HIV is a harmless virus and does not cause AIDS

2wsxcde3

This is a theory that has been around as long as AIDS itself but has been largely censored from the popular media.

Watch this video and be stunned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU

You'll never think about HIV and AIDS the same again...not that i'm saying you should start sleeping around with skanks. Chlamydia, gonorrhea and babies very much do exist.

Di0genes

Proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS is overwhelming. National Academy of Sciences, CDC, Institute of Medicine, NIH, AMA, Canadian CDC, Pasteur Institute, UNAIDS, and WHO all agree. Google "HIV and AIDS Myths Debunked" to find a page at AIDSvideos with data and references from research studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals showing that HIV causes AIDS and debunking common myths. Or watch our educational videos such as "The Top Ten Myths About HIV/AIDS."

Responsible scientists agree that HIV causes the disease AIDS. People who are HIV negative do not develop AIDS. We have seen people go from HIV negative to HIV positive to clinical AIDS countless times. There is a correlation between the viral load in a person's blood and the drop in the patient's CD4 count and increase in severity of disease symptoms. When antiretroviral drugs are used and cut the patient's viral load, the CD4 count can rebound and AIDS symptoms can improve.

NIAID: By 12/31/94, "CDC had received reports of 42 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 17 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors .... These individuals all had evidence of HIV seroconversion following a discrete percutaneous or mucocutaneous exposure to blood, body fluids or other clinical laboratory specimens containing HIV." [CDC, "HIV/AIDS surveillance report, 1994 year-end edition," 1995a;6(no.2).]

NIAID "Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS:" "through December 1999, the CDC had received reports of 56 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 25 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors."

NIAID "Relationship Between HIV and AIDS": Known HIV seroconversion followed by development of AIDS "has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion," in mother-to-child transmission, "and in studies of hemophilia, injection drug use, and sexual transmission in which the time of seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples." [Ward 89, Ashton 94, ECS 91&92, Turner 93, Blanche 94,Goedert 89, Rezza 89, Biggar 90, Alcabes 93, Gisecke 90, Buchbinder 94, Sabin 93]

NIAID "Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS:" "in a 10-year study in the Netherlands, researchers followed 11 children who had become infected with HIV as neonates by small aliquots of plasma from a single HIV-infected donor. During the 10-year period, eight of the children died of AIDS. Of the remaining three children, all showed a progressive decline in cellular immunity, and two of the three had symptoms probably related to HIV infection (van den Berg et al. Acta Paediatr 1994;83:17)"

NIAID "Evidence:" "transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both .... The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886)."

NIAID: "Among HIV-infected patients who receive anti-HIV therapy, those whose viral loads are driven to low levels are much less likely to develop AIDS or die than patients who do not respond to therapy. Such an effect would not be seen if HIV did not have a central role in causing AIDS." [Montaner AIDS 1998;12:F23; Palumbo JAMA 1998;279:756; O'Brien NEJM 1996;334:426; Katzenstein NEJM 1996;335:1091; Marschner J Infect Dis 1998;177:40; Hammer NEJM 1997;337:725; Cameron Lancet 1998;351:543]

NIAID: Cases have been documented where HIV+ mothers gave birth to twins where one was HIV-infected and the other wasn't. "The HIV-infected children developed AIDS, while the other children remained clinically and immunologically normal." [Park. J Clin Microbiol 1987;25:1119; Menez-Bautista. Am J Dis Child 1986;140:678; Thomas. Pediatrics 1990;86:774; Young. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1990;9:454; Barlow and Mok. Arch Dis Child 1993;68:507; Guerrero Vazquez. An Esp Pediatr 1993;39:445]

NIAID: Animal models also show that HIV causes AIDS. "Chimpanzees experimentally infected with HIV have developed severe immunosuppression and AIDS. In severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice given a human immune system, HIV produces similar patterns of cell killing and pathogenesis as seen in people. HIV-2 .... also causes an AIDS-like syndrome in baboons." [O'Neil et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Locher et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523]

Myth: There is Not Yet a Scientific Consensus That HIV Causes AIDS

All of the following have concluded that HIV causes AIDS: in the U.S., the National Academy of Sciences, Centers for Disease Control, Institute of Medicine, National Institute of Health, and American Medical Association; the Canadian Centers for Disease Control; the Pasteur Institute; UNAIDS; and the World Health Organization.

more

http://www.aidsvideos.org/myths/index.shtml#HIVNotCauseAIDS

robtri

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This is a theory that has been around as long as AIDS itself but has been largely censored from the popular media.

