Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory

    Yes, you do have to become sufficiently knowledgeable about the broad basis of the work that questions the very basis of the 'HIV' theory of ill health otherwise you are not in a position to either question any of it, or warrant anyone's time in debating it with you. You didn't ask 'questions', you made statements. That's not the same thing, and is no more acceptable in the first year of an undergraduate degree than it is here. If you are not prepared to spend the many many hours doing the reading - that people like me have - I will not spend anytime debating the subject with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebro View Post
    Hello,

    I've read many things and my purpose was to make things more clear to me. Should i understand that i need to be a dissidence expert to ask questions? Actually, one can read a lot from a side (orthodoxy) and from the other (dissidents) but i just wanted to have reactions of veterans about some confusing points that seem to be mismatching with relevant and convincing statements of dissidence.
    I did have no response for instance about the 2 points concerning dissidents mortality and therapies for cancer using "HIV".

  2. #12
    lukas is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    97

    Default Re: Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebro View Post
    Hello,
    I did have no response for instance about the 2 points concerning dissidents mortality and therapies for cancer using "HIV".
    Sincerely i find these questions very easy to answer.It is my personal belief that many medical illnesess are linked to hiv arbitrarily.For exemple i have never believed that a retrovirus can cause cervical cancer and pneumonia at the same time,even indirectly.I would say this would be a medical hoax.If you link a group of diseases that have nothing in common one another with any other phenomena(like hair colours) you will find correlative results.If more people with black hairs die of cervical cancer means that having black hairs has caused it?Of course not.Even if pneumonia correlates with higher incidence to positive test,this doesn't mean that is hiv that is causing it,as positive test may be falsed by many different condition as described in literature,vaccines included.If you link arbitrarily all the diseases on earth to hiv you'll magically increase the mortality,but it doesn't mean hiv did the job.As you said in your second point is that hiv is used in therapies for cancer,but this does not proove anything.As you said they used a "modified" version which involve a human manipulation,not natural hiv,and then they use hiv as a contenitor of a therapy,but it didn't and could n't do the job by itself.It's been very controversial what hiv can do alone in a dish(i mean in a culture with cells).I give you an eminent opinion:Montaigner itself gave the proof in one of his paper that hiv alone in a culture could not make cells disappear if a common antibiotic was added: his paper is: Protective activity of tetracycline analogs against the cytopathic effect of the
    human immunodeficiency viruses in CEM cells. So the answer to your second point lay all in that "modified" term

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory

    Ok JeremyB37, thanks anyway. I'm sorry if i've hurt your feelings, it was not on purpose.
    However, even though you state that this thread is useless, i personaly don't think so and i really appreciate constructive responses from John Bleau and MLW to my concrete questions based on facts (dissident mortality high rate is a fact, cancer therapy using "HIV" is a public information available on Google and presented as a fact, better efficiency of ARVs is a fact since AZT was a nightmare comparing to today's meds and many veteran dissidents on this forum and elsewhere agree with that)

    The only non factual statement i made was possibly heterosexual and neo natal transmission.
    Concerning Heterosexuals, the Padian study gives indeed strong evidence that transmission doesn't occur. Nevertheless, it is also a fact that a majority of HIV+ people have a quite precise idea about "how or by whom they've been infected". The hypotheses about oxidative semen and common life style are therefore interesting. I'm not of those who reject absolutely all Orthodoxy statistics and i'm convinced that if there was really zero transmission (of the test positivity, i'm not talking about "HIV" as a virus) within couples and in neo natal, it would have been very difficult for orthodoxy ton convince people about HIV being an STD for 30 years. So arguments allowing to explain why many cases "look like a viral transmission but are not" need to be highlighted.

    @John Bleau: I completely agree with your last message and i'm also pretty inclined to agree with TPG (from my opinion, the only dissident approach giving answers for all the observable facts). By the way, is TPG still active? It seems there is no news from them since a while

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    3,790

    Default Re: Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory

    The orthodox view of HIV does not assert that HIV causing any opportunistic infections. Rather, it damages the immune system so that it is no longer able to mount a defense against certain infectious diseases, such as those you mention.

    One weakness in the theory is that somehow the damaged immune system is only incapacitated against certain infections, not all illnesses. I'm sure they've come up with an explanation for that, but it does seem to add to the amazing abilities of a non-living piece of genetic material.

    Quote Originally Posted by lukas View Post
    Sincerely i find these questions very easy to answer.It is my personal belief that many medical illnesess are linked to hiv arbitrarily.

  5. #15
    MLW is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    94

    Default Re: Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory

    @Cerebro

    I'm aware of that study. The scientists involved are still assume that there is an HIV1 to be separated even though they have no specific proteins. I am not doubting that they achieved some kind of differentiation but what's to say that they are not simply looking at a smaller separation then they are inferring. It could well be that 'hiv' comes from the same source with its own sub specificity relative to endogeny not exogeny.

    I actually think that the nature of exosomes may ultimately decide the fate of virology in regards to whether viruses actually exist or not as exogenous organisms. The evidence thus far has not shown it. Janine Roberts has a fairly well thought out hypothesis. https://fearoftheinvisible.wordpress.com/

    If you connect her ideas to the trojan hypothesis it fills an admitted hole on the part of Gould and the authors when they say this: "Although the Trojan exosome hypothesis does not explain the distinguishing pathologies caused by different retroviruses, it does offer a mechanistic basis for some of the most clinically important aspects of retroviral infection."
    http://www.pnas.org/content/100/19/10592.full

    If I were proposing an addendum paper to the above I would title it 'The Toxic Exosome Hypothesis'. To quote Janine Roberts "It thus seems that cells may be sick, poisoned, stressed or malnourished in some way before they show the symptoms of ‘viral infection.’" I see this as 'less wrong' track to take.

    In terms of Gallo testing, yes, I do see a positive test as potentially bad news if certain factors are in place. I'm on the same page as The Perth Group on that question. The test may be unspecific, but it's not meaningless.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory

    I certainly did not say this thread was 'useless'. But in order to discuss "Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory" it requires that the participants actually know from their own research what they are referring to and what they are talking about.
    Now if you had achieved that position, you wouldn't be mentioning "how can we explain HIV transmission between some men and their wives and vice versa?" because studies show that to be a fallacy.
    And you wouldn't be mentioning "Why ARVs efficiency has increased these last years if not targeting a virus named HIV?" because research would tell you that is not true either, only that killer drugs in high doses such as AZT and Nevirapine are no longer used in the way they were pre-1996 so severe trauma deaths declined, as the 1996-2006 Lancet study shows, death rates per se didn't fall.
    And you wouldn't be saying "a big amount of people being tested positive have a precise idea about "who infected them" or "how they have been infected"." because you would know it is utter nonsense with zero clinical data supporting it.
    What you think are 'constructive responses' and what I think is constructive, in terms of real knowledge, is bound to be divergent because I have done about 28 years of reading and studying of the subject, and lived with it in a direct and personal way, and you haven't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebro View Post
    Ok JeremyB37, thanks anyway. I'm sorry if i've hurt your feelings, it was not on purpose.
    However, even though you state that this thread is useless, i personaly don't think so and i really appreciate constructive responses from John Bleau and MLW to my concrete questions based on facts (dissident mortality high rate is a fact, cancer therapy using "HIV" is a public information available on Google and presented as a fact, better efficiency of ARVs is a fact since AZT was a nightmare comparing to today's meds and many veteran dissidents on this forum and elsewhere agree with that)

    The only non factual statement i made was possibly heterosexual and neo natal transmission.
    Concerning Heterosexuals, the Padian study gives indeed strong evidence that transmission doesn't occur. Nevertheless, it is also a fact that a majority of HIV+ people have a quite precise idea about "how or by whom they've been infected". The hypotheses about oxidative semen and common life style are therefore interesting. I'm not of those who reject absolutely all Orthodoxy statistics and i'm convinced that if there was really zero transmission (of the test positivity, i'm not talking about "HIV" as a virus) within couples and in neo natal, it would have been very difficult for orthodoxy ton convince people about HIV being an STD for 30 years. So arguments allowing to explain why many cases "look like a viral transmission but are not" need to be highlighted.

    @John Bleau: I completely agree with your last message and i'm also pretty inclined to agree with TPG (from my opinion, the only dissident approach giving answers for all the observable facts). By the way, is TPG still active? It seems there is no news from them since a while

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    3,790

    Default Re: Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory

    It was pretty clear to me that Cerebro was repeating orthodox claims that he wanted to have better answers to challenge.

    I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone with an interest in skepticism to be as well versed as some of the more experienced AIDS dissidents.

    I understand that it gets tiresome to repeat the same information, but the need to do so is never going to go away. One option is to insist new members go and spend hours/days/weeks/months/years "doing the research". Another is to provide a concise answer, with a reference they can use to get more information.

    There's a lot of shit out there to wade through, including on this site, much of it contradictory and confusing. The most helpful way to lead others to a particular way of seeing a particular dissident point of view (as there are so many) is to respond with specific information, rather than beating up on them for not knowing as much as yourself.

    It also appears that Cerebro posted in this forum without realizing its original intent and purpose. Perhaps this thread should be moved elsewhere, or the Toe to Toe forum itself be rethought, since it was basically an accommodation to Gos, who is no longer with us.

    Quote Originally Posted by JeremyB37 View Post
    I certainly did not say this thread was 'useless'. But in order to discuss "Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory" it requires that the participants actually know from their own research what they are referring to and what they are talking about.
    Now if you had achieved that position, you wouldn't be mentioning....

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,811

    Default Re: Fluzzy points about dissident statements vs Orthodox theory

    I'll deal with Toe to Toe on Sunday.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •