What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2013, 09:14 AM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 06:05 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 05:15 AM)I and I Wrote:  Soooooo. You believe HIV exists.

HIV-I and HIV-II exist. There are electron micrographs of both. It is known that their genome is ~9.3 kb and how it is organised.

Do you know how a sample is prepared for an electron microscope? Do you know the stages of this process? I have shown early in the thread that these stages have many flaws in them themselves. And no there is no electron micrograph of an infectious virus (HIV).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 01:53 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 09:13 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The only thing evidenced here is I&I's testing of rule 5. Anybody who thinks it is crap need look no further. Dodgy

I've been insisting on him to be banned for several months now, nobody wants him here and he doesn't do anything constructive in the forum.
I'm actually starting to feel the mods don't actually give a shit about it

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
15-11-2013, 02:19 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 01:53 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 09:13 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The only thing evidenced here is I&I's testing of rule 5. Anybody who thinks it is crap need look no further. Dodgy

I've been insisting on him to be banned for several months now, nobody wants him here and he doesn't do anything constructive in the forum.
I'm actually starting to feel the mods don't actually give a shit about it

Every forum needs a scapegoat. Might as well be the AIDs/holocaust/science denying nutter.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
Well, this is even more special than I'd imagined.

[Image: you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg]


But seriously. It's so insane I gotta play along.

Let's pretend, for a moment, my dear I and I, that you are correct. There is no such thing as an HIV virus.

But let us then consider the implications of that. There are hundreds of thousands of people who, right now, think they are studying this non-existent thing. There are genomes sequenced for it. There are epidemiological studies. There are pictures of it.

If the thing itself doesn't exist, then all these people and their works (stretching back 30 years) are, necessarily, not real. This leaves us with two alternatives.

Case 1: every single one of them is hopelessly incorrect, and somehow a ludicrously basic error has escaped the notice of hundreds of thousands of researchers for decades on end.

Case 2: they're faking it.
(how and why being the kind of questions no True Believer need ask)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
15-11-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 02:19 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 01:53 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I've been insisting on him to be banned for several months now, nobody wants him here and he doesn't do anything constructive in the forum.
I'm actually starting to feel the mods don't actually give a shit about it

Every forum needs a scapegoat. Might as well be the AIDs/holocaust/science denying nutter.

But he floods the forum with his nonsensical threads. The last few weeks he was banned from starting new threads were really awesome here imo Sad

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:30 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 02:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, this is even more special than I'd imagined.

[Image: you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg]


But seriously. It's so insane I gotta play along.

Let's pretend, for a moment, my dear I and I, that you are correct. There is no such thing as an HIV virus.

But let us then consider the implications of that. There are hundreds of thousands of people who, right now, think they are studying this non-existent thing. There are genomes sequenced for it. There are epidemiological studies. There are pictures of it.

If the thing itself doesn't exist, then all these people and their works (stretching back 30 years) are, necessarily, not real. This leaves us with two alternatives.

Case 1: every single one of them is hopelessly incorrect, and somehow a ludicrously basic error has escaped the notice of hundreds of thousands of researchers for decades on end.

Case 2: they're faking it.
(how and why being the kind of questions no True Believer need ask)

You forgot to note that the Dr. Montagnier he so admires and misquotes won a Nobel prize for discovering this non-existent virus. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-11-2013, 03:34 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 02:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Well, this is even more special than I'd imagined.

[Image: you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg]


But seriously. It's so insane I gotta play along.

Let's pretend, for a moment, my dear I and I, that you are correct. There is no such thing as an HIV virus.

But let us then consider the implications of that. There are hundreds of thousands of people who, right now, think they are studying this non-existent thing. There are genomes sequenced for it. There are epidemiological studies. There are pictures of it.

If the thing itself doesn't exist, then all these people and their works (stretching back 30 years) are, necessarily, not real. This leaves us with two alternatives.

Case 1: every single one of them is hopelessly incorrect, and somehow a ludicrously basic error has escaped the notice of hundreds of thousands of researchers for decades on end.

Case 2: they're faking it.
(how and why being the kind of questions no True Believer need ask)

Researchers were questioning Gallos papers where he supposedly found HIV as soon as he claimed he found the virus. You act as if only conspiracy theory people who know nothing about science are the ones questioning it. This is clearly false, many many scientists disagree with Gallos findings and his methods used.

I am curious as to WHAT you have read or seen that causes you to believe Gallos methods were legit.
Did you know?
3. HIV has never been either isolated or purified as a real virus.

Proper procedures for isolating and purifying retroviruses (formerly known as RNA tumor viruses) were established as early as 1964 (O’Connor et al 1964; De Harven 1965a,b, 1974).

The most common sources of material from which retroviruses can be isolated and purified are blood (viremia), other tissue homogenates, and supernatant fluids from infected cell cultures (de Harven 1965a,b).

The most frequently used technique for isolation and purification of retroviruses includes the following primary steps: (1) Concentration of the viral particles by centrifugation; (2) Electron microscopy monitoring of the concentrated viral particles; (3) Biochemical and genetic analysis of the purified viral particles; (4) Controlling the experiments to avoid misinterpreting endogenous retroviruses as exogenous infectious retroviruses; and (5) Biological tests to ascertain if the isolated retrovirus is indeed potentially pathogenic and virulent (O’Connor et al 1964; De Harven 1965a,b, 1974).

However, neither Montagnier, nor Gallo, nor Levy et al. had adhered to these techniques when they claimed to have isolated “the AIDS virus” in 1983 and 1984 (Barré-Sinousi et al 1983; Papovic et al 1984; Gallo et al 1984; Levy et al 1984). The first two steps were omitted; they did not provide the electron microscope evidence that particles from the “infected” culture supernatant, sedimenting at 1.16 gm/ml of sucrose, were composed primarily of viral particles (concentrated viral particles). Instead, they provided electron microscope photographs of stimulated/activated cultured lymphocytes releasing particles similar to retroviruses. These same particles, however, can be released by “non infected” stimulated/activated lymphocyte cultures (Dourmashkin et al 1993). Unfortunately, the experiments were not properly controlled; where were the electron microscopy photographs of “infected” as well as “not infected” culture supernatants sedimenting at 1.16 gm/ml of sucrose, EM micrographs required to determine whether or not viral particles were concentrated at that gradient? Additionally, where were the electron microscopy pictures of “non infected” lymphocytes grown under identical culture conditions?

The alleged existence of HIV was asserted from the study of proteins, reverse transcriptase activity (RT), and RNA fragments that were found in culture supernatants, not from the direct analysis of purified viral particles.

Surprisingly, the existence of HIV was then claimed indirectly, on the basis of the presence in complex cell cultures and/or "HIV-positive" individuals of (1) proteins/glycoproteins such as gp160/150, gp120, gp41/45/40, p34/32, p24, and p18/17, each claimed to belong to HIV; (2) enzymes such as reverse transcriptase that supposedly belongs to HIV; and (3) RNA or DNA fragments that supposedly belong to HIV (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al 1993, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1997/8; Turner 1996, 1997/1998, 1998; Philpott 1997; Giraldo et al 1999; de Harven 1997/8, 1998, 2002a,b). However, none of these substances have been proven to belong to HIV. How could it be proven that the molecules found in those cultures actually belong to viral particles that have never been properly purified? How could it possibly be demonstrated that these substances are not simply cellular microvesicles or cell debris contained in the cultures and that happen to sediment at the same density as retroviruses? In order to prove that those molecules, allegedly regarded as “markers”, are part of a retrovirus named HIV, it would have been absolutely necessary to purify the retroviral particles, separating the particles from everything else. This has never been done with HIV (Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al 1996; de Harven 1998; Giraldo et al 1999).

However, long before the appearance of the first cases of AIDS, researchers working on “RNA tumor viruses”, currently known as retroviruses, clearly knew that the first prerequisite for the study of virus subcomponents or molecules is to obtain highly purified virus preparations (de-The & O’Connor 1966). After purifying the “murine leukemia virus”, these authors were able to employ selected chemicals (i.e. tween-ether, ribonuclease, detergents) to disrupt the purified particles and release the internal components (de-Thé & O’Connor 1966). This was never done with HIV.

One of us has insisted that: “The specificity of viral markers depends on the success of virus isolation and purification. Without fully demonstrated success in virus isolation and purification, identification of viral markers is extremely hazardous and can lead to severe misinterpretation of clinical data. A dramatic illustration of this is to be found in current HIV research. In this case, the virus (HIV) has never been properly isolated, since sedimentation in sucrose gradient at the density of 1.16 g/mL was erroneously considered to yield pure virus, systematically ignoring that material sedimenting at that density contains large amounts of cell debris and cellular microvesicles (Gluschankof et al 1997; Bess et al 1997). Therefore, proteins and nucleic acids found in such 1.16 bands are very likely to be of cellular origin and cannot be used as viral markers. Such a faulty methodology has had extremely serious consequences, i.e. the world-wide use of HIV-antibody tests, ELISA and Western blot, which dangerously lack specificity, as demonstrated in 1993 by Papadopulos et al. (1993), in Australia” (de Harven 1999).

“More disturbing is the fact that some ‘markers’ are searched for in the 1.16 gradient sedimenting material which is the density where intact virions are expected to be found, but not their molecular fragments. If lysed retrovirus particles released molecular markers, the 1.16 samples should at least initially allow researchers to demonstrate virus particles by electron microscopy. However, after 15 years of most intensive HIV research, two independent groups finally decided to explore by electron microscopy the ultrastructural features of the material sedimenting at the 1.16 density. Working on ‘HIV-1 infected T-cell’ cultures supernatants, both groups found that it contains primarily cellular debris and cell membrane vesicles which could definitely not be identified with HIV particles and rare ‘virus-like’ particles (Gluschankof et al 1997; Bess et al 1997). Still this is the type of sample in which ‘viral markers’ are currently identified and used to measure the effects of anti-viral drugs in current clinical trials” (de Harven 1998).

The reverse transcriptase activity (RT) found in culture supernatants by researchers who claim to have isolated “the AIDS virus” (Barré-Sinousi et al 1983; Papovic et al 1984; Gallo et al 1984; Levy et al 1984) could just as well have a cellular origin, since this enzyme is ubiquitous (Ross et al 1971; Beljanski 1972; Varmus 1987; Coffin et al 1997). RT is not a unique feature of retroviruses, as it was mistakenly thought to be by Montagnier, Gallo and Levy’s group.

HIV has never been either isolated or purified as intact viral particles. Therefore, there is no scientific data validating the contention that what is currently referred to as HIV is in fact a virus!

There does not exist a single test tube in any laboratory anywhere containing purified particles of HIV. Researchers working with what they believe to be HIV in laboratories all around the world are most likely not working with HIV particles at all. They are working with proteins, enzymes, or fragments of RNA that have been arbitrarily regarded as belonging to HIV.

The fact that after 25 years of intense research HIV has been neither isolated nor purified in terms of classical virology indicates to us that the infectious view of AIDS as a contagious viral disease is based on an apparently non-existent microbe!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:45 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
[Image: hiv200.jpg]

[Image: hiv3.jpg]

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 03:45 PM)nach_in Wrote:  [Image: hiv200.jpg]

[Image: hiv3.jpg]

I just mentioned these...

The culture that was used by Gallo was not purified, meaning there could be other cells in the culture. An HIV virus has never been isolated before.

You can't just say, oh hey here is an electron micrograph of something...well it must be what we are told it is. Are you aware that there are procedures that are done to get a sample to be photographed in the first place?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:59 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 03:34 PM)I and I Wrote:  There does not exist a single test tube in any laboratory anywhere containing purified particles of HIV. Researchers working with what they believe to be HIV in laboratories all around the world are most likely not working with HIV particles at all. They are working with proteins, enzymes, or fragments of RNA that have been arbitrarily regarded as belonging to HIV.

If I procure a purported HIV sample for you, will you drink it?

So you're really gonna go with that, eh? Every researcher who thinks themselves to be studying HIV is, apparently wrong. Just because. I guess.

And the random proteins and genetic fragments they're studying (which can apparently look exactly like a live virus - go figure!) just so happen to be consistent? An "arbitrary" collection of unrelated materiarl just so happens to produce consistent results? Geez. What are the odds on that?

(The answer is low. The odds are very low.)

Right then. How compelling.

(And, I shouldn't have to point this out, but "HIV particles"? Particles? Viruses aren't particles. Learn to science.)

(15-11-2013 03:34 PM)I and I Wrote:  The fact that after 25 years of intense research HIV has been neither isolated nor purified in terms of classical virology indicates to us that the infectious view of AIDS as a contagious viral disease is based on an apparently non-existent microbe!

So, in response to those researchings claiming "yes, this is HIV, we have its genome, here, we took this picture of it" you...

... just kind of keep on bleating out "NUH UH".

How compelling.

This is pretty idiotic. Even for you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: