What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2013, 12:19 AM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(18-11-2013 09:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 08:25 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Here you go.

The method of diluting a sample before putting it into a centrifuge is not the normal procedure for isolating a virus. There are no "rules" for isolating viruses however there are commonly accepted procedures for doing so.


His tests also didn't carry out the necessary step of introducing the new solution into a new plasma sample. This is necessary in order to determine if a virus is infectious.

What kind of protein is put in the solution and how this affects the sample needs to be considered as well.

This isn't kid science folks, lots of important steps need to be done in isolating viruses.

So are you saying that when Albert et al published in the Journal of Medical Virology they documented a flawed procedure and none of the expert readers of that journal detected that and replied with letters to the editor?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 01:39 AM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2013 02:06 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(18-11-2013 09:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  The method of diluting a sample before putting it into a centrifuge is not the normal procedure for isolating a virus. There are no "rules" for isolating viruses however there are commonly accepted procedures for doing so.

And you know that how ? What IS the "normal method", (EXACTLY and HOW EXACTLY DOES the method used here differ from the "normal".) Explain IN DETAIL.
http://virology-online.com/general/Test1.htm
So the same idiot who didn't even know that antibodies were specific are to antigens, now has the balls to lecture on how virology is done ? What are your credentials ? What are your references for this ? You fraud.

(18-11-2013 09:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  His tests also didn't carry out the necessary step of introducing the new solution into a new plasma sample. This is necessary in order to determine if a virus is infectious.

No. The plasma is put into the SOLUTION, you idiot. The solution he says he used, (phosphate-buffered saline IS precisely the "normal" way it's done). What EXACTLY "other way did you THINK it was done, you ignorant fake troll ? Anyway the question was viral ISOLATION, NOT it's infectious properties. You have NO CLUE what you're even saying, or talking about. You are a FRAUD. You were shown to be wrong, and now you're blustering about NOTHING.

(18-11-2013 09:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  What kind of protein is put in the solution and how this affects the sample needs to be considered as well.

Duh. "As well" as what EXACTLY ?" and what has that got to do with this discussion ? You are PRETENDING to know something about a process you are TOTALLY ignorant of. That sentence has NO meaning in the context of this discussion. Troll. You asked a question. It was answered. Now you are attempting to MOVE THE GOAL POSTS.

(18-11-2013 09:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  This isn't kid science folks, lots of important steps need to be done in isolating viruses.

NOTHING you just said has ANY affect on viral ISOLATION. Troll.
You are an ignorant FRAUD. You know absolutely NOTHING about Virology or Immunology or even basic Biology.
What you have said, Idiot Squared, IN NO WAY accounts for the findings of the group, as summarized in their table.
You are trolling, you ignorant fucktard. You are attention seeking, as per your usual.
But, thanks for proving yet again, you know even less about a subject you pretend to go on about, than we thought before you made your idiot feeble attempts at
"expertise".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:19 AM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 01:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And you know that how ? What IS the "normal method", (EXACTLY and HOW EXACTLY DOES the method used here differ from the "normal".) Explain IN DETAIL.

AFAIK the method described in the Albert et al paper is standard. It is termed isolation by PBMC co-culture and is detailed in this protocol description which is dated 2012 and is held on the Los Alamos National Laboratory server. Certainly the method would have been refined since 1987 but it looks--to me--essentially the same.

I couldn't get Asjo et al (1986) "Replicative capacity of human immunodeficiency virus from patients with varying severity of HIV infection"--which details the procedure used in the Albert et al paper--with any of my subscriptions to confirm this beyond a doubt but it looks very similar tp the LANL protocol.

I'm happy to be corrected.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:30 AM
What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
I dunno guys. I'm getting the feeling I and I may be the next great virologist here. Maybe we should listen to him. Sure sounds like he has some serious shit to share with us.

So, I and I, I just wanna make sure I understand you clearly. I think what you're trying to tell us is...we're all royally fucked and we should all kiss our asses goodbye. Is that about the gist of it?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 06:16 AM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 03:30 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I dunno guys. I'm getting the feeling I and I may be the next great virus here.

*fixt

Mostly he's just a douchebag who gets his "news" and talking points from conspiracy websites.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:14 AM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 03:30 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I dunno guys. I'm getting the feeling I and I may be the next great virologist here. Maybe we should listen to him. Sure sounds like he has some serious shit to share with us.

So, I and I, I just wanna make sure I understand you clearly. I think what you're trying to tell us is...we're all royally fucked and we should all kiss our asses goodbye. Is that about the gist of it?

Asses can still be here in the case of HIV not existing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:27 AM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2013 07:31 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 07:14 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 03:30 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I dunno guys. I'm getting the feeling I and I may be the next great virologist here. Maybe we should listen to him. Sure sounds like he has some serious shit to share with us.

So, I and I, I just wanna make sure I understand you clearly. I think what you're trying to tell us is...we're all royally fucked and we should all kiss our asses goodbye. Is that about the gist of it?

Asses can still be here in the case of HIV not existing.

So. I and I can't explain how the method he criticized differs from the "normal" method.
Proof he is nothing more than a troll.
Repeating a false assertion, is nothing more than repeating a false assertion.
He's got nothing.
(Of course we all knew that from the start of this Idiot thread.)
And yet he has the balls to whine and piss and moan about the way he is treated.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:48 AM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2013 11:35 AM by Revenant77x.)
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 12:19 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 09:51 PM)I and I Wrote:  The method of diluting a sample before putting it into a centrifuge is not the normal procedure for isolating a virus. There are no "rules" for isolating viruses however there are commonly accepted procedures for doing so.


His tests also didn't carry out the necessary step of introducing the new solution into a new plasma sample. This is necessary in order to determine if a virus is infectious.

What kind of protein is put in the solution and how this affects the sample needs to be considered as well.

This isn't kid science folks, lots of important steps need to be done in isolating viruses.

So are you saying that when Albert et al published in the Journal of Medical Virology they documented a flawed procedure and none of the expert readers of that journal detected that and replied with letters to the editor?

He never isolated any virus, he explains what he did find and do. He then explains the results. Did you read this?

He uses the Western Blot and Elisa tests to confirm wether or not HIV was present. What the fuck???

He also doesn't use the standard virus isolation procedure such as, using In sucrose density gradients they band at a density of 1.16g/ml. solution to put the sample in.

Viruses have certain densities so in order to isolate a virus from the rest of the culture is to put the sample in a solution of In sucrose density gradients they band at a density of 1.16g/ml. spin it in a centrifuge and the virus will be at a certain level in the test tubes.

Edit: Removed copy/paste spam Use a link and a summery next time
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
Fucking I&I... http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Portals/0/...alAct.html

Didn't I just mention this behavior? And! That's plagiarism. Angry

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 07:57 AM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 07:27 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 07:14 AM)I and I Wrote:  Asses can still be here in the case of HIV not existing.

So. I and I can't explain how the method he criticized differs from the "normal" method.
Proof he is nothing more than a troll.
Repeating a false assertion, is nothing more than repeating a false assertion.
He's got nothing.
(Of course we all knew that from the start of this Idiot thread.)
And yet he has the balls to whine and piss and moan about the way he is treated.

Hey stupid fuck, you don't know shit, yeah shit about anything discussed on here. Keep up the faith in shit you can't prove.

Oh yeah, since you claim to know so much, do you think the common method of using a 1.16g/ml sucrose gradient solution density?

Your thoughts on this? Are you going to claim some new method of virus isolation?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: