• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AIDS (hah)

I can't continue in this thread. The stupid burns too much, I'm sorry.

I might pop in every now and then to add my 0.2c, but with skeptigirl and kelly here, there is no need for me to point out the stupid any more.

Good luck.
 
Dabljuh said:
Let me see if I get this right... Science means... trusting you... yeah... right...

Hey I know we had a good run and so on but I think we should be seeing other threads. And by "we" I mean "you".
Click to expand...
Dabljuh, can I ask why you have a distrust of the scientific community? Do you mistrust everyone? Do qualifications and expertise mean nothing to you? Who would you rather changes the brakes on your car? I'd like a qualified mechanic to do it.

Everyone makes mistakes but can you respect that there are well intentioned experts working in the field of HIV research and they are doing the best they can. If it was easy a vaccine would have been developed ages ago. A vaccine for SARS was developed very quickly.
 
Capsid said:
Dabljuh, can I ask why you have a distrust of the scientific community? Do you mistrust everyone? Do qualifications and expertise mean nothing to you? Who would you rather changes the brakes on your car? I'd like a qualified mechanic to do it.
Click to expand...
There's two types of mechanics. One type will replace your brakes with some cheap ass replacements, making sure you'll have to replace the brakes within two years time again. And the other mechanic makes less money.

The medical establishment at large is not concerned with healing or keeping people healthy, but with making money. That's capitalism for you, but it's the same principle homeopaths and snake oil traders work. Of course all those groups each believe they would help people (and making a buck off them) but ultimately it is gullible people who suck up medications that are often worthless.

Ever had a doctor give you antibiotics for a viral infection? Or have the doctor give you a receipt for a super expensive medical variant of what basically is a cough drop?

Keeping people continously sick is a far better business model than keeping them healthy. Sick and scared people don't make rational decisions.

As I've mentioned earlier, I've studied circumcision and I've seen enough papers in the scientific literature that simply were pure bunk not to assume that anything in a peer-reviewed medical journal is pure-truth-oxalate.

Yes, there are medications that work... for certain cases. Cough drops ain't bad, but is it right paying 30$ for a pack? Antibiotics have a long track record of success, and various surgical procedures cure cripples and so on.

But when something not just smells, but reeks of bullpoop such as HIV, no level of scrutiny is too high.
Everyone makes mistakes but can you respect that there are well intentioned experts working in the field of HIV research and they are doing the best they can.
Click to expand...
"You can trust that there are well intentioned experts working in the field of homeopathy that are doing the best they can to keep you from getting sick"
If it was easy a vaccine would have been developed ages ago. A vaccine for SARS was developed very quickly.
Click to expand...
Interesting thing: They've already developed a number of vaccines against HIV. The problem is: These vaccinations have all failed to show any protective effect. Why do you think that is? Why is "HIV-AIDS" such an unique disease in that it defies all logic, statistics, mechanics, procedures that work for every other disease?
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd?linkVars=SessionID%3D07072013125746800615360046%26BROWSER_STATE%3DGMResults%26ORBagentPort%3D14600%26GM2K_FORM%3DGMResults%26LAST_HIDDEN_TIMESTAMP%3D1184951578950%26UserSearchText%3DZVITAMBO%2Btrial%26sb_action%3DExpand%2BItem%2B%253A%2B1%26HIDDEN_TIMESTAMP%3D1184951596441

It is interesting how a study about the relationship between a disease "HIV infection", and infant mortality, avoids the obvious problem of actually recording and testing for what actually happened. One could have also tested mothers for any of the following endemic diseases, and found a connection between them and infant mortality.

Typhoid fever
Malaria
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis E
Meningococcal meningitis,
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever,
Plague,
Yellow fever
Lassa fever
Japanese Encephalitis
African Trypanosomiasis
Dengue fever
Schistosomiasis,
Leptospirosis

All those, and more, are endemic problems for mothers and babies in the region the study used.
Click to expand...

Firstly, Robinson, I think it would be pretty apparent if any of the mothers actually suffered from something like typhoid or meningitis.
Your statement is tantamount to me saying "I don't believe Study X showed influenza mortality, because the study authors have not specifically told us whether the study group also had galloping monkey disease."

Give us a break - the illnesses you mention are quite evident clinically, with the exception of malaria, which can exist at low parasitaemic levels and actually does affect the outcome of pregnancy in those affected, and schistosomiasis, which does not.

