Like i've said before I like these video's you do on this subject man, I hope someone does on on that Asshole Liam Scheff, I can't stand that cocky little bastard
I am going to send this video and valuable information to the troublesome individuals who roam youtube spouting crackpot half truths about HIV and its effects. They are strange people who need confronting with hard facts
AIDs deniers are just like idiot creationists. Except I dont understand why they deny AIDs. Its not like idiot creationists who deny reality due to religion. WTF, I just dont understand.
why are you only targeting the "Perth group" there are many other doctors who deny aids hypothesis, and are to be listened to, and yes one of the reasons that we do not find there research papers on HIV is because, no leading science journal is ready to publish them.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I still sometimes attend Keystone Symposia on virology, and I've never once met an HIV/AIDS denialist there. I would be very interested to be introduced to a active research virologist who doubted the existence of human-tropic lentiviruses or their ability to cause disease.
"Heresy" in science is usually pretty interesting when it's tied to enigmatic data. The trouble here is that there's no meat to the denialist position.
well - it's a lot of talking but means nothing too me. So you detected protein p24 again, and so what? it's a load of bull - I went through pain of listening to your annoying voice to only find out a mixture of lies and misinformation. False positive 1 in 250 000? I got on this subjects because of false poisitives occuring on the regular basis and perth guys are on the money that the test is NOT specific. you have so far 70+ reasons of false positive and I bet more will be added soon.
@JJTechnologies Did you not listen carefully to the dialogue in this video ? The false positive argument from the denialism camp is a red herring in that it is no where near as frequent as they would have you believe and furthermore a HIV test kind of like a pregnancy test is deliberately manufactured to be highly sensitive on the grounds that a false negative is a worse outcome than a false positive in so as stopping the spread of the virus to others. Its not rocket science.
Everyone look up Christine Maggiore and her eventual death. You will know her death just can't be a coincidence. She is very typical of people with HIV who denied!
Thank you for specifically addressing the arguments of AIDS denialists. I was starting to believe them, mostly because every rebuttal to their arguments was something along the lines of "AIDS IS REAL!" which doesn't address the specific points that they make.
@Quizoid I don't understand what this changes? It's nothing new and it all comes back to the same flawed concept of p24 and what about the rest? Why are they so obsessed about p24? becuase it's the only protein Montagnier and Gallo had + supposed RT (btw p24 doesn't have rt, only p51 and p66, which they obviously don't care about). Virus doesn't have 1 or 2 protein, but far as I remember 9-10. This rant doesn't change a damn thing from what they've been saying all along. Zero.
@JJTechnologies I don't understand you. You seem to accept the evidence that there are 9-10 HIV proteins but you also belng to the group that says HIV does not exist. Please explain.
hey man thanks for taking the time to actually answer what these losers are saying about this, years ago I had three uncles all with HIV, this was long before any of the good medicine's of today, well they weren't long developing AIDS and dying, pretty sad after all these years there's still idiots that need to be spoon fed this info. good video...
Christ on a crutch hobbling backwards! These bloody truthers are everywhere. Honestly, anyone else on HAART knows that it can be hard on the guts, and the dry retching of bile in the mornings can be exhaustive. But these side effects remain a pleasure in comparison to discussing the nature of both your illness and your meds with an HIV "Truther".
The worst part is, that she was repeating posts of cherry picked " evidence" all the time,
but kept forgetting what she posted, and it slowly dawned on me that she wasn't even concentrating. She's probably on one of her other Youtube accounts trying to prove the bloody Bosnian Pyramid hoax is actually true like she's in a Command & Control Nerve Centre trying to put the worlds evils to right from a studio apartment in Raleigh. Don't take your Meds and don't drink the tap water either! They're after our precious bodily fluids, Mandrake!
@ C0nc0rdance, it's clear to me that you are evil, because the only thing you can honestly do is present inaccurate information in the hope that people won't be smart enough to understand it or that they will be to lazy to study this for themselves. You have no soul! The truth about HIV will be manifested. Truth crushed to earth will rise again. Read for yourself the facts and stop letting people tell you how to think. I have studied this and HIV is a BIG LIE.
Oh, I'm clearly evil. I also worship Satan and I work for Big Pharma. Clearly.
The part I love most is when I give people citations to support my points, but I know they won't actually use these citations to verify my claims. Yeah, I just do that to throw them off my evil scent.
It's funny, when you say: "read for yourself the facts" I suspect you mean the facts you find on AIDS denialist sites. I use (and cite) the scientific literature. Which is more likely to be accurate?
@C0nc0rdance, when I say Evil, I'm not referring to any Satan BS. Evil is when you try to change and ignore the facts even when you are provided with good evidence to the contrary. HIV is a Bogus LIE. People are told that they HIV and then they are told they have Antibodies to HIV. For every other infectious agent, Antibodies indicate immunity, except for HIV. Anybody can write a paper, it won't make it true. Either U R just stuck on stupid or U just never learn how to add & Subtract.
I would like to see everyone who is so sure that HIV doesnt even exist, get a full blown HIV loaded blood transfusion and get back to me in 10 years of no ARV treatment =) (i do not actually advocate doing so. that will kill you)
@Neeboopsh First of all blood transfusions can kill you even if they are correctly typed. So if someone did this and died it would prove nothing about HIV. The true test is the injection of pure HIV and since nobody has ever purified HIV there is no danger of that experiment being performed any time soon.
@sunaru1 What is stupid is to not read my comment. I said that the experiment is impossible because HIV has never been purified. Therefore the issue of whether the experiment is ethical or not does not need to be addressed since the experiment is impossible.
This is called the unreachable goal posts fallacy. No matter how pure something is, it will never be pure enough for your satisfaction. Your ad hoc argument requires an arbitrarily unachievable level of purity.
Here's a simple paper, very highly cited about the nature of HIV virus. Why don't you contact the authors about your concerns?
Science. 1997 Nov 14;278 (5341):1291-5 .
"Recovery of replication-competent HIV despite prolonged suppression of plasma viremia."
@C0nc0rdance No matter how pure? :) so far I failed to find any in depth study that wouldn't rely on ELISA confirmation of p24 and an old proof from '83 that they still rely on, of RT. Till this day a lot of scientists seem to believe that both are specific for a new virus, whereas it's not. It's like saying that from the fact that something has two legs and vagina, it must be Angelina Jolie. Doesn't make sense to me
I disagree with you. The PUTATIVE virus, that is, what is believed to cause the disease, could be injected into people - that experiment is theoretically possible but unethical.
OK: Although to the majority it isn't clear, TO YOU it must be clear that AIDS science is so flawed, and so many blatant lies have been told, that there are people in positions of power that have investments in AIDS.
Looking at people like Rodger McFarlane, an ex INTELLIGENCE operative that founded Gay Men's Health Crisis with Kramer, looking at Gallo's heavily promoted press conference that shocked the science community, and countless other factors, it becomes obvious that...
@DavidRCrowe ...there must be knowledge at the top of the hierarchies -scientific, political- that too much is wrong with AIDS science. Looking at Africa, it is clear to see that AIDS is being used for all kinds of purposes of social engineering. Consequently, have you any thoughts on whether an agenda, a wish from higher up does exist to perpetuate this global aids-culture? How could such a wish from higher up NOT exist considering science is being hierarchically controlled?
@suddenlyitsobvious Scientists like to believe that they participate in a process of free inquiry therefore they are not well equipped to eliminate opponents entirely--it would be too obviously hypocritical. So they invented peer review, but it's a blunt instrument and doesn't stop everything. But it stops critical discussion of the issue in any major journal and they hope nobody's paying attention to the little discussion that gets through the filters.
@suddenlyitsobvious absoutelely YES. You have evidence upon evidence from the past of the similar situations. Some of them seem ridiculous today. 1/media, politics etc rely on scientists 2/ there is a pressure from pharma 3/ media love graphic and scary stuff, it sells papers. But most of it it's just missinformation.. CDC,FDA, Gallo, Montagnier (actually Montagnier starts to back off a bit, but nothing about it in media - suprise!) invested in this their whole careers, so they won't let go easy
'CDC,FDA, Gallo, Montagnier (actually Montagnier starts to back off a bit, but nothing about it in media - suprise!) invested in this their whole careers, so they won't let go easy'
My point really was that scientists do not control society, rather, science is another tool of the controllers. We obviously can't expect Gallo or the CDC or such guys/organizations to expose the criminal hoax, but what should alert us is basically no one else does, EXCEPT for a handful...
...of scienctists vocally 'reappraising' the hiv/aids hypothesis since 25 years.
I find it interesting that David Crowe -one of those publicly reappraising AIDS- basically appeared to have no clue whatsoever and no response to my question involving his appraisal of the AIDS-situation as a criminal feat of social engineering involving INTENT, ORGANIZATION, ENGINEERING, MEDIA-CONTROL and soforth.
In high places there are obviously stringpullers who KNOW HIV/AIDS is a big lie.
Why don't Duesberg, Rasnick, Crowe, the Perth Group etc work up the chain of command and extrapolate their findings to realize they are functioning in an evil, absolutely corrupt system?
Why does Duesberg continue functioning as a hotshot in cancer research when it's so obvious cancer research & 'treatment' (WOW!) is the same type of socially promoted and engineered problem aiming to debilitate people?
I can only conclude that they are PUPPETS, the controlled opposition,...
...necessary to provide a semblance of scientific soundness surrounding AIDS through the provision of an apparent debate and disagreement: the system always likes to control both ends of a situation.
Note that the way HIV/AIDS reappraising has been engineered favours an at best minimal development of dissent, that never bursts into the mainstream.
What this basically means is that science is completely controlled since ages and is corrupt and deceptive. Thus we are looking at a very massive SYSTEMIC problem, rather than at a few unscrupulous people.
It does not stop critical discussion. You obviously have limited experience of reading journals, especially the discussions sections very often found.
@sunaru1 I have read several thousand scientific papers (I can give you the exact number from my database if you like). I avoid abstracts and discussion sections because those often distort the results. Start with the results. Read the methods if it's not accurate. And then read the abstract and discussion to see how things are being spun.
@sunaru1 Is it okay if I take a vacation without web access?
I will get you 10 papers when I have the time. Probably in a couple of weeks after I dig myself out from under my post-vacation email pile. Sorry I can't make you my top priority.
@sunaru1 The titles of each paper are in blue. Click on the title and you will get the PDF file. If any links are broken please let me know. I agree that you need to read the whole report, that's why I made them available.
The first paper, about the WHO suiveilance of AIDS, appears to be an attempt in 1994 to monitor potential AIDS in the absence of expensive / unavailable HIV testing. I agree, the criteria seem dubious and one wonders if the WHO are still using the same 'diagnostic' methods. The paper does, however, point out the disadvantage of using such an approach.
@sunaru1 I checked with WHO in the late 1990s and they confirmed that the same guidelines were still in use. I'm unaware of any update since then,just as the CDC definition hasn't changed since 1993. But people who know differently are welcome to try to provide me wrong.
5- lymph nodes are sentinel tissues. The presence of rare positive cells show that ciculating APCs (monocytes) are presenting HIV antigens in the lymph nodes, not that they are growing in lymph node cells.
@C0nc0rdance There should be one RNA genome per virion. Therefore viral load should precisely measure the level of infection. Okay, give or take a few percent for dead or dying or defective viruses (if a virus can die). But a factor of 60,000?
You're oversimplifying viral mechanics and human immunology. Very specific conditions result in co-culture infection. Viral shedding, uptake, transactivation, integration, and re-expression. Virion RNA in serum is simply measuring raw material at one particular location.
An analogy is trying to estimate square footage of a home by measuring the length of all the lumber at the job site. You would expect them to correlate, but not directly.
I am NOT an AIDS denialist, but you to face facts - there is a SERIOUS error in the Science paper by Piatek et al. Let's see if you can find it. It amazes me that the referees and editors failed to notice it.
Hmm... it's a pretty light "techniques" paper. Competitive PCR was never very good, and using quantitative is a bit of a stretch. I don't like how they pelleted the virions and I'm a snob for good documentation of methods.
No, I'm not seeing a major design flaw. Wait, are you talking about a math error? I give. What's the flaw?
6- Are you serious? This paper shows EM micrographs of budding virions, a PPV of 90%, and he was able to predict the progression to AIDS of a low-risk patient. You're concerned that only 30% of KS patients were positive?
7- Everyone in this study was slated for AZT. Three people died before they could be treated. That is not the same as "only 3 people in the non-AZT group died". You are misrepresenting the facts through willful or unintentional ignorance.
9. There is a gold standard for HIV ELISA serotests. Prior to the current WHO International Gold Standard, there were Working Standards in various locales. The challenge was shipping potentially infectious material (standard sera) for use in diagnostic labs.
10. You should pair this with JAMA. 1999 Aug 11;282(6):531-8. Perinatal transmission dropped 67%, with corresponding drops in AIDS defining illness and death. Perinatal ARVs are not used carelessly.
1. This is about surveillance, not diagnosis. The epidemiologist may count you as an AIDS case if you lost 30 pounds with diarrhea and KS, but your doctor would use differential diagnosis. Epidemiologists don't have patient-level data.
2. Also about public health surveillance. Note that these measures were used for statistics, planning and REFERRALS TO DOCTORS. They were defining what high-risk and staging criteria were. Doctors still diagnose disease, not CDC.
@C0nc0rdance Okay, where is the clinical definition of AIDS or do doctors just make this up on the fly? And what does it say if the CDC's surveillance definition and the clinical definition are radically different?
How do lawyers defend accused embezzlers? Is there a correct legal defense written down somewhere?
The diagnosis and treatment decision is one that is based on experience, facts, the patient, and medical testing. This is true for all disease. There is no single test to establish HIV infection just as there is no legal defense for embezzlement.
For purposes of statistics and public health planning, however, we need a defining condition. ADI + low CD4 + HIV+ is pretty good.
If you need clarification on the science of HIV and AIDS, please feel free to PM me. I strongly disagree with your positions and actions, but that doesn't mean we can't exchange questions and info. I've never done HIV research, but I have six years working with non-primate lentiviruses like EIAV, CAEV, BIV, and FIV and pumavirus.
I'd like to hear the "dissident" position on them, by the way. What about all the other lentiviruses that also cause immunocompromise?
Don't get me wrong - I am NOT an AIDS denialist. It does seem strange however, that the WHO can decide if a person has AIDS in the absence of a positive biochemical assay. HIV is not the only cause of immunodeficiency and the symptoms they mention. Ipso facto, a certain percentage of people wihtout HIV will be nevertheless be diagnosed as having AIDS.
Okay, as an educational exercise can you find the defining conditions for systemic lupus erythematosus? You'll find a rather convoluted series of symptoms and defining illnesses. Many of us would probably qualify at one time or other, but this is not a spreadsheet or computer program that spits out results of a formula. A physician is the gatekeeper and jury for this process. The criteria is simply a guideline to diagnosis (and for statistics and insurance purposes).
I do not know what lupus erythematous is. What is the relevance? What I am saying is, there are papers and opinions out there that play into the hands of AIDS denialists. The most serious is the paper by Piatek et al, Science. There is an incredible error in that paper, published by a TOPscientific journal. It defies belief that Science could have published such an error.
@Neeboopsh Don't worry - there is no way to do this, because to achieve it you'd need to purify, and they didn't purify. I'm not saying if HIV exists or not. Actually I don't give two shits who "wins the debate" as long as they do this correctly. BTW - blood transfusion can do you a lot of harm anyway, regardless of hiv or no hiv, so your advise is not too smart. There also would be a mental fallout from such an operation - a little bit like a voodoo effect if you will.
