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, 02:38 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 02:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Hey stupid, the Eliza and western blot tests do not test for an HIV virus, they test for anti-bodies. You seem to not know the difference between a virus and anti-bodies. Which means you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Anti-bodies do not necessarily mean that a virus is present let alone prove what virus is present.

Actually, they do - antigens are specific.

Quote:Where is the isolation of the virus? You could argue that the HIV virus is harder to detect than most viruses in the standard isolation methods, but you are too stupid to know to take up that argument. You didn't even know the gradient solution standards for isolating a virus, you do not know what you are talking about. Robert Gallo has been known before and after the HIV issue to be a fraud, and montagnier says that HIV isn't deadly or serious if one eats normal healthy shit, other members of the medical field including Nobel prize winners don't believe and argue against the mainstream gallo influenced notion of HIV. Yet all these scientists are wrong?

You keep stating this obvious untruth. That is not what Montagnier said. He said a healthy immune system can fight off initial infection. Not the same thing.

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
19-11-2013, 02:48 PM
What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 02:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 02:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Hey stupid, the Eliza and western blot tests do not test for an HIV virus, they test for anti-bodies. You seem to not know the difference between a virus and anti-bodies. Which means you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Anti-bodies do not necessarily mean that a virus is present let alone prove what virus is present.

Actually, they do - antigens are specific.

Quote:Where is the isolation of the virus? You could argue that the HIV virus is harder to detect than most viruses in the standard isolation methods, but you are too stupid to know to take up that argument. You didn't even know the gradient solution standards for isolating a virus, you do not know what you are talking about. Robert Gallo has been known before and after the HIV issue to be a fraud, and montagnier says that HIV isn't deadly or serious if one eats normal healthy shit, other members of the medical field including Nobel prize winners don't believe and argue against the mainstream gallo influenced notion of HIV. Yet all these scientists are wrong?

You keep stating this obvious untruth. That is not what Montagnier said. He said a healthy immune system can fight off initial infection. Not the same thing.

Do you agree with montagnier?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 02:59 PM
What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 02:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 02:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Hey stupid, the Eliza and western blot tests do not test for an HIV virus, they test for anti-bodies. You seem to not know the difference between a virus and anti-bodies. Which means you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Anti-bodies do not necessarily mean that a virus is present let alone prove what virus is present.

Actually, they do - antigens are specific.

Quote:Where is the isolation of the virus? You could argue that the HIV virus is harder to detect than most viruses in the standard isolation methods, but you are too stupid to know to take up that argument. You didn't even know the gradient solution standards for isolating a virus, you do not know what you are talking about. Robert Gallo has been known before and after the HIV issue to be a fraud, and montagnier says that HIV isn't deadly or serious if one eats normal healthy shit, other members of the medical field including Nobel prize winners don't believe and argue against the mainstream gallo influenced notion of HIV. Yet all these scientists are wrong?

You keep stating this obvious untruth. That is not what Montagnier said. He said a healthy immune system can fight off initial infection. Not the same thing.

Anti-bodies are not specific to the presence of a virus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:02 PM
What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
And again, testing for anti-bodies is not the same thing as finding a virus.

"Quote"

The HIV antibody tests do not detect a virus. They test for any antibodies that react with an assortment of proteins experts assure us are unique to HIV which, almost everyone agrees, is a retrovirus and the cause of AIDS [2]. What happens is this: A sample of blood serum is incubated with a mixture of these proteins in a test called an ELISA, an acronym for Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay. The ELISA is positive if the solution changes colour thereby indicating a reaction between the proteins in the test kit and the patient's antibodies. However, according to many experts, the ELISA is not specific meaning it may react in the absence of HIV infection. In response to this, testing authorities have developed strategies such as repeat testing of all positive ELISAs and following up those twice positive with a third but different antibody test known as the Western blot. In the Western blot the "HIV" proteins, about ten of them, are located at discrete spots in a paper strip, rather like the one your doctor uses to perform multiple tests on your urine. Serum is added and wherever there is a reaction a colour change occurs which shows up as a dark band. The test is read by noting which bands show up, in other words, which proteins react. Certain combinations of bands are defined as a positive test. It is enigmatic that the location and number of bands required for a positive Western blot varies around the world. They may even vary between laboratories within the same city. In Australia four bands are required, in Canada and much of the United States, three bands suffice. And in Africa two will do. In the US Multicenter AIDS Cohort prospective study involving several thousand gay men, one "strong" band was deemed sufficient. If each of the above indicates HIV infection then HIV must cause different populations of antibodies to appear in different places. I don't know about you but to me that sounds very odd. But at least it gives some Africans a way out. All an African has to do is have a test in Australia because two bands would not be considered positive here. Nevertheless, in spite of lack of standardisation and other problems such as reproducibility, the Western blot is accepted to be in excess of 99.9% specific and if positive is regarded synonymous with HIV infection. In some countries similar claims are now made for the HIV ELISA without recourse to the Western blot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
Odd this, I and I on one of their conspiracy missions takes up the cause of aids deniers. One must ask to what end. To get banned again. To just raise shit. To what possible end does promulgating that outliers know what is going on with aids and conventional science is flawed is I and I aimed. I personally am mystified.