Secondly, I am rather disappointed that you of all people should spout out a list of diseases you claim to be "endemic" in Zimbabwe without checking your facts. I thought higher of you.

Most of the diseases you mention are not endemic in Zimbabwe, and some do not occur there at all. I think you also need to double check the definitions of "endemic" and "epidemic". Because an infection has been reported in a country, or it has had an outbreak of disease, that does not mean it is "endemic". Perhaps your sources of information on this one are off beam.

[Thirdly, I'll let you into a little secret-
I lived in Zimbabwe for nearly 30 years, in several regions of the country. I also worked there in a medical capacity. You don't have to believe me, but I did, and I think I do know what I am talking about on this one.]

robinson said:
But what is most odd, is the number of HIV+ mothers who gave birth to HIV- babies. And that late stage HIV/AIDS was linked to infant mortality, when they didn't have HIV. Lets be clear on this, mothers HIV status effected the chance of baby being dead in the first two years of life.
What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Having an HIV positive mother did affect the child's chances of survival (but not nearly as much as actually being infected with HIV)

Couple of possible reasons - Firstly, the mothers with HIV are likelier to be less able to care for their children if they are ill themselves. Secondly, those with HIV are very poor at producing specific antibodies (HIV causing a polyclonal expansion and rises in nonspecific antibodies), so materal transfer of passive immunity covering a number of important infections of infancy will be very poor (rendering infants more prone to infections such as measles -which is endemic) .

robinson said:
So everybody agrees it is a good study. It would have been a lot better if they had tested everybody involved, for all factors that effect infant mortality, but that would have cost a lot of money.

Now why are we even talking about a study like this? Because there isn't any study showing HIV kills you, by producing AIDS, which is fatal. It has never been done.

I find that odd.

It hasn't been done because animal studies couldn't be done. It hasn't been done with HIV populations either. I find this hard to swallow. You would think that a Pandemic of this proportion, the worst ever known to mankind, would have some basic scientific experiments done.
Every time this issue arises, the same problem shows up. Where is the basic experiment? Where are the peer reviewed studies? Where is the most basic research?
Click to expand...

We are talking about this study because it happens to be the one that KellyB cited to show Dubya that HIV is not a nice thing to have. Since then, this study has been the topic of several detailed posts. It is only one study, and does not claim to show cause and effect directly. There are plenty of other studies in the scientific domain that look at different aspects of HIV, including animal studies and basic science - all peer reviewed. They are out there, waiting for you to criticise them all!

I find it strange that for every study under discussion here there is a reversion to the old denialist cant of "You can't believe this study because it did not prove the underlying premise which it naturally assumes". No doubt a study on seasonal changes in wheat production in Oregon would be criticised for assuming the earth spins on its axis and rotates around the sun without also displaying documented proof of this within the paper.

So for a simple study showing that HIV infection in infants correlates with a massive rise in mortality, the study is criticised because the authors did not prove HIV causes AIDS, or because the study took place in a developing country, or that it was not quadruple blinded, or they did not say exactly what the kids died from, or a hospital administrator assigned causes of death (conspiracy!!), or they did not control for galloping yellow-spot disease in the mothers, or they did not control for germanium exposure from inhaled aircraft contrails, yada, yada.

The study merely says what it states on the box. It contributes a tiny piece of the massive jigsaw of evidence that has been assembled into showing unequivocally that HIV is bad news.

The strategy of denialists like Dubya has been to question everything. Fair enough, that is how science progresses. But the questioning is not "skeptical" but trivialistic in nature. So when Dubya questions that HIV causes CD4 decline, a paper showing several mechanisms by which HIV causes CD4 loss in vitro and in vivo is criticised because science hasn't been able to supply to the last decimal point the definitive mechanism for this effect. Who would expect it to? We don't know everything yet about the mode of HIV pathogenesis. Different models of this are still being proposed, debated and being reformed. This is how science progresses, but when one hypothesis is revised, people like Dubya scream "See! you might have got it wrong! therefore HIV doesn't cause AIDS!"
It can be very wearying.

The debate with denialists is like arguing with someone who believes that powered heavier than air flight is impossible. All the "evidence" is interpreted differently. Reliance is placed on quotes from people 100 years ago saying flight was impossible. Video evidence is "faked". A plane pointed out in the sky is "a bird". The pilot's testimony of a flight cannot be trusted because he's "employed by the airline". Passengers are in on the conspiracy. Offers to take the denialist up on a plane are rejected because of silly excuses, and so on. Sometimes it's that obvious, it really is. But to a lay observer, the denialist claims can appear to have merit. Occasionally they do -there is plenty that is still unknown about the subject of HIV, plenty wrong with its politics, its funding etc that we all could find a lot of common ground in discussing.

But the denialists style of debate forces us all to assume polarised positions on every issue. If an orthodox scientist says something that questions accepted dogma, or even something like innacurate UNAIDS statistics, he is immediately championed as a "rethinker" and risks getting placed on the denialists' "List of the 30 Scientists Who Question AIDS". Twice in recent memory, orthodox scientists have had to publicly restate their views to try and reject the denialist reinterpretation of their work. Once I told the Perth Group that my own past work on immunity in drug users would qualify me to be placed on their list. AFAIK I am not on it (but I'd better check again to make sure!)
 
Last edited:
Dabljuh said:
T-Helper Cells are mostly enablers for the rest of the immune system, they are important at speeding up an immune response, but not necessarily vital to it.
Click to expand...
You are right, Taffer.
The stupid - it burns!
 
Dabljuh said:
There's two types of mechanics. One type will replace your brakes with some cheap ass replacements, making sure you'll have to replace the brakes within two years time again. And the other mechanic makes less money.
Click to expand...
I was really referring to the safety issues not financial. In other words would you use an unqualified person to change your brakes?

The medical establishment at large is not concerned with healing or keeping people healthy, but with making money. That's capitalism for you, but it's the same principle homeopaths and snake oil traders work. Of course all those groups each believe they would help people (and making a buck off them) but ultimately it is gullible people who suck up medications that are often worthless.

Ever had a doctor give you antibiotics for a viral infection? Or have the doctor give you a receipt for a super expensive medical variant of what basically is a cough drop?

Keeping people continously sick is a far better business model than keeping them healthy. Sick and scared people don't make rational decisions.

As I've mentioned earlier, I've studied circumcision and I've seen enough papers in the scientific literature that simply were pure bunk not to assume that anything in a peer-reviewed medical journal is pure-truth-oxalate.

Yes, there are medications that work... for certain cases. Cough drops ain't bad, but is it right paying 30$ for a pack? Antibiotics have a long track record of success, and various surgical procedures cure cripples and so on.
Click to expand...
I think you are over generalising. There are many researchers in academia who work for non-profit organisations. Agreed they get paid to pay the bills but it's not all about the money.

But when something not just smells, but reeks of bullpoop such as HIV, no level of scrutiny is too high.
Click to expand...
Scrutiny is good, I'm disappointed to learn that you think HIV research falls short?
"You can trust that there are well intentioned experts working in the field of homeopathy that are doing the best they can to keep you from getting sick"
Click to expand...
Hence it comes down to evidence which you are not happy with.
Interesting thing: They've already developed a number of vaccines against HIV. The problem is: These vaccinations have all failed to show any protective effect. Why do you think that is? Why is "HIV-AIDS" such an unique disease in that it defies all logic, statistics, mechanics, procedures that work for every other disease?
Click to expand...
Because HIV is not like any other virus, it changes its outer envelope and incorporates the host cell proteins and sugars thereby hiding from the immune system

Thanks for your responses. I do appreciate it.
 
"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." -Paul Johnson

But I think it is best if interested parties look for themselves. Here are a few links. The keen observer may notice the problem with the numbers right away. All of these contain data on Cuba and HIV/AIDS
http://data.unaids.org/pub/EpiReport/2006/07-Caribbean_2006_EpiUpdate_eng.pdf
http://www.who.int/hiv/amds/case1.pdf
http://indexmundi.com/cuba/hiv_aids_deaths.html
http://www.nationbynation.com/Cuba/Population.html
http://soc.enotes.com/world-fact-book/cuba-cu
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr02-cu-00&post=19&cid=CU
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/lavender-red-101/
http://www.thebody.com/content/art32967.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1303008
http://ipsnews.net/hivaids/new_2612_2.shtml
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/cuba/3613.html
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/011.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cuba#HIV_and_AIDS

Now in case the point is pointless, which may be the case, you never know sometimes, I'm trying to show how I come to my current opinion, and that is what it is of course, my opinion on HIV and AIDS and drugs and sexual behavior and politics and bad science and perhaps a few other issues.

I sort of share some views with most of the contributers here, except for the trolls that don't provide any input except derision and insults, they go on my filter list. Not worth one minute of my time.

Based on my experience, if you want to educate somebody, you show them how you did it.

Like the brake job analogy. I had my 17 year old do brakes last weekend, he never did them on this particular car model, but it went just fine. We would have done a clutch but it was problematic, so a friend who IS a master mechanic was called, and it went smoothly.

I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic I don't know personally, unless there was no choice, based on past experience. Some mechanics are crooks, just like some Doctors are quacks, or incompetent. Some researchers are crooked, some are just bad researchers, some are really really good.

We are people, they are people. people make mistakes, people can be wrong. In fact, it is certain we will be wrong at some point. Everybody can even be wrong.

I agree with Randi, - "Authority does not rest with scientists, when emotion, need, and desperation are involved. Scientists are human beings, too; they can be deceived and self-deceived. ...Scientists can be wrong — sometimes, very wrong. The history of science is replete with serious errors of judgment, bad research, faked results, and simple mistakes, made by scientists in every field."

But I have no doubt that HIV causes some people to have immune problems, that some people develop AIDS, and die. Most of these people will be drug users or homobisexual. Almost all women get HIV from men. Some medications prolong life and decrease suffering from AIDS. Some medications reduce babies chance of infection. People with infectious or opportunistic disease benefit from sanitation, good food, low stress, proper medical treatment, and certainly from the truth, that just because you have HIV, it is not guaranteed you will get AIDS, or that you will die horribly, far before your time. This is based on my research, my mind, the time I spent finding out for myself. If you have information that will change my mind, I will change my mind. I have many times over the last fifty years'

My opinion-
This is the lesson from the one country that mounted an intelligent response to a new infectious disease, one that was thought to be fatal, and without hope. They stopped the vectors of infection, tested all high risk, them all the population, isolated infectious people, then treated them with the best they could offer.

And because of this, we have the perfect set of HIV and AIDS patients to research, to actually understand how it spread, and what it does, and how it responds to treatments, and how you die, don't die, or how you resist it.

I find it interesting that Cuba and the great science about HIV/AIDS from there, is absent from both HIV sites, and HIV questioning sites. Perhaps both sides could learn a little humility and science from Cuba.

Probably not, but who knows?

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated."
~ Wilfred Trotter
 
Deetee said:
Firstly, Robinson, I think it would be pretty apparent if any of the mothers actually suffered from something like typhoid or meningitis.
Your statement is tantamount to me saying "I don't believe Study X showed influenza mortality, because the study authors have not specifically told us whether the study group also had galloping monkey disease."

Give us a break - the illnesses you mention are quite evident clinically, with the exception of malaria, which can exist at low parasitaemic levels and actually does affect the outcome of pregnancy in those affected, and schistosomiasis, which does not.
Click to expand...

As you say, my sources might just be wrong. I got those from a fact page on the region. It claimed all of those are problems there, with some of them effecting almost everybody, at sub-clinical levels. The population has almost an immunity to most of them.

Deetee said:
Secondly, I am rather disappointed that you of all people should spout out a list of diseases you claim to be "endemic" in Zimbabwe without checking your facts. I thought higher of you.
Click to expand...

There was indeed an error in my copy/paste then, as only a few are endemic. My error, thanks for pointing it out.


Deetee said:
Most of the diseases you mention are not endemic in Zimbabwe, and some do not occur there at all. I think you also need to double check the definitions of "endemic" and "epidemic". Because an infection has been reported in a country, or it has had an outbreak of disease, that does not mean it is "endemic". Perhaps your sources of information on this one are off beam.
Click to expand...

I'm going to check. This is a huge problem with sources. Not only can they not be trusted, they conflict at times. And I have no way of finding out where the mothers actually live, or what the living conditions are. Huge holes in a study on infant mortality. If the mothers with dead babies are all dirt poor, and the ones that have live babies are all well off, what does that do to the study?

There are far too many variables when it comes to infant mortality in Africa to draw conclusion from stunted data, gathered to test Vitamin A on infant mortality.
 
robinson said:
But I think it is best if interested parties look for themselves.

