World AIDS DAY info

[Trajan]

Appropo to the World AIDS Day observation, please read the following:


Inventing the AIDS Virus
by Dr. Peter Deusberg (Regenery USA 1996)

does Bush get a shout out?

For merely extending the same false premise and then pointing to a self fulfilled prophecy?

ucg2p9r, fveo mwog hyasp. Hteaot gaorhd vaf.

 

[martybegan]

Translation: Marty Began is either willfully ignorant or an intellectual coward or both.

Get back to me when you actually read the material and KNOW WTF you're going on about, Marty boy.

Ive read the basic premise, that HIV is unrelated to AIDS, that it is caused by poor nutrition, the drugs used to treat it, recreational drug use, and overall poor health.

Not a premise, Marty boy..but a SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT, AS TO DATE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SCIENTIFIC PAPER THAT PROVED HIV=AIDS, or that HIV is a precursor to it. If you can find the paper that proves otherwise, then please link it.

The fact is that HIV has been isolated, and has been shown to cause AIDS, has been seen via electron microscope infecting and bursting from T-cells.

And since it's been DOCUMENTED THAT PEOPLE WITH HIV DO NOT DEVELOP AIDS, AND THAT PEOPLE WITH AIDS HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED WITHOUT HIV ANTI-BODIES, YOUR STATEMENT HERE IS ERRONEOUS AT BEST. OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE INTERESTING FOR YOU TO PRODUCE THIS LINK WERE THE CONCLUSION IS THAT HIV=AIDS....YOU'D GET A NOBLE FOR THAT ONE!

The premise of the book also completely ignores the concentration of AIDS in the North American Gay community, which is not explained by the premises above, in particular the fact that there were tens of thousands of AIDS deaths prior to the invention of even a single AIDS related drug.

I notice that you do a LOT of extrapolation, supposition and conjecture based on your admitted limited knowledge of the content of the book (premise only does not begin to cover the book's content)....sorry to burst your bubble, but your assertions are wholly inaccurate, as Duesberg chronicles how the HIV virus was typed in the search for a cause of AIDS, and then how an EXCEPTION to the scientific method of typing a disease was given in order to link AIDS to HIV, as YOU have incorrectly done here. As the years went by, more and more standard diseases that had their own treatments were suddenly re-listed as HIV=AIDS, and subsequently reassigned the new treatments. Remember, AIDS was/is NOT a disease in and of itself, but a description of a set of circumstances that is causing immune deficiency. Again, no one has proved the basis for the current treatment of AIDS patients, which is essentially to type for HIV anti-bodies and then slam the body with cell killing designer drugs. HIV can and has been appearing in people after nasty flus, various cancers, lung diseases, etc.....and were treated successfully prior to the HIV=AIDS nonsense.


The book was written in 1996 and has been debunked countless times.

The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS

Wrong as usual, Marty boy, as you point to an article that is talking about "evidence", and NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF to the contrary. Funny how you latched onto this WITHOUT READING DEUSBERG'S BOOK. You shouldn't let others do your thinking for you, Marty boy...but hope springs eternal. Here's a primer for your education, if you dare to do honest research:

Dear Friends-
On October 1st, 2008, I hosted a press conference with renowned British journalist Janine Roberts. At that conference we presented new evidence confirming that world renowned scientist Dr. Robert Gallo—former head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) at the National Cancer Institute, intentionally altered his laboratory’s research in order to falsely claim he had detected and isolated a retrovirus (HIV) as the causal agent of Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

Janine Roberts has recently uncovered invaluable documentation, in Dr. Gallo’s own handwriting, that conclusively demonstrates that the results and conclusions derived from laboratory experiments were intentionally altered—by Gallo himself—so that he could take credit for an alleged “discovery” that was not supported by the facts from his own laboratory’s findings.

To this day, HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS inflicted patient and photographed under an electron microscope.

In an email sent to me by Dr. Etienne de Harven, Professor Emeritus from the University of Toronto and one of the world’s foremost authorities on electron microscopy, Dr. de Harven stated, “I have never observed one single particle of retrovirus in any of the thousands of samples of human leukemic, cancerous and AIDS related samples I studied under the electron microscope between 1956 and 1993 (the time of my retirement).”

For many years there has been a group of prominent medical scientists and virologists throughout the world who have criticized the prevailing dogma that a retrovirus is the cause for the symptoms now known as AIDS. Their rationale for stating that the HIV hypothesis is seriously flawed can be summarized quite easily. No diagnostic text has ever been developed that singly targets the HIV retrovirus. HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient and there are no conclusive studies to show it is the cause of AIDS-like symptoms. No proof exits that HIV actually destroys killer t-cells, which is indicative of an autoimmune disease. There is no antiretroviral drug that doesn’t also seriously compromise the human immune system and further threaten patients with other life-threatening illnesses. There is no conclusive research to prove that HIV is readily sexually transmitted—another claim made by Gallo without scientific evidence to support himself.
The ramifications of Roberts’ investigations are historic because they show that the original scientific foundation to support the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS hypothesis is flawed and has no justification in medical science.

And now my staff and I are making the complete video of this conference available to you.
Yours in good health, Gary (Null)


For further edification:

The Great “HIV” Hoax
written by Patrick Rattigan ND


The Great “HIV” Hoax

You dig up one doctor, who disagrees with 99.99% of the rest of medical doctors, researchers, and universities, yet you accept his premise as fact, and ignore everyone else.

I, on the other had look at the vastly overall scientific consensus, and agree with it. How difficult is it to think there is a virus that infects T cells, and that virus can be spread via fluidic contact? All the other AIDS "theories" take Occams Razor and turn its on its head.

HIV and AIDS: Does HIV cause AIDS?

here is a link you worthless pseudo-scientific hack. Its papers like the one you linked that are allowing governments in Africa to deny AIDS as a communicable disease, while thier populations are ravaged by it.

Can someone move this to conspiracy theories please?

 

[taichiliberal]

Blacks are much more promiscuous, thats why they have so much more of the aids.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4492131-post18.html

 

[taichiliberal]

does Bush get a shout out?

For merely extending the same false premise and then pointing to a self fulfilled prophecy?

ucg2p9r, fveo mwog hyasp. Hteaot gaorhd vaf.

If you can't respond in English, Trajan, then don't bother....because as we all know that you, Trajan are incapable of any honest debate beyond a certain point.

Get back to me when you actually read the book.

 

[geauxtohell]

To claim that HIV isn't responsible for AIDS demonstrates such a profound lack of education that it is pointless to even debate it.

So, rant away. It's not going to change a damn thing. Nor are the handful of bullshit artists who claim that their is a conspiracy going on.

 

[taichiliberal]

Ive read the basic premise, that HIV is unrelated to AIDS, that it is caused by poor nutrition, the drugs used to treat it, recreational drug use, and overall poor health.

Not a premise, Marty boy..but a SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT, AS TO DATE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SCIENTIFIC PAPER THAT PROVED HIV=AIDS, or that HIV is a precursor to it. If you can find the paper that proves otherwise, then please link it.

The fact is that HIV has been isolated, and has been shown to cause AIDS, has been seen via electron microscope infecting and bursting from T-cells.

And since it's been DOCUMENTED THAT PEOPLE WITH HIV DO NOT DEVELOP AIDS, AND THAT PEOPLE WITH AIDS HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED WITHOUT HIV ANTI-BODIES, YOUR STATEMENT HERE IS ERRONEOUS AT BEST. OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE INTERESTING FOR YOU TO PRODUCE THIS LINK WERE THE CONCLUSION IS THAT HIV=AIDS....YOU'D GET A NOBLE FOR THAT ONE!

The premise of the book also completely ignores the concentration of AIDS in the North American Gay community, which is not explained by the premises above, in particular the fact that there were tens of thousands of AIDS deaths prior to the invention of even a single AIDS related drug.

I notice that you do a LOT of extrapolation, supposition and conjecture based on your admitted limited knowledge of the content of the book (premise only does not begin to cover the book's content)....sorry to burst your bubble, but your assertions are wholly inaccurate, as Duesberg chronicles how the HIV virus was typed in the search for a cause of AIDS, and then how an EXCEPTION to the scientific method of typing a disease was given in order to link AIDS to HIV, as YOU have incorrectly done here. As the years went by, more and more standard diseases that had their own treatments were suddenly re-listed as HIV=AIDS, and subsequently reassigned the new treatments. Remember, AIDS was/is NOT a disease in and of itself, but a description of a set of circumstances that is causing immune deficiency. Again, no one has proved the basis for the current treatment of AIDS patients, which is essentially to type for HIV anti-bodies and then slam the body with cell killing designer drugs. HIV can and has been appearing in people after nasty flus, various cancers, lung diseases, etc.....and were treated successfully prior to the HIV=AIDS nonsense.


The book was written in 1996 and has been debunked countless times.

The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS

Wrong as usual, Marty boy, as you point to an article that is talking about "evidence", and NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF to the contrary. Funny how you latched onto this WITHOUT READING DEUSBERG'S BOOK. You shouldn't let others do your thinking for you, Marty boy...but hope springs eternal. Here's a primer for your education, if you dare to do honest research:

Dear Friends-
On October 1st, 2008, I hosted a press conference with renowned British journalist Janine Roberts. At that conference we presented new evidence confirming that world renowned scientist Dr. Robert Gallo—former head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) at the National Cancer Institute, intentionally altered his laboratory’s research in order to falsely claim he had detected and isolated a retrovirus (HIV) as the causal agent of Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

Janine Roberts has recently uncovered invaluable documentation, in Dr. Gallo’s own handwriting, that conclusively demonstrates that the results and conclusions derived from laboratory experiments were intentionally altered—by Gallo himself—so that he could take credit for an alleged “discovery” that was not supported by the facts from his own laboratory’s findings.

To this day, HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS inflicted patient and photographed under an electron microscope.

In an email sent to me by Dr. Etienne de Harven, Professor Emeritus from the University of Toronto and one of the world’s foremost authorities on electron microscopy, Dr. de Harven stated, “I have never observed one single particle of retrovirus in any of the thousands of samples of human leukemic, cancerous and AIDS related samples I studied under the electron microscope between 1956 and 1993 (the time of my retirement).”

For many years there has been a group of prominent medical scientists and virologists throughout the world who have criticized the prevailing dogma that a retrovirus is the cause for the symptoms now known as AIDS. Their rationale for stating that the HIV hypothesis is seriously flawed can be summarized quite easily. No diagnostic text has ever been developed that singly targets the HIV retrovirus. HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient and there are no conclusive studies to show it is the cause of AIDS-like symptoms. No proof exits that HIV actually destroys killer t-cells, which is indicative of an autoimmune disease. There is no antiretroviral drug that doesn’t also seriously compromise the human immune system and further threaten patients with other life-threatening illnesses. There is no conclusive research to prove that HIV is readily sexually transmitted—another claim made by Gallo without scientific evidence to support himself.
The ramifications of Roberts’ investigations are historic because they show that the original scientific foundation to support the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS hypothesis is flawed and has no justification in medical science.

And now my staff and I are making the complete video of this conference available to you.
Yours in good health, Gary (Null)


For further edification:

The Great “HIV” Hoax
written by Patrick Rattigan ND


The Great “HIV” Hoax

You dig up one doctor, who disagrees with 99.99% of the rest of medical doctors, researchers, and universities, yet you accept his premise as fact, and ignore everyone else.

No stupid, I gave you ONE example..documented. So far, all you've done is just shoot off your mouth with a bunch of statements that YOU CANNOT DOCUMENT OR VERIFY. Also, YOU seem to keep confusing the definition of the word "premise", as Dr. de Harven is making a declaration, NOT asserting a premise. Get a nearby adult to explain it to you.

I, on the other had look at the vastly overall scientific consensus, and agree with it. Your lies convice no one, as all you've done so far is produce an article the pushes forth a "premise", but NOT a solid conclusion. That coupled with your complete ignorance of the content of Deusberg's book makes anything you say dubious at best. How difficult is it to think there is a virus that infects T cells, and that virus can be spread via fluidic contact? All the other AIDS "theories" take Occams Razor and turn its on its head.

HIV and AIDS: Does HIV cause AIDS?

here is a link you worthless pseudo-scientific hack. Its papers like the one you linked that are allowing governments in Africa to deny AIDS as a communicable disease, while thier populations are ravaged by it.

Can someone move this to conspiracy theories please?

Once again, I'll have to humiliate this Marty moron beyond his hunt & peck google search to back up the HIV=AIDS mantras



“…‘HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium
IS "HIV" REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS? (PART 1) - Home - Gary Null - Your Guide To Natural Living


And for a more intense explanation:

Dr. Peter Deusberg - ProActiveHealthNet

 

[taichiliberal]

To claim that HIV isn't responsible for AIDS demonstrates such a profound lack of education that it is pointless to even debate it.

So, rant away. It's not going to change a damn thing. Nor are the handful of bullshit artists who claim that their is a conspiracy going on.

No one is "claiming" anything, genius. When you can produce the scientific document that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that HIV=AIDS, let me know. Until then, grow the fuck up and READ the book. Meanwhile, here's a primer for you:



“…‘HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels



IS "HIV" REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS? (PART 1) - Home - Gary Null - Your Guide To Natural Living

 

[geauxtohell]

No one is "claiming" anything, genius. When you can produce the scientific document that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that HIV=AIDS, let me know. Until then, grow the fuck up and READ the book. Meanwhile, here's a primer for you:

Go ahead and turn into a screaming jackass. I don't care. In the time I have to read scientific literature, I'll limit myself to legit publications and not a load of bullshit.

At any rate, two can play at the "read my source or STFU" game.

So, feel free to read any of these sources:

HIV AIDS NIH - Google Scholar

And show how the assumption that HIV leads to AIDS is flawed. Please refrain from hyperbolic bullshit and limit yourself to an assessment based on confidence intervals, p values, experimental design (cohort v. case control), alpha or beta error or some other form of methodology error that would demonstrate an massive error in the methodology.

 

[Tank]

Blacks are much more promiscuous, thats why they have so much more of the aids.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4492131-post18.html

HIV, AIDS whatever you want to call it blacks and Hispanics have it at extreamly high rates.

 

[Tank]

Todays News:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NmXE3rOOxo]Former Wrestler 'Gangster Of Love' Found Guilty Of Knowingly Infecting 12 Women With HIV - YouTube[/ame]

 

[martybegan]

Wrong as usual, Marty boy, as you point to an article that is talking about "evidence", and NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF to the contrary. Funny how you latched onto this WITHOUT READING DEUSBERG'S BOOK. You shouldn't let others do your thinking for you, Marty boy...but hope springs eternal. Here's a primer for your education, if you dare to do honest research:

Dear Friends-
On October 1st, 2008, I hosted a press conference with renowned British journalist Janine Roberts. At that conference we presented new evidence confirming that world renowned scientist Dr. Robert Gallo—former head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) at the National Cancer Institute, intentionally altered his laboratory’s research in order to falsely claim he had detected and isolated a retrovirus (HIV) as the causal agent of Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

Janine Roberts has recently uncovered invaluable documentation, in Dr. Gallo’s own handwriting, that conclusively demonstrates that the results and conclusions derived from laboratory experiments were intentionally altered—by Gallo himself—so that he could take credit for an alleged “discovery” that was not supported by the facts from his own laboratory’s findings.

To this day, HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS inflicted patient and photographed under an electron microscope.

In an email sent to me by Dr. Etienne de Harven, Professor Emeritus from the University of Toronto and one of the world’s foremost authorities on electron microscopy, Dr. de Harven stated, “I have never observed one single particle of retrovirus in any of the thousands of samples of human leukemic, cancerous and AIDS related samples I studied under the electron microscope between 1956 and 1993 (the time of my retirement).”

For many years there has been a group of prominent medical scientists and virologists throughout the world who have criticized the prevailing dogma that a retrovirus is the cause for the symptoms now known as AIDS. Their rationale for stating that the HIV hypothesis is seriously flawed can be summarized quite easily. No diagnostic text has ever been developed that singly targets the HIV retrovirus. HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient and there are no conclusive studies to show it is the cause of AIDS-like symptoms. No proof exits that HIV actually destroys killer t-cells, which is indicative of an autoimmune disease. There is no antiretroviral drug that doesn’t also seriously compromise the human immune system and further threaten patients with other life-threatening illnesses. There is no conclusive research to prove that HIV is readily sexually transmitted—another claim made by Gallo without scientific evidence to support himself.
The ramifications of Roberts’ investigations are historic because they show that the original scientific foundation to support the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS hypothesis is flawed and has no justification in medical science.

And now my staff and I are making the complete video of this conference available to you.
Yours in good health, Gary (Null)


For further edification:

The Great “HIV” Hoax
written by Patrick Rattigan ND


The Great “HIV” Hoax

You dig up one doctor, who disagrees with 99.99% of the rest of medical doctors, researchers, and universities, yet you accept his premise as fact, and ignore everyone else.

No stupid, I gave you ONE example..documented. So far, all you've done is just shoot off your mouth with a bunch of statements that YOU CANNOT DOCUMENT OR VERIFY. Also, YOU seem to keep confusing the definition of the word "premise", as Dr. de Harven is making a declaration, NOT asserting a premise. Get a nearby adult to explain it to you.

I, on the other had look at the vastly overall scientific consensus, and agree with it. Your lies convice no one, as all you've done so far is produce an article the pushes forth a "premise", but NOT a solid conclusion. That coupled with your complete ignorance of the content of Deusberg's book makes anything you say dubious at best. How difficult is it to think there is a virus that infects T cells, and that virus can be spread via fluidic contact? All the other AIDS "theories" take Occams Razor and turn its on its head.

HIV and AIDS: Does HIV cause AIDS?

here is a link you worthless pseudo-scientific hack. Its papers like the one you linked that are allowing governments in Africa to deny AIDS as a communicable disease, while thier populations are ravaged by it.

Can someone move this to conspiracy theories please?

Once again, I'll have to humiliate this Marty moron beyond his hunt & peck google search to back up the HIV=AIDS mantras



“…‘HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium
IS "HIV" REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS? (PART*1) - Home - Gary Null - Your Guide To Natural Living


And for a more intense explanation:

Dr. Peter Deusberg - ProActiveHealthNet

You are not schooling anyone. you are trumping out the same disputed studies. There is oodles of evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV, and zero evidence it is caused by the factors the papers describe. You ignore overwhelming evidence and zero in on a few crocks. Having an MD after your name does not make you beyond reproach.

You are either a troll, completely idiotic, or a sub human piece of pond scum. The lies you beleive in allow despotic regimes to ignore the fact that the social norms of thier societies leads to easy transmission of a preventable STD.

