Ok.
Why dont we look at what we have and then go from there?
1. Does the virus actually exist or not? I need an answer from the "Denialists".
2. What does the term AIDS mean and how and why is it used in relation to the virus?
3. If the virus exists, how is it transmitted from individual to individual? ( Since you guys say its not transmitted sexually?)
4. You guys also say that its actually the drugs that cause AIDS but i ask you, Why were people still dying of AIDS before even the first drug was founded? According to your theory, then people should not have been dying before AZT was ever put on the market.
5. Who should we believe, since you guys are armed with just a video and two websites while we have more than enough evidence from the other side?
6. What happened to Deusberg? When he threatened to inject himself with the virus? How come he never went ahead with it? Could it be that he is also afraid of the little bug?
7. Do you expect us to assume that all the people who has prophesied to their lives being better on HAART to all be liers? How many people do you guys have to show the opposite?
8. About the drugs causing liver failure, we also know that cancer drugs make people lose their hair but how come you guys are not attacking the cnancer drugs too? Everyone know that there will always be a risk to the liver if you are taking drugs that have some toxicity to them. Oh, while we are on the liver, how come you guys dont also go for the guys that make alcohol? This is the worst of the livers anemies.
9. I personally agree that there are very many things we dont know about the little bug yet but i honestly dont think that telling people that it does not exixt or it does not cause AIDS is the way to go.
10. Since you guys say its not transmitted sexuallt, then how come condoms actually reduce the rates of infection remarkably? PLEASE DONT PASTE THE WHOLE OF THE VIRUSMYTH PAGE HERE BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THERE AND READ THE WHOLE THING.
i WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE AND WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE. None of what is below is simply 'copied and pasted' from Virusmyth.net.
1. There are generally two camps of individual thought on this. One groups believes HIV has been proven to exist but is a harmless passenger virus. You can read the works of Peter Duesberg on this [1]. The other group generally believe that HIV is a series of laboratory phenomenon collectively interpreted as being the presence of a virus. [2] For instance, the presence of 'HIV' in a cell culture is often determined by counting the number of times a reverse transcription event occurs. However, reverse transcription is not at all specific to retroviruses, much less specific to 'HIV'. In fact the enzyme reverse transcriptase is not even specific to retroviruses. The culture conditions used to quantify RT will cause normal cell cultures to begin RT activity in the absense of a retrovirus. Other things like an antibody/antigen reaction (p24) are interpreted as being 'HIV' in a cell culture. But antibody reactions can be totally non-specific. p24 is found in non-infected cultures and tissues.
2. AIDS means Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. It simply means a person is simply means a person's immune system is damaged somehow. The problem is that the current AIDS definition requires a positive antibody test (or PCR test, though the tests are not supposed to be used for diagnostic purposes except in infants less than 18 months of age). This is what's called a tautology, meaning you create an acronym and then say it can only be defined as such in the presence of something else. If the condition exists without this other thing, it's called something else.
For instance, TB in the absense of 'HIV' is called TB. In the presence of a positive antibody test it's called AIDS.
3. Some people believe 'HIV' exists but requires a significantly high number of sexual contacts (1000 on average) to pass the virus because. This is 1 in 1000 number is not one of our making but something acknowledged in the medical literature. Even then 'transmission' is an assumption. Even using genetic testing often called 'contact tracing', this is highly problematic, so much so that in a court of law the technology cannot be used to prove one person 'transmitted' 'HIV' to another person. [3]
4. AIDS is multifactoral. It's the only plausible answer that can link 29 or so heterogenous diseases. For instance, before AZT came along men were dying from PCP and KS (among other things). The group of men who began getting sick were not 'previously healthy' people as has been described by the CDC. There was dramatically high drug usage and specific drug usage practices which destroy the immune system. For instance it's known that using nitrite inhalants reduces immune response. Nitritie inhalants (poppers) is something used almost exclusively and in large amounts by gay men during the 70's and 80's. Cocaine, meth, and many other drugs were used in large amounts by gay men during this period. In addition, they were coming down with many std's including syphillis, ghonorhea, ameobic infections, parasites and more. To treat this a lot of antibiotics were being used to treat recurrent infections. Gay men were also having A LOT of sex. Hundreds of anonymous partners per year. Some of these men had 1000/2000 sexual partners while still in their 20's or early 30's. I would suggest that anyone who wants to get an idea of what life was like for many gay men during the 70's (in the New York area), rent Gay Sex in the 70's. [4].
Incidentally, thrush or candida is listed as a result of 'HIV' infection. Yet at the same time, any time you do a search for causes of thrush or candida on the web, one of the first causes that repeatedly comes up is over use of antibiotics.
Nitrite inhalants and antibiotics also have a nasty chemical reaction inside the body that produces dangerous carcinogens. On top of that, rectally absorbed semen from many, many different men causes an immunological reaction in the recipient (antigenic stimulation and auto-antibody cross-reactivity).
The issue here is one of toxic overload.
It should be said too that the number of gay men who started getting sick was actually realtively small. We hear about million and millions of Africans dying of AIDS, yet in the U.S. between 1980 and 1985 there were 12,659 deaths. However, between 1986 and 1990, there were 109,805 deaths. AZT went into clinic trials in 1986 (completely botched research) and then went into clinical use in 1987. 81,134 (of 109,805) of those deaths occured between 1988 and 1990.
5. I can't tell anyone what to believe, I can only provide information. But let me just say this isn't the first time that 'mainstream' science or concensus has been wrong, not by a long shot. The latest fiasco was called SMON. [5] It was thought for years that this deadly illness was the result of a virus and virologists were spending a lot of time and money hunting for its cause. Turns out it was a drug called Clioquinol being administered to people that was cuasing the problem.
6. I don't know, you go to his website and send him an email. Problem is, when you inject yourself with blood from another human being you don't know its state of health and risk transmitting any number of things. For this experiment to actually be of any scientific value, you would have to introduce PURE 'HIV' particles into a host (not cell culture constituents). Problem is 'HIV' has never been isoleted in a way that this could be achieved.
7. HAART is a mixed bag. There is evidence that these drugs have many nasty side-effects, including death (liver failure and heart disease). I would suggest you read an article called DRUGS, DISEASE, DENIAL [6]
You should look up papers like this one published by the very medical/research facility headed by Robert Gallo. The paper is 鈥淕rade 4 Events Are as Important as AIDS Events in the Era of HAART,鈥?and 鈥済rade 4 events鈥?referred to 鈥渟erious or life-threatening events.鈥?[7]
The conclusion: More than twice as many people (675) had a drug-related (grade 4) life-threatening event as an 鈥淎IDS event鈥?(332). The most common causes of grade 4 events (drug toxicities) were 鈥渓iver related.鈥?The greatest risk of death was not an AIDS 鈥渆vent鈥?but a drug event鈥攈eart attacks (鈥渃ardiovascular events鈥?. The authors wrote: 鈥淥ur finding is that the rate of grade 4 events is greater than the rate of AIDS events, and that the risk of death associated with these grade 4 events was very high for many events. Thus the incidence of AIDS fails to capture most of the morbidity experienced by patients with HIV infection prescribed HAART.鈥?(Italics mine) In plain English, AIDS drugs cause AIDS and death far more effectively than 鈥淎IDS鈥?itself.
What benefits people have seen from these drugs stem from their non-specific properties. They impact and influence many biological properties and are in no way specific to 'HIV'. For instance, it's know that they have direct effects on KS and have anti-microbial properties (antibiotic like effects). So someone experiencing a serious OI may take these drugs and experience a remision as a result of the pathogen being knocked out not by 'HIV' being suppressed but by the direct effect of the drugs on the pathogens. Some of the drugs used have antioxidant properties (3TC for instance). They prevent cell opoptosis resulting from over-oxidation of cellular tissue. The protease inhibitors also cause a redistribution of T-cells which make it look like a person is seeing a 'rebound' in their immune system.
8. The difference between cancer drugs and antiretrovirals (AZT is a failed cancer drug by the way), is that cancer patients are not expected to stay on chemotherapy for the rest of their lives. 'HIV positive' people on the other hand are expected to stay on chemotherapy drugs for the remainder of their lives.
9. I disagree. The 'HIV' theory of AIDS fails to deliver. The alternative scientists have for years and years saying that 'AIDS' is about a redox imballance (oxidation). Mainstream scientists have been verifying this, that is, 'HIV positives' and those with AIDS are oxidized relative to healthy individuals. Drugs like AZT are potent oxidizers. But only drugs and research with 'HIV' attached are funded or taken seriously. The 'HIV' theory of AIDS is a big failure and has prevented other lines of research from taking place. Even Luc Montagnier, credited with first discovered what was called 'HIV' has since jumped on the oxidation bandwagon and has published a lot of data about it.
10. In fact condom use does not impact 'HIV' positivity, whereas it affects other std rates. [8] In this large, well designed and executed study on the effect of sexual behaviour intervention on transmission of 'HIV' in Uganda, the authors reported a reduced incidence of herpes simplex virus type 2 ("HSV2- a proxy measure of unprotected sexual contact"), as well as a significant reduction in acute syphilis, gonorrhoea, and unprotected casual sex in the intervention group. But there was no effect on HIV incidence. I hope there is love in your heart and cure for AIDS in your brain. very long...too many questions for John Q Public
AIDS does exist...it is sexually transmitted and a blood born disease.
What if...and I am just saying what if...it is an experiment the government did in germ warfare gone bad???
and what about the other blood born diseases?
Hepatitis is a blood born disease and millions are walking around with it and don't even know until their liver is mush.
best answer is abstinence
condoms break, etc...
be cool... Please go to www.cdc.gov for factual HIV information, vs. crackpot conspiracy nonsense that will kill innocent people. Mrchristopherslc and others have already answered your questions point by point, but--given my background on this topic--I want to jump in and provide a more in depth response to your specific challenge about "cancer drugs":
Quote:
"About the drugs causing liver failure, we also know that cancer drugs make people lose their hair but how come you guys are not attacking the cnancer drugs too?"
This answer has three parts:
1. This question is an example of the logical fallacy known as a "red herring." See the following link for a detailed explanation:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...
You're trying to imply that AIDS dissidents or "denialists" are somehow hypocritical because they don't attack all pharmaceutical drugs, including chemotherapy. Why should they? Their focus is AIDS, not cancer.
2. Notwithstanding the above, I've actually seen quite a few comments on various AIDS dissident forums regarding the negative impact and general failure of chemotherapy. While I can't give you links to any of the specific comments, you'll probably find at least a few dozen critical remarks about chemo if you dig deep enough into the posts at the following dissident forum website:
http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/ge...
3. Given that I've read a few dozen books and hundreds of articles about AIDS, both from the conventional viewpoint and the dissident viewpoint, I'm probably one of the "guys" you refer to when using the "dissident" label. I certainly won't argue with being classified as such, since my research has convinced me that the HIV=AIDS equation is false, which I guess makes me a "crackpot conspiracy theorist." (Another logical fallacy, by the way.)
I also have the following background that I hope lends more than a little credibility to my viewpoint about chemotherapy:
I was a predmed student majoring in biology at the University of Illinois during my college "daze." Since then I have worked as a technical writer and freelance science writer in my spare time while spending a number of years as a technician in the medical field.
In addition, both my parents died of cancer, and my wife is a seven year survivor of breast cancer. During my wife's ordeal I acquired and read a small library worth of books and articles on both conventional and alternative cancer treatments. While alternative medicine has its share of numerous cancer treatment failures, including so-called "quack" cancer cures, the cancer treatments offered by conventional medicine border on being a complete failure.
My findings can be summed up in the excellent link provided below, which demonstrates that chemotherapy is unnecessarily toxic and virtually worthless for most forms of cancer. Note that testicular cancer is a striking exception to this rule--which no doubt elated Glaxo Wellcome when they were able to reel in Lance Armstrong as their poster boy for their own particular line of chemo drugs. Here's the link:
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/fraud/chem...
And here's a choice quote from the article to leave you with a little more food for thought:
"...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."
- Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society.
I'm sure most dissidents who read the literature that I have which condemns chemotherapy as an essential treatment for
cancer would probably find themselves agreeing with me. After all, they already have a record of being open-minded, unlike those on this board who refer to the dissidents as "crackpot conspiracy theorists." ;-) Emanzi, I like that your are challenging these denialists or dissidents, or whatever they call themselves, but I would like to focus on what the last poster, Gozm3r, said as a I find it sexist and WRONG factually. Whatever you know about condoms is apparently not enough. Condoms are made of latex. So what if it has tiny little holes? Everything has little holes, even our skin. But there is something you need to know about women's mothly cycles: women can get pregnant every single day of her cycle, even during her period. Some of you might be thinking: "What, really?" Yes, really. the egg can come out any time during her period that it feels like coming out. It doesn't have to be in the beginning. What I think you might be confused with is that women tend to have a higher chance of fertility a week after her period. But, pregnancy can occur any time. As for only lasting nine months: Well, Pregnancy actually lasts a full 9 months, so almost ten months, but a baby can last forever and motherhood can last forever, too. If a girl is not ready for motherhood, then she needs to consider contraception, like the Pill or YES, A CONDOM. Condoms wouldn't be made of latex if it didn't work well. Just like doctors wouldn't strap on some latex gloves if they did not work well. if any women are out there reading this, please listen the advise, do not let some dork tell you he won't wear a condom because they don't work, or that you will only get pregnant on a couple days of your cycle. It is wrong. Protect yourself from all STD's, especially HIV (there is no cure and people will, sadly, stigmative you if you are HIV positive) and protect yourself from pregnancy. |