Watch this video and be stunned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU

You'll never think about HIV and AIDS the same again...not that i'm saying you should start sleeping around with skanks. Chlamydia, gonorrhea and babies very much do exist.

so i take it you would have no objections to been injected with HIV infected blood then???

robtri

robtri wrote: »

so i take it you would have no objections to been injected with HIV infected blood then???

This would be a very easy way to prove your hypothesis OP.

Of course no one would ever agree to it because deep down, they know it's BS.

Stinicker

I'd still err on the verge of caution tbh!

2wsxcde3

Stinicker wrote: »

I'd still err on the verge of caution tbh!

Same here. But from my study on it, there are a lot of unanswered questions and problems with the HIV=AIDS theory.
Much more than the main stream media would have you believe.

Im Only 71Kg

there's a good chance someone of youth will read this...thread should be closed.

nullzero

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

there's a good chance someone of youth will read this...thread should be closed.

2wsxcde3

Im Only 71Kg wrote: »

there's a good chance someone of youth will read this...thread should be closed.

Censorship. That's all this issue gets. And with so much censorship, real debate on the issue never happens and so the problem persists.

Nobel prize winners as well as the top cancer expert in the 70's and 80's (considered top before he had his reputation taken away for his theory on HIV) Dr Peter Deusberg have come out against the fraud that is HIV=AIDS.

We're not talking about a couple of cranks that don't know any better, we're talking about some of the highest professionals in the field of medicine. More would speak up about it but are afraid of their careers.

CiaranMT

Unanswered questions and problems.. Such as? Please provide examples of contention. Specific examples too, which are present today, not the late 80's/early 90's.

I'll take the word of the present day scientific community (with their vastly superior knowledge of the disease) over one doctor who specialises in cancer.

Im Only 71Kg

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Censorship. That's all this issue gets. And with so much censorship, real debate on the issue never happens and so the problem persists.

Nobel prize winners as well as the top cancer expert in the 70's and 80's (considered top before he had his reputation taken away for his theory on HIV) Dr Peter Deusberg have come out against the fraud that is HIV=AIDS.

We're not talking about a couple of cranks that don't know any better, we're talking about some of the highest professionals in the field of medicine. More would speak up about it but are afraid of their careers.

well at least change the threads title...it's misleading. thats all. i don't think young kids would have an interest in the science to be honest.

craggles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Censorship. That's all this issue gets. And with so much censorship, real debate on the issue never happens and so the problem persists.

Nobel prize winners as well as the top cancer expert in the 70's and 80's (considered top before he had his reputation taken away for his theory on HIV) Dr Peter Deusberg have come out against the fraud that is HIV=AIDS.

We're not talking about a couple of cranks that don't know any better, we're talking about some of the highest professionals in the field of medicine. More would speak up about it but are afraid of their careers.

So.....

What is to stop you or anyone else injecting themselves with the correct blood type infected with HIV? Prove it!

craggles

Seriously, find someone of your blood type who is supposedly HIV positive, take some of their blood into your own system and prove to the world that it's a myth! Save us all, I implore you!

2wsxcde3

CiaranMT wrote: »

Unanswered questions and problems.. Such as? Please provide examples of contention. Specific examples too, which are present today, not the late 80's/early 90's.

I'll take the word of the present day scientific community (with their vastly superior knowledge of the disease) over one doctor who specialists in cancer.

Here is a link to just one of the many documentaries on this on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU
Youtube is just about the only place you'll find info on this because as i've said, it's censored from the main stream media.

Peter Deusberg is not just some cancer expert - he was the leading expert at the end of the 20th century leading the ground work for much of todays fight on cancer. And he still is an expert - but because of his outspoken opinion on the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, his funding was cut and so is not able to carry out the same groundbreaking work he once was able to. Other leading scientists agree with what Deusberg says but know if they speak out, it's the end of their career.

Dude i'm not a Dr, go research it yourself. The very drug that's prescribed for HIV, AZT may very well be actually causing AIDs. AZT was so toxic that it was not recommended for cancer sufferers back in the 80's when it came out but they said they'd give it a go with AIDs. In addition, many of the sufferers of AIDs in Africa don't have HIV, thus proving that there's an issue with the HIV=AIDs theory. But because the HIV=AIDs establishment have defined AIDs as someone who has HIV AND another major illness such as pneumonia etc, its a self fulfilling prophecy. Their statistics only show people who have AIDS and HIV, thus making an unsafe connection between the two. They conveniently remove all those people that have AIDs but don't have HIV from their statistics.
I've examined the leading experts on the HIV=AIDs theory and their attempt to pour cold water on peter Deusbergs theory but the more i hear from them, the more i realize they're not very convincing.

BTW If you think I'm a crackpot that follows every conspiracy theory I'd just like to inform you that i don't believe:

• 9/11 was an inside job
• That bin laden is still alive
• That there are aliens at area 51
• That the queen is a lizard

etc etc etc

2wsxcde3

craggles wrote: »

Seriously, find someone of your blood type who is supposedly HIV positive, take some of their blood into your own system and prove to the world that it's a myth! Save us all, I implore you!

That's a stupid childish response that doesn't address the issue.
Just look at the large amount of data which shows people suffering from AIDS with no trace of HIV in their blood. These statistics exist but aren't included in many of the statistics.
Yes HIV exists but it's a relatively harmless virus. Everyone has viruses in their body. it's estimated that on average people have about 50 or so of these harmless viruses in their body. That's fact, not me making it up.

finty

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is a link to just one of the many documentaries on this on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU
Youtube is just about the only place you'll find info on this because as i've said, it's censored from the main stream media.

Peter Deusberg is not just some cancer expert - he was the leading expert at the end of the 20th century leading the ground work for much of todays fight on cancer. And he still is an expert - but because of his outspoken opinion on the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, his funding was cut and so is not able to carry out the same groundbreaking work he once was able to. Other leading scientists agree with what Deusberg says but know if they speak out, it's the end of their career.

Dude i'm not a Dr, go research it yourself. The very drug that's prescribed for HIV, AZT may very well be actually causing AIDs. AZT was so toxic that it was not recommended for cancer sufferers back in the 80's when it came out but they said they'd give it a go with AIDs. In addition, many of the sufferers of AIDs in Africa don't have HIV, thus proving that there's an issue with the HIV=AIDs theory. But because the HIV=AIDs establishment have defined AIDs as someone who has HIV AND another major illness such as pneumonia etc, its a self fulfilling prophecy. Their statistics only show people who have AIDS and HIV, thus making an unsafe connection between the two. They conveniently remove all those people that have AIDs but don't have HIV from their statistics.
I've examined the leading experts on the HIV=AIDs theory and their attempt to pour cold water on peter Deusbergs theory but the more i hear from them, the more i realize they're not very convincing.

BTW If you think I'm a crackpot that follows every conspiracy theory I'd just like to inform you that i don't believe:

• 9/11 was an inside job
• That bin laden is still alive
• That there are aliens at area 51
• That the queen is a lizard

etc etc etc

This is almost 20 years old, the scientific community has moved on.

The reason you can't find evidence isnt because its "censored in the mainstream" its that even the crackpots accept that HIV causes AIDS.

They are more worried about the US faking killing Osama Bin Laden these days


You've done research on youtube!!! :eek:

2wsxcde3

finty wrote: »

You've done research on youtube!!! :eek:

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

In any case, i have no problem doing research on youtube if the research is coming from leading experts in the field of medicine including nobel prize winners.

finty

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

In any case, i have no problem doing research on youtube if the research is coming from leading experts in the field of medicine including nobel prize winners.

Nonsense, Nonsense, Nonsense

Find some "research" from this millenium so.

Scientific understanding of this virus has moved on hugely in 17 years.

You are listening to one misguided scientist from 2 decades ago and ignoring everyone who contradicts him.

Top notch research!

2wsxcde3

Dude, at least i'm doing research on the topic. You're just coming on here shouting down people without having done your own research into it (ie in other words don't know the arguments for and against the HIV=AIDs hypotheses at either side).
Peter Deusbergs facts still hold true today. He still speaks at medical seminars on the issue and has held his ground on the issue right back from when AIDs first came to light to this day (5th May 2011).

Dude, go research what the issue actually is before coming on here shouting people down.

robtri

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

In any case, i have no problem doing research on youtube if the research is coming from leading experts in the field of medicine including nobel prize winners.

as yes youtube..... home of the scientific community

if you want to research at least use medical publishcations
that have been peer reviewed...

youtube... FFS

2wsxcde3

robtri wrote: »

as yes youtube..... home of the scientific community

if you want to research at least use medical publishcations
that have been peer reviewed...

youtube... FFS

This is research involving documentaries/news programmes with intelligent people (ie medical experts) having intelligent debates on the issue (which is more than can be said for people on here).
Maybe you should go do some research yourself (as you obviously haven't) and find out what the issue actually is with the HIV=AIDs hypothesis rather than assuming you know.

Monty Burnz

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

If they do, and they are correct, they will win the Nobel Prize. That's a pretty good incentive for tenured researchers.

Undergod

I reckon there probably is a connection between HIV and AIDS; however, the issue is blurred in many places. I remember reading that the test for HIV in extremely poor areas is done by checking for symptoms, as the antibody test is expensive. Unfortunately these symptoms are the same as those for malnutrition- you can see why this is a problem

I also remember this article; sex workers in Nairobi, where the rate of HIV infection in the general population is something like 7% or higher, are frequently found to be HIV-negative, a situation that is all but impossible unless they have some kind of immunity. I haven't heard much about it since though.

clever_name

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That's a stupid childish response that doesn't address the issue.
Just look at the large amount of data which shows people suffering from AIDS with no trace of HIV in their blood. These statistics exist but aren't included in many of the statistics.
Yes HIV exists but it's a relatively harmless virus. Everyone has viruses in their body. it's estimated that on average people have about 50 or so of these harmless viruses in their body. That's fact, not me making it up.

Its not stupid at all, for decades the medical opinion of ulcers was that they were diet and stress related. this changed when Dr. Barry Marshall decided to try to give himself an ulcer.

End result is medical opinion of ulcers was challanged and proved wrong because of him.

So all anyone who is 100% sure that HIV is harmless has to do is undertake a well documented test on themself. It really is that simple.

Look at the respect Dr. Marshall and his colleagues recieved for their work on ulcers, imagine the kudos for such a step forward in AIDS research? In fact why has this not already been done if the doctors are so sure?

HavingCrack

Undergod wrote: »

I reckon there probably is a connection between HIV and AIDS; however, the issue is blurred in many places. I remember reading that the test for HIV in extremely poor areas is done by checking for symptoms, as the antibody test is expensive. Unfortunately these symptoms are the same as those for malnutrition- you can see why this is a problem

I also remember this article; sex workers in Nairobi, where the rate of HIV infection in the general population is something like 7% or higher, are frequently found to be HIV-negative, a situation that is all but impossible unless they have some kind of immunity. I haven't heard much about it since though.

The same team of researchers from Nairobi also did this research in 2007 http://www.awcfs.org/new/features/features-archive/243-herpes-treatment-gives-hope-to-hiv-positive-people which was along similar lines. I haven't heard anything since either though and the tests seemed a bit inconclusive.

Interestingly, in around 2-3% of cases HIV sufferers do not develop AIDS. I reckon there might be an answer in there. I think a commerically available 'cure' for HIV or at least something that prevents the onset of full blown AIDS is still 15-20 years down the line however.

RoboClam

HavingCrack wrote: »

The same team of researchers from Nairobi also did this research in 2007 http://www.awcfs.org/new/features/features-archive/243-herpes-treatment-gives-hope-to-hiv-positive-people which was along similar lines. I haven't heard anything since either though and the tests seemed a bit inconclusive.

Interestingly, in around 2-3% of cases HIV sufferers do not develop AIDS. I reckon there might be an answer in there. I think a commerically available 'cure' for HIV or at least something that prevents the onset of full blown AIDS is still 15-20 years down the line however.

The current thinking is that the resistance to infection is due to a deficiency in a receptor called CCR5, which the virus uses to enter the cell.

CiaranMT

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is a link to just one of the many documentaries on this on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU
Youtube is just about the only place you'll find info on this because as i've said, it's censored from the main stream media.

Peter Deusberg is not just some cancer expert - he was the leading expert at the end of the 20th century leading the ground work for much of todays fight on cancer. And he still is an expert - but because of his outspoken opinion on the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, his funding was cut and so is not able to carry out the same groundbreaking work he once was able to. Other leading scientists agree with what Deusberg says but know if they speak out, it's the end of their career.

