Is HIV a Myth?

[Sip]

Well, considering the laziness and lack of disciplin in your reply to your critics, your "moron" label has no significant weight ... so no, no hard feelings. I would only get concerned when there is a serious insult.

I am just curious to know how many of these people you think can afford to even think about AZT let alone die by it. Of course those numbers could all be lies as well as there is no significant evidence any of those numbers are true. And since I didn't go and count them myself, I can't argue with that.

[Anonymouse]

Well, considering the laziness and lack of disciplin in your reply to your critics, your "moron" label has no significant weight ... so no, no hard feelings. I would only get concerned when there is a serious insult.

I am just curious to know how many of these people you think can afford to even think about AZT let alone die by it. Of course those numbers could all be lies as well as there is no significant evidence any of those numbers are true. And since I didn't go and count them myself, I can't argue with that.

We are given that information by someone, and told that it is valid. How much of your world is actually based on this sort of thing? My guess is that average people don't like to veer off too far into the forbidden territories since they will discover that most of what they deem to "know" is actually based on some belief, some bit of information they are told to be true, which there is no way of verifying it, like the case with the moonlanding hoax theory. Someone dies of the flu, or someone dies of pneumonia, they can enter it into the statistic as "AIDS", after a nice thorough propaganda that we have "made progress" and "no one dies of the flu nowadays". People grow up believing that for so long, and can't imagine anyone dying of the flu, certainly, so it must be AIDS. What is AIDS? I can't seem to see that on the death reports. It only says that on these large lump statistics, but what do these people truly die from? Their immune system fails and they die of the flu, or pneumonia, or what have you. Is it so strange to believe that the immune system can fail without some silly made up virus? People's lifestyles, diets and malnutritions, and drug use all take a toll on ones immune system, so I wouldn't be surprised if the "immune systems fail". I'm sorry, perhaps my anti-government bias is too strong to let me believe in this, but hey, we were conditioned as such by the media, in the school, in health class. Where does this information come from? It comes from the State. It comes from the same source in all orifices, so who is there to keep check on the State? No one, you got it, so anything the State does is technically justified. This, like everything else that is made by the State, instills fear in people, just like the boogeyman of "Terrorism". It is all designed to give the State, and these pharmaceutical giants that work in tandem, power. Of course it's hard because the mind is an empty void made to be filled, but with what information? As Boole would say, there are correct ideas and incorrect ideas. But then again, maybe I've just been watching too many re-runs of Wag The Dog, The Truman Show or Matrix, so I might be saying stuff that is just made for entertainment value and no way it would happen in this real world. Certainly we like to think of our world as the most comfortable stable world in which we know what's happening and we are in control, and stuff like conspiracies or large or small are for banana republics and movies, not in our world, nope. But hey, it's only a forum for discussion, it's not like anyone is taking us seriously.

[Sip]

Anon, why do you have over 7500 posts? If you are not going to believe anything anyone tells you (you are basically saying you need to verify things yourself), then why would you read anyone's posts here and more importantly, why should anyone read yours?

Essentially with your post above you are questioning the integrity of millions and millions of researchers, doctors, immunologists, statisticians, reporters, journals, publications, etc etc ...

The attitude of being critical of the popular belief is a healthy one but not paranoia. What the moon hoax advocates don't realize is how much easier it is to actually go to the moon than to fabricate such an elaborate lie.

As an analogy, to the lamen it would probably seem like absolute magic to fit a billion transistors on a silicon die not more than 100mm^2 in area but you just will have to trust the experts that it can be done. There is NO way you can become an expert in everything and verify every piece of information you read. But at some point you will have to make the leap of faith and go beyond your paranoia and trust some of the more credible sources.

If you don't trust the "state", then go read some of the medical journals. Unless you don't trust those either and incist on living as an island (in terms of knowledge) for the rest of your life.

