AIDS: conspiracy or reality?

[zhao]

edit: DISCLAIMER 11 JAN. 2010

I never was, and am not interested in denying the existence of the HIV virus or AIDS, and if i was to make the same thread today it would not have such an over-sensationalist title.

What i was, and am interested in are some of the claims of the deniers and skeptics, contrary to the official story put forth by the government and medical establishment. Some of these claims, as always, are ludicrous; but others seemed reasonable and grounded in reality. And now, 4 years later, some of these claims are, partially or entirely, validated by new information revealed by Dr. Luc Montagnier, in an upcoming documentary film.

____________________________________________________________________


this may not be new to many of you, I just wanted to get your thoughts and opinion:

In recent times I have learnt a lot (for me. very, very little compared to how much there is to know) about alternative medicine and holistic aproaches to health and disease, as opposed to mainstream medical practice, which has increasingly come to resemble a business motivated by profit rather than what is best for people.

during the course of last year, I have met some pretty amazing people, who have given me valuable information in many areas of life, and hands on helped me recover from illness (nothing "serious"); the effectiveness of their methods are impressive and their ideas and philosophy makes sense.

to make a long story short, these people who are well educated and very knowledgeable (practicing Natural Healing doctors, Kung-Fu instructors, etc), all have no doubt in their minds that AIDS is a complete and total hoax.

I did not believe my ears when I first heard them say this, and my first response was "but I've known people who have died!", but as I learnt (again, a very little bit) more about this, I'm not so sure of my previous beliefs anymore.

from my limited understanding, the premise is basically this:

1. AIDS is a fictional diagnosis which is applied to existing diseases.

2. what actually kills people is not the imaginary HIV virus, but the (very expensive) medicine which are given to patients.

the following may not be the best summary but it might suffice for now (just something I found on the internet):

"Just about everything we have been told about HIV and AIDS, for the past 20 years, is untrue. AIDS is not an infectious disease. It is not spread through sex or needle sharing, and it is only "always fatal" if one follows the medical advice.

When I first was exposed to these ideas I was shocked. The more I investigated, the more I was shocked. Did you know there is no science to support the HIV hypothesis and much that disproves it? Did you know the tests used to diagnose people with HIV were never approved for diagnostic purposes and were totally discredited since 1993? Did you know that t-cells are not a valid surrogate marker for AIDS and, in fact, healthier people have lower t-cell counts than average? Did you know the definition of AIDS was expanded several times, and cumulative totals, rather than annual figures, were given to make it look like an epidemic? Did you know that the "Hit Hard/Hit Early" and the protease inhibitors have been acknowledged failures?

Are you aware that the media has been playing with the AIDS numbers and statistics to make it look like AIDS was spreading, while it actually was on the decline? US AIDS peaked in 1993, with the last definition change, which, for the first time included healthy people with no disease in the category of AIDS.

What can we do?

First, and foremost, educate yourself. If you are taking AIDS medications, find someone who can help you safely get off of them. If you are HIV-negative, stay that way. Refuse to test. Refuse to donate blood. (Same thing as getting tested.) Encourage everyone you know to do likewise, until the invalid HIV testing is declared illegal!

Wake up, sheeple! If we don't speak out now, the truth may never come out during our lifetime. Examine the facts. AIDS numbers have already declined to pre-1985 levels. Why haven't we been getting the good news since 1993? Why do most people still believe AIDS is spreading? Why? Because the AIDS industry is waiting to announce a vaccine which will be falsely given credit for ending AIDS in the US. If we allow this happen, thousands of victims will needlessly continue to suffer drug-induced disease, discomfort, disfigurement and death as AIDS dies out in America. And the American taxpayers will be forced to finance pharmaceutical genocide in Africa in order to keep fear and the AIDS myth alive."

this book was recommended to me:

Amazon product ASIN 0967415306
has anyone read it? anyone know about this subject (minikomi)? what are your thoughts?

 

[Jezmi]

If the reason for death are the expensive drugs, why do so many people die of aids in africa where they can´t afford those drugs?

I don´t believe the human race is capable of running an operation of that scale, whilest nature can and it seems such an effective method to reduce the total population of the human race.


I do agree that the pharmaceuticals and the medical profession have a very limited view on ways to cure.

 

[martin]

You've not provided any link to this 'something' you found on the Internet - needless to say, I wouldn't expect a document that uses phrases like "wake up sheeple!" to boast the slightest jot of hard scientific evidence to back up its arguments.

 

[IdleRich]

"this book was recommended to me:

Amazon product ASIN 09
has anyone read it? anyone know about this subject (minikomi)? what are your thoughts?"

On that site two of the reviews are as follows:

"How dangerous is this book and the author? Her three year old daughter is now dead from Aids. Read about it in the L.A. Times 24 September 2005. All because the author's (and her husband's) anti-science ideas of HIV as espoused in this book."

"As has been so often stated, Christine's daughter, Eliza Jane Scovill, died. Drs. Chanikarn Changsri and James K. Ribe assessed the cause of death to be AIDS induced pneumonia. Additionally, she had HIV induced encyphalitis. Furthermore, this brain tissue tested positive for an HIV viral core protein, a protein which is only present in those infected with HIV. Kenneth Murray in his review points to a contrary report by Dr. Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati (based on Dr. Changsri's autopsy - significantly, Dr. Al-Bayati did not examine Eliza Jane) claiming that she did not die of AIDS... in fact, that she didn't even have it! Instead, he claims she died of an acute allergic reaction to the amoxicillin prescribed to treat the pneumonia. So, I did a little background checking on this guy...
The first discovery was -- what a surprise! -- that Dr. Al-Bayati sits on the Alive and Well Advisory board, and that his "differntial diagnosis" was conducted at the parents' request. A little more digging revealed that he regularly testifies for the defense in cases where "shaken baby syndrome" causes death, nearly always ascribing the cause of death to reactions to vaccination. Does anyone besides me see a pattern here?"

Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence on the theory.
I thought that it was recognised that it suits the leaders of several African countries (eg South Africa) to argue that there is no link between HIV and AIDS because they can then avoid spending money on the problem.

 

[jenks]

refuse to donate blood?

good luck during your next operation, mate.

 

[mms]

i think people living with hiv and working with people with hiv would disagree.
the argument falls down on the idea that it's all a put on for pharma companies when 3rd world countries and areas of africa are begging for drugs to relieve the pain and misery of the discease. It's ok for an american to claim this is a scam in the most prescription drugged country in the world.
of course as it's been said before this is a comfortable theory for countries not willing to spend money on treating these problems, which is an issue thats starting to raise it's head.

 

[zhao]

why do so many people die of aids in africa where they can´t afford those drugs?

let me just say that I'm on the fence about this. just want to learn more and stir up some debate. but since these ideas are meeting with so much resistance (BIG surprise), I'll play the devil's advocate.

the answer to above is wide spread mal-nutrition, substandard health practices, and existing disease. which is also the explanation of

"How dangerous is this book and the author? Her three year old daughter is now dead from Aids. Read about it in the L.A. Times 24 September 2005. All because the author's (and her husband's) anti-science ideas of HIV as espoused in this book."

this is the kind of critique that is very effective in eliciting knee-jerk reactions in those who do not care to dig deeper. another reviewer said:

"there is not a shred of scientific evidence (unless you take the now-full-of-holes coroner's report as scientific evidence) that EJ died of AIDS. No positive HIV test, no actual signs of the pneumonia that she allegedly died from, a high T cell count ... it goes on and on. The only 'evidence' that EJ died of AIDS is that over a month into the investigation into her death, somebody leaked to the coroner's office that Christine Maggiore was the leading authority on the dissident side of the HIV/AIDS debate. Boom. EJ is now an AIDS victim. How convenient."

OFCOURSE the media would use the death of their daughter to discredit their cause. "...should be ashamed of themselves for grandstanding on the grave of an innocent child."

not true. I know people who have been diagnosed HIV positive that are healthier than me and you. they just refuse to take the drugs.

 

[neupunk]

So your positive evidence is based on widely discredited books and anecdotal evidence about friends who have tested positive for HIV but haven't (yet) shown evidence of full-blown AIDS? How come the most vicious deniers of AIDS are those who are HIV-positive or in a high-risk group? You've mentioned statistics and stories yet backed up nothing with actual clinical data or other proof. How many people did these friends know who had AIDS (but, because of bias against treatment, had not taken drugs) who they later treated successfully? What about the many people with AIDS who had HIV but never took the drug regimen?

While there are cases of people having HIV but never presenting AIDS, and cases where preventative and treatment drugs may have hurt the patient (especially in the 80s, when treatment was even more harsh than today), where are the cases of recovered individuals who had AIDS? This sounds like total and complete garbage, which it likely is.

My sister had an acquaintance who denied the existence of AIDS but died from pneumonia after never seeking treatment. His case, I would imagine, is much more the norm among AIDS-deniers.

Also, what about the many people who have tested positive but are taking one of the modern drug cocktails and are living healthy lives? Are they taking a "special" version of the drugs that don't make you sick, or are they just resistant to the drugs (just as some people are resistant to HIV). I mean, there's semi-celeb blogger Andrew Sullivan, NBA player Magic Johnson... the drugs take a toll, but they're hardly killing these people.

 

[infinite thought]

David Irving probably imagines that HIV/AIDS is a conspiracy and all.

 

[IdleRich]

"there is not a shred of scientific evidence (unless you take the now-full-of-holes coroner's report as scientific evidence) that EJ died of AIDS."

I think that you (Confucius) were replying to my point with this not Jezmi's so I will answer it. If you read further down the review I copied from Amazon then you will see that the "discredited coroner's report" was produced by a doctor who examined the baby whereas the doctor who suggested that he was wrong never examined the baby only the original doctor's notes. This second doctor was then investigated as follows:

"So, I did a little background checking on this guy...
The first discovery was -- what a surprise! -- that Dr. Al-Bayati sits on the Alive and Well Advisory board, and that his "differntial diagnosis" was conducted at the parents' request. A little more digging revealed that he regularly testifies for the defense in cases where "shaken baby syndrome" causes death, nearly always ascribing the cause of death to reactions to vaccination."

I'm tempted to go with the original coroner's report to be honest.

 

[john eden]

I seem to be having loads of arguments with people these days which involve me defending the scientific process and community. Which is a bit odd.

Ok, first up - if all these other treatments are so brilliant, why has nobody managed to produce a lab-based study using them and then got their results published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Answers:

a) Because it is a consipiracy.
b) Because it is a load of half-baked pseudo scientific nonsense cooked up by people with nests to furnish by flogging people snake oil.

Secondly, none of the gels with my (admittedly anecdotal) experience of talking to pwas and health workers in either the UK or Uganda.

I am trying to be very calm, writing this post. This sort of thing makes me very angry.

 

[bassnation]

I seem to be having loads of arguments with people these days which involve me defending the scientific process and community. Which is a bit odd.

like i said on another thread, we are slowly but surely sliding back to a new dark age where people believe what makes them feel better - rather than searching for the truth, however uncomfortable it is.

 

[droid]

I met someone recently who first tried to convince me that condoms dont prevent the spread of Aids (ala the Vatican's position when it comes to Africa), and when that didnt work went on to say that the disease was an American developed bio-weapon designed to wipe out the poor of the world and prevent overpopulation... ... his final gambit was (you guessed it) to tell me that Aids doesnt exist at all... pure conspiracy theory, with not an ounce of credible evidence to back any of it up...

Now Ive heard a lot about false positives, and doubts about the test itself - BUT - in the absence of any genuine research or credible evidence you cant draw conclusions based purely on anecdotes from people who have professional or personal interests...

 

[IdleRich]

"We are slowly but surely sliding back to a new dark age where people believe what makes them feel better - rather than searching for the truth, however uncomfortable it is"

I think you're right here. One problem as well is the attempted even-handedness of much reporting (a commendable idea but not always appropriate). If there is an issue with one crackpot versus the rest of the world and someone is doing a feature on that issue you can bet that that crackpot's idea will get as much space as the orthodoxy.

 

[Rambler]

Confucius, you are dead wrong on this. Sorry. To pick some points:

I know people who have been diagnosed HIV positive that are healthier than me and you. they just refuse to take the drugs.

This is very easy to explain of course - HIV is only a staging post to AIDS itself. It is perfectly possible to have HIV for years before it develops into AIDS; during that time you can live a healthy life - although you are infectious and should take all the necessary precautions to protect lovers, etc.

1. AIDS is a fictional diagnosis which is applied to existing diseases.

Well yes, you don't die of AIDS, you die because AcquiredImmuneDeficiencySyndrome has killed you body's defence against disease - therefore you die of an existing disease (such as pneumonia) that your body can no longer defend against.

I too am getting increasingly angry at the apparently willful descent into medieval hearsay and guesswork in place of legitimate science. The recent MMR scandal in the UK (the scandal being that children died because their parents believed the pseudo-scientific bullshit propogated by the press), the whole intelligent design, ahem, 'debate' currently tearing up the US. And this AIDS conspiracy theorising bears all the same hallmarks. Give us some proper evidence, and then we'll see.

 

[JimO'Brien]

"these people who are well educated and very knowledgeable (practicing Natural Healing doctors, Kung-Fu instructors, etc), "

Same on all you cynics who would doubt the word of a Kung-Fu instructor.

 

[Paul Hotflush]

Another cracking thread on the Politics board!

 

[droid]

Another smug comment from Paul Hotflush!

 

[bassnation]

Another smug comment from Paul Hotflush!

its hard to work out what paul really thinks when we only have these one-liner witty ripostes to go by.

 

[Slothrop]

I seem to be having loads of arguments with people these days which involve me defending the scientific process and community. Which is a bit odd.

Ok, first up - if all these other treatments are so brilliant, why has nobody managed to produce a lab-based study using them and then got their results published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

A related question would be 'if the AIDS drugs are actually causing so many deaths in otherwise healthy people, how come this didn't show up in (peer-reviewed, reproducible double blind etc etc etc) clinical trials?'

a) Because it is a consipiracy.
b) Because it is a load of half-baked pseudo scientific nonsense cooked up by people with nests to furnish by flogging people snake oil.