What published scientific evidence proves HIV causes AIDS?

Why would a paper by another author (Gallo) claiming that Montaignier's paper proved the isolation of HIV discredit Montaignier's work in any way? Does Montaignier make the claim that he has isolated a culture of the virus in his original paper?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah yes, this is a classic dishonest tactic that is frequently used by scientific creationists, but as we can see demonstrated here is also used by other uneducated agenda-laden barrow-pushers....

1 – Take a tiny amount of science from decades ago.

2 – Ignore the mountains of research and 1000’s of published papers that have occurred since then, and pretend that this old evidence accurately represents the entire field and all of mankind's knowledge of the subject.

3 – Proceed to debunk this old evidence.

4 – Having ‘debunked’ these tiny pieces of handpicked out-of-context old evidence, proclaim that you have successfully falsified the entire field.


It’s all too sad and pathetic for words.

Good decision. I will not post again in this thread either. Let’s just let this trolling thread die.<P>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm surprised Peter Duesberg has not been mentioned (or has he- this thread is long). I believe he really pointed out a lot of things geistkiesel has mentioned up to now about the lack of evidence that HIV causes AIDS. I have almost no knowledge of virology so I won't say much but it is scary what can happen (even to established scientists like Duesberg) if you try to speak out against the establishment. This was a hot topic amongst some of my friends about 5-6 years ago. I should have paid more attention to them because it would not surprise me in the least bit if our efforts to find a cure for AIDS is completely misdirected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I imagine that Duesberg's HIV scepticism is at the heart of this. I used to read articles in Spin magazine in the late 80's that regularly featured him and his AIDS scepticism. One thing that was always lacking was a persuasive alternative explanation.

Those old articles are all fifteen to sixteen years old now! Surely if he were really on to something, it would have borne fruit after all of this time? If nothing else, I have some faith in the free market system and the pharmaceutical companies. If an alternate explanation provided any sort of effective treatments or cures, there would be mountains of money to be made.

We have become increasingly concerned about the promotion of the idea that HIV is harmless, and that accepted medical treatments are useless (or are the cause of AIDS). A number of people are using these teachings to justify rejecting all medical care for HIV infection, and ignoring guidelines for reducing HIV transmission -- seriously threatening their own health and that of others.

Nine years ago Dr. Duesberg spoke in the same auditorium, at the Metropolitan Community Church in the Castro district of San Francisco, sharing the stage with an advocate for unconventional syphilis theories. At that time the building was packed, with people struggling for space near a doorway or window where they could hear. This year there were empty seats in the auditorium, which holds about 300 -- although the toll-free 888 number, set up to take registrations for the free event, had announced that it was full.

We distributed the following flyer outside the meeting.

Duesberg -- And You

When you hear Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., you should know:

Despite his tenure at the University of California, his ideas are rejected by almost 100% of AIDS scientists and doctors. They are not taken seriously.

Dr. Duesberg and his followers are not medical doctors; they do not treat patients. As far as we know, there is no doctor in the U.S. or anywhere else who treats patients according to Duesberg's ideas.

But Duesberg is an excellent, persuasive public speaker. He knows how to sound reasonable, use humor, and include statements that are true, important, and meaningful to people. He offers an easy, comforting approach to HIV. This is why he has been able to influence people to trust him and reject their doctors' advice.

New treatments have greatly reduced AIDS deaths, hospitalizations, and other complications. Many people who were disabled are now going back to work. Several years ago, the Bay Area Reporter filled an obituary section every week (as many as 37 death notices in a single week); in the last year, there have usually been four or five in each issue, some of them unrelated to AIDS. (The newspaper has not changed its policy of immediately publishing all obituaries received.)

Competent medical care for AIDS does not necessarily mean taking drugs; many patients are healthy without drugs and choose to leave well enough alone for now, with their doctor's support. What is important is to see a doctor who is experienced with HIV, to be monitored so that options can be considered and treatment started when it does become necessary. Treatment for HIV infection, like treatment for any serious illness, must be individualized for each patient. No single approach or philosophy fits all.

Unfortunately there is now an organized, well-financed campaign which encourages people with HIV to reject lifesaving medical care. People have heard Duesberg say that HIV does not cause AIDS and that drugs do, and have rejected all medical care for HIV infection (and safer-sex precautions as well). Medical experts agree that without treatment, almost everyone with HIV will ultimately progress to AIDS and death. Persons who wait until they need emergency care have much worse treatment prospects than those who start earlier.
http://www.aids.org/atn/a-277-07.html

What Was New in 1981?

The notion that AIDS is simply "a new name for old diseases" requires ignoring years of history and reams of published medical data.

The official start of the AIDS epidemic dates from mid-1981, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report described cases of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) and pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) in young, previously healthy gay men.5,6 Detailed reports of these and other cases, a few involving heterosexual drug injectors, were published in several medical journals later that year.

Prior to 1980 KS and PCP were extraordinarily rare in the U.S. Annual incidence of KS ranged from 2.1 to 6.1 cases for every 10 million people,7 usually occurring in older men of European descent. The disease generally progressed slowly, with an average survival time of 8-13 years.7,8

PCP was nearly as rare, and the drug used to treat it, pentamidine isothionate, could only be obtained through the CDC's Parasitic Disease Drug Service, which kept detailed statistics. Strictly a disease of people with weakened immunity due to disease, cancer chemotherapy or immune-suppressive treatment for organ transplantation, PCP had "never been convincingly demonstrated to occur in an immunologically normal adult."9 In one study 98 percent of patients had known immune defects, and the others were all seriously ill infants. Even though most were quite sick even before their PCP, the disease often responded well to treatment and relapses were rare.10

These new PCP and KS cases shattered the pattern. Most patients were young men, often in their 20s and 30s, with no identifiable reason for weakened immunity. Their KS was "fulminant, malignant"8 and rapidly progressing. Some had both PCP and KS, and most had a cluster of other problems including persistent fever, weight loss, swollen lymph nodes, and other infections usually associated with weakened immunity, including cytomegalovirus and toxoplasmosis. This unremitting barrage set victims on a downward spiral that commonly ended in death within a year.5,6,8,9,11,12,13,14

This onslaught of infections in people with no known reason for being sick was so unusual that the usually reserved British journal The Lancet called it "bizarre" twice in one brief commentary.15 Patients also showed unexplained weakness in their immune responses, with a consistent pattern of defects in their cellular immunity.5,6,8,9,11,12

The physicians treating these patients had no doubt they were seeing a new clinical syndrome ("syndrome" is the medical term for a group of signs or symptoms that appear together and indicate a particular condition). And these doctors weren't babes in the woods. Several treated large numbers of gay men living a "fast lane" existence including multiple sex partners and recreational drugs, while others worked at urban hospitals treating many drug addicts, yet none of them had seen anything like this.

http://www.aids.org/atn/a-356-06.html

 

And finally, this from the NIH's website ought to be enough to convince any reasonable person. Sure, there are internet cranks who would dispute the truthfulness of the NIH. But there are also internet cranks who will argue that the Earth is flat. As Bertrand Russell said (and I never tire of this quote) "If someone maintains that the Moon is made of green cheese, you do not argue with them; you feel sorry for them".

EVIDENCE THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS
HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.

Among many criteria used over the years to prove the link between putative pathogenic (disease-causing) agents and disease, perhaps the most-cited are Koch's postulates, developed in the late 19th century. Koch's postulates have been variously interpreted by many scientists, and modifications have been suggested to accommodate new technologies, particularly with regard to viruses (Harden. Pubbl Stn Zool Napoli [II] 1992;14:249; O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613). However, the basic tenets remain the same, and for more than a century Koch's postulates, as listed below, have served as the litmus test for determining the cause of any epidemic disease:

1. Epidemiological association: the suspected cause must be strongly associated with the disease.
2. Isolation: the suspected pathogen can be isolated - and propagated - outside the host.
3. Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host.

With regard to postulate #1, numerous studies from around the world show that virtually all AIDS patients are HIV-seropositive; that is they carry antibodies that indicate HIV infection. With regard to postulate #2, modern culture techniques have allowed the isolation of HIV in virtually all AIDS patients, as well as in almost all HIV-seropositive individuals with both early- and late-stage disease. In addition, the polymerase chain (PCR) and other sophisticated molecular techniques have enabled researchers to document the presence of HIV genes in virtually all patients with AIDS, as well as in individuals in earlier stages of HIV disease.

Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm

 

Because LM did nmot make the claim, he was "iffy". Gallo came along and claimed thatLM had isolated the virus, proved that the virus causes AIS. LM never denied Gallo's claim as far as I know,

No I do not need a background in biology, What I did is i taught myself suffici8enhtly to see the holes in the science that others had been seeing.
All I asked the NIH to do is to just publish the references tothe proof that they are using to justify the AIDS/HIV connection. I am not askling for any speciofic reseqarch. I say this is reasonable as the claims of the dissidents is cogent and bneeds attenmtion, and with the massive propaganda forces at work that inform us how certain they are that HIV is the culprit, albeit unidentified, that the task would be a slam dunk exercise in simplicity.

Idel Mind, it isn't my state of mind I am working to improve.

Well then Anthonty Fauci, Riobvert Gallo and a host of AIDS Stars have claimed that it has been proved that HIV causes AIDS. Don't lecture me on the cross discipline definitional difference in the the scientific structures.

No you have showed me what you believe to be the case that HIV exists. Yiou have showed me nothing. ANd I would be surprised to learn that you are professionally familiar with the destruction of CD4+ T-Cells I gave you a number iof references to make any reaonable man take notice that there are other paoints of view with rational coherence other than the mainstreamers.
r state of mind. What is commical in your approach is that you deny proof from one side of your moputh and claim proof from the other side . This is propaganada 101
Basic immunology shows that a decrease in T-cell numbers results in a depression of the host's immune system, and makes them more vulnerable to infection. AIDS patients also show a decrease in CD4+ T-cells. Many patients that have tested positive for HIV develop AIDS-like symptoms due to a decrease in T-cells.

