 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2006USA Today on Issue of HIV Screening
October 09, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial, USA TODAY editorial http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/our_view_on_aid.html#comment-23639866 USA Today on Issue of HIV Screening Our view on AIDS prevention: Lift stigma from HIV screening.Voluntary, routine tests would detect those infected but don't know it. For most of the 1980s, a diagnosis of AIDS was a virtual death sentence. People suspected of having the incurable disease were shunned, fired from jobs or driven from homes. Many avoided getting tested for fear that their status would be revealed. The progress since then has been remarkable. New medications keep the HIV virus in check so that patients who are diagnosed early can extend their lives by 25 years, according to a Harvard Medical School study. Public attitudes have softened. But that progress has exposed a new problem - and opportunity. Far too often, the disease isn't discovered as quickly as it could be, endangering those people as well as others they might infect. As many as 1.2 million Americans are HIV-positive, and an additional 40,000 are infected each year. Making HIV screening as routine as tests for high blood pressure would address the problem. New guidelines from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urge providers to offer regular, routine - but voluntary - testing for everyone 13 to 64. (Read the Opposing view.) The CDC also wants states to reconsider laws that deter testing. Some 31 states require specific informed consent, and 23 demand extensive pretest counseling. Those outdated laws were written for a time when little was known about AIDS. Some civil liberties and AIDS advocacy groups worry that testing could become mandatory and compromise patient confidentiality, but that is a concern with all medical records and can be controlled. The benefits of wider testing far outweigh the risks. As many as 300,000 people with HIV don't know they have it. Their own health is in jeopardy, and they unwittingly transmit the disease to others. People who don't know they carry HIV account for up to 70% of new infections. When they do become aware of their status, they take steps to avoid infecting others - a two-thirds reduction in risky sexual behavior. Further, the screening of all pregnant women, which started in 1995, decreased the number of children who contracted AIDS via their mothers from a peak of 945 in 1992 to 48 in 2004. Because HIV can be diagnosed before symptoms develop, finding more infections gets patients into treatment faster, slows the spread of AIDS and saves lives. The widespread screening that so dramatically lowered the AIDS rate in babies can do the same for adults. Posted at 12:21 AM/ET, October 09, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial, USA TODAY editorial Comments: Perhaps you can enlighten me re: the supposed value of conducting an "antibody" test which merely indicates a post-viral contact to an ubiquitous, harmless, passenger retrovirus. If 300,000 people have HIV and DON'T know it, perhaps you can enlighten us as to HOW YOU know it. The only way that a person who demonstrates "antibodies" to a prior HIV infection is at risk is by taking the chain terminator AZT which has killed countless innocent people who would be alive and well today. Let's see, we have a harmless retrovirus which was, and never has been, scientifically proven to cause Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, is a supposed "Slow Virus" that is supposedly spread by sexual contact and infected blood and is able to CAUSE over 40 unique and separate disease states in its hapless victims. Nice try, but the truth is that AIDS is confined to male homosexuals and IV drug users. It is not caused by a harmless retrovirus but rather through the continuous biochemical insult to the immune system by such "recreational drugs" as alkyl nitrites, cocaine, heroin, meth, and the depressive effects on the immune system by years and years of ingestion of massive quantities of antibiotics, antivirals, and antifungals used by homosexuals to ward off sexually transmitted diseases. De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the monumental 25 year scam by the homosexual lobby in their attempt to de-stigmatize themselves within society,...and doing it with our tax dollars. Posted by: Doc | Oct 9, 2006 5:41:52 PM Opposing view: Don't remove safeguards Required consent, counseling aren't barriers to testing for HIV. By Rose Saxe The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is right to want more people to get tested for HIV. But eliminating specific consent and pretest counseling, as the CDC recommends, would remove safeguards guaranteeing that testing stays voluntary and informed. It's not surprising that some doctors and health care workers are welcoming what they see as time-saving measures. But testing people without informed consent doesn't ensure that people with HIV get the care they need. Studies have shown that patients who are tested without consent are less likely to get necessary follow-up care. Without pretest prevention counseling, we also lose a critical opportunity to educate. The reason people aren't getting tested is not consent requirements or even stigma about testing; it's because people still don't understand HIV. A recent survey found that 22% of Americans wrongly believe that you can get HIV from sharing a glass of water. And 25 years into the epidemic, people continue to lose jobs and housing because of prejudice. Can we really afford to abandon this chance to help people understand HIV? The new recommendations also raise privacy concerns. Virtually every state now collects the names of those who test positive. If the government is going to collect names and deeply personal information, people tested deserve to know that this information is being collected and how it will be used. (Read USA TODAY's view.) Early in the epidemic, our government ignored AIDS until it was confronted by persistent protests by gay people. As the demographic of the disease shifts to include more women and people of color, why are we abandoning those safeguards? And why is the government so heavily focused on promoting testing, while continuing to fund misleading sex education and refusing to adequately support proven programs, such as needle exchange, that reduce the transmission of HIV in the first place? Written consent and counseling need not be barriers to HIV testing. Everyone wins when people are able to make informed decisions to protect their health. Rose Saxe is a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union AIDS Project. Posted at 12:20 AM/ET, October 08, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial, USA TODAY editorial | http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/opposing_view_d.html snip... >De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the >monumental 25 year scam by the homosexual lobby in their attempt to >de-stigmatize themselves within society,...and doing it with our tax >dollars. There you go. The people who enjoy being oppressors--the bigots and homophobes--ENJOY the stigma they place on groups they can feel free to despise. It's curious that humans are so weak and spineless that they need to have such enemies. The fundy christians knew that going after Jews and Blacks was bad but everybody can hate fags. That's still "OK". In Iraq, now, new hate arises because one is born Sunni or Shia. In Yugoslavia, Serb against Croat, etc. Hutu against Tutsi. Out of nowhere, bloodshed and hate arise...but when there is peace, there are people like Dach and "death/diablo" in whom the growth of prejudice and hatred fester. They are the puppets, the tools of the powerful who wish to sow discord to retain their sinecure of power. It's deranged and shows how little progress evolution has made in our species. George M. Carter > snip... > >De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > George M. Carter reply from drdach: Nice polemic. Keep up the good work. regards from www.drdach If I may add to the fray. I don't believe that Dr. Dach is being hateful of gays, nor do I think it homophobic to see that that AIDS is a 25 year case of mistaken identity. In fact I am certain it's a tragic stain on modern humanity, a mistake nobody wants to admit. Does that make me homophoboic? No. I am a fag....yes, that's right. I'm a homosexual. I don't lobby for AIDS, and I don't do interior design. And I don't take AIDS drugs. Do I believe in a homosexual lobby? Certainly. Do I believe in the hatefulness of some members of society? Certainly. Do I believe that HIV causes AIDS or that the gays either are the West's incubator for an STD that somehow stays within gay rank even though, as a recent study showed, 10% of New York City is on the down-low? Does HIV bear a terrible stigma ? Is it the Scarlet Letter of the modern age ? If you haven't read this classic by Nathaniel Hawthorne written in 1850, I highly recommend it as highly relevant. You can find it here: http://www.eldritchpress.org/nh/sl.html Dr. Dach, without having read your post , and only based on the one quote, I have to say I am tentatively disappointed in you. Could be so misguided as to not see the pharmaceutical backing of the AIDS debacle. Do you really think gays care THAT much about being accepted, or that we ever thought AIDS would be the way to do it ? I will remain hopeful in your intellect and will be relieved when I know my confidence is not misplaced. Today was horrible, getting stuck in a broken elevator for almost an hour, seeing cement through the tiny space between the elevator doors, knowing I was in between floors, made the panic grow more intense because I didn't know where I stood. It's so good to know where we stand, and many times that means deciding where we want to be standing since no matter if you're in the northern hemisphere or the southern, we all could be standing upside down since there is no up or down in space Being human means making choices and envisioning our world. I stand for health, in health. I stand for logic, and for the most reasonable truth that can be born of the facts. On the topic of AIDS, I stand firmly in dispute of the going dogma. I refute it. Yes, I deny it. I deny the sloppy assumptions that the industry has pushed on the world, with disastrous consequences not only for gay men around the globe, but for the pregnant women, their children, and so much of sub-Saharan Africa unlucky enough to fall under the spell of AIDS drugs. Whether it's an HIV positive result in the West, or a bout of dysentery or TB in Africa, a Western Blot test in the U.S. or an ELISA in the U.K., be assured, there is no such thing as AIDS. The "syndrome" craze is purely a turn of the century phenomenon, and will be viewed with as much disdain as the flat earth or trickle down economics. Anticlimactically, there are only the usual boring diseases. Grandmother was right. Eat well. Sleep enough. Get some exercise. Clearly, there's not a glamorous thing about the advice, nor is it the stuff from which careers are forged. It is true nonetheless. The propaganda machine reiterates that gay sex is dirty. Wake up people! AIDS is merely a social disease - syndrome induced by not taking care of oneself. It is not from sex. This has been demonstrated in numerous studies of sero-discordant couples who do not use latex. If you are unlucky enough to catch cryptospordium, there is raw wheat germ and black walnut leaf tea. If you have an imbalance and yeast becomes a problem (candida) there is gentian violet. You must eat and sleep and you won't get AIDS. HIV is irrelevant and so is gay sex. Again, it's not the act of gay sex. It could be the pills from Pharma, it could be an overdose of partying that went downhill and failed to slow down long enough to recharge. It's not HIV, that's going to become more clear to everyone soon enough. Remember the old standby, the Rules of Health: eat sleep eat sleep eat sleep exercise exercise keeps you well. And please see the dentist once in a while! HIV/AIDS ? It's all madness and the truth is at hand, mark my words. http://notaids.com please study the facts a little. all the facts. get answers to questions you never knew you had. <a href="http://"notaids.com">NotAIDS! </a> > > snip... > > >De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > regards from www.drdach snip... >You must eat and sleep and you >won't get AIDS. HIV is irrelevant and so is gay sex. Be nice if that were true. It's not. HIV exists and causes AIDS. I have know a lot of people who were not recreational drug users. Some did not use ANY pharma products until after AIDS had developed. PCP is not a common disease, dear. The founder of this group, after MUCH research and reviewing of the data, realized that what was causing his CD4 count to decline was not that he was gay. He wasn't a drug user. It was HIV. George M. Carter If I may add to the fray. I don't believe that Dr. Dach is being hateful of gays, nor do I think it homophobic to see that that AIDS is a 25 year case of mistaken identity. In fact I am certain it's a tragic stain on modern humanity, a mistake nobody wants to admit. Does that make me homophoboic? No. I am a fag....yes, that's right. I'm a homosexual. I don't lobby for AIDS, and I don't do interior design. And I don't take AIDS drugs. Do I believe in a homosexual lobby? Certainly. Do I believe in the hatefulness of some members of society? Certainly. Do I believe that HIV causes AIDS or that the gays either are the West's incubator for an STD that somehow stays within gay rank even though, as a recent study showed, 10% of New York City is on the down-low? Does HIV bear a terrible stigma ? Is it the Scarlet Letter of the modern age ? If you haven't read this classic by Nathaniel Hawthorne written in 1850, I highly recommend it as highly relevant. You can find it here: http://www.eldritchpress.org/nh/sl.html Dr. Dach, without having read your post , and only based on the one quote, I have to say I am tentatively disappointed in you. Could be so misguided as to not see the pharmaceutical backing of the AIDS debacle. Do you really think gays care THAT much about being accepted, or that we ever thought AIDS would be the way to do it ? I will remain hopeful in your intellect and will be relieved when I know my confidence is not misplaced. Today was horrible, getting stuck in a broken elevator for almost an hour, seeing cement through the tiny space between the elevator doors, knowing I was in between floors, made the panic grow more intense because I didn't know where I stood. It's so good to know where we stand, and many times that means deciding where we want to be standing since no matter if you're in the northern hemisphere or the southern, we all could be standing upside down since there is no up or down in space Being human means making choices and envisioning our world. I stand for health, in health. I stand for logic, and for the most reasonable truth that can be born of the facts. On the topic of AIDS, I stand firmly in dispute of the going dogma. I refute it. Yes, I deny it. I deny the sloppy assumptions that the industry has pushed on the world, with disastrous consequences not only for gay men around the globe, but for the pregnant women, their children, and so much of sub-Saharan Africa unlucky enough to fall under the spell of AIDS drugs. Whether it's an HIV positive result in the West, or a bout of dysentery or TB in Africa, a Western Blot test in the U.S. or an ELISA in the U.K., be assured, there is no such thing as AIDS. The "syndrome" craze is purely a turn of the century phenomenon, and will be viewed with as much disdain as the flat earth or trickle down economics. Anticlimactically, there are only the usual boring diseases. Grandmother was right. Eat well. Sleep enough. Get some exercise. Clearly, there's not a glamorous thing about the advice, nor is it the stuff from which careers are forged. It is true nonetheless. The propaganda machine reiterates that gay sex is dirty. Wake up people! AIDS is merely a social disease - syndrome induced by not taking care of oneself. It is not from sex. This has been demonstrated in numerous studies of sero-discordant couples who do not use latex. If you are unlucky enough to catch cryptospordium, there is raw wheat germ and black walnut leaf tea. If you have an imbalance and yeast becomes a problem (candida) there is gentian violet. You must eat and sleep and you won't get AIDS. HIV is irrelevant and so is gay sex. Again, it's not the act of gay sex. It could be the pills from Pharma, it could be an overdose of partying that went downhill and failed to slow down long enough to recharge. It's not HIV, that's going to become more clear to everyone soon enough. Remember the old standby, the Rules of Health: eat sleep eat sleep eat sleep exercise exercise keeps you well. And please see the dentist once in a while! HIV/AIDS ? It's all madness and the truth is at hand, mark my words. http://notaids.com please study the fact. all the facts. get answers to questions you never knew you had. http://aidswiki.org > > snip... > > >De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > regards from www.drdach "Hollywood" <hollywood@arts-net.net> wrote in message > Does HIV bear a terrible stigma ? >Is it the Scarlet Letter of the modern age? http://health.ivillage.com/gynostds/infhiv/0,,6f98,00.html "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > It's deranged and shows how little progress evolution has made in our > species. LOL, are you speaking for all the faggots or just yourself. My advice would be to get a nice cheese to go with that whine. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >LOL, are you speaking for all the faggots or just yourself. >My advice would be to get a nice cheese to go with that whine. You underscore the point elegantly if horrifically, my dear. I do hope you find healing. But you will die with that feeble, ancient ache of hate since you cling so fiercely to it. I'd much rather be queer than have to live in your squalid, dismal world. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > <Death@yourdoor.net> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You underscore the point elegantly if horrifically, Well that must be the reason you didn't answer the question. The homosexual lobby? Please. the small but vocal group to which the author refers is not representative of the greater gay population. Besides, those that lobby in the name of AIDS - the true AIDS lovers - are the pharmaceutical companies and 'public health' establishment who without HIV/AIDS wouldn't have the globetrotting lifestyle to which they are accustomed. These self-important 'do-gooders' who just want to 'help people' are the ones to whom you should be directing your outrage. > De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the > monumental 25 year scam by the homosexual lobby in their attempt to [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/10/opposing_view_d.html > > The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is right to want more > > people to get tested for HIV. But eliminating specific consent and > > pretest counseling, as the CDC recommends, would remove safeguards > > guaranteeing that testing stays voluntary and informed. HIV antibody testing and Western blot testing have never been approved by the FDA as a "GOLD STANDARD" to determine if indeed a person is actually infected with "HIV". You can read this on the manufacturer's labels in the packaging. Why is the CDC recommending that 300,000,000 US citizens take a test that can err over 71% of the time when persons who are tested outside of risk groups? They claim that there are 250,000 people with HIV who don't know it, because they are not sick. So they are recommending that ALL of us be tested, even though less than one person out of 1,000 will be positive! Think of all the money they will make testing 1,000 people for nothing! The total figure of HIV positives has not gone up in 20 years! In fact, it has fallen from 1.5 million in 1985 now down to about 900,000 in 2006, or even less. There are 65 reasons why HIV tests can produce a false positive, and even the CDC candidly admits that almost half of the HIV positive results are false. If you don't believe this, look at the yearly percentage of HIV positive tests, then divide that figure into 300 million, then look at the "estimates" the CDC states here of people with HIV infection. The number is usually about 50% of what the percentage would dictate. You can do this for every year of CDC surveilance. If you really want to understand what is going in with HIV/AID$ visit this site: http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com You can also find help for HIV positive people through the links. It's time we called the "science" behind HIV/AID$ into question and started treating people for the real diseases they suffer from. In Africa, it's mostly malnutrition, parasitic infection, poluted water supplies and poor sanitation. HIV/AID$ has been a 250 BILLION dollar rip off that has resulted in poisoning 400,000 americans alone with toxic drugs. >> > The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is right to want more >> > people to get tested for HIV. But eliminating specific consent and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >by the FDA as a "GOLD STANDARD" to determine if indeed a person is >actually infected with "HIV". That's misinformation. http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Current/Q143691.html > >HIV antibody testing and Western blot testing have never been approved > >by the FDA as a "GOLD STANDARD" to determine if indeed a person is > >actually infected with "HIV". > > That's misinformation. > http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Current/Q143691.html If this IS indeed misinformation, can you provide a package from ANY HIV ELISA test kit that claims: "This test PROVES that the individual being tested IS INFECTED with the Human Immuno Virus (HIV) ???They may be approved by the FDA for diagnosis purposes, it would hardly be feasible to market them if they were not, but these test kits are careful to make the claim that they are NOT-NOT-NOT PROOF of HIV infection. Why? Because they do NOT prove a person is infected with HIV, AND they usually instruct the user to conduct further testing before making a diagnosis. As I said, there is NO GOLD STANDARD for HIV testing in ANY form. Show me ONE package label that makes this claim. But why worry about the HIV test anyway, when HIV is obviously a fraud and can NOT possibly be the cause of AIDS. Now that the Lancet study released August 5th of this year is out and we know that HAART is a failure, the AID$ industry is taking in water faster than the Titanic. Visit our site: www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com to learn the UGLY UGLY truth about this deadly scam that has resulted in mass genocide. 400,000 Americans are dead because of Gallo's fraud? We demand justice! If you want to debate HIV testing go to this site and see the facts. http://www.helpforhiv.com It's time for honesty to return to medical health, and for every honest medical health care worker to reclaim their credibility and objective. STOP the HIV lie NOW! > If this IS indeed misinformation, can you provide a package from ANY > HIV ELISA test kit that claims: "This test PROVES that the individual > being tested IS INFECTED with the Human Immuno Virus (HIV) ??? Can YOU provide a package from ANY other ELISA assay for ANY other infection that states: "This test PROVES that the individual being tested IS INFECTED with Infection X "??? You display a silly naivety about what HIV results mean, and what all test results mean. All the tests do is confirm the presence of antibodies, which is information taken into account by the clinician who interprets the clinical diagnosis taking into account the results of tests like these and other results that are confirmatory. > > If this IS indeed misinformation, can you provide a package from ANY > > HIV ELISA test kit that claims: "This test PROVES that the individual [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > who interprets the clinical diagnosis taking into account the results > of tests like these and other results that are confirmatory. Would you like to meet a friend of mine? His name is Dr. Rodney Richards and he developed the Abbott test kit most commonly used. He can explain to you why these tests don't work. (you will see his name referrenced on the packaging) He might know. He made them after Abbott purchased Gallo's patent to develop the test. Now do you think I am displaying a "silly naivety?" Why don't you take his word for it? Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things that can cause "HIV antibody paositive FALSE RESULTS. We have proof that 2 tests from the SAME person done by the SAME lab have come back with 2 (two) different results. This happens every day to thousands of people. HIV testing is a scam.Visit the site: http://www.helpforhiv.com But what difference does it make? HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS anyway! snip >Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things >that can cause "HIV antibody paositive FALSE RESULTS. 1. HIV antibody tests have a high degree of specificity and sensitivity. They are pretty damned accurate, especially contrasted to other diagnostic tests (e.g., syphilis). 2. They are followed up by viral load tests and the clinical reality of declining CD4 counts. 3. False positive or false negative results DO happen; that doesn't not mean HIV does not exist or cause AIDS. 4. See the following URL for more information debunking the notions regarding cross reaction (which yes, can happen, as with many tests, but not nearly with the scope claimed above). http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/ There's another excellent one I'll have to dig up--was that yours, Bennett? George M. Carter > snip > >Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > George M. Carter Nobody here but us conspiracy theorists/rethinkers. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/a09469928015850c I was aware of the 9/11 conspiracy theories but Bill Koenig's "Eye to Eye" is a new one for me. Hurricane Katrina was God's retribution for the Gaza withdrawal? Chris Noble > > snip > > >Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Chris Noble Chris: seems that way. It has happened EVERY time. I think Keonig documented 48 out of 48 times. I'll take those odds in Vegas on a 3 to one bet. > > > snip > > > >Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > documented 48 out of 48 times. I'll take those odds in Vegas on a 3 to > one bet. So let's get this straight. You believe a) that hurricanes in the US are God's retribution for what is happening in Israel and b) HIV has not been proven to cause AIDS. Your attempt to portray yourself as an arbiter of the scientific method has failed. It may not be a 100% correlation but HIV "rethinking" appears to be a good predictor of believe in at least one other kooky idea. Chris Noble > snip > >Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things > >that can cause "HIV antibody paositive FALSE RESULTS. . > 1. HIV antibody tests have a high degree of specificity and > sensitivity. They are pretty damned accurate, especially contrasted to > other diagnostic tests (e.g., syphilis). How can you say this? With the ELISA test we are testing for enzymes linked via assay where over 70 things can cause the test to detect enzymes. There is documented proof that the sam lab, with the same blood sample has produced two different results. > 2. They are followed up by viral load tests and the clinical reality > of declining CD4 counts. There is some correlation between CD4 counts and viral load, but both have been seen to have NO CORRELATION in many AIDS clinical studies. In fact, the use of ana nukes and PIs themselves effect these numbers more than AIDS related diseases. The claims of CD4 and viral load counts related to actual clinical AIDS progression are now discounted by the AID$ industy's own admission. > 3. False positive or false negative results DO happen; that doesn't > not mean HIV does not exist or cause AIDS. No, there are 10 scientific reasons why HIV can NOT be the cause of AIDS, without even beginning to talk about why the test is bogus. Both the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, and HIV testing each have their own set of bogus scientific failures. Like Dum and Dummer. Visit this site and try to debunk the 10 reasons. the will continue to stand. http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com > 4. See the following URL for more information debunking the notions > regarding cross reaction (which yes, can happen, as with many tests, > but not nearly with the scope claimed above). Now go to this site and see why the HIV test is flawed and a crock of junk science. http://www.helpforhiv.com >> snip >> >Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >enzymes. There is documented proof that the sam lab, with the same >blood sample has produced two different results. That MAY be true based on older kits and on one test. But the ELISA is followed up by a Western blot as well as viral load. Also, the cross-reaction issue is way overblown and distorted. >> 2. They are followed up by viral load tests and the clinical reality >> of declining CD4 counts. > >There is some correlation between CD4 counts and viral load, but both >have been seen to have NO CORRELATION in many AIDS clinical studies. Name even just two that showed that. But what I was referring to was the loss of CD4 cells that occurs after HIV infection which IS correlated with the development of AIDS. What else causes T cells to go away like that? >In >fact, the use of ana nukes and PIs themselves effect these numbers more >than AIDS related diseases. The claims of CD4 and viral load counts >related to actual clinical AIDS progression are now discounted by the >AID$ industy's own admission. The nukes and PIs do indeed affect CD4 counts and viral loads. Mostly by causing the former to increase and the latter to decrease to below detectability. The claims of CD4 counts are most certainly NOT "discounted" by anyone I've ever seen. That's just a lie. >> 3. False positive or false negative results DO happen; that doesn't >> not mean HIV does not exist or cause AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, and HIV testing each have their own set of >bogus scientific failures. Like Dum and Dummer. Name these 10 "reasons." >Visit this site and try to debunk the 10 reasons. the will continue to >stand. >http://www.hiv- The site dose not list them. >> 4. See the following URL for more information debunking the notions >> regarding cross reaction (which yes, can happen, as with many tests, >> but not nearly with the scope claimed above). >> >Now go to this site and see why the HIV test is flawed and a crock of >junk science. No. George M. Carter Let's start at the top: Welcome to HIV=AIDS - Fact or terrible terrible genocidal fraud?. Today's first lesson will be the 10 scientific reasons why Santa can't fly...or HIV fails as THE ONE and ONLY EVER COULD BE REASON TO-SPEND 300 BILLION Dollars worth of JUNK SCIENCE money on THE ONLY cause of AID$ convincing people that HIV causes AIDS, 147.5 years after infection. Class 101 (first we will look at this, then systematically show you test after test of that prove CD4 counts, viral load, HIV tests, and all other HIV surrogate markers fail. First the basics.) > George M. Carter, have seat and open the text book to page one. 10 Scientific Reasons Why HIV Cannot Cause AIDS For anyone convinced that HIV has been isolated. (let's Assume it does exist!) 1. HIV is neutralized by antibody immunity. When a person tests "positive" to HIV, it means they carry antibodies to the virus. Which means that they have immunity. This is clear from the fact that there is so little virus to be found in HIV antibody positive people.* The antibodies have done their job and the virus is well under control. There are no known viruses that cause illness in every case only long after antibodies appear, which is how AIDS is defined. One has to question why 12 years and billions of dollars have been spent developing a vaccine against HIV when the best vaccine possible already exists when a person tests positive. 2. HIV does not kill the T cells it infects. HIV can only kill T cells under rare laboratory conditions. In fact, HIV researchers use T cells to grow the virus because T cells live quite compatibly with HIV. 3. HIV does not infect enough T cells to cause AIDS. HIV never infects more than 1 out of 1000 T cells; commonly just 1 out of 10,000 T cells.* People replace 5% of their T cells per day. Simple math shows that HIV cannot infect enough T cells to cause them to die off and bring down the whole immune system. Even supporters of the HIV/AIDS theory admit that this low level of T cell infection is a challenge to explain. * The recent invention of "viral load" testing is an attempt to explain away the fact that almost no sign of HIV can be found by standard measurements. Viral load tests do not measure viable virus and have not been approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection. 4. HIV has no AIDS causing gene. HIV has no specific gene or unique reason to cause AIDS. All retroviruses have only 3 major genes, GAG, ENV and POL and only 6 minor genes. Because the genes and genetic sequences are so limited in these simple organisms, they need all their genes to replicate. HIV is almost identical to all other retroviruses genetically. There are 50 to 100 different retroviruses that can be found in every healthy human body. All have been brought under control by antibody response. HIV behaves no differently than any of these others. If none of these other retroviruses cause AIDS, why should HIV? And vice versa, if HIV causes AIDS, why don't all the rest? So there is no genetic reason why HIV would cause AIDS. 5. There is no such thing as a "slow virus". HIV is claimed to take 10 to 20 years (the "latency period") after infection to cause AIDS. The only way to explain this is to give HIV magical abilities to reactivate, mutate, migrate and hibernate. These slow virus hypotheses were devised by scientists who used them to buy time when their viruses failed to perform. The slow virus proponents point to examples like the herpes viruses that smolder and hide and then reemerge in persons when they have suppressed immunity and cannot generate a sufficient defense. These differ greatly from HIV because large amounts of active virus can be found causing specific symptoms. By contrast, a slow virus is an invention credited with the ability to cause disease only years after infection - termed the latency period - in previously healthy persons, regardless of their state of immunity. Such a concept allows scientists to blame a long-neutralized virus for any disease that appears decades after infection. HIV is inactive, then is said to cause 30 different diseases 10 years later. None of which are specific to HIV itself. 6. HIV is not a new virus, so it could not cause a new epidemic. AIDS cases went from almost none in 1980 to a reported half a million in North America alone by 1995. Therefore, scientists claim HIV must be a new virus or we would have had an epidemic years or centuries ago. However, this claim does not stand up to the principals of Farr's Law. Farr's Law asserts that new infections spread exponentially through the population. HIV has been reported at more or less 1 million infected in the USA each year since they had a test for it in 1984. So it cannot be a new virus. 7. HIV fails Koch's postulates. The universal test used by scientists to determine if a disease is truly being caused by an infection was designed over one hundred years ago by Robert Koch. Koch's postulates state: The organism: must be found in all cases of the disease. must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture. must cause the same disease when injected into a new, healthy host. must be found growing again in the newly diseased host. Here is how HIV does on this test: The germ must be found in all cases of the diseases. FAILS. 10 to 20% of AIDS patients have no HIV at all. Only tiny amounts of HIV, usually dormant, can be found in any AIDS patient. The germ must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture. PASSES - but only on a technicality. Huge amounts of cell tissue are needed to find HIV. HIV needs a chemically induced process to reactivate. By contrast, large amounts of active virus can be found with other viruses. The germ must cause the same disease when injected into a new, healthy host. FAILS - hands down. HIV does not cause AIDS in test animals like chimpanzees. human health care workers accidentally infected with HIV rarely get AIDS unless they use recreational drugs ... or AZT. The germ must be found growing again in the newly diseased host. FAILS - for not passing postulate 3. HIV fails this test. HIV scientists claim that Koch's postulates are old and out of date with modern science. But they have stood the test of time. Disease hypotheses that ignored Koch's postulates have been a failure. The infectious theories of scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, SMON and virus/cancer research have all ignored Koch's postulates and all have been a dismal failure. And now HIV/AIDS? 8 AIDS has remained in the original risk groups for over 15 years. If a disease does not spread it must be caused by something non-infectious. The US CDC reports (1997) confirm that AIDS is not spreading into the general population. AIDS cases by risk group (US): Admitted gay males 54% Admitted IV drug users 32% Hemophiliacs 1% Transfusion recipients 1% Claimed heterosexual contact 9% Pediatric 1% Total: 97% If AIDS is truly caused by a virus AIDS patients not in a risk group should be growing above an estimated 10% as the disease spreads. Note that the US army has found that when testing recruits HIV positive results were divided equally between men (50%) and women (50%). Yet 85% of AIDS cases in the US are male. Note too that in the US men use over 80% of all hard drugs. Among women with AIDS 60% (admit they) use hard drugs. 9. International comparisons of AIDS differ greatly. A germ related disease would effect the population in the same way around the world. An outbreak of cholera in India and Honduras would be much the same. But AIDS is totally different in the USA or western industrialized countries and Africa. USA AFRICA Aids by sexual percentage 85% male 50% male 15% female 50% female AIDS among risk groups At least 90% No risk group risk groups (at random) AIDS diseases caused by microbes 62% 90% Estimated HIV Infections 1 million 14 million Official documented cases of AIDS (1995/96) 513,486 442,735 AIDS in Africa should be 14 times higher than in the US. Instead, people with HIV in the US develop AIDS 10 to 20 times faster than in Africa. This means that whereas the latency period in the US is predicted at 10 -15 years, in Africa it is at least 100 to 150 years! VERY GOOD. you got this far. NOW for the BIG NUMBER 10. AIDS occurs without HIV Infection and most people with HIV never develop AIDS. The evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is based solely on correlation. Because the virus is found in most AIDS patients, it is thought to cause AIDS. But the logic of that assumption is flawed because CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION. The common presence of HIV in AIDS patients is no more proof that HIV causes AIDS than the presence of birds on power lines is proof that birds cause power failures. So, if HIV and AIDS are only correlated, we should find AIDS without HIV and healthy people who have HIV and never get AIDS. That is exactly what is happening. In Africa studies have shown over 65% of AIDS patients are not HIV positive. In Africa a positive HIV antibody test result is not necessary for reporting AIDS cases; prolonged symptoms are enough. 4621 cases of AIDS without HIV were found in the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports up to 1993. And the number could be much larger but the official definition of AIDS is designed to eliminate AIDS cases without HIV. AIDS is distinguished from virtually every other disease in history by the fact that it has no constant specific symptoms. AIDS is an umbrella term for 29 old diseases and one non-disease (a T4 cell count of less than 200/ul of blood) when a person has an HIV-positive antibody test result. The official CDC definition of AIDS excludes HIV-negative AIDS by definition. How the CDC's AIDS definition works: Kaposi's Sarcoma + HIV = AIDS Kaposi's Sarcoma - HIV = Kaposi's Sarcoma Pneumonia + HIV = AIDS Pneumonia - HIV = Pneumonia Dementia + HIV = AIDS Dementia - HIV = Dementia and so on... <200 T4 cell count + HIV = AIDS <200 T4 cell count - HIV = no disease There is no disease that is only caused by HIV. HIV is said to cause 29 old diseases when it is present. When it is not, the original causes of these diseases are responsible for them. The official definition of AIDS creates a 100% correlation between the virus and AIDS. This "correlation" is not objective or scientific, but is artificial and deceptively self-fulfilling. Estimated total HIV infected worldwide: 28,000,000 ? (in 96, now estimated to be 48 million) Total of reported AIDS cases worldwide: 1,400,000 " " " 95% percent of people with HIV do not have AIDS. Still True in 2006! Adapted from the video HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud? Note: The statistics quoted may not be the most up to date. TORONTO tel/fax:(416) 406-HEAL snip >Let's start at the top: >Welcome to HIV=AIDS - Fact or terrible terrible genocidal fraud?. Fact--for most infected individuals.0 >10 Scientific Reasons Why HIV Cannot Cause AIDS > >1. >HIV is neutralized by antibody immunity. No, it is not. And to say this is just breathtakingly stupid. Many diseases arise after antibody production. HIV is one of them. snip >One has to question why 12 years and billions of dollars have been >spent developing a vaccine against HIV when the best vaccine possible >already exists when a person tests positive. Because this is the dumbest thing a.sholes like Duesberg have ever said. It is breathtakingly stupid and demonstrably wrong. >2. >HIV does not kill the T cells it infects. Incorrect. It does. However, cytopathicity is not the complete explanation of how HIV causes AIDS. >3. >HIV does not infect enough T cells to cause AIDS. >HIV never infects more than 1 out of 1000 T cells; commonly just 1 out >of 10,000 T cells.* See response to point two. Not disputing this point, but it does NOT mean that HIV does not exist (which is what all of these points are premised upon) or that it does not cause AIDS. If you're going to bet your life on this kind of bullshit...well, good luck. snip >* The recent invention of "viral load" ... (indicating how old this recycled, refuted garbage is. >4. >HIV has no AIDS causing gene. >HIV has no specific gene or unique reason to cause AIDS. All >retroviruses have only 3 major genes, GAG, ENV and POL and only 6 minor >genes. Because the genes and genetic sequences are so limited in these >simple organisms, they need all their genes to replicate. HIV is almost >identical to all other retroviruses genetically. And a lot of those retroviruses cause disease, like CAEV, FIV, EIAV. And the clinical manifestations are similar to those of untreated HIV disease: neuropathy, neurological disorders and wasting. Many HIV gene products have been associated with cell death and infectivity including gp120, nef, vif, vpr, etc. snip >5. >There is no such thing as a "slow virus". HIV activity is ongoing from the moment of infection. Inflammation and damage to lymphoid tissue in the gut and nodes is part of the gradual destruction of uninfected CD4 cells. snip... >6. >HIV is not a new virus, so it could not cause a new epidemic. Wow. Yet another breathtakingly stupid comment. HIV actually IS new, relative to other infections. TB is NOT new yet it periodically causes horriific epidemics. But HIV has probably been around in human populations for less than a century. A century during which the world shrunk RAPIDLY, allowing more rapid dissemination of a virus like HIV. snip >7. >HIV fails Koch's postulates. It does not need to pass Koch's postulates; however, it just so happens that it does. snip> >The germ must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture. >PASSES - but only on a technicality. LOL...the conflicted mind of the denialist. HIV both does not exist AND it does not cause AIDS, yet it does exist. snip. See: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm >8 >AIDS has remained in the original risk groups for over 15 years. The pandemic is 25 years old now. It has become more of a heterosexually transmitted disease in the US, as it has been in the rest of the world. The changing nature of the pandemic, though, hardly serves as an argument against HIV causing AIDS. AIDS is found in people who have not done recreational drugs. Recreational drugs do NOT cause AIDS. >9. >International comparisons of AIDS differ greatly. Underscoring that the pandemic is based on an infection, HIV, that moves around in the host populations where it can, moving more rapidly in groups where it is initially introduced. Networks of sexual partners, drug users and others who re-use syringes, are different. snip >4621 cases of AIDS without HIV were found in the US Center for Disease >Control (CDC) reports up to 1993. Citation? I think this number has been whittled down substantially. snip ><200 T4 cell count + HIV = AIDS ><200 T4 cell count - HIV = no disease LOL....show me cases of the latter. ICL MAY cause TRANSIENT declines of CD4 counts below 200...but by all means, show me WHAT causes a consistent and persistent decline of CD4 counts? >There is no disease that is only caused by HIV. HIV is said to cause 29 >old diseases when it is present. When it is not, the original causes of >these diseases are responsible for them. More incredibly stupid nonsense. You could say "There is no disease that is only caused by influenza." Gosh! TB f.cks up the lungs! Therefore Influenza doesn't exist! Nonsense. ANd HIV does NOT cause KS or any of the other indicator infections. No one EVER said it did. HIV causes the immune system to deteriorate and that results in MUCH increased suscpetibility to things like cryptosporidiosis. You get crypto without HIV, chances are you have some bad diarrhea and you get over it. You get crypto with HIV and a low T cell count, chances are horribly high you may sh.t yourself to death. You want to keep harping on this kind of lame nonsense and pretend HIV does not exist--well, my god. You're insane. I must have missed nonsense point 10. Same garbage. Some nonsense. Nothing new and unbelievably shoddy. George M. Carter > snip > >Let's start at the top: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, it is not. And to say this is just breathtakingly stupid. Many > diseases arise after antibody production. HIV is one of them. Dear, dear, George, Then I guess there will never be a vaccination agaisnt HIV (in spite of the fact it is now 20 YEARS overdue, they are working on it and put it in the category of vaccinations against auto accidents, falling off ladders and other non-related to germ theory health concerns), because as YOU SAID many diseases arise after antibody production. Then why create a vaccination George? It won't work, according to you.. You did not READ the directions sonny. You missed question 1 completely. NO POINTS. Read what the satement said. It says there are NO diseases that remerege AFTER the antibodies have done their job! Do you understand at all antibody immunity? Do you understand WHY we vaccinate for diseases? Yes there are plenty of cases where a disease agent wins the battle BEFORE antibody immunity and sometimes years later when a new mutation comes along and the antibody defense has declined. But not AFTER the antibody defense has completely erradicated the germ, Name one, Please. please, don't mention herpes, or I will have to mark off more of your points down in the test further. > snip > >One has to question why 12 years and billions of dollars have been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because this is the dumbest thing a.sholes like Duesberg have ever > said. It is breathtakingly stupid and demonstrably wrong. Gee you really sound like a scientist here. Why is that you have to resort to profain name calling instead of answering the questions. You are in melt down George. I think it's funny and so does everyone else. > >2. > >HIV does not kill the T cells it infects. > > Incorrect. It does. However, cytopathicity is not the complete > explanation of how HIV causes AIDS. Gallo uses immortal T-cell lines to grow the virus, becuase a retrovirus MUST replicate through a healthy cell's reproduction. Try this experiment. Go let all the air out of you car's tires and then try to drive it. How is a retrvirus going to mass produce if it kills the very cell it needs to grow itself in. THAT is WHY we studied retroviruses for 20 YEARS in cancer research. That's WHERE Gallo came from N.C.I. No Points here. >. > >HIV does not infect enough T cells to cause AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mean that HIV does not exist (which is what all of these points are > premised upon) or that it does not cause AIDS. Well then you must concede here too, for the same reason. Remember, we said we would ASSUME HIV exists in this study. I actually think that it does. But Gallo got into trouble because he couldn't issolate the virus, and used LAV data from the Institute Pasteur. That's why he was charge with scientific misconduct. There was no plentiful viramia. NO virus. it was terminated by antiblody. Back to point one. Obviously, there is no way one virus can kill one T-cell mathematically. Threre ARE marginal exceptions to the antibody rule, for example cholora, which is caused by a toxin emmited by the germ even after it is dead. But to prove that a microbe itself causes a disease you must have a germ alive to do it. > If you're going to bet your life on this kind of bullshit...well, good > luck. I'm not betting my life. But we have already bet 400,000 dead AIDS patients lifes on this and lost.(and some money too, 300 billion) I know plenty of people now who have been HIV positive for over 20 years and are Alive and well. Their friends all died following your "science" and taking toxic meds. > snip > >* The recent invention of "viral load" ... > (indicating how old this recycled, refuted garbage is. Your Right here! Viral LOAD is old..and Dead! Nature, 1998 "the last nail in the coffin for viral load" when you friends in the AID$ industry finally admitted what we predicted. David (the) Ho's hypothesis is mathematically impossible. VIRAL LOAD is DEAD! The last flimsy attempt to save the HIV=AIDS Hypothesis. Poor viral load. Do you miss him? Still NO POINTS! > >4. > >HIV has no AIDS causing gene. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And the clinical manifestations are similar to those of untreated HIV > disease: neuropathy, neurological disorders and wasting. None of my HIV positive friends have these diseases. Wasting syndrome isn't even realted to infection, either is KS. 95 % of HIV positives do NOT have these diseases. Drug use can cause these problems, and about 90% of AIDS patients in the US (not Africa) are gay men using poppers and a whole host of drugs, and IV drug users. The CDC documented 4.621 cases of AIDS without HIV. Many Gay men have KS and neurological diseases without HIV. So who needs HIV? We have documeted this effect for almost 100 years. No POINTS Remeber how Gallo tried and failed several times with these kinds of unproven disease agents that take 30 years to work-styled disease agents? But until these fall like all the rest, we have to give you the benefit of the doubt. 1 Point. > Many HIV gene products have been associated with cell death and > infectivity including gp120, nef, vif, vpr, etc. And there are foods, minerals, cellular material and genetic fragments related to many things good and bad. Many of these genes could indeed be cell refuse and particles of RNA/DNA in free floating serum. GP120 does not prove HIV is the cause of AIDS, or that it is even realted to the virus itself, or that it causes a disease. > snip > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > damage to lymphoid tissue in the gut and nodes is part of the gradual > destruction of uninfected CD4 cells. Now we are back to # 3. again. There is NO active virus of any potentcy in AIDS patients, only provirus and antibody defense. 95% of all people with HIV are healthy and have no symptoms. This is fear and fiction, Scarry Movie number 19. HIV's generation time is 3 weeks, not 30 years. There are no such things as SLOOOOOW viruses, only SLOOOOOW virologists and people who want to believe in HIV and Santa Claus. No POINTS. > snip... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > populations for less than a century. A century during which the world > shrunk RAPIDLY, allowing more rapid dissemination of a virus like HIV. You obvioulsy have no understanding of FARR's LAW. This in NOT a hypothesis, or a postulate. This is a biological LAW. Farr's law states that if a microbe is constant in a population. like TB, which you pointed out, it can not be new, as opposed to a new strain of flu that skyrockets in a short period of time then vanishes. 1985. .05% test positive to HIV. 2006. .05% still test positive. A FLAT LINE. This means HIV has been in the human race at about the same .05% for probably 200 years. 1620 .05% 1832 .05% 1942 .05% No Points here and a book assignment given to you or reading up on Farr's law. > snip > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It does not need to pass Koch's postulates; however, it just so > happens that it does. There is sitll no infections disease known to date that has ever existed without meeting Koch's Postulates. Even Polio, on a technicality. > snip> > >The germ must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture. > >PASSES - but only on a technicality. > > LOL...the conflicted mind of the denialist. HIV both does not exist > AND it does not cause AIDS, yet it does exist. How many times do I have to state that we are ASSUMING HIV exists in this lesson. You need to pay attention son! I see you didn't even bother to try to explain how HIV meets postulates 1, 2, or 3. Which it plainly does not. Koch's Postulates are simple logic. You must have an active germ, issolate the germ, give the germ to healthy host and then see the disease the germ causes again. Simple logic that HIV fails. INCOMPLETE. No Points > snip. > See: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > heterosexually transmitted disease in the US, as it has been in the > rest of the world. Not hardly. women still trail the men in the US.with less then 18% of AIDS cases being female. And the female numbers are slipping again. AIDS is virtually gone in the US now after peaking in 1993. Now only about 12-15,000 new case each year mostly comprised of nbon symptomatic HIV positives with less than 200 CD4 counts. AIDS now meets the classificaton of a "rare disease" that wasted 300 Billion dollars and poisoned 400,000 Americans > The changing nature of the pandemic, though, hardly serves as an > argument against HIV causing AIDS. I have to agree with you here. The "Pandemic" as you call it, should change! That's the point! It hasn't! The germ theory failed, the drug-induced theory still correlates perfectly. ALL infectious diseases move outside their original risk groups. Remove the toxic effects of "miracal medications like AZT" and AIDS is still found in its original risk groups. Oprah was wrong! 10 million people did NOT get AIDS by 1990. No Points. > AIDS is found in people who have not done recreational drugs. > Recreational drugs do NOT cause AIDS. You are absolutly wrong here. Drug use, as I stated, is well documented in the medical history as causing immune deficiency. Rear Root Bernstein's book "Rethingking AIDS" if you want a complete study of this FACT. This is extremely WELL documented and has been known since 1898. We used to call AIDS in heroin addicts "the dwindles" NO POINTS > >9. > >International comparisons of AIDS differ greatly. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Networks of sexual partners, drug users and others who re-use > syringes, are different. Why would AIDS be one thing in Africa and another in the US? Your statement does not even deal with the question. READ the Question again! We are observing that AIDS is completely different in Africa than in the US. Not mode of transmission, not where it is and isn't. No POINTS > snip > >4621 cases of AIDS without HIV were found in the US Center for Disease > >Control (CDC) reports up to 1993. > > Citation? I think this number has been whittled down substantially. Actully this number is much smaller that it should be because the CDC stopped counting ICL's when it proved to be too embarrassing to HIV=AIDS. > snip > ><ly200 T4 cell count + HIV = AIDS [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of CD4 counts below 200...but by all means, show me WHAT causes a > consistent and persistent decline of CD4 counts? We showed you this with drug use. IV addicts loose the same CD4 cells at the same rate with about a 10 year latency period. No POINTS > >There is no disease that is only caused by HIV. HIV is said to cause 29 > >old diseases when it is present. When it is not, the original causes of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You want to keep harping on this kind of lame nonsense and pretend HIV > does not exist well, my god. You're insane. HOW many times do I have to keep telling GEORGE in this study we are ASSUMING that HIV DOES exist! *TP note George, you are rambling here even beyond what we are used to. The point of this argument here is only to express that ALL of the other old 19 diseases that comprise AIDS have existed for years before HIV came along. These diseases ONLY become AIDS diseases when there is an HIV positive test. SO KS with HIV is AIDS. KS without HIV is just plain old KS. Dementia with HIV is AIDS, Dementia without HIV is just plain old stupid. NO POINTS..You didn't even try here. > I must have missed nonsense point 10. YES you missed this one and all the others too. But this POINT is one of the strongest. It mearly explains that AIDS conditons exist in many people who do NOT have HIV, like drug users and gay males without HIV. But the adverse is even more important. NOw remeber this. 95% of ALL the people in the world who are estimated to have HIV infection, ARE NOT SICK and do not have AIDS. That is the bottom line. > Same garbage. Some nonsense. Nothing new and unbelievably shoddy. > > George M. Carter George, You didn't get anything right out of all of this. Why are you so obsessed with defending the HIV=AIDS fraud? I don't think this is good for you. Why not just let it go? It was bad science. It is now obvious. Gallo's bug was like him, a fraud. Why do you want to defend Gallo at the risk of your own credibility? HIV Does not even correlate with AIDS. A school child can see this. There has never been a time in the fading US history of AIDS, that HIV even effected 10% of the populaton who were said to be infected with virus, and caused AIDS above that. Over 90% of US HIV positive people have remained healthy. The numbers in Africa are closer to 95% and the disease progresses 14 times slower there in spite of terrible health conditions. HIV=AIDS is dead. George, George. Let it go! > > snip > > >Let's start at the top: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Read what the satement said. It says there are NO diseases that > remerege AFTER the antibodies have done their job! No diseases? According to who? Duesberg is a lone voice even amongst the "rethinkers". http://www.theperthgroup.com/LATEST/PerthGroupRebuttalCF.pdf Item 44, Antibodies Mean Immunity&Except for HIV? Only a minority of people (Peter Duesberg among them) believe that "Antibodies Mean Immunity". Many "HIV" experts including Gallo et al in their critique repeatedly presented evidence which disproves the claim that "Antibodies Mean Immunity". Yet, Peter Duesberg still insists that "Antibodies Mean Immunity". Antibodies do not mean immunity as was shown as long ago as 1935 by no less an authority than Albert Sabin.23-25 >Do you understand > at all antibody immunity? Do you understand WHY we vaccinate for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one, Please. please, don't mention herpes, or I will have to mark off > more of your points down in the test further. I thought that Duesberg had finally stopped claiming that the human immune respopnse completely eradicates HIV after a few weeks. HIV like many other viruses produces a persistent infection despite the presence of antibodies. Anyone that claims that the presence of antibodies means that the virus is completely eradicated is either stupid or a liar. You claim that hurricanes in the US are all God's retribution for the US/Israel foreign policy and yet you expect to be taken seriously on topics that you are demonstrably incompetent! Chris Noble > > > snip > > > >Let's start at the top: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > of antibodies. Anyone that claims that the presence of antibodies means > that the virus is completely eradicated is either stupid or a liar. And anyone who has antibodies that DO NOT "completely eradicate" a virus (or any invading and destructive microbe) would be dead. Including all of us! You obviously have turned science on it's head to cling to a failed hypothesis. Name 10 diseases that have no active viral or bacteria after antibody immunity and still cause a disease. You can't even name one. Go ahead and post one and we will rip it to shreds. > Chris Noble There are now over 2,300 people besides Dr. Peter Duesberg and Nobel (not Chris Nobel) Prize winners Dr. Walter Gilbert from Harvard and Kary Mullis whi ironically invented the PCR technology used to detect "viral load" who dispute Gallo's magic bug "HIV." Here is the link: http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm Please don't try to make the statement that only a minority of scientists believe this when the number has grown internationaly among hunderds of Ph.Ds. MDs. and other real experts in microbiological research. Your days are numbered. Your fraud is obvious. You will share the same fate as Gallo. > > > > snip > > > > >Let's start at the top: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > And anyone who has antibodies that DO NOT "completely eradicate" a > virus (or any invading and destructive microbe) would be dead. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mmed.chapter.2431 > Including all of us! You obviously have turned science on it's head to > cling to a failed hypothesis. Your attempt to portray yourself as a scientific authority is doomed to failure. > Name 10 diseases that have no active viral or bacteria after antibody > immunity and still cause a disease. You can't even name one. Go ahead > and post one and we will rip it to shreds. For a start there is active HIV in all stages of HIV disease so your argument is a strawman. Post-polio syndrome is however one example of a disease caused by a microbe long after the generation of antibodies and probably the complete eradication of the poilovirus. > > Chris Noble > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > research. Your days are numbered. Your fraud is obvious. You will share > the same fate as Gallo. The list of "rethinkers" is insignificantly small it is also padded with crackpots like Hulda Clark, homeopaths, chiropractors and creation scientists. Many "rethinkers" that are on the list have subsequently had another rethink and now accept the evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Take your example of Walter Gilbert. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Walter Gilbert [mailto:wgilbert@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:27 PM To: richard.jefferys@verizon.net Subject: Re: question Dear Dr. Jeffreys---I am afraid that those comments go back to the late 80's. At that time I was a skeptic--the argument based on Koch's postulates to try to distinguish between cause and association. However, even during that time we had several AIDS projects going within Biogen--one to try to stimulate T-independent B-cell activation (a pet approach of mine), another to develop soluble CD4--to use as an antiviral agent. That second project got to clinical trials (and failed because the virus in patients didn't have the high affinity for CD4 that the lab-grown virus had.) Today I would regard the success of the many antiviral agents which lower the virus titers (to be expected) and also resolve the failure of the immune system (only expected if the virus is the cause of the failure) as a reasonable proof of the causation argument. yours truly Walter Gilbert ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Noble > > There are now over 2,300 people besides Dr. Peter Duesberg and Nobel > > (not Chris Nobel) Prize winners Dr. Walter Gilbert from Harvard and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > research. Your days are numbered. Your fraud is obvious. You will share > > the same fate as Gallo. Chris and Gallo: The quacks of AID$ > The list of "rethinkers" is insignificantly small it is also padded > with crackpots like Hulda Clark, homeopaths, chiropractors and creation > scientists. Interesting to hear one Quack call others "crackpots" Oh but you didn't count the MDs in there, or the experts in a vast variety of microbiological research in the US and overseas. By the way, I am not ignoring you on the other topics you have tried to weave into this thread, I am just letting you ramble off onto any other strange off-topic subjects so the the readers here can see where you are in other debates. Tell us Chris, What about 911? Was it an inside job? Did WTC 7 fall down because of fire damage or controlled demolition? Now tell us all about the creation vs evolution debate. I am sure you know ALL about this too. And I can't wait to hear you opinions on global warming!!! PLEASE feel free to share! We all want to know exactly everything you are wrong about. > Many "rethinkers" that are on the list have subsequently had another > rethink and now accept the evidence that HIV causes AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that > the lab-grown virus had.) Notice FAILED!!!!! Because the virus in patients did not have the HIGH affinity for CD4 that the lab-grown virus had.Hmmmm) > Today I would regard the success of the many antiviral agents which > lower the virus titers (to be expected) and also resolve the failure > of the immune system (only expected if the virus is the cause of the > failure) as a reasonable proof of the causation argument. Notice the Parenthesis!!! > yours truly > > Walter Gilbert > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Chris Noble Let's take a look at what Dr. Luc Montagnier says: He might know. He is actually the REAL discoverer of HIV, or LAV as it was originally called before your buddy Gallo embarrassed the entire US Department of health with his theft of research and scientific misconduct. No hear what the actual discoverer of HIV has to say: "HIV MIGHT BE BENIGN" ? "Discoverer of HIV Virus" Dr. Luc Montagnier @ the 1990 San Francisco International AIDS conference. And what about Montagnier quote that says in plain english that AIDS doesn't inevitably lead to death & that "CO-FACTORS" are just as important as HIV?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier "AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected. I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV. Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he's condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him. - Luc Montagnier" http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com Watch the video and see the HIV fraud exposed. If AIDS doesn't inevitably lead to death, why are we in a panic? If HIV is the "cause" of AIDS then why is Dr. Montagnier telling us to focus as much on the co-factors as we do HIV? What haven't we heard any of this info before? This isn't science. This is sorcery and voodoo-styled mind conditioning. This is also a crime against all mankind. Just say NO to Nobel! snip/// >No hear what the actual discoverer of HIV has to say: So HIV DOES exist... >"HIV MIGHT BE BENIGN" © "Discoverer of HIV Virus" Dr. Luc Montagnier >@ the 1990 San Francisco International AIDS conference. That's not Luc's view. I know the man. These are utter complete distortions. He knows that HIV causes AIDS. George M. Carter > > > There are now over 2,300 people besides Dr. Peter Duesberg and Nobel > > > (not Chris Nobel) Prize winners Dr. Walter Gilbert from Harvard and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > scientists. > Interesting to hear one Quack call others "crackpots" I don't go around claiming to be able to cure all diseases. Hulda Clark does. She is a quack. > Oh but you didn't count the MDs in there, or the experts in a vast > variety of microbiological research in the US and overseas. Why don't you make it easy for me. Edit the list to take out all the chiropractors that believe in subluxions, homeopaths that believe in the "memory" of water and Wilhelm Reich fan's that believe in the orgone etc. > By the way, I am not ignoring you on the other topics you have tried to > weave into this thread, I am just letting you ramble off onto any other > strange off-topic subjects so the the readers here can see where you > are in other debates. > > Tell us Chris, What about 911? Was it an inside job? Did WTC 7 fall > down because of fire damage or controlled demolition? Some people hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings. > Now tell us all about the creation vs evolution debate. I am sure you > know ALL about this too. The creation/evolution "debate" is remarkably similar to the socalled "debate" about HIV. Both groups of "rethinkers" have been predicting the imminent collapse of HIV/evbolution theory for decades. > And I can't wait to hear you opinions on global warming!!! PLEASE feel > free to share! We all want to know exactly everything you are wrong [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > > Chris Noble Are you acknoweldging that Walter Gilbert accepts the evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS and that his name should not be used in appeal to authority arguments from "rethinkers"? > Let's take a look at what Dr. Luc Montagnier says: He might know. He is > actually the REAL discoverer of HIV, or LAV as it was originally called [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Luc Montagnier" It took me a while to track down the source of the quote. It's from an interview that appered in Omni magazine in December 1988 v11n3 Strangely enough "rethinkers" forget to quote the rest of his response. "... have condemned him. It simply isn't true that the virus is one hundred percent fatal. If you lead a normal life -- sleep regularly at night, avoid alcohol, coffee, and tobacco -- your immune system could perhaps resist the diseas for ten or fifteen years. By then we might have found an effective therapy" This hardly supports your claim that Montagnier is really a closet "rethinker". Various co-factors almost certainly have a strong effect on the rate of progression. The single key factor is HIV. Stop trying to pretend that Montagnier is some sort of closet "rethinker'. Chris Noble snip >I don't go around claiming to be able to cure all diseases. Hulda Clark >does. She is a quack. As a strong proponent of determining the value of what works, regardless of whether it is called allopathic, complementary, alternative, integrative or whatever, I can do no more than agree with this sentiment. Hulda Clark is the worst kind of quack. Almost as bad as the scumbags that try to shove statins down everyone's throat. Artemisia species are good for lots of things. They don't cure or even treat HIV disease. Statins are good secondary to a heart attack but have no discernible value for primary prevention, despite the lies of industy and the garbage produced by the NCEP recently. George M. Carter > snip > >I don't go around claiming to be able to cure all diseases. Hulda Clark [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hulda Clark is the worst kind of quack. Almost as bad as the scumbags > that try to shove statins down everyone's throat. RESPONSE Or DNA chain terminating drugs like AZT or the protease inhibitors George? > Artemisia species are good for lots of things. They don't cure or even > treat HIV disease. Statins are good secondary to a heart attack but > have no discernible value for primary prevention, despite the lies of > industy and the garbage produced by the NCEP recently. > > George M. Carter Ok, a quick reply is all that is necessary for these small moehill moutains of your debate. If you know Luc Montagnier so well (who was the original discoverer of HIV (LAV) before Gallo's theft), ask him why he wasted so much time with Micoplasim X, which he has publically stated so many times may be the MAIN cofactor in the HIV + MX =AIDS + Time + more time + even MORE TIME= Death paradigm. Did he not say that "HIV might be benign"? Is he confused? Have him write us here on this blog and clear things up please, I'm sure he will assist you as his freind. Chris, you do the counting. Go back to the RA list and count the MDs and give us a total. Then count the PhDs directly involved in microbiological health or research and give us a total. Finally count the attorneys and human rights advocates that will prosecute the HIV Mengela maniacs who perpetuated this mass genocide using tax dollars based on Gallo's fraud. Now as for 911. This is off the subject as you know. BUT Chris opened this can of worms and now he says that WTC 7 fell because airplanes hit it. Ummm Chris, pssst pssst AIRPLANES did NOT hit WTC 7!!!!! So what did cause WTC & to fall? Tell us ALL about it! And don't forget to include ALL the "facts and science" you use to muddy the obvious truth. Got to this site:http:// www.911truth.org and see WTC 7 fall in under 7 seconds by controlled demolition. If you want to see a great video that exposes HIV/AID$ as the world's biggest and most dangerous medical fraud, even the exposing the whores who have perpetuated this mass genocide, (and soon to be prosecuted for their crimes against humaity) go to this site: http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com The AIDS fraud revealed and exposed. If you are HIV positive and want to see the fraud of HIV testing revealed go to this site:http://www.helpforhiv.com It's time that we stopped the lies. Chris Nobel and George Carter are telling us never queston the government about things like HIV and 911. Where are those WMDs anyway? Hiding in the lymph nodes like HIV? Mutating into terrorist sleeper cells? HIV/AID$ and 911 are classic military psy-ops mind controlling propaganda tricks. They both work the same way. FEAR and turst in bogus authority and lies. HIV=AIDS: the government's medical industrial complex fraud of 300 billion dollars! 