Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: ideas in the shadow

  1. #1
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default ideas in the shadow

    Hello dear
    I have a a public question for someone of the QA team.
    Duesberg's "chemical" theory proposes that the abuse of some substancies (anti-viral drugs, popper, heroin, cocaine) and the lack of other substancies (proteins and vitamins) in the diet (that is to say malnutrition) were the cause of AIDS immunodeficiency.
    He believes that HIV virus exists and that a significant association HIV-AIDS does not exist.
    The "life-style" theory by Eleni Eleopulos-Papadopulos (the Perth Group) states that AIDS immunodeficiency is caused by the same reasons and the "intake" of large amounts of junk food, human semen and psychological stress.
    She believes that HIV virus does not exist but a significant association HIV-AIDS exists because the proteins detected by the tests are produced in case of immunodeficiency (as well as in a lot of other different pathologic and non-pathologic conditions).
    Is it roughly correct?
    Kind Regards

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Duesberg's theory is a chemical theory and that is why he and his followers call it that, not a more broadly multifactorial one.
    http://www.duesberg.com/articles/kmreason.html
    The Perth Group's work and conclusions are centred on 'Oxidative Stress' and their papers deal with this in depth.
    http://www.theperthgroup.com/whatargued.html
    They are scientifically and clinically quite different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    Hello dear
    I have a a public question for someone of the QA team.
    Duesberg's "chemical" theory proposes that the abuse of some substancies (anti-viral drugs, popper, heroin, cocaine) and the lack of other substancies (proteins and vitamins) in the diet (that is to say malnutrition) were the cause of AIDS immunodeficiency.
    He believes that HIV virus exists and that a significant association HIV-AIDS does not exist.
    The "life-style" theory by Eleni Eleopulos-Papadopulos (the Perth Group) states that AIDS immunodeficiency is caused by the same reasons and the "intake" of large amounts of junk food, human semen and psychological stress.
    She believes that HIV virus does not exist but a significant association HIV-AIDS exists because the proteins detected by the tests are produced in case of immunodeficiency (as well as in a lot of other different pathologic and non-pathologic conditions).
    Is it roughly correct?
    Kind Regards

  3. #3
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Hello everybody
    Dear JeremyB37
    Duesberg's theory is a chemical theory
    No, it is a medical theory
    and that is why he and his followers call it that,
    They call it that because it is a simple name and I think we also should, for the same reason
    not a more broadly multifactorial one.
    I guess you mean that the "chemical theory" can explain less observations than the "life-style" theory by Eleni (The Perth Group).
    Let's avoid confusion. Here is the "chemical theory": http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemi...-epidemics.pdf.
    Instead you linked a 1994 paper by Mullis. He never endorsed the chemical theory. Maybe you confused yourself because he is a chemist. Even about HIV, despite in the paper, that you cited, Mullis shared Peter Duesberg's idea of HIV as an exogenous virus, four years later he considered that it could be an endogenous entity. He wrote: "We have resident sequences in our genome that are retroviral. That means that we can and do make our own retroviral particles some of the time. Some of them may look like H.I.V." http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/kmdancing.htm.
    The Perth Group's work and conclusions are centred on 'Oxidative Stress' and their papers deal with this in depth.
    That's not the point. Eleni's "life-style" theory (maybe I should say "stress factors" theory) states that the immunodeficiency of AIDS is caused by an alteration of a biochemical equilibrium of the cell (a redox equilibrium), which, in turn, would be caused by the intake of large amounts of anti-viral drugs, opioids, popper, cocaine, human semen, emotional stress, junk food or lack of nutrients (malnutrition). So, these factors would be the causes of the AIDS immunodeficiency, according to Eleni. Yes or not?
    Thanks for the link. Just when you open it, you can read: "The view of The Perth Group is that the HIV/AIDS experts have not proven: 1. The existence of a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV. 2. The "HIV" antibody tests are specific for "HIV" infection."
    Nowadays kits for isolation of HIV are available online, we can not think anymore that HIV does not exist. Besides, antigenic tests of HIV are so common and a significant association HIV-AIDS still stands, I mean the immunodeficiency is associated just with the virus. Therefore, if we accept that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, we should also accept that HIV are viruses produced for defence by humans.
    They are scientifically and clinically quite different.
    Anyway, they share the same big mistake.
    Kind Regards

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

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Hi Allesandro,

    I'm a bit confused about what your purpose and intentions are for your first thread here. In post #1 you seem to be asking for clarification of the differences between The Perth Group and Peter Duesberg's views on the cause of AIDS. There are volumes of posts on these forums, as well as other sites, such as virusmyth and tig.org.za that have been discussing and elucidating the differences between the two camps for decades now.

