of some people infected with retroviruses says nothing more than the fact, that in other cases they are not at all useful. Something is going on here that we don’t understand. Scientists have to keep that in mind."

And finally, he just has a good video or two; not everything hangs on him. But I'm not aware if others have changed their mind.

If your claim is right, it explains better to me why he is a speaker on TED , but I don't see it yet...

You are right. I cannot find it either. But I remember some years ago when reading a lot about it I found he had changed his view. I'll try to find it more exhaustively.

Btw the quote you posted is from which year ? Antiretroviral drugs have been improved and for the majority of the people it works.

More than 80% of patients in an inner-city HIV clinic achieved virologic suppression.

A report from the Johns Hopkins HIV Clinic shortly after the introduction of potent antiretroviral therapy (ART) showed that only 44% of patients receiving therapy between 1996 and 1998 achieved viral loads <500 copies/mL (JW AIDS Clin Care Sep 1 1999). Now, an update from the same clinic shows how far we have come.

Researchers evaluated viral-load data for patients seen at the clinic between 1996 and 2010. During this study period, the clinic population became older (with a median age of 49 by 2010) and shifted to include higher proportions of women and of patients who acquired HIV heterosexually. The percentage of patients receiving ART increased from 22% to 85%, and the median viral load for the entire clinic population decreased from 10,000 to <200 copies/mL. In 2010, only 16% of patients had viral loads >500 copies/mL — and many of these individuals were not receiving ART. The rate of retention in care was remarkably high: 94% in 2003–2009.

Link

I think none of the denialists would agree to be infected on purpose with HIV. If it doesn't cause AIDS, what's the problem ?

Duesberg for instance claims HIV is totally harmless.

I call this hypocrisy

 

[Makrosky]

I think the HIV virus was identified in the 1980s.

I think it was much later. The ones in the 80's and 90's were 3D models and the like.

 

[tara]

I think it was much later. The ones in the 80's and 90's were 3D models and the like.

Guess I'm remembering people starting to talk fairly widely about the HIV virus and AIDs and discussing ways to prevent transmission, etc.

 

[Makrosky]

Guess I'm remembering people starting to talk fairly widely about the HIV virus and AIDs and discussing ways to prevent transmission, etc.

Yeah but the images were not real. I'm not even sure there's real images of it to date, but I'm not sure.

 

[nwo2012]

Hepatitis C is another invented fairy tale.

 

[rei]

You are right. I cannot find it either. But I remember some years ago when reading a lot about it I found he had changed his view. I'll try to find it more exhaustively.

Please do, maybe you were affected by propaganda? Also please understand if AIDS is a result of some environmental toxin, illegal drug impurity, nutritional deficiency etc. then the study you linked is exactly as we would expect things to play out as the exposure diminishes. Do you have any study that compares people treated with ARV to people treated with nutritional means? As i see it the life expectancy has gone up because the older extremely toxic drugs like AZT have been stopped.

 

[Makrosky]

Please do, maybe you were affected by propaganda? Also please understand if AIDS is a result of some environmental toxin, illegal drug impurity, nutritional deficiency etc. then the study you linked is exactly as we would expect things to play out as the exposure diminishes. Do you have any study that compares people treated with ARV to people treated with nutritional means? As i see it the life expectancy has gone up because the older extremely toxic drugs like AZT have been stopped.

I cannot find it, sorry. I spent some time yesterday night on google but haven't found it and I guess if he really changed his mind it would have been more popular so I guess he didn't. My memory probably failed maybe.

However I must say that during that time I also was an HIV->AIDS denialist after reading Duesberg, Perth Group, etc. so I was going in the opposite direction, it is nothing that I was looking for.

I repeat the very obvious thing : I am really sure NO ONE of the denialists would accept a blood transfusion by a HIV positive person. Neither you would. I would bet all my money on that. So... what is that kind of reasoning ? I strongly claim HIV doesn't cause AIDS but JUST IN CASE do not infect me with it ? What kind of cynical joke is that ? These kind of claims have costed millions of people lives in Africa and it has costed the life of some famours denialists who were HIV positive and refused to be treated.

