HIV/AIDS Denialism

[paradigm667]

Since you are not a licensed physician, any attempt to dispense medical advice without the appropriate training constitutes fraud. You are welcome to have your opinions, but until society and your government is satisfied that you possess the requisite skills and knowledge, you should avoid offering advice on medical issues that can result in great harm or death. The consequences of your uneducated opinion can be dire for anyone that listens to you, and it can also have repercussions for you in terms of personal guilt and legal liability.

The Internet is not an anonymous place. Breaking the law here can have consequences as well. Medical fraud is not protected speech, nor should it be.

Your arrogance is terrifying. You think you have a privileged knowledge. I can assure you that you do not. You think you have a privileged intellect. You really, really do not. I hope the fact that over 99.9% of the world's scientists and doctors disagree with you will give you at least a moment's pause. Perhaps you are wrong. Perhaps this is something you should think some more about. Perhaps you should keep this idea to yourself until you are a little more sure, so that no one suffers if you are wrong.

That doubt is something I can live with.

Notice how even a PhD cannot be cool calm and collected.

You failed to answer any of my questions, you failed to demonstrate you understood my point of view. Instead you demanded I listen to you because of your credentials.

I am not worried about any blood-borne illnesses. If I inject myself with someone elses blood, if it is not in too great a quantity, I will be just fine. If I have a similar blood type, the chance of any severe adverse reaction is almost nill, as there will be little agglutination. Instead my lymphatic system will clear out the foreign blood and proteins I injected into my body, and there will be no long term effect. Just maybe a slight fever for a day or so. Which I am willing to deal with to prove my point.


As far as medical advice, I do not claim to do this, because of the legalities. Indeed when I become a licensed doctor, I will not have any option but to operate within the context of what the law allows. I know the limitations. This doesn't hinder me from being able to voice my opinion, suggest what I would do, and give out medical advice that is within the context of what is legally viable.

For instance me stating that there are severe side effects from the drugs is perfectly fine. This is WELL established. Lipodystrophy, Hepatic damage, increased risk of heart disease and insulin production. Telling people that they are the ones who get to call the shots and I simply give them information is NOT medical negligence. I would always suggest for them to see another doctor for a second opinion, specifically one who parroted the mainstream views on HIV causing AIDS for instance.

What you don't understand is you don't have the right to insult me and suggest I am engaging in FRAUD. Libel and defamatory attacks are just as serious as fraud. Do not become the monster you accuse me of being, sir.

When did I ever tell anyone what they must do? I stated what my conclusion is, based on my research.

You still have not responded to me, but beyond this, I have a clip of Janine Roberts talking about the fraud she uncovered in Gallos papers, with visual evidence of the paper reproduced on video so you can take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdq1OXGBXV4&feature=related part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVcooMSrg3E&feature=related part 2


Thanks. And please, a little less anger in the next post.

Respond to the questions if you want to have a discussion. I didn't come here to fling dirt on people or have it flung on me. If you don't want to discuss, and all you can result to is insults, you are no better than ImprobableJoe, who clearly doesn't have a PhD as you do.

As far as the injection proposal, you better believe I am absolutely serious, and I will do this in time no matter what. I want to find an HIV+ AIDS patient who is willing to do this. I have not yet begun to inquire about this yet, but I will very soon. But I would just as soon rather challenge a member of the orthodoxy to the task, and you fit the bill pretty well. You are absolutely certain that I am an idiot. I would love nothing more than to prove you wrong, and help science move forward and help virologists reconsider some of their assumptions, which are wrong.

Virologists admit that their field is rife with unknowns, inexplicable things, that they rely on correlation for many conclusions, and yet they do not consider that their field is misguided looking for diseases to be caused by viruses rather than the other way around.

Sad.

Anyways, I look forward to a mature and calm response. Otherwise I will assume you are incapable of addressing my points, and have to revert to ad homenims.

Thanks.

 

[ExeFBM]

If you went through with your experiment, and after 6 months the HIV test came back as positive. Would you conclude that the HIV virus exists, or would you have an alternative explanation for the positive result?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If you went through with your experiment, and after 6 months the HIV test came back as positive. Would you conclude that the HIV virus exists, or would you have an alternative explanation for the positive result?

Maybe "The Man" faked the results? Or, possibly, "The Man" secretly poisoned Parachute669 with "teh ghey" in order to create a positive test result?

It isn't about evidence, it is about a need to feel special and smart, without doing any of the real work involved in ACTUALLY being special or smart.

 

[paradigm667]

If you went through with your experiment, and after 6 months the HIV test came back as positive. Would you conclude that the HIV virus exists, or would you have an alternative explanation for the positive result?

So as to not be unfair, I would make the agreement such that if I tested HIV+ I would agree to retract all my statements about HIV and AIDS. I would agree to even be used as a poster child for "why denialists are dangerous" or something like that. With the condition that if I DIDN'T test positive, on ALL three tests, that the individual that I challenged should publicly admit that their prediction was not accurate, that mine was more accurate, and that they do not evidently comprehend the nature of AIDS as well as the dissidents.

