HIV causing AIDS, and "dissidents"

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 2 2006 15:13

John your initial posts are littered with the words crazy, barmy, dangerous digusting without you actually telling us why this is so. The perth group are crazy because... because... you say so!

The perth group have expressed their medical opinion, incredibly in depth well researched using scientifically proper methodology. (it's all on the website, you have to read it).

Again i welcome your considered analysis of why they are "barmy"

You seem unwilling, or incapable, of explaining you views on anything beyond a kind of foaming at the mouth incredulity.

Is it difficult for you to explain? If we can't even establish amongst ourselves the basic proposition of hiv how on earth are we going to attempt to address the problem of what it does and how?

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 2 2006 15:33
revol68 wrote:
they are barmy because they take some valid points, mix in some red herrings and come to an absurd conclusion,

explain

revol68 wrote:
they are dangerous because if their idiotic views became popularised it would threaten alot of research into HIV, would undo a great deal of hiv prevention work and would be a shit in the face for all those people desperately trying to live wih HIV.

how?

revol68 wrote:
I'm asking, are you questioning the existance of HIV or are you questioning it's causing of AIDS?

i am questioning everything revol

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Dec 2 2006 18:04

How do you know if what they have done is valid science (given that you aren't a scientist), if the scientific community (of trained scientists) think they are not raising valid questions?

Do you know enough to be able to judge that what you read is of any value?

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Dec 2 2006 22:39
pingtiao wrote:
How do you know if what they have done is valid science (given that you aren't a scientist), if the scientific community (of trained scientists) think they are not raising valid questions?

Do you know enough to be able to judge that what you read is of any value?

Likewise - seems a fair few DIY scientists on here who think they have the eternal truth

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Dec 3 2006 10:45

Not what I asked, raw. I think I've raised an important point: you might actually not know enough to be able to interpret this properly.

I have a masters degree in theoretical physics, and I don't know enough to make the confident pronouncements that you have made.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Dec 3 2006 11:34
pingtiao wrote:
Not what I asked, raw. I think I've raised an important point: you might actually not know enough to be able to interpret this properly.

I have a masters degree in theoretical physics, and I don't know enough to make the confident pronouncements that you have made.

your lack of self-confidence is your problem - not mine

raw

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 3 2006 14:18
coffeemachine wrote:
John your initial posts are littered with the words crazy, barmy, dangerous digusting without you actually telling us why this is so. The perth group are crazy because... because... you say so!

No CM I've pointed out why several times, and people have posted several related links.

You again don't understand revol saying why your bullshit is dangerous, and if you can't understand why saying HIV is not sexually transmittable, or transmissible by blood transfusions or blood products then you really are stupid. Some of the thousands of people who've become HIV positive and developed AIDS from blood products might even be annoyed with you.

Quote:
The perth group have expressed their medical opinion, incredibly in depth well researched using scientifically proper methodology. (it's all on the website, you have to read it).

It only looks proper and in-depth to people like you and raw who have almost zero scientific knowledge or understanding.

Quote:
Again i welcome your considered analysis of why they are "barmy"

So the idea that Africans have AIDS because they're starving, and gays have it because they do poppers is a sane idea, yes?

Quote:
You seem unwilling, or incapable, of explaining you views on anything beyond a kind of foaming at the mouth incredulity.

Ha ha very funny. You've refused to explain anything beyond linking to one site filled with bullshit, and refused to answer any questions at all - which were laid out clearly in the first post. You also are refusing to answer about your helping out at an "AIDS dissident" journal - did you or not? You think you'd be proud to be out there telling people "THE TRUTH!!11!!"

