Thread: Top AIDS Leader Admits There's No Heterosexual Pandemic

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

the enormous body of evidence

= a few fruit loops trying to gain attention on the internet by posting pseudo-scientific bullshit which a certain number of retards lap up like cream.

[edit] Nucleic acid based tests (NAT)

Nucleic-acid-based tests amplify and detect a 142-base target sequence located in a highly conserved region of the HIV gag gene[citation needed]. Since 2001, donated blood in the United States has been screened with nucleic-acid-based tests, shortening the window period between infection and detectability of disease to about 12 days. Since these tests are relatively expensive, the blood is screened by first pooling some 10-20 samples and testing these together; if the pool tests positive, each sample is retested individually. A different version of this test is intended for use in conjunction with clinical presentation and other laboratory markers of disease progress for the management of HIV-1-infected patients.
In the RT-PCR test, viral RNA is extracted from the patient's plasma and is treated with reverse transcriptase (RT) to convert the viral RNA into cDNA. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) process is then applied, using two primers unique to the virus's genome. After PCR amplification is complete, the resulting DNA products are hybridized to specific oligonucleotides bound to the vessel wall, and are then made visible with a probe bound to an enzyme. The amount of virus in the sample can be quantified with sufficient accuracy to detect three-fold changes.
In the Quantiplex bDNA or branched DNA test, plasma is centrifugated to concentrate the virus, which is then opened to release its RNA. Special oligonucleotides are added which bind to viral RNA and to certain oligonucleotides bound to the wall of the vessel. In this way, viral RNA is fastened to the wall. Then new oligonucleotides are added which bind at several locations to this RNA; and other oligonucelotides which bind at several locations to those oligonucleotides. This is done to amplify the signal. Finally, oligonucleotides that bind to the last set of oligonucleotides and that are bound to an enzyme are added; the enzyme action causes a color reaction which allows quantification of the viral RNA in the original sample. Monitoring the effects of antiretroviral therapy by serial measurements of plasma HIV-1 RNA with this test has been validated for patients with viral loads greater than 25,000 copies per milliliter.[20]
Further information: Viral load testing

The above is taken from wikipedia, and seems to be a reasonable enough summary to use. Those with a greater interest can track down the relevant medical journals if they wish.

I wonder what this test is based on if nobody has ever found any evidence of the HIV virus? Far from there being no evidence of it, we actually have quite a complex understanding of it's structure, genome, and replication cycle. Am i supposed to believe that the entire scientific community who have been working on this over the years are some how all in on some sort of hoax together? There has been a lot of serious, rigorous, scientific research that has been conducted by many people over the years to elucidate the catalogue of information that we have.

Originally Posted by benbaaa

a few fruit loops trying to gain attention on the internet by posting pseudo-scientific bullshit which a certain number of retards lap up like cream.

we live in a more sophisticated age of communication nowadays.
i daresay I'd have believed in it if i was old enough in 1969.

plenty of evidence from the scientific community, including astronauts and NASA employees to suggest it was all bollux.

[quote=ChiangMai noon;712376]

Originally Posted by melvbot

the designer of the camera has said there is no way his camera was capable of such quality.

Yep - visibility on the moon can be pretty bad, especially on a cloudy day......

yup.

they look genuine to me.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

yup.

they look genuine to me.

Err, from the website that the pic's linked from:

"The producers of Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? are undoubtably intelligent people who had the opportunity to research their subject thoroughly before filming their documentary, yet they seemed to have completely missed many of the simple explanations for the questions they raise. It makes one wonder: Who are the real hoaxers in this story?"

Conspiracy theories are amazingly pervasive and resilient. Often debunked, never beaten.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

anybody that believes in the moon landings is patantly loopy. i mean that.

surely you're trolling...

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie

I wonder what this test is based on if nobody has ever found any evidence of the HIV virus?

yeah, here is a picture of it.

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/De...ges/CDChiv.jpg



that source suitable?

there is thousands more pictures of it...

Originally Posted by kingwilly

surely you're trolling...

err, no.

i didn't believe in no moon landing well before the internet.

here ya go, read it all about it...

AIDS denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AIDS denialism refers to the views of a loosely connected group of individuals and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). HIV/AIDS denialists prefer the terms "rethinker" or "dissident". Some denialist groups reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but argue that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS.
The causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS has been established and is the subject of scientific consensus.[1][2] Denialist arguments are considered to be the result of cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data,[3] with the potential to endanger public health by dissuading people from using proven treatments.[4][5][6][2][7][8] With the rejection of these arguments by the scientific community, AIDS denialist material is currently spread largely through the Internet.[8]



and this article cites 84 references, so do read to your hearts content.

^
the truth will out eventually Willy.

Wikepedia is good for finding out how long Eroll Flynn's todger was and whether or not he put it in men's bottoms, but come on guys don't reference it as the gospel when it comes to serious shit.

Originally Posted by Gallowspole

but come on guys don't reference it as the gospel when it comes to serious shit.

erm, 84 references from that first article.

wikipedia is a fine first source for the lay person.

Follow the links and reference the links if relevant but don't cut and paste Wikepedia itself. Someone could start a page there on the world being flat and some dumb fuks would believe it.

Originally Posted by benbaaa

^ Do you want me to order one for you too, Nooners?

Can I have one too preferably with Loy Toy on the front like Momos t'shirt on her lunatic thread? PM me your bank details.

^I will ask again. I do not have the prior knowledge or the time to research, so does anyone on the board have the knowledge on this subject to debunk the views put forward here, or on the 'Alive and Well' site?

Originally Posted by guyinthailand

AIDS isn’t even a ‘disease’. It is a ‘syndrome’. If you die of pneumonia tomorrow and your blood is ‘HIV (antibody) negative’, they will say you died of pneumonia. But if your blood tests positive—with an extremely unreliable test (supposedly for antibodies to HIV)—then they will say you died of “AIDS”. AIDS is actually 30 or so ‘old’ diseases--all with known medical causes and treatments--which have now been labeled “AIDS”.

To call the test the “HIV test” (Human Immunodeficiency Virus—HIV) is a lie because the test cannot and does not test for actual virus. All the test can show is if you have antibodies to something. I say ‘something’ because the test is notoriously unreliable and produces many false positives. (Besides, even if there were actual HIV present remember that many scientists and doctors feel it is a harmless retrovirus, it has never been proven to cause AIDS or even that it is sexually transmitted.)

If called anything, the test should be called the “HIV-antibody test”, since they can’t find actual virus (unlike in so many other viral diseases where they can find actual virus.) The antibodies are the ‘good soldiers’ of the immune system, and any doctor checking your blood today would find antibodies to all kinds of things you have had in the past but for which your body has already mounted a successful defense. The doctor would never say ‘look, you have antibodies to measles, and this means you’re going to die!’. He would say “looks like you had measles before and the soldiers (antibodies) are still there protecting you ”. Up until the age of AIDS the presence of antibodies had never been used to indicate you would get a disease!

And because different countries have different ways to interpret the test you can test ‘positive’ in one country, then fly to another country, and test ‘negative’ there. The tests can even vary from lab to lab, or even vary within the same lab on the same day or from day to day.
“As HIV test kit manufacturers acknowledge, "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood."

Clicking here Questioning the Test Related Articles: The Ultimate Question: Do I Have HIV? will give you a list of 66 things that you might have in your blood that can and do cause the so-called “HIV test” to show ‘positive’ when it is in reality negative. Things like having had hepatitis; or alcohol/liver disease; or vaccinations for tetanus or hepatitis; or worms (parasites).

guy,

Any chance that you might actually take a break from the cut 'n pasting to answer some of the direct queries and questions that have previously been raised?

Or is your goal simply to ramble on until distraction, essentially repeating yourself and the same dubious claims (as is the want of so many conspiracy theorists)?

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^I will ask again. I do not have the prior knowledge or the time to research, so does anyone on the board have the knowledge on this subject to debunk the views put forward here, or on the 'Alive and Well' site?

I don't have the scientific knowledge but I do know opinion posed as fact, logical fallacy and selective reasoning when I see it. Guy's posts have been replete with all.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^I will ask again. I do not have the prior knowledge or the time to research, so does anyone on the board have the knowledge on this subject to debunk the views put forward here, or on the 'Alive and Well' site?

Nor do I have the knowledge.
I also believe that the medical profession have no accurate idea either.
For fcuks sake they still don't have a real understanding about how to cure the common cold let alone many forms of cancer. (or maybe it is a farce and a load of lies we are being told)

It is of my opinion and as follows;

1. We will see no more world wars (same as 1 and 2) only a nuclear holocaust if it ever happens.
2. Without these wars we have no affective means of culling the world population. (solution) >
3. Create diseases that mainly affect the poorer third world nations. If that does not work efficiently create ethnic wars as well.
4. Kill off as many hapless people that they can.
5. Create new diseases such as Bird Flu etc and to further provide culling of certain populations.

