AIDS and the House of Numbers

[Troublesome10]

This thread is inspired by an EXCELLENT documentary from a couple years back called "House of Numbers". In it, the filmmakers basically set out to discover the origin of AIDS, it's relationship to HIV, the conditions which cause it, and the conditions which define it. What they ended up with was a very interesting story indeed.
It seems that the official meme that "HIV = AIDS = Death" has many problems, not the least of which are;
a) AIDS itself is not a disease or virus but is diagnosed through what amounts to a checklist of various symptoms which are easily attributed to other known diseases like TB, and also could be caused by malnutrition.
b) The causal link between HIV and AIDS has never truly been scientifically established, and in fact, the existence of the HIV virus itself is in question, when it's only been isolated and photographed twice, and both studies were inconclusive.
c) The HIV test does not seek to identify the virus itself, but only a certain type of antibody. This type of testing is not uncommon in the medical world, as it's easier and cheaper to identify the antibodies, but it's use is only valid if the virus itself has been fully understood and isolated. It it also problematic in the area of false-positives, for example; pregnant women produce these antibodies naturally (I wonder how many of the African women diagnosed were pregnant?)
d)The statistics of the world-wide AIDS and HIV numbers have been manipulated, obfuscated and confused (hence the film title) to such an extant that they do not accurately portray the reality of the situation.
e) The AZT treatments are highly toxic, severely inhibit DNA replication in the body, and in the end kill more people than the ailment they are supposed to combat.

There are many more important points but in the interest of brevity I would suggest you ask specific questions or watch the film, read the articles, etc.


I don't know what the original agenda was behind the film's creation, but to me it seems they gave everyone a fair shot at telling their side of the story. This includes Nobel Laureates, journalists, those living with the "syndrome" (AIDS) and the virus (HIV), scientists who are pro the official meme and dissenters of the official meme, but in the end this "House of Numbers" appears to crumble before our eyes.


Here is a link to the film

Here is some supplementary reading
Why I quit HIV

Beyond the HIV-Causes-AIDS Model

Here is a link to Peter Duesberg's page, he is one of the most controversial of the bunch, but also one of the most credentialed (won his professorship at Berkley, was a pioneering Cancer researcher and "California Scientist of the Year" winner"). It contains many of his papers and rebuttals of attacks on his hypothesis.
http://www.duesberg.com/about/


*this is not a conspiracy theory, all I'm claiming is bad science*

Your thoughts on the film or this line of research in general? Have you lived with HIV or AIDS, or known anyone who had? Would like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Sean Buckley]

Great read. Speaking of false positives. When my wife was pregnant she got two reactive ELISA tests (initial antibody test) and two inconclusive western blot test (confirming test). We were very worrie(she had just gotten a tattoo and we thought that might have caused it) to say the least, then I started researching the virus and found that in most developed countries your chances of catching through straight sex or tattoo is pretty slim. And also found that the virus itself is no where near a death sentence, most people live a full normal life. Thankfully it turned out that the reason for the test's coming back positive and inconclusive was because she was pregnant and we do not have HIV!

But a rough few months!

 

[Troublesome10]

Great read. Speaking of false positives. When my wife was pregnant she got two reactive ELISA tests (initial antibody test) and two inconclusive western blot test (confirming test). We were very worrie(she had just gotten a tattoo and we thought that might have caused it) to say the least, then I started researching the virus and found that in most developed countries your chances of catching through straight sex or tattoo is pretty slim. And also found that the virus itself is no where near a death sentence, most people live a full normal life. Thankfully it turned out that the reason for the test's coming back positive and inconclusive was because she was pregnant and we do not have HIV!

But a rough few months!

Thanks for the reply and it's a perfect real-world validation of the claims being made here. I'm glad to hear it turned out to be negative!

I first got turned on to the subject when I randomly stumbled onto an interview where the guy was talking about a 10 year study that focused on couples (all hetero I believe) who had one person HIV positive, and the other negative. These couples had regular sex and most did not use condoms. You know how many of those negatives contracted the virus in 10 years? NONE.
At the time I didn't look into that particular study, but the film I posted happens to have an interview with one of the people who conducted it, confirming the result I mentioned. That should definitely ring some alarm bells.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I once watched this documentary about the origins of HIV. It was awesome. Basically, it concluded that when the Belgians had Congo/Uganda as a colony, they decided to produce a polio vaccine there on site to administer to the people there (apparently it was cheaper to make these pills rather then give the shots most people got). Anyway, the scientists used Chimp kidney cells to replicate into sometype of Human antibody, b/c it was cheaper and they didn't have cloning/stem cells back then (i don't remember all the science, but it was explained well). Apparently, the Chimp cells were tainted w/ SIV, which nobody even knew about back then. It was administered to the natives, and bam HIV epidemic in Africa years later.

