Slashdot Mirror

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

HIV viraemia has NEVER been found in humans (or any other place aside from an artificial lab dish full of artificial chemicals such as leukemia cultures).

You don't believe it? Just find the study that proves it. You don't even have to publish the study yourself, you just have to point it out. Find it and get US$50k! It's that simple! You can claim your prize here:

http://www.aliveandwell.org/

HIV has never been found in blood, semen, or breast milk. That's why they resort to PCR, the DNA amplification technology behind the "viral load" exam (also used to amplify DNA from crime scenes). All the pictures, DNA sequences, and other crazy stuff about HIV we see on the press were created by lab technicians. It's never been found in nature.

By the way, the inventor of the PCR got a Nobel Prize for it (in 1993, chemistry nobel prize winner Kary Mullis). He is an HIV=AIDS skeptic and highly vocal about it. Google the subject. You may learn a thing or two.

"Good for them, lets (sic) get this solved"...

Yes, you really know what you're talking about. NOT.

Try reading
http://www.newaidsreview.org/
or
http://www.aliveandwell.org/

Honestly... You lot of sheep just believe whatever crap the media throw at you, and THEY believe whatever crap 'scientists' throw at them, in order to get FUNDING. HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS.
Try doing some research.

I'm amazed at the comments I read so far. Come people, it's time to wake up.

Every month or so we hear a "breakthrough" in hiv research that leads to nothing. The reason that is is because HIV IS NOT THE CAUSE OF AIDS. This was a mistake made the US government in 1984 (that's right) that is too late to correct.

Just do the research and look at the statistics. HIV simply cannot explain what we call AIDS.

I tested positive, even though I never shared needles (or IV drugs), never had a transfusion, and never had unprotected sex. Didn't get it from my mom either.

AIDS is a toxic and malnutrition syndrome.

There are thousands of reason to use a condom. But to avoid AIDS is not one of them.

http://reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Main_Page (good place to start)
http://aliveandwell.org/ (tons of info. All referenced)
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/ (nice intelligent blog)

A good video to start with is "The Other Side of AIDS". Available at: http://www.theothersideofaids.com/

Don't believe the hype. It's not a conspiracy theory, just the fact.

I know this is an odd story. AIDS is a very odd story. I clipped this from this website:

http://aliveandwell.org/



According to the 1999 World Health Organization (WHO) report, the total number of actual diagnosed AIDS cases on the African continent is about equal to the total for AIDS in America even though Africa, with its 650 million people, has more than two times the population of the USA. (61) Africa is often cited as a worst case example of what could happen in America despite figures that demonstrate that 99.5% of Africans do not have AIDS, and among Africans who test HIV positive, 97% do not have AIDS. (62)

Unlike in the United States, AIDS in Africa may be diagnosed based on four clinical symptoms -- fever, involuntary loss of 10% of normal body weight, persistent cough, and diarrhea -- and HIV tests are not required. (63) The four clinical AIDS symptoms are identical to those associated with conditions that run rampant on the African continent such as malaria, tuberculosis, parasitic infections, the effects of malnutrition, and unsanitary drinking and bathing water. These symptoms are the result of poverty and other problems that have troubled Africa and other developing areas of the world for many decades.

The idea that AIDS originated in Africa remains popular although there has never been scientific or epidemiological evidence to substantiate this notion. News reports suggesting that HIV began in Africa as Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) are based on elaborate speculation about species-jumping viruses rather than reliable evidence.

SIV induces only flu like symptoms in some experimental laboratory monkeys and does not cause any of the 29 official AIDS-defining illnesses. Unlike HIV infection which is said to cause illness only years after exposure and despite the presence of protective antibodies, SIV will cause illness within days of infection or not at all, and wild monkeys retain SIV antibodies throughout their lives without ever becoming ill. Only monkeys in unnatural circumstances -- lab animals with undeveloped immune systems who are injected with large quantities of SIV -- become ill. (65)

Actually I think you are missing my point. I know the difference between HIV infection and AIDS. I was refering to the "artificial" link between HIV and AIDS. i.e. if I show up in hospital with a severe case of tuberculosis and my bloodtest reveals HIV, I will be diagnosed as having AIDS.

If I were to try and make an independent determination about whether HIV causes AIDS, there will be overwhelming "evidence" that HIV causes AIDS 'cause all collected data will show that 100% of AIDS patients are HIV+.

It is perfectly possible to "acquire" immunodeficiency through recreational drug use and chemotherapy (AZT e.g.) as you point out. At present it is impossible to tell for certain whether AIDS patients are indeed dying from HIV-induced immunodefiency simply because the data is messed up.

To put it another way, tying HIV to AIDS by definition creates an artificial causal link between the two, which messes up all current statistics related to AIDS. This is especially so because it became politically incorrect way back in the eighties to suggest that "lifestyle" (e.g. recreational drug use amongst at-risk groups) could be related to AIDS.

Check out the following site:
http://www.aliveandwell.org/

--

Tested positive for HIV in 1992, then retested and came up negative. She since has spoken and written against the HIV=AIDS orthodoxy, and has a website at http://www.aliveandwell.org/. She's been healthy and apparently AIDS-free for over a decade without antiretrovirals, got married and had two kids. Many detractors claim she never had HIV at all.

A few months ago, her 3 year-old daughter died, and the coroner (knowing of Christine's prior diagnosis) ruled the cause AIDS related pneumonia. So if the coroner is *right* -- Christine has been healthy and non-progressing but infected since 1992 -- and like every long-term non-progressor she has not taken the antiretrovirals.

So Christine's detractors want it both ways now: Christine has HIV/AIDS, she's sick enough that her illness killed her daughter, YET, she hasn't progressed herself without treatment.

So this 'AIDS is not caused by HIV' meme is nothing but FUD, please don't spread it any further.

Anyone interested in AIDS science, who wonders why HIV is so misunderstood, would do well to start here and read a bit:

http://aliveandwell.org/

"FFS, who was the retard who modded this rot up. "

Why is this rot?

Granted, the folks at Virusmyth http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/group.htm may be charter members of the tin-foil hat brigade or mad about losing money for a pet project or just upset that they're not on somebody's 'A' list. I'm not a biologist, or in a related field, but the articles look reasonable to me.

You could also check out the link provided by irishkev in post #10970546
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131414 &threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=99&tid=14&mode=thre ad&cid=10970546

http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/questioning/ultim ate_question.html

Consider: if AIDS were transmitted via respiration instead of via bodily fluids, the death rate would be catastrophic.

This assumes that AIDS is caused by a transmissible virus (HIV). Not everyone thinks so.

So, it's bad to use a common idiom that isn't offensive to anyone except those wanting to be offended,

This is "blame-the-victim" mentality. "You're offended because you want to be!"

but it's OK to spread a lie that could kill someone (HIV doesn't cause AIDS? WTF!)?

No one has shown that HIV exists. None of the HIV tests actually test for the presense of HIV. The HIV/AIDS Priests originally stated that HIV causes AIDS by killing T-cells, but now they say that HIV does *not* kill T-cells. All of the AIDS drugs are toxic, and their side effects match the very symptoms of AIDS. WTF indeed!

Not a single person noticed the OP's slang usage of "gay" until you made a big deal about it,

I know. it's so easy to not be offended when you're not the one being targetted, isn't it?

and even then it's hardly the end of the world.

It's a threat to my family and that's bad enough for me.

Some teen who finds the site you link to, reads and believes it, and follows up by doing some risky stuff could very well die.

Really? Are you sure? How do you account for what the HIV/AIDS Priests call "long-term non-progressors"? Furthermore, how do you know that all of the "AIDS victims" did not actually die of AZT poisioning?

You, sir, have a seriously fucked set of priorities.

I could say the same thing about you, but how would that help? You can be smug and condescending all you want, but the facts will show that you are the one in the wrong.

For a good read on an advocate of HIV != AIDS, go here.

She has HIV, does not take any of the AZT drugs and is and has been healthy as a horse for a looong time.

If you research further, you will find that the HIV virus causing AIDS has very tenuous links, and in fact might not even true. Most of the so-called research into it was heavily biased so as to award further funding. Details available here.

1. What do you expect of a country where the Prez does not believe HIV causes AIDS?

There are those who say that because AIDS is so dangerous it is irresponsible for people to raise doubts around it, but I would argue that it is essential for people to question such things precisely because it is so dangerous.

A good source of information on the opinion that HIV does not necessarily cause AIDS can be found here.

In other words, how can you make a moral case about any cure when charging outrageous prices for it?

There is no cure for "AIDS" for which to charge "outrageous prices", only caustic drugs which purportedly slow the progression of the diagnose of "HIV+" to "AIDS Patient". Nevertheless, some people become long term patients - typically not because of some drug, but because they have some purpose in life. http://www.aliveandwell.org

Does anyone know much about the current status of Magic Johnson? (NBA basketball player, announced he was HIV positive ~1991, retired from the game, still living). He has/had an interesting ritual - sold everything he owned every morning ('cause he has "HIV" & that means you'll be dead at any time, right?), only to purchase everything back when the day was over and he was still alive. I'm wondering specifically if he takes any drugs for the "condition"?

The problem I have with his site is that a) he provides no convincing corroboration,

The superheatlh report is only an introduction. It can only serve to enlighten you as to the existence of another path, it is up to you to decide whether the path is worth exploring. But if you want to leave your heatlh 'up to the authorities' (whoever that might be), well, that's a gamble I'm not willing to take...

...and b) he seemingly believes in a lot of other quackery

Something is only quackery until it goes mainstream.

The only thing he really cites are other independent web sites.

There's a 61 text bilbiography at the end. Do those books not count as citations?

His other ideas are also somewhat disturbing. According to him AIDS is a hoax.

Why do you find them disturbing? Have you ever heard that the AIDS is a 'hoax' before? You've obviously dismissed this as a possibility - why? Perhaps you'd like to take a look at http://www.aliveandwell.org - a site that tells one woman's story of surviving being diagnosed with 'HIV'. (without perscription drugs of any sort)

He insists that you should never visit a Doctor.

No, he says Doctors can be good body mechanics - for fixing you up when you get trauma'd. I don't remember the exact statistics, but I believe the U.S. has the most doctors/capita of any other nation in the world. But we are by far _not_ the healthiest developed nation. Doctors are like cops - they come in after the fact to clean up the mess. And they typically don't do a very good job, either (though there are exceptions to this).

He claims that as simple a biological fact as mortality is culturally determined; we only grow old because that's what we're conditioned to believe.

This is something you likely infered from the reading. I suggest reading it again. He says that the mind plays a critical role in deciding one's health, but if that were the only deciding factor - well, there would be no need to eat raw meat, and this whole thread would have never gotten started. =).

These are dangerous ideas if followed.

Perhaps you are a medical doctor. The idea that the individual can have a powerfull influence in determining their own health would certainly be dangerous to you - just think of all the fees you wouldn't be able to charge!

Modern medicine may be imperfect,

agreed,

... to insist that surgery is unnecessary,

The word 'surgery' occurs twice in the superhealth report. These are in a quote by someone who was planning on having a melanoma removed, but no longer had a need for that operation (because it went away on its own). 'Surgery' is a broad term - some are certainly necessary, many are likely not.

that all practicing MDs are engaged in some sort of hoax, is just wrong. Call me dogmatic, if you will, but this is pseudoscience of the worst kind.

ah, not so much a hoax as mass delusion. Very few medical schools teach more than a cursory course on nutrition and/or holistic well being to their students. Hence, MD's are painfully ignorant in this aspect of health (though this is slowly beginning to change - more and more med schools have courses on accupuncture and the like...). 'pseudoscience' is a powerful world, evoking strong responses in the people who read your post. Modern medicine has been full of pseudoscience for years, and yet because it's mainstream it's always been accepted. Pregnant mothers used to be X-ray treated, for the good of the child, i believe. Chemotherapy does a remarkable job of finishing off many cancer patients. (there's a controversial statement!) Early AIDS drugs were highly toxic - no wonder mortality rates are improving! And the list goes on and on.

Take responsibility for your own well being. Doctors can only assist you in finding a path. (but be wary of your doctor's path, as it will likely be commensurate with the path he likely followed in his 'paid for by a pharmacutical drug company' medical school).

I won't get into the word "most", or guess at the percentages, but let's go back to the article:

The drug companies' actions are particularly distasteful because neither Bristol nor Glaxo invented these drugs or discovered their use in AIDS therapy. Glaxo's 3TC was discovered and patented for AIDS use by BioChem Pharma, a Canadian company, which licensed the drug to Glaxo. d4T was synthesized by the Michigan Cancer Foundation in 1966, using public funds. Its application for AIDS was discovered at Yale University, which holds the patent, using grants from the federal government and Bristol. In the United States, Bristol's Zerit sells for $4.50 for 40 milligrams. Pharmaceutical manufacturers never disclose their costs, but one indication of Bristol's markup is that Pinheiro can sell her version for 30 cents - and it is possible her costs are higher than Bristol's, since the multinationals have access to cheaper raw materials. The National Institutes of Health discovered ddI's use as an AIDS therapy. The N.I.H. then licensed the drug to Bristol for a 5 percent royalty, with the stipulation that Bristol's pricing take into account the health and safety needs of the public. But Bristol sells Videx for $1.80 in the United States for a 100-milligram tablet, while Far-Manguinhos in Brazil can sell the generic equivalent for 50 cents. The contract has a fair-pricing clause, but it has never been enforced.

These are the major drugs for treating AIDS, so where are all those billions of dollars that people ASSUME for R&D going? Apparently not to the development of effective treatments. Perhaps to one of the 20 new drugs for insomnia or depression. Maybe that fancy new toothbrush I just got.

I'm surprised I haven't seen it in previous posts, but the is a great controversy going on right now about the link between HIV and AIDS. I won't advocate either side, but it's intresting stuff to read about if you find this whole situation stinks. Check it at Alive&Well's web site