The TRUTH is out there.
(The age-old paradox. How does one justify knowledge?)
(The age-old paradox. How does one justify knowledge?)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The biggest joke in biology: AIDS
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Hiv can help.
Pete has been 'vigorous' in this thread? He seems rather calm to me.
Hmm.
Anyway.
Would you really like to know how viruses are isolated, Metakron?
I don't think you do. I believe it's a rhetorical question. I believe that if your question were answered that you'd simply brush it off as you've brushed off everything else you don't care to understand in every other discussion that's taken place.
I'll give you a hint, photographs really aren't very important in the scheme of things. But they do impress laymen. It's sorta like space exploration. You get the pseudos who focus on the images that NASA publishes and thinks that space exploration is all about examining photographs. But it's not.
I'll give you a hint. There are numerous sites out there that have gathered the evidence and when they gather it the evidence shows that HIV is not proven to cause any disease. Your funny mumbling does not impress me. Neither do statements like "show me proof and not your dippy sites." How fucking stupid do you yoyos think I am?
I'll give you a hint. There are numerous sites out there that have gathered the evidence and when they gather it the evidence shows that HIV is not proven to cause any disease. Your funny mumbling does not impress me. Neither do statements like "show me proof and not your dippy sites." How fucking stupid do you yoyos think I am?
There are numerous of posts out here that have gathered the evidence that shows MetaKron may or may not exist. None of them prove of your existence? Do you exist Metakron?
There are numerous of posts out here that have gathered the evidence that shows MetaKron may or may not exist. None of them prove of your existence? Do you exist Metakron?
Which furthers your "argument" exactly how?
Which furthers your "argument" exactly how?
I never had an argument, there is no proof that I ever did have any argument, is there? There is no proof there is AIDS or MetaKron or anything in this world and even no proof of the world itself.
How it started:
Characteristics of a retrovirus.
The new virus was shown to be able to kill T lymphocytes in vitro already at this stage.
And then the famous picture arose.
And this was merely a start. Only a moron would dismiss 25 year old data (that was perfectly acceptable back then and now) and ignore at the same time all the subsequent data. A pubmed search on HIV gives 200,000 hits alone.
HIV is well characterized. It is not a figment of someone's imagination and I suggest you come up with some real criticism instead of 'I don't believe'.
Criticise real data.
On 3 January 1983, Françoise Brun-Vezinet obtained a lymph node biopsy from one of Rozenbaum's patients, a young gay man (BRU) with a lymphadenopathy in the neck. I minced the lymph node, dissociated the fragments into single cells, and cultured the T lymphocytes with interleukin-2 and antiserum to human interferon. Fifteen days later, Françoise Sinoussi (by then Barré-Sinoussi) found the first traces of RT in the supernatant of the lymphocyte culture, indicating the presence of a retrovirus.
Characteristics of a retrovirus.
It was not one of the known retroviruses known to operate in the same cells.The only retroviruses then known were the human T cell leukemia viruses, HTLV-1 and HTLV-2, identified by Gallo's group. So, we tested whether the viral proteins in the supernatant could be recognized by Gallo's antibodies against HTLV. Surprisingly, our labeled viral supernatant could not be immune precipitated with the HTLV antibodies, but could be precipitated with the patient's own serum (4).
A protein with a molecular mass of about 25 kD precipitated by the patient's serum seemed to be the counterpart of the p24 protein of HTLV-1. The virus could not be isolated from blood lymphocytes, a fact that is now explained by the early stage (lymphadenopathy) of this patient's disease when the virus is almost exclusively located in lymphatic tissues. Louis Pasteur's quote that "luck in science smiles on prepared minds" certainly applied to us. We received a biopsy from another young gay male patient (MOI), who was infected with both HTLV and the new lymphadenopathy-associated virus. If MOI had been our first patient, we would have been very confused.
A few months later, I received a blood sample from a young hemophiliac (LOI) with full-blown AIDS, and blood and lymph node samples from a young gay man (LAI) with advanced Kaposi's sarcoma. The LAI virus could be isolated from the patient's blood cells and grew very quickly in the patient's cultured T lymphocytes, killing them as well as killing T lymphocytes from blood donors.
The new virus was shown to be able to kill T lymphocytes in vitro already at this stage.
In September, we isolated a similar virus from the blood of a Zairian woman, ELI, who died of AIDS a week later. All of the isolated viruses showed cross-reactivity between their gag proteins (p25 and p18) (5). The viruses isolated from full-blown AIDS patients were more aggressive than the BRU virus, and so I called them immune deficiency-associated viruses (IDAV). The viruses like BRU that were isolated from patients who only suffered from lymphadenopathy were termed lymphadenopathy-associated viruses, or LAV. This classification corresponded to the later terminology of syncitium and nonsyncitium-inducing strains.
The retrovirus was new, as was the disease. My collaborator, the electron microscopist Charles Dauguet, showed me pictures of the viral particles whose dark, cone-shaped centers suggested that this virus was not the same as HTLV. Fellow virologist Edwald Edlinger suggested that I compare the new virus with animal lentiviruses, and, indeed, the pictures of viral particles we obtained in June 1983 looked identical! As I told Robert Gallo, I was convinced that we were dealing with a virus quite different from the HTLV family.
And then the famous picture arose.
And this was merely a start. Only a moron would dismiss 25 year old data (that was perfectly acceptable back then and now) and ignore at the same time all the subsequent data. A pubmed search on HIV gives 200,000 hits alone.
HIV is well characterized. It is not a figment of someone's imagination and I suggest you come up with some real criticism instead of 'I don't believe'.
Criticise real data.
Dragon seems to be spouting with fire to fuel the flames of an argument, oblivious to any rationality and stated facts, and I'm amazed at how his nonsense has kept this thread going for so long. Just amusement I guess.
anyone who denies existence of HIV, when given obvious pictures of HIV...and than says whats the prove that it is HIV...when that picture is...that person is insane. so yeah with my proof of everything I am not really going any further with the argument, but it is as insane as anyone who says that HIV doesnt exist.
I'll give you a hint. There are numerous sites out there that have gathered the evidence and when they gather it the evidence shows that HIV is not proven to cause any disease.
Yeah. Like I said. You're not really interested in learning how a virus is identified and isolated.
You made a rhetorical question and would not have appreciated an answer.
And now you're trying to change the subject. You had been claiming that hiv has not been isolated and now you've switched back over to hiv doesn't cause aids.
Just so you know. I started to write responses to your posts several times and just stopped myself halfway through because I know that there is absolutely no point in speaking with you.
That was when I decided to just ask if you really would like an answer or not. You've answered exactly as I thought you would. You do not want an answer.
That's how we get swindled, Monkey. All that gobbledygook that you posted ads up to "we think they have the same virus because we can culture similar proteins from their sera." Even worse, they don't seem to be able to say that they are the same proteins, but proteins of a similar molecular size.
This is just one more example of pathological science. They say that there is some chance that they are all the same, therefore they just be HIV. Someone like you says I am a moron if I don't believe that it is HIV, just to push it past the place where any sane person would have doubts. People who support HIV, and who are supported by HIV, have told me this countless times without realizing how stupid they sounded.
This is just one more example of pathological science. They say that there is some chance that they are all the same, therefore they just be HIV. Someone like you says I am a moron if I don't believe that it is HIV, just to push it past the place where any sane person would have doubts. People who support HIV, and who are supported by HIV, have told me this countless times without realizing how stupid they sounded.
Just shut up.
Arguing with Metakron is like... makes me wish I was one of the kids that pushed thing up his pooper when he was a child.
I think they still stick things up his pooper to this very day. In fact, to hear him tell his tale, I think the kids who shoved stuff up his pooper back in school raised their children to shove stuff up his pooper today.
Someday it'll be the grandchildren shoving stuff up his pooper.
It's a pity he's too broken to have children. Then the pooper shoving could go on for generations on both sides of the fence. After he's gone, the bully family will have to find another pooper to shove things into. I doubt they'll ever find such a willing pooper as Metakron's.
Nope. Not me.
I called you incredibly stupid because of that very stupidity that you demonstrated when characterizing scientific papers as 'gobbledygook'.
I knew that you were going to, so I wasn't surprised.
That's not the issue.
You're just an incredibly stupid person.
And the thing is that you're obviously intentionally stupid. You have a brain and are intelligent about some issues. But you are blind, purposefully blind, in so many other areas.
This is one of them.
That's why there is absolutely no point in discussing this with you.
At all.
The only point would be if someone impressionable appeared to be swayed by your emotional arguments. Then, rather than addressing you, the point would be to present the evidence to that impressionable someone and let them judge for themselves.
But, since nobody seems to be listening to you at this juncture, there's no need to even bother with you.
Bye bye.
Edit:
Hmm. I am curious though. Why is it that you feel comfortable believing the material presented by the manufacturers of AZT but don't feel comfortable believing the voluminous literature on hiv and aids?
I actually know why. It's because you judge based on emotion rather than logic.
But I wonder if you are able to see the hypocrisy of your stance?
I called you incredibly stupid because of that very stupidity that you demonstrated when characterizing scientific papers as 'gobbledygook'.
I knew that you were going to, so I wasn't surprised.
That's not the issue.
You're just an incredibly stupid person.
And the thing is that you're obviously intentionally stupid. You have a brain and are intelligent about some issues. But you are blind, purposefully blind, in so many other areas.
This is one of them.
That's why there is absolutely no point in discussing this with you.
At all.
The only point would be if someone impressionable appeared to be swayed by your emotional arguments. Then, rather than addressing you, the point would be to present the evidence to that impressionable someone and let them judge for themselves.
But, since nobody seems to be listening to you at this juncture, there's no need to even bother with you.
Bye bye.
Edit:
Hmm. I am curious though. Why is it that you feel comfortable believing the material presented by the manufacturers of AZT but don't feel comfortable believing the voluminous literature on hiv and aids?
I actually know why. It's because you judge based on emotion rather than logic.
But I wonder if you are able to see the hypocrisy of your stance?
spuriousmonkey: good post.
The only mystery is this thread is still going.
http://www.kidshealth.org/kid/health_problems/infection/hiv.html
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv13a.htm
The only mystery is this thread is still going.
http://www.kidshealth.org/kid/health_problems/infection/hiv.html
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv13a.htm
Last edited:
I discuss and look so much into personalty effects, disease-type and indicated medication programme (esp. those which are not yet become absolute, complete or atleast persistent and can have much possible adversties) for my problems.
I feel there should be some persistence, absoluteness (free from imperfection) or completeness in medications & theories which can be with much possible adversities. As such, Doboule blind placebo controlled (DBPC) studies or trials, for life long or in few generations, with and without medication, may only be the possibility to decide any such medication programmer as absolute, persistent and final. Alas! how can it be practical esp. under current environment with much lagalities etc.
I feel there should be some persistence, absoluteness (free from imperfection) or completeness in medications & theories which can be with much possible adversities. As such, Doboule blind placebo controlled (DBPC) studies or trials, for life long or in few generations, with and without medication, may only be the possibility to decide any such medication programmer as absolute, persistent and final. Alas! how can it be practical esp. under current environment with much lagalities etc.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.