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

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I second that.

I seconded it first.

Damn it, third again then.

yes, but this was 2 months ago.

June 22, 2008

Hundreds of people were incorrectly told they had tested positive for HIV at New York City STD clinics this winter.

Almost half the results given by the clinics were false positives, the Department of Health confirmed.

From November to April, 213 people tested positive after taking a rapid mouth-swab HIV test. A second test revealed they did not have the virus.

The city would not explain why, as false positives mounted, it continued to administer the tests.

The reason for the spike is under investigation by the DOH, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and test manufacturer OraSure Technologies. The DOH said it had stopped using OraSure's rapid swab tests.

DOH said anyone who received a positive result from the oral test was immediately given another test, this time using a finger stick to take blood.

"Nobody was misled or harmed," said Dr. Susan Blank, assistant DOH commissioner and director of the bureau of STD control.

The swab tests proved popular after they were introduced at city STD clinics in 2005. The number of people tested for HIV grew 24 percent that year.

what type of testing are they doing in Africa?

Have a business tie up with a South African company operating out of Durbin.

We lose at least 1 employee per month from what is claimed as Aids and as the cause of their unfortunate demise. Some die and during their employment and others just disappear and when they become visually sick.

Last time I was there we had a meeting about the problem and how it is affecting
our other staff and business in general.

It was generally concluded and as follows;
1. The male population are so risque regarding their sexual activities that the spread of the virus will remain unabated. They will copulate with anything and anyone and also the use of hard "needle injected" drugs is a real problem.
2. Surprisingly we are losing more woman then men and over the last year.
3. We screen people now (HIV and drug use) and provide some medical assistance (as part of their salary package) but have decided not to deny employment. With proper care these people can live reasonably normal lives.
4. Hold monthly meetings about the general health and welfare of our workers and try to get the unions involved as well. Discussions about proper and healthy diets not to mention a safe lifestyle take place.

Moreover there is an aids epidemic and where we have our business in Durbin South Africa and the problem is growing.

AIDS KILLS!

Intellectualize about that, GIT/CMN.

Originally Posted by pai nai ma

AIDS KILLS!

yes, but what is it?

there is an enormous body of scientific evidence out there that can't link it to HIV.

are we meant to just accept it?

More research.

More programs for those suffering.

More advocacy/programs encouraging for safe-sex.

Less uninteresting conspiracy chirping.

AIDS KILLS!

It really does.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

there is an enormous body of scientific evidence out there that can't link it to HIV.

Well, no. Thats simply not true. There is an enourmous body of literature out there that does link AIDS to HIV.

But - to put this into context, correct me if i am wrong, you also disbelieve the moon landings right?

And your position on evolution and the flat earth?

^ and where babies come from.

Originally Posted by pai nai ma

More advocacy/programs encouraging for safe-sex.

Clean, safe needles for drug addicts would go a long, long long way to reducing the overall burden. Guess how likely that is?

^ Good point. Forgive the omission and crummy grammar.

Originally Posted by pai nai ma

AIDS KILLS!

Intellectualize about that, GIT/CMN.

There is no doubt about that fact but I believe the OP's question/arguement is about how it is transmitted from person to person.

Thus far, ample research suggests through blood/body fluid contact.

Do you believe in the moon landing, loy toy?

Originally Posted by Gallowspole

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.

so what about the electron micrograph picture i posted?

University medical department a respected source?

Originally Posted by nidhogg

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

agreed, same tactics as creationists, invent argument, create 'facts' bend science to make it seem credible....

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

there is an enormous body of scientific evidence out there that can't link it to HIV.

no there isnt, this is same arguement that creationists use.... there is no debate in scientific circles, there is no doubt.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

there is no doubt

none at all.

very muddied waters.

just google AIDS facts or AIDS truth.
it's a mess of poop as far as my layman's eyes can tell.

We all have blind spots.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

very muddied waters. just google AIDS facts or AIDS truth. it's a mess of poop as far as my layman's eyes can tell.

that's what they do...

