Comments

1
Dont worry about it.
2
I know someone who WAS in your shoes. He joined a support group locally a few years back, and met other people with HIV/Aids. I'm proud to say he's living a healthier life (he's much older now of course) but he's married now too, and is now back playing with his band at a local bar in my town. Everyone dies I,A.. dont go without a fight!
3
"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 (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993)

"I do not regard the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of AIDS."
--Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics,
Yale University (Yale Scientific, Fall 1994)

"There are no slow retroviruses, only slow retrovirologists."
--Dr. Peter Duesberg, Professor of Molecular Biology,
UC Berkeley (Spin June 1992)

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/kmforeword.htm

'Inventing the AIDS Virus' Peter H. Duesberg,
Regnery USA 1996, 720 pages, ISBN 0-89526-470-6.

From the
FOREWORD
By Kary Mullis

In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I had invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they had hired me.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, Dr Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, Dr Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.

This time, Dr Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.
4
For fucks sake, Dina please go die in a fire.
5
How many people have killed themselves because they believed that they were going to die of AIDS as result of contracting the innocuous retrovirus, HIV?


http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cfmullis.htm

Mullis points out that transportation and sheer population growth have greatly increased the number of other human beings a person is likely to come into contact with during the course of a lifetime, and argues that "bathhouse cultures of some metropolitan gay communities" enabled an unprecedented exchange of infectious viruses. Such a viral overload, Mullis suggests, may trigger an immune chain reaction that could destabilize or debilitate immune function. Transfusion of blood from one such highly infected individual, he argues further, could transfer enough viruses to cause immune dysfunction in the recipient. He disagrees with Duesberg's idea that AIDS is a toxicological syndrome, but says that he feels both of their theories "ought to be tested at least."
6
The toxicological syndrome hypothesized by Dr Duesberg, to which Dr Mullis alludes:

Virtually all heterosexual Americans and Europeans who had AIDS are intravenous drug users. And the homosexuals who get AIDS had hundreds if not thousands of sexual contacts. That is not achieved with your conventional testosterone. It is achieved with chemicals. Those are the risk groups, they inhale poppers, they use amphetamines, they take Quaaludes, they take amyl nitrite, they take cocaine as aphrodisiacs.

What is it about intravenous drug use as opposed to ordinary drug use, like snorting cocaine, that would mean theses people would go on to develop AIDS?

It's a matter of degree. With drugs, the dose is the poison. You take one aspirin, you lose your headache, you take 200, you drop dead. You smoke one pack of cigarettes, you're fine, but if you smoke two packs of cigarettes for 10 or 20 years, you may get emphysema. It is the same with drugs. If you snort a line of cocaine on a weekend, you probably won't notice the difference. But if you inject it intravenously two or three times a day, that's when the toxicity shows up. We're designed to take some shit. But we're not designed to inject cocaine three times a day. People have been having a little cocaine in their tea in South America, yes, but not injecting it three times a day, and nobody was inhaling nitrites-nitrites are toxic as hell. Nobody was taking amphetamines at those doses; they were not available. That's what's new.


http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/bginterview.htm
7
BORING, NEXT.
8
I'm just trying to save a life, here, j.cas. Don't mind me. Here, you might find this more entertaining, however:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/the-defense-rests/Content?oid=10394613
9
Hey there, Dina. I posted this I, Anonymous. I'll gladly admit to it so that I can say this: You won't save anyone's life by spreading bullshit and lies about HIV. The AIDS denialism garbage being propagated by moronic fucksticks like yourself is KILLING people. Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
10
AIDS kills. HIV does not cause AIDS. The high risk behavior which leads to HIV is what results in AIDS.

'da Nile ain't just a river in Egypt, 'ya know.
11
I'ma go out on a limb here Dina, but I'm sure Ross has Dr's and wasn't looking for all your fucking link bullshit. In fact i think what he was originally trying to do was write an I Anonymous apology to someone, which didn't include a "please give me you insight Dina" request.

So again.. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. and let him have his apology, you selfish trying to seek attention know-it-all!
13
Dina, you ignorant cunt. Remember--science involves conducting experiments and research in order to find an answer. Your approach involves finding "sources" that confirm what you already believe. When your "research" comes from virusmyth.com, it's pretty clear that you're not dealing with actual science. With that, I'm done with you. You're not worth my--or anyone's--time. Fuck off and die.

BTW, I feel much better. The other night was just a temporary hiccup--things are getting better all the time.
14
Dina, kindly remove yourself from the gene pool. K thanks.
15
And are you trying to pass your avatar off as you? Because I've seen that UK model on a lot of hair blogs.
16
I could always be wrong. But I did find the source photo in question.
17
Look, I quoted Dr Mullis where he says that he feels that both his and Dr Duesberg's theories ought to be tested, because there is no scientific study which proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Until any study proves anything one way or another, wouldn't it only be prudent to consider the considerable anecdotal evidence which is the basis for each of the Dr.s' hypotheses, and take the implicit precautionary measures?

Furthermore, it's illegal to scan copies of State ID and Passport photos, but would you believe even that evidence if you saw it?
18
Well, your complete ignorance of a well researched medical condition + white people dreads tends take away credibility.
I suppose you could just tell me where you got your hair done, since there's a photo of it on the stylist's website.
20
Dr Kary Mullis won the Nobel Peace Prize for having invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction, and he says that there is no scientific study which proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS. If anyone can cite such a study, then they ought to take away his million dollars and give it to whoever proved such a thing.

http://www.karymullis.com/pcr.shtml

Show me an Oegon State Driver's License with the name SugarSpill on it, in both upper and lower case lettering, and I'll be happy to hand you my hairdresser's business card.
21
So did Yasser Arafat.
23
Troll.
25
Trolling and catfishing is one thing. It's stupid and childish, but whatever. Trolling someone recently diagnosed with an emotionally and physically devastating condition is repugnant. And I found a facebook/twitter and email link for the owner of the image.

So if I send Courtnee a message on Facebook telling her what the image is associated with is it going to be you?
26
Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize. Just because the Dr in question won a Nobel Prize doesn't immediately make his research correct.
28
Where then SugarSpill, if that's your real name, do we find the study that supposedly proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS?
29
You're a crazy person. And it's a screen name obviously. I don't steal other people's images.
31
What a funny coincidence. I just found your picture at Philippinianfriendfinder.com.
33
If you find a cure for HIV, then you've found a cure for an inert retrovirus. If you could eliminate all trace of contraction of HIV from the human body, then there would be no tell tale indicator of the high risk behavior which destroys the bodies' immune system. For the sake of Privacy, it would be a lot cheaper to simply eliminate arbitrary blood testing.
34
Just because there isn't any proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS, doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't, and I really wouldn't mind having my very own Filipino house boy.
35
fuck really? Posts like this diminish people. smh Ross, don't EVER sell you short buddy. You ever want to get a beer? I'm your girl. And I'll remind you why we're NO different. I hate long winded vaginas! (they (we) talk to damn much.) ;)
36
Thank you dear :) I appreciate your kindness. I'm rossrobbinspoetry on tumblr--send me an ask on there, yeah? You can have a beer, I'll have a coffee.
37
Turns out that model doesn't even own her own image, either. It belongs to come corporation who made her sign her rights away for that photo shoot. The good news is, she wants to have a threesome with me and Dina.
38
I didn't actually make those last 3 posts, someone actually hacked into my Merc profile. Creepy.
39
Actually a duplicate profile.

SugarSplll normally I'd get mad but it's just too funny. And who wouldn't like a Philipino house boy?
40
Does that mean the threesome is off?
41
Damn, how did I miss this one? Wow.

First, you can inject a healthy person with HIV and they'll get AIDS. Because HIV causes AIDS.

Second, Mullis won the Nobel for medicine, probably, definitely not peace. But it's well known in the field that he just republished a technique another scientist used, and thus got credit for it.

I didn't know he was this crazy though.

And you know, fluoride, having a leg to stand on, downfall of civilization, etc.

Good luck with the AIDS, guy. At least you don't have to worry about getting AIDS anymore.
42
I don't have AIDS, dipshit. Learn the fucking difference between HIV and AIDS. Jesus tap-dancing Christ, it's 2013.
43
I don't have AIDS, dipshit. Learn the fucking difference between HIV and AIDS. Jesus tap-dancing Christ, it's 2013.
44
I don't have AIDS, dipshit. Learn the fucking difference between HIV and AIDS. Jesus tap-dancing Christ, it's 2013.
45
For fuck's sake, why isn't this working? Whatever. Is Portland overrun with goddamned slack-jawed yokels at this point? I mean, what in the fuck's going on here?
46
I don't have AIDS, dipshit. Learn the fucking difference between HIV and AIDS. Jesus tap-dancing Christ, it's 2013.

And in case this actually did post the first time it didn't show up, well--it bears repeating.
47
Ahh, yes, lovely. I definitely wanted to post that comment four motherfucking times.

Actually, I'm okay with it. Seriously, for a fifth time: learn the difference between HIV & AIDS. I was just reading some of your other comments, and for all your self-righteous "I know more science than anyone!" bullshit, this sure is some ignorant-ass nonsense.
48
This is what I get for trying to be light-hearted.

Look, Ross, I know the difference. I made a command decision that AIDS is funnier than HIV.

So much for laughter being the best medicine!
49
Well, now that Jamdox has shown how much of a gigantic turd he is, can we close the fucking comments now?
50
Wow, good point. AIDS is super-funny! You fucking douchebag.
51
All right, fine, it's too soon, sorry.
52
Dina: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (part of the National Institutes of Health) published a page called, simply, "The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS".

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx

Now kindly shut your hate hole.

And Ross? Sorry to hear about your malady.
53
Coincidental evidence is not proof, and certainly does not constitute a scientific study where a theory can be tested by independent researchers who can duplicate the results in order to confirm and verify the veracity of the claims. HIV is present in AIDS patients, because it is transmitted the same way as toxic illicit drugs and unprotected sex. If a patient dies while infected with TB, cancer, hepatitis, and pneumonia, the death certificate will state one of those as the cause of death, but if anyone dies of pneumonia and happens to have HIV in their blood, the death certificate will state the cause of death as AIDS. There is no test for AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome, not a virus. You will never be able to cure AIDS with a vaccine. The only way to cure AIDS is to cease the high risk behavior of which HIV is only a mere indicator of.
54
Furthermore, there are more people alive with HIV than have AIDS. If you inject yourself with the blood of an AIDS patient, then you are injecting yourself with TB, hepatitis, pneumonia, and/or many other diseases which were contracted due to a weakened immune system. If you are not a drug user yourself, and you haven't been over exposed to grossly inordinate amount of various viruses already, you might have a good chance of making a full recovery or even completely resisting those diseases.
55
There is such a thing as filipinofriendfinder.com .
56
Sorry for the wall of text, but it's not right to let such ridiculous claims go unanswered.

----

"Coincidental evidence is not proof, and certainly does not constitute a scientific study where a theory can be tested by independent researchers who can duplicate the results in order to confirm and verify the veracity of the claims."

Precisely. The NIH has very strong evidence that HIV causes AIDS. You've got... nothing? The say-so of an irrelevant authority and a boatload of wishful thinking?

----

"HIV is present in AIDS patients, because it is transmitted the same way as toxic illicit drugs and unprotected sex."

Nope.

You miss one critical fact: HIV is present in *EVERY* AIDS patient. In the history of the AIDS pandemic, there has never been a single patient who 'died from AIDS' without having HIV. Many of the people who died from AIDS-related illnesses were children who caught HIV from their mothers; they obviously never engaged in IV drug use or unprotected sex.

----

"If a patient dies while infected with TB, cancer, hepatitis, and pneumonia, the death certificate will state one of those as the cause of death, but if anyone dies of pneumonia and happens to have HIV in their blood, the death certificate will state the cause of death as AIDS."

[citation needed]

In most places, the cause of death will be listed as the disease they actually succumbed to. Note that it's actually possible to die from AIDS without an opportunistic infection, though it's unlikely.

----

"There is no test for AIDS. AIDS is a syndrome, not a virus."

AIDS is a syndrome, caused by a virus, and that virus is HIV.

----

"You will never be able to cure AIDS with a vaccine."

But we'll be able to prevent it, with a vaccine against HIV.

----

"Furthermore, there are more people alive with HIV than have AIDS."

Of course. HIV takes a long time (years or decades) to progress to AIDS.

Here's the interesting part: Suppressing HIV delays AIDS, often until the point of natural death. Even once infected with HIV, if the viral load is kept low enough through the use of HAART (Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy) medication, patients don't progress to AIDS. This is even more evidence that HIV is the direct cause of AIDS.

----

"If you inject yourself with the blood of an AIDS patient, then you are injecting yourself with TB, hepatitis, pneumonia, and/or many other diseases which were contracted due to a weakened immune system."

Or, more likely, you're injecting yourself with the same mix of microbes that everyone else is exposed to. The difference is that in the AIDS patient, HIV has systematically destroyed their immune system, so something that your body will shrug off (possibly without you even knowing you've been infected) could potentially kill them.

----

"If you are not a drug user yourself, and you haven't been over exposed to grossly inordinate amount of various viruses already, you might have a good chance of making a full recovery or even completely resisting those diseases."

Hint: We're all exposed to almost exactly the same mix of viruses: colds, flu, gastroenteritis, RSV, etc. Most of us can fight off these viruses with bed rest and chicken soup. AIDS patients can't. And the only virus they've been exposed to that we haven't... is HIV.
57
If HIV were to have actually been proven to be the cause of AIDS, then it would have to be done by scientific study.

Cite THAT!

The CDC Report certainly doesn't.
58
"If HIV were to have actually been proven to be the cause of AIDS, then it would have to be done by scientific study. Cite THAT!"

*ahem*

"HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled." By O'Brien SJ, Goedert JJ. October 1996. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8902385

You're literally seventeen years behind the times. Try to catch up.

I also direct you to the Durban Declaration: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6791/full/406015a0.html

This article, signed by over 5,000 AIDS researchers and scientists, summarizes the research to that point, which overwhelmingly demonstrates that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.
59
"The NIH has very strong evidence that HIV causes AIDS." --BenjaminGeiger

Evidence is a starting point for developing a hypothesis.
_____


"HIV is present in *EVERY* AIDS patient. In the history of the AIDS pandemic, there has never been a single patient who 'died from AIDS' without having HIV. Many of the people who died from AIDS-related illnesses were children who caught HIV from their mothers; they obviously never engaged in IV drug use or unprotected sex." --BenjaminGeiger

Not all drug users or homosexuals have HIV, either. HIV is not proof, in and of itself. The babies who die, are sick with the same diseases as the mother: TB, hepatitis, pneumonia, cancer, etc. Of course the babies have HIV, but not all babies with HIV die.
_____


"Note that it's actually possible to die from AIDS without an opportunistic infection, though it's unlikely."
--BenjaminGeiger

Name one case where someone died of HIV without any other disease present.
_____


"AIDS is a syndrome, caused by a virus, and that virus is HIV."
--BenjaminGeiger

A syndrome is a variety of virus and/or, bacterial infections. The fact that AIDS is an acronym for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome illustrates that they knew up front that it isn't caused by a single virus.
_____


"Of course. HIV takes a long time (years or decades) to progress to AIDS.

Here's the interesting part: Suppressing HIV delays AIDS, often until the point of natural death. Even once infected with HIV, if the viral load is kept low enough through the use of HAART (Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy) medication, patients don't progress to AIDS. This is even more evidence that HIV is the direct cause of AIDS."
--BenjaminGeiger

HIV is nothing to suppress; it's a retrovirus.
_____

"Or, more likely, you're injecting yourself with the same mix of microbes that everyone else is exposed to. The difference is that in the AIDS patient, HIV has systematically destroyed their immune system, so something that your body will shrug off (possibly without you even knowing you've been infected) could potentially kill them."

"We're all exposed to almost exactly the same mix of viruses: colds, flu, gastroenteritis, RSV, etc. Most of us can fight off these viruses with bed rest and chicken soup. AIDS patients can't. And the only virus they've been exposed to that we haven't... is HIV."
--BenjaminGeiger
Member since Sep 8, 2013
Stats
0 Friends
0 Reviews
2 Comments
0 Places
0 Events
0 Stories
0 Lists
Friends
No friends yet.

Dr Peter Duesberg hypothesizes based upon his anecdotal observations, that when HIV patients discontinue illicit drug use, that their supposed AIDS symptoms often are ameliorated. Dr Mullis posits that homosexuals are exposed to a great many more viruses than the average population, which could possibly overload the immune system.
60
Science is not democracy, where a group of scientists gather together at a convention and take a vote on what vague hypothesis is most likely to be able to be developed into a testable theory that could possibly be proven true. Although, it's great for job security.
61
My posting statistics are irrelevant. I created this account just to respond to your lies.

----

"Dr Peter Duesberg hypothesizes based upon his anecdotal observations, that when HIV patients discontinue illicit drug use, that their supposed AIDS symptoms often are ameliorated. Dr Mullis posits that homosexuals are exposed to a great many more viruses than the average population, which could possibly overload the immune system."

Got any evidence to support either of these hypotheses?

The research community has thirty years of evidence to reject them.

(PS: This is precisely what I meant when I said you have "the say-so of an irrelevant authority". Neither of those people are AIDS researchers.)
62
"Conclusion
If we abide by the scientific guidance of Koch's postulates,
we are sure to discover the cause of AIDS."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424581/pdf/pubhealthrep00105-0073.pdf

This means that "HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled." By O'Brien SJ, Goedert JJ. October 1996, is NOT a proven scientific study. What you've got here is the starting point for developing a theory yet to be designed.
63
"Science is not democracy, where a group of scientists gather together at a convention and take a vote on what vague hypothesis is most likely to be able to be developed into a testable theory that could possibly be proven true."

Statements like that are simply evidence that you have no understanding how science works. Science doesn't deal with proofs; if you want proof, you want mathematics. Science works in probabilities and consensus. Right now, the probability that HIV does not cause AIDS is vanishingly small (so small that it may as well be 0).

Unless you have actual evidence to the contrary, go away.
64
"This means that "HIV causes AIDS: Koch's postulates fulfilled." By O'Brien SJ, Goedert JJ. October 1996, is NOT a proven scientific study."

You do realize that the article you linked is from 1983, right? Not 1996?

You're being intentionally deceptive. Shut your hate hole.
65
http://www.duesberg.com

http://www.karymullis.com
66
That isn't evidence. That's ranting, by people who are not authorities in the field.

Actual evidence, please.
67
Your link showed no text. Copy and paste the conclusion along with a live link.

Hate? Just lay off the poppers, crack, meth, and bare back riding'sall.
68
"Your link showed no text. Copy and paste the conclusion along with a live link."

It's behind a paywall. I had to go through my university's library to get it. But that's no excuse for trying to pass off a paper from a decade and a half ago for the paper I cited and then claiming it says the opposite of what it says.

The paper from 1983 says, "To demonstrate that HIV causes AIDS, we'll need to perform these steps."

The paper from 1996 says, "We've performed the steps, and it's almost certain that HIV causes AIDS."

No contradiction there.
69
What you need for scientific proof, is peer reviewed, duplicate testing with the same validated results. What were the tests and how were they conducted?
70
"What were the tests and how were they conducted?"

I've linked to the papers. Go read 'em. Then go read the rest of the 30 years of research that has been done on the subject.
71
I'm not about to buy a pig in a poke. If you have access to that page, the copy and paste it here; it's "Fair Use".
72
I also find it amusing that you can claim various causes for AIDS due simply to "anecdotal observations", while you require stricter and stricter forms of evidence for the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS.

Here's what the Durban Declaration says about the matter:

"The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science. The data fulfil exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases, such as polio, measles and smallpox:

* Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV.

* If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5–10 years. HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections.

* People who receive HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who receive untainted or screened blood do not.

* Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV-infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected.

* In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS.

* Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80% (ref. 9).

* Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS.

Further compelling data are available. HIV causes AIDS. It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives."
73
"I'm not about to buy a pig in a poke. If you have access to that page, the copy and paste it here; it's "Fair Use"."

Copying the entire article is not 'fair use'.

This is a simple matter of you refusing to even consider evidence that challenges your preconceived notions.
74
Does that mean I can shoot meth with homos now?
75
The Durban Declaration is nothing but political platitudes and disinformation. SIV isn't the same AIDS as what humans get, for one example. I'm still waiting to see the proof.
76
Here's the conclusion to the article:

"The HIV-AIDS debate has continued beyond what is reasonable for an academic exercise. The data summarized above provide an overview of a mosaic of scientific data which prove conclusively that HIV-1 causes AIDS. It is our hope that the dangerous diversion which this debate has fostered will cease because of the potential for harm which could lead those at risk to become infected by ignoring prevention messages, and those infected from benefiting from the advances in therapy. The debate should cease and all energies should be put towards finding the ultimate proof of causation, the development of an effective vaccine and curative treatment."
77
Okay, thanks for posting the conclusion. Now if it's not too much effort, could you please describe or copy and paste the controls and procedures of the actual tests and peer duplicated results?
78
Chef, just stick with that dareable WOG hemp, but watch out for the slobber.
79
"I'm still waiting to see the proof."

Open your eyes. I've linked to it several times.

Also note that you haven't required or provided any evidence whatsoever for your claims, while you continually move the goalposts to deny the HIV conclusion.
80
"Now if it's not too much effort, could you please describe or copy and paste the controls and procedures of the actual tests and peer duplicated results?"

I've cited the article. Go read it yourself.
81
In the rules of legal evidence, a formal affidavit is sworn under oath of perjury. The claims made therein stand as fact until dis-proven. Also, in American jurisprudence, a man is innocent until proven guilty. The Scientific Method is of a much higher, more rigorous standard. You have to prove your assertions absolutely, not just by a preponderance of evidence, or even beyond all reasonable doubt. You must prove your claims beyond all doubt. For me to say that HIV is not proven to cause AIDS is beyond dispute, unless you can prove otherwise, pursuant to the Scientific Method.

What's the big secret? Why can't you just answer the question? How come you can't copy and paste what the theory predicted, how it was constructed, tested, controlled and what the results were, as well as who has duplicated those findings?

Isn't there anybody else here besides Ben who can access that page or find an article about it in some other journal? Wouldn't you think that this would have been front page news, or at least in Science or Nature Magazine, for crying out loud?
82
"The Scientific Method is of a much higher, more rigorous standard. You have to prove your assertions absolutely, not just by a preponderance of evidence, or even beyond all reasonable doubt. You must prove your claims beyond all doubt."

You obviously have no idea how science works. *Nothing* in science is "proved beyond all doubt"; *everything* is subject to revision when further evidence comes to light.

That being said, HIV causing AIDS is one of the best-supported conclusions in modern science. If it could be shown that HIV didn't cause AIDS, the person who showed it would probably win a Nobel Prize; it'd be on par with proving that gravity doesn't actually exist.

----

"For me to say that HIV is not proven to cause AIDS is beyond dispute"

Nope. It's very disputed.

