Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: ideas in the shadow

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Bernstein is like Joe Sonnabend - they know that the bulk of the HIV Industry spews out crap and is heavily aligned with the Pharma industry but - for the very reasons that TPG makes clear that they are not saying 'HIV does NOT exist' - are prepared (with no evidence) to say it does exist. And that, Jonathan, is why the disciples of the orthodoxy when willing to question anything, will defer to 'HIV' believers like Bernstein and Sonnabend and I think you know that full well. It isn't because any of those people can even understand what TPG says, they are not interested because TPG refuse to accept the existence of HIV. It's nothing to do with those, mostly brain dead, people being able to intellectually analyse the different views. 'HIV' and its 'existence' is the holy grail to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan barnett View Post
    There are more non-mainstream theories than just TPG's and Duesberg's.

    I wish I had read Robert Root-Bernstein's book Rethinking AIDS much sooner than I did. It goes a long ways toward laying out a multi-factorial theory that explains how AIDS developed in the gay male community in the West.

    His theory does not directly conflict with either of the above, though he does accept the existence of HIV. Even TPG is careful to say that HIV's existence has not been proven according to well accepted scientific standards; not that the virus does not exist.

    The book can be bought used in very good condition on Amazon for less than $5, including shipping in the U.S. You'd have to look to see what it runs in other countries.

    I have had more success in getting mainstream "HIV/AIDS" advocates and service providers to listen to presentations utilizing R-B's data and extrapolation than any other dissident argument. I see them begin to question the sole and sufficient cause hypothesis, as well as the risks of PrEP and other orthodox nonsense.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    3,790

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    So keep your TPG-purist ideology that can't get out the chute at the rodeo (if you understand that Americanism) and defend your position by insulting and demeaning anyone and everyone who doesn't meet your purity test.

    The multifactorial hypothesis that Root-Bernstein espouses does not even require "HIV" to stand on its own, but then, since you are so familiar with his work, you already know that.

    Add me to the list of people who is convinced that something that the establishment has chosen to call HIV does indeed exist. Now, it is certainly fair to question whether it is a pathogenic retrovirus, capable of any harm at all, but that some detectable particles and proteins are consistently found in gay men with immune dysfunction is pretty hard to ignore, in my humble opinion.

    You drive people away with your blasted dogmatic views and temperament. You are always right and gawd help anyone who might question or challenge anything you say. You just pick arguments, even with those who mostly agree with you. And you wonder why so few people stick around for a reasonable debate here. You don't know how to disagree agreeably and it hurts your case.

    But what do I know.

    (Note to audience: personal attack response expected and I don't really give a rat's ass.)


    Quote Originally Posted by JeremyB37 View Post
    Bernstein is like Joe Sonnabend - they know that the bulk of the HIV Industry spews out crap and is heavily aligned with the Pharma industry but - for the very reasons that TPG makes clear that they are not saying 'HIV does NOT exist' - are prepared (with no evidence) to say it does exist. And that, Jonathan, is why the disciples of the orthodoxy when willing to question anything, will defer to 'HIV' believers like Bernstein and Sonnabend and I think you know that full well. It isn't because any of those people can even understand what TPG says, they are not interested because TPG refuse to accept the existence of HIV. It's nothing to do with those, mostly brain dead, people being able to intellectually analyse the different views. 'HIV' and its 'existence' is the holy grail to them.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    That's your opinion Jonathan and you are entitled to it. But it's a mean and rather sadly bitter interpretation that isn't even close to reality. The fact that Bernstein and Sonnabend can face both ways is ingrained in their respective positions in the medical establishment.
    As for 'driving people away' that's not my experience whether it's here in the 9 million city of London or anywhere else in the UK where I have many contacts.
    What seems to escape your understanding - and this may be because you have no real daily experience of a big city - is the almost hateful nature of the orthodoxy around 'HIV/AIDS'. It's grip is far worse than that on other so-called illnesses.
    The simple fact John is that you have a beef with me that is quite separate from the issue of 'HIV' and despite attempting to resolve those issues with you offline, you are like a barn door. There is no movement without a bulldozer.
    You are not a useful example when it comes to HIV and neither was Gos. You are/were people who had illness problems long before 'AIDS' came along and long before 'HIV' was 'discovered'. That is, your health histories are almost irrelevant.
    Your final sentence explains your mindset. I fully expect you to either not post this or censor it. Feel free to do that as it's unimportant.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonathan barnett View Post
    So keep your TPG-purist ideology that can't get out the chute at the rodeo (if you understand that Americanism) and defend your position by insulting and demeaning anyone and everyone who doesn't meet your purity test.

    The multifactorial hypothesis that Root-Bernstein espouses does not even require "HIV" to stand on its own, but then, since you are so familiar with his work, you already know that.

    Add me to the list of people who is convinced that something that the establishment has chosen to call HIV does indeed exist. Now, it is certainly fair to question whether it is a pathogenic retrovirus, capable of any harm at all, but that some detectable particles and proteins are consistently found in gay men with immune dysfunction is pretty hard to ignore, in my humble opinion.

    You drive people away with your blasted dogmatic views and temperament. You are always right and gawd help anyone who might question or challenge anything you say. You just pick arguments, even with those who mostly agree with you. And you wonder why so few people stick around for a reasonable debate here. You don't know how to disagree agreeably and it hurts your case.

    But what do I know.

    (Note to audience: personal attack response expected and I don't really give a rat's ass.)

  4. #44
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Quote Originally Posted by UnRaVel View Post
    During these years I have chatted with many people on the seropositives channel here in Spain, and there have been some gay people telling me they are seropositive but they have not taken poppers nor other drugs, and even have practiced very few anal sex with ejaculation and without condom (even only a unique intercourse). This experience, and this discussion with deceased member Gos, led me to question the Perth Group oxidative theory.

    Additionally, there are studies like the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study indicating, or at least suggesting, that seropositivity is being adquired only by the passive partner, but it seems this could not be true. You can, for example, go to a gay contacts web like Manhunt.net and do a "seropositive and only active" search, and you obtain quite a few results, although it is true they are generally people above 30 years old.

    However, on the other hand, I remain completely convinced that the alleged HIV virus has not complied with the necessary rules to accept its existence, as the Perth Group postulate too.

    For these reasons, I consider Alessandro's theory at least interesting, and I am surprised it has not been previously exposed in this forum.
    Thank you Unravel. Now I need someone for the role of the "devil's advocate". Could you help me? Could pretend to be an AIDS orthodoxy disciple? There is a week point in what I wrote up to now.

    A premise. According to the WHO, an AIDS case is an HIV seropositive person with certain diseases (for instance TB). In order to write we should agree on the meaning of the word. So, I am using such WHO definition of an AIDS case.

    A short resume. HIVs are a family of bacteriophagi produced by humans as defences against bacteria and similar bugs (for instance TB, brucella, legionella) which are the real causes of AIDS. So HIV is not pathogenic but useful. In drugs injectors and male homosexuals the disease is caused by the peculiarity of the transmission of the bugs, that allows them to cross the natural barriers of the body and luck inside, creating a cronic infection. Use of popper, that is a powerful vasodilatator, can further facilitate the bugs lurking. Only a small portion of an iceberg is visible, the rest is submerged. Similarly, AIDS in western Countries is only a small part of the story. Much more cases occurred in Africa, where the "toxic factors" are almost unknown. In Africa the disease hits mainly poor people. However malnutrition is not a robust explanation of African AIDS because also many people died of AIDS that can afford everything: good food, medications, correct rules of hygene.

    Come on, the week point is evident from the orthodox perspective.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    You are welcome, but I would suggest to you not annoying the moderators with games and exposing all your knowledge. At least I am interested. I don't say you are right or wrong, but I am certainly interested in your theory.

  6. #46
    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
    The multifactorial hypothesis that Root-Bernstein espouses does not even require "HIV" to stand on its own, but then, since you are so familiar with his work, you already know that.

    Add me to the list of people who is convinced that something that the establishment has chosen to call HIV does indeed exist. Now, it is certainly fair to question whether it is a pathogenic retrovirus, capable of any harm at all, but that some detectable particles and proteins are consistently found in gay men with immune dysfunction is pretty hard to ignore, in my humble opinion.
    I think there is a distinction to be made between something that exists as such(that Gal and Monty may have found) and the existence of a virus. The problem is that pathogenic/exogenous retroviruses as such have simply never been verified. 'HIV' is part of an iceberg of constructed artifacts that while being something as such that can be measured and sequenced and correlated with disease simply do not demonstrate a unique exogenous viral species existence. I am perfectly open to calling these things edoviral sequences that are induced by toxicity and stress, however, until I see purified isolated cross referential protein specificity from infected to affected, the the very notion of what a V is should be contingently rejected until some basic verifiable precedents are met. If Gal and Monty found what could be tentatively be called an epiphenomenal marker of disease AND infection then that is not nothing, but it is not a virus. The virologists simply don't want to entertain that this is what 'HIV' is due to the fact that by their own admission regarding the PGs standards this would mean that all the other viruses would also have to be seen as epiphenominal markers of toxic/stress induced disease.

  7. #47
    MLW is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    94

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    Thank you Unravel. Now I need someone for the role of the "devil's advocate". Could you help me? Could pretend to be an AIDS orthodoxy disciple? There is a week point in what I wrote up to now.

    A premise. According to the WHO, an AIDS case is an HIV seropositive person with certain diseases (for instance TB). In order to write we should agree on the meaning of the word. So, I am using such WHO definition of an AIDS case.

    A short resume. HIVs are a family of bacteriophagi produced by humans as defences against bacteria and similar bugs (for instance TB, brucella, legionella) which are the real causes of AIDS. So HIV is not pathogenic but useful. In drugs injectors and male homosexuals the disease is caused by the peculiarity of the transmission of the bugs, that allows them to cross the natural barriers of the body and luck inside, creating a cronic infection. Use of popper, that is a powerful vasodilatator, can further facilitate the bugs lurking. Only a small portion of an iceberg is visible, the rest is submerged. Similarly, AIDS in western Countries is only a small part of the story. Much more cases occurred in Africa, where the "toxic factors" are almost unknown. In Africa the disease hits mainly poor people. However malnutrition is not a robust explanation of African AIDS because also many people died of AIDS that can afford everything: good food, medications, correct rules of hygene.

    Come on, the week point is evident from the orthodox perspective.
    So are you subscribing to the HERV hypothesis and suggesting that these Vs are super bacterial bug hunters? Isn't this what the supposed immune system does already. Viruses grew out of classical bacteriology as a continuum of pathogenic bacteria. Are you trying to come full circle regarding retro viruses. Their was a poster by the name of softrat who had an endogenous hypothesis of viruses but his ideas made more sense in that he saw these things as latent regulators thrown into overproduction from induced stress or toxicity. The TMV for instance was was a chemical induced poison of plants that was wrongly called a virus by Mayer and Beijerinck. You can look up his posts and read up on his ideas. Unfortunately he never made meat of his ideas beyond this forum(The Ebola idea he put forward is VERY compelling).

Posting Permissions

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