Originally Posted by pai nai ma

Thus far, ample research suggests through blood/body fluid contact.

Do you believe in the moon landing, loy toy?

What's that got to do with the thread point of discussion?.

The OP suggested there is no Heterosexual Pandemic and that the HIV virus is not or very unlikely transferred by way of normal vaginal sex.

Good points and medical references has been posted and to back up both sides of the debate.

Your trying to tell us that aids kills and I have agreed with you. Just read any newspaper and to confirm this.

Moon landing> conspiracy theories it is all just conjecture.

unlikely transferred by way of normal vaginal sex.

providing a condom is used .

Originally Posted by Mid

unlikely transferred by way of normal vaginal sex.

providing a condom is used .

Yes I will agree with you for the umpteenth time.

Always suit up with a new or unknown partner.

Just as a matter of interest Mid. Would you submit for an aids test and upon the request of a new girlfriend or potential sexual partner? Being a seaman and all.

Originally Posted by Mid

providing a condom is used .

very very unlikely whether used or not.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by Mid

providing a condom is used .

very very unlikely whether used or not.

But with potentially deadly consequences, whatever the likelihood.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

As I said earlier - HIV has been shown to fulfil the gold standard of virology : Koch's postulates.

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

(note: I try to always put quotes around—and italicize-- things I didn’t write so they are separate from what I myself write.)


“Koch's postulates are:

“1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but not in healthy organisms.
“2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
“3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
“4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.”
(above info on Koch’s postulates from Wikipedia)

You can see Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS which is taken from Science Magazine and explains in exquisite detail how none of Koch’s postulates have ever been satisfied by HIV. Following Duesberg’s arguments you can then read the rebuttals in Science Magazine to Duesberg in which they state that Koch’s postulates don’t apply to HIV (!) The virus hunters are always changing the goalposts to suit their failing theories!

And finding actual virus through the ‘viral load’ test? Why can’t the scientists find any actual virus in individuals who have “AIDS”? “Ah” they reply, “we have the ‘viral load’ test.”

But the so-called ‘viral load’ test detects and multiplies single genes, not virus, and most often only fragments of genes. Then a complicated mathematical algorithm is performed on the genetic fragments giving these virus hunters something they call ‘viral load.’ Actual virus cannot be found.

Kerry Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry for inventing PCR--Polymerase Chain Reaction--that has revolutionized genetic research (making possible the unraveling of the human genome, among other things). His PCR technique is central to the ‘viral load’ test. He is a member of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis and refutes those who claim that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS. He is less than happy that his Nobel prize-winning technique, PCR, is being used to claim that HIV is present when in fact none can be found.

Mullis has also issued a challenge to all AIDS researchers to provide one scientific paper which proves HIV causes AIDS. In science, there is usually a ‘prime’ paper that describes an experiment which shows the scientist’s theory to be ‘true’. From that original paper, other scientists can then test those ideas. There never was such a paper for HIV/AIDS. The idea that HIV causes AIDS was announced at a press conference by the guy (Gallo) who then went on to patent the “HIV test”. The New York Times and other media picked up this piece of PR and trumpeted it as ‘the truth’: “The virus that causes AIDS has been found!” Medical science took a great step backward during those times.

“If billions of HIV are present, why is PCR necessary to find them? And if PCR is the only way HIV can be detected, how is it possible for scientists to verify the results of PCR? The FDA has not approved PCR viral load for HIV screenings or for diagnostic purposes. The CDC acknowledges that the specificity and sensitivity of PCR are ‘unknown’ and that ‘PCR is not recommended and is not licensed for routine diagnostic purposes’. The viral load test manufacturers’ literature warns ‘the test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV’”. (quote from aliveandwell)

This is a “load” alright, as, in the words of one virologist, “a viral load of crap”.


Fortunately, not all scientists have let their rational minds go on extended vacation. There is a group of scientists---“The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis”-- who have demanded a rethinking of these issues.

Originally Posted by Mid

to be perdantic it's a test for HIV , not Aids ,

Since we are being pedantic, its, er, pedantic...