These actually sounds like an extremely plausible story, much moreso then humans intercoursing/eating Apes. Even more telling, was all the evidence that was presented. Live interviews w/ workers at the plant (chimp handlers, guards, etc...). Even the head scientist gave an oral interview on tape (before he died), saying he was believed this was how HIV came about. When this documentaria presented all this at some British Royal Science thing in the early 2000s, the surviving Belgians denied everything. They denied that chimps were used at all, that they even produced the vaccine in Africa at all. Even w/ photographic evidence of the plant and the since dead scientist confirming it, these fucks denied everything. Haven't heard about it since, but it was an extremely interesting film.

 

[Jing]

 

[Sean Buckley]

Thanks for the reply and it's a perfect real-world validation of the claims being made here. I'm glad to hear it turned out to be negative!

I first got turned on to the subject when I randomly stumbled onto an interview where the guy was talking about a 10 year study that focused on couples (all hetero I believe) who had one person HIV positive, and the other negative. These couples had regular sex and most did not use condoms. You know how many of those negatives contracted the virus in 10 years? NONE.
At the time I didn't look into that particular study, but the film I posted happens to have an interview with one of the people who conducted it, confirming the result I mentioned. That should definitely ring some alarm bells.

The 10 year study does not suprise me. As mentioned I did a ton of studying on the subject, Probably about 100 hours or more. The statistical chance of catching HIV from heterosexual sex (even if one partner has HIV) is 1 in 1000 (yes 3 zero's). And it's slightly higher for homosexual sex, but still odds are in your favor. And as mentioned when we were going through this we were told that it is very common for pregnant women to have false positives and inconclusive results, especially with multiple pregnancies (We were on our 4th child at the time).

In theory you can drink a glass of HIV positive blood and chances of catching it are very slim. If you have any questions about HIV I would be happy to try to answer them.

 

[xcvbn]

In theory you can drink a glass of HIV positive blood and chances of catching it are very slim. If you have any questions about HIV I would be happy to try to answer them.

A nice warm glass of HIV blood...sounds delicious

 

[djacobox372]

If by "excellent documentary" you mean complete and udder horseshit, than I'd agree.

Do your research, the man who made this documentary is a complete quack--and the "experts" he used in the film have all claimed that he edited their words and used them out of context, often asking them to explain alternative "quack" theories and then using their statements as if they said it.

 

[Troublesome10]

If by "excellent documentary" you mean complete and udder horseshit, than I'd agree.

Do your research, the man who made this documentary is a complete quack--and the "experts" he used in the film have all claimed that he edited their words and used them out of context, often asking them to explain alternative "quack" theories and then using their statements as if they said it.

Sauce?

I've read several papers, not only by researchers in the film, but others, and the debate is certainly real, and the points are valid. All documentaries have edited comments, this would not surprise me, but what your post wreaks of the type of attitude so prevalent in academia, ie "It's not the consensus paradigm, therefore it must be pure and utter bullshit, regardless of evidence" .

I'd like to hear you challenge specific pieces of information, rather than make some statement like that with no substance.

Also, I posted the documentary as a kind of audio/video summation of the debate, it is not what turned me on to the subject, nor does it take a complete look at all aspects of the subject.

Everyone else please actually read/watch and make up your own mind.

 

[Sean Buckley]

If by "excellent documentary" you mean complete and udder horseshit, than I'd agree.

Do your research, the man who made this documentary is a complete quack--and the "experts" he used in the film have all claimed that he edited their words and used them out of context, often asking them to explain alternative "quack" theories and then using their statements as if they said it.

Although I do not agree with everything in the film, it made some really good and true points. If you research HIV from reputable site's or books you will find that HIV is very hard to contract with heterosexual sex. Also you will see that the test is anything but accurate. See my post above.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

The 10 year study does not suprise me. As mentioned I did a ton of studying on the subject, Probably about 100 hours or more. The statistical chance of catching HIV from heterosexual sex (even if one partner has HIV) is 1 in 1000 (yes 3 zero's). And it's slightly higher for homosexual sex, but still odds are in your favor. And as mentioned when we were going through this we were told that it is very common for pregnant women to have false positives and inconclusive results, especially with multiple pregnancies (We were on our 4th child at the time).

In theory you can drink a glass of HIV positive blood and chances of catching it are very slim. If you have any questions about HIV I would be happy to try to answer them.

Wow really

Than what is the surefire way of getting it? Are the other STD's easy to catch like Gonorrhea, or syphillus?

I wonder what Magic Johnson has to say about the low probability of transmission, and the rest of the NBA.

 

[Troublesome10]

Wow really

Than what is the surefire way of getting it? Are the other STD's easy to catch like Gonorrhea, or syphillus?

I wonder what Magic Johnson has to say about the low probability of transmission, and the rest of the NBA.

Gonorrhea and syphillus are much easier to contract.