----

"What's the big secret? Why can't you just answer the question?"

I have. You refuse to listen.

----

"How come you can't copy and paste what the theory predicted, how it was constructed, tested, controlled and what the results were, as well as who has duplicated those findings?"

Two words: copyright infringement. I'd have to copy and paste the entire paper.

However, you could just as easily do the same, as I gave you the title and author; you can easily find the paper.
83
I'll drink to that.
84
"Wouldn't you think that this would have been front page news, or at least in Science or Nature Magazine, for crying out loud?"

It was, back in the mid-1980s.

Oh, and the Durban Declaration was published in Nature.
85
The Portland Mercury is a free service. No money is changing hands, here. Who else conducted the study to validate the results?
86
The Durban Declaration is not a scientific study, and despite the rhetoric, it fails to cite one that proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS. You can just keep contradicting me, but until you put up the goods, you haven't made your case. We aren't supposed to run all around on a little scavenger hunt for your homework.

Just answer this, then. What is the big advantage in HIV as if to be the cause of AIDS?
87
"The Portland Mercury is a free service. No money is changing hands, here."

That doesn't make a difference. It's still copyright infringement. Besides, the Portland Mercury is earning money from this (from ads).

----

"Who else conducted the study to validate the results?"

What part of "survey paper" do you not understand? The paper is itself a summary of dozens of experiments.

----

By the way, nice job deleting your hateful comment: "If you want charitable support for HIV research, you aren't much of a salesman. Showing victims like in those gassed in Syria, is very emotional, but it doesn't prove who did it. Maybe they all died of HIV?"
88
"The Durban Declaration is not a scientific study, and despite the rhetoric, it fails to cite one that proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS."

So, your entire position can be summed up as "Nuh uh!"

The Durban Declaration sums up twenty years of research, and cites plenty of sources. You're demanding more evidence for this than is normally required for any conclusion (and, again, orders of magnitude more than you've been willing to show to support yours).
89
You case isn't proven by a vote of doctors, vacationing in South Africa, who get paid for trying to find a cure for a virus that causes no disease. They can work on it for just as long as they can garner emotional support for funding. I doesn't make any difference how many of these goldbricking snake oil salesmen vote for HIV. What matters is that none of them have proven what they expect people to take on faith. Evidence is not in and of itself, proof.

It's the same sort of tactic being used in Syria. The fact that there are dead bodies, doesn't prove who killed them. We are told that there is evidence, but it is secret. Germany and Russia say that Syria didn't do it, that al-Qaeda rebels did, and that they know this for a fact. Okay, somebody needs to be brought to justice. What's going to happen, is that they all are going to pay.
90
"You case isn't proven by a vote of doctors who get paid for trying to find a cure for a virus that causes no disease."

No, it's proved by the thirty years of research. Have you even bothered to read any of the things I've cited?

Again: "The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science. The data fulfil [sic] exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases, such as polio, measles and smallpox:

* Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV.

* If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5–10 years. HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections.

* People who receive HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who receive untainted or screened blood do not.

* Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV-infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected.

* In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS.

* Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80% (ref. 9).

* Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS.

Further compelling data are available. HIV causes AIDS. It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives."

This is the closest to proof that we ever see in science. Each of the components have been proved repeatedly and independently, and the combination is tantamount to proof that HIV causes AIDS.
91
No, that is not a scientific study. Close only counts in horseshoes, and horseshit. People will continue to die of AIDS if they believe that it can be cured with a vaccine. What most all of the evidence really implies, is that AIDS is entirely preventable.
92
"No, that is not a scientific study."

It's better. It's a summary of dozens, or even hundreds, of studies.
93
Not one of those studies proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS. All each of them are is attempts at understanding some small fraction of the syndrome. Jumping to conclusions based upon disparate studies is not scientific proof.
94
"People will continue to die of AIDS if they believe that it can be cured with a vaccine."

1: Vaccines don't cure disease, they prevent it.

2: There is no working vaccine for HIV. When a vaccine for HIV is discovered, then it will prevent AIDS.

3: AIDS is almost entirely preventable anyway, with safe sex practices (specifically condoms).

----

"What most all of the evidence really implies, is that AIDS is entirely preventable."

[citation needed]

AIDS is entirely preventable, by using condoms to prevent HIV transmission.
95
"Not one of those studies proves that HIV is the cause of AIDS."

Yes they are. Separately, and combined, they show that HIV is almost certainly the cause of AIDS.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, shut your hate hole.
96
Dina, it's funny that you pretended to care about me at first when you were trying to convince me that I'm actually super-healthy and should stop taking my meds right away. The longer you're challenged on your infantile beliefs, the more homophobic bullshit you spout. Fuck you, you ugly-hearted sack of garbage. You truly are 20 pounds of shit in a 10 pound bag. Doesn't it give you even the *slightest* pause that *every* reputable doctor, scientist, and healthcare professional *on the fucking planet* says HIV causes AIDS? Doesn't that make you stop--even a little--and think to yourself, "Hey, ya know what? Maybe I really am just a dumb stupid fuckwad who should shut her moronic mouth right away." No? Never? Huh. Well, be sure to share some more links to sites with names like "AIDS is a government conspiracy brought to you by lizard people!" Dipshit.
97
At least we agree that AIDS already is completely preventable without a vaccine, butt are you saying that you love HIV?
99
On The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, back in 1984, they were talking about AIDS and how AIDS all got started. Frank Zappa had three theory's.

First Frank said something about AIDS being a government test gone wrong. Then maybe it was an Alien (ET) test or mistake and finally they talked about the theory of AIDS coming from a monkey.

Then Frank said " I'd like to know who's been plook'n the monkey's?"
100
Dr Kary Mullis is of the opinion that AZT is what killed his brother in law, butt I never advised anybody to stop taking the drugs that their licensed physician has prescribed. I would strongly suggest that anyone taking AZT get a second opinion, however. Go ahead and quit shooting meth, though. If that's medical advice, then sue me.
101
"butt are you saying that you love HIV?"

wat
102
I don't shoot meth, you fucking idiot. And no one is taking just AZT. You are so ignorant it is painful--seriously. How about instead of reading your propaganda websites you actually try learning the truth about HIV and current treatments? You try to claim that everyone who has ever died of AIDS died because they were banging 10,000 strangers and shooting speedballs into their necks while huffing gallon jugs of poppers ("Guiltyyyyyyyy!" he shouts in a la Peter Griffin in the Peter-goes-gay episode) yet you say nothing of the people who got HIV from blood transfusions.

What do you have to say about hemophiliacs who got transfusions and died of AIDS? How about the fact that every person in the denialism movement who is HIV positive and stops taking their meds ends up dying of opportunistic infections? Just a coincidence? Or are they being assassinated by the vast pharmaceutical-industrial complex?

Ugh. Editor, could you pretty please close comments on this and delete her links? The Mercury doesn't need to be giving web traffic to AIDS denialists. For real.
104
Hey, hey, we're the Monkees!
105
One of the symptoms of Hemophilia is auto immune disease, and most Hemophiliacs who contracted HIV, were co-infected with Hepatitis C.
106
*Yawn* Man oh man, you people are idiots. Do you get headaches when you try to read books?
107
All people who have AIDS are infected with opportunistic infections. Anti-retroviral medications do not cure Hepatitis, TB, cancer, pneumonia, or such. If a patient is receiving treatment for HIV, and has no disease, then they are not going to die of opportunistic diseases if they stop taking their meds. If the patient actually has AIDS, then suppressing HIV makes no difference; the opportunistic diseases must be treated specifically. It helps to not be shooting meth, which actually does destroy the immune system.
108
Wow. Fun times, guys! Fun times. Time for me to throw a bucket of cold water on this dog fight...

COMMENTS CLOSED.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.