I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic I don't know personally, unless there was no choice, based on past experience.

But I have no doubt that HIV causes some people to have immune problems, that some people develop AIDS, and die. Most of these people will be drug users or homobisexual.

This is based on my research, my mind, the time I spent finding out for myself. If you have information that will change my mind, I will change my mind. I have many times over the last fifty years'


The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated."
~ Wilfred Trotter
Click to expand...



You also say "Based on my experience, if you want to educate somebody, you show them how you did it."


Robinson, if I--like you--wanted to learn to change my brakes, or become expert on the issue of AIDS, then your statement and your example would be exactly what was wanted.

But they aren't, because I don't. I wanted your summary.

In fact, you do have something interesting to say. You could have said it earlier, without suspense.

We don't all have to change our own brakes. I'm busy being an individualist/contrarian/original thinker in the areas that matter most to me.

For the rest, I'm relying on others.

Specialization, division of labor: It means we don't all have to live like the protagonist in Mosquito Coast.
 
But I have no doubt that HIV causes some people to have immune problems, that some people develop AIDS, and die. Most of these people will be drug users or homobisexual. Almost all women get HIV from men. Some medications prolong life and decrease suffering from AIDS. Some medications reduce babies chance of infection. People with infectious or opportunistic disease benefit from sanitation, good food, low stress, proper medical treatment, and certainly from the truth, that just because you have HIV, it is not guaranteed you will get AIDS, or that you will die horribly, far before your time. This is based on my research, my mind, the time I spent finding out for myself. If you have information that will change my mind, I will change my mind. I have many times over the last fifty years'
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with much of this statement - I have many friends who have been HIV+ for a very long time, and while they have battled a number of HIV-related illnesses, they are going strong after 20+ years of seroconversion. I refer specifically to three HIV+ friends - and I'm not sure if the medical community would say they've ever developed full-blown 'AIDS' - they certainly have a very intensive medication and health regimen. And, they all have spent far more time in and out of doctor's offices and hospitals than I have.

Will they die of AIDS? I don't know - I certainly hope not. Will their lifespans be significantly shortened by being HIV+? I'd have to speculate yes - from a combination of the various illnesses and problems they tend to suffer, and from the rigour of the treatments that have carried them this far today - treatments which have, I'm quite confident, extended their lives from what we knew about HIV/AIDS in the early 80s. Is seroconversion a death sentence? Well, I'm not sure I want to answer that question - but I'm 100% convinced its much better health-wise to be HIV- than +. If I was sexually active outside of my monogamous relationship I would definitely engage in safe sex practices, because I wouldn't want to seroconvert when it is generally 99.9% avoidable given what we know today. If I were at risk from drug use or my job, again, I'd take whatever precaution was available to me.

And - it is this approach to HIV/AIDS which is what makes me shake my head when I hear deniers rabbit on about the 'conspiracy' of AIDS. There is NO data, NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA which suggests being HIV+ is a GOOD thing. A FEW people on the fringe allege that being an HIV carrier is innocuous. Well - when it really takes next to zero effort to protect oneself from something which at BEST is an extreme longshot at being innocuous, but carries a huge amount of scientific evidence that its a BAD thing - well, why not use that condom? Really, what is the point of debating this any further?

Does science know EVERYTHING about HIV/AIDS - clearly not. We don't know everything about... well... almost everything. So why not use one's head to make sensible, well-informed decisions, and give the scientists the time and resources to figure it out?
 
Based on what just is, the facts, it is possible that everybody is correct. Regarding HIV/AIDS.

That sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Let me explain why this might be so, you can peek inside my thought process here.

If these are the facts, then everybody is correct. A big if, and one that should be determined, in my view.

HIV is a new retrovirus.
HIV resembles very old retroviruses.
HIV damages the immune system in some people.
HIV is harmless in some people.
HIV mutates all the time, and there are multiple types.
HIV is spread by, sex, blood, and organ transplants.
HIV is found in chimps and monkeys.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick.
HIV is hard to detect in infected people.
HIV is impossible to detect in some people.
HIV can be combined with other retroviruses in a lab.
HIV isn't just one retrovirus.
HIV is limited by certain drug treatments.
HIV is not killed by any drug treatment.
HIV vaccines don't work because of rapid mutation.
HIV is passed from mother to child, sometimes.
HIV combined with drug use and homobisexual behavior almost always leads to AIDS.
HIV can be stopped from spreading.
HIV has shown up in isolated Indian Tribes that have had no contact ever with the outside world.
HIV can be detected in healthy dogs blood, using standard tests.
HIV is very difficult to isolate from infected serum.
HIV is easy to clone and grow in vivo.
HIV has made some people very very wealthy.
HIV has been fought about since it was "discovered".
HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.
HIV is a political, economic, social issue, as well as medical.
HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.
HIV is different in Africa than it is in America and Europe.
HIV statistics for many countries are estimates, and they have been shown to be wrong.
HIV test, in some cases, are not accurate.
HIV is known to damage CD4 receptor cells, and invade other tissue. How this happens is still not known.
HIV is a Pandemic.
HIV, by causing AIDS, is a minor cause of death.
HIV is the source of a lot of death.
HIV is a harmless passenger virus.
HIV is spread by heterosexual sex.
HIV is mostly spread by homobisexual sex and drug use.
HIV was spread through the blood supply before it was known about.
HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.
HIV has been found in tissue samples from a long time ago.
HIV was unknown before 1979.
HIV resembles retroviruses used in cancer research.
HIV is not able to infect non-primate mammals.
HIV is found in dogs, cats, pigs and rats, and in mosquito guts.
HIV is not spread by mosquitos or any other insect.
HIV is not spread by eating it.
HIV is spread by mothers milk.
HIV is spread by needlestick accidents.
HIV is almost never spread by needlesticks.
HIV was around for years before it was detected.
HIV has almost never infected a Surgeon or Doctor, except by sex or I.V. drug use.
HIV can survive in blood stored for use, for a long time.
HIV can't survive outside the body for long.
HIV is found in sperm and seminal fluid.
HIV is very hard to detect in sperm or seminal fluid.
HIV is spread through oral sex.
HIV is almost never spread by female to female sex.
HIV is in saliva.
HIV is not spread by kissing.
HIV can't reproduce without human DNA.
HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys.
HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.
HIV was late in infecting Africa.
HIV is theorized to have started in Africa.
HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps/
HIV is believed to have started from monkeys and chimps infecting Africans.
HIV isn't the same as SIV, SV40, or any other retrovirus.
HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures.
HIV can be joined with other organisms, (Chimeras), and many kinds of HIV have been created for research.
HIV is easy to modify in a lab.
HIV couldn't be created by science.
HIV strains are created by scientist to study it.
This is by no means a complete list.

If those are true, and I have read numerous sources that say those are facts, then the issue isn't black or white. What is true, is the heart of the matter. This isn't a simple issue by any definition. Except to those who think they know it all.

I would like to know if those statements are true. I'm sure most of them are. Even the ones that don't make sense.
 
Last edited:
Feel free to delete or add items, especially if good evidence is available to show why they are crap.

I have my doubts about some of those, but without open source on data and research, it is impossible for me to tell with out doubt.

Especially something like viral load.
 
robinson said:
Based on what just is, the facts, it is possible that everybody is correct. Regarding HIV/AIDS.

That sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Let me explain why this might be so, you can peek inside my thought process here.

If these are the facts, then everybody is correct. A big if, and one that should be determined, in my view.

