This could be tested. Take 100 otherwise healthy Americans who have had blood transfusions during, say 1993. See how many of them test positive for HIV before and after the transfusion. See how many of them died of immune system failure by 2007.
My prediction: No significant change in how many test positive for HIV; no significant number of deaths due to immune system failure.
Your prediction: Significant percentage goes from negative to positive for HIV test; significant percentage dies due to immune system failure.
Human Extinction – Can you specify any evidence that would cause you to accept the HIV theory? To be clear, I don’t mean currently existing evidence, I mean, can you conceive of any circumstances that would allow you to change your mind.
[If you want to say that you don’t trust the editors of Nature to accurately report evidence, so no published reports would convince you, that’s fair, but then you’ll have to say what would convince you-- does it require personally meeting the Principal Investigator, doing critical procedures and looking at results yourself, or what?]
Then this illustrates that Celia Farber knows nothing about immunology. To put in laymen’s terms - any cell that is infected with a virus will be destroyed by the immune system. Some (limited) exceptions exist like herpes and chicken pox, but the theory is pretty solid. The retrovirus doesn’t need to kill the cell, the very fact that it infects a cell will illicit cell-mediated immune response.
Transfusion reactions are relatively uncommon, and generally are mild and transient. Immune-mediated responses (of which there are several types) are not a manifestation of “severe damage” to the host immune system, which does not display the long-term alterations characteristic of HIV infection, i.e. greatly diminished numbers of helper T-cells.
There are way too many variables to figure in. But my prediction would be that a significant number of patients would test positive for HIV antibodies while they are immunocompromised. Due to the way the so-called HIV antibodies were found, they are highly associated with immune stress environments.
Yep. Now we have to go back and realize that scientists have never taken this virus or these base pairs in question and used them to demonstrate transmisibility or even infection.
Certainly. Lets say the HIV=AIDS theory hasn’t been disproven (it’s the 80s and the studies haven’t been done yet). Then I would ask for the primary component for such a theory to be based on (as I’ve previously stated) Koch’s Postulates. This is why we should say HIV=AIDS “hypothesis”; because without demonstrating Koch’s Postulates it is merely a hypothesis. 1) isolate what you think is a virus 2) create copies of it 3) inject it into your experimental group 4) demonstrate infection with antibodies.
Jackmannii - that is in the case of transfusions gone bad. It has been demonstrated that certain ethnicities and people in states of immuno-tramatic health (pregnancy, sickness) have higher rates of HIV positivity.
I can tackle this one. I is a public television watcher. Those of subsaharan extraction are probably more likely to acquire HIV/AIDS than others, given the same behavior. This is because HIV specifically shuts down part of our immune system by locking onto a certain protein pattern in certain of our cells. Those without the pattern are much less likely to get AIDS.
Those with a different pattern are also much less likely to get bubonic plague, since it shuts down the immune system via the same method. The plague ravaged Europe and Asia: black Africa, not so much.
The proclivities for certain population segments to acquire HIV, which coordinate pretty well with how often the plague swept thru the area, which disables the immune system in the same way as AIDS, is pretty strong evidence.
I applaud your efforts, but there really is no substance. You brought up how other viruses spread which is important to note. Where is this AIDS epidemic they speak of? There should be some outbreaks if their models are correct, but even in Africa the “AIDS epidemic” hasn’t gotten any worse is recent years.
Antibodies have been found in “non-diseased” organisms, and HIV has not been grown in culture.
The monkeys infected with what they thought was HIV were recently put in a retirement home as they continued to live healthily.
Hasn’t been isolated in the first place, much less isolated -> used to infect -> re-isolated.
More research money has been spent on HIV/AIDS than on any other biological study in history - we should be able to fulfill at least one of Koch’s Postulates!
I knew this thread would be a lot of work. Maybe check out some factual videos before proceeding:
I’m not sure if I’ve seen that one, but I’m sure it includes some good facts as well as Kerry Mullis’ testimony (he got the chemistry Nobel for developing PCR). Furthermore, you can probably find the torrent (I’m sure the creators of the video put it out there for free in full and in quality).
Also, realize that there are 2 primary divisions of HIV=AIDS denialists. The first advocates HIV exists, but is harmless, the second advocates HIV doesn’t exist (I’m with the latter). Duesberg is the prior, obviously, because of his work with retroviruses (people don’t tend to dis their own work).
You’ve heard of Typhoid Mary, right? She was infected with typhoid, yet displayed no symptoms.
Antibodies against viruses can be found in healthy people. If you cultured my blood, you’d find antibodies against chicken pox, yet I’m not sick with chicken pox.
We know that viruses affect different species and different populations within species differently. For instance FIV is a very serious disease among domestic cats, yet it is found in several wild cat species and those wild cats don’t get sick like domestic cats. So it’s not surprising that some monkeys can be infected with HIV and not get AIDS. And some humans can be infected with HIV and not get AIDS, see point 1.
It would be unethical to inject HIV into humans to demonstrate that HIV causes AIDS, because we believe HIV causes AIDS, and AIDS is deadly. Even if the humans were volunteers it would be unethical.
And you seriously believe that there’s no such thing as HIV…not that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, but that HIV doesn’t exist? How about SIV? FIV?
I, for one, welcome the responses from human extinction in this thread. I thought my eyes and eyebrows would get their incredulity exercises rolling and raising in response to an Armenian Genocide thread this month, but this is pleasantly unexpected.
Koch abandoned the second part of the first postulate altogether. (That’s the part that says about the microorganism being found in healthy organisms.)
Part one of your statement has been addressed. I’m not sure how it even fits in with the “second” postulate anyway.
I’m not sure I know what it would mean to grow a virus in culture. If they’re not living things, then how could they grow outside of a host body? I have to admit ignorance in that area.
The third postulate specifies “should”, not “must”, because as Koch himself proved in regard to both tuberculosis and cholera,[2] not all organisms exposed to an infectious agent will acquire the infection.
Human responses to Syphilis in the New World and the Old World were drastically different (including living and dying) for any number of reasons and those humans were the same species. (You’re not denying that are you?)
Again I have to cop to ignorance. What are the images at the top right of this page?
I hope your not arguing that HIV=AIDS hypothesis passes Koch’s Postulates.
Concerning culturing a virus: You would infect the culture in vivo (hopefully with some matrix to more accurately reflect how it would behave in the body) with the isolated virus thereby showing some harmful effect.
It is absolutely true that human populations responded differently to disease in the “old world” than the “new world”. Obvious civil factors such as water, food, housing, and infrastructure play a role in real infectious diseases such as syphilis.
Most of the pictures you’ll find are computer generated - I’ll have to get back to you on that one.
1)I’m willing to bet she showed symptoms at first, but got over it as you or I would a cold.
2)Indeed. Antibodies are necessary for healthy people to be healthy.
3)Same as 2, I’m not really sure how your argument supports the HIV=AIDS hypothesis.
4)Inject what into humans? Oh right, isolate that stuff we think is HIV, but… You see what I’m still trying to get at (the importance of isolation)?
The evidence seems to support the absence of HIV, yes. We usually deal with the antibodies associated with people we thought were infected with “it” originally. So you get some drug users here, some starving Africans there, and you see the same antibodies in them and assume they have HIV because both groups of people experience symptoms of immuno-depression. Then we make test kits based on these antibodies to test healthy people. Some animals have >50% positivity rates, and pregnant women have very high positivity rates too. This all points to what they thought HIV antibodies were, are actually NON-SPECIFIC antibodies. There is much more evidence to support my HIV doesn’t exist belief, but that is the underlying theory.
