Scientific negationism: dogmatism?

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Scientific negationism: dogmatism?




by Janic » 30/11/15, 08:19

Add moderation, continuation of https://www.econologie.com/forums/attentats- ... 7-300.html

2 examples of scientific negationism that we could read on these forums :( :
a) CO2 is not the cause of warming,
b) AIDS does not exist


ex
Please note, I do not deny all the interest of the IPCC: it is a great springboard for the career of upstarts (as long as they preach in the right direction and add in catastrophism, just to improve subsidization)


one cannot reject that it could be so since that is what happens with AIDS all those who pump the money of subsidies for something that does not exist.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 30/11/15, 09:16

Anything guys !! Denying the reality of climate change and AIDS is like denying the Holocaust!

Go back to Earth !!! : Shock:
And watch out for what you're saying forum !!

Exnihiloest wrote:It would be rather the opposite.
And then the CO2 makes the planet green again. In areas that are difficult for vegetation, a little more or a little less CO2 makes the difference.


Whatever!!!
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 30/11/15, 09:58

christophe hello
Anything guys !! Denying the reality of climate change and AIDS is like denying the Holocaust!
Insofar as very high-level scientists, recognized by their profession and honored by the authorities, state loud and clear that the blow of HIV is a lie, an intellectual swindle, their opinion is to be compared with dogma which still makes so many victims without real pathology.


AIDS debate
The most controversial story you've ever heard
By Liam Scheff. Part 1
http://www.sidasante.com/journal/scheff2.htm
House of Numbers 1 | 9 dailymotion


