HIV DOES NOT EQUAL AIDS

Thorn said:
Those conditions are mutually exclusive, i.e. not related except that the flu can be a challenge to the immune system. It is entirely possible for someone who is HIV positive to contract something like the flu and not develop fullblown AIDS. HIV in most inflicted people weakens the immune system functioning. Not necessarily right away, but ultimately, again in most patients, it does. Why certain individuals do not develop the full syndrome is still a mystery. Given the way that vaccines work, I'm not certain that this is really the best approach. So much further work is needed and not nearly enough questions have even been asked yet, let alone answered, even in part.
Click to expand...

The thing is that all treatment/study is based on the premise the HIV is in direct correlation to developing AIDS. That is just not the case, and has never been (as there is NO scientific paper that proves this). People keep forgetting that AIDS is not a disease in and of itself, but a description of a medical condition. As Deusberg keeps trying to point out to people, the causes of that condition are NOT dependent upon whether HIV is present in the system.

I was just in discussion with my brother, who pointed out that I phrased my previous statement wrong.....HIV has been found in people who either have no symptoms of AIDS related diseases or who are just not sick. Apologies for the mistatement.[/COLOR]
 
Last edited:
AIDS, however, does not develop in a person who is NOT HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) -positive. One may carry a virus but not become infected. AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) describes the condition wherein the immune system is, for all intents and purposes, only marginally functioning at best. This has a permissive effect on the growth of a number of infections and cancers that would not be able develop if the immune system were not so compromised.
 
Thorn said:
AIDS, however, does not develop in a person who is NOT HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) -positive. One may carry a virus but not become infected. AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) describes the condition wherein the immune system is, for all intents and purposes, only marginally functioning at best. This has a permissive effect on the growth of a number of infections and cancers that would not be able develop if the immune system were not so compromised.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is not true. In fact, it's one of the major points of contention that Deusburg has pointed out from the beginning:

http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/may95/hiva.htm
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/kmreason.html

Also, the HIV-AIDS scenario just doesn't add up; case in point with the African continent
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/emma_holister/2004/09/13/the_african_aids_epidemic_by.htm
 
Taichiliberal said:
Not necessarily.....HIV can be found in people who have had seasonal flus or other infections like upper respiratory and survive. HIV in and of itself is NOT a killer virus per se....but that's how it's being treated to keep the machine humming.
Click to expand...

Hello, board conspiracy theorist.

Be glad that you're going to get no support from this fellow liberal, and that I'm ashamed that your kind exists.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Your first sentence is not true. In fact, it's one of the major points of contention that Deusburg has pointed out from the beginning:

http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/may95/hiva.htm
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/kmreason.html

Also, the HIV-AIDS scenario just doesn't add up; case in point with the African continent
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/emma_holister/2004/09/13/the_african_aids_epidemic_by.htm
Click to expand...

Yeah, this guy is one of the AIDS-HIV conspiracy theorists. Don't listen to him. What he does, while grounded in good faith, is ignorant and dangerous.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The thing is that all treatment/study is based on the premise the HIV is in direct correlation to developing AIDS. That is just not the case, and has never been (as there is NO scientific paper that proves this). People keep forgetting that AIDS is not a disease in and of itself, but a description of a medical condition. As Deusberg keeps trying to point out to people, the causes of that condition are NOT dependent upon whether HIV is present in the system.

I was just in discussion with my brother, who pointed out that I phrased my previous statement wrong.....HIV has been found in people who either have no symptoms of AIDS related diseases or who are just not sick. Apologies for the mistatement.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...


MAJOR FAILED POST
 
Taichiliberal said:
Your first sentence is not true. In fact, it's one of the major points of contention that Deusburg has pointed out from the beginning:

http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/may95/hiva.htm
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/kmreason.html

Also, the HIV-AIDS scenario just doesn't add up; case in point with the African continent
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/emma_holister/2004/09/13/the_african_aids_epidemic_by.htm
Click to expand...
Can you show one documented instance of AIDS without HIV? While you may be infected with HIV and not have AIDS, one does not get AIDS and not have HIV.

If you are infected with HIV and your immune system becomes compromised, it can allow full-blown AIDS to develop.
 
Damocles said:
Can you show one documented instance of AIDS without HIV? While you may be infected with HIV and not have AIDS, one does not get AIDS and not have HIV.

If you are infected with HIV and your immune system becomes compromised, it can allow full-blown AIDS to develop.
Click to expand...

The sites recommended by that poster are, shall we say, slanted rather acutely; they represent something that would be found in the literary arsenal of an acolyte of this guy whom the person feels was so wronged.

Let me point out that Duesberg lost his funding during the greatest push and availability of AIDS funding that has ever existed. It was nearly impossible NOT to get funding so long as the acronym AIDS or HIV appeared in the title of the proposal. He lost his funding because his attention became diverted and he started asking all the wrong questions, scientifically. Perhaps he always had done so. "Poor lifestyle?" Please.

If someone is interested in credible information about HIV and AIDS, I recommend the following site. You'll probably have to revisit it several times in order to approach reading even half the information available.

http://vsearch.nlm.nih.gov/vivisimo/cgi-bin/query-meta?v:project=medlineplus&query=HIV
 
Thorn said:
The sites recommended by that poster are, shall we say, slanted rather acutely; they represent something that would be found in the literary arsenal of an acolyte of this guy whom the person feels was so wronged.

Let me point out that Duesberg lost his funding during the greatest push and availability of AIDS funding that has ever existed. It was nearly impossible NOT to get funding so long as the acronym AIDS or HIV appeared in the title of the proposal. He lost his funding because his attention became diverted and he started asking all the wrong questions, scientifically. Perhaps he always had done so. "Poor lifestyle?" Please.

If someone is interested in credible information about HIV and AIDS, I recommend the following site. You'll probably have to revisit it several times in order to approach reading even half the information available.

http://vsearch.nlm.nih.gov/vivisimo/cgi-bin/query-meta?v:project=medlineplus&query=HIV
Click to expand...
So, your answer is no and you indeed cannot find one documented case of AIDS where the person was not infected with HIV.
 
Damocles said:
I thought I quoted it... Hmm...

We're still awaiting his answer. I do not believe he'll find one.
Click to expand...

He won't. The data are clear.
This is the problem when a single-source, emotionally laden in quasi-crusade fashion, is used. You have to read a lot, from several different sources, and go to original research papers (or trusted compilations and reviews) in order to form a sound opinion. You can't start out with any sort of agenda, either.

There's absolutely nothing terrible about being wrong, scientifically. The error, and it's a gross one, comes when the person refuses or is otherwise unable to recognize that error, because all subsequent ideas and work stem from the original work unless errors can be detected, examined, and corrected.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, this guy is one of the AIDS-HIV conspiracy theorists. Don't listen to him. What he does, while grounded in good faith, is ignorant and dangerous.
Click to expand...

Being that Deusberg was one of the people that assisted in discovering the HIV virus, and was one of the leading referred virologist of the CDC, I find your statement dubious at best.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Being that Deusberg was one of the people that assisted in discovering the HIV virus, and was one of the leading referred virologist of the CDC, I find your statement dubious at best.
Click to expand...

Linus Pauling won two fucking Nobel prizes and most of his later work was utter shit. You get credibility because of the quality of your work. You can't pass on credibility from good work to bad work. He is a crank, it's as simple as that.
 
Thorn said:
The sites recommended by that poster are, shall we say, slanted rather acutely; they represent something that would be found in the literary arsenal of an acolyte of this guy whom the person feels was so wronged.

Let me point out that Duesberg lost his funding during the greatest push and availability of AIDS funding that has ever existed. It was nearly impossible NOT to get funding so long as the acronym AIDS or HIV appeared in the title of the proposal. He lost his funding because his attention became diverted and he started asking all the wrong questions, scientifically. Perhaps he always had done so. "Poor lifestyle?" Please.

If someone is interested in credible information about HIV and AIDS, I recommend the following site. You'll probably have to revisit it several times in order to approach reading even half the information available.

http://vsearch.nlm.nih.gov/vivisimo/cgi-bin/query-meta?v:project=medlineplus&query=HIV
Click to expand...


He lost his funding because his research DID NOT adhere to the politics and financial interests funding the research at the time. Unlike his colleagues, he CONTINUED research, which found that in order to maintain HIV=AIDS (the initial contention by the status quo, and Deusberg himself) one would have to throw out the standards by which a virus symptoms is measured in patients. If you had bothered to read his book Inventing the AIDS Virus, you'd know this. Your off-hand dismissal lacks an complete understanding of Deusbergs research. You over-simplify his reasons for pointing out the FACTS regarding HIV-AIDS. "Poor lifestyle" was dealing with the FACTS that the initial core group studied at the outbreak of the AIDS virus were people who were into recreational drugs, bad diets, stressed lifestyles and multiple sex partners. Essentially, they killed their immune systems, which resulted in diseases that paralleled that of drug addicts.

By the way, has there ever been a scientific paper that conclusively proved that HIV=AIDS? And does this paper hold the same truths for European and African cases? I ask this because one of the things that always intrigued me about the HIV=AIDS is that they testing for the HIV virus differs from Africa to Europe/America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top