Is HIV a scam?

Post Reply New Topic

On HIV, there are some troubling issues.

First, it's origin. There is evidence to support the claim that it was engineered and deliberately released into the gay male population.

Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications.

This means you are open to infections that can kill you as you have a compromised immune system. Critics have pointed out that nobody dies of HIV...they die of HIV complications. When someone dies of any number of "complications," they died of something that is a known consequence/risk of taking immune-suppressing drugs. So, did they die because of HIV or the side effects of the meds the doctors put them on?

I don't doubt it is a real disease, though.

On HIV, there are some troubling issues.

First, it's origin. There is evidence to support the claim that it was engineered and deliberately released into the gay male population.

Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications.

This means you are open to infections that can kill you as you have a compromised immune system. Critics have pointed out that nobody dies of HIV...they die of HIV complications. When someone dies of any number of "complications," they died of something that is a known consequence/risk of taking immune-suppressing drugs. So, did they die because of HIV or the side effects of the meds the doctors put them on?

I don't doubt it is a real disease, though.

On HIV, there are some troubling issues. First, it's origin. There is evidence to support the claim that it was engineered and deliberately released into the gay male population.

Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications.

Critics have pointed out that nobody dies of HIV...they die of HIV complications. When someone dies of any number of "complications," they died of something that is a known consequence/risk of taking immune-suppressing drugs. So, did they die because of HIV or the side effects of the meds the doctors put them on?

I am presuming you refer to my last post? I don't think theres anything wrong with admitting you have been wrong or mistaken. I have always been very scientific and appreciate the scientific method. But I have always been cynical and skeptical too. The film I saw was very well made and is perhaps the only documentary film I have come across about HIV/AIDS. So seeing it and also seeing a report on Russia Today which indicated there is disagreement within the scientific community about whether HIV is the cause of AIDS sparked my head, put this together with my cynicism about multi nationals and our governments and I was easily duped for a short time by the film "House of Numbers" which hinted that it was a scam.

In light of the banking crisis, the questionable wars, and in Britain our politicians have been shown to be untrustworthy with public money......it is a wonder anyone believes anything they tell us anymore...

On HIV, there are some troubling issues.

First, it's origin. There is evidence to support the claim that it was engineered and deliberately released into the gay male population.

Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications. This means you are open to infections that can kill you as you have a compromised immune system. Critics have pointed out that nobody dies of HIV...they die of HIV complications. When someone dies of any number of "complications," they died of something that is a known consequence/risk of taking immune-suppressing drugs. So, did they die because of HIV or the side effects of the meds the doctors put them on?

I don't doubt it is a real disease, though.

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but I don't see what the OP did as an act of a "simpleton troll." The guy was just merely asking a question because he had no clue at all what to think, and one should not be reprimanded for trying to get information from other people. If I believed he was a crazy conspiracy theorist, my response would have been much different, (I think we all know if you have seen my other posts). I guess I should have been more detailed with giving him references...

On HIV, there are some troubling issues.

First, it's origin. There is evidence to support the claim that it was engineered and deliberately released into the gay male population.

Second, fatality of the disease. Most all treatments for HIV involve immune-suppression medications. This means you are open to infections that can kill you as you have a compromised immune system. Critics have pointed out that nobody dies of HIV...they die of HIV complications. When someone dies of any number of "complications," they died of something that is a known consequence/risk of taking immune-suppressing drugs. So, did they die because of HIV or the side effects of the meds the doctors put them on?

I don't doubt it is a real disease, though.

I didnt realize it would cause lots of problems. I really just wanted to know if people had seen "The House of Numbers" and what they thought of it. It is strange that people would go to such lengths as to make a professional documentary that implies HIV could be wrong.

I don't know what a "troll" is.

A troll is someone who just posts to get attention and rile people up - to make an extreme example, a troll is the type of person who goes on a vegetarian forum and posts about killing and gutting a deer, or who goes onto a forum for hunters and calls them all murders.

Like the anti-vax movement, the 9/11 truth movement, and probably a dozen others I don't know about, the anti-HIV movement has become religious in its devotion to the cause. One of its main spokespeople deliberately went through pregnancy and childbirth without taking ARVs and lost at least one child to AIDS because of that (not that she admits such was the cause), and next to that some money and effort on a slick film isn't surprising.

When I went to medical school, the viral science of HIV and AIDS was very new, but its scientific validity was already rock solid.

We had every reason to believe that AIDS was viral before Luc Montiagnier discovered the virus. The epidaemeology was starkly clear that a pathogen of some kind was responsible. Bacteria, fungi and parasites were ruled out early and at the time, that left viruses. (Prions were known, but were also limited to neurodegenerative conditions).

The first indentified cases appeared in 1981, and a retroviral hypothesis of causation was a matter of scientific study within the year. The virus was discovered shortly thereafter (in 1983), and it was confirmed as the causitive agent the year following. In the almost 30 years since, there has been no evidence to contradict the causitive hypothesis. The mechanism of action is well understood, and the therapies that have been introduced to address it have demonstrated themselves to be effective.

Now certainly AIDS is not the only cause of immune deficiency. But causation for most immune deficiencies is clear--whether it be malnutrition, aging, immunosuppressive therapies, lymphomae, chemotherapy or asplenia the causes are generally known. So, let's ignore HIV for the moment, and put all AIDS cases into the ideopathic category.

HIV goes hand in hand with these ideopathic, systemic immune deficiencies. The vast preponderence of otherwise ideopathic, systemic immune deficiencies copresent with HIV. While that does not prove causation, it provides a starkly compelling case for a hypothesis of causation. By studying the mechanism of action of HIV, and its consequences for the immune system (particularly CD4 cells) we can seen the clear progression. Once the CD4 count drops below 200, the opportunistic infections begin.

Perhaps the most compelling case for HIV as the causitive agent is that antiretroviral therapies work. We can track a patient's viral load, and we can see the impact of antiretrovirals on that load, and the correlation with healthy CD4 counts. Now, if there was not a connection between HIV and AIDS, then we would expect patients with a negligible viral load to continue to present opportunistic infections at roughly the same rate as the population in general.

But this is not the case. When we eliminate presentations with a known pathology, a patient whose viral load is negligible presents opportunistic infections at a rate far below the population in general. When retroviral therapies are stopped, or cease to be effective and the patient's viral load rises again, we see a corresponding spike in the number and severity of opportunistic infections.

Based on my medical knowledge and experience, I have absolutely no reservations about stating clearly and definitively that HIV is the causitive pathogen of AIDS.

hey, at least the OP is thinking.