"AIDS Dissent" is Pseudoscience, P.2 (How HIV is isolated)

[makinganentrance]

all i know is that from my own personal experience is is that I've been having unprotected sex with my fiancé for more than two years without knowing that he is hiv+, when we found out we had a test done and i was hiv-, how come?

[garybooker]

@makinganentrance I'm sorry, but you aren't necessarily out of the woods. You should get tested again. And if you test negative once again, then you should consider yourself lucky. Just as there are false positives, there are also false negatives.

[wingsuitfreak]

just wanted to point out the space limitations prevent a truly indepth comment of the nature needed for my previous comment. Don't deny AIDS, but every question of what it is only breeds more for me. And no, I don't trust Big pharma or the AMA or pols. Normal American in that regard. But, do trust the scientific method.

[wingsuitfreak]

I only knew 4 people who died from AIDS. 2 homosexual, 2 heterosexual. All extremely active even by the early 80s standpoint. However, having just watched the AIDS Inc movie, I do not deny the existence, but question what IS Aids, and are the treatments worse than the cures? I watched this film because I was 23 and very sexually active, hetero, at that time. It has killed 3 of my friends, 1 of those I didn't know personally, just second hand. Plus, had ques. on aids b4 al unanswered still

[conotoxin]

The magazine Continuum, run by HIV-positive denialists, shut down when all its editors all died of AIDS-related causes.

Roflol. You want to play your stupid little HIV denial games you go right ahead. We have a Darwin Award just for you.

If on the other hand, you have a brain, start witht he WIKI on HIV (actually a decent summary). And for pity's sake, if you are HIV+ get treatment. There is no need to die a horrible, excruciating death.

[AIDSvideos]

By the "WIKI on HIV," are you referring to the wikipedia article on HIV, or to a separate wiki somewhere that's focused on HIV? Just wondering. Thanks for your efforts to debunk HIV denialist lies online!

[wingsuitfreak]

Any other recommended source besides WIKI? I long ago quit using them after finding so many incorrect assumptions in them. Not medical items, but areas in which I am familiar with. I am not at risk of AIDS, but do suffer from extreme curiosity on a disease that has been here for so long and which is also so highly politicalize.

[garybooker]

You can start with "Immunology" by Janis Kuby. You can also start wit "Fundamentals of Microbiology by Jeffrey C. Pommerville. Both have thorough explainations of how the HIV virus causes AIDS.

[videoclipsx]

Dear Gary... Sorry for my English. Don't you know STEFAN LANKA?! Dr. STEFAN LANKA. I cannot believe you don't know -yet- which are the FOUR (4) necessary electronic microspcope PHOTOS needed to DEMONSTRATE that a VIRUS have been isolated, man! Without "FX", they must be: 1: ISOLATED VIRUS. 2: VIRUS PROTEINS. 3: VIRUS INFECTING CELLS. 4: VIRUS NUCLEIC ACID. Please note that UNTIL YOU DO NOT BRING the mentioned REAL photos, you cannot continue talking about a so-called "HIV". Regards..

[garybooker]

Did you not see the images of the virus in the video?

[sadunkal]

Don't use the word denialist please, it's just a matter of different interpretation of the same data.

The point the scientists try to make regarding isolation is this:

" Nobody has ever succeeded in demonstrating by electron microscopy one single particle of retrovirus (HIV) directly in the blood of any AIDS patients tagged as presenting with a high "viral load". "

In other words there is no proof that there was anything at all before the process Dr. Alcendor calls "propagation".

[garybooker]

"In other words there is no proof that there was anything at all before the process Dr. Alcendor calls 'propagation'. "

With all due respect... this is precisely why I use the word denialist. The isolation of HIV from HIV+ patients is an everyday, commonplace practice, which I personally witnessed myself at the infectious disease unit at Grady Hospital here in Atlanta, Georgia. I'm sorry my friend, but the causality of HIV and AIDS is settled.

[sadunkal]

It's not a thing to be sorry about, but I don't think it's true. Pay attention to how the process is being described: The assumption is that "there is a lot of virus in the plasma". They cultivate what they got and then they claim to have isolated a virus from the patient.

In other words they can't demonstrate the existence of the virus directly in the blood, before the cultivation. That's the point. One needs to question what's really meant by "isolation".

Google "PROBLEMS WITH ISOLATING HIV"

[garybooker]

I missed this comment, so pardon me taking so long to approve it.

Either a virus is present or it isn't. The isolation of HIV is a non-issue now. It is old news. There are now a boatload of isolation techniques that exist for HIV.

[sadunkal]

Oh man... I guess the apology is accepted but it took you really long! I had even sent you a message about that comment back then, you missed that too apparently...

Well, anyway, you're right for the most part. Either a virus is present or it isn't, and there are now a boatload of techniques. But I disagree with you on the non-issue claim since none of those techniques are capable of literally isolating the virus directly from a so called "infected" person. Read the papers by the "Perth Group".

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

google...

Top Scientists Ask Medical Journal Science To Retract Original AIDS Papers

December 9, 2008

a British investigative journalist has shown that Gallo's claim was based on last-minute alterations to documents...includes a copy of Gallos handwritten changes to the article,a letter from an electron microscopy expert indicating that Gallos samples did not contain any virus,& a letter from Gallo to a researcher verifying that HIV could not be purified directly from human materials.

[garybooker]

Sorry, but HIV has been cultivated in human tissue countless times, and attacking the original study after the results have been verified by more accurate experements is not going to help your argument.

[garybooker]

My bad, I meant to approve of your comment before I responded.

[conotoxin]

Scott Zanetti, Christie Williams, Jody Wells, Tony Tompsett, Casper G. Schmidt, David Pasquarelli, Marietta Ndziba, Peter Mokaba, Raphael Sabato Lombardo, Jack Levine, Robert Johnston, Mark Griffiths, Sylvie Cousseau, Ronnie Burk, Sophie Brassard, Michael Bellefountaine, Ken Anderlini

All denialists. All have since died of AIDs. Darwin in action.

[conotoxin]

The funny part is how fast the HIV denialists are dying of AIDs!

Scott Zanetti, Christie Williams, Jody Wells, Tony Tompsett, Casper G. Schmidt, David Pasquarelli, Marietta Ndziba, Peter Mokaba, Raphael Sabato Lombardo, Jack Levine, Robert Johnston, Mark Griffiths, Sylvie Cousseau, Ronnie Burk, Sophie Brassard, Michael Bellefountaine, Ken Anderlini

All denialists. All have since died of AIDs. Darwin in action.

Google: Dead_denialists

[dougcl79]

and thank god for that

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

You have friend lock but you should check this out. This is one consequence of testing + (for what? who knows?)

google

The Guinea Pig Kids

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

I have to go to work. I really do appreciate that you've been civil. People get very emotional over this.

if you're interested in a quick video which outlines the problems with the tests you can check out "fake hiv/aids diagnosis for black people" stupid title...it's fake for everyone but whatever...I suppose because being black is a "risk factor" they're more likely to be found + whatever the results. it's a clip from "Aids Inc"

[satrapy27]

Even when you prove all this what you say, that you can isolate it then you cannot prove that the virus has caused AIDS!!! because AIDS is a group of diseases that all existed before HIV. You can do all the studies on the virus that you want, but it may be harmless!!

[garybooker]

Please check out the video that precedes this one, as well as the video that proceeds this one. Neither HIV-1 nor HIV-2 are not harmless, my friend. I'm sorry.

[ccr5cxcr4]

Who said we can't isolate it? Been done over 21 years ago.

Simultaneous isolation of HIV-1 and HIV-2 from an AIDS patient. Lancet. 1988 Dec 17;2(8625):1389-91

Your claim that AIDS preexisted HIV is mindless. Read the definition of AIDS again.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

Ok..still no answer as to how hiv can be mutating for 25 years and the antibody tests have remained identical.

[garybooker]

My apologies, I missed these comments. The thing is this... if you are going to use this argument against HIV tests, then you also have to use them against Hepatitis tests and Herpes tests. These viruses also mutate.

Mutations withstanding, an HIV virus is still an HIV virus, and the antibodies in response to the virus still have characteristics of HIV.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

But there are no specific characteristics of hiv. There are at least seventy documented conditions which cause +'s on the antibody tests.

Helpforhiv has the list and peer reviewed references.

[garybooker]

To say that there are things that can cross-react and cause false positives is one thing, and it is true. But to say that this is an indicator of there being no specific antigens to HIV is heading down a slippery slope.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

If there are ANY specific antigens to hiv then how is that that there are ANY false +'s? The seventy conditions have a series of peer reviewed studies. They have also found "hiv" proteins in dogs and mice.

[garybooker]

Do you remember the baking soda volcano from elementary school? If you recall, used vinegar and baking soda. Now, similar results could be produced by swapping lemon juice for the vinegar. If your nose were stopped up and you were completely colorblind, it would be very hard to distinguish between the two reactions. One biomolecule might be structually similar to another and react in similar ways. However, that doesn't make them the same molecule.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

The SAME proteins that are used to diagnose hiv infection in humans are found in seventy other conditions..including pregnancy, malaria, flu or flu vaccination, yeast infections, TB, herpes etc etc.

The SAME proteins can also be found in healthy dogs and mice who have never been exposed to hiv.

There is NO way to distinguish a false + from a true +. There is no gold standard used in the tests.

[garybooker]

"The SAME proteins that are used to diagnose hiv infection in humans are found in seventy other conditions..including pregnancy, malaria, flu or flu vaccination, yeast infections, TB, herpes etc etc."

This still isn't saying much. A "protein" is simply a molecule with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. The word "same" have relative meanings in relative scenarios. For example, skin cells and hair cells contain some of the exact same proteins. These are still two different cell types.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

There's another "odd" thing about the tests.

If "hiv" has been mutating at a furious rate for at least 25 years...why have the antibody tests for it remained identical? The antibodies they are looking for are the same as 25 years ago. How has it been mutating and yet made of exactly the same proteins at exactly the same time?

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

Or indeed the disclaimers put on the "hiv" tests. Why shouldn't people know that the tests have no standards and aren't intended to diagnose hiv?

[garybooker]

Before I answer, are you talking about the ELIZA or Western Blot?

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

I already sent you the disclaimer for the Elisa. The antibodies looked for in the WB are the same. The only difference is that in the Elisa they are all mixed together and in the WB they are separated on a cellulose strip. Each country, lab and organization uses different criteria for diagnosing a WB. So you could be considered + in the US but - in Australia using the exact same WB on the exact same sample. The tests are not reproduceable.

[garybooker]

Again, it is important to distinguish between discussing the validity of a test, and the limitations of it. The discrepancies that you have discussed here also apply to the breathalyzers used by police officers to test for Blood Alcohol Content. There are limitations that breathalyzers have, as well as chemicals that can cause false positives. But that doesn't mean that a breathalyzers have no basis in determining whether or not a driver is DUI.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

Breathalyzers are standardized. There are not seventy different things which would cause to someone to come up drunk. The same criteria to determine blood alcohol level are used in every state and country. What's considered legally drunk may change but the measurements don't. Breathalyzers are reproduceable and standardized

[garybooker]

Nah, not all breathalyzers are created equal, and you'd be surprised (and frightened) at how many chemicals could cause breathalyzer false-positives.

All diagnostic tests are capable of false positives.  Even malware programs on computers.

[mykoolaidtastesfunny]

Truhtfully, I'm less familiar with breathalyzers than with the hiv tests. I don't think there are seventy different beverages that can make someone come up as a drunk though...might be juice, might be milk, might be vanilla etc

That's the problem with the hiv tests. There is no way to distinguish a + from pregnancy or a previous pregnancy or hepatitis etc. and one from hiv.

[garybooker]

Remember that a pregnant woman can be a cidatel of raging hormones! Pregnancy can cause false positives not only on an HIV test, but on other virus tests as well. Again, if you're going to discredit the HIV test on the basis that it can be fooled by certain proteins, then you have to hold all virus tests to the same standard.