|
Home > Archive > HIV Aids > December 2006 > USA Today on Issue of HIV Screening
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
USA Today on Issue of HIV Screening
|
|
|
| October 09, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial, USA TODAY editorial
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006...omment-23639866
USA Today on Issue of HIV Screening
Our view on AIDS prevention: Lift stigma from HIV screening.Voluntary,
routine tests would detect those infected but don't know it. For most
of the 1980s, a diagnosis of AIDS was a virtual death sentence. People
suspected of having the incurable disease were shunned, fired from jobs
or driven from homes. Many avoided getting tested for fear that their
status would be revealed.
The progress since then has been remarkable. New medications keep the
HIV virus in check so that patients who are diagnosed early can extend
their lives by 25 years, according to a Harvard Medical School study.
Public attitudes have softened.
But that progress has exposed a new problem - and opportunity. Far
too often, the disease isn't discovered as quickly as it could be,
endangering those people as well as others they might infect. As many
as 1.2 million Americans are HIV-positive, and an additional 40,000 are
infected each year.
Making HIV screening as routine as tests for high blood pressure would
address the problem. New guidelines from the federal Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention urge providers to offer regular, routine
- but voluntary - testing for everyone 13 to 64. (Read the Opposing
view.)
The CDC also wants states to reconsider laws that deter testing. Some
31 states require specific informed consent, and 23 demand extensive
pretest counseling. Those outdated laws were written for a time when
little was known about AIDS.
Some civil liberties and AIDS advocacy groups worry that testing could
become mandatory and compromise patient confidentiality, but that is a
concern with all medical records and can be controlled.
The benefits of wider testing far outweigh the risks.
As many as 300,000 people with HIV don't know they have it. Their own
health is in jeopardy, and they unwittingly transmit the disease to
others. People who don't know they carry HIV account for up to 70% of
new infections. When they do become aware of their status, they take
steps to avoid infecting others - a two-thirds reduction in risky
sexual behavior.
Further, the screening of all pregnant women, which started in 1995,
decreased the number of children who contracted AIDS via their mothers
from a peak of 945 in 1992 to 48 in 2004.
Because HIV can be diagnosed before symptoms develop, finding more
infections gets patients into treatment faster, slows the spread of
AIDS and saves lives. The widespread screening that so dramatically
lowered the AIDS rate in babies can do the same for adults.
Posted at 12:21 AM/ET, October 09, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial,
USA TODAY editorial
Comments:
Perhaps you can enlighten me re: the supposed value of conducting an
"antibody" test which merely indicates a post-viral contact to an
ubiquitous, harmless, passenger retrovirus. If 300,000 people have HIV
and DON'T know it, perhaps you can enlighten us as to HOW YOU know it.
The only way that a person who demonstrates "antibodies" to a prior HIV
infection is at risk is by taking the chain terminator AZT which has
killed countless innocent people who would be alive and well today.
Let's see, we have a harmless retrovirus which was, and never has been,
scientifically proven to cause Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, is
a supposed "Slow Virus" that is supposedly spread by sexual contact and
infected blood and is able to CAUSE over 40 unique and separate disease
states in its hapless victims.
Nice try, but the truth is that AIDS is confined to male homosexuals
and IV drug users. It is not caused by a harmless retrovirus but rather
through the continuous biochemical insult to the immune system by such
"recreational drugs" as alkyl nitrites, cocaine, heroin, meth, and the
depressive effects on the immune system by years and years of ingestion
of massive quantities of antibiotics, antivirals, and antifungals used
by homosexuals to ward off sexually transmitted diseases.
De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the
monumental 25 year scam by the homosexual lobby in their attempt to
de-stigmatize themselves within society,...and doing it with our tax
dollars.
Posted by: Doc | Oct 9, 2006 5:41:52 PM
Opposing view: Don't remove safeguards
Required consent, counseling aren't barriers to testing for HIV.
By Rose Saxe
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is right to want more
people to get tested for HIV. But eliminating specific consent and
pretest counseling, as the CDC recommends, would remove safeguards
guaranteeing that testing stays voluntary and informed.
It's not surprising that some doctors and health care workers are
welcoming what they see as time-saving measures. But testing people
without informed consent doesn't ensure that people with HIV get the
care they need. Studies have shown that patients who are tested without
consent are less likely to get necessary follow-up care.
Without pretest prevention counseling, we also lose a critical
opportunity to educate. The reason people aren't getting tested is not
consent requirements or even stigma about testing; it's because people
still don't understand HIV. A recent survey found that 22% of Americans
wrongly believe that you can get HIV from sharing a glass of water. And
25 years into the epidemic, people continue to lose jobs and housing
because of prejudice. Can we really afford to abandon this chance to
help people understand HIV?
The new recommendations also raise privacy concerns. Virtually every
state now collects the names of those who test positive. If the
government is going to collect names and deeply personal information,
people tested deserve to know that this information is being collected
and how it will be used. (Read USA TODAY's view.)
Early in the epidemic, our government ignored AIDS until it was
confronted by persistent protests by gay people. As the demographic of
the disease shifts to include more women and people of color, why are
we abandoning those safeguards? And why is the government so heavily
focused on promoting testing, while continuing to fund misleading sex
education and refusing to adequately support proven programs, such as
needle exchange, that reduce the transmission of HIV in the first
place?
Written consent and counseling need not be barriers to HIV testing.
Everyone wins when people are able to make informed decisions to
protect their health.
Rose Saxe is a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union
AIDS Project.
Posted at 12:20 AM/ET, October 08, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial,
USA TODAY editorial |
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006...ing_view_d.html
| |
| GMCarter 2006-10-10, 8:20 am |
| On 9 Oct 2006 22:09:49 -0700, "jdach" <drdach@drdach.com> wrote:
snip...
>De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the
>monumental 25 year scam by the homosexual lobby in their attempt to
>de-stigmatize themselves within society,...and doing it with our tax
>dollars.
There you go. The people who enjoy being oppressors--the bigots and
homophobes--ENJOY the stigma they place on groups they can feel free
to despise.
It's curious that humans are so weak and spineless that they need to
have such enemies. The fundy christians knew that going after Jews and
Blacks was bad but everybody can hate fags. That's still "OK".
In Iraq, now, new hate arises because one is born Sunni or Shia.
In Yugoslavia, Serb against Croat, etc.
Hutu against Tutsi.
Out of nowhere, bloodshed and hate arise...but when there is peace,
there are people like Dach and "death/diablo" in whom the growth of
prejudice and hatred fester. They are the puppets, the tools of the
powerful who wish to sow discord to retain their sinecure of power.
It's deranged and shows how little progress evolution has made in our
species.
George M. Carter
| |
|
|
GMCarter wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2006 22:09:49 -0700, "jdach" <drdach@drdach.com> wrote:
>
> snip...
>
> There you go. The people who enjoy being oppressors--the bigots and
> homophobes--ENJOY the stigma they place on groups they can feel free
> to despise.
>
> It's curious that humans are so weak and spineless that they need to
> have such enemies. The fundy christians knew that going after Jews and
> Blacks was bad but everybody can hate fags. That's still "OK".
>
> In Iraq, now, new hate arises because one is born Sunni or Shia.
>
> In Yugoslavia, Serb against Croat, etc.
>
> Hutu against Tutsi.
>
> Out of nowhere, bloodshed and hate arise...but when there is peace,
> there are people like Dach and "death/diablo" in whom the growth of
> prejudice and hatred fester. They are the puppets, the tools of the
> powerful who wish to sow discord to retain their sinecure of power.
>
> It's deranged and shows how little progress evolution has made in our
> species.
>
> George M. Carter
reply from drdach:
Nice polemic. Keep up the good work.
regards from www.drdach
| |
|
|
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>
> It's deranged and shows how little progress evolution has made in our
> species.
>
LOL, are you speaking for all the faggots or just yourself.
My advice would be to get a nice cheese to go with that whine.
| |
| GMCarter 2006-10-10, 9:20 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:59:27 -0500, " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net>
wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>LOL, are you speaking for all the faggots or just yourself.
>My advice would be to get a nice cheese to go with that whine.
You underscore the point elegantly if horrifically, my dear.
I do hope you find healing. But you will die with that feeble, ancient
ache of hate since you cling so fiercely to it.
I'd much rather be queer than have to live in your squalid, dismal
world.
George M. Carter
| |
|
|
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> <Death@yourdoor.net>
>
>
> You underscore the point elegantly if horrifically,
>
Well that must be the reason you didn't answer the question.
| |
| Hollywood 2006-10-11, 9:20 pm |
| The homosexual lobby? Please. the small but vocal group to which the
author refers is not representative of the greater gay population. Besides,
those that lobby in the name of AIDS - the true AIDS lovers - are the
pharmaceutical companies and 'public health' establishment who without
HIV/AIDS wouldn't have the globetrotting lifestyle to which they are
accustomed.
These self-important 'do-gooders' who just want to 'help people' are the
ones to whom you should be directing your outrage.
"jdach" <drdach@drdach.com> wrote in message
news:1160456989.473150.85320@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> De-stigmatize the test indeed. How about opening your eyes up to the
> monumental 25 year scam by the homosexual lobby in their attempt to
> de-stigmatize themselves within society,...and doing it with our tax
> dollars.
>
> Posted by: Doc | Oct 9, 2006 5:41:52 PM
>
>
> Opposing view: Don't remove safeguards
>
> Required consent, counseling aren't barriers to testing for HIV.
> By Rose Saxe
>
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is right to want more
> people to get tested for HIV. But eliminating specific consent and
> pretest counseling, as the CDC recommends, would remove safeguards
> guaranteeing that testing stays voluntary and informed.
>
> It's not surprising that some doctors and health care workers are
> welcoming what they see as time-saving measures. But testing people
> without informed consent doesn't ensure that people with HIV get the
> care they need. Studies have shown that patients who are tested without
> consent are less likely to get necessary follow-up care.
>
> Without pretest prevention counseling, we also lose a critical
> opportunity to educate. The reason people aren't getting tested is not
> consent requirements or even stigma about testing; it's because people
> still don't understand HIV. A recent survey found that 22% of Americans
> wrongly believe that you can get HIV from sharing a glass of water. And
> 25 years into the epidemic, people continue to lose jobs and housing
> because of prejudice. Can we really afford to abandon this chance to
> help people understand HIV?