Or may it be a fact that all known diseases and viruses can be cured but the world cannot afford to do so.

With people now living longer already our planet does not have the natural resources and to sustain an aging and expanding global population.

Aids, HIV (or whatever) came out of the blue in the early 80's and I wonder if the virus had not already been around for centuries, where did it come from and who put it out there.

Cures for these terminal diseases. Never in my opinion. Our planet cannot afford it.

^^
nevertheless, I think that false positive article is very interesting and shouldn't be dismissed just because it was guy that posted the link.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

^^
nevertheless, I think that false positive article is very interesting and shouldn't be dismissed just because it was guy that posted the link.

Fair enough but I haven't dismissed it. Nor am I going to bother addressing it to be honest; I already raised some direct questions, queries, and issues in relation to his last post to absolutely no avail.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^I will ask again. I do not have the prior knowledge or the time to research, so does anyone on the board have the knowledge on this subject to debunk the views put forward here, or on the 'Alive and Well' site?

the knowledge? yes. the time, energy and inclination to debate endlessly with a "flat earther"? - no.

As I said earlier - HIV has been shown to fulfil the gold standard of virology : Koch's postulates. That was noted earlier by me - and ignored.

The direct detection of HIV has been shown -again ignored. HIV patients are now directly screened for viral load -not only antibodies.

The comment that only HIv uses antibdies diagnostically is ludicrous - several diseases - including dengue are diagnosed by the presence of antibodies.

The efficacy of antivirals has been clearly demonstrated - life expectancy for HIV patients in first world countries has extended dramatically, particularly with the use of protease inhibitors. - note not in third world countries (such as Thailand) where mainstay treatment is third world knock off copies which are associated with HIGH levels of drug resiastance induction.

But the point here is that "guyinthailand" is a classic "virusmyth-er". Nothing will sway his opinion or change his mind. He will continue to post stuff that is inaccurate, severely outdated and pure and simply wrong and continue to ignore stuff that is posted that corrects his opinions.

The pure and simple fact behind much of the HIV controversy is that we are shit at dealing with viral diseases - pretty much any viral disease. The only successes in viral diseases are really with immunization (smallpox, yellow fever, polio). If - for whatever reason - the simple vaccination strategy does not work - there is little to turn to. Antiviral drugs? How many are there? very, very, very few -apart from acyclovir for herpes and - well - the anti HIV drugs. There are some in the pipeline, and some for very specific diseases on a small scale - but a broad spectrum antiviral like the broad spectrum antibiotics - forget it.

It is now over 200 YEARS since Jenner pioneered vaccinations - and, with viral diseases we are technically not much further ahead than that. Shocking right? But NOT evidence of a mass cover up, not evidence of a grand conspiracy - just evidence that we, as a race are not quite as smart as we like to think we are.

Have mistakes been made in the handling of HIV? yup. Lots and lots and lots. And there is a fair revolution going on to sort out the mistakes. yes - we know know that HIV is difficulat to catch in heterosexual vaginal intercourse - in the absence of other factors (cuts, scrapes, lesions, other STDs) - f those exist - all bets are off. We know drug addicts are particualrly at risk - but if people think that drug addicts don't fuck whores - even up the bum - then people are sadly mistaken.

the facts that we are bad at dealing with viral diseases, and that mistakes were made in dealing with the HIV epidemic (much easier to convince governments to spend money on a disease that may kill cute young ladies or mothers than raddled out drug users) does NOT mitigate the facts that HIV is present - it is in the world and it DOES kill.

BUT - you can be sure guy in Thailand did not read this far - and so its preaching to the coverted - so what is the point?

^ Good post. Thanks nidhogg.

I second that.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I second that.

I seconded it first.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

^^
nevertheless, I think that false positive article is very interesting and shouldn't be dismissed just because it was guy that posted the link.

Look at the dates of the articles cited. Nothing after 1995 (one paper), a couple of 1994, and a few 1993's. Most of the rest are before 1990 - nearly 20 years ago!

Its a common tactic of the virus mythers - the field moves on, and they stay stuck in work done ten to 20 years ago. Eliza's are a quick, rapid, bulk screen with acknowledged problems. But screening and testing has moved forward a long, long long way in the last 20 years.