http://gfp.conncoll.edu/cooluses18.html Green Fluorescent Protein marked HIV virus infecting a Helper T cell photographed in real time.
Posted on 10/29/2009 8:58:47 AM PDT by Scythian
See Movie Trialer HERE
Also Article HERE
OK, so if HIV isn’t, what is it? Why do gay people, hemophiliacs, and IV drug users so much more often come down with Kaposi’s sarcoma etc.?
The creation of phony diease for profit. Looks like the AIDs people are copying the psychiatrists.
Good info. I’ve noticed as a scientifically aware citizen that the issue of AIDS is so politicized that real scientific study hasn’t been allowed to proceed. I suspect (just casual observation) that most people who get AIDS already have a severly depressed immune system: ie, exposure to multiple sex partners, drug use, poor nutrition, etc. Combine them and they get a “perfect storm”.
Yeah, hemophiliacs were almost wiped out in the mid 1980’s through early 1990’s because it’s a vitamin deficiency or whatever nonsense that natural (not) news is hawking these days. Newsflash, it was HIV contaminated blood.
I’m not saying it’s true, merely posting the information.
About a year and half ago had you taken blood from me you would have died, I have no disease, but my bioterrain was a wreck, and my blood was full of fungai, bacteria, and “other things”. I am better now, but did not use western medicine. So, I know how somebodies bioterrain can become incredibly compromised. Is there a single root cause for Aids? I have no idea, just sharing the information is all.
I had a friend who had to have open heart surgery in the 80’s....she ended up with Hep C......she’s 77, she beat it back......but, she knows it was the bad blood from that surgery that gave it to her.
More importantly, why did hemophiliacs stop contracting AIDs once we got the blood supply under control? The answer is simple: It WAS the HIV virus in the blood products that caused AIDS to run rampant in hemophiliacs. We identified the problem, took measures to correct the problem, and hemophiliacs were once again threatened only by their disease and not AIDS. Score for medical science, epic fail for natural (not) news. To paraphrase Eric Cartman, screw hippie science aka natural (not) news and its ilk.
You make a very good point. I would think that would be a strong point of the critic’s of this movie.
Nitrite drug-users who had malnutrition (e.g from heavy drug use) would also develop a common fungal infection of the lungs: this was the other disease associated with old school Aids.
Neither condition (Kaposi's or the lung infection) is an AIDs-defining disease these days, which should tell us a lot.
Despite all the hopeful or mendacious images in journals and magazines no actual virus has ever been cultured and regrown from 'infected tissue'. But - once it was decided that a virus was responsible, the ELISA and WB blood tests for this 'virus' were brought out and aggressively marketed.
The tests were not gold-standard calibrated against the virus, for a very obvious reason: this 'HIV virus' has not been proved to exist. So the uncalibrated tests gave false positives for people receiving blood transfusions or people who had suppressed immune systems. Or people who were pregnant or black - in short anybody with a different serology from the baseline used to develop the tests.
The 'treatment' for this new disease was 1000mg a day of a lethally toxic - and expensive! - chemotherapy drug called AZT, which killed about 50,000 people by liver failure before it was finally discontinued. Every pill of AZT was paid for with your tax money. And about 90% of all the deaths at the height of the AIDS epidemic were from AZT - making it one of the most brutally stupid iatrogenic massacres of all time.
And there you have the AIDs menace. A sorry collision of criminally bad medicine and special interests.
Hope this was helpful.
Found in the Bible - Romans Chapter 1. Part of Paul's discussion concerning God's wrath against mankind .
Romans 1:27 - In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
I do mean to get all self righteous here. In general the Bible comes down pretty hard on everybody. For instance Romans 3:10 - There is no one righteous, not even one.
In my treatment of AIDS dental patients, Kaposi’s was noted primarily among male gay patients who had used amyl nitrate or ‘poppers’. I believe Kaposi’s sarcoma is fairly rare in AIDS torn Africa so amyl nitrate is probably key to Kaposi’s here. Also the ‘processing’ of factor starting in the mid 1980’s helped with alot of the infection problems hemophiliacs had been having and has allowed their life span to increase.
http://gfp.conncoll.edu/cooluses18.html Green Fluorescent Protein marked HIV virus infecting a Helper T cell photographed in real time.
To show that a protein comes from the HIV virus, you need to establish provenance. It's analogous to finding a hair at a murder scene and tracing it back to the murder suspect.
But "HIV proteins" have no such provenance. They are PCR replicated from material said to contain the HIV virus.
But assertion is not proof. You MUST have a viral isolate of a virus before you can - with your hand on your heart - claim that proteins or nucleic fragments copied from it are indeed of an "HIV" character.
There is only one way to 'prove' an isolate of an infectious retrovirus
A) Create an isolate. i.e. create a culture from putatively infected material and take a micrograph from the 1.16 density band showing ONLY particles with the correct characteristics of an exogenous retrovirus.
B) Prove that what you have is viral . You must be able to take your isolate, infect something with it, grow more virus, and be able to get another picture of the isolate.
Then and only then can scientists start PCR-ing proteins and what have you, and put pretty pictures up on websites.
This non-isolation of HIV is the reason we hear so much about "the incredible mutation rate of HIV".
It's not mutating - apparently sane people are just taking different bits of crud from putatively-infected culture and saying "Oh noes, its mutated!
Sorry, but that was an ENTIRE HIV virus (or virion), tagged with GFP, seen infecting a Helper T cell.
They have also used GFP to see WHERE inside Helper T cells, HIV virus is assembled.
http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=34408
Please post a link to the paper that shows where this "HIV virus" used in the experiment was isolated, micrographed and used for reinfection. That would be isolation of a retrovirus in accordance with the logical rules for isolation as laid down by Barre-Sinoussi et al.
Please ensure the paper you link to does NOT cite as its primary source the LAV culture discovered by Montagnier.
Montagnier (et al) didn't isolate a retrovirus.
The most that Montagnier's group did was to find a peak of reverse transcriptase (RT) activity at a band density of 1.16g/ml from assumed-to-be-infected culture. This was their "proof of isolation of a retrovirus".
RT activity is not something magical that only happens with retroviruses: cells, bacteria, viruses other than retroviruses all show RT. RT activity has been reported in many of the immortal cell lines from which "HIV" has been "isolated", including CEM, H9 as well as normal lymphocytes. RT activity alone proves nothing.
Montagnier (et al) knew this and have said as much in papers printed before the AIDs era. Some of his team played a large part in developing the criteria for isolating a retrovirus. However the LAV experiments do not fulfill those criteria. Not remotely.
Montagnier and his colleagues could not find particles with the morphological characteristics (shape) of a retrovirus at the band density of 1.16 gm/ml.
And to be able to claim isolation of a retrovirus you need more than morphology and RT-expression from culture: you must have an *isolate* that also looks right and shows RT. A micrograph showing isolated virus-particles at the 1.16 band, with the right shape and that express RT would do very nicely. We are still waiting for this. It's been about thirty years now.
To go further and claim that you have a *infectious* retrovirus then you must show that what you have is xenogenous (e.g. it's a retrovirus from outside the body). Also you must prove that it's infectious. And for it to be the "AIDS virus" it must cause the diseases we call AIDs.
You cannot carry out any of these steps without *isolation* of virus: otherwise you just don't know what you're looking at. What Montagnier, Gallo and others did was to follow RT activity around and claim that they are tracking a retrovirus - moreover an infectious, pathological retrovirus.
This is terrible science and has led to terrible science. Scientists have been tracking novel RNA-fragments in their experiments with the assumption that the fragments come from an infectious virus that causes HIV - but with no proof, no viral provenance.
HIV isolation is so routine these days that they manufacture a KIT to do so.
http://www.miltenyibiotec.com/en/PG_563_654__MACS_VitalVirus_HIV_Isolation_Kit.aspx
The HIV Hypothesis is that there exists a virus, HIV, that causes the disease/diseases we call AIDs. This hypothesis leads to certain conclusions: one of which is that AIDs spreads like a virus. Let's examine this.
When looking at what causes a disease - any disease - there are a number of "usual suspects". Pathogens (bacteria or viruses) are a likely cause. Toxin exposure is also a likely cause. Deficiency (not enough vitamins, not enough food) is a third.
To tell which one we are dealing with (pathogen or toxin/deficiency) we look at the epidemiology of the disease (epidemiology - how a disease spreads).
AIDs has stayed within the defined at-risk sectors of the population (e.g. drug users, homosexual men) and hasn't expanded exponentially into the general population. Despite Oprah's dire warnings (remember those?), heterosexual non-drug users (at any rate, those who eat properly and who have no significant toxin exposure) have not in fact been ravaged by AIDs. Prostitutes who don't do drugs and have no other catabolic stresses haven't been ravaged by AIDs.
But viruses just do not behave like this. They are little bits of nucleic clockwork. They are obligatory parasites - they infect, and they have to infect. They expand exponentially into populations and then die off as the population achieves resistance. The epidemiology of AIDs is non-infectious, and so AIDs must be non-viral.
The epidemiology of AIDs is instead similar to that of toxin exposure or nutrition-deprivation. A good analogy is with long-term smokers or heavy drinkers: people with heavy exposure to toxins for a long period tend to develop diseases: those who aren't exposed, don't. You don't catch lung cancer or cirrhosis of the liver by touch, you get them from toxin exposure.
In the early cases of AIDs (GRID = Gay Related Immune Disease/Disorder) there was an obvious toxic cause: the inhaling of amyl nitrite to assist anal intercourse. Inhaling of amyl nitrite is a lethal habit, and a demarcated homosexual phenomenum. Therefore – this form of AIDs appeared amongst gay men only, and stayed in the gay population.
But the vast majority of AIDs deaths were not and are not caused by nitrite poppers. Hardly. Poppers merely began the AIDs furore. Nowadays the classic popper-induced disease (Kaposi's Sarcoma, a dangerous cancerous lesion in the lungs) is no longer defined as an AIDs disease - as the gay community drastically cut back on popper consumption in the early AIDs era.
The real killer in AIDs (the real toxic cause) was and is iatrogenic poisoning: by which I mean the treatment for HIV infection itself causes the disease. AZT - the old wonder drug for AIDS - is an extremely toxic chemotherapy drug: 1000 mg of AZT a day for months or years would kill anyone. 90% of all those thousands of AIDs deaths in the AZT days were caused by toxic liver failure, NOT by one of the CDC’s AIDs-defining diseases. Go figure.
These days doctors don't use AZT, or they use less of it. They use cathepsin inhibitors. These aren't as poisonous as AZT, though they're still poisonous. Hence less patients are dropping dead, and so the HAART cocktail treatments have been hailed as miracle cures.
But my point would be - a cure for what? The only reason someone is given these sub-lethal AIDs “cures” is that they have reacted positively on a HIV test. They are assumed to be infected, even if they are symptomless, and therefore they come under a lot of pressure, both legal & moral, to comply with treatment. The treatment is poisonous (in the case of pure AZT extremely so) and so the patient tends to get worse. Result - you have an epidemic-by-diagnosis. You get diagnosed with the virus, and some time later you get sick.
But surely if an HIV test says you're infected, you're infected?
Well, no. The HIV tests (ELISA, Western Blot) have not been calibrated against the isolated virus itself. This is known as "gold standard calibration" - without such calibration, a serological test for viral antibodies has no business being used in medical practice. Without calibration you don’t know if your test is giving you a false-positive result or not.
There are over fifty conditions that have been documented to cause false positives in HIV tests. Some are probably statistically irrelevant (e.g. leprosy). But most are highly relevant. Tuberculosis, flu vaccination, recent tetanus vaccination, herpes, renal failure, pregnancy (second or later pregnancies particularly), rheumatoid arthritis, "sticky" blood (in Africans), "sickle cell" (in Africans), being African, organ transplants, malaria, hepatitis, haemophilia and antibodies to sperm (ugh) have all known to create false-positives in HIV tests. Without calibration we don't know that anybody who's ever shown up positive on an HIV test actually had the virus - it could have been a false positive.
I repeat: without calibrating an HIV test against the virus itself it is impossible to use the test to indicate presence of the virus. The HIV tests react to proteins in the blood. To prove that they’re interacting with HIV proteins, you must have an isolate of HIV and be able to determine what the HIV proteins are.
So why not calibrate the tests already? Answer: you need an isolate of the virus to do this, and ... the HIV virus has not yet been isolated. No-one has done it. After so many years we are entitled to ask if the virus is actually there to be isolated.
Without an isolate of the HIV virus there's no proof that HIV actually exists. There’s no proof of sexual transmission, no proof of pathology. The epidemiology is non-viral.
So - why are we sticking with the HIV hypothesis? Does it have any predictive value? Has use of the HIV theory allowed us to cure anybody, as opposed to the thousands of people doctors have killed with AZT?
Hope this is helpful.
But I really, really hope that you don't regard the existence of isolation kits that bind to the frankly not-unique protein CD44, as proof that the HIV virus has indeed been isolated, and that this same virion has been found to be infectious, and that an exactly-similar isolate has been taken from the infectious growth - and that the isolate can be shown to cause the diseases we know as AIDs.
That's analogous to saying that the existence of photocopiers that only copy the bits in red ink proves that the photocopy in your hand MUST be of the Communist Manifesto.
With great respect, the isolation paper is what we need. And seriously: I don't expect you to look for it now. But I hope you will look at the sources on the next AIDs paper you read, and see if I'm not right about the reference at the top of the list.
Nope...hemophiliacs had only one case of Kaposi’s in the ‘80s, and he was a homosexual hemophiliac. Kaposi’s—for the most part—only occurred in gays with HIV.
D'oh, poor analogy from me. For this to be a congruent match, we would have to pretend for a moment that no-one knew whether or not the Communist Manifesto actually existed. My bad.
Ok, off for my tea now. Goodnight to all.
The big question is did those people die from HIV or from anti AIDS medicines after they’d been diagnosed as having HIV (assuming such a thing exists)?? There are simply too many good scientists out there with major reservations as to whether a simple retro-virus could damage a healthy immune system to write them all off as deniers.
What did you do to improve your health?
bump for later
Personally I find it pretty shocking that Jesus claimed hookers/whores were getting into Heaven before the religious leaders of his day. Does that mean repentant child molesters get a free past? Good lord..there really is no way to define who is good and who is bad if that is the case.
past=pass
I replied in private ...
The science on HIV has progressed to the point now where either the thousands of scientists working on it either know that HIV is (like SIV) an immune cell attacking virus that leads to immune deficiency; or they are involved in the largest successful conspiracy of all time.
HIV virions call be isolated from HIV positive patients tissues and secretions. HIV virions can be tagged with GFP. HIV virions tagged with GFP can be seen to enter Helper T-cells. In HIV positive patients there is an inverse correlation between HIV titer and Helper T cell count. Those with low helper T cell count have problems with immunity, as one might expect.
We have sequenced the genome of HIV. It is not like nobody knows if it exists or not.
I’ve wondered about the ridiculous number of vaccinations kids have to take these days... and if two factors are pushing the vaccination agenda:
1.) Gays with AIDS trying to cut down on the amount of people walking around with bugs that aren’t likely to kill a healthy person, but likely to kill or really come close to killing a person with a weak immune system.
2.) Big Pharma trying to make a quick buck.
Thanks for the ping!
You need to know that AMD works for a pharma poison manufacturer, and also is a proven liar here.
Take anything he posts with a glass of epsom.
E-S is a proven liar as well as a Geocentrist. No wonder that he denies the efficacy of modern medicine as well.
Take anything he posts with a mountain of sodium chloride.
God: Good!
Man: "There is none righteous, no not one." (Trans: Bad!)
The second biggest medical rip-off, after 'AIDS'
Reject Evolution.
Reject Modern Medicine.
I think I am seeing a pattern emerge.
You are a rejector!
I definitely reject your stupidity.
I reject your ability to discern intelligence from beyond your own self aggrandizement and lunacy.
But surely you have SOMETHING to contribute other than personal attacks and abject stupidity.... OK, checking your posting history.... NEVERMIND.
The signs and miracles demonstrated the devine authority of Jesus. The miracles were not so important in and of themselves but they were a testimony to the authority of Christ. Most of the religious leaders resented Jesus and they did not consider looking to Him for instruction and salvation.
The familiar passage John 3:16 of course states: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The way I interpret this passage is that salvation is not based on the good deeds we perform but a personal faith in Jesus Christ. And it is available to anyone.
But in reality the more we sin the more we become separated from God. And the general idea in Romans chapter 1 seems to be that when people reject God's authority He allows them to be turned over to ever more vile passions and degradation.
Damn you’re a laugh when you’re addled! (i.e. all the time)
Case in point.
Extremely. Actually I would have to say this is the clearest, most well thought out and informative reply I have ever received on any blog. I especially appreciate the definition of terms. I wish I did not have to ask my GP to break things down into layman's terms, but, unfortunately I do.
Obviously you are quite well informed in these matters. The evidence and analysis you present are very strong. You have tweaked my curiosity and I will do a little more digging on my own.
Your arguments are very logical and easily understood. And as shocking as the conclusions are they do not totally surprise me. Junk science and bad government funding seem to be at an all time high nowadays.
Thanks. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your reply as have, I am sure, thousands of others.
Silly man. Don’t you know everything can be cured with vitamins? We don’t need no steenkin’ pharmaceuticals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.