Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Vaccinations / Big Pharma / Bio-Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-05-2018, 02:34 PM   #21
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elshaper View Post
Thanks for the info jimmy.
So in a jist, anything unknown but immune deficiency could be all put in a bag called AIDS and the origin of immune deficiency may not derive from HIV virus but it could simply be a candida mass infection etc.
That's a good summary of this thread.

I've some theories on what caused (causes) the immune deficiency - like malnutrition, pesticides, injecting haemophiliacs with "old" blood - but I don't think I'll ever write it down without more evidence.

Strangely in the last 20+ years no (or hardly any) new evidence has come forth for or against the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis (or at least I haven't found it).
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2018, 09:09 PM   #22
elshaper
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,965
Likes: 5,575 (3,762 Posts)
Default

You might be interested in this story jimmy.

Immortal cells
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...cells-6421299/
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2018, 01:50 PM   #23
elshaper
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,965
Likes: 5,575 (3,762 Posts)
Default

Why this thread has been rated as 3*?

Anyways, if a 'AIDS' sufferer asks you, what alternatives treatment are there aside from AZT? What do you suggest?

I know there will be willing posters highlighting, eat healthy, become a vegan, juicing etc.... which is a wise thing to do by anybody. Is there anything else? I know this may be a difficult question. In case of my earlier example, hormone imbalnce, you simply need missing hormons and not carrots. Each immuno difficiency need to be addressed differently. But who knows what is causing them to be weak immune....that's a hard one to know.
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2018, 03:07 PM   #24
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elshaper View Post
It's an interesting story, maybe they're looking for eternal youth...


Quote:
Originally Posted by elshaper View Post
Why this thread has been rated as 3*?
Maybe too controversial?
I guess that one big pharma supporting member rated it "Terrible"; I gave it an "Excellent" (but I'm not the most independent judge of my own threads).


Quote:
Originally Posted by elshaper View Post
I know there will be willing posters highlighting, eat healthy, become a vegan, juicing etc.... which is a wise thing to do by anybody. Is there anything else? I know this may be a difficult question.
It's difficult as there are a variety of (possible) causes for "AIDS".
I found "scientific" evidence, for an effective treatment (that's similar to eating healthy); post #5 in this thread; a short and simple one...
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Nutritional supplements with multivitamins are not only an effective medicine against AIDS, but also for other diseases.
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2018, 05:01 PM   #25
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default Treatment – Trioxidal and Interferon

I’ve found 2 stories on supposed “cures” for AIDS – Trioxidal and Interferon.
I have a hard time believing in “miracle drugs” though...


Robert Vesco bought IOS in 1970 for less than $5 million, and looted it of $220 million in funds.

After he escaped the US to evade the charges brought against him, he first settled in Costa Rica, where he invested some $11 million to become “friends” with President José Figueres.
Vesco also befriended nephew of President Richard M. Nixon, Donald A. Nixon Jr., and gave $200,000 to the Nixon campaign illegally through US Commerce Secretary and chief fund-raiser Maurice Stans.
In 1978, Vesco was forced to leave for the Bahamas.
In the years that followed he hop scotched to several countries, including Antigua and Nicaragua, before settling in Cuba in 1982.

Vesco eventually became an enemy of the Castro government, when he was accused of defrauding a state-run biotechnology laboratory in a project that involved Donald Nixon, and sentenced to 13 years. This was about the production of the miracle medicine Trioxidal (TX) that would cure cancer, AIDS, arthritis and even the common cold.
TX is illegal in the US. They worked on TX at the Labiofam plant; its president is Gloria Castro (a relative of Fidel's) and Fragga Castro (Fidel's nephew): https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...d-1591664.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/v8JjH)

I couldn’t find more information on Trioxidal...


In 1992, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it would test the AIDS-drug interferon, because of the common believe within the black community that it’s a cure for AIDS.
The study included several hundred patients treated with low doses of interferon.

Physicians, who prescribe interferon in low doses, reported that it makes HIV-positive people “feel better”.
Other drugs like Immuviron and the similar Kemron were also used in the US black community for years.

An important advocate for interferon is Abdul Alim Mohammad, medical director of a non-profit organisation affiliated with the Nation of Islam.
Interferon, was formerly marketed under the name Immunex and in 1992 renamed as Immuviron – sold for about $1,500 for a six-month supply.
Mohammad said in an interview:
Quote:
We talked to physicians, patients and the like. We were really convinced after 10 days that it was very effective.
In 1992, interferon was approved by the FDA for several diseases, including a rare form of leukaemia and Kaposi's sarcoma, a type of cancer that afflicts many AIDS patients.
In these treatments interferon is taken by injection in large, expensive doses, costing up to $270 per day for treatment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.07be594a60f4


There is a lot more interesting information on interferon, but unfortunately I didn’t find a single placebo controlled trial on the treatment of AIDS-victims.

There’s even a Hollywood movie about AIDS-victim Ron Woodroof that found out that AZT is highly toxic and looked for alternative treatment (including interferon) that he sold to other AIDS-victims – Dallas Buyers Club (2013).
Woodroof got into legal problems with the US FDA. Woodroof died in 1992, which was 7 years later than the doctors first predicted.
Woodroof himself chose Peptide T for AIDS-treatment.

The state media understandably criticised the film for endorsing “pseudoscience” (as opposed to the proven deadly toxicity of AZT?).
They invented new characters for the movie to advertise the LGBT-agenda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Buyers_Club


The reason why interferon is interesting is that there is a reported relation with HIV and AZT-poisoning, while interferon is an accepted therapy for HIV-positive victims with Kaposi’s sarcoma and Hepatitis B and C.
The FDA first approved interferon alpha for the treatment of hepatitis C in 1991.

Interferon is produced in response to viral infections as a first line of defence and also has widespread effects on the immune system.
Interferon was found in abundance in HIV-positive victims. It seems illogical that injecting them with large amounts of interferon, when they already had more than enough, would benefit them.

AZT removes interferon from the body in the first week on AZT, and reappears promptly when AZT is discontinued.
Some of the adverse effects of interferon are actually quite similar to the reported effects of AIDS: 1) CD4 loss; 2) leucopoenia; 3) low white and red blood counts; 4) high beta2microglobulin counts; 5) an increase in serum triglycerides: http://aidsperspective.net/blog/?p=118
(archived here: http://archive.is/m5s3q)


Interferon can have serious adverse effects.
Interferon can increase zidovudine's effectiveness, so that a much lower dose of zidovudine (AZT) is needed: https://www.medicinenet.com/interfer...erferons_used?


The following study (without placebo) claims that some 1/3 of the AIDS-victims with Kaposi's sarcoma benefitted (had a positive “response”) from interferon treatment:
Quote:
Overall, 36 (35%) of 103 evaluable patients had either a complete (1 1 patients) or partial (25 patients) response to interferon alfa-2b. The respective response rates of the low-, intermediate-, and high-dose groups were 33%, 28%, and 45%. However, these groups were not evenly balanced for known prognostic factors.
Volberding et al – Treatment of Kaposi’s sarcoma with interferon alpha-2b (Intron A) (1987): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...3E3.0.CO%3B2-5


My summary of this post is that I found absolutely no information on Trioxidal to know if it has any (positive or negative) effect on AIDS.
It looks to me that interferon is not some magical AIDS-cure, but understanding how it works could be the key to understanding the disease.
Isn’t it strange that when HIV was found in AIDS-victims, the pharmaceutical establishment claimed it to be the cause of AIDS, but the role of interferon is unknown to most of us?
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 04-06-2018 at 05:03 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 04:55 PM   #26
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Luc Montagnier, Medavoy

I’ve found an interview between Jon Rappoport and “Ellis Medavoy”. The problem is that “Ellis Medavoy” is a pseudonym, so we have to believe Rappoport that it’s real. I do believe that Rappoport is for “real”, but have doubts on “Ellis Medavoy”.
The reason that I post a link to the description of the interview with “Medavoy” is that the narrative fits what happened in the 1980s with AIDS. I don’t believe that Rappoport could have made this up even if he tried...

