Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS , from my inbox

  • Thread starter eagleone
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Cause
In summary: But the virus hasbeen around for over 100 years. The virus was first discovered in 1984 andsince then the epidemic has only gotten worse. This is not a new virus.7.) HIV does not cause AIDS in the African population.African populations have been living with HIV for many years and they have not developedthe same form of AIDS as Western populations. In fact, HIV does not even cause AIDSin Africa. AIDS is a Western disease.8.) There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.The scientific community has never been able to prove that HIV causes AIDS. They havedone studies and
  • #1
eagleone
62
0
"Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS", from my inbox...

==============================================
Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS (Excerpt) WalterNY


1.) HIV is harmless

HIV reproduces itself through what is called reverse transcription. Its
receptacle attaches to the coating of the T cell and encodes its information

(RNA) into the information contained in the gene (DNA). Like all viral that
invade the body, at first they reproduce rapidly. In doing so they may
indeed create cold symptoms. But the body has antibodies that seek out
things like HIV and render it dead or harmless. When a person test positive,
the test they took actually doesn’t find the virus itself but the antibodies
that are in the blood and are left over after they have attacked and
disabled the HIV. What that means is that when you test positive, it means
your body has already encountered the virus and is now immune to it. The
body has done its job. There are no viruses in the history of medicine that
reemerge and re-attack the body after the bodies’ immune system has rendered
them inactive. Even a high school student biology student would find fault
with the HIV theory when the facts are presented. We should ask why we spent
billions of dollars and nothing has come from it. Nothing except death.


2.) HIV does not kill the t-cells it affects

People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the cells
that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But Retroviruses
do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory conditions is it
possible to make HIV kill its host cell. AIDS researchers actually use
t-cells to grow the virus in their reacearch because both live together very
compatibly. It was this notion that initially made Duesberg and over 600
other scientist, including 181 that have advanced degrees question the whole
thing in the first place. Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus. Viruses that
kill a cell couldn’t cause cancer. If HIV were a killer cell then those with
AIDS indication diseases would not have some form of cancer as some of the
defining diseases do.

3.) HIV does not infect enough t-cells to cause AIDS.

After a retrovirus is brought under control by the immune system, the virus
particles become dormant and begin to disappear. Before long the virus can
hardly be found at all. I have posted before HIV only effects up to 1 cell
per thousand and sometimes only 1 cell per 100,000 thousand. But t-cells
reproduce at up to 5% per day. Simple mathematics proves that HIV can in no
way infect enough cells to bring down the immune system. In fact, the HIV
scientists even admit that this low t-cell amount is difficult to explain.
Of course they can’t. It isn’t true. Very few t-cells that are infected by
HIV can actually be found in the sickest persons. Gallos original hypothesis
that this is all based on is the equivalent of saying that a person who
nicks himself shaving is going to die. You are losing 1/1000 of your blood
but you are not going to die.

4.) HIV has no AIDS causing gene.

HIV simply has no specific gene or unique genetic reason to cause AIDS. All
retroviruses have only three major genes and six minor genes. Because the
genes are so limited in these very simple viruses, they need all the genes
to replicate. HIV is almost identical to all other retroviruses genetically.
There are 50 to 100 of these retroviruses in everyone’s body and they are
all (including HIV) kept in check by the immune system. It would be
extremely rare for genes which such similar genetic sequences to act any
different than other almost identical genes. If HIV causes AIDS then why can
’t the others cause the same intense problems. It simply doesn’t make sense.

5.)There is no such thing as a slow virus

They say that HIV takes up to 12 years to cause AIDS. They use words like
migrate, mutate, replicate, reactivate, and hibernate. They give HIV magical
powers that no other virus in the body has. Actually the words come from
people like Gallo and Gajdusek who used this magical theory to by time when

their hypothesis didn’t work. They based their slow virus hypothesis on
studies of Epstein Barr virus and Herpes virus, but these are very different
than is HIV. In both cases large amounts of virus can be found that cause
specific problems related to the disorders. But HIV is dormant. How does a
dormant virus cause 30 unrelated diseases ten years later? None of which are
specific to HIV itself. We are buying lots of time for something else to
cause AIDS at this point. They have a safety net. There is not even a shred
of light at why it would take ten years for this to happen. It has never
happened with any other virus in history. No one even bothers to ask that
question from the HIV/AIDS side.

6.) HIV is not a new virus so it would not cause a new epidemic.

They assume that since AIDS has grown dramatically since 1981 that HIV
virus must cause it. They tell you about green monkey bites and promiscuous
gay flight attendants but science fails to ask a simple question, How old is
HIV? Using what science calls Farrs law we can assume that it is very old.
What Farr said was that when a new virus comes along it spreads
exponentially, like a flu epidemic. But since HIV was detected only
1,000,000 Americans ever have it each year (CDC). So if it is in 1 million
people every year for ten years and simply doesn’t grow exponentially (as it
doesn’t) it can’t be new. HIV is older than the country you live in. It has
been and is in many people and there offspring for centuries according to
Farrs law.

7.) HIV fails Koch’s postulates (pronounced like the slang for a penis).

This is a universal law in science. It states 1, the germ must be found in
all cases. But there are 10-20% of people that have AIDS and don’t have HIV
at all. When it can be found it is in extremely small amounts and dormant.
Number two states that the germ must be isolated from the host and be able
to be grown in a culture. But it takes huge amounts of cell tissue to find
it, then a difficult chemical process is necessary to reactivate it. The
third postulate states that HIV must be able to be injected into a healthy
host and must thrive in that host. But HIV injected in Chimps which have
similar DNA to use does not live in these animals. It fails to live when
injected in any other animal and yes people. Human health care workers who
are injected with HIV accidentally, very very rarely get AIDS unless they
use drugs. The statistics of the CDC prove that. The HIV orthodoxy have
stated that Koch’s postulates are old and outdates but it has stood the test
of time. In fact those that have ignored it have all met peril. In the case
of Beri-beri, Scurvy, Pelegra, SIMON, and the failed Virus-cancer program,
all ended in a dismal failure. All were supposedly infectious but were not.
And Robert Gallo was responsible for the ridiculous virus-cancer
investigation. All the researchers ignored Koch’s postulates and were proved
to be wrong as a result. Looking at the population study AIDS fails also.
The population studies that the CDC releases every year prove by themselves
that HIV does not cause AIDS.

8.) AIDS has remained in its original risk groups for 12 years.
If a disease does not spread it is not contagious and must be caused by
something else. AIDS is still in its original risk groups of gay males, IV
users, Hemophiliacs and drug transfusion patients make up of over 97% of all
AIDS cases and the other less than 3% suffer from immuno deficiency at
random and happen to be infected by HIV. If AIDS is caused by a virus the 3%
group would grow but it doesn’t. In 1984 the army started to test new
recruits, they found that HIV infection was evenly distributed 50/50 amongst
men and women, and has remained that way. It should follow that AIDS should
be spread 50% male and 50% female, but nine out of ten AIDS cases are still
male. A germ related disease should be spread evenly and it is not. This may
explain why drug use is more related to HIV infection. In the US over 80%
of all psychoactive drugs are used by males. Amongst women, 60% use hard
drugs. Health care workers have not begun getting AIDS. There are a handful
of cases and even these are disputed. AIDS has to do with specific medical
risks and behavior than HIV.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
9.) International comparisons differ greatly.

AIDS statistics are totally different here than in a country like Africa. In
the US it is 90% male. But in Africa it is evenly split at 50% male and 50%
female. AIDS remains among the 97% risk group in the US but in Africa AIDS
has no risk group and is found randomly. Only 62% of the cases of AIDS
diseases in this country are microbial, but in Africa over 90% are
microbial. AIDS diseases not germ related are at 38%, but in Africa less
than 10% are not germ related. This simply doesn’t make sense. Over 14
million have the virus in Africa. Because of the malnutrition and other
health conditions conducive to AIDS, statistics from Africa should be 14
times higher than the US but is the opposite. People in the US develop AIDS
10-20 times faster. WHO and CDC data confirm that from 1987 to 1996. Last
year numbers show that the CDC reported official AIDS cases in the US at
513,486 and the WHO reported that 442,735 Africans officially had it. Why
would the AIDS epidemic behave differently in the industrialized world? The
answer is simple, DRUGS. You guys who think AID is decimating the population
in Africa are wrong. If tens and thousand of people are dyeing in Africa,
where are these people? Philip Krynen and his wife Evelin are in Tanzania
(thought to be the epicenter of the AIDS outbreak). They are rather
interesting French people who belong the “the Group”. After being there for
a few years to help supposed AIDS orphans, supported by money from France,
Philip stated that there was no AIDS in Africa. It was something that the
outside world invented. These kids were not orphans but were left with
relatives while parents went to find work in the dry seasons. Anyone
interested in speaking with him personally, please contact me and I will get
you in touch. The AIDS diseases that these people are suffering from are
nothing more than existed since the beginning of time but have all been
grouped into this ridiculous word , AIDS.

10.) AIDS occurs without HIV infection and most who are positive, never
develop AIDS.

The presence of HIV does not prove that HIV causes AIDS just like birds on
power lines do not prove that power failures are caused by the birds. In
both cases they only correlate. In science correlation does not prove
causation. If HIV is a passenger virus that does not cause it we should see
two things. One, People with AIDS not infected with HIV and two, people with
HIV who do not get AIDS. That is exactly what is happening. Why do different
risk groups develop different diseases? Why do IV users usually develop TB
and wasting Syndrome yet gay males primarily develop KS and
cytomegloviruses? IV drug users get the same TB and wasting syndromes
whether they officially have AIDS or not and even lose CD-4 t-cells like
those with HIV infection. AIDS is nothing more than a new name for something
they have always had. In the case of gay males KS is found in many gays
males who do not have or get AIDS. The similarity is the use of poppers and
other immune killing medications. Something other than HIV must be causing
AIDS. There are on record over 6000 cases of AIDS without HIV. Something is
terribly wrong with their whole equation. Why is KS by itself KS but with a
positive HIV diagnosis it is not KS but AIDS? Why is Pneumonia, pneumonia
except if it has a diagnosis of HIV, then it is AIDS. What is the
difference? NOTHING. AIDS is nothing more than 30 disease that have already
existed with this inclusion of a mostly false HIV test. There is a
correlation of HIV and AIDS if you ignore the cases of AIDS that don’t have
HIV. Statistics around
the world prove that. In Africa 97% of those in Africa who are HIV positive
do not have AIDS. Statistics show that in this country over 1.5 million
people are supposedly infected with HIV and yet the number of people with
AIDS is never near half of that number. They say that there are over
28,000,000 people with AIDS worldwide and yet less than (1,393,649) are
officially reported to have AIDS. That is less than 5%. Even the estimates
of the total worldwide cases of AIDS is 7,700,000, less than 28% of the
estimated total who have been infected with HIV.
=======================================================
Samo sam na brzaka pogledao delove isecka, ali evo recimo komentar na
tvrdjenja iz prve stavke:
Ne nije tako, iako imuni sistem deluje posle odredjenog vremena specificnim antitelima na virus, ta ista antitela ne moraju biti visoko efikasna. Npr. jedno od antitela koje stvara imuni sistem, je antitelo na membranski protein HIV-a gp120 koji je odlucujuce orudje u adsorpciji virusa na povrsinu T-limfocita (odnosno prepoznaje i spaja se sa CD4 receptorom+nekim koreceptorima na povrsini T-limfocita), ali nazalost antitelo se vezuje za nebitne regione gp120 i tako on ostaje aktivan i posle vezivanja atela (moguce je na ovaj i druge odbranbene nacine eliminisati HIV, i izbeci njegovu "inplantaciju" - retko, i kada je u pitanju infekcija manjim brojem vir. cestica + dok jos ima ko da proizvodi antitela, a to su t-limfociti). Neefikasnost sledi i posle mutacija u regionima genoma/cica koji kodiraju gp120 (inace glavni antigen), koji je i ovako dovoljno komplikovan i dobro branjen kosuljicom od secera (gp-glikoprotein).

Sto se tice testa ni to nije tacno, koliko ja znam testiranje se klasicno vrsi ELISA testom (i kod nas npr.) mehanizam je sledeci - vrsi se detekcija antigena (tj. virusa), a ne antitela na virus. Antitela na virus se koriste vezana za cvrstu podlogu ili neki matrix i sluze za spec. vezivanje antigena, zatim se ponovo vozze antitela na virus samo ovog puta sa nekim signalnim molekulom (bojom npr.). Moguce je raditi i titar HIV antitela da bi se pratio tok bolesti, eventualno.

Ja se ne bavim HIV virusom, niti sam direktno ucestvovao u nekim radovima sa istim, ali bi moj info trebao da bude korektan (correct me if I'm wrong).

Sto se tice ostalih stavki (koje sam na preskok procitao), sta da kazem, deluje kao X-files, ali ja nista a priori ne odbacujem, drugo pominje se n informacija koje ja ne mogu odrediti kao tacne ili ne. Kada se iznose takve tvrdnje, zna se kako se potvrdjuju - experimentom, istrazivanjem, pa rezultatima, a ovako ...
 
