the aids controversy

[Champ]

While reading Champs last reply to my post,it became quite evidently apparent,that further studying of the dissenting hypothesis is necessary on his behalf...



reviewing Champs repsonse concerning aids contraction through blood transfusion, and other issues raised by him ;I can not help but notice an attempt to try and project ,or force thoughts into an explanation you vehemently disagree with ,thus totally reinventing it,turning it upside down,untill it becomes irecognisable even to its author...

Thank you....you are pretty good at it yourself.


imagine,for the sake of argument,an atheist,quoting biblical verses in order to stress to a bliever,that the bible teaches anything but moral conduct...Is resorting to biblical quotations(by the atheist) to make a point,a right reserved exclusivley to rabbis and monks....Can't an atheist point out biblical discrepancies without being accused of believing in God..Should he be labeled a "believer" just for knowing ,and reciting from his opponents sacred book...

OK Plato ,for the sake of arguement,
You still(as atheist) said that GOD existed,... to try to prove that GOD didnt exist. It is ok if an atheist uses quotes from the bible, but if he tries to prove that the catholic god exists so that buddist god doesnt, the atheist has lost his whole religion, and just wants to argue with someone.

But we are talking science here and not philosophy and theology


Duesberg has always maintained that HIV is not,and has never been the cause of immuno deficiency,in one of his articles he suggests the following concerning transfusion related Aids:"The thesis that Hiv transfusions cause Aids in other patients is also entirely uncontrolled.Indeed,a controlled study might be difficult because 50% of American patients(other than hemophiliacs)die within 1 year,and 60% within three 3 years a f t e r t r a n s f u s i o n-long before the average 10 years HIV is said(by the establishment) to require for pathogenicity have elapsed.the pathogenic conditions that necessitated the transfusions are obviously deadlier than the h y p o t h e t i c a l pathogen HIV" [/quote]

OK, so there is no way to "be sure" if HIV passed in blood transfusions cause AIDS becuase there cannot be a controlled study. That doesnt mean that HIV is not the cause of immune deficiency. All it means is that you cannot have a controlled study with blood transfusion recipients....what is your point?

another reason,that is not related to HIV contaminated blood must be found to explain the above dilema

....dilema..being rise in AIds, while decreasing #of contaminated transfusions...(for those who are not following)
as I said that study was in 1986-88. Show me a recent study.

To this day Blattner and his associates failed to explain how is it possible that a virus that bearly infects 1 in a 104 T cells, is responsible for any immune deficiency...

The assumption that HIV is a harmless virus,which does not cause Aids,is so unbelievably,startling and disturbing to Champ(in this case),that he even fails to accepts and acknowledge simple written English sentences...

To this day Blattner and his associates failed to explain how is it possible that a virus that bearly infects 1 in a 104 T cells, is responsible for any immune deficiency...


How about these sentences.......
"The answer to this paradox was provided in January 1995. Two reports in Nature demonstrated that the infected CD4+ cells were being destroyed as quickly as they were infected, so the measured CD4+ population in the blood of an HIV sufferer at any one time was always free of infection (see Living Marxism, December 1995). In an accompanying editorial John Maddox conceded that Duesberg was 'right to have argued all along that the usually slow decline of CD4+ cells is not consistent with what one would expect from a specific cytotoxic viral mechanism' (Nature, 373: 189, 1995). "

looks like you are the one who should do some "further studying"

Human immunodeficiency virus(HIV)is N O T THE CAUSE OF AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle,as well as six cardinals rules of virology....HIV is in violation of Koch's postulate because it is n o t possible to detect f r e e virus,provirus,or viral RNA in ALL cases of Aids....HIV can not be isolated from 20% to 50% of Aids cases,moreover isolation is very indirect...In contrast to A L L pathogenic viruses,that cause degenerative diseases,HIV is N O T biochemically active, in the disease syndrom it is named for...It actively infects only 1 in 104 to >105 T cells.Undr these conditions HIV can not 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,more than enough to compensate for the losses due to HIV.It is p a r a d o x i c a l that HIV is said to cause aids only A F T E R the onset of a n t i viral i m m u n i t y detected by a positive "Aids test",because A L L other viruses are most pathogenic b e f o r e immunity.The immunity against HIV is so effective that free viruses is undetectable,which is why HIV is hard to transmit...HIV remains INACTIVE during Aids,thus the "Aids test"identifies effective natural vaccination,the ULTIMATE PROTECTION against viral disease...



blattner....proven Duesberg wrong in 1988 in response

"the Henle-Koch postulates of 1840 and 1890 were formulated before the discovery of viruses. They are a useful historical reference point, but were not regarded as rigid criteria by Koch himself and should not be so regarded today"

But those postulates were not the basis of Duesbergs later arguements. This Koch postulate was just to further his arguement in 1988.

I would suggest reading
http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM95/LM95_Futures.html
it is a bit more up to date than what you are currently referring to.

 

[soda911]

Hi, I got a couple questions for you, Iam trying to make up my mind if hiv leads to aids. Why is their so many symptoms associated with hiv that only get worse when you reach full blown aids. I mean people with hiv and aids complain of haveing fevers everyday, hows that possible with a virus that isint suppose to do anything, then there is thrush, why is it that so many people with hiv have thrush when this virus is supposed to be harmless...

 

[asteroth]

Response to Champ part 2

The butchery of words and misquotations of Duesberg's continues unabated..."He thinks",says Champ,that some retro viruses cause disease;O N L Y those with the onc-genes have the capacity to cause disease",but alas,Duesberg has never written in any of his articles published todate,that "only" those with the onc-gene have the capacity...."below is the related quotation :

"Based on animal and human models, retroviruses depend almost exclusively on perinatal transmission for survival. They are very difficult to transmit horizontally by immune competent animals and humans, because they are chronically suppressed, first by maternal antibody and then by the baby's own (76, 77), and possibly also by cellular suppressors (34). Even retroviruses with s a r c o m a g e n i c or leukemogenic oncogenes have n e v e r s p r e a d horizontally in b r e e d i n g colonies (29, 85)."

Therefore, specific strains of mice, chickens, or humans from geographically distinct regions are often marked for generations by distinct strains of perinatally transmitted latent retroviruses (85, 86). For example, HTLV is endemic in certain islands of Japan and marks specific ethnic groups among mixed populations in the Caribbean (86). Wild animals (29, 85, 86) or humans (42, 43, 86) with an acute retrovirus infection are virtually never observed.

Acute retrovirus infections r e s u l t from e x p e r i m e n t a l infection or horizontal infections among mass-bred animals, typically prior to immune competence with virus strains not covered by maternal antibodies (76, 77, 85). Since perinatal transmission of HIV is at least 50% efficient (18, 20, 34, 62), and sexual transmission is <0.2% efficient, it appears that HIV, like o t h e r retroviruses, d e p e n d s on perinatal transmission for survival.
Therefore, it c a n n o t be f a t l l y p a t h o g e n i c in most infections within 2-10 years, as postulated by the virus-AlDS hypothesis.

This provides the only plausible explanation for the random distribution of HIV in even as few as 0.03% of 17- to l9-year-old healthy Americans (53) and in about 10% of Africans of all ages (31, 34, 49, 51).
This explains why no more than 2456 AIDS cases have been recorded among about 75 million Americans under the age of 19 in the last 9 years (1), although at least 0.03%, or 25,000, can be estimated to be perinatally infected (53). It appears that >90% of perinatally infected Americans are asymptomatic for at least 19 years.

Other quotations concerning retro viruses:

The hallmark of all retroviruses is that they do not kill cells that they infect. HIV is the only retrovirus that is asserted to kill its host cell. Several researchers, including HIV discoverer Luc Montagnier, have found that HIV does not kill its host cell in laboratory tests.

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

A fourth paradox of the HIV hypothesis has been noted by several virologists. HIV belongs to a class of viruses known as the retroviruses, which are very simple in structure and contain much less genetic information than most other viruses. Most types of viruses are lytic, meaning that they kill the cells they infect and thereby cause disease. Retroviruses, on the other hand, do not generally kill cells. Upon infecting cells, they copy their genetic information into the DNA of their new host cells. From that point forward, retroviruses depend on allowing their host cells to continue living, while they slowly produce new virus particles that are ejected from the cell. Retroviruses are therefore poor candidates to blame serious diseases on, particularly fatal conditions involving the deaths of huge numbers of cells, such as AIDS. Indeed, some 50 to 100 latent retroviruses have been found to reside in the DNA of all humans, passed along to each successive generation for as long as human beings have existed. Past research by Harry Rubin has shown that retroviruses cannot infect any cells that do not divide. Neurons in the human brain do not divide after the first year of life, so HIV cannot possibly infect those cells. This would explain why HIV has not been isolated from these cells, and confirms the difficulty it would also face in causing dementia. Harvey Bialy, research editor of the professional journal Bio/Technology, argues that the simple genetic structure of HIV does not differ sufficiently from other retroviruses to account for its supposedly different behavior. The genetic information carried by HIV is not unusual for retroviruses; it contains no gene different enough from the genes of other retroviruses to be a possible "AIDS gene." In addition, HIV uses all of its genetic information when it first infects, rather than saving some to be used years later. In other words, there is no conceivable reason HIV should causes AIDS 10 years after infection, rather than early on when it is unchecked by the immune system. Bialy also points out the

The virus-AIDS hypothesis also totally fails to explain how the virus depletes T-helper cells, and why it takes at least 3-5 years to do so. Unlike all other animal viruses, retroviruses need mitosis to initiate infection. Moreover, no HIV gene remains inactive during replication, which takes about 1-2 days, as with all other retroviruses. Thus HIV would be expected to kill T cells and cause AIDS when it first infects an organism and not 5 years later when it is biochemically inactive and suppressed by antiviral immunity. The 5-year latency presents proponents of the hypothesis with two bizarre options: either old T cells die 5 years after infection, or the offspring must die in the 50th generation, given a one-month generation time for the average T cell. Nevertheless, killing of T cells within weeks, not years, after infection has been observed in cell culture-in apparent agreement with the claim that the virus kills T cells. But this type of killing is fundamentally different from the unconditional cell lysis achieved by true cytocidal viruses. It involves cell fusion mediated via HIV antigens on the surface of infected cells, and is conditional on the cells and virus isolates used. Further, it does not occur in chronically infected human T-cell lines that grow indefinitely in culture yet produce more virus than any other system, nor has it ever been observed in blood taken from an AIDS patient. In fact, limited cell killing by fusion is a common feature of retroviruses, none of which have as yet been claimed to cause AIDS. It seems clear from the foregoing that the virus-AIDS hypothes

When HIV first infects a person, it can reach moderately high concentrations in the blood - yet AIDS never shows up at that time and T cell levels remain normal. Within days or weeks, the immune system makes antibodies against HIV, and the virus quickly disappears, from the blood. Years later, if AIDS shows up at all, the virus rarely comes back to life and multiplies again. In other words, AIDS never strikes a patient until years after the active virus has been permanently eliminated from the body. This strongly suggests that AIDS is caused by something else. As an alternative to the HIV

Attempting to show "that a substantial proportion of African Aids sufferers do not have evidence of HIV infection"is virtual impossibility due to the CDC'S own definition of Aids which necessitates the presence of HIV,inspite of the fact that numerous cases exist(as previously discussed)where patients exhibit total immune deficiency,in an E X A C T S A M E M A N N ER as Aids patiens,but WITHOUT HIV antibodies presence...
The CDC "redefines"those Aids cases rather than admit to the fallacy of its HIV/Aids hypothesis,and its apparent contradiction to all of Koch's postulates...

What Duesberg,therefore suggests to further discount the plausability of the wrongly accepted HIV/aids view,with regards to African Aids is the following:

The situation in Africa is even more puzzling and casts further doubt on the HIV hypothesis. Most of the media publicity in America on AIDS in Africa is based on the large extent of HIV infection, not on the extent of AIDS cases themselves. Nonetheless, although HIV infection appears to be extremely widespread, present in many areas in 10 to 15 percent of the population, the total number of AIDS cases so far reported in the entire continent of Africa amounts to merely 41,000. Proponents of the HIV hypothesis often try to argue that this low figure is the result of under reporting of AIDS cases. Even in Uganda, however, which has a reputation for conscientious reporting, 800,000 people are HIV positive, but only 10,000 are reported to have died of AIDS. A paper and accompanying editorial in the July 25, 1987, issue of the British medical journal "The Lancet" argued that AIDS in Africa is actually not a major epidemic; the paper was written by a doctor from Cromwell Hospital in London, Felix Konotey-Ahulu, who had just returned from an extensive investigative tour of the areas of Africa with the most AIDS cases. The story in Haiti is similar. Only 2,3000 AIDS cases have been reported during the past decade in a country where HIV infection is thought to be rampant. Even if this number is underreported, the prevalence of AIDS is much lower than would be predicted by the HIV hypotheses.

AIDS Risks of HIV-infected Persons Differ 10- to 65-Fold Depending on Their Country. If AIDS is caused by HIV, the ratio of infected to diseased carriers should be similar in different countries. However, in the United States about 10% (or 100,000) (1) of 1 million HIV-positives (16,18, 49, 50) have developed AIDS since 1985, but in Uganda only 0.8% (or 8000) of 1 million (51), and in Zaire only 0.15% (4636) (52) of 3 million HIV-positives (34). Although AIDS surveillance by some African countries has been questioned, surveillance by Uganda is reported as "highly successful," providing "the highest number . . . of cases . . . in Africa" (51). Since the HIV epidemics of both the United States and Africa are said to be new and to have an African origin (17, 20, 36, 45), but the AIDS risks of infected Americans are 10- to 65-fold higher than those of Africans, country-specific pathogens are necessary for AIDS. Moreover, if AIDS equaled opportunistic infections resulting from immunodeficiency, more, instead of less, AIDS per HIV carrier would be expected in Africa than in the United States.

Similarly,the request to show that"prevention of transmission of HIV for example,prenatal prevention does not prevent Aids in children....."falls in the same category of "un falseability"...i.e how can one show or substantiate a "cause" for a particular disease,when one already provides a plethora of scientific evidence that clearly and undisputably indicates on a biochemical level,that the assumed cause is N O T really the cause....In effect the establishment demands of the dissenting camp to prove a negative...The onus of proof lays with those that make extraordinary claims...that's a number 1 epistemological rule...

nevertheless Duesberg provides an explanation as follows:

The question naturally arises as to why people outside these behavioral health-risk groups, including hemophiliacs and children, would develop some of the AIDS diseases. The answers lie in the risk factors too rarely reported to the public. Hemophilia has always been a fatal condition. This has only been partly alleviated by recent medical advances. Not only are blood transfusions still frequently needed, but blood clotting factors used by hemophiliacs today are somewhat immunosuppressive themselves. Interestingly, the controlled epidemiological study of hemophiliacs, cited above, found evidence to support the idea that hemophilia may be an inherently immune-deficient condition on its own. In the case of Ryan White, now often cited as an example of an AIDS death, the Hemophilia Foundation of Indiana has confirmed that his death was due to such complications as liver failure and internal bleeding, conditions that typically result from hemophilia itself. Indeed, White already had a severe case of hemophilia, ultimately requiring clotting factor therapy every day. He also underwent daily AZT therapy, the dangers of which are reviewed below. Infants diagnosed as having AIDS have developed their conditions due to combinations of most of the above risk factors. Published CDC data shows that some 95 percent of these babies are born to mothers who are confirmed drug addicts and/or sexual partners of IV drug users (frequently a code word for prostitutes), or the babies are themselves hemophiliacs or recipients of blood transfusions. The risk behavior of many of their mothers has reached these victims, but their conditions are renamed AIDS when in the presence of antibodies against HIV. Finally, those few AIDS cases in which no risk factors exist are due to the clinical definition of AIDS. Having contracted, for whatever reason, one or more diseases on the AIDS list in the presence of antibodies against HIV, these people are diagnosed as having this syndrome. In many instances, this means the patients are not given sufficient conventional therapies for the conventional disease, but are instead treated with the drug AZT

conclusion:
It is apparent to any impartial observer that Champs claim of reading Duesberg's articles looks more like a grand misreading of almost every sentence...His reading resembels that of a rabbi's reviewing of the New Tastament,for the purpose of finding flaws contradictions and refutations ,rather than gain a general understanding of what christianity is all about...

Be blessed
Asteroth

 

[asteroth]

blattner...."proven" Duesberg wrong in 1988 in response

"the Henle-Koch postulates of 1840 and 1890 were formulated before the discovery of viruses. They are a useful historical reference point, but were not regarded as rigid criteria by Koch himself and should not be so regarded today"

This is not "proof" but an "opinion"...Is Champ aware of the difference between "evidence of a truth or a fact"and a person's own belief or formal statement!?

Even the CDC contends that:
"Among many criteria used over the years to prove the link between putative pathogenic (disease-causing) agents and disease, perhaps the most-cited are Koch's postulates, developed in the late 19th century. Koch's postulates have been variously interpreted by many scientists, and modifications have been suggested to accommodate new technologies, particularly with regard to viruses (Harden. Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli [II] 1992;14:249; O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613). However, the basic tenets remain the same, and for more than a century Koch's postulates, as listed below, have s e r v e d as the l i t m u s test for determining the cause of A N Y epidemic disease:

Thus even by the CDC own account Koch's postulates have been applied and utilized since their inception "a century ago"to determine causality of "ALL epidemic diseases"
The only virus that seems to "transcend' this "historical reference"(as per Blattner)is HIV
Why?
What makes HIV so special so as not to be subbmited like any other retrovirus to the rigors of the "l i t m u s test for determining the cause of A N Y epidemic disease"
Blattner response to Duesberg in this point is clearly an excuse a justification of a f a u l t and a d e f e c t in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis...n o t proof!!
Anyway...
With such so called "proofs" provided above by Champ
Who needs science?!



champ says:
How about these sentences.......
"The answer to this paradox was provided in January 1995. Two reports in Nature demonstrated that the infected CD4+ cells were being destroyed as quickly as they were infected, so the measured CD4+ population in the blood of an HIV sufferer at any one time was always free of infection (see Living Marxism, December 1995). In an accompanying editorial John Maddox conceded that Duesberg was 'right to have argued all along that the usually slow decline of CD4+ cells is not consistent with what one would expect from a specific cytotoxic viral mechanism' (Nature, 373: 189, 1995). "

looks like you are the one who should do some "further studying"


This is not an answer to the Paradox...if it is... try and explain the alleged "answer" in your own words,rather than quote an explanation you might misunderstand, and demonstrate how it reconciles with the following
statement:
"It(HIV) actively infects only 1 in 104 to >105 T cells.Undr these conditions HIV can not 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 r e g e n e r a t e s,about 5% of its T cells,more than enough to compensate for the losses due to HIV.It is p a r a d o x i c

Champs says:
Thank you....you are pretty good at it yourself.

It would be great if you provided us with at least one example of misquotation,as you did so abundantly with Dusbergs articles...

Champ says:
OK Plato ,for the sake of arguement,
You still(as atheist) said that GOD existed,... to try to prove that GOD didnt exist. It is ok if an atheist uses quotes from the bible, but if he tries to prove that the catholic god exists so that buddist god doesnt, the atheist has lost his whole religion, and just wants to argue with someone.

But I never said that "God Exist to try and prove that he didn't"...
I was merely suggesting that your 3 year explanation iscontradictory and inconsistent with your o w n hypothesis...It's that simple

Champ says:
OK, so there is no way to "be sure" if HIV passed in blood transfusions cause AIDS becuase there cannot be a controlled study. That doesnt mean that HIV is not the cause of immune deficiency. All it means is that you cannot have a controlled study with blood transfusion recipients....what is your point?

The point is that there is NO PROOF or evidence to suggests "as a matter of fact" that HIV passes in blood transfusions...Just an assumption...hypothesis..
As far as the AIDS establishment is concerned "not being
sure"is enough to warrant any HIV related issue the aura of "a fact"...that's not science but pseudo science

 

[asteroth]

Soda writes:

Hi, I got a couple questions for you, Iam trying to make up my mind if hiv leads to aids. Why is their so many symptoms associated with hiv that only get worse when you reach full blown aids. I mean people with hiv and aids complain of haveing fevers everyday, hows that possible with a virus that isint suppose to do anything, then there is thrush, why is it that so many people with hiv have thrush when this virus is supposed to be harmless...

1.Read all above mentioned articles by Duesberg and make up your own mind who is more believable...

2.The symptoms associated with AIDS are there as a result of o t h e r pathogenic viruses that attack a body unable to put up a "T Cell' fight due to its immune deficiency...According to the dissenting opinion the immune deficiency in most Aids patients is aresult of prolong drug usage,exposure to AZT,and frequent STD's

ACTIVE virus Has been rarely detected todate in most Aids cases...HIV positive people carry ANTIBODIES of the HIV virus,not necessarily the virus itself....

Do yourself a favour...read the articles and log on to the www.virusmyth.com

Be well
ASteroth

 

[soda911]

So your saying that drug use like coke,weed,extasy leads to aids, alot of my freands use drugs on a regular basis and none of them have aids. I read all the articles your posting but its so hard to belive that hiv does not lead to aids. Like you said your self hiv gets into the dna, is it not possible that after a while all the new t cells being produced are already infected with the hiv virus, and when to many t cells get infected it progresses to aids.

 

[asteroth]

Soda...
How many people do you know that exhibit lung cancer symptoms after being smokers for one or two years?!

nicotine and other drugs have a d e s t r u c t i v e comulative effect on the body which materializes after y e a r s of regular use...

The amount of years prior to the on set of various lung cancers in smokers,or aids related symptoms in HIV positive individuals vary from one person to another...

Other HIV positive persons who have been infected for nearly 20 years,but kept a healthy lifestyle,free of recreational drugs,and other poisions,D O N T seem to exhibit any Aids symptoms at all ,and probably never will

Why...If the HIV virus is responsible for "immune deficiency"and an overall distruction of CD4+ T cells,how come it has no ability to reawaken an wreck havock in people that have been HIV positive for that long...

Remember Koch postulates state clearly that"The germ must cause the sickness in A L L hosts"

How Does the CDC account for those(above mentioned) HIV positive persons who still haven't exhibit Aids related symptoms.."It's a mystery" they say,and they are right...the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is a mystery on its e n t i r e t y

In my opinion,any individual discovering for the first time that they are HIV positive should immediately stop all drug related usage,and focus their attention on boosting
their immune sytem through adaptation of a healthy life style,and proper supplamantation...Beware of AZT which seems to further deteriorate the immune system in the l o n g r u n rather than cure anything


You write:"is it not possible that after a while all the new t cells being produced are already infected with the hiv virus, and when to many t cells get infected it progresses to aids."

As of yet...the CDC has not indisputably proven that "new T cells being produced are all infected".On the contrary,current evidence suggests that newly produced T cells,are HIV free..

 

[Champ]

Thank you for editing some of your personal statements about me as they did not reflect well on you.


Asteroth said..
Asteroth said..
It is apparent to any impartial observer that Champs claim of reading Duesberg's articles looks more like a grand misreading of almost every sentence


Perhaps then you could restate the quotes after writing them explaining their context, and perhaps citing the source. This might help people(including me) understand what you are trying to say. No pun intended here.

His reading resembels that of a rabbi's reviewing of the New Tastament,for the purpose of finding flaws contradictions and refutations ,rather than gain a general understanding of what christianity is all about...


I can't believe you are comparing religion to science again. I am providing a point by point refutation of your agruement and if you have a problem with that then please pm me. Duesberg did the same thing to the hiv/aids hypothesis. Both sides have flaws which is why there is still debate about it. Some questions previously asked and debated about have been answered. Others have brought new questions.

Champ wrote....."the Henle-Koch postulates of 1840 and 1890 were formulated before the discovery of viruses. They are a useful historical reference point, but were not regarded as rigid criteria by Koch himself and should not be so regarded today"

Asteroth wrote....This is not "proof" but an "opinion"...Is Champ aware of the difference between "evidence of a truth or a fact"and a person's own belief or formal statement!?

As a matter of fact asteroth I do know what evidence of truth and fact are.
Why didnt Duesberg mention koch in his response to blattner. Because he used them as support for his theory, his theory was not based on them. He was wrong to use a postulate to try to prove somthing and blattner pointed that out to him.
Do you know what the definition of a postulate is....
"Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument"
It was koch himself who said that is was not rigid fact.
Blattner did admit that it did not follow the Koch "presumption".


champ wrote....
How about these sentences.......
"The answer to this paradox was provided in January 1995. Two reports in Nature demonstrated that the infected CD4+ cells were being destroyed as quickly as they were infected, so the measured CD4+ population in the blood of an HIV sufferer at any one time was always free of infection (see Living Marxism, December 1995)

Asteroth wrote........
This is not an answer to the Paradox...if it is... try and explain the alleged "answer" in your own words,rather than quote an explanation you might misunderstand, and demonstrate how it reconciles with the following
statement:
"It(HIV) actively infects only 1 in 104 to >105 T cells.Undr these conditions HIV can not 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 r e g e n e r a t e s,about 5% of its T cells,more than enough to compensate for the losses due to HIV.It is p a r a d o x i c


Maybe this article will help you. It was written in 1998...10years after your 1 in 104 by Duesberg(1988). It is also from the same school that Duesberg taught at.


New AIDS data explains T-cell puzzle and suggests new treatments, according to UC researchers



by Kathleen Scalise BERKELEY -- Besides preventing HIV from killing T-cells, anti-retroviral treatments may increase the body's ability to generate new cells in some patients, according to recent data from a new diagnostic technique developed by UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco researchers. The technique allows human cells, including T-cells, to be directly traced from the time they are created until they die.

T-cell death versus production is an ongoing debate in the AIDS community. Strategies for preventing or reversing immune deficiency depend on knowing what makes T-cell count fall.

Previously many researchers believed the underlying cause of AIDS, which is immune deficiency, could best be explained by abnormally high rates of cell death that forced the immune system to battle back with high rates of new cell generation. But the availability of the new technique has revealed an important role for the T-cell production systems as well. It found T-cell production rates were higher in patients on potent protease inhibitor treatments.

"Our research shows that T-cell count in AIDS patients on protease inhibitor treatments is closely related to the number of cells their body can produce each day," said Marc Hellerstein, M.D./Ph.D., associate professor of nutritional sciences at UC Berkeley and associate professor of medicine at UC San Francisco. "T-cells do have a shorter life-span in AIDS than in healthy people, but the production of new cells is also an important factor in determining T-cell counts."

Hellerstein will present the data Tuesday, February 3 at 10:45 a.m. Central Standard Time (8:45 a.m. Pacific Standard Time) at the 5th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Chicago. A description of the new technique was published in the Jan. 20 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Joseph M. McCune, M.D./Ph.D., of the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology at UC San Francisco collaborated in the studies, conducted with AIDS patients at San Francisco General Hospital.

AIDS is caused by the retrovirus HIV. Like many other viruses, HIV enters human cells in order to reproduce, since viruses cannot replicate on their own. It attacks and gains entry to cells that have CD4 receptors on their surface. The most significant of these are helper T lymphocytes, or T-cells, which respond to foreign substances and perform critical functions in warding off infections.

From the time the virus is first detectable, it begins to replicate in T-cells. This replication eventually destroys the cell. However, in early stages of the infection T-cell levels generally remain near normal. This may be because the immune system is still able to churn out new cells to replace those that are destroyed. This period of the disease is the so-called dormant stage since few symptoms are apparent and it can last years.

Eventually, however, T-cells are destroyed more rapidly than the immune system can produce them, causing a drastic reduction in their number. The result is a serious impairment of the immune system and increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections, a hallmark of full-blown AIDS.

The body's T-cell stores in AIDS have been compared to a sink with the drain wide open and the faucet on full force. "The big question has been, is there a reason to turn up the faucet, if the drain is still wide open?" said Hellerstein. "Well, now we have reasons to believe that the faucet is involved, as well."

Hellerstein and McCune came to this conclusion by tagging T-cells using deuterium, or "heavy" hydrogen, to label DNA in T-cells as they are produced. Deuterium is a non-radioactive, and thus safe, hydrogen isotope double the weight of regular hydrogen. It can only be detected in newly generated DNA by mass spectrometry and affords a very reliable count of the number of new cells generated.

In the past, cell generation could not be directly measured because techniques involved radioactive or toxic chemicals unsuitable for human consumption. The availability of a safe, reliable method for measuring the rate of cell generation in humans is expected to be useful in a number of diseases.

Use of this technique in AIDS patients revealed tremendous individual variability, said Hellerstein. Some patients have an impaired T cell regeneration system, while other patients make extremely high numbers of T cells. Also, some patients responded to protease inhibitor therapy with high T-cell production rates and improvement of T-cell counts, he said, while other patients did not get a boost in their T-cell counts, despite suppressing the virus. These latter individuals were unable to increase T-cell production rates. Still other patients developed resistance of the virus to protease inhibitors, but maintained high T-cell counts. They were found to be producing tremendous numbers of T-cells each day. These different response patterns might represent clinically useful sub-groups of patients, says Hellerstein.

"Identification of patients who have good virologic control but cannot generate more T-cells may suggest the need for immunostimulatory therapies in addition to antiviral drugs, for example," he said. Such therapies might include transplanting immune stem cells or thymic tissue, or administering agents such as interleukin-2.

UC Berkeley has applied for a patent on the new technique and SpectruMedix Corporation of State College, Pennsylvania, has acquired rights to the technique. SpectruMedix is a U.S. company producing medical and scientific technologies and associated instrumentation.

The technique is expected to be useful for treatment of a wide variety of diseases, including AIDS, cancer, heart problems and osteoporosis. It allows physicians to safely and rapidly measure the efficacy of particular drug therapies in individual patients and gives physicians the ability to tailor treatment based on individual response to the drug. The test is not yet commercially available to physicians.


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/98legacy/02_05_98b.html

notice the source post

try and explain the alleged "answer" in your own words,rather than quote an explanation you might misunderstand

OMG...LMAO....I cant believe you said that......do bible comparisons count as own words to you sorry asteroth to flame you but i just cant beleive you said that.

Champs says:
Thank you....you are pretty good at it yourself.

Asteroth says:
It would be great if you provided us with at least one example of misquotation,as you did so abundantly with Dusbergs articles...



Didnt mean to insult you...unless you were trying to insult me? Misquotations are hard to find when you do not source post. Or is that all of your origional workJK

Asteroth wrote..........

Duesberg has always maintained that HIV is not,and has never been the cause of immuno deficiency,in one of his articles he suggests the following concerning transfusion related Aids:"The thesis that Hiv transfusions cause Aids in other patients is also entirely uncontrolled.Indeed,a controlled study might be difficult because 50% of American patients(other than hemophiliacs)die within 1 year,and 60% within three 3 years a f t e r t r a n s f u s i o n-long before the average 10 years HIV is said(by the establishment) to require for pathogenicity have elapsed.the pathogenic conditions that necessitated the transfusions are obviously deadlier than the h y p o t h e t i c a l pathogen HIV"

Champ wrote......
OK, so there is no way to "be sure" if HIV passed in blood transfusions cause AIDS becuase there cannot be a controlled study. That doesnt mean that HIV is not the cause of immune deficiency. All it means is that you cannot have a controlled study with blood transfusion recipients....what is your point?

Asteroth wrote......
The point is that there is NO PROOF or evidence to suggests "as a matter of fact" that HIV passes in blood transfusions...Just an assumption...hypothesis..
As far as the AIDS establishment is concerned "not being
sure"is enough to warrant any HIV related issue the aura of "a fact"...that's not science but pseudo science


LOL There IS proof that HIV passes in blood transfusions, Your quote was saying that you cannot track how "AIDS develops from HIV" in blood transfusion recipients becuase more than half die off in 3 years, hence there cannot be a study done that will hold water.

And you are talking to me about not understand articles?

 

[asteroth]

Anyone reading my recent posts,and Champ's counter posts,may come to conclude that the "Aids Controversy" is nothing but a duel between two individuals with opposing points of view.

Alas,this would certainly be an undesirable impression.

I started this thread not for the purpose of commenting on someone's intellectual ability,but rather for the purpose of bringing to notice,(particularly among HIV positive persons)the dissenting view to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

I am almost certain that the honorable Champ,is HIV negative,(as I am),and consequently,to the two of us,this may be just a debate(albeit,heated at times)whereas to HIV positive persons,the information presented thus far,may be a matter of grave concern... .
My responses to Champ,therefore should be viewed in the context of gathering as much information as possible,prior to determining a course of treatment which may be tantamount to life or death ...

I would prefer to think that my antagonist is as concerned as I am,regarding the "correct and proper"treatment for HIV positive individuals,and that his counter responses are not for the sake of saving face,nor for the purpose of salvaging some impenetrable "pompous arrogance"bubble,panctuated with a yellow smiley...

I apologize in advance if I may seem to some as judgemental and accusatory...it is simply a reaction and a subjective impression to what I perceive as misquotations,omissions,and total misrepresentation of the dissenting opinion.

I am pleased to read that:
"both sides have flaws which is why there is still debate about it"
simply because the"flawless" CDC in its incesant arrogance and omniscient attitude towards the dissenting opinion,will never admit to any "flaw" in the HIV/AIDS hypothesis,much less to any "debate"about its validity and alleged scientific soundness...the only debate the CDC might confirm,exists,is the one that takes place amongst the dissenters,on how to further perpetuate the "lie" that HIV does not cause AIDS...

Or maybe,Champs ment something entirely different,in which case I would ask...what "flaws"is he referring to when evoking the words"both sides have flaws"and when was the last time any CDC representative debated a dissenter in a public forum...

Henceforth,I should make every attempt to evaluate champs responses,without characterising or presuming his intentions...

Champ wrote:

"LOL There IS proof that HIV passes in blood transfusions, Your quote was saying that you cannot track how "AIDS develops from HIV" in blood transfusion recipients becuase more than half die off in 3 years, hence there cannot be a study done that will hold water".

I say:
Of course there is proof that "HIV passes in blood transfusion"

But the correct reading of my quote is:
"the point is that there is NO PROOF or evidence to suggest "as a matter of fact"that HIV that passes in blood transfusion cause AIDS,because there can not be a controlled study"

The "no proof" portion of the sentence is NOT denying passaage of HIV through transfusion,but rather the assumption that the HIV aquired through transfusion causes AIDS...
True...I didn't quote the e n t i r e sentence...but the 3 dots indicated just that..i.e that it wasn't quoted in its entierty.

Champ says..
"Why didnt Duesberg mention koch in his response to blattner. Because he used them as support for his theory, his theory was not based on them. He was wrong to use a postulate to try to prove somthing and blattner pointed that out to him.
Do you know what the definition of a postulate is....
"Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument"
It was koch himself who said that is was not rigid fact.
Blattner did admit that it did not follow the Koch "presumption.


response:
Since Blattner was expressing his own personal opinion and not some scientific evidence,Duesberg saw no point in arguing over a point of view..as indicated before, Blattner's point of view stands in contrast to the CDC own evaluation of Koch's postulate:

"Among many criteria used over the years to prove the link between putative pathogenic (disease-causing) agents and disease, perhaps the most-cited are Koch's postulates, developed in the late 19th century. Koch's postulates have been variously interpreted by many scientists, and modifications have been suggested to accommodate new technologies, particularly with regard to viruses (Harden. Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli [II] 1992;14:249; O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613). However, the basic tenets remain the same, and for more than a century Koch's postulates, as listed below, have s e r v e d as the l i t m u s test for determining the cause of A N Y epidemic disease"


True...postulate is "something assumed without proof as being self evident or generally accepted,especially when used as a basis for an argument"
but ,regardless of the definition,or maybe inspite of it, Koch's postulates have been used(including by Blattner himself) in the last 100 years as a litmus test to determine causality of "a n y epidemic" disease for every virus known in existence,
Duesberg is justified in his demand that the one and the same litmus test mentioned above, be applied to determine causality of immune deficiency by HIV.

Furthermore,Duesberg does not claim that the HIV failure to pass Koch's postulates is by itself "scientific proof",but he rather implies that the HIV virus "got an F"in the CDC approved litmus test .

Unlike blattner Duesberg insists on a molecular biochemical evidence to indicate causality of disease,due to previous misdiagnosis by the scientific community:
"Based on epidemiological evidence, "scientists concluded" that Epstein-Barr virus was the cause of Burkitt's lymphoma-until the first virus-free lymphomas were found (10). (ii) On epidemiological grounds, human and bovine retroviruses were believed to cause leukemia after bizarre latent periods of up to 40 years in humans (11)-but finding these viruses in billions of normal cells of millions of asymptomatic carriers has cast doubt on this view (12). It is scarcely surprising that these leukemias arose from virus-infected cells. Consistent with this view, these "viral" leukemias are clonal and not contagious, behaving like virus-negative leukemias, and the associated "leukemia" viruses are not biochemically active (12). (iii) "Slow viruses" were accepted as causes of Alzheimer's, kuru, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (13) on the basis of the same kind of epidemiology and transmission evidence used here for HIV-but these viruses have never materialized. These examples illustrate that correlations without evidence for biochemical activity are not sufficient to prove etiology"

Ignoring the above request,will not change the plain ,self evident fact,that scientists,are not infallible, and they do, sometimes, err...

Since HIV is the only virus known in existence to fail the Koch's postulates litmus test,Blattner is confronted with a dilemma,a contradiction,an outright paradox....his only way to get out of the hole he dug himself into is to cast doubt, all of a sudden, and degrade the scientifically accepted " litmus test" as nothing more than an "historical reference"which is not to adhere to "rigidly".. and therefore rely conclusively on epidemiological corrolaton(as "proof" or "evidence") that may be circumstantial...

If this is indeed blattner's true approach to Koch's Postulate; one should ask ..why did he, adhere to it so rigidly,prior to the discovery of HIV..

Champ writes:

OMG...LMAO....I cant believe you said that......do bible comparisons count as own words to you... sorry asteroth to flame you but i just cant beleive you said that. "

"maybe this article will help you. It was written in 1998...10years after your 1 in 104 by Duesberg(1988). It is also from the same school that Duesberg taught at.
New AIDS data explains T-cell puzzle and suggests new treatments, according to UC researchers "

Requesting a law professor,or a scientist,(or Champ for that matter), to paraphrase out side sources,and quotations they use in their research papers,or while lecturing in class,does not cast an iota of doubt on their intelectual capacity,or comprehension ability.Paraphrasing is utilized for the purpose of simplification and further clarification of any complex issue,and it is routinely adaptaed as a common practice.

Since in my opinion ,champ's quotation of "Kathleen Scalise's article does not solve the above mentioned T cell paradox,I invite him to further clarify the article and explain or demonstrate H O W ,in his opinion,this particular research he quoted solves the still pending discrepancies..

To begin with..
the purpose of the work quoted is to explore the hypothesis that :anti-retroviral treatments m a y increase the body's ability to generate new cells in s o m e patients"

Thus, it says absolutely nothing ,nor does it elaborate or attempts to resolve any paradoxes which it does not acknowledge as purpose of the research...

However

the problems as explained by Duesberg are:

In contrast to A L L pathogenic viruses,that cause degenerative diseases,HIV is N O T biochemically active, in the disease syndrom it is named for...It actively infects only 1 in 104 to >105 T cells.Undr these conditions HIV can not 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,more than enough to compensate for the losses due to HIV.It is p a r a d o x i c a l that HIV is said to cause aids only A F T E R the onset of a n t i viral i m m u n i t y detected by a positive "Aids test",because A L L other viruses are most pathogenic b e f o r e immunity.

Thus:

The quoted research did not prove or demonstrated that HIV is biochemically active in the disease syndrom it is named for..

Did not prove that HIV infects more than just 1 in 104>105 T cells,exactly as it did 10 years ago...

Did not demonstrate how under the above mentioned conditions,HIV can account for the loss of T-cells,the hallmark of Aids.

Did not disprove the fact that "during the 2 days it takes hiv to replicate,the body regenerates,about 5% of its T cells,more than enough to compensate for the losses due to HIV."

Did not elaborate on the paradox of h o w is it possible that HIV causes AIDS A F T E R the on set of antiviral immunity (detected by a positive "aids test" )when virtually A L L other viruses are most pathogenic b e f o r e immunity"

In Short the article quoted by Champ,in an attempt to cast new and "current" light (by the same school that Duesberg taught at)on the problems stated above is irrelevant on its entirety...

Moreover..

The article itself presents us with a plethora of unresolved and disputed comments,"as though they were facts"

Consider this:

Previously many researchers believed the underlying cause of AIDS, which is immune deficiency, could best be explained by abnormally high rates of cell death that forced the immune system to battle back with high rates of new cell generation. But the availability of the new technique has revealed an important role for the T-cell production systems as well. It found T-cell production rates were higher in patients on potent protease inhibitor treatments.

question:

Why was T-Cell production higher?

Response by

Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati (see my first post for the full interview with DR Al Bayati)

Protease inhibitors usually cause severe damage in kidney, liver, and other organs. The severity of the damage depends upon the amount of the drugs taken and the duration of use. Some studies show that the CD4+ T cell counts were increased after treatment with AZT and/or protease inhibitors. This information was interpreted as a good response to the medications. On the contrary, the elevation of T cells is not a good response in these conditions, but rather, it indicates severe tissue damage and infection because elevation of CD4+ T cells counts also occur due to inflammation in tissues. This explains the injury and death of the patients following treatment with these drugs. For example, the CD4+ T cell counts were increased following the treatment of HIV negative nurses with AZT, who took AZT as a prophylactic. They developed severe symptoms following 3 weeks of treatment with AZT (Get All The Facts: HIV does not cause AIDS, Table 24). In addition to the failure of the antiviral drugs, AIDS patients suffering from immune deficiency are also treated with glucocorticoids. This practice is not supported by any known mechanism of action. The antiviral medications and the glucocorticoids not only fail to cure AIDS, but they cause severe damage to sick people with AIDS. Prescribing these medications to AIDS patient is just like putting gasoline on a fire. "

furthermore,

See "Protease inhibitors have no unique effect on CD4 cell counts"as published by Reuters July 24th 2000
(Champs Article is dated:NEWS RELEASE, 02/05/98)
"PROTEASE INHIBITORS HAVE NO UNIQUE EFFECT ON CD4 CELL COUNTS
Reuters 24 July 2000

Westport -- Triple therapy for HIV-infected patients, including regimens containing a protease inhibitor, do not have any unique effects on CD4 cell counts independent of reductions in plasma viral load, according to findings reported in the July issue of AIDS.
The data appear to contrast with recent evidence suggesting that such regimens are able to maintain an immunologic benefit even after plasma viral rebound, Dr R. Harrigan, of St Paul's Hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, and other investigators for the AVANTI and INCAS studies explain.
The team examined the correlation between CD4 cell counts and plasma viral load over 52 weeks using data from 3 randomized clinical trials: AVANTI-2, AVANTI-3, and INCAS. The studies compared dual nucleoside therapy with triple combination therapy that included a protease inhibitor, with or without a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor.
"The data presented in these randomized double-blinded trials suggest that the specific antiretroviral regimen used neither increases nor decreases the strength of the correlation between the change in CD4 cell count and the change in plasma viral load," Dr Harrigan and colleagues say. The strength of the correlation was similar among all groups of patients in the studies, regardless of the type of treatment they received.
Discordant increases or decreases in plasma load and CD4 cell counts did occur in some patients, but they were not linked to any particular therapeutic regimen and were regarded as "natural variation" by the authors.
"The data provide no evidence for a CD4 cell count benefit unique to protease inhibitors," the investigators conclude, "at least in first-line regimens up to 1 year in patients with moderate baseline CD4 cell count."
AIDS. 2000;14:1383-1388.

Evaluate this "facts" for example:

"AIDS is caused by the retrovirus HIV. Like many other viruses, HIV enters human cells in order to reproduce, since viruses cannot replicate on their own. It attacks and gains entry to cells that have CD4 receptors on their surface. The most significant of these are helper T lymphocytes, or T-cells, which respond to foreign substances and perform critical functions in warding off infections.

From the time the virus is first detectable, it begins to replicate in T-cells. This replication eventually destroys the cell. However, in early stages of the infection T-cell levels generally remain near normal. This may be because the immune system is still able to churn out new cells to replace those that are destroyed. This period of the disease is the so-called dormant stage since few symptoms are apparent and it can last years.

Response:
In my previous posts,I have outlined all that is currently known about retroviruses,in response to one of Champs comments regarding retroviruses,however,since he chose not to reply to that information,I shall present it again:

"The hallmark of all retroviruses is that they do not kill cells that they infect. HIV is the only retrovirus that is asserted to kill its host cell. Several researchers, including HIV discoverer Luc Montagnier, have found that HIV does not kill its host cell in laboratory tests. "

"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 "

and the most startling comment concerning the correct
understanding of "killing of cells"by HIV

"A fourth paradox of the HIV hypothesis has been noted by several virologists. HIV belongs to a class of viruses known as the retroviruses, which are very simple in structure and contain much less genetic information than most other viruses. Most types of viruses are lytic, meaning that they kill the cells they infect and thereby cause disease. Retroviruses, on the other hand, do not generally kill cells. Upon infecting cells, they copy their genetic information into the DNA of their new host cells. From that point forward, retroviruses depend on allowing their host cells to continue living, while they slowly produce new virus particles that are ejected from the cell. Retroviruses are therefore poor candidates to blame serious diseases on, particularly fatal conditions involving the deaths of huge numbers of cells, such as AIDS. Indeed, some 50 to 100 latent retroviruses have been found to reside in the DNA of all humans, passed along to each successive generation for as long as human beings have existed. Past research by Harry Rubin has shown that retroviruses cannot infect any cells that do not divide. Neurons in the human brain do not divide after the first year of life, so HIV cannot possibly infect those cells. This would explain why HIV has not been isolated from these cells, and confirms the difficulty it would also face in causing dementia. Harvey Bialy, research editor of the professional journal Bio/Technology, argues that the simple genetic structure of HIV does not differ sufficiently from other retroviruses to account for its supposedly different behavior. The genetic information carried by HIV is not unusual for retroviruses; it contains no gene different enough from the genes of other retroviruses to be a possible "AIDS gene." In addition, HIV uses all of its genetic information when it first infects, rather than saving some to be used years later. In other words, there is no conceivable reason HIV should causes AIDS 10 years after infection, rather than early on when it is unchecked by the immune system.

The virus-AIDS hypothesis also totally fails to explain how the virus depletes T-helper cells, and why it takes at least 3-5 years to do so. Unlike all other animal viruses, retroviruses need mitosis to initiate infection. Moreover, no HIV gene remains inactive during replication, which takes about 1-2 days, as with all other retroviruses. Thus HIV would be expected to kill T cells and cause AIDS when it first infects an organism and not 5 years later when it is biochemically inactive and suppressed by antiviral immunity. The 5-year latency presents proponents of the hypothesis with two bizarre options: either old T cells die 5 years after infection, or the offspring must die in the 50th generation, given a one-month generation time for the average T cell. Nevertheless, killing of T cells within weeks, not years, after infection has been observed in cell culture-in apparent agreement with the claim that the virus kills T cells. But this type of killing is fundamentally different from the unconditional cell lysis achieved by true cytocidal viruses. It involves cell fusion mediated via HIV antigens on the surface of infected cells, and is conditional on the cells and virus isolates used. Further, it does not occur in chronically infected human T-cell lines that grow indefinitely in culture yet produce more virus than any other system, nor has it ever been observed in blood taken from an AIDS patient. In fact, limited cell killing by fusion is a common feature of retroviruses, none of which have as yet been claimed to cause AIDS.

Response by r. Mohammed Al-Bayati (see my first post for the full interview with DR Al Bayati)

"Robert Gallo stated that HIV enters CD4+ T cells because they have special receptors for HIV and that HIV kills CD4+T cells selectively. I have found no truth for this hypothesis. Most individuals infected with HIV show hyperplasia of all cell components of lymph nodes (It has more cells than normal). In addition, HIV is present in all cells in the lymph nodes. Our government's decision of basing the entire AIDS program on the HIV-hypothesis is a very dangerous and costly decision. This faulty decision has been resulting in the exposure of millions of people to very toxic antiviral drugs worldwide unnecessarily and wasting billions of dollars. "



and finally in response to the following statement:

"Eventually, however, T-cells are destroyed more rapidly than the immune system can produce them, causing a drastic reduction in their number. The result is a serious impairment of the immune system and increased
susceptibility to opportunistic infections, a hallmark of full-blown AIDS"

Answer:

How is possible...what kind of biochemical proof does Kathleen Scalise's possesses that would allow such bogus statements,to be presented as though they were virtual facts..

Read the following:

When HIV first infects a person, it can reach moderately high concentrations in the blood - yet AIDS never shows up at that time and T cell levels remain normal. Within days or weeks, the immune system makes antibodies against HIV, and the virus quickly disappears, from the blood. Years later, if AIDS shows up at all, the virus rarely comes back to life and multiplies again. In other words, AIDS never strikes a patient until years after the active virus has been permanently eliminated from the body. This strongly suggests that AIDS is caused by something else.

"The immunity against HIV is so effective that free viruses is undetectable,which is why HIV is hard to transmit...HIV remains INACTIVE during Aids,thus the "Aids test"identifies effective natural vaccination,the ULTIMATE PROTECTION against viral disease...

conclusion:
I could challenge Champ,who has no medical scientific credentials, to question himself whether he truly believes he knows better than Dr Walter Gilbert(Professor in molecular biology,1980 Nobel prize for chemistry),or Dr Kary Mullis(Biochemist,winner of Nobel prize for Chemistry)who discard outright the alleged scientific validity of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis,but Champ will retort right back at me(and he be correct in doing so)with the exact same argument,since I am not a certified scientist my self...

who am I then,to challenge Blattner...

A dilemma indeed!
whom are we to believe...?!

At first,and prior to studying and investigating the dissenting opinion,I brushed it aside,as a crock pot phenomenon...than,upon closer look,I was alarmed to discover that the dissenting camp includes some of the brightest minds in medical science,and that the list was ever so growing...

Furthermore,it became clear to me,that the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies,are engaged in a vicious campaign to silence Duesberg and collegues,rather than allocate even a fraction of the vast amount of billions of dollars( in AIDS research money)to explore the dissenting Drugs/AIDS hypothesis.

Indeed,rather than,propel the scientific investigative spirit,allow it to prevail,and award the necessary funds for the dissenting camp,the CDC and its retinue of Yes sayers have assumed the role of the "grand inquisitor",suffocating opposition with blatant threats,dismissals,loss of jobs,and withrawal of funds from Dr's and researchers who dare exhibit,or cast doubt on the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

Truly,the CDC's behaviour suggests,it probably has something to hide,and in fear of losing it's credibility, it would rather reinvent Aids over and over again,than admit to the p o s s i b i l i t y that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis might be flawed.

("they have been changing their hypothesis and the stated incubation period for HIV, to make them fit new findings. AIDS in 1989 was much more complicated than the AIDS in 1984, prior to the approval of AZT. AIDS in 2001 has become more complicated than the AIDS in 1989, prior to the approval of steroid and protease inhibitors in the treatment of AIDS"from Mohamed Al bayati..see 1st post)

The profiteering money greedy pharmaceutical companies,while shedding crocodile tears,must ensure a hefty return on their 20 year investment,regardless of the possibility that the medications they drug asymptomatic hiv positive persons with,may eventually cause the immune deficiency syndrom they're supposed to prevent.

Their loyalty will forever lie with the mighty dollar God,and the ever pressing share holders...the ailing patients seem to be a nuisance,they have no other choice but contend with...

This mixture of science, money,politics greed , false arrogance and self importance... ultimately lead to an established inquisition,proliferating bogus and unsubstantiated "scientific facts''.

Be blessed.

 

[asteroth]

the plain Truth aboutHaemophiliacs


Haemophiliacs did not die of HIV contracted from blood factor products, but principally from drug side-effects, an international group of scientists has claimed in a new sumission to the Lindsay Tribunal, Thursday 21st June.

The AidsMyth voluntary group based in Ireland, incorporates five Aids-rethinker scientists of international repute appointed to South African President Mbeki's Advisory Panel on HIV/AIDS.

Their submission says side-effects of steroid drugs prescribed to haemophiliacs are the same as the list of medical conditions from AIDS. Similarly, they claim that side-effects of the anti-HIV drugs prescribed to haemophiliacs cause symptoms attributed to AIDS.

Haemophilliacs can be false-positive on HIV tests according to the scientists. They provide evidence to the Tribunal that blood products could not have transmitted infectious HI virus to haemophiliacs. And they say the US Centres for Disease Control has made statements consistent with their findings.

They assert that the principal causes of observed morbidity and mortality in haemophiliac patients included the immune-suppressing effects of blood factor therapy itself; side-effects of prescribed cortico-steroids or pneumonia medication; and fatal side-effects of anti-HIV drugs erroneously prescribed as a result of incorrect HIV/AIDS diagnosis.MORE


The plain truth about haemophiliacs