    Once you got a succinct response from JeremyB37, your questions suddenly turned into assertions, and ended with a statement that both camps "share the same big mistake," without explaining what mistake you are referring to. You dismiss the paper authored by Mullis, despite the fact it is obviously based on Duesberg's research and observations. The material is from Duesberg, the article is written by Mullis. You seem far less questioning, and indeed appear to be quite capable of finding and referencing dissident literature, which leads me to wonder if you really have any questions, or are rather trying to make your own point of view clear. Which is fine, but just get it out for all to see.

    I'll leave it to JB37 and others to decide whether this thread warrants more responses, but I would appreciate a clearer explanation from you of what you think HIV's role in AIDS is? Do you subscribe to the view that HIV is the sole and sufficient cause of AIDS.

    Several of us accept the existence of a something that has been called "HIV", yet remain unconvinced that it is a pathogenic virus capable of causing the constellation of illnesses that are including under the umbrella term "AIDS".

    I would add that there are other credible questioners than the two you mention. Dr. Heinrich Kremer comes to mind, as does Robert Root-Bernstein, who I currently rank very highly personally for having made a compelling case that AIDS is multi-factorial and often includes HIV as a co-factor, or perhaps synergist, along with other viruses, bacteria and mycobacteria. What remains to be determined is how these various co-factors combine and interact to cause the various forms of AIDS.

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

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan barnett View Post
    Several of us accept the existence of a something that has been called "HIV", yet remain unconvinced that it is a pathogenic virus capable of causing the constellation of illnesses that are including under the umbrella term "AIDS".

    I would stress that there remains no evidence for ANY virus if we are defining them as unique exogenous viral species. There is also no convincing evidence of any kind of immune system. For the former either put up evidence of cross referential specific purified proteins or shut up. Weiss and others have admitted that all the other viruses fail the PG protocol and the PG protocol is the only one I take seriously due to their exemplary parsimonious and empirical standards that do not rely on inferences. At most all Monty and Gallo discovered in 1983 was an unspecific protein marker coinciding with toxic/stressed pathology. Same is true of the HEPs and other misnomered 'viruses'.

    It's not just HIV that doesn't exist.

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

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    I'll leave you to read all the papers published by Duesberg and his supporters, and the Perth Group. Come to your own conclusions. I'm not really interested in persuading you one way or the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    Hello everybody
    Dear JeremyB37

    No, it is a medical theory

    They call it that because it is a simple name and I think we also should, for the same reason

    I guess you mean that the "chemical theory" can explain less observations than the "life-style" theory by Eleni (The Perth Group).

    Let's avoid confusion. Here is the "chemical theory": http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemi...-epidemics.pdf.
    Instead you linked a 1994 paper by Mullis. He never endorsed the chemical theory. Maybe you confused yourself because he is a chemist. Even about HIV, despite in the paper, that you cited, Mullis shared Peter Duesberg's idea of HIV as an exogenous virus, four years later he considered that it could be an endogenous entity. He wrote: "We have resident sequences in our genome that are retroviral. That means that we can and do make our own retroviral particles some of the time. Some of them may look like H.I.V." http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/kmdancing.htm.

    That's not the point. Eleni's "life-style" theory (maybe I should say "stress factors" theory) states that the immunodeficiency of AIDS is caused by an alteration of a biochemical equilibrium of the cell (a redox equilibrium), which, in turn, would be caused by the intake of large amounts of anti-viral drugs, opioids, popper, cocaine, human semen, emotional stress, junk food or lack of nutrients (malnutrition). So, these factors would be the causes of the AIDS immunodeficiency, according to Eleni. Yes or not?

    Thanks for the link. Just when you open it, you can read: "The view of The Perth Group is that the HIV/AIDS experts have not proven: 1. The existence of a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV. 2. The "HIV" antibody tests are specific for "HIV" infection."
    Nowadays kits for isolation of HIV are available online, we can not think anymore that HIV does not exist. Besides, antigenic tests of HIV are so common and a significant association HIV-AIDS still stands, I mean the immunodeficiency is associated just with the virus. Therefore, if we accept that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, we should also accept that HIV are viruses produced for defence by humans.

    Anyway, they share the same big mistake.
    Kind Regards

  7. #7
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Dear everybody
    Dear Jonathan Barnett, compliments for this wonderful site
    Hi Allesandro,
    I'm a bit confused about what your purpose and intentions are for your first thread here. In post #1 you seem to be asking for clarification of the differences between The Perth Group and Peter Duesberg's views on the cause of AIDS. There are volumes of posts on these forums, as well as other sites, such as virusmyth and tig.org.za that have been discussing and elucidating the differences between the two camps for decades now.
    No, I was just asking if you approve my short and rough resume of Peter and Eleni ideas in order to use it as a starting point to describe my ideas.
    Once you got a succinct response from JeremyB37, your questions suddenly turned into assertions, and ended with a statement that both camps "share the same big mistake," without explaining what mistake you are referring to.
    I would prefer to approch this subject in another message.
    You dismiss the paper authored by Mullis, despite the fact it is obviously based on Duesberg's research and observations. The material is from Duesberg, the article is written by Mullis.
    That is only to prevent that the reader could believe that Kary Mullis is a follower of Peter Duesberg.
    You seem far less questioning, and indeed appear to be quite capable of finding and referencing dissident literature, which leads me to wonder if you really have any questions, or are rather trying to make your own point of view clear. Which is fine, but just get it out for all to see.
    You are right. I am going to get it out slowly, so as to consider objections, because the acceptance of an idea is an element to support another idea.
    I'll leave it to JB37 and others to decide whether this thread warrants more responses, but I would appreciate a clearer explanation from you of what you think HIV's role in AIDS is?
    HIV are useful defences, that humans develop against the agents that cause AIDS, not aggressors, and any different explanation mismatch the observations, as argued in my previous message. My first "idea in the shadow".
    Do you subscribe to the view that HIV is the sole and sufficient cause of AIDS.
    No
    Several of us accept the existence of a something that has been called "HIV"
    I think they are clumps of proteins and RNA, that is to say just retroviruses
    yet remain unconvinced that it is a pathogenic virus capable of causing the constellation of illnesses that are including under the umbrella term "AIDS".
    They are right
    I would add that there are other credible questioners than the two you mention. Dr. Heinrich Kremer comes to mind, as does Robert Root-Bernstein, who I currently rank very highly personally for having made a compelling case that AIDS is multi-factorial and often includes HIV as a co-factor, or perhaps synergist, along with other viruses, bacteria and mycobacteria. What remains to be determined is how these various co-factors combine and interact to cause the various forms of AIDS.
    Thank you, I do not know them and any information can be precious in general. However they are on the wrong way, HIV has no pathogenic role. It is impossible.
    KInd Regards

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    3,790

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Quote Originally Posted by MLW View Post
    I would stress that there remains no evidence for ANY virus if we are defining them as unique exogenous viral species. There is also no convincing evidence of any kind of immune system. For the former either put up evidence of cross referential specific purified proteins or shut up. Weiss and others have admitted that all the other viruses fail the PG protocol and the PG protocol is the only one I take seriously due to their exemplary parsimonious and empirical standards that do not rely on inferences. At most all Monty and Gallo discovered in 1983 was an unspecific protein marker coinciding with toxic/stressed pathology. Same is true of the HEPs and other misnomered 'viruses'.

    It's not just HIV that doesn't exist.
    Yeah, that's why I wish I had never bothered to get treated for that bite from an obviously rabid fox a few decades ago.

  9. #9
    MLW is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    94

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan barnett View Post
    Yeah, that's why I wish I had never bothered to get treated for that bite from an obviously rabid fox a few decades ago.
    I would describe rabies as an exotoxin. It's not as if there isn't something external that does trigger disease. It's just not a viral species with unique, species specific characteristics. I would say the same thing of Ebola or Zika.

  10. #10
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Quote Originally Posted by MLW View Post
    I would stress that there remains no evidence for ANY virus if we are defining them as unique exogenous viral species. There is also no convincing evidence of any kind of immune system. For the former either put up evidence of cross referential specific purified proteins or shut up. Weiss and others have admitted that all the other viruses fail the PG protocol and the PG protocol is the only one I take seriously due to their exemplary parsimonious and empirical standards that do not rely on inferences. At most all Monty and Gallo discovered in 1983 was an unspecific protein marker coinciding with toxic/stressed pathology. Same is true of the HEPs and other misnomered 'viruses'.

    It's not just HIV that doesn't exist.
    Which kind of marker do you mean? Forget Monty and Gallo, let's consider HIVs that are extracted nowadays from humans. What do you think of my idea of HIVs?

Posting Permissions

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