Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 Hi , Thank you for posting about AIDS / HIV information. Additional comments & questions are inserted at stars below. Before continuing, perhaps I should clarify that I do not necessarily dispute what is in Maggiore's writing, or in the documentary called " Other Side of Aids " . But there are some lingering questions. Perhaps the future will provide better answers. CB wrote: > I have also been wondering about the HIV virus controversy. There are hundreds of submissions to GenBank from labs all over the world, of sequences of the HIV viruses studied by those labs. While there seem to be many factors involved in actual development if AIDS (nutrition being a primary one), according to this the existence of virus does would seem to be proven. > [ replied] Here's a link you might find interesting: http://www.healtoronto.com/hiviso.html Also, the existence of a virus does not prove causation. *** It is certainly true that existence of virus does not *necessarily* prove causation. But when for instance somebody with a long history of infections (currently associated with what is called AIDS), who does not do drugs, does not take the medical drugs either, has used lots of nutritional & " alternative " approaches - which helped to some extent - but then after some years still experiences upsurges in infections accompanied by a very high viral & low CD4 count in the bloodstream...well it's a little difficult not to make an association of the lab results with increased infections. And that cycle of increased infection coupled with those blood test results, has been repeated several times in this person. [Char wrote] > I have heard of a person with extremely high HIV viral count (established by a PCR blood test, that is - polymerase chain reaction), who used good nutrition and a Rife plasma device to get the viral count down to almost nothing. This accompanied by abatement of symptoms of illness. > [ replied] According to Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, it can't detect or diagnose viral infection. The documentary at the following link explains the whole mess sufficiently: http://www.theothersideofaids.com/home.html *** I have not watched the documentary, but read the entire transcript. It is very revealing, thank you for sending the link, and in spite of having read material from Duesberg some years back, I did learn some new things. There were situations described that can only be considered outrageous. And the use of antibody testing to determine HIV positivity is clearly unreliable due to possibility of cross-reactions. Having said that, I could not find any statement from Kary Mullis that PCR can't detect or diagnose viral infection. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what exactly you are trying to say in this complex situation, or what you are implying by the word " infection " . But PCR *is* one of the primary methods used to detect / confirm presence of viruses. For instance, it is currently being used to confirm presence of the highly pathogenic version of flu virus in wild birds. For this reason, when an individual has a PCR blood test result of over 200,000 copies of HIV (or whatever the virus might actually be called) per milliliter of blood...well it would seem obvious that there is *some* sort of viral infection and / or high rate of replication is happening. There are still so many questions. For instance, some people seem to have more of certain kinds of cell receptors than others, which allow docking of the virus. There are other confounding factors (most certainly including innate immune status), and thus it just doesn't seem logical to paint wide-ranging conclusions about AIDS or HIV, and then insist that it applies to all segments of the earth's population. The first link you provided above justifiably critiques the electron microscope photographs of what is assumed to be retrovirus particles. We might also want to remember some additional circumstances. Culturing retroviruses is difficult; they will tend to go into the host's genome and sequester there, until favorable circumstances arise in the surroundings for replication and survival; the human genome already contains retroviruses which are normally kept under control in healthy persons (they are called human endogenous retroviruses)...so even if the HIV virus does exist in any one person, couldn't it follow the same type of pattern of inserting into the genome and staying dormant as long as the host is reasonably healthy? Then there is the matter of electron microscope techniques used for the purported HIV pictures. With apologies to those of you who already know this, here is a quote from another microscospy expert & inventor (in addition to Olbrich) who has been doing work with live cells & related living materials: " Since samples examined with an electron microscope are exposed to very high vacuum, it is impossible to view living cells. The sample preparation must be killed, frozen, dehydrated, and impregnated with heavy metals. These procedures, with the electron beam, damage the sample during observations and create the possibility that some components of the cell may be lost or distorted. " (Full article " High Resolution Light Microscopy of Live Cells " is at http://www.cytoviva.com/documents/microscopy_today.pdf). It is only reasonable to assume that viral particles could also be lost or distorted under these conditions. Finally, the information in the documentary and at http://www.healtoronto.com/hiviso.html mentions that the so-called HIV virus can only be found in the lab after special culture techniques are used, including special stimulating chemicals. But is that actually so unusual - perhaps it is those chemical conditions that chase the virus out of the host cell genome, and other favorable cultural conditions then allow sufficient replication rates to allow detection? Rife himself used special conditions to culture viruses - in fact, he was unable to culminate his efforts with viruses, until with the assistance of Kendall he hit on the correct materials and methodologies to culture any one virus. And the optimum materials may differ from one virus to another. So these are the various questions that linger about the currently-labeled HIV virus. In particular the fact that it is a retrovirus would seem to make it trickier than usual. Really, Olbrich's comments about the team he worked for finding the HIV virus, and that it is similar to a cancer virus (possibly also a retrovirus), do not seem so out of line in view of all these things, especially if they used optimum culture techniques and a microscope that would enable live viewing. In light of all this, is would seem that if there is a virus that might be associated in some way with an infectious syndrome, the currently-revealed research is quite lacking and behind the times, because techniques do exist for more careful work. Best wishes, Char Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 I have been reading what you have been posting about HIV. Let me tell you what just has been found in Mexico: The HIV virus indeed cannot kill nobody by itself. It cannot even reproduce by itself. Lets make clear it is a real existing virus. It will only reproduce with the aid of a symbiotic bacteria. In the HIV case such bacteria Escherichia colli. When the virus and the bacteria are working together they will eventually destroy the Thymus gland. Thus the immunosuppression that will permit any infection to take hold of the human body. This information has been suppressed in Mexico to a certain degree. The above understading has permited the healing of HIV positive people and many other deseases. denise jameson wrote: >Hi, > >Professor Duesberg says that HIV is a harmless passenger virus. www.duesberg.com > > > > Ringas wrote: >CB wrote: > > >>I have also been wondering about the HIV virus controversy. There are hundreds of submissions to GenBank from labs all over the world, of sequences of the HIV viruses studied by those labs. While there seem to be many factors involved in actual development if AIDS (nutrition being a primary one), according to this the existence of virus does would seem to be proven. >> >> >> > >Here's a link you might find interesting: > >http://www.healtoronto.com/hiviso.html > >Also, the existence of a virus does not prove causation. > > > > >>I have heard of a person with extremely high HIV viral count (established by a PCR blood test, that is - polymerase chain reaction), who used good nutrition and a Rife plasma device to get the viral count down to almost nothing. This accompanied by abatement of symptoms of illness. >> >> >> > >According to Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, it can't detect or diagnose >viral infection. The documentary at the following link explains the >whole mess sufficiently: > >http://www.theothersideofaids.com/home.html > >Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 CB wrote: > Hi , <snip> > *** It is certainly true that existence of virus does not *necessarily* prove causation. But when for instance somebody with a long history of infections (currently associated with what is called AIDS), who does not do drugs, does not take the medical drugs either, has used lots of nutritional & " alternative " approaches - which helped to some extent - but then after some years still experiences upsurges in infections accompanied by a very high viral & low CD4 count in the bloodstream...well it's a little difficult not to make an association of the lab results with increased infections. And that cycle of increased infection coupled with those blood test results, has been repeated several times in this person. > I don't deny the association between the lab results and infection; I just question whether it's all solely because of HIV. I don't know the full details regarding the case you mentioned, but there may be something else going on. There is another theory claiming that the primary cause is HHV-6A. <snip> > http://www.theothersideofaids.com/home.html > *** I have not watched the documentary, but read the entire transcript. It is very revealing, thank you for sending the link, and in spite of having read material from Duesberg some years back, I did learn some new things. There were situations described that can only be considered outrageous. And the use of antibody testing to determine HIV positivity is clearly unreliable due to possibility of cross-reactions. Having said that, I could not find any statement from Kary Mullis that PCR can't detect or diagnose viral infection. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what exactly you are trying to say in this complex situation, or what you are implying by the word " infection " . But PCR *is* one of the primary methods used to detect / confirm presence of viruses. For instance, it is currently being used to confirm presence of the highly pathogenic version of flu virus in wild birds. > > For this reason, when an individual has a PCR blood test result of over 200,000 copies of HIV (or whatever the virus might actually be called) per milliliter of blood...well it would seem obvious that there is *some* sort of viral infection and / or high rate of replication is happening. > The PCR quote was a caption in the documentary and is also at this link: http://www.theothersideofaids.com/meet_the_people.html Scroll down to Kary Mullis, which is sixth from the bottom. > There are still so many questions. For instance, some people seem to have more of certain kinds of cell receptors than others, which allow docking of the virus. There are other confounding factors (most certainly including innate immune status), and thus it just doesn't seem logical to paint wide-ranging conclusions about AIDS or HIV, and then insist that it applies to all segments of the earth's population. > > The first link you provided above justifiably critiques the electron microscope photographs of what is assumed to be retrovirus particles. We might also want to remember some additional circumstances. Culturing retroviruses is difficult; they will tend to go into the host's genome and sequester there, until favorable circumstances arise in the surroundings for replication and survival; the human genome already contains retroviruses which are normally kept under control in healthy persons (they are called human endogenous retroviruses)...so even if the HIV virus does exist in any one person, couldn't it follow the same type of pattern of inserting into the genome and staying dormant as long as the host is reasonably healthy? > > Then there is the matter of electron microscope techniques used for the purported HIV pictures. With apologies to those of you who already know this, here is a quote from another microscospy expert & inventor (in addition to Olbrich) who has been doing work with live cells & related living materials: " Since samples examined with an electron microscope are exposed to very high vacuum, it is impossible to view living cells. The sample preparation must be killed, frozen, dehydrated, and impregnated with heavy metals. These procedures, with the electron beam, damage the sample during observations and create the possibility that some components of the cell may be lost or distorted. " (Full article " High Resolution Light Microscopy of Live Cells " is at http://www.cytoviva.com/documents/microscopy_today.pdf). It is only reasonable to assume that viral particles could also be lost or distorted under these conditions. > > Finally, the information in the documentary and at http://www.healtoronto.com/hiviso.html mentions that the so-called HIV virus can only be found in the lab after special culture techniques are used, including special stimulating chemicals. But is that actually so unusual - perhaps it is those chemical conditions that chase the virus out of the host cell genome, and other favorable cultural conditions then allow sufficient replication rates to allow detection? Rife himself used special conditions to culture viruses - in fact, he was unable to culminate his efforts with viruses, until with the assistance of Kendall he hit on the correct materials and methodologies to culture any one virus. And the optimum materials may differ from one virus to another. > > So these are the various questions that linger about the currently-labeled HIV virus. In particular the fact that it is a retrovirus would seem to make it trickier than usual. Really, Olbrich's comments about the team he worked for finding the HIV virus, and that it is similar to a cancer virus (possibly also a retrovirus), do not seem so out of line in view of all these things, especially if they used optimum culture techniques and a microscope that would enable live viewing. In light of all this, is would seem that if there is a virus that might be associated in some way with an infectious syndrome, the currently-revealed research is quite lacking and behind the times, because techniques do exist for more careful work. > In my opinion, the reality of the matter is that any infection, especially one that causes such catastrophic disease, will be found in the body or pathological tissues in sufficient quantities to account for the disease; and that's without culturing. As Duesberg said, HIV is found with technology that is designed to find " a needle in a haystack " . If you had the Flu, they could take a vial of blood and isolate large quantities of virus from it, without any culturing or problems with electron microscopy. If we were to use the excuse that it's trickier because it's a retrovirus, then that would also have to apply to the entire field of retrovirology. At the following link, they give an example of another retrovirus (Friend virus) where there doesn't appear to have been any problems in isolating it in pure form. http://www.healtoronto.com/emphotos.html On the matter of Rife using special techniques for the cancer virus, we must keep in mind that the reason for doing so was because of the Rife microscope. It wasn't because the virus wasn't there, but was because it wasn't observable in it's natural form by the Rife microscope. Another microscope such as the Ergonom, , or Cytoviva might not require such special techniques. Also, Dr. used an electron microscope with uncultured tumor filtrates, as well as cultures on apparently regular agar media, and egg cultures too. The bottom line is that there are many highly qualified scientists who question and challenge the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Who do we trust? On the one side we have the establishment and vested interests in HIV, and on the other side we have questions and challenges regarding fundamental aspects of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. In my opinion, as a general rule, the establishment and vested interest camp is usually less trustworthy than the individual maverick who points out that " the emperor has no clothes " , to his own detriment. Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 Tony Carpio wrote: > I have been reading what you have been posting about HIV. > > Let me tell you what just has been found in Mexico: > > The HIV virus indeed cannot kill nobody by itself. It cannot even > reproduce by itself. > Lets make clear it is a real existing virus. It will only reproduce with > the aid of a symbiotic > bacteria. In the HIV case such bacteria Escherichia colli. When the > virus and the bacteria > are working together they will eventually destroy the Thymus gland. Thus > the immunosuppression > that will permit any infection to take hold of the human body. > > This information has been suppressed in Mexico to a certain degree. The > above understading > has permited the healing of HIV positive people and many other deseases. > This is very interesting and I'd like to see some more information about it. The claim of suppression is not as valid in the modern Internet world. Even if this information could not get published in a peer reviewed journal, there are plenty of web sites that it could be posted to. Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 CB wrote: > [ wrote] > > The PCR quote was a caption in the documentary and is also at this link: > http://www.theothersideofaids.com/meet_the_people.html > Scroll down to Kary Mullis, which is sixth from the bottom. > ___________________ > > In reply, here is the exact wording from the webpage: > " In 1993, Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his invention of PCR, a revolutionary DNA amplification process. PCR is the cornerstone of the HIV Viral Load theory despite Mullis' assertions that PCR cannot detect or diagnose viral infection. " > > > ly, I do not know who wrote the copy for this webpage - especially the phrase " PCR cannot detect or diagnose viral infection " . Because the way this is worded, it implies that PCR cannot detect or diagnose *any* viral infection. The process however, is used all over the world to detect viral presence. Is this wording only referring to HIV? - because if so, it does not say so. > > This discussion may also need to split hairs over the potentially different meanings of " infection " versus " presence " - especially in the case of HIV / AIDS. The way that sentence was written however, has broad implications, which when read by most people including myself would imply to us that PCR cannot detect *any* viral infection. This is very confusing wording. > > I really don't know exactly what is meant here and cannot comment any further; but am simply passing along the information that PCR is indeed commonly used to detect virus presence associated with many disease conditions, and therefore often used for diagnostic pusposes. The professional references to that fact are very frequent. > > The discussion whether or not HIV causes (or is a factor in) AIDS is an entirely different matter, and would need to be addressed separately. > > Best wishes, > Char I just sent a post to his web site asking for clarification on this matter. Hopefully we'll get a reply. Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.