Prologue
In 1984 Robert Gallo, a government oncologist-virologist, called a press conference to announce that he had found the probable cause of AIDS. He said that a retrovirus called HIV destroys the immune systems of young homosexuals and drug users, making them prone to various kinds of viral diseases and cancers.
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), AIDS is not a single disease, but rather a set of 29 diseases, which were previously known and unrelated, including herpes, fungal infections, salmonellosis, diarrhea, fever, colds, tuberculosis, pelvic cancers in women, pneumonia and bacterial infections. The CDC also designates people with HIV as HIV-positive who are not sick but have T cells below 200 (T cells are a subgroup of white blood cells). The only thing that differentiates a person who has AIDS from a person who has just one of the above diseases is a positive HIV test, itself based on Gallo's research.
However, Gallo's theory of HIV was not the only theory, and according to a growing number of scientists, researchers and activists, it was not the best theory. For 70 years before Gallo, retroviruses have been known to be harmless and part of our cells. In addition, no single virus can simultaneously induce diseases as diverse as pneumonia, in which cells are destroyed, and cancers such as Kaposi's sarcoma, in which cells multiply rapidly.
These scientists believe that Gallo 's theory of HIV / AIDS has many flaws, and that treating 29 unrelated diseases with AIDS drugs as toxic as AZT and protease inhibitors is at risk. more irresponsible, and at worst a medical genocide.
They might be right. 94% of all AIDS-related deaths in the USA occurred after the introduction of AZT, according to CDC statistics since the year 2000. And according to the University of Pittsburgh, the leading cause of death in American AIDS patients is liver failure, a side effect of the new protease inhibitors.
The question arises: Has Gallo really solved the AIDS conundrum, and do we treat people with AIDS effectively and humanely? To answer these questions, I spoke with 3 eminent AIDS researchers.
Dr. Peter Duesberg is a chemist and an expert in retrovirology. Duesberg discovered oncogenes (cancer genes) and isolated the retrovirus genome (HIV is one) in 1970. He is a professor of molecular biology at UC Berkeley.
Dr. David Rasnick is a specialist in protease inhibitors, and has been working in AIDS research for 20 years. He conducts research on cancer and AIDS in collaboration with Duesberg. Rasnick and Duesberg are both advisers on the AIDS committee created by the President of South Africa, Mbeki.
Dr. Rodney Richards is a chemist who worked for the Amgen and Abbott laboratories, which developed the first HIV tests using the HIV-infected cell line provided by Gallo.
These interviews were conducted separately, and brought together here to create a dialogue. The views expressed are those of their authors.
________________________________________
Liam Scheff: How were you involved in AIDS research?
David Rasnick I am chemist specializing in research on the protease enzymes. I design and synthesize inhibitors intended to stop the proliferation of viruses and cancers that destroy tissue. When Robert Gallo announced that HIV caused AIDS, I wanted to work on inhibitors that could act on the virus. In 1985, I was at a scientific meeting when the subject of HIV was discussed. We asked a specialist what amount of HIV AIDS could be found in a person suffering from AIDS. He was asked "What is the title of HIV"?
LS: What is the title?
Rasnick: The title is the number of infectious virus particles in a tissue or blood sample. It is easy to get a title for live viruses from tissue specifically infected with a virus. A sample of such tissue contains millions of infectious virus particles. If you have herpes, the sample will be taken from a lesion. If it's polio, it will be taken from the gut. If it is smallpox, it will be a pustule. In case of colds, it will be at the level of the throat. When you are infected with a virus, it infects and kills about 30% of the tissue that is its specific target before the person has any symptoms. You can determine the titer of any infected area, put a fragment under a microscope, and see millions of live viruses. So we asked the virologist "What is the title?" He replied, "Undetectable, zero. I wondered how it was possible? How can you be sick because of something that is not there? With polio, the researchers sorted a hundred viruses before finding the right one. I told myself that Gallo had simply found a virus that was not the right one, and that we were going to have to start all over again. In 1987, there were a total of 30.000 cases of AIDS. The number of cases was not increasing as predicted. And AIDS had remained confined to the risk groups defined at the outset. 6 years after the first case of AIDS, 95% of infections were found in men, 2/3 of whom were homosexual, and 1/3 of drug addicts. In addition, each of these groups at risk of AIDS had specific diseases. Viruses do not induce different diseases according to male or female sex, sexual preferences, or lifestyle. Viruses have a specific but limited genetic structure, and they cause limited and similar symptoms in everyone they infect. The herpes virus causes herpes sores, but not a sore throat. The smallpox virus also causes skin damage, but never paralysis. Viral epidemics spread exponentially during the first few months or years, and kill everyone who does not live long enough to develop an immune response to the causative virus. HIV was not spread; it remained in its population at risk of departure, and it caused different illnesses depending on the people. It was clear that it did not behave like a contagious virus.
In 1988, I came across an article by Peter Duesberg in the scientific journal "Cancer Research". This article was about retroviruses in general, and about HIV in particular. Duesberg was one of the most prominent retrovirologists on the planet. He had studied and sequenced the retrovirus genome in the 70s. Duesberg's knowledge of retroviruses was unmatched. In this article, he outlined, step by step, what retroviruses are, and what they can and cannot do.
Liam Scheff: HIV is a retrovirus. What is a retrovirus?
Rasnick: Retroviruses are a group of viruses that have no toxicity to cells. They were discovered at the beginning of the 20th century. They were one of the first cellular particles identified. There are approximately 3000 cataloged retroviruses. They exist in all animals: dogs, cats, whales, birds, rats, hamsters and humans. Retrovirologists estimate that 1 to 2% of our DNA is made up of retroviruses. Retroviruses are made up of RNA that copies itself to DNA using an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. Retroviruses are transmitted matrilineally (from mother to child). They are not sexually transmitted. Laboratory animals do not transmit their retroviruses to each other, regardless of how close they are. But babies still have the same retroviruses as their mothers. Current research indicates that they are simply part of us. In 50 years of research in modern laboratories, it has never been found that a retrovirus can kill cells or cause disease, except under certain very special conditions created in the laboratory.
Peter Duesberg: In 1987, I was invited by Cancer Research to discuss whether retroviruses, including HIV, could induce disease or an immune deficiency. I was because of my experience with retroviruses. In 1970, I worked at the virology laboratory at UC Berkeley. The big research program at that time, in which I participated, was to find a virus that caused cancer. There was also a large government cancer research virus program at the National Institute of Health. Gallo was one of the researchers working on this program. We started looking for retroviruses because of their specific qualities. Typical viruses kill cells. Their strategy is to enter a cell, kill it, and move on to the next. However, in cancer, cells are not killed; in fact, they multiply very quickly. So a virus couldn't cause cancer. Retroviruses, however, do not kill cells. This peculiarity made them good candidates as causative agents for cancer. In 1970, I made a discovery that received a lot of attention. I isolated a retroviral gene from a cancer cell, and I infected another cell with that gene. Oncologist-virologists were very interested. They thought it was what they were looking for: a retrovirus that could infect other cells and cause cancer. I suddenly became famous. I was offered positions, I was offered a chair at Berkeley, and I was admitted to the Academy of Sciences. Of course, if a virus, or a single retrovirus, caused cancer in the real world, then the cancer would be contagious. But no one "gets" cancer. Cancer doesn't go around the office. However, these basic considerations had not occurred to virus hunters. Researchers like evidence that looks spectacular, no matter what happens in the real world. The carcinogenic gene for retrovirus was just a laboratory artifact. It did not exist in nature, neither in humans, nor in animals. We created it in the laboratory, and that's where it stayed. It was just academic. Among the various works on cancer genes, my partners and I have sequenced the retroviral genome. We have made the maps which are used today as basic documentation for all retroviruses, including HIV.
LS: What do retroviruses do?
Duesberg: In terms of illness, they do nothing. They are transcribed into the DNA of a few cells, and they stay there as part of our genome for the rest of our lives. This did not stop the hunters of carcinogenic viruses from continuing to search for cancer genes using the technology we had created, and the retrovirus maps we had drawn up.
Rasnick: In the mid-70s, Robert Gallo claimed that he had found a carcinogenic retrovirus in the cells of a leukemia patient. He called it HL23V. He discovered it in the same way that he later discovered HIV, not by finding the virus in the blood, but by looking for antibodies and enzymatic activity that he claimed to be specific to current retroviruses. In 1980, this claim was refuted by both the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research Center and the National Cancer Institute. The antibodies that Gallo assumed to be specific for HL23V were not induced by a carcinogenic virus, but rather the result of "exposure to too many natural substances", which had induced the formation of antibodies in humans. Today, no one, not even Gallo, says that the HL23V ever existed. In 1980, he tried again. He claimed that he had found a new carcinogenic retrovirus, called HTLV-1, which induced a special kind of leukemia, in which T cells multiplied in tumor fluids. T cells are a subset of white blood cells found in the blood. Again, the evidence was very unconvincing. Less than 1% of people who tested positive for HTLV-1 ever had this type of leukemia. It was really not a good validation for his theory.
LS: How did Gallo get from cancer research to HIV research?
Rasnick: In the early 80s, young gay men began to seek emergency medical care for the simultaneous presence of various illnesses and infections. At that time, medical journals assumed that these diseases were correlated with drug addiction. During most of the 70s, homosexuals used and abused toxic, immunosuppressive and even carcinogenic products, such as poppers, cocaine, amphetamines. In 1983, Luc Montagnier, a French scientist working at the Pasteur Institute, claimed to have found a new retrovirus in patients suffering from AIDS. But nobody paid attention to it, because he had not isolated any virus, and because he had found no virus in the blood - remember, the title was zero, undetectable. Seeking academic support, Montagnier sent a sample of his culture to Robert Gallo at the NIH. Gallo took this cell culture that Montagnier had sent him, and slightly modified it. Then he did something strange. He lost it. And in 1984, Gallo claimed at an international conference with Margaret Heckler, dear to the Department of Health and Human Services, that he had discovered the "probable cause" of AIDS. It was a new retrovirus called HTLV-III (later renamed HIV). Later that same day, he filed a patent on this modified cell culture from the original line sent by Montagnier. He hadn't published a single word on his research. Robert Gallo, a scientist employed by the state, simply announced that a retrovirus epidemic was being born. He sold the cell culture to the Abbott pharmaceutical company, which used it to create HIV tests. The French government has requested that patent rights be returned to Montagnier. Gallo refused, and said it was his discovery alone. In 1987, Gallo and Montagnier were forced by President Reagan and Prime Minister Chirac to meet in a hotel to resolve this problem of HIV patent rights. In 1992 Gallo was officially convicted of fraud by a federal committee on scientific ethics.
Rodney Richard: Gallo initially said that he invented the whole process. Today, he claims that his sample may have been "contaminated" with that of Montagnier.
Duesberg: The NIH itself conducted a 2-year investigation into Gallo's claim about HIV, and they couldn't find any evidence that he had made the discovery himself.
LS: What did Abbott do with Gallo's cell line?
Rasnick: Abbott Laboratories created tests based on the research of anti-HIV antibodies. Abbott has collected billions from the sale of these tests, and Gallo has collected millions from his patent.
LS: So, when we are tested for HIV, it is on the basis of what Gallo and Montagnier claim to have discovered. How did Montagnier discover HIV?
Richard: First, he searched the blood of patients, but he couldn't find it. In fact, no one has ever found HIV in human blood.
LS: That's right, the title was zero - so where did he look for it?
Richard: Montagnier took tissue from inflamed lymph nodes from a homosexual in whom AIDS was suspected. In an infected person, it could be assumed that the lymphatic tissue was literally swarming with infected cells. Montagnier tried to carry out a cell culture from this tissue. It is a laboratory technique used to isolate viruses such as that of herpes or mononucleosis. In cell culture, infected cells are mixed with uninfected cells in a petri dish. As the body's immune system no longer works, viruses that were previously suppressed can reactivate. They pass from infected cells to uninfected cells through the culture medium (the liquid in the Petri dish). Researchers collect this liquid, concentrate it, and centrifuge it in a sucrose density gradient in order to isolate the virus. A sucrose density gradient is a tube filled with a sucrose solution whose density varies between the bottom and the top of the tube. The solution becomes more and more concentrated as we get closer to the bottom of the tube. The culture medium is gently deposited on the surface of the sugar solution. The tube is then placed in a centrifuge for hours, to force the viral particles to descend into the tube. Viral particles have a well-known density. They will descend into the tube until they reach the level whose density is equal to theirs. What is found at this level will then be examined with an electron microscope. When using a culture made from virus-infected patients, the electron microscope picture is teeming with millions of identical viruses. Then, a new culture is carried out with the viruses which have been isolated in the sucrose gradient, in order to verify that they are indeed infectious. Again, the culture medium is concentrated, centrifuged in a density gradient, and photographed, to verify that we are dealing with the same virus. This is called virus isolation.
LS: Is that what Montagnier did?
Richards: He tried to do it, but it didn't work. Montagnier took lymph tissue from an alleged AIDS patient, mixed it with blood cells from a healthy donor, and did a cell culture. He took the liquid, centrifuged it, but found no virus. But that didn't stop him. Montagnier repeated the experiment, but added a crucial new step. He took the tissue suspected of containing the AIDS virus, and mixed it in a culture with various cells, including umbilical cord cells. Then he added various chemicals called mitogens, which artificially force cells to divide. After 2 or 3 weeks, he found an enzyme called reverse transcriptase in the environment, which was a sign of possible retroviral activity.
LS: But he didn't find a virus?
Richards: No. He found an enzyme used by retroviruses. But reverse transcriptase also exists in many microbes, and participates in the activity of many cells, including umbilical cells, and is involved in many processes, including forced replication. Montagnier then separated the liquid obtained after all these manipulations, put it in a new box with healthy cells, and again found reverse transcriptase activity in the medium.
He put this new liquid in a sucrose density gradient, and found reverse transcriptase activity at the density at which it is known that viruses are purified. What he didn't find was a virus. When he looked at what it had at this density under the electron microscope, he found nothing. But this he did not recognize until years later. This is known as HIV isolation.
LS: How does this prove that an infectious virus made people sick?
Richard: It doesn't prove it. This is not sufficient proof that HIV, or any other virus, exists, let alone that it can cause disease.
LS: How did Gallo use Montagnier cells to prove that HIV existed and caused AIDS?
Richards: Gallo grew the cells, but he didn't even find enough reverse transcriptase activity to convince him that Montagnier had found a retrovirus. So Gallo added another step. He mixed cells from 10 people with AIDS. Then he added leukemic T cells from one of his experiments on the HTLV-1 retrovirus. After all this, Gallo found enough reverse transcriptase activity to convince him that there really was a retrovirus. That's how he said he found HIV.
LS: But Gallo had already found reverse transcriptase activity in leukemia cells. How could he prove that there was a new retrovirus, HIV?
Richards: Many scientists don't think he has proven it.
LS: You say that Gallo used a T cell line to grow HIV. Isn't HIV supposed to kill T cells?
Richards: That's what Gallo said at the start, but Abbott labs grow HIV on human leukemia T cells. This line is even called an immortal line, because the leukemia cells do not die. So far, no researcher has shown how HIV kills T cells. It's just a theory that keeps money flowing to support the pharmaceutical approach to treating HIV.
Rasnick: Gallo filed a patent on his leukemic T cell mixture the same day he announced that he had discovered the "likely cause" of AIDS.
LS: What do HIV tests do?
Rasnick: They're looking for antibodies in the blood against proteins from this mixture. Your body produces antibodies against all foreign elements: microbes, yeasts, viruses, and even what you eat. Viruses are made of DNA or RNA wrapped in a capsule made of protein. Antibodies attach to these proteins, immobilize and destroy the virus. When these antibodies subsequently meet other viral proteins, very often they will also go to bind to them. This is called cross-reactivity.
Duesberg: Viruses are dangerous only the first time we meet them. When we make antibodies against a virus, we are immune for the rest of our lives, and that virus can no longer make us sick. It is exactly the opposite of the theory of AIDS which says: You are contaminated, you do not become sick; you make antibodies, and 10 years later you get sick and die.
Rasnick: There are 2 main tests for HIV. The first, the ELISA test, in which a batch of proteins from the mixture of T cells are stuck on small plastic membranes on a plate. The other is the Western Blot. For this test, the proteins are separated on individual bands. You add your blood, and if certain antibodies in your blood attach to the proteins in the mixture, you are said to be HIV positive.
LS: They think the proteins come from HIV; but if they have never isolated HIV, how can they say that these tests can detect HIV infection?
Rasnick: They can't and they don't. Any of the ELISA or Western Blot proteins has never been shown to be specific for HIV or another retrovirus. For this reason, the FDA has not approved a single HIV test.
Richards: There are at least 30 commercial tests for HIV testing. None of them have been approved by the FDA to state the presence or absence of HIV. Neither the ELISA test, the Western Blot, nor the P24 antigen test. The FDA and the manufacturers make it clear that the significance of a positive ELISA or Western Blot test result is unknown.
AIDS researchers admit that the tests contain at least 80% non-specific cellular material, which means that at best 20% of the material is specific. But from my scientific point of view, they do not contain HIV at all. The medical literature reports at least 60 causes that can lead to a false positive HIV test. These conditions include candidiasis, arthritis, parasitosis, malaria, liver disease, alcoholism, drug addiction, colds, herpes, syphilis, other sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy.
Rasnick: It's very easy to find out how you can get a false positive. There are cross reactions. The more you are exposed to a large number of microbes and viruses, the more antibodies you will make, and the more you are likely to have a positive result in a non-specific test for antibodies. If you live in a country where there is no potable water or good hygienic conditions, you will suffer from frequent microbial and parasitic infections which will induce the production of antibodies. Your blood contains antibodies to all the colds, microbes, viruses and vaccines you have ever had. If a woman is pregnant, she makes antibodies that can react with Abbott's ELISA test. Pregnancy is a known cause of a false positive HIV test result. Different breeds naturally have different levels of antibodies. This is why blacks have a 9 times higher risk than whites of having a positive test, and a risk 33 times higher than Asians. It has nothing to do with infection or health. In a tribe of South American Indians, an ELISA test was performed. 13% of them were HIV positive, but none were sick. They just had antibodies that reacted with the test.
LS: If the tests aren't specific and you can't find HIV in your blood, then what is AIDS?
Richards: According to the CDC, AIDS is just a definition. If you have a disease that is considered an AIDS indicator, such as salmonellosis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, herpes, or a fungal infection, and you test positive for HIV, then you are said to have AIDS and you are treated with toxic AIDS drugs. If the test is negative or you do not know your HIV status, you escape toxic drugs and are simply treated for the disease you have. In 1993, the CDC extended its definition of AIDS to include people who are not sick, but have a positive test and who once had a T cell count below 200. Based on this new criteria, in 1997, 2/3 of all AIDS cases were found in perfectly healthy people. 1997 was also the first year in which the CDC stopped reporting how many people were healthy and how many were sick. Now they count all people who are HIV positive as people with AIDS, whether they are sick or not.
LS: Let me make it clear. When a person dies of AIDS, he actually dies from a known disease. But if her blood reacts to one of the tests for antibodies against AIDS, we no longer say that she has this disease, we say that she has AIDS?
Rasnick: That's how it works. And sick people who are HIV positive receive the most toxic drugs ever made and sold.
LS: What can I say about AIDS in Africa?
Rasnick: It's the same story, only worse. 50% of Africans have no sewage system. Their drinking water is polluted by animal and human excrement. They suffer more or less permanently from malaria and tuberculosis, which cause symptoms such as diarrhea and weight loss, which are exactly the criteria on which UNAIDS and WHO diagnose AIDS in Africa. These people need clean water and mosquito repellents (which carry the parasite that causes malaria), not condoms and life-threatening drugs forcibly given to pregnant women. We have invested 20 years and $ 118 billion in HIV. We have no treatment, no vaccine, and no progress. Instead, we have thousands of people who have become sick or even been killed by toxic AIDS drugs. But we cannot simply treat them for the diseases they suffer from, because if we do we are treated as "AIDS heretics". Treating these people for the illnesses they suffer from would be more humane and more effective than forcing them to take toxic drugs, and it would save billions of dollars. AIDS is a multi-billion dollar industry. There are 100.000 researchers specializing in AIDS in this country (the USA). It is an industry as difficult to fight as the tobacco industry today.
LS: What does Luc Montagnier say about all this?
Rasnick: At the AIDS conference in San Francisco in 1990, Montagnier announced that HIV, after all, did not kill T cells, and could not be the cause of AIDS. Within hours of the announcement, he was attacked by the same industry he helped create. Montagnier is not a liar. He's just an average scientist who's out of date.
To conclude
In an interview given in 1997, Montagnier spoke of the isolation of HIV. He said, "We have not purified (isolated). We saw some particles, but they did not have the morphological characteristics (size) typical of retroviruses. They were very different. What we did not have, and I have always recognized, was proof that it was really the cause of AIDS. "
Robert Gallo has not made such concessions. However, he softened the death sentence he imposed for people with AIDS. He now believes that it is possible to live with AIDS "for 30 years until you die of old age", as long as you have a healthy lifestyle and avoid products that have a negative impact on the immune system.
In 1994, Gallo quietly announced that the main disease given in the definition of AIDS in homosexual men - Kaposi's sarcoma - could not be explained by HIV, but that the poppers of amylnitrate, a drug which had been very popular in homosexual circles, "could be the main cause". However, this statement did not make the headlines.
Gallo also said that Peter Duesberg's research into a model of drug-induced AIDS should be funded. But the funding for Duesberg has completely evaporated since he publicly challenged the current model of HIV / AIDS.
Translation FR 2004
Second part
AIDS drugs - the gay epidemic
Liam Scheff, 2003
liamscheff@yahoo.com
AIDS drugs - the gay epidemic
By Liam Scheff. Part 2

Prologue
In 1984 Robert Gallo announced that a retrovirus called HIV was the "probable cause" of AIDS.
In the first part of "The AIDS Debate", researchers specializing in AIDS have provided data showing with certainty that retroviruses are not in fact harmful to cells, and that they are not sufficiently active on the biochemical plan to induce any disease, let alone the 29 different diseases listed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as a definition of AIDS. These researchers say that AIDS was properly diagnosed in the early 80s as a lifestyle disease, characterized by immune disorders induced by heavy drug use, and by malnutrition.
Ten years after his first announcement, Robert Gallo quietly admitted, at a conference of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in 1994, that the first disease defined as being specific for AIDS in homosexual men, sarcoma of Kaposi, could not be caused by HIV, but that the nitrates called "poppers" were to be the main cause. Poppers were a popular, legal, and widely used drug in the homosexual community in the 70s. In the 70s, gay men commonly used poppers, and other mutagenic drugs, in massive quantities just before the onset of the first epidemic of AIDS-related illnesses. But the specter of AIDS has not stopped the use of these same drugs. Many gay men continue to use them for sex, including nitrite poppers.
Now they're adding toxic AIDS drugs to this dangerous cocktail, and it's costing their lives. A national study by Dr. Amy Justice, an AIDS specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, found that liver failure was now the leading cause of death among people living with HIV who were taking AIDS drugs. While liver failure has never been an AIDS-related disease, it is the main and best known side effect of new AIDS drugs.
At the NIDA conference in 1994, Dr Gallo said that Dr Peter Duesberg's thesis on AIDS as a drug-induced disease should be taken into account and studied. I heeded this advice from Gallo, and talked with Duesberg and two other health professionals about the first people with AIDS, addiction, and the new drugs that kill today people with AIDS.
Peter Duesberg is a professor of molecular biology at UC Berkeley. He is an expert in the field of HIV research and retrovirology.
John Lauritsen is a gay journalist and historian who has investigated and written about AIDS for over 20 years. In 1992, he discovered through the Freedom of Information Act documents that revealed that a toxic AIDS drug, azydothymidine (AZT), had been approved on the basis of fraudulent medical studies. He has published, among others, the books "The AIDS war", and "The early homosexual rights movement - 1864 to 1935" (1864-1935).
Darren Main is a writer, health practitioner specializing in holistic medicine, and an AIDS educator. According to the CDC's redefinition of AIDS in 1993, Main has AIDS although he is not sick. The gay rights movement became a powerful force in the early 70s, after decades of repression and violence against gay men and women.
________________________________________
Liam Scheff: What was the life of homosexuals like in the 70s?
John Lauritsen: Gay males enjoyed a wonderful feeling of freedom in the early 70s. After Stonewall (a major turning point in the fight for gay rights), the gay liberation movement allowed men, who had forced to hide because of cultural taboos, to show up in a growing number of gay places. We had young, healthy men there who were suddenly offered this fabulous freedom. Using lots of drugs and having lots of sex was part of that freedom.
I lived in New York from 1963 to 1995. I was there, right in the middle. I lived close to a very popular gay club called The Saint. On certain nights, there could be up to 2000 men. The main activity was the consumption of various drugs: ecstasy, poppers, marijuana, quaaludes, MDA, crystal meth, LSD, cocaine and other synthetic drugs. Some of these drugs could only be found there, such as the ones they made especially for club opening nights.
In clubs such as The Saint, there was a schedule for drugs. Someone said, "Now it's ecstasy time, now it's crystal time, now it's Special K time", and hundreds of gay couples were all taking the same drug at the same time. It was like that every night. They mixed it with alcohol, for a long, long night. A drug called "poppers" was constantly used because it was legal and inexpensive.
LS: What are poppers?
Lauritsen: Poppers are nitrites to inhale. These nitrites (amyl-, butyl- and isobutyl-) had various effects which made them interesting for young gay men. Used during the sexual act, they prolonged the orgasm and made it more intense. Some men have become unable to have sex or even masturbate without using it. Poppers were used to facilitate anal penetration because they lower the perception of pain and relax the muscles in the anus.
LS: How were we using them?
Lauritsen: We used them ubiquitously. They were found in small blisters, which you could open to breathe the contents. Sniffing poppers was the first thing some homosexuals did in the morning, they were also used on the dance floors, and every time they had sex. In the gay discos, the men went around in circles with a dazed air, with their bulb of poppers under their noses. The pungent smell of poppers was synonymous with a gay gathering place.
LS: What effect did poppers have on health?
Lauritsen: Poppers are extremely toxic. They induce neurological damage following convulsions, skin burns and heart failure. They are immunosuppressive, and cause lung damage. Deaths have been reported after one use. They are so effective as poisons that they have been used for suicides and crimes. Nitrites are powerful mutagens, which means that they induce genetic mutations and cellular changes. Nitrites produce toxic metabolites when taken in conjunction with other common products such as antihistamines, pain relievers or sweeteners. Almost all antibiotics are made highly carcinogenic by nitrites.
LS: Why were they legal?
Lauritsen: Poppers were originally made by Burroughs-Welcome Corp, and used for emergency treatment of angina pectoris. They have been replaced by nitroglycerin. In the 60s, only a few homosexuals used poppers as a drug. This custom spread during the Vietnam War; they were sold on the black market to soldiers who went abroad. When they returned to the United States, these soldiers kept the habit. The finding of loss of consciousness, headache, blood abnormalities and severe skin burns led to the reclassification of this product.
In the 70s and 80s, the FDA authorized the over-the-counter sale of poppers on the ridiculous pretext that they were "household air fresheners." At the same time, the gay sex industry made it widely known to the gay community as aphrodisiacs, under the names of "Rush", "Hard Ware" and "Ram".
The poppers were inexpensive, like $ 2,99 a bottle, and they were extremely popular. Every gay publication of that era was filled with full color pages of advertising for this drug. In the 70s, poppers were a $ 50 million a year business. Gay magazines like "The Advocate" depended largely on advertising poppers for their income; some magazines owed their existence to this drug. The poppers were so popular that there was even a comic strip "Poppers".
In the late 70s, some of these young, healthy men looked much younger and healthy. They looked at the end of the line. Their faces were gray. They looked like little old people. I remember being at a festival in the late 70s, and being shocked at how seriously many of these men were.
In 1983, I started working with Hank Wilson, a Bay Area activist in the gay rights field, to research and write articles on poppers. We started by writing about their dangerous medical side effects, and we were seriously attacked for doing so. The gay press called us "homophobic" and "sold" because we criticized a chemical.
In the early 80s, medical reports on AIDS considered it a lifestyle disease. The "100 hour" lifestyle of gay men was characterized by heavy drug use, and by many sexual partners. These men frequently suffered from sexually transmitted diseases - syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, intestinal infections, parasites - which they treated with increasing doses of antibiotics, taken as soon as they thought they had caught something. Some doctors gave their gay patients renewable prescriptions for antibiotics, and sometimes even recommended that they swallow a few tablets before going to the public baths. A New York public bathhouse sold under the cloak of antibiotics on the second floor, as well as all kinds of street drugs.
One of the first AIDS-related illnesses was Kaposi's sarcoma, which is an overgrowth of blood vessels, which manifests clinically as dark red patches on the skin and face. Doctors believed that nitrites poppers, which are known mutagens, were the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma (SK). Scientists wrote to "The Advocate" to warn of the dangers of poppers, but their letters were rejected or ignored.
The reaction of the gay community to the idea that chronic drug use may have something to do with the disease has been total denial. In 1983, The Advocate published a series of advertisements defending poppers. This series of articles, under the title of "Health Plan", falsely claimed that government studies on poppers had shown that they were safe, and that their use should be considered a healthy way of life for homosexuals. That about a drug for which the instructions for use specified: "flammable, fatal if absorbed".
Peter Duesberg: AIDS was properly diagnosed by the CDC between 1981 and 1984. They identified it as probably a lifestyle-related illness, with heavy drug use, and malnutrition. The New England Journal of Medicine published 4 articles on the drug-inducing lifestyle of what was known at the time as GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) in these patients. This syndrome was characterized by opportunistic infections, pneumonia, and Kaposi syndrome.
The factor that all of these people had in common was the massive use of drugs: amphetamines, inhalation of nitrites, cocaine, heroin. The theory was simple. These men had spent 10 years destroying their immune systems, and were now prone to all kinds of infectious diseases. This theory was consistent with the non-randomized distribution of the disease.
Until 1984, this was the only credible hypothesis. But when the government supported the HIV hypothesis, the lifestyle theory was abandoned, because all the money was directed to retroviral research. This is how science works: no money, no research.
Lauritsen: The media immediately supported Gallo's unproven hypothesis, and health services followed suit. For 20 years, virtually all government funding has been allocated to studies on Gallo's assumption that HIV = AIDS, which nothing had demonstrated, while the drug and malnutrition model has been ignored .
In 1994, Robert Gallo quietly admitted that SK cannot be caused by HIV. But this has never been reported in the mainstream press. At the 1994 National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) conference, Gallo told a panel of scientists and activists that HIV could not be the cause of SK, that it never even found it in the T cells that HIV is supposed to kill. He said, "I don't know if I'm speaking clearly, but I think everyone here knows this - we've never found HIV DNA in the tumor cells of people with KS. And in fact, we never found HIV DNA in T cells. So in other words, we never found that HIV could have a mutagenic (carcinogenic) impact. "
This is in complete contrast to everything Gallo had ever said about HIV and AIDS. But very few people paid attention to this retraction. The CDC ignored it, and kept telling people that SK was an AIDS-related illness.
When Gallo was asked what, if not HIV, causes SK, he said, "Nitrites (poppers) could be the main factor" because "mutagenesis" is "the most important thing". It is a very embarrassing situation for the AIDS establishment, and they have carefully concealed it. One of the two illnesses said to be characteristic of AIDS is now known to have absolutely no relation to AIDS or HIV.
Take any person with AIDS - there are good reasons to explain why they got the disease. Take a heroin addict, who has pneumonia or a serious lung infection. This is what science has always expected as a consequence of taking an excess of opiates, since opiates damage the lungs and lower immunity.
If a homosexual inhales nitrites and develops SK, the best explanation is that he was affected by inhaled nitrites, not by an infectious agent. Nitrites are mutagenic drugs that directly affect blood vessels. Homosexuals with SK have been said to develop lesions around the lips, mouth and nose, the areas most exposed to the inhaled drug.
Duesberg: Symptoms defining AIDS are chronic diarrhea, dementia, weight loss, and increased frequency of viral and bacterial infections. These are exactly the symptoms that we find in drug addicts and in cases of malnutrition, but no one has put any money into this line of research. Instead, billions of dollars have been thrown into the battle against AIDS with toxic drugs such as AZT and protease inhibitors.
Many Americans take amphetamines, weight-loss drugs, cocaine, and drugs sold in dance halls. When you do this for years, you start to get sick. You go to the doctor, who tells you that the first thing to do is an HIV test. This test is positive because HIV tests have cross-reactions with the antibodies produced by drug use. The doctor puts you on AZT, a chain terminator that, in high doses, will kill you in six months. I am not talking about the very occasional use of a recreational drug. We can bear to consume a lot of junk food, but our body is not designed to tolerate the daily intake of a gram of cocaine or heroin or poppers, and it is even less able to cope with AZT .
LS: What is AZT?
Duesberg: AZT is a DNA chain terminator. AZT destroys DNA. It destroys your bone marrow, which produces your blood. It kills the cells in your digestive tract and you can no longer eat. AZT was designed 40 years ago for cancer chemotherapy. The principle of chemotherapy is simple: kill all the cells. If chemotherapy is successful, cancer cells die before you do. But it is not often effective, and the collateral damage is major. Of course, chemotherapy is a short-term treatment. A cancer patient is treated for a short time because of the toxicity of the treatment. But people with AIDS are expected to take AZT every day, probably for the rest of their lives.
LS: How was such a toxic drug approved for the treatment of AIDS patients?
Lauritsen: AZT was approved on the basis of a fraudulent study. Phase 2 of the AZT study was conducted by the FDA in 1986, and was led by Burroughs-Wellcome (now Glaxo-Wellcome), which manufactures this drug. It is also interesting to note that Wellcome is also the company that manufactures nitrite poppers for heart disorders. This phase 2 was supposed to demonstrate that AZT was "effective and safe". The study report, published in 1987, claimed that AZT dramatically lowers the death rate for people with AIDS. But these results were based on fraud.
LS: What was this fraud?
LS: Lauritsen: First of all, the study was not really blind. Doctors and patients knew who was receiving AZT and who was receiving placebo. In a medical study, one group of patients receives the drug, the other receives a placebo. This allows doctors to assess the effect of the drug by comparing the two groups. In a truly double-blind study, neither doctors nor patients know who is receiving the drug. This type of study is considered to be the best approach, the one with the least bias, to approve a new pharmaceutical treatment.
In this phase 2 study, everyone knew who was receiving AZT. The information had been given to doctors and patients. Patients receiving placebo wanted AZT because they thought it would help them, so they got it from other patients, or from their treating physician. But they were left in the placebo group.
Worse still, the case report form has been tampered with. Patients taking AZT who almost died from anemia were defined as "having no side effects". These patients underwent multiple blood transfusions to save their lives (AZT induces anemia because it destroys the bone marrow that makes blood cells).
One patient, who was assumed to be in the placebo group, was in fact on AZT prescribed by his doctor. He left the study, but continued on AZT, and died soon after. The study authors brought the death into the placebo group, as if it was not taking AZT that had killed him. If it is not fraud, then one wonders what can be.
And it was on the basis of these results that AZT was approved and started to give to patients in 1987. HIV-positive men became the target of a costly advertising campaign millions of dollars at Wellcome. Full-page advertisements promoting AZT have appeared in the New York Times, and in other publications around the world. Health services have spread the idea that AZT will help people live longer.
Duesberg: Doctors gave people living with HIV drugs before they got sick. Starting in 1993, the new CDC criteria meant that it was no longer even necessary to be sick to be diagnosed with AIDS. If you were HIV positive on the ELISA test, which is not specific, and if you only had a T cell count below 200 once, the CDC said that you had AIDS. Doctors, based on these criteria, prescribed AIDS drugs to healthy people.
This is what I call prescription AIDS. Imagine going to your doctor and being told that you are HIV positive. You are in perfect health, but your doctor tells you that you have AIDS because your T-cell levels are low, and that you would be better off taking drugs to stop the progression of the disease. You are afraid, you do not understand well, but you trust your doctor, so you take the drugs, which destroy your digestive tract and your immune system. Your hair falls out, you become helpless, and more or less quickly you end up with the disease that you had tried to prevent. And the doctor says, "If you hadn't come to see me, it would have just happened to you 6 months earlier. I allowed you to live 6 more months. "
Currently, as there are many people who take AZT, doctors are prescribing lower doses, which delays and makes damage to the body less visible.
LS: Who takes AZT?
Duesberg: According to the New York Times and Time Magazine, 45.000 Americans take AZT every day of their lives. Many patients cannot take the medication because of severe vomiting, but they try to follow the prescription made by their doctor.
Lauritsen: 94% of all AIDS-related deaths have occurred since people started using AZT in 1987. More people taking AZT died in 1993 alone than in the first 6 years of AIDS .
LS: Has AIDS stopped the use of recreational drugs?
Lauritsen: No, by the early 90s, gay men living in San Francisco and New York had reverted to the drug addiction and sexual promiscuity rates that were rampant in the 70s. By 1992, thousands of gay men attended. at a "morning party" (namesake of "mourning party") on Fire Island, organized for the benefit of the Gay Men's Health Crisis. At least 95% of them were in an advanced stage of intoxication from ecstasy, poppers, cocaine and alcohol. Playwright Larry Kramer described it in the following terms: “There were 4000 or 5000 gorgeous kids on the beach, completely stoned in the middle of noon, spending their time getting in and out of the Sanisettes to fuck. All in the name of the GMHC. "
Darren Main: The prevalence of addiction is very high in the gay community today. The big festivals are very popular.
LS: What are these big festivals?
Main: These are big parties that take place in specific places, like the "White Party" in Palm Spring, or the "Black and Blue" in Montreal. Thousands of people attend. This represents 4 to 5 days of intensive use of hard drugs, to a point that you cannot imagine, crystal meth, ecstasy, special K, poppers, homemade drugs.
LS: Do people still use poppers?
Main: Absolutely. It is a real pharmacy. These guys stay there for four to five days, taking drugs and having sex. In addition to these major festivals, there are other regular festivals. Many men spend their weekends going to boxes and getting high. During these holidays, drugs are frequently combined with antibiotics, because these men are constantly exposed to syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, amoebiasis and various STDs which are all increasing in the gay community.
LS: It sounds like the first AIDS crisis.
Main: Indeed. Lots of people think they are protected from infection because they take the new AIDS drug cocktails, called HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy). HAARTs are a combination of the old nucleoside analogs like AZT, DDI and 3TC, and new protease inhibitors, like Saquinavir and Crixivan. (Nucleoside analogs work by stopping DNA production; protease inhibitors work by stopping protein assembly in cells).
LS: What are the common side effects of protease inhibitors?
Main: Protease inhibitors cause lipodystrophies - fatty deformations. Body fats start from the face, arms and legs, which become very lean; the face becomes skeletal. Fat is collected to make a “buffalo hump” on the upper back. The belly becomes distended and puffy. And that's just what you see. These drugs cause a massive increase in cholesterol, which is often the cause of heart attacks. They also often cause blood sugar problems and diabetes. Protease inhibitors are the products with the highest liver toxicity. As a result, liver failure is currently the leading cause of death among people with AIDS in this country, although it is not an AIDS-related disease.
I have found that when you start taking these drugs, the first symptoms are stomach upset and diarrhea. In the year, it will start to show on your face. People who I know have taken the medication for a few years are visibly marked. There is no way to know if stopping the medication will fix the damage. In Los Angeles, Sans Francisco and South Beach, there are cosmetic surgeons who are dedicated exclusively to liposuction of these bison bumps, and to the placement of implants in the cheeks.
LS: You see in consultation people who have been diagnosed with HIV and AIDS. What are you telling them?
Main: I teach them how to rebuild and strengthen their immune system using very simple things: eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, taking drugs and stimulants, taking appropriate supplements. If a person is taking AIDS medication, I encourage them to "take a break from treatment."
Many people are afraid to stop taking the medication or to question what their doctors and pharmaceutical companies tell them. I have a client whom we will call "Jack", whose companion died a couple of years ago due to the toxicity of the drugs. Jack is HIV positive and takes the medication. He had a serious side effect to these drugs: he went blind. Her eyes stopped working and started to self-destruct because of the AIDS drugs. The doctors who followed him confirmed that his blindness was unquestionably caused by the drug cocktail, and not by any virus or AIDS disease. When I met him, we had just taken his eyes off him. He now has glass eyes.
LS: So he ended up stopping the drugs?
Main: No, he continues to take them. I asked him if he had considered stopping taking them. He said no, because he doesn't feel reassured with his T-cell count or viral load. He prefers to have lost his eyes than to have stopped the drugs. Protease inhibitors are slightly less toxic than AZT, but they can still be fatal. It's just a slower death.
LS: You don't take these drugs when you have been diagnosed with AIDS. How are you ?
Main: Perfectly good, I have to my knowledge no health problems. I have never had an opportunistic infection or AIDS-related illness. I am told I have AIDS because of my T cell count. Mine is 120. According to the CDC, this is the definition of AIDS: being HIV positive and having a T cell count less than 200. Of course in other countries
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15995
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5189




by Remundo » 30/11/15, 10:48

Christophe wrote:Anything guys !! Denying the reality of climate change and AIDS is like denying the Holocaust!

Go back to Earth !!! : Shock:
And watch out for what you're saying forum !!

Exnihiloest wrote:It would be rather the opposite.
And then the CO2 makes the planet green again. In areas that are difficult for vegetation, a little more or a little less CO2 makes the difference.


Whatever!!!

CO2 is a stimulator of plant growth, given the low rise in ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, but especially on climate change which could harm the growth of flora, difficult to conclude ...

but it is also a greenhouse gas released in enormous proportions by anthropogenic activities ... for which we are able to calculate the radiative forcing, which is the cause of global warming.
0 x
Image
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 30/11/15, 11:02

Janic wrote:ex
Please note, I do not deny all the interest of the IPCC: it is a great springboard for the career of upstarts (as long as they preach in the right direction and add in catastrophism, just to improve subsidization)
one cannot reject that it could be so since that is what happens with AIDS all those who pump the money of subsidies for something that does not exist.

What exists is the "conditions", see the terrain, which makes AIDS can develop in certain individuals, but indeed it is a consequence, AIDS only exists as a syndrome, this is not a disease in the proper sense of the term (one does not die of AIDS but of opportunistic pathologies), it is an ultimate stage in an already chronic pathological state of general weakening. A bit like cancer (if I allow myself that big gap) ... But it's a huge subject and so much to learn ...
Only it seems to leave a trace (in the immune response), that's the trick.

There are similarities with these attacks, we are in the middle of a mixture of hypocrisy, denial, lies and instrumentalization.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 30/11/15, 11:28

Christophe wrote:Anything guys !! Denying the reality of climate change and AIDS is like denying the Holocaust!


Certainly, but watch out for the comparison.
Make an amalgam between doubt on the anthropic thesis of global warming and negation of the Jewish holocaust *of the Second World War is not at all on the same level!
A number of pseudo-ecologists in the pay of dubious NGOs use this "traumatic argument" wrongly and through.
Science Advances Through Doubt, which strengthens the models, has little to do with denying a crime against humanity.

For the question of AIDS: I invite anyone who doubts the HIV / AIDS thesis to go to an institute (Pasteur for example) and ask to be injected with the said HIV, which, according to them, does not present no danger! : Lol:


* We must speak well Holocaust or Jewish genocide and no Shoah which is a term political and religious which has no place in secular discourse.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 30/11/15, 12:48

For the question of AIDS: I invite anyone who doubts the HIV / AIDS thesis to go to an institute (Pasteur for example) and ask to be injected with the said HIV, which, according to them, does not present no danger!
You repeat yourself by confusing science and superstition! Unless you're afraid of the truth?
However, you have not, to date, demonstrated that the scientists cited were mistaken or sought to deceive anyone. While the reverse is verifiable.
So to be injected with something that does not exist is to be injected with a placebo.
Ex puts forward a lot of things without checking them and you do the same. Indicate in the document presented everything that is inaccurate, it will be more constructive.
Last edited by Janic the 30 / 11 / 15, 12: 59, 1 edited once.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 30/11/15, 12:58

Janic wrote: You have not, to date, demonstrated that the scientists cited were mistaken or sought to deceive anyone.


You will have to explain it how many times:
What is said without proof can be refuted without proof.
Here it's you who asserts that HIV is not responsible, not me, I don't have the skills to say anything about myself ... so it's up to Janic the "great virologist" to demonstrate to the scientific community that HIV is safe.
By means of a discharge you can be injected with compatible infected blood, and thus prove to the whole earth the immense deception HIV = AIDS.
Your name will be chanted in the media and you will be considered a national hero!
: Lol:
Otherwise, shut up forever and stop polluting subjects with your eternal catchphrase: HIV / AIDS, Homeopathy / allopathy, Creationist / Evolutionism ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 30/11/15, 13:12

sen-no-sen wrote:For the question of AIDS: I invite anyone who doubts the HIV / AIDS thesis to go to an institute (Pasteur for example) and ask to be injected with the said HIV, which, according to them, does not present no danger!

Well, don't go from one extreme to the other, but precisely a doctor did, he injected himself with HIV. There are converging beams which are compatible with a chemical origin (poisoning) rather than a metabolic one. The fact that there is at least one marker simply means that the organism has "reacted", but nothing more. Meanwhile, other medical researchers have managed to treat the effects of AIDS (and not HIV itself which must be treated upstream) there are a lot of subjects who have recovered and most importantly: without recurrence. . There are also sero-positive subjects who have become sero-negative again. I'm talking about all this from reliable sources.

But that does not solve the bottom of the problem, if the ground is not favorable, it is not possible to guarantee a 100% success, otherwise Steve Jobs and so many others would still be alive! So no, I would not play with fire.

Seasonal influenza is responsible worldwide for up to 500 deaths per year. AIDS zero, but the pathologies assimilated a little more than double than the flu ... Statistically in the end there is much more chance of dying from a bad flu than AIDS, because one is exposed each year to this virus! (While exposure to the risks of AIDS could be controlled much more easily ...) But nobody takes to the streets a lot to cry scandal against the Codex-Alimentarius or against the poisons sold over the counter in our supermarkets (whereas for the attacks ... around that the risk of being affected by this type of crime is only 000% compared to AIDS and 0,09% compared to the flu: and nobody points to them health authorities and there are criminals among them ....)
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 30/11/15, 13:52

Janic wrote:
You have not, to date, demonstrated that the scientists cited were mistaken or sought to deceive anyone.
You will have to explain it how many times:
What is affirmed without proof can be refuted without proof.
You take your desires for realities! If you are sure you indicate what is inaccurate, it is not that difficult if you have the skills.
Here you are the one who asserts that HIV is not responsible, not me,I don't have the skills to say anything about myself ...So it's up to Janic the "great virologist" to demonstrate to the scientific community that HIV is safe.

They are competent:

"Dr Peter Duesberg is a chemist and expert in retrovirology. Duesberg discovered oncogenes (cancer genes) and isolated the genome of retroviruses (HIV is one) in 1970. He is professor of molecular biology at UC from Berkeley.
Dr David Rasnick is an expert on protease inhibitors, and has worked in AIDS research for 20 years. He conducts research on cancer and AIDS in collaboration with Duesberg. Rasnick and Duesberg are both advisers on the AIDS committee set up by South African President Mbeki. "

If I was the author of this document, your accusation could possibly be taken seriously, but here you are only expressing your possible hypochondria.
. "In 1987, Gallo and Montagnier were forced by President Reagan and Prime Minister Chirac to meet in a hotel to resolve this problem of HIV patent rights. In 1992, Gallo was formally convicted of fraud by a federal scientific ethics committee"
By means of a discharge you can be injected with compatible infected blood, and thus prove to the whole earth the immense deception HIV = AIDS.
A discharge for a placebo! The whole earth would not be advanced anyway!
"David Rasnick: I am a chemist specializing in research on protease enzymes. I design and synthesize inhibitors intended to stop the proliferation of viruses and cancers that destroy tissues. When Robert Gallo announced that HIV caused AIDS, I wanted to work on inhibitors that could act on this virus. In 1985, I was at a scientific meeting when the subject of HIV was brought up. An AIDS specialist was asked how much HIV could be found in a person with AIDS. He was asked "What is the title of HIV"?
LS: What is the title?
rasnick: The title is the number of infectious viral particles in a tissue or blood sample. It is easy to get a title for live viruses from tissue specifically infected with a virus. A sample of such tissue contains millions of infectious viral particles…. You can determine the titer of any infected area, put a fragment under a microscope, and see millions of live viruses. So we asked the virologist "What is the title?" " He has answered : " Undetectable, zero. I wondered how it was possible? How can you be sick because of something that is not there
?"
Otherwise, shut up forever and stop polluting subjects with your eternal catchphrase: HIV / AIDS, Homeopathy / allopathy, Creationist / Evolutionism ...

Who pollutes according to the specialists above and below?

(Montagnier) He put this new liquid in a sucrose density gradient, and found reverse transcriptase activity at the density at which we know that viruses are purified. What he didn't find was a virus. When he looked at what it had at this density under the electron microscope, he found nothing. But this he did not recognize until years later. This is known as HIV isolation.

LS: You say that Gallo used a T cell line to grow HIV. Isn't HIV supposed to kill T cells?
Richards: That's what Gallo said at the outset, but Abbott labs grow HIV on human leukemia T cells. This line is even called an immortal line, because the leukemia cells do not die. Currently, no researcher has shown how HIV kills T cells. It's just a theory that keeps money flowing to support the pharmaceutical approach to treating HIV.

Duesberg: Viruses are dangerous only the first time we meet them. When we make antibodies against a virus, we are immune for the rest of our lives, and that virus can no longer make us sick. It is the exact opposite of the theory of AIDS which says : You are contaminated, you do not become sick; you make antibodies, and 10 years later you get sick and die

LS: They think the proteins come from HIV; but if they have never isolated HIV, how can he say that these tests can screen for HIV infection?
Rasnick: They can't and they don't. Any of the ELISA or Western Blot proteins has never been shown to be specific for HIV or another retrovirus. For this reason, the FDA has not approved a single HIV test.

LS: If the tests aren't specific and you can't find HIV in your blood, then what is AIDS?
Richards: According to the CDC, AIDS is just a definition. If you have a disease that is considered an AIDS indicator, such as salmonellosis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, herpes, or a fungal infection, and you test positive for HIV, then you are said to have AIDS and you are treated with toxic AIDS drugs
LS: What does Luc Montagnier say about all this?
rasnick: At the AIDS conference in San Francisco in 1990, Montagnier announced that HIV, after all, does not kill T cells, and cannot be the cause of AIDS. Within hours of the announcement, he was attacked by the same industry he helped create. Montagnier is not a liar. He's just an average scientist who's out of date.
Etc… and Janic in all this? Nowhere !
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : A.D. 44, Remundo and 130 guests