PDA

View Full Version : Anyone have time for a rebuttal?



kstokely2
August 20th, 2009, 11:32 PM
Hi Gang,

I'll try to make this short. I have a cousin named Todd who lives in another state. I don't really know him because he was much younger than me growing up. I am very close with his mother (my aunt) though.
Todd sent out an e-mail to a large number of my family members earlier this week, slamming me for my HIV dissidence and u-tube presence.

Todd is 30ish, gay, and appears to be extremely arrogant and angry.
His letter (to the family) starts off fairly mild, but by the end of our exchange, not only would he basically laugh at my memorial and not feel sorry for me, but in so many words has threatened me to "back down from my crusade" and "he will not back down till I back off".
He is very angry (now) about the u-tube interview I did after the House of Numbers screening.
As you will notice, he has an ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING.

My point in posting this is:
He has systematically gone through and point by point given an "HIV=AIDS orthodoxy answer" to EVERYTHING. If there is any truth to what he has claimed and provided as evidence, I would like to know about it. I have read much to the contrary, but don't have the time or energy to respond to him any longer. Nor should I.
I have become very public, and stick my neck out there every day on behalf of HIV dissidence.

Although the following correspondence is a little long, anyone with some time that is interested in reading through it and providing some rebuttal, would be greatly appreciated.
I know most of you guys out there have WAY more knowledge than I, and love a good game of rebuttal.
I will forward to him (and the rest of the family) any responses provided.

My cousin "B" actually forwarded me his first letter that he sent out. You will see her posts in there as well.
All of Todd's writings are highlighted in RED.

Thanks so much for any assistance,
Karri

Go here to read the correspondence:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dn3gw8t_0d59vk4d2

SadunKal
August 21st, 2009, 12:25 AM
I didn't yet properly read it but it all sounds very tiresome at the first glance, involving the family and all that... So good luck. Just ask Todd if he knows what a "Perth Group" is. I'd like to see him write detailed responds to their arguments (http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Perth_Group), maybe he's the one the orthodoxy needed all these years. But his IQ of well-over-170 is useless if he isn't familiar with all the information and if he doesn't understand the scientific method. His arrogant certainty indicates that he's not aware of the importance of doubt and uncertainty (http://www.collectedthoughts.com/quote.aspx?id=11372). His anger indicates that he cannot approach the issue with a clear, open, rational mind. It's a shame. The healthiest thing you can do is to ignore him I guess, but according to his last comments he has the potential of becoming much more disturbing, fueled by his emotion-based closed-mindedness.

lightanddarkbalance
August 21st, 2009, 12:53 AM
Let Barking Dogs Bark -

This person is stupid in the extreme. The worst type of stupidy is the type where people who have linear intelligence and apply it in totally wrong ways. They are arrogant, narcissitic, emotional dead and self absorbed. They demonstrate the vast difference between knowledge and wisdon. Knowing things is no differnent from a computer that talks. Wisdom is knowing what information applies and when and how and what doesn't.

I would put up some quotes by Aids realists such as Karry Mullis and a few others to show the contrast between an automaton parroting information like this imbecile and the ideas of people who are capable of critical right thinking.

A line which never fails to shut up medical fundamentalists is = The number of cures coming out of conventional medicine for chronic diseases is a whooping breaktaking ZERO. What can be a better example of Junk Science.

kstokely2
August 21st, 2009, 01:17 AM
Yes, it is very tiresome, and family issues can become quite disgusting.
I also agree with letting the barking dogs bark........as we won't become too involved with such an arrogant SOB.

And yes, Sadun, I find his last comments quite disturbing.

Although,my main question was:
Does anyone believe any of his information accurate?
Have his points been disproven?
Do any of the papers he cites as evidence truly support the HIV causation of AIDS?

G Man
August 21st, 2009, 01:20 AM
I don't have a rebuttal, but all I have to say is thank you for your courage and standing up for what you believe in. OH, I do have one rebuttal: Look who's still alive and well 17 years later! And, as you know it's not just because you're "lucky". We should add up all the 'lucky' ones there are some time, that might shut him up.....trouble is, a study like that would never get funded.

DaninSeattle
August 21st, 2009, 01:26 AM
Karri,

my own experiences in trying to get gay guys to question AIDS have mostly ended up in them vilifying me. I guess I'm saying that engaging your cousin on this issue may be pointless. Gay men have a LOT invested in the HIV/AIDS belief system. It's truly sick though, as we (gay guys) give over our power to the drug companies, doctors, scientists, the FDA, CDC, NIH and WHO without thinking about it at all. It's REALLY a social and psychological issue for gay men, and trying to get some guys to even begin to question it may make them get angry or worse.