Why is this such a leap of faith for you? It's a logical flow that has been scrutinized for decades. I would love it if HIV didn't exist. It would mean, however, that a lot more research was required regarding AIDS. The fact is, however, that HIV does exist, and that many (95%) people that test positive for HIV develop AIDS. So, let's move past that, and start trying to develop workable treatments.

I have no more to say on the matter.[/QUOTE]

 

Because LM did nmot make the claim, he was "iffy". Gallo came along and claimed thatLM had isolated the virus, proved that the virus causes AIDS. LM never denied Gallo's claim as far as I know,

Peer reviewed bullshit does not prove anything.

No I do not need a background in biology, What I did is i taught myself sufficiently to see the holes in the science that others had been seeing.
All I asked the NIH to do is to just publish the references to the proof that they are using to justify the AIDS/HIV connection. I am not asking for any speciofic reseqarch. I say this is reasonable as the claims of the dissidents is cogent and needs attention, and with the massive propaganda forces at work that inform us how certain they are that HIV is the culprit, albeit unidentified, that the task would be a slam dunk exercise in simplicity.

Idel Mind, it isn't my state of mind I am working to improve.

Well then Anthonty Fauci, Robert Gallo and a host of AIDS Stars have claimed that it has been proved that HIV causes AIDS. Don't lecture me on the cross discipline definitional difference in the the scientific structures.

Do you know what a "various strain of HIV is, Idle Mind"? It is the words used by the bology industry to flim flam away the fact of non-reproducibility. Can'y find the virus? Well it mutated? It mutated in only the mode that it cfannot be isolated and identified, but the pathogenetic affects are invariant, correct?

No you have showed me what you believe to be the case that HIV exists. Yiou have showed me nothing. ANd I would be surprised to learn that you are professionally familiar with the destruction of CD4+ T-Cells I gave you a number io references to make any reaonable man take notice that there are other points of view with rational coherence other than the mainstreamers.
state of mind. What is comical in your approach is that you deny proof from one side of your mouth and claim proof from the other side . This is propaganada 101., Ja!

Some of the early ZT test showed a decrease in tghe cells also, but the lost numbers recovered, but iof course the matter is not a topic of polite discussion. read the Perth Group.

Pure rubish bullshit, but then that is your unproved agenda isn't it?
Fuck you Idle Mind, yours is the faith mechanism here in the sham of scientific pretense. testing positive for aids IS A FUCKING LIE. The AIDS test is for a fraction of a protein shell that is not common just to AIDS victims. You are unable to see that the therapy preascribed for AIDS victims come from the mouths of bureaucrats. You ahave always been a believer and a joiner anad never a scientist. A scientis would not ignore data and analysis that cripples the mainstream dogma. You think bleeding was harmful in G Washingtion's time? Not in the level of AZT.

Then you are indeed aptly named, you stupid, stupid man.

Geistkiesel ​

 

Repo Man you should have been following the thread . I asked that the NIH or some responsilble governemental agency publish a list of papers that they use is formulating and governing HIV/AIDS policy. So what are you? The big cahuna of "HIV causes AIDS"? Your post said nothing of a scientific nature, but then we aren't discussing science here it is all governemtnal policy, isn'y t? Your false emotional diatribe was amateurish and embarrassing.
The ridas Dentistcase was bullhit criminality from the get go. The 4 or 5 pastiernts of the deceased dentist 2000 patients tested positive " for the protein fragment that is arbitrarily assigned as unique to AIDS. The young lady claimed virginity, and I believe she claimed a drug free life style. What you did not tell us you incompotent jerk is that when the doctors finished prescribing AZT for that poor gfirl she had died from their cure.

Your entire post is one fucking lie, from the keyboard of a liar and a criminal, mass mu.....

Geistkiesel ​

.

 

Thanks Biophysicist, I didn't mention Peter D. because I didn't want to tease the little girls any more than necessary just by bringing the subject up. Notice how Repo man tries to assert unanimity among the "scientists"? And you do know don't you that P Duesberg believes in the existence of HIV S but has slavishly adherred to the proposition that AIDS is not a Virus casaused/borne disaease for all the reasons he mentions. I have argued with him in the issue and I fear that his reputation from his earlier scientific years would be harmed were he to "change his mind". This just a guess on my part, Duesberg has done more to keep the question of the causes of AIDS an open door , but not without severe harm to himself professionally. I guess that the School of Cell and Molecular Biology at UCB needed the research $ that would have dried up had the staff adopted the Duesberg slant, or even by engaging in serious discussion of his points. by insisting on extending experimental effort where the Governent arbitrarily closed off. Sieg hei .
Geistiesel. ​

 

Hmmm, let us weigh the credibility of the NIH versus the inarticulate internet crank.

We have a winner! And it isn't Geistkeisel.