ANyone who thinks is bad


If you think the movie is pure garbage and untrue, please give us the facts that you rely on for your criticism.

reply

Gladly, but first, will you go on the record as having agreed that Koch's postulates are a valid premise by which to determine the nature of an infectious agent?

IOW: if it can be established that HIV fulfills Koch's postulates for the medical definition of the disease state referred to as the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, will you acknowledge that the evidence supporting HIV as a causative agent for AIDS is sound?

--Drew

reply

[deleted]

Not what I asked.

I asked that if I could establish that it met Koch's postulates, would you acknowledge that the evidence supporting HIV as a causative agent for AIDS is sound? I'm perfectly happy to show that it does fulfill the postulates once I have an answer to that question.

--Drew

reply

[deleted]

You still have not answered my question.

If I can establish that HIV meets Koch's postulates for AIDS, will you acknowledge that the evidence supporting its status as a causative agent is sound?

--Drew

reply

Yes, I AGREE. BUT you can't. Therein lies the problem. =) Good luck though.

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/HIVcausesAIDS.htm

Second you have to explain why they dilute the blood almost 400 times when they test people for HIV and why everyone becomes positive when they don't.

Again, good luck...

reply

Second you have to explain why they dilute the blood almost 400 times when they test people for HIV


Because that's pretty much how you run any ELIZA test.

Incidentally, they're not diluting it 400 times, they're diluting it to a constant protein concentration, which, depending on the exact protocol you're using, is usually in the ballpark of about 20 ug/mL (which, for human serum, happens to require a dilution of about 1:400, give or take a bit).

and why everyone becomes positive when they don't.


The exact same thing happens when you run an ELIZA for the flu virus particles, or, for that matter, any kind of protein whatsoever. Any clinical test has a specific protocol, and they have that protocol for a reason: when you don't follow it, the test doesn't work. The protocol for an ELIZA involves diluting your protein to about 20 ug/mL.

So, if I understand you correctly, your central claim here is that because an ELIZA fails to work when it isn't done right, it's useless when it's done properly?

--Drew

reply

I'm not even sure you answered or addressed my question. In any event, I am saying that EVERYONE has the proteins that make people test positive for "HIV." Therefore, it makes no difference. The only indicator is that the more you have or it the more likely it is that your body is under stress, but that stress could be from ANYTHING.

reply

I agree that Koch's postulate is valid, but AIDS failed it, even according to NIH.

Your turn.

reply

I agree that Koch's postulate is valid, but AIDS failed it, even according to NIH.


Well, let's see:

1) Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly associated with the disease.

HIV (not just the antibodies, incidentally, the virus) has consistently been found in patients exhibiting AIDS. That is not to say, incidentally, that all patients with impaired immunity have HIV. I can think of at least a dozen different ways in which the immune system can be impaired without even trying, however, to claim that HIV has not been found consistently, and repeatedly in patients exhibiting AIDS symptoms is a lie.

Not only have we consistently found HIV proteins in humans with AIDS, we have consistently found the reverse-transcriptome of the HIV virus in the human genome. This is consistently found in patients with AIDS, and never found in patients without it (see, for instance, Müller J. Methods Mol Biol. 2010;630:319-35).

2) Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host.

this has been done. For a few examples of times that the HIV virus has been isolated from humans, used to infect an appropriate cell line (usually human T cells), and propagated:

Ostrowski SR. Dan Med Bull. 2010 Mar;57(3):B4122.

Lewis MG, Norelli S, Collins M, Barreca ML, Iraci N, Chirullo B, Yalley-Ogunro J, Greenhouse J, Titti F, Garaci E, Savarino A. Retrovirology. 2010 Mar 16;7(1):21.

Geonnotti AR, Bilska M, Yuan X, Ochsenbauer C, Edmonds TG, Kappes JC, Liao HX, Haynes BF, Montefiori DC. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2010 Mar 10.

Carter CC, Onafuwa-Nuga A, McNamara LA, Riddell J 4th, Bixby D, Savona MR, Collins KL. Nat Med. 2010 Mar 7.

And those are just the papers I could find which were published in the last two weeks where the virus was isolated from human patients, and propagated in human T cells.

3) Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host.

This has been done in a number of animal models.

For one example, simians infected with HIV develop AIDS.

Ah, I can hear your objection off the bat. We're talking about chimps. Chimps aren't human. How can we possibly fulfill this postulate if we can't look at the human immune system!?

Well, we can. We can give SCID mice a human immune system. Normally, these mice have no immune system whatsoever, but if you give them a human immune system, they fight off pathogens normally.

So, if you were to design an experiment to test whether HIV destroyed the human immune system, what four experimental groups would you want?

A) the normal SCID mouse, uninfected by HIV

B) the normal SCID mouse, infected with HIV

C) a SCID mouse which has been given a human immune system, uninfected with HIV.

and

D) a SCID mouse which has been given a human immune system, infected with HIV

Now, if HIV destroys the human immune system, what prediction would you make here?

Group A is your negative control. You should have no detectable viral load, and you should be able to detect no part of the human or murine immune system.

Group B: you should detect no human immune system, but you should also detect no viral load (or if it's detectable, you should see only what you initially injected into the mouse). In this mouse, the HIV virus has no cells through which it can propagate itself, therefore, the only viral particles you should detect (if that) should be the viral particles you initially injected.

Group C: You should find a normal, healthy human immune system in these mice, and no detectable murine immune response.

Group D: You should predict three things for this system. First, you should detect an HIV viral load higher than in group B (if there is any detectable viral load in group B at all). Second, the immune system should be severely compromised in this mouse. It should have an immune response vastly less robust than in group C. And third, you should detect no murine immune response at all.

If HIV causes AIDS, all of the above must be true.

Well, as it happens, that's exactly what we found:

Aldrovandi GM, Feuer G, Gao L, Jamieson B, Kristeva M, Chen IS, Zack JA. Nature. 1993 Jun 24;363(6431):732-6.

I point out that this paper is almost two decades old in a very high-impact journal. Apparently, HIV denialists need to get up to date on their literature.

Now, my turn to ask a question:

If HIV does not cause AIDS, why do intiretroviral treatments, which would be completely ineffective if the HIV-AIDS link were not valid, work?

--Drew

reply

Sorry to poop on your party. But pursuant to NIH, Koch's postulates must be met in ALL cases, but in AIDS it not met in ALL cases. Therefore Koch's postulates has not been met.

Why do the treatments work? Well, the question should be. Do they work? AZT killed pretty much everyone that took it. Other drugs' side effects are the same as AIDS symptoms, so again, do they work?

Then the question should be, why do you think they work, and how?

reply

Why do the treatments work? Well, the question should be. Do they work?


Yes. Now explain why.

And, when you're done explaining that, explain why, if HIV does not destroy the human immune system, it successfully does so when the human immune system is infected with it in the mouse model described above.

--Drew

reply

I love how you quickly changed the subject when faced with a contradiction in your evidence.

reply

Sorry to poop on your party. But pursuant to NIH, Koch's postulates must be met in ALL cases, but in AIDS it not met in ALL cases.


Great, now we can eliminate all of the following as causes for disease:

The influenza virus.
TB
Smallpox
Pertussis
Tetanus
Dyptheria
Bubonic plague
Ebola

After all, not a single one of them has been isolated in ALL cases of the disease.

--Drew

reply

[deleted]

Before the more potent antivirals were developed in 1997 there were around 32,000 people dying in the U.S. from AIDS every year, but with the new treatments those numbers have fallen around 50% (using 2008 figures). Now AIDS denialists claim that people die from the drugs, but if that were the case then why did deaths decrease with the new treatments? The same has occurred in Africa; some AIDS patients who were near death and looked skeletal recovered and now live normal lives after they were put on Anti-HIV drugs.

Now this is what Avert has to say; http://www.avert.org/hiv-causes-aids.htm

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines a condition called idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL for short. Someone is diagnosed with ICL if they have a CD4+ cell count below 300 cells per cubic millimeter, or 20% of all T lymphocytes, on at least two occasions, but have no detectable HIV infection, nor any other known cause of immune deficiency (such as cancer therapy). As many dissidents have pointed out, this is essentially a definition of HIV-free AIDS. So just how common is this condition?