 

[martybegan]

No one is "claiming" anything, genius. When you can produce the scientific document that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that HIV=AIDS, let me know. Until then, grow the fuck up and READ the book. Meanwhile, here's a primer for you:

Go ahead and turn into a screaming jackass. I don't care. In the time I have to read scientific literature, I'll limit myself to legit publications and not a load of bullshit.

At any rate, two can play at the "read my source or STFU" game.

So, feel free to read any of these sources:

HIV AIDS NIH - Google Scholar

And show how the assumption that HIV leads to AIDS is flawed. Please refrain from hyperbolic bullshit and limit yourself to an assessment based on confidence intervals, p values, experimental design (cohort v. case control), alpha or beta error or some other form of methodology error that would demonstrate an massive error in the methodology.

Lets go one better. Lets see some study that shows that the factors shown in that "book" are the cause of AIDS, using the same level of confidence that those trying to shoot down the real reason use.

Again, someone put this in conspiracy theories.

 

[taichiliberal]

No one is "claiming" anything, genius. When you can produce the scientific document that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that HIV=AIDS, let me know. Until then, grow the fuck up and READ the book. Meanwhile, here's a primer for you:

Go ahead and turn into a screaming jackass. I don't care. In the time I have to read scientific literature, I'll limit myself to legit publications and not a load of bullshit.

YOU opened with a snotty, condescending attitude, toodles. You get back what you give, so TFB if you don't like it. And if you "don't care", you wouldn't have posted in the first place. So either you're full of it or not wrapped too tight. And I'll agree you are limited, because the sources I site ALL list legitimate members of the medical/scientific community who are published, peer reviewed and in many cases authorities in their field. If you can disprove or discredit them, then please do....if not, blow it out your ass.

At any rate, two can play at the "read my source or STFU" game.

Sorry chump, but since YOU haven't read Deusberg's book, you're just blowing smoke here.

So, feel free to read any of these sources:

HIV AIDS NIH - Google Scholar

And show how the assumption that HIV leads to AIDS is flawed. Please refrain from hyperbolic bullshit and limit yourself to an assessment based on confidence intervals, p values, experimental design (cohort v. case control), alpha or beta error or some other form of methodology error that would demonstrate an massive error in the methodology.

Please refrain from throwing around terms that you evidently don't comprehend when discussing the issue. Your "sources" have the fatal flaw of NOT HAVING CONCLUSIVE PROOF...but instead depend heavily on supposition and conjecture as well as making exceptions to the rules regarding basic identification of diseases when it comes to the HIV=AIDS propaganda. Just the few examples I gave CONCLUDE that HIV does NOT equal AIDS or is a precursor to such

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4495213-post26.html

Matters of fact and history that fly in the face of your "sources". If your "sources" were correct in their assertions, then the examples cited in my sources would not exist! Get it now, toodles? So like I told your like minded compadres, when you can provide the scientific paper that conclusively proves that HIV=AIDS, call a press conference. Until then, stop with this childish stubborn reaction of yours to any information that faults what you perceive as authority....READ THE BOOK!

 

[taichiliberal]

No one is "claiming" anything, genius. When you can produce the scientific document that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that HIV=AIDS, let me know. Until then, grow the fuck up and READ the book. Meanwhile, here's a primer for you:

Go ahead and turn into a screaming jackass. I don't care. In the time I have to read scientific literature, I'll limit myself to legit publications and not a load of bullshit.

At any rate, two can play at the "read my source or STFU" game.

So, feel free to read any of these sources:

HIV AIDS NIH - Google Scholar

And show how the assumption that HIV leads to AIDS is flawed. Please refrain from hyperbolic bullshit and limit yourself to an assessment based on confidence intervals, p values, experimental design (cohort v. case control), alpha or beta error or some other form of methodology error that would demonstrate an massive error in the methodology.

Lets go one better. Lets see some study that shows that the factors shown in that "book" are the cause of AIDS, using the same level of confidence that those trying to shoot down the real reason use.

Again, someone put this in conspiracy theories.

Let's go one better....Marty boy grows a pair and acknowledges that he was proven WRONG here http://www.usmessageboard.com/4495213-post26.html


And since Marty boy hasn't even read Deusberg's book, how can he ask for information from it to verify some else's assertions that are based on bad science? Deusberg does NOT deny AIDS....he just merely points out the factors based on scientific evidence that HIV is NOT a precusor to AIDS, let alone a direct casue.

What we have here folks, are two idiots who don't really understand why they are pissed, they just know that the "authorities" sold them a bill of goods, and therefore they must ignore all else.

 

[taichiliberal]

You dig up one doctor, who disagrees with 99.99% of the rest of medical doctors, researchers, and universities, yet you accept his premise as fact, and ignore everyone else.

No stupid, I gave you ONE example..documented. So far, all you've done is just shoot off your mouth with a bunch of statements that YOU CANNOT DOCUMENT OR VERIFY. Also, YOU seem to keep confusing the definition of the word "premise", as Dr. de Harven is making a declaration, NOT asserting a premise. Get a nearby adult to explain it to you.

I, on the other had look at the vastly overall scientific consensus, and agree with it. Your lies convice no one, as all you've done so far is produce an article the pushes forth a "premise", but NOT a solid conclusion. That coupled with your complete ignorance of the content of Deusberg's book makes anything you say dubious at best. How difficult is it to think there is a virus that infects T cells, and that virus can be spread via fluidic contact? All the other AIDS "theories" take Occams Razor and turn its on its head.

HIV and AIDS: Does HIV cause AIDS?

here is a link you worthless pseudo-scientific hack. Its papers like the one you linked that are allowing governments in Africa to deny AIDS as a communicable disease, while thier populations are ravaged by it.

Can someone move this to conspiracy theories please?

Once again, I'll have to humiliate this Marty moron beyond his hunt & peck google search to back up the HIV=AIDS mantras



“…‘HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium
IS "HIV" REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS? (PART*1) - Home - Gary Null - Your Guide To Natural Living


And for a more intense explanation:

Dr. Peter Deusberg - ProActiveHealthNet

You are not schooling anyone. you are trumping out the same disputed studies. There is oodles of evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV, and zero evidence it is caused by the factors the papers describe. You ignore overwhelming evidence and zero in on a few crocks. Having an MD after your name does not make you beyond reproach.

Your last sentence is a joke, Marty boy...because in your willful ignorance you readily latch onto any MD or PhD that preaches what YOU want to hear, so long as you refrain from critical thinking and contrary inforamtion sources. You keep squawking the same old hyperboli, but you have NO SUBSTANCE BECAUSE NOTHING YOU PRESENTS PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT HIV=AIDS ON ANY LEVEL. That you REFUSE to discuss the information I presented, let alone read it, displays the a-typical willful ignorance by parrots like YOU Marty boy, who for some reason see any facts that contradict the party line as a threat of some sort.

THINK, YOU MARTY FOOL, THINK! Since YOU CANNOT provide any point for point fact based information that disproves what I linked, all you're doing is just squawking empty propaganda. AND IF ALL OF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, THEN THE DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES OF WHAT I CITED WOULD NOT EXIST. PERIOD.

“…‘HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium
You are either a troll, completely idiotic, or a sub human piece of pond scum. The lies you beleive in allow despotic regimes to ignore the fact that the social norms of thier societies leads to easy transmission of a preventable STD.

Marty boy, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're so vehemetly protecting, do ya? "Despotic regimes" that the USA had NO PROBLEM doing business with so long as the pharma companies have that $$$ pipeline to their population via contracts.

Bottom line: I can read your material and provide DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH DOCUMENTED VALID FACTS THAT HAVE CONCLUSIVE PROOF. The chronology of the posts prove this.

You can't, Marty boy. But do keep blustering away while you hunt and peck for any source that repeats your BS in various forms. That you are ignorant and proud of that ignorance regarding Deusberg's book speaks volumes. Carry on.

 

[martybegan]

Go ahead and turn into a screaming jackass. I don't care. In the time I have to read scientific literature, I'll limit myself to legit publications and not a load of bullshit.

At any rate, two can play at the "read my source or STFU" game.

So, feel free to read any of these sources:

HIV AIDS NIH - Google Scholar

And show how the assumption that HIV leads to AIDS is flawed. Please refrain from hyperbolic bullshit and limit yourself to an assessment based on confidence intervals, p values, experimental design (cohort v. case control), alpha or beta error or some other form of methodology error that would demonstrate an massive error in the methodology.

Lets go one better. Lets see some study that shows that the factors shown in that "book" are the cause of AIDS, using the same level of confidence that those trying to shoot down the real reason use.

Again, someone put this in conspiracy theories.

Let's go one better....Marty boy grows a pair and acknowledges that he was proven WRONG here http://www.usmessageboard.com/4495213-post26.html


And since Marty boy hasn't even read Deusberg's book, how can he ask for information from it to verify some else's assertions that are based on bad science? Deusberg does NOT deny AIDS....he just merely points out the factors based on scientific evidence that HIV is NOT a precusor to AIDS, let alone a direct casue.

What we have here folks, are two idiots who don't really understand why they are pissed, they just know that the "authorities" sold them a bill of goods, and therefore they must ignore all else.

and I have linked pages showing that HIV has been PROVEN as a precursor to AIDS, you just choose to ignore it. Keep being ignorant if you want, but the book doesnt need to be read, because other people have done it for us, given us the gist of it, and then DEBUNKED IT AS HORSECRAP.

 

[martybegan]

Once again, I'll have to humiliate this Marty moron beyond his hunt & peck google search to back up the HIV=AIDS mantras



“…‘HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium
IS "HIV" REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS? (PART*1) - Home - Gary Null - Your Guide To Natural Living


And for a more intense explanation:

Dr. Peter Deusberg - ProActiveHealthNet

You are not schooling anyone. you are trumping out the same disputed studies. There is oodles of evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV, and zero evidence it is caused by the factors the papers describe. You ignore overwhelming evidence and zero in on a few crocks. Having an MD after your name does not make you beyond reproach.

Your last sentence is a joke, Marty boy...because in your willful ignorance you readily latch onto any MD or PhD that preaches what YOU want to hear, so long as you refrain from critical thinking and contrary inforamtion sources. You keep squawking the same old hyperboli, but you have NO SUBSTANCE BECAUSE NOTHING YOU PRESENTS PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT HIV=AIDS ON ANY LEVEL. That you REFUSE to discuss the information I presented, let alone read it, displays the a-typical willful ignorance by parrots like YOU Marty boy, who for some reason see any facts that contradict the party line as a threat of some sort.

THINK, YOU MARTY FOOL, THINK! Since YOU CANNOT provide any point for point fact based information that disproves what I linked, all you're doing is just squawking empty propaganda. AND IF ALL OF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, THEN THE DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES OF WHAT I CITED WOULD NOT EXIST. PERIOD.

“…‘HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium
You are either a troll, completely idiotic, or a sub human piece of pond scum. The lies you beleive in allow despotic regimes to ignore the fact that the social norms of thier societies leads to easy transmission of a preventable STD.

Marty boy, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're so vehemetly protecting, do ya? "Despotic regimes" that the USA had NO PROBLEM doing business with so long as the pharma companies have that $$$ pipeline to their population via contracts.

Bottom line: I can read your material and provide DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH DOCUMENTED VALID FACTS THAT HAVE CONCLUSIVE PROOF. The chronology of the posts prove this.

You can't, Marty boy. But do keep blustering away while you hunt and peck for any source that repeats your BS in various forms. That you are ignorant and proud of that ignorance regarding Deusberg's book speaks volumes. Carry on.

paper on the mechanism of HIV entering target cells.

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/Electron-Microscopy-PLOS-2007.pdf

page with several reports on HIV causing AIDS

Science - Cohen.

 

[geauxtohell]

YOU opened with a snotty, condescending attitude, toodles. You get back what you give, so TFB if you don't like it. And if you "don't care", you wouldn't have posted in the first place. So either you're full of it or not wrapped too tight. And I'll agree you are limited, because the sources I site ALL list legitimate members of the medical/scientific community who are published, peer reviewed and in many cases authorities in their field. If you can disprove or discredit them, then please do....if not, blow it out your ass.

You are right. I am snotty and condescending towards people I deem to be too stupid to argue with. You certainly have not published any "peer-reviewed" document that disputes that HIV causes AIDS. The fact that you publish some sort of hack articles from people who have been peer reviewed in other fields is like claiming that an all state football player is the same as an NFL MVP.

Sorry chump, but since YOU haven't read Deusberg's book, you're just blowing smoke here.

Haven't read it. Not going to read it. Garbage in, garbage out. I haven't read "Mein Kampf" either. I don't have to step in shit to know it's shit. But go ahead and act like everyone has to read your obscure little crap to have an opinion on this. It's a joke. Apparently, you don't get it.

So, feel free to read any of these sources:

Please refrain from throwing around terms that you evidently don't comprehend when discussing the issue. Your "sources" have the fatal flaw of NOT HAVING CONCLUSIVE PROOF...but instead depend heavily on supposition and conjecture as well as making exceptions to the rules regarding basic identification of diseases when it comes to the HIV=AIDS propaganda. Just the few examples I gave CONCLUDE that HIV does NOT equal AIDS or is a precursor to such

By all means. I'd love to discuss biostats with you. What terms do I not "comprehend"? I am curious if you could even spot a scientifically valid study from shinola.

Other than that: "CONCLUSIVE PROOF"....... "supposition".... "conjuction"..... "propaganda"...... blah blah fucking blah. If you want to be intentionally ignorant, that is your fucking perrogative. Don't think you are going to convince the enlightened with rhetorical three card monty.

Matters of fact and history that fly in the face of your "sources". If your "sources" were correct in their assertions, then the examples cited in my sources would not exist! Get it now, toodles? So like I told your like minded compadres, when you can provide the scientific paper that conclusively proves that HIV=AIDS, call a press conference. Until then, stop with this childish stubborn reaction of yours to any information that faults what you perceive as authority....READ THE BOOK![/COLOR]

What the fuck are you even talking about? I am not reading your retarded little book. I don't need some quack to attempt to muddle my understanding of virology.

For whatever reason, you are desperate to dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence about HIV/AIDS. I have no idea why. I only know it's not my problem. It's also not going to change the way that the rest of us that actually know what the fuck we are talking about think.

 

[geauxtohell]

You are not schooling anyone. you are trumping out the same disputed studies. There is oodles of evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV, and zero evidence it is caused by the factors the papers describe. You ignore overwhelming evidence and zero in on a few crocks. Having an MD after your name does not make you beyond reproach.

Your last sentence is a joke, Marty boy...because in your willful ignorance you readily latch onto any MD or PhD that preaches what YOU want to hear, so long as you refrain from critical thinking and contrary inforamtion sources. You keep squawking the same old hyperboli, but you have NO SUBSTANCE BECAUSE NOTHING YOU PRESENTS PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT HIV=AIDS ON ANY LEVEL. That you REFUSE to discuss the information I presented, let alone read it, displays the a-typical willful ignorance by parrots like YOU Marty boy, who for some reason see any facts that contradict the party line as a threat of some sort.

THINK, YOU MARTY FOOL, THINK! Since YOU CANNOT provide any point for point fact based information that disproves what I linked, all you're doing is just squawking empty propaganda. AND IF ALL OF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, THEN THE DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES OF WHAT I CITED WOULD NOT EXIST. PERIOD.

“…‘HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium
You are either a troll, completely idiotic, or a sub human piece of pond scum. The lies you beleive in allow despotic regimes to ignore the fact that the social norms of thier societies leads to easy transmission of a preventable STD.

Marty boy, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're so vehemetly protecting, do ya? "Despotic regimes" that the USA had NO PROBLEM doing business with so long as the pharma companies have that $$$ pipeline to their population via contracts.

Bottom line: I can read your material and provide DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH DOCUMENTED VALID FACTS THAT HAVE CONCLUSIVE PROOF. The chronology of the posts prove this.

You can't, Marty boy. But do keep blustering away while you hunt and peck for any source that repeats your BS in various forms. That you are ignorant and proud of that ignorance regarding Deusberg's book speaks volumes. Carry on.

paper on the mechanism of HIV entering target cells.

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/Electron-Microscopy-PLOS-2007.pdf

page with several reports on HIV causing AIDS

Science - Cohen.

Pearls before swine my friend.

As if we don't manage HIV and AIDS (simply a CD4 count below 200) based on HIV viral load and CD4 counts.

As if anti-virals aren't indisputedly linked with better (and not worse) outcomes.

I find it hilarious that someone thinks they can link one whack job source and scream really loud on the path to becoming an expert.

I guess as long as we are bitching about evil "big pharma" the ends justify the means for this jackass.

Oh yeah.... I am not reading his book.

Oh gee, I guess that automatically impeaches me...........

 

[taichiliberal]

Lets go one better. Lets see some study that shows that the factors shown in that "book" are the cause of AIDS, using the same level of confidence that those trying to shoot down the real reason use.

Again, someone put this in conspiracy theories.

Let's go one better....Marty boy grows a pair and acknowledges that he was proven WRONG here http://www.usmessageboard.com/4495213-post26.html


And since Marty boy hasn't even read Deusberg's book, how can he ask for information from it to verify some else's assertions that are based on bad science? Deusberg does NOT deny AIDS....he just merely points out the factors based on scientific evidence that HIV is NOT a precusor to AIDS, let alone a direct casue.

What we have here folks, are two idiots who don't really understand why they are pissed, they just know that the "authorities" sold them a bill of goods, and therefore they must ignore all else.

and I have linked pages showing that HIV has been PROVEN as a precursor to AIDS, you just choose to ignore it. Keep being ignorant if you want, but the book doesnt need to be read, because other people have done it for us, given us the gist of it, and then DEBUNKED IT AS HORSECRAP.

All you keep regurgitating are reports that show HIV anti-bodies present in AIDS patients, and they ASSUME that is the cause....newflash for ya, genius: As of 1989, the CDC reported that 5% of all U.S. AIDS patients who had been tested for HIV to that time were HIV-negative. No figures have been reported by the CDC since 1989
In 1992 cases of AIDS were turning up without the presence of HIV, and the status quo medical system scrambled with a bunch of "could be" excuses while maintaining that HIV=AIDS Doctors Find AIDS-Like Disease Without H.I.V. Virus Is Growing - New York Times

But here, let Deusberg break it down for you:


Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
1) HIV is in violation of Koch's first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive "AIDS test," because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the "AIDS test" identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi's sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html



Get an adult to explain it to you before you google (yet another) article that parrots the SOS you've been squawking, because if I do it for you, it'll just add insult to injury.