Since 1987, Rappoport repeatedly talked to “Ellis”, who told him he was one of the spin doctors influencing the press with (false) information on AIDS that has since become the official story. “Ellis” said he quit because he saw that he was a pawn in a vast depopulation effort.
“Ellis” said:
Quote:
When I got this assignment. I knew I was in some very important territory. The world was going to be told a lie, and they were supposed to believe that lie. Civilians, doctors, researchers, politicians---they all had to swallow the propaganda.
In 1983, a year before HIV (aka HTLV-III) was announced to the world as the official cause of AIDS, “Ellis” already knew that Robert Gallo would be the messenger for "some kind of retrovirus that would be said to be the driving force behind a global plague".
Gallo was selected for this task because they knew he would stop at nothing to become rich and famous.

In the spring of 1987, “Ellis” was informed that Peter Duesberg was a threat to the official story on AIDS. Duesberg argued that if the blood test to determine of somebody was HIV-positive found antibodies it would be unlikely that HIV would harm the patients. Based on this story it would be impossible to develop a vaccine against AIDS that would produce the same antibodies.
Duesberg's principal ally at the time was Harvey Bialy, the research editor of Bio/Technology, a sister publication of Nature.
Phillip Johnson not only agreed with Duesberg, but was better at presenting the arguments against HIV in speaking forums.

Arguably even more dangerous were the stories of people diagnosed as HIV positive or even "full-blown AIDS" who were surviving quite well. They were rejecting the whole HIV story, stayed away from AZT, were exercising more, changed their diets and stopped taking drugs. These people were living testimonials that they could heal without big pharma and "doctors".
"Ellis" said:
Quote:
A lot of what we did at this point was stop things from getting into print. That's often more important than planting lies. As far as Duesberg was concerned, I can tell you there were many newspapers and magazines who were ready to give his views some space. You know, maverick scientist rejects HIV as cause of AIDS.
So we began a coordinated effort to keep that from happening. We let the scientists at NIH, who had the most to lose if Duesberg could establish a credible beachhead, handle the PR on rejecting Duesberg's science. They engaged in some character assassination as well, which was fine. We, on the other side, got 'reliable sources' to go to those newspapers and magazines and tell them that to print anything good about Duesberg was DANGEROUS and IRRESPONSIBLE. That was our tack.
AIDS is a label given to a whole variety of disease conditions not caused by HIV in any way, direct or indirect. Immune suppression can be caused by all of the following: contaminated heroin; medical drugs (like corticosteroids); starvation; contaminated water; pesticides; intestinal parasites over treated with antibiotics; syphilis; massive drug taking (MDA) combined with many sex partners; vaccines given to people with weak immune systems.
Here’s probably the most interesting quote from “Ellis” (I don’t think this was in this thread already):
Quote:
These operatives knew, and had been briefed on this, that T-cells could actually vary all over the place, up and down, depending on factors like the time of day a person was given the test. It was another area of shoddy science, and they took advantage of it. I'll give you an example.
You've got some guy who has been told he's HIV positive, and so, even though he's not sick at all, he gets tested every few months for numbers of T-cells. Sooner or later, those numbers will go down on a test. If the doctor isn't really attentive, he'll tell the patient he is now officially diagnosed with full-blown AIDS, because those numbers are too low. If the patient hasn't been taking AZT yet, he will go for it now.
http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport11.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/FHyYK)


Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Even Montagnier is convinced that HIV alone doesn’t cause AIDS.
Luc Montagnier won the 2008 Nobel Prize for discovering HIV.
In 2009, Montagnier made some statements in the "House of Numbers" documentary in an interview with Brent Leung - shocking because they come from one of the 2 men most credited with inventing that HIV causes AIDS.

Montagnier explains that it isn’t only HIV that causes AIDS as people with a good immune system can deal with HIV, and names some “co-factors” that (also cause AIDS), like:
Oxidative stress;
Contaminated water;
Bad nutrition.

If I understand correctly Montagnier claims that HIV is one of many factors that can cause AIDS; so he only tells part of the truth.
Montagnier doesn’t believe that any vaccine can prevent AIDS.
Here is an extract from the interview (6:52).


Here’s the complete interview that shows that these statements weren’t taken out of context (1:02:04): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyPq-waF-h4

See some quotes from the interview:
Quote:
Leung: You talked about oxidative stress earlier. Is treating oxidative stress one of the best ways to deal with the African AIDS epidemic?
Montagnier: I think this is one way to approach, to decrease the rate of transmission, because I believe HIV we can be exposed to HIV many times without bring chronically infected, our immune system will get rid of the virus within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system; and this is the problem also of the African people.
Their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV; so their immune system doesn't work well already. So it's prone, it can, you know, allow HIV to get in and persist. So there are many ways which are not the vaccine, the magic name, the vaccine, many ways to decrease the transmission just by simple measures of nutrition, giving antioxidants - proper antioxidants - hygiene measures, fighting the other infections.
So they are not spectacular, but they could, you know, decrease very well the epidemic, to the level they are in occidental countries, western countries.

Leung: So if you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?
Montagnier: Yes.


Leung: Oh, interesting. Do you think we should have more of a push for antioxidants, and things of that nature, in Africa than antiretrovirals (AIDS drugs)?
Montagnier: We should push for more, you know, a combination of measures; antioxidants, nutrition advice, nutritions, fighting other infections - malaria, tuberculosis, parasitosis, worms - education of course, genital hygiene for women and men also, very simple measures which [are] not very expensive, but which could do a lot.
And this is my, actually my worry about the many spectacular action for the global funds to buy drugs and so on, and Bill Gates and so on, for the vaccine.
But you know those kind of measures are not very well funded, they're not funded at all, or they are, you know, it really depends on the local government to take choice of this, but local governments they take advice of the scientific advisors from the intelligent institutions, and they don't get this kind of advice very often.

Leung: Well there's no money in nutrition, right? There's no profit.
Montagnier: There's no profit, yes. Water is important. Water is key.
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 29-06-2018 at 05:01 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 08:27 PM   #27
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKhL36Qo0Ds

HIV Aids Greatest Lie of 21st Century
Likes: (1)
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 08:32 PM   #28
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elshaper View Post
Why this thread has been rated as 3*?

Anyways, if a 'AIDS' sufferer asks you, what alternatives treatment are there aside from AZT? What do you suggest?
AZT was going to be an anti cancer drug, but it was deemed to be too toxic, but for some reason they decided to use it for AIDS.



Anyone who thinks AZT is in any way beneficial to the body is a complete and utter lunatic.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 10:06 PM   #29
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by da2255 View Post
AZT was going to be an anti cancer drug, but it was deemed to be too toxic, but for some reason they decided to use it for AIDS.



Anyone who thinks AZT is in any way beneficial to the body is a complete and utter lunatic.
Many decades ago the theory was that most cancers were caused by retroviruses. So at the time it made some sense.

As for HIV then in the early days of treatment single-agent AZT given at high doses was responsible for a number of side-effects and didn't work that well https://www.amjmed.com/article/0002-...414-9/abstract Now it's used in combination with other antiretroviral therapies. Such regimes reduce the risks of resistance and usually forestall the development of AIDS https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...68170212002122
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 30-06-2018 at 03:30 PM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 10:19 PM   #30
elshaper
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,965
Likes: 5,575 (3,762 Posts)
Default

So dum, da, y'all think HIV virus is FAKE?
I'm asking because I don't know what to think...
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 10:28 PM   #31
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elshaper View Post
So dum, da, y'all think HIV virus is FAKE?
I'm asking because I don't know what to think...
I suspect those who have it and those who have died after taking the many quack cures think it's real enough.

thermion
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 10:34 PM   #32
elshaper
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,965
Likes: 5,575 (3,762 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
I suspect those who have it and those who have died after taking the many quack cures think it's real enough.

thermion
wow, even thermion think it's fake.
Man, you are normally the one to put a stop to conspiracy.
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 10:41 PM   #33
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
I suspect those who have it and those who have died after taking the many quack cures think it's real enough.

thermion
These guys are research scientists in reputable universities:
http://www.theperthgroup.com/whatargued.html
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 10:43 PM   #34
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