Quote:
Is it difficult for you to explain? If we can't even establish amongst ourselves the basic proposition of hiv

Stop wriggling! I'm not going to explain it because it's too basic. Look at wikipedia if you can't remember what it is.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 3 2006 14:28

The Perth Group (and other "dissidents" if they even exist) have conducted no prospective studies and all of their "published articles" in peer-reviewed journals are letters which offer opinions based on claims that poorly understood processes are non-existant because some of the evidence is of low quality. The Perth Group themselves have no evidence for their ridiculous claims.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Dec 3 2006 15:48
raw wrote:
pingtiao wrote:
Not what I asked, raw. I think I've raised an important point: you might actually not know enough to be able to interpret this properly.

I have a masters degree in theoretical physics, and I don't know enough to make the confident pronouncements that you have made.

your lack of self-confidence is your problem - not mine

raw

OK. I think most people who read this will come ot a different conclusion.

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
Dec 5 2006 13:12
pingtiao wrote:
I have a masters degree in theoretical physics.[/b]

That's hot.

gooldoldhrn
Offline
Joined: 6-12-06
Dec 6 2006 14:28

Hey there coffeemachine,

This will be my first post in this forum, and I have found it while I was searching for HIV AIDS info...

I have a question to ask you that I am sure will give us a direction...

I have read both sides of this discussion, and even seen a 3rd view claiming that the U.S. government actually created a deadly virus called HIV in the 1970 special virus programme or something like that.

Now I know the dissidents have lots of arguments against the HIV-AIDS theory. While that is OK , I cant stop but ask myself, if HIV doesnt cause AIDS , what does cause it, and where are the studies that prove that those things cause AIDS?

I was really sucked into the dissident view, before Chritine Mggiore's 3 year old child died of AIDS related PCP , and a HIV+ activist called David Pasquarelli died of AIDS related ilnesses. Now the dissidents went so far to say that the 72 days David P. spent in jail caused his immune system to collapse so he died. Shit where I live, people go to jail which are much worse and where people are tortured in, for years and live till age 70 . How come? And the guy got out of jail walking and healthy. Some other dissidents claim that he actually wasnt a FULL faith dissident and used Haart medicine at some time so died. Can you see the twist of reality? Thats how I got out of this sneaky loop...

Anyways I think we should start first with your evidence , as the evidence for HIV-AIDS theory exists allready. If hiv doesnt exist then, xx-aids.. What is xx?

Harun

BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Dec 6 2006 16:19

I've not had a chance to go through the thread yet, but, does anyone remember GA (Green Anarchist), running a pro denial piece. Wankers!

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Dec 6 2006 16:24

Poverty, apparently.
Evidence? Mostly poor people dying from AIDS.

roll eyes

Welcome to the forum Harun.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 6 2006 16:45
pingtiao wrote:
Poverty, apparently.
Evidence? Mostly poor people dying from AIDS.

From the links raw and coffeemachine posted the reason given for non-poor people dying (in the West at least most are homosexual) the reason hinted at is "illegal drug use". Most HIV deniers seem to blame them for all doing poppers* - as echoed in a feature in the Telegraph no less. As for non-very-poor 3rd worlders or heterosexual westerners (or non-drug using homosexuals), or the thousands infected by contaminated blood products they have no answer at all. One denier I got into an argument with claimed it was that actually they were just closet gays who lied about it.

Coffeemachine, still unable to justify yourself?

* Including coffeemachine's favourite homophobes, the Perth Group, for example here

BB
Offline
Joined: 12-08-04
Dec 7 2006 14:59
John. wrote:
here

"We hypothesize that in homosexual AIDS patients KS is caused by prolonged and repeated exposure to semen,nitrites or both agents which,under normal circumstances,in non-AIDS patients, are either absent or largely excluded from contact with endothelial targets in the vascular or lymphatic system."

So are they trying to say watch out if you're a gay or hetereo (although they're not implying the hetero bit) gardener with aids! WTF! Sorry to make light of there mentalness, but they are truly mental!

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 7 2006 16:10
BB wrote:
So are they trying to say watch out if you're a gay or hetereo (although they're not implying the hetero bit) gardener with aids! WTF! Sorry to make light of there mentalness, but they are truly mental!

Yup. And did you see the bit where they say AIDS should be treated with anti-oxidants? That'll cure you - a pomegranate. And of course the suggestion that exposure to semen gives you AIDS, but presumably again only for gay men, not straight women (or men whose bodies produce semen of course roll eyes ).

It's very revealing that the Womrades still won't answer any questions. This all feels very Paxman.

And as they are refusing to answer anyway, one more question can't hurt. Do the other 2 or 3 leading (ex?) Wombles also not believe in HIV or HIV causing AIDS?

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 9 2006 03:50
BB wrote:
John. wrote:
here

"We hypothesize that in homosexual AIDS patients KS is caused by prolonged and repeated exposure to semen,nitrites or both agents which,under normal circumstances,in non-AIDS patients, are either absent or largely excluded from contact with endothelial targets in the vascular or lymphatic system."

So are they trying to say watch out if you're a gay or hetereo (although they're not implying the hetero bit) gardener with aids! WTF! Sorry to make light of there mentalness, but they are truly mental!

BB what do you know about KS [kaposi's sarcoma)?

In the US 1994 The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) sponsored a high-level meeting, where toxicologists, AIDS researchers, and others present reached a consensus urging research into the connection between the nitrite inhalants (or "poppers") and Kaposi's sarcoma (KS)

At that same meeting Robert Gallo (co-discoverer of HIV) admitted that HIV could not be the the cause of KS. He admitted that nitrates [poppers] could be the primary causal factor in homosexual men with KS, he also admitted they didn’t find any HIV dna in any tumour cells in homosexual aids patients with KS. He further went on to admit he didn’t know what causes KS in aids patients.

At that same meeting Harry Haverkos of NIDA stated Why AIDS-Related Kaposi's Sarcoma (KS) Is Not Explained By A Sexually Transmitted Agent, because:
- Very little KS reported outside gay male population.
- Among gay men, KS is associated with white race and high socioeconomic status.
- KS in women with AIDS no more likely among sexual partners of bisexual men that sexual partners of heterosexual drug abusers.
- No one can find the infectious agent

(this was 2 years after the Perth Group published their paper on exactly the same subject).

Haverkos also wrote back in 1990 “There is sufficient clinical and epidemiological evidence to suggest that HIV infection alone does not cause Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) in AIDS. Several possible "cofactors" have been proposed. There are several reasons to consider nitrite inhalants as a plausible choice as the KS cofactor".

Now perhaps BB you can tell me what you know about Kaposi's sarcoma and its relationship with HIV?

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 9 2006 03:54
gooldoldhrn wrote:

Anyways I think we should start first with your evidence , as the evidence for HIV-AIDS theory exists allready. If hiv doesnt exist then, xx-aids.. What is xx?

Harun

Harun, you're looking at it the wrong way round. The original and entirely rational question was to ask why so many people were dying of a suppressed immune system? From this it was established a single agency was the cause. Surely then we must understand what this agency is, how it came into being and its medical presense (a basic common acknowledgment of what we're discussing here) before we can go onto questioning its validity.

The dissidents view came into play when scientific methods results and interpretations of this single causal agent appeared contradictory flawed and inconsistent to what was actually happening. These contradictions were posited as questions (using the data made available by aids scientists), coupled with questions concerning the poor application of some very suspect science (which underpins the very nature of HIV). The more HIV became an orthodoxy the more awkward the questions became. In order to fully understand how these questions came into being we must fully understand what it is we are questioning. This should be the starting point of our discussion.

I am more than happy for you to give a comprehensive and clinical background to HIV and we engage on the basis of what we hold in common.

As I say there are no easy answers just a multitude of unanswered questions that don’t seek to do anything beyond demand clarification. There are no secret or magic solutions, there is no either/or scenario, we should not be in the business of competing ideologies as a manner of ‘proof’.

Just so we are clear I did not promise to answer anybodies questions, indeed I made it clear at the very start of the thread I would not indulge the rabid adolescent joe mccarthys of the myspace generation however incredulous their outrage seems to be.

I am however more than willing to engage in an adult discussion and serious debate about HIV/aids. For that discussion to be fruitful, and maybe informative, simply throwing fragments of (dis)information at the screen won’t progress any understanding of anything.

Now if anyone would consider giving a medically clear analysis of what HIV is, how it came into being its mechanism and make up, then maybe we can begin to map out some sort of understanding of what we are talking about instead of leaving it to the manic spew of juvenile dementia we have had so far.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 9 2006 04:03
John. wrote:
Yup. And did you see the bit where they say AIDS should be treated with anti-oxidants? That'll cure you - a pomegranate. roll eyes )

"There is a higher free radical production in stage II of HIV infection that could be caused by several factors including the overproduction of oxygen radicals by polymorphonuclears. The key may be to reduce oxidative stress at the earliest stage of HIV infection. Antioxidants and AZT or other drugs could be used at this stage to prevent progression to AIDS. If the oxidative damage is slowed, then the progression may be slowed or halted.

I am convinced that oxidative stress is indeed involved in the progression of going from HIV infection to the AIDS stage. I believe, therefore, that antioxidants are necessary in the treatment
Luc Montagnier (co-discoverer of HIV)

Q: What are the main characteristics and properties of Fermented Papaya Extract?

"It’s an extract made from papaya fruits harvested and selected in tropical countries…

A number of studies, particularly in the US, show that this fermented papaya extract has both antioxidant and immuno-stimulant properties.
They are mainly in vitro. But there have been findings from human studies including, in fact, our own from work with AIDS patients. Alone, fermented papaya extract is not very active. But when it is ingested after a tri-therapy which reduces the proliferation of the virus, fermented papaya extract helps revive immune system parameters"
Luc Montagnier (co-discoverer of HIV)

You don't have a clue do you John? roll eyes

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Dec 9 2006 10:54

Do you have a clue, coffeeemachine?

What is a polymorphonuclearcite? What is a free radical?

To you these are just words- you have not studied immunology. Do you know anything about SIV, about de novo zootransfers of SIV into the human population, about genetic tracking of HIV variants?

In fact, do you know anything?

You simply do not know enough to be able to critically evaluate what you are reading, and the longer you take to admit this the stupider you look (especially whilst posing as the enlightened tolerant entertainer of dissident ideas).

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Dec 9 2006 11:05
coffeemachine wrote:
You don't have a clue do you John? roll eyes

Actually I do have a clue enough to be able to understand the things you quoted, which you seem unable to.

For starters the person you quote: Luc Montagnier (co-discoverer of HIV). HIV, which you don't believe exists. Secondly, those quotations only say they are useful alongside the drugs you rail against: antiretrovirals "AZT" and "tri-therapy".

So again you're arguing against yourself coffeemachine, since you're the one claiming HIV is not a virus, and that it doesn't cause AIDS!

So now you'll have to provide evidence to argue against your own post, namely - if it's not virus, and not even real, then a: how did it get discovered, b: how does giving sufferers antiretrovirals help them?

And like I said I'm not going to write up my whole understanding of HIV/Aids. If you don't know what it is you can look here for a good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Dec 9 2006 11:22
coffeemachine wrote:
BB wrote:
John. wrote:
here

"We hypothesize that in homosexual AIDS patients KS is caused by prolonged and repeated exposure to semen,nitrites or both agents which,under normal circumstances,in non-AIDS patients, are either absent or largely excluded from contact with endothelial targets in the vascular or lymphatic system."

So are they trying to say watch out if you're a gay or hetereo (although they're not implying the hetero bit) gardener with aids! WTF! Sorry to make light of there mentalness, but they are truly mental!

BB what do you know about KS [kaposi's sarcoma)?

In the US 1994 The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) sponsored a high-level meeting, where toxicologists, AIDS researchers, and others present reached a consensus urging research into the connection between the nitrite inhalants (or "poppers") and Kaposi's sarcoma (KS)

At that same meeting Robert Gallo (co-discoverer of HIV) admitted that HIV could not be the the cause of KS. He admitted that nitrates [poppers] could be the primary causal factor in homosexual men with KS, he also admitted they didn’t find any HIV dna in any tumour cells in homosexual aids patients with KS. He further went on to admit he didn’t know what causes KS in aids patients.

At that same meeting Harry Haverkos of NIDA stated Why AIDS-Related Kaposi's Sarcoma (KS) Is Not Explained By A Sexually Transmitted Agent, because:
- Very little KS reported outside gay male population.
- Among gay men, KS is associated with white race and high socioeconomic status.
- KS in women with AIDS no more likely among sexual partners of bisexual men that sexual partners of heterosexual drug abusers.
- No one can find the infectious agent

(this was 2 years after the Perth Group published their paper on exactly the same subject).

Haverkos also wrote back in 1990 “There is sufficient clinical and epidemiological evidence to suggest that HIV infection alone does not cause Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) in AIDS. Several possible "cofactors" have been proposed. There are several reasons to consider nitrite inhalants as a plausible choice as the KS cofactor".

Now perhaps BB you can tell me what you know about Kaposi's sarcoma and its relationship with HIV?

FFS.

What do you know about Kaposi's Sarcoma!?

You again set up a strawman here, using language you probably don't understand but are only too happy to copy out of someone else's book.

You claim:
1/ KS is posited as a sexually transmitted infection
2/ KS is posited as solely caused by HIV
Who claims this?

Quote:
Haverkos also wrote back in 1990 “There is sufficient clinical and epidemiological evidence to suggest that HIV infection alone does not cause Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) in AIDS. Several possible "cofactors" have been proposed. There are several reasons to consider nitrite inhalants as a plausible choice as the KS cofactor".

So? Who claims that HIV directly causes any of the AIDS-related diseases (such as KS or Oral Hairy Leukoplakia) rather than a weakened immune system becoming prone to diseases it normally would clear?

It does indeed look like amyl nitrate may be a predisposing factor in the development of AIDS, but it also seems like this is the case only when HIV infected.

Quote:
Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is an abnormal cancerous growth of blood vessels associated with a herpes virus known as KSHV (KS-herpes virus) or HHV-8 (human herpes virus type 8). KS most commonly appears as flat or raised purple spots on the skin. For unknown reasons, HIV-associated KS is primarily seen in men who have sex with men, but very rarely in people with hemophilia or injection drug users. KS can occur in women, but it is much less common than in men. It is not known how KSHV is transmitted, but it is present in saliva as well as blood and genital secretions. KSHV infection in gay men has been associated in some studies with a higher than average number of sex partners, various sexually transmitted infections, and the use of poppers (amyl nitrate). It is not known how these associations are related to the development of KS, particularly in the case of amyl nitrate. The incidence of KSHV infection is twice as high in HIV-positive gay men, compared to HIV-negative gay men.

My empahasis. http://www.thebody.com/cria/spring03/cancers.html

Which rather implies that HIV infection is a strong factor in the development of KS.

Incidentally I saw a lady with Kaposi's Sarcoma this week, in a renal transplant clinic. She had been put at risk as a consequence of her long term immunosupression so she didn't reject her new kidney. According to coffeemachine, her immunosuppression must not have been a factor...

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 9 2006 12:37
pingtiao wrote:

So? Who claims that HIV directly causes any of the AIDS-related diseases (such as KS or Oral Hairy Leukoplakia) rather than a weakened immune system becoming prone to diseases it normally would clear?

except in Robert Gallo's KS aids patients there is immune stimulation, not immune suppression. KS is not predictive of immune suppression.

pingtiao wrote:
It does indeed look like amyl nitrate may be a predisposing factor in the development of AIDS, but it also seems like this is the case only when HIV infected.

not so. While there is a decrease in KS in hiv men there is an increase in non-hiv population.

pingtiao wrote:
Quote:
Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is an abnormal cancerous growth of blood vessels associated with a herpes virus known as KSHV (KS-herpes virus) or HHV-8 (human herpes virus type 8). KS most commonly appears as flat or raised purple spots on the skin. For unknown reasons, HIV-associated KS is primarily seen in men who have sex with men, but very rarely in people with hemophilia or injection drug users. KS can occur in women, but it is much less common than in men. It is not known how KSHV is transmitted, but it is present in saliva as well as blood and genital secretions. KSHV infection in gay men has been associated in some studies with a higher than average number of sex partners, various sexually transmitted infections, and the use of poppers (amyl nitrate). It is not known how these associations are related to the development of KS, particularly in the case of amyl nitrate. The incidence of KSHV infection is twice as high in HIV-positive gay men, compared to HIV-negative gay men.

My empahasis. http://www.thebody.com/cria/spring03/cancers.html

Which rather implies that HIV infection is a strong factor in the development of KS.

no it doesn't

pingtiao wrote:
Incidentally I saw a lady with Kaposi's Sarcoma this week, in a renal transplant clinic. She had been put at risk as a consequence of her long term immunosupression so she didn't reject her new kidney. According to coffeemachine, her immunosuppression must not have been a factor...

you do know there are 4 types of KS don't you. They are Classic KS, African KS, Iatrogenic KS (e.g., renal transplant), Epidemic KS (associated with aids). You do know that Gallo considers them unrelated, in fact he thinks they're different diseases.

Again, this is precisely what i wanted to avoid, throwing bits of fragmented information at each other disconnected from any context. It doesn't help anyone.

If BB wants to explain why the Perth group are "mental" in their hypothesis then i'll gladly listen

gooldoldhrn
Offline
Joined: 6-12-06
Dec 9 2006 23:44

Well...

"Now if anyone would consider giving a medically clear analysis of what HIV is, how it came into being its mechanism and make up, then maybe we can begin to map out some sort of understanding of what we are talking about instead of leaving it to the manic spew of juvenile dementia we have had so far."

What difference does your question have compared to mine? The only difference is one is your question and one is my question. Now stop the myspace blabla thing you mentioned that people would do, and give me a clinical study that shows a variety of things that cause a t cell below normal thus AIDS.

I dont blame you at all for believing another thing, and since you seem like an objective guy I am sure you have researched both sides of the argument , instead of leaning heavily on one side...

If I cant be %100 sure that HIV doesnt cause AIDS, I must assume it causes AIDS. Because it is lethal if it actually causes AIDS. I dont know about you but my life is valuable.

And unfortunately as much as dissidents say that HIV doesnt cause AIDS , and orthodox say it does and it is dangerous, I dont find a very special reason to believe dissidents or the way they interpret the data. The same is true for the so called AIDS establishment too.

Christine Maggiores child dies, she says that government people are evil and they intentionally misinterpreted an actual allergy death saying its an AIDS death. Who the heck is she that makes her more trustuble than government people?

What I see as being someone hiv- , AND WITNESSING those HIV+ activists die and blame it on other causes is that this whole story is actually a way that makes them live those limited years of life they have in a healthy mindset, instead of thinking about when he\she will die everysecond. I think thats OK. And its only normal for them to believe it this much so that they can truly erase any contrary data and live peacefully. But the problem is when they think this is the way it really is. Its the filter they look at the world trough, but they think its the way world is, and thats problematic, because it puts other people in danger too.

So I gently invite you to answer my question, because as you can easily GRASP If you can prove that other causes that have studies on are the real causes of AIDS, then there will be no need to find what HIV is or anything else, because we will know what really causes AIDS.

Harun

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 11 2006 05:48
John. wrote:
coffeemachine wrote:
You don't have a clue do you John? roll eyes

Actually I do have a clue enough to be able to understand the things you quoted, which you seem unable to.

For starters the person you quote: Luc Montagnier (co-discoverer of HIV). HIV, which you don't believe exists. Secondly, those quotations only say they are useful alongside the drugs you rail against: antiretrovirals "AZT" and "tri-therapy".

So again you're arguing against yourself coffeemachine, since you're the one claiming HIV is not a virus, and that it doesn't cause AIDS!

So now you'll have to provide evidence to argue against your own post, namely - if it's not virus, and not even real, then a: how did it get discovered, b: how does giving sufferers antiretrovirals help them?

And like I said I'm not going to write up my whole understanding of HIV/Aids. If you don't know what it is you can look here for a good overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS

John you can hide behind a wiki page for only so long.

You have been bouncing around this thread like a bantamweight on steroids carelessly issuing your decrees and bon mots as though gospel eagerly calling anyone and everyone “nutter” “mental” “crazy” without ever feeling the need to explain justify or give reasons for your accusations.

Where you are asked to give a critical analysis of things, you hide behind a wikipedia page and with familiar petulance fire off random questions and odd asides into the ether.

What wikipedia says on the subject isn’t our concern John I’m curious to know what you think , what are your thoughts on the matter (you must have some otherwise why call people “nutter” “crazy” “mental”), what is your understanding of the subject, what’s your analysis of what hiv is, how it came into being its make up and mechanism?

I don’t know how giving antiretrovirals helps sufferers John. Maybe you could explain what antiretrovirals are, what they do to the body, how and when they’re administered (and what effect that has on the body), maybe explain what HAART is, what azt is, give us your assessment…?

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 11 2006 05:53
gooldoldhrn wrote:
Well...

"Now if anyone would consider giving a medically clear analysis of what HIV is, how it came into being its mechanism and make up, then maybe we can begin to map out some sort of understanding of what we are talking about instead of leaving it to the manic spew of juvenile dementia we have had so far."

What difference does your question have compared to mine? The only difference is one is your question and one is my question. Now stop the myspace blabla thing you mentioned that people would do, and give me a clinical study that shows a variety of things that cause a t cell below normal thus AIDS.

I dont blame you at all for believing another thing, and since you seem like an objective guy I am sure you have researched both sides of the argument , instead of leaning heavily on one side...

If I cant be %100 sure that HIV doesnt cause AIDS, I must assume it causes AIDS. Because it is lethal if it actually causes AIDS. I dont know about you but my life is valuable.

And unfortunately as much as dissidents say that HIV doesnt cause AIDS , and orthodox say it does and it is dangerous, I dont find a very special reason to believe dissidents or the way they interpret the data. The same is true for the so called AIDS establishment too.

Christine Maggiores child dies, she says that government people are evil and they intentionally misinterpreted an actual allergy death saying its an AIDS death. Who the heck is she that makes her more trustuble than government people?

What I see as being someone hiv- , AND WITNESSING those HIV+ activists die and blame it on other causes is that this whole story is actually a way that makes them live those limited years of life they have in a healthy mindset, instead of thinking about when he\she will die everysecond. I think thats OK. And its only normal for them to believe it this much so that they can truly erase any contrary data and live peacefully. But the problem is when they think this is the way it really is. Its the filter they look at the world trough, but they think its the way world is, and thats problematic, because it puts other people in danger too.

So I gently invite you to answer my question, because as you can easily GRASP If you can prove that other causes that have studies on are the real causes of AIDS, then there will be no need to find what HIV is or anything else, because we will know what really causes AIDS.

Harun

Your manners are as impeccable Harun your logic however is misplaced. If we are to examine the validity of a disease we must know exactly what this disease is, how it came into being, its make up and mechanism... this is simply our starting point. I don’t think there is anything particularly dangerous or undermining about revealing our understanding and accepted notions of hiv.

If our very first step is to acknowledge people are dying from an irreversible immune system suppression (I don’t think anyone would argue against that proposition) then our next step is to examine the thing that is said to be the cause of this. Our following step would be to attempt to understand why the data (as provided by the aids scientists) doesn’t correspond and often contradicts what is actually happening. People are asking questions as to why there are these contradictions. Asking for clarification on the data is where the dissidents view comes into play.

As a logical progression it seems the best method to adopt here, wouldn’t you say, instead of simply asking completely random isolated unconnected questions, devoid of context, that hinder rather than satisfy debate and discussion.

I look forward in starting a discussion.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 11 2006 06:53

revol, for the third time a dissident viewpoint comes from the contradictions, flaws and inconsistencies within the data aids scientists present.

You want me to prove something doesn't exist? or rather do we examine the flaws contradictions and inconsistencies?

I am as ever happy to discuss 'the issue' but maybe 'the issue' we are attempting to address isn't one and the same thing. In that respect we need to find some common ground.

We haven't even started to debate 'the issue' revol because no-one it seems wants to tell us what hiv is, how it came into being etc etc etc...

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 11 2006 07:14
revol68 wrote:
I mean has this guy you quote ever retracted his discovery?

Interestingly over the years Montagnier has amended his views concerning the relationship between hiv and aids, mostly notably that hiv by itself cannot cause aids. Even he understands the contradictions in his own scientific evidence.

He also acknowledged oxidative stress triggers programmed t cell death in aids patients, it is also a key factor in aids progression. (The very hypothesis the perth group "nutters" proposed back in 1983).

It is this oxidative stress that causes an irreversible immune suppression and any evidence of a virus is a consequence of that immune suppression. (This remains the perth group's position today).

As a virologist Montagnier still reinforces the role a virus plays in the development of an irreversible immune suppression but that role it seems is becoming less central and less clear in his thinking as time passes.

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Dec 11 2006 07:51
revol68 wrote:
lets get this straight your are denying the fact that the HIV virus of which we have electron micrograph images and kills CD4+ T cells and once the level of CD4+ T cells drops below 200 per microliter becomes diagnosed as AIDS?

1) Are you denying massive body of evidence showing the actual existance of the virus we knows as HIV+?

2) Are you denying it attacks CD4+ T cells?

3) Do you think AIDS is diagnosed on people with a CD4+ T level below 200 per microliters but who haven't tested positive for HIV?

4) Are you mental?

coffeemachine wrote:
Just so we are clear I did not promise to answer anybodies questions, indeed I made it clear at the very start of the thread I would not indulge the rabid adolescent joe mccarthys of the myspace generation however incredulous their outrage seems to be.

I am however more than willing to engage in an adult discussion and serious debate about HIV/aids. For that discussion to be fruitful, and maybe informative, simply throwing fragments of (dis)information at the screen won’t progress any understanding of anything.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Dec 11 2006 08:06

coffeemachine, you can compare your opponents to joe macarthy all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that you are the one challenging the prevailing orthodoxy so the onus is on you to produce the evidence - your insistence everyone (John. in particular) has a personal view on HIV/AIDS is meaningless - no-one on this thread, including some posters with medical training, knows enough to critically evaluate the claims of the 'dissidents', and thus we have to defer to the general consensus, albeit not unthinkingly.

I mean, actually fuck it, i don't believe in gravity, there are all sorts of contradictions in it, and although we can observe it and its effects, i don't think it exists or is the real cause of falling down. Now what's your position cm (no wikipedia links now)? i don't think it exists, and you can't ask me to prove a negative. In fact i read some stuff with some very long words i didn't understand that said there's no such thing as gravity, it's just a part of the state's gravi-political manipulations, a conspiracy to conceal that capitalism is really what keeps the working class anchored to the earth ... roll eyes

Topic locked