See what I mean babe? The fact that YOU ARE (happy?) trying to give me a grammar lesson is annoying, when in fact you know that when most people talk on fucking YouTube could give a shit about conjunctions. Thanks for the offer but I don't really want to hear your opinion anymore.
Does HIV cause AIDS? Does smoking cause lung cancer? Does drinking cause hepatitis?
It's not that easy. HIV infection reduces CD4+ cell counts. AIDS is an inability to respond to secondary infection. HIV infection is one way that can happen, but it's not what we would call deterministic. Managing the chronic infection can prevent the susceptibility to disease, so antiretrovirals can let people lead normal lives.
I am asking you the evidences that shows the vitalities of the person who stop taking the anti retroviral drugs which gains their health back again. and how would you explain you also uploaded this video.
Yes HIV exists but is it really that fatal? or people in the industries just making ways to make money for themselves.
Don't use the "vast conspiracy" argument. It's just not logical.
Where do you get your information from about these people who stop taking ARVs? Do you know a lot of them personally? Do you read it in major newspapers? Science journals? Do you know what the statistics are on this from health authorities?
if this video says it all that HIV exists. then how would you explain all the people stopped from their anti retroviral treatment and gain their health back to normal.
People are dying from these said drugs. There are lots of scientist have proven also that HIV does not exist. But they are being cut off from their respective industries because they tell the truth. Is this the price of bringing justice to the people who died from mis diagnosis of AIDS ?
AIDS is a chronic disease. Some people will not progress as quickly as others, if at all. This is true for cancer and hepatitis as well. Some people live for 20 years with prostate cancer, some have progression and death in five years.
"Saying" that HIV does not exist is not science. Scientists deal in evidence. The forum for debate is the literature. Duesberg made his case, and his case failed on the evidence. End of debate.
HIV was first reported in 1981. 1994 represents the modern era of HIV research, and the end of a reasonable need for debate. It's the last year you could have reasonably denied that HIV exists and is a causative agent in progression to AIDS. It was also my first year in virology research.
Hey man.. you still haven't corrected this video, i.e. your false claim about what the PG argues about p24/actin. Why? Does it really seem so unimportant to you that you won't even bother to correct it? Or is it so difficult to admit that you made a mistake? Tell me please. Why?
My mistake. It was gp41 that they claim is non-specific to actin. This was due to a single paper by Montagnier relating to the initial polyclonal Western. The clinical test has no cross-reactivity. The Lancet, 329:8523, p40.
They then go on to claim that positive gp41 results in gay men with ITP are the result of non-specific Western reactions to platelet membrane antigen, a 25 kDa protein. How they made the jump is not clear.
Also, maybe you should read Djamel Tahi's interview with Montagnier too. Quote:
"..in effect there are cellular proteins that one meets everywhere -theres a non-specific background noise, and amongst these proteins one is
very abundant in cells, which is actin. And this protein has a molecular weight 43000kd. So, it was there. So I was reasonably right, but what Gallo saw on the other hand was the gp41 of HIV, because he was using the Western
Do you know the difference between Coomassie stained gels and Western blots? Coomassie stains all proteins, showing strong banding for any protein in the sample. Westerns use primary and secondary antibodies to label bands that are antigenically distinct.
There is no confusion over ENV gp41 and p43 actin on a Western. There is on Coomassie and RIPA and that's what Montagnier was using, but not Gallo.
Does Val understand that? Do you? Why hasn't he retracted his paper?
Perhaps I should be clearer. Montagnier used RIPA, a radio-immuno-pulldown assay, then staining with a non-specific protein dye. His antibody was mixed with the whole sample, used to enrich for antigenic protein, then non-specifically stained. He was prone to cross-reactivity.
Westerns, however, take the sample and separate it on electromobility, then use specific antibodies to stain it specifically.
Odd to mention it in Val's 'paper' on Western blotting.
@C0nc0rdance I'd like an answer to my "Why not correct earlier?" question.
Re: "Does Val understand that? ..Why hasn't he retracted his paper?"
I'm not well informed on these things. As far as I know the p41/actin issue is bigger than just simple technical differences, from PG's point of view.
The question I have is this though: Why don't you warn Val Turner if you think you discovered an error in their paper? Or why don't you write to the journal editors and tell them to retract the paper?
That's because the HIV-1 Amplicor test is not a screening test, it is a viral load test. It is designed for use on confirmed, HIV infected and frankly viremic patients.
If you instead challenged people to take the real screen for HIV-1 infection, which consists of a battery of tests and physician review, you would find the false positive rate to be 1 in 250,000. In the US, that translates to about 1,200 people, if every US person were tested.
Koolybabe, yes, you are correct. MOst WB uses anti-bodies to detect proteins.
The HIV WB is a variation of the theme. Extracts of cultured HIV-infected cells are electrophoresed (the proteins), then serum from the patient is used to probe the blot.
There was a doctor in South America who went on national tv and injected himself with HIV to prove it's non-existence. He tried to get the US tv stations involved but they refused. Are we willing to put our beliefs on the line like this. Everyday, I and others with 'HIV' make choices about whether to take the drugs or not which have a huge effect on our mortality. My choice has been the alternative therapy route and so far I'm doin well.
Oh no a warning from an uneducated pretend scientist that still believes AIDS came from monkeys and is punishment from God against queers . Read a book and quit posting these ridiculous videos with absolutely no scientific basis .
I have met 4 people who once had full blown AIDS T-Cell count below 200 and now live symptom free with no HIV positive tests for at least 3 years . They take no meds and use nothing but nutrition to treat their AIDS .
The Perth Group have been proven to be 100% correct . All leading scientists who have studied AIDS have concluded it is not a retro virus . This is a fact ,not a theory . You migh as well make a video answeing skeptics of Santa Clause being real .
There is not a single scientist who has actually studied AIDS (done experiments and published peer reviewed reports, treated patients, or achieved recognisable qualifications in relevant scientific fields) and who denies the basic fact that HIV causes AIDS.
...Have been proven 100% correct?
What trash.
Any twit with a laptop and and internet connection can post whatever opinions they like on the net.
It's the lemonade fasting diet designed in 1941, before we understood ... well, much of anything... about modern physiology. You deprive your body of protein, fats, and most of the good stuff we get in food, and it triggers all the stress responses.
Pure placebo effect. Never demonstrated to have any positive benefit other than losing weight like a yo-yo...
Anyone who buys it is a credulous moron. Exhibit A: thesepipesRclean
Yes , except Bob Gallo invented the virus so his opinion doesn't really count . Other than that Horowitz , 2 nobel prize scientists and about 1,00 virologists all say it cannot be classified as a retrovirus . I am not one of those "it doesn't actuall exist " people . I am talking only about what the evidence shows , which it is a mutated Cow Pox virus that was man made . Kray Mullis is the Nobel Prize winning chemist who published a great paper about this .
Are you saying he published that a cowpox virus, a dsDNA virus with a genome of 180 kb, 300 nm particle size, no coat, and a completely zoonotic transfer has mutated into a virus that is a retrovirus with a dsRNA genome of about 10 kb, 100 nm particles, a coat, and a blood-born transfer mechanism with no zoonosis?
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And I've taught undergraduates.
I think I am going to go crazy. I first came across 'HIV was made as a bio-weapon' theory a few months ago. No matter how much I explained it would have been impossible, I was up against a brick wall. Then, I discovered the other naieve nutters - denialists. And I think this group are even more stupid.
Try to teach a group of monkeys of the theory of relativity for 100 years - at the end, they will still be monkeys.
I give up. As Basil Fawlty said 'we should let you all burn'.
Actually Bob Gallo and Montangnier shared credit for the discovry of HIV/AIDS . It's fuuny too because Bob Gallo helped create the virus . It is all public info that was found in the Library of Congress . The government didn't even try to hide the fact they created AIDS , they just counted on the fact most people are too stupid to look for the truth . That is why people believed a mutated cow pox virus came from a monkey .
Provide some proof that HIV is derived from poxvirus or stop making tinfoil hat statements. That's a warning. I'm not terribly interested in your uneducated rumor-mongering.
Create AIDS?What the fuck are you talking about?AIDS has been with us since at least 50 years ago as antibody and other tests in frozen tissue samples from people who died 50 years ago show.
they shared credid because Galo claimed that the virus the French detected came from his lab...A big fight between Pasteur Institute and Galo's Lab enrupted and the French and the American goverments at that time pressured the two scientists to "settle" their differences because it was of high priority to start fighting AIDS.
Don't abuse conspiracy theorists, it's about free speech and having the right to demand evidence or rebut commonly held beliefs, sometimes their work exposes conspiracies (oh yes they do exist). This vid is a useful rebuttal.
If the process of science were to stop every time some non-scientist objected, or had an alternative idea, science would grind to a halt.
The place for debate in science is in the published peer-reviewed literature. What this group does is write "crank letters" to the editor. It's easy to dismiss them from science.
The problem is that what they advocate is dangerous. People are dying from their free speech, and I don't want that sort of thing protected at the expense of human life.
I have been suspicious of the motivation of conspiritorialists for some time. They claim to fight the noble fight, but they dont care about truth.
I bet you guys any money that the perth group have shares in cranberry juice or other anti oxidants. that is the ONLY reason that I can think of for these guys to deny the facts.
So there is group of maniacs (a sect) who buy shares of companies who sell antioxydant products and they wish more and more ppl will have unlimited lust of sex and get infected with HIV? sound like conspiracy theory to me! Only from the opposite view.
Conspiracy theorists really bug me, but too often I don't have the technical information to actually refute what they're saying. Being South African, I wish this video had been online a few years back when our then president came out with the statement that "HIV does not cause AIDS" - to be fair, this is a touch out of context, but he still said it and deserves to be slapped for it in a place like SA.
Kerry Mullis the guy that designed the PCR says that it is not efficient in getting an accurate count of the viral load. Plus make it simple their website makes it real simple to understand why this cannot be. However evertime I check out a website that says HIV cause aids they have all this technical jorgan that I believe throws the average person off.
House of numbers & house of numbers bonus extras documentary on youtube, explain everything
Thinkagain6 1 week ago
Like i've said before I like these video's you do on this subject man, I hope someone does on on that Asshole Liam Scheff, I can't stand that cocky little bastard
hitcan79 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am going to send this video and valuable information to the troublesome individuals who roam youtube spouting crackpot half truths about HIV and its effects. They are strange people who need confronting with hard facts
Clempt90 1 week ago
AIDs deniers are just like idiot creationists. Except I dont understand why they deny AIDs. Its not like idiot creationists who deny reality due to religion. WTF, I just dont understand.
TheHolyMongolEmpire 2 months ago
@perther3 Borderline libel? Not if it's true
TheKitch2 2 months ago
why are you only targeting the "Perth group" there are many other doctors who deny aids hypothesis, and are to be listened to, and yes one of the reasons that we do not find there research papers on HIV is because, no leading science journal is ready to publish them.
lipin007i 3 months ago
@lipin007i
I'm sorry you feel that way. I still sometimes attend Keystone Symposia on virology, and I've never once met an HIV/AIDS denialist there. I would be very interested to be introduced to a active research virologist who doubted the existence of human-tropic lentiviruses or their ability to cause disease.
"Heresy" in science is usually pretty interesting when it's tied to enigmatic data. The trouble here is that there's no meat to the denialist position.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
well - it's a lot of talking but means nothing too me. So you detected protein p24 again, and so what? it's a load of bull - I went through pain of listening to your annoying voice to only find out a mixture of lies and misinformation. False positive 1 in 250 000? I got on this subjects because of false poisitives occuring on the regular basis and perth guys are on the money that the test is NOT specific. you have so far 70+ reasons of false positive and I bet more will be added soon.
JJTechnologies 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JJTechnologies Did you not listen carefully to the dialogue in this video ? The false positive argument from the denialism camp is a red herring in that it is no where near as frequent as they would have you believe and furthermore a HIV test kind of like a pregnancy test is deliberately manufactured to be highly sensitive on the grounds that a false negative is a worse outcome than a false positive in so as stopping the spread of the virus to others. Its not rocket science.
Clempt90 1 week ago
*reappraisal
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
The Perth Group makes me ashamed to be an Australian
Plausiblesarge 6 months ago
@Plausiblesarge
u should be ashamed of being an ignorant mate.
1mhiv 5 months ago
Everyone look up Christine Maggiore and her eventual death. You will know her death just can't be a coincidence. She is very typical of people with HIV who denied!
funnpersonn 8 months ago
Thank you for specifically addressing the arguments of AIDS denialists. I was starting to believe them, mostly because every rebuttal to their arguments was something along the lines of "AIDS IS REAL!" which doesn't address the specific points that they make.
Quizoid 8 months ago
@Quizoid I don't understand what this changes? It's nothing new and it all comes back to the same flawed concept of p24 and what about the rest? Why are they so obsessed about p24? becuase it's the only protein Montagnier and Gallo had + supposed RT (btw p24 doesn't have rt, only p51 and p66, which they obviously don't care about). Virus doesn't have 1 or 2 protein, but far as I remember 9-10. This rant doesn't change a damn thing from what they've been saying all along. Zero.
JJTechnologies 4 months ago
@JJTechnologies I don't understand you. You seem to accept the evidence that there are 9-10 HIV proteins but you also belng to the group that says HIV does not exist. Please explain.
sunaru1 3 months ago
hey man thanks for taking the time to actually answer what these losers are saying about this, years ago I had three uncles all with HIV, this was long before any of the good medicine's of today, well they weren't long developing AIDS and dying, pretty sad after all these years there's still idiots that need to be spoon fed this info. good video...
Allen10579 10 months ago
Christ on a crutch hobbling backwards! These bloody truthers are everywhere. Honestly, anyone else on HAART knows that it can be hard on the guts, and the dry retching of bile in the mornings can be exhaustive. But these side effects remain a pleasure in comparison to discussing the nature of both your illness and your meds with an HIV "Truther".
The worst part is, that she was repeating posts of cherry picked " evidence" all the time,
RonnieJamesable 1 year ago
but kept forgetting what she posted, and it slowly dawned on me that she wasn't even concentrating. She's probably on one of her other Youtube accounts trying to prove the bloody Bosnian Pyramid hoax is actually true like she's in a Command & Control Nerve Centre trying to put the worlds evils to right from a studio apartment in Raleigh. Don't take your Meds and don't drink the tap water either! They're after our precious bodily fluids, Mandrake!
RonnieJamesable 1 year ago
Because the FDA, CDC and such are really reliable groups, right? do your homework.
MarioSavioTZM 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if u r interested in a REAL free energy magnet motor then
just go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and download the blueprints ,it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
rebelliouseoagj 1 year ago
Comment removed
pretender2bones 1 year ago
if ur not a qualified scientist why r u responding.
Im no genius but the test for HIV finds antibodies right?
so whats the test for getting aids?
personally i think u r to attached to ur opinion to change it.
scientific theories are supposed to be challenges but when someone does they are extradited, why ? they trying to keep something down???
1TzJJ 1 year ago
if ur not a qualified scientist why r u responding?
im no genius but the test for HIV finds antibodies or what?
1TzJJ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you think they are wrong or do you believe they are wrong? Your attitude has nothing to do with truth!
StefanLankaTalks 1 year ago
@ C0nc0rdance, it's clear to me that you are evil, because the only thing you can honestly do is present inaccurate information in the hope that people won't be smart enough to understand it or that they will be to lazy to study this for themselves. You have no soul! The truth about HIV will be manifested. Truth crushed to earth will rise again. Read for yourself the facts and stop letting people tell you how to think. I have studied this and HIV is a BIG LIE.
HIVHOAX 1 year ago
@HIVHOAX
Oh, I'm clearly evil. I also worship Satan and I work for Big Pharma. Clearly.
The part I love most is when I give people citations to support my points, but I know they won't actually use these citations to verify my claims. Yeah, I just do that to throw them off my evil scent.
It's funny, when you say: "read for yourself the facts" I suspect you mean the facts you find on AIDS denialist sites. I use (and cite) the scientific literature. Which is more likely to be accurate?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 12
@C0nc0rdance, when I say Evil, I'm not referring to any Satan BS. Evil is when you try to change and ignore the facts even when you are provided with good evidence to the contrary. HIV is a Bogus LIE. People are told that they HIV and then they are told they have Antibodies to HIV. For every other infectious agent, Antibodies indicate immunity, except for HIV. Anybody can write a paper, it won't make it true. Either U R just stuck on stupid or U just never learn how to add & Subtract.
HIVHOAX 1 year ago
@HIVHOAX
Anybody can write a paper??!!! Well, yes, sort of, but not anybody can publish in a decent journal unless they have actually done the experiments.
sunaru1 1 year ago
I would like to see everyone who is so sure that HIV doesnt even exist, get a full blown HIV loaded blood transfusion and get back to me in 10 years of no ARV treatment =) (i do not actually advocate doing so. that will kill you)
Neeboopsh 1 year ago
@Neeboopsh First of all blood transfusions can kill you even if they are correctly typed. So if someone did this and died it would prove nothing about HIV. The true test is the injection of pure HIV and since nobody has ever purified HIV there is no danger of that experiment being performed any time soon.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
What a stupid, childish comment. Such an experiment would be highly unethical. Grow up.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1 What is stupid is to not read my comment. I said that the experiment is impossible because HIV has never been purified. Therefore the issue of whether the experiment is ethical or not does not need to be addressed since the experiment is impossible.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
This is called the unreachable goal posts fallacy. No matter how pure something is, it will never be pure enough for your satisfaction. Your ad hoc argument requires an arbitrarily unachievable level of purity.
Here's a simple paper, very highly cited about the nature of HIV virus. Why don't you contact the authors about your concerns?
Science. 1997 Nov 14;278 (5341):1291-5 .
"Recovery of replication-competent HIV despite prolonged suppression of plasma viremia."
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 10
@C0nc0rdance No matter how pure? :) so far I failed to find any in depth study that wouldn't rely on ELISA confirmation of p24 and an old proof from '83 that they still rely on, of RT. Till this day a lot of scientists seem to believe that both are specific for a new virus, whereas it's not. It's like saying that from the fact that something has two legs and vagina, it must be Angelina Jolie. Doesn't make sense to me
JJTechnologies 4 months ago
@DavidRCrowe
I disagree with you. The PUTATIVE virus, that is, what is believed to cause the disease, could be injected into people - that experiment is theoretically possible but unethical.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
Surprised to find you here. Would love to have your
comments on the following:
I agree that hiv/aids hypothesis is completely and
crucially: CRIMINALLY flawed.
There are obviously powers in existence that know and
have engineered this situation. What strikes me is that
you, Duesberg, Mullis, Rasnick etc CONTINUE functioning
so very comfortably; not A TRACE of stress on your faces.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
Sure I'm aware of Duesberg's Berkeley issues and such,
but on the whole he is doing very well.
Question: why aren't you extrapolating this to ALL of
society, ALL science, the ENTIRE med establishment.
Why does Peter continue working in cancer research
when obviously the same principle applies:
...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
a top down DESIRE to make people sick.
In other words: why does it seem u r the
"controlled opposition", giving great info but to
a limited public and in fact apparently accomplishing
damage-control?
Thanks.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Perhaps you can rephrase all this. I'm not at all sure what you are asking.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
OK: Although to the majority it isn't clear, TO YOU it must be clear that AIDS science is so flawed, and so many blatant lies have been told, that there are people in positions of power that have investments in AIDS.
Looking at people like Rodger McFarlane, an ex INTELLIGENCE operative that founded Gay Men's Health Crisis with Kramer, looking at Gallo's heavily promoted press conference that shocked the science community, and countless other factors, it becomes obvious that...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
And: if AIDS corresponds to a nefarious social engineering plot,
how come the -relatively small group of people denouncing
AIDS -"science" have been allowed to expose their convincing
findings unhindered since 25 years?
OK, thanks. Hope this is clear enough...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Scientists like to believe that they participate in a process of free inquiry therefore they are not well equipped to eliminate opponents entirely--it would be too obviously hypocritical. So they invented peer review, but it's a blunt instrument and doesn't stop everything. But it stops critical discussion of the issue in any major journal and they hope nobody's paying attention to the little discussion that gets through the filters.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
OK so you haven't realized that AIDS was launched into the
mainstream in a manner so successful, involving such well-oiled
coordination in many varying fields -/media/politics/science/pharma
activism etc- that it MUST involve INTENT.
Do you really believe that an OUTRAGEOUS idea such as feeding
gays AZT could have gotten the green light merely because of ignorance?
Come on David...Has it never occurred to you that all the way at
the top many threads come together?
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious absoutelely YES. You have evidence upon evidence from the past of the similar situations. Some of them seem ridiculous today. 1/media, politics etc rely on scientists 2/ there is a pressure from pharma 3/ media love graphic and scary stuff, it sells papers. But most of it it's just missinformation.. CDC,FDA, Gallo, Montagnier (actually Montagnier starts to back off a bit, but nothing about it in media - suprise!) invested in this their whole careers, so they won't let go easy
JJTechnologies 4 months ago
@JJTechnologies
'CDC,FDA, Gallo, Montagnier (actually Montagnier starts to back off a bit, but nothing about it in media - suprise!) invested in this their whole careers, so they won't let go easy'
My point really was that scientists do not control society, rather, science is another tool of the controllers. We obviously can't expect Gallo or the CDC or such guys/organizations to expose the criminal hoax, but what should alert us is basically no one else does, EXCEPT for a handful...
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@JJTechnologies
...of scienctists vocally 'reappraising' the hiv/aids hypothesis since 25 years.
I find it interesting that David Crowe -one of those publicly reappraising AIDS- basically appeared to have no clue whatsoever and no response to my question involving his appraisal of the AIDS-situation as a criminal feat of social engineering involving INTENT, ORGANIZATION, ENGINEERING, MEDIA-CONTROL and soforth.
In high places there are obviously stringpullers who KNOW HIV/AIDS is a big lie.
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@JJTechnologies
Why don't Duesberg, Rasnick, Crowe, the Perth Group etc work up the chain of command and extrapolate their findings to realize they are functioning in an evil, absolutely corrupt system?
Why does Duesberg continue functioning as a hotshot in cancer research when it's so obvious cancer research & 'treatment' (WOW!) is the same type of socially promoted and engineered problem aiming to debilitate people?
I can only conclude that they are PUPPETS, the controlled opposition,...
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@JJTechnologies
...necessary to provide a semblance of scientific soundness surrounding AIDS through the provision of an apparent debate and disagreement: the system always likes to control both ends of a situation.
Note that the way HIV/AIDS reappraising has been engineered favours an at best minimal development of dissent, that never bursts into the mainstream.
The ENTIRE SITUATION is controlled.
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
@JJTechnologies
What this basically means is that science is completely controlled since ages and is corrupt and deceptive. Thus we are looking at a very massive SYSTEMIC problem, rather than at a few unscrupulous people.
suddenlyitsobvious 4 months ago
Comment removed
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
It does not stop critical discussion. You obviously have limited experience of reading journals, especially the discussions sections very often found.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1 I have read several thousand scientific papers (I can give you the exact number from my database if you like). I avoid abstracts and discussion sections because those often distort the results. Start with the results. Read the methods if it's not accurate. And then read the abstract and discussion to see how things are being spun.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
Several thousand. OK, as a scientist I will remain objective. Please send me ten references and I shall have a look at them.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1 Any 10 references, or on a particular subject?
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
HIV and AIDS, of course!!
sunaru1 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
Oi!! Ten paers on HIV please.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
Still waiting.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
Well, Dave Boy, three days now and still no 10 papers on HIV / AIDS proving your point. Whgat a wanker you are.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1
Many hours later. Wanker.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1 Is it okay if I take a vacation without web access?
I will get you 10 papers when I have the time. Probably in a couple of weeks after I dig myself out from under my post-vacation email pile. Sorry I can't make you my top priority.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
Hope you enjoyed your holiday. I await these ten papers with interest.
sunaru1 1 year ago
Comment removed
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
Comment removed
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@sunaru1
(I am going to post a few more than 10, I hope you don't mind the bonus)
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
aras.ab.ca
top10.html
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidRCrowe
Are these the references?
aras.ab.ca
top10.html
sunaru1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidRCrowe
Are these the refernces?
22 hours ago
aras.ab.ca
top10.html
sunaru1 1 year ago
I am running into the apparently common "Error, try again" YouTube error.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
You do not have the 10-plus papers. Be true to yourself.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1 YouTube will not let me post the URL. It is the page top10.html on the website aras.ab.ca
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
There is a serious error in the Piatek Science paper, but not the one you mention. The other papers you mention I shall have to find and check.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1 All the papers are linked from the website I provided. No need to go looking for them.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
They do not appear to be linked. I need to read the whole reports, not just your summary.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1 The titles of each paper are in blue. Click on the title and you will get the PDF file. If any links are broken please let me know. I agree that you need to read the whole report, that's why I made them available.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
The first paper, about the WHO suiveilance of AIDS, appears to be an attempt in 1994 to monitor potential AIDS in the absence of expensive / unavailable HIV testing. I agree, the criteria seem dubious and one wonders if the WHO are still using the same 'diagnostic' methods. The paper does, however, point out the disadvantage of using such an approach.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1 I checked with WHO in the late 1990s and they confirmed that the same guidelines were still in use. I'm unaware of any update since then,just as the CDC definition hasn't changed since 1993. But people who know differently are welcome to try to provide me wrong.
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
Your analysis is pretty poor.
3- Coculture dilution series measure infections, QPCR measures RNA. Why is your height not equal to your weight?
4- decreasing antigen loads decreases cytokine levels, which decreases CD4 expression, decreasing viral transmission.
5- lymph nodes are sentinel tissues. The presence of rare positive cells show that ciculating APCs (monocytes) are presenting HIV antigens in the lymph nodes, not that they are growing in lymph node cells.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance There should be one RNA genome per virion. Therefore viral load should precisely measure the level of infection. Okay, give or take a few percent for dead or dying or defective viruses (if a virus can die). But a factor of 60,000?
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
You're oversimplifying viral mechanics and human immunology. Very specific conditions result in co-culture infection. Viral shedding, uptake, transactivation, integration, and re-expression. Virion RNA in serum is simply measuring raw material at one particular location.
An analogy is trying to estimate square footage of a home by measuring the length of all the lumber at the job site. You would expect them to correlate, but not directly.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
I am NOT an AIDS denialist, but you to face facts - there is a SERIOUS error in the Science paper by Piatek et al. Let's see if you can find it. It amazes me that the referees and editors failed to notice it.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1
Hmm... it's a pretty light "techniques" paper. Competitive PCR was never very good, and using quantitative is a bit of a stretch. I don't like how they pelleted the virions and I'm a snob for good documentation of methods.
No, I'm not seeing a major design flaw. Wait, are you talking about a math error? I give. What's the flaw?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
6- Are you serious? This paper shows EM micrographs of budding virions, a PPV of 90%, and he was able to predict the progression to AIDS of a low-risk patient. You're concerned that only 30% of KS patients were positive?
7- Everyone in this study was slated for AZT. Three people died before they could be treated. That is not the same as "only 3 people in the non-AZT group died". You are misrepresenting the facts through willful or unintentional ignorance.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
9. There is a gold standard for HIV ELISA serotests. Prior to the current WHO International Gold Standard, there were Working Standards in various locales. The challenge was shipping potentially infectious material (standard sera) for use in diagnostic labs.
10. You should pair this with JAMA. 1999 Aug 11;282(6):531-8. Perinatal transmission dropped 67%, with corresponding drops in AIDS defining illness and death. Perinatal ARVs are not used carelessly.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
1. This is about surveillance, not diagnosis. The epidemiologist may count you as an AIDS case if you lost 30 pounds with diarrhea and KS, but your doctor would use differential diagnosis. Epidemiologists don't have patient-level data.
2. Also about public health surveillance. Note that these measures were used for statistics, planning and REFERRALS TO DOCTORS. They were defining what high-risk and staging criteria were. Doctors still diagnose disease, not CDC.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance Okay, where is the clinical definition of AIDS or do doctors just make this up on the fly? And what does it say if the CDC's surveillance definition and the clinical definition are radically different?
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
How do lawyers defend accused embezzlers? Is there a correct legal defense written down somewhere?
The diagnosis and treatment decision is one that is based on experience, facts, the patient, and medical testing. This is true for all disease. There is no single test to establish HIV infection just as there is no legal defense for embezzlement.
For purposes of statistics and public health planning, however, we need a defining condition. ADI + low CD4 + HIV+ is pretty good.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
If you need clarification on the science of HIV and AIDS, please feel free to PM me. I strongly disagree with your positions and actions, but that doesn't mean we can't exchange questions and info. I've never done HIV research, but I have six years working with non-primate lentiviruses like EIAV, CAEV, BIV, and FIV and pumavirus.
I'd like to hear the "dissident" position on them, by the way. What about all the other lentiviruses that also cause immunocompromise?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
Don't get me wrong - I am NOT an AIDS denialist. It does seem strange however, that the WHO can decide if a person has AIDS in the absence of a positive biochemical assay. HIV is not the only cause of immunodeficiency and the symptoms they mention. Ipso facto, a certain percentage of people wihtout HIV will be nevertheless be diagnosed as having AIDS.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1
Okay, as an educational exercise can you find the defining conditions for systemic lupus erythematosus? You'll find a rather convoluted series of symptoms and defining illnesses. Many of us would probably qualify at one time or other, but this is not a spreadsheet or computer program that spits out results of a formula. A physician is the gatekeeper and jury for this process. The criteria is simply a guideline to diagnosis (and for statistics and insurance purposes).
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
I do not know what lupus erythematous is. What is the relevance? What I am saying is, there are papers and opinions out there that play into the hands of AIDS denialists. The most serious is the paper by Piatek et al, Science. There is an incredible error in that paper, published by a TOPscientific journal. It defies belief that Science could have published such an error.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@sunaru1
Lupus is an immunopathology with variable presentation. You were wondering why AIDS can't just be defined with a biochemical test.
Okay, what is the error in Piatek et al?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DavidRCrowe
You are a wanker.
sunaru1 1 year ago
@DavidRCrowe
Have you ever published for any conference or journal?
scourfish 1 year ago
@scourfish yes
DavidRCrowe 1 year ago
@Neeboopsh Don't worry - there is no way to do this, because to achieve it you'd need to purify, and they didn't purify. I'm not saying if HIV exists or not. Actually I don't give two shits who "wins the debate" as long as they do this correctly. BTW - blood transfusion can do you a lot of harm anyway, regardless of hiv or no hiv, so your advise is not too smart. There also would be a mental fallout from such an operation - a little bit like a voodoo effect if you will.
JJTechnologies 4 months ago
Comment removed
sipplenoreness69 1 year ago
I really want to believe that we cannot believe everything that is portrayed about this subject. Your really annoying to listen to.
sipplenoreness69 1 year ago
@sipplenoreness69
"Your really annoying..."
"Your" is possessive. "You're" is an abbreviation of "You are".
Let me know if there is a specific point you want me to address. I'm happy to answer questions or explain the science.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@C0nc0rdance
See what I mean babe? The fact that YOU ARE (happy?) trying to give me a grammar lesson is annoying, when in fact you know that when most people talk on fucking YouTube could give a shit about conjunctions. Thanks for the offer but I don't really want to hear your opinion anymore.
sipplenoreness69 1 year ago
Does hiv cause aids? you posted this video right?
ligerbreaker 1 year ago
@ligerbreaker
Does HIV cause AIDS? Does smoking cause lung cancer? Does drinking cause hepatitis?
It's not that easy. HIV infection reduces CD4+ cell counts. AIDS is an inability to respond to secondary infection. HIV infection is one way that can happen, but it's not what we would call deterministic. Managing the chronic infection can prevent the susceptibility to disease, so antiretrovirals can let people lead normal lives.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
I am asking you the evidences that shows the vitalities of the person who stop taking the anti retroviral drugs which gains their health back again. and how would you explain you also uploaded this video.
Yes HIV exists but is it really that fatal? or people in the industries just making ways to make money for themselves.
ligerbreaker 1 year ago
@ligerbreaker
Don't use the "vast conspiracy" argument. It's just not logical.
Where do you get your information from about these people who stop taking ARVs? Do you know a lot of them personally? Do you read it in major newspapers? Science journals? Do you know what the statistics are on this from health authorities?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
Comment removed
ligerbreaker 1 year ago
if this video says it all that HIV exists. then how would you explain all the people stopped from their anti retroviral treatment and gain their health back to normal.
People are dying from these said drugs. There are lots of scientist have proven also that HIV does not exist. But they are being cut off from their respective industries because they tell the truth. Is this the price of bringing justice to the people who died from mis diagnosis of AIDS ?
ligerbreaker 1 year ago
@ligerbreaker
AIDS is a chronic disease. Some people will not progress as quickly as others, if at all. This is true for cancer and hepatitis as well. Some people live for 20 years with prostate cancer, some have progression and death in five years.
"Saying" that HIV does not exist is not science. Scientists deal in evidence. The forum for debate is the literature. Duesberg made his case, and his case failed on the evidence. End of debate.
Science Vol 266 • 9 DECEMBER 1994
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance whoa pullin out the research from 1994, how progressive! its 2010.
sipplenoreness69 1 year ago
@sipplenoreness69
HIV was first reported in 1981. 1994 represents the modern era of HIV research, and the end of a reasonable need for debate. It's the last year you could have reasonably denied that HIV exists and is a causative agent in progression to AIDS. It was also my first year in virology research.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago 3
@C0nc0rdance
thats cute, but i dont care.
sipplenoreness69 1 year ago
@sipplenoreness69
Well, that just goes to show, doesn't it? The 1953 paper by Wilkins, Watson, Crick, Franklin is worthless because it was published over 50 year ago.
Asshole.
sunaru1 1 year ago
The Perth Group never denied the existence of HIV.
kalo86 1 year ago
Hey man.. you still haven't corrected this video, i.e. your false claim about what the PG argues about p24/actin. Why? Does it really seem so unimportant to you that you won't even bother to correct it? Or is it so difficult to admit that you made a mistake? Tell me please. Why?
sadunkal 1 year ago
@sadunkal
My mistake. It was gp41 that they claim is non-specific to actin. This was due to a single paper by Montagnier relating to the initial polyclonal Western. The clinical test has no cross-reactivity. The Lancet, 329:8523, p40.
They then go on to claim that positive gp41 results in gay men with ITP are the result of non-specific Western reactions to platelet membrane antigen, a 25 kDa protein. How they made the jump is not clear.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
Thanks for the correction. Do you know why you didn't correct it earlier though..?
sadunkal 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
Also, maybe you should read Djamel Tahi's interview with Montagnier too. Quote:
"..in effect there are cellular proteins that one meets everywhere -theres a non-specific background noise, and amongst these proteins one is
very abundant in cells, which is actin. And this protein has a molecular weight 43000kd. So, it was there. So I was reasonably right, but what Gallo saw on the other hand was the gp41 of HIV, because he was using the Western
Blot. And that I have recognised."
sadunkal 1 year ago
@sadunkal
Do you know the difference between Coomassie stained gels and Western blots? Coomassie stains all proteins, showing strong banding for any protein in the sample. Westerns use primary and secondary antibodies to label bands that are antigenically distinct.
There is no confusion over ENV gp41 and p43 actin on a Western. There is on Coomassie and RIPA and that's what Montagnier was using, but not Gallo.
Does Val understand that? Do you? Why hasn't he retracted his paper?
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
Perhaps I should be clearer. Montagnier used RIPA, a radio-immuno-pulldown assay, then staining with a non-specific protein dye. His antibody was mixed with the whole sample, used to enrich for antigenic protein, then non-specifically stained. He was prone to cross-reactivity.
Westerns, however, take the sample and separate it on electromobility, then use specific antibodies to stain it specifically.
Odd to mention it in Val's 'paper' on Western blotting.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance I'd like an answer to my "Why not correct earlier?" question.
Re: "Does Val understand that? ..Why hasn't he retracted his paper?"
I'm not well informed on these things. As far as I know the p41/actin issue is bigger than just simple technical differences, from PG's point of view.
The question I have is this though: Why don't you warn Val Turner if you think you discovered an error in their paper? Or why don't you write to the journal editors and tell them to retract the paper?
sadunkal 1 year ago
There should be a law against AIDS denialism...that's not freedom of speech or belief..THAT'S DANGEROUS AND IRRESPONSIBLE!
fkoff99 2 years ago
didnt that one leading specialist say PROBABLY
utubersquestions 2 years ago
Comment removed
tyrexden 2 years ago
That's because the HIV-1 Amplicor test is not a screening test, it is a viral load test. It is designed for use on confirmed, HIV infected and frankly viremic patients.
If you instead challenged people to take the real screen for HIV-1 infection, which consists of a battery of tests and physician review, you would find the false positive rate to be 1 in 250,000. In the US, that translates to about 1,200 people, if every US person were tested.
Fact, not fear, is our best counselor.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
From where have you got the idea that a pcr test yields positive results in an HIV-negative person?
katkinsful 2 years ago
Since when was the viral load test a diagnostic tool? Fuck, you're a dumbass.
bronx43 2 years ago
Koolybabe, yes, you are correct. MOst WB uses anti-bodies to detect proteins.
The HIV WB is a variation of the theme. Extracts of cultured HIV-infected cells are electrophoresed (the proteins), then serum from the patient is used to probe the blot.
See the difference?
katkinsful 2 years ago
Comment removed
katkinsful 2 years ago
C0nc0rdance, thank You, great video, keep up the good work. When can we see the next video(s)? Definitely subscribing.
PlatoTacitus 2 years ago
I would challenge members of the Perth group in engauge in repeated unprotected sex with HIV+ people.
My money says that they don't posses the strength of their convictions.
justis26 2 years ago
What have you got against HIV+ people?
During the Parenzee hearing, Eleni Eleopulos Papadopulos was asked if she'd have unprotected sex with an HIV+ person.
She answered, "Anytime."
Unfortunately, they haven't been able to find anyone to volunteer to do the deed.
eSnout 2 years ago
The better question would be to hold up a vial of HIV infected blood, then ask her to inject herself with it.
Rate of HIV transmission, even in unprotected heterosexual intercourse, is relatively low.
bronx43 2 years ago 2
@bronx43
There was a doctor in South America who went on national tv and injected himself with HIV to prove it's non-existence. He tried to get the US tv stations involved but they refused. Are we willing to put our beliefs on the line like this. Everyday, I and others with 'HIV' make choices about whether to take the drugs or not which have a huge effect on our mortality. My choice has been the alternative therapy route and so far I'm doin well.
eden22672 1 year ago
Still waiting for Douchberg to inject himself with HIV to prove his point! Coward!
hngwitch 2 years ago 2
Oh no a warning from an uneducated pretend scientist that still believes AIDS came from monkeys and is punishment from God against queers . Read a book and quit posting these ridiculous videos with absolutely no scientific basis .
thesepipesRclean 2 years ago
I have met 4 people who once had full blown AIDS T-Cell count below 200 and now live symptom free with no HIV positive tests for at least 3 years . They take no meds and use nothing but nutrition to treat their AIDS .
thesepipesRclean 2 years ago
Were these people EVER on anti-retroviral drugs? Or, did they just stop taking them. What was the criteria for 'full blown AIDS'? Sure it wasn't ARC?
katkinsful 2 years ago
The Perth Group have been proven to be 100% correct . All leading scientists who have studied AIDS have concluded it is not a retro virus . This is a fact ,not a theory . You migh as well make a video answeing skeptics of Santa Clause being real .
thesepipesRclean 2 years ago
Don't talk nonsense.
There is not a single scientist who has actually studied AIDS (done experiments and published peer reviewed reports, treated patients, or achieved recognisable qualifications in relevant scientific fields) and who denies the basic fact that HIV causes AIDS.
...Have been proven 100% correct?
What trash.
Any twit with a laptop and and internet connection can post whatever opinions they like on the net.
If you believe them, it's Triumph of the Morons.
eSnout 2 years ago
I think his YT page says a lot about him. Master cleanse, government conspiracies... and really poor spelling.
Santa Clause? Wasn't that the movie with Tim Allen?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
WTF is a "Master cleanse"?
It sounds like something you might see on one of those "niche" sites when you're surfing for porn with Protected Mode switched off.
Err... so I'm told...
eSnout 2 years ago
Ha!
It's the lemonade fasting diet designed in 1941, before we understood ... well, much of anything... about modern physiology. You deprive your body of protein, fats, and most of the good stuff we get in food, and it triggers all the stress responses.
Pure placebo effect. Never demonstrated to have any positive benefit other than losing weight like a yo-yo...
Anyone who buys it is a credulous moron. Exhibit A: thesepipesRclean
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
The opposite is true.People who actually STUDIED the virus concluded that it is a retrovirus.
Artemistech 2 years ago
Yes , except Bob Gallo invented the virus so his opinion doesn't really count . Other than that Horowitz , 2 nobel prize scientists and about 1,00 virologists all say it cannot be classified as a retrovirus . I am not one of those "it doesn't actuall exist " people . I am talking only about what the evidence shows , which it is a mutated Cow Pox virus that was man made . Kray Mullis is the Nobel Prize winning chemist who published a great paper about this .
thesepipesRclean 2 years ago
Ah, yes, "Kray" Mullis, the brilliant chemist : )
Are you saying he published that a cowpox virus, a dsDNA virus with a genome of 180 kb, 300 nm particle size, no coat, and a completely zoonotic transfer has mutated into a virus that is a retrovirus with a dsRNA genome of about 10 kb, 100 nm particles, a coat, and a blood-born transfer mechanism with no zoonosis?
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And I've taught undergraduates.
Perhaps you want to re-examine your facts.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Correction:
The genome is not double stranded RNA. The RNA is single stranded, but diploid (2 copies, same sequences). Host cell tRNA is also present.
katkinsful 2 years ago
Did I say double stranded? Ouch. Dual-stranded. Two positive sense RNA molecules, generally associated with those tRNAs as RT primers.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
You used dsRNA which I supposed meant double stranded. I have always used the term 'diploid single stranded, sense'.
I also insist that cDNA means COPY DNA, and not complementary DNA - but everyone these days says 'complementary DNA'.
katkinsful 2 years ago
I think I am going to go crazy. I first came across 'HIV was made as a bio-weapon' theory a few months ago. No matter how much I explained it would have been impossible, I was up against a brick wall. Then, I discovered the other naieve nutters - denialists. And I think this group are even more stupid.
Try to teach a group of monkeys of the theory of relativity for 100 years - at the end, they will still be monkeys.
I give up. As Basil Fawlty said 'we should let you all burn'.
katkinsful 2 years ago
well a brick wall is made of bricks..can you teach a brick how to think?
Artemistech 1 year ago
Bullshit! The virus was discovered by a french team (Luk Montagnier was the head of that team) in Paster Institute FRANCE.
Luke Motangnier was awarded the NOBEL PRICE for the discovery of HIV in 2008
Mulis might be a noble laurette but he has never worked with HIV.He is a biochemist not a virologist.
Artemistech 2 years ago
Actually Bob Gallo and Montangnier shared credit for the discovry of HIV/AIDS . It's fuuny too because Bob Gallo helped create the virus . It is all public info that was found in the Library of Congress . The government didn't even try to hide the fact they created AIDS , they just counted on the fact most people are too stupid to look for the truth . That is why people believed a mutated cow pox virus came from a monkey .
thesepipesRclean 2 years ago
thesepipesRclean@
Provide some proof that HIV is derived from poxvirus or stop making tinfoil hat statements. That's a warning. I'm not terribly interested in your uneducated rumor-mongering.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Create AIDS?What the fuck are you talking about?AIDS has been with us since at least 50 years ago as antibody and other tests in frozen tissue samples from people who died 50 years ago show.
Artemistech 2 years ago
they shared credid because Galo claimed that the virus the French detected came from his lab...A big fight between Pasteur Institute and Galo's Lab enrupted and the French and the American goverments at that time pressured the two scientists to "settle" their differences because it was of high priority to start fighting AIDS.
Artemistech 1 year ago
so many bullshit so litle time.
Artemistech 2 years ago
you cannot "invent" a virus.A virus is made of molecules and EVERY capable scientist can detect those molecules.
Artemistech 1 year ago
actually it is the other way around.The claims of the Perth Group are total shit.
Artemistech 1 year ago
Don't abuse conspiracy theorists, it's about free speech and having the right to demand evidence or rebut commonly held beliefs, sometimes their work exposes conspiracies (oh yes they do exist). This vid is a useful rebuttal.
halion9 2 years ago
If the process of science were to stop every time some non-scientist objected, or had an alternative idea, science would grind to a halt.
The place for debate in science is in the published peer-reviewed literature. What this group does is write "crank letters" to the editor. It's easy to dismiss them from science.
The problem is that what they advocate is dangerous. People are dying from their free speech, and I don't want that sort of thing protected at the expense of human life.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
so does this mean that Gene therapy will be able to change the RNA nucleotides and send the virus into retrograde
bioamature 2 years ago
some thing tells me you are in Texas.
bioamature 2 years ago
He is missing the real points. HIV remains a lie.
JuergenFaas 2 years ago
Please explain why you believe HIV remains a lie.
katkinsful 2 years ago
I have been suspicious of the motivation of conspiritorialists for some time. They claim to fight the noble fight, but they dont care about truth.
I bet you guys any money that the perth group have shares in cranberry juice or other anti oxidants. that is the ONLY reason that I can think of for these guys to deny the facts.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
So there is group of maniacs (a sect) who buy shares of companies who sell antioxydant products and they wish more and more ppl will have unlimited lust of sex and get infected with HIV? sound like conspiracy theory to me! Only from the opposite view.
rpdigital17 2 years ago
the motivation is not for people to get aids, but to get people to buy antioxidants.
TheProf1988 2 years ago
I think I can get antioxidants from food, so no need to buy them.
rpdigital17 2 years ago
thanks Concordance, great video
Conspiracy theorists really bug me, but too often I don't have the technical information to actually refute what they're saying. Being South African, I wish this video had been online a few years back when our then president came out with the statement that "HIV does not cause AIDS" - to be fair, this is a touch out of context, but he still said it and deserves to be slapped for it in a place like SA.
Keep up the good work :)
Gidwan 2 years ago 2
I found the P24 info of interest. The non-HIV/AIDS debate is unfortunate, as is the derogatory banter.
halfasheep 2 years ago
Kerry Mullis the guy that designed the PCR says that it is not efficient in getting an accurate count of the viral load. Plus make it simple their website makes it real simple to understand why this cannot be. However evertime I check out a website that says HIV cause aids they have all this technical jorgan that I believe throws the average person off.
Dlewis0579 2 years ago