Dude i'm not a Dr, go research it yourself. The very drug that's prescribed for HIV, AZT may very well be actually causing AIDs. AZT was so toxic that it was not recommended for cancer sufferers back in the 80's when it came out but they said they'd give it a go with AIDs. In addition, many of the sufferers of AIDs in Africa don't have HIV, thus proving that there's an issue with the HIV=AIDs theory. But because the HIV=AIDs establishment have defined AIDs as someone who has HIV AND another major illness such as pneumonia etc, its a self fulfilling prophecy. Their statistics only show people who have AIDS and HIV, thus making an unsafe connection between the two. They conveniently remove all those people that have AIDs but don't have HIV from their statistics.

1. You're the one making the claim, ergo, burden of proof lies on you. You have to back up your position with evidence. It can then be evaluated and critiqued.

2. He was an leading expert in cancer, not HIV/AIDS. As others have said, the understanding of the diseases has moved on massively in the last couple of decades.

I've examined the leading experts on the HIV=AIDs theory and their attempt to pour cold water on peter Deusbergs theory but the more i hear from them, the more i realize they're not very convincing.

Such as? Give a few reasons as to why you don't find them convincing.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Where else can i find research? You won't find research anywhere else because research institutes know if they publish info on this, their funding will be cut.

In any case, i have no problem doing research on youtube if the research is coming from leading experts in the field of medicine including nobel prize winners.

As others have said, go to medical journals. Use Google Scholar. There is plenty of scientific research available.

Receiving a Nobel Prize does not automatically qualify you to question a different field of research. It's like taking the word of a physicist when they critique a principle of chemistry, just because they have an award.

Sure, they've contributed hugely in their own field, but they'll need to have research to back up their assertions.

Has the good Dr. Deusberg carried out research which refutes the current thinking?

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Dude, at least i'm doing research on the topic. You're just coming on here shouting down people without having done your own research into it (ie in other words don't know the arguments for and against the HIV=AIDs hypotheses at either side).
Peter Deusbergs facts still hold true today. He still speaks at medical seminars on the issue and has held his ground on the issue right back from when AIDs first came to light to this day (5th May 2011).

Dude, go research what the issue actually is before coming on here shouting people down.

His facts? Please point these out.

Just because he's stuck to his opinion doesn't make him right, or someone to be admired for his integrity or whatever.

robtri

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This is research involving documentaries/news programmes with intelligent people (ie medical experts) having intelligent debates on the issue (which is more than can be said for people on here).
Maybe you should go do some research yourself (as you obviously haven't) and find out what the issue actually is with the HIV=AIDs hypothesis rather than assuming you know.

sorry, but u posted one youtube video and have based your results on this.... I think it is you who needs to do proper research

craggles

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

That's a stupid childish response that doesn't address the issue.
Just look at the large amount of data which shows people suffering from AIDS with no trace of HIV in their blood. These statistics exist but aren't included in many of the statistics.
Yes HIV exists but it's a relatively harmless virus. Everyone has viruses in their body. it's estimated that on average people have about 50 or so of these harmless viruses in their body. That's fact, not me making it up.

That's funny.

Shoot up and vindicate yourself, prove decades of scientific research false with one harmless injection!

hardCopy

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This is a theory that has been around as long as AIDS itself but has been largely censored from the popular media.

Watch this video and be stunned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFljIcFeLHU

You'll never think about HIV and AIDS the same again...not that i'm saying you should start sleeping around with skanks. Chlamydia, gonorrhea and babies very much do exist.

No thanks, feel free to transcribe it though, then I'll read it.

2wsxcde3

Most people that come out with "conspiracy theories" do so in order to make money. They make money on a film, selling their story to the media, writing books etc. In other words there's a huge financial gain for them coming out with their theory. This is why i generally take what they have to say with a pinch of salt.

Now when someone speaks (out like Deusberg has done) and only has something to lose and nothing to gain, you should at least pay attention.

As regards Deusberg being a cancer expert and not an AIDs expert - There were no "AIDs experts" when AIDs was discovered, it was a brand new illness. People in other areas of medicine transferred their expertise across to understanding HIV and AIDs and this is what has made the modern day HIV/AIDs expert. Deusberg is one such person. He no longer concentrates on cancer, but instead is devoted to HIV/AIDs research and has been since the 80's.

I'm not saying he's right, i'm not saying he's wrong. What i'm saying is that he has had so much to lose taking the stance he has with nothing to gain, that we should at least listen to what he has to say.