Last edited:
  • #3
OMG, it didn't take much more than to read a few sentences from the first paragraph to note the author's ignorance..


1.) HIV is harmless

But the body has antibodies that seek out things like HIV and render it dead or harmless. When a person test positive, the test they took actually doesn’t find the virus itself but the antibodies
that are in the blood and are left over after they have attacked and
disabled the HIV. What that means is that when you test positive, it means your body has already encountered the virus and is now immune to it. The body has done its job. There are no viruses in the history of medicine that reemerge and re-attack the body after the bodies’ immune system has rendered them inactive. Even a high school student biology student would find fault with the HIV theory when the facts are presented. We should ask why we spent billions of dollars and nothing has come from it. Nothing except death.
You author fails to recognize that the virus infects T-cells and thus over time disables the immune system. The author also fails to recognize that the virus is INSIDE the T-cells, and thus the body won't recognize it as foreign. The antibodies are things that coat the antigen while in circulation, they don't go inside a cell and find out what's lurking in a seemingly harmless cell.
 
  • #4


Originally posted by eagleone

What that means is that when you test positive, it means
your body has already encountered the virus and is now immune to it. The body has done its job. There are no viruses in the history of medicine that reemerge and re-attack the body after the bodies’ immune system has rendered them inactive.

Who ever wrote this does not what he is taking about. Antibody does not mean that the infection is out. the antibodies migth not be effectiver at helping to remove the virus. The virus hides in the cell and it is hard to recognize for an antibody. The person also forgot about phase variation. Viruses that use reverse transcriptase are more prone to mutation and an antibody good for one variant migth not be good for the other variant.

Originally posted by eagleone
4.) HIV has no AIDS causing gene.

All retroviruses have only three major genes and six minor genes. Because thegenes are so limited in these very simple viruses, they need all the genes to replicate. HIV is almost identical to all other retroviruses genetically.

Then how does the flue cause the flue? It is a virus in the same family.

Originally posted by eagleone
8.) AIDS has remained in its original risk groups for 12 years.

Bad use of numbers and this argument I found is discriminatory.

Originally posted by eagleone
9.) International comparisons differ greatly.

This is not good point to use against a disease

I won't discuss the rest because I not a virologies. He is using the Koch postulate as an argument but even with bacteria we can have problem using koch postulate.
 
  • #5
7.) HIV fails Koch’s postulates (pronounced like the slang for a penis).

This is a universal law in science. It states 1, the germ must be found in all cases. But there are 10-20% of people that have AIDS and don’t have HIV at all.
Should be: "where HIV hasn't been detected". Is it because the people don't have HIV, the test is administered improperly or is it that the test has flaws by the method of detection?
 
  • #6
Just another load of bull****. (pronounced like the expletive meaning bovine excrement)

Better suited for the pseudoscience debunking forum. Or maybe theory development.
 
  • #7
Great :) you’ve wrote almost the same answers as I did , but not in English at and the end of the second post (cut, mistake I’ll fix that), + we’re not detecting antibodies but antigens with commonly used ELISA, second all those anybody’s target gp120 the main HIV antigen, but non of these binds to active regions, so even HIV coated with anybody is effective + there’s no anybodies when there’s no t-lymphocytes ……on and on (I must say I haven’t read all points from the mail )
 
  • #9
How could anyone be stupid enough to think this stuff is true?

Antibodies are like bullets in the microbial battlefield. When you see bullets flying through the air, does that mean the war is over? Gah.

- Warren
 
  • #10
Found an extensive review
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14626050&dopt=Abstract

If HIV did not cause AIDS would we ask try to find its origine
http://lysander.ingentaselect.com/vl=48941476/cl=20/nw=1/fm=docpdf/rpsv/cw/rsl/09628436/v356n1410/s26/p935

A website dedicated to explaining why HIV does not cause AIDS
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

The more you read to more you realize that people have misinterpreted the quote. It is only one scientist that for more proof that HIV did really cause AIDS because some basic elements were missing. The problem the people that said HIV/AIDs is a lie still use quotes from the early 1990's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Originally posted by chroot
How could anyone be stupid enough to think this stuff is true?

Antibodies are like bullets in the microbial battlefield. When you see bullets flying through the air, does that mean the war is over? Gah.

- Warren

Yes. Lot's of people unfortunately. People with HIV who are exposing it to other people. People with Nobel prizes. And the (former?) president of South Africa.

