Is HIV a scam?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

I heard a radio program yesterday about how researchers used DNA to trace HIV back to Africa, and then to a particular tribe in Africa., and then to a particular tribe of monkeys. They suspect that a hunter, after killing one of those monkeys cut himself while skinning it, and thereby became HIV "patient zero." (Apparently, monkeys are similar enough to humans that the jump of the virus was possible.)

It's hard to believe that that all that would be possible (or is a giant, conspiratorial hoax) if there was no virus.

HIV is a real virus. Nobody really knows it's origin, but the virus can be positively identified.

I remember the former boxer Tommy Morrison spouting this garbage about HIV not existing a while ago. It's scary that there are people who actually believe in this.

Thank you all for contributing. I feel stupid after my 90 minutes of gulibility while watching the film. But I have to say the film was very well made and interesting. Anyway you have helped me come back to the real world and I don't believe the film. Here is a statement from Avert website which offers information about the complicated virus.

There is no single scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS. Instead there are tens of thousands of papers containing a wide range of evidence that, taken together, make the case overwhelming.

People should be encouraged to question scientific orthodoxy. However, the views of AIDS dissidents, which have been well known for many years and thoroughly debated in scientific journals, have failed to win support. The core arguments of the Perth Group (that HIV has not been isolated according to their own particular rules) and Dr Duesberg (that no one fully understands how HIV causes AIDS) do not invalidate the wide range of evidence outlined on this page. The HIV theory is compelling because it provides a simple, unique cause that consistently accounts for all of the observed phenomena.

No. A cure for AIDS, on the other hand... do you know how much money drug companies would lose if they ever discovered a cure? I don't know why anyone would donate to HIV/AIDS research in the US, it'll never happen here.

What is even scarier is that some people believe that having unprotected sex with a virgin, a child, or even an infant will cure them of an HIV infection.

I'm pretty sure that's only taking place in the third world, such as African countries. I don't think anyone sane in America or any other industrialized western country is going to do such a thing.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I hope you are right. I also hope that HIV-infected un-sane people from un-industrialized third-world countries aren't allowed to immigrate here.

It's not so much that they're unsane, as that due to the pre-industrial cultures in which they live, they, and the witch doctors and healers who they go to for help, honestly believe that such an atrocity would work to cure AIDS. If they immigrated here to this country, and tried raping a child, they'd end up behind bars, which doesn't happen in their native countries.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Thank you, Visagrunt. I was about to say something rather intemperate.

It must've been the orgone accumulators.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I think it's probably real, but who knows. I like your spirit. Question everything, take nothing as gospel. There have been conspiracies just as grand.

source, please?
Keep in mind that this supposed 'conspiracy' would involve literally millions of researchers, patients, public health officials, doctors, etc, any of whom could win a nobel for proving the current theory wrong.

Don't bother. He is an Alex Jones fan.