>
> The new recommendations also raise privacy concerns. Virtually every
> state now collects the names of those who test positive. If the
> government is going to collect names and deeply personal information,
> people tested deserve to know that this information is being collected
> and how it will be used. (Read USA TODAY's view.)
>
> Early in the epidemic, our government ignored AIDS until it was
> confronted by persistent protests by gay people. As the demographic of
> the disease shifts to include more women and people of color, why are
> we abandoning those safeguards? And why is the government so heavily
> focused on promoting testing, while continuing to fund misleading sex
> education and refusing to adequately support proven programs, such as
> needle exchange, that reduce the transmission of HIV in the first
> place?
>
> Written consent and counseling need not be barriers to HIV testing.
> Everyone wins when people are able to make informed decisions to
> protect their health.
>
> Rose Saxe is a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union
> AIDS Project.
>
> Posted at 12:20 AM/ET, October 08, 2006 in Medical Issues - Editorial,
> USA TODAY editorial |
>
> http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006...ing_view_d.html
>
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
| > >[vbcol=seagreen]
HIV antibody testing and Western blot testing have never been approved
by the FDA as a "GOLD STANDARD" to determine if indeed a person is
actually infected with "HIV".
You can read this on the manufacturer's labels in the packaging. Why is
the CDC recommending that 300,000,000 US citizens take a test that can
err over 71% of the time when persons who are tested outside of risk
groups? They claim that there are 250,000 people with HIV who don't
know it, because they are not sick. So they are recommending that ALL
of us be tested, even though less than one person out of 1,000 will be
positive! Think of all the money they will make testing 1,000 people
for nothing!
The total figure of HIV positives has not gone up in 20 years! In fact,
it has fallen from 1.5 million in 1985 now down to about 900,000 in
2006, or even less.
There are 65 reasons why HIV tests can produce a false positive, and
even the CDC candidly admits that almost half of the HIV positive
results are false. If you don't believe this, look at the yearly
percentage of HIV positive tests, then divide that figure into 300
million, then look at the "estimates" the CDC states here of people
with HIV infection. The number is usually about 50% of what the
percentage would dictate. You can do this for every year of CDC
surveilance.
If you really want to understand what is going in with HIV/AID$ visit
this site:
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com You can also find help for HIV
positive people through the links. It's time we called the "science"
behind HIV/AID$ into question and started treating people for the real
diseases they suffer from. In Africa, it's mostly malnutrition,
parasitic infection, poluted water supplies and poor sanitation.
HIV/AID$ has been a 250 BILLION dollar rip off that has resulted in
poisoning 400,000 americans alone with toxic drugs.
| |
| GMCarter 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
| On 31 Oct 2006 22:11:32 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
>HIV antibody testing and Western blot testing have never been approved
>by the FDA as a "GOLD STANDARD" to determine if indeed a person is
>actually infected with "HIV".
That's misinformation.
http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/...nt/Q143691.html
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
| > >
>
> That's misinformation.
> http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/...nt/Q143691.html
If this IS indeed misinformation, can you provide a package from ANY
HIV ELISA test kit that claims: "This test PROVES that the individual
being tested IS INFECTED with the Human Immuno Virus (HIV) ???They may
be approved by the FDA for diagnosis purposes, it would hardly be
feasible to market them if they were not, but these test kits are
careful to make the claim that they are NOT-NOT-NOT PROOF of HIV
infection. Why? Because they do NOT prove a person is infected with
HIV, AND they usually instruct the user to conduct further testing
before making a diagnosis. As I said, there is NO GOLD STANDARD for HIV
testing in ANY form. Show me ONE package label that makes this claim.
But why worry about the HIV test anyway, when HIV is obviously a fraud
and can NOT possibly be the cause of AIDS. Now that the Lancet study
released August 5th of this year is out and we know that HAART is a
failure, the AID$ industry is taking in water faster than the Titanic.
Visit our site: www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com to learn the UGLY UGLY
truth about this deadly scam that has resulted in mass genocide.
400,000 Americans are dead because of Gallo's fraud? We demand justice!
If you want to debate HIV testing go to this site and see the facts.
http://www.helpforhiv.com
It's time for honesty to return to medical health, and for every honest
medical health care worker to reclaim their credibility and objective.
STOP the HIV lie NOW!
| |
| DavidT 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
|
Truth PLEASE! wrote:
> If this IS indeed misinformation, can you provide a package from ANY
> HIV ELISA test kit that claims: "This test PROVES that the individual
> being tested IS INFECTED with the Human Immuno Virus (HIV) ???
Can YOU provide a package from ANY other ELISA assay for ANY other
infection that states:
"This test PROVES that the individual being tested IS INFECTED with
Infection X "???
You display a silly naivety about what HIV results mean, and what all
test results mean. All the tests do is confirm the presence of
antibodies, which is information taken into account by the clinician
who interprets the clinical diagnosis taking into account the results
of tests like these and other results that are confirmatory.
| |
|
|
"Truth PLEASE!" <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
> If this IS indeed misinformation, can you provide a package from ANY
> HIV ELISA test kit that claims: "This test PROVES that the individual
> being tested IS INFECTED with the Human Immuno Virus (HIV) ???
Is it possible that the test could be negative?
Why then would any test claim that it will PROVE
the individual being tested IS INFECTED?
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
| DavidT wrote:
> Truth PLEASE! wrote:
>
> Can YOU provide a package from ANY other ELISA assay for ANY other
> infection that states:
> "This test PROVES that the individual being tested IS INFECTED with
> Infection X "???
>
> You display a silly naivety about what HIV results mean, and what all
> test results mean. All the tests do is confirm the presence of
> antibodies, which is information taken into account by the clinician
> who interprets the clinical diagnosis taking into account the results
> of tests like these and other results that are confirmatory.
Would you like to meet a friend of mine? His name is Dr. Rodney
Richards and he developed the Abbott test kit most commonly used. He
can explain to you why these tests don't work. (you will see his name
referrenced on the packaging) He might know. He made them after Abbott
purchased Gallo's patent to develop the test. Now do you think I am
displaying a "silly naivety?" Why don't you take his word for it?
Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things
that can cause "HIV antibody paositive FALSE RESULTS. We have proof
that 2 tests from the SAME person done by the SAME lab have come back
with 2 (two) different results. This happens every day to thousands of
people. HIV testing is a scam.Visit the site:
http://www.helpforhiv.com
But what difference does it make? HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS anyway!
| |
| GMCarter 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
| On 3 Nov 2006 17:20:37 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
snip
>Antibodies don't prove ANYTHING! There are over 70 different things
>that can cause "HIV antibody paositive FALSE RESULTS.
1. HIV antibody tests have a high degree of specificity and
sensitivity. They are pretty damned accurate, especially contrasted to
other diagnostic tests (e.g., syphilis).
2. They are followed up by viral load tests and the clinical reality
of declining CD4 counts.
3. False positive or false negative results DO happen; that doesn't
not mean HIV does not exist or cause AIDS.
4. See the following URL for more information debunking the notions
regarding cross reaction (which yes, can happen, as with many tests,
but not nearly with the scope claimed above).
http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/
There's another excellent one I'll have to dig up--was that yours,
Bennett?
George M. Carter
| |
| Chris Noble 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
|
GMCarter wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2006 17:20:37 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
> <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> 1. HIV antibody tests have a high degree of specificity and
> sensitivity. They are pretty damned accurate, especially contrasted to
> other diagnostic tests (e.g., syphilis).
>
> 2. They are followed up by viral load tests and the clinical reality
> of declining CD4 counts.
>
> 3. False positive or false negative results DO happen; that doesn't
> not mean HIV does not exist or cause AIDS.
>
> 4. See the following URL for more information debunking the notions
> regarding cross reaction (which yes, can happen, as with many tests,
> but not nearly with the scope claimed above).
>
> http://aidsmyth.blogspot.com/
>
> There's another excellent one I'll have to dig up--was that yours,
> Bennett?
>
> George M. Carter
Nobody here but us conspiracy theorists/rethinkers.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....09469928015850c
I was aware of the 9/11 conspiracy theories but Bill Koenig's "Eye to
Eye" is a new one for me.
Hurricane Katrina was God's retribution for the Gaza withdrawal?
Chris Noble
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
|
Chris Noble wrote:
> GMCarter wrote:
>
> Nobody here but us conspiracy theorists/rethinkers.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt....09469928015850c
>
> I was aware of the 9/11 conspiracy theories but Bill Koenig's "Eye to
> Eye" is a new one for me.
>
> Hurricane Katrina was God's retribution for the Gaza withdrawal?
>
> Chris Noble
Chris: seems that way. It has happened EVERY time. I think Keonig
documented 48 out of 48 times. I'll take those odds in Vegas on a 3 to
one bet.
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
|
GMCarter wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2006 17:20:37 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
> <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
> snip
..
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 1. HIV antibody tests have a high degree of specificity and
> sensitivity. They are pretty damned accurate, especially contrasted to
> other diagnostic tests (e.g., syphilis).
>
How can you say this? With the ELISA test we are testing for enzymes
linked via assay where over 70 things can cause the test to detect
enzymes. There is documented proof that the sam lab, with the same
blood sample has produced two different results.
> 2. They are followed up by viral load tests and the clinical reality
> of declining CD4 counts.
There is some correlation between CD4 counts and viral load, but both
have been seen to have NO CORRELATION in many AIDS clinical studies. In
fact, the use of ana nukes and PIs themselves effect these numbers more
than AIDS related diseases. The claims of CD4 and viral load counts
related to actual clinical AIDS progression are now discounted by the
AID$ industy's own admission.
>
> 3. False positive or false negative results DO happen; that doesn't
> not mean HIV does not exist or cause AIDS.
No, there are 10 scientific reasons why HIV can NOT be the cause of
AIDS, without even beginning to talk about why the test is bogus. Both
the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, and HIV testing each have their own set of
bogus scientific failures. Like Dum and Dummer.
Visit this site and try to debunk the 10 reasons. the will continue to
stand.
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com
> 4. See the following URL for more information debunking the notions
> regarding cross reaction (which yes, can happen, as with many tests,
> but not nearly with the scope claimed above).
>
Now go to this site and see why the HIV test is flawed and a crock of
junk science.
http://www.helpforhiv.com
>
>
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
|
Death wrote:
> "Truth PLEASE!" <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
>
> Is it possible that the test could be negative?
> Why then would any test claim that it will PROVE
> the individual being tested IS INFECTED?
Death, I am not sure I understand your question. Of course most people
who take the HIV test will test negative. At random, only about .05%
will test positive. (1 out of 200 people roughly) The issue is what
about those .05%? These people will be put through tramatic changes,
uncertainty, and even medications that are expensive and dangerous. It
is here that the accuracy of the test is important. With over 70-90% of
the people testing false positive, and the HIV=AIDS=DEATH propaganda
pressing on their minds, this is a quack science fear tactic that is
deceptive and to blame for over 400,000 deaths by AZT. The new drugs
are less toxic, but still not showing any long-term benefit. (Lancet,
aug. 5, 2006.)
Now the CDC is recommending that 300 million Americans (all of us)
subscribe to this bogus test. That is the issue. Did this answer your
question?
| |
| Chris Noble 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
|
Truth PLEASE! wrote:
> Chris Noble wrote:
>
> Chris: seems that way. It has happened EVERY time. I think Keonig
> documented 48 out of 48 times. I'll take those odds in Vegas on a 3 to
> one bet.
So let's get this straight. You believe a) that hurricanes in the US
are God's retribution for what is happening in Israel and b) HIV has
not been proven to cause AIDS.
Your attempt to portray yourself as an arbiter of the scientific method
has failed.
It may not be a 100% correlation but HIV "rethinking" appears to be a
good predictor of believe in at least one other kooky idea.
Chris Noble
| |
| GMCarter 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
| On 6 Nov 2006 10:12:16 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
>GMCarter wrote:
>
>.
>
>How can you say this? With the ELISA test we are testing for enzymes
>linked via assay where over 70 things can cause the test to detect
>enzymes. There is documented proof that the sam lab, with the same
>blood sample has produced two different results.
That MAY be true based on older kits and on one test. But the ELISA is
followed up by a Western blot as well as viral load.
Also, the cross-reaction issue is way overblown and distorted.
>
>
>There is some correlation between CD4 counts and viral load, but both
>have been seen to have NO CORRELATION in many AIDS clinical studies.
Name even just two that showed that.
But what I was referring to was the loss of CD4 cells that occurs
after HIV infection which IS correlated with the development of AIDS.
What else causes T cells to go away like that?
>In
>fact, the use of ana nukes and PIs themselves effect these numbers more
>than AIDS related diseases. The claims of CD4 and viral load counts
>related to actual clinical AIDS progression are now discounted by the
>AID$ industy's own admission.
The nukes and PIs do indeed affect CD4 counts and viral loads. Mostly
by causing the former to increase and the latter to decrease to below
detectability.
The claims of CD4 counts are most certainly NOT "discounted" by anyone
I've ever seen. That's just a lie.
>
>No, there are 10 scientific reasons why HIV can NOT be the cause of
>AIDS, without even beginning to talk about why the test is bogus. Both
>the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, and HIV testing each have their own set of
>bogus scientific failures. Like Dum and Dummer.
Name these 10 "reasons."
>Visit this site and try to debunk the 10 reasons. the will continue to
>stand.
>http://www.hiv-
The site dose not list them.
>Now go to this site and see why the HIV test is flawed and a crock of
>junk science.
No.
George M. Carter
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
|
GMCarter wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2006 10:12:16 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
> <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
Let's start at the top:
Welcome to HIV=AIDS - Fact or terrible terrible genocidal fraud?.
Today's first lesson will be the 10 scientific reasons why Santa can't
fly...or HIV fails as THE ONE and ONLY EVER COULD BE REASON TO-SPEND
300 BILLION Dollars worth of JUNK SCIENCE money on THE ONLY cause of
AID$ convincing people that HIV causes AIDS, 147.5 years after
infection. Class 101
(first we will look at this, then systematically show you test after
test of that prove CD4 counts, viral load, HIV tests, and all other HIV
surrogate markers fail. First the basics.)
> George M. Carter, have seat and open the text book to page one.
10 Scientific Reasons Why HIV Cannot Cause AIDS
For anyone convinced that HIV has been isolated. (let's Assume it does
exist!)
1.
HIV is neutralized by antibody immunity.
When a person tests "positive" to HIV, it means they carry antibodies
to the virus. Which means that they have immunity. This is clear from
the fact that there is so little virus to be found in HIV antibody
positive people.* The antibodies have done their job and the virus is
well under control. There are no known viruses that cause illness in
every case only long after antibodies appear, which is how AIDS is
defined.
One has to question why 12 years and billions of dollars have been
spent developing a vaccine against HIV when the best vaccine possible
already exists when a person tests positive.
2.
HIV does not kill the T cells it infects.
HIV can only kill T cells under rare laboratory conditions. In fact,
HIV researchers use T cells to grow the virus because T cells live
quite compatibly with HIV.
3.
HIV does not infect enough T cells to cause AIDS.
HIV never infects more than 1 out of 1000 T cells; commonly just 1 out
of 10,000 T cells.* People replace 5% of their T cells per day. Simple
math shows that HIV cannot infect enough T cells to cause them to die
off and bring down the whole immune system. Even supporters of the
HIV/AIDS theory admit that this low level of T cell infection is a
challenge to explain.
* The recent invention of "viral load" testing is an attempt to explain
away the fact that almost no sign of HIV can be found by standard
measurements. Viral load tests do not measure viable virus and have not
been approved by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection.
4.
HIV has no AIDS causing gene.
HIV has no specific gene or unique reason to cause AIDS. All
retroviruses have only 3 major genes, GAG, ENV and POL and only 6 minor
genes. Because the genes and genetic sequences are so limited in these
simple organisms, they need all their genes to replicate. HIV is almost
identical to all other retroviruses genetically. There are 50 to 100
different retroviruses that can be found in every healthy human body.
All have been brought under control by antibody response. HIV behaves
no differently than any of these others. If none of these other
retroviruses cause AIDS, why should HIV? And vice versa, if HIV causes
AIDS, why don't all the rest? So there is no genetic reason why HIV
would cause AIDS.
5.
There is no such thing as a "slow virus".
HIV is claimed to take 10 to 20 years (the "latency period") after
infection to cause AIDS. The only way to explain this is to give HIV
magical abilities to reactivate, mutate, migrate and hibernate. These
slow virus hypotheses were devised by scientists who used them to buy
time when their viruses failed to perform. The slow virus proponents
point to examples like the herpes viruses that smolder and hide and
then reemerge in persons when they have suppressed immunity and cannot
generate a sufficient defense. These differ greatly from HIV because
large amounts of active virus can be found causing specific symptoms.
By contrast, a slow virus is an invention credited with the ability to
cause disease only years after infection - termed the latency period -
in previously healthy persons, regardless of their state of immunity.
Such a concept allows scientists to blame a long-neutralized virus for
any disease that appears decades after infection. HIV is inactive, then
is said to cause 30 different diseases 10 years later. None of which
are specific to HIV itself.
6.
HIV is not a new virus, so it could not cause a new epidemic.
AIDS cases went from almost none in 1980 to a reported half a million
in North America alone by 1995. Therefore, scientists claim HIV must be
a new virus or we would have had an epidemic years or centuries ago.
However, this claim does not stand up to the principals of Farr's Law.
Farr's Law asserts that new infections spread exponentially through the
population. HIV has been reported at more or less 1 million infected in
the USA each year since they had a test for it in 1984. So it cannot be
a new virus.
7.
HIV fails Koch's postulates.
The universal test used by scientists to determine if a disease is
truly being caused by an infection was designed over one hundred years
ago by Robert Koch.
Koch's postulates state:
The organism:
must be found in all cases of the disease.
must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.
must cause the same disease when injected into a new, healthy host.
must be found growing again in the newly diseased host.
Here is how HIV does on this test:
The germ must be found in all cases of the diseases. FAILS.
10 to 20% of AIDS patients have no HIV at all.
Only tiny amounts of HIV, usually dormant, can be found in any AIDS
patient.
The germ must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.
PASSES - but only on a technicality.
Huge amounts of cell tissue are needed to find HIV.
HIV needs a chemically induced process to reactivate.
By contrast, large amounts of active virus can be found with other
viruses.
The germ must cause the same disease when injected into a new, healthy
host. FAILS - hands down.
HIV does not cause AIDS in test animals like chimpanzees.
human health care workers accidentally infected with HIV rarely get
AIDS unless they use recreational drugs ... or AZT.
The germ must be found growing again in the newly diseased host. FAILS
- for not passing postulate 3.
HIV fails this test.
HIV scientists claim that Koch's postulates are old and out of date
with modern science. But they have stood the test of time. Disease
hypotheses that ignored Koch's postulates have been a failure. The
infectious theories of scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, SMON and
virus/cancer research have all ignored Koch's postulates and all have
been a dismal failure. And now HIV/AIDS?
8
AIDS has remained in the original risk groups for over 15 years.
If a disease does not spread it must be caused by something
non-infectious. The US CDC reports (1997) confirm that AIDS is not
spreading into the general population.
AIDS cases by risk group (US):
Admitted gay males 54%
Admitted IV drug users 32%
Hemophiliacs 1%
Transfusion recipients 1%
Claimed heterosexual contact 9%
Pediatric 1%
Total: 97%
If AIDS is truly caused by a virus AIDS patients not in a risk group
should be growing above an estimated 10% as the disease spreads.
Note that the US army has found that when testing recruits HIV positive
results were divided equally between men (50%) and women (50%). Yet 85%
of AIDS cases in the US are male.
Note too that in the US men use over 80% of all hard drugs. Among women
with AIDS 60% (admit they) use hard drugs.
9.
International comparisons of AIDS differ greatly.
A germ related disease would effect the population in the same way
around the world. An outbreak of cholera in India and Honduras would be
much the same. But AIDS is totally different in the USA or western
industrialized countries and Africa.
USA AFRICA
Aids by sexual percentage
85% male 50% male
15% female 50% female
AIDS among risk groups
At least 90% No risk group
risk groups (at random)
AIDS diseases caused by microbes
62% 90%
Estimated HIV Infections
1 million 14 million
Official documented cases of AIDS (1995/96)
513,486 442,735
AIDS in Africa should be 14 times higher than in the US. Instead,
people with HIV in the US develop AIDS 10 to 20 times faster than in
Africa. This means that whereas the latency period in the US is
predicted at 10 -15 years, in Africa it is at least 100 to 150 years!
VERY GOOD. you got this far. NOW for the BIG NUMBER 10.
AIDS occurs without HIV Infection and most people with HIV never
develop AIDS.
The evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is based solely on
correlation. Because the virus is found in most AIDS patients, it is
thought to cause AIDS. But the logic of that assumption is flawed
because CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION.
The common presence of HIV in AIDS patients is no more proof that HIV
causes AIDS than the presence of birds on power lines is proof that
birds cause power failures.
So, if HIV and AIDS are only correlated, we should find AIDS without
HIV and healthy people who have HIV and never get AIDS. That is exactly
what is happening.
In Africa studies have shown over 65% of AIDS patients are not HIV
positive. In Africa a positive HIV antibody test result is not
necessary for reporting AIDS cases; prolonged symptoms are enough.
4621 cases of AIDS without HIV were found in the US Center for Disease
Control (CDC) reports up to 1993. And the number could be much larger
but the official definition of AIDS is designed to eliminate AIDS cases
without HIV.
AIDS is distinguished from virtually every other disease in history by
the fact that it has no constant specific symptoms. AIDS is an umbrella
term for 29 old diseases and one non-disease (a T4 cell count of less
than 200/ul of blood) when a person has an HIV-positive antibody test
result. The official CDC definition of AIDS excludes HIV-negative AIDS
by definition.
How the CDC's AIDS definition works:
Kaposi's Sarcoma + HIV = AIDS
Kaposi's Sarcoma - HIV = Kaposi's Sarcoma
Pneumonia + HIV = AIDS
Pneumonia - HIV = Pneumonia
Dementia + HIV = AIDS
Dementia - HIV = Dementia
and so on...
<200 T4 cell count + HIV = AIDS
<200 T4 cell count - HIV = no disease
There is no disease that is only caused by HIV. HIV is said to cause 29
old diseases when it is present. When it is not, the original causes of
these diseases are responsible for them.
The official definition of AIDS creates a 100% correlation between the
virus and AIDS. This "correlation" is not objective or scientific, but
is artificial and deceptively self-fulfilling.
Estimated total HIV infected worldwide: 28,000,000 ? (in 96, now
estimated to be 48 million)
Total of reported AIDS cases worldwide: 1,400,000 " " "
95% percent of people with HIV do not have AIDS. Still True in 2006!
Adapted from the video HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud?
Note: The statistics quoted may not be the most up to date.
TORONTO
tel/fax 416) 406-HEAL
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
|
GMCarter wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2006 10:12:16 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
> <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
> Also, the cross-reaction issue is way overblown and distorted.
>
>
> Name even just two that showed that.
>
> But what I was referring to was the loss of CD4 cells that occurs
> after HIV infection which IS correlated with the development of AIDS.
> What else causes T cells to go away like that?
>
>
> The nukes and PIs do indeed affect CD4 counts and viral loads. Mostly
> by causing the former to increase and the latter to decrease to below
> detectability.
>
> The claims of CD4 counts are most certainly NOT "discounted" by anyone
> I've ever seen. That's just a lie.
>
>
> Name these 10 "reasons."
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> George M. Carter
Ok George. Suppossing you finished lesson number 1. Now we will just
begin to list the 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 studies that show CD4 counts and
viral load in non-correlation.
This was found on AIDSmyth Exposed MSN.
I found this abit amusing.
http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1159330774.shtml
JAMA confirms HIV load doesn't govern CD4 loss
Lynchpin falls out of paradigm
No explanation yet from Dr Fauci, and we think we know why
Interesting JAMA story moving on the UPI ticker just now: HIV
measurement is questioned. Seems viral load has little to do with CD4
loss in untreated HIV + patients.
Dr. Benigno Rodr=C3=ADguez of Case Western Reserve university and
colleagues conducted a study to estimate the extent to which presenting
blood levels of HIV can account for the rate at which CD4 cells are
depleted among an untreated HIV-infected population of patients.
The researchers found only a small proportion of the rate at which CD4
cells are lost could be explained by plasma HIV RNA level, suggesting
more than 90 percent of the determinants of CD4 cell decline are not
reflected in the amount of virus in blood.
So don't hurry to take HAART just because your HIV count is high. Is
that right?
If so, where does that leave the paradigm and Anthony Fauci's assurance
that HIV causes depletion of CD4 cells, directly, indirectly and some
other mysterious way as yet undefined but characterised by the paradigm
defense team's head man, Zvi Grossman, as a "conundrum".
Seems we don't even have to work out what the conundrum is. HIV doesn't
correlate with CD4 loss, period. Not in untreated patients. Not before
HAART messes with your constitution.
Ah well, it's late, maybe we got it all wrong. But looks to us as if
the paradigm is failing on every front. Viral load doesn't govern CD4
loss. That's a problem to explain, unless you are a dissenter, ie
someone with a few working brain cells left in this field.
Is it time for Gallo et al to pack for Rio? He should buy his ticket,
the way things are crumbling.
Still, since Fauci presumably has been forewarned, he probably has an
answer for us tomorrow, and Larry will let us know at the Times.
UPDATE: here is an AMA rundown of the paper:
=E2=80=9CThese findings represent a major departure from the notion that
plasma HIV RNA level is a reliable predictor of rate of CD4 cell loss
in HIV infection and challenge the concept that the magnitude of viral
replication (at least as reflected by plasma levels) is the main
determinant of the speed of CD4 cell loss at the individual level. The
clinical implications are that in the majority of cases, an individual
patient=E2=80=99s plasma HIV RNA level at the time of presentation for
clinical care cannot predict, to a significant extent, the rate of CD4
cell decline that he or she will experience over the subsequent years
and is therefore of limited clinical value in shaping the decision to
initiate antiretroviral therapy,=E2=80=9D the researchers write.
(JAMA. 2006;296:1498-1506.)....
=E2=80=9CThe second and potentially more exciting implication of the findin=
gs
of Rodriguez et al is that future improvements in the treatment of HIV
infection and AIDS may result from improved understanding of the 90
percent of CD4 cell depletion that remains enigmatic,=E2=80=9D they write.
=E2=80=9CA better understanding of the immunologic and genetic factors that
drive HIV-associated CD4 cell loss may translate to novel therapeutic
approaches that could favorably shift the pathogen-host balance.
So 90 per cent of CD 4 depletion is not driven by HIV? But... but...
Dr. Fauci, come to our rescue here. We were under the impression that
HIV caused AIDS by depleting CD4 cells. You told the audience that when
you appeared in New York with Mathilde Krim and Larry Kramer at the New
School to celebrate "AIDS after 25 Years". Help us here.
Did Dr Fauci censor himself on HIV=E2=88=ABAIDS flaws?
Why was this paper not flagged at NIAID before it could be published?
The answer to that question also seems enigmatic. Maybe it was because
Dr Fauci thought there might be something in our previous nomination on
his behalf for recognition from Stockholm (Dr Fauci finds solution to
AIDS - it's HIV; NAR nominates him for Nobel) on the grounds that he
had discovered that HIV actually increased CD4+8 proliferation, and
therefore was an antidote to itself.
Readers may note that at the bottom of that post is a Comment by Robert
Houston which points out that Dr Fauci himself in a review of
HIV=E2=88=ABAIDS quoted from a paper he himself forwarded to the National
Academy of Sciences that showed that a huge rise in HIV load of 5,560%
resulted in a negligible change in CD4 count of -6%, at the same time
as boosting CD8 count 20%.
Is it possible that Dr Fauci is aware of the fact that HIV load has no
great influence on CD4 count, and even wrote about it for the
information of the medical community, on the basis of a paper he
forwarded to the National Academy, and somehow forgot to tell
government officials, health workers and the public?
Surely it would be too cynical to imagine that the director of NIAID
would censor himself in this way, after censoring the media for twenty
two years?
Surely a public servant of the well paid and important kind that Dr
Fauci is would never withhold information from members of the public
who pay his salary who might then be misled into taking drugs with
horrendous side effects for no good reason?
Surely a public servant of the stature of Dr Fauci would not freely
acknowledge a flaw in the paradigm which has brought so much funding to
his institution among colleagues, and yet somehow neglect to tell the
public?
If he did, then it behooves us to wonder just how flawed does Dr Fauci
think the HIV=E2=88=ABAIDS paradigm really is. Are there other flaws which =
he
has quietly recognized in chats and talks to his peers in the medical
policy fraternity, but has omitted to acknowledge in public?
It already seems clear that his answer to Robert Houston at the "AIDS
after 25 Years" panel on how HIV killed CD4 cells was misleading. He
repeated the same old claims that there was direct killing and indirect
killing which have not only been revealed as specious by mainstream
papers which he must have read himself, but he knew himself from his
own review and paper that HIV load has very little to do with CD4 count
changes.
So today's revelation in JAMA is nothing new to him, and we don't
really expect him to help us to understand it. Dr Fauci's policy on
informing the public seems to be this: however many reasons there are
to doubt that HIV is "the virus that causes AIDS", it is important not
to undermine public confidence by acknowledging them in public.
But it is fine to talk and write about them among colleagues.
We wonder what all the haplessly gullible gays now staggering about
with wrecked and ugly bodies, and the ghosts of their dead, will have
to say about it when they finally come to their senses?
Maybe they will take up Larry Kramer on his suggestion for a latter day
Nuremburg Trial, and put Dr Anthony Fauci in the dock.
AMA rundown:
(show)
Libraries
Medical News
Keywords
HIV, CD4 CELLS, IMMUNE RESPONSE
Contact Information
Available for logged-in reporters only
Description
Preliminary research indicates that the initial HIV RNA level in
untreated HIV-infected patients appears to have little value in
predicting the rate of CD4 cell count decrease, potentially limiting
its clinical value concerning the decision of when to begin
antiretroviral therapy for an individual, according to a study in the
September 27 issue of JAMA.
Newswise =E2=80=94 Preliminary research indicates that the initial HIV RNA
level in untreated HIV-infected patients appears to have little value
in predicting the rate of CD4 cell count decrease, potentially limiting
its clinical value concerning the decision of when to begin
antiretroviral therapy for an individual, according to a study in the
September 27 issue of JAMA.
Depletion of CD4 cells is a characteristic of progressive human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease and a powerful predictor of the
short-term risk of progression to AIDS, according to background
information in the article. Blood levels of HIV are also thought to
predict HIV disease progression risk. In addition to their role as
predictors of the clinical outcomes of HIV infection, CD4 cell count
and plasma HIV RNA level are commonly used as markers of the success of
highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Until this study was
completed, however, the degree to which blood levels of HIV could
predict the rate of CD4 cell loss in HIV-infected individuals with
similar demographic characteristics to those seen in clinical practice
was unclear.
To address this question, Benigno Rodr=C3=ADguez, M.D., of Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues conducted a study to
estimate the extent to which presenting blood levels of HIV can account
for or =E2=80=9Cexplain=E2=80=9D the rate at which CD4 cells are depleted a=
mong an
untreated HIV-infected population of patients including women and
ethnic minorities. The study included repeated analyses of 2
multicenter groups, with observations beginning in May 1984 and ending
in August 2004. Analyses were conducted between August 2004 and March
2006. The participants included antiretroviral treatment=E2=80=93na=C3=AFve,
chronically HIV-infected persons (n =3D 1,289 and n =3D 1,512 for each of
the 2 groups) who were untreated during the observation period (6
months or greater) and with at least 1 HIV RNA level and 2 CD4 cell
counts available. Approximately 35 percent were nonwhite, and 35
percent had risk factors other than male-to-male sexual contact.
The researchers found that only a small proportion of the rate at which
CD4 cells are lost (only 4 percent - 6 percent) in a given individual
patient could be explained by presenting plasma HIV RNA level,
suggesting that in chronic untreated HIV infection over 90 percent of
the determinants of CD4 cell decline are not reflected in the amount of
virus in blood at the time of initial medical evaluation.
=E2=80=9COur findings confirm previous observations that the magnitude of H=
IV
viremia [the presence of a virus in the blood stream], as defined by
broad categories of presenting HIV RNA level, is associated with the
rate of CD4 cell loss and extend this observation to patient
populations comprising both men and women. Despite this association,
however, only a small proportion of the interindividual variability in
the rate of CD4 cell decline can be explained by plasma HIV RNA level,
even after accounting for the effect of measurement error,=E2=80=9D the
authors write.
NOTICE THIS:
=E2=80=9CThese findings represent a major departure from the notion that
plasma HIV RNA level is a reliable predictor of rate of CD4 cell loss
in HIV infection and challenge the concept that the magnitude of viral
replication (at least as reflected by plasma levels) is the main
determinant of the speed of CD4 cell loss at the individual level. The
clinical implications are that in the majority of cases, an individual
patient=E2=80=99s plasma HIV RNA level at the time of presentation for
clinical care cannot predict, to a significant extent, the rate of CD4
cell decline that he or she will experience over the subsequent years
and is therefore of limited clinical value in shaping the decision to
initiate antiretroviral therapy,=E2=80=9D the researchers write.
(JAMA. 2006;296:1498-1506. Available pre-embargo to the media at
http://www.jamamedia.org.)
=E2=80=9CThe second and potentially more exciting implication of the findin=
gs
of Rodriguez et al is that future improvements in the treatment of HIV
infection and AIDS may result from improved understanding of the 90
percent of CD4 cell depletion that remains enigmatic,=E2=80=9D they write.
=E2=80=9CA better understanding of the immunologic and genetic factors that
drive HIV-associated CD4 cell loss may translate to novel therapeutic
approaches that could favorably shift the pathogen-host balance.
Editor=E2=80=99s Note: This work was supported in part by the Case Western
Reserve university Center for AIDS Research and NIH grants. Please see
the article for additional information, including other authors, author
contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and
support, etc.
Editorial: Explaining, Predicting, and Treating HIV-Associated CD4 Loss
- After 25 Years Still a Puzzle
In an accompanying editorial, W. Keith Henry, M.D., of the University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis; Pablo Tebas, M.D., of the university of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and H. Clifford Lane, M.D., of the National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Md., discuss
the findings concerning HIV RNA levels and CD4 cell loss.
=E2=80=9CThe study by Rodriguez et al may have several important clinical
implications. The first and more straightforward is that baseline
measurements of viral load alone should have less of a role in driving
decisions on when to start antiretroviral therapy for an individual
patient; these initial viral load levels cannot predict how rapidly the
disease will progress. =E2=80=A6 The seemingly useful practice of combining=
a
CD4 cell count and plasma HIV RNA levels to assess an individual
patient=E2=80=99s prognosis for AIDS progression or response to highly acti=
ve
antiretroviral therapy needs reexamination.=E2=80=9D
=E2=80=9CThe second and potentially more exciting implication of the findin=
gs
of Rodriguez et al is that future improvements in the treatment of HIV
infection and AIDS may result from improved understanding of the 90
percent of CD4 cell depletion that remains enigmatic,=E2=80=9D they write.
=E2=80=9CA better understanding of the immunologic and genetic factors that
drive HIV-associated CD4 cell loss may translate to novel therapeutic
approaches that could favorably shift the pathogen-host balance. =E2=80=A6
Discovering and developing therapies that target key nonviral factors
has the potential over the decades ahead to build on the success of
antiretroviral therapy and expand access to sustainable effective
therapy.=E2=80=9D
(JAMA. 2006;296:1523-1525. Available pre-embargo to the media at
http://www.jamamedia.org.)
| |
| DavidT 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
|
Truth PLEASE! wrote:
> How can you say this? With the ELISA test we are testing for enzymes
> linked via assay.
"testing for enzymes linked via assay"
Good grief !!!
Its like trying to discuss aerodynamics with someone who thinks an
aerofoil is a chocholate duelling sword.
Why is it that denialists who don't posess even the vaguest grasp of
scientific concept feel they are qualified to debate scientific issues?
| |
| GMCarter 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
| On 6 Nov 2006 21:56:16 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
snip
>Let's start at the top:
>Welcome to HIV=AIDS - Fact or terrible terrible genocidal fraud?.
Fact--for most infected individuals.0
>10 Scientific Reasons Why HIV Cannot Cause AIDS
>
>1.
>HIV is neutralized by antibody immunity.
No, it is not. And to say this is just breathtakingly stupid. Many
diseases arise after antibody production. HIV is one of them.
snip
>One has to question why 12 years and billions of dollars have been
>spent developing a vaccine against HIV when the best vaccine possible
>already exists when a person tests positive.
Because this is the dumbest thing assholes like Duesberg have ever
said. It is breathtakingly stupid and demonstrably wrong.
>2.
>HIV does not kill the T cells it infects.
Incorrect. It does. However, cytopathicity is not the complete
explanation of how HIV causes AIDS.
>3.
>HIV does not infect enough T cells to cause AIDS.
>HIV never infects more than 1 out of 1000 T cells; commonly just 1 out
>of 10,000 T cells.*
See response to point two. Not disputing this point, but it does NOT
mean that HIV does not exist (which is what all of these points are
premised upon) or that it does not cause AIDS.
If you're going to bet your life on this kind of bullshit...well, good
luck.
snip
>* The recent invention of "viral load" ...
(indicating how old this recycled, refuted garbage is.
>4.
>HIV has no AIDS causing gene.
>HIV has no specific gene or unique reason to cause AIDS. All
>retroviruses have only 3 major genes, GAG, ENV and POL and only 6 minor
>genes. Because the genes and genetic sequences are so limited in these
>simple organisms, they need all their genes to replicate. HIV is almost
>identical to all other retroviruses genetically.
And a lot of those retroviruses cause disease, like CAEV, FIV, EIAV.
And the clinical manifestations are similar to those of untreated HIV
disease: neuropathy, neurological disorders and wasting.
Many HIV gene products have been associated with cell death and
infectivity including gp120, nef, vif, vpr, etc.
snip
>5.
>There is no such thing as a "slow virus".
HIV activity is ongoing from the moment of infection. Inflammation and
damage to lymphoid tissue in the gut and nodes is part of the gradual
destruction of uninfected CD4 cells.
snip...
>
>6.
>HIV is not a new virus, so it could not cause a new epidemic.
Wow. Yet another breathtakingly stupid comment. HIV actually IS new,
relative to other infections. TB is NOT new yet it periodically causes
horriific epidemics. But HIV has probably been around in human
populations for less than a century. A century during which the world
shrunk RAPIDLY, allowing more rapid dissemination of a virus like HIV.
snip
>
>7.
>HIV fails Koch's postulates.
It does not need to pass Koch's postulates; however, it just so
happens that it does.
snip>
>The germ must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture.
>PASSES - but only on a technicality.
LOL...the conflicted mind of the denialist. HIV both does not exist
AND it does not cause AIDS, yet it does exist.
snip.
See:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm
>8
>AIDS has remained in the original risk groups for over 15 years.
The pandemic is 25 years old now. It has become more of a
heterosexually transmitted disease in the US, as it has been in the
rest of the world.
The changing nature of the pandemic, though, hardly serves as an
argument against HIV causing AIDS.
AIDS is found in people who have not done recreational drugs.
Recreational drugs do NOT cause AIDS.
>9.
>International comparisons of AIDS differ greatly.
Underscoring that the pandemic is based on an infection, HIV, that
moves around in the host populations where it can, moving more rapidly
in groups where it is initially introduced.
Networks of sexual partners, drug users and others who re-use
syringes, are different.
snip
>4621 cases of AIDS without HIV were found in the US Center for Disease
>Control (CDC) reports up to 1993.
Citation? I think this number has been whittled down substantially.
snip
><200 T4 cell count + HIV = AIDS
><200 T4 cell count - HIV = no disease
LOL....show me cases of the latter. ICL MAY cause TRANSIENT declines
of CD4 counts below 200...but by all means, show me WHAT causes a
consistent and persistent decline of CD4 counts?
>There is no disease that is only caused by HIV. HIV is said to cause 29
>old diseases when it is present. When it is not, the original causes of
>these diseases are responsible for them.
More incredibly stupid nonsense. You could say "There is no disease
that is only caused by influenza." Gosh! TB XXXXs up the lungs!
Therefore Influenza doesn't exist!
Nonsense. ANd HIV does NOT cause KS or any of the other indicator
infections. No one EVER said it did. HIV causes the immune system to
deteriorate and that results in MUCH increased suscpetibility to
things like cryptosporidiosis.
You get crypto without HIV, chances are you have some bad diarrhea and
you get over it. You get crypto with HIV and a low T cell count,
chances are horribly high you may shit yourself to death.
You want to keep harping on this kind of lame nonsense and pretend HIV
does not exist--well, my god. You're insane.
I must have missed nonsense point 10.
Same garbage. Some nonsense. Nothing new and unbelievably shoddy.
George M. Carter
| |
| GMCarter 2006-11-07, 4:25 pm |
| On 6 Nov 2006 23:10:47 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
snip
[vbcol=seagreen]
TRY? That wasn't hardly the work of a few minutes. Those 10 "reasons"
are utter crap.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Ok George. Suppossing you finished lesson number 1. Now we will just
>begin to list the 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 studies that show CD4 counts and
>viral load in non-correlation.
>This was found on AIDSmyth Exposed MSN.
>I found this abit amusing.
>
>http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1159330774.shtml
>JAMA confirms HIV load doesn't govern CD4 loss
That's disingenuous horseshit.
Viral load does not necessarily correspond to how fast CD4 counts
drop. But if the viral load is very high, it is MUCH more likely to
associate with faster CD4 drops.
But the fact is, that does NOT mean that HIV is not the proximate
cause of the CD4 count loss. And it that deterioration of immune
function that results in AIDS.
What else is causing that? You ran away from that question.
George M. Carter
| |
|
|
"Truth PLEASE!" <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Death, I am not sure I understand your question. Of course most people
> who take the HIV test will test negative.
> It is here that the accuracy of the test is important. With over 70-90% of
> the people testing false positive, ...
70-90% testing false positive?
I thought you said most people
who take the test will test.......... negative.
| |
| Chris Noble 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
|
Truth PLEASE! wrote:
> GMCarter wrote:
>
>
> Ok George. Suppossing you finished lesson number 1. Now we will just
> begin to list the 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 studies that show CD4 counts and
> viral load in non-correlation.
> This was found on AIDSmyth Exposed MSN.
> I found this abit amusing.
>
> http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1159330774.shtml
> JAMA confirms HIV load doesn't govern CD4 loss
>
> Lynchpin falls out of paradigm
The only loose lynchpin is the one missing from Anthony Liversidges
brain.
He wrote that commentary before he read the article and then refused to
admit that had got it wrong.
Read the words of the authors rather than the misinterpretation of a
scientifically illiterate "rethinker".
http://www.aidstruth.org/rodriguez-lederman.php
Chris Noble
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
| GMCarter wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2006 21:56:16 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
> <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
> Fact--for most infected individuals.0
>
>
> No, it is not. And to say this is just breathtakingly stupid. Many
> diseases arise after antibody production. HIV is one of them.
Dear, dear, George,
Then I guess there will never be a vaccination agaisnt HIV (in spite of
the fact it is now 20 YEARS overdue, they are working on it and put it
in the category of vaccinations against auto accidents, falling off
ladders and other non-related to germ theory health concerns), because
as YOU SAID many diseases arise after antibody production. Then why
create a vaccination George? It won't work, according to you.. You did
not READ the directions sonny. You missed question 1 completely. NO
POINTS.
Read what the satement said. It says there are NO diseases that
remerege AFTER the antibodies have done their job! Do you understand
at all antibody immunity? Do you understand WHY we vaccinate for
diseases? Yes there are plenty of cases where a disease agent wins the
battle BEFORE antibody immunity and sometimes years later when a new
mutation comes along and the antibody defense has declined. But not
AFTER the antibody defense has completely erradicated the germ, Name
one, Please. please, don't mention herpes, or I will have to mark off
more of your points down in the test further.
>
> snip
>
> Because this is the dumbest thing assholes like Duesberg have ever
> said. It is breathtakingly stupid and demonstrably wrong.
Gee you really sound like a scientist here. Why is that you have to
resort to profain name calling instead of answering the questions. You
are in melt down George. I think it's funny and so does everyone else.
>
>
> Incorrect. It does. However, cytopathicity is not the complete
> explanation of how HIV causes AIDS.
Gallo uses immortal T-cell lines to grow the virus, becuase a
retrovirus MUST replicate through a healthy cell's reproduction. Try
this experiment. Go let all the air out of you car's tires and then try
to drive it. How is a retrvirus going to mass produce if it kills the
very cell it needs to grow itself in. THAT is WHY we studied
retroviruses for 20 YEARS in cancer research. That's WHERE Gallo came
from N.C.I. No Points here.
>.
>
> See response to point two. Not disputing this point, but it does NOT
> mean that HIV does not exist (which is what all of these points are
> premised upon) or that it does not cause AIDS.
Well then you must concede here too, for the same reason. Remember, we
said we would ASSUME HIV exists in this study. I actually think that it
does. But Gallo got into trouble because he couldn't issolate the
virus, and used LAV data from the Institute Pasteur. That's why he was
charge with scientific misconduct. There was no plentiful viramia. NO
virus. it was terminated by antiblody. Back to point one. Obviously,
there is no way one virus can kill one T-cell mathematically. Threre
ARE marginal exceptions to the antibody rule, for example cholora,
which is caused by a toxin emmited by the germ even after it is dead.
But to prove that a microbe itself causes a disease you must have a
germ alive to do it.
>
> If you're going to bet your life on this kind of bullshit...well, good
> luck.
I'm not betting my life. But we have already bet 400,000 dead AIDS
patients lifes on this and lost.(and some money too, 300 billion) I
know plenty of people now who have been HIV positive for over 20 years
and are Alive and well. Their friends all died following your "science"
and taking toxic meds.
> snip
> (indicating how old this recycled, refuted garbage is.
Your Right here!
Viral LOAD is old..and Dead! Nature, 1998 "the last nail in the coffin
for viral load" when you friends in the AID$ industry finally admitted
what we predicted. David (the) Ho's hypothesis is mathematically
impossible. VIRAL LOAD is DEAD! The last flimsy attempt to save the
HIV=AIDS Hypothesis. Poor viral load. Do you miss him? Still NO POINTS!
>
>
>
>
> And a lot of those retroviruses cause disease, like CAEV, FIV, EIAV.
> And the clinical manifestations are similar to those of untreated HIV
> disease: neuropathy, neurological disorders and wasting.
None of my HIV positive friends have these diseases. Wasting syndrome
isn't even realted to infection, either is KS. 95 % of HIV positives do
NOT have these diseases. Drug use can cause these problems, and about
90% of AIDS patients in the US (not Africa) are gay men using poppers
and a whole host of drugs, and IV drug users. The CDC documented 4.621
cases of AIDS without HIV. Many Gay men have KS and neurological
diseases without HIV. So who needs HIV? We have documeted this effect
for almost 100 years. No POINTS
Remeber how Gallo tried and failed several times with these kinds of
unproven disease agents that take 30 years to work-styled disease
agents? But until these fall like all the rest, we have to give you the
benefit of the doubt. 1 Point.
>
> Many HIV gene products have been associated with cell death and
> infectivity including gp120, nef, vif, vpr, etc.
And there are foods, minerals, cellular material and genetic fragments
related to many things good and bad. Many of these genes could indeed
be cell refuse and particles of RNA/DNA in free floating serum. GP120
does not prove HIV is the cause of AIDS, or that it is even realted to
the virus itself, or that it causes a disease.
>
> snip
>
>
> HIV activity is ongoing from the moment of infection. Inflammation and
> damage to lymphoid tissue in the gut and nodes is part of the gradual
> destruction of uninfected CD4 cells.
Now we are back to # 3. again. There is NO active virus of any potentcy
in AIDS patients, only provirus and antibody defense. 95% of all people
with HIV are healthy and have no symptoms. This is fear and fiction,
Scarry Movie number 19. HIV's generation time is 3 weeks, not 30 years.
There are no such things as SLOOOOOW viruses, only SLOOOOOW virologists
and people who want to believe in HIV and Santa Claus. No POINTS.
>
> snip...
>
> Wow. Yet another breathtakingly stupid comment. HIV actually IS new,
> relative to other infections. TB is NOT new yet it periodically causes
> horriific epidemics. But HIV has probably been around in human
> populations for less than a century. A century during which the world
> shrunk RAPIDLY, allowing more rapid dissemination of a virus like HIV.
You obvioulsy have no understanding of FARR's LAW. This in NOT a
hypothesis, or a postulate. This is a biological LAW. Farr's law states
that if a microbe is constant in a population. like TB, which you
pointed out, it can not be new, as opposed to a new strain of flu that
skyrockets in a short period of time then vanishes. 1985. .05% test
positive to HIV.
2006. .05% still test positive. A FLAT LINE. This means HIV has been in
the human race at about the same .05% for probably 200 years. 1620 .05%
1832 .05% 1942 .05%
No Points here and a book assignment given to you or reading up on
Farr's law.
> snip
>
>
> It does not need to pass Koch's postulates; however, it just so
> happens that it does.
There is sitll no infections disease known to date that has ever
existed without meeting Koch's Postulates. Even Polio, on a
technicality.
> snip>
>
> LOL...the conflicted mind of the denialist. HIV both does not exist
> AND it does not cause AIDS, yet it does exist.
How many times do I have to state that we are ASSUMING HIV exists in
this lesson. You need to pay attention son!
I see you didn't even bother to try to explain how HIV meets postulates
1, 2, or 3. Which it plainly does not. Koch's Postulates are simple
logic. You must have an active germ, issolate the germ, give the germ
to healthy host and then see the disease the germ causes again. Simple
logic that HIV fails.
INCOMPLETE. No Points
>
> snip.
> See:
>
> http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/hivaids/12.htm
>
>
> The pandemic is 25 years old now. It has become more of a
> heterosexually transmitted disease in the US, as it has been in the
> rest of the world.
Not hardly. women still trail the men in the US.with less then 18% of
AIDS cases being female. And the female numbers are slipping again.
AIDS is virtually gone in the US now after peaking in 1993. Now only
about 12-15,000 new case each year mostly comprised of nbon symptomatic
HIV positives with less than 200 CD4 counts. AIDS now meets the
classificaton of a "rare disease" that wasted 300 Billion dollars and
poisoned 400,000 Americans
> The changing nature of the pandemic, though, hardly serves as an
> argument against HIV causing AIDS.
I have to agree with you here. The "Pandemic" as you call it, should
change! That's the point! It hasn't! The germ theory failed, the
drug-induced theory still correlates perfectly. ALL infectious diseases
move outside their original risk groups. Remove the toxic effects of
"miracal medications like AZT" and AIDS is still found in its original
risk groups. Oprah was wrong! 10 million people did NOT get AIDS by
1990.
No Points.
>
> AIDS is found in people who have not done recreational drugs.
> Recreational drugs do NOT cause AIDS.
You are absolutly wrong here. Drug use, as I stated, is well documented
in the medical history as causing immune deficiency. Rear Root
Bernstein's book "Rethingking AIDS" if you want a complete study of
this FACT. This is extremely WELL documented and has been known since
1898. We used to call AIDS in heroin addicts "the dwindles"
NO POINTS
>
>
> Underscoring that the pandemic is based on an infection, HIV, that
> moves around in the host populations where it can, moving more rapidly
> in groups where it is initially introduced.
>
> Networks of sexual partners, drug users and others who re-use
> syringes, are different.
Why would AIDS be one thing in Africa and another in the US?
Your statement does not even deal with the question. READ the Question
again!
We are observing that AIDS is completely different in Africa than in
the US. Not mode of transmission, not where it is and isn't. No POINTS
> snip
>
> Citation? I think this number has been whittled down substantially.
Actully this number is much smaller that it should be because the CDC
stopped counting ICL's when it proved to be too embarrassing to
HIV=AIDS.
>
> snip
>
> LOL....show me cases of the latter. ICL MAY cause TRANSIENT declines
> of CD4 counts below 200...but by all means, show me WHAT causes a
> consistent and persistent decline of CD4 counts?
We showed you this with drug use. IV addicts loose the same CD4 cells
at the same rate with about a 10 year latency period.
No POINTS
>
>
> More incredibly stupid nonsense. You could say "There is no disease
> that is only caused by influenza." Gosh! TB XXXXs up the lungs!
> Therefore Influenza doesn't exist!
>
> Nonsense. ANd HIV does NOT cause KS or any of the other indicator
> infections. No one EVER said it did. HIV causes the immune system to
> deteriorate and that results in MUCH increased suscpetibility to
> things like cryptosporidiosis.
>
> You get crypto without HIV, chances are you have some bad diarrhea and
> you get over it. You get crypto with HIV and a low T cell count,
> chances are horribly high you may shit yourself to death.
>
> You want to keep harping on this kind of lame nonsense and pretend HIV
> does not exist well, my god. You're insane.
HOW many times do I have to keep telling GEORGE in this study we are
ASSUMING that HIV DOES exist! *TP note
George, you are rambling here even beyond what we are used to. The
point of this argument here is only to express that ALL of the other
old 19 diseases that comprise AIDS have existed for years before HIV
came along. These diseases ONLY become AIDS diseases when there is an
HIV positive test. SO KS with HIV is AIDS. KS without HIV is just plain
old KS. Dementia with HIV is AIDS, Dementia without HIV is just plain
old stupid.
NO POINTS..You didn't even try here.
> I must have missed nonsense point 10.
YES you missed this one and all the others too. But this POINT is one
of the strongest. It mearly explains that AIDS conditons exist in many
people who do NOT have HIV, like drug users and gay males without HIV.
But the adverse is even more important. NOw remeber this. 95% of ALL
the people in the world who are estimated to have HIV infection, ARE
NOT SICK and do not have AIDS.
That is the bottom line.
>
> Same garbage. Some nonsense. Nothing new and unbelievably shoddy.
>
> George M. Carter
George, You didn't get anything right out of all of this. Why are you
so obsessed with defending the HIV=AIDS fraud? I don't think this is
good for you. Why not just let it go?
It was bad science. It is now obvious. Gallo's bug was like him, a
fraud. Why do you want to defend Gallo at the risk of your own
credibility?
HIV Does not even correlate with AIDS. A school child can see this.
There has never been a time in the fading US history of AIDS, that HIV
even effected 10% of the populaton who were said to be infected with
virus, and caused AIDS above that. Over 90% of US HIV positive people
have remained healthy. The numbers in Africa are closer to 95% and the
disease progresses 14 times slower there in spite of terrible health
conditions. HIV=AIDS is dead.
George, George.
Let it go!
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
|
Death wrote:
> "Truth PLEASE!" <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
>
>
> 70-90% testing false positive?
>
> I thought you said most people
> who take the test will test.......... negative.
No. What I am talking about here is of those who DO test HIV positive
initially, as many as 70-90% of these will later be classified as
"false positives"
| |
| Chris Noble 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
|
Truth PLEASE! wrote:
> GMCarter wrote:
>
> Dear, dear, George,
> Then I guess there will never be a vaccination agaisnt HIV (in spite of
> the fact it is now 20 YEARS overdue, they are working on it and put it
> in the category of vaccinations against auto accidents, falling off
> ladders and other non-related to germ theory health concerns), because
> as YOU SAID many diseases arise after antibody production. Then why
> create a vaccination George? It won't work, according to you.. You did
> not READ the directions sonny. You missed question 1 completely. NO
> POINTS.
>
> Read what the satement said. It says there are NO diseases that
> remerege AFTER the antibodies have done their job!
No diseases? According to who? Duesberg is a lone voice even amongst
the "rethinkers".
http://www.theperthgroup.com/LATEST...pRebuttalCF.pdf
Item 44, Antibodies Mean Immunity&Except for HIV? Only a minority of
people (Peter Duesberg among them) believe that "Antibodies Mean
Immunity". Many "HIV" experts including Gallo et al in their critique
repeatedly presented evidence which disproves the claim that
"Antibodies Mean Immunity". Yet, Peter Duesberg still insists that
"Antibodies Mean Immunity". Antibodies do not mean immunity as was
shown as long ago as 1935 by no less an authority than Albert
Sabin.23-25
>Do you understand
> at all antibody immunity? Do you understand WHY we vaccinate for
> diseases? Yes there are plenty of cases where a disease agent wins the
> battle BEFORE antibody immunity and sometimes years later when a new
> mutation comes along and the antibody defense has declined. But not
> AFTER the antibody defense has completely erradicated the germ, Name
> one, Please. please, don't mention herpes, or I will have to mark off
> more of your points down in the test further.
I thought that Duesberg had finally stopped claiming that the human
immune respopnse completely eradicates HIV after a few weeks. HIV like
many other viruses produces a persistent infection despite the presence
of antibodies. Anyone that claims that the presence of antibodies means
that the virus is completely eradicated is either stupid or a liar.
You claim that hurricanes in the US are all God's retribution for the
US/Israel foreign policy and yet you expect to be taken seriously on
topics that you are demonstrably incompetent!
Chris Noble
| |
| GMCarter 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
| On 7 Nov 2006 21:40:39 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
snip
>
>Dear, dear, George,
>Then I guess there will never be a vaccination agaisnt HIV (in spite of
>the fact it is now 20 YEARS overdue, they are working on it and put it
>in the category of vaccinations against auto accidents, falling off
>ladders and other non-related to germ theory health concerns),
Chris replied to this utter nonsense. PLENTY of diseases may induce an
antibody defensive response that is ineffective.
>You missed question 1 completely. NO POINTS.
Well, of course not from your perspective. You believe that kind of
nonsense.
>Read what the satement said. It says there are NO diseases that
>remerege AFTER the antibodies have done their job!
And that statement is simply and demonstrably wrong.
It underscores your deep ignorance of the immune system. It's far more
complex than that!
snip
>Gallo uses immortal T-cell lines to grow the virus, becuase a
>retrovirus MUST replicate through a healthy cell's reproduction. Try
>this experiment. Go let all the air out of you car's tires and then try
>to drive it. How is a retrvirus going to mass produce if it kills the
>very cell it needs to grow itself in. THAT is WHY we studied
>retroviruses for 20 YEARS in cancer research. That's WHERE Gallo came
>from N.C.I. No Points here.
Gallo? Is only one of THOUSANDS of researchers. The discoverer is
actually Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, who developed the denialist version
of the "gold standard" for viral isolation. Jay Levy is a
co-discoverer.
You guys are fixated on Gallo and 20 year old research as if nothing
has happened since.
>
>Well then you must concede here too, for the same reason. Remember, we
>said we would ASSUME HIV exists in this study.
LOL...the denialist's cognitive dissonance on display! When your
arguments fall apart, resort to "I don't see it, it doesn't exist!"
So now Duesberg is wrong when he claims it exists.
OK.
snip
>
>I'm not betting my life.
Yes. You are.
>But we have already bet 400,000 dead AIDS
>patients lifes on this and lost.(and some money too, 300 billion) I
>know plenty of people now who have been HIV positive for over 20 years
>and are Alive and well. Their friends all died following your "science"
>and taking toxic meds.
I know plenty of people also with HIV for over 20 years. Many have
taken ARV; a few have not yet needed to do so. You claim means
nothing.
snip
>
>We showed you this with drug use. IV addicts loose the same CD4 cells
>at the same rate with about a 10 year latency period.
LOL. Bullshit. WHAT data. Where?
And then, of course, the idiocy here is that this means everyone with
AIDS is an IV drug user. Completely, utterly ridiculous.
Clearly, you believe all this crap. Best of luck.
George M. Carter
| |
| GMCarter 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
| On 7 Nov 2006 21:46:34 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>No. What I am talking about here is of those who DO test HIV positive
>initially, as many as 70-90% of these will later be classified as
>"false positives"
You made that up out of thin air.
| |
|
|
"Truth PLEASE!" <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
>
> Death wrote:
>
> No. What I am talking about here is of those who DO test HIV positive
> initially, as many as 70-90% of these will later be classified as
> "false positives"
>
Here I have to XXX-ume you are using the piss test.
| |
|
|
"Truth PLEASE!" <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
> None of my HIV positive friends have these diseases. Wasting syndrome
> isn't even realted to infection, either is KS. 95 % of HIV positives do
> NOT have these diseases. Drug use can cause these problems, and about
> 90% of AIDS patients in the US (not Africa) are gay men using poppers
> and a whole host of drugs, and IV drug users. The CDC documented 4.621
> cases of AIDS without HIV. Many Gay men have KS and neurological
> diseases without HIV. So who needs HIV? We have documeted this effect
> for almost 100 years. No POINTS
>
Poppers cause the cancer so it should be possible
for hiv negative patients to be KS cancer positive.
How-ever hiv positive patients have the greater numbers
of KS.
Cancer in and of it-self is a wasting syndrome so to say it is not
related to an infection is inaccurate.
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
|
GMCarter wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2006 21:46:34 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
> <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> You made that up out of thin air.
NO. HIV testing is made up out of thin air. Here is the link and the
documented support:
READ it!
http://www.helpforhiv.com/falsepositives.htm
| |
| GMCarter 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
| On 8 Nov 2006 09:44:21 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
<comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
>GMCarter wrote:
>
>NO. HIV testing is made up out of thin air. Here is the link and the
>documented support:
>READ it!
No.
That crap about false positives being 70-90% is bullshit. You made it
up.
-
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
|
Chris Noble wrote:
> Truth PLEASE! wrote:
gs[vbcol=seagreen]
ty[vbcol=seagreen]
ore[vbcol=seagreen]
th[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The only loose lynchpin is the one missing from Anthony Liversidges
> brain.
>
> He wrote that commentary before he read the article and then refused to
> admit that had got it wrong.
>
> Read the words of the authors rather than the misinterpretation of a
> scientifically illiterate "rethinker".
>
> http://www.aidstruth.org/rodriguez-lederman.php
>
> Chris Noble
Ok Chris, Just blind trust. And you think I am religious?
"There is absolutely no doubt that HIV is the cause of AIDS."
Here is another comment on the article.
Sounds like he has been asked to say this, or feels pressured to say
it. "aid" =3D"aquired immune defiency"=3D depletion/disaapearance of cd4 or
low cd4. He just brought out a paper in which they state that the
"viral-load" does not predict cd4 and that 90% + of "cd4 depletion" is
not due to "hiv" directley and that "viral-load" doess not predict cd4.
Then he goes on to state :
""Our results imply that although HIV infection drives the progressive
immune deficiency of AIDS (as evidenced by the response to successful
treatment with anti-HIV medicines, which decrease the viral load,
increase CD4 cell numbers, and prevent or help resolve opportunistic
infections, reflecting an improvement in immune function"
What hes saying here is that the rise in cd4 is ue to the
"antiretroviral" effect of "arv's" reducing the "viral-load" and as a
result the CD4 goes up and that as a result of the cd4 going up the
"opportunistic infections" get better or are inhibited.
However if anyone bothers to do the research and be logical and honest
one has to conclude that that what the "orthadoxy" claimed in the BMJ
debate and what this researcher claims in the statement above is false
and invalid.
They claim that because with some people when they start "arv's" the
"viral-load" goes down and the cd4 goes up and then the "o.i's" get
better this is proof that "hiv" causes "aids".
This is false and invalid because all they have is association and
association is NEVER proof of causation.
The facts are that on P.I. combo the cd4 starts to rise long before the
CD$4 goes up.
The fact is that the "o.I's" get better before the cd=A34 goes up and
before the "viral-load" goes down because "haart" has broad spectrum
antimicrobial effects that directley treat "o.i's" themselfs.
They ignore that P.I's directley, reduce, inhibit cell death/apoptosis
despite "viral-failure" rising "viral-load", they ignore that P.I.'s
inhibit cell death in "hiv" "negative" patients, they ignore that P.I's
inhibit , reduce cell death/ apoptosis induced by radiation, AZT,
hydrogen peroxide, morphine (all oxidizing agents).
They ignore evidence that shows cd4 counts more than doubling and
continuing to increase months and months after and despite rising high
"viral-loads".
They ignore the l carnitine study that showed 100, 150% rises in cd4
despite no change or even increasing "viral-loads".
They ignore the latest selenium study that shows that selenium with NO
anti "hiv" effect more than double cd4 in people on combo as compared
to just people on combo 50 verses 120 cd4 rise in selenium plus combo
group.
They also claimed in the banned ,censored BMJ that the best evidence
for "hiv" causing "aids" was the fact that KS gets better because of
"haart". They claimed the KS got better because the "arv's" made the
"viral-load" go down and as aa result the cd=A34 went up and then the KS
got better , however they ignore patients who get KS with normal and
better than normal cd4 and they ignore that some patients on
"successfull" "haart" with cd4 of 500, 600, 700,800,900,1000,1200, 1300
with very low or "undectable-viral-load" break out and have
regrowth/relaspes of KS when they switch to non P.I. based combo, they
also ignore the fact that P.I's have a direct on KS, classicle KS and
other forms of KS where there is NO "hiv" present.
2 weeks ago my best friend with "undectable-viral-load" and above 650
cd4 got "pcp", this week another friend with 690 cd4 and
"undectable-viral-load" can hardley walk , is on pain killers and it
hurts when he breaths hes also just been "diagnosed with "pcp".
I am shocked and distgusted with these quacks for spreading what they
must know are half truthes and failing to admit and acknowledge that
there beloved religious theory is fundamentaly flawed and invalid and
the result is people are and will continue dying because "science" and
medicine has becaome an unquestioning religion that denies the right
and need for freedom of speech, denies the right and need to debate,
denies the right and need to question, and denies and ignores all
scientific studies and facts that contradict there beloved, invalid,
religious theory.
This is AID$ science.
| |
| Truth PLEASE! 2006-11-13, 4:22 pm |
|
GMCarter wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2006 09:44:21 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
> <comments@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
>
> No.
>
> That crap about false positives being 70-90% is bullshit. You made it
> up.
> -
Oh.I made it up huh?
Read this.
PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE IN THE LABORATORY
CAN YOU REALLY TRUST HIV TESTING?
By Christine Johnson
"It was the most terrifying experience of my life. I just freaked out."
"When she found out, she went up to the roof of the hospital and jumped
off."
"To me, the emotional impact was immeasurable; the fear was
unmanageable."
Are these people talking about being diagnosed with AIDS? No, these are
the reactions of healthy people without symptoms whose HIV test came
back positive. The effects of getting a positive HIV test are so
profound that no one should bear that kind of burden without knowing
with absolute certainty that the test is a true and meaningful measure
of the presence of HIV in the body. This statement introduces and
states the purpose of a ground-breaking paper from Australia, "Is a
Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection?" published in the June
issue of the Bio/Technology journal.
The authors, Drs. Papadopulos- Eleopulos, Turner, and Papadimitriou,
demonstrate that even though we have been told that we can depend on
the accuracy of these "AIDS tests," in fact we cannot. They discuss the
tests and how they came to be accepted as virtually unquestioned proof
that a person is infected with HIV. They also critique these tests on
several different grounds: 1) the tests are not specific, 2) there is
no standard way of interpreting them, and 3) the results are not
reproducible. In order for an antibody test to be scientifically valid,
it must meet these three criteria, and these three in turn must be
validated by an independant means, namely the "gold standard".
Specificity and the Gold Standard
To begin, what does "specificity" mean? Specificity is the number of
negative test results you will get in people who have definitely been
determined not to have a given disease. A test that is 100% specific is
always negative when the disease is absent. There are no false positive
readings. How do you determine if the disease (in this case, HIV
infection) is there or not? HIV antibody tests are based on the idea
that if the antibody to a virus is there, then a protein of the virus,
and thus the virus itself, is there. So in order to see if the test is
doing its job, it is necessary to have an independent means of
verifying the presence of the virus in an antibody-positive person and
the absence of the virus in an antibody-negative person. This
independent method is called the "gold standard."
The only suitable gold standard is isolation of the virus itself. Since
viruses need the living cells of the host in order to reproduce, they
are grown in tissue cultures. HIV isolation means that the virus is
taken from a tissue culture and separated out from everything else in
the culture so that only pure virus remains.
Let's say that 100 people have been determined to be HIV-free according
to a virus isolation test. These people are all given an HIV antibody
test and this results in 90 negative results and 10 positive results
(false positives). This gives the test a 90% specificity (which is not
very good). If the test were 100% specific, it would never be positive
in anyone (whether that person has symptoms or not) who is not infected
with HIV as determined by a viral isolation test.
Although many claims are made that the HIV antibody tests have a high
specificity, Eleopulos and colleagues argue that this is not the case.
A test that is not specific will give a positive reading in the
presence of antibodies other than those it is supposed to detect.
Clearly, if an HIV antibody test is not specific, a positive result is
at best ambiguous.
Antibodies and Antigens
Let's briefly review the definition of antibodies and antigens, since
we'll be talking about them a lot. Antibodies are the body's foot
soldiers in the war against foreign invaders such as bacteria and
viruses. The immune system will make a set of antibodies that have a
unique biochemical attraction to the proteins of an invading virus.
When the antibodies see a virus particle passing by, they attach to the
virus and render it harmless. As the need arises, the immune system
will make many thousands of different kinds of antibodies, each of
which will attack one specific antigen.
Antigens are substances that are foreign to the body, things that might
make us sick or be fatal to us if our immune system did not neutralize
them with antibodies. Antigens include such things as viruses,
bacteria, toxins, or tissues from other people's bodies (such as sperm
which might find its way into the bloodstream during anal intercourse).
Antibodies fit together with their antigens like a key in a lock and
this interlocking or binding action results in neutralization of the
antigen so that it can no longer harm us.
The ELISA and the Western Blot
These principles are used in the HIV antibody tests, which basically
work like this: In the ELISA, a mixture of proteins, which are said to
come only from HIV, is exposed to a blood sample and any antibodies in
the blood that can bind to these proteins are allowed to do so. If all
of the proteins in the mixture really do come from HIV, and if all of
the antibodies recognize only HIV proteins, a positive reading in the
test would mean that at some time in the past the person had been
exposed to the virus. But, as Eleopulos and her colleagues demonstrate
in their rigorously argued and exhaustively referenced article, these
two essential conditions are not met in either of the antibody tests
(ELISA or Western Blot) currently in use!
So we have two big problems already:
1. Not all the proteins in the mixture definitely come from HIV;
2. Not all the "HIV antibodies" definitely recognize HIV alone.
In fact, Eleopulo | | |