Introduction to AIDS Dissent -- Part 1

[Clempt90]

I find this some what amusing. HIV-subtypes are isolated everyday in labs around the world directly FROM HIV patients. It would be hilarious if these idiotic denialists hadn't help kill thousands of HIV patients prematurely with their pseudo science bullshit

[mrkurt13]

how is it I amplify the HIV genome at work from people with AIDS if it doenst exist?

[AIDSWiki]

@mrkurt13 Putting the words "HIV" and "genome" together next to each other doesn't imply the existence of an "HIV genome" anymore than putting the words "HIV" and "antibody" next to each other implies the existence of "HIV antibodies". No doubt you are amplifying nucleic acid. That's not the issue. The issue is whether that nucleic acid can be shown to have originated in a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus. Google Perth Group's article "HIV Genome 2" to find out where the genome came from.

[IlSeFousDeTaGuele]

sadunkal - And you still seem to miss the point. There is no "debate" over whether HIV causes AIDs or not.

It does. That is the consensus of the scientific community, reached over a dozen years ago using *gasp* the scientific method.

If the "denialists" were interested in an honest discourse it could be an interesting conversation. But that is not what I am seeing. I am seeing preaching, not science.

That isn't dissent, it is deliberate ignorance. The opposite of science.

[sadunkal]

Yes, there is no real debate and that's the whole problem actually. The reason consensus exists is not because all has been rigorously debated and scientific conclusions have been reached, it's because the questions were ignored.

You won't understand what I mean unless you gather some courage and take some time to inform yourself. Take a look at how the whole thing started as a consequence of a press conference for example... Nobody except the dissidents are interested in an honest discourse.

[ccr5cxcr4]

sadunkal - Except he is correct and you are wrong. 20+ years of research. There is no question about a causal relationship.

"Nobody except the dissidents are interested in an honest discourse." - So say something worthwhile. He has said 4-5 times for you to post something interesting and you haven't. Probably because you don't have anything.

You denial cultists are just pathetic. Do some real science. Get a job. Do SOMETHING worthwhile.

[sadunkal]

Inform yourself please. If this is the way modern science is being done now, the list of the dead "believers" who didn't benefit from AIDS drugs at all is much longer.

If science has been that strong since the beginning of it all, why the censorship, the attacks, the lies..?

"Denialists" = A manipulative label invented to cover up the lack of any real science supporting the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. It's a symptom of absolutely unethical "cargo cult science".

[sadunkal]

Tell me, how many hours did you spend examining and questioning the scientific evidence for the HIV/AIDS connection? After how many hours were you convinced and what exactly convinced you?

[sadunkal]

Please tell me how many hours you spent examining and questioning the scientific evidence for the HIV/AIDS connection. At which point, after how many hours were you convinced and what exactly convinced you?

[sadunkal]

Sorry for posting twice...

[sadunkal]

I didn't ask how much time you spent believing it. I asked how long it took you to start examining the scientific evidence, question it and then believe:

How many hours did you spend examining and questioning the scientific evidence for the HIV/AIDS connection? After how many hours were you convinced and what exactly convinced you?

For me personally, it was that I believed in it until I started really looking closely. Before that I had never questioned it.

Did you ever question?

[sadunkal]

Ok. Let's assume for a second that you actually answered my question. So which scientific publications convinced you that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is indeed correct?

And did you also examine the arguments of those who criticize the hypothesis? Which scientific publications convinced you that the critics' arguments are wrong or irrelevant?

[sadunkal]

And did you also examine the arguments of those who criticize the hypothesis?

[sadunkal]

If you want to get a better idea of how science is REALLY done in the modern world, you can begin by googling this:

"Serge Langs last file and the suppression of dissent in contemporary science"

Other than that I suggest you look harder for those papers. Good luck.

[IlSeFousDeTaGuele]

sadunkal - It is apparent from your comments that you do not understand the scientific method, and that conotoxin does.

HIV has been established as the cause of AIDs by multiple lines of evidence.

Science is ALWAYS open to be corrected, so if you have evidence that HIV does not cause AIDs, then feel free to present your evidence.

There is no such thing as "dissent" in science. You either have evidence, or you don't. And you obviously don't.

[sadunkal]

Of course, it is extremely apparent. I guess I forgot to throw several "scientific" ad hominems like he does. :)

I do not feel the need to help others find evidence if they're not already interested in the debate themselves. There are many scientific papers out there for those who're interested, really not that hard to reach. Just an intention to learn is enough to make you spend some time and find the relevant information. And I really suggest that you read that text about dissent.

[sadunkal]

Why did you go silent?

[athelemm]

ON April 17, 2003, the FDA approved the MedMira's Reveal Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test, the first FDA-approved, rapid, point-of-care test designed to detect HIV-1 antibodies within three minutes. With the FDA-approval, MedMira can market the test for the detection of HIV-1 antibodies in serum or plasma. Furthermore, in March 2004, Hedley Tech delivered their Ultra Rapid 60 sec HIV test kit to the Uganda AIDS commision, also FDA approved....FOOD FOR THOUGHT

[HIVVideos]

ALL HIV Tests "INTENDED USES" are ALL the same and will continue to be the same. The FDA will never Approve a "diagnostic" test that proves anyone has antibodies specific to HIV let alone be infected against Immunity. This is another reason that Vaccines will continue to fail because there has to be a virus to vaildate these medical blunders in HIV $cience.

[athelemm]

"Even if HIV is ever Properly shown to exist in Human Beings the tests used to Diagnose so-called HIV Infection are NOT FDA approved for DIAGNOSING anything."...ACTUALLY in Late 1992, the FDA- approved Fluorognost for marketing, the first assay for HIV-IFA confirmation and screening, not to mention the FDA approved Bayer's Automated HIV test in mid 2006, as well as the FDA approved Coulter p24 antigen blood test and I can keep going. SO..know your facts...Dissident

[HIVDISSIDENT]

Darin your Videos are awesome! Keep up the good work.

[jtheis6]

ok, please tell me what i have if not hiv after having unprotected...yes...unprotecte­d sex (about 20 years ago) with my lover who was hiv+ and died within 2 years after his diagnosis? also, the meds that i have been on for over a decade make me feel a WHOLE LOT BETTER than not being on them.

[AIDSWiki]

I am a scientist, therefore I can only deal in what's available in the published literature, not anecdotes. What you "have" is an antibody test made from recombinant proteins manufactured in a lab that reacted with some of your serum antibodies. No more, no less. As for your drugs, they do have some antimicrobial properties (NOT antiviral) e.g. against PCP, and affect different people differently. Many others have died of liver failure on the drugs. So again, I deal in data, not anecdotes.

[MichaelPhillipWright]

I don't dispute what you're saying, but if you are a scientist you ought to identify yourself and cite some of your publications so that people who quote you will have more credibility. To identify me just do a google web search with this phrase: aids dissent michael wright

[HIVDISSIDENT]

jthesis Even if HIV is ever Properly shown to exist in Human Beings the tests used to Diagnose so-called HIV Infection are NOT FDA approved for DIAGNOSING anything. AIDS Axioms such as Unprotected sex and TOXIC Drugs making you feel better are ANCEDOTAL explanation indeed. The PDF Files for each Toxic Anti Retorvirus drugs are available online at your finger tips..these drugs have FDA Black Box Warnings so as an EX follower of the HIV Industry I suggest you check your facts.

[heituzi]

I wouldn't call putting 57 toxins, among them n-nitrosamine, up your bottom end "protected". Condoms are toxic and cause cervical cancer.

[Sausahga]

There *was* a sequence of comments here about two months ago but there seem to be some deletions that inevitably resulted in confusion.

[Sausahga]

Well,I can't *build from the ground up* but don't summarily dismiss out-of-hand what you doubtless regard as *absurd* without a seriously open-minded evaluation of things you likely have never heard. Many very competent, intelligent people have, for over 20 years, taken very sharply different views and understandings of what we call "AIDS" than what we have been "taught". They are not "tinfoil heads" at all.

[AIDSWiki]

The data speak for themselves. And you're right, we DO know how AIDS "came to be" -- it was an invention of the wild imaginations of Donald Francis and Robert Gallo. I suppose you believe it "came to be" when little black children in Africa were playing games with monkey corpses.

[AIDSWiki]

Are you talking about me ("the person was emailing me"). I don't remember corresponding with you, but it's difficult to know, since you use an anonymous pseudonym. My name is Darin Brown. I received my ph.d. in mathematics from UC Santa Barbara in 2004.

Now... WHO ARE YOU?? AND WHEN DID I SPEAK WITH YOU??

[Sausahga]

Does that qualify as an "argument"?