HIV is a retrovirus, it's essentially harmless, it sits in the body and does...nothing.

Isn't it odd that we use a test that finds antibodies to diagnose HIV, considering antibodies signify that the body's immune system is fighting it? Yet this thing sits dormant for up to 10 years to suddenly become this mythical and completely non-descriptive "syndrome" called AIDS?

Is it any wonder that Magic is still alive and well, and never really seemed sick? If HIV = AIDS = DEATH, then why is he still kicking?

 

[MadSquabbles500]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html

and in this article the TS posted, it states that most AIDS deaths were caused by liver failure brought about by the drugs that had to take to save themselves. OH BOY OH BOY that is some heavy stuff right there. There are some very very bad businessmen out there.

 

[Sean Buckley]

Wow really

Than what is the surefire way of getting it? Are the other STD's easy to catch like Gonorrhea, or syphillus?

I wonder what Magic Johnson has to say about the low probability of transmission, and the rest of the NBA.

Yes all other STI's that I know about are much easier to contract than HIV. For example 80% of sexually active people will contrat HPV at some point in their life, although most strains of HPV do nothing to you. 1 in 4 people have herpes (HSV 1-2) and a very high % of sexualy active people will contract infections such as clamydia/gonarhea or some other form of UTI.

 

[tsuifuku]

One of the people interviewed in the film, Christine Maggiore, was diagnosed with HIV and denied treatment because she didn't believe that HIV causes AIDS. She died of AIDS just before the movie was released. Think I'll stick with what scientists have to say on the matter.

 

[RSmith47]

Yes all other STI's that I know about are much easier to contract than HIV. For example 80% of sexually active people will contrat HPV at some point in their life, although most strains of HPV do nothing to you. 1 in 4 people have herpes (HSV 1-2) and a very high % of sexualy active people will contract infections such as clamydia/gonarhea or some other form of UTI.

It's plausible that you can have HSV and not show any signs, but there is no way 1 in 4 people have herpes. That number is ridiculously over exaggerated. If 1 in 4 people had it, the virus would spread to almost the entire population immediately. The only people safe from it would be monogamous high school virgin sweethearts.

 

[Troublesome10]

One of the people interviewed in the film, Christine Maggiore, was diagnosed with HIV and denied treatment because she didn't believe that HIV causes AIDS. She died of AIDS just before the movie was released. Think I'll stick with what scientists have to say on the matter.

This is a fallacy, and it is an epidemic in our world. White coat says something so it must be true, even though other white coat with equal credentials says opposite and has research to back it up, the only difference being that one is financially supported by the industry who's interests he represents or by the paradigm he is interested in preserving, and gets media backing.

 

[llperez22]

This is a fallacy, and it is an epidemic in our world. White coat says something so it must be true, even though other white coat with equal credentials says opposite and has research to back it up, the only difference being that one is financially supported by the industry who's interests he represents or by the paradigm he is interested in preserving, and gets media backing.

okay, i havent done enough research to have a real smart opinion and im aware that there are many elements of hiv and aids as evidenced by magic johnson alone. But are you saying people dont die of aids? That aids is fake? I mean it is accepted world wide and there probably millions of documented cases of aids related deaths.

 

[Troublesome10]

One of the people interviewed in the film, Christine Maggiore, was diagnosed with HIV and denied treatment because she didn't believe that HIV causes AIDS. She died of AIDS just before the movie was released. Think I'll stick with what scientists have to say on the matter.

But how do we know she died of AIDS? Do you realize that AIDS is not a disease? Do you understand the criteria for being diagnosed? Immune deficiency can be caused by many things including malnutrition, she may very well have been sick, but AIDS itself is just a categorization of various symptoms easily attributable to other pathogens or diseases.

Also, she was 52 when she died, not exactly old and grey, but you made it seem as if she croaked a few months after rejecting treatment, it was 20+ years. In the organization she was part of, which had I think 10 members originally, all HIV positive, all but 3 died within a couple years, the 3 that didn't were not on the drug, must be coincidence though.

 

[Troublesome10]

okay, i havent done enough research to have a real smart opinion and im aware that there are many elements of hiv and aids as evidenced by magic johnson alone. But are you saying people dont die of aids? That aids is fake? I mean it is accepted world wide and there probably millions of documented cases of aids related deaths.

"Probably". The problem is that if you lived in Africa, and you were experiencing weight loss, persistent diarrhea, and persistent cough, they would probably diagnose you with AIDS, but AIDS IS NOT A DISEASE, you can't find it in the body, there are only symptoms. Each of these symptoms are easily attributed to other diseases like TB that are prevalent in malnourished and poverty stricken populations, which happen to account for about 90% of AIDS cases. All of these things get lumped together into a general category of AIDS, and this hugely inflates the numbers.

As for the populations in the Western world who have AIDS, I can address that too if you like.