This is a good source...

Date: Apr 11, 2005

This is a good source...

Date: Apr 12, 2005

How is this a good source?? He pleads a one sided case, and in his "bibliography" he only gives references to support his case. I could write a long essay on what I think, too, and then give a list of articles to read. Does that mean it's credible??

Date: Apr 12, 2005

Now that I've had a chance to read this, I'll break it down.

1) It was written in 1997. That's 8 years of further research and proof discounted.
2) "According to good scientific procedure, a scientist is supposed to publish his research in a peer-reviewed journal and other researchers are supposed to be able to duplicate his findings before they are announced to the world as scientific fact."

Not true. Being published does not indicate something is or isn't true. But that's really beside the poing. Tthe HIV virus has been isolated and put into otherwise healthy animals. The animals develop AIDS. Since it's animals, no AZT or any treatment needs to be given. In fact, these experiments are quite easy to replicate, and there are people I work with that are studying Feline Immunodeficiency Virus as a model for HIV.

I'm not familiar with the advancements of HIV research in 1997, but it's possible the virus could not yet be obtained in pure culture, and, at the time, could not be used to infect healthy animals.

3) "This widely promoted test doesn't test for the presence of the virus, it tests for the presence of antibodies."

This is true. The test recognizes antibodies, not virus. In initial developments, it's very possible the antibody they used would be bound by many antigens not associated with HIV. However, these problems are quickly noticed and new antibodies can be made that are much more specific. Do you really think the whole medical community just threw up their arms and said, "Damn, he got something, let's just leave it be and not improve on it." If another company finds a more accurate test, they make more money. After all, this is only about money, right?

4) "This is scary, because it means that people will take the HIV test out of fear of AIDS, come up with a positive reading (either because they have immune factors to HIV or because of some other innocent trigger) and will start on drug therapy to "prevent" AIDS."

Ever hear of animal testing?? The take virus, put it into a healthy animal, watch it acquire AIDS, isolate the virus, put it in a healthy animal, and watch it get AIDS. HIV suppresses the immune system. If you'd like a detailed life cycle explaining how this works, I'd be happy to provide one. In the meantime, let's just say it destroys T4 lymphocytes...and it can do it fast.

5) "So, we take people who test positive for HIV antibodies, but have no symptoms of immune deficiency and we treat them with AZT, poison their immune systems and kill them. "

So then, how do you explain people diagnosed with HIV that can't afford the meds?? Why do they die of AIDS related diseases?? If they AZT wasn't there to cause the AIDS, what was it?

6) "In fact, one researcher, Dr. Robert E. Willner, M.D., Ph.D., stunned Spain in 1993 by injecting himself with the blood of an HIV-positive hemophiliac. He did this to prove that HIV does not cause AIDS."

Spread of the disease requires an active infection. If the individual is not currently attempting to mount an immune response to something, the virus lies dormant within the T4 lymphocytes. Also, infection is dose dependent. In addition to that, it's been shown that a certain chemokine receptor on T4 lymphocytes is required for one strain of HIV to infect. Going back to your genetics you hopefully learned in HS, you'll remember that you have 2 copies of each chromosome, one from mom and one from dad. If you have both copies of the chemokine gene, you're almost guaranteed of getting that particular strain if exposed to high enough dose. If you have only one copy of it, your risk is slightly decreased. However, if you don't have the gene at all, you have very little chance of contracting HIV, even in ideal conditions otherwise. If you desire, I can hunt down this study, but it came from the CDC.

7)"So, if HIV is not the cause of AIDS, what is? To answer that, let's first look at what the initials A.I.D.S. stand for-Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. What is a syndrome? It's a multi-faceted illness like PMS (Pre-Menstrual Syndrome). It doesn't have a single cause or a single symptom pattern. Multiple factors enter into creating the problem and there are many manifestations of it."

This is one of the few things that seems pretty accurate. Many things can cause AIDS...including the HIV virus.

8) "Another major cause of AIDS is drugs. There are many drugs besides AZT which suppress immune response. It appears that AIDS showed up primarily in the gay community because of the use of a drug, amyl nitrate, which was used to enhance sexual climax. In one study, between 96 and 100% of gay men with AIDS had used this drug."

Convenient. Single out a minority. Well, chew on this. Aside from gay males, straight females are the 2nd leading group of people most at risk for the contraction of HIV. Why?? Because the person being penetrated is at the highest risk. Therefore, gay males and about all sexually active straight females. Blood and semen carry the highest loads of virus among the bodily fluids.

9)"Do you want more documentation? Here is a bibliography of good books which address issues related to AIDS:"

Again, only books that provide his particular point of view. Why not some that provide a counter opinion in order to learn about what others are saying?? After all, you can't make an educated opinion unless you have the arguments from both sides, correct?

10) "If what these men are reporting is true, the data on HIV and AIDS does not support what is being reported in the media. We are often criticized for being "unscientific" and yet, this whole AIDS thing is completely unscientific and yet is reported by the media as if it were gospel truth."

Again, look at research from the past decade, and you'll see an increasing amount of evidence contrary to what this guy is saying.

11) copyright 1997, Tree of Light Institute

Looked up Tree of LIght, and lo and behold, it's an herbal therapy place. Of course they're going to be completely objective about all of this because they have no sort of agenda, right??

Date: Apr 12, 2005

So its discounted basically because of your opinion?

Date: Apr 12, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Anonymous
"So its discounted basically because of your opinion? "

Well, you can call it my opinion if that pleases you...but I can go find a lot of information supporting my argument...so that makes it an opinion with a strong backing. Of course all of my work and research would fall on blind eyes because it's all one big conspiracy, right?

You can call me shortsighted, ignorant, stupid, whatever you want...but I'm not getting my information from entities that will make money peddling their products. All I've asked for is legitimate experimental, hypothesis driven, science to back up your claims. What you've given is articles written by people that want their agenda advanced.

What you're both forgetting is that I never said alternative treatments were crap. I believe some will work...just a little fuzzy on which ones. However, your consistent disregard for advances in science and technology puts you at a steep disadvantage when discussing science and science related topics. I have my viewpoint, and I'll admit I'm strongly entrenched in it. However, I've done many searches at Pubmed and all over the internet to find any sort of evidence to support ozone treatments, the Rife microscope, the theory of one entity that causes all disease by shapeshifting, etc, all in hopes of gaining insight and a better understanding of your stance. Have you been doing the same?? C'mon, think outside your box. Just because it's the "alternative" doesn't mean it's not a box. The only people pushing this 'technology' are people standing to make a buck off of it.

Besides, according to your stance, if there's money to be made, the scientists are only there to make it, right??