HIV is a new retrovirus.
HIV resembles very old retroviruses.
HIV damages the immune system in some people.
HIV is harmless in some people.
HIV mutates all the time, and there are multiple types.
HIV is spread by, sex, blood, and organ transplants.
HIV is found in chimps and monkeys.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick.
HIV is hard to detect in infected people.
HIV is impossible to detect in some people.
HIV can be combined with other retroviruses in a lab.
HIV isn't just one retrovirus.
HIV is limited by certain drug treatments.
HIV is not killed by any drug treatment.
HIV vaccines don't work because of rapid mutation.
HIV is passed from mother to child, sometimes.
HIV combined with drug use and homobisexual behavior almost always leads to AIDS.
HIV can be stopped from spreading.
HIV has shown up in isolated Indian Tribes that have had no contact ever with the outside world.
HIV can be detected in healthy dogs blood, using standard tests.
HIV is very difficult to isolate from infected serum.
HIV is easy to clone and grow in vivo.
HIV has made some people very very wealthy.
HIV has been fought about since it was "discovered".
HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.
HIV is a political, economic, social issue, as well as medical.
HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.
HIV is different in Africa than it is in America and Europe.
HIV statistics for many countries are estimates, and they have been shown to be wrong.
HIV test, in some cases, are not accurate.
HIV is known to damage CD4 receptor cells, and invade other tissue. How this happens is still not known.
HIV is a Pandemic.
HIV, by causing AIDS, is a minor cause of death.
HIV is the source of a lot of death.
HIV is a harmless passenger virus.
HIV is spread by heterosexual sex.
HIV is mostly spread by homobisexual sex and drug use.
HIV was spread through the blood supply before it was known about.
HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.
HIV has been found in tissue samples from a long time ago.
HIV was unknown before 1979.
HIV resembles retroviruses used in cancer research.
HIV is not able to infect non-primate mammals.
HIV is found in dogs, cats, pigs and rats, and in mosquito guts.
HIV is not spread by mosquitos or any other insect.
HIV is not spread by eating it.
HIV is spread by mothers milk.
HIV is spread by needlestick accidents.
HIV is almost never spread by needlesticks.
HIV was around for years before it was detected.
HIV has almost never infected a Surgeon or Doctor, except by sex or I.V. drug use.
HIV can survive in blood stored for use, for a long time.
HIV can't survive outside the body for long.
HIV is found in sperm and seminal fluid.
HIV is very hard to detect in sperm or seminal fluid.
HIV is spread through oral sex.
HIV is almost never spread by female to female sex.
HIV is in saliva.
HIV is not spread by kissing.
HIV can't reproduce without human DNA.
HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys.
HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.
HIV was late in infecting Africa.
HIV is theorized to have started in Africa.
HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps/
HIV is believed to have started from monkeys and chimps infecting Africans.
HIV isn't the same as SIV, SV40, or any other retrovirus.
HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures.
HIV can be joined with other organisms, (Chimeras), and many kinds of HIV have been created for research.
HIV is easy to modify in a lab.
HIV couldn't be created by science.
HIV strains are created by scientist to study it.
This is by no means a complete list.

If those are true, and I have read numerous sources that say those are facts, then the issue isn't black or white. What is true, is the heart of the matter. This isn't a simple issue by any definition. Except to those who think they know it all.

I would like to know if those statements are true. I'm sure most of them are. Even the ones that don't make sense.
Click to expand...

thank you. I just learned more in 2 minutes about the problem than in the whole rest of the thread.

Sorry if I missed other points that others made.

Are there items on Robinson's list that are known to be wrong?
 
These are wrong.

HIV is found in chimps and monkeys. You mean SIV. Although HIV can infect chimps.
HIV doesn't make chimps and monkeys sick. You mean SIV, see above.
HIV isn't just one retrovirus. Maybe you are confusing with HIV-2, HTLV-I and HTLV-II? For most purposes people mean HIV-1 when they say HIV.
HIV can be detected in healthy dogs blood, using standard tests.
HIV has made some people very very wealthy.
HIV is not allowed to be debated by the ruling class.
HIV does not act like any known retrovirus.
HIV is a harmless passenger virus.
HIV can be spread by infected vaccines.
HIV resembles retroviruses used in cancer research. Which viruses specifically?
HIV is found in dogs, cats, pigs and rats, and in mosquito guts. Perhaps in mossy guts.
HIV reproduces in Chimps and Monkeys. Chimps only.
HIV infections began in New York City and San Fransisco.
HIV was late in infecting Africa.
HIV can't be contracted from lab monkeys or chimps/
HIV was not made in a lab, or spread by medical procedures. It was spread by infected factor VIII clotting factors in haemophiliacs.
HIV can be joined with other organisms, (Chimeras), and many kinds of HIV strains are created by scientist to study it. Only parts of HIV can be genetically engineered with other viruses/bacteria.
 
Last edited:
I haven't started on the AIDS list yet. Anybody that feels like starting one, jump in. And please, if you have debunking for any of my items, post links.

Remember, one important fact. HIV is not some Universal same everywhere retrovirus. It is a political, social, economic, scientific medical, sexual, cultural nightmare.

It is DIFFERENT depending on where you are. Cuba shows this without any doubt. By any statistics, Cuba's population shows that many of those facts are true.

But in Africa, some facts are not true.

Interesting. What is true, depends on your point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom