The Truth about AIDS

[Seydlitz]

Joe_zop:

I have been following the debate in this forum, and you and I debated the HIV/AIDS controversy before (in the Thailand forum).

For the information of other posters here, I am squarely on the side of the minority view, or the "denialists" as some call them. To me, the whole HIV/AIDS theory just does not add up.

I have little to add on this, and I agree with the posts below from masaji lover, among others.

The point I want to make about your latest post is the following: you write "things that lull people into thinking they're safe when they're not are potentially handing out free death sentences." Now that is insulting for the intelligence of your fellow humans, in particular those who are litterate enough to be reading the posts on this forum.

Don't you think that people can decide for themselves? We are in front of a medical controversy. There are scientist on both sides, with equally impressive credentials. Yes there are many more on the side of the majority (by definition ...) but there is no necessary truth in numbers.

I have been debating this issue for a while now. I have come to the conclusion that you cannot convince people that the HIV/AIDS theory is flawed. All you can do is to make them aware that there is indeed a controversy, point them in the direction of material supporting the Duesberg views etc., and then let them get on that journey if they so wish.

Ultimately, the issue is not only to know whether HIV exists, or even if it causes AIDS, on its own or as a cofactor. There is a very real issue for any HIV positive person to know whether they need to damage their health permanently by taking highly toxic drugs even as they are asymptomatic.

To paraphrase you, I would say "things that lull people into thinking that they need to take huge amounts of toxic drugs to prevent them being sick when they're not are potentially handing out free death sentences as well".

In my view, this is the only thing that really matters in the whole controversy.

Safe sex campaigns do not work. People still have unprotected sex quite a lot (several "classic" STDs are still going pretty strong).

HIV infection rates are still high, this is not surprising as more people get tested than ever before, which tends to increase dramatically the number of "false positives", if you do not believe that all positives are false positives that is.

Billions of dollars have been spent for very little, and there are calls for more. The lobbies are in full swing.

The only thing that really makes a difference is that we are able to help people who are faced with the decision to go on tritherapies etc. to decide for themselves. We must not let those poor souls who have been delivered their HIV positive results go unsupported as the men in white gather around them with their lethal drugs.

[Joe Zop]

Well said, Prokofiev. I prefer my science to be argued by people who actually know what they're talking about and how to look at things, not journalists or creationists who have extra time on their hands.

I've spent a lot of time looking through the Duesberg stuff, and I've been following the epidemic for a very, very long time -- since the early eighties when I worked in a Red Cross blood bank when HIV testing first came out, and had to help manage parts of its implementation. I also used to tutor research design and was engaged to critique the design of a number of scientific studies. There's no question that lots of studies, including those about AIDS, make grander statements and conclusions than are truly warranted, and that they need to be looked at carefully. The nature of the beast is that people make careers by asserting and proving things of large scope, and making baby steps, while it's good science, isn't good career management. (Science also doesn't necessarily happen according to a schedule, and the truth of things is that in scientific terms AIDS is still a pretty young malady, so arguments about what "should" have been found at this point are pretty well bunk.)

One aspect of the Duesberg stuff is that it tends to focus on poking holes in this or that aspect, which is a fine approach and a necessary counterweight, but it then leaps to discounting the entire theory, which is pretty well without basis or supported by anything other than anecdote or assertion. And even managing to prove that a treatment doesn't work (which I don't at all concede) doesn't disprove the theory the treatment is based on.

One thing I think is very significant is the fact that HIV testing has radically reduced transmission of AIDS by transfusion, which was one of the more frequent ways of getting AIDS in the early years (remember Arthur Ashe?)

Personally, I don't care if you call it an invasion from Mars -- I don't wanna get it. All these counter-theories generally manage to overlook the fact that there are a lot of corpses out there who fit specific death patterns that didn't exist in the same quantity up until about thirty years ago. Their explanations for why this should be the case besides AIDS are horribly unconvincing.

Regarding the whole Africa thing -- the fact that it's a more complex equation means nothing. Bad counting or statistical methods have nothing whatsoever to do with baseline immuniological issues. There are also countless strains of countless diseases around the world -- whether we're talking about malaria or syphilis. That said, IMHO, President Mbeki of South Africa is at least half right when he argues that AIDS isn't what the issue there is all about. The continent is so ravaged (my visits there were at times heartbreaking because of the high degree of human misery) and resource-strapped that curing everyone there who is HIV or AIDS positive is not going to solve a thing. I agree with Mbeki that the proper solution is a basic strengthening of the general and nutritional infrastructure first, and attention to the epidemic later. It sounds terrible to say, but a third of that continent is simply going to die because the mechanisms and resources aren't already in place to save them, AIDS or not. And that's not even considering the upcoming politics and wars over resources. It's one of the things that keeps me from spending more time there, and I'd like to because it's such a starkly beautiful continent. But let's not mistake exaggerated statistics as somehow disproving scienctific theory.

I actually know a disproportionately large number of friends and aquaintances here in the US who have died from AIDS, and I know a number who are either fighting the disease currently or have tested positive. (Or, maybe not disproportionate, given the estimate that close to half a million have died here.) It's a scary damn disease, and an absolutely horrible way to die, and things that lull people into thinking they're safe when they're not are potentially handing out free death sentences.

[Prokofiev]

Masaji,
While the "Duesberg Theory" is indeed an alternate view of AIDS, the number of scientists and doctors who support it is tiny. To call everything else "propaganda" is silly. The media and medical establishment don't give it much coverage because they don't believe it and leads us down a dangerous path - that HIV infection is unimportant and hence safe sex is relatively unimportant. If drugs were the main reason HIV infected people get sick, why didn't those same drugs cause a world-wide problem prior to the 80's? Heroin, cocaine, poppers and more were widely used for many years. Why did so many HIV infected die prior to AZT? While many good questions are raised - like why African AIDS appears to be different, what are important co-factors and how we count AIDS deaths - the vast majority of researchers believe in the HIV and AIDS link. The fact the Magic Johnson has gotten stronger and bigger (fatter?) is itself contrary to the Duesberg Theory. Because he has taken AZT and the complete cocktail of AIDS drugs for 10 years he should have gotten sick from these drugs which are themselves a major cause of AIDS deaths according to the theory.

[masaji lover]

Let me just reiterate that there is an alternate view of the whole theory of HIV and AIDS that doesn't get any coverage by the mainstream media, who just repeat the propaganda put out by the NIH. I won't bother to recap it all, but it boils down to the fact that the virus is just a passenger virus that many people carry with no medical problems resulting. You can start at www.Duesberg.com and continue with these:

http://www.rethinkingaids.com
This is the website of the Group for the Reappraisal of AIDS.

http://www.virusmyth.com
This website contains more than 500 web pages with over 350 articles about the AIDS controversy.

http://www.aliveandwell.org
The website of Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a non-profit education, action and support network founded by a group of HIV positive diagnosed people who live in wellness without AIDS drugs and without fear of AIDS.

[Guess Who]

CBGB,
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were not right. I should have checked before I posted because those stats are downright scary.

[Rubber Nursey]

CBGBConnisur,
Well said. I would presume that those countries that have some form of legal or tolerated prostitution (like mine) are probably ultimately more liberal about sex in general. That means good sexual education in schools and open discussion about diseases and safe sex practices between couples. Also, those Governments are more likely to spend money educating the community with ad campaigns, etc about safe sex, provide needle and syringe exchanges for drug users and encourage condom provision, like public vending machines, to high risk groups such as teenagers, those in prison, and the gay "sex on premises" venues (like in my country). Countries who encourage people to "Just Say NO" are in my opinion doing severe damamge to the health of their citizens with their ignorance (not naming any names! LOL)

masaji lover,
You are correct in saying that the death count is not an accurate measure. As you said, regardless of what actually killed you, the fact that you were HIV positive is recorded on the stats. However, the "new infection" rates in most western countries are pretty reliable statistics.

and to Brett re: "it is rare for a man to get the virus unless he allows another man to fuck him in his ass or he shares needles to shoot drugs"
Yes it is more likely that you will contract HIV if you do either of these things....BUT...firstly there is the fact that many gay men have caught HIV by being the "penetrative partner". There is definitely more risk of catching it if you are the "receptive" partner, but because of the tearing of the anal lining during sex, the penetrative partner can still be exposed to blood. People are very quick to say "Well either way, it's gay sex, so that's why they caught it"...but there is absolutely NO difference when it comes to anal sex with an HIV+ woman. And if you look around this forum, that is a very popular activity among straight men. Also, who's to say that the woman you are sleeping with doesn't have a bisexual boyfriend???

Secondly, the issue of drugs. Lots of people here have said that the way to avoid HIV is to make sure the girl is not a junkie. I don't do drugs myself, so I guess that would make you feel safe with me. But what happens if the last few people that I slept with WERE drug users? Not only that, but drug use is not always easily recognisable. Many doctors and lawyers and other professionals spend their weekends shooting up with friends. Would you consider your new lawyer girlfriend a high HIV risk?

AIDS, like any other STD, does not discriminate. Yes there are more risks of contracting it if you indulge in certain activities...but that doesn't mean you are risk free if you don't.

[Dickhead]

I don't take a position on whether or not statistics lie, but the CIA lies all day, every day, to the point where they would not know the truth if it bit them on the dick.

[CBGBConnisur]

If you don't believe me, check out the CIA World Factbook on the web, there's an article on Yahoo about Aids as well. Close to 1 million people in the USA are HIV positive. The statistics don't lie check it out for yourself.

[Guess Who]

CBGB,
So what you're saying is for every 200 adults in the US, 1.22 have HIV. That's hard to believe.

[CBGBConnisur]

Brett, about the advent of AIDS, in Europe wouldn't you know it but most European countries have a very low incidence of the disease?? Would you know that about 0.19 percent of adults in the Netherlands have HIV?? The current rate in the USA is .61, almost triple. In Germany its about 0.1, one sixth of the rate in the States. In France its about .41, in the UK, its .1. All these countries have legal and widespread prostitution yet they have some of the lowest incidences of HIV on the planet. Safe sex and knowledge, along with precautions, go a long way to prevent the outbreak.

[masaji lover]

"The Truth About Aids" is out there if you care to investigate. I suggest Duesberg's book INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS. Or just plug his name into google and follow some links. There is a huge movement established that has rejected the propaganda put out by the National Institute of Health.

Did you know that if a woman dies of cervical cancer and she is HIV positive, she is classified as an AIDS victim. If she's HIV neg, she's just a cancer victim. The same is true for many other "AIDS related" diseases that the NIH put on the list when the epidemic they predicted in the late 80's never materialized.

Did you know that in Africa, they don't even test AIDS "victims" for HIV? They use "symtom" diagnosis--i.e. if the victim has lost weight, develops high fever, etc etc, they just ASSUME it is AIDS. Why? Money. Money comes pouring in from many agencies as the "epidemic" continues to rage. In fact, Africans are dying from the same diseases and malnutrition that have always existed.

Isn't it amazing how much bigger and stronger Magic Johnson has gotten?

Hi trainbum You probably know lots more people with AIDS than you realize, its not the sort of thing people brag about. Still unless you hang out with druggies you are not likely to meet a lot of people with AIDS. The disease is not nearly as common in homosexuals lately as most people think. Gay men learned to deal with the epidemic a long time ago by using condoms for anal sex or not doing it at all. AIDS has lately become much more a disease of drug users. They pass the virus when they share needles. Drug users do not seem to care enough about their own health to take the precautions that would protect them........Aids is still a big concern , but it is rare for a man to get the virus unless he allows another man to fuck him in his ass or he shares needles to shoot drugs.....This is true in the United States and Europe, but the AIDS epidemic is going strong in Africa and some other areas of the world among hetrosexuals due to lack of education , health care and some cultural practices.

[TrashMan]

Trainbum
You are one huge dumb asshole my friend if you do not at least have safe sex that includes wrapping the dog for FS.
DATY, BBBJ in non safe mode is probably pretty low risk other than maybe herpes, but intercourse front or back door without is just stupid.
Bottom line...if she's got it ( clap STD ) then you got it.
I had gonorhea twice as a very young guy and back then a shot of penicillin in the ass and you were good to go. Today, it's a different matter with mutated strains and lots of other cute STD's
The reason I am writing this post is out of pure selfishness. I don't really give a rat's ass about whether you live or die or your dick turns black and falls off, but since I like to fuck women, I don't want your sloppy seconds if you're not safe, got it?

[JimmyDR]

Yea, I travel alot as well and don't seem to know anyone with thad Disease Either. Only needle shooters and gay backdoor men.
Maybe we all been lucky?

I hear with all the medicine around you have 15 years. So at 45 I go Wild, then I catch it. I will last until 60. Is that so bad? I have seen guys in my office die of heart attacks at age 52 and of cancer at 60.

[trainbum17]

well let's see if we can get a discussion going on THIS subject, guys and girls!
I live in a medium sized metro area in michigan (500,000), and i grew up in metro chicago. Having been in business, both upright and somewhat shady, for years, i have come to know a whole lot of people from many walks of life. All this verboseness is leading up to this one simple fact: out of the 50,000+/- people i have known throughout my 40+ years on this planet, i only know one person who has contracted aids. If you are to believe the government statistics, that number should be more like 500. Bottom line is, in my opinion, the government decided that they need to control our sexual behavior and they have learned from experience that laws won't do it. So, they try scare tactics.
You will probably call me a fool, but i seldom have safe sex, even with professionals. And i have regular check-ups from my doc, including STD screening. Frankly, I am more concerned about catching some virulant form of gonnorhea or syphliss than HIV.
It is my feeling that as long as you avoid anal, hetro or homo, and avoid needle using junkies, you are safe from the "modern plauge". The one person that i mentioned that i know has aids, incidently, is a total flame. I can guess where he got it.
pls reply, people...let the games begin!