19 replies to this topic

[Johann]

From David Crowe,

Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society

David Crowe
December 1st 2009

Luc Montagnier was crowned Prince of AIDS in December 2008 by the Nobel Prize for Medicine, being acclaimed the discoverer of LAV (now known as HIV) in a man who did not have AIDS (but was believed to be at risk) in 1983. One of the reasons it took almost 25 years to award the prize must have been the question of who should be crowned. Montagnier is infinitely malleable but his view of HIV is far more nuanced and oftentimes heretical than the dogmas that have grown up around him. Gallo, everyone knew, produced highly questionable if not totally corrupt science, but would lash out if spurned. The decision to go with Montagnier must have been nail–biting. Could he keep his mouth shut and would Gallo keep his temper? They would be happy for the new prince to stay locked up in his palace, living with whatever luxuries he rang for. Nobody would care whether he romped with princesses, collected antique cars or stirred up new viral cultures – all he had to do was stay on script, a vain hope because he has never done that before. But, maybe they were counting on a compliant media that would continue their job of not reporting the news. Pictures of the Prince are okay, but not his words. They were not counting on the young film maker Brent Leung.

When I heard Montagnier speak in Calgary in January 2009, just after his award, he stayed on script for the first part of his talk, but then started on about how AIDS was a disease of oxidative stress, and later about how oxidative stress could be reversed through the use of antioxidants such as his favorite, fermented papaya. He was careful to talk about antioxidants in the context of other diseases he blamed on oxidative stress, not AIDS, so it appears that, basking in the glow of this great man of science, nobody noticed the trail of breadcrumbs from oxidative stress to AIDS and from antioxidants back to health.

Filmmaker Brent Leung has now released new footage of Montagnier, far beyond what made the cut into his documentary, House of Numbers". During this almost entirely unedited interview he kept Montagnier on the subject of HIV and AIDS. All I can say is, "Remarkable! Stunning! Shocking! Amazing!". In it Montagnier states that someone with a healthy immune system could be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected and that it is malnutrition that makes the immune systems of Africans weak and the diseases of TB, malaria and parasitic infections. "Water is key", clearly meaning clean water, without parasites and pollutants.

When Leung asks him, "If you take a poor African who's been infected and you build up their immune system, is it possible for them to also naturally get rid of it [HIV]?". Montagnier responds, "I would think so…It's important knowledge that is completely neglected. People always think of drugs and vaccines."

Don't let me tell you what Montagnier said. Listen for yourself and watch how calm and sincere he is. This is not a man nervously trying to evade questions. This is a man who is at ease with his ideas. Perhaps, seated on his throne in the Institut Pasteur he wasn't thinking about the effect of his beliefs on his legions of warriors around the world.

Montagnier is careful not to completely discount a role for HIV, but that's not important. He dismantles three quarters of the house of cards that is AIDS and never once recites the mainstream creed, "I believe in one virus, HIV, exclusive maker of death and destruction, and of all things visible and invisible."

Black box warning to the AIDS establishment: BLEEP BLEEP BLEEP (flashing red lights) Enter damage control mode now! Deny, obfuscate, lie if you have to. Arm the nukes. Turn on the PR pumps. Threaten to torpedo the prince. Make him repeat the dogmas in public. You cannot let this message get out! DIVE DIVE DIVE!

[medicineman]

Being an HIV-AIDS hypothesis denialist is like being an atheist, during the dark ages..... I don't know what to make out of this, but a question that always got me was, if HIV is there to be cultured, why isn't an HIV test based on culturing the virus from an infected persons rather than look out for immune markers pointing to AIDS? Im not exactly a denialist, but AIDS politics seems to be putting a major dent into HIV research, and many lives are possibly being destroyed by HIV diagnosis, and that makes me angry.

As a doctor, I would be committing career suicide if I even mention that I would like to see more research on the topic.....

[Johann]

As a doctor, I would be committing career suicide if I even mention that I would like to see more research on the topic.....

Yes, career suicide.

But I am glad to see a Doctor researching this. I know that not all medicine is bad (I'm in nursing school), just like not all religion is bad either. I've seen evolutionists just tinker with the idea of Intelligent Design and get fired from their jobs. This sort of thing has been documented as having happened several hundreds times.
We are definitely in an age of academic hysteria and dictatorship.

Edited by Johann, 02 December 2009 - 08:19 PM.

[niner]

Being an HIV-AIDS hypothesis denialist is like being an atheist, during the dark ages..... I don't know what to make out of this, but a question that always got me was, if HIV is there to be cultured, why isn't an HIV test based on culturing the virus from an infected persons rather than look out for immune markers pointing to AIDS? Im not exactly a denialist, but AIDS politics seems to be putting a major dent into HIV research, and many lives are possibly being destroyed by HIV diagnosis, and that makes me angry.

As a doctor, I would be committing career suicide if I even mention that I would like to see more research on the topic.....

It sounds like you would like to know what the relationship is between showing an immune response to HIV and the development of full-blown AIDS. I would have expected that to be very well determined; is it not?

[Johann]

Being an HIV-AIDS hypothesis denialist is like being an atheist, during the dark ages..... I don't know what to make out of this, but a question that always got me was, if HIV is there to be cultured, why isn't an HIV test based on culturing the virus from an infected persons rather than look out for immune markers pointing to AIDS? Im not exactly a denialist, but AIDS politics seems to be putting a major dent into HIV research, and many lives are possibly being destroyed by HIV diagnosis, and that makes me angry.

As a doctor, I would be committing career suicide if I even mention that I would like to see more research on the topic.....

It sounds like you would like to know what the relationship is between showing an immune response to HIV and the development of full-blown AIDS. I would have expected that to be very well determined; is it not?

It is not very well determined. In fact, about 2,670 doubters have signed this petition.

That list does not just include some chiropractors and holistic medicine types. You will see that there are many doctors and Harvard graduates on there as well.

[niner]

Being an HIV-AIDS hypothesis denialist is like being an atheist, during the dark ages..... I don't know what to make out of this, but a question that always got me was, if HIV is there to be cultured, why isn't an HIV test based on culturing the virus from an infected persons rather than look out for immune markers pointing to AIDS? Im not exactly a denialist, but AIDS politics seems to be putting a major dent into HIV research, and many lives are possibly being destroyed by HIV diagnosis, and that makes me angry.

As a doctor, I would be committing career suicide if I even mention that I would like to see more research on the topic.....

It sounds like you would like to know what the relationship is between showing an immune response to HIV and the development of full-blown AIDS. I would have expected that to be very well determined; is it not?

It is not very well determined. In fact, about 2,670 doubters have signed this petition.
That list does not just include some chiropractors and holistic medicine types. You will see that there are many doctors and Harvard graduates on there as well.

Doctors and Harvard graduates don't impress me. Show me the evidence, if it exists.

[Guest]

Wow... first I thought it was just a troll, but you are one of the guys like Thabo Mbeki ("HIV doesn't cause AIDS, the HIV-drugs do!") or his former minister of health ("Eat garlic to cure AIDS.") who firmly combat the HIV-AIDS relationship . At this point I'd like to contribute a big



*LOL*



after that I invite you to read through the following wikipedia articles:


http://en.wikipedia..../AIDS_denialism (here you go )

http://en.wikipedia....eficiency_virus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS


After that I'd like to point out, that the vast majority (I estimate about 99%) of the people supporting the declaration you mentioned are not even biomedical researchers, let alone any connection with AIDS research. This reminds me of the couple of nobelprize winners in economics battling the physicists on the matter of global warming.

Of course, the only possible explanation can be a huge government backed conspiracy, supressing that the real cure for AIDS are multivitamins, a visit to your local homeopat and a good pot of mother's vegetable soup.

[medicineman]

I repeat my position. I am not a denialist, but there is without a doubt alot of politics going on.... AIDS was never a problem, especially not for most people... AIDS ads hoped to capture everyone, and convince them that they all are at risk, when in Nancy Padians famous study, risk of heterosexual transmission, during vaginal sex, with a known infected female, presents less than .3% risk of transmission. Heterosexual sex is a rare medium for hiv transmission..........

people with Lupus, rhematoid, and other systemic disorders have a statistically significant chance of showing up as HIV positive, due to the very dodgy way of testing for HIV. Using T-cell count is especially dangerous, as different labs or countries, have different values for diagnosis of AIDS. Plus, in Africa, since it is not economic to perform the various tests for HIV, it is diagnosed by symptoms such as weight loss and night sweats. There is a myriad of diseases plaguing the region that cause symptoms that can mimic AIDS. Isn't that an incentive to pursue more accurate ways of diagnosis of hiv?

[Johann]

What really killed those men back in the 1980s was not the virus but rather AZT, a drug once used for cancer but withdrawn because it was too toxic. If those men had been told that it was in all actuality corticosteroids and poppers that were fucking up their immune systems, think of the lives that would have been saved.

