The HIV - AIDS hypothesis, it might be wrong.

Post Reply New Topic

The safety of AZT has been well established.

So have HIV phylogenies (this is one of many - you can look up finer ones yourself).

Transmission rates through anal sex are also low. The rate for receptive anal sex is about 1.4%. The difference can be understood by documented mechanisms which are at play in other diseases - see here. In essence, the digestive system is adapted to absorb things, the vagina isn't.

If AIDS is just the result of extreme and sustained drug abuse, how does it can passed to children?

The holes in your idea are huge.

And the earth is flat, some youtubers say.
And I haven't seen it from space, so I, personally, am no expert.

If science knew everything, it'd stop.

The question however is a different one: are we laymen in a positiin to question scientific findings, when we think they do not fit our perception?-
When looking at the helicobacter-stonach ulcer connection, i'd like to add: one of the doctors(!) who found out about this was a pathologist who came across large amounts of bacteria living happily in the acidic environment of the stomach of deceased people. This very basic fact went against all that was thought about bacteria at the time.
It wasn't that some guy just went out to challenge the established theory, it was an initial finding that went entirely against what was being taught.
And I'd like to stress that there was this finding that started the questioning of the theory, followed by a new theory that hapened to turn out correct.
Extremophile bacteria weren't just some inexplainable inconsistencies in the statistics, they opened up a whole new worldview.

Psychosomatics, btw. Is still largely believed in, even though no one understands how it works and 5 of the 7 major psychsomatic diseases are today explainable through biological processes, bacterial infection being one of them.
Oh, and: homeopathy was great when it was invented, because unlike medicine at the time, it didn't kill people. But now it's 200 years later, and medicine kills less people, while homeopathy still doesn't do anything.

Btw.: wikipedia tells me about 4 major subgroups of HIV, and 38 sub-subgroups, and they seem to have very different properties regarding contagiousness and capability to end in AIDS. Add genetic predisposition to that plus lifestyle and you end up with a large number of factors, which are bound to upset your statistics.

But as Neill DeGrasse Tyson said about flat-earthers: it's not about facts or probabilities, there's something else going on.

If the Earth was flat, we'd be hearing about living beings falling off, and/or warnings to stay away from the point where one would fall off.

All interesting stuff, but I see no one has dared touch the main question: Africans

The mainstream has completely avoided, refused, to face an inescapable dilemma: If HIV/AIDS theory is correct, that “HIV” spreads primarily by sexual intercourse and secondarily via infected needles, then adults who become “HIV-positive” did so in one of those ways. If an identifiable social or ethnic or racial group is always “HIV-positive” more than other groups, then the members of that group are more carelessly sexually promiscuous or more addicted to drug-injecting than are other human beings.
People of African ancestry test “HIV-positive” at a higher rate than others, always and everywhere [2] — in Africa, in the Caribbean, in Europe, in the USA. In the latter, most noteworthy is that Hispanics on the East Coast, who are largely of African ancestry, test “HIV-positive” at rates comparable to those of African-Americans, whereas West-Coast Hispanics, who are predominantly Central and South American, test “HIV-positive” at the much lower rates found among Native Americans. So African ancestry determines being “HIV-positive” even within a socially defined cultural or ethnic or language group like American Hispanics.

Therefore, if HIV/AIDS theory were correct, then African ancestry would significantly determine behavior that includes a much higher rate of careless promiscuity or drug-injecting addiction than is seen in people of non-African ancestry. “Much higher” might better be “extraordinarily higher”: a factor of more than 20 in Africa [2], and in the USA a factor of 20 for black females compared to white females and 7 for black males compared to white males [3]. Furthermore, since the observed or calculated rate of sexual transmission of “HIV” is so low, a phenomenal rate of promiscuity would be called for: 20-40% of adults having something like a dozen sexual partners concurrently and changing them about annually [4].

Never before has sexual behavior been ascribed by mainstream science to genetic determination in this fashion. Nor has any other behavioral characteristic ever been acknowledged to be so genetically determined and race-associated. Indeed, the very notion of behavior being significantly influenced by genetic factors (“sociobiology”, “evolutionary psychology”) remains highly controversial. HIV/AIDS theory is at odds with the mainstream consensus on the relationship between genes and behavior, moreover in a way that is consistent with now-largely-repudiated racial stereotypes.

I was taken aback, therefore, when the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention insisted to me that racial disparities in testing “HIV-positive” could be explained on behavioral grounds (p. 75 in 2]). In any case, the conundrum is quite plain, irrespective of theories about genetic determination of behavior:
Either African ancestry determines extraordinarily careless promiscuity of an extraordinarily high rate, possibly also an inconceivably high rate of sharing infected needles, or HIV/AIDS theory is plain wrong.

https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... er-review/

You have to admit its a compelling question.

http://thecaseagainsthiv.net/

This referenced list is collated by the same author of the segment quoted above.

More on isolation from that page for Viper:

This website debunks most of the claims you have made there, certainly the important ones.

You could also try searching this site for answers to specific questions. In particular, it talks about the exact site you just linked to here.

HIV-AIDS is one of the most studied diseases of all time. It has been shown conclusively that HIV causes AIDS. Anyone telling you otherwise is misinformed or is intending to mislead you.

If we were to determine whether or not a virus has been isolated, based on the standards of the Perth Group, then many well known viruses have ever been isolated, even ones which we have developed vaccinations for.

As far as I'm aware, most virus tests determine the presence of the virus via the presence of antibodies.

There are viruses in nature similar to HIV, such as SIV and FIV. I have an FIV positive cat who's condition is progressing to feline AIDS and he is developing the same health problems that HIV positive humans who develop AIDS do, and some of the antiviral medications used to treat HIV are also occasionally used to treat FIV.

i knew someone who was diagnosed as hiv-positive early on after getting infected. he got the recommended treatment and followed it religiously. nobody even suspected anything. then some 10 or 20 years later, he got very sick, and then he died of an opportunistic infection after another few months, exactly as predicted. there was absolutely no surprise (other than maybe how long he lived healthily thanks to the treatment)

therefore, i see no reason to question the validity of the current knowledge on the subject, unless and until there's some very convincing evidence to the contrary. motive alone is far from enough against the evidence i've witnessed myself, and devoting any of my thoughts to it is a waste of time and sanity

this is how i filter information. ockham is your friend

Nature doesn't care about politics.

HIV/AIDS denialism is motivated by politics.