Maybe, just maybe, you could suggest that he talk to somebody like Mark Conlan or another gay guy that's been in this thing for a long time.

DaninSeattle
August 21st, 2009, 01:28 AM
Yes, it is very tiresome, and family issues can become quite disgusting.
I also agree with letting the barking dogs bark........as we won't become too involved with such an arrogant SOB.

And yes, Sadun, I find his last comments quite disturbing.

Although,my main question was:
Does anyone believe any of his information accurate?
Have his points been disproven?
Do any of the papers he cites as evidence truly support the HIV causation of AIDS?

Karri,

what do you think?

kstokely2
August 21st, 2009, 01:43 AM
Dan,

I do not believe that HIV has been proven to be the cause of AIDS.
I have personally not seen or read any evidence for it's actual existence.
Over the past 2+ yrs, I've read much to the contrary of what he is stating as fact.
The problem is, the main problem with all of this, is:
both sides can't be right.

I'm not trying to persuade Todd at all. I could really give a rat's ass what he believes. And he can go right on and keep burying his dead. Dead from the drugs. Dead from liver failure. Dead from cancer.
I know what I believe.

Guess it's always rather shocking to encounter such arrogance and disturbing comments.
I seem to be attracting some of that lately.

resistanceisfruitful
August 21st, 2009, 01:51 AM
Karri,

I haven't even read the correspondence yet, and may not until tomorrow. I just wanted to reach out to you and support you.

I'm concerned about what will happen as I "come out" more publicly as a dissident as well. The response from long-time gay friends on facebook so far has been.... deafening. That feels ominous, given my background and history of activism in the gay and the "AIDS" communities.

All of us who are taking positions on the front lines must be sure to take care of ourselves and our own health needs first. We know what stress and conflict can do to our physical, mental and spiritual health. We've seen others fall because they didn't see it hit them until it was too late.

Family is important, and instead of unconditional support from some of yours, you are being attacked. Please take extra care to avoid any harmful backlash, in a karmic sort of way.

Be sure to breath and meditate. Eat well. Take long walks. I know these things are important, because I have friends and family who remind me of them all the time.

Big hug!

kstokely2
August 21st, 2009, 01:59 AM
Thank you RIF!
That's always a good reminder. And yes, I do all of those things.
Plus, I am very blessed the my immediate family, my husband and children, are all behind, wait, beside me 100%!
The rest of them, I hate to have to admit, but I don't really care about. Hardly any of them have ever acknowledged my presence in this whole thing.

DaninSeattle
August 21st, 2009, 02:10 AM
Karri,

yes, you're putting yourself out there, and there's going to be significant responses to that.

But here's how it works...

Your cousin is correct. So is Gallo, Wainberg, Moore and everybody else who sites the scientific literature. HIV causes AIDS.

What I'm saying is that your cousin (or anybody) can and will uncritically site the scientific literature and rightly say that HIV causes AIDS.

What many of us ("dissidents") are doing is daring to critically examine the scientific literature as well as just using some logic and letting go of the hysteria that still grips many of the populace on this issue. Technically speaking, we're wrong.

So, Todd can site as many papers as he likes, and he will be correct in his assertion that HIV causes AIDS. But what is the truth? Does it lie in the thousands upon thousands of papers in the medical literature? If you're not into questioning those who live in ivory towers and the work they do...if you don't have the fortitude to actually wonder if these people could be incredibly wrong, then you will support them, perhaps passionately. It's a worldview here we're talking about. It's about those who are in positions of authority and the "experts" who feel they have the power to tell us what to think and how to think it. And it's about those who don't feel they should be allowed to question what goes on in the hallowed halls of science.

You have a broader view of life and health than the average person. You think for yourself. That in itself can be very threatening to other people. In my opinion, what's happening between you and your cousin has nothing to do with science and medicine and everything to do with psychology and sociology.

Speaking as somebody who's spent thousands of hours online debating scientists and pharma goons, we can debate until the cows come home. 'They' site the literature. 'We' ask questions and try to get logic into the mix. They "win" because they have the power right now. But, if gay men were to drop this thing today - it doesn't matter how much "science" is backing it - the whole damned thing would fall apart.

DaninSeattle
August 21st, 2009, 02:14 AM
All of us who are taking positions on the front lines must be sure to take care of ourselves and our own health needs first. We know what stress and conflict can do to our physical, mental and spiritual health. We've seen others fall because they didn't see it hit them until it was too late.

Family is important, and instead of unconditional support from some of yours, you are being attacked. Please take extra care to avoid any harmful backlash, in a karmic sort of way.

Be sure to breath and meditate. Eat well. Take long walks. I know these things are important, because I have friends and family who remind me of them all the time.



Good advice!

resistanceisfruitful
August 21st, 2009, 02:40 AM
Todd wrote: "Just because you're a lucky rare one doesn't mean everyone is; much the contrary."

I've heard that before too, and from a doctor no less.

Of course it's rare to see people surviving a "poz" diagnosis by focusing on health, not just medications because so few of them are ever given the information they need to make such an informed decision.

Todd's sick and dying gay friends don't even try to find out if they might be "lucky" too.

Under different circumstances I can so see myself in Todd's place. He's passionate, and he's very afraid.

Karri, I think you should feel proud that your life has provoked this reaction. You have a powerful message that is hitting home to some people. It won't surprise me to hear a very different story about Todd in the future. He's not arguing with you... he's arguing with himself.

I think you did the right thing by letting him go and letting him be.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 21st, 2009, 02:51 AM
One thing I would say is that if he believes the establishment in the USA, he must trust the numbers. Ask him to find the statistics for the number of newly infected each year, from the "orthodox's" own claims. Then, point out that the establishment claims that most who are "HIV positive" either don't know or don't care. Then point out to him that according to the "HIV/AIDS" notion, the number of deaths due to "HIV/AIDS" are simply way too few.

Other points:

What is the "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis, exactly? If he has a 170 IQ, shouldn't he know that in science you must start with a hypothesis which can be invalidated with experimental data? Without one, anyone can claim anything, and just "move the goalposts" whenever inconsistencies occur.

He used the word "proven," but science is never proven, and instead operates on the level of hypotheses and theories, which can be disproven by on-point experiments.

Some of the early "AIDS cases," as documented in the "When AIDS Began" book, are clearly a different condition than what is called "AIDS" today, and even the doctors involved pointed out that the drugs they were prescribing could be causing the PCP. The two main characteristics of early "AIDS cases" were PCP and KS. Now, there is hardly any KS, people don't die nearly as quickly (the "miracle drugs" make no difference here), and the PCP is not verified but just assumed based upon several pieces of "indirect evidence."

The pinnacle of "HIV/AIDS" deaths (relative to the number of those said to be infected with "HIV") occurred during the high-doze AZT period, and then there was a significant drop. If this is a viral disease with no cure and most don't know/don't care that they are "positive," there should be a huge number of deaths each year in the USA, probably around 200,000 or more (last year, and for more than a decade into the past). Thus, the only reasonable explanation involves what the doctors initially said about PCP being caused by their prescriptions and the KS being caused by "recreational" drugs and/or a virus other than "HIV," though I would add other factors, such as new dietary trends. After that, AZT did most of the killing, then the deaths tapered off with the lower-dose AZT prescriptions.

Claims about who is at most risk today, in the USA and elsewhere (especially Africa) again make no sense if this is a viral disease that does not discriminate and is largely caused by sexual contact. The low rate of "AIDS deaths" in Germany makes this so obvious as to be laughable. Ask him if he knows about the sexual mores in Germany these days.

The impossibility of any proposed mechanism. That is, a virus can kill quickly, as was thought in the early days of "HIV/AIDS" (or "GRID"), but if the claim is that it will reactivate and kill many years later (and most "HIV experts" seem to believe this, based upon the reports I've read recently), even though it did not kill initially, is ridiculous. If this were the case, then whatever caused the reactivation would be the cause, not "HIV." This is just basic logic. Also, if "HIV" is so fragile when outside the body that one does not have to worry about touching knobs or countertops, then how did the hemophiliacs get infected via Factor 8 ?

The findings of EM studies, which were mostly cellular "junk," which supports a cellular-level stress explanation and not a viral one. The few particles that were said to possibly be "HIV" did not conform to textbook definitions of what it should look like, and even if they did, would only support the notion that a "retroviral" particle was present, not that it was "HIV nor that it was dangerous (and in fact could be the effect, not the cause, of cellular-level stress).

The fact that there have been no properly controlled experiments when tissue, blood, genetic material, etc. have been used to look for "HIV" or supposed parts of it. Nor have experiments been done that would clearly demonstrate that "HIV" is just a lab artifact, made possible by the lack of proper controls. One experiment I proposed (and would pay for myself if it turned out I was wrong) was to obtain samples from "HIV negative" people and have their blood tested for "HIV viral load," both before and after doing various strenuous activities (or while enduring a bout of a "chronic disease" or an acute case of the flu). It would be quick, simple, and cheap, and it would provide strong evidence one way or the other. There are around 10,000 "HIV/AIDS" studies each year, one "HIV expert" said recently, and of course billions of dollars are being spent, so ask this person why several thousand dollars can't be spent doing an on-point experiment that would discredit "dissidents" if they were wrong (and wouldn't cost them anything if they took me up on my offer).

And does he know that "HIV" was not sought initially, but instead markers of a "retrovirus" that are not unique to "retroviruses" were claimed to be sufficient, and even with this "standard," many "AIDS patients" did not "test positive?"

UPDATE: This was in response to another post (I made some minor changes), but is another point against "HIV/AIDS" (whatever it is said to be at any given time and place):

The local paper had a story a few years back, when there was a claim about a "super strain" in NYC. Some "expert" said that with the drugs you could live around a decade and without you would live around 7 or 8 years (don't remember it more specifically), which contradicts the early "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis, if it was ever stated as such, along with the actual clinical records! Of course, that would mean that people who came to SF or NYC around 1980 had to get "infected" back in Iowa, Montana, Alaska or wherever they originally came from. So where are the people who died of "HIV/AIDS" in those states (which would've presumably happened around 1980 if not earlier), that is, the people who infected the early "AIDS" patients who died in the 1980s in SF and NYC?

G Man
August 21st, 2009, 06:04 AM
Hans, I think you just won the prize for the best rebuttal!

Alain
August 21st, 2009, 07:27 AM
Some answers to the poor little Todd (who would need to make his IQ decrease to 120. He would then think slower and thus be able to think twice about what he is studying). With his kind or arrogance, I would say that Todd is between 20 and 25 years.

When it comes to the core of the problem, he doesn't give any references :

- Right. Which is why hundreds of scientists have gone back and re-done the original tests in class-10 or better clean room environments just to be sure. And they reproduced the results over and over again.

So Todd, give us the references on this essential point.

In fact, he is mixing up the work on infectious clones of HIV, and HIV isolation. There are only two papers about HIV isolation, the one from 1983 and the one from 1997. The other ones are just works on infectious clones of HIV.

On the 1983's paper, they didn't make any purification. And on the 1997's paper, they did, but they found nearly the same things in the viral culture than in the control culture (thus showing, that what they had in the viral culture was only cells proteins).

That said, i like the "class-10 environment". You feel he wants to impress people reading his message. He must hope a reaction like : "Wow ! a class 10 environment !!! My god ! There must be ultra-top class scientists working there ! It must be ultra high-tech biology !".

- Right, they are capable of giving a positive result to many viruses in the Retroviridae family; however, most of those are fairly rare to begin with.

Are you aware that there's more tests used than the on-the-spot "test kits"?

There's a reason doctors usually refer to them as screening mechanisms. If those return a positive result, blood is sent to a lab capable of separating the key RNA from the ribosome body, and identifying exact base amino sequences. Those tests have an error rate of less than one in two hundred thousand, and a viral load accuracy of as small as +/- 20 copies per mL. (A whole lot of advances in virology have happened quietly in the past 10-15 years which are only now getting public attention.)

Never heard of that. It seems he is confusing viral load and testing for HIV.

Firstly, designers of the viral load test say themselves that it can't be used as a hiv test.

And, secondly, what does happen when someone has an undetectable viral load but has antibodies to the hiv ? Is he considered negative ? No. The antibody test prevails upon the pcr test.

Thus, if the antibody tests reacts to so many other proteins, it is a problem. Because this is the only test used to say if you are hiv positive or not.

And as the pcr isn't used to confirm hiv infection, you can't trifle with this problem of cross-reaction of antibody tests and say "don't mind, antibody tests are bullshit, but there is the pcr after that".

And if he wants to claim that PCR can detect hiv, he has first to prove that hiv exists. Then he has to prove that the sequence detected is a sequence coming from hiv and only from hiv.

-Right, they are capable of giving a positive result to many viruses in the Retroviridae family; however, most of those are fairly rare to begin with.

It seems he has not read this paper (http://www.sidasante.com/themes/tests/whose_antibodies_are_they_anyway.htm). It has very little to do with retroviridae viruses, but more with leprosy, tuberculosis, flu, being pregnant, vaccination, organ transplantation, malaria, herpes, etc etc...

And the problem is not that it reacts when people are in those conditions specifically, but that it indicates that is reacts with too many other things to be considered reliable. If it reacts in all those situations, to what others things can it react ?

StarZ
August 21st, 2009, 11:21 AM
I am soo sorry Kerri!

I will read everyones posts later but I just have to say half way down your first post of this thread. I am so sorry.

whereistheproof
August 21st, 2009, 04:26 PM
Not much you can do with some one as ignorant as Todd.
You gave him the argument and info. He clearly is not interested in that.

Let him be. Its his choice.

T.rex
August 21st, 2009, 05:25 PM
Karri, longwinded or not, that guy actually says very little, in terms of corroboratable facts.

He's basically saying he disagrees with you. Thats his right. I don't really see where he's making a good case though. All his 'ammo' is playing off of the emotional, rather than anything medical/scientific.

People like him LOVE to say that dissidents encourage young people to have unsafe sex. Thats ridiculous! Sex without condoms can lead to pregnancy, herpes, whatever... Its common sense, if you want to avoid stuff like that, use a condom. To imply that we need to cling to HIV=AIDS in order to acknowledge the benefit of a condom, is just silly, and he's trying to attack you on an emotional level there.

One point where he attempts to say a fact:
"There are documented cases of people staying above immuno-compromised level without medication for as long as 30 years. However, the proportion of long-lived (>20 years) HIV-positive people who have not succumbed to AIDS is less than one percent. The other 99%, eventually, did succumb to AIDS. "
I'd love to see him try and cite that stat. Regardless, its referring to people who are on meds. I don't doubt that 99% of people on the meds eventually died of AIDS-like illness. But even the most orthodox medical practicioners admit that they have no data on treatment-naive people over a long period of time. In their eyes, it would be 'unethical' to deny people meds, and thus such a study is impossible. But, you Karri, are living proof... so are a lot of other people on this board.

Don't let this guy get you down. He can live in fear, but it doesn't need to apply to you. His hate has no effect on your life.

kstokely2
August 21st, 2009, 05:49 PM
To Hans, Alain, T Rex, and all the rest,

I am sorry that any of you have had to waste your very precious time reading this incredibly long-winded drivel, and yet, I can see that many of you did.

For that, and all of your well thought out comments, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
It is difficult to be attacked, especially from within, and emotions are running high.
You have all given wonderful, wise advice and logical rebuttal, and it is not taken lightly.

I know that it can, at times, be difficult in this little dissident world we have chosen. We all at times feel very alone and unsupported, each one of us living in our own little towns, in our own little homes, just trying to not only survive, but thrive.
It is times like these that I remember, we are all in this one big pot together, joined by the Internet world. Each one of us is just a key stroke away.
I thank you all for your continued support and encouragement, and....
I will not go quietly!

Karri

whereistheproof
August 21st, 2009, 06:05 PM
Neither will I - ever!
i'd rather die fighting!

SadunKal
August 21st, 2009, 06:16 PM
Where are you two going? You're not going anywhere! Calm down... :) I mean not too much, but still...

whereistheproof
August 21st, 2009, 06:46 PM
Well looks like we are going to a noisy place to fight ;) care to join us?

SadunKal
August 21st, 2009, 10:27 PM
I couldn't figure out how to respond to that. If I answer you then you'll probably feel like you have to answer me too. That exchange of little significance will go on like that and as it gets longer and longer surely we'll be eternally trapped in this thread and die horribly. So I'm afraid I refuse to reply. I'm sure you'll understand.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 21st, 2009, 11:07 PM
Alain:

Which of the 1997 papers actually mentioned that proper controls were used?

Thanks.

UPDATE: Is this what you were referring to: QUOTE: The minimum absolutely necessary but not sufficient condition to claim that what are called “HIV-1 particles” are a retrovirus and not cellular microvesicles is to show that the sucrose density fractions obtained from the “infected” cells contain proteins which are not present in the same fractions obtained from non-infected cells that is in the “mock virus”. However, the researchers from the USA have shown this is not the case. UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.theperthgroup.com/OTHER/nihantibodiesshort.html

kstokely2
August 21st, 2009, 11:48 PM
Sadun,

What do you mean by this:
Where are you two going? You're not going anywhere! Calm down... I mean not too much, but still...
What are you talking about... "going"? And why are you telling him to "calm down"? I didn't realize he, or anyone else, was "riled up".

And you are certainly not required to be...
"eternally trapped in this thread and die horribly.
This thread is not very long, and you don't have to participate.

I've been very thankful for the excellent thoughts and insights on this matter.
It obviously doesn't mean anything to you, nor should it, it's not your battle. But why then are you back here making such unusual comments.

I must be honest, I really am beginning to wonder about you. You don't ever really say too much about anything, but your posts, here and elsewhere, are
always borderline aggressive and very engaging.

Alain
August 21st, 2009, 11:48 PM
HansSelyeWasCorrerct,

This is the Bess and al paper from Virology.

And I say the same thing than in your quote.

SadunKal
August 22nd, 2009, 12:03 AM
Sadun,

What do you mean by this:
Where are you two going? You're not going anywhere! Calm down... I mean not too much, but still...
What are you talking about... "going"? And why are you telling him to "calm down"? I didn't realize he, or anyone else, was "riled up".

And you are certainly not required to be...
"eternally trapped in this thread and die horribly.
This thread is not very long, and you don't have to participate.

I've been very thankful for the excellent thoughts and insights on this matter.
It obviously doesn't mean anything to you, nor should it, it's not your battle. But why then are you back here making such unusual comments.

I must be honest, I really am beginning to wonder about you. You don't ever really say too much about anything, but your posts, here and elsewhere, are
always borderline aggressive and very engaging.

It was just a little joke Karri... Sorry if that wasn't clear. When you said "I will not go quietly!" this implied that you were going to go loudly to somewhere... I don't know where that somewhere is but I'd prefer if you people would stick around instead of going. So I denied that you were going anywhere, and asked you to calm down and stop believing that you're going anywhere.

The second one in response to whereistheproof was a humorous attempt (I think) to avoid taking part in an exchange triggered by my first humorous post (I think). I thought that if we continue the joke it would completely cease to be interesting, so I decided to... deform it in a way, which I thought could be interesting.

Sorry again. But it's actually nothing aggressive at all. I do test the boundaries every now and then though... I'm interested in modifying them a little. I think people should be able to laugh at certain things more often for example, which requires freedom from fear and things like that, but it's not relevant to this thread.

kstokely2
August 22nd, 2009, 12:05 AM
Can someone please define what an "infectious HIV clone" is?

DaninSeattle
August 22nd, 2009, 12:21 AM
Karri,

it's just what it sounds like.

G Man
August 22nd, 2009, 12:34 AM
Karri,

I have a little taste of what you must be feeling right now. I just lost one of my best friends over this. He claims because I believe what I do that I'm disrespecting everyone who's ever died of AIDS, and also disrespecting all the doctors and researchers who have 'worked so hard on this disease' over the years. He says it's fine that I have 'my little website' and that I listen to people who tell me 'what I want to hear', and it's fine that I'm 'one of the lucky ones who doesn't need ARV's', but that I'm wrong and I should not discuss it with anyone. Frankly, I was disrespected by his comments. You're right, gay guys are the worst when it comes to this topic. They don't want to hear that lifestyle has anything at all to do with it. Sad, very sad. He was a good friend too, I'll miss him.

kstokely2
August 22nd, 2009, 12:37 AM
Dan,

Please pardon my ignorance but how do you make a "clone" of HIV if you can't isolate it?

Thanks

kstokely2
August 22nd, 2009, 12:45 AM
I'm so very sorry GMan. Seems like we've all got a story like that to tell.
This thing is so fiercely guarded and defended, it's a 'religion' to everyone in the HIV/AIDS industry.

I find it, personally, to be incredibly disrespecting to me. It is my choice to do what I have done, based on all the evidence provided, most of which I just don't find compelling enough to believe that HIV attacks and kills cells, and causes AIDS.
I am much healthier now than when I took the drugs. Why must people HATE me for this? They would never dream of speaking this way to a cancer survivor. For they are hailed as heros.
Not with HIV, they want to see you take on 'victim status', be ill, die of "AIDS", and then, only then, are you hailed a hero.

DaninSeattle
August 22nd, 2009, 12:48 AM
Dan,

Please pardon my ignorance but how do you make a "clone" of HIV if you can't isolate it?

Thanks


I posted a link on that contentious thread that's no longer here anymore...it was a list of what get's called "HIV" in the lab. Reading through that list, anybody with half a brain (I'm not talking about you) should realize that none of the things on the list is the same as the other. It's junk science. HIV/AIDS is junk science.

Arguing junk science is pointless. And it only took me a few thousand hours online to figure that out.:)

I admire that you put yourself out there to promote 'rethinking'. But when you asked earlier 'which side is right?', I felt concern.

If you're not ready to become a molecular biologist, then I would refrain from going down the rabbit hole in HIV/AIDS scientific minutiae. You'll find that you can't win because the 'other side' owns the language!

The best most of us can do is to simply try and get others to question this thing. Question it on racist and homophobic grounds. Question it on big, thick-headed logic (like why is it a mostly heterosexual phenomenon in Africa and still the big 'gay disease' in the west?).

G Man
August 22nd, 2009, 12:50 AM
It really is amazing. You put my friend's roommate next to me, and I would bet you everything I own that anyone would say I am healthier. And he got 'diagnosed' after me. Not saying there's any real proof in that, but you get the idea. I'm sick and tired of that 'victim status'. I refuse to be a victim of this system, even if it means losing some friends.

kstokely2
August 22nd, 2009, 01:08 AM
Dan,

I would like to still see that link. (wonder where it went)

I admire that you put yourself out there to promote 'rethinking'. But when you asked earlier 'which side is right?', I felt concern.

If you're not ready to become a molecular biologist, then I would refrain from going down the rabbit hole in HIV/AIDS scientific minutiae. You'll find that you can't win because the 'other side' owns the language!

Please don't feel too much concern for that statement. I firmly believe what I know to be true. I would not have quit the drugs after 11 yrs if I wasn't sure of my beliefs.
It was more of a rhetorical question directed to the argument with Todd.

And no, I have no intentions of becoming a molecular biologist ;) and I do understand that they "own the language".
I'm actually not in this fight to debate points. That is not my strength.
I am here to tell my story. That's it.
I know what I've read and studied and believe, and it's all neatly tucked away up there in my little pea brain.

The thing is, I have two teenagers that I stay very busy with, a house, 3 dogs, and a husband. I don't have the time, the smarts, or the desire to argue with these idiots.
I'm just here to tell my story.
No one can challenge that.

DaninSeattle
August 22nd, 2009, 01:20 AM
Here's the link

Which of These is HIV? (http://reducetheburden.org/?p=1702)

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 22nd, 2009, 02:31 AM
Alain:

I assume it is this study:

1997: Bess J W; Gorelick R J; Bosche W J; Henderson L E; Arthur L O
Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations.
Virology 1997;230(1):134-44.

The problem is that only the abstract is available online for free. The complete study costs more than $30. Can anyone post an excerpt from this paper which speaks to the use of a proper control?

And to all:

One thing I've found is that there is a huge difference between those with high IQs and those who have been trained as scholars. Scholars are always interested in seeing things from another perspective and keep an open mind. They are always on the lookout for intellectual novelty, whether "right" or "wrong." There is always something of value to be gleaned by studying the "fringes" of society. For example, once in while I'll watch a TV show about "UFOs," not being concerned with who is "right" or "wrong," but often just to see how they are evaluating the evidence they present to the viewer. One piece of evidence was quite funny (at least to me). First, these "true believers" talked about possible craft citings, then go on to discuss a Mayan pendant that looks like a space shuttle. They then created a larger version that was lightweight, to see if it was aerodynamic, and found that it was. This was presented as excellent evidence for ancient UFOs. The problem? The citings were of craft that did not look like the pendant, and it's certainly possible that if there was a larger version of this pendant used as a glider, it could've been used in religious rituals. Priests could've tossed it off the top of the temples. This could've represented just about anything to them, such as the flight of spirits or souls, but the point is that their interpretation was seriously flawed, and that there is an alternative explanation that is much less exotic and does not require anything particularly unique (and certainly nothing extraterrestrial). Overall, I found their treatment of the evidence they chose to investigate and discuss to be laughable at times.

Alain
August 22nd, 2009, 06:08 AM
@kstokely2

An infectious hiv clone is of course not a hiv clone. It's just another of their bullshit. You will see, it's quite simple.