AIDS deaths are down not because of better drugs but because the newer drugs are less toxic and also more are turning to antioxidant therapy as the DISCOVERER OF THE AIDS VIRUS RECOMMENDS.

Edited by Johann, 02 December 2009 - 10:39 PM.

[kismet]

It is not very well determined. In fact, about 2,670 doubters have signed this petition.

That list does not just include some chiropractors and holistic medicine types. You will see that there are many doctors and Harvard graduates on there as well.

Wow, 2670? How many Steves do you have? (And I mean excluding dead people, sock poppets and those who are neither researchers nor doctors from that list)

You're a madman. Seek medical attention.

Edited by kismet, 02 December 2009 - 11:06 PM.

[maxwatt]

I repeat my position. I am not a denialist, but there is without a doubt alot of politics going on.... AIDS was never a problem, especially not for most people... AIDS ads hoped to capture everyone, and convince them that they all are at risk, when in Nancy Padians famous study, risk of heterosexual transmission, during vaginal sex, with a known infected female, presents less than .3% risk of transmission. Heterosexual sex is a rare medium for hiv transmission..........

Like Magic Johnson? He estimates he had sex with over 1000 women over three years when he was diagnosed with AIDS, he may not be the best counter-example..
The major mode of transmission in sub-Sahara Africa is thought to be via heterosexual sex. Lack of circumcision may increase vulnerability.

people with Lupus, rhematoid, and other systemic disorders have a statistically significant chance of showing up as HIV positive, due to the very dodgy way of testing for HIV. Using T-cell count is especially dangerous, as different labs or countries, have different values for diagnosis of AIDS. Plus, in Africa, since it is not economic to perform the various tests for HIV, it is diagnosed by symptoms such as weight loss and night sweats. There is a myriad of diseases plaguing the region that cause symptoms that can mimic AIDS. Isn't that an incentive to pursue more accurate ways of diagnosis of hiv?

Aren't there tests for these other systemic disorders? Possibly the T-cell market is a lot cheaper than a test for the actual virus. I would like to see thedecision tree used: what indicators besides the blood test, what further tests made?

[Johann]

Magic Johnson? Shouldn't he be dead by now?

[Johann]

Its comical and sad at the same time that folks will come out and attack like this yet they claim
to be above us dumb christians. They don't see how they are blindly buying into another religion.

They should be happy that there is good news on the AID$ front. That all of the doom and gloom was overhyped. That people can get better from antioxidant therapy.

I remember when Oprah said in 1987 that by 1990, 1/5 of all heterosexuals would have AID$.

[Guest]

Its comical and sad at the same time that folks will come out and attack like this yet they claim
to be above us dumb christians. They don't see how they are blindly buying into another religion.

They should be happy that there is good news on the AID$ front. That all of the doom and gloom was overhyped. That people can get better from antioxidant therapy.

I remember when Oprah said in 1987 that by 1990, 1/5 of all heterosexuals would have AID$.

Yes, Ophra clearly is the scientific authority you should consult when pointing out potential false estimates of the scientific community...


As you appearently missed to read it, I'll quote the wikipedia article for you:

Although members of the AIDS denialist community are united by their disagreement with the concept that HIV is the cause of AIDS, the specific positions taken by various groups differ. Denialist arguments have centered around claims that HIV does not exist or has not been adequately isolated,[61] that the virus does not fulfill Koch's postulates,[62] that HIV testing is inaccurate,[63] or that antibodies to HIV neutralize the virus and render it harmless.[64] Suggested alternative causes of AIDS include recreational drugs, malnutrition, and the very antiretroviral drugs used to treat the syndrome.[65]

Such claims have been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature; a scientific consensus has arisen that denialist claims have been convincingly disproved, and that HIV does indeed cause AIDS.[3][66][67] In the cases cited by Duesberg where HIV "cannot be isolated", PCR or other techniques demonstrate the presence of the virus,[68] and denialist claims of HIV test inaccuracy result from an incorrect or outdated understanding of how HIV antibody testing is performed and interpreted.[69][70]

Early denialist arguments held that the HIV/AIDS paradigm was flawed because it had not led to effective treatments. However, the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy in the mid-1990s and dramatic improvements in survival of HIV/AIDS patients reversed this argument, as these treatments were based directly on the HIV/AIDS paradigm.[71] The development of effective anti-HIV therapy has been a major factor in convincing some denialist scientists to accept the causative role of HIV in AIDS.[56]

Several studies have specifically addressed Duesberg's claim that recreational drug abuse or sexual promiscuity were responsible for the manifestations of AIDS. An early study of his claims, published in Nature in 1993, found Duesberg's drug abuse-AIDS hypothesis to have "no basis in fact".[9]

and

A large prospective study followed a group of 715 homosexual men in the Vancouver, Canada area; approximately half were HIV-seropositive or became so during the follow-up period, and the remainder were HIV-seronegative. After more than 8 years of follow-up, despite similar rates of drug use, sexual contact, and other supposed risk factors in both groups, only the HIV-positive group suffered from opportunistic infections. Similarly, CD4 counts dropped in the patients who were HIV-infected, but remained stable in the HIV-negative patients, in spite of similar rates of risk behavior.[13] The authors concluded that "the risk-AIDS hypothesis... is clearly rejected by our data", and that "...The evidence supports the hypothesis that HIV-1 has an integral role in the CD4 depletion and progressive immune dysfunction that characterise AIDS."[13]

Similarly, the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) — which between them observed more than 8,000 Americans — demonstrated that "...the presence of HIV infection is the only factor that is strongly and consistently associated with the conditions that define AIDS."[14] A 2008 study found that recreational drug use (including marijuana, cocaine, poppers and amphetamines) had no effect on CD4 or CD8 T-cell counts, providing further evidence against a role of recreational drugs as a cause of AIDS.[15]

and

Robert Gallo suggested that Duesberg infect himself with HIV if he insisted on maintaining his stance that HIV is harmless. Duesberg claims that he would do so, but that he would need the approval of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the university that employs him to work with HIV. Critics regard this as a stunt, because the NIH cannot ethically give "approval" for a person to knowingly infect himself with HIV.

[Jay]

Johan, have you ever learned about an conspiracy theory that you didn't sign on to? Feast your impressionable eyes on this table (from wikipedia):

2005 World region Adult HIV prevalence (ages 15–49); Total HIV cases AIDS; deaths

Sub-Saharan Africa 6.1%; 24.5m; 2.0m
Worldwide 1.0%; 38.6m; 2.8m
North America 0.55%; 1.3m; 27,000
Western Europe 0.3%; 5.8m; 12,000

Seems to contradict the claim that HIV doesn't kill - as it seems to kill 2,000,000 per year in Sub-Saharan Africa. Also, seems to only kill 12,000 people in Western Europe, a much lower rate. By the way, western Europe is where the conventional meds are located... I guess you would say that the data is made up and your petition of looneys shows it?

Edited by Jay, 03 December 2009 - 04:27 PM.

[niner]

... yet they claim to be above us dumb christians.

Since you bring it up, Johann, it should probably be pointed out that you have identified yourself as a Young Earth Creationist and a Global Warming Denialist. At least you are consistent. I respect your right to hold your own opinions, even if I disagree with most of them, but you shouldn't expect to have any credibility in a scientific forum. You are what we call a "negative indicator", i.e. your views have a high negative correlation with reality.

[tunt01]

those of you really interested in how the HIV virus works (how it evades the human immune system) and how to counter it, might want to take a look at this company:

http://www.oyageninc.com/

i think that will probably be the silver bullet, if anything.

[healthygal]

Interesting topic, ladies and gents. This is one subject I happen to be very interested in learning more about. This is my 1st post here, and I tell you, I am intrigued by so much of what I read here. I am currently in Pre-Med, yet find myself questioning so much of what Western Medicine has to offer us (or what we're "told"). It's because of my "not-so-mainstream" ways of thinking that brought me to the field of Medicine in the 1st place. While I have respect for the Sciences, I also am one to question and demand "proof" at every turn. Makes for interesting classroom experience for my peers, altho I'm pretty sure that my profs would disagree. :0)

I look forward to more on this subject...HIV/AIDS is something I am very interested in learning more about. Thanks for the information thus far!

[JLL]

... yet they claim to be above us dumb christians.

Since you bring it up, Johann, it should probably be pointed out that you have identified yourself as a Young Earth Creationist and a Global Warming Denialist. At least you are consistent. I respect your right to hold your own opinions, even if I disagree with most of them, but you shouldn't expect to have any credibility in a scientific forum. You are what we call a "negative indicator", i.e. your views have a high negative correlation with reality.

Hmm... I'm a global warming denialist but not a young earth creationist. Are you a cholesterol hypothesis denialist?

[kismet]

Are you illiterate then?
I think what you mean is anthropogenic global warming? Still, yes, I'd consider that bad. So you think that the scientific consensus in climate sciences is made up? Why? Why do you trust scientists and consensus in other fields?

Edited by kismet, 25 January 2010 - 11:28 PM.