Basically people who say HIV doesn't cause AIDS are the moral and intellectual equivalent of holocaust deniers and, I suspect, have similar motives.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Monique
OMG, it didn't take much more than to read a few sentences from the first paragraph to note the author's ignorance..
Yeah, its really really bad when a non-biologist like me can tear it to pieces. In fact, it reads like it was written by a teenager - the grammar and language use is awful (pronounced like the slang for penis? uh huh...)
How could anyone be stupid enough to think this stuff is true?
I know it doesn't really address your question, but have you read any of what some African leaders say on the subject? Its horrifying. A hundred million people will be dead before they do anything about it. Some of those countries are going to fall apart I am the next couple of decades(not like they are that stable anyway, but still).
 
  • #13
Originally posted by chroot
How could anyone be stupid enough to think this stuff is true?

People who know only that HIV is a virus, and not a bit more. All the arguments make "sense" - especially to to a so called "high school biology student" because they simply haven't learned the required knowledge.

When I was in high school I knew -

HIV was a retrovirus
It infects the immune system
Causes AIDS

Everything in the post is compatible with this, except for the last one which it attempts to disprove. Only later in university do you learn how the immune system detects self and non-self, how virusese hide from detection, and about the most dangerous diseases of all - pathogens that use immune cells as hosts.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by chroot
How could anyone be stupid enough to think this stuff is true?

Antibodies are like bullets in the microbial battlefield. When you see bullets flying through the air, does that mean the war is over? Gah.

- Warren
Warren, something like that, but if you see bullets it doesn’t definitely mean that battle is on, they could be on standby regime, like in your body after flue (you know that some time after it you are immune to that specific sort) , of for eg after infection with coxsackie virus, years, and years after you can detect specific IgG antibodies on virus (antibody titter), of course in small amount so you can deduce if infection is over or not …
 
  • #15
Originally posted by chroot
How could anyone be stupid enough to think this stuff is true?
You overestimate the average person.

Remember, not everyone likes to come to sites like this and discuss topics like this. Most people prefer to hide in a cocoon of ignorance, protecting their fragile mind from learning.

I don't mean to sound elitist or anything like that, but I am quite genuine. If you remember high school, then above all else you should remember that most people thought 'learning was uncool'...and more important than anything else, being cool was vital. With that in mind, it is quite easy to understand that most people have no idea what HIV is, how a virus works, or even how our immune system works. Imagine one of these millions of people then getting this email in their inbox...It sounds convincing because it uses all that technical jargon that they don't understand.

Next time they have coffee with their friends it is pretty easy for them to say 'You know, I heard that HIV doesn't cause Aids..." "Oh yeah? I heard such and such on Jerry springer too you know..." and off the conversation goes.
 

Related to Ten reasons why HIV could not cause AIDS , from my inbox

1. What is the main argument behind the claim that HIV cannot cause AIDS?

The main argument is that HIV does not fulfill Koch's postulates, which are a set of criteria used to establish a causal relationship between a microorganism and a disease. These postulates require that the microorganism must be present in all cases of the disease, isolated from the host and grown in pure culture, and when introduced into a healthy host, must cause the same disease.

2. How does the author explain the correlation between HIV and AIDS?

The author argues that the correlation between HIV and AIDS is due to the fact that both are caused by similar risk factors, such as drug use, poor nutrition, and exposure to other diseases. This correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and there is evidence to suggest that these risk factors alone can lead to the symptoms of AIDS.

3. Is there any evidence to support the claim that HIV cannot cause AIDS?

Yes, the author cites several studies and expert opinions that support this claim. These include studies that show a lack of correlation between HIV viral load and AIDS progression, as well as cases of individuals who are HIV-positive but do not develop AIDS for decades.

4. What is the author's stance on the use of antiretroviral drugs to treat HIV?

The author believes that the use of antiretroviral drugs has been overemphasized in the treatment of HIV and AIDS, and that there are alternative, more effective treatments available. They also argue that the side effects of these drugs can be detrimental to the health of individuals living with HIV.

5. Are there any criticisms of the author's arguments?

Yes, there have been numerous criticisms of the author's arguments. Many experts in the field of HIV/AIDS research and treatment have refuted the claims made in this article, citing extensive evidence that supports the role of HIV in causing AIDS. The author's interpretation of Koch's postulates has also been widely criticized as being inaccurate and oversimplified.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
19
Views
8K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
980
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
790
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
3
Replies
100
Views
6K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
7K
Back
Top