You and me and probably everyone would accept to take things we are 100% sure won't cause an illness or death. I don't have any problems on recieving blood from a diabetic person, someone with the flu, someone with a papiloma virus, etc... it happens all the time in hospitals when you need a blood transfusion. Be honest : Would you accept blood from an HIV positive person ?

I am not saying HIV->AIDS is a definite answer or 100% correct but it is the best one we have at the moment. Denying that is playing with the lives of millions of people.

Besides that... have you read Perth Groups hypothesis ? They are completely obsessed with the homosexuality and drug abuse factors for AIDS. You don't see even a small glance of puritanism there ? Maybe they ALSO have an agenda ?

How is it that people get it after a single blood transfusion ? Or a single sexual intercours with someone infected ?

Why is it that millions of other people exposed to much more big ammounts of toxins that those found on recreational drugs, or people who have sex every day with lots of other people (porn industry) they do not contract AIDS ? As long as all the implied actors/actresses are routinarily tested for it, they remain free of HIV and AIDS.

You see... you don't have to be a biochemist or a doctor or a virologist to see that the AIDS denialism it doesn't fit basic common sense ?

I repeat : I'm open to the possibility that the official version is not true, but it is the best one we have ATM.

 

[rei]

Denying is a kneejerk reaction. Proper attitude is to keep it in mind as a leading hypothesis. This means if a drug is so incredibly toxic as AZT then every other treatment avenue should be explored first.

Assigning any advance in outcomes to these drugs needs solid science to back it up. I'm no expert but from a glance the evidence seems to point towards these drugs being a similar horror story as chemotherapy.

 

[Makrosky]

Denying is a kneejerk reaction. Proper attitude is to keep it in mind as a leading hypothesis. This means if a drug is so incredibly toxic as AZT then every other treatment avenue should be explored first.

Assigning any advance in outcomes to these drugs needs solid science to back it up. I'm no expert but from a glance the evidence seems to point towards these drugs being a similar horror story as chemotherapy.

Why do you talk about AZT ? This drug has not been used for many years. It has nothing to do with year 2019.

I know two people who are HIV positive and they are taking the new drugs for many years now and have perfectly normal lives. How can you compare it with a chemotherapy ???

Every drug has side effects even cyproheptadine. The thing is if the side effects are better than not treating it.

 

[rei]

I talk about it because it has killed uncountable amounts of people with the death attributed to aids. With such a track record of dishonesty i would be extremely skeptical about the supposed benefit of current drugs. Use with care and don't keep taking them if you feel worse, assuming it's the aids progressing.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Read "Inventing the HIV virus" by Peter Duesberg. HIV exists in many people without compromised immune systems. However, it doesn't manifest into AIDS because they are healthy. HIV only manifested in the gay population because of "poppers". That's why the epidemic occurred. The HIV cocktail did nothing for anyone, except lower the immune system even more. Ever wonder why Magic Johnson is fine? Yeah, he never got on the cocktail, and just took care of himself naturally.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

If you think the HIV to AIDS connection is real, you need to step back and do some more homework. I'm not attacking you for believing the lie, but you need to understand that the AIDS hoax was all about pharm company profits and government research funding, not patient health. This 'cure' that is going through the media is just more government money going to this fraud, and of course endless pharm profits. What an f'ing racket. They pushed the lie in Hollywood so hard: I'm looking at you Philadelphia; and the new Bohemian Rhapsody. Freddie Mercury got sick because the dude partied like a madman, never slept, lived the rock n roll lifestyle, and died of a compromised immune system (not AIDS) triggered from HIV.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Years ago, I could have eloquently sold the case, but I'm so far removed from researching this fraud. Duesberg's book is amazing. He smelled a rat. His case is pretty airtight and hard to dismiss. Here's his bio: Biographical Sketch- Duesberg on AIDS

 

[thomas00]

I think none of the denialists would agree to be infected on purpose with HIV. If it doesn't cause AIDS, what's the problem ?

 

[thomas00]

Ive never seen a good explanation of how some people with a positive HIV test can refuse drug treatment yet still live for decades, and there are some:

Positive Hell (2014) - IMDb

 

[Makrosky]

Ive never seen a good explanation of how some people with a positive HIV test can refuse drug treatment yet still live for decades, and there are some:

Positive Hell (2014) - IMDb

Summaries
POSITIVE HELL is the story of five individuals who have defied their doctors and lived on for nearly thirty years with a diagnosis of death. The film highlights a network of people diagnosed HIV positive in the province of Galicia, Northern Spain. How can this be? Haven't we been told that everyone who tests positive is sure to die? Do these people have a special magic gene that protects them against HIV? Or could it be that this death sentence has been mistaken all along? The five protagonists describe their struggle to survive when faced with a death sentence, their experiences as social pariahs, their battles with doctors and the medical orthodoxy and their absolute conviction that the science behind AIDS is cruelly wrong.

Thomas, what kind of joke is this ? Is this film some kind of propaganda or just click-bait or what ?

It has been known for decades now that SOME people can be HIV positive and never get AIDS and die from natural causes. They can still transmit it thoug.

And what about all AIDS denialists who died because they refused to get treated ?
HIV/AIDS denialism - Wikipedia

Regarding Dr Willner, he injected in 1994 and died in 1995 from an unrelated cause. Nobody develops AIDS in only one year. How can we know what would have happened in the next years ? It is even possible that he didn't get the HIV. It is not an automatic infection, just like if you are exposed to hepatitis C virus doesn't mean you have 100% chances of contracting it.

Now be honest to yourself : would you accept a blood donor that is HIV positive ?

 

[thomas00]

Thomas, what kind of joke is this ? Is this film some kind of propaganda or just click-bait or what ?

It has been known for decades now that SOME people can be HIV positive and never get AIDS and die from natural causes. They can still transmit it thoug.

This is a big part of the problem with the HIV hypothesis that Duesberg has pointed out. The behaviour of this virus is supposedly so different to every other virus ever studied that there can always be a new, ad-hoc explanation for what it's doing to people it has supposedly infected.

Also, the HIV test is a dud. It doesn't test for a virus. Some flu vaccines have had to be pulled from the market because they triggered positive tests.

And what about all AIDS denialists who died because they refused to get treated ?
HIV/AIDS denialism - Wikipedia

I've never come across a case where one of those people didn't have other confounding health problems that make it hard to tell what is going on. As I understand it they don't die from 'AIDS' but from one or many illness which are on a list of criteria for AIDS, which has been constantly added to since the HIV hypothesis came about.

The fact that AIDS has never spread beyond the original risk groups (IV drug users, homosexual men and prostitutes) says a lot.

Now be honest to yourself : would you accept a blood donor that is HIV positive ?

I don't think the HIV test is enough to conclude much about the health of that person giving the blood.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

HIV defies many of Koch's postulates. This can't be ignored.

Definition of Koch's postulates

 

[Makrosky]

This is a big part of the problem with the HIV hypothesis that Duesberg has pointed out. The behaviour of this virus is supposedly so different to every other virus ever studied that there can always be a new, ad-hoc explanation for what it's doing to people it has supposedly infected.

Also, the HIV test is a dud. It doesn't test for a virus. Some flu vaccines have had to be pulled from the market because they triggered positive tests.



I've never come across a case where one of those people didn't have other confounding health problems that make it hard to tell what is going on. As I understand it they don't die from 'AIDS' but from one or many illness which are on a list of criteria for AIDS, which has been constantly added to since the HIV hypothesis came about.

The fact that AIDS has never spread beyond the original risk groups (IV drug users, homosexual men and prostitutes) says a lot.



I don't think the HIV test is enough to conclude much about the health of that person giving the blood.

Evasive answer I guess you wouldn't.

Do you have a decent source of information for thr flu vaccines claim?

 

[thomas00]

HIV defies many of Koch's postulates. This can't be ignored.

Definition of Koch's postulates

Exactly. It was always the HIV proponents who were advancing a completely radical idea which didn't fit with what was known, not it's critics.