In 1993, a CDC task force published the results of an exhaustive survey of ICL in the USA. They had reviewed 230,179 AIDS-like cases reported since 1983 and identified 47 patients with ICL (plus 127 uncertain cases). All of the other people with AIDS who had received an HIV test produced a positive result. What's more, the team closely investigated the ICL cases and discovered that they didn't fit the usual AIDS profile. There were 29 male and 18 female patients, and 39 of them were white (4 others were of Asian descent). In 29 cases, the researchers couldn't fit the people into conventional risk groups for AIDS (homosexual men, haemophiliacs, injecting drug users, and the sexual partners of such groups). Whatever these 47 cases represent, they don't seem to be typical of the massive epidemic that we're interested in.17

The findings of the ICL survey are backed up by large-scale monitoring studies, including the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). During the MACS, scientists monitored the health of 2,713 gay and bisexual men who tested negative for HIV antibodies. Over several years, only one of these men had persistently low CD4+ cell counts, and he was undergoing cancer therapy designed to weaken his immune system. Similar results have been found among blood donors, recipients of blood and blood products, injecting drug users and other groups: severe immune deficiency is virtually non-existent among those who test HIV-negative.18

As Dr Duesberg has pointed out, quite a lot of people (mostly in the early 1980s) have been diagnosed with AIDS in the USA despite never taking an HIV test, and nobody knows whether these people were HIV-positive or not. However, based on the much larger sample of people who have been tested, Koch's first postulate has certainly been satisfied. The only way by which dissidents have been able to come up with significant numbers of HIV-free "AIDS" cases is by using much looser definitions of AIDS. Such definitions include many people with milder immune deficiency, which is generally not fatal.

It is true that no test is perfect. However, what the dissidents usually don't mention is how rare the reports of false positive results have been, especially in recent years. Nor do they mention that every person who uses a test kit is trained to spot the telltale signs of a suspicious result, and to keep testing by various methods until no doubt remains. The conditions that cause false positive results are not only very uncommon, but are also typically short-lived, whereas HIV infection does not go away.24 25

The dissident theory cannot satisfactorily explain why scientists have been able to use various techniques to detect the virus itself in virtually everyone with AIDS, as well as in most people with positive antibody test results, as explained in the next section. These methods (including DNA PCR, RNA PCR and viral culture) are not affected by any of the factors said to produce false positive results in antibody testing.

Nor can the alternative theory fully explain why the association between AIDS and antibody test results is so exceptionally strong: virtually everyone with AIDS tests positive, while more than 99% of the US public tests negative. And it cannot explain why the proportion of people testing HIV positive should have increased so dramatically over time. For example, the proportion of South African women testing HIV positive in annual antenatal surveys rose from 0.8% in 1990 to 10.4% in 1995, 24.5% in 2000 and 29.5% in 2004. The age distribution of these data is similar to that of other sexually transmitted infections.26

....Researchers have been able to isolate and culture HIV from most AIDS patients whom they have examined (as well as from many other people with HIV antibodies).28 They have isolated the virus from blood cells, blood plasma, lymph nodes, semen, vaginal fluids, amniotic fluids, bone marrow, brain, cerebrospinal fluid, intestines, breast milk, saliva and urine, and cultured it in various cell types.29 Images taken using electron microscopy and other techniques have shown virus-like particles that have the size, shape, structure, density, proteins and behaviour expected of retroviruses.30 31 32

Techniques developed in the mid-1990s have made it much easier to extract and sequence the complete genetic material (genome) of an isolated virus.33 34 The Los Alamos database now contains hundreds of full-length HIV genomes from around the world, each containing the same nine genes.35 Based on genetic similarities and differences, these sequences have been used to define family trees of HIV types, groups and subtypes as well as hybrids called recombinant forms.36

Whole or partial HIV genomes have been detected in numerous AIDS patients, using a technique called PCR (the same technology is used to find DNA evidence with which to convict murderers or to settle paternity suits, as well as to detect the germs that cause hepatitis, tuberculosis and other diseases). Almost everyone who tests positive for HIV genetic material also tests positive for HIV antibodies, and vice versa, while those who test negative for one thing also lack the other.37 People who have been exposed to the same source of infection contain genetically very similar HIV strains – similar enough for court convictions.38

Scientists have used a standard technique of genetic science called molecular cloning to obtain highly purified HIV. Genetic material extracted using PCR or other techniques has been introduced into bacteria or other cells (usually using phages or plasmids), which then produce many exact copies (clones) of the viral genes. If cloned viral genomes are inserted (transfected) into human cells then they produce a new generation of infectious HIV particles, which are free from contamination.39

Virtually all experts agree that HIV has been isolated according to the most rigorous standards of modern virology, meaning that Koch's second postulate has without doubt been satisfied.

reply

I'm glad you are finally acknowledging the virus myth is a a fraud.

reply