What they do is that they have a piece of rna they claim to be a hiv rna. But they can't say that, because they have never done the isolation process properly for hiv. So, in fact, it's just a piece of rna.

They put it in cells. They use cells activators (cortisone for example) which will make the cells to produce many debris.

So, they will call some of those debris "hiv's proteins", and some of the dna strands they will find in the cells will be called hiv dna. And if they find rna, they will call it hiv rna.

For the proteins, you need to know that they really identify them only by their molecular weight. So, you can always find "hiv proteins" in any cell culture, because you will always have proteins of the same weight than those of the "hiv". You can also "identify" them with antibody tests. But antibody tests react to everything. So, same thing, you will always find hiv proteins with those tests.

But with those proteins they can impress people, because they can say "hey, just see that, f.....g dissident. I have inserted only a hiv rna, and at the end, I obtain hiv proteins. Try to explain that".

And about dna or rna strands, it's the same thing. you will always find what you search, because the tests are bullshit. In the case of hiv, the orthodoxy also says that you have quick mutations of the dna. So, if what you find is slightly different, you can also call it hiv dna. You don't even have to find exactly the same thing at the end than at the beginning.

One of their main argument is that you don't find anything in the control culture. But they have a strange notion of "nothing". In fact, they don't find "nothing". There are as many proteins (coming from cells debris) in the control culture than there is in the "virus culture". But the distribution on the Western Blot will often be just slightly different from the distribution on the "viral" Western Blot. And this will be enough for them to claim that the WB is different, and thus, that there is nothing in the control.

And of course, it's the same thing for the rna strand. With just small differences, they will say that there is nothing in the control.

But, probably that most often, they won't do a test for rna or dna strands. Because as they think they didn't find any "hiv proteins", they think that there is enough proofs that there is nothing in the control culture. So, they stop there and they don't test rna and dna strands from the control.


In fact, with this combination of...

1) cellular stress with chemicals like cortisone and antibiotics which creates many debris

2) phoney tests (antibody and genetic tests)

3) lies about what you find in the control culture

... you can obtain nearly everything you want with cellular cultures. You could even introduce nothing in the cells culture and claim that you obtained a virus, thus showing that spontaneous generation is possible. Or you could introduce the rna of a flu virus, and claim that at the end, you obtained the proteins and dna of a hiv virus.

DaninSeattle
August 22nd, 2009, 02:14 PM
Alain,

thanks for explaining the junk science behind "HIV clones".

G Man
August 22nd, 2009, 02:16 PM
Wow Alain, that was VERY informative! Thanks for that explanation.

HansSelyeWasCorrect
August 22nd, 2009, 07:31 PM
I just saw a new report about how genetic material can be manipulated in yeast that some of you may find interesting (in light of the "HIV clone" discussion):

Artificial Life One Step Closer: Scientists Clone And Engineer Bacterial Genomes In Yeast And Transplant Genomes Back Into Bacterial Cells (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090821205730.htm)

G Man
August 27th, 2009, 04:29 AM
Karri,

I have a little taste of what you must be feeling right now. I just lost one of my best friends over this. He claims because I believe what I do that I'm disrespecting everyone who's ever died of AIDS, and also disrespecting all the doctors and researchers who have 'worked so hard on this disease' over the years. He says it's fine that I have 'my little website' and that I listen to people who tell me 'what I want to hear', and it's fine that I'm 'one of the lucky ones who doesn't need ARV's', but that I'm wrong and I should not discuss it with anyone. Frankly, I was disrespected by his comments. You're right, gay guys are the worst when it comes to this topic. They don't want to hear that lifestyle has anything at all to do with it. Sad, very sad. He was a good friend too, I'll miss him.

I have patched things up with this friend. We have agreed not to ever talk about this subject again. I don't know if this is a good idea for you and your cousin Karri, as it doesn't sound like you had a close relationship to start with. I've just decided that I'd rather agree to those terms than lose him.

forbidchildxc
September 2nd, 2009, 08:41 PM
Karri,

hullo.. I believe in you. I believe in being alive and well even if is told POZ. You're the first person ever responded to me through my hard times in my early 'discoveries'. I could have been dead long before I took the MEDS by any other mean.. You are my sparks of living.

I have faith in this path I choose.. thank you


p/s: I didn't read all (of the mail), just scroll up down in a swift as I am using the internet cafe. But I get the point, smart people, try to get it from the book, diss others. gosh.. same story repeated all over again..

~