"Under the Bush administration, about 400,000 more African patients received treatment every year. President Obama’s Pepfar strategy would reduce the number of new patients receiving treatment to 320,000 — resulting in 1.2 million avoidable deaths over the next five years... Doctors would have to decide which of the 22 million Africans afflicted with H.I.V. should receive treatment and which should not." --Bishop Desmond Tutu, 7/20/10
"If you think a virus is the cause of AIDS, do a control without it. To do a control is the first thing you teach undergraduates. But it hasnt been done. The epidemiology of AIDS is a pile of anecdotal stories selected to the virus-AIDS hypothesis. People dont bother to check the details of popular dogma or consensus views"
— Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing PCR the basis for the HIV viral load tests.
quite is from Rethinkaids com quotes on aids section. The direct link is on my channel or People can google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
I just hope that our new friend Ivan takes some time to visit that site & others mentioned on my profile, plus views some of the videos on our playlists. That's the only way he's going to learn, as we did. I'll never forget the day I received an email from a South African attorney, telling me that I was fighting for a $CAM. It just didn't seem right & I thought he'd lost his marbles ~then PHEW! the TRUTH shocked the daylights out of me.
Maybe he will. I find that it's as hard as getting a scientolgist to look at Operation Clambake but you never know. Even if he doesn't the info is still there for others to investigate. Yeah it shocked the hell out of me too. How could it not?
MyKoolAid ~ So true! I'm sure that you feel the same as I do ~ that even if we just manage to reach & ultimately help to save just 1 person each day, it's a huge bonus & makes what we do worth while.
Down here I have the opportunity to chat to at least one local every day, & then just pray that they then go on & share that with a couple of others. :)
OMG! It's 12:40am here in South Africa ~ so I'd better get some shut eye ~ yet before doing so, just needed to let you know that you're making GREAT STRIDES! REALLY!
To witness any other going through precisely what I once did, is AWESOME!
Good night & God bless both of you ~ whom I see have become friends, even if neither wishes to admit such at this stage.
This film is how obama got into the whitehouse imo. He is basically pushing drugs for big pharma here. fairycirclewing is right, freddie was murdered. look at the videos that annie is mentioning on her site.
"Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo."
— Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, the basis for the HIV viral load tests.
The direct link is on my channel or People can google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
Everyone should take a HIV test. The problem is how and where to take a test. Maybe you can try the Same Day Mobile HIV Testing. They come to the place that you choose!
Somebody needs to educate the President, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton & numerous celebrities like Oprah, Bono, Annie Lennox, Madonna, Elton John, Chris Rock, Sharon Stone & many others!
HIV is a HARMLESS RETROVIRUS which has never caused any disease!
HIV & AIDS are non-sexually transmitted!
HIV has never even been obtained from any human being ever!
An HIV test is merely an ANTIBODY test ~ use the same test for anything you've been vaccinated against & they'll ALL test positive!
Christine Maggiore. Heard of her? Maybe not. She killed herself and her daughter because of her anit-scientific fanaticism. You're in good hands. Thank god these people tend to drop dead. The less lies that are spread by your ignorance, the less people will neglect to treat themselves.
ivan~ You believe what suits you best & I'll continue with what I believe to be the truth. I'm certainly not going to argue with you, nor attempt to change your mind ~ I will however continue to reach as many people as I can & deliver that which I truly believe to be the TRUTH.
HIV tests are nothing short of playing Russian Roueltte with precious human lives & ARVs kill.
The blatant LIE$ need to be exposed, & thanks to HOUSE OF NUMBERS, it appears to finally be on the horizon at last. :)
Maybe that's the difference between us. I don't believe what "suits" me. I accept what the overwhelming amount of evidence, scientific literature, and epidemiology suggest. You can call your delusion "the truth" as much as you like. You're certainly not going to convince anyone who's able to review the data on HIV/AIDS studies. The unbelievable contempt for evidence and the fantastic indifference to scientific progress that you need to keep this little cult alive is nothing short of dogmatism.
The biggest difference between us, is that you are so horribly DIS / MISinformed & have the wool pulled right over your eyes! Don't worry, you're not alone ~ the majority haven't performed adequate research & also choose to listen to MS Media & the very perpetrators of this huge $CAM!
If you really cared, as opposed to simply attempting to sound informed & intelligent, you'd start researching right away. I've made that simple through my Playlist. You probably don't even know that Gallo lied!
I'm glad to hear you think I sound intelligent. Why do you bring up media? I never referenced media or said I rely on it for information. You don't have to look any further than peer review scientific journals to realize that what you're saying is nonsense. Just ask yourself what's more likely: that the vast majority of virologists, molecular biologists and epidemiologists have been duped, or that you've been duped. I'm sorry to make you look stupid but I don't know how to put it more gently
You're right. I don't make you look stupid. You do a fine job of that on your own. As a general rule, the more caps and exclamation points a person uses, the lower their intelligence. Your religious fervor is exactly that--faith based, not evidentially grounded. You can take comfort in that, at least.
Ivan ~ You are PATHETIC ~ I WISH TO HAVE nothing MORE TO DO WITH YOU here on YT ~ Only because I can'r bear the thought of putting others through this CRAZY ~ temporarily 'GOING NOWHERE' scene with you!
Feel free to message me PRIVATELY ~ so we can avoid INNOCENT FOLK getting swept up into your wayward & totally MISconstrued BELIEFS here.
I have NOTHING to HIDE ~ I would love NOTHING MORE THAN OBAMA CALLING ME on + 27312072415
If you're so intent on the private conversation idea, why reply to my last message publicly? I just don't think you realize how much harm you're causing spreading these lies. You really should educate yourself further before claiming to be an expert on a subject you clearly know nothing about. Again it's your word against the entire scientific, peer reviewed community. I'd say the latter knows a bit more about the subject, wouldn't you say?
"[Anthony] Fauci is one of the US Governments major architects of the myth that HIV has been proven to be the cause of AIDS and that stopping HIV will save livesa myth that has become so entrenched in medicines conventional wisdom that to question it is tantamount [to] treason."
"There are not sufficient enough data to understand the properties of HIV because the scientific literature is nothing more than opinions, poorly conducted studies and reviews of poorly conducted studies."
quotes are by...— Dr. Howard Urnovitz, PhD, Microbiologist and Immunologist, Science Director, Chronic Illness Research Foundation, co-founder and CEO, Chronix Biomedical. Dr. Urnovitzs team developed the only FDA-licensed urine-based diagnostic test for antibodies to HIV.
Rethinkaids com. or People can google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
Rodney Richards, Ph.D., worked on the development of antibody (ELISA) and genetic "viral load" tests for Amgen and holds some related patents. "The diagnosis of being HIV positive is based on arbitrary combinations of tests, none of which are approved for diagnosing HIV," he says. "In fact there is no test for HIV. It's just an illusion."
Rethinkaids com. People can also google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS?ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
Consensus and peer review. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these concepts. You can find biologists who think the world is 6000 years old. You'll have to forgive me if I'm unimpressed.
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had"
who said this? Go check. Same source as the other quotes
The same arguments as creationists. When you have hundreds of thousands of individuals all trying to prove each other wrong, there's no room for deception. This is what science is. When someone comes up with a theory that holds water, there's no choice but to recognize it. AIDS denialism fails for the same reason as creationism--lack of evidence and religious-like dogmatism.
"We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, Ad Hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact The conflation 'HIV-AIDS' may be good marketing but is it science? No!Yet certainly the political and economic implications of the term HIV-AIDS are staggering"
quotes is by...— Lynn Margulis, PhD, Biologist, Distinguished Professor of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Originated the Endosymbiotic Theory for the origin of eukaryotic cells Recipient of the National Medal of Science (1999). Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Author of over 130 scientific works and books, The Library of Congress started to permanently archive all of her papers in 1998.
I've just given you a list of sources longer than you even had time to read. I've never attacked you, and the appeal to consensus I make is not to the general population, it's to the same consensus that agrees the earth revolves around the sun and that humans are the reuslt of natural selection
Galileo was of the scientific consensus. Other scientists of the time did agree with Galileo. You do not belong to the scientific consensus. It doesn't mean you're wrong but it does mean that the parallel you draw between yourself and galileo is false.
If he was of the scientific consensus he wouldn't have been placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Where is your primary citation? You may not think it's necessary but I promise you it is required according the rules of scientific method. You can't just announce a virus of mass destruction at a damn press conference and think that's all the evidence you need
As far as rapdily evolving viruses are concerned. This is not new. We've had a 1/4 century to study HIV and it's connection with AIDS is just as certain as the connection between malaria and plasmodium parasite. I've given you the sources to back this up. I'm sorry, it looks like you lose this round.
That doesn't answer anything. If "hiv" keeps changing then why haven't the antibody tests? How does it mutate and remain exactly the same at the same time?
No one said it remains exactly the same. There are certain markers on a virus and on the cells after they've been infected. They're called antigens. The test dectects these antigens regardless of the strain of virus. The virus strains are all similar enough to produce this dectectable antigen
no two virus isolates are identical. Within a single host, HIV-1 population represents a complex mixture, or swarm, of mutant virus variants [whose] prevalence is changing on almost a daily basis (intrahost evolution). Moreover, infected individuals within a human population harbor distinct viruses (interhost or populationwide heterogeneity). Finally, the global HIV-1 pandemic is composed of many local epidemics, which generally differ in [Lukashov, Goudsmit, and Paxton 2002]
I guess you didn't bother to check the source I suggested.
genomic studies report 10^9 to 10^10 virions produced each day, and a mutation rate of approximately 3 x 10^-5 per nucleotide base per cycle of replication, leading to many variants of HIV in a single infected patient in the course of a single day (4).
. Many authors describe HIV as a "quasispecies" (4-6). It is anomalous that this "huge range of genetic configurations" (5) of "HIV quasispecies" which has developed over the past 20 years has always been detectable by antibody tests using the same core proteins, having sensitivity and specificity supposedly exceeding 99.7% (7).
You have to admit you sound a bit like a creationist. On my side is the scientific community, workable models, and dispassionate studies, and on your side is the "evidence of the gaps," complaints of information supression, and a belief in an overarching and mind boggling complex conspiracy.
No...you sound like someone who uses personal attacks instead of evidence
WHat is the primary scientific citation proving the causal relationship btw the virus of mass destructin and immune problems? You keep dancing around that
"Current methods of HIV testing using a Western blot are incorrect 1 time out of 250,000 with a CI of 95%" This is to be expected seeing as how rates of detection and treatment have let to an eventual control over HIV. If you want to maintain that all of this is a fraud, you're left to explain under what conditions HIV/AIDS has come to be a relatively routine disease to treat while in the developing world it still is nearly fatal without treatment.
Ahh. I've gotten you to say it. You originally maintained that the tests couldn't detect the virus--the rapidly evolving bit you were using. Now you admit they do detect but that you don't think that HIV can cause AIDS. Now you can move on to the epidemiological data to see that no one gets AIDS without having HIV and that those who have HIV nearly always get AIDS (not 100% of course--not even 100% of those who get the flu virus show symptoms). This is progress of a sort. Congratulations
Sorry hun...the rules of science havn't changed since 1994. Tough shit. There ARE many cases of aids without any such virus of mass destruction to blame for it.
If you conduct 25 years of studies on any phenomenon, statistically speaking your bound to come up with results that go both ways. What you've done (or, more likely, what someone has done for you) is found a few studies over this 1/4 century that are anomolous and use them as if they were the standard results. Using this intellectually dishonest cherrypicking, you can prove absolutely any claim.
"Virus of mass destruction." I highly encourage you to think independently and not mindlessly regurgitate what you've been fed by anti-scientific fanatics. The source I've given you is a peer reviewed journal article from pubmed. This is as good as it gets and if you're going to dismiss it because it's not a "primary citation" (a meaningless concept outside of the humanities), then you've demonstrated your complete unwillingness to give up your quasi-religious conviction.
The point that everybody is missing is that all those original papers Gallo wrote on HIV have been found fraudulent. Well, then, that throws into question the entire HIV hypothesis, doesnt it? The HIV hypothesis was based on those papers."
Dr. Peter Duesberg, PhD Professor of Molecular Biology, University of California, member, National Academy of Sciences, first to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. 5X recipient of the National Institutes of Healths Outstanding Investigator Grant
You believe in a conspiracy, in a vast lie, and in a plan of deception. I'd say this is a postiive belief. The phrase "primary citation" doesn't come up regarding scientific literature. HIstory, yes. Not science.
It's not an attack, It's what you believe to be true, is it not? The source of a theory isn't important. I think this is what you're having trouble grasping. What matters is whether or no the theory holds up to the evidence. In the case of the existence of HIV, it does.
""In fact there is no test for HIV. Its just an illusionearly on when we were working in collaboration with Abbott Laboratories, it was clear that there was no gold standard for HIV—no direct isolation of the virus. Nobody has ever demonstrated that HIV is present when any combination, or any one, of these tests comes up positive. None of these tests can be validated, ever. Period. Because we dont have a way to isolate and culture HIV to prove its existence.""
quote is by...Dr. Rodney Richards, PhD, Biochemist, Founding scientist for the biotech company Amgen. Collaborated with Abbott Laboratories in developing some of the first HIV tests
Rethinkaids com quotes on aids section or google...
I'm sure you can find studies that say there is no link between smoking and cancer. Your quote is just as unconvincing to me as it would be if you were a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. Don't you see your doing the exact same thing? Isn't it clear to you? This is almost surreal.
Do you see how you ignore the fact that the reason the "hiv" tests are UNSTANDARDIZED is because they have nothing to compare them to i.e. they have no direct isolation of this alleged virus of mass destruction.
You may as well be basing an entire theory in science on the results of emeters and frikkin TAROT CARDS!
"...From the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in Atlanta I have requested the scientific papers that prove the causal relationship between the HIV retrovirus and the IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME commonly known as AIDS. They have never sent even references to the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature that establishes the causal relationship because they cant. Such papers do not exist."
Quote is by...— Lynn Margulis, PhD, Biologist, Distinguished Professor of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Originated the Endosymbiotic Theory for the origin of eukaryotic cells Recipient of the National Medal of Science (1999). Member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Author of over 130 scientific works & books The Library of Congress started to permanently archive all of her papers in 1998.
Hmm.. You realize that same "causal relationship" arugment was made regarding smoking and lung cancer. Tobacco companies would demand "one single study" that conclusively shows that there is a causal relationship. Then they'd dismiss the studies saying it was just correlation and that there was no clear link. You can go on with this as long as you like. You won't convince me or anyone else who understands how a study works.
Exclamation points and caps? Could it be he proposed the theory because people across the country and the world were dropping dead for an unknown reason? I think that's cause enough to schedule a press conference. Primary citations aren't necessary in science. Are you just goint to keep repeating yourself. It's like a game of checkers--I've got you trapped in the corner and you're just moving back and forth from square to square. Primary citation to unstandardized to primary citation.