Dr Duesberg is a nobel prize winner, it really does not get to a higher level in mainstream science than that.
Here he is explaining why HIV does NOT cause AIDS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB8g0b-FkW0

Last edited by da2255; 29-06-2018 at 10:44 PM.
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 10:52 PM   #35
da2255
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Intergalactic Space
Posts: 289
Likes: 158 (102 Posts)
Default

As I write this, in the late winter of 2006, we are more than twenty years into the AIDS era. Like many, a large part of my life has been irreversibly affected by AIDS. My entire adolescence and adult life — as well as the lives of many of my peers — has been overshadowed by the belief in a deadly, sexually transmittable pathogen and the attendant fear of intimacy and lack of trust that belief engenders.

To add to this impact, my chosen career has developed around the HIV model of AIDS. I received my Ph.D. in 2002 for my work constructing mathematical models of HIV infection, a field of study I entered in 1996. Just ten years later, it might seem early for me to be looking back on and seriously reconsidering my chosen field, yet here I am.

My work as a mathematical biologist has been built in large part on the paradigm that HIV causes AIDS, and I have since come to realize that there is good evidence that the entire basis for this theory is wrong. AIDS, it seems, is not a disease so much as a sociopolitical construct that few people understand and even fewer question. The issue of causation, in particular, has become beyond question — even to bring it up is deemed irresponsible.

Why have we as a society been so quick to accept a theory for which so little solid evidence exists? Why do we take proclamations by government institutions like the NIH and the CDC, via newscasters and talk show hosts, entirely on faith? The average citizen has no idea how weak the connection really is between HIV and AIDS, and this is the manner in which scientifically insupportable phrases like "the AIDS virus" or "an AIDS test" have become part of the common vernacular despite no evidence for their accuracy.

When it was announced in 1984 that the cause of AIDS had been found in a retrovirus that came to be known as HIV, there was a palpable panic. My own family was immediately affected by this panic, since my mother had had several blood transfusions in the early 1980s as a result of three late miscarriages she had experienced. In the early days, we feared mosquito bites, kissing, and public toilet seats. I can still recall the panic I felt after looking up in a public restroom and seeing some graffiti that read "Do you have AIDS yet? If not, sit on this toilet seat."

But I was only ten years old then, and over time the panic subsided to more of a dull roar as it became clear that AIDS was not as easy to "catch" as we had initially believed. Fear of going to the bathroom or the dentist was replaced with a more realistic wariness of having sex with anyone we didn't know really, really well. As a teenager who was in no way promiscuous, I didn't have much to worry about.

That all changed — or so I thought — when I was twenty-one. Due to circumstances in my personal life and a bit of paranoia that (as it turned out, falsely and completely groundlessly) led me to believe I had somehow contracted "AIDS," I got an HIV test. I spent two weeks waiting for the results, convinced that I would soon die, and that it would be "all my fault." This was despite the fact that I was perfectly healthy, didn't use drugs, and wasn't promiscuous — low-risk by any definition. As it happened, the test was negative, and, having felt I had been granted a reprieve, I vowed not to take more risks, and to quit worrying so much.

Over the past ten years, my attitude toward HIV and AIDS has undergone a dramatic shift. This shift was catalyzed by the work I did as a graduate student, analyzing mathematical models of HIV and the immune system. As a mathematician, I found virtually every model I studied to be unrealistic. The biological assumptions on which the models were based varied from author to author, and this made no sense to me. It was around this time, too, that I became increasingly perplexed by the stories I heard about long-term survivors. From my admittedly inexpert viewpoint, the major thing they all had in common — other than HIV — was that they lived extremely healthy lifestyles. Part of me was becoming suspicious that being HIV-positive didn't necessarily mean you would ever get AIDS.

By a rather curious twist of fate, it was on my way to a conference to present the results of a model of HIV that I had proposed together with my advisor, that I came across an article by Dr. David Rasnick about AIDS and the corruption of modern science. As I sat on the airplane reading this story, in which he said "the more I examined HIV, the less it made sense that this largely inactive, barely detectable virus could cause such devastation," everything he wrote started making sense to me in a way that the currently accepted model did not. I didn't have anywhere near all the information, but my instincts told me that what he said seemed to fit.

Over the past ten years, I nevertheless continued my research into mathematical models of HIV infection, all the while keeping an ear open for dissenting voices. By now, I have read hundreds of articles on HIV and AIDS, many from the dissident point of view but far, far more from that of the establishment, which unequivocally promotes the idea that HIV causes AIDS and that the case is closed. In that time, I even published four papers on HIV (from a modeling perspective). I justified my contributions to a theory I wasn't convinced of by telling myself these were purely theoretical, mathematical constructs, never to be applied in the real world. I suppose, in some sense also, I wanted to keep an open mind.

So why is it that only now have I decided that enough is enough, and I can no longer in any capacity continue to support the paradigm on which my entire career has been built?

As a mathematician, I was taught early on about the importance of clear definitions. AIDS, if you consider its definition, is far from clear, and is in fact not even a consistent entity. The classification "AIDS" was introduced in the early 1980s not as a disease but as a surveillance tool to help doctors and public health officials understand and control a strange "new" syndrome affecting mostly young gay men. In the two decades intervening, it has evolved into something quite different. AIDS today bears little or no resemblance to the syndrome for which it was named. For one thing, the definition has actually been changed by the CDC several times, continually expanding to include ever more diseases (all of which existed for decades prior to AIDS), and sometimes, no disease whatsoever. More than half of all AIDS diagnoses in the past several years in the United States have been made on the basis of a T-cell count and a "confirmed" positive antibody test — in other words, a deadly disease has been diagnosed over and over again on the basis of no clinical disease at all. And the leading cause of death in HIV-positives in the last few years has been liver failure, not an AIDS-defining disease in any way, but rather an acknowledged side effect of protease inhibitors, which asymptomatic individuals take in massive daily doses, for years.

The epidemiology of HIV and AIDS is puzzling and unclear as well. In spite of the fact that AIDS cases increased rapidly from their initial observation in the early 1980s and reached a peak in 1993 before declining rapidly, the number of HIV-positive individuals in the U.S. has remained constant at one million since the advent of widespread HIV antibody testing. This cannot be due to anti-HIV therapy, since the annual mortality rate of North American HIV-positives who are treated with anti-HIV drugs is much higher — between 6.7 and 8.8% — than would be the approximately 1–2% global mortality rate of HIV-positives if all AIDS cases were fatal in a given year.

Even more strangely, HIV has been present everywhere in the U.S., in every population tested including repeat blood donors and military recruits, at a virtually constant rate since testing began in 1985. It is deeply confusing that a virus thought to have been brought to the AIDS epicenters of New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles in the early 1970s could possibly have spread so rapidly at first, yet have stopped spreading completely as soon as testing began.

Returning for a moment to the mathematical modeling, one aspect that had always puzzled me was the lack of agreement on how to accurately represent the actual biological mechanism of immune impairment. AIDS is said to be caused by a dramatic loss of the immune system's T-cells, said loss being presumably caused by HIV. Why then could no one agree on how to mathematically model the dynamics of the fundamental disease process — that is, how are T-cells actually killed by HIV? Early models assumed that HIV killed T-cells directly, by what is referred to as lysis. An infected cell lyses, or bursts, when the internal viral burden is so high that it can no longer be contained, just like your grocery bag breaks when it's too full. This is in fact the accepted mechanism of pathogenesis for virtually all other viruses. But it became clear that HIV did not in fact kill T-cells in this manner, and this concept was abandoned, to be replaced by various other ones, each of which resulted in very different models and, therefore, different predictions. Which model was "correct" never was clear.

As it turns out, the reason there was no consensus mathematically as to how HIV killed T-cells was because there was no biological consensus. There still isn't. HIV is possibly the most studied microbe in history — certainly it is the best-funded — yet there is still no agreed-upon mechanism of pathogenesis. Worse than that, there are no data to support the hypothesis that HIV kills T-cells at all. It doesn't in the test tube. It mostly just sits there, as it does in people — if it can be found at all. In Robert Gallo’s seminal 1984 paper in which he claims "proof" that HIV causes AIDS, actual HIV could be found in only 26 out of 72 AIDS patients. To date, actual HIV remains an elusive target in those with AIDS or simply HIV-positive.

This is starkly illustrated by the continued use of antibody tests to diagnose HIV infection. Antibody tests are fairly standard to test for certain microbes, but for anything other than HIV, the main reason they are used in place of direct tests (that is, actually looking for the bacteria or virus itself) is because they are generally much easier and cheaper than direct testing. Most importantly, such antibody tests have been rigorously verified against the gold standard of microbial isolation. This stands in vivid contrast to HIV, for which antibody tests are used because there exists no test for the actual virus. As to so-called "viral load," most people are not aware that tests for viral load are neither licensed nor recommended by the FDA to diagnose HIV infection. This is why an "AIDS test" is still an antibody test. Viral load, however, is used to estimate the health status of those already diagnosed HIV-positive. But there are very good reasons to believe it does not work at all. Viral load uses either PCR or a technique called branched-chained DNA amplification (bDNA). PCR is the same technique used for "DNA fingerprinting" at crime scenes where only trace amounts of materials can be found. PCR essentially mass-produces DNA or RNA so that it can be seen. If something has to be mass-produced to even be seen, and the result of that mass-production is used to estimate how much of a pathogen there is, it might lead a person to wonder how relevant the pathogen was in the first place. Specifically, how could something so hard to find, even using the most sensitive and sophisticated technology, completely decimate the immune system? bDNA, while not magnifying anything directly, nevertheless looks only for fragments of DNA believed, but not proven, to be components of the genome of HIV — but there is no evidence to say that these fragments don't exist in other genetic sequences unrelated to HIV or to any virus. It is worth noting at this point that viral load, like antibody tests, has never been verified against the gold standard of HIV isolation. bDNA uses PCR as a gold standard, PCR uses antibody tests as a gold standard, and antibody tests use each other. None use HIV itself.

There is good reason to believe the antibody tests are flawed as well. The two types of tests routinely used are the ELISA and the Western Blot (WB). The current testing protocol is to "verify" a positive ELISA with the "more specific" WB (which has actually been banned from diagnostic use in the UK because it is so unreliable). But few people know that the criteria for a positive WB vary from country to country and even from lab to lab. Put bluntly, a person's HIV status could well change depending on the testing venue. It is also possible to test "WB indeterminate," which translates to any one of "uninfected," "possibly infected," or even, absurdly, "partly infected" under the current interpretation. This conundrum is confounded by the fact that the proteins comprising the different reactive "bands" on the WB test are all claimed to be specific to HIV, raising the question of how a truly uninfected individual could possess antibodies to even one "HIV-specific" protein.

I have come to sincerely believe that these HIV tests do immeasurably more harm than good, due to their astounding lack of specificity and standardization. I can buy the idea that anonymous screening of the blood supply for some nonspecific marker of ill health (which, due to cross reactivity with many known pathogens, a positive HIV antibody test often seems to be) is useful. I cannot buy the idea that any individual needs to have a diagnostic HIV test. A negative test may not be accurate (whatever that means), but a positive one can create utter havoc and destruction in a person's life — all for a virus that most likely does absolutely nothing. I do not feel it is going too far to say that these tests ought to be banned for diagnostic purposes.

The real victims in this mess are those whose lives are turned upside-down by the stigma of an HIV diagnosis. These people, most of whom are perfectly healthy, are encouraged to avoid intimacy and are further branded with the implication that they were somehow dreadfully foolish and careless. Worse, they are encouraged to take massive daily doses of some of the most toxic drugs ever manufactured. HIV, for many years, has fulfilled the role of a microscopic terrorist. People have lost their jobs, been denied entry into the Armed Forces, been refused residency in and even entry into some countries, even been charged with assault or murder for having consensual sex; babies have been taken from their mothers and had toxic medications forced down their throats. There is no precedent for this type of behavior, as it is all in the name of a completely unproven, fundamentally flawed hypothesis, on the basis of highly suspect, indirect tests for supposed infection with an allegedly deadly virus — a virus that has never been observed to do much of anything.

As to the question of what does cause AIDS, if it is not HIV, there are many plausible explanations given by people known to be experts. Before the discovery of HIV, AIDS was assumed to be a lifestyle syndrome caused mostly by indiscriminate use of recreational drugs. Immunosuppression has multiple causes, from an overload of microbes to malnutrition. Probably all of these are true causes of AIDS. Immune deficiency has many manifestations, and a syndrome with many manifestations is likely multicausal as well. Suffice it to say that the HIV hypothesis of AIDS has offered nothing but predictions — of its spread, of the availability of a vaccine, of a forthcoming animal model, and so on — that have not materialized, and it has not saved a single life.

After ten years involved in the academic side of HIV research, as well as in the academic world at large, I truly believe that the blame for the universal, unconditional, faith-based acceptance of such a flawed theory falls squarely on the shoulders of those among us who have actively endorsed a completely unproven hypothesis in the interests of furthering our careers. Of course, hypotheses in science deserve to be studied, but no hypothesis should be accepted as fact before it is proven, particularly one whose blind acceptance has such dire consequences.

For over twenty years, the general public has been greatly misled and ill-informed. As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because "everyone else accepts it to be true," I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness. And the craziness has gone on long enough. As humans – as honest academics and scientists – the only thing we can do is allow the truth to come to light.

March 3, 2006

The Best of Rebecca V. Culshaw

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/03/...hy-i-quit-hiv/

Last edited by da2255; 29-06-2018 at 10:54 PM.
Likes: (1)
da2255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 11:06 PM   #36
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

So, if HIV does not cause AIDs, how does PrEP medication work - because it does work!
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-06-2018, 11:48 PM   #37
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elshaper View Post
wow, even thermion think it's fake.
Man, you are normally the one to put a stop to conspiracy.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I believe in the mainstream version of HIV. I've been up to it pretty close one way and another and I have no truck with quack, alternative 'woo' cures.

It's real and it kills. It's still killing although it's not quite as deadly now we have some serious understanding of how it works and drugs to halt it. Maybe looking into PrEP might enlighten a few folks...
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2018, 02:01 AM   #38
elshaper
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,965
Likes: 5,575 (3,762 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
Maybe I wasn't clear. I believe in the mainstream version of HIV. I've been up to it pretty close one way and another and I have no truck with quack, alternative 'woo' cures.

It's real and it kills. It's still killing although it's not quite as deadly now we have some serious understanding of how it works and drugs to halt it. Maybe looking into PrEP might enlighten a few folks...
That's more like you.
I thought your account was hacked then.
Likes: (1)
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2018, 02:06 AM   #39
elshaper
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,965
Likes: 5,575 (3,762 Posts)
Default

da,
Very interesting and eye opening to read. Thanks for writing all that out for us. You know if you start a petition requesting a change of HIV testing, this information will get out there though you may become unpopular by the medical/pharma industry. You say that you may have wasted or took the wrong path but I am sure your effort hasn't been wasted.

Just reading up what causes t-cells to decrease... There are many common reasons. Can you imagine, you take a HIV test just about the time you had this and that infection and you are feeling low anyway.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/symptoms/...s/sym-20050615

As for decreased immune system, it may not reach 'AIDS' status but even hormonal imbalance causes decrease of immune system which can cause digestive problems, skin problems etc....all sounds very familiar to symptoms of so called HIV infection.

Last edited by elshaper; 30-06-2018 at 02:07 AM.
Likes: (1)
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2018, 10:12 AM   #40
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
It's real and it kills. It's still killing although it's not quite as deadly now we have some serious understanding of how it works and drugs to halt it. Maybe looking into PrEP might enlighten a few folks...
I admit that I don't know what PrEP is. I promise to look into it, but this could take me a while.

There are different reasons why I don't believe the official story that HIV causes AIDS.

- There has never been provided any actual evidence that HIV actually causes AIDS.

- There are other causes for immune deficiency.

- If AIDS would be caused by a virus like HIV it would have spread differently.

According to Montagnier, HIV is only dangerous when the person that's infected with HIV has a weak immune system.
That's like saying that HIV only causes AIDS when you're immune deficient. In other words only when you already have AIDS when you get infected by HIV, you get AIDS...
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:25 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.