[Anonymouse]

Anon, why do you have over 7500 posts? If you are not going to believe anything anyone tells you (you are basically saying you need to verify things yourself), then why would you read anyone's posts here and more importantly, why should anyone read yours?

Essentially with your post above you are questioning the integrity of millions and millions of researchers, doctors, immunologists, statisticians, reporters, journals, publications, etc etc ...

The attitude of being critical of the popular belief is a healthy one but not paranoia. What the moon hoax advocates don't realize is how much easier it is to actually go to the moon than to fabricate such an elaborate lie.

As an analogy, to the lamen it would probably seem like absolute magic to fit a billion transistors on a silicon die not more than 100mm^2 in area but you just will have to trust the experts that it can be done. There is NO way you can become an expert in everything and verify every piece of information you read. But at some point you will have to make the leap of faith and go beyond your paranoia and trust some of the more credible sources.

If you don't trust the "state", then go read some of the medical journals. Unless you don't trust those either and incist on living as an island (in terms of knowledge) for the rest of your life.

This is not about paranoia. That is a nice comfortable excuse people scoff up to paint people critical of status quo, this is about questioning the things we so often accept as truth. I never said I am immune this, so you went off on a totally different tangent. Whether I am questioning the millions of millions of researchers in their work or not, is moot, for they might not know any better than to jump to a conclusion based on shortsighted evidence, much like in evolution. Essentially all of these conclusions are drawn of faith. And if a million people believe I have a monkey on my shoulder, it doesn't make it so. To date, there is no evidence which shows how these people with HIV, develop "AIDS", nevermind what the latter means, as it's very ambiguous. I don't see where you are going with this.

And this quote I leave you with from virysmyth.net

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.

[Anonymouse]

I know this is a bit dated, but some of the questions it raises are fundamental, to which even now there is silence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIV is Not the Cause of AIDS: A Summary of Current Research Findings

by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab
PO Box 1148, Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA
[email protected]

Reprinted from On Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy, Pulse of the Planet #4, 1993
Copyright © 1993, All Rights Reserved by James DeMeo

In the last issue of Pulse of the Planet (3:106-108, 1991) I reviewed a book by Michael Fumento, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. Fumento's book summarized evidence gathered by various scientists to the affect that there never was, nor is, a "Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic" taking place, either in the USA or overseas. Fumento documented how the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had doctored the epidemiological data, unscientifically "adjusting" it here and there, in order to have it support a previously formulated and "politically correct" conclusion: that everyone, including relatively monogamous heterosexuals, and even non-drug-using heterosexual teenagers, were "at risk for AIDS". Fumento's criticism of this position was attacked even before the ink was dry, and his book was suppressed and sabotaged both by national book distributors, and by his publisher, who came under attack by homosexual activist groups. Fumento himself lost his job, and was subject to harassment and death threats by these same groups, who -- as demonstrated in his book -- have glaring sex-political agendas and economic motivations.

In this article, I wish to add reinforcing, additional evidence on this same issue by presenting findings developed by Dr. Peter Duesberg, a pioneer in retrovirus research and Professor of Cell Biology at the University of California, in Berkeley. Duesberg is a top-notch scientist who has brought forth important criticism of the HIV hypothesis of AIDS to the podium of science. His research findings came to my attention around 1990, demonstrating that AIDS cannot be caused by HIV (or any other virus) and therefore is, as the term "AIDS" originally implied, an acquired, non-infectious immune system deficiency. Duesberg's most recent 77-page paper on the subject appeared in a British research journal (Pharmac. Ther., 55:201-277, 1992), and contains 17 pages of citations to the published scientific and medical literature. This article will summarize some of that evidence, and provide additional historical notes. For detailed citations to the published scientific literature, I refer the reader to the original works of Duesberg and his supporters, listed at the end of this article. If the reader is skeptical of my statements here, they must "go to the source" and review those citations prior to dismissing this summary of criticisms of the official HIV = AIDS propaganda.

To begin, use of the term "AIDS virus" is completely suspended, as it presumes AIDS is an infectious disorder for which a viral causation has been identified. Neither supposition has been proven; both remain hypotheses. The diagnostic terminology "AIDS" does not by itself imply causation; it merely indicates severe immunological break-down and deficiency within an individual. We must also be clear about the differences between the virus HIV and the HIV antibody; these are not the same thing. This clarifying discipline in terminology is necessary, precisely because so many television and newspaper journalists, and many scientists and science editors as well, have abandoned rigor in their terminology, critical review, and research.

AIDS remains a problem mainly for individuals engaging in identifiable and preventable high-risk behaviors which, over time, deplete and destroy the immune system. These factors include: promiscuous and unsanitary anal intercourse and anal object-penetration and trauma in association with the party-swinger, bath-house, anonymous-sex lifestyle; the associated or independent chronic use of aphrodisiac sexual stimulants, psychoactive drugs, amphetamines, alcohol, antibiotics and other immune-system depleting substances (legal and illegal); and malnutrition. To this list must be included also the taking of deadly, poisonous medications, such as AZT -- a DNA chain terminator -- which all by itself will produce the same "wasting" symptoms attributed to AIDS.

I. The Virus HIV

The claim that the virus HIV causes AIDS is an hypothesis which is not supported by facts or evidence, and which has demonstrated no usefulness for predicting or explaining the epidemiology of AIDS.

A) The advocates of the HIV hypothesis suggest HIV is significantly different from all other viruses in that the presence of antibody alone is sufficient to predict the future development of deadly AIDS symptoms. In all other diseases, however, the presence of antibody in the absence of active virus is a clear sign that the individual's immune system has been exposed to the virus, but successfully responded to it, and defeated it. One is considered "immune" for development of the disease, or from further exposure to that infectious agent. With HIV, however, we are asked to suspend this well-known immunological response, and believe that the presence of antibody alone is synonymous to a death sentence.

B) HIV=AIDS advocates counter that the virus goes into "hiding" within certain cells of the body, and remains dormant for many years until such time that something triggers them into activity, after which symptoms appear. However, they fail to demonstrate this part of their hypothesis; the "hiding places" have not been demonstrated to any degree of significance. In fact, this absence of demonstrated "hiding viruses" was a major stumbling-block to the general theory of viral causation of diseases. The viral hypothesis of AIDS likewise suffers from this difficulty.

C) The HIV hypothesis of AIDS does not satisfy Koch's postulates for the identification of a pathogen as the causative agent for a particular disease. These postulates have very successfully guided microbiological research for the last 100 years. They are:

1) The organism must occur in each case of a disease and in amounts sufficient to cause pathological effects; 2) The organism is not found in other diseases; and 3) After isolation and propagation in culture, the organism can induce the disease in an inoculated host. Failure to develop symptoms after inoculation is a sign the organism is not the active agent of the disease.

The HIV hypothesis fails on all the above counts. There are many examples of people suffering from AIDS symptoms, but who do not show traces of HIV. There are additionally a large number of people in whom traces of HIV have been identified (virus or antibody), but who remain symptom-free for years. This difficulty has prompted some "HIV Fundamentalists" to assert that HIV is unique in the world of viruses, that Koch's postulates don't apply to HIV. Every year, the group of people identified as "HIV antibody positive" gets larger, partly because of expanded HIV testing programs, but also because so many previously identified antibody-positive people remain alive and healthy. Many have lived over 10 years without developing the predicted AIDS symptoms, or other health problems. And so, the CDC is continually redefining and lengthening the "latency period" for development of AIDS symptoms. For each year that passes, the latency period is extended by around one additional year. Not only does HIV "hide" in the body, it "sleeps". This is, of course, an unscientific attempt to salvage an hypothesis which fails to accurately predict observed pathology or epidemiology.

D) HIV is a difficult and inefficient virus to transmit from one organism to another, either accidentally, by sexual means, or even through deliberate injection. Many attempts have been made to infect primates with AIDS diseases through direct injection of HIV -- when so exposed, primates may develop typical antibody responses, but do not sicken and die. Around 150 chimpanzees have been injected with HIV by the National Institute of Health, in a program which began ten years ago, and all are still healthy. Needle-stick injuries in hospitals, where hospital workers are accidentally exposed to HIV-infected blood, also fail to demonstrate any cases of AIDS. The virus simply does not "infect" so easily, and even when it does, produces only the well-known antibody response, but not the symptoms of AIDS.

E) HIV does not readily or quickly kill the t-helper blood cells, which act as its host. It appears to infect those cells only with great difficulty, and once having infected them, lives quietly and uneventfully within those cells for their normal lifetime, without proliferating significantly to other cells and tissues. As Duesberg points out, this is the precise nature of a retrovirus, which does not kill its host cell, and leads a rather quiet existence in the organism. By contrast, viruses which produce deadly symptoms proliferate rapidly, infecting many cell types, and they kill the infected cells, thereby producing acute symptoms. Active virus is spread widely in such a virus-sickened organism and is not difficult to identify or locate. HIV does none of this, and for this reason, Duesberg suggests it is probably a perinatally-transmitted retrovirus which has been within a small percentage of the human race for generations, but without any associated pathology. HIV was observed for the first time only in recent years, because the technology to identify and search for retroviruses was developed in recent years. In a few cases, evidence suggests HIV might produce mild flu-like symptoms within 24-48 hours after infection to a new organism, but after that it has no additional affect upon the individual.

F) Duesberg points to the fact that, before the retrovirus HIV was discovered, and before AIDS was identified and proclaimed as an infectious disorder, people in high risk groups were dying of the same disease symptoms and were diagnosed quite differently. Before AIDS, these same symptoms were diagnosed as candidiasis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, anemia, dementia, sarcoma, and other diseases or infections well-known to attending physicians. Today, the diagnosis of "AIDS" is made whenever any of 25 different disease symptoms appear in the presence of active HIV or HIV antibody. If they display symptoms and have traces of HIV in their blood, the physicians says they have "AIDS"; if no traces of HIV are found, they are diagnosed as having one or more of those original 25 diseases. Duesberg points out the incredible potency attributed to this one virus, HIV, which is said to produce such widely varied symptoms -- and yet, as discussed above, laboratory studies of HIV suggest its hidden nature, its non-toxicity, and its difficulty of transmission.

G) The HIV hypothesis of AIDS is rooted in the general viral theory of diseases. However, historically, viral theories of disease have generally failed to bring forth either cures or advancements in treatments. This is particularly true for cancer and other degenerative, immunologically-related disorders. Funding for virus research had precipitously declined over the years. But AIDS changed all that. HIV was announced, not at a scientific meeting, but rather at a Washington D.C. press conference. In April 1984, Margaret Heckler, then Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced "The probable cause of AIDS has been found", and then introduced Dr. Robert Gallo, who presented his "discovery of the AIDS virus" to a story-hungry press. This political event was eventually overshadowed by the fact that Gallo had misrepresented "his" discovery of HIV -- in fact, he had acquired his samples of HIV on loan from the real discoverer, Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. A prolonged legal battle ensued regarding who would retain lucrative international patent rights to HIV-antibody testing, the so-called "AIDS Tests" which cost from $15 to $50 each. Both the French and American governments got into the legal dispute, backing their respective scientists. Later, in an out-of-court settlement, both Gallo and Montagnier agreed to split the royalties, and a new "official history of the discovery of HIV" was written and distributed, expunged of all unpleasant references to the unethical stealing of ideas, or the legal dispute. Fortunately, Gallo was later exposed and no credible individuals in the scientific community supported the "official history". However, Gallo has never been censured for his unethical conduct; he collects new awards and medals nearly every month, and his laboratory is very-well funded by tax dollars. By contrast, Duesberg, the major vocal critic of the entire shabby affair, has been censored and isolated for his criticisms, his research funding terminated. As hundreds of millions of public dollars are being shoveled into the research laboratories of the HIV=AIDS researchers, and into generally ineffective and counter-productive "safe sex" educational programs, no advancements in the treatment or prevention of AIDS has taken place. The HIV Hypothesis of AIDS has produced no public health benefits, and is a total failure, but it is quite a gravy train for a lot of special interests!

More at the link

http://www.orgonelab.org/hiv_aids.htm

[Sip]

If this isn't enough to convince you and you still think "... all of these conclusions are drawn of faith" then I trully feel sorry for you and will comfortably state you simply do not understand how science works. It's not all hearsay and myth as you would want to believe. And to claim as much is nothing short of insulting to human intelligence.

I thought this little snippet summarizes it well ...

HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.
Among many criteria used over the years to prove the link between putative pathogenic (disease-causing) agents and disease, perhaps the most-cited are Koch's postulates, developed in the late 19th century. Koch's postulates have been variously interpreted by many scientists, and modifications have been suggested to accommodate new technologies, particularly with regard to viruses (Harden. Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli [II] 1992;14:249; O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613). However, the basic tenets remain the same, and for more than a century Koch's postulates, as listed below, have served as the litmus test for determining the cause of any epidemic disease:

1) Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly associated with the disease.
2) Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host.
3) Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host.

With regard to postulate #1, numerous studies from around the world show that virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry antibodies that indicate HIV infection. With regard to postulate #2, modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease. In addition, the polymerase chain (PCR) and other sophisticated molecular techniques have enabled researchers to document the presence of HIV genes in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease.

Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).

[Anonymouse]

If this isn't enough to convince you and you still think "... all of these conclusions are drawn of faith" then I trully feel sorry for you and will comfortably state you simply do not understand how science works. It's not all hearsay and myth as you would want to believe. And to claim as much is nothing short of insulting to human intelligence.

I guess I don't know how science works, and I am insulting your intelligence. If you know that, I ask, why do not leave the thread, and cease all discussion with me? Clearly I cannot be bothered, remember? I do not know the workings of science as the 'inner circle' of 'initiates' do.

By the way, I noticed that was .gov. And I wonder why it is so positive on the hypothesis of HIV=AIDS. It explains it all.

[Anonymouse]

This is a good read for the HIV isolationism crowd.

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/award.htm

[Sip]

why do not leave the thread, and cease all discussion with me? Clearly I cannot be bothered, remember?

Because I have learned many things from your posts ... sometimes directly and sometimes (well, more often than not) indirectly by pondering some of the rediculousness ... and I continue to learn. I think the questions you sometimes pose are important ones and in some cases I agree with your answers. In this instance however I happen to disagree with you because the premise of your belief is based on the flawed nature of the scientific reporting and learning methods that we have in place.

Please note that I have absolutely NO doubt that published things are faaaaaaaar from perfect. There are many mistakes and there have been, are, and will be many myths that will become so deep rooted in our systems that they will be accepted without question (aka flat earth, proton is the smallest particle, classical physics, etc) ... but that doesn't mean everything believed by the masses must be false!

[Anonymouse]

Because I have learned many things from your posts ... sometimes directly and sometimes (well, more often than not) indirectly by pondering some of the rediculousness ... and I continue to learn. I think the questions you sometimes pose are important ones and in some cases I agree with your answers. In this instance however I happen to disagree with you because the premise of your belief is based on the flawed nature of the scientific reporting and learning methods that we have in place.

Please note that I have absolutely NO doubt that published things are faaaaaaaar from perfect. There are many mistakes and there have been, are, and will be many myths that will become so deep rooted in our systems that they will be accepted without question (aka flat earth, proton is the smallest particle, classical physics, etc) ... but that doesn't mean everything believed by the masses must be false!

Well, I'm not here to force my thoughts on anyone, but hey it's your mind, fill it in wisely.