Lol...dude please....the "hiv" tests are unstandardized crap. Calling me names and patting yourself on the back is no substitute for scientifically valid tests
And back to unstandardized? What's next? Don't tell me....primary citation? I've given you more evidence than you can possibly read and explained to you that the lack of standardization is a problem of testing, not of the existence of an HIV/AIDS relationship. You've failed to address either of these topics, choosing to instead quote fringe scientists.
Since when does being a member of the National Academy of Arts and Science or a Nobel Laureate qualify someone as a "fringe scientist"? It doesn't get any more mainstream than that
The original aids cases were in drug addicts and chronically malnourished people without access to clean water or basic medical care. You don't need a virus of mass destruction to explain why those people get sick
And NO...you don't get up and say you've discovered the cause of aids at a press conference with no evidence to back up your claims.
1)Drug addicts are exposed to used needles and the chronically malnourished have weakened immune systems. I think you've made an argument in favor of the existence of HIV.
2) Science doesn't depend on press conferences or public opinion. It depends on studies. Which I've shown you. Which you've ignored.
No. Your logic sucks. You don't need a virus of mass destruction to explain why junkies get sick and die.
NO....you keep dancing around showing me the study I keep on asking for.
The PRIMARY citation proving the causal relationship btw "hiv" and immune problems. WHY did Gallo get up and announce that he had discovered the cause aids? What EVIDENCE did he have for that claim?
I've heard the same argument regarding skin cancer. "The sun doesn't cause skin cancer, sunscreen does" I see this meme spreads regardless of specific content
Not true. It just isn't true. The original aids cases were found in people who had loads of reasons to be sick already....drug addicts and broke ass people who can't even afford to feed themselves properly.
1)You said that meds cause AIDS not that HIV does. I pointed out that AIDS started emerging before the meds were introduced, including in previously healthy people. I never made the claim that the original cases of AIDS were not among the already ill.
2)Whatever Gallo said or didn't say isn't relevant in the discussion of whether HIV/AIDS exists or doesn't exist. If someone told you that the francis and crick made up the claim about DNA, it wouldn't matter. DNA still exists.
YES...the fact that Gallo falsified his "evidence" IS important. I'm not buying the "he made the luckiest guess ever ever ever EVA in the history of the world" explanation for that
Originally prepared by Popovic and dated just seven days before Gallo's infamous media announcement, the draft shows how Gallo made extensive handwritten "corrections" to Popvic's modest but honest statements, angrily crossing out inconvenient data and adding—with no scientific justification—bold claims that the virus that caused AIDS had been discovered. The most telling of the crossed-out lines:
"Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has NOT yet been identified
Living Proof The Lindsey Nagel Story Part 1 updated
Cheryl and Lindsey Nagel on the Robert Scott Bell Show. How does a 2 week old..........HIV+............. .Romanian adoptee (circa 1990) become a healthy 19 year old in 2009? Hint: NO HIV DRUGS. Cheryl Nagel joins me for her first interview since House of Numbers was released to share a story that cannot be told in the HIV-worshipping mainstream media
ALL the kids who took the meds are now dead. ALL of them
This data is replicable and falsifiable. This is what scientific data depends on. Whether or not it was published near a press conference isn't important.
"The result of the invention of HIV-AIDS by press release in 1984 instead of by proper peer review by the scientific community has been a costly, prolonged defense of the indefensible."
Andrew Maniotis, PhD, Program Director, Cell & Developmental Biology of Cancer, Departments of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago
Rethinkaids com Or google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
My messages weren't going through publicly. I had no problems privately sending you messages. Don't bother responding until you've read that study and can point out specifically why it's invalid
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper of the four was "fraught with false and erroneous statements" reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken."
Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations produced a staff report on the papers, containing scathing criticisms of their integrity.
Google.... Top Scientists Ask Medical Journal Science To Retract Original AIDS Papers
Gallo just scribbled out the findings of the study and pencilled in whatever he felt like putting there. You can see the papers for yourself at......FearoftheInvisible com
HIV research isn't a revealed source of knowledge. Just as it doesn't matter what Darwin personally thought of natural selection, it doesn't matter what the discoverers of HIV thought about HIV. It exists, it can be detected, it can be treated, and it can be controlled, regardless of what scientists did or did not say in the early 1980s.
Detected using what tests? They are NOnspecific and unstandardized. You have no way to distinguish btw false and true +'s without a reference standard.
Also...um...NO...I'm not buying the "Gallo made the luckiest guess eva eva EVA!" for how he could have gotten in right despite finding no virus in any of his patients and finding no evidence that his patients immune problems were being caused by his nonexistant virus
Originally prepared by Popovic and dated just seven days before Gallo's infamous media announcement, the draft shows how Gallo made extensive handwritten "corrections" to Popvic's modest but honest statements, angrily crossing out inconvenient data and adding—with no scientific justification—bold claims that the virus that caused AIDS had been discovered. The most telling of the crossed-out lines:
"Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has NOT yet been identified
google... 20 Unanswerable Questions for AIDS Inc.
1. Why have the "HIV proteins" used for antibody tests (in particular, the Western blot test) remained unchanged for 20 years (1-3), given the enormous "genetic variability/mutation rate" of HIV (4-6)?
Searching for escape in anomolies. There are things about rhinovirus we still don't understand. This is the virus that causes the common cold, in case you aren't familiar with the name. This doesn't mean that the virus doesn't exist or that the cold isn't a result of the virus. Same tactic used by creationists, by the way. "show us the transitional fossils!" "How do you explain the eye?" Very similar, you'd have to admit.
1. Why have the "HIV proteins" used for antibody tests (in particular, the Western blot test) remained unchanged for 20 years (1-3), given the enormous "genetic variability/mutation rate" of HIV (4-6)?
You can look at it in the same way as dogs, for example. You can have enourmous genetic diversity in species of dogs, yet they are all similar enough to be able to breed and produce viable, fecund offspring. HIV is similar--you can have genetic diversity yet enough similarity to be able to hybridize and to be detected by a single test.
Ivan~ Don;t ever forget that it;s the FINE print that ultimately SCREWS ALL OF US!
So ~ I choose to accentuate certain words & phrases ~ so be it, if that portrays one lacking any intelligence to YOU! We are ALL individuals ~ so be that too! :)
I feel confident that you, like the MAJORITY, will eventually see through THEIR $CAM ~ it's horrible & costing so many innocent lives & even more orphans & that's what PAINS my heart MOST!
P L E A S E research ~ please get your ducks in a row here!
I think you may be right. And come to think of it, I'm not so sure colds are spread by a virus either. This could all be a conspiracy to get us to buy cold and flu medication and to keep us perpetually sick. Now I understand. It all makes so much sense. You see, the problem with your argument is it's ability to be applied to any sickness or disease. If you're going to use this theory for AIDS, your logic demands you accept it for every illness. Let me know if I'm being too rough with you.
Dude...wtf are you talking about? The problem is that the rules of science are NOT being followed with the virus of mass destruction. Go educate yourself on scientific method and then get back to me.
You can repeat that mantra to yourself all you like. It's meaningless--white noise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And, like I said, this argument could be used for any disease. Why single out HIV/AIDS.
YOU claim that there is a virus of mass destruction moving silently among us. WHAT is you evidence? What is the primary citation? Have the tests been validated against a direct isolate of "hiv" taken from a human being? Does the epidemiology support claims of a deadly epidemic decimating countries?
If you can't understand the implication of an analogy, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't want to read the studies I've presented you with, I don't know what to tell you. What's wrong with the studies? I'm waiting to hear your answer.
So you should have no idea finding the primary citation. I'll give you a hint.... the virus of mass destruction was announced at a press conference in 1984 by Robert Gallo.
The fault of a specific test can hardly be used to discount the disease in general. You can have a faulty or inaccurate pregnancy test--this doesn't exacly mean that babies don't exist. Or would you argue that.
Lol...the reason WHY there is no reference standard is because they have nothing to compare the tests to i.e. no direct isolate taken from fresh human plasma.
Because with "hiv"the entire theory is based on UNstandardized & NONspecific tests. You may as well be basing an entire theory in science on the results of emeters
"At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.."
Human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2: (E. coli, B. megaterium, recombinant antigen) HIVAB HIV-1/HIV-2 (rDNA) EIA. Abbott Laboratories. 2004
"AIDS resulting from HIV infection has been demonstrated in trial after trial, study after study, and case, after case. Those who proclaim otherwise are either deluded, ignorant, or operating under false pretenses" --Jonathan Rigmore, UCLA.
"HIV cannot be responsible for AIDS. After three years of intensive critical studies of the relevant scientific literature, as an experienced virologist and molecular biologist I came to the following surprising conclusion — there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once has such a retrovirus been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology"
that quote is by...— Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology and a former director of the Department of Viroid Research, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Germany; Recipient of the international Robert Koch award for medical research, 1978*
Rethinkaids com. The direct link is on my channel or People can google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
"There is no possible way humans could have evolved from a primate species" --Edward Young, Molecular Biologist. Would you take this as compelling evidence that evolution never took place? If you do, I think that demonstrates an abnormally unsuspicious mind. I don't mean to make you feel bad, but you're just not thinking critically.
Science does not operate on single studies; it operates on massive amounts of literature that all point to the same conclusion. Just as you can't "prove" evolution is true based on one study, you can't do it with AIDS. 1000s of studies all pointing towards the same conclusion--that exists with both AIDS and evolution. Every argument you're using against AIDS can be used against evolution. You keep sad company.
I have made a twitter post about this. Others no doubt will like it like I did.
amielemign 4 months ago
Shut the fuck up obama you only got it just to get it I bet if you weren't president your ass would of never fucken got it
915LOCA 4 months ago
rubish,Hiv test is scum,everybody knows it
MsGigmaster 1 year ago
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TESTED FOR HIV BY THUKU WHO TESTED OBAMA CONTACT US ON kaloleni06@yahoo.com
njaothuku 1 year ago
"Under the Bush administration, about 400,000 more African patients received treatment every year. President Obama’s Pepfar strategy would reduce the number of new patients receiving treatment to 320,000 — resulting in 1.2 million avoidable deaths over the next five years... Doctors would have to decide which of the 22 million Africans afflicted with H.I.V. should receive treatment and which should not." --Bishop Desmond Tutu, 7/20/10
hookalakah 1 year ago
the answer is: Dont fucking shag arround
GenevaSwiss 1 year ago
Either he's totally ignorant of the truth or an unadulterated liar!
johnhankins67 2 years ago
"If you think a virus is the cause of AIDS, do a control without it. To do a control is the first thing you teach undergraduates. But it hasnt been done. The epidemiology of AIDS is a pile of anecdotal stories selected to the virus-AIDS hypothesis. People dont bother to check the details of popular dogma or consensus views"
— Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing PCR the basis for the HIV viral load tests.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
quite is from Rethinkaids com quotes on aids section. The direct link is on my channel or People can google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
and go straight to the page
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
MyKoolAid: It's ReThinkingAids . com
I just hope that our new friend Ivan takes some time to visit that site & others mentioned on my profile, plus views some of the videos on our playlists. That's the only way he's going to learn, as we did. I'll never forget the day I received an email from a South African attorney, telling me that I was fighting for a $CAM. It just didn't seem right & I thought he'd lost his marbles ~then PHEW! the TRUTH shocked the daylights out of me.
Love,
~@~
annie46664 2 years ago
Maybe he will. I find that it's as hard as getting a scientolgist to look at Operation Clambake but you never know. Even if he doesn't the info is still there for others to investigate. Yeah it shocked the hell out of me too. How could it not?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago 2
MyKoolAid ~ So true! I'm sure that you feel the same as I do ~ that even if we just manage to reach & ultimately help to save just 1 person each day, it's a huge bonus & makes what we do worth while.
Down here I have the opportunity to chat to at least one local every day, & then just pray that they then go on & share that with a couple of others. :)
annie46664 2 years ago
OMG! It's 12:40am here in South Africa ~ so I'd better get some shut eye ~ yet before doing so, just needed to let you know that you're making GREAT STRIDES! REALLY!
To witness any other going through precisely what I once did, is AWESOME!
Good night & God bless both of you ~ whom I see have become friends, even if neither wishes to admit such at this stage.
LOVE YOU BOTH!
~@nnie~
annie46664 2 years ago
Comment removed
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Comment removed
annie46664 2 years ago
My responses are being denied!
WHERE IS justice HERE?
There isn't isn't here ~ NOT in this domaine ~ not just yet!
Watch THIS space!
@
annie46664 2 years ago
Comment removed
annie46664 2 years ago
This film is how obama got into the whitehouse imo. He is basically pushing drugs for big pharma here. fairycirclewing is right, freddie was murdered. look at the videos that annie is mentioning on her site.
jezzyby47 2 years ago 2
"Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo."
— Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the polymerase chain reaction, the basis for the HIV viral load tests.
The direct link is on my channel or People can google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
and go straight to the page
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Everyone should take a HIV test. The problem is how and where to take a test. Maybe you can try the Same Day Mobile HIV Testing. They come to the place that you choose!
iMediaPublisher 2 years ago
this HIV/AIDS FRAUD MURDERED
Freddie Mercury ...
i DEMAND JUSTICE NOW!!!
the hiv tests are BOTCHED!!!
the antiretroviral drugs KILL!!!
fairycirclewing 2 years ago
Somebody needs to educate the President, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton & numerous celebrities like Oprah, Bono, Annie Lennox, Madonna, Elton John, Chris Rock, Sharon Stone & many others!
HIV is a HARMLESS RETROVIRUS which has never caused any disease!
HIV & AIDS are non-sexually transmitted!
HIV has never even been obtained from any human being ever!
An HIV test is merely an ANTIBODY test ~ use the same test for anything you've been vaccinated against & they'll ALL test positive!
WAKE UP!
annie46664 2 years ago
Christine Maggiore. Heard of her? Maybe not. She killed herself and her daughter because of her anit-scientific fanaticism. You're in good hands. Thank god these people tend to drop dead. The less lies that are spread by your ignorance, the less people will neglect to treat themselves.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
ivan~ You believe what suits you best & I'll continue with what I believe to be the truth. I'm certainly not going to argue with you, nor attempt to change your mind ~ I will however continue to reach as many people as I can & deliver that which I truly believe to be the TRUTH.
HIV tests are nothing short of playing Russian Roueltte with precious human lives & ARVs kill.
The blatant LIE$ need to be exposed, & thanks to HOUSE OF NUMBERS, it appears to finally be on the horizon at last. :)
SA
annie46664 2 years ago
Maybe that's the difference between us. I don't believe what "suits" me. I accept what the overwhelming amount of evidence, scientific literature, and epidemiology suggest. You can call your delusion "the truth" as much as you like. You're certainly not going to convince anyone who's able to review the data on HIV/AIDS studies. The unbelievable contempt for evidence and the fantastic indifference to scientific progress that you need to keep this little cult alive is nothing short of dogmatism.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
The biggest difference between us, is that you are so horribly DIS / MISinformed & have the wool pulled right over your eyes! Don't worry, you're not alone ~ the majority haven't performed adequate research & also choose to listen to MS Media & the very perpetrators of this huge $CAM!
If you really cared, as opposed to simply attempting to sound informed & intelligent, you'd start researching right away. I've made that simple through my Playlist. You probably don't even know that Gallo lied!
annie46664 2 years ago
I'm glad to hear you think I sound intelligent. Why do you bring up media? I never referenced media or said I rely on it for information. You don't have to look any further than peer review scientific journals to realize that what you're saying is nonsense. Just ask yourself what's more likely: that the vast majority of virologists, molecular biologists and epidemiologists have been duped, or that you've been duped. I'm sorry to make you look stupid but I don't know how to put it more gently
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Ivan~ You DON'T for ONE MINUTE make ME look stupid! So please don't lose any sleep over that!
I sit so WELL with what I know to be RIGHT!
Bless you ~ & hopefully you'll research & begin to source the LIGHT ~ yes! the TRUTH, dear one!
Obama is SO HORRIBLY WRONG!
Annie Lennox, Elton John, both Bills, Nelson Mandela, Oprah etc. are, like YOU, so DISinformed & KNOW ZILCH!
I fear NOT! ~ because the real TRUTH, is about to surface any moment now!
Love & LIGHT!
South Africa @ grass roots!
annie46664 2 years ago
You're right. I don't make you look stupid. You do a fine job of that on your own. As a general rule, the more caps and exclamation points a person uses, the lower their intelligence. Your religious fervor is exactly that--faith based, not evidentially grounded. You can take comfort in that, at least.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Ivan ~ You are PATHETIC ~ I WISH TO HAVE nothing MORE TO DO WITH YOU here on YT ~ Only because I can'r bear the thought of putting others through this CRAZY ~ temporarily 'GOING NOWHERE' scene with you!
Feel free to message me PRIVATELY ~ so we can avoid INNOCENT FOLK getting swept up into your wayward & totally MISconstrued BELIEFS here.
I have NOTHING to HIDE ~ I would love NOTHING MORE THAN OBAMA CALLING ME on + 27312072415
@nnie :)
annie46664 2 years ago
If you're so intent on the private conversation idea, why reply to my last message publicly? I just don't think you realize how much harm you're causing spreading these lies. You really should educate yourself further before claiming to be an expert on a subject you clearly know nothing about. Again it's your word against the entire scientific, peer reviewed community. I'd say the latter knows a bit more about the subject, wouldn't you say?
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
"[Anthony] Fauci is one of the US Governments major architects of the myth that HIV has been proven to be the cause of AIDS and that stopping HIV will save livesa myth that has become so entrenched in medicines conventional wisdom that to question it is tantamount [to] treason."
"There are not sufficient enough data to understand the properties of HIV because the scientific literature is nothing more than opinions, poorly conducted studies and reviews of poorly conducted studies."
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
quotes are by...— Dr. Howard Urnovitz, PhD, Microbiologist and Immunologist, Science Director, Chronic Illness Research Foundation, co-founder and CEO, Chronix Biomedical. Dr. Urnovitzs team developed the only FDA-licensed urine-based diagnostic test for antibodies to HIV.
Rethinkaids com. or People can google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
and go straight to the page
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Rodney Richards, Ph.D., worked on the development of antibody (ELISA) and genetic "viral load" tests for Amgen and holds some related patents. "The diagnosis of being HIV positive is based on arbitrary combinations of tests, none of which are approved for diagnosing HIV," he says. "In fact there is no test for HIV. It's just an illusion."
Rethinkaids com. People can also google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS?ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
and find it too
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Consensus and peer review. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these concepts. You can find biologists who think the world is 6000 years old. You'll have to forgive me if I'm unimpressed.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Lol...consensus?!?!?!?1
Since when is science a democracy? If truth were decided by a vote the sun would still be revolving around the earth.
Go educate yourself on "logical fallacies" while you're at it. Start with "ad populum"
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had"
who said this? Go check. Same source as the other quotes
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
The same arguments as creationists. When you have hundreds of thousands of individuals all trying to prove each other wrong, there's no room for deception. This is what science is. When someone comes up with a theory that holds water, there's no choice but to recognize it. AIDS denialism fails for the same reason as creationism--lack of evidence and religious-like dogmatism.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
No honey....I want EVIDENCE! I want scientifically validated tests. I want PROOF!
You don't have any. All you have is ad hominem and ad populum.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, Ad Hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact The conflation 'HIV-AIDS' may be good marketing but is it science? No!Yet certainly the political and economic implications of the term HIV-AIDS are staggering"
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
quotes is by...— Lynn Margulis, PhD, Biologist, Distinguished Professor of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Originated the Endosymbiotic Theory for the origin of eukaryotic cells Recipient of the National Medal of Science (1999). Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Author of over 130 scientific works and books, The Library of Congress started to permanently archive all of her papers in 1998.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
I've just given you a list of sources longer than you even had time to read. I've never attacked you, and the appeal to consensus I make is not to the general population, it's to the same consensus that agrees the earth revolves around the sun and that humans are the reuslt of natural selection
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Calling me a "creationist" IS name calling.
The same consensus put Galileo under house arrest for the rest of his life.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Galileo was of the scientific consensus. Other scientists of the time did agree with Galileo. You do not belong to the scientific consensus. It doesn't mean you're wrong but it does mean that the parallel you draw between yourself and galileo is false.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
If he was of the scientific consensus he wouldn't have been placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Where is your primary citation? You may not think it's necessary but I promise you it is required according the rules of scientific method. You can't just announce a virus of mass destruction at a damn press conference and think that's all the evidence you need
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
If he announced that cancer existed, would he also need to provide evidence?
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
If cancer were a "new" thing you bet your ass he'd need evidence.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
HIV/AIDS isn't exactly new. And cancers do change over time leading to "new" types and strains.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Um...yeah...it is "new". It was announced at a press conference in 1984
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
As far as rapdily evolving viruses are concerned. This is not new. We've had a 1/4 century to study HIV and it's connection with AIDS is just as certain as the connection between malaria and plasmodium parasite. I've given you the sources to back this up. I'm sorry, it looks like you lose this round.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Also...how does "hiv" evolve and remain exactly the same at the same time? Is it a magic virus?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Influenza does the same thing. Evolves season to season yet is still Influenza. I'm glad I can answer your questions for you.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
That doesn't answer anything. If "hiv" keeps changing then why haven't the antibody tests? How does it mutate and remain exactly the same at the same time?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
No one said it remains exactly the same. There are certain markers on a virus and on the cells after they've been infected. They're called antigens. The test dectects these antigens regardless of the strain of virus. The virus strains are all similar enough to produce this dectectable antigen
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
no two virus isolates are identical. Within a single host, HIV-1 population represents a complex mixture, or swarm, of mutant virus variants [whose] prevalence is changing on almost a daily basis (intrahost evolution). Moreover, infected individuals within a human population harbor distinct viruses (interhost or populationwide heterogeneity). Finally, the global HIV-1 pandemic is composed of many local epidemics, which generally differ in [Lukashov, Goudsmit, and Paxton 2002]
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
I guess you didn't bother to check the source I suggested.
genomic studies report 10^9 to 10^10 virions produced each day, and a mutation rate of approximately 3 x 10^-5 per nucleotide base per cycle of replication, leading to many variants of HIV in a single infected patient in the course of a single day (4).
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
. Many authors describe HIV as a "quasispecies" (4-6). It is anomalous that this "huge range of genetic configurations" (5) of "HIV quasispecies" which has developed over the past 20 years has always been detectable by antibody tests using the same core proteins, having sensitivity and specificity supposedly exceeding 99.7% (7).
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
You have to admit you sound a bit like a creationist. On my side is the scientific community, workable models, and dispassionate studies, and on your side is the "evidence of the gaps," complaints of information supression, and a belief in an overarching and mind boggling complex conspiracy.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
No...you sound like someone who uses personal attacks instead of evidence
WHat is the primary scientific citation proving the causal relationship btw the virus of mass destructin and immune problems? You keep dancing around that
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"Your" side is basing an entire theory in science on a damn press conference given in 1984 and tests that have never been scientifically validated.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
That's not true. It's based on repeated and replicated trials and studies from the past 25 years as demonstrated by the studies you're ignoring.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
A test without a reference standard is scientifically invalid. Do YOU have better info than the people who make the tests? We both know you haven't
"At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.."
Human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2: (E. coli, B. megaterium, recombinant antigen) HIVAB HIV-1/HIV-2 (rDNA) EIA. Abbott Laboratories. 2004
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"Current methods of HIV testing using a Western blot are incorrect 1 time out of 250,000 with a CI of 95%" This is to be expected seeing as how rates of detection and treatment have let to an eventual control over HIV. If you want to maintain that all of this is a fraud, you're left to explain under what conditions HIV/AIDS has come to be a relatively routine disease to treat while in the developing world it still is nearly fatal without treatment.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
You can't distinguish btw false and true +'s without a reference standard.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Also...using an antibody test to "confirm" an antibody test is like using a bible to "confirm" a bible.
Yeah...no doubt they "agree" with each other but Without independent verification you're just arguing in a circle.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Ahh. I've gotten you to say it. You originally maintained that the tests couldn't detect the virus--the rapidly evolving bit you were using. Now you admit they do detect but that you don't think that HIV can cause AIDS. Now you can move on to the epidemiological data to see that no one gets AIDS without having HIV and that those who have HIV nearly always get AIDS (not 100% of course--not even 100% of those who get the flu virus show symptoms). This is progress of a sort. Congratulations
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
No I never said they detect anything. WHERE did I say that the "hiv" tests are anything more than garbage. I believe I also used the term "crap"
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
If you want to see studies where oh YES...there are many cases of aids without hiv
google...."NIH/ Niaid Rebuttal Paper"
plenty of cases there.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
here are some
227 patients with "AIDS": 59% test HIV-negative (Hishida, 1992)
122 patients with "AIDS": 69% test HIV-negative (Brindle, 1993)
913 patients with "AIDS": 71% test HIV-negative (Songok, 1994)
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Dated studies taken out of context. Very nice work. I couldn't have distorted the evidence that well if I tried.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Lol..."dated"?
Sorry hun...the rules of science havn't changed since 1994. Tough shit. There ARE many cases of aids without any such virus of mass destruction to blame for it.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
If you conduct 25 years of studies on any phenomenon, statistically speaking your bound to come up with results that go both ways. What you've done (or, more likely, what someone has done for you) is found a few studies over this 1/4 century that are anomolous and use them as if they were the standard results. Using this intellectually dishonest cherrypicking, you can prove absolutely any claim.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Lol...no what that does prove that "hiv" fails Koch's Postulates.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
What is the primary citation proving the causal relationship btw the dread virus of mass destruction and immune problems?
You keep avoiding the hell out of that question. It's like asking George W for evidence of WMD's.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Pilcher, C. "Amplified transmission of HIV-1" 2007, UNC Project Malawi
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
That is not a primary citation. How could it be? It was published in 2007. The virus of mass destruction was announced in 1984.
Either you have no idea what a primary citation is or you're hoping I don't.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"Virus of mass destruction." I highly encourage you to think independently and not mindlessly regurgitate what you've been fed by anti-scientific fanatics. The source I've given you is a peer reviewed journal article from pubmed. This is as good as it gets and if you're going to dismiss it because it's not a "primary citation" (a meaningless concept outside of the humanities), then you've demonstrated your complete unwillingness to give up your quasi-religious conviction.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Sigh...MORE personal attacks?
No sunshine...a primary citation aka PROOF is required in science.
Also...a LACK of belief in something is not a religion or even a "quasi-religion"
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
The point that everybody is missing is that all those original papers Gallo wrote on HIV have been found fraudulent. Well, then, that throws into question the entire HIV hypothesis, doesnt it? The HIV hypothesis was based on those papers."
Dr. Peter Duesberg, PhD Professor of Molecular Biology, University of California, member, National Academy of Sciences, first to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. 5X recipient of the National Institutes of Healths Outstanding Investigator Grant
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
quote can be found at Rethinkaids com. The direct link is at my channel Or google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
and get straight to the page
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
You believe in a conspiracy, in a vast lie, and in a plan of deception. I'd say this is a postiive belief. The phrase "primary citation" doesn't come up regarding scientific literature. HIstory, yes. Not science.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
More personal attacks?
No? Scientists don't use that term?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
It's not an attack, It's what you believe to be true, is it not? The source of a theory isn't important. I think this is what you're having trouble grasping. What matters is whether or no the theory holds up to the evidence. In the case of the existence of HIV, it does.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
No it isn't. You are attacking me instead of dealing with the issue.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
""In fact there is no test for HIV. Its just an illusionearly on when we were working in collaboration with Abbott Laboratories, it was clear that there was no gold standard for HIV—no direct isolation of the virus. Nobody has ever demonstrated that HIV is present when any combination, or any one, of these tests comes up positive. None of these tests can be validated, ever. Period. Because we dont have a way to isolate and culture HIV to prove its existence.""
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
quote is by...Dr. Rodney Richards, PhD, Biochemist, Founding scientist for the biotech company Amgen. Collaborated with Abbott Laboratories in developing some of the first HIV tests
Rethinkaids com quotes on aids section or google...
IS 'HIV' REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS?
ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.."
Human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2: (E. coli, B. megaterium, recombinant antigen) HIVAB HIV-1/HIV-2 (rDNA) EIA. Abbott Laboratories. 2004
I have the direct to the Abbot labs on my channel.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
I'm sure you can find studies that say there is no link between smoking and cancer. Your quote is just as unconvincing to me as it would be if you were a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. Don't you see your doing the exact same thing? Isn't it clear to you? This is almost surreal.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
So...what IS the primary citation?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Do you see how you ignore the fact that the reason the "hiv" tests are UNSTANDARDIZED is because they have nothing to compare them to i.e. they have no direct isolation of this alleged virus of mass destruction.
You may as well be basing an entire theory in science on the results of emeters and frikkin TAROT CARDS!
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"...From the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in Atlanta I have requested the scientific papers that prove the causal relationship between the HIV retrovirus and the IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME commonly known as AIDS. They have never sent even references to the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature that establishes the causal relationship because they cant. Such papers do not exist."
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Quote is by...— Lynn Margulis, PhD, Biologist, Distinguished Professor of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Originated the Endosymbiotic Theory for the origin of eukaryotic cells Recipient of the National Medal of Science (1999). Member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983. Author of over 130 scientific works & books The Library of Congress started to permanently archive all of her papers in 1998.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Hmm.. You realize that same "causal relationship" arugment was made regarding smoking and lung cancer. Tobacco companies would demand "one single study" that conclusively shows that there is a causal relationship. Then they'd dismiss the studies saying it was just correlation and that there was no clear link. You can go on with this as long as you like. You won't convince me or anyone else who understands how a study works.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Lol....honey...nobody got up and ANNOUNCED smoking as a cause of caner at a press conference.
WHY did Gallo get up in front of the international media in 1984 and announce a dread virus of mass destruction?
WHY?!?!? What EVIDENCE did he have to make that claim? WHAT is the primary citation?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Exclamation points and caps? Could it be he proposed the theory because people across the country and the world were dropping dead for an unknown reason? I think that's cause enough to schedule a press conference. Primary citations aren't necessary in science. Are you just goint to keep repeating yourself. It's like a game of checkers--I've got you trapped in the corner and you're just moving back and forth from square to square. Primary citation to unstandardized to primary citation.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
MORE personal attacks?
YES...you need EVIDENCE in science.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
I'M "trapped"?
Lol...dude please....the "hiv" tests are unstandardized crap. Calling me names and patting yourself on the back is no substitute for scientifically valid tests
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
And back to unstandardized? What's next? Don't tell me....primary citation? I've given you more evidence than you can possibly read and explained to you that the lack of standardization is a problem of testing, not of the existence of an HIV/AIDS relationship. You've failed to address either of these topics, choosing to instead quote fringe scientists.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Yeah...those two things are pretty crucial don't you think?
You need EVIDENCE for your claims and you need scientifically valid tests.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"Fringe scientists"?
Since when does being a member of the National Academy of Arts and Science or a Nobel Laureate qualify someone as a "fringe scientist"? It doesn't get any more mainstream than that
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
The original aids cases were in drug addicts and chronically malnourished people without access to clean water or basic medical care. You don't need a virus of mass destruction to explain why those people get sick
And NO...you don't get up and say you've discovered the cause of aids at a press conference with no evidence to back up your claims.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
1)Drug addicts are exposed to used needles and the chronically malnourished have weakened immune systems. I think you've made an argument in favor of the existence of HIV.
2) Science doesn't depend on press conferences or public opinion. It depends on studies. Which I've shown you. Which you've ignored.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
No. Your logic sucks. You don't need a virus of mass destruction to explain why junkies get sick and die.
NO....you keep dancing around showing me the study I keep on asking for.
The PRIMARY citation proving the causal relationship btw "hiv" and immune problems. WHY did Gallo get up and announce that he had discovered the cause aids? What EVIDENCE did he have for that claim?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Or why healthy individuals exposed to HIV infected blood get sick and die.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
They don't. Unless they take the meds
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Healthy people were dying of AIDS before the meds existed.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
No...drug addicts and chronically malnourished people are not "healthy"
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Non-drug addicts and non-chronically malnourished people were dying of AIDS.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
No. They weren't.
The original aids cases were all in people with a history of drug abuse or from third world countries.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
AND...here's the "best" part...The World Health Organization cancelled the hetero aids epidemic last summer
June 2008
Dr. Kevin de Cock of the World Health Organization: "[T]here will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa."
google
There Will Be No Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, Experts Admit
The syndrome those crap tests were SUPPOSED to predict never left the original risk groups of 25 years ago
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
I've heard the same argument regarding skin cancer. "The sun doesn't cause skin cancer, sunscreen does" I see this meme spreads regardless of specific content
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
?
WHY did Gallo get up an announce that he had discovered the cause of aids at a press conference? What was his EVIDENCE for that claim?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Yes. They were. Before the meds were available previously healthy people were dying of AIDS
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Not true. It just isn't true. The original aids cases were found in people who had loads of reasons to be sick already....drug addicts and broke ass people who can't even afford to feed themselves properly.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
1)You said that meds cause AIDS not that HIV does. I pointed out that AIDS started emerging before the meds were introduced, including in previously healthy people. I never made the claim that the original cases of AIDS were not among the already ill.
2)Whatever Gallo said or didn't say isn't relevant in the discussion of whether HIV/AIDS exists or doesn't exist. If someone told you that the francis and crick made up the claim about DNA, it wouldn't matter. DNA still exists.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
WHERE did I say that? Copy and paste it.
YES...the fact that Gallo falsified his "evidence" IS important. I'm not buying the "he made the luckiest guess ever ever ever EVA in the history of the world" explanation for that
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Originally prepared by Popovic and dated just seven days before Gallo's infamous media announcement, the draft shows how Gallo made extensive handwritten "corrections" to Popvic's modest but honest statements, angrily crossing out inconvenient data and adding—with no scientific justification—bold claims that the virus that caused AIDS had been discovered. The most telling of the crossed-out lines:
"Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has NOT yet been identified
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
The original aids papers can be found here
Fearoftheinvisible com
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Yeah...you made a FALSE claim. The original aids cases were in people who lots of reasons to be sick already.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
See this on youtube....
Living Proof The Lindsey Nagel Story Part 1 updated
Cheryl and Lindsey Nagel on the Robert Scott Bell Show. How does a 2 week old..........HIV+............. .Romanian adoptee (circa 1990) become a healthy 19 year old in 2009? Hint: NO HIV DRUGS. Cheryl Nagel joins me for her first interview since House of Numbers was released to share a story that cannot be told in the HIV-worshipping mainstream media
ALL the kids who took the meds are now dead. ALL of them
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
And people who go to hospitals tend to die more than those who don't. Can you see the problem with this logic or do I need to explain it to you?
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Oh I get it...you want to pretend that being a junkie or drinking dirty water won't you sick without a virus of mass destruction.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
This data is replicable and falsifiable. This is what scientific data depends on. Whether or not it was published near a press conference isn't important.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Stop Pming me. You put your bullshit out publicly or do not respond to me
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
I tried but my messages weren't going through
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Yeah. I blocked you because I want this public.
What is the primary citation proving the causal relationship btw the dread virus of mass destruction and immune problems?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"The result of the invention of HIV-AIDS by press release in 1984 instead of by proper peer review by the scientific community has been a costly, prolonged defense of the indefensible."
Andrew Maniotis, PhD, Program Director, Cell & Developmental Biology of Cancer, Departments of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Chicago
Rethinkaids com Or google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
My messages weren't going through publicly. I had no problems privately sending you messages. Don't bother responding until you've read that study and can point out specifically why it's invalid
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Um...because it is NOT what I asked for.
I asked for the PRIMARY citation and you posted something published 23 years AFTER the press conference.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
I don't know what to tell you. Science isn't based on press conferences. It's based on research.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
yeah...so WHY did people swallow the announcement at Gallo's press conference without bothering to wait for peer review?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Also...using which evaluation criteria? There are at least ten.
google
HIV POSITIVE ? DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU LIVE...THE HIV WESTERN BLOT TEST
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
If you mean Gallo's study...nope. That was found by more than one governmental agency to be fraudulent and impossible to repeat or verify
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper of the four was "fraught with false and erroneous statements" reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken."
Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations produced a staff report on the papers, containing scathing criticisms of their integrity.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Google.... Top Scientists Ask Medical Journal Science To Retract Original AIDS Papers
Gallo just scribbled out the findings of the study and pencilled in whatever he felt like putting there. You can see the papers for yourself at......FearoftheInvisible com
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
HIV research isn't a revealed source of knowledge. Just as it doesn't matter what Darwin personally thought of natural selection, it doesn't matter what the discoverers of HIV thought about HIV. It exists, it can be detected, it can be treated, and it can be controlled, regardless of what scientists did or did not say in the early 1980s.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Detected using what tests? They are NOnspecific and unstandardized. You have no way to distinguish btw false and true +'s without a reference standard.
Also...um...NO...I'm not buying the "Gallo made the luckiest guess eva eva EVA!" for how he could have gotten in right despite finding no virus in any of his patients and finding no evidence that his patients immune problems were being caused by his nonexistant virus
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Originally prepared by Popovic and dated just seven days before Gallo's infamous media announcement, the draft shows how Gallo made extensive handwritten "corrections" to Popvic's modest but honest statements, angrily crossing out inconvenient data and adding—with no scientific justification—bold claims that the virus that caused AIDS had been discovered. The most telling of the crossed-out lines:
"Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has NOT yet been identified
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
google... 20 Unanswerable Questions for AIDS Inc.
1. Why have the "HIV proteins" used for antibody tests (in particular, the Western blot test) remained unchanged for 20 years (1-3), given the enormous "genetic variability/mutation rate" of HIV (4-6)?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Searching for escape in anomolies. There are things about rhinovirus we still don't understand. This is the virus that causes the common cold, in case you aren't familiar with the name. This doesn't mean that the virus doesn't exist or that the cold isn't a result of the virus. Same tactic used by creationists, by the way. "show us the transitional fossils!" "How do you explain the eye?" Very similar, you'd have to admit.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Nope...that doesn't answer the question.
google... 20 Unanswerable Questions for AIDS Inc.
1. Why have the "HIV proteins" used for antibody tests (in particular, the Western blot test) remained unchanged for 20 years (1-3), given the enormous "genetic variability/mutation rate" of HIV (4-6)?
Is it a magic virus?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
You can look at it in the same way as dogs, for example. You can have enourmous genetic diversity in species of dogs, yet they are all similar enough to be able to breed and produce viable, fecund offspring. HIV is similar--you can have genetic diversity yet enough similarity to be able to hybridize and to be detected by a single test.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Dogs don't mutate a billion times every two days. If they did you'd get something other than a dog in just a generation or two.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
What sources? I have received nothing from you.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Ivan~ Don;t ever forget that it;s the FINE print that ultimately SCREWS ALL OF US!
So ~ I choose to accentuate certain words & phrases ~ so be it, if that portrays one lacking any intelligence to YOU! We are ALL individuals ~ so be that too! :)
I feel confident that you, like the MAJORITY, will eventually see through THEIR $CAM ~ it's horrible & costing so many innocent lives & even more orphans & that's what PAINS my heart MOST!
P L E A S E research ~ please get your ducks in a row here!
annie46664 2 years ago
I think you may be right. And come to think of it, I'm not so sure colds are spread by a virus either. This could all be a conspiracy to get us to buy cold and flu medication and to keep us perpetually sick. Now I understand. It all makes so much sense. You see, the problem with your argument is it's ability to be applied to any sickness or disease. If you're going to use this theory for AIDS, your logic demands you accept it for every illness. Let me know if I'm being too rough with you.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Dude...wtf are you talking about? The problem is that the rules of science are NOT being followed with the virus of mass destruction. Go educate yourself on scientific method and then get back to me.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
You can repeat that mantra to yourself all you like. It's meaningless--white noise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And, like I said, this argument could be used for any disease. Why single out HIV/AIDS.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
The burden of proof is on those who make a claim not on those who dispute it
What is the primary scientific citation proving a causal link btw the virus of mass destruction and immune problems?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
I disupte that elves exist. You think it's up to me to prove this? Your logic is so transparently faulty.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
MY logic?
Lol...honey i NEVER claimed that elves exist.
YOU claim that there is a virus of mass destruction moving silently among us. WHAT is you evidence? What is the primary citation? Have the tests been validated against a direct isolate of "hiv" taken from a human being? Does the epidemiology support claims of a deadly epidemic decimating countries?
Um...NO!
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
If you can't understand the implication of an analogy, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't want to read the studies I've presented you with, I don't know what to tell you. What's wrong with the studies? I'm waiting to hear your answer.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
You didn't present me with ANYTHING! That's what's wrong with them so far.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
LmFAo!!!
Aidstruth?!?!? That's a pharma site and not even run by scientists. They are also being sued for libel. You can read about it here...google
"Who is Aidstruth?"
"Aidstruth Rats Scatter"
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
The studies are not done by aidstruth and they're listed on pubmed and the nih website.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
So you should have no idea finding the primary citation. I'll give you a hint.... the virus of mass destruction was announced at a press conference in 1984 by Robert Gallo.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
I've given you more than enough information. You haven't given any good reasons why the studies aren't kosher.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
WHICH study? Stop pretending you've read them
I HAVE given reasons for why the studies aren't kosher. They are all based on UNstandardized and NONspecific tests.
"At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.."
Human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2: (E. coli, B. megaterium, recombinant antigen) HIVAB HIV-1/HIV-2 (rDNA) EIA. Abbott Laboratories. 2004
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
There are SEVENTY conditions which cause +'s on those crap tests.
Helpforhiv com has the list and the peer reviewed scientific literature.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
The fault of a specific test can hardly be used to discount the disease in general. You can have a faulty or inaccurate pregnancy test--this doesn't exacly mean that babies don't exist. Or would you argue that.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
You have NO reference standard for the "hiv" tests. Pregnancy tests DO have a reference standard.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Again--you find fault with the test, not with the virus.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Lol...the reason WHY there is no reference standard is because they have nothing to compare the tests to i.e. no direct isolate taken from fresh human plasma.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Because with "hiv"the entire theory is based on UNstandardized & NONspecific tests. You may as well be basing an entire theory in science on the results of emeters
"At present, there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.."
Human immunodeficiency virus types 1 and 2: (E. coli, B. megaterium, recombinant antigen) HIVAB HIV-1/HIV-2 (rDNA) EIA. Abbott Laboratories. 2004
the direct link to Abbot Labs is on my channel
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"AIDS resulting from HIV infection has been demonstrated in trial after trial, study after study, and case, after case. Those who proclaim otherwise are either deluded, ignorant, or operating under false pretenses" --Jonathan Rigmore, UCLA.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Lol...based on WHAT tests?
Are you claiming that that guy knows more about the tests than the people who make them? I find that implausible.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Also....a statement with no evidence to back it up is NOT a primary scientific citation.
When you figure out what that is get back to me.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"HIV cannot be responsible for AIDS. After three years of intensive critical studies of the relevant scientific literature, as an experienced virologist and molecular biologist I came to the following surprising conclusion — there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once has such a retrovirus been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology"
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
that quote is by...— Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology and a former director of the Department of Viroid Research, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, Germany; Recipient of the international Robert Koch award for medical research, 1978*
Rethinkaids com. The direct link is on my channel or People can google...IS HIV REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW"
SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS?
and go straight to the page
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
"There is no possible way humans could have evolved from a primate species" --Edward Young, Molecular Biologist. Would you take this as compelling evidence that evolution never took place? If you do, I think that demonstrates an abnormally unsuspicious mind. I don't mean to make you feel bad, but you're just not thinking critically.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago
Nope. I would require some sort of evidence.
What is the primary citation proving the causal link btw the virus of mass destruction and immune problems?
You say there is overwhelming evidence. The primary citation should be no trouble
;)
mykoolaidtastesfunny 2 years ago
Science does not operate on single studies; it operates on massive amounts of literature that all point to the same conclusion. Just as you can't "prove" evolution is true based on one study, you can't do it with AIDS. 1000s of studies all pointing towards the same conclusion--that exists with both AIDS and evolution. Every argument you're using against AIDS can be used against evolution. You keep sad company.
ivanmikhailov 2 years ago