I have lived within a short distance of downtown San Francisco all my life and I worked there for over 30 years. The survival rate for people with aids has grown dramatically. Pissing and moaning around the edges of the research is stupid. Conventional research has done much to increase the lifespan of aids victims, it cannot be that terribly flawed.

I and I, please comment on whether or not aids is sexually transmitted. That should cause additional amusement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:22 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 02:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Hey stupid, the Eliza and western blot tests do not test for an HIV virus, they test for anti-bodies. You seem to not know the difference between a virus and anti-bodies. Which means you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

They test for antibodies TO THE HIV virus, specifically.
I am well aware they test for SPECIFIC antibodies. Antibodies do not form out of the blue. They form when an immune system is EXPOSED to a SPECIFIC antigen. In this case the antigen IS THE HIV virus, something YOU DID NOT know, until you were told. Ask ANY medical professional, (which YOU ARE NOT). The ONLY way antibodies form, is by exposure to the antigen. Please stop making a fool of yourself. You have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

BTW, Eliza is a woman's name. EliSA, is the antibody test.
LMFAO.
Eliza....that's a good one. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Pardon me while I go test Eliza.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-11-2013, 03:24 PM
What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 03:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 02:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Hey stupid, the Eliza and western blot tests do not test for an HIV virus, they test for anti-bodies. You seem to not know the difference between a virus and anti-bodies. Which means you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

They test for antibodies TO THE HIV virus, specifically.
I am well aware they test for SPECIFIC antibodies. Antibodies do not form out of the blue. They form when an immune system is EXPOSED to a SPECIFIC antigen. In this case the antigen IS THE HIV virus, something YOU DID NOT know, until you were told. Ask ANY medical professional, (which YOU ARE NOT). The ONLY way antibodies form, is by exposure to the antigen. Please stop making a fool of yourself. You have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

How the fuck would you know wether or not antibodies are specific to a virus if you haven't isolated the virus yet?

Where is the evidence that the antibodies found are specific to HIV?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 19-11-2013 03:34 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
Please stop displaying your complete stupidity.
This has already been covered.
Isolation is not required to test antibody specificity.
It would REALLY help if you took Biology 101.
I repeat, did you graduate from high school ?
http://www.medicalhealthtests.com/antibody-tests.html
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/sequence...dmark.html
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/index
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1404605
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21817194
You really are not in control of your faculties, are you ?

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, 03:37 PM
What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 03:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Please stop displaying your complete stupidity.
This has already been covered.
Isolation is not required to test antibody specificity.
It would REALLY help if you took Biology 101.
I repeat, did you graduate from high school ?
http://www.medicalhealthtests.com/antibody-tests.html
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/sequence...dmark.html
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/index
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1404605
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21817194
You really are not in control of your faculties, are you ?

Nobody said they testing for anti-bodies needs to have an isolation test involved. Next.

The virus isolated, where the fuck is it?

The Eliza and western blot tests themselves have different standards for testing positive in different countries, it's not even used in a scientific way, the tests are interpreted differently to different governments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:43 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(19-11-2013 03:37 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 03:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Please stop displaying your complete stupidity.
This has already been covered.
Isolation is not required to test antibody specificity.
It would REALLY help if you took Biology 101.
I repeat, did you graduate from high school ?
http://www.medicalhealthtests.com/antibody-tests.html
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/sequence...dmark.html
http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/index
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1404605
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21817194
You really are not in control of your faculties, are you ?

Nobody said they testing for anti-bodies needs to have an isolation test involved. Next.

The virus isolated, where the fuck is it?

The Eliza and western blot tests themselves have different standards for testing positive in different countries, it's not even used in a scientific way, the tests are interpreted differently to different governments.

All totally irrelevant ranting. More moving the goal posts. It's Elisa, not Eliza. You don't even know the correct names of the tests, you're ranting about. You stating something can be assumed to be false. Not ONE reference or substantiation for your wild beliefs. Isolation is unnecessary. You have not demonstrated WHY isolation is required. The specific antibodies PROVE presence. Clearly you have NO CLUE how Immunology works. Governments are not in charge of science, nor do they determine how medical professionals interpret tests. You FORGOT to say what the differences are, and what countries interpret them differently. Or are you lying ? You REALLY are desperate, aren't you ?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: