Ok. But what is your point? This paper was written almost 30 years ago. There are hundreds, if not thousands more recent papers that elucidate HIV and its role in CD4 cell infection (via gp120). Regardless of how it kills immune cells (it undoubtedly kills some via viral budding), the fact is that cd4 cell numbers drop. Once you get below 200 cd4/mm³ in your blood, you have aids. It's a somewhat abstract definition of the disease, but that's what it is. I actually have a virology exam tomorrow, so this is relevant to my interests. On my phone now and can't provide sources, but would love to continue this conversation later

Edit- if your point is that HIV was created by the gov, maybe it was, I have no clue. But you seem to be arguing that HIV might not cause aids, which I do not believe to be the case. Btw, certainly not boring! Scientists make stuff up all the time. Check out www.science-fraud.org . Anyone who does research will appreciate and laugh at the blatant copying/pasting of bands on electrophoresis gels

2) I'm pressed for time and can't read the whole paper, but the "various reasons" statement probably was inferred by what they knew about the virus. Aids won't kill you, but the fact that it attacks your immune system means you are susceptible to other infections.

HIV is thought to be derived from a simian immunodeficiency virus and is genetically most similar to a chimpanzee virus. In fact, HIV-2 is similar to simian immunodeficiency virus. The initial human infection occurred in Africa in the 1930s but went unnoticed in rural areas. The migration of infected people to the cities after the 1960's brough the virus into population centers and cultural acceptance of prostitution promoted its transmission throughout the population

As noted by Murray HIV most likely evolved from a simian virus during the 1930's.

He has also stated in this thread that HIV came about due to a contaminated vaccination attempt in Africa. If you are likely referring to polio vaccination which has been widely disputed due to molecular biology and phylogenetic studies as noted by Hillis, Cohen, and Hooper

Also OP goes on to state that:

Also remember, our cultures are chronically infected with other syncytia forming virus... including the cytomegalovirus, hepatitis b virus, AND HTLV-I and HTLV-II. So the question is... how did you eliminate the HTLV-I and the HTLV-II and the cytomegalovirus, and the hepatits b virus in your cultures and establish that your new HTLV-III was the sole cause of the cytopathy that was so important and conclusive that you edited the paper to put it in the title).

As noted by Fogh et al at during the same time frame that OP states that there was such widespread contamination from human virus the actual incidence was much lower and was limited to such Herpes virus group.

Also OP:

Theres a clear, organized, and ruthless opposition force to this line of thinking...

Because it is false. Go take virology or medical microbiology please.

Theres plenty of people with false theories that are not systematically, and relentlessly professionally ruined by industry operatives and hacked by Los Alamos National Laboratory (The US Weapons Lab).

also your Fogh article has nothing to do with claiming existence of a new agent in a soup of other very similar virus.

The Fogh article, if you had read it, was discussing contamination in cell cultures in the 1970's, specifically fungal, viral, mycoplasm, etc. You said viral contamination was very widespread whereas in the review paper it is actually lower with no HTLV-1 or 2 reported.

i quoted the original article. "Although patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS are often chronically infected with cytomegalovirus and hepatits B virus, for various reasons these appear to be opportunistic or coincidental infections." and "Virus isolation and seroepidemiological data show that both HTLV-1 and HTLV-2 can sometimes be found in patients with AIDS" you know as well as I do, when you're hunting virus... sometimes is a lot.

and the Fogh article is unrelated to this. we're not talking about contamination. we're talking about people who are infected with all of these viruses.

2) I'm pressed for time and can't read the whole paper, but the "various reasons" statement probably was inferred by what they knew about the virus. Aids won't kill you, but the fact that it attacks your immune system means you are susceptible to other infections.

Lets make it clear that the assumption made at the time was that there was a new agent, based on the ones which all of them had spent their lives researching, in the mixture of viruses.... that was causing them to get sick..... not that these people lifestyles were causing them to be exposed to all these nasty virus's and causing them to get sick.... the former reasoning requires the assumption of existence of a new agent... for which they had absolutely NO EVIDENCE existed, much less was causing illness.... the latter requires no leap of faith. one is clearly a more sound scientific argument.

the former reasoning requires the assumption of existence of a new agent... for which they had absolutely NO EVIDENCE existed, much less was causing illness....

Are you fucking stupid???

Thats how you discover new shit dumbass.

incidentally how you make up new shit as well....

What the fuck is your problem?

You can't discover something if you don't know its there.

oh and since you're actually reading it, which i appreciate, looks for the deductive cats get immune sickness therefor it must be my virus argument.... you, as well as I, know thats a pretty shitty scientific argument.

I'm arguing there is a CLEAR CASE OF FRAUD right at the beginning, and the people who comitted it have never answered for it, and are STILL IN CHARGE OF THIS INDUSTRY TODAY.

Lets face it, whatever killed people in the 1980s IS NOT WHAT HIV/AIDS is today. There are, according to their statistics, millions of UNDIAGNOSED cases of HIV where no treatment is ever sought. Yet there are not droves and droves of people dying from strange fungal pneumonias and strange skin cancers.... That only happened in the 80s. It doesn't happen anymore. I think HIV probably was the industry created to hide what really killed those people in the early 80s. It would explain why Los Alamos National Laboratory.... the weapons research lab of the US government..... is so intimately connected with this disease.... it explains why your reference for what constitutes an HIV genome comes solely from this lab.... it explains why your only source of HIV for research purposes is the NIH HIV Reagents program. They give you the HIV reagents for use with their HIV test kits. DUH?! C'mon people, this is pretty obviously snake oil.

Of course that doesn't happen anymore: HAART therapy was invented in the mid-90s... Most of people are diagnosed well before developing any symptoms.

However, for those like me who are diagnosed only when they start to develop AIDS (the immunodeficiency syndrome), the weird infections do appear, and sometimes are mortal. In 2010 I had pneumocystosis - caused by a micobacterium wich is normally harmless - and I know of at leat one other person in my social circle who died of JC virus, also in a case of late diagnosis.

If you survive those problems, though, HAART therapy drops the virus count to nearly indetectable levels and the CD4 cells quick back to appreciable levels. No more weird infections then.

I mean I don't want to sound like a jerk.... but pneumocystosis is not caused by a "micobacterium". PCP is a fungal infection.... you should know that.

Tell me, and again I don't want to be rude Im just curious, tell me about your behaviors around the time of testing positive. Drug use? How promiscuous were you being?

I mean I don't want to sound like a jerk.... but pneumocystosis is not caused by a "micobacterium". PCP is a fungal infection.... you should know that.

You are right, just rechecked it. Hey, I am not a doctor and it was two years ago.

Drug use? How promiscuous were you being?

No drug use, unless you consider alcohool (no abuse, occasional drinks) and cigarretes (no chain-smoking, actually I often take a week to end a pack). So you believe in the "drugs cause AIDS" theory? Man, I know people that don't even drink and had it...

I always was (and I am) very promiscuous, but wouldn't that in fact be an anecdotal evidence in favor of HIV causing AIDS?

Oh, yes, by the way I just remembered a study from the mid 2000s showing that HIV got less virulent/damaging over time, so that could also help explaining why the infections got less common/severe over time. But you don't have to discard HIV as a cause because of that - in fact, most new diseases get less damaging over time because that actually increases the chances of the pathogen for surviving and thriving in new hosts. This has hapenned with syphilis, for instance, which was really horrible centuries ago and nowadays is even kind of assymptomatic in a sizeable portion of the hosts.

lol.... you know when AIDS stopped killing so many people.... When the scientists behind it were investigated and found guilty of scientific misconduct. Also when they stopped prescribing high dose AZT.

No I don't think any single one of these things causes AIDS... i do think the collective of them has an effect of stressing ones immune system to the point where they will test positive to HIV tests or catch one of the cofactors known to cause false positives. Look its your life, your body, your decision... but the evidence for the counter is pretty compelling....

promiscuity would actually lend you to the conclusion that you caught a lot of known pathogens through body fluids and got sick through the collective effect of that... not that theres an unproven, elusive microscopic agent causing your immune system to fail 10 years after introduction.

But other DST pathogens that I caught - and IIRC there are not many of them - were actually diagnosed and treated over time, years before the 2010 event. Also, other DSTs were far more prevalent in the population before (for instance) antibiotics - why there wasn't AIDS then?

Ah, yes, there are other venues for being exposed to lots of pathogens and getting a depressed immune system. Wouldn't for instance doctors/nurses, workers at sewer plants, workers in the nuclear industry, etc, etc, be at higher risk of developing AIDS.

Finally, if you think that HIV doesn't cause it, how do you explain HAART therapy working so incredibly well? Before I was diagnosed, I suffered for months with strange intestinal problems (that the doctors were pretty lousy at diagnose correctly, nowadays apparently AIDS is the last thing that they think of) until having the pneumocistosis and other characteristic infections (for instance an aggressive herpes attack). Then, one month after starting the HAART therapy, all those problems disappeared magically and I started to regain weight. (I was a beefcake before and became a stick man after loosing 30 pounds. Now I am a slightly overweight beefcake - 6 feet x 180 pounds.)

So, if you think that HIV is not the cause, then you think that HAART is not what it is said to be?

I hope that I am not being rude by asking all of that, I am just trying to understand your POV. To be sincere I don't think that I will get convinced of your theory :), but I try at least to be open to other explanations.

i dunno. ima say your lifestyle is chronically infecting you with a lot of different diseases..... and HAART combats them all very generally (by interfering with their ability to reproduce). Im saying the evidence that supports there is a mystical agent responsible for this known as HIV is not solid scientifically and has significant signs of fraud everywhere you look around it.

Its perfectly plausible that your lifestyle leads to being chronically infected with a host of other pathogens, and HAART is a very good general combatant of them. We don't need a mystical virus known as HIV for that to be true.

Anyways, I respect your ability to choose your health care and wish you best of luck. In any event, the days when their medications were responsible for killing you seem to have come to an end. Just be thankful you didn't catch the disease when they told you that a high dose of AZT would solve it.... you'd probably not be alive now.

What are these "other diseases" hes catching then?

Well it sounds like hes been introduced to pneumocystis, agressive herpes, and some other "other DST pathogens that I caught". I mean it just seems to me the collective illness from these pathogens alone could have any number of effects on an individuals immune system. Also he states he has continued promiscuity. Which if your exchanging fluids with a guy thats also readily exchanging fluids... thats a good buffer for continuous infections/reinfections of all sorts.

Again im not a doctor and this is not medical advice... just conjecture about a possible alternative cause for his symptoms.

again im not trying to alter the treatment him and his doctor have decided upon...

Well it sounds like hes been introduced to pneumocystis, agressive herpes, and some other "other DST pathogens that I caught". I mean it just seems to me the collective illness from these pathogens alone could have any number of effects on an individuals immune system. Also he states he has continued promiscuity. Which if your exchanging fluids with a guy thats also readily exchanging fluids... thats a good buffer for continuous infections/reinfections of all sorts.

Oh ok. So you really don't know.

You think theres no such thing as the HIV virus so therefore it doesn't exist.

Its just super herpes..right?

Again im not a doctor and this is not medical advice... just conjecture about a possible alternative cause for his symptoms.

Your speculation is not welcome.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and even further, you don't care to even consult actual, established medicine before you sit on the couch and try to discover a virus.

again im not trying to alter the treatment him and his doctor have decided upon...

So whats your suggestion smart guy?

id say, i mean id just experiment with, maybe cutting back on the continuous exposure to body fluids.... and see if that helps with the opportunistic infections.... just a theory.

What aren't you getting???

AIDS isn't like the common cold. The guy has got it. We only call it aids because it represents a status of the immunological system but when you have HIV, your immune system is already compromised. AIDS just tells you how much and to what degree.

I don't understand what the fuck you're saying.

Are you saying that the virus doesn't exist?

Is that SERIOUSLY what you're saying?

REALLY?

There's a joe rogan podcast of him and another guest questioning a highly esteemed scientist about this. Interesting because he truly believes this and was shunned from the medical cummunity.

Ill link if you want.

I listened to Duesberg on JRE. Basically, it was bullshit.

Even Rogan admitted that he didn't know enough to really challenge Duesberg but he knew something was fishy. I at least admire his honesty in that regard.

Duesberg didn't really have shit to say to even support his claims.

Lol he refuted all of Bryans arguments. I'm definitley not agreeing with this guy but I can see that he was smart and knew waaay too much for me to conclusivey say he's wrong. Its like arguing with a butcher about meat. He had evidence a good backround and lost a lot because of it.

Again I'm NOT agreeing with the guy but why did you think he was full of shit?

He's full of shit because its Duesberg. Any research on the guy shows how flawed his entire position is on the matter.

Ok my initial comment was just to get you to see the other side. I hate people that see a side that sounds right because it common knowledge and act as if a dissenting voice is wrong even with evidence. That's what I thought you were doing but it seema like I was wrong.

Id really be interested in a debate with him and another scientist to see how he holds up.

So this is where this starts getting bizarre. See this guys set of interviews, where he puts Deusburg up against, not other scientists, but other more extreme HIV conspiracy theorists. The whole thing is fucking absurd. The podcast is also SUPER irritating to get through with its commercials and strange sound effects. i only made it through the one podcast with deusburg and the other dudes. One of the weirder things I've heard in my life. This guy issues like a biblical damnation against Deusburg. where he claims to have evidence that Deusburg and Gallo are playing for the same team, namely a company they both worked for, Litton Bionetics and manufactured a cancer virus that was released either purposfully or accidentally to the population via the "Special Virus Cancer Program".... shit gets real strange at this point.

[deleted]

Darmok and Jalad. At Tenagra? great fucking name dude.

It's a bot, run by a SRSer.

im not saying anything in regards to the existence of the aforementioned virus.... im saying the science put forth as proving its existence is RIFE with verifiable fraud and thats caused a lot of speculation as to why that might be.... ranging from the virus doesn't exist, to the virus being government engineered, to the virus as existing but not being harmful...

me personally, after reviewing the evidence, it looks like a bunch of gay men were poisoned by a vaccination program in the late 1970s... and they built up this industry around this "virus" to hide what they did. the thing that killed people in the 1980s.... that isn't around anymore... no one dies like that anymore. droves of people are not getting weird skin cancers. they're not getting strange fungal pneumonias... they are healthy and testing positive to their bullshit test, for which they begin to take medications which in turn make them sick. This industry is based over a very very clever and subtle slight of hand. But the facts and history do not lie.

Fantastic. You go publish that and see where you get.

Have you ever thought about checking into a mental institution? You could really use the help.

right well that argument does have some assumptions.... they are educated assumptions though....The reasoning/evidence goes something like this.....

• There exists a government program that was given 10 million dollars to find an immune suppressing agent
• Litton Bionetics was contracted to fulfill this program. Robert Gallo was a Litton Bionetics employee
• In 1975-1978, the US Government sponsored a Hepatits B vaccination program for Gay Men Only
• Shortly after, in the cities where this vaccination program took place, the AIDS outbreak begins
• Robert Gallo, the guy who took the contract to work on an immune suppressing virus program for the us government, has the solution to the reason all these people are dying.... SURPRISE its this immune suppressing virus i was paid to work on

Nope. Try harder.

iono... that looks pretty clear. why would the government sponsor a gay men targeted hep B vaccine in the 1970s.... honestly....

Because they erroneously thought only gays could get AIDs?

Are you still living in the 70s with these bullshit quips you're pulling?

this is before AIDS.... FYI.

What does this statement even mean?

They encountered something before they knew what it was. Does that then mean we should use the old paradigm to continue to explain what we currently understand?

Did you think we just STOPPED discovering new shit?

yea except we didn't encounter AIDS until the early 1980s... not in the 1970s.... in 1970s... we have no reason to think that gays are more susceptible to illness than anyone else.

We encountered AIDS before that because we can look back at what killed people and change or assessment of that.

Remember, aids doesn't kill you. It makes you susceptible to further infection.

Motive =/= act, moron.

obviously... but your bullshit meter should be going off to a gay men targeted anything in the mid 1970s..... ESPECIALLY a hepatitis B vaccination....

Are you ignoring all the people without meds in Africa, rural asia that are dying like that still?

Im arguing the industry responsible for generating these numbers is founded on a very clear case of fraud for which no one has been held accountable. There is no verification of these numbers they generate, and the methods which they use to generate them are often terrible. One thing is for certain, people are not dying in DROVES from wasting, kaposi sarcoma, or PCP like they were in the early 1980s, here or in Africa. There remains tons of untested cases according to their science, yet there is not a ton of people presenting with these symptoms....

So you believe HIV exists, just that what was infecting people in the 80s wasn't HIV? What do you actually believe because all you say is that the research is wrong but you don't deny that lots of people world wide are still dying from it.

i believe that there was fraud, and the claim that HIV exists and is responsible for developing AIDS is not scientifically sound.

So you don't believe HIV exists at all?

something certainly existed that killed a bunch of people rapidly in the early 1980s. Whether that was a new virus, or simply a bunch of old ones, or some kind of obscure reaction to a vaccination program, or the result of the high dose AZT treatment they were given.... I do not know.....I do know, however, there is nothing that is infecting people that is functioning like the virus they originally claimed to be fighting. And it is this inconsistency, especially given the amount of money poured into this industry, and the amount of drugs they are responsible for pouring into third world countries in africa.... that we need to be looking into with a finer scope.

You know, not every drug trial works out in the patients favor, right?

AIDS has been traced back to the congo in the early 1900s.

Its a variant simian disease.

In fact, contemporary africans eating bush meat in Botswana and Congo etc are STILL experiencing new diseases.

which of these AIDS Defining Illnesses counts as the first AIDS defining illness....

AIDS is a description of a immunological status.

right so tell me how again we are telling the CD4 count of something from the early 1900s?

Because the virus that causes HIV is a variant of mutated simian virus.

yes tell me more about "the virus that causes HIV"... what is it called?

EDIT: Here I am trying to use sarcasm to illustrate the poster has no idea what he is talking about..... namely "the virus that causes HIV".... theres no virus that causes "HIV". HIV is a virus.

What is your point here?

Are you going to tell me that polio isn't caused by poliovirus next?

...... History shows polio caused by pesticide exposure, then was eradicated by decline in DDT use .......

EDIT: Note that Im not promoting this theory... im just trolling the poster because hes clearly trolling me with "the virus that causes HIV" or at least i thought. his name is Negro Napoleon after all.

Wow.

So now you're saying that no disease was caused by any virus.

So that little thing under the electron microscope doesn't exist either then?

As in the last case eradicated in Africa was a farce?

And what's worse... Your source is natural news?!?! Polio existed long before 1940 as your article erroneously suggests. Are you kidding me?

So now you're saying that no disease was caused by any virus.

Im saying polio correlates to DDT.

So that little thing under the electron microscope doesn't exist either then?

Artifacts of the filtering process used....

As in the last case eradicated in Africa was a farce?

Yep. And the India vaccination thing was too....India has polio because india has DDT... and we sold them the vaccinations to hide our liability from the DDT we sold them.

Polio DOES NOT correlate to DDT. DDT usage occured after the existence of polio.

Shit, even if you even watch boardwalk empire, a show set in the 20s, the characters on there are affected by polio.

Correlation does not equal causation

You might as well link the 1918 flu to WWI.

EDIT:

Yes you ARE promoting this theory because when you suggest it, you reinforced it from your previous point.

You cant corroborate the decline in DDT use to the decrease in polio.

You don't even treat VIRAL polio the same as you do complications with DDT.

You might as well link the 1918 flu to WWI and mustard gas instead

People don't die like they used to because of...uh...medicine?

right. because they don't take high dose AZT. There ample evidence to suggest that the high dose AZT as the treatment was responsible for a large amount of early HIV deaths.

AZT was a largely experimental drug, as are ALL drugs that treat viruses because of their inherent danger.

Even further, AZT isn't the only aids drug out there.

AZT was largely an experimental POISON.

Nope.

Try again.

And chloramphenicol causes aplastic anemia when given to patients but is still given in certain infection. Your point?

This isn't true.

AIDS has been sourced back to the early 1900s before we really knew what it was:

http://www.radiolab.org/2011/nov/14/aids/

so where is this guys research that shows exactly how hes determining the existence of this thing in pre 1900 samples....

What?

This is how I KNOW you're not trained in any formal methodology.

People didn't know what they were dealing with until decades later. They have samples going back to the 30s I believe that they later analyzed.

Plus, as with mutated viruses, you don't always find patient zero but you can trace them as far back as possible.

Alois Alzheimer didn't have immunology to determine that there was beta amyloid plaques in his patients brains but he did recognize that silver staining showed abnormalities. Even to this day his samples have been analyzed using modern technology and using immunology have been shown to contain beta amyloid plaques in patients suffering neurodegenerative complications

He also might not have known what specifically he had found in those autopsy samples but he knew it was different from control brains. Too bad it would have to wait until the 1970's for the proper technology to surface and allow a definitive diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease being different from senility.

TL:DR not the first time in science or medicine that something had been found before proper technology

again i have no idea what you are talking about.

Don't worry brah, AIDS doesn't exist. Its all in your mind. Its just super herpes.

in the end... isn't it all just super herpes?

No.

Dumbass.

the thing that killed people in the 1980s.... that isn't around anymore... no one dies like that anymore. droves of people are not getting weird skin cancers. they're not getting strange fungal pneumonias... they are healthy

Okay then, I guess the millions of people dying in africa and elsewhere don't count because they have a different skin color

no they dont count because

• No positive HIV test is required to diagnose HIV in many countries in Africa
• The patient only need to show one of the AIDS defining illnesses, as put forth in the Durban Declaration
• A patient can be diagnosed as HIV+ by having a simple cold, or a fever for more than 5 days in some countries in africa.

This is ridiculous. You should be ashamed of posting this.

worst debunking ever.

No.

we need to start calling bullshit when we see it.

OP has already admitted that this is nothing but sheer speculation and on top of that, he has no formal training in anything relating to the biomedical sciences...far less than the people he claims to be sourcing for arguments.

The guy doesn't even understand how poliovirus works OR how antiretrovirals work.

See, already this would have been better.

SHILL!!!!!!!

How mature.

yet accurate.

Are you 14?

i can assure you I didn't use the word Shill at age 14.

please explain why this is ridiculous. I'm not ashamed for posting facts. I have posted facts with supporting evidence. If its an invalid argument, it should be easy to show why it is.

You should be ASHAMED, said Dildoman666.

heres to you... Dildo Man 666.

OP, what are your credentials?

Do you have any experience with biology, chemistry, immunology, or virology?

Not only have you challenged HIV even existing, you've gone so far as to say Polio isn't caused by a virus either.

ill back off on the polio conclusion because i havent actually researched that one enough to convince myself its true.... but the HIV one I have. my credentials are unimportant. the content of my argument is.

The content of your argument is awash in bullshit.

Thats the problem here.

You don't get to say HIV is really super herpes without understanding how herpes actually works or affects the body.

HIV affects the body in a way that no other disease does. Herpes doesn't attack white blood cells.

i didn't say HIV is really super herpes did I? I said the person said he a super herpes outbreak. Signifying he had herpes. And that combined with all the other shit he apparently has had might have a negative cumulative effect on the effectiveness of his immune system.

MIGHT is a word I won't accept from you.

Because you don't know a goddamn thing about basic microbiology as you've demonstrated.

Even further, your little buddy duesberg and some of his friends have had people around them die of "AIDS" so I can understand why they're so reluctant to believe it.

i mean you are free to accept or not accept from me whatever you want to. I don't even know what you are talking about at this point.

and despite your suggestion, duesberg is not my "little buddy"

Don't play games or feign sincerity.

This is some serious shit and you don't get to play around with it because you think its cool to substitute gaps in your education of basic science.

is it serious shit? i mean its a post on a conspiracy reddit message board... have you seen the shit they post here?

Doesn't matter.

You don't get to perpetuate speculative bullshit because it makes you feel better, especially when medicine has to bear the brunt of your pejorative and inane bullshit because they're the ones on the front lines.

Well if you have a specific objection to my original post, I would love to respond to it...

I get to perpetuate a well reasoned and evidenced argument. Which my original post is. again a specific objection?

Your argument is that AIDS doesn't exist.

Its hard to see why you're confused

thats not a specific objection.

Your argument isn't a specific refutation of anything.

You've latched onto the notion that viruses don't cause disease and are working from there.

You also tried to suggest that polio isn't a "thing" either.

Keep going.

^ Best summary

Oh you have researched it? Where has your research been published? Nature, Science, etc.? I'm sure such a groundbreaking finding would be widely published.

again... content of my argument...

Oh dear sweet merciful lord, this is hilarious.

It stops being hilarious when you consider that shitheads like this influenced African politics which resulted in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths.

remember.... burden of proof lies on him to actually show this is true....

So kids in africa are just dying because of a bad attitude...right?

they are dying from a large swath of AIDS defining illnesses... apparently... these are all estimates, and you can do a lot of things with estimates... id say the kids in africa are probably mostly dying from lack of access to clean water and proper nutrition, along with repeated exposure to unsanitary sewer/waste.... and we're just saying this is AIDS... when it really its just living in squalor thats killing them.

Yeah...its not the HIV showing up in their blood streams...is it?

Its a case of the upside-down frowns.

According to the Harvard School of Public Health, an estimated 330000 lives in South Africa in 5 years alone.

well ill leave it as an exercise to the reader to validate if that estimate's methodology...... which i reproduced below.... is an accurate or inaccurate estimation:

Calculation of Person-Years Lost/AIDS Patients

The authors first estimated the number of persons who were eligible to receive ARV treatment by obtaining the number of deaths from AIDS in South Africa for the period 2000-2005 from UNAIDS. Patients with AIDS who died without getting treatment lost the entire average benefit of ARV therapy. Data regarding individuals who received ARV therapy in South Africa between 2000 and 2005 were obtained from the UNAIDS and WHO ‘‘3 by 5' records (23% in 2005, less than 10% in 2004, 3% in 2003, and less than 3% for preceding years). The authors propose that South Africa could have started an ARV treatment program in 2000, covering not more than 5% of persons who needed therapy but ramping up the coverage as drugs became less expensive and more international resources became available to 50% coverage by 2005. This estimate is lower that the coverage achieved by both Botswana and Namibia. Then they estimated the average life-years that ARV therapy adds to patients with AIDS in Africa, based on primary studies, a meta-analysis, and a comparison with developed countries. The authors calculated that 2.2 million person-years were lost in South Africa from 2000 to 2005 by not implementing a feasible and timely ARV treatment program.

Calculation of Person-Years Lost/Mother-to-Child Transmission Prevention Failure

The authors estimated the number of children infected with HIV through vertical transmission, using data from the Actuarial Society of South Africa AIDS and Demographic Model and reducing that number to account for HIV prevalence in South Africa with population growth in mind. They estimated mother-to-child transmission prevention coverage using data from the PMTCT Task Team in South Africa and the Health Systems Trust. The research team assumed that it was feasible for South Africa to start a mother-to-child transmission prevention program in 2000, given that nevirapine was available for free, and estimated a ramping up to about 55% coverage by 2005. This estimate is less than the coverage achieved by both Namibia and Botswana. They used the HIV Network for Prevention Trials 012 trial, which showed that single-dose nevirapine decreased transmission by 47% compared with oral ZDV in a breastfeeding population. To estimate the person-years lost per case of HIV transmitted, the authors assumed a life expectancy of 48 years and then subtracted the average survival of an HIV-infected baby without ARV treatment. The authors estimated that 1.6 million person-years were lost in South Africa from 2000 to 2005 by not implementing a mother-to-child transmission prophylaxis program using nevirapine

Having reviewed this methodology I consider it relatively sound. They probably under estimate the amount of improvement that could have been achieved in South Africa, but they admit this. The only way this estimate could be severely mistaken is if you assume that AIDS was not the causative factor in the deaths they are reporting on or that ARV is not actually effective; the latter is not supported by their analagous data from Namibia, Botswana, and developed nations that they reference; the former is unlikely to have resulted in a very dramatic overestimation.

Then they estimated the average life-years that ARV therapy adds to patients with AIDS in Africa, based on primary studies, a meta-analysis, and a comparison with developed countries.

Id like to see this calculation. Help? I dont see where they are getting this value... where are the primary studies and meta analysis... where is the comparison to developed countries? did they account for the fact that living in africa is inherently more dangerous than developed nations and control for it in their calculations?

If you had formal science training, you would recognise that the above is an excerpt from a published paper, the full copy of which you would have to read in order to check their calculations. I took the liberty of finding a free copy of the referenced article

This is all part of the regular peer review process, and to fully critique the authors findings you would have to access or be familiar with the data sources they have used, which is why generally peer review is carried out by experts in the relevant field.

When everyone here gets annoyed at you for not having any qualification, this is the reason; aspects of your argument rest on such a basic misunderstanding of the facts, findings and processes of the science you're referring to that it hampers any meaningful discussion.

damn got that number in less than 5 pages.... interesting... 330,000 individual medical diagnosis, medical histories, hiv tests, lifestyles, behaviors, sexual behaviors specifically.... reduced to 5 pages of text.

Obviously they didn't publish all the pages of supporting data, if you doubt it then you can chase up their sources. Do you have any particular criticisms after all that doubt and bluster?

It's just like the vaccine bullshit - they've become a victim of their own success.

New HIV treatments allow people to live longer and more normal lives, consequentially, the disease fades from the spotlight, and kookery like this seeps in.

There has been kookery like this from the begining

There are no studies that establish treated HIV patients live any longer than untreated ones. That very specific study to test HAART effectiveness over its absence has never been done.

LOL... Look at the moving goalposts on this nut...

There are no studies that establish treated HIV patients live any longer than untreated ones.

Well, no shit, because good luck getting anyone to be the "untreated" patient in that study. Essentially 100% of everyone who is diagnosed treats. Those who aren't diagnosed would not be a part of any such study because they don't know they have it.

This is the mantra of the conspiracy kook - set an impossible hurdle, then when the hurdle can't be cleared, say that it's proof you are right.

Well, no shit, because good luck getting anyone to be the "untreated" patient in that study. Essentially 100% of everyone who is diagnosed treats. Those who aren't diagnosed would not be a part of any such study because they don't know they have it.

LOL...well the government tried this with Syphilis and black men so maybe thats what he wants?

Do you believe this enough that if a scientist handed you a needle full of HIV infected blood that you would be willing to inject yourself with it? Knowing it was not real?

Well, if he could prove to me it was purified HIV.... then i would consider it....

AIDS denialists will also demand even more specific evidence, only to change the demand once the evidence is produced. One example of this “pushing back the goalpost” technique was the former Sunday Times journalist and prominent AIDS denier Neville Hodgkinson’s claim that HIV tests are invalid because HIV has never been isolated. When scientists provided evidence that HIV has been isolated, the demand changed; Hodgkinson argued that the isolated virus was “impure”. Denialists now demand that the virus be isolated in “pure form”, that is uncontaminated by proteins. The demand for a pure virus devoid of cellular proteins is impossible to meet as it defies the biological nature of viruses. Such shifting of the grounds of debate allows denialists to claim that they are the ones following the evidence, and it is the AIDS establishment – an alliance of careerist researchers and greedy drugs companies – who are propagating pseudoscience.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/2165/how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist

Textbook. LOL.

So you'll notice that is not my argument. My argument is there are clear examples of fraud in the foundational papers....

classic straw man?

No one cares about "foundational papers" asswipe:

In the 1980s legitimate scientists disagreed about AIDS. For AIDS deniers, everything old is new again. AIDS denialists rely on selected research findings from the days when not much was known about AIDS. The first tests for HIV antibodies were less reliable than current testing technologies. There were early debates about what caused AIDS and good ideas that turned out to be dead ends. The drug AZT was prescribed in massive and often toxic doses. But none of this is true any more. Though there remain many debates in medical science about how HIV causes AIDS, there is no longer a debate about whether HIV causes AIDS. Unfortunately, outdated scientific literature is not purged when new knowledge emerges. AIDS deniers use this information to create the illusion of a live debate. Denialists select old findings that support their flawed logic because they have no evidence of their own. Cherrypicking is another favourite rhetorical technique of denialists. This involves selecting a lone scientific finding, presenting the results out of context, and deploying it as evidence for their own conclusions.

Right except that the people responsible for this fraud are still in charge of this industry that receives billions of tax payer dollars.

I've met a number of researchers in this area in my country, Australia; they were infants when HIV was first detected, and our country played no part in determining the foundational science, nor do they or our country stand to profit significantly from HIV treatment, and yet these people, intelligent people with years of specialized study, advise that HIV is a virus which causes AIDS. These people could not be so roundly duped, and so must be complicit in your conspiracy; what motivation could make them so committed?

You also got a group of researchers there in Perth, Australia with the exact opposite conclusion... http://www.theperthgroup.com/

I don't think its surprising that our doctors were duped.... they have put a lot of effort into making a semi coherent argument and violently stifling dissent.... going as far as to ruin peoples careers who question them. This is a very clever scheme.

Those activists are as poorly regarded here as they are in all other circles.

care to point out a specific reason why? I cant find a reason why the points they raise have not been answered by the establishment. Specifically the issues with purification around the density gradient... Gallo has made clumsy attempts to respond to this issue...

The Perth Group makes a wide range of poorly substantiated claims and I don't have time to refute them all, nor would it advance this discussion as there are an infinite number of erroneous contentions one could demand to require refutation before accepting an already well established scientific position.

On their website the Perth Group claim three ways that this contention could be resolved; one is for their claims to be heard in court. This did in fact happen, and their evidence was thrown out of court after it was found to be ridiculous. I feel that they should honour their word and accept that they have been defeated on these grounds.

Here is an additional criticism that I level at all conspiracy theorists: It is simply implausible that an untrained lay person would be able to discern the truth of a scientific field faster or more accurately than a large group of extremely intelligent, highly trained and well funded people who are specifically employed to that end.

Further, if your views are in earnest and this is an area of your interest it behooves you to enrol in a bachelors degree in science, complete a PhD in virology, immunology or some other relevant field and perform the relevant research in order to publish a justification of your views in order to correct the scientific doctrine.

Here is an additional criticism that I level at all conspiracy theorists: It is simply implausible that an untrained lay person would be able to discern the truth of a scientific field faster or more accurately than a large group of extremely intelligent, highly trained and well funded people who are specifically employed to that end.

It is a fallacy that you think education gives you the ability to comprehend their arguments. There are educated virologist, biologists, pathologists, chemists, etc., including this letter to Science magazine signed by over 30 scientists calling for the withdraw of these papers... I didn't invent this.... im just reiterating what these scientists have concluded.

Also, this area of interest, i clearly state, I find rather uninteresting.... Its fairly clear that the US Government through a lot of money at this problem for some reason, offered a treatment for it, which in turn was responsible for the quick deaths of millions of unsuspecting people. NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE PEOPLES MURDERS. If this did interest me, I would become a lawyer.... [see this is where i inspire the one guy reading this to become a lawyer and get filthy rich on taking these people down]

A fallacy? So now your claim goes as far as to say that there is actually no benefit to education at all? A person can't gain greater insight into a field through education? Clearly this is a ridiculous position to hold.

Looking at the letter you referenced, it only calls into question the initial article by Gallo, which was roundly criticized for stealing data from the French researchers who did successfully and unambiguously show the existence of a virus, which they called LAV, which we now identify as HIV. Sure, Gallo was not ideally professional, but that in no way takes away from the French research. How does this letter, produced largely by poorly regarded scientists, make any real difference to this discussion?

Looking at the letter you referenced, it only calls into question the initial article by Gallo, which was roundly criticized for stealing data from the French researchers who did successfully and unambiguously show the existence of a virus, which they called LAV, which we now identify as HIV.

Right. That's the fraud that he was officially on the hook for. But his edits show that he should have been on the hook for a lot more including outright making up key components of the paper up 2 weeks before it was published without evidence. He changed the conclusion without any evidence.

Dude you have no evidence suggesting the more than 30 signatories are poorly regarded. The reader can judge for themselves how poorly regarded that many TENURED professors at major universities and medical schools around the country are..... How would one even determine that. YOu're an idiot.

I'm not defending Gallo, but his issues don't actually harm the body of evidence supporting HIV at all.

I may have been overzealous with my criticism; the letter over steps it's bounds, which makes it's quality suspicious; the first signatory, usually the most esteemed, has no academic affiliation; I could not find any trace of the letter having been published or referenced in a peer reviewed or academic source. These failings, in particular the latter two, made me feel safe to assume that either the other signatories were not experts in this field or were duped into signing this letter without the knowledge that it would be used to attempt to deny the role of HIV in AIDS.

Given that the letter in question presents no relevant criticisms of our understanding of HIV, this is a moot point.

again you are too dumb to argue with.

I could not find any trace of the letter having been published or referenced in a peer reviewed or academic source.

the letters is all over the internet... people have taken it apart, discussed it, and there are simply tons of questions for which there are important answers, which no one in this industry can answer...

made me feel safe to assume that either the other signatories were not experts in this field or were duped into signing this letter

Then please, feel free to contact each and every one of them. They will explain to you why they gave their hand written signature to this letter. Why would you assume these people were dupped? Again, no one has brought up credibility issues about this letter... so if you really think thats an issue here... then please, with all due respect, go fucking research it. Email these people and ask them why they signed the letter. And they will tell you their very scientific reasons why.

The letter in question is indeed all over the internet, but is not addressed on any reliable academic source, which makes it highly suspect. As stated, if accurate, it does not call into question our understanding of HIV, which makes it somewhat irrelevant.

Having just done a quick search of the first 6 or so signatories, I found that only one of them has an ongoing academic affiliation, in an unrelated field, and the others were retired, in particular, one retired fellow with a background in chemistry, not biology, also dedicated himself to the hunt for the Lach Ness Monster. I feel this is sufficient to show the calibre of these signatories.

look, you seem infatuated with industry funded "reliable sources". The reputation of the publications at large does not give them carte blanche to report as fact things for which there is pretty overwhleming evidence was falsified.

The reader is free to judge the credentials of the signatories/denialists on their own

• Etienne de Harven
• Peter Deusburg
• Kari Mullis
• 3 Time Fulbright Scholar Charles Geshekter
• Gordon Stewart
• Rudolph Werner

Academic publications are the only reliable source of high quality, peer reviewed information; to disregard them in favour of unreviewed and unreliable sources is a sure path to idiocy. Also you over estimate their reliance on "industry".

Etienne de Harven

Long since retired from his field, only loosley connected with a field relevant to HIV/AIDS research

Peter Deusburg

Has been roundly reviewed and refuted in scientific journals.

Kari Mullis

Not trained in a field relevant to HIV/AIDS, also denies climate change and ozone depletion against scientific consensus despite having no expertise in these areas, also believes in astrology.

Charles Geshekter

Is not even trained in a ield relevant to science; he is a historian.

Gordon Stewart

Retired from his field before HIV/AIDS was even well understood, has not published in this field.

Rudolph Werner

On the source you quoted there is no claim he is a HIV/AIDS denailist, by his own admission is no longer involved in research and was never involved in research relevant to HIV/AIDS.

Mullis invented PCR.... and since they use PCR in one of their tests... that gives him a little bit of expertise... I encourage the reader to watch the countless interviews with Mullis.... trying to represent him as a nut is so far off base its insulting.

Geshekter is an an expert on the cultural problems in Africa. Hes on the ground there understanding what exactly goes on. And its in his professional opinion, that the people there are being sold a line of bullshit about HIV. I mean hes seeing the effect of the industry over there... and its his opinion that they are not looking at a plague that is helped by their aids tests or drugs.

Also your arguments about these people not being connected to HIV research... they are all classically trained scientist... theres nothing in the HIV research these people don't grasp. The people that are making objections are making objections about VERY SPECIFIC DETAILS OF HIV AIDS RESEARCH. I mean Mullis will talk to you about issues with the 1.16 density gradient.... its pretty clear he knows exactly whats going on from a scientific standpoint. They clearly grasp the material enough to point out accurate flaws in the industry's reasoning.

Inventing PCR doesn't mean shit as to what was understand of HIV.

Understanding Africa doesn't equate to understanding HIV

To put it more succinctly: Can you recall any person since the start of the modern era without formal scientific training who has been able to add a meaningful insight to the scientific body of knowledge?

This path of discussion tempts me to request: Could we get to know each other better? I would like for you to provide me with a general description of your age, gender, nationality, region, ethnicity, educational history, employment status, social background, marital status. I would, of course, be happy to provide you with similar information about myself on request. I make this request as I feel it would round out this discussion better and would make it more productive to us both.

To put it more succinctly: Can you recall any person since the start of the modern era without formal scientific training who has been able to add a meaningful insight to the scientific body of knowledge?

What an insanely idiodic thing to say. Im going with bill gates. Bill gates had very little formal scientific training. fuck hes dictating vaccination policies in india now! Paul Allen, crucial in commercial space flight, had no training in space flight . UGGHHHHH You are so fucking stupid... Fuck Richard Branson.... hell he has dyslexia and look what hes doing? How about Steve Fucking 1 Semester of College Jobs.... But why limit it to the modern era.... Lets go back.... How about Edison... where was he educated? THE FUCKING SCHOOL OF TOUGH SHIT.... and he invented the fucking light bulb... Where was Telsa's formal education? Drop out. Learned from Edison. Who taught himself. Henry Ford? He added the car to the body of science..... where was he educated... oh lets see... oh look THE SCHOOL OF TOUGH SHIT. And then he went to work for.... EDISON.... who, remind you, TAUGHT HIMSELF. How about The Wright Brothers.... .YOU KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU BEING ABLE TO TAKE THAT WEEKEND GETAWAY TO TAHOE.... fucking TAUGHT THEMSELVES HOW TO BUILD AND FLY PLANES. How about this fucking kid, he's fucking solving problems Newton couldnt solve at age 16. Or this kid inventing cancer tests. Or literally this list of inventions made by people without formal scientific training.

you are literally the dumbest fucking person on the planet.

You're getting no identifying traits about me. Jesus did you not see the thing about becoming a "very public target"... im not stupid.

Firstly, the people you have described have added significantly to the application of technologies, as well as economic growth, but have only indirectly influenced science through their investments. Furthermore, the little actual science they may have contributed was in early computing, before there was a large formally trained academic community, and these people are all independently extremely bright.

It disappoints me that you're getting so worked up; I've put up with your aggravating claims all this time, trying to refute them with calm discussion; please pay me the same courtesy.

Finally, I wouldn't want any identifying characteristics; simply broad strokes. It would be quite easy to find me in real life from my reddit history, but assuming that I was more concerned with privacy I would feel comfortable divulging that I am a mid 20's white male from an upper middle class background. I live in Victoria, Australia. I am heterosexual and have a long term partner. I work as a waiter part time. I graduated high school in the top 0.35% of my state. I received a bachelors degree in science majoring in Pharmacology, Human Pathology and Immunology. I am now in my final year of medical school. I have no history of mental illness.

From this personal information I hope you can see that I am a studious and diligent person with familiarly with this field and would generally be observed to not be "insane".

look who i am or where i am from is unimportant. we both know thats a very convincing argument for fraud that i reiterated in my post and it has been swept under the rug for a reason. US Tax payers continue to pay billions to this industry for which there is no REGULATORY body. These people are not answering to anyone, yet they are completely funded by the public's funds, and selling the public drugs and tests for which there are some very serious scientific questions brought up that they have deflected and never answered directly. There is no doubt the same guys who were in charge of it when they suggested high dose AZT responsible for killing millions are still in charge of it today. Specific questions about the process used in the isolation and purification of the virus around the 1.16 density gradient band have not been answered, and the answers to these questions are CRUCIAL in determining if what they are looking at is random cellular crap or actually an infectious agent. Specific questions about the non specificity of p24 detection in samples as representing a positive test have NEVER BEEN ANSWERED by these people. They always respond with epidemiological studies of questionable integrity.... never anything that specifically addresses the science of the methods they are using. The public needs to know why.

Who you are and where you are from is highly relevant; if you're a young kid with the internet, these ideas are forgiveable and likely changeable; if you have a previous diagnosis with schizophrenia these ideas are likely dismissable and unchangeable; if you have a university degree, particularly a science degree, you might be receptive to more in depth analysis of this field, without one the amount of information we would have to cover might be insurmountable. If you are an American your ideas are less likely to be changeable; if you have a long term partner it shows that you must have at least some social skills.

The fraud you identified was irrelevant as it didn't call into question other independent verification of the existence of HIV.

There are of course many regulatory bodies for the pharmaceutical industry, here in Australia we have the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which is slightly more thorough than the US FDA.

"These people" are answerable to the scientific community, and there is lively informed discussion going on all the time.

There are no "same guys" in charge of it at all; HIV treatment is a worldwide process decided and managed by a large number of independent bodies.

I'm going to have a sleep now, but I look forward to our ongoing correspondence.

There are no "same guys" in charge of it at all; HIV treatment is a worldwide process decided and managed by a large number of independent bodies.

Its been the same set of people since the beginning. It is not worldwide. You know where you get HIV to do research on? The NIH. There is only one source. You get it from the NIH HIV Reagents program. And you test samples for the presence of HIV, using ELISA and Western Blot tests provided to you by the NIH who more than likely gave you a grant to do the research so they know exactly what you will be doing with their virus.

Please point me to the independent verification of the existence of HIV. All i see is a letter from Gallo addressing the professors inability to independently verify his research and Gallo making up a bullshit response about only seeing it in culture.

And yes the same people that were in charge of this industry in 1984 are in charge of it today:

• Robert Gallo
• Anthony Fauci (notice how hes been the director since 1984).

You know where you get HIV to do research on? The NIH. There is only one source. You get it from the NIH HIV Reagents program. And you test samples for the presence of HIV, using ELISA and Western Blot tests provided to you by the NIH

This claim is so bizarre and misguided that it is hard to think of how to discuss it. Europe has it's own reagent group, this was found with a cursory google, my impression is that there is a far wider variety of HIV reagent manufacturers all throughout the world, although I feel this is enough to categorically disprove your claim that the NIH is the only source of HIV samples.

There are a large number of independent manufacturers of HIV ELISA, western blot and PCR kits, here's a company that sells it's own ELISA kit, one of many. If I wanted to, I could make my own HIV ELISA with the skills I learnt in my final year practical immunology labs. Throughout the world there are a large number of research funding bodies, so a lot of non-NIH research is being done. This idea of a centralized conspiracy is really way out of left field and I hope you'll desist with it.

Please point me to the independent verification of the existence of HIV. All i see is a letter from Gallo addressing the professors inability to independently verify his research and Gallo making up a bullshit response about only seeing it in culture.

As I've already indicated, and as you should well be aware, the research by Luc_Montagnier et al predated Gallo et al, ad independently verified the existence of HIV, which has also been independently shown to exist innumerable times since.

okay so maybe theres another one... not that this has any bearing on the argument, but can you get hiv reagents from a non government source i wonder? where can i get hiv infected lymphocytes... is that what reagents are? what exactly is in the reagent samples?

also the ELISA and Western Blot argument I made was utter trash. i accept that and move on.

You know theres a lot of questions brought up by the perth group about how accurate montagnier's papers actually are.... ive not seen a good refutation to that either... just ad hominem attacks on the perth group people... not addressing the content of their arguments... but alas, i quit caring.

Damn, I just read your comment:

You're welcome... i work hard on my trolls.... notice the thorough grasp of the subject matter.... you just dont get read that many links overnight.... it takes years of reading.

I guess I'm glad that you're not retarded, but it's a bit sad that I wasted so much time researching this bullshit.

take solace in knowing a put a whole bunch more research into it than you do... :) i got sloppy with the reagent and ELISA/WB test comments... I clearly ran out of juice. i had a good run though... i only dropped about 800 karma lol. good work.

also, my name is conspiracy nutt... spelt with two 't's.... whats the extra t for.... TROLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

A. I don't see any fraud.

B. I don't give a fuck because AIDS/HIV exists and as long as it does, SOMEONE must be there to attempt to cure it.

Then again, you don't understand the diff b/w herpes and HIV and you seem to not understand how polio works either.

He changed the original conclusion of the paper without evidence.

He added "cytopathic" to the title of the paper without a single shred of evidence illustrating cytopathy.

He reported his images as of his virus, when the electron microscope scientists told him what he was calling a virus was actually cell detritus.

He claimed he could just disregard concurrent chronic infections without a shred of evidence.

He failed to report that his results were unreproducible by another lab (as illustrated in the letter from a fellow researcher about being unable to find a virus in his samples).

In addition to concealing his use of a "gift" from french researcher Luc Montagnier.

And why do I give a fuck about any of this?

HIV exists TODAY

Oh, and even further, you don't have proof of his edits as being viable or cause for concern.

Even further, you don't legitimize your argument by supporting claims from contemporary AIDS deniers.

the HIV that was in the early 1980s DOES NOT EXIST TODAY. Yet we still fund it like it does. Thats why you should care, assuming you care about how the United States spends money... which if you dont then you dont care.

the HIV that was in the early 1980s DOES NOT EXIST TODAY

Based on what?

HIV DOES exist you fucking dumbass.

if there are millions of undiagnosed cases of HIV... then there should be millions of people presenting with the illnesses we saw people presenting with in the early 80s. Namely PCP and kaposi sarcoma. People rarely get or present with either of these anymore. Yet if theres a bunch of undiagnosed people, there should be a bunch of people presenting with these illnesses....but there isn't. The illness in the 1980s doesn't exist anymore.

Holy fucking shit you dumbass.

People rarely present with those diseases because HIV is more manageable than it was in the 80s.

HIV makes you MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to these diseases.

If millions of people are undiagnosed... and untested.... but are still positive... they should know when they present with those illnesses.... like they did in the 1980s... if its the same virus the same thing should be happening.... people who are undiagnosed and untested are no different than those that were undiagnosed and untested in the 1980s.... yet they are not presenting with the same diseases.

hey should know when they present with those illnesses.... like they did in the 1980s...

No.

Thats not how this works.

HIV has a long latency period and even then, if these people still went untested, then you'd see more people presented with diseases that they'd normally be shielded from.

HOWEVER, with a large campaign, even with people who don't protect themselves, to get regular check ups, we intervene with aids far sooner than we would have in the 80s.

Even further, advances in drugs and immunizations and treatments since then have allowed us to prevent susceptibility to HIV associated diseases since then...including respiratory diseases.

People still do present with these diseases...BUT since people know more about AIDS than ever before people are getting checkups more frequently than before and intervening long before you'd see major cases of people falling prey to these things as we saw in the past when NO ONE would go to the doctor for ANYTHING.

So you don't know the difference between Herpes and HIV now?

Herpes is a DNA virus. HIV is a RNA virus.

That ALONE is NO WHERE NEAR the same thing...WOW.

again i have no idea what you are talking about.

You keep saying that the other guy in this thread just has a super herpes outbreak...but Herpes and HIV aren't even the same virus.

I think you misread what I said...

Here is my reasoning:

Some people die precipitously of previously harmless pathogens in what we call AIDS, they test positive for HIV. Other individuals exposed to these people by blood or sex also start to test positive for HIV; many of them also develop AIDS. People exposed to those HIV positive people who don't have AIDS also begin to test positive for HIV and many of these people develop AIDS.

People who have developed AIDS have very low CD4 counts and also have high blood levels of HIV. We have drugs which reduce HIV levels in patients and this causes an increase in CD4 level in these patients, which coincides in a reduction of their symptoms, despite their symptoms being apparently due to pathogens not affected by these drugs.

So even if there were some inconsistencies in the original HIV science; I see no reason, given the observations above and the evidence you presented not to accept that there is a transmissible immunodeficiency causing organism which we call HIV which can be treated but not cured with the available anti-retrovirals.

Right so at one point I was totally there with you.... but heres the problems: "they test positive for HIV." The science behind the series of tests they are using to gauge infection is utter shit.

People exposed to those HIV positive people who don't have AIDS also begin to test positive for HIV and many of these people develop AIDS.

where is that study?

People who have developed AIDS have very low CD4 counts and also have high blood levels of HIV

The guy who invented the technology they claims enable them to do viral load tests, kary mullis, claims his technology could in no way come up with that value.

Any conclusions based on these tests are moot until the blaring issues regarding the accuracy and validity of these tests are addressed. The industry refuses to respond to these blaring issues.

Here's my issue with your response: With my major in Pharmacology, Immunology and Human Pathology I have a good working understanding of these tests and how they work and yet you claim that all these tests are illegitimate; presumably any conspiracy which is able to fool the entire world into thinking that HIV testing is legitimate would also be able to falsify any other scientific data.

You ask for a study supporting my claim; I can't present you with any appropriate study; not because one doesn't exist; but because if your other claims are true, the conspiracy would have to be so powerful that any study I produce to counter your claims could be easily called into question.

Right so at one point I was totally there with you.... but heres the problems: "they test positive for HIV." The science behind the series of tests they are using to gauge infection is utter shit.

"The chronic nature of the disease allows the use of serologic tests to document HIV infection as supplemented by genomic detection and quantification using PCR-related techniques. Unfortunately, serologic test cannot identify recently infected people. HIV is very difficult to grow in tissue culture, and virus isolation is not performed. Recent infection or late-stage disease is indicated by the presence of large quantities of viral RNA in blood samples, the p24 viral antigen, or the reverse transcriptase enzyme. Viral RNA in blood can be detected by the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction, real-time PCR, and related methods. Blood levels of viral RNA are also useful as a monitor for the success of antiviral drug therapy. "

As noted by Murray's Medical Microbiology PCR technology and serology using ELISA's and Western blots can be used in the diagnosing of HIV. However there are apparent weaknesses and strengths with each test(i.e using serology and having to wait for antibodies to develop).

Any conclusions based on these tests are moot until the blaring issues regarding the accuracy and validity of these tests are addressed. The industry refuses to respond to these blaring issues.

Because you are talking out of your ass. Do you even science? Regarding the validity of such testing here's a link to HIV testing parameters from the CDC

You're an idiot, sorry to burst your well researched bubble of footloose and fact free talking points.

and that does not burst my well researched bubble of factual information. good try on the misrepresentation of what i wrote in the post. would you like to point a specific part there where im not being factual?

Nah just felt like bustin your balls you had a meticulously thought out and well reasoned arguement.

lol thanks. i've lost so much karma arguing this.

Oh no, you are flat out wrong and slightly racist lol, doesnt mean your argument was bad.

racist? wtf are you talking about?

Whats worse about this all is you keep quoting this article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFDA103DF932A05751C1A964958260

But all it says it that Gallo took credit for discovering AIDS and the test for it, NOT that AIDS isn't caused by HIV. That was never in question. Who the credit should go to was the only issue.

actually that board found a lot more fraud... but some politics was played... and the board that originally found the fraud was dismissed for being "biased". you eventually had them trying to pin the blame on popvich, which is why he cleverly sent this marked up copy of his paper to his sister for safe keeping.

OP is so fucking dumb that I don't wanna live on this fucking planet anymore.

Please, alien overlords, take me away from this chunk of dirt.

i second that motion.

Take your pills son

there are some more far fetched ideas on this sub than this. everyone stop attacking this guy. he's allowed to post this stuff.

And we're allowed to call him out for his dangerous denialism. In my opinion, this is one of the worst things to come out of conspiracy-land. People are literally dying because they are fooled by quacks like ConspiracyNutt.

and honestly... i hardly think the conspiracy forum on reddit is dangerous denialism.

The subreddit itself? Nah. Most conspiracies here are actually quite entertaining. Even the antisemites and holocaust deniers that regularly rear their ugly heads here are ultimately harmless (at least I'm pretty sure that they're either not deranged enough or too incompetent to start any pogroms).

But AIDS/HIV denial (and related topics, e.g. "alternative" medicine for cancer) is a different beast altogether. Regardless of whether it's for profiteering off vulnerable people or out of a genuine but horrifically misguided sense of goodwill, this is absolutely harmful and dangerous. People are dying because they refuse lifesaving medicine, and people like you are to blame.

You disgust me. You have no credentials whatsoever and all your "knowledge" comes from cherry-picking wrong or obsolete internet articles, yet you dare to purport yourself as more knowledgeable than the entire medical community and to give harmful medical advice. I sincerely hope you realize just how wrong you are before someone in need of help believes in your lies.

someone in need of help needs to know the controversy behind the industry they are about to bet their life on.... and they need to judge for themselves... You know, informed consent type thing.... I hope people do take me seriously and they do bring up these objections with their medical professional... and he is able to give them a satisfactory explanation that addresses the issues these people bring up. Look people, the burden of proof is on them to prove you have something that will undoubtedly cause you to die....

You don't even know the difference between herpes and HIV though...

I like how i respond to something then yall edit it and it makes me sound stupid. ive given no one medical advice. i have not cherry picked obsolete internet articles. THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF FRAUD IN GALLO'S OWN HAND IN THE FOUNDATIONAL HIV RESEARCH. Theres no if and or but about it dude. THAT'S FACT.

[deleted]

Well, this post in particular will probably not change anyone's mind for the worse, especially after all the dissent offered here.

But imagine you just got a HIV positive diagnosis and, devastated as you'd be, turn to the internet to get your bearings. You'll find posts like his, which at a glance seem well though out, researched, sourced, and filled with appropriate terminology. And perhaps most importantly, he's telling you what you'd like to hear.

It's not this guy alone, it's an entire industry of idiots who created this bizarre parallel world and give the appearance of legitimate controversy around HIV/AIDS when there is none. I think it's important to make it unequivocally clear that this guy is a loon who has no idea what he's talking about, and that even on a conspiracy forum everyone calls him out for his bullshit.

Uh there is a very legitimate controversy surround HIV. There are scientists and journalists that have had their careers RUINED by this industry for simply asking questions. THAT IS A SURE SIGN THERE IS SOMETHING AFOOT IN THIS INDUSTRY.

WHY IS OUR GOVERNMENT SO HEAVILY INVESTED IN THIS INDUSTRY WHEN THERE IS NOT THE PLAUGE/OUTBREAK THEY CLAIMED THERE WOULD BE? ITS A SIMPLE FUCKING QUESTION. WHY ARE INDUSTRY OPERATIVES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, HACKING INTO PEOPLES COMPUTERS?

I'm done arguing this with you fucking idiots.... continue to believe in their bullshit and pay for your 60 dollar test that tells you absolutely nothing.... you know who holds the patent on that test... the US and French Governments.... honestly..... they came up with that test in a little over a year.... in the 1980s.... no email.... no internet.... just DOS/Unix and a rudimentary word processor. give me a break... these people didn't develop shit in the 1980s... they fabricated it.... told people they were going to die... then gave them meds that killed them.

Also like to point out, you didn't directly address the issues of BLARING FRAUD IN THEIR FOUNDATIONAL PAPERS, which is what my post is trying to illustrate.

hurr science is impossible without iTunes

hey came up with that test in a little over a year.... in the 1980s.... no email.... no internet.... just DOS/Unix and a rudimentary word processor. give me a break... these people didn't develop shit in the 1980s... they fabricated it.... told people they were going to die... then gave them meds that killed them.

Yeah, its not like we had the cure for smallpox either.

People are LITERALLY SURVIVING because of the information quacks like me continue to provide to people

Yes, AZT was prescribed in massive, and often in toxic doses, but it isn't any longer. Your point is irrelevant.

I agree, he fits in perfectly here ;)

This is definitely fringe science, as in, its not a popular opinion....but some noteworthy scientists share this opinion, including....that german in Cali...Duesberg... and Kary Mullis, nobel prize winner

Here's Mullis Intro to Duesberg's book

Mullis and Duesberg aren't noteworthy when they've long since been passed up by efforts by people trying to combat the very thing they helped discover.

The science isn't true because of WHO says it, its true because of the evidence.

Newton believed in alchemy and ghosts and Gandhi was a racist. Whats your point?

Each argument stands on their own, regardless of who says it.

Mullis and Duesberg aren't noteworthy when they've long since been passed up by efforts by people trying to combat the very thing they helped discover.

How exactly do we determine when a scientist has been "passed up"? If anybody could give me an inkling as to what the fuck this idiot is talking about.

Because Duesberg and Mullins aren't relevant anymore.

Nothing they say is backed up with any experimental findings or evidence.

If their claims are so bold, where is the science supporting them?

Do you even know how antiretrovirals work?

Yes I know an inordinate amount about how anti retrovirals, namely reverse transcriptase inhibitors work.

Their claims are in fact backed up by experimental findings and evidence. The science supporting them can be found in the links from above.

So if you know how AZT works, why are you confused about them not working...thats PRECISELY how they work...

UNLESS...you don't know how they work.

BUT WAIT..you've already admitted you don't have any formal training with any biomedical science...so where is this going?

why are you confused about them not working...thats PRECISELY how they work...

Again I don't know what you are talking about. Where did you see me being confused at?

Mullis goes as far to say they are misusing the technology he invented and won a nobel prize for as evidence proving their virus exists.... You simply cannot use PCR to amplify an unknown agent.... they are clearly adding a piece of information to the puzzle for which there is no source.... that is the genome of HIV. Why does the weapons laboratory (Los Alamos National Laboratory) of our government maintain a database of HIV genomes? How did they determine these genomes..... they don't tell you how anywhere on this site. Just that these primers are HIV.... again we cant show you how we know that... just that they are what we will give you in the HIV you receive from our HIV Reagent Program - the only research source of HIV.

Why does the govt keep a database of HIV?

MAYBE so they can track the disease to see how much its mutating?

Kinda like the flu maybe????

Mullis has zero credentials in AIDS research.

you're aware Mullis invented the technique they are using to claim to be able to do viral load counts?

Inventing a technique != Having credibility in AIDS research.

who needs credibility in AIDS research. Its fairly clear the people that are currently in charge of it have none.

Nice division fallacy.

Nevermind that Luc Montagnier also made similar findings to Gallo and has yet to be found fradulent.

Source: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/10/06-01.html

And lets not forget how the fraud charges against Gallo were also dropped.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/13/us/us-drops-misconduct-case-against-an-aids-researcher.html

Way to cherrypick your evidence.

EDIT: Spelling and grammar bro.

Yea but the reason he was found guilty isn't the whole story of the fraud found in that original research. He got off the hook for a much greater fraud. Which is kinda what i write about in the original post. Giving specific examples of that fraud. No division fallacy required. Im not cherry picking shit. I read the paper. I read the edits. The edits make it very clear he is fabricating the shit out of that paper. A lot more than misrepresenting he used Luc Montagnier's samples. Thats all you need people.

look i don't know about you... but there should be ZERO cases of misconduct if you want me to bet the house on your hypothesis being accurate.

He wasn't found guilty.

The NIH and HHS cleared him of fraud charges.

And you didn't give specific examples of Gallo fabricating stuff. You just linked to random secondary sources and made broad generalizations without actually pointing out in detail where he is wrong.

Further your claim that the Secret Service found Gallo committed fraud has NO source.

You also have yet to explain why Montagnier found similar results to Gallo.

If there is a greater fraud then, can you confirm it with some evidence (ie no secondary sources)?

And you didn't give specific examples of Gallo fabricating stuff. You just linked to random secondary sources and made broad generalizations without actually pointing out in detail where he is wrong.

Exactly.

The ONLY thing Gallo did wrong was take credit for the discovery of HIV...but HIV causing AIDS has been long supported.

The question wasn't if HIV exists or if it causes AIDS. The only thing in question was who gets credit for it: The USA or the French.

I gave specific examples including him changing the conclusion of the paper, adding cytopathic to the title without illustrating cytopathy, claiming things were opportunistic infections without proof, lying about what his micrographs were of.... you people sure are fucking dense.

Nope.

Thats NOT what he did. In fact, the French had already done what he claims he did.

His discoveries were not mitigated. All he did was try to steal credit.

and then the reader can read his edits and judge for themselves... its pretty clear hes making shit up. im done with you.

You're a fucking idiot and a disgrace to human intellect.

Even if Gallo had faked his own identity, that has NO BEARING on what we NOW understand about HIV and AIDS and have long since confirmed since then.

The NIH and HHS cleared him of fraud charges.

After finding him guilty. A sure sign some politics is involved.

And you didn't give specific examples of Gallo fabricating stuff. You just linked to random secondary sources and made broad generalizations without actually pointing out in detail where he is wrong.

I gave very specific example of him committing fraud in his own hand. Perhaps you need to reread it?

Further your claim that the Secret Service found Gallo committed fraud has NO source.

The source is Janine Roberts interview with Larry Stewart, the Secret Service agent who had led their investigation into Robert Gallo's HIV research.

You also have yet to explain why Montagnier found similar results to Gallo.

To what specifically are you referring?

If there is a greater fraud then, can you confirm it with some evidence (ie no secondary sources)?

I gave you a verified example of Gallo changing the conclusion of a research paper in his own fucking hand. How much more evidence do you need?

After finding him guilty. A sure sign some politics is involved.

Or they did some more research and found he was right. BTW, HHS didn't file the charge. It was ORI and NIH. In order to say politics were involved, you'd need to publish some transcripts of politicians being involved. Of which, you have presented none.

I gave very specific example of him committing fraud in his own hand. Perhaps you need to reread it?

I read it and you cherry picked that quote. You conviently left out how he put in sources for his claim.

Here's the actual quote: ""Although patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS are often chronically infected with cytomegalovirus (7) and hepatits B virus (8), for various reasons these appear to be opportunistic or coincidental infections."

You also fail to mention how later in the paper he shows the results of Essex and Lee,which show that patients diagnosed with AIDS had weakened immune systems and whose blood samples showed no signs of any other HTLV (the only type of virus found to weaken immune systems at the time) known at the time. Opportunistic infections happen when the immune system is weak.

Even if your quote does show some merit, thinking that one quote disproves the entirety of Gallo's paper would be a "fallacy" fallacy.

The source is Janine Roberts interview with Larry Stewart, the Secret Service agent who had led their investigation into Robert Gallo's HIV research.

There is no supporting evidence for Ms. Roberts claims that Larry Stewart agreed with her OR that he even received a phone call from her.

Further, she has yet to publish a transcript of her conversation with Stewart. Evidence or it didn't happen.

To what specifically are you referring?

Montagnier was the co-discoverer of HIV. Way not to do research.

How much more evidence do you need?

Amount of reliable evidence you have given = Number of unicorns in existence

Number of unicorns in existence = 0

Use transitive property to figure it out

EDIT: I forget stuff.

Here's the actual quote: ""Although patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS are often chronically infected with cytomegalovirus (7) and hepatits B virus (8), for various reasons these appear to be opportunistic or coincidental infections."

Yet no citation for how they arrived at the conclusion "for various reasons these appear to be opportunistic or coincidental infections."

There is no supporting evidence for Ms. Roberts claims that Larry Stewart agreed with her OR that he even received a phone call from her.

Further, she has yet to publish a transcript of her conversation with Stewart. Evidence or it didn't happen.

I mean obviously you have to take her at her word, but its an awfully specific accusation to be fabricated. I mean i don't know how you go about talking to Larry Stewart.... but this isn't this kind of claim that seems fabricated. I have yet to see a source where Larry Stewart denies this conversation..

why do you know so much about this?

Check all the sources listed in Page 1 paragraph 2.

FYI Opportunistic infection happens when The immune system is weak. Only HTLV's and HIV are the only known viruses that cause a direct weakening of the immune system. The patients of the studies cited had viral infections.

None of that leads us to "for various reasons these appear to be opportunistic or coincidental infections."

It's called logic. Gallo's sources showed that the AIDs patients had weakened immune systems due to their infection and showed no signs of having a known HTLV. He showed that the virus he was researching weakened immune systems. Herpes and hepatitis B do not weaken immune systems.

Therefore, if hep and herp didn't cause the weakened immune systems, what did?

As Gallo showed, it was HIV.

I mean obviously you have to take her at her word, but its an awfully specific accusation to be fabricated. I mean i don't know how you go about talking to Larry Stewart.... but this isn't this kind of claim that seems fabricated. I have yet to see a source where Larry Stewart denies this conversation..

Nice cognitive dissonance. "There is no evidence of it existing, therefore it must exist".

People lie. ALOT. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S8TRIo4br3I/AAAAAAAACv4/Zh7_GcMlRKo/s400/ALOT.png

why do you know so much about this?

Because I'm a wizard. That or I know how to do research (working on a engineering degree in biomedical currently).

yet you made a claim he denied having the conversation.. where is that?

Never said that. Evidence or GTFO.

I said there was no reliable evidence, other than Robert's own testimony, supporting Stewart talking with Roberts.

There is no supporting evidence for Ms. Roberts claims that Larry Stewart agreed with her OR that he even received a phone call from her.

Pro tip: when you add "that he even received a phone call from her." that implies someone asked him and he said he never talked to her.

I won't even attempt to show the flaws in your reply.

So here's a picture of a cat: http://data.whicdn.com/images/1450550/tumblr_kwb7e7px8l1qaob05o1_500_large.jpg

There is evidence suggesting Ms Roberts called and talked with Larry Stewart. That is her own testimony. Unless Ms. Roberts credibility is in question, which no one has shown a case where it is. Ms Roberts is a wonderfully well documented journalist.

also... if there was a part of her book that was libelous or slanderous or down right fabricated.... its been almost 5 years since Gallo responded to it himself, yet no suit of libel or slander has been brought against this woman.... theres a reason for that.

Cool circumstantial evidence and shifting the burden of proof.

You still haven't given a transcript from Roberts or testimony from Stewart confirming this exchange.

You also haven't shown us the "report" the Secret Service made refuting Gallo.

You also have yet to refute Montagnier's results, Gallo's results and the other peer-reviewed studies on HIV.

Source or it didn't happen.

Either your next reply consists of actual evidence or I'll just post another cat.

Published: December 31, 1992

See that?

LOL...damn this is beautiful

whats your point. The guy there is still in charge of the HIV industry

So, what you're trying to say is that the whole AIDS research field is bogus?

pretty much. as unlikely as that seems it should be.... thats what the evidence seems to suggest.

[deleted]

i provided a letter signed by professors from 30 different universities to Science magazine calling on them to withdraw these papers due to the evidence of fraud.

[deleted]

You think rapid overstimulation of an infant immune system is a good idea? would you like to support your opinion there? How about some evidence suggesting rapid childhood immune overstimulation leads to encephalitis. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/encephalitis.htm

[deleted]

some of them do.. some are outdated but you can easily google and get the referenced paper.... what i gotta put work into this? fuck that.

Whats your point jackass?

The only thing he did wrong was try to take credit for the discovery of it. His actual work on it doesn't invalidate his work on HIV NOR does that mean that HIV doesn't exist.

yea except we didn't encounter AIDS until the early 1980s... not in the 1970s.... in 1970s... we have no reason to think that gays are more susceptible to illness than anyone else.

right. because they don't take high dose AZT. There ample evidence to suggest that the high dose AZT as the treatment was responsible for a large amount of early HIV deaths.

you're aware Mullis invented the technique they are using to claim to be able to do viral load counts?

Your argument is that AIDS doesn't exist.

Its hard to see why you're confused

Never said that. Evidence or GTFO.

I said there was no reliable evidence, other than Robert's own testimony, supporting Stewart talking with Roberts.

You also got a group of researchers there in Perth, Australia with the exact opposite conclusion... http://www.theperthgroup.com/

I don't think its surprising that our doctors were duped.... they have put a lot of effort into making a semi coherent argument and violently stifling dissent.... going as far as to ruin peoples careers who question them. This is a very clever scheme.

hey should know when they present with those illnesses.... like they did in the 1980s...

No.

Thats not how this works.

HIV has a long latency period and even then, if these people still went untested, then you'd see more people presented with diseases that they'd normally be shielded from.

HOWEVER, with a large campaign, even with people who don't protect themselves, to get regular check ups, we intervene with aids far sooner than we would have in the 80s.

Even further, advances in drugs and immunizations and treatments since then have allowed us to prevent susceptibility to HIV associated diseases since then...including respiratory diseases.

People still do present with these diseases...BUT since people know more about AIDS than ever before people are getting checkups more frequently than before and intervening long before you'd see major cases of people falling prey to these things as we saw in the past when NO ONE would go to the doctor for ANYTHING.

look who i am or where i am from is unimportant. we both know thats a very convincing argument for fraud that i reiterated in my post and it has been swept under the rug for a reason. US Tax payers continue to pay billions to this industry for which there is no REGULATORY body. These people are not answering to anyone, yet they are completely funded by the public's funds, and selling the public drugs and tests for which there are some very serious scientific questions brought up that they have deflected and never answered directly. There is no doubt the same guys who were in charge of it when they suggested high dose AZT responsible for killing millions are still in charge of it today. Specific questions about the process used in the isolation and purification of the virus around the 1.16 density gradient band have not been answered, and the answers to these questions are CRUCIAL in determining if what they are looking at is random cellular crap or actually an infectious agent. Specific questions about the non specificity of p24 detection in samples as representing a positive test have NEVER BEEN ANSWERED by these people. They always respond with epidemiological studies of questionable integrity.... never anything that specifically addresses the science of the methods they are using. The public needs to know why.

i second that motion.

Lol he refuted all of Bryans arguments. I'm definitley not agreeing with this guy but I can see that he was smart and knew waaay too much for me to conclusivey say he's wrong. Its like arguing with a butcher about meat. He had evidence a good backround and lost a lot because of it.

Again I'm NOT agreeing with the guy but why did you think he was full of shit?