All I ask is that the HIV tests I take to be blind to the testers. Which basically means I take blood from 10 or 20 healthy individuals who all have known HIV- or HIV+ status, and test theirs along with mine in a blind setting where an independent person knows the correct identity of the various people's blood samples so as to not let laboratory tester bias come into play, because indeed HIV+ status is a spectrum diagnosis. That's another hilarious joke about HIV tests. The ELISA is spectrum based, which means there can be "positive" "negative" or "indeterminate" results. And the Western Blot is simply the proteins individually isolated by electrophoresis. The funny thing about the WB test, is that the criteria for what a positive result is, differs based on lab to lab, country to country and continent to continent. How odd.

HIV POSITIVE ? DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU LIVE...

THE HIV WESTERN BLOT TEST


The HIV Western blot consists of a thin nitrocellulose strip in which are embedded proteins claimed to be unique to HIV. Each protein is labelled with a 'p' followed by its molecular weight in thousands. Serum is added to the strip and if there are antibodies to a particular protein this band will 'light up'.

The HIV Western blot is not standardised and thus around the world different combinations of bands are considered positive. Hence a positive test in one country is not positive in another. An African would not be positive in Australia. A person from the MACS would not be positive anywhere in the world including Africa. Yet the HIV Western blot is considered to be highly specific and is considered synonymous with HIV infection.

According to data presented in Lundberg et al. (JAMA 260:674-679) when the US FDA criteria are used to interpret the HIV Western blot less than 50% of US AIDS patients are HIV positive whereas 10% of persons not at risk of AIDS are also positive by the same criteria.

AFR = Africa; AUS = Australia; FDA = US Food and Drug Administration; RCX = US Red Cross; CDC = US Center for Disease Control; CON = US Consortium for Retrovirus Serology Standardization; GER = Germany; UK = United Kingdom; FRA = France; MACS = US Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study 1983-1992.

Anyway, yeah, I'm willing to give absolutely no excuses about testing positive. I won't test positive, because I know what the test tests for, and how to avoid a positive result. It's quite simple: Keep the immune system at ease. Do not tax the body, and keep stress low. All the HIV test tests for is a hyperactive immune system, which can be brought about by a variety of factors including:

Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV Antibody Test Results

Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52, 19, 13)
Naturally-occurring antibodies (5, 19)
Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)(18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)
Leprosy (2, 25)
Tuberculosis (25)
Mycobacterium avium (25)
Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)
Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)
Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)
Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)
Flu (36)
Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)
Herpes simplex I (27)
Herpes simplex II (11)
Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11)
Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)
Pregnancy in multiparous women (58, 53, 13, 43, 36)
Malaria (6, 12)
High levels of circulating immune complexes (6, 33)
Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) (40, 33)
False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis (17, 48, 33, 10, 49)
Rheumatoid arthritis (36)
Hepatitis B vaccination (28, 21, 40, 43)
Tetanus vaccination (40)
Organ transplantation (1, 36)
Renal transplantation (35, 9, 48, 13, 56)
Anti-lymphocyte antibodies (56, 31)
Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)(31)
Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)(14, 62, 53)
Autoimmune diseases (44, 29, 10, 40, 49, 43): Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis
Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections (59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13)
Malignant neoplasms (cancers)(40)
Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease (32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53)
Primary sclerosing cholangitis (48, 53)
Hepatitis (54)
"Sticky" blood (in Africans) (38, 34, 40)
Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)(62, 40, 3)
Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions (63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41)
Multiple myeloma (10, 43, 53)
HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)(7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53)
Anti-smooth muscle antibody (48)
Anti-parietal cell antibody (48)
Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)(48)
Anti-Hbc IgM (48)
Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 (10)
Haemophilia (10, 49)
Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma (43, 53, 9, 48, 13)
Primary biliary cirrhosis (43, 53, 13, 48)
Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13)
Q-fever with associated hepatitis (61)
Heat-treated specimens (51, 57, 24, 49, 48)
Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids)(49)
Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red cells)(49)
Hyperbilirubinemia (10, 13)
Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups)(10, 13, 48)
Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions (10)
Normal human ribonucleoproteins (48,13)
Other retroviruses (8, 55, 14, 48, 13)
Anti-mitochondrial antibodies (48, 13)
Anti-nuclear antibodies (48, 13, 53)
Anti-microsomal antibodies (34)
T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies (48, 13)
Proteins on the filter paper (13)
Epstein-Barr virus (37)
Visceral leishmaniasis (45)
Receptive anal sex (39, 64)

References

1. Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier J-P, et al. 1992. False-positive antigens related to emergence of a 25-30 kD protein detected in organ recipients. AIDS. 6:959-962.

2. Andrade V, Avelleira JC, Marques A, et al. 1991. Leprosy as a cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1. Intl. J. Leprosy. 59:125.

3. Arnold NL, Slade RA, Jones MM, et al. 1994. Donor follow up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity. Vox Sanguinis. 67:191.

4. Ascher D, Roberts C. 1993. Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting. AIDS. 6:241.

5. Barbacid M, Bolgnesi D, Aaronson S. 1980. Humans have antibodies capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1617-1621.

6. Biggar R, Melbye M, Sarin P, et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans. Lancet. ii:520-543.

7. Blanton M, Balakrishnan K, Dumaswala U, et al. 1987. HLA antibodies in blood donors with reactive screening tests for antibody to the immunodeficiency virus. Transfusion. 27(1):118.

8. Blomberg J, Vincic E, Jonsson C, et al. 1990. Identification of regions of HIV-1 p24 reactive with sera which give "indeterminate" results in electrophoretic immunoblots with the help of long synthetic peptides. AIDS Res. Hum. Retro. 6:1363.

9. Burkhardt U, Mertens T, Eggers H. 1987. Comparison of two commercially available anti-HIV ELISA's: Abbott HTLV-III ELA and DuPont HTLV-III ELISA. J. Med. Vir. 23:217.

10. Bylund D, Ziegner U, Hooper D. 1992 Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 12:305-333.

11. Challakere K, Rapaport M. 1993. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects. West. J. Med. 159(2):214-215.

12. Charmot G, Simon F. 1990. HIV infection and malaria. Revue du practicien. 40:2141.

13. Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177.

14. Dock N, Lamberson H, O'Brien T, et al. 1988. Evaluation of atypical human immunodeficiency virus immunoblot reactivity in blood donors. Transfusion. 28:142.

15. Esteva M, Blasini A, Ogly D, et al. 1992. False positive results for antibody to HIV in two men with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 51:1071-1073.

16. Fassbinder W, Kuhni P, Neumayer H. et al. 1986. Prevalence of antibodies against LAV/HTLV-III [HIV] in patients with terminal renal insufficiency treated with hemodialysis and following renal transplantation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 111:1087.

17. Fleming D, Cochi S, Steece R. et al. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in low-incidence areas. JAMA. 258(6):785.

18. Gill MJ, Rachlis A, Anand C. 1991. Five cases of erroneously diagnosed HIV infection. Can. Med. Asso. J. 145(12):1593.

19. Healey D, Bolton W. 1993. Apparent HIV-1 glycoprotein reactivity on Western blot in uninfected blood donors. AIDS. 7:655-658.

20. Hisa J. 1993. False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus after influenza vaccination. JID. 167:989.

21. Isaacman S. 1989. Positive HIV antibody test results after treatment with hepatitis B immune globulin. JAMA. 262:209.

22. Jackson G, Rubenis M, Knigge M, et al. 1988. Passive immunoneutralisation of human immunodeficiency virus in patients with advanced AIDS. Lancet, Sept. 17:647.

23. Jindal R, Solomon M, Burrows L. 1993. False positive tests for HIV in a woman with lupus and renal failure. NEJM. 328:1281-1282.

24. Jungkind D, DiRenzo S, Young S. 1986. Effect of using heat-inactivated serum with the Abbott human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III [HIV] antibody test. J. Clin. Micro. 23:381.

25. Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al. 1994. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna. J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304.

26. Lai-Goldman M, McBride J, Howanitz P, et al. 1987. Presence of HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in immune serum globulin preparations. Am. J. Clin. Path. 87:635.

27. Langedijk J, Vos W, Doornum G, et al. 1992. Identification of cross-reactive epitopes recognized by HIV-1 false-positive sera. AIDS. 6:1547-1548.

28. Lee D, Eby W, Molinaro G. 1992. HIV false positivity after hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet. 339:1060.

29. Leo-Amador G, Ramirez-Rodriguez J, Galvan-Villegas F, et al. 1990. Antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus in generalized lupus erythematosus. Salud Publica de Mexico. 32:15.

30. Mackenzie W, Davis J, Peterson D. et al. 1992. Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis C following influenza vaccination, 1991. JAMA. 268:1015-1017.

31. Mathe G. 1992. Is the AIDS virus responsible for the disease? Biomed & Pharmacother. 46:1-2.

32. Mendenhall C, Roselle G, Grossman C, et al. 1986. False-positive tests for HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in alcoholic patients with hepatitis. NEJM. 314:921.

33. Moore J, Cone E, Alexander S. 1986. HTLV-III [HIV] seropositivity in 1971-1972 parenteral drug abusers - a case of false-positives or evidence of viral exposure? NEJM. 314:1387-1388.

34. Mortimer P, Mortimer J, Parry J. 1985. Which anti-HTLV-III/LAV [HIV] assays for screening and comfirmatory testing? Lancet. Oct. 19, p873.

35. Neale T, Dagger J, Fong R, et al. 1985. False-positive anti-HTLV-III [HIV] serology. New Zealand Med. J. October 23.

36. Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667-1668.

37. Ozanne G, Fauvel M. 1988. Perfomance and reliability of five commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects. J. Clin. Micro. 26:1496.

38. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. 1988. Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med. Hypo. 25:151.

39. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, and Papadimitriou J. 1993. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology. June 11:696-707.

40. Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. 1994. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 118-805.

41. Peternan T, Lang G, Mikos N, et al. Hemodialysis/renal failure. 1986. JAMA. 255:2324.

42. Piszkewicz D. 1987. HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies after immune globulin. JAMA. 257:316.

43. Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.

44. Ranki A, Kurki P, Reipponen S, et al. 1992. Antibodies to retroviral proteins in autoimmune connective tissue disease. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 35:1483.

45. Ribeiro T, Brites C, Moreira E, et al. 1993. Serologic validation of HIV infection in a tropical area. JAIDS. 6:319.

46. Sayers M, Beatty P, Hansen J. 1986. HLA antibodies as a cause of false-positive reactions in screening enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus type III [HIV]. Transfusion. 26(1):114.

47. Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtmeier G, et al. 1996. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western blot tests in non-infected blood donors. Transfusion. 36:45.

48. Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.

49. Schochetman G, George J. 1992. Serologic tests for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus infection. In AIDS Testing Methodology and Management Issues, Springer-Verlag, New York.

50. Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro C, et al. 1995. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am. J. Epidem. 141-1089.

51. Smith D, Dewhurst S, Shepherd S, et al. 1987. False-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactions for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in a population of midwestern patients with congenital bleeding disorders. Transfusion. 127:112.

52. Snyder H, Fleissner E. 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to oncovirus glycoproteins; Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1622-1626.

53. Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.

54. Sungar C, Akpolat T, Ozkuyumcu C, et al. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients. Nephron. 67:251.

55. Tribe D, Reed D, Lindell P, et al. 1988. Antibodies reactive with human immunodeficiency virus gag-coated antigens (gag reactive only) are a major cause of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactivity in a bood donor population. J. Clin. Micro. April:641.

56. Ujhelyi E, Fust G, Illei G, et al. 1989. Different types of false positive anti-HIV reactions in patients on hemodialysis. Immun. Let. 22:35-40.

57. Van Beers D, Duys M, Maes M, et al. Heat inactivation of serum may interfere with tests for antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III [HIV]. J. Vir. Meth. 12:329.

58. Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.

59. Weber B, Moshtaghi-Borojeni M, Brunner M, et al. 1995. Evaluation of the reliability of six current anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 enzyme immunoassays. J. Vir. Meth. 55:97.

60. Wood C, Williams A, McNamara J, et al. 1986. Antibody against the human immunodeficiency virus in commercial intravenous gammaglobulin preparations. Ann. Int. Med. 105:536.

61. Yale S, Degroen P, Tooson J, et al. 1994. Unusual aspects of acute Q fever-associated hepatitis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 69:769.

62. Yoshida T, Matsui T, Kobayashi M, et al. 1987. Evaluation of passive particle agglutination test for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus. J. Clin. Micro. Aug:1433.

63. Yu S, Fong C, Landry M, et al. 1989. A false positive HIV antibody reaction due to transfusion-induced HLA-DR4 sensitization. NEJM.320:1495.

64. National Institue of Justice, AIDS Bulletin. Oct. 1988.

In fact anyone can test positive on an HIV test. This is why the test itself requires 400X dilution! Insanity. Because ANYONE can test positive because the proteins that are tested for are UBIQUITOUS, the only difference is when you have an active immune system for whatever reason (persistent stress associated with AIDS is EXACTLY this) these various proteins are more common in the blood and so the test dilution of 400x serves to try and isolate those who have hyperactive immune systems, the problem is, that the test doesn't actually test for HIV! If it did, you would expect equal ratios of the various proteins with respect to the percentage of the theoretical HIV virus they are supposed to comprise. For instance if an HIV virus is thought to consist of:
10% protein 1
25% protein 2
30% protein 3
10% protein 4
15% protein 5
10% protein 6

Then you would expect to see similar numbers in the blood, on these HIV tests, however, this does't happen. You can have a huge amount of protein 6 and almost no protein 3 and it doesn't matter. You are assumed to be HIV+ as long as you have a certain amount. An amount that was not decided to be synonymous with HIV in the blood based on any science, rather based on the opinion and assumptions of doctors and researchers.

Here is a link to the 400x dilution:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rgelisa.htm



Anyway, like I said before, I would be willing to put it all on the line. Back when everyone was screaming that scurvy was infectious and the medical authorities and all the experts were certain about it, a small group of doctors used to hold gatherings where they would swallow the scabs of scurvy patients to prove that scurvy wasn't infectious. They were thought of as crazy. Now it's well established that scurvy isn't in any way viral or infectious.

This is no different. We're all just stuck in a given paradigm. It needs to shift. It will. These things take time, but I'll gladly give it a nudge if I can.

 

[paradigm667]

Maybe "The Man" faked the results? Or, possibly, "The Man" secretly poisoned Parachute669 with "teh ghey" in order to create a positive test result?

It isn't about evidence, it is about a need to feel special and smart, without doing any of the real work involved in ACTUALLY being special or smart.

ImprobableJoe,
Why do you hate me? What have I done to you personally? If you disagree with me, give me some science rather than just blindly thinking that by accepting all science dogma you are somehow noble.

I don't have anything against you man. Why the hostility? If you are sure I am wrong, great. Let's discuss it. All you do is waste your time insulting people. Why?

You're being incredibly childish considering the name of this forum is league of reason. Why the constant insults? They serve no purpose.

Thanks.

 

[ExeFBM]

If you're planning to do a double blind study, then your going to need a hell of a lot of money. Bare minimum $10,000, and you'll have to convince a hell of a lot of medical professionals to be involved in a study that involves trying to intentionally infect someone with HIV. I don't think that you'll be able to achieve this. Also I don't think you should, but I don't think anyone here is going to change your mind.

 

[paradigm667]

If you're planning to do a double blind study, then your going to need a hell of a lot of money. Bare minimum $10,000, and you'll have to convince a hell of a lot of medical professionals to be involved in a study that involves trying to intentionally infect someone with HIV. I don't think that you'll be able to achieve this. Also I don't think you should, but I don't think anyone here is going to change your mind.

Well, that's the thing. There will be no acceptance of this study by the profession. So I have to do it on my own, and simply document it and have witnesses and put it on camera etc. My goal is not to get it published and have the experts read it, but rather to raise the awareness of the public on this matter. If people start demanding an honest debate between the dissident camp and the "authorities" that's when change can happen.

I'm not crazy. I'm not some "nutter" who thinks the moon is hollow. I know it seems like I fit in the same camp, but my concerns I raise are all valid. The problem is that I am going against industry sponsored medicine/virology. It's hard to pierce the armor of these institutions. They are not interested in truth.

For instance the fact that boosting your glutathione levels is one of the most profound things anyone can do to avoid disease. This means eating foods that do not deplete these levels, as well as getting plenty of sunlight and Vitamin D, which stimulates glutathione production. This is how I have avoided the flu and cold, in fact many more diseases in the last 2 1/2 years since I decided to make lifestyle changes.

This is how many people reverse their AIDS symptoms without drugs, etc.

Once again, I am not anti-science. I feel bad that I am looked at this way though, and I understand why. I really think that if people just took a look at this information they would not be as certain about this HIV/AIDS paradigm.

Check the documentary AIDS Inc. It's free on GoogleVideo. See if you think it's full of bullshit, or if it's full of logical, evidence based concerns.

Peace.

 

[c0nc0rdance]

My goal is not to get it published and have the experts read it, but rather to raise the awareness of the public on this matter. If people start demanding an honest debate between the dissident camp and the "authorities" that's when change can happen.

I'm not crazy. I'm not some "nutter" who thinks the moon is hollow. I know it seems like I fit in the same camp, but my concerns I raise are all valid. The problem is that I am going against industry sponsored medicine/virology. It's hard to pierce the armor of these institutions. They are not interested in truth.

For instance the fact that boosting your glutathione levels is one of the most profound things anyone can do to avoid disease. This means eating foods that do not deplete these levels, as well as getting plenty of sunlight and Vitamin D, which stimulates glutathione production. This is how I have avoided the flu and cold, in fact many more diseases in the last 2 1/2 years since I decided to make lifestyle changes.

This is how many people reverse their AIDS symptoms without drugs, etc.

Once again, I am not anti-science. I feel bad that I am looked at this way though, and I understand why. I really think that if people just took a look at this information they would not be as certain about this HIV/AIDS paradigm.

LET ME REPEAT:
DO NOT INJECT YOURSELF WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S BLOOD .
You run the risk of some very serious health effects, including but not limited to HIV. If you decide to do this, please seek out a licensed physician for advice first.

What you are suggesting violates many rules of medical and scientific ethics. Injecting yourself will get you barred from practicing any form of licensed healing in the future, and may get you arrested and sent for psychiatric treatment. This is not a threat, it is a warning of what the consequences are of intentionally putting yourself in peril of your life. Think it through before you make the worst mistake of your life.

Never offer cures or diagnosis over the Internet. You are not qualified to practice medicine, and that includes diagnosing or suggesting treatments. Likewise, never take medical advice from anyone on the Internet. Again, this is not a threat, it is a warning. Fraud is a serious crime, punishable in criminal and civil courts.


Now on to your assertions.

A. A reducing diet that is rich in the right fatty acids, vegetables and fruits, regular exercise, and small amounts of sunlight can be very good supplements to regular checkups and normal medical intervention. They are all supporting the natural immune function.

No scientist I know would dispute the benefit of a healthy lifestyle. You should have stopped talking there, though.

There are no documented, systematic studies of AIDS symptoms being reversed by diet. Mitigated, no doubt, but not reversed. Seeking the advice of a physician is always a smart move.

B. You ARE anti-science because you are rejecting the scientific method of peer review and evidentiary support. Instead, you have chosen the denialist methodology: choose a destination in advance, and accept only the evidence that fits your chosen destination. If evidence can't be found, find correlations, use testimonial quotes, attack the credibility of scientists, and, above all: insist that the mainstream are suppressing the truth.

You've done all of these things. They are the basis of your argument.

The problem is that I am going against industry sponsored medicine/virology. It's hard to pierce the armor of these institutions. They are not interested in truth.

C. This is the most unscientific thing I have heard all week. What we are not interested in is the unsupported opinions of the uneducated.

Science is a self-critical, self correcting process. It is open, but not democratic. All ideas are not held up equally. Only those that are supported by evidence. Only those that are published in a way that is useful to other scientists.

You are welcome to question and have opinions. When you are ready to do science, I suggest you get an advanced education, then spend some time learning the basic skills of the investigator. Then, when you are a competent scientist, design and perform your experiments. Submit your results to peer-review in a scientific journal. Respond to criticisms, have your colleagues repeat and confirm your work. Then, you will be participating in the debate with the other 100,000+ published HIV researchers.

What you want to do is skip over 10 more years of education, 4 years of laboratory experimentation, the process of peer-review and confirmation, and go straight to a conclusion. You, like the creationists who use the same tactic, want to bypass science and go straight to debate.

But that's NOT science. It's denialism.

 

[paradigm667]

Please do not tell me what I can or cannot do, ever again. I do not tell you anything other than the fact that you are wrong.
You can spend ten years promoting a specific vision of a lie, don't get mad at someone who sees through the errors. You build a foundation out of thin air, then you stack upon it millions of pounds in weight. All I have to do is show the foundation is bunk, in order to disprove the conclusions anyone's 10 year research has led to.

But let me repeat:
If you raise your voice again and tell me what to do once again, I will consider this a lack of self control on your part, immaturity, and a general tendency to deal with problems and people who disagree with your viewpoint by flailing your arms about and being insulting.

You still didn't respond to my points. Nor did you accept or reject my offer to you. I would be willing to wave any and all responsibilities on your behalf. The entire project would be my idea, by my own volition, etc.

And as far as seeking out a licensed physician, no. I will never do this, for just being licensed doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean the individual understands health. It only means they know how to follow protocol and stick to the rules. The rules stink. The products and practices most physicians use are harmful, dangerous, and must only be visited by people who understand the uses that a standard physician has, which are not many. Mostly, just the diagnostic tests that they can prescribe and carry out. Other than that, the modern physician is USELESS.

I will repeat one more time though:
If you ever, ever tell me what to do again I am finished taking you seriously or speaking to you.
You have no right to tell me anything about what I can or cannot do. You have the right to tell me what you think I should do or what you think is right, but if you shout me another order, I might start getting really upset.

 

[Finger]

paradigm667, you are a phenomenal retard.

 

[Finger]

If you ever, ever tell me what to do again I am finished taking you seriously or speaking to you.
You have no right to tell me anything about what I can or cannot do. You have the right to tell me what you think I should do or what you think is right, but if you shout me another order, I might start getting really upset.

And you've got serious daddy issues.

 

[Giliell]

l

A. A reducing diet that is rich in the right fatty acids, vegetables and fruits, regular exercise, and small amounts of sunlight can be very good supplements to regular checkups and normal medical intervention. They are all supporting the natural immune function.

No scientist I know would dispute the benefit of a healthy lifestyle. You should have stopped talking there, though.

Ehm, you haven't yet heard or read about what Paradigm considers a healthy diet, have you? He's a frutarian and he will claim that anything you and I and all serious nutritionists consider a healthy diet is actually poison.

But I find it funny that actually Paradigm complains about people giving advice :lol:

 

[ExeFBM]

You still didn't respond to my points. Nor did you accept or reject my offer to you. I would be willing to wave any and all responsibilities on your behalf. The entire project would be my idea, by my own volition, etc.

Regardless of waivers, and responsibilities, I don't think anyone here hates you enough to assist you in this. I think everyone on this board views what you're planning, as equivalent to someone saying that they can stop bullets with their mind, and trying to find someone to shoot them to prove their point. That's how I view it. The bullet may be slower, and your personal belief may be strong, but I doubt you'll find someone here, who will knowingly do something that results in another persons death, without exceptionally strong circumstances.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You are welcome to question and have opinions. When you are ready to do science, I suggest you get an advanced education, then spend some time learning the basic skills of the investigator. Then, when you are a competent scientist, design and perform your experiments. Submit your results to peer-review in a scientific journal. Respond to criticisms, have your colleagues repeat and confirm your work. Then, you will be participating in the debate with the other 100,000+ published HIV researchers.

What you want to do is skip over 10 more years of education, 4 years of laboratory experimentation, the process of peer-review and confirmation, and go straight to a conclusion. You, like the creationists who use the same tactic, want to bypass science and go straight to debate.

But that's NOT science. It's denialism.

You must have missed the part where he claimed to be seeking a "degree" in "naturopathic medicine." He plans on studying make-believe medicine, even though he clearly believes that he knows enough right now to diagnose and treat people over the Internet. So eventually he'll have a piece of paper which will in his mind legitimize his ignorance and anti-science viewpoint.

He is just like the creationists who get degrees in "Biblical science" except that his nonsense gets people killed.

 

[Canto]

I think at this point he needs to be removed from these forums. He's demonstrated no regard for himself or other posters. He has shown that he's not interested in a reasoned debate with others. He devolves into adhoms and temper tantrums whenever he runs out of "answers".

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think at this point he needs to be removed from these forums. He's demonstrated no regard for himself or other posters. He has shown that he's not interested in a reasoned debate with others. He devolves into adhoms and temper tantrums whenever he runs out of "answers".

I think he needs to be removed from the Internet, personally. I don't care about the name-calling and the boorish behavior. That's just "tone" and I'm not interested in it. What I care about is that he's willing to put other people's lives at risk with his amateur pretend doctor act, and my only concern would be that he uses this site as a platform from which to commit further acts of medical fraud. The fact that he believes every stupid conspiracy theory he comes across, and rejects every shred of evidence in the entire world as part of the "conspiracy" is no reason to remove him. The fact that he's willing to act on those beliefs by giving people medical advice makes him a menace to anyone unfortunate enough to stumble across his path.

 

[c0nc0rdance]

paradigm667:

This is my last communication to you. I want no part in whatever act you have planned. I urge you to seek out some form of counsel (legal and medical) before attempting anything this dangerous and unnecessary. Do not throw your life and future away to prove a point.

I suspect that what you are suggesting is not only immoral, but also illegal in your municipality. Putting yourself in peril hurts not only you, it can result in consequences for others. You can end up sick, in jail, and with no prospects for the future. Don't do it.

c0nc0rdance.

 

[paradigm667]

That's funny. I resulted to ad homenims? Interesting.
I don't appreciate people telling me what to do and accusing me of things I didn't do is all.

I'm being totally reasonable actually. It's amazing that I am lambasted though, as I am.

I'm not saying I can stop bullets with my mind. It's not that at all. It's more like this...I am at a bank and someone with a gun comes in and does a hold-up. But I believe the gun is nothing more than a spray painted water-gun. So I start to approach the thief and he threatens that he'll shoot. And I say "Go ahead. Shoot me."
In other words I am calling a bluff.

The HIV virus has never been isolated, photographed, or proved to exist and cause disease. Furthermore, AIDS is a condition that is better explained by the usage of street drugs, overuse of antibiotics, poppers, and severe malnutrition. The tests for HIV do not test for HIV, in fact here are some quotes from the test kit makers:

ELISA Test

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in
human blood." (Abbott Laboratories, ELISA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Sensitivity and
Specificity")

"EIA testing cannot be used to diagnose AIDS... The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly
reactive serum developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories, ELISA
HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure")

"Clinical studies continue to clarify and refine the interpretation and medical significance of the presence
of antibodies to HIV-1." (Abbott Laboratories, ELSA HIV Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the
Procedure")


Western Blot Test

"Do not use this kit as the sole basis of diagnosis of HIV-1 infection." (Eptope, Inc., Western Blot HIV
Antibody Test Insert, section "Limitations of the Procedure")

"The clinical implications of antibodies to HIV-1 in an asymptomatic person are not known." (Calypte,
Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Western Blot Kit, section "Limitations of the Serum and Plasma Procedure")


PCR "Viral Load" Test

"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR test, is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a
diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection." (Roche, Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor Test Kit,
section "Intended Use")

It's amazing though, that I am thought of as crazy. Or pseudoscientific.
I am neither. Pseudoscience is making a claim that cannot be verified. My claim can be EASILY verified. I wish to inject myself with the serum of someone who has AIDS. I should at the very least test HIV+ after doing so, if not start getting AIDS symptoms. If I do not test HIV+ even after repeated tests, this means my hypothesis has some credence, and it should be more thoroughly investigated. Why am I being lambasted.

You think people in Africa are starving because they are wildly spreading some disease through sex? And they need condoms and antiviral drugs? I don't think so at all. There are plenty of examples where this is refuted. There are cases of little girls, who are born from HIV- mothers, test HIV+ despite never have had sex, sharing a needle, or any other risk factor other than being poor, having no food and having dirty water. There are sex workers who screw 10+ men a day and they have cash to go buy food, to have clean water, and a better standard of living. And guess what? They are the ones that are more likely to never get AIDS or test HIV+. Researchers are perplexed. Because they are forced to think within the context of infectious disease. They don't know what they are doing. So many enzymes and transcription factors and TNF, IL-2, IL-6, PHA, etc, and blood tests, and so on, that these poor researchers can't just zoom out for two seconds and say "ohh, the level of ones nutrition and access to clean water seems to be quite relevant here."

A virologists isn't going to find a nutritional answer. A virologists isn't going to find a brain-related answer. This is why science is a very odd process these days. It's all bureaucratic these days. It's all mono-disciplinary.
If I took a few individuals with scurvy, and didn't tell a virologist that they had scurvy, for instance I said "These people have a disease that looks like scurvy, but it's not, we controlled for that. Look for the cause of the symptoms." The first thing a virologist would do is look for something in their blood and tissue (virologically, or proteins associated with viruses) and try and find something in these people's blood that is not present in the general public, or is significantly elevated. It wouldn't be long before some kind of marker for viral expression would be discovered that is not present in the general public and the virologist may conclude that these people are suffering from X viral disease. That is if the virologist is particularly bad or lazy. A better virologist might continue past the first sign of just ONE difference and try and find more than one if there are.
The virologist may find something else, then they would try and decide whether they were related, cascading where one causes the others, or how exactly these other virus particles interface. After some calculation it would be decided whether they are co-factors, or, more likely, that one specific virus drives the cascade for the rest and therefore that initial virus is the culprit.

It would be embarrassing to tell them at the end of their search that the person actually had scurvy and nothing more.

Virologists only look for what they want to find. And even when they find a virus, they assume that since the virus correlates with disease, that it causes it. They are simply wrong. It doesn't matter how many years and decades one has spent with their head in the books, all they learn are more and more specific details about this theory of viruses causing disease. It's just like a registered dietitian thinking they know a damn thing about diet because they had their heads in books for years.
Industry science.
Science with boundaries. Science that we mustn't question. Mustn't point out it's errors. A five year old can disprove the infectious AIDS hypothesis. Here you go:

How does one explain the constant number of infected persons living with "HIV" and the exponential increase in AIDS?

I know the answer. But I'll let you all try and figure it out.

Peace.

And stop hating on me like I'm some psychopath. I'm bringing up viable issues and you guys are just name calling. Why?

Even the PhD in the house didn't respond to my actual questions. If you wanted to have a debate or discussion, why are you not debating or discussing?

I am seeing just a bunch of insults. Don't worry about me and my safety. Don't worry about me and my "degree" in "natural medicine."
Just worry about the points I raised. I'm not interested in insulting you folks for your personal life, or shouting insults or telling you what to do. I'm here to debate and discuss. If you don't want to do that and all you can do here at the league of reason is insult me, that shows me not that I have made an error in judgement, but that you folks cannot answer me.

If I debate with a Christian and they tell me "nothing you can do or say will change my mind about my faith," I don't give up. I continue to debate my points because I am a firm advocate in the notion that if you give people enough argument and evidence for something and your reasoning is good enough, they may leave behind their dogma if the suggested explanation is more sound and indeed supported by reality.

 

[paradigm667]

paradigm667:

This is my last communication to you. I want no part in whatever act you have planned. I urge you to seek out some form of counsel (legal and medical) before attempting anything this dangerous and unnecessary. Do not throw your life and future away to prove a point.

I suspect that what you are suggesting is not only immoral, but also illegal in your municipality. Putting yourself in peril hurts not only you, it can result in consequences for others. You can end up sick, in jail, and with no prospects for the future. Don't do it.

c0nc0rdance.

Look, here's the deal then...I will retract that statement. As far as me and you are concerned, I will take your advice. I will not mention anything about it anymore either.

I would like to discuss things with you however, especially because you seem to be a competent and trained virologist. I think I honestly have points that are worth discussing and it's a shame for something trivial to get in the way of discussion.

Will you continue to discuss? I just said I have taken your advice. I will not seek out anyone to inject me with their HIV+ blood.

Now can we get back on topic? And not offend one another?

 

[Marcus]

I'm not saying I can stop bullets with my mind. It's not that at all. It's more like this...I am at a bank and someone with a gun comes in and does a hold-up. But I believe the gun is nothing more than a spray painted water-gun. So I start to approach the thief and he threatens that he'll shoot. And I say "Go ahead. Shoot me."
In other words I am calling a bluff.

...and everyone else in the bank has seen and heard the robber pulling back the slide, checking there's a round chambered and taking off the safety, and they're calling out for you not to be an idiot.