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

[thomas00]

Evasive answer I guess you wouldn't.

I probably would actually. There's always a risk with transfusions (private companies are now paying donors in America and cutting corners, not testing properly etc) I don't think an HIV positive test would do much to dissuade me about the potential danger.

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

I can't find the original article I read that from right now, it's from quite a few years ago and will take some searching

AIDS Test Results Tied to Flu Shots

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

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.

Wasn't there something like 5 diagnoses that initially fell under the AIDS umbrella; then it turned into over 30 diagnoses. Over time you became an AIDS victim if you died of the flu.

 

[tara]

However, it doesn't manifest into AIDS because they are healthy. HIV only manifested in the gay population because of "poppers".

I don't think most of the people who have sickened and died with HIV and then AIDs have been Gay.
Surely having compromised health from other stressors makes one more vulnerable to viruses, but that doesn't mean the virusses aren't an issue too.

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.

Yes. Same goes for any pathogenic virus or bacteria - some people are going to be more vulnerable, some are more able to stay healthy, maybe from environmental, genetic and/orepigenetic factors.

We are the product of various evolutionary bottlenecks - during some of which our ancestors were the survivors of epidemics.

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.

AIUI, AIDS is a syndrome that involves compromised immune system, so that people lose their resistance to some other diseases - often people with AIDS die of cancers as a result.

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

If you are basing your opinion on this lack of information, then it's not surprising you are confused.

Wasn't there something like 5 diagnoses that initially fell under the AIDS umbrella; then it turned into over 30 diagnoses. Over time you became an AIDS victim if you died of the flu.

I imagine the 'flu' could be the last straw for someone with a badly weakened system from AIDS. I doubt just the 'flu' itself would count as diagnostic.

 

[tara]

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

Definition of Koch's postulates

I just looked at that link of Koch's postulates. It seems to be about bacteria, not viruses. You can't grow viruses the same way you can grow bacteria. The page itself describes other limitations of the criteria too.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

That wasn't the best link. However, a quick search for "viruses and Koch's postulates" will give you a similar, amended version. I think people can believe whatever they want. I don't push my "truth".

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...is-a-metabolic-syndrome-2167-0943-1000239.pdf
HIV Particles Do Not Cause AIDS, Our Own Immune Cells Do

The immune system is reacting to the virus? That's where I basically sit. I just can't get behind the virus is causing AIDS theory. Never said only gays were getting AIDS, however the media pushed that narrative down our throats in the 80s. The only cases of people dying from AIDS had immune system dysfunction and/or metabolic disorders. Needlesharers and those doing "poppers" were the biggest victims in the AIDS epidemic. Show me a person with HIV and a good immune system, and I betcha they don't come down with AIDS. Magic Johnson is rarely asked about his health, and the few times he has responded, the man has looked really squirrely. Meaning, his mannerisms mirror a man who ain't a boy scout.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Also, look at the presentation of those pre-diagnosis and those same people on the cocktail. It isn't rocket science to see that the meds were continuing to destroy the immune system and metabolism; just as the party drugs were doing. If you had the misfortune of getting the BS diagnosis, you went into a database, and were fear-campaigned into the cocktail. You traded in one risky behavior; for an FDA-approved risky behavior. Either way, you were dead as Fred.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Article from 1993: The rise and fall of AZT: It was the drug that had to work. It brought

Lack of public sanitation, lack of clean drinking water, lack of clean food, poor diets, rampant infectious diseases, no modern medical systems are just a few reasons why the majority of the world's HIV-AIDS victims are from sub-Saharan Africa (72% of the world's 30 million). Isn't that a red flag right there? Does anyone ask why a world region with the greatest poverty is most affected by this virus?

AIDS is nothing more than a metabolic-immune system disorder turned mega-fear campaign. Around 1981-82 I think, there was knowledge of an "African virus" that was laying dormant in the sub-Saharans but it wasn't manifesting symptoms.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Current federal AIDS budget is $33 billion.
U.S. Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS: Trends Over Time

There is a graph here for federal AIDS research spending from 1981-2004. Pretty scary increase just over those 23 years.
https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.file...ng-for-hiv-aids-fiscal-years-1981-to-2004.pdf

Big Pharma AIDS profits is staggering:
Big pharma and the business of HIV/AIDS

 

[tara]

The immune system is reacting to the virus? That's where I basically sit. I just can't get behind the virus is causing AIDS theory. Never said only gays were getting AIDS, however the media pushed that narrative down our throats in the 80s. The only cases of people dying from AIDS had immune system dysfunction and/or metabolic disorders. Needlesharers and those doing "poppers" were the biggest victims in the AIDS epidemic. Show me a person with HIV and a good immune system, and I betcha they don't come down with AIDS. Magic Johnson is rarely asked about his health, and the few times he has responded, the man has looked really squirrely. Meaning, his mannerisms mirror a man who ain't a boy scout.

Sorry, I over-simplified. Most of the people who got infected with HIV and then developed AIDS were not GAY, nor IV-drug users, etc, nor did they use 'poppers'. Most people have become infected via heterosex. Many also via mother to baby transmission in the absence of preventive care, which is not helped by denial.

Certainly by the time people were diagnosed with AIDS they had compromised immune systems - that's what AIDS is.
I remember some info in the 80's that advised people of ways to keep safer regarding some kinds of practices (the messages were sometimes a bit confused, and could have left some people feeling inappropriately secure).

I have no argument about people who have healthier immune systems being more resistant to infections. That's what I would expect for many pathogens. It doesn't mean the pathogen isn't an issue. Many people hit stressors sooner or later that leave them more vulnerable. Much of the world struggles to meet basic needs regularly, and is chronically overstressed to begin with.

I don't see the value in speculating about an individual and his mannerisms.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

But that wasn't the propaganda Tara. All the HIV-AIDS cases in the sub-Sahara are heterosexuals. These people aren't sharing needles while on poppers. I also understand the baby transmission. But again, this neglects the propaganda that drummed up all the hysteria. Was heterosexuality mentioned as a cause in 1984? Uh, no. It was deemed the gay disease.

People die of the flu virus on what level every year in the U.S.? Try 80,000 people. Should I not be alarmed by that? Do more people die of the flu virus than AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa? Yep. Why should AIDS, which kills many less people than the flu, be a big problem? Viruses kill, we can agree. But viruses do nothing to healthy individuals.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

The History of Aids in Africa
HIV is purely a virus born out of Africa. It spread from there. It has probably existed in Africa for thousands of years. I wish I could pull up the article, but it found an entire tribe in Africa, not affected by disease or sullied by Western culture, that was rampant with HIV. Everyone lived healthy with no "AIDS" effects. It just didn't manifest. Unfortunately, as poverty grew and Africa became over-colonized by Europe, diseases came, poor health came, and indigenous cultures were exterminated.

Look no further than the Pima Indians of Arizona. Look at pictures of them before Western Europeans destroyed that culture. A once-thriving culture that lived off the Gila River was eradicated, diabetic, and thrown onto reservations.

 

[Colin Nordstrom]

Great 1998 interview with Kary Mullis:

Valley Advocate | Does HIV Cause AIDS? | Interview with Dr. Kary Mullis

 

[tara]

But that wasn't the propaganda Tara. All the HIV-AIDS cases in the sub-Sahara are heterosexuals. These people aren't sharing needles while on poppers. I also understand the baby transmission. But again, this neglects the propaganda that drummed up all the hysteria. Was heterosexuality mentioned as a cause in 1984? Uh, no. It was deemed the gay disease.

Someone upthread was talking about that false propaganda as though it was real information and evidence about the disease. That's why I initially contradicted it.

People die of the flu virus on what level every year in the U.S.? Try 80,000 people. Should I not be alarmed by that?

The thread was about HIV, not 'flu'. You can start a thread about 'flu' in Sub-Saharan Africa if you want to. I'm not going to try to talk you out of caring about it.
Regarding HIV/AIDS, 'It's less important than something else' is different from 'It's not real'.

Viruses kill, we can agree. But viruses do nothing to healthy individuals.

Yes, viruses sometimes kill.
Any one weakness/dysregulation/significant divergence from optimal homeostasis makes us more prone to other dis-eases, including viruses.
But some viruses seem to be able to attack even relatively healthy people. For instance, the 'Spanish flu' seemed to be one such.

Unfortunately, as poverty grew and Africa became over-colonized by Europe, diseases came, poor health came, and indigenous cultures were exterminated.

Yes, colonisation, attempted genocides, poverty have taken a heavy toll. Women's oppression too.
Even relatively healthy indigenous peoples were sometimes decimated by European infectious diseases they had not previously developed immunity to, before they had been subjected to health-saping lifestyle impositions of colonisation etc.

For instance:
"In Hispaniola, Columbus’ first stop in the Americas, the native Taino population (an indigenous Arawak people) had no immunity to new infectious diseases, including smallpox, measles and influenza. There were an estimated 250,000 indigenous people in Hispaniola in 1492. By 1517, only 14,000 remained.

Some historians say the impact of European and African settlers in the New World was more destructive than the Black Death had been in medieval Europe, possibly killing off as much as 90 percent of the native populations."
Columbus brought more than ships to the New World

 

[thomas00]

I
AIUI, AIDS is a syndrome that involves compromised immune system, so that people lose their resistance to some other diseases - often people with AIDS die of cancers as a result.

And people with cancer often die of cancer. Therein lies one of the problems and why some people have claimed AIDS is simply the rebranding of old illnesses.

To clarify, nobody is suggesting at least some people diagnosed with AIDS aren't 'immuno compromised'. Theres just disagreement about how they got there

If you are basing your opinion on this lack of information, then it's not surprising you are confused.

I don't believe what I said was incorrect.

Anyway, it sounds like you haven't read much from the opposite side, including what Ray has written:

the official doctrine that it is caused by the "HIV" virus still hasn't been supported by anything that resembles real science. Duesberg's arguments have never been answered (except by bureaucratic thuggery).

People who have autoimmune diseases such as lupus and Sjogrens syndrome (which are promoted by estrogen: Ahmed and Talal) have antibodies which sometimes react positively in the AIDS test, and searches for the HIV virus in such people have found no evidence of it.

Treatments for roundworms and other parasites cause antibodies to retroviruses to appear in animals that previously tested negative; this might account for the high rates of positive tests for HIV in areas such as Africa in which treatment for filiariasis is common (Kitchen and Cotter, 1988).

Immunodeficiency, dioxins, stress, and the hormones

 

[tara]

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

If you are basing your opinion on this lack of information, then it's not surprising you are confused.

I don't believe what I said was incorrect.

Many, possibly most people with HIV/AIDS are not in these groups. I think one of Colin's links tells some of the history. Also WHO and other orgs stats.

Or if you were talking about infections spreading directly from those groups, for instance, a number of women and children have acquired the infection from MSMs or people with HIV they were not aware of, or from men they had no choice about. (I don't mean to imply it was always only m>f.) And eventually, there are people around with an STI who are not always as rigorous with disclosure and precautions as one might want.

There are some documented legal cases, amongst others.

I had read those comments by Peat before.

 

[thomas00]

Many, possibly most people with HIV/AIDS are not in these groups. I think one of Colin's links tells some of the history. Also WHO and other orgs stats.

That's been contested:

Since 1981, 94 percent of all American AIDS cases have been from risk groups who had used such drugs. About one-third of these were intravenous drug users (CDC, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 6:1-27, 1994) and two-thirds were male homosexuals who had used oral recreational drugs and AZT. The drug correlation is even better than 94 percent if those HIV- positive hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients receiving AZT are included.

Duesberg On AIDS Causation: The Culprit Is Noncontagious Risk Factors

I wouldn't be surprised if HIV+ tests have spread out past the original risk groups given its a non specific test but that might not even be happening much. This from HIV.gov:


Some groups of people in the United States are more likely to get HIV than others because of many factors, including the status of their sex partners, their risk behaviors, and where they live.
Gay and bisexual men have the largest number of new diagnoses in the United States. Blacks/African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are disproportionately affected by HIV compared to other racial and ethnic groups. Also, transgender women who have sex with men are among the groups at highest risk for HIV infection, and injection drug users remain at significant risk for getting HIV.
Who Is at Risk for HIV?

 

[tara]

Since 1981, 94 percent of all American AIDS cases have been from risk groups who had used such drugs.

Were you only talking about the US? You didn't mention that. I would think that empirical evidence about the nature of the virus and the disease would be just as relevant from the rest of the world, where this is not the case.
Also, the article you linked was from 1995. AIUI, both the infections and the science have gone further since then.

 

[thomas00]

A more recent (2011) paper maintains the same position:

But despite these predictions, the American AIDS epidemic has remained restricted to non-general risk groups from its beginnings in the early 1980s (Duesberg, 1989) until now. By 2008 the cumulative total were 513,138 male homosexuals, who had used multiple recreational drugs, 341,546 intravenous drug users, 188,585 “heterosexuals … at high risk for HIV infection” (typically drug addicted), 20,509 hemophiliacs, other transfusion recipients and babies born to mothers from HIV risk groups (Duesberg et al., 2003; Centers for Disease Control, 2008). According to the AIDS statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) the American epidemic has increased in these risk groups slowly but not exponentially from 1984 until 1993, and then had become steady in 1997, the AIDS epidemic had also become steady until now, 13 years later (Fig. 2), (Centers for Disease Control, 2011). Slowly rising, declining or steady epidemics are, however, the characteristic patterns of chemical lifestyle disease, not that of a new viral epidemic. Almost identical figures have been reported recently for Italy, where AIDS is also still restricted to the original risk groups and paediatric AIDS is virtually non-existent (Ruggiero et al., 2009).

AIDS since 1984: no evidence for a new, viral epidemic--not even in Africa. - PubMed - NCBI​

 

[tara]

A more recent (2011) paper maintains the same position:

OK. But the US and Italy are a couple of countries where the prevalence of HIV/AIDs was recently estimated at about 0.3% of adult population.
In several countries it's estimated over 1%, quite a few over 3% and even a small number over 20%. So limiting the view to US and Italy or other countries where it has stayed fairly contained leaves out quite a bit of the picture.

It doesn't have to be one or the other, lifestyle or virus.
There are many posts in this forum with people trying to improve their resistance to and recovery from viruses. Believing there are infectious agents doesn't need to mean giving up on lifestyle influences.
Demonstrating that lifestyle, environment, poverty or whatever else are influential doesn't demonstrate the absence of critical infectious agent.

 

[thomas00]

Epidemiology is only suggestive to begin with and only muddies the water when taking into account that HIV tests vary widely:

Over the years you've produced several documentaries for various TV channels. You made four Dispatches programs for Channel 4, two of which won awards, and "AIDS: The Unheard Voices" won a Royal Television Society Award. Did you ever conduct your own scientific studies?
We got funded to test 26 blood samples on three different, commercial-patented test kits. The blood samples were from people who would have a high antibody profile – high-risk groups, people with TB, lupus, and malaria. We did a blinded test (subjects were numbered not named) through Roehampton University and we got a lot of anomalies. On the third kit, for example, 19 of the samples that were negative on the first two kits were indeterminate [and required another test]. And one of our subjects tested positive on all three kits. I then personally went with him to the Royal Free Hospital and St Mary's and he was negative. Can you imagine how many people have been wrongly diagnosed and thought they were going to die?​

Woman misdiagnosed and wrongly treated for HIV is awarded $2.5million by jury | Daily Mail Online
This Woman Had 9 False Positives for HIV While She Was Pregnant | Women's Health
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.57f0abdb6a5d





The criticisms of HIV don't rely just on contrary observational data. The in vitro evidence of a virus has probably been scrutinized more.