I wonder if you would be so kind as to give me a concise outline of your theory of the AIDS phenomenon?
Most of it is probably contained within this thread. Maybe I could dig up the paper I wrote for english class in highschool and put it on a blog or something (heh).
Virusmyth.net is a good place to start (as I’ve mentioned above). It should lead you to everything you need to know. Then you can process the information and have “your own” theory.
Who told you this? HIV is routinely isolated and grown in culture. Has been for well over a decade. Here is just one paper (from 15 years ago, mind you) I pubmedded up in a few seconds, but there are literally tens of thousands of papers with in vitro cultured HIV.
Here is the methods section from this paper, in case you’d like to replicate these results:
"Generation of primary isolates of HIV and determination of phenotype
Peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) from HIV-infected individuals were prepared from peripheral blood by Ficoll gradient. The CD8+ T cell fraction was removed and the remaining cells cultured with HIV-negative 3 day PHA blasts in RPMI-20 containing 20 U/ml rIL-2. Cultures were monitored at days 10 and 15 for p24 production using p24 ELISA (Organon Teknika, Durham, USA). Viral phenotype was determined by adding 50 μl of viral stock to 1 × 106 MT-2 cells and monitoring for the formation of syncytia."
It’s from a paper (from almost ten years ago) that talks about HIV replication in macrophage cultures in vitro.
I believe that you believe what you are saying. I also believe that someone is lying to you.
Thanks for that. That’s the most thorough, and easy to read, answer that I’ve seen on this topic.
Cite?
Strandstrom et al. Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins. Cancer Research, 1990.
I’m busy now, so I’ll have to respond to the other comments later. You can look through the link I posted before a while.
That paper demonstrates that there are cross-reactive antibodies. Antibodies against HIV that recognize similar proteins in dogs.
That paper does not in any way suggest that dogs “have >50% positivity rates” as you claim. You are making a claim that the authors of that study are not making.
That should be the right paper. I doubt you’ve looked at anything except the abstract, but if you look through it you should see the HIV test results from a group of healthy dogs from Davis California.
Some people simply refuse to believe otherwise. There was a popular long-running weekly American columnist in one of the local English-language dailies over here who, in an otherwise-great column, was always harping on there being no genune HIV-AIDS link, that it was all a conspiracy of the international drug companies etc. He seemed normal in most other regards, but on this one issue he was convinced, and no one could persuade him otherwise.
I’ve known people who still deny cigarettes cause cancer, too. Go figure.
You can doubt all you want, but I know my way around a paper in Cancer Research pretty well.
Those were not “HIV test results”. They were immunoblot results.
They showed that antibodies to HIV cross reacted with other viral proteins. Not that the other dogs tested positive.
The first sentence from their Discussion says “Serological results using the immunoblot technique suggest that dogs may be infected with an agent which is antigenically related to lentiviruses, especially HIV.”
In other words, there is an antigen (a protein, in this case made by a virus) that is similar to an HIV protein present in dogs that causes the HIV antibody to cross react. I have never used an antibody in the lab that didn’t cross react with similar proteins (and sometimes mindbogglingly dissimilar proteins).
In still other words, the very authors of the paper that you cited don’t make the conclusion that you are making from their paper. Were you counting on no one being able to pull up a paper if you only gave the author’s last name?
Because I’ll link the actual paper that you cited, and people can judge for themselves.
I’m still waiting for the big reveal where human_extinction explains that so many gay men got AIDS because of their recreational use of antiretroviral meds, or whatever crazy theory he has.
I went to a Duesberg talk once, and that’s almost exactly what he claimed. The use of poppers correlates with being gay and has increased over the same time period as the spread of AIDS.
A virologist pointed out that the use of personal computers has increased over the same time period as well, and no one blames microsoft for AIDS.
I remember hearing this argument back in the early days of AIDS. That really was before HIV was isolated, and they were trying to figure out just what the heck this was. It was just a theory, though, and long since discounted.
A similar theory at that time postulated that gay men taking massive doses of penicillin as a prophylactic against disease before a big night out were screwing up their immune systems. Again, this was all before HIV was actually isolated.
The problem is that Duesberg is still walking around making these claims. I think even he doesn’t believe it any more, but he’s made quite a name for himself by being this AIDS denier that he’s backed into a corner now.
Just my own hypothesis though!
Should I take that as a no?
“My” theory of AIDS is that an infectious agent is transmitted from person to person, it shows an afinity for the T-lymphocyte cell, the bodies immune system combats it but the virus changes rapidly, when the immune system is depleted a variety of other opportunistic infections create the signs and symptoms known as AIDS.
Whatever it’s flaws, gaps, or anomalies, I’m convinced that this theory explains the observable phenomenon. If you wish me to take you seriously, you have to offer a theory that can either explain the phenomenon better, or with less flaws, gaps and anomalies. So far you have only poked your finger in a hole or two and said “see that proves I’m right.”
You seem to have plenty of time and interest for this topic, so I’ll ask you again to present a concise outline of your theory of the AIDS phenomenon that explains it better than the infectious disease theory.
I am not.
What I’m arguing is that Koch’s Postulates are a tool— a construct. Given a ‘new’ disease with global impact that does not respond to the tools we have for treating disease or reveal itself more clearly using the constructs we have for understanding disease and pathology, we are better off looking for new tools or new uses for the tools we have rather than expecting the disease to conform to our expectations.
Koch himself admitted to shortcomings in his work that you do not seem willing to concede.
I wouldn’t expect it to get any easier either.
It’s funny. That “HIV has never been isolated!” objection was true when Duesberg raised it…15 years ago. The fact that AIDS revisionists are still repeating it as if it were true today says something about their mindset. NOTHING can change their mind, because all evidence works to support their theory. If HIV is claimed to be isolated, that’s just the conspiracy lying to you.
If antiviral drugs drive down blood HIV levels to undetectability, and people who were dying of AIDS literally get up off their deathbeds as a result…what does that mean? Beats me. I guess they never were sick to begin with.
And I just can’t wrap my head around the supposed mindset of the HIV==AIDS conspirators. Why exactly are they supposed to deny the truth? They need AIDS to be caused by a virus…why? How does it benefit the doctors and the drug companies if HIV=AIDS? How does it benefit the government?
And the funny thing is, if the consipiracy is driven by American drug companies, why do doctors from Europe go along with it? There are countries with socialized medicine and/or single-payer insurance, where the government pays all health care costs directly. How does the medical bureacracy in those countries benefit?
See, by saying it’s caused by a virus, and then saying for years and years that there is no vaccine, and then twenty-ish years later, they finally come out with a “vaccine”, they know that not only will everyone who can buy it do so, but that there will be government and “non-profit” organizations that will buy millions and millions of doses to “give” to people in third world countries and places with high rates of AIDS. Of course, everyone knows the vaccine is fake, and they won’t actually give it to anyone in those countries.
And since the drug companies are based in the US, even those with socialized/single-payer health care will have to have their governments buy the fake cure from the US drug companies.
DUH!
I realize that you’re being facetious, but wouldn’t even that plan only work if there were only one company in the world? I mean, as soon as there is a second company, there would be a competition to be the first to market with the fake cure, or proof from the second company that the drug that the first company is working on is for a fake disease.