9/11 The Inside Job! A false flag operation that thrust the US into the war in Iraq and around the world. Wake up people! To prison with the liars! NOW! Say NO BULL to Nobel. Don't swallow Carter's little pills of toxic HIV meds! Call for justice! Remember their names! They are the poison wells of mass human suffering. >> snip >> >I don't go around claiming to be able to cure all diseases. Hulda Clark [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Or DNA chain terminating drugs like AZT or the protease inhibitors >George? I think statins as well as antiretrovirals can be used wisely where the benefit outweighs their potential risks and toxicities. You can't apparently comprehend a nuanced view. >> Artemisia species are good for lots of things. They don't cure or even >> treat HIV disease. Statins are good secondary to a heart attack but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ok, a quick reply is all that is necessary for these small moehill >moutains of your debate. That's all I can expect you'd manage. Quick in this context merely means windbag posturing. >If you know Luc Montagnier so well (who was the original discoverer of >HIV (LAV) before Gallo's theft), ask him why he wasted so much time [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >confused? Have him write us here on this blog and clear things up >please, I'm sure he will assist you as his freind. Not in the slightest. I haven't been in touch with him for a while but have spoken with him. At the time, he investigated a hypothesis that HIV must work in the context of a co-factor infection. He thoroughly investigated the idea that mycoplasm infections could be that co-factor. Their work and effort did not pan out and the hypothesis failed to prove that, however, the work did convince him that HIV infection can result in AIDS by itself. >Chris, you do the counting. Go back to the RA list and count the MDs >and give us a total. Then count the PhDs directly involved in >microbiological health or research and give us a total. Finally count >the attorneys and human rights advocates that will prosecute the HIV >Mengela maniacs who perpetuated this mass genocide using tax dollars >based on Gallo's fraud. That's your work--and I know some of the people on the list may have QUESTIONED the idea of HIV's role in AIDS but now understand that it does. Robert Root-Bernstein, for example. He still feels a co-factor infection may be necessary. Casper Schmidt died of AIDS. Joe Sonnabend recognizes that HIV causes AIDS. The list is old and out-of-date and the denialists have never had the guts to update it accurately. It's called intellectual dishonesty--a hallmark of denialists. George M. Carter > >> snip > >> >I don't go around claiming to be able to cure all diseases. Hulda Clark [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > It's called intellectual dishonesty--a hallmark of denialists. Dishonesty? I hardly think Root-Bernstein and Sonnabend are people to argue the case of HIV=AIDS. Did you read "RETHINKING AIDS" by Root-Bernstein? You play very loose with other people's opinions George. TruthPLEASE!!!! >> The list is old and out-of-date and the denialists have never had the >> guts to update it accurately. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Root-Bernstein? You play very loose with other people's opinions >George. LOL...they're on your list! But they should not be. And yes, I did read Rethinking AIDS. Interesting book. George M. Carter > > snip > > >I don't go around claiming to be able to cure all diseases. Hulda Clark [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > confused? Have him write us here on this blog and clear things up > please, I'm sure he will assist you as his freind. Did he say this or is it just the paraphrase of a HIV "rethinker"? Remember your previous citation continued to say that HIV may not be universally fatal and that if you looked after yourself you might survive 10-15 years by which time hopefully anti-HIV drugs would have been developed. Hardly the message you were trying to make it out to be. Montagnier has accepted that his adventure with mycoplasms and AIDS was a waste of time. The particular cell line he was using, CEM, was contaminated with mycoplasm. For his current views read something he wrote in this millennium. The "rethinker" penchant for quote mining non-scientifci writings from the 1980s is pathetic. > Chris, you do the counting. Go back to the RA list and count the MDs > and give us a total. Then count the PhDs directly involved in > microbiological health or research and give us a total. Finally count > the attorneys and human rights advocates that will prosecute the HIV > Mengela maniacs who perpetuated this mass genocide using tax dollars > based on Gallo's fraud. It's simpler to count the number of qualified researchers that have actually done any research on HIV - zero. > Now as for 911. This is off the subject as you know. BUT Chris opened > this can of worms and now he says that WTC 7 fell because airplanes hit [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Got to this site:http:// www.911truth.org and see WTC 7 fall in under > 7 seconds by controlled demolition. I never stated that any of the airplanes directly impacted WTC 7. WTC 7 was damaged in the collapse of WTC1 and 2. It was also on fire. I personally find in incredible that somebody would a) fly planes into WTC1 and 2 and also plant explosions in WTC 7. Why? Your conspiracy theories are plain loony. Your scientific knowledge about how a building *should* collapse is as trust worthy as your scientifc knowledge about how a virus *should* behave. > If you want to see a great video that exposes HIV/AID$ as the world's > biggest and most dangerous medical fraud, even the exposing the whores [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > military psy-ops mind controlling propaganda tricks. They both work the > same way. FEAR and turst in bogus authority and lies. >From what I have read George Carter is hardly a Bush supporter neither am I. Bad foreign policy and incompetence were Bush's sole contributions to 911. > HIV=AIDS: the government's medical industrial complex fraud of 300 > billion dollars! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > meds! Call for justice! > Remember their names! They are the poison wells of mass human suffering. Good luck with your next therapy session. Chris Noble > > RESPONSE > > Or DNA chain terminating drugs like AZT or the protease inhibitors [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Did he say this or is it just the paraphrase of a HIV "rethinker"? No George, Luc Montagnier made this statement at the 1990 San Francisco internationl AIDS conference. What is so hard to understand about his wording, when he said "HIV might be benign?" The he reiterated his position on research on ABC's "Day 1" in 1993. If I could clear the copyright, I would post it on Google. > Remember your previous citation continued to say that HIV may not be > universally fatal and that if you looked after yourself you might > survive 10-15 years by which time hopefully anti-HIV drugs would have > been developed. Hardly the message you were trying to make it out to > be. How many people has the CDC proved were immune to HIV? Why is it that there are none? > Montagnier has accepted that his adventure with mycoplasms and AIDS was > a waste of time. The particular cell line he was using, CEM, was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It's simpler to count the number of qualified researchers that have > actually done any research on HIV - zero. Right George, if you ignore the man who discoverd the silly bug before your buddy Gallo created the "AID$ virus" by press conference. Go back and look at the RA list. Lots of microbioloists named there, and few good MD.s too who actually treat these people you are poisoning. > > Now as for 911. This is off the subject as you know. BUT Chris opened > > this can of worms and now he says that WTC 7 fell because airplanes hit [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Chris Noble Chris, Thanks so much. Actually I have you EXACTLY where I want you. If you don't mind I want to repost this debate all over the net. You can do the same. Let's agree though that we will post the debate in its entire context from each post. ( a gentleman's agreement) ALL my words, all yours. NO CHANGES! Your points: 1.You can make the case for HIV as the cause of AIDS, the research and drugs being beneficial. 2. 911 was a terroist attack and WTC 7 fell because of "airplanes hitting the towers" My points: 1.HIV is a deadly and deceptive fraud that has wasted almost 300 billion dollars internationally while poisoning 400,000 plus people with toxic drugs. 2. 911 was an Inside job, a false flag event perpetuated by insiders who needed it to thrust the US into war in Iraq and Afghanistan under the pretense of a "terrorist attack." You will try to make people think I need a "therapy session" I will ask the growing number of people questioning 911 and HIV/AID$, "what should be done with people who perpeutate dangerous lies that cause mass-genocide?" You next post will start our debate. ok? >> > RESPONSE >> > Or DNA chain terminating drugs like AZT or the protease inhibitors [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >No George, Luc Montagnier made this statement at the 1990 San Francisco >internationl AIDS conference. Chirs wrote that, not me. First, it's 2006. Second, provide evidence for that statement. George M. Carter |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message