Is it the consensus of this forum that HIV causes AIDS?

G

geistkiesel

Valued Senior Member
I ask this question based on information that a substantial number of scientist disagree with the dogma of "HIV = AIDS". Some say that AIDS does not mirror a contagious disesae paradigm and that HIV has never been isolated, nor put to a satisfactory Koch test. The Nobel prize to the French team recently, while interesting, proves nothing - the French result mixed with Robert Gallo's involvement casts serious scientific credibility shadows on the whole story.

Approximately 15 years ago I interviewed 12 doctors in Austin, Texas that had at least one AIDS patient. When I got to the question of what scientific proof did the doctor refer to that HIV caused AIDS the interviews were most abruptly terminated. I mean, the question was unexpected, but fair, and the anger generated was boiling hot.

I do not wish to kick this near dead horse with purposeless intents, and I truly desire to avoid emotional conflicts in responses, though I do recognize the issue is on a level close to the issue of, "Jesus' Divinity", or not.:shrug:

Any opinions or better, facts, out there will be most appreciated.
 
There are very few full-time career scientists on this forum and the only medical professional who hangs out here regularly is an EMT. You'll probably see a number of opinions posted, but I don't believe anyone here is qualified to perform a peer review of the HIV-AIDS link.

There are several reasons why a physician or other scientist could terminate an interview angrily. They get really tired of being challenged by laymen.

See how far you'd get in an interview with a biologist if you suddenly ask, "What scientific proof do refer to that supports evolution?"
 
A very fair question, Herr Geistkiesel. And very contentious, if I correctly remember the last time such a thing was discussed around here.

Duesberg et al make good observations.

Umm... what was your reason for asking that question of those physicians in the first place?
 
Last edited:
Sheesh! I hit reply too soon by accident!

geistkiesel said:
The Nobel prize to the French team recently, while interesting, proves nothing - the French result mixed with Robert Gallo's involvement casts serious scientific credibility shadows on the whole story.
Click to expand...

The Nobel prize to Dr. Montagnier (and whoever else shares it) proves nothing as you said, if for no other reason than as of late it seems you can get a Nobel prize for doing very little (or nothing at all... Obama?). You are also correct about it being interesting. Interesting because of some of the things Montagnier is on record as having said.

I heard some things... about Dr. Gallo... no! Not that he's a homosexual! Or a crossdresser... Geez! But other things... much worse! Having to do with his original papers about HIV isolating, etc etc... Need to double check before I spread blasphemous rumours, though. :eek:

Fraggle Rocker said:
There are several reasons why a physician or other scientist could terminate an interview angrily. They get really tired of being challenged by laymen.
Click to expand...

Apparently some of them also get tired of being challenged by equally credentialed peers, to the point of saying that they're facilitating a holocaust and should be arrested (Dr. Mark Wainberg's sentiments). I hardly think the whole "layman" vs "expert" (god) thing explains it adequately.
 
I am not a doctor let me say that right up front but I do have a personal experience with this disease. Years ago my Sister in-law was tested and diagnosed with the HIV infection she was tested due to the fact that a male donor had been listed as dying from Aids. And the Canada Red Cross tested all the people that received Blood products from this person. My sister in-law was one of the people that were in fact carrying the disease HIV. It took only a few years to the day for her to become sicker and sicker and then finally she expired from the disease know as AIDS. So from what I have seen I would say that yes it is a fair bet that the infections HIV does eventually lead to AIDS and then to death.
 
http://letterstotheempire.com/the-aids-nazis/ said:
Internationally, Dr. Wainberg is troubled by the fact that the President of South Africa, one of the countries hit hardest by HIV-AIDS, has publicly endorsed the views of Dr. Duesberg.

President Thabo Mbeki has lashed out at those refusing to debate the cause of AIDS for waging a “campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism” and has likened their intransigence to the “racist apartheid tyranny we opposed.”

Dr. Wainberg disagrees, saying that to even debate the question “Does HIV cause AIDS?” leads to irresponsible sexual behaviour and prompts those undergoing treatment to abandon their medications.

He told delegates that, in other matters of public health, such as smoking, the debate would not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

It's always heartening to know when something is so irrefutable that debate is dangerous and intolerable! It saves me the trouble of having to pay attention to any contrary arguments. More time to drink beer, stare at boobies, and get all riled about football. Manly things. You know, the things that evolution has wisely steered me towards.
 
Grim_Reaper said:
I am not a doctor let me say that right up front but I do have a personal experience with this disease. Years ago my Sister in-law was tested and diagnosed with the HIV infection she was tested due to the fact that a male donor had been listed as dying from Aids. And the Canada Red Cross tested all the people that received Blood products from this person. My sister in-law was one of the people that were in fact carrying the disease HIV. It took only a few years to the day for her to become sicker and sicker and then finally she expired from the disease know as AIDS. So from what I have seen I would say that yes it is a fair bet that the infections HIV does eventually lead to AIDS and then to death.
Click to expand...

This happens. Also, people are HIV positive for two decades without being sick. Some take the medication, and get sick, and recover after coming off the medication.

I was going to post a video clip of an interview on Oprah with a man who was misdiagnosed as HIV+ and lived for years on various drugs, wasting away and getting sick (from the drugs that supposedly were helping him) only to learn that he had been misdiagnosed from the beginning.
YouTube recently removed the clip (it was a violation of something :rolleyes: ) so I can't post it, but you can see where the clip should have been as well as the man's face who was being interviewed here http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=22911775998&share_id=67703035093&comments=1 . He reminded me of Mr. Rogers (of the children's tv show). His first name was John, I know that. He was bringing a lawsuit against someone for it. I'm having trouble finding anything about the case since I don't remember the last name.

While I lean more towards the HIV skeptic/AIDS rethinker side, I try to be as neutral and fair in my assesment of the whole thing. It's a very complicated issue, full of emotion and politics.
 
Some say that AIDS does not mirror a contagious disesae paradigm and that HIV has never been isolated, nor put to a satisfactory Koch test.
Click to expand...
I don't know where that one is coming from - the needle-stick deaths of nurses who were treating people HIV+ from blood transfusions rounds out the applicable Koch's postulates nicely, as they apply to viruses, thank you,
wiki said:
Koch's postulates were developed in the 19th century as general guidelines to identify pathogens that could be isolated with the techniques of the day.[3] Even in Koch's time, it was recognized that some infectious agents were clearly responsible for disease even though they did not fulfill all of the postulates.[2][4] Attempts to rigidly apply Koch's postulates to the diagnosis of viral diseases in the late 19th century, at a time when viruses could not be seen or isolated in culture, may have impeded the early development of the field of virology.[5][6] Currently, a number of infectious agents are accepted as the cause of disease despite their not fulfilling all of Koch's postulates.[7] Therefore, while Koch's postulates retain historical importance and continue to inform the approach to microbiologic diagnosis, fulfillment of all four postulates is not required to demonstrate causality.
Click to expand...
and no one who has looked at the numbers has much of a quarrel with HIV virus "mirroring a contagious disease paradigm". It was described as behaving like a contagious disease before the key infectious agent was found.

Yes, treatment of HIV infection often makes you sick. So does treatment of leukemia, and other diseases of the white blood cells. Aspirin kills hundreds of people every year. Lots of medical care makes you sick, so don't get it unless you need it.
 
Last edited:
http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm

The alternative definition of AIDS requires a CD4+ cell count consistently below 200 cells per cubic millimetre of blood, which cannot be explained by any factor other than HIV (such as cancer, malnutrition, radiation or chemotherapy). No HIV test is required.

It turns out that the vast majority of people diagnosed with AIDS fit these criteria. They form a population that barely existed before 1980, but which now numbers hundreds of thousands in the USA and Europe alone. People with such severe immune deficiency are at very high risk of developing serious illnesses and usually die within months (unless they take antiretroviral drugs).10 11 12 We can use this simple, unambiguous definition to test the association between HIV and AIDS.13 14
Click to expand...

In other words, this definition is not reliant on the presence of the HIV virus, but can be used to test the strength of the relationship between the virus and the disease.

The article also goes on to discuss HIV, AIDS and the Koch criteria.
 
geistkiesel said:
I ask this question based on information that a substantial number of scientist disagree with the dogma of "HIV = AIDS".
Click to expand...

Total rubbish.


Fraggle Rocker said:
There are very few full-time career scientists on this forum and the only medical professional who hangs out here regularly is an EMT. You'll probably see a number of opinions posted, but I don't believe anyone here is qualified to perform a peer review of the HIV-AIDS link.
Click to expand...

I am a full-time career scientist in the biological sciences with a doctorate and lab head experience. I am qualified to perform a peer review of the HIV-AIDS link, but I’m certainly not going to bother. The link is so well defined that trying to deny it is akin to denying that fluoridation has no dental benefits and immunisation has no health benefits. To suggest there is no link requires disingenuous and wilfully ignorant arguments, cherry picking of evidence, misinterpretation of facts, a huge woo-woo agendum and outright lies.

It’s almost akin to denying evolution. Denying the HIV/AIDS link is pure trolling, as far as I’m concerned, and as a result this thread goes straight to Pseudoscience. (I’m being very generous by not locking and Cesspooling it.)
 
Giambattista said:
This happens. Also, people are HIV positive for two decades without being sick. Some take the medication, and get sick, and recover after coming off the medication.

I was going to post a video clip of an interview on Oprah with a man who was misdiagnosed as HIV+ and lived for years on various drugs, wasting away and getting sick (from the drugs that supposedly were helping him) only to learn that he had been misdiagnosed from the beginning.
YouTube recently removed the clip (it was a violation of something :rolleyes: ) so I can't post it, but you can see where the clip should have been as well as the man's face who was being interviewed here http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=22911775998&share_id=67703035093&comments=1 . He reminded me of Mr. Rogers (of the children's tv show). His first name was John, I know that. He was bringing a lawsuit against someone for it. I'm having trouble finding anything about the case since I don't remember the last name.

While I lean more towards the HIV skeptic/AIDS rethinker side, I try to be as neutral and fair in my assesment of the whole thing. It's a very complicated issue, full of emotion and politics.
Click to expand...

Well all I can say is this the Canadian Government felt so strongly that it and the red cross screwed up that they not only paid for all of my Sister in-laws medical that was not covered under the government plan as well they gave her the sum of 50 thousand dollars a year until she died they did the same with the hemophiliacs as well that were infected by tainted blood. As well an inquiry was called to look into why the Red Cross did nothing while they knew that the blood they were giving out was tainted out of the inquiry there were several charges laid and the Canadian Red Cross was dismantled and reformed as the Canadian Blood services and the Red Cross. And my sister in-law did not get sick taken the meds she got sick before she started to take the meds and she stabilized after taking the meds and yes she held on as long as she could. She was 26 years old when she died because of the fact that the Red Cross did not release the information soon enough to react to the infection. They knew there was Tainted blood and did nothing to stop it in fact the people that knew of the tainted blood banked their own blood and their families own blood just in-case any of them needed it how is that for a HIV does not cause AIDS.
 
Meh, trolling the "HIV doesn't cause Aids" crap again :(

Please find something more useful to do with your time than following this form of argument. Next you'll be trying to claim man never set foot on the moon.
 
Wow, I thought Geist was a hack for his relativity denying ignorant nonsense but denying HIV/AIDS?! That's a step further!
 
Stryder said:
Meh, trolling the "HIV doesn't cause Aids" crap again :(

Please find something more useful to do with your time than following this form of argument. Next you'll be trying to claim man never set foot on the moon.
Click to expand...

Heh.
 
geistkiesel said:
Approximately 15 years ago I interviewed 12 doctors in Austin, Texas that had at least one AIDS patient. When I got to the question of what scientific proof did the doctor refer to that HIV caused AIDS the interviews were most abruptly terminated.
Click to expand...

You must get that a lot. It's like when you interview 12 physicists who know about relativity and you ask that killer question of what scientific proof they have that relativity is real.

I'll let you in on a secret: at the point where you ask your killer question, these educated people realise you're a complete nut and decide that talking to you further will just be humouring your delusions and increasing your psychosis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top