What published scientific evidence proves HIV causes AIDS?

Here are the three pages of Luc Montaignier's claim that HIV causes AIDS (HIV came later here it is referred to as HTLV). Does it prove the claim?
-1. Yes to your last question, though your participation is nmore likeylu as that of an inncent dupe,

0. Are you competent to read and understand the document ( lack of current educational or professional expertise is not adisqualifiction: With extra effort coud you teach yourself? ).

1. Does this reference unambiguaously prove a virus causes AIDS?

2. Is there proof here that a specific virus, the putative pathological agent causing AIDS was isolated?

3 Does the electron micrograph conrtain proof thagt an HIV is incuded as one of the items in the picture?
4. The EM microraph sure looks like cells to me, do you agree?

5. What are the asects of he reference that strongly suggest the isolation of the AIDS causing agent?
6 What are the weak points?

7. Is there suffiient information in this document that justifies the US Government's massive AIDS Policies (FDA,NIH, NDAIDS, CDC, WHO etc) that assume HIV causes AIDS?

8. Do you not want the appropriate agency of the US Government to state what scientific documentation that they rely on tha justifies and supports the current HIV/AIDS policy [biased favoring the HIV scenario and rejecting claims by others, for example, of a chronic anad extended drug/sex life style being a significant parameter].

9. The seminal document that determined the direction of the now massively inertially lumbering US AIDS Policy is history, or "the rest of he story" Is your understanding of history of AIDS at all affecred by he reference below.

Seminal AIDS Paper - age 1]
Seminal AIDS Paer - Page 2
Seminal AIDS Paer - Page 3
Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

DeeCee the links here were also posted to 'Rockerfekker'.

Here are the three pages of Luc Montaignier's claim that HIV causes AIDS (HIV came later here it is referred to as HTLV). Does it prove the claim?

0. Are you competent to read and understand the document ( lack of current educational or professional expertise is not adisqualifiction: With extra effort coud you teach yourself? ).

1. Does this reference unambiguaously prove a virus causes AIDS?

2. Is there proof here that a specific virus, the putative pathological agent causing AIDS was isolated?

3 Does the electron micrograph conrtain proof thagt an HIV is incuded as one of the items in the picture?
4. The EM microraph sure looks like cells to me, do you agree?

5. What are the asects of he reference that strongly suggest the isolation of the AIDS causing agent?
6 What are the weak points?

7. Is there suffiient information in this document that justifies the US Government's massive AIDS Policies (FDA,NIH, NDAIDS, CDC, WHO etc) that assume HIV causes AIDS?

8. Do you not want the appropriate agency of the US Government to state what scientific documentation that they rely on tha justifies and supports the current HIV/AIDS policy [biased favoring the HIV scenario and rejecting claims by others, for example, of a chronic anad extended drug/sex life style being a significant parameter].

9. The seminal document that determined the direction of the now massively inertially lumbering US AIDS Policy is history, or "the rest of he story". Is your understanding of history of AIDS at all affected by the reference below.
10. Do you have suficient objectivity to read and understand the document belo without prejudice?

Seminal AIDS Paper - Page 1
Seminal AIDS Paper - Page 2
Seminal AIDS Paper - Page 3
Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here are the three pages of Luc Montaignier's claim that HIV causes AIDS (HIV came later here it is referred to as HTLV). Does it prove the claim?


0. Are you competent to read and understand the document ( lack of current educational or professional expertise is not adisqualifiction: With extra effort coud you teach yourself? ).

1. Does this reference unambiguaously prove a virus causes AIDS?

2. Is there proof here that a specific virus, the putative pathological agent causing AIDS was isolated?

3 Does the electron micrograph conrtain proof thagt an HIV is incuded as one of the items in the picture?
4. The EM microraph sure looks like cells to me, do you agree?

5. What are the asects of he reference that strongly suggest the isolation of the AIDS causing agent?
6 What are the weak points?

7. Is there suffiient information in this document that justifies the US Government's massive AIDS Policies (FDA,NIH, NDAIDS, CDC, WHO etc) that assume HIV causes AIDS?

8. Do you not want the appropriate agency of the US Government to state what scientific documentation that they rely on tha justifies and supports the current HIV/AIDS policy [biased favoring the HIV scenario and rejecting claims by others, for example, of a chronic anad extended drug/sex life style being a significant parameter].

9. The seminal document that determined the direction of the now massively inertially lumbering US AIDS Policy is history, or "the rest of he story" Is your understanding of history of AIDS at all affecred by he reference below.

Seminal AIDS Paper - age 1]
Seminal AIDS Paer - Page 2
Seminal AIDS Paer - Page 3
Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I is difficult to take seriously someone suggesting that amother person ingest or shoot up with what the believes is a poison. You aren't into this for the science are you? You just want to whine and complain as a way of rationalizing your failures.

What would ingesting of what you believe is HIV by anybody, have to do with anything? There are clinical cases where health care workers and others, had accidentally "infected" themselves, where are the obituiaries?

I have been asking ony for published scientific documents that justifies the US Government's AIDS Polchy. If it is a scietifically proved assertion that HIV causes AIDS, then where's the beef?

It appears you are attempting to insert a string of terrorist propaganda into this story. Is this the message you are sending me that you want destruction of my body as peripheral damage to yur real trarget, my mind?

And now, the crowning glory explaining the etology of yur your personal failure as a canser researcher is because of people challenging your "scientific knowledge",which we are all eagerly waiting to see exposed. You don't know shit about AIDS.

Who was it that drove your wife away from you, some wild eyed Sacco y Vanzetti charging you with making people go bald with your precious cancer protocols??

All of the failures in your life have been due to somebody's fault other than yourself, is not this true?

Did you ever consider why I told yu to go fuck yourself?

Luc Montaignier's seminal; paper claiminb Hiv aids soconnection.

Geistkiesel

 

I is difficult to take seriously someone suggesting that amother person ingest or shoot up with what the believes is a poison. You aren't into this for the science are you? You just want to whine and complain as a way of rationalizing your failures.

What would ingesting of what you believe is HIV by anybody, have to do with anything? There are clinical cases where health care workers and others, had accidentally "infected" themselves, where are the obituiaries?

I have been asking ony for published scientific documents that justifies the US Government's AIDS Polchy. If it is a scietifically proved assertion that HIV causes AIDS, then where's the beef?

It appears you are attempting to insert a string of terrorist propaganda into this story. Is this the message you are sending me that you want destruction of my body as peripheral damage to yur real trarget, my mind?

And now, the crowning glory explaining the etology of yur your personal failure as a canser researcher is because of people challenging your "scientific knowledge",which we are all eagerly waiting to see exposed. You don't know shit about AIDS.

Who was it that drove your wife away from you, some wild eyed Sacco y Vanzetti charging you with making people go bald with your precious cancer protocols??

All of the failures in your life have been due to somebody's fault other than yourself, is not this true?

Did you ever consider why I told yu to go fuck yourself?

Luc Montaignier's seminal paper claiming HIV aids connection.

Geistkiesel

 

You still didn't answer the question, which was obviously almost rhetorical. If YOU, not me, YOU don't think that AIDS is caused by HIV - why would you not get inoculated with AIDS if the payment was, say, $10000? There's a whole lot of viruses I would inoculate myself with for $10k - rhinovirus, FeLV, HPV, etc.

And I'm not whining because my research failed but because it worked. It's helping idiots like you stay alive (along with many others whose lives are actually worth something). And chemotherapy is pretty passe in cancer research now, my friend.

Ultimately, though, I have to prove nothing to you. You can rattle your claptrap about AIDS and it won't make the slightest difference to the intelligent people actually in positions of power. So you, your AIDS skeptic pals, and all the creationist freaks can, as you put it, go fuck yourselves. You're certainly not accomplishing much else.

 

geist, I asked you where you got the paper published in 1995, not Montaignier's. I have no doubt that his has some errors and incomplete ideas. It was the first paper of it's kind. Now, however, it's not what all AIDS research is based on, since it is out of date, and quite frankly irrelevant.

You will never find something proven 100% in biology. It's not that kind of science. Instead, we are 95% percent confident that if you contract HIV, you will develop AIDS.

 

If you have no interest in proving the HIV/AIDS connection with published scintific documentation then get the fuck of thjis thread. So go innoculate yourself and make speeches about how grand you are.

The intelligent people "in power" as you say have obnlhy the protection of the corrupt system tha allows the FDA and NIH for example to continue theier activity without restraint.

All the Director of the NIGH has to do is issue a list of the published scioentific documentation tha justifies the massive AIDS Policy of the US Government. You want to be a believer, so believe on.

Geistkiesel

 

NO Idle mind. he paper is relevant because from the time of the publicaion and Gallo's paper that followed shortly, HIV has been the cause eof AIDS. You say the paper is irelevant, "wquite frankly". The paper is quoted today in the scientific literature.

How can science be "out of date"? What is true yesterday is true tiday.

So 95% certainty is taken as biological truth and that is good enough for IdleMind, huh? How appropriately you describe yourself on this forum.
People get sentenced to jail for supposedly infecting another with HIV, evebn though no harm is manifest. Is this good enough for you and your children and their children?

Why do you limit yourself to defending what you only believe is true? Is it because of a "go with the flow" state of mind

Geistkiesel

 

This paper.

Science doesn't change, but I am beginning to doubt your understanding of the process. Montaignier did not have the same technology nor the same techniques that we possess today. Science hasn't changed, but our understanding of the area of immunology has improved, and thus Montaignier's paper is out of date.

Perhaps I didn't explain my self well. Science is about falsification, correct? We put forth an idea, a hypothesis, based on our analysis of the data we have collected. We then try to falsify that idea. We try to defeat the hypothesis, and if we can't more than 5% of the time, then it progresses to a theory. If we can never falsify it, it becomes a law. Biology is still too young a science to have laws, since there hasn't been enough time for us to fully test our working theories.

Physical science has been around for millenia, and there are still only a few laws. Gravity is one. It is the law of gravity, because every time we drop something, it falls down under normal conditions.

That is not true. People can test positive for HIV infection and not develop AIDS for 10 years. We know it's there, but it's dormant. It is not undiscovered for this period.

The "we" is the scientific community.

 

What paper are you talking abouit "where did I get it"

.

Again what do you mean where did I get it? It is a published document.​

What was Montaignier lacking in techniology that negates his paper as a scentific document? And where does the truth in he scirntific literature begin? I have heard and read Dr. Anthony Fauci on a number of occasions state emphatically that HIV and AIDS being the most studied disease in the history of manking that there is absolitely no doubt, zero doubt. that "HIV causes AIDS".​

Kerry Mullis, (Nobel Laurate ) stated that when he went to work for a research institution in AIDS research and asked for the scientific documentation [proof] that HIV causes AIDS was told, 'we don't go into that [proof] anymore. We assume that HIV causes AIDS and go on from there.'. When Mullis began researching the literature he was unable to come up with any rational claim that HIV causes AIDS. Is Mullis in your scientific groupd of "we" that you characterize yopurself?
​

Not ennough time to test the theories? Then if flawed god bless the victims of your flawed science, correct?​

Gravity is a hypothesis aqnad of the four forces, gravity si the least understood. And excuse me medical research has beenm around musch longer than the physical sciences. Thjere is amore need to know about the human body than the subtleties of quantum mechanics.​

Testing positive for HIV remember is a etst for a protein segment assumed unique to AIDS disease, whichn is not the case. So do I conclude that the literatufre does not contain rational documentation linking the HIV to AIDS causally?​

How do you "know it's there if you only ass ume it? And if you only assume tyhe theories are valid as you haven't enough time to test for theoretical verificaion? This si the disastrous result of the fraudulent double-blind test of AZT. It sounds to me that in your strata of science that "knowing" means "confident in" . Which is measure of a psychological state of mind, equivalent to "belief?.​

So is Kerry Mullis not in the "we" of scientists that you are referring to? What about all the other scientiss that hjave voiced objections over the years, are they excluded alslo? I am beginningb to see that you do not have a clue regarding what science ientails.​

Geistkiesel.

 

And I said I had searched and hadn't found it. Let me rephrase: can you link the paper?

Modern molecular techniques such as PCR and immunological techniques.

No, you misunderstand yet again. I feel you are purposely dense in order to turn this into a semantic debate and deflect the focus away from the issue. In all the thorough testing we have done, we haven't been able to falsify it. That's why it's a theory. However, since there are anomalies and it doesn't happen 100% of the time, it's not a law. Science progresses as our knowledge grows, but people like you seem to think that once a paper is written, then it is valid for the rest of eternity.

If something is falsified or shown to be incomplete, the theory is tossed out, or reworked. Science evolves.

Post a link. Perhaps it was back in the day, but that is no longer the case. we can remove all genetic material from a cell, and perform PCR which amplifies a particular section. If the section is present, it will be amplified. Since we know the entire sequence of the HIV genome, we can design PCR primers that will only amplify a region of that virus. This technique was not available in Montaignier's day. Also, we can develop antibodies for the gp120 surface protein of HIV. These antibodies will only bind to a specific region of this specific protein, one that is found only on HIV viral particles. Or, we could choose any number of viral proteins and do the same thing.

You are the one claiming some hidden agenda. How can you be so sure that it is your scientists that are in the right? There are almost always those who disagree with a theory. Perhaps they will be right in the end. Perhaps not.

 

Find recent non-existing papers that establish a causal link between HIV anad AIDS?

The thread is directed at the very the lack of said documentation. Do you understand?​

Geistkiesel

 

When you are posting papers as some sort of proof of your cause, you will have to find papers that are more recent than 1995. Ten years is an awful long time in regards to molecular biology. You were the one that posted this:

And I asked you to provide a link to this paper. Please do so.

I don't have the time at this present moment to do your searching for you, but just to see how you try to defeat this, here's a link: http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf200502/ChowKY.pdf. You know what you are looking for, so you should be able to find it.

 

Idle Mind
I misundertsood your request. I read it as you not being aware of the journal.Here it is.
Here is the Popadopolus paper genetica paper.

IdleMind this thread, to remind you again, is a request for reference to thepublished scientific literature that proves a causal relation between HIV and AIDS. ou reference above, while intersting does not include the slightest attempt to isolate HIV, The paper assumes the existence of HIV​

I do question the claimed mode of transmission being statistically "heterosexual". The other statistics are in line, more or less, with US fugures. I surmise that the patients were basically hiding their sexual preference/orientation for personal and professional reasons (this is not uncommon under any circumstances) . I dn'tn have the data here, and the data was not published. This would be a difficult task to verify even with the data as it would be difficult to verify by those compiling the statistics a difficult tyask under any conditions to verify. This is merely the expression of my opinion based on comparison with US and European statistics in this particular publication.
​

HIV may not cause AIDS

Source:hre is an intersting one googled with 'anthony Fauci exitence HIV AIDS ​

Below is a sumamry of the news article which I make no claims one way or the other., but you would have referenced it if ion my shoes,

A chicken-pox virus does not produce AIDS or flu or polio and similarly influenza virus does not cause small-pox or rabies.
Outside cells, viruses are inert particles floating around and are as dead as a doornail until they get to infect a plant or animal cell or a bacterial cell.
Astrovirus infection is associated with 2- 9% of cases of infantile gastroenteritis worldwide, making it the third most frequent cause after rotavirus and calicivirus.
Two years before the virus that causes AIDS was discovered, physicians in the United States and Europe noticed the loss of a specific immune system cell population, called CD4 cells.
If HIV were a killer virus, it would have died out soon because there would be too little time for new infections.
HIV stays in the body for years, infecting people through unsafe sex, blood transfusions and breastfeeding of infants by mothers oblivious to their infection.
Other drugs such as, sulfnamides and trimethoprim are also used in the treatment of PCP, which cause severe hematological complications, including agranulocytosis, hemolytic and megaloblastic anemia and thrombocytopenia.
It seems that Anthony Fauci and the CDC have used the exact-opposite approach when dealing with the AIDS epidemic.
Fauci and his colleagues are calling the heroin induced kidney lesion that was described in their book and the medical literature as an HIV disease.
The research team claims that HIV has never been isolated so far, and questions the existence of the virus-entity.
The 'HIV' antibody test does not detect a 'virus' but an assortment of proteins that are non-specific to the hypothetical 'HIV'.
Dr John Papadimitriou states that the proper controls have never been done: "They have not proven that they actually have detected a unique, exogenous retrovirus.​

Geistkiesel

 

Okay, but the patients were tested, and were shown to be HIV positive. A positive result does not require one to completely isolate a culture of viral particles.

This article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15718224 uses cultures of the virus in it's research. I'm sorry the full text is not available for free yet, but it's only $10 to read it for the day.

This one, another abstract, talks about retroviruses in general: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15682876

They have sequenced HIV. Here are some links:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...arch&dopt=DocSum&term=txid11676[Organism:exp]

These are done by independent sequencing labs, and submitted to pubmed so that the science community can access them and use them to try and find a solution to the problem. Looks like they have isolated it just fine to me.

 

.

See the link below . It will take you to references to The Perth Group, who in my estimation re very carefuil professionally. You can get a sense of their onjectivity and documentation practices. There are a couple of more Iwill post that should prove interesting. Did you get my lst link you requested?​

Idle Mind Here an index into 40,articles that you shoud browze through with an open Mind

The indexs covers forty papers from 1988 thorugh 2002. There are more around.
Here are some receen t topic in the index topics in the list of 40 papers.
1.Mother to Child Transmission of HIV and its Prevention With AZT and Nevirapine' (2001)
2.Presentation on Nevirapine (2002)
Bibliography​

I couldn't get passed the abstract of the 1st in he ;list immediately above.but the abstract was vague regarding the actual isolation of HIV.​

The next to the last link above while an interesting history, is just tyhat a summary of the history, very brief . Scientific conter = 0 ​

I have looked at the papers and the ones I had access to there were the same objections: the papers merely claimed "HIV infected " I wan't able to penerae the last link above . There was a list of 30 or so that stated "HIV isolate" but I couldn't get into the summary ofr papers. I did notice thee were "unpublished" notations after the entries. I don't know about this link. May missed something.​

 

The last link is the NCBI's Genbank. There are 6333 pages of 20 links, which are all sections of the sequenced genetic code of the HIV-1 virus. The very first link
is a polymerase protein from an sample of strain-955 isolated in Italy. The first link on page 5163 is a sequenced fragment of the gene that codes for the envelope protein called C2V3 from an HIV sample isolated in Sweden. Etc.

I don't understand why you need to see a paper that describes the exact process of isolation. You'd think that the fact that they are doing research on viral cultures would be enough.

 

If the matter is so certain then at least the reserchers should be able to explain in some manner what it is they call proof. If you like, Idle Mind I can scan my Luc Monmtaignier paper, Zee beeg wan, zee furst! and include it in a post. Then I will do the same for a Gallo paper claimng the Montaignier paper proved isolation of HIV.

It is like this Idle Mind: So massive is the HIV/ AIDS conundrum, in sheer numbers of supposed victims, so massive is the US NIH a factor in determining the direction of global research and therapeutic systems into the equation that the slighrtest misstep could prove very dangerous correct?

It seems to me that the simple minded request for the NIH to publically provide a list of published scientific documention establishing the causal link between HIV and AIDS should be a slam dunk cinch. Especially as the NIH and virtually any one of prominenece in the FDA NIH, NAIDS, CDC etc could be designaed to take a few hours and prepare a 10 document list. Have not the stars of the US national Health industry claimed so convincingly that HIV causes AIDS that documented proof would be the simplest task for the upper management in the listed institutions to order accomplished.

I know what defeat is, It is when I see that I have erred. Show me what you have, and don't whine that I am being unreasonable. Show me what ypu've got. Show mw ypour best stuff.


Idlel Mind you once criticised a post of mine stating the biosciences were different than the physical sciences refarding the issue of accepable proof.. So be it, but you still rely on documented experimental results do you not? Where are the best results.

Ask Ophiolite if my request is unreasonable, and why not?

Geistkiesel ​