I always wonder how this disease came about so randomly and so decisively.

Anyway... Mind giving a summary at least? It's 2 hours long, it's hard to just randomly sit down and make enough time for that immediately and it gets harder when there isn't even a summary.

IE give some more reason to watch a 2 hour long video.

Please.

here the basic summary: HIV is a complete fabrication, there is no consensus of scientists, there is only a very vocal cartel of a few government sponsored researchers that espouse very very questionable and incomplete science as conclusive evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

No one can question this hypothesis. Those that do, are no longer able to obtain grants for research and are in effect stifled.

The man in charge of the HIV industry, Dr. Robert Gallo, is the main person who decides who gets funded and who does not. The man was found guilty of scientific misconduct by a congressional committee, and there is significant evidence that he committed gross fraud in the initial HIV causes AIDS studies, including but not limited to changing the original conclusion of researchers which was "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified." to the exact opposite without evidence.

More specifically, the tests test for what they claim are "HIV antibodies"... which are ubiquitous proteins found in healthy cells, and are not specific to the phantom virus they are calling HIV.

There is no test for HIV, they can only test HIV antibodies.

http://www.qiagen.com/products/artushivirusrt-pcrkitce.aspx, if you got a Thermocycler to spare :).

PCR has been around since the 80ies and modern HIV tests are a two step process where the first detection is done via antibodies (has a cross reactivity with some other AB) generates false positives. The second step is detection via PCR, where you directly measure if HIV RNA is present, and since our fundamental understanding of biology hasn't changed yet, the presence of viral RNA means that something bad is about to happen, here AIDS.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about PCR. PCR is used to amplify primer DNA (or rather the complement to primer DNA), primers which you add to the culture. You cannot use PCR to claim existence of a foreign virus. PCR amplification only shows that somewhere in the DNA found in a culture (this includes the endogenous DNA found in the cell), the strand that complements your primer is found. Using PCR would hold more sway, if they were able to show that a pure isolation of the virus can be found.... to date that paper has not been written. The "isolations" of HIV are all highly contaminated with cellular debris... which means the RNA/DNA that is in the culture they are using PCR on is also infected with RNA/DNA other than that of their phantom virus.

And since "HIV" only contains 9 genes or so, depending on what source you cite, theres a good chance they are not specific to this virus and are found in the complementary human DNA sequence (or whatever other cellular detritus is in their "isolations").

How did they arrive at the primer which they have added to these cultures, which they are then in turn amplifying. I'd like to read that paper.

They are misusing PCR to justify the existence of their phantom virus, so much that inventor of PCR and nobel prize winner Kari Mullis is one of the most vocal and adamant proponents of the "HIV is a myth" school of thought. Dr. Mullis is one of the prominent researchers interviewed in this video.

well I can't argue against that then, so far PCR has worked in other cases but doesn't work on HIV. Nothing to see here then ...

Here's a bit more detail on the problems with PCR being used to detect HIV, with citations

sorry but that thing is rather outdated, just had a quick look at it. The only thing I can refute about this ad hoc is that HIV can be cultured in vitro http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18432924

This is from 2001, and the science in it is rather up to date. It is by no means invalid because the year it was written.

HIV isn't what is being cultured. In this study, you will see the only thing they are using to determine the existence of HIV is the ELISA p24 protein detection. This is not a test for foreign virus. This is a test for an ubiquitous protein, heavily concentrated around the golgi apparatus, that shows up in healthy cell cultures as well.

To say that p24 was indicative of only being a capsid protein, and not from the cells themselves, you would have to have a pure isolate of HIV, of which no method exists to obtain this. All "isolates" of HIV are heavily contaminated with cell detritus. This paper has only shown they have detected a ubiquitous protein, and by no means have they detected a virus.

What I linked is an abstract on a protocol for culturing HIV in Monocytes and you do need a HI Virus for that to work, also there are HIV sequence databases so you know exactly how the virus looks like and it's gene sequence.

A common factor of all HIV strains is p24, so testing for p24 makes sense and please show me where and how p24 is found on healthy cells, we are talking about the capsid protein here, there seems to be a p24 protein involved in the golgi apparatus too. I have already written that ELISA can produce false positives but PCR is rather good at detecting HIV.

More detailed discussion on the problems with p24 detection and how it has not been shown to be part of HIV

just meant that the HI virus causes AIDS in that case. Similar things happen with EBV or Rabies, if you can detect pathogen RNA/DNA it most likely means that you are infected. I'm just tired of arguing against the HIV/AIDS critics as they haven't provided any substantial claims over the years.

The western blot and ELISA assay are both notoriously unreliable... Theres a whole host of things that cause false positives on these tests.

Using a "confirmatory PCR" is mindblowingly asinine. How did they determine the primers for the HIV RNA to amplify with PCR? Simple question. No answer.

I don't have the numbers in my head but the two step test is very reliable. With the ELISA (Antibody test) you get false positives, which is actually good false negatives would be far worse. The false positives are then tested via PCR where you can def. rule out a HIV infection (of course it takes some time post infection until you can get results). I don't want to talk about the situation in Africa, because if you have no basic healthcare and coverage you will be running into alot of problems. And yes there are some misdiagnosed cases imho, but these are not AIDS, because AIDS = HIV by definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunodeficiency)

It doesn't sound to me like you fully grasp the argument.

If you can detect pathogen RNA/DNA it most likely means that you are infected.

The RNA sequences detected by PCR cannot be said to be pathogenic. PCR does not test for pathogens. PCR amplifies KNOWN DNA/RNA sequences, regardless of if they came from a pathogen or the cell's own DNA. How do you know HIV's sequence beforehand? How do you know its specific to HIV and not other stuff in the culture? If you could provide me with this paper, it would be great. Ive been looking for it for many a year.

Its a pretty substantial claim that the inventor of the method thinks they are misusing it.

PCR amplifies KNOWN DNA/RNA sequences, regardless of if they came from a pathogen or the cell's own DNA.

That is why you use PCR for testing, HIV has been sequenced, so you know how the RNA looks like and then you just search for it, there is not more to it. What I really doubt is that a body cell would produce a retrovirus killing T-Cells/Monocytes and that is what these RNA Sequence detected does. RNA is a blueprint for Proteins and this RNA detected encodes for a lot of unhealthy proteins to the human body.

how can you sequence something that has not been isolated... you cannot. please show me the paper where "HIV has been sequenced" and the methods they used to do that. there isn't one. what there is, is a government laboratory telling you what the sequences are without telling you the methods which they used to arrive at those sequences. a government laboratory... that historically.... researches weapons.

What I really doubt is that a body cell would produce a retrovirus killing T-Cells/Monocytes and that is what these RNA Sequence detected does.

Cytopathy has not been illustrated. Again, show me a paper where it has been proven that T-Cells/Monocytes were killed by a retrovirus.

this disease came about so randomly and so decisively.

Actually, the earliest reported case of AIDS was in 1959. It wasn't until the late eighties that it became incredibly big. Except for a few fictional diseases (The Super Flu in Stephen King's The Stand and the disease in the movie Contagion), diseases need quite a few years to get big enough to be as widespread as AIDS is.

and you should watch the video.

More resources for the interested. The first two are award winning documentaries and well reviewed on youtube.

• House Of Numbers
• The Emperors New Virus
• Positively False
• The Perth Group
• Questioning AIDS
• Rethinking AIDS
• Gallo's Egg
• Celia Farber's Harper's Article on HIV
• Fear of the Invisible
• Office of Medical and Scientific Justice
• Peter Duesberg
• Virus Myth
• Whale.to
• Semmelweis Society

I have absolutely no HIV conspiracies since seeing a picture of a man getting jerked off from a monkey.

this disease came about so randomly and so decisively.

Actually, the earliest reported case of AIDS was in 1959. It wasn't until the late eighties that it became incredibly big. Except for a few fictional diseases (The Super Flu in Stephen King's The Stand and the disease in the movie Contagion), diseases need quite a few years to get big enough to be as widespread as AIDS is.

here the basic summary: HIV is a complete fabrication, there is no consensus of scientists, there is only a very vocal cartel of a few government sponsored researchers that espouse very very questionable and incomplete science as conclusive evidence that HIV causes AIDS.

No one can question this hypothesis. Those that do, are no longer able to obtain grants for research and are in effect stifled.

The man in charge of the HIV industry, Dr. Robert Gallo, is the main person who decides who gets funded and who does not. The man was found guilty of scientific misconduct by a congressional committee, and there is significant evidence that he committed gross fraud in the initial HIV causes AIDS studies, including but not limited to changing the original conclusion